After unintentionally being "shoved" into studying a field I had no intention of doing(lawsuits in which no lawyer helped), I have developed a new way of looking at things that I did not have before. I have now realized that science itself is something that should be distinguished from scientists.
Science might be best described as the "the body of settled facts resulting from observing and validating said facts". If someone sees, hears, touches, smells, tastes, or otherwise perceives something indirectly through these means, that's is enough to satisfy the first step of observation. Then this information is validated through replicating studies that identify the mechanism at work.
Scientists, on the other hand, while PART of their job is to add to the body of settled facts described above, they have another job, which is to BLOCK the addition of facts to the body of settled facts. "Pre-study Fact arbitrator and judgment maker". Meaning, they not only do science, they also can SHUT DOWN science depending on "interests" by voluntarily not doing scientific work or interpreting data in a manner to deprive funding of said work. Interests can be external or internal. External such as needing funding and catering to the funder. Internal can include satisfying their own inflated egos as the "smartest people". A simple scientist's opinion can prevent "research on the merits"(science itself) before it can ever begin, a common one being "it's all in your head". It's probably the most unscientific action ever, to dismiss observations without experimenting or study, but it's something scientists do all the time. In essence, the scientists can say "it's not worth scientific study because the observation is BS because I already think so".
The reality is that science exists because humans are inherently prone to fudging results in their favor. What science does is put a degree of limitation on how much a human can meddle with certain observable facts, and a paper trail.
Thus, science itself is a collection of actions, and all voluntary actions. As such, scientific knowledge is always going to be incomplete. Paper and brains can get destroyed, and all content contained within them.
As as example, there's probably many people who performed preliminary research for unprofitable drugs. They will die with knowledge of unprofitable drug, and the early promising results whose study got ended because of the chemicals could not be patented. If someone doesn't want to observe, can't afford to observe, or is prevented from observing, then there is basically "science denied".
One of science's hidden requirements is funding, as it is mental labor and requires special tools. No money, no science. Some common individual may observe something, but to get it to a pro who can the study it somehow to "validate" the observation scientifically is normally not done. Either you have to become one yourself or you have just enough standing and ability to make contact with a sympathetic ear.
This is an example of the "specimen coming to the scientist":
https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2023/09/17/fatigue-cfs-longcovid-mitochondria/
The press obviously dress the circumstances in a positive light, but I look at it much more coldly. This science could have very well not existed. One, the woman could have died from cancer thus not be studied. Two, she possess advocacy skills(lawyer) that the general populace generally doesn't have. Three, she suffered for decades and could have simply given up.
Actually, just now trying to google search someone I recall changing careers to become a scientist because of child's food allergy; I cannot yet identify who this person was, but she was of an older generation and spoke on a Youtube video. While search, I now notice an apparent trend of a woman with legal experience being the trigger of having science done to investigate negative effects. Erin Brokovich was a paralegal. There are others who start advocacy groups because of having to deal with food allergies. One can say "Hell hath no fury like a mother scorned", well advocating against Big Food or Big Science is a modern manifestation of that.
Some premises though, the scientists have continued to shutdown the counterargument in a hardline manner, such as IgG testing of allergies.
This was back in 2002 when the writer tried to investigate and was met with rebuffs by the expert.