Many things we once widely accepted as true and considered non-controversial galvanize intense debates.

Leaders are often advised to stay neutral, to not get political when these issues come up in their organizations.

Of course leaders should be mindful of what they discuss, how, and with whom. But that isn’t the same as being apolitical or neutral. In fact, our collective discomfort with being political often has less to do with neutrality and more to do with avoiding discomfort or even silencing conversations outright.

When leaders stifle discussions because they fear losing control, that’s not neutrality, that’s avoidance. And avoidance doesn’t make a space safe; it makes it fragile.

As leaders of teams from different backgrounds, lived experiences, and viewpoints, it is neither responsible nor possible to be truly neutral. But what we can do is create cultures of openness, generosity, and meaningful discussion. And in a time when science, health, food security, education, and mental well-being are being politicized, it’s essential.

In the second part of this series on science communication, my guest is an incredible leader, scientist, and science communicator. She shares critical reflections on what we can do to fight misinformation, regardless of our training and expertise.

Jessica Steier, DrPH, PMP is a public health scientist, advocate, science communicator, and Co-Founder and CEO of Unbiased Science. She is driven by a mission to bridge divides and foster trust through empathetic, evidence-based communication. As the founder of the Unbiased Science podcast and newsletter, she is committed to breaking free from echo chambers and tackling health and science literacy with clarity and compassion. Dr. Steier specializes in evaluation science, leveraging data and storytelling to inform health policy and program improvement. Her work focuses on building connections, encouraging dialogue, and making complex scientific concepts accessible to diverse audiences. 

 

 

Listen to the full episode to hear:

• How pop understandings of science-related buzzwords make communication harder
• How Jessica works to account for her own biases when creating content
• Why connection and empathy are key to beginning to break down misinformation
• How connection without expertise, especially on social media, creates a flood of misinformation
• Why we have to address the roots of people’s mistrust of scientific institutions
• How Jessica and other science communicators are supporting each other through online abuse
• What to watch out for when influencers talk about health and wellness
• The real risks and impacts of some of the most common health misinformation

 

Learn more about Dr. Jessica Steier:

• Unbiased Science
• Unbiased Science Podcast
• Unbiased Science Newsletter
• Instagram: @unbiasedscipod

 

Learn more about Rebecca:

• rebeccaching.com
• Work With Rebecca
• The Unburdened Leader on Substack
• Sign up for the weekly Unburdened Leader Email

 

Resources:

• Politics, Andrew Heywood
• The Human Condition, Hannah Arendt
• Marking 50 Years in the Struggle for Democracy | Freedom House
• How Democracies Die, Daniel Ziblatt , Steven Levitsky
• ​​To combat misinformation, start with connection, not correction
• Booster Shots: The Urgent Lessons of Measles and the Uncertain Future of Children’s Health, Adam Ratner
• Kendrick Lamar – Not Like Us
• Fringe
• Weekend at Bernie’s
• Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead

 

Transcript:

[Inspirational Intro Music]

Dr. Jessica Steier: They’ve taken control of the narrative, and they have flipped the script. These people, these brilliant scientists, people who have dedicated their lives to public service and to helping others and to medicine are being vilified and fired and choked and not able to do this unbelievably impactful work. It’s worse than a lot of us really are willing to admit, and it’s a scary time, and it just feels like the unraveling of decades of progress. It’s the erasure of science, of evidence. It’s horrific.

[Inspirational Intro Music]

Rebecca Ching: Many things we consider true or not controversial now galvanize intense debates and deep polarization. For those of us of a certain age, you may feel the whiplash and the frenzy around things you were raised to know to be accurate now turned upside down, leaving you feeling disoriented and exhausted from the constant barrage of information, questioning everything. Let me tell ya, I get it.

Now, I firmly believe questioning ideas, beliefs, data sets, theories, when done in good faith and with a desire to support the greater good, is a critical practice and discourse in our culture. And I believe healthy questioning can leave you feeling even clearer about a belief or discover holes in a perspective that may need reevaluation. This is a win win for me. When this healthy questioning meets the attention, culture, and make-money-on-everything culture that we all live in now with forces that want to control, dismantle, profit, and cause chaos, well, it leaves a hot mess in its wake and where we turn on each other and lower our capacity for conflict and discomfort, leaving us exhausted.

2:07

So what’s a leader to do? (And you’re a leader.) Especially when the issues debated are outside your expertise, how do you respond? Today, as part two of this science communications series, I welcome another incredible leader, scientist, and communicator deeply invested in tackling misinformation, who shares some critical reflections on what we can do and not do to fight misinformation regardless of our training and expertise.

And a little bit of housekeeping before we move into the show. If you are not subscribed to the show, go to your favorite place to listen to podcasts, make sure that you’re subscribed so you don’t miss a show, and if you are a regular listener or have been impacted by this show, I’d be honored if you left a rating and a review and shared this episode with folks you think may benefit from it.

