You must log in or register to comment.

AutoModerator t1_j2ktfwk wrote

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.


Avalanche2 t1_j2kxe03 wrote

[nick cage] Ya' dont say [/nick cage]


SaladShooter1 t1_j2l5d58 wrote

The problem I saw was a bunch of people talking down to people, belittling them all while yelling that everything they said was instantly science. If you’re going to do that, you better be right close to 100% of the time. I learned that straight out of college by dealing with workers with no engineering background. I can’t understand how someone can make it to the top of a public health authority and not understand that.

All they had to do was say things like “we believe at this time,” “this is the best info available,” “we’re hoping for” and stuff like that. Once someone is screamed at and told something is science, that person isn’t going to forget it when the science changes.


penguinpolitician t1_j2l5kni wrote

Does this lack of trust in 'public health' extend to all medicine and medical treatment? Hasn't everyone been going to see doctors their entire lives?


snug_dog t1_j2lao1o wrote

Public Health information is political communication. They definitely lie to achieve political and group health outcomes. Their purpose is not individual health like a doctor and that became apparent to a lot of people during the pandemic. For example, they initially told people not to mask so they could keep the limited masks for health professionals. This made it apparent to many that they are liars that aim to manipulate us like we are children. It is no wonder many became paranoid and uncooperative after being lied to and manipulated. I wonder how it would have gone if they had been honest and asked people for cooperation?


oboshoe t1_j2letzx wrote

this study tells me that people who trusted the healthcare system the most also trusted vaccination made by the healthcare system the most.

seems solid.


ElegantUse69420 t1_j2lgbzq wrote

It's interesting because (anecdotally) the same people who completely distrust the Covid vaccine and the newly developed drugs for Covid...have all their other shots...and take all other prescription drugs. For some reason they distrust the FDA and CDC only on this topic.


tjcanno t1_j2lxb9g wrote

True. And then they had Sweden to point to and really question if our PH people knew what they were talking about.

Many people told me that our PH response was all about control. The govt. wanted to control us and soften us up (wear us down) with pandemic directives (store closing, masks, other controls). PH did not help this with their messaging.


wernermuende t1_j2m1trc wrote

As someone with a life science background who works with physicians and health workers, I trust in peoples decency more than in their competency and to pull off a project where public health services would be in cahoots with Bill Gates and Big Pharma to cull the population by vaccinating them would require a much higher level of competency than I think anyone has.


aquatogobpafree t1_j2m55wz wrote

So the facts regarding trumps lying wouldn't be one of them?

Or would you turn a blind eye to it?

Then if trumps the face of the operation how can you trust the ones working for him?

Then (not saying I've put in the effort to research if the man is corrupt but ive seen a lot of people making that claim) how do you know the peers to review the studies aren't colluding?

Look I'm vaccinated but you do need to understand there's reasons why people had a lack of trust for the man and following his instructions.

Ofcoarse suggesting everyone involved in the vaccine could be part of some scheme is a bit of a big thing to say, and once again, I took the vaccine, so I'm not saying that they are.

But really all it would need is the right people trading their honour for money, and people do that every day.

So people had a right to be skeptical, and most people weren't doing the best job alleviating their scepticism most didn't even try.


BGgungame t1_j2m69o0 wrote

Seems logical. My country had really bad vaccination numbers, also most people don’t trust the government or the state as a whole due to corruption, etc. And our national health service is part of the state.

When an entity you don’t trust is telling you to do something you are not familiar with you’d probably not do it.

Not to mention the message in the beginning of the pandemic were terrible. We had the prime minister come out and say to not buy masks and stock up, because they didn’t work. Then a couple of months later he backtracked and said we should all wait masks, they just lied so people wouldn’t panic and buy out all the masks and create a shortage for healthcare workers.

Which is fair, but it sure as hell won’t increase the trust in you.

And then you had many mixed messages from the WHO too.


WaynegoSMASH728 t1_j2mf1nc wrote

Yes, to a degree. You are talking about other shots or vaccines that have decades of history, data, and success. As well as decades of use, data, and success of other prescription drugs. It is natural to be apprehensive about a new vaccine especially when its method of function has never been administered to humans in a vaccine form nor has there ever been a vaccine for this particular virus. Historically, the vaccines that we have been administered were either an inactivated virus or a live attenuated virus. MRNA vaccines have been researched for almost 30 years, but none have ever been approved for use until now. It also didn't help when the politicians were adamantly against taking the vaccine... until they got into office and did an immediate about-face. There was no uniformity or agreeance on the matter from either side of our government. They used the matter to gain votes, not to do what was best for the public regardless of popularity.


