Christmas Eve has a way of slowing things down. Even in the middle of a loud, uncertain world, many of us feel the pause — a moment to reflect, to listen more closely, and to ask what we truly trust as we move forward.
For a long time, trusting experts felt reasonable. Doctors studied medicine. Scientists followed evidence. Regulators were supposed to protect the public, not corporations. There was a shared assumption that expertise came with responsibility, and authority came with accountability.
Somewhere along the way, that assumption started to wobble.
You can feel it now. Guidance changes midstream. Explanations feel thinner than they used to. Institutions don’t always answer legitimate questions. Instead, they get dismissed. And when people push back, even politely, they’re often met with the same phrase, delivered as if it should settle everything: “Just trust the experts.”
That line used to sound reassuring. Now, for many people, it sounds like a conversation ender.
When authority stops inviting questions
Science was never meant to be something you simply believed in. It was meant to be something you engaged with. You asked questions. You tested ideas. You compared outcomes. And you adjusted when new information showed up.
Today, expertise often feels different. Less like a process and more like a decree. Institutions use credentials to shut down discussion instead of deepen it. Institutions ask for trust, but they offer less transparency than they once did.
At the same time, institutions often treat disagreement — even thoughtful disagreement — as a problem, instead of part of the work.
This same pattern shows up across many systems people rely on, from health care to governance. It echoes what Donna explored in This Is How Communism Starts — when centralized authority discourages questioning, control quietly replaces accountability.
When questioning becomes unwelcome, science doesn’t vanish — it stiffens. And people notice.
It helps to follow the incentives
If you want to understand why expert advice feels increasingly unreliable, it helps to stop focusing on individuals and start looking at incentives.
A lot of medical research is funded by pharmaceutical companies. Nutrition guidance is shaped by powerful food and agriculture interests. Regulatory agencies often rely on fees from the industries they oversee. Universities depend on grants that come with expectations attached.
None of this means everyone involved is dishonest. Still, it does mean truth isn’t operating in a neutral environment.
When careers, funding, and reputations depend on staying aligned, systems often soften or delay uncomfortable information. Over time, nuance disappears. Certainty gets overstated. Alternative perspectives drift to the margins.
This erosion of trust is also why so many people are questioning the moral and spiritual vacuum forming beneath institutional authority. Donna writes about this more deeply in When Society Loses God.
People don’t lose trust because they’ve become cynical. They lose trust because they can see the system doesn’t reward honesty the way it should.
Why people are listening to themselves again
As institutional trust erodes, something interesting is happening. People are turning inward — not in isolation, but in observation.
They notice how their bodies respond. They track what helps and what doesn’t. They ask why something that’s labeled “safe and effective” doesn’t feel that way for them personally.
This isn’t anti-science. It’s resistance to pre-packaged certainty. It’s the basic human instinct to notice patterns before accepting explanations.
For years, people learned to override their own experiences in favor of authority. Now, many are remembering that guidance is not the same as command. Expertise works best when it supports individual discernment instead of replacing it.
Real guidance feels different
There’s a clear difference between control and care.
Control demands compliance and discourages questions. Care welcomes dialogue and adapts as new information emerges.
Real guidance doesn’t require blind trust. It earns confidence through transparency, humility, and a willingness to say, “This is what we know right now — and this is what we don’t.”
The experts worth listening to tend to be the ones who disclose conflicts, acknowledge uncertainty, and invite you into the decision-making process instead of asking you to hand it over completely.
Learning discernment in a noisy world
We live in a time when information is abundant. Certainty is marketed. Fear is profitable. In that environment, discernment becomes essential.
Who benefits from this recommendation? What happens if I choose differently? Are questions welcomed — or punished? Does this advice respect my autonomy, or diminish it?
Truth doesn’t usually need coercion. It can handle scrutiny.
As trust in institutions continues to crack, something quieter is taking shape. A return to personal responsibility. A rebalancing between expertise and intuition. A growing awareness that no one will ever care more about your health, your family, or your future than you do.
The goal was never to reject expertise entirely. The goal is to remember that wisdom has many sources, and none of them should require your silence.
On a night meant for peace, clarity, and goodwill, it’s worth remembering that real trust grows quietly — through honesty, humility, and our willingness to listen.
With love and truth,
—Donna 💚
Sources & Further Reading
Industry funding and bias in medical research
Review discussing how pharmaceutical and other industry funding can shape study outcomes and reporting.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2875889/
Conflicts of interest: how money clouds objectivity
Overview of how financial conflicts influence medical research and publication practices.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1472724/
Regulatory capture explained
Accessible explanation of how regulatory agencies can become aligned with the industries they oversee.
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp
Trust and Distrust in America
Analysis of declining trust in institutions and the social consequences of authority without accountability.
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/
Science improves when people realize they were wrong
Explores why humility and course-correction strengthen, rather than weaken, scientific credibility.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/science-improves-when-people-realize-they-were-wrong/