I’m Rebecca Ching, and you’re listening to The Unburdened Leader, the show that goes deep with humans who navigate life’s challenges and lead in their own ways. Our goal is to learn how they address the burdens they carry, how they learn from them and become better and more impactful leaders of themselves and others.

You’ve probably heard or maybe even said one of the following: “I don’t want to get political,” or “Ugh, that’s political,” or “Let’s keep this from getting political,” or some iteration of those, right? But what does it actually mean to be “political”? So at its core, something is considered political when it relates to power, governance, policies, or how society is organized. Politics isn’t just about elections and government. It’s about how decisions get made and who is impacted.

4:01

Philosopher Hannah Arendt described politics as the space where people come together to negotiate their collective future. So when you say, “That’s political,” what you often may mean, whether you realize it or not, is that it involves power, influence, and the ability to shape outcomes.

And I’ve been contemplating this question, this kind of response about being too political for some time, and as leaders, yes, yes, yes, we need to be discerning about what we discuss, with whom, and in what spaces, yes. But when we work with people from different backgrounds and different lived experiences and viewpoints, is it truly possible or even responsible to remain neutral? And on this topic of neutrality, I always go back to my time when I lived in Switzerland, a country that prides itself on neutrality, yet in World War II, Swiss banks accepted Nazi gold. That’s not neutrality. That’s complicity. And I wonder if our collective discomfort with being “political” is often less about true neutrality and more about avoiding discomfort or, worse, silencing conversations outright. I know this is something many of you’ve experienced not just professionally but in your families of origin, right?

Recently, this dynamic played out in a professional chat group I’m a part of. And the discussion started when someone posted a travel advisory warning from their consulate, noting that it was currently unsafe for people from their country to travel to the US. And this was in response to a workshop that was being promoted that’s being held in The United States. The reaction was swift. The head of the organization, who is American (living abroad but American) jumped in to say, “Let’s not get political. This is a safe space for supporting one another.”

6:00

Yeah, that’s a big sigh because the rub here for me, the person sharing the advisory wasn’t trying to be political. They were simply passing along safety information because many people in this group live abroad and aren’t American, and by shutting down the conversation, the leadership made it political. And as one of my producers pointed out when I shared this story, they said, “Saying something isn’t political doesn’t make it so. But shutting down a discussion is inherently political, and it often escalates tension rather than easing it.”

I suspect many of you have been in spaces where discussions were stifled, not because they were reckless or inflammatory, but because leaders feared losing control. That’s not neutrality. That’s avoidance. And avoidance does not make a space safe, it makes it fragile. And I bring this up because I hear so many people say, “I don’t want to get political. We need to stay neutral. We need to keep things safe,” or some iteration, right? But we’re living in a time where there’s an immense battle for our attention and a deliberate effort to overwhelm us so we disengage and stop pushing back against policies and rhetoric and misinformation that directly impact our safety, freedom, and wellbeing, not just in the US but globally.

So what if everything is political? And hear me out. What if everything’s political but not in a divisive way, in a way that just acknowledges impact. What if we reclaimed political as a means of care rather than a tool for judgment and deflection? Because when we label something political in a pejorative way, we encourage people to tap out or get really reactionary, and at a time when science, health, food security, education, mental wellbeing are all being politicized, y’all, tapping out is not an option, and as leaders, neutrality is impossible. But creating cultures of openness, generosity, courage, meaningful discussion, that’s essential, and that brings me to today’s guest.

8:16

Dr. Jess Steier of The Unbiased Science Podcast knows first-hand what it means to stand in the cross hairs of politicized discourse. She faces death threats, y’all, (death threats!) and relentless vitriol directed at her because of her Jewish and female identities, and her family gets all of this too, all for doing the critical work of science communication. And yet, she continues to show up balancing her full-time job, parenting, partnership, while pushing back against dangerous misinformation with empathy and rigor. As leaders, our job is not to tap out when conversations get uncomfortable. It’s to support leaders like Dr. Steier and those in our community because calling something too political and shutting down the conversation, that’s the plan and that’s the best way to subvert it is to stay engaged. All right, let me tell you a little bit more about the amazing Jess Steier.

Dr. Jessica Steier, or Jess, as she likes to be known, is a DRPH. She’s got her doctorate in public health. She’s a public health scientist, advocate, science communicator, and founder of Vital Statistics, and she’s driven on a mission to bridge divides and foster trust through empathetic and evidence-based communication. As the founder of Unbiased Science podcast and newsletter, she’s committed to breaking free from echo chambers as much as she can and tackling health and science literacy with clarity and compassion.

Dr. Steier specializes in evaluation science, leveraging data and storytelling to inform health policy and program improvement.

10:01

Her work focuses on building connections, encouraging dialogue, and making complex scientific concepts accessible to diverse audiences. I’m excited for this conversation and to share this with you, so let’s get to it in this Unburdened Leader conversation with Dr. Jess Steier.

——-

Rebecca Ching: I am so thrilled to be here with you, Dr. Jess Steier! Welcome to The Unburdened Leader podcast!

