A well-designed and well-written standardized test is often an excellent way to determine mastery of some subject areas such as arithmetic, algebra, geometry, spelling, grammar, and vocabulary. I believe some tests have historically been fairly reliable for these areas: SAT, ACT, ERB/ISEE, Iowa Test of Basic Skills. Unfortunately, a number of standardized tests, such as the Texas STAAR test (for public schools) are quite unreliable. So it depends on the test and what you’re testing. Basic math skills absolutely should be tested more, as in, have the 3rd-8th grade students do a lot more basic arithmetic and do fewer application of arithmetic in strangely-worded word problems on their tests. The majority of students graduating from public schools these days seem to struggle with fractions, which is foundational to algebra.

Shouldn’t this be dealt with when a student takes placement exams? Offer remedial support for those that need it and keep the standards. Helping to close gaps doesn’t need to be at the detriment of offering bright students a more fair way of getting into the system.

Susan Wise Bauer I suspect that some of the "gap" here between your prior perspective, and the counter-arguments you find persuasive in this article, might be related to the significant differences between preparation for college in STEM fields (especially math preparation) vs humanities and social science (ie all the reading- and writing-centric disciplines.) You can think about: "What does a rising college freshman need to be prepared for a gen ed US History course?" vs. "What does a rising college freshman, planning a STEM major, need to be prepared for Calculus 1?" (or at least maybe a rigorous 1-semester Pre-calc.) For the history course you certainly want to see a reasonable baseline reading and writing level, adequate study skills, preferably a year of high school US history as foundation, and a developing ability to think critically and synthesize ideas (not just regurgitate information). But to me, it seems possible that a motivated student could succeed in a freshman history course even with some deficits in some of those areas (for example- maybe the writing skills have a long way to go, but the student is really brilliant in classroom discussion, and willing to get help to improve the papers. Or maybe reading comprehension needs work, but this kid is SUCH a history fanatic that their content knowledge helps to overcome that in their first semester.) An international student who didn't take US history in high school would certainly be at a disadvantage, but not an insurmountable one, if they're willing to put in the work and study hard. In contrast: what does a kid planning to be an engineer or computer programmer need to be successful in Calculus 1...? They need a fairly hefty pile of specific content: the concepts and skills of arithmetic/ algebra/ geometry/ trig that underlie Calculus. And the point is, there's really no way around that. Study skills and motivation are important, too, but on their own they can only go so far in making up for content deficits. This analogy has limitations- but you could almost think about high school/ undergrad math like climbing a ladder, whereas humanities disciplines are more like climbing a hill. To climb a ladder, even trying to skip a single rung can be dangerous or impossible; there is basically ONE way up that ladder, no alternatives or shortcuts. Conceivably there could be a lot more variation in how people find success in climbing the hill (those capable of short high-energy bursts might take a steeper shorter path, while those with more endurance might take the long way that rises more gradually.) So I would certainly agree that standardized tests like the SAT can't measure every important metric that predicts student success; it can't measure intellectual curiosity, motivation, outside-the-box thinking, or content knowledge (outside math and, arguably, vocabulary.) But in STEM, math content knowledge is a REALLY big deal (lots of students interested in bio or chem majors end up dropping out, because of the math requirements.) So I think that's where the UC professors are coming from.

