Ya’ll Don’t Trust Scientists? Nah, It’s Not Science—It’s the Money in Politics and a Lack of Scientific Literacy
Ya’ll Don’t Trust Scientists? Nah, It’s Not Science—It’s the Money in Politics and a Lack of Scientific Literacy
Whew, we are jumping back into the comments section of wellness misinformation and tackling a big one: pseudoscience's attempt to deregulate the institutions that protect us
In Part One of this series, I explored how people often distort risks in online discussions. Using "common sense" arguments and gut reactions, many commenters amplify fears without context, often skewing the facts in favor of personal beliefs. In Part Two, I delve into some of the deeper reasons behind the public’s distrust of science.
It's not just a distorted perception of risk (fueled partly by privilege, as in we now have a lower risk of dying from infectious diseases relative to the 1900s, which is still the reality in many low-income countries) – political influence and a widespread lack of scientific literacy play a huge role in shaping these narratives, leading to mistrust of even well-supported scientific consensus in some instances.
Despite the irony of relying on science for everyday conveniences, many people remain skeptical about scientific findings, particularly those that challenge their beliefs. Funny enough, each time we use an electronic device or post on social media, one is relying on scientific principles, particularly our understanding of electrons. Trusting electronics inherently means trusting the science that enables them. Somehow, naysayers forget that in favor of selectively choosing what to accept as true.
The rapid spread of misinformation online only deepens this divide, as algorithms often prioritize sensational content over factual accuracy, reinforcing existing biases. These factors create an environment where science denial can thrive, making it essential to understand the forces that fuel this distrust and find ways to bridge the gap between scientific knowledge and public perception.
Science doesn't care about your beliefs
One comment that stood out was one claiming that scientific proof was not necessary in their country. How do I say this delicately? The only state that doesn’t require scientific proof is the state of denial, or as someone added, the state of delusion.
While you can adopt policies that reject science, science doesn’t care. Look no further than these most recent examples of where politics preceded science and the catastrophic consequences:
In South Africa, HIV/AIDS denialism influenced public health policy from 1999 to 2008, during the presidency of Thabo Mbeki. Mbeki criticized the scientific consensus that HIV does cause AIDS and instituted policies denying antiretroviral drugs to AIDS patients and other therapies to prevent mother-to-newborn transmission, favoring instead herbal remedies. Mbeki was influenced by Peter Duesberg, proponent of AIDS denialism. This resulted in the preventable deaths of >330,000 people from AIDS and >35,000 babies born with HIV infections that could have been prevented.
In 1928 the USSR’s director of the Institute of Genetics Trofim Lysenko , under Stalin, rejected natural selection and Mendelian genetics, claiming to have developed superior agricultural techniques to increase crop yields.Using a Soviet- controlled Propaganda machine, citing fake results and omitting failures, Lysenko was portrayed as a genius, all while scientific opponents who refused to renounce genetics were dismissed, imprisoned or executed. His work contributed to famines in the USSR and China that caused millions to starve to death.
The rejection of both science and public health measures has resulted in major surges of disease and mortality in the US. Rejection of Covid-19 vaccines and adoption of unproven treatments has led to 100’s of thousands of preventable deaths, most of them along party lines after the first wave.
Why do so many feel that science is not to be trusted? To begin with, it is often because politics displace evidence.
Science is inherently tied to institutions that make decisions about our well-being, such as the FDA, USDA, EPA, and Local and State Public Health Agencies. What is important to recognize here is that these decisions cannot be made in a vacuum because science does not exist in one either.
To make the most impact, science, technology, and ideas must be compatible with the needs, behaviors, values, and beliefs of individuals and societies. Providing a quantitative framework to collect, review, and appraise information about identified risks (or gains) within a population allows us to view problems more objectively and make decisions from the evidence available, even in the absence of all the information.
Specifically, risk analysis within policy helps us address and quantify uncertainty. As I have said before, every data set is imperfect and incomplete. Decisions must still be made. One example that jumps to mind is the Acceptable Daily Intake (ADI), the maximum amount of a substance, like a food additive or pesticide, considered safe for daily consumption over a lifetime. The FDA determines this by identifying the highest dose with no observed adverse effects (NOAEL) in animal studies and applying a 100-fold (or more) safety margin to account for human variability. This conservative threshold protects sensitive populations, including children, pregnant women, and the elderly.