Dr. Jessica Steier: I’m so excited to be here! Thank you for having me!

Rebecca Ching: I am so excited to have this conversation. As I was sharing with you before we started recording how much I’ve been talking about your work and your approach to your work, and I want to get into some pretty nitty gritty stuff, but first, I’d love for our listeners to understand a little bit more about your story and what catalyst drew you to focus on public health as a career and then how did misinformation emerge as a critical area for your work?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Uh-huh. And I could honestly talk about this for hours, but I’ll try to give you the short and sweet version. So, I mean, like many people, I had a personal experience with a loved one who was very sick, and that was my father. He had COPD. I watched him suffer for many, many years, and ultimately he lost that fight in December 2019 with COPD and bladder cancer just being too much for his body. But this was something I watched him navigate for decades. And so, I was always drawn to health, you know, because I guess watching him and seeing how it impacted him and our family. You know that classic saying: health is wealth. It is so true. If you’re experiencing poor health or someone you know is experiencing poor health, you know how that impacts your entire world, right? So I always knew health was interesting to me.

12:01

For a while there I thought, “Oh, should I go into clinical medicine?” I took the biology, the chemistry courses. Not for me. I was always a math person, a math brain. I loved my calculus courses, my statistics courses, and then I found, after a whole lot of trials and tribulations thinking I was going to medical school, working at a preclinical lab, doing all kinds of things, I found out about this magical field of public health that would allow me to combine my passion for health and also math. It’s all about, you know — well, there are lots of different fields within public health, but I’ve always been drawn to the biostatistics, the epidemiology, the evaluation of health policies and programs. And so, it was like my unicorn, and I couldn’t love it more than I do.

Rebecca Ching: You know, it’s interesting, I just had Dr. Jonathan Stea on the podcast.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Love him!

Rebecca Ching: I believe you both know each other.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yes!

Rebecca Ching: And he also shared, too, his draw to this work was watching one of his parents have long-term health issues, and I think there are so many people with lived experiences around this work, and I really value your approach and your education, and I first found you on your podcast, The Unbiased Science Podcast, which you focus on bringing evidence-based science to a wide audience. And I’m curious, how do you respond to people who question whether science can ever truly be unbiased, especially right now in such a polarized climate? 

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, it’s a great question, and it’s one that I’m honestly asked all the time, and I’m not gonna lie to you. Sometimes I regret going with the name Unbiased Science, but ultimately, I stand by it and here’s why.

So my background is really in data science and research design, and when we design studies, the whole goal is to minimize bias, and there are so many different types of bias, right? Not just the bias that we think of as humans, right, having bias, but there’s collection bias, information bias, sampling bias. And so, we do whatever we can to minimize that. But to answer your question, no. There’s no such thing as a total elimination of bias. Our best proxy for that is the gold standard randomized control trials, but it’s really no. You can’t achieve it. It was more my nod to this concept of bias in research design. And also, quite frankly, I liked the way it sounded. It rhymed and the flow of it, so I thought it was kind of catchy.

14:34

Rebecca Ching: You’ve got to have some of that stuff in mind too. And I appreciate you saying that. So, you know, you talk about the gold standard like, “I’m trained in this –.” You know, we were taught about what’s the gold standard of research. What’s research? What are types of research? I studied that in grad school on a high level. I went to more of a clinical program, so we didn’t do research. But we were taught to read it and understand it and communicate it. And you talk about not eliminating biases. One of the things I hear so much is, “Well, that’s just biased.” It’s a good dismissal of facts. And I’m wondering, like you’re saying, “I’m unbiased,” and everyone’s saying, “Everything’s biased,” you can’t be pure about it, but there’s almost this expectation of, “You have to be perfect for me to believe you.”

Dr. Jessica Steier: Mm-hmm. 

Rebecca Ching: And I’d just love your thoughts on that.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, yes. I mean, it makes it quite difficult, actually, to be a science communicator because just as a scientist, we’re trained to really — we’re all about that rigor and the transparency. We want to dot our I’s and cross our T’s, but you can’t answer every single question. You can’t anticipate every single comment or pushback, and I guess one thing I’d comment is that I’m always so — I don’t know. I get frustrated because it feels like we as scientists are held to a double standard, and forget if you’re talking about something like vaccines. I mean, holy moly, you know?

16:08

Everybody wants to know every data point, and I get it, and we could unpack it and talk more about that, right? You want to know what’s being put in your body. But why don’t we hold — the wellness industry is something I talk quite a bit about. Why aren’t we holding supplements to that same standard? Why is it ok that those companies like Pharma, it’s also a multi-trillion-dollar company, and they’re not held to the same standards. There is no regulation. They don’t need to show their safety and efficacy data. It’s just this weird double standard that I feel like scientists and those of us in healthcare are held to. Just to be clear, I don’t think it’s a bad thing to be held to a high standard.

Rebecca Ching: Absolutely.