My suggestion is that this isn't an either/or question, but a both/and one. The narrowing of the curriculum and the overemphasis on standardized testing have been deeply detrimental to education as a whole. So, in general, I'm in favor of greatly limiting testing in grade school, and removing the temptation to teach to the test. At the same time, many other factors have also contributed: the fragmentation of subjects, educational dogmas, declining school culture, inconsistent or damaging administrative leadership, a loss of meaningful parental involvement OR damaging parental involvement, declining executive functioning, rising rates of anxiety and special needs, and the profound (generally negative) influence of technology and smartphones. The whole scene is rather a mess! In spite of that, there will always be students who are well balanced and academically successful because they won the lottery of engaged parents who encouraged reading, outdoor play, curiosity, discipline, and consistent study habits, often coupled with excellent schools or homeschools, OR, the parental influence was enough to overcome the failures of the child's school. Unsurprisingly, many of those students also perform well on standardized tests. But there are also exceptionally bright, well-educated, intellectually curious students who simply do not test well. They possess the ability to flourish in college and in their chosen fields, but standardized exams fail to reflect their true capabilities. There are equally students who can ace the SAT, but who still fail to launch, because they never developed character, or never encountered challenges, or were so bright, they never actually learned to study, or were in a school system that failed to challenge them sufficiently. (I'm working with a wonderful young man with a stellar SAT score, who realized of his own accord that his school was giving him As on shallow work. He's learning how to go deeper, and how to think on a more profound level. It's beautiful to see this understanding and drive!) In other words, standardized tests CAN be a good measure, but often aren't. So why must admissions be treated as a one-size-fits-all process? What's wrong with some colleges or majors requiring standardized tests while others remain test-optional? Why not allow universities greater flexibility? For example, an institution might require a qualifying SAT or ACT score OR successful completion of a specified number of dual-enrollment college courses during high school, OR have a required summer study course, OR require a trial period. Colleges could incorporate supervised, in-person essay writing as part of the admissions process (something several universities already do for competitive scholarships) or invite applicants to summer academic programs where faculty can assess the potential students' readiness firsthand. There are outstanding students who succeed in demanding university programs because they were given an opportunity beyond a single test score. At the same time, admissions policies should be able to avoid applications from students who are genuinely unprepared for the academic demands of that college. I am well aware of the unbelievable numbers of applications colleges have had to process thanks to test optional admissions and the common app. That's also a ridiculous situation. Qualified candidates got lost in the pile, and admissions officers, facing impossible numbers to go through, had to make decisions based on scads of identical files. It's no better than a lottery at times. The goal should not be to abolish standards, but to recognize excellence and abilities through more than one measure. Students aren't widgets, or Lego pieces that can just be plugged in here or there. They are different, and have unique ways of learning. So are universities. There's a world of difference between Howard, Princeton, Rutgers, Susquehanna, Loyola, Caldwell, Christendom, FUS, or Wyoming. Why does there have to be a one-size-fits-all model for any of them? Even within a college, why not require one admissions bar for Engineering, and another for English? Both/and can work, it just takes flexibility and an openness to change.

Honestly, this is a big reason why we are dual enrolling our kid in college math and science courses in high school. We want the transcript evidence from higher ed that our kids are capable of doing the work. Test scores hide gaps too. If you are very good at test prep, and lack the foundational skills or critical thinking needed to thrive, the same result occurs.

A truly fair system sets clear standards and gives everyone the opportunity to prove themselves. It says: “Here is the standard. Here is the opportunity. Now compete on your own merits.” Tests, while they have their drawbacks, do that.

I think there's a difference between using the SAT/ACT as a baseline for admissions decisions vs using it as a placement test. I can understand the need for placement tests, but I believe there should be alternatives when it comes to admissions. There are plenty of kids for whom standardized testing does not do justice for whatever reason.

I find it so ironic, because 25 years ago I was a first-generation, low-income, female college applicant, and I felt that the SAT offered me a huge opportunity. My family did not have money for prestigious camps or lessons or travel. My school did not offer Model UN or Science Olympiad, and even if they had, I had to have a job after school. There were very few AP classes offered, in fact, even non-AP physics was only offered every other year at my small, rural high school, and never by a well-qualified teacher. I was valedictorian with a very high GPA, but the courses lacked rigor. The SAT, on the other hand, was very affordable and something I could study for independently with just a prep book from the library. My SAT score opened up doors and got me into MIT. I sympathize with students with test anxiety...a couple of my children struggle with it...and I absolutely think there should be alternative pathways for students for whom the SAT does not accurately capture their skill-level (submitting class math tests? affidavits from teachers verifying skills? academic interviews where they demonstrate skills?), but shifting emphasis from SAT testing to grades, course work, extracurriculars, and essays can significantly disadvantage all the first-generation, low-income, underrepresented students who do not have test anxiety and who do well on the SAT.

Myth #1: Classically educated student can not acheive high test scores like other educated students. Yes, classically educated students can acheive top scores without teaching for the test.

Both things can be true! Overemphasis on standardized testing throughout the entirety of a student’s K-12 years is problematic for numerous reasons, but an aptitude test administered at a critical moment can ensure that students are prepared to enter higher education. A reduced curriculum that caters to yearly state tests IS one of the reasons that students aren’t adequately prepared for the complex thinking required for college.