To safeguard public health, agencies must set enforceable standards, even with incomplete data sets, and have regulatory oversight to ensure compliance. Without these checks, consumer health is jeopardized, as companies may cut corners to save costs. Some argue that capitalism alone would correct this, with consumer choice punishing poor practices.
However, this assumption overlooks two issues: first, preventable illness and death would likely increase; second, in monopolistic markets, companies with minimal competition face little risk in skirting regulations, as their dominance makes losing customers unlikely.
This is why it is critical to call out the unlikely alliance between the crunchy left and the right, the “Make America Healthy Again" movement (MAHA) as nothing than deregulation disguised as health activism. Proponents and followers of MAHA, calling for more regulatory oversight of food ingredients, are quite literally partnering with MAGA, which seeks to deregulate much of our public infrastructure. If you need a reminder of what that looks like, look no further than Boar’s Head scandal, where it was revealed that the company was selling misrepresented or mislabeled meat products. More recently, Illinois-based Treehouse Foods has recalled a range of its frozen waffles, sold at major supermarkets, over concerns of listeria contamination, despite no reports of illness.
Deregulation in the food industry resulting from budget cuts and rollbacks during the Trump Era has meant fewer inspections, less stringent labeling requirements, and reduced oversight of production processes. The Boar’s head listeria outbreak across 19 states led to the deaths of 10 people.
The science here, however, is not at fault. Science has taught us that Listeriosis is a serious foodborne illness caused by Listeria monocytogenes. Though rare, listeriosis can be quite severe in newborns, older adults, immunocompromised or pregnant individuals. The CDC estimates around 1,600 cases and 260 deaths per year in the U.S.
Recent outbreaks of listeriosis have underscored the dangers of Listeria monocytogenes contamination, particularly in ready-to-eat (RTE) meat and dairy products. The resilience of L. monocytogenes, which thrives in various environments, makes it challenging to control within food processing. This bacterium can survive in harsh conditions, including low temperatures, high salt levels, and even some heat, allowing it to persist in processing facilities and recontaminate products post-cooking. Since L. monocytogenes poses severe health risks to vulnerable populations, the USDA enforces a strict zero-tolerance policy for its presence in RTE foods.
To prevent contamination, science has also taught us that meat and poultry processing facilities must implement rigorous controls, including thorough sanitation practices and testing procedures at various stages. Below is a list, albeit not exhaustive, of the controls that result from the evidence we have on reducing risk of listeria outbreaks:
Comprehensive Cleaning: Regular, multi-step cleaning routines
Sanitizers: Use quaternary ammonia compounds (quats), chlorine solutions, and peracetic acid; rotate sanitizers to prevent resistance.
Visual Inspections: Ensure surfaces are visibly clean and dry after sanitation.
Baseline Microbial Testing: Perform tests (Aerobic Plate Counts, generic Listeria spp., ATP bioluminescence) on surfaces to confirm sanitation efficacy.
Regular Swabbing: Swab high-risk surfaces frequently
Environmental Monitoring Program: Identify and target areas where Listeria may thrive, directing cleaning efforts effectively.
Color-Coded Clothing: Assign color-specific uniforms to distinguish RTE (e.g., blue) from raw (e.g., white) areas to prevent cross-contamination.
Hygiene Protocols: Strict handwashing, glove changes, and boot sanitizing to prevent contamination.
Controlled Movement: Restrict movement between raw and RTE areas to limit cross-contamination risks.
Dedicated Cleaning Tools: Assign brushes, sponges, etc., to specific areas; sanitize or replace regularly to avoid cross-contamination.
Air Filtration and Positive Airflow: Positive air pressure in RTE storage areas; filtered air supply to prevent contaminants from entering.
Condensation Control: Dehumidifiers and drip pans direct moisture away from products in RTE areas; regularly sanitize and eliminate condensation in RTE spaces.
Equipment Design: Design machinery and overhead structures to minimize dirt/moisture buildup, with easy access for cleaning.
Product Testing: Test RTE products for L. monocytogenes to verify elimination of contamination; positive tests trigger recalls and intensified sanitation.
Thermal Process Validation: Confirm that cooking processes achieve temperatures that effectively kill Listeria; adjust as needed.
