On Scientific 'Brainwashing': A Public Health Scientist's Reflection

A thought experiment.

Sometimes, in the quiet moments between crafting social media posts about vaccines or preparing talks on health misinformation, I entertain a troubling thought experiment. Inevitably, at least a few times a week (typically when I post about vaccines), I get a similar string of comments: "You seem like a good person with good intentions, but you've been brainwashed by the scientific establishment. From the time you were in school, you were taught fabricated studies and false narratives. The entire system is designed to deceive, and you don't even realize it."

What if they're right? What if everything I've learned, everything I believe about science and public health, is indeed the product of systematic indoctrination? What if the studies I cite, the methods I trust, the very framework through which I understand health and disease—what if it's all an elaborate construction designed to serve interests I can't even see?

---

It's not an impossible scenario, in theory. Institutions can be corrupted. Entire fields of knowledge have been shaped by power and politics before. The tobacco industry's decades-long campaign to obscure the link between smoking and cancer proves that sophisticated misinformation campaigns can fool even scientists for years. So when someone tells me I'm "brainwashed by the establishment" after I share information about vaccine safety, I don't dismiss it outright. I sit with the discomfort of the possibility.

But then I remember how science actually works—not the sanitized version from textbooks, but the messy, contentious reality I witness every day.

I think about the fierce debates at conferences, the brutal peer review process where researchers tear apart each other's work, the way entire research directions get abandoned when evidence points elsewhere. I recall watching established researchers have their long-held theories overturned by better data. The system isn't some harmonious choir singing the same tune—it's more like a room full of skeptics arguing over every detail.

When people point to these theory changes as evidence that "science has been wrong before, so why can't it be wrong now?" they misunderstand how the scientific process works. Science isn't "wrong" when it updates—it's working exactly as designed. Each revision brings us closer to understanding reality, not further from it. The fact that scientists abandoned outdated theories when presented with better evidence is a feature, not a bug.

unbiasedscipod

A post shared by @unbiasedscipod

Most tellingly, I remember how often the scientific consensus has shifted during my own career. How recommendations have changed as evidence accumulated. How public health agencies have reversed course when data demanded it. A true indoctrination system wouldn't be so self-correcting, so willing to admit error, so responsive to inconvenient facts.

unbiasedscipod

A post shared by @unbiasedscipod

But then I think about what this conspiracy would actually require…

Every major vaccine study I reference is publicly available. The data, the methods, the statistical analyses—it's all there for anyone to scrutinize. When I read a clinical trial, I'm looking at the same numbers as any critic who takes the time to pull up the paper. I can see exactly how many participants were enrolled, what the study design was, what adverse events occurred, how the researchers controlled for confounding variables. The methodology isn't hidden behind closed doors—it's described in excruciating detail.

Behind each vaccine approval lies years of research across multiple phases: laboratory studies in cell cultures, animal testing, then carefully designed human trials that build from small safety studies to large effectiveness trials involving tens of thousands of participants. Each phase must demonstrate safety and efficacy before moving to the next. When ethical concerns prevent randomized controlled trials—such as withholding proven vaccines from control groups—researchers use other rigorous methods to assess safety and effectiveness.

For the "brainwashing" theory to hold, this entire transparent process would have to be an elaborate ruse. Thousands of researchers across universities, government agencies, and independent institutions would need to coordinate fabricated data while maintaining the illusion of rigorous peer review. The conspiracy would span regulatory agencies on different continents, academic rivals who rarely agree on anything, and scientists whose careers depend on finding flaws in each other's work.

Consider the sheer logistics. Vaccine trials involve tens of thousands of participants across multiple countries. Their medical records would need to be falsified. Independent data safety monitoring boards would need to be compromised. Regulatory reviewers at the FDA, EMA, and dozens of other agencies would all need to ignore fabricated evidence. Hospital systems tracking adverse events would need to suppress real signals while inventing fake safety data.

And somehow, despite this massive coordination effort, no whistleblower has ever produced credible evidence of systematic data falsification. No disgruntled researcher has leaked the emails organizing this deception. No regulatory official has come forward with proof of coordinated suppression.

I see how scientists from different countries, working independently, keep finding the same patterns in their data—patterns that transcend national interests, funding sources, and academic affiliations. When I see consistent findings across different research groups, it's not because they're reading from the same script—it's because they're looking at the same biological reality.

But here's what strikes me most: the very people who accuse me of being brainwashed seem remarkably uncritical of their own information sources. They'll dismiss peer-reviewed research that undergoes rigorous review while embracing claims from social media influencers, discredited doctors selling supplements, or websites with no editorial oversight. They demand I question everything—except the alternative narratives they've chosen to believe.

If I'm supposedly unable to think critically because of my training, what about the person who gets their vaccine information from a wellness blogger with no scientific background? If institutional bias is so corrupting, why trust the institutions selling alternative health products or the influencers monetizing fear and doubt? The skepticism seems remarkably selective.

The real world is messier than that. Science is messy. It's full of disagreement, uncertainty, and revision. It's full of people who became scientists precisely because they enjoy questioning accepted wisdom. The system isn't perfect—it's influenced by funding, by politics, by human bias—but it's also more robust and self-correcting than its critics assume.

The scientific establishment isn't a monolith dispensing truth from on high—it's a fractious community of skeptics who happen to agree on some things because the evidence keeps pointing in the same direction.

So while I can entertain the thought experiment, I keep coming back to what I can verify myself. Not just the conclusions I'm supposed to believe, but the raw data I can examine, the methods I can evaluate, the transparency that makes independent verification possible. When I explain vaccine safety, I'm not reciting talking points—I'm describing what the evidence shows when subjected to rigorous scrutiny.

And if I'm being honest? My toughest audience isn't the skeptics on social media—it's other scientists. They're the ones who will question my methodology, challenge my interpretations, and point out every limitation in the studies I cite. If there were fundamental flaws in the research I reference, my scientific colleagues would be the first to tear it apart. They're not exactly known for going easy on each other.

That's not brainwashing. That's just what it looks like when reality has a consistent pattern.

Stay Curious,

Unbiased Science

P.S. Want to support our work? The best way is to subscribe to our Substack and share our content. While all our articles are always completely free to read, paid subscriptions help sustain our in-depth reporting on public health and science topics. Thank you for considering it!