I think you can acknowledge the benefit of the SAT and ACT while remaining critical of benchmark tests starting in elementary school

I think there is a vast difference between high schoolers, especially juniors and seniors, taking a standardized test for college readiness vs the emphasis on elementary kids learning to the state year end tests. I'm a fan of standardized tests for college preparedness. The accuplacer for community college was a big help to my older kids, as it gave them the proper classes for DE. That was their first real test ever, and with a couple of days of going over how the test works and a few test taking strategies, they did fine.

I’m not a big fan of standardized testing at the grade levels, at least not the way that it’s been done post No Child Left Behind. However, I do feel that the SAT did a fairly good job of measuring college entry level knowledge. 

I'm one of those test failures. May I share a story? I got to W&M. it wasn't because of my standardized test score or my grades for that matter. I studied 6 months on my own (parents didn't push me - dad was a prof) because I wanted it. Six-months of self determination. My score from all that work? 1180. Hardly bragging rights. But someone at W&M digested my application - essays and background - and figured out who I was. I received a wait list, then acceptance about two week later. That year's incoming freshman classmates, 10% were valedictorian or salutatorian. Talk about being intimidated with barely a B honor roll in high school. I had zero "AP" classes and a public school education. The first semester I worked like a dog and clawed out a 1.8 GPA. I graduated W&M in four years, my last 3 semesters with A's and B's. I watched countless really smart students with high SAT and high school test scores fail out. They were not used to hard work, bouncing back from mediocre grades - simply they were really good at high school, and diversity (not the DEI one) was unfamiliar territory. I've been blessed to know many many successful people. I don't mean financially, though that's included. My boys were told, growing up "There are two qualities I've witnessed in every single successful person I've met: 1) they persevere; when they fall down, they get back up and keep going, 2) they figure out how to make lemonade out of lemons; life throws one plenty of lemons." When academia figures out how to discern those qualities with little pencil-scratched circles, I'll be excited to see how they did it. I hope this helps encourage someone not so "test smart" or the parent with a kid that maybe doesn't score so well.

I agree. Standardized testing = standardized education

One of the largest problems we have in CA, related to this issue, is that standardized tests are not open to homeschoolers with disability accommodations. I'd be fine with reinstating testing, but they have to do it equitably. If the UCs and CSUs opened their doors to testing students with accommodations, it would go a long way towards solving the issue. The lawsuit that brought down the testing requirement focused on this inequity. Thus, the solution to our current dilemma should focus on resolving the underlying issues with testing in our state.

My oldest TA's in the math department of a top 20 university (standardized test optional) as a PhD student. She has told us how unprepared many of their students are for college math. Even many of those who can do the work (pass the tests) don't understand why the math works, so struggle with application. They need to know what algorithm to follow for any type of problem instead of having the understanding and reasoning capability to use math in new situations. Across the board our math standards are pretty weak.

As a public school educator with a concern with equitable education, I can't see a way around standardized testing as 1 of many monitors of education. I also believe that a college bound student who is a junior and senior in college needs to have one of their goal posts a standardized test. Standardized testing happens in most career fields. Currently I find that students don't know what they know. Access to devices and notes has watered down testing and grades. Standardized test scores should not be highest on the list for admissions, but definitely should be considered, if our goal is a good fit for a student. When I mentor my Seniors toward a next step I often look at their standardized test scores, and we have a conversation about how they learn- and how they like to learn. I have had students in the past have incredibly unrealistic goals for themselves. I have also seen many students who have 3.0-4.0 who took easier classes and have crazy low standardized testing. At this point we have swung so far from standardized testing, and focusing too much on GPAs which can by wildly subjective. I would like for students to take difficult classes even if they are going to get a lower grade. If you have gotten this far, here is my personal story. I took the SAT and ACT 4 times in high school. My scores were in 75-80% of those who took them. I am not good at recall, but loved the sciences. My Freshman year in college I intended to be a Chemical Engineer. But I watched the amount of work and memorization that my roommate was putting into Chem/Bio, I had to have an honest conversation with myself. I am not sure I could have hung in that class without giving up my social life. I knew my standardized test scores weren't stellar and I had significant struggles in my Calculus class in high school. I pivoted and took a ceramics class- because it was applied Chemistry where my creative skills were respected. I am now 30 years into an Art Education degree, and still love my job. -Standardized test scores helped me know what I was good at.