Dr. Jessica Steier: It’s this we’re not all held to that standard, it seems. There’s bias in that, in the way that we apply those standards.

Rebecca Ching: Well, I think that’s a parallel. I saw someone writing about what’s happening here in The States with federal workers, and someone saying, “We’re holding federal workers as a whole to the standard of perfection where there’s never room for mistake,” you know? But we’re not doing the YOU-turn. We’re not looking at how we’re living our own life. We’re only putting it on others. And there are a lot of psychological phenomenons around that.

Another thing that Jonathan brought up, too, in our conversation was he was like those of us that are in any kind of public, forward-facing training, we weren’t trained to deal with this kind of vitriol and this kind of pushback. You know, you’re trained how to do a really good study, how to analyze the numbers, how to set up a study, but not the handle this kind of — and you’ve really stood out, both of you have, in that. But that perfection standard that we hold to others but not to scientists or the people we’ve lost trust in, but then other people get a pass is probably one of the most infuriating things I suspect for you.

18:00

Dr. Jessica Steier: A thousand percent. And just before I jumped on this — I mean, first of all, I had one of many death threats and being cursed out and this and that. I mean, it’s horrific. But obviously right now vaccines are a hot topic, and I know I keep bringing them up, and we can certainly talk about other things, but, you know, this pushback about —

Rebecca Ching: Oh, we’ll get there.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Uh oh, oh, oh, I’m bracing myself! But you know, “How come there have not been any double-blinded RCTs on looking at vaccines and autism?” And it’s like people get these buzzwords in their head, right? Like, okay, good. We’ve learned the term double-blind RCT, that’s great. But you don’t have the nuance or understanding that it would be completely unethical today knowing the incredible value of vaccines to withhold those vaccines from children in an RCT. That’s why we don’t do a double-blind RCT, right? Instead we rigorously assess massive amounts of observational data, and again, I’m happy to talk more about this. But it’s like they’re demanding these things. First of all, you’re ignoring all of the incredible data we do have, the massively overwhelming scientific and medical consensus on these topics, and you’re nitpicking that we don’t have this double-blinded RCT, but there’s a very valid and important reason why we don’t, you know? So sorry, I could go on for hours. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: No, and you do that on your show and in your forward-facing education on social media where folks are like, “I need to study the science,” and everyone’s like, “It’s been studied.” And there’s a gap, I think, in folks feeling like what’s accessible. And I will touch on this with the vaccines and autism piece too because I’m like, “Can we just zoom out on that question? What’s your problem if someone has autism?” You know, can we have a conversation around that? So that’s a whole nothing thing for me.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yes.

Rebecca Ching: It’s very personal to me.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yes.

Rebecca Ching: But before we move off the unbiased piece, I want to ask you — as I’m sure you’ve looked at this — what biases do you know that you bring to your work, and how do you check those biases?

20:07

Dr. Jessica Steier: I mean, if I’m being honest, try as I might to avoid it, I think there is a level of confirmation bias that I bring and that everyone brings, and when I say confirmation bias, it’s seeking out information that aligns with my beliefs, right?

Rebecca Ching: Right. Right, right.

Dr. Jessica Steier: And so, I will tell you that anytime I sit down to do a social media post or to prep for a long-form Substack or a podcast episode, I’m very, very clear to really go, “What are people saying? What are the questions? What is everyone reading? What are we all looking at?” And then really trying to zoom out and, as objectively as possible, evaluate, critically-appraise the evidence that exists before me. And that is very difficult to do. And, you know, I always say I really try to not create an echo chamber with unbiased science, and I want to be mindful that even though I’m trying not to (again, try as I might) there is still an echo chamber. I am still mainly interacting with folks who are science-minded. I want to connect with those who are more skeptical or don’t have access to this information. But just by design, the algorithm puts me in front of people who are like minded. So just really trying to keep that in mind as I create content.

Rebecca Ching: Well, one of the things I’ve really appreciated about what you create — so thank you for saying that, and there are a couple things. So first, I was listening to a podcast a few weeks ago that was talking about just the massive changes in media, and I knew this, but it didn’t click in my brain. But they’re like, “No, basically, you’ve got folks listening to two different media.” There are two different sides of media, and there probably are not just two, but I could go through a day and listen to something that’s so different, and I hear you saying trying to hear what everyone’s saying, and I’m like, you know, I need to commit to that even more so even if it’s challenging, so that I can help address those concerns. And I really do think you provide content in a way that is a bridge so those of us who are science-minded can go, “Oh, my gosh. She just said that so well with compassion. I’m gonna share this with someone who’s rumbling with this issue.”

22:26

So I do appreciate that you’re giving many of us tools to share and bridge kind of the chasm of, “I’m only hearing this about vaccines or raw milk,” or you name it.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Right.

Rebecca Ching: And I think it’s also important you touch on what are our biases and owning them, and it’s not a bad thing, necessarily, to have a bias. I think sometimes, “You’re biased.” I’m like, “Yes. Yes, I am.” But it doesn’t make it wrong, our relationship with our own biases. It’s more for just like this is what — you know, we plow through, and we lose our curiosity is where it’s dangerous. So I just want to thank you for that.

