Why You Need to Be Proactive About Your Health: Be Like This Old Lady and Do Your Own Research, By Mrs. Vera West

In today's world, where medical advice is just a click away and doctors are juggling packed schedules, it's more important than ever to take charge of your own health. Don't get me wrong, doctors are lifesavers, and their expertise is crucial. But they're human, just like the rest of us, and humans make mistakes. My own son's story is a stark reminder: his doctor misdiagnosed appendicitis as a urinary tract infection, leading to a ruptured appendix and a world of pain. That experience taught me that seeing a doctor is only half the battle, you've got to be proactive, do your own research, and advocate for yourself to stay on top of your health.

Doctors go through years of training, and most are genuinely dedicated to helping people. But they're not infallible. Misdiagnoses, rushed appointments, or outdated knowledge can slip through the cracks. Studies show that medical errors are a leading cause of harm in healthcare, some estimates suggest they contribute to hundreds of thousands of deaths annually in the U.S. alone, and in Australia around 18,000. My son's case isn't rare: appendicitis is misdiagnosed in up to 15% of cases, often as something less urgent like a stomach bug or, in his case, a urinary issue. The consequences? A ruptured appendix, emergency surgery, and weeks of recovery.

It's not about blaming doctors, they're working under pressure, often with limited time to piece together symptoms. But this is exactly why you can't just nod along and accept every diagnosis or prescription without question. Your health is too important to leave entirely in someone else's hands, no matter how qualified they are.

Doing your own research doesn't mean playing Dr. Google or diving into conspiracy forums, it means being an active partner in your healthcare. It's about understanding your symptoms, asking informed questions, and double-checking what you're told. When my son was writhing in pain, I wish I'd known to push harder when the doctor brushed it off as a minor infection. A quick search could've flagged that fever, severe abdominal pain, and nausea scream appendicitis, prompting me to demand a scan sooner. But this was pre-internet.

If a diagnosis doesn't add up, you can look up symptoms or conditions to see if something else fits. For example, appendicitis often causes pain that starts near the belly button and shifts to the lower right side, knowing this could've raised my suspicions.

Before popping a pill or agreeing to a procedure, research its benefits, risks, and alternatives. If my son's doctor had suggested antibiotics for a "urinary infection," I could've asked why they weren't addressing his fever or ordering imaging.

Walking into an appointment armed with knowledge lets you have a real conversation with your doctor. Instead of "Okay, whatever you say," you can ask, "Could this be appendicitis? Should we do an ultrasound to rule it out?"

The corporate media, as Derrick Broze points out in his Last American Vagabond piece, loves to scoff at "doing your own research," claiming it's too complex for laypeople. Rubbish! You don't need a PhD to be proactive. Here's how to do it right:

1.Start with Reputable Sources:

Check sites like PubMed, Mayo Clinic, or the National Institutes of Health for clear, evidence-based info.

Avoid random blogs or social media posts unless they cite studies or experts you can verify.

2.Learn to Skim Studies:

You don't need to read every word of a medical paper. Focus on the abstract (summary) and conclusion to get the gist. If a study says appendicitis misdiagnosis is common in kids, that's enough to make you push for a second opinion.

Watch for red flags like small sample sizes or funding from drug companies.

3.Cross-Check Everything:

Compare what you find with what your doctor says. If they're prescribing antibiotics but your research suggests imaging for abdominal pain, ask why. When years later, Iresearched appendicitis, I found guidelines recommending CT scans or ultrasounds for unclear cases, something I could've brought up, but I am not sure this tech was available then.

4.Trust Your Gut, But Verify:

If something feels off, don't ignore it. Research can back up your instincts with facts, giving you confidence to challenge a diagnosis.

5.Talk to Others:

Ask friends or family about their experiences, or join reputable online health communities (like patient forums, not conspiracy chats). Someone might've had a similar misdiagnosis, tipping you off to push for tests.

Being proactive doesn't mean dismissing your doctor, it means teaming up with them. Doctors are more likely to take you seriously if you come prepared with specific concerns or questions. I started bringing notes to appointments: symptoms, timelines, and questions like, "Could this be X instead?" Most doctors appreciate patients who engage, as it helps them zero in on the right diagnosis.

If your doctor gets defensive or dismissive when you ask questions, that's a sign to find a new one. A good doctor welcomes your input and sees you as a partner, not a passive patient.

Broze's article nails why the media's attack on "do your own research" is so troubling. The mainstream media claim you're too clueless to understand health info without a fancy degree. That's not just patronising, it's disempowering. They want you to blindly trust "experts" who, as Broze notes, often work for institutions swayed by pharmaceutical money or political agendas. The replication crisis in science, where many peer-reviewed studies can't be reproduced, proves even "trusted" research isn't always trustworthy.

The media's push to "leave it to the experts" ignores that experts can be wrong, biased, or just having an off day. Doing your own research bridges that gap, giving you a safety net when the system falters.

So, next time you're at the doctor's, don't just nod and smile. Do your homework, ask questions, and trust your instincts. Pair that with a good doctor's expertise, and you've got a recipe for staying healthy and catching mistakes before they turn into disasters. After all, nobody knows your body, or your kids, better than you do. Take charge, do your research, and keep your health in your hands.

As always, no medical advice is offered; for information purposes only.

https://www.thelastamericanvagabond.com/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.

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.