as someone who graduated from Berkeley, there are majors outside of STEM that require calculus. You must have that for business and economics majors for example. My semi-rural high school only had AP Calc at that time and certainly none of the extracurriculars in better resourced communities. SAT also opened the door for me as well. That being said I scored a 5 in AP Calc and it was tough going at Cal with Calc 2. Calc 1 was far deeper than AP Calc, and I was grateful I had the sense to take it. My grasp of Calc was not on par with my peers who had a deeper math background.

We should be teaching all the things AND doing standardized testing….and in my opinion, colleges should be doing placement tests for math and science. Grades are inflated and homeschool grades can be completely made up. Find out what the kid actually knows and start from there…or sent them away to beef up their basics before entering college. ACT and SAT are a good indicator of college readiness, but not all kids test well and that’s a little bit sad for us as parents….but we cannot just throw out the goal posts and hope that fixes that problem.

I didn’t see this linked in the comments, so in case anyone is interested, here is the web page the UC faculty signing the recent letter have written, with supporting information: ucstudentsuccess.org I’m in favor of large state universities requiring standardized testing. Not requiring these tests puts too much emphasis on students’ inflated high school grades. I know a number of young people who attend public schools, and they tell me that they are frequently permitted to retake math exams if they don’t like their grade. On the second version of the exam, only the numbers are usually changed. I recently had a high school student tell me that they thought their grade in high school math classes should be based on effort, rather than mastery of the material. In a situation where students who don’t have a good grasp of algebra are somehow able to get A’s in high school calculus classes, it seems only rational that colleges would turn to standardized testing to differentiate between students who have a solid understanding of math and those who do not.

It’s also wrong to ignore the impact of COVID. Our k-12 kids missed a full year of math and were expected to carry on as usual with no scaffolding. I Saw the impact on my then HS freshman in Algebra 2 as well as on my then 3rd grader who started 3rd grade in advanced math then proceeded to struggle in math throughout elementary & middle school. Finally started scoring higher in math again in 9th grade geometry. It takes time to fill in those gaps!

These things are changing super-fast! I think we are going to steer away from homework and to in-class essay writing and evaluation before too long. Testing is one thing that already is in person. Hopefully other methods of evaluation will come into play.

Regarding the 2020 dissolution of consideration of all test scores, why must the entire possibility be done away with?! The baby, bath water, and all that. I find it worrisome that the admin is completly ignoring the teachers and their perspective. Just a thought from one who does onot understand ANY of the how...can placement tests be created by the various STEM teachers to insure the students placed in the array of classes are in fact ready to step into the material they will be exposed to?

I find it interesting that this focuses only on STEM. A friend who is a university English professor here in Richmond, Virginia, tells me their introductory courses for English majors have had to resort to teaching parts of speech like nouns and verbs because students can't identify these basics. There are building blocks in most disciplines. I also have concerns about standardized testing and how specifically the SAT has been shown to favor male over female students and has not addressed their issues with people of color. However, I also think having some kind of a standard has merit when so many professors are struggling with students having huge holes in their basic learning.

Hit me up I'm mobile mechanic and available

This conflates distrust of a medical establishment with distrust of medicine itself. Hear me out: My grandfather understood this distinction 70 years ago. He warned his teenage daughter to be cautious about the new hormonal birth control because he believed new treatments should be approached carefully when long term effects are not yet fully understood. His concern was not a rejection of medicine. He was one of the leading physicians of his time in women’s health. His point was that doctors, researchers, and corporations are human institutions, and human institutions can make mistakes, overlook risks, and change their conclusions as more evidence becomes available. That is why many people distrust parts of the medical system without distrusting their own doctors. We recognize that even an excellent physician works within a system shaped by incentives, regulations, pharmaceutical companies, and imperfect information. A history of drugs being approved by the FDA and later restricted or withdrawn is one reason some people approach newer interventions with caution. Do we distrust our family doctor? Not necessarily. Some of the doctors we respect most are the ones who avoid rushing toward new treatments, read the studies themselves, acknowledge uncertainty, and treat patients as partners. I have a great respect for the many specialists who have helped me and my family throughout the years. My grandfather’s caution was not rooted in religion, though he was a Christian. It came from professional experience and an understanding that expertise does not make someone infallible. Reducing medical skepticism among Christians primarily to a lack of trust in expertise misses an important distinction. Of course, skepticism can go too far, and expertise should not be dismissed simply because institutions have flaws. But trust is not maintained by asking people to ignore those flaws. It is maintained when institutions are transparent, accountable, and willing to acknowledge mistakes. Do some Christians take this skepticism too far? Absolutely. But this excerpt seems to imply that those examples are representative of Christian resistance to medical authority as a whole. I would question that assumption.

