The night before her flight, we decided on a casual dinner at a nearby dive bar. As we enjoyed our greasy bar food, I couldn’t help but overhear a group of older men at the next table. Judging by the empty glasses, they’d been there for a while, and their conversation had turned toward COVID-19 and vaccines.
One man was passionately declaring that vaccines had been “rushed,” that people had been “lied to,” and that mRNA technology made us “guinea pigs.”
I tried to stay quiet — after all, it was Mom’s last night. But as a public health scientist, it became impossible to sit on my hands (literally, I tried). Finally, I leaned over and gently offered: “Actually, mRNA technology has been studied for decades…”
That was the spark. Suddenly, I found myself in a respectful yet challenging 20-minute conversation with four men who represented different shades of scientific skepticism. One was supportive of science, two were open but cautious, and the last was staunchly distrustful of the health system. Here are the main points we debated — and what I shared.
1. mRNA Technology: Not New, But Decades in the Making
Most people don’t realize mRNA vaccines have a long history:
- 1978: The first successful experiment inserting mRNA into human and mouse cells.
- 1990s: mRNA flu vaccines tested in animals.
- 2013: First human trials for an mRNA rabies vaccine.
- 2023: Karikó and Weissman win the Nobel Prize for breakthroughs enabling effective mRNA vaccines.
- Privacy Policy
The idea that it was “brand-new science” is misleading. The speed of the COVID vaccine wasn’t due to skipped safety steps — it was due to global funding, overlapping trial phases, and years of prior groundwork.
2. “Vaccines Never Prevented COVID” – A Misunderstanding
One common complaint is that vaccines didn’t stop infections. In truth, their main goal was preventing hospitalization and death — and they succeeded.
- Early on, they also reduced transmission significantly.
- As the virus mutated, transmission-blocking power dropped, but protection from severe disease remained high.
The confusion came from rushed public health messaging. During an evolving crisis, communication was messy. In hindsight, clearer language about goals could have prevented distrust.
3. “Only Sick People Died” and “The Numbers Were Inflated”
While underlying conditions did increase risk, COVID wasn’t limited to the frail:
- Deaths occurred across all ages.
- Many who died had no recorded comorbidities.
- Common health issues like obesity, asthma, diabetes, and even depression made millions vulnerable.
As for “inflated numbers,” the reality is the opposite. Doctors on the frontlines saw morgues overflowing and patients dying in hallways. COVID was often an indirect killer, worsening existing conditions. Data suggests early counts were more likely underreported, not exaggerated.
4. Censorship and “Brave Truth-Tellers”
The men argued that questioning the narrative often got people “silenced.” I acknowledged the complexity:
- Healthy debate is essential to science.
- Dangerous misinformation can cost lives.
Figures like Robert Malone are celebrated as rebels, while the consensus of thousands of experts gets dismissed as bias. But science isn’t faith — it’s evidence, testing, and self-correction. Disagreement is part of the process, but it must be rooted in good faith, not contrarianism for its own sake.
5. COVID Origins and Gain-of-Function
Most of the group believed COVID was confirmed to be a lab leak. I explained the two leading theories:
- Natural spillover from animals to humans.
- Lab accident during research in Wuhan.
Scientists remain divided. Both are possible, but the majority lean toward natural spillover.
“Gain-of-function” research also caused confusion. It doesn’t always mean “making viruses deadly.” Much of it is basic science to understand how viruses work and how to fight them. Without it, vaccine and treatment development would be far slower.
6. The CDC and Eroding Trust
The men were harsh critics of the CDC but unaware of recent structural changes under new leadership. What’s happening now isn’t reform but dismantling — cuts to programs, resignations of experts, and weakened disease prevention systems.
Science isn’t perfect, but dismantling institutions leaves us more vulnerable. We trust engineers for bridges and pilots for planes — public health deserves the same respect.
Final Thoughts
In the end, three of the men shook my hand and thanked my mom for raising a “bright daughter.” The fourth remained unconvinced, but maybe I planted a seed.
What struck me was how much skepticism came not from hostility toward science, but from missing information. They simply didn’t know the history of mRNA, the true purpose of vaccines, or the nuances of public health decisions.
That conversation reminded me: change doesn’t always happen in conferences or journals. Sometimes, it happens in casual, uncomfortable conversations — even at a noisy bar over greasy food.