You touched on this just now too. I can’t remember where I pulled this from, but you wrote that expertise without connection leaves us talking to ourselves, right? This is what I’m kind of reflecting on. And so, for you, what does expertise without connection look like in practice, and how can we avoid falling into that trap?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Mm-hmm. So yeah, and this actually stemmed — there was a fantastic piece put out by NPR. I guess it’s been several months now, but I believe the title was “Connection Not Correction.” And the whole point is that, you know, if people wanted — I mean, this was in the context of science and health misinformation, right? If people just wanted the science, they would open up the science textbook. That’s not how we educate people and reach people. You have to start from a place of connection. You have to first establish common ground and realize, like I always say, at the end of the day, the mother who doesn’t vaccinate her child, she thinks she’s making the best decision for her child.

24:09

So let me start from a place of connection. I’m a mother. I’m a human. I understand that mama bear instinct. I get it. But now let’s talk about how some of the information you’ve been exposed to, it actually really isn’t accurate. So you want to start from this place of humanity.

And to your point, you know, what does that look like without that connection, I think it feels very cold and clinical and didactic and lacks heart and soul, and I think it can come across as very patronizing, very holier than thou, very ivory tower. And I think that a lot of people who communicate science and health, they probably have really good intentions, but they get so frustrated with things that they’re reading and the misinformation that that frustration comes through as judgment, and I don’t know how many conversations you’ve had with someone where you feel like you’re being judged, you’re not exactly receptive to information, right? You shut down, you get defensive, and that’s it. That’s the end of the story.

So that’s why I always try to lead with some sort of empathy, bridge building, meet people where they are. At the end of the day, yeah, we certainly don’t agree on all things. We don’t see eye to eye on all things. There are certainly some things where we do see eye to eye, so let’s start there.

Rebecca Ching: I love that, and I honestly think, too, there’s a big push why people are so sick of being corrected, why we’re seeing such a backlash on really important issues around diversity, equity, and inclusion because I think we got a little elitist and judgy and holier-than-thou on it. And so, even though those issues are very important to me, I’m just like the communication of it, I’ve been really kind of just eating some humble pie around that.

26:00

So thank you for that. I’m curious, then, on the flipside, right — I’m so curious what you’re gonna say to this because I have opinions. On the flipside, though, what does connection without expertise look like in science education?

Dr. Jessica Steier: I don’t think it is science education. I think it’s a whole lot of what we’re seeing in real time on social media. It’s the misinformation machine. It’s the wellness influencers. It’s people who don’t have that expertise, and I do not want to weaponize expertise. I always say, yeah, I have a doctorate.

Rebecca Ching: Yes!

Dr. Jessica Steier: But I don’t think I’m better than anyone, you know what I mean?

Rebecca Ching: Yes.

Dr. Jessica Steier: But I do know my stuff when it comes to public health, you know? If I want to design a house, I’m gonna call in an architect. If I have a flood, I’m gonna call a plumber. We all have our areas of expertise, right? But I think there’s this interesting thing that social media has opened the floodgates. It gives people a platform and this false sense of authority. Just because you have a platform doesn’t mean that you’re an expert in something.

And my goodness, I mean, right now we’re dealing with a whole lot of misinformation about measles and the MMR vaccine, and just seeing the number of posts these people with no actual expertise in science or medicine, with such authority, talking about how, “Eh, measles isn’t that bad for you. Only people who have vitamin A deficiencies struggle with measles, so all you have to do is take vitamin A supplementation,” and “Oh, so many more people are dying from the MMR vaccine than measles.” And it’s so difficult — sorry if I’m going off on a tangent — to push back against these things because it’s magical thinking. It’s completely fabricated. How do I even begin to undo the harm of this messaging? I truly don’t know where to begin. And it’s so much harder because you have to go back through so many layers of information and some foundational information and biology and immunology and how vaccines work and bodies work, and it’s so complicated. [Laugh]

28:10

So it’s quite, quite frustrating, and I think there’s a lot of connection without correction, is that how you phrased it? And both are unbelievably dangerous, you know? One really irks me more. I think of the very ivory-tower, hoity-toity people (I think you said this) who just want to sound like the smartest person in the room. Do you really care about helping people and having them learn something, or do you just want to sound smart? But then this other side it’s also unbelievably harmful because it’s poisoning the well with really, really, really bad information, and because you’re establishing a connection and that’s your focus, people really, really trust you, right? And that’s the problem, and that’s the difficult part. Sorry, go on. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Don’t apologize. No, and I think any of us understand the power of trust, right, which is connection without expertise in the area of science education looks like death, looks like harm.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Right.