I’d add another plank to that argument: the fraud perpetuated by Andrew Wakefield. Even though his fraud has been thoroughly exposed (and for those in the sciences, his science looked dodgy from the get-go on multiple levels) many people still cling to the false idea that vaccines are broadly harmful. Collide the timing of that issue with the rapid expansion of both the internet and the opportunists who saw a chance to make bank by peddling alternatives, plus the very real human tendency to over estimate our knowledge on any given subject, and the stage has been set.

I’m in rural family medicine. Our area in general has a lot of folk medicine and skeptics, but I’ve had a lot of my patients for 20+ years and I think that makes all the difference. Even though I wear a rainbow heart pin and my FB has anti MAHa stuff posted they generally trust me. I think a large factor in the distrust of doctors is how everything has moved to large clinics, fast med, telehealth etc. it’s rare to have small independent practices where your doctor actually knows you.

I appreciate the spark of discussion here. It’s an important topic and the connection between trust and religion and large institutions is one worth exploring. At the same time, I find it sorely lacking in the explanations I have experienced first hand regarding the lack of trust in the medical system. For example, in asking the question, why would a person trust an individual doctor over the system and spend the same amount of money in supplements as they would in medical costs…what about the lived experience of individuals for whom their unexplained chronic health issues are not being helped by the drugs being prescribed? What about the idea that Western Medicine no longer asks “why” a symptom exists, but rather how to resolve the individual symptom. The amount of chronic health issues that exist today are not well understood at all, and historically, it has been the marginal groups that pin point root causes before the system does: for example, the GAPS diet has spoke of leaky gut and the need for balancing gut bacteria and how it relates to multiple symptoms decades before that became common knowledge. There are kids who are getting chronically sick in ways that the medical system barely touches or understands and there are individual doctors who may not have official trials but have equivalent anecdotal evidence to support the approach that differs the systems solutions and actually helps resolve the issues without the side effects that often come with medical pharmaceuticals. I think it would be better to explore the cultural influences on trust in the medical system, such as black and white thinking that doesn’t allow for nuance, or how do we establish authority scientifically? The pandemic exposed the medical system as being strongly influenced by the political authorities and much of what was sold as hard-truth has since then been undone, and not without harm, sometimes great harm, to individuals who blindly trusted the system. We ought to encourage critical thinking and curiosity and a willingness to learn and think outside the “established system” as part of how the scientific community grows its body of knowledge. No one should ever have blind trust in a system. That is not how we learn and grow and it’s certainly not being faithful to the idea that science is at its foundation meant to be a discovery of what already exists. So let’s be good scientists and keep asking questions!

I’d also say there’s also a not-so-latent anti-intellectualism in certain circles that has its roots in the split between the fundamentalists and modernists as exemplified by Scopes. I hear the same sorts of arguments grounded in sloppy hermeneutics. Also, I should read your book. Did you talk about Basil’s Long Rule on the medical arts at all?

Some of us just have histories of really bad personal experiences.

Kind of interesting how intellectual perspectives get completely binned into religious buckets. I know a ton of doctors, lawyers, executives, home makers and everyone in between that are atheists or agnostics with similar views. It turns out God equipped everyone with a brain, some sense of morality, and some sense of discernment. Who knew!

