The rules of science are not arbitrary dogmas: they all have a rational justification; as such, they are decided beforehand, and are never changed on the basis of what's being studied. Instead, in the fake "science" promoted by mass-media, rules are nothing more than a collection of arbitrary dogmas that are chosen ad-hoc on the basis of whether they lead to a predetermined thesis, and then instantly thrown away the moment they might lead to a different one. Examples:
- if statistics show that the cases of a given diseases are decreasing during a mass-vaccination, then that correlation is considered proof enough that the vaccination works; however, if it turns out that the cases (or the adverse effects) are rising instead, then suddenly it is remembered that "correlation does not mean causation", and the evidence is dismissed as mere "coincidence";
- if an expert agrees with the establishment, then he is to be trusted without questioning because he's the expert, and no internet blog is allowed to criticize him; however, if the expert is the one who disagrees with the establishment, then all his expertise doesn't count anymore, and even an internet blog is reputed to be credible enough to criticize him;
- if a scientist who disagrees with the establishment is found out to have conflicts of interests, shady connections, or some other skeleton in the closet, that means said scientist is not credible, and everything he ever said is to be forgotten; however, if the same things are found out regarding a scientist who agrees with the establishment, then they're regarded as "conspirationism", and they're the ones to be forgotten instead;
- as long as the official stance on a certain argument is widely accepted, then it's "settled science", and therefore it cannot be challenged nor questioned by anyone; however, when it is shown that "settled science" has been countless times shown to be wrong, than science temporarily turns into something that is constantly evolving and changing
In other words, in proper science, the rules determine the thesis; on the contrary, in state pseudoscience, the thesis determines the rules.