Rebecca Ching: So addressing misinformation can feel like an uphill battle, and I’m like it is an uphill battle. [Laughs] And in your experience, what approaches have been the most effective in countering misinformation, and what strategies have you used that tend to backfire?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, I think giving people some credit, right? I think I’ve heard these canned (I’ll just keep going back to vaccines), “vaccines are safe and effective!” That type of messaging, I mean, first of all, we’ve all heard it a trillion times. It’s lost its meaning. It’s like when you say a word so many times it starts sounding funny to you, you know? It’s like we’re numb to it at this point.

30:01

So what I find more effective is, “Here’s why the consensus is that vaccines are a good idea,” and I’ll actually point to papers and studies, and I’ll walk through the data and the research that’s been done. The other thing is we can’t ignore that — you know, I never want to say there are two sides to science. I don’t think that that’s accurate. I mean, science is not a right or wrong, right? It’s an exploration of information, but there is a consensus on topics. But I think it’s helpful to acknowledge some of the voices that maybe have voiced concern. Again, using the vaccine example of studies that people use to raise red flags about them. Let’s talk about this. Let’s not pretend that they don’t exist, but let’s talk about why this has not swayed the scientific consensus.

So I think it’s more, again, not just these very dismissive, empty statements. It’s let’s actually get into the nitty gritty. Let’s lift the hood.

Rebecca Ching: Yeah, and understanding why they don’t trust. Getting to the heart of where did you lose your trust.

Dr. Jessica Steier: A thousand percent.

Rebecca Ching: I think though a lot of folks are wanting to come in for a fight, and they don’t want a relationship. They want to be right.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Right.

Rebecca Ching: You know that saying, “Do you want to be right, or do you want the relationship?” And how do you — you just kind of dropped in casually like, “Yeah, I just had a death threat.” Can I just say that is so not okay. It is so — it’s normal with the people I’ve been interviewing lately about a lot of these hot topics. It is normal to say these horrendous things, and you keep showing up. You keep showing up. That is not okay, and I think as women, too, there’s another layer to that.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, yeah.

Rebecca Ching: I just want to say I understand righteous anger, but it’s like there’s a point where this has tipped to where we stop seeing a human being in front of us, you know?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, absolutely.

Rebecca Ching: Yeah, go ahead.

32:09

Dr. Jessica Steier: No, I was just gonna say you’re 100% right. I think it is unfortunately normalized now for those of us who are public facing in the science and health space. It’s terrible, and I think, now more than ever, a lot of folks are unfortunately questioning whether they want to take a step back, which is terrible because we need their voices and their information more than ever. But it is scary. I’ve had to involve police. I’ve had to invest in security systems. I mean, I had to really take a step back and think I have two young kids, a family. Is it worth it? You know, I don’t know. It’s something that I ask myself every day. Obviously, I’m still here, so I do still feel that it is important. It’s become my life’s passion. I love doing it. But yeah, I mean, it’s absolutely terrifying.

And to your point, being a woman, and by the way being a Jewish woman, the things I’ve heard it’s like, “Uh-oh!” How many things can we pull in to — you know, I won’t repeat the things here because they really are horrendous. But yeah, you know, the dehumanization that social media and just being behind a phone or a computer, you know, these people feel, I don’t know, like it’s okay to say these things to another human being. It is a huge, huge problem.

Rebecca Ching: And I think that’s like bullying. I know it’s so interesting because I’m working on a proposal for something around kind of the people with a past experience of bullying or being bullies or being bullied and then the bystanders, and there isn’t a lot of research with adults or the workplace or even public facing. You know, there’s a lot of stuff K through 12, but there’s a curiosity. I’m like I think the folks that are hanging in there — we could get in the nerdy therapy, it’s like, “You must have had some secure attachments in your story because you’re handling this. You must have good resources,” you know? It’s ridiculous that you have to go be so trauma informed and do all this care just to talk about science, you know?

34:17

Dr. Jessica Steier: Mm-hmm.

Rebecca Ching: But I think that’s the plan. I mean, I think the chaos and the cruelty is the point right now in our culture.

Dr. Jessica Steier: A thousand percent, and I will say I do my best to steer clear of overt politics just really in an attempt to reach across the aisle and reach a lot of folks. But I will say in the last couple of months there has been a very noticeable uptick in the violent messages and the threats. So I don’t know if it’s folks feeling empowered?

Rebecca Ching: Yes!

Dr. Jessica Steier: You know, the MAHA movement, in particular.

Rebecca Ching: Yes.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, it’s wild. So yeah, it’s not great! And just behind the scenes, there are a lot of us who are really banding together.

Rebecca Ching: Good.

Dr. Jessica Steier: We’re forming these kind of support groups.

Rebecca Ching: Good!

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, it is good, and it’s so necessary, and honestly, I don’t think I’d be able to keep doing it without these people. Just to be clear, this is not just a Jessica issue. This is a lot of people. I’m not unique in this. Some people have experienced horrific doxing and really, really, really awful things. But yeah, I’m just super grateful for the community, and I think it’s interesting that — you know, and I’m sure you know this — but in science and in medicine and in these circles, there can be a lot of egos.