If you lived during the time when 1/2 or more of your children died of cholera, or got polio, smallpox, etc, vaccines would seem like a gift from heaven. My grandmother was born in 1912, and married in 1928-ish. She was pregnant 14 times, but only had 5 children live to adulthood. I don't know what happened to the others - we didn't talk about things like that when I was growing up. But I can easily believe those diseases we now vax against were part of the reason. Thing is, we've had decades where no one got pleurisy, whooping cough, smallpox, cholera, etc. We may intellectually realize it's due to the vaccines that were developed, but over time it becomes easy to forget that, and to discount the severity of those "old" diseases. That creates fertile ground for those who have their own reasons for sowing discord and distrust. Add the trauma of the thalidomide babies, and the knowledge that the FDA was trying to fast-track its approval in the US, and it adds more validity to the distrust of some institutions, especially when something is being fast-tracked. I don't have a solution - I'm very grateful my PCP is willing to discuss things with me and not just dictate to me.

A significant reason people claim religious reasons for their stance is that it has become the ONLY WAY to opt out. So we craft religious statements of objection because we are not allowed to just say we don't want it. Medical doctors are not at liberty anymore to write excusals for us (they risk losing licenses). I'm kind of shocked the author and those interviewed didn't mention that or realize it. Many of us would rather find our own way, through trial and error and sharing information with others outside the industry, than trust the systems we know have tremendous financial incentive to erase natural options in favor of pharmaceuticals and cover up anything that would call into question the safety or efficacy of a treatment. We also see damages that mainstream medical doctors refuse to acknowledge, while those who adhere to their religious fanaticism over their "doctors orders" seem to bury their heads in sand and refuse to believe something their doctor ordered could be harmful. I'm 50. I've raised four kids and I began with complete trust in most institutions. My life experiences have taught me that there are too many perverse incentives to protect the institutions and not enough to protect the individual.

While I would agree that there are way more Christians that now mistrust the medical establishment, for good reason, there are still WAY more secular folk who are in this camp. When I was growing up, our more natural stance was almost unheard of for Christians. Joel Salatin talks a lot about this too. Natural health has been mostly owned by new agers and etc. It is only within the last ten to fifteen years that I have seen any marked difference in Christians accepting that maybe there is a better way to take care of our health. I can finally talk much more openly about alternatives. The trillion dollar pharmaceutical industry is finally losing its propaganda grip on society, which is absolutely amazing to me.

Sounds interesting! The internet does play a big role. So many varying opinions and “cures” as well as exposure of when the medical establishment has been in serious error-info that in previous times might only have been known to those studying medicine or medical history-doesn’t help.

Faith is right. It was always faith.

This post was under yours… Interesting… So many differing points of view unbekoming.substack.com/p/the-primary-cause?fbclid=IwZnRzaAS5POtwZG9mA2ZkaWQWUKFDMiU8TY4qRctX1k1D...

As I have said repeatedly, read Brianne Dressen’s book, and/or watch her documentary. Then you will have a better understanding. I am curious as to why you aren’t looking into that, or have you?

I am currently reading a pre-release of “Live Love Laugh” by Kristin Kobes DuMez. It has really helped me gain insight into how my spouse and I were raised in the same denominational framework, but had such different formative experiences related to faith and medical science. I think these differences were strongly influenced by the extent to which our families and faith communities were impacted by New Thought and the power of positive thinking, historically. (In my family, positive affirmations such as declaring “I am healed in Jesus’ name!” were modeled and encouraged, but we still got vaccinated and went to the doctor when we were sick. In my spouse’s family, they did not get vaccinated, went to a chiropractor instead of doctors, etc…. (Cue lots of parental discord once we had kids of our own, for an area we hadn’t even touched on as healthy 20-somethings when dating. The language used was the same, but meant very different things.) Jumping forward 20 years, the topic (ie trust/distrust of medicine) feels intensely personal to me now. One of my children has struggled with autoimmune issues for most of their life. This past year we’ve been to countless specialists. Eventually a couple of potential root causes were identified - including a hypothesis that a previous doctor gave them too many steroid doses w/o tapering off the dose, creating adrenal and other issues. So - we went to doctors who treated them for one issue, but created much larger issues. The worst part? This isn’t the first time something like this has happened in our family where medical practitioners are concerned. I think science is amazing. But I recognize that medicine is an ever evolving field and the practice of medicine is at times inexact. Incidentally I hope that AI might eventually be harnessed to assist medical practitioners in identifying puzzling scenarios which have traditionally been hard to diagnose. In the meantime, I’ll keep doing my best to listen to experts, read publicly available information related to scientific studies, pray for wisdom, and approach all medical procedures on a case-by-case basis…..

