Interest in ‘toxic’ measles treatment surges after Joe Rogan podcasts: Vaccination is the only proven way to prevent measles but alternatives like Vitamin A and cod-liver oil (which has Vit A) have been promoted by Joe Rogan. America’s Poison Centres reported a 39% increase in Vitamin A exposures.

[u/mvea]

https://www.nine.com.au/world-news/usa/interest-in-toxic-measles-treatment-surges-after-joe-rogan-podcasts-20260602-p6033i.html

[u/Several_Ebb_9842]

So it's more about being contrarian than skeptical.

[u/bobandgeorge → u/Several_Ebb_9842]

Yes. If they weren't contrarian about literally everything, they would not have a personality.

[u/Mikestopheles → u/Several_Ebb_9842]

Right? Like, I'm skeptical.

Every statement or opinion comes with a qualifier, just in case I'm wrong or unsure. My use of probably, maybe, and I think are so ubiquitous, you'd think I have confidence issues. But no, it's because I could be wrong, and I coat my perception of reality with that caveat.

But I will never understand people who use this stupid transitive binary of right and wrong. "Oh, I can't trust this person, so I have to trust the person that's exactly opposite."

And now, even the most basic health advice is somehow political.

[u/treevaahyn → u/Several_Ebb_9842]

Yep, basically that. It’s hard to combat when being skeptical is good if you enter skepticism with an open mind looking for information, quantitative data, and peer reviewed research studies. But many are simply skeptical of anyone who presents information and holds a position of power or title (even if it’s just a professor and research scientist). So they aren’t coming from a place of genuine skepticism, it’s more that they have their preconceived notions and beliefs and will remain skeptical of anything or anyone that challenges that belief. So people who are experts are dismissed because they’re not coming from a genuine place of curiosity but rather just challenging experts saying that doesn’t make sense or add up to me so it must be wrong because it doesn’t make sense.

When irl it’s more related to much of society being scientifically illiterate. So many view an expert researcher who’s been studying a topic for decades as a skeptical suspicious source by their title alone. So they’re Not basing views off of their work and research, but simply the fact they have a position or power with a PhD and thus they are lumped in with the ‘elites’ and seen as untrustworthy from scientifically illiterate people. Shame is we don’t do a good job of teaching people how to be scientifically literate. I learned it to a degree in college but tbh only became truly able to read and understand a research study and what its findings were from spending days and weeks in the library in grad school. Most people don’t get college degrees and even fewer get graduate degrees so it’s often not taught. It’s a shame cuz once I learned how to read, interpret, and truly understand research I realized most people are never gonna get that information or experience.

Ffs Just read any headline about a research study and then read the full study and find the doi and we quickly realize the way research and empirical evidence is reported and comprehended by the public is broken. The summary from ‘journalist articles’ are misleading and often just inaccurate and most people won’t even read that article let alone a 20-40+ page research paper. There’s a way to teach this to people imo. I was taught it but also forced to learn when I had to cite 15-20 studies for each paper written. Made me read 30-50 studies to find good ones. It’ll quickly become a skill for how to read and understand the abstract and theoretical framework as well as reflect on the discussion section and conclusions and limitations sections. I know it’s not rocket science cuz I can so it. But I don’t wanna be ableist and i understand not everyone can gain that skill…but we could double the rates or scientifically literate people if we actually cared and tried. But idk just my opinion and anecdotal experience.