Rebecca Ching: No.

Dr. Jessica Steier: And not everyone plays — no, right? Not everyone is super collegial and necessarily plays nice in the sandbox. And I love that I’m seeing more collaboration more than ever. It’s not perfect, but a lot of us have really banded together. And also just super important, interdisciplinary, being able to respond quickly and in real time because the folks who are putting in misinformation — I don’t know if you know this, but we’ve come to learn that they’re so unbelievably organized to the point where they have calendars, they have scheduled attacks on scientific topics.

36:11

And we’re there cross-checking references because we care so much about being factual and rigorous and everything. You know, they’ll put out information and then a month later we’re showing [Laughs] a statement. Sorry, I know that struck you. That was news to you, the whole organized — [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Well, it was but it wasn’t. Because the reality is it is very organized and calculated.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Mm-hmm. Right.

Rebecca Ching: And I just kind of like, oh, my gosh, yeah, of course, in the science space too. Of course if we discredit trust in institutions, science is one of them, of course.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah.

Rebecca Ching: And it feels good to be a part of something that’s maybe fighting, there’s something to take down. I’d like to believe that, at least the people I know that have really been impacted by the MAHA movement would not be sending death threats to you. It’s coming from their own experiences and not feeling heard and some other things that I might disagree with immensely.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Right.

Rebecca Ching: But are there conversations within your colleagues who are doing a lot of forward-facing public education around science around how to be more coordinated and planned?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, yes. Things that are not — I hate to be so mysterious. But a lot of things are happening in the background. I think a lot of us have recognized the time has come. No more silos. No more doing our own thing. We’ve got to band together, and we’ve got to do this. We really have to do this. The problem, of course, is that there’s no real infrastructure for what we’re trying to do, and there’s also — 99% of us are doing this as a passion project, right? Because you can’t get paid to do science communication, because then when you do you get called a shill. I mean the very few times I’ve accepted paid sponsorships or partnerships, I mean, it almost has cost me more because I’m so —

Rebecca Ching: Totally.

Dr. Jessica Steier: I’m paying such close attention to everything I’m saying, and everything is sourced, and I’m being totally transparent. But the people who are putting out the bad information, they’re selling detox teas and whatever the heck they’re selling. And they can make a living, so they could do that full time because it is lucrative. So something has to change, and everyone is out there sort of patting us on the back like, “Oh, this is so important,” but no one’s taken out the checkbook, so we’re trying to figure out on a large scale we need some real infrastructure for us to do this, and that’s why a lot of us are frustrated. We’re doing this after our day jobs and before we’re cooking dinner for our kids. It’s not sustainable.

38:42

Rebecca Ching: So I’m curious, there are a lot of folks who maybe their life changed because of a supplement or because of an unorthodox procedure or something, and they want to share it. They have a big platform, and they’re just sharing, “Oh, my gosh. This changed my life. I want to be helpful.” What common traps do you see, especially well-meaning people, fall into when addressing complex public health topics, and how can those of us who want to share something or talk about something, how can we avoid those traps when we’re sharing?

Dr. Jessica Steier: So I think about a friend of mine who — what was it? He was doing one of those diets. It was like the anti-inflammatory diet, one of the trendy diets, and he said, “Jessica, I saw you did a post on this, you did a podcast on this or whatever, but I’m telling you, this thing changed my life.” And so, I started talking to him. I was asking him a little bit more. “Okay, did you happen to make any other changes in your life?” “Well, you know, now that you mention it, I also started walking three times a day.” He was talking about all these other changes he was implementing. And so, he didn’t realize it, but we were actually talking about the fundamentals of research design, right? Because what I was bringing up were these other confounding variables, these other things that are also impacting that outcome. So I think people are very likely to attribute, you know, we do this for better or for worse, right, or for good things or bad things, I should say.

40:10

“This thing happened after I started doing this, so that caused it,” right? Correlation is not causation, all that good stuff. And I get it, especially if you’re seeing a positive change, and if you’ve been suffering for a while, and you’re starting to feel better, you want to celebrate. You want to sing it from the rooftops. But I think we have to remember that everybody is different. We’re also maybe not cognizant when we’re an N of 1 of other things that are happening that might be impacting outcomes, and that’s sort of the beauty of the scientific process is it’s like we’re looking at your experience, and your experience does matter, but we have to design these studies to see if that is likely to happen to other people who maybe don’t have all the same characteristics of you, you know? Can we generalize your experience to other people?

So I would just caution against a general attributing causality to anything, right? And very reductionist, black and white, all or none statements. I always say it’s not sexy but really the nuance matters so much. It is so much about the gray, and we can’t make sweeping statements, and honestly, this is something that I see even scientists will fall into, “This is all good.” Bringing up vaccines again. Yeah, vaccines are amazing, but we also should acknowledge that for some people there are some bad outcomes, right? So you can’t say anything is all good or all bad.