Also critics of the low-fat Federal dietary guidelines argue that the Seventh-day Adventist Church with Ellen B White and the Kellogg Brothers contributed to the current epidemic of metabolic syndrome and diseases... What today are considered low carb diets were normal nutrition before the big push in the 70s and '80s to reduce saturated fat

I think a large part of the mistrust was also fueled by the opiate epidemic. People watched their family members become addicts and die from medication given to them by their doctor. 

You can read thousands upon thousands of 'anecdata' comments on social media - dating back decades as well because the Internet is forever - of people's testimonies of how the medical establishment has harmed them. Any gut health group is going to have so many stories of people despairing because they finally got a diagnosis 10 doctors, several surgeries, and a decade later. Many finally took their health into their own hands and started healing with more holistic, find the root cause and heal it, methods. And on vaccines, for many, who should they trust? A doctor that had a three hour lecture once on vaccines (and the curriculum was either manufactured or paid for by pharma) or well educated people that had a terrible experience with loved ones harmed and then deep dived for hundreds if not thousands of hours over decades into the research and then started summarizing that research for those willing to listen. I've also spent over a thousand hours reading everything - on all sides - for two decades. The attacks on social media have also changed a lot over the years. The most vitriolic against non-vaxxers was actually in 2015/6, and ever since then I see more and more people state a distrust in vaccines. I think pharma's plan backfired. Mandating anything backfires in America. Spending multimillions on lobbyists and focus study groups, and paid bots and ai posts on the Internet, does not necessarily mean they are going to persuade everyone. I tell my political friends it's a miracle how much has changed in ten years. The comments are so different now than 10 years ago. Sometimes they despair about how much there's still left to do, but I say, look at the past ten years and how much it's changed. Keep fighting, the truth will come into the light.

My mistrust of doctors is based on experience, not faith. Over the years I've just had too many misdiagnoses and useless (occasionally harmful) treatments prescribed that I realized half of all the doctors out there graduated in the bottom half of their class, and while they're doing the best they can, I don't trust them at all to be right.

Friendly amendment: it's "'Christians' can disagree on so much about medicine." The maga white supremacists claiming to be "Christian" are no such thing, as they reject Christ's teachings, staring with the 2nd greatest commandment, love thy neighbor as thyself. I'm just a Narnia agnostic, but push this distinction everywhere because the behavior of the maga christofascist (not Christian!) blasphemers, by claiming to be Christians, unfairly give the real Christians a bad name.

I'm not religious, not an American. I don't trust any medical professional, we don't vax. The vast majority of the US seem to trust the medical system and the FDA and yet your kids are getting sicker and sicker

Not sure why "balance" is superstitious. As a historian myself, I find great value in those systems of older thought. We're beginning to see not some political or religious rejection of science but the philosophical breakdown of modernity brought on by the 17th century until our present time. The influence that the Enlightenment has had over all parts of our culture, from everything including science to education, has begun to develop holes. I was a classical educator until I realized that it wasn't ancient education I was supporting but a modernized reversion which purported to be ancient. It was still highly logical and very "unbalanced". I also grew up in the trust science with everything culture. The baby boomer generation has a much greater trust and my parents rush to the ER for everything. They also tried every health fad while I was young. Now they both have diabetes (and many other things) and my father's pancreas is nearly defunct. I've seen my entire family on both sides trust the medical community implicitly and get sicker and sicker. That doesn't mean there isn't room for western medicine. However, well meaning doctors have made my life a living hell for nearly 26 yrs. Misdiagnosed at age 25, they got me physically dependent on medication for nearly 20 yrs now. It's hard to hold a job. We can support Western medicine but also listen to others who may have very good reasons to bring balance back into our medical system. Our belief in the superiority of our current age is an illness and we'd do well to relearn those "superstitions" as they might prove to be something far more curious and truthful than we formerly thought.

We are the sickest country in the world and the most medicated and vaccinated by far. I think this article fails to take too many issues into account. As a medical professional I would actually say the American public doesn’t have enough healthy distrust of the modern U.S. medical system….. But taking a pill is sometimes much easier than working to get health back