Critical Control Points (CCPs): Establish CCPs to manage contamination, particularly post-cooking stages for RTE products.
Critical Limits (CLs): Define measurable limits for CCPs (e.g., sanitizer concentrations, application frequencies) with record-keeping.
Regular Training Programs: Continually educate employees on sanitation, hygiene, and contamination prevention, as well as ensure employees understand how Listeria spreads and contaminates food, stressing their role in maintaining safety standards.
The extensive controls required to maintain food safety come with high costs for companies. Deregulating these controls may boost profits, but it does so at the expense of public health—and, in some cases, lives. Ironically, when foodborne illness outbreaks occur, the same individuals who push for deregulation often claim that regulatory institutions are ineffective. They convince constituents that progressive policies are failing when in reality, it’s the erosion of these protections that undermines public safety and health.
The lack of trust in science and scientists is masking much bigger issues: money in politics and people’s very basic misunderstanding of science.
People’s distrust in our institutions is not unwarranted. The US has a long history of corruption in politics through lobbying.
For instance, the fossil fuel industry has a history of influencing environmental regulations through political donations and lobbying. During the Trump administration, several key positions in the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) were filled by former fossil fuel lobbyists who rolled back numerous environmental protections.
Efforts to pass universal healthcare in the United States have been repeatedly thwarted by the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries. In 2009, during debates over the Affordable Care Act (ACA), health insurers and pharmaceutical companies spent more than $1 billion on lobbying and advertising to influence the bill’s outcome. The resulting law excluded a public option, which would have provided a government-run insurance plan, largely due to the influence of these industries.
The gun lobby, particularly the National Rifle Association (NRA), has a powerful influence on gun legislation. Despite widespread public support for measures like universal background checks, the NRA's significant financial contributions to lawmakers have stalled such reforms. As a result, gun control legislation often reflects the interests of the NRA and its donors rather than the broader public consensus.
So while public distrust in institutions is understandable, it’s important to recognize that, for the most part, scientists themselves are not to blame for these issues. Scientists are typically dedicated to uncovering and sharing objective truths through research and evidence.
The influence of money in politics often distorts how science and evidence are applied, rather than the science itself being at fault. Scientists frequently advocate for evidence-based policies, but they can face barriers when their findings challenge the interests of powerful industries. Thus, while mistrust in institutions is not unfounded, it’s essential to distinguish between political manipulation and the integrity of the scientific community.
That being said, we can also not neglect the long history of racist practices in medicine, shaping both the treatment of patients and medical research. Historically, people of color, particularly Black individuals, have often been excluded from studies or, conversely, exploited in unethical experiments without consent. Such practices continue to impact healthcare today through implicit biases, leading to disparities in pain management, diagnosis, and quality of care. Black patients are often undertreated for pain due to false beliefs about biological differences, and race-based diagnostic tools can misguide treatment decisions, reinforcing health inequities and systemic mistrust of healthcare institutions among marginalized communities
Science is slow, and self-correcting. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t work or cannot be trusted.
Scientific inquiry is an ongoing process where conclusions are based on the most reliable data available and then revised or displaced as new evidence surfaces. This evolving nature of science distinguishes it from dogma—science adapts and improves with new findings, which is why peer review, replication, and transparency are so critical. However, this self-correcting aspect, along with factors like political influence, has led some to doubt its reliability and turn instead to unverified theories, often mistaking them for facts, particularly in health-related areas.
Today’s fast-paced information favors instant answers and certainty, the nuanced and sometimes uncertain nature of science can be overshadowed. This creates fertile ground for misinformation and conspiracy theories, as people crave absolutes.
Communication plays a significant role in this misperception. Headlines often oversimplify or sensationalize findings, distorting their true meaning. Meanwhile, scientists may struggle to convey their work effectively, as they focus on technical details that make it challenging for the public to grasp the broader significance.
This leads me to the next common argument in the comments section:
That we are unhealthy and that lifestyle (and alternative medicine), not pharmaceuticals, is the cure that “they don’t want us to know about”
Now this comment presented itself in several ways. Some seem just mildly uninformed, but others were a bit more alarming. I even had an MPH arguing that aging wasn’t a driver of chronic illness because most of these diseases were reversible (they are not, see below).