Rebecca Ching: Absolutely. I think it’s really tricky because some people feel like, “This is my public service. I want to get the word out about this,” especially those with large platforms. But maybe a little kind of a tweak in that question is what do you see as the biggest mistakes people with influence make when talking to their audiences about science and health and wellness?

42:03

Dr. Jessica Steier: I mean, where do I begin? No, I mean, hmm, a lot of things come to mind right now, and I’m not sure where to take it. Aside from what I’m seeing, like these over-simplified statements, I think taking a nugget of truth or maybe, I don’t know if this is really what you mean, but a nugget from a particular study and saying, “Well, look! The science says this!” And really exaggerating the impact of one study, which maybe was done in a petri dish or in rats or something like that, or maybe it was in humans, but it was ten humans, or maybe they didn’t really control further variables and factors. And so, when something is new, these really overly-confident statements and certainty that people convey, I see a lot of these wellness influencers convey, it’s just not warranted. You can’t make those statements.

I think the other thing is that we all, or many people, really are looking for control.

Rebecca Ching: Yes! Yes.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Right? And so, the nuance, that’s not very empowering. We like all-or-nothing statements like —

Rebecca Ching: It’s not sexy.

Dr. Jessica Steier: No, it’s not sexy.

Rebecca Ching: It is not sexy. [Laughs]

Dr. Jessica Steier: No! “If you take this supplement, it is going to revolutionize –,” right? And it’s just not sexy to say, “Well, maybe for some people, if you meet da-da-da-da-da criteria –,” once we start getting into those details, people are like, “Okay, yawn. Tell me what I can do that will change my health in a good way,” and that is what I think the wellness industry has done a really good job of giving people a sense of control over their health.

And I think you said before, you were like, “What’s a good red flag, or what should the public sort of be on the lookout for?” And I would say if you’re reading something online that’s eliciting an extremely strong emotional reaction, that’s a pretty good indicator that the messaging was really designed to elicit a strong emotional response and maybe they’re sort of sweeping some facts under the rug and trying to get your heart to take over your head, you know?

33:14

So I always say that’s a pretty good indication of, “Alert! Alert! Tread carefully!”

[Inspirational Music]

Rebecca Ching: Leading is hard. It’s also often controversial as you navigate staying aligned to your values, your mission, your boundaries. Navigating the inevitable controversy can challenge your confidence, clarity, and calm. I know you don’t mind making the hard decisions, but sometimes the stakes seem higher and can bring up echoes of old doubts and insecurities during times when you need to feel rock solid on your plan and action.

Finding a coach who gets the nuances of your business and leading in our complex and polarized world can help you identify the blocks that keep you playing it safe and small. Leading today is not a fancy title or fluffy bragging rights. No, it’s like a full-contact sport, sadly. It’s brave and bold work to stay the course when the future is unknown and the doubts and pains from your past keep showing up to shake things up. Internal emotional practices and systemic strategies are needed to keep the protector of cynicism at bay and foster a hope that is actionable and aligned.

When the stakes are high and you don’t want to lose focus, when you want to navigate inevitable conflict between your ears, with those you lead, and with the haters on the internet, jeeze, when time is of the essence and you want to make hard decisions with confidence and clarity, then Unburdened Leader Coaching is for you where you deepen the capacity to tolerate the vulnerability of change, conflict, innovation, and doing things differently than you were taught. To start your Unburdened Leader Coaching process with me go to www.rebeccaching.com and book a free connection call. I can’t wait to hear from you!

[Inspirational Music]

46:17

Rebecca Ching: Okay, so I want to shift to some of the juicy topics, all right? You’ve been talking about vaccines and measles and all these different things right now. If you want to have people take away one or two things — I know I’m really pushing you on this.

Dr. Jessica Steier: You’re pushing! [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: When it comes to measles and natural immunity, what do you want listeners to know if they can amplify in their circles of influence?

Dr. Jessica Steier: The virus that causes measles, it messes up our immune system, and I would remind people that death is not the only outcome of measles, right? I see a lot of people harping on the fact that, “Oh, the case vitality rate for measles is something like 2-3% in the US.” It’s like, okay, well, still. Those are human lives! You’re being very flippant with those lives, right? Statistics, these are human lives. But, you know, measles can cause so many other things, and one of the scariest things is this immune amnesia. It basically makes our immune system weaker and unable or less able to fight off other infections, and it is not just a rash. This idea that it’s just a rash or that they’re beneficial in any way, I mean, I’ve seen wild things about it being protective against cancer — absolutely not.

The final big thing that I’ve been hearing constantly is that vitamin A is a totally safe alternative to vaccination. Wrong. Vaccination prevents transmission. So the vaccination will stop you from ever getting infected. It’s so good it’s 97% effective after both doses of getting measles, which means that your immune system is not being put through the ringer. If you get measles, now you’re taking the risk. You don’t know what it’s doing to your body, right? And yes, we do have some data that vitamin A could be helpful, particularly for people who have vitamin A deficiencies, but to say it’s a replacement for vaccination just so grossly misunderstands what happens to our bodies