This resonates! A lot of the public frustration wasn’t “people hate science,” it was people hate being asked to outsource their judgment while the incentives, uncertainty, and reversals stay hidden.
From a physician-scientist lens, I’d offer one distinction that helps keep the baby while draining the bathwater:
1. “Trust the science” is a slogan.
2. Science is a process: imperfect measurements, biased samples, p-hacking, publication bias, changing priors, and then (when we’re doing it right) correction.
When institutions communicate certainty where the data only supports probability, trust gets burned. And once that happens, people don’t become “anti-science”; they become anti-authority.
If we want to rebuild credibility, we need to normalize a few habits in public health/medicine:
1. Show the uncertainty (confidence intervals, absolute risk, denominators), not just headlines.
Husband and I eagerly watched Peter Robinson in every one of his chats with the great Dr. Jay, back in the horrid (horrid for those of us who knew that "this DEADLY disease" was a hoax) spring/summer of 2020. And I rememberalso their discussing their annoyance at being unable to get their hair cut! So dumb. So dumb, all those things forbidden.
Lockdowns were implemented in the most authoritarian, least effective way possible. Worldwide many died from starvation. And right here in our backyard children's lives were ruined from loss of learning and community - not to mention those who went without food and connection with safe places and adults. Business owners lost everything. Some decided it was too much to bear and turned to drugs, alcohol or suicide. Patients died alone in hospitals holding iPads. I will never, never forget. Jay was a shinning light of hope for me and so many during that time. He will forever have my gratitude.
I’m probably just as concerned about the suppressed studies that don’t match an ideological presupposition. Science should present all aspects of its research, including replicability
This is, has always been, and will continue to be a concern of mine too! In addition, all of the 'negative' studies that are thrown out bc they don't support the ideologically influenced hypothesis. Will be interesting to see where we land.
We always need to support the crazy, this will never work, but if it does the world changes tomorrow stuff. Funding the confirmation study is also essential!
This is really interesting, Tiffany. I wasn't aware that the problem with reproducibility of research findings is as bad as you state.
Another big problem with NIH funding is that you can only get studies funded that buy into the belief system of the folks on top. Good luck, for example, getting an addiction treatment study funded that doesn't rely on medication.
I hope Dr. Bhattacharya is successful fighting the hubris at the NIH.
Ironically, because replication has been so sparse and so shrouded it’s hard to know how bad it is! I was surprised at the estimates I found once I started digging in. Such a large degree of money being allocated based on priorities of leadership is always a concern, of course. I’m hopeful in this particular case because Jay seems laser focused on allocating money to research that is likely to improve treatments and outcomes for patients. He seems to approach everything through the lens of humility. Ultimately time will tell.
Vague criticism there so can't discuss substance. But your point regarding cherry picking is well taken. People on all sides of scientific debate/interpreation do this and it's awful. Learning the basic rules around what makes a study well-powered, common flaws in study design and interpretation including how the data can be manipulated...etc is life changing.
Wasn't vague at all if you read the link. RFK Jr attempted to analyze a scientific paper and advertise it to his twitter followers, and he was grossly incorrect.
I put off reading the article until I had more time but then it was pretty quick! So thanks for following up. If it's true that only one line of that data set was discussed then that's the definition of 'cherry picking'! Anyone cherry picking data of course should be called out for it. But, even if that's what happened in this case, it doesn't invalidate his concern that good science has not been done on these products. The claims that 'vaccines are safe' across the board is completely ludicrous and not at all supported by evidence. Here's what I mean. Since the beginning of time, we've known that all medications have potential for adverse effects and that if you give ANY product to enough people there will be deleterious effects, and yet there's an entire cult of people (ahem the media) that doesn't allow that to be said about vaccines in particular. Much of what's refreshing about RFK's push for investigation is that it takes the position that we don't know what we don't know and I do think that's the right way to look at the whole of Medicine. The best proof that need voices like RFK's in my mind is the Hep B vax. We give on day 1 of life and don't know what effects that may have on neurological development... that may not be found/known until baby is older and that development takes place, and yet no one has looked! Despite 1000 things changing in the environments of our kiddos and the explosion of neurodevelopmental and allergic disorders. No one looks. No one says let's take this set of babies from Hep B neg moms that we follow closely and use a different schedule to see if there are differences. Let's follow for more than 5 days for safety. No one does it. Not for Hep B and not for other factors. I just don't buy the excuses, and when you ask those types of questions you are called an antivaxxer, which in my view really serves to create more never-vaxxers and reasonably so, because if you aren't allowed to ask questions and you are censored or bullied for doing so, then there's a reason for that. IDK what it is, but it's alarming for critical thinkers everywhere. That's how I think of it anyway.
I commend you for being able to recognize that RFK Jr. cherry-picked this one piece of data to mislead his followers. If this wasn't done on purpose, then he is not capable of reading and understanding scientific papers. Either way, not a person I would look to for valid concerns.
As for the rest of your comment unrelated to the article:
"No one has looked!" is wildly incorrect. No one has done the specific study you begin to describe, but we have decades of data on the safety profile of hepatitis B vaccines.
I also don't know where the connection between hep B vaccines and neurological issues stems from...I've never seen 1 good study hinting at this concern. My best guess is the molecular mimicry argument, but that applies to the virus as well.
Maybe you could point me to the most convincing study you've read leading you to have this concern?
This resonates! A lot of the public frustration wasn’t “people hate science,” it was people hate being asked to outsource their judgment while the incentives, uncertainty, and reversals stay hidden.
From a physician-scientist lens, I’d offer one distinction that helps keep the baby while draining the bathwater:
1. “Trust the science” is a slogan.