NemesisRouge t1_j2mh04m wrote

I'm sketchy on the details, but as I recall they were unsure how it even transmitted at the time. Wasn't there some genuine concern that people putting their hands to their face and adjusting masks could actually elevate risk if the virus was transmitted on surfaces?


mcclelc t1_j2mj0rv wrote

From what I can gather, the public's interaction with a doctor depends on availability, insurance, and the patient's general health. Where I live, there are no GPs accepting new patients, so even if you have the time and resources, it is up an uphill battle. Last year I was hospitalized and when they asked about my family's history, I was able to give them fresh data because my parents (senior citizens) had just had their annual physical. My nurse was in shock and awe that my older parents (high risk population) actually saw the doctor outside of illness for preventative measures. But they live on the East coast where there are more doctors. My friends with children (all highly educated, middle class) do have pediatricians but in the last 3 years have had to fight to get their children seen. This lack of interaction with doctors and consequential lack of trust is why Biden's admin asked church leaders to guide people to make smart decisions about the vaccines.


booney64 t1_j2mn7er wrote

But that 2% with severe negative reactions


wdaloz t1_j2mt6t1 wrote

I definitely trust researchers and also definitely think our health care system is a mess


SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2mxzef wrote

Yeah essentially what was told was "This is x and you are stupid if you disagree and there is no point to ask questions since you wouldn't understand anyway. And you are Y (a label to shame people) if you have any doubts.".


SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2myl19 wrote

I think what also needs to be understood is that not all anti vaxxers believe in chips or population control. Most are concerned about the side effects and usual big pharma incentives for profit over human lives being at play. So if you talk about chips etc you are going over the heads of those people who are majority of the unvaccinated. They don't believe there is a conscious conspiracy, but just the way incentives are aligned makes the situation be like it is.


Chowdmouse t1_j2nauus wrote

I am a little confused by your comment, because in my recollection literally every single public statement had the disclaimer you mention- that it (was) based on the information available at the time.


Chowdmouse t1_j2nc2nh wrote

Yeah I don’t think you can say Trump is effectively pro-vaccine when he had so many months downplaying & denying the disease’s severity, longevity; the very existence of the pandemic. How much cognitive dissonance does he expect his supporters to handle when the denial went on for months, then all of a sudden an about-face in support of the vaccine? He expected to take credit for something he said was unnecessary & a political lie for months and months? Too little, too late. And what did he do as soon as he got a few “boos”? He stoped talking about it. Interesting watching Trump “screw over” himself. He could have gone down in history as a savior. Too bad instead millions more lives were lost than necessary.


Chowdmouse t1_j2nd2xv wrote

You have hit the nail on the head. It is very, very, very easy to demonize people that you do not know. The overwhelming majority of people have never met a scientist, so it is very easy to think they are all corrupt. The overwhelming majority of people do not know how “science” works or happens, so it is very easy to say it is all wrong. They have no idea how drugs are tested, how efficiency is evaluated, or any trials are conducted, so they say it is all a lie.

And this sewing of distrust for political/tv/click gains has literally cost millions of additional lives :(


Euphoric-Driver-7568 t1_j2nf564 wrote

So the medical industry can be disgusting. Think about hospitals protecting themselves from doctors and nurses who have had instances of malpractices . Price gauging of medications needed to survive. Then have this entire industry throw their support toward a vaccine that everyone MUST take. Then when someone is skeptical, deny their argument and boil it down to neat little categories.. “you’re a science denier. You’re religious, you’re right wing, you’re not educated”…I’ve taken the vaccine and a booster, but would never downplay anybody who didn’t want to take it. There a plenty of reasons to not trust the industry without being a stupid or crazy person.


witchwidow4 t1_j2ngy31 wrote

I don't know, or my anecdote doesn't fit into a group. I am Not Conservative by any stretch. My dealings with the health care system over a lifetime have caused mistrust in the institution long before Covid & I've had bad reactions to flu vax. Ive had all the childhood shots. But that's it ( save those 2 flu vax) I Keep prescription meds at a minimum. -( none right now) because of personal experience. I saw no reason to be against masks/ carrying hand santizer/ or keeping distance though. Also, I usually choose to stay out of discussion on my choices. I wonder who else?