First, the idea that diseases are reversible does not necessarily contradict that it’s driven by aging. Second, the reason many of these diseases are generally deemed irreversible is because they typically result in long-term tissue or organ damage, driven by a mix of genetics, lifestyle choices, and environmental factors. These elements can cause lasting alterations in the body’s physiology that persist despite treatment efforts. For instance, no amount of diet will reverse hyperlipidemia in those who have inherited familial hypercholesterolemia (1 in 500). Even in those with Type 2 diabetes, it is misleading to claim it can be reversed, but rather that it goes into remission for very specific candidates (obese, less than 4 years with the disease and not on insulin) according to Dr. Mauricio Gonzales Arias.
I can see why these commenters said this though, the internet is flooded with integrative and functional medicine websites making this claim, some going as far as claiming a spiritual dimension will help “reverse” some of these.
It is also key to distinguish among common chronic diseases. These include chronic obstructive pulmonary disorder (COPD), heart disease (includes many categories including angina, hypertension, valvular disease, cardiomyopathies, and congenital heart disease), atherosclerosis, asthma, type 1 or 2 diabetes, Alzheimer's, certain cancers, liver disease, hypertension. What can be said is that lifestyle can help manage some of the symptoms of these or slow down the progression (or remission is very specific cases, as outlined above), but reversal assumes one can eliminate the condition. Risk factors, on the other hand, can be reversed by making changes such as quitting smoking, reducing stress, adopting a healthier, low-salt diet, engaging in regular physical activity, and losing weight, but the condition in itself requires lifetime management. Lifestyle changes can also reduce the likelihood of disease, but never eliminate the risk.
I want to clarify something. When I say aging is largely responsible for increased incidence of disease I am not stating it is the ONLY driver. I am being extremely intentional in my use of the word “largely.” This implies that whilst it is a major component (especially in diseases like cancer and dementia), there are other factors that are also correlated to disease (such as income, sex, educational attainment, activity level etc.).
There is a large public misunderstanding of chronic illness, and much of it is fueled by fear of uncertainty.
Over the last few years I have shown a comparison of our life expectancy and causes of death relative to the 1900s. Back then, over 15% of infants would die before age 1 and the top three causes of death were infectious diseases.
Life expectancy has increased dramatically and swiftly over the last century, mainly due to public health advances like improved sanitation, vaccination, antibiotics, and better control of infectious diseases, which have significantly reduced mortality (and infant mortality) from what were once major causes of death. In fact, around 25 of the 30-year life expectancy gain since the 1900s can be attributed to public health measures. As we live longer, diseases that were once rarer, such as cancer, Alzheimer’s, and heart disease, are now more common, highlighting the challenges of an aging population. Also note: life expectancy is not the same as life span - as a species we have plenty of evidence folks could live for a long time, it's just that more of us do now.
Scientific and medical progress isn’t linear; it unfolds over time through cycles of learning, trial and error, and incremental advancements. Tackling chronic conditions requires ongoing research and adaptation. For example, understanding diseases like diabetes and heart disease has taken decades, but we’ve made significant progress with treatments such as statins, insulin therapies, and more recently, GLP-1 receptor agonists, which have reduced complications and extended lives. The rapid gains in life expectancy in the 20th century mean we’re still learning to manage diseases of aging.
Alongside large-scale population data, we have many nodes of mechanistic data to implicate aging as a major driver of disease. Changes inherent to aging drive both dementia and cancer through several shared biological mechanisms. Genomic instability and accumulated DNA damage increase mutations, contributing to cancer and neurodegeneration. Epigenetic alterations disrupt gene regulation, while cellular senescence and telomere shortening promote inflammation, genomic instability, and cell dysfunction. Mitochondrial dysfunction and impaired proteostasis lead to metabolic reprogramming in cancer and the buildup of toxic proteins in dementia. Together, these age-related processes highlight why age is the primary risk factor for both diseases.
That being said, there is room to say that we can both live longer and in better health. The US has some of the worst health outcomes and life expectancies across developed nations. As we age, the role of lifestyle is increasingly important in reducing or delaying (not always eliminating) the risk of disease, but access and disparities remain barriers for many, and this may further contribute to feelings of mistrust across various populations.
