In Defense of “Doing Your Own Research”

The corporate media recently freaked out over the idea that the public is more interested in doing their own research than blindly trusting the experts.

Originally Published at The Last American Vagabond

On April 29, HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy appeared on the Dr. Phil show to discuss his first 100 days in office. While many of his supporters celebrated the mention of geoengineering, the corporate media lambasted Kennedy for discussing so-called chemtrails, and, more specifically, for recommending the public “do their own research”.

“We live in a democracy and part of the responsibility of being a parent is to do your own research,” Kennedy told Dr. Phil’s audience. “You research the baby stroller, you research the the foods that they’re getting, and you need to research the medicines that they’re taking as well.”

Immediately following this appearance, the corporate media went to work disparaging Kennedy for daring to suggest that parents take the time to be informed about their children’s health choices, as opposed to blindly trusting their doctors or the recommendations of government agencies.

The Washington Post reported “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. shows the fallacy of ‘doing your own research’“, followed by The New York Times and “Kennedy Advises New Parents to ‘Do Your Own Research’ on Vaccines“. Not to be outdone, MSNBC announced “The problem with RFK Jr.’s ‘Do your own research’ line on vaccines“, and Newsweek published an op-ed titled, “Why RFK Jr.’s ‘Do Your Own Research’ Advice Is Bad For Your Health“.

The Post starts by dredging up the memory of infamous conspiracy researcher Bill Cooper and blaming him for telling people to think for themselves.

“One legacy he left with all of us was his oft-repeated instruction, “Do your own research,” which for years became a catchphrase mostly for the woo-woo set of America — the Elvis-is-alive crowd, the Fox Mulders, QAnon — until this week when Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said it in an interview with Dr. Phil,” Monica Hesse wrote for the Post.

Hesse took issue with Kennedy’s stroller statement, letting the public know that “researching a vaccine is a substantially more complicated than researching a stroller”. The only way a parent is capable of researching a vaccine, according to Hesse and the Post, is to get “a PhD in immunology or cellular and molecular biology”, acquire a lab to “conduct months or years worth of double-blind clinical trials, publishing your findings in a peer-reviewed academic journal”, and then patiently navigate government regulations to “make sure your vaccine is safe and effective”.

Hesse goes on to state that the phrase “do your own research” is an “insidious phrase” which “sounds objectively neutral”, but is actually based on an “unspoken shared understanding that the official story is suspect”.

The New York Times spoke with Dr. Paul Offit, the co-inventor of a rotavirus vaccine and the so-called vaccine expert at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

“What doing your own research should mean is that you should talk to, or at least look at online, people who have an expertise in the field, which doesn’t mean looking in chat rooms or just on social media blog posts,” Dr. Offit said. Offitt also warned parent-researchers that they will find “really bad sources of information” online which will “miseducate” them.

Offit is also a self-described vaccine skeptic. In October 2020, Offit explained how he distinguishes between a vaccine skeptic and a vaccine cynic.

“One way you convince skeptics is with data presented in a clear, compassionate, and compelling way,” he said. “The other group is vaccine cynics, who are basically conspiracy theorists who believe pharmaceutical companies control the world, the government, the medical establishment. I think there’s no talking them down from this.”

Translation: It’s okay to be skeptical of vaccines as long as you are willing to change your mind when shown data in a “compassionate” manner. Pay no attention to the pharmaceutical companies funding government agencies and research institutions.

Over at MSNBC, the public is told that “laypeople cannot understand more technical information about vaccine ingredients, efficacy reports or safety assessments on their own”. While the writer is correct that analyzing safety assessments and efficacy reports takes some technical knowledge, they are incorrect in asserting that this means the public must “rely on expert intermediaries to interpret and explain that information for them”.

We’re also told that “understanding an issue is simply impossible” so we should just stick to trusting those “whose work is peer-reviewed and who are affiliated with institutions requiring credentials, like universities”.

Of course, this writer ignores the fact that the vast majority of peer-reviewed studies cannot be reproduced, a problem often known as the replication or reproducibility crisis. This problem has been written about in numerous reports and studies over the last 20 years, but the talking heads at WaPO, NYT, and MSNBC seemed to have missed the memo. Of course, this doesn’t mean all peer-reviewed studies are false, but it should be noted as one of many reasons more people are unwilling to blindly “trust the experts”.

MSNBC also claims that institutions “shaped by norms of evidence and expertise” are “designed for accountability” and “can change in response to new evidence”.

I’d wager that most people who grew tired of being told to trust the experts, or called extremist for asking questions throughout the COVID-19 panic would beg to differ. Especially when so many corporate media outlets and establishment medical institutions still refuse to admit they were wrong about masks, the injections, lockdowns, etc.

For what it’s worth, the Newsweek piece was the only response to Kennedy from a medical doctor. Dr. Brooke Redmond, a neonatal critical care physician at the Yale School of Medicine, recalls being a child and learning of her mother’s cancer diagnosis.

She mentions that despite doctors telling her mother that she was going to die, “Forty years later… she is still here.” Redmond says that the secret to her mother’s success was not dismissing her doctors when they were wrong, but rather maintaining a trust in science.

“The doctors were wrong. But she did not reject everything medical because of miscalculations. My mother continued to engage with her physicians, recognizing that to err is human. And doctors are human.” she writes.

Redmond laments the fact that parents “must navigate information-gathering and relationship-building in an increasingly polarized and algorithm-driven world”. Rather than parents going out into the wild of this polarized world she suggests that the medical system must “effectively replicate relationships” like the one her mother shared with her doctors.