Falcofury t1_j2o0zb1 wrote

Today Reddit finally realizes the truth


earthhominid t1_j2o9xhu wrote

In general kids probably see the Dr more often than the adults in their lives, but living in a rural area with low average income and poor accessibility to medical services even if you are well insured I know plenty of people who don't ever go to a Dr unless it's an emergency and kids who don't even go to the Dr once a year.


mmmmerlin t1_j2owj8x wrote

NPR had different kinds of public health experts from a city or hospital or health org on the air what seemed like every other hour on the daily pushing facts without disclaimers in an effort to get people to comply with public policy (vaccines, masks, whatever). You could tell from the messaging it was a public health campaign that had a messaging angle that did not want to show any policy weakness lest someone get doubts. While I understand why, it does not establish trust in people that already have misgivings or are wary about “facts” from the health care or pharmaceutical industries or government generally.


Chowdmouse t1_j2p2nx4 wrote

NPR? What does NPR have to do with it? And I do not mean any disrespect, but there is a big difference between scientists having a consensus based on the science and a public policy not wanting to “appear weak”???? I honestly think you are projecting your personal beliefs onto what other people are saying. What exactly does “appearing weak” mean to you? Why do you think medical professionals are afraid to appear weak? What does weak have to do with any of this? It is not a competition.


snug_dog t1_j2p99fi wrote

That would be the risk, but I think those people really are a very small minority, that would be even further diminished by a call for public solidarity in an emergency.


mmmmerlin t1_j2pawa8 wrote

NPR, news at 6, 9, CNN. There’s more than one source of public health being rolled out to the public. Some people get their info from Reddit sourced articles or Karen on FB. We are talking about the OP post. Why people don’t have faith in public policy. You are essentially ignoring other forms of public health messaging. Obviously some forms are better than others and the discerning individual is careful what they consume. But I think we are not talking about the careful, discerning person here, right? You misunderstand. I’m not taking about the people themselves appearing weak, like a character flaw. Imagine Public health policy is like a shield to the public. Inviting doubt may invite delay or non participation. Things that weaken the shield of the public health policy. Public health messaging (generally again, not quoting only the specific scientists you seemed to listen to) was saying things like “is PERFECTLY safe”, and other statements indicating something like 100% efficacy. We all know there are outliers. Not trusting the public with the actual numbers (providing risk data or any unknowns) was the position taken by many. I know this 100% safe, 100% effective position turned off some people in my circle. It’s not transparent. It’s not trustworthy to them.


j4r8h t1_j2qoqxk wrote

Given how the FDA approved Oxycontin with no study on addiction, and has approved potent stimulants for kids as ADHD medication, I think it's quite fair to be skeptical of their motives. A bit of research into their history shows that they are more concerned with protecting pharma profits than actually keeping people safe.


j4r8h t1_j2qpeb1 wrote

Me personally, I received childhood vaccines and received flu vaccines as an adult up until last year, but now I've become skeptical of the FDAs motives, didn't receive a covid vaccine, won't be receiving any more flu vaccines, weaned myself off of a prescription medication for depression and actually have felt much better off of it, and I'm not planning on taking any more pharmaceutical products unless I absolutely have to. So yes I do distrust the FDA on all topics at this point, not just this topic. If you believe that the FDA could be lying to you about one topic, you could also assume that they are lying about many other topics.


j4r8h t1_j2qpuc6 wrote

I haven't done a ton of research on the topic but I can say that anecdotally I was prescribed methylphenidate at an absurdly high dose at 13 years old and it absolutely wrecked my mental health, caused severe depression and possibly a bit of psychosis. It took me years to recover. I am honestly lucky that I didn't commit suicide. Based on my experience I am of the opinion that this stuff should not be prescribed to kids period. No responsible organization would allow children to be prescribed this stuff at the dose I was prescribed. The dosage was such that I was basically a tweaker, getting extremely high every day at school and then withdrawing horribly every night.