However, once again, it is essential to highlight that this conversation shouldn’t be centered around specific food ingredients, but rather address factors like social determinants of health, our failing healthcare infrastructure, socioeconomic and racial disparities, lack of affordable childcare, underfunded public health and education, all which massively contribute to these outcomes (more on this to come). What’s worse, historically it is Republican lawmakers that seek to defund programs that would alleviate things like food insecurity or access to healthcare.
Healthcare affordability and accessibility are critical issues, with nearly half of Americans reliant on employer-based coverage, leaving many uninsured or without sufficient coverage. Consequently, people delay or avoid medical care, which exacerbates chronic illnesses, prevents timely treatment, and ultimately worsens health outcomes. Our complex healthcare system is also very difficult for both patients and providers to navigate.
Racial and economic disparities add to the challenges, with income-based inequalities creating stark differences in health outcomes, especially in states with restricted Medicaid and underfunded services. For example, chronic conditions are nearly four times more prevalent among those earning $25,000 or less compared to those making $75,000 or more. Educational disparities further compound this, as adults without a high school diploma are 2.6 times more likely to have multiple chronic illnesses than college graduates.
Access to healthcare, nutritious foods, and safe environments significantly affects these disparities, with wealthier, college-educated individuals experiencing the greatest improvements in health markers like diabetes management.
Beyond healthcare, broader issues like affordable housing, childcare, maternal and infant mortality, gun violence, and drug overdoses are also significant. Restrictive policies, like those following the Dobbs ruling overturning Roe v. Wade, create healthcare deserts, especially in rural America.
We struggle to sit with uncertainty and health misinformation exploits just that.
The comments about chronic illness reflect an extreme stance and major misunderstanding of the factors that drive disease but also underscore people’s overall inability to sit with and process uncertainty about their health.
Our inability to sit with and process uncertainty, along with the gaps in our scientific knowledge, is exactly what allows health misinformation to thrive. Unlike evidence-based medicine, which is nuanced, probabilistic, unemotional and objective, health misinformation offers simple and reassuring narratives using emotional appeals, repetition, and making information readily available.
It promises quick fixes to complex health ailments while resorting to fear-mongering tactics, casting doubt on the efficacy of modern medical interventions, all while failing to provide data or peer-reviewed evidence of their own. Make no mistake, they know exactly what they are doing. By forging simplistic narratives and assigning single points of failure to complex problems, they can better create a case for selling an alternative and unproven cure.
This is exactly why the outrage is directed at specific ingredients or foods, rather than addressing the more critical factors that drive health outcomes. If they demonize cereal, it creates an opportunity for them to create a version of their own version to sell to you!
Convincing people that cereal is "garbage food" is a covert strategy to promote deregulation—and to market their own products as alternatives.
I LOVE cereal as much as “Death Becomes Her”. Postpartum, with no one at home and a new baby that would protest not being held at all times, all I ate was packaged foods: specifically, peanut butter pretzels and, you guessed it, cereal. I was shedding weight at an incredibly fast pace due to an oversupply of milk and we were unsure whether my daughter was having reactions to cow’s milk proteins (later learned likely not)—I needed those extra calories to help slow down the weight loss. At a time when access to nutritious options, time management, extreme fatigue, and fluctuating hormones were all working against me, those calories became essential.
An argument that reduces a broad category of foods that vary widely in nutritional content and ingredients to “garbage” ignores that cereals range from sugary varieties with minimal nutrients to whole-grain options packed with fiber, vitamins, and minerals. Many cereals are fortified with essential nutrients like iron, B vitamins, and folic acid, which can contribute positively to a balanced diet. Whole-grain cereals can be particularly beneficial, offering complex carbohydrates and fiber that support digestive health and help maintain stable blood sugar levels. More importantly, as in my case, cereals often serve as a convenient and accessible source of nutrients, especially when paired with milk or yogurt for added protein.
It also overlooks the fact that cereal can be an accessible and affordable option, particularly in areas with limited access to fresh produce or nutritious foods, such as food deserts. In many communities, cereals provide a convenient source of essential nutrients that might otherwise be hard to obtain due to the lack of grocery stores offering fresh fruits, vegetables, and other healthy options. For individuals in food deserts, cereals—especially those fortified with vitamins and minerals—can be a practical way to meet basic nutritional needs.
By saying all this I am not saying we should favor processed foods over whole food options. I am saying there is a time and place for them both, and again, access to whole foods is largely dependent on multiple factors that shape one’s circumstances.