While advocating for better doctor-patient relationships is admirable, it does not address the root cause of the problem — the people have lost faith in institutions which have been wrong more than once and are demonstrably overtaken by corporate influence. We’ve been told that fluoride is safe, vaccine damage is not real, and that Genetically Modified foods will save the planet. These three claims alone have been proven to be false.

To be fair, Redmond is correct that outside of facts obtained through research, doctors who spend years educating themselves are capable of synthesizing “years of schooling, clinical training, and experience into direct patient care.” Of course, this doesn’t address the quality of the doctor’s education, nor does it debunk patient’s concerns about the impact of the pharmaceutical industry on research and product promotion.

I could keep going through these articles, but I think the message is clear — trust the authorities, don’t do your own research! We’ve seen these tired tropes during COVID1984, and over the years in the fight against water fluoridation.

With all that said, there are indeed problems with doing your own research.

Confronting Your Biases

The only solid piece of advice shared by MSNBC was that finding answers in the scientific and medical fields is about “demonstrating humility about what one can know and identifying credible sources”.

It does take a bit of humility to find the truth, if that is what you are really after in the first place. But let’s be real — many people, including those who consider themselves “awake” or “conscious”, are simply looking to confirm their own biases. We’re all capable and guilty of this at different times. It’s something we have to fight against. Rather than confirming our current beliefs, we ought to be willing to directly challenge our strongly held opinions and confront our biases.

How do we do this? You can start by reading and listening to opposing viewpoints. Yes, this means reading mainstream corporate media, or watching mainstream news reports which are based on research from government agencies and medical establishments. This also means being willing to read the studies which are referenced, and doing your best to understand the methods and the conclusions. This will, indeed, take time to gain a reasonable understanding of the topic at hand, but if you aim to do research this is what it will take.

Now, on the other hand, despite what the corporate press is telling you, you also might have to watch internet videos, read random blogs, and listen to podcasts hosted by non-medical professionals. Why? Because often the truth about sensitive topics is not going to be found on CNN or on the front page of PubMed.

While the corporate media attempts to belittle people for using youtube (and the internet more broadly) as a research tool, the truth is that quality data can come from almost any source. Not every talented thinker is going to have a professional studio, a quality website, or even a college degree. If you are willing to follow truth wherever you may find it, you will get closer to the truth.

Closing your mind to data because you do not like the source — whether mainstream or a random blog — you are going to have blind spots. And, to be clear, everyone has blind spots. But, by acknowledging these blind spots and seeking to confront our biases with data which conflicts with our current beliefs we can better understand the topic we are investigating. Perhaps, your mind will be changed with new data. Or, you may end up feeling even stronger about your current views. As long as you are remaining skeptical, open to all possibilities, and practicing critical thinking you will get to the truth.

In the course of my research for articles or documentaries, I spend literally 100’s of hours perusing through sources to get a reasonable understanding of the wide range of opinions and perspectives. I purposefully listen to podcasts and read articles which I know I am likely to disagree with, and I do so with the intention of discovering any nuggets of data that I might not have previously known.

I understand that some will respond with, “well, Derrick, we don’t all have the time to do this type of research”. I completely understand and empathize. This is why journalism exists in the first place. Once again, just as not all scientific research is equal, not all journalism is equal. There are, in fact, many “journalists” and “researchers” in the mainstream and independent media who promote falsehoods and contribute to the confusion among complex topics.

My advice is that if you don’t have time to do all the research yourself, then, at very the least, consider following at least a handful of sources with different takes on the same topic. Consider their general viewpoint, check their sources (if they have any!), and consider the areas of disagreement. Use your limited time to suss out the conflicting narratives, and be willing to change your mind if confronted with new data that confirms something outside of your comfort zone.

The AI Research Question

One final consideration regarding research relates to the use of Artificial Intelligence chat bots. It has become increasingly common in the last two years to hear of people using chat bots like ChatGPT, Grok, and Claude to gather data. Unfortunately, much like GPS in the form of Google Maps has severed some of humanity from our ability to navigate, there is a major concern with people abandoning their critical thinking and research skills in favor of simply asking the AI bot for an answer.

This isn’t a new problem. It’s something we’ve already witnessed with the rise of search engines. On one hand, they are an incredibly valuable tool for searching through the literally endless amounts of data available on the internet. However, many people now simply expect the first page of Google to provide the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Now that AI is becoming integrated into search results the problem is likely going to expand.

I recently posted about this concern on social media. I wrote, “Asking Grok is not research. Sure, AI can be an assistant in research but if that’s where your “research” ends you’re falling for the trap.“ I do feel strongly that it is a trap to fall into the habit of simply asking AI for the answer and assuming its automatically correct.

Obviously, AI is a tool and chat bots can be useful. However, in my admittedly limited use of them (Grok and Venice) I have seen Grok literally fabricate quotes out of thin air, and repeatedly tell me they are real. After I confront it with a PDF of the study or book in question and point to the page it claims has this fake quote, it will finally acknowledge it made a mistake and apologize. How many times does someone take the first answer and not press the bot for a deeper dive or to provide its sources?

Ironically, my post on Twitter was met with some people asking, “Grok, is this true?”. While I am sure some of them were trolling, I would not be surprised if they were already looking to the AI chat bot for guidance on what is real and what is false.

The point is that if we aim to “do our own research” we should use all available tools, including AI, if you are so inclined. At the same time, just as many of us have become skeptical of official proclamations from government and corporate science, we should also be critical of statements from AI.

It is 100% possible to do your own research, whether or not you have a medical or science degree, but it does take time, patience, and a certain level of education. We shouldn’t blindly trust our favorite influencers and content creators anymore than we should blindly trust the institutions which have proven themselves untrustworthy over and over again.

(Note: Stay tuned for an upcoming panel from the Independent Media Alliance focused on the use of AI for research)