2. Science is a process: imperfect measurements, biased samples, p-hacking, publication bias, changing priors, and then (when we’re doing it right) correction.
When institutions communicate certainty where the data only supports probability, trust gets burned. And once that happens, people don’t become “anti-science”; they become anti-authority.
If we want to rebuild credibility, we need to normalize a few habits in public health/medicine:
1. Show the uncertainty (confidence intervals, absolute risk, denominators), not just headlines.
2. Separate evidence tiers (mechanistic plausibility ≠ observational associations ≠ randomized trials).
3. Say what would change our minds (pre-specified endpoints, replication, external validation).
4. Disclose incentives and conflicts plainly, without defensiveness.
I appreciate you pushing for epistemic humility here!
What an absolutely beautiful comment! Thank you so very much for taking the time!
Husband and I eagerly watched Peter Robinson in every one of his chats with the great Dr. Jay, back in the horrid (horrid for those of us who knew that "this DEADLY disease" was a hoax) spring/summer of 2020. And I rememberalso their discussing their annoyance at being unable to get their hair cut! So dumb. So dumb, all those things forbidden.
Lockdowns were implemented in the most authoritarian, least effective way possible. Worldwide many died from starvation. And right here in our backyard children's lives were ruined from loss of learning and community - not to mention those who went without food and connection with safe places and adults. Business owners lost everything. Some decided it was too much to bear and turned to drugs, alcohol or suicide. Patients died alone in hospitals holding iPads. I will never, never forget. Jay was a shinning light of hope for me and so many during that time. He will forever have my gratitude.
You dont mean the disease didn't exist, i hope? We know a couple of people who died from it.
I’m probably just as concerned about the suppressed studies that don’t match an ideological presupposition. Science should present all aspects of its research, including replicability
This is, has always been, and will continue to be a concern of mine too! In addition, all of the 'negative' studies that are thrown out bc they don't support the ideologically influenced hypothesis. Will be interesting to see where we land.
Intellectual risks we need more than ever in science.
We always need to support the crazy, this will never work, but if it does the world changes tomorrow stuff. Funding the confirmation study is also essential!
This is really interesting, Tiffany. I wasn't aware that the problem with reproducibility of research findings is as bad as you state.
Another big problem with NIH funding is that you can only get studies funded that buy into the belief system of the folks on top. Good luck, for example, getting an addiction treatment study funded that doesn't rely on medication.
I hope Dr. Bhattacharya is successful fighting the hubris at the NIH.
Ironically, because replication has been so sparse and so shrouded it’s hard to know how bad it is! I was surprised at the estimates I found once I started digging in. Such a large degree of money being allocated based on priorities of leadership is always a concern, of course. I’m hopeful in this particular case because Jay seems laser focused on allocating money to research that is likely to improve treatments and outcomes for patients. He seems to approach everything through the lens of humility. Ultimately time will tell.
Yes like the science RFK Jr attempts... total BS:
https://thescamdoctor.substack.com/p/how-to-cherry-pick-data-to-scam-people?r=6hgshq
Vague criticism there so can't discuss substance. But your point regarding cherry picking is well taken. People on all sides of scientific debate/interpreation do this and it's awful. Learning the basic rules around what makes a study well-powered, common flaws in study design and interpretation including how the data can be manipulated...etc is life changing.
Wasn't vague at all if you read the link. RFK Jr attempted to analyze a scientific paper and advertise it to his twitter followers, and he was grossly incorrect.
I’ll read through
Thoughts?
I put off reading the article until I had more time but then it was pretty quick! So thanks for following up. If it's true that only one line of that data set was discussed then that's the definition of 'cherry picking'! Anyone cherry picking data of course should be called out for it. But, even if that's what happened in this case, it doesn't invalidate his concern that good science has not been done on these products. The claims that 'vaccines are safe' across the board is completely ludicrous and not at all supported by evidence. Here's what I mean. Since the beginning of time, we've known that all medications have potential for adverse effects and that if you give ANY product to enough people there will be deleterious effects, and yet there's an entire cult of people (ahem the media) that doesn't allow that to be said about vaccines in particular. Much of what's refreshing about RFK's push for investigation is that it takes the position that we don't know what we don't know and I do think that's the right way to look at the whole of Medicine. The best proof that need voices like RFK's in my mind is the Hep B vax. We give on day 1 of life and don't know what effects that may have on neurological development... that may not be found/known until baby is older and that development takes place, and yet no one has looked! Despite 1000 things changing in the environments of our kiddos and the explosion of neurodevelopmental and allergic disorders. No one looks. No one says let's take this set of babies from Hep B neg moms that we follow closely and use a different schedule to see if there are differences. Let's follow for more than 5 days for safety. No one does it. Not for Hep B and not for other factors. I just don't buy the excuses, and when you ask those types of questions you are called an antivaxxer, which in my view really serves to create more never-vaxxers and reasonably so, because if you aren't allowed to ask questions and you are censored or bullied for doing so, then there's a reason for that. IDK what it is, but it's alarming for critical thinkers everywhere. That's how I think of it anyway.
I commend you for being able to recognize that RFK Jr. cherry-picked this one piece of data to mislead his followers. If this wasn't done on purpose, then he is not capable of reading and understanding scientific papers. Either way, not a person I would look to for valid concerns.
As for the rest of your comment unrelated to the article:
"No one has looked!" is wildly incorrect. No one has done the specific study you begin to describe, but we have decades of data on the safety profile of hepatitis B vaccines.
I also don't know where the connection between hep B vaccines and neurological issues stems from...I've never seen 1 good study hinting at this concern. My best guess is the molecular mimicry argument, but that applies to the virus as well.
Maybe you could point me to the most convincing study you've read leading you to have this concern?