This argument reveals another cognitive fallacy when determining what is safe or not: people tend to evaluate a risk as isolated and without context.
When we look at risks, we have to consider the alternatives. Was it riskier for me to eat packaged foods or lose my breast milk supply from losing weight too quickly?
From MAHA TO MAGA…enter N95s
The path from MAHA to MAGA became clear as many mocked my support for mask-wearing, with some even claiming masks were killing my brain cells—a comment I found rather amusing. It is also made evident by the fact that the message is largely being led by unqualified influencers who often promote the notion that health is solely a personal responsibility, ignoring the fact that our health security is built on collective action.
Agencies like the CDC and EPA, often under threat from defunding efforts by Republican lawmakers, are essential to sustaining public health. These influencers can focus on personal wellness because larger public health threats—infectious disease, unsafe water, and malnutrition—have been mitigated by decades of public health interventions.
That being said, no, N95s are not killing brain cells. N95 respirators are designed to filter airborne particles and have been extensively tested for safety and efficacy. They are used by healthcare professionals around the world without any evidence of harm to brain function or brain cells. N95 masks do not significantly reduce oxygen levels or increase carbon dioxide (CO2) levels for most people, including healthcare workers who wear them for long periods. For brain cells to be damaged, there would need to be prolonged deprivation of oxygen, which does not occur with the proper use of N95 masks.
Public Health is Where the Challenges of Imperfect Data Become Very real
The pandemic highlighted that scientific achievements alone cannot solve complex societal issues. In the U.S., for example, we developed highly effective vaccines, but vaccination rates still fell short. To make a meaningful impact, science and technology must align with the values, beliefs, and needs of communities. That is made challenging both by politics, and people’s very basic misunderstanding of science.
To make matters worse, human cognition is inherently biased, and our subjective experiences can obscure the facts we’re willing to accept. This creates barriers to compromise and fuels polarization.
Public health is where the challenge of imperfect data becomes especially apparent. In times of crisis, such as during pandemics, policy decisions must be made quickly, even when all the data isn’t available. Delaying action while waiting for complete information could lead to unnecessary harm. In public health, the key is to balance incomplete data with the need for harm reduction, carefully weighing risks and benefits. Often, taking a thoughtful but imperfect action is less harmful than doing nothing at all.
But we “just don’t know” they say
One of the main problems that I encounter constantly is that people resort to the argument of ignorance to justify their stances… “ well, we just don’t know” they say - and well, welcome to science, where all data sets are incomplete. That logic is applicable to almost every single thing and action though - relationships, having children, pursuing a degree, moving to another country…one just doesn’t know what may result. For many who opt into these choices, the unknown doesn’t create paralysis analysis (inaction), largely because more likely than not, they are weighing their risks vs the benefits -just as medicine and public health do.
Nowadays people prefer to be fooled by certainty and simplistic narratives than accept complex, nuanced, and often, incomplete answers.
In all, our distrust of science, often fueled by selective skepticism and political influence, can lead us to make decisions based more on fear or convenience than on facts. This mistrust is a symptom of deeper issues: a lack of scientific literacy, the political undermining of regulatory institutions, and our preference for quick, uncomplicated answers over complex truths. The irony is that while we selectively critique certain scientific recommendations, we still depend on science every day—from our medical care to our smartphone screens. However, this disconnect between reliance and rejection opens the door for misinformation to thrive, especially when it promises certainty and quick fixes.
Addressing these challenges requires improving science communication, restoring trust in public health institutions, and creating a better understanding of how science operates—constantly evolving, adapting, and self-correcting.
Peace out.
Driven by data, powered by statistics, and fueled by innovation, A frustrated Latina (Nini)
For a version of this article in Spanish, click here.
I'm Nini, a proud Colombian hailing from Barranquilla. My expertise spans from sensor design to neural interfaces, with emphasis on nanofabrication, data science & statistics, process control, and risk analysis. I am also a wife and a mom to one little girl. TECHing it Apart emerged from my drive to share in-depth insights on topics I cover on Instagram (@niniandthebrain), where I dissect misinformation that skews public health policy and misleads consumers through poor methodology and data manipulation, as well as trends in health technology. Content here is free, but as an independent writer I sure could use your support!