Zetkin8 t1_j2qr55v wrote

I don't know which country you live in, but did anyone really say this?

> to not buy masks and stock up, because they didn’t work

Without any qualifier? I remember they said in March 2020 that it doesn't make sense because there were only 100 known cases in the country. The chances of meeting anyone with Covid in the streets were practically zero. At the same time, health professionals had a much higher chance of encounter. They also said that surgical masks provide little protection to the wearer. With only ~100 infected in the country (or even thousands) it wouldn't make sense to wear them and create a shortage in the health care system where they're actually needed.

I have no idea what the communication was in your country. In mine people still claim the same as you and they're either lying or have a severe lack of reading comprehension. Nobody said "Masks don't work, period."


Zetkin8 t1_j2qs92c wrote

On the other hand, those people don't understand that some of their concerns are equally ridiculous as chips. I've read such wild theories that mRNA will stay in your genome etc. Those theories require a severe lack of understanding of high-school-level biology and most of them fall apart when you consider that the virus also contains RNA.

>the way incentives are aligned makes the situation be like it is.

What incentives are there for public medical agencies to approve a potentially harmful drug? What incentives are there for the government to pay for the vaccines? It sounds like you don't share these concerns or borderline conspiracy theories, but none of this makes any sense if you think about it. If all politicians in the world suddenly owned shares of those 6 pharmaceutical companies who produced the first vaccines, wouldn't there be much easier ways to funnel money into their pockets? Why take the long route via medical agencies that require studies when you just can subsidise their "research" and give them cash?


Zetkin8 t1_j2qserb wrote

Why would they want to transfer national public funds to foreign private pockets? Why would they choose such an inefficient way? The vaccine itself wasn't the most expensive part here. Most of the money went to the infrastructure, doctors etc.


Zetkin8 t1_j2qtkum wrote

You can't win with those people. If you are scientifically thorough and phrase things in a cautious way they claim that you don't know anything. You say something like

> as of now we have not observed a statistically significant number of adverse reactions

and they'll go

>So you're saying you don't know? You think the vaccine is safe but you can't promise me?


Zetkin8 t1_j2qv316 wrote

I'm sorry to hear that. Methylphenidate does have a quite long list of adverse effects, including depression (1-10%). A doctor should explain them to patients/their parents before a prescription. What I fail to see is the connection to "potent stimulant". You need to take several times the maximum prescribed dose and ideally an alternative way of taking it to get that effect typically associated with stimulants (I won't go into details as to not encourage substance abuse). What is an absurdly high dose? Did your doctor break the official regulations?

>Based on my experience I am of the opinion that this stuff should not be prescribed to kids period.

There are countless studies that show a net positive effect in treatment of ADHD with stimulants. I don't mean to belittle your very negative experience, but it wouldn't be scientific to choose anecdotes over evidence.

>getting extremely high every day at school

Sorry, but that's practically impossible. Yes, agitation and nervousness are side effects. But not getting high.


Ok-Courage594 t1_j2rb818 wrote

You make it sound as though fauci was unilaterally talking out of his ass, like trump does. The fact is that the medical community as a whole backed his recommendations, not just his overinflated ego. This kind of false equivalence is what’s wrong with so much of this ‘debate’.

So, what is your end game in rejecting the advice of medical professionals? The herman cain award?


Zetkin8 t1_j2sy8oa wrote

I used to take 60 at 160 pounds. According to your experience I must've been tripping balls when in reality I just felt my heartbeat a little stronger than usual. But don't take my anecdote as evidence.

If you say that 30mg is too much, find scientific literature that supports this claim. If you compare those 30mg to different maximum doses, you'll find that that's significantly below what's generally considered safe. Additionally, this meta analysis finds that those limits are not scientifically motivated and some patients might actually benefit from higher doses.

I have no idea what happened to you. Maybe you have some condition which makes you have unique side effects. But the world does not revolve around you. Your experience is far from representative. I found nothing about states of ecstasy or intoxication online. I did find reports by people abusing MPH at a >10 times higher dose and not orally. I can totally believe that they were high from that.


SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2t5t0i wrote

I haven't personally worked in government agencies or anything government related so I wouldn't know how everything works there. I have worked only in corporate World. I imagine it's similar for many people. From corporate experience I have seen some bizarre incentives for instance where results based on amount of people make 0 sense whatsoever. As a naive person I would imagine that everyone tries their best, but really it's politics, coasting and fake achievements, right. It doesn't matter what you do, it matters what it seems like you do and to whom. So I know that in certain circumstances incentives can be lined up in such a way that there's no conspiracy, but the whole outcome is bizarre. But it's combination of very many things and explaining, figuring out or even trying to solve the issue is herculean task and if somebody could solve it, they would be a trillionaire.

It may seem like I just spoke whole nothing about nothing, and it shouldn't matter, but if anyone is in such an experience where people you would think are smart, make a lot of money, but the output is non-sensical, it might be hard to believe that something in the government or even on the science level works much better than that. Actually, the larger the corporation the more ridiculous things seem to be at times, because the easier it is to hide things if you are skilled and the less anyone cares.

It could be a situation where nobody has full access to anything to question something confidently. Or only very few people know everything and it would take again herculean effort to understand what exactly is happening. There's a bystander effect everywhere, where any specialist or expert thinks that surely somebody else has validated all of it, and I don't have to bother with it, because I don't have an incentive to do so. So for example it could be lack of incentives to validate everything when validation would take huge amount of resources. And if you notice a discrepancy somewhere somehow, the incentive is always to convince yourself that you are just missing something and ignore that, because surely some other smarter people somewhere have already dealt with this.

So all of it could bring a situation where something that could potentially cause harm is not detected, because people on collective level assume that somebody else validated everything when really there wasn't no one with access to collective data incentivised to do so. For instance a situation where Entity A creates a product B, where there's other Entities from C to D validating the product B, but everything is under a strong time pressure, and financial incentives are always aligned as such that you should give benefit of the doubt to product B, because if product B doesn't succeed, it's actually harmful for both A and the C-D validating it, because the C-D validating, if they have a track record of being too critical, they could miss future business opportunities etc. Then regulators E validating product B will already see data that is polished with benefit of the doubt, and they don't have time to fully question it, it could be that there's inherent bias to approve the product B because of good relationship and networking dynamics between the people etc.

So I'm not saying this is how it is, but this is one way I could see something that could cause harm being not detected by a whole mass of people without a huge conspiracy going on.


Zetkin8 t1_j2t7ndz wrote

That's a lot of "could"s... Yes, I agree that nonsensical incentives exist. But I fail to see what this would even look like to provoke something with the same outcome as a vaccine conspiracy.

Also, those things exist in politics. Take laws governing sexual offences for example. If I was in charge and pushed a reform that protects victims better, my political opponent could claim that such crimes went through the roof while I was in office. But I truly lack the imagination for such a situation in a medical agency. I'd expect my career to be over if I gave a green light for the admission even if I could've known better. Especially in such a high-profile case.


SnooPuppers1978 t1_j2tb136 wrote

> with the same outcome as a vaccine conspiracy

Depends on what you consider a vaccine conspiracy? Bad biological takes like you said above, yes, I would agree is unreasonable. But for example general fear of undetected adverse issues, either short or long term. Is that a conspiracy?

> I'd expect my career to be over if I gave a green light for the admission even if I could've known better.

There could be no clear single approver, since 90%+ of people are approving, everyone could be just going with the flow. It's a safe approval to take, because everyone agrees to approve it, it would be much riskier to go against the grain unless you are 100% confident that you are in the right to go against the grain. But also again I'm not trying to convince such a thing could be possible. I don't know if it is, I haven't worked as a scientist in medicine. I could only speculate.

But then, it's not about whether it really is feasible for this to be like that, but more about how a general person would be able to tell that this is not the case. So maybe you've done the whole process of developing the vaccine, led the trials from phase 1 to phase 3, dealt and audited all the subcontractors, then worked together with regulators and governments and you know that for sure there's no way something really bad could be missed.

How can a normal person know that this process is validated to such extent if in their own personal life they have seen bizarre things happening first hand especially under time and deadlines pressure, that a naive person would never expect to happen if they have full trust in systems?


ElegantUse69420 t1_j2to2g1 wrote

Ah so you're going to be laying in a hospital bed - ill enough to be in the hospital - but will take the time to research each drug and selectively approve each as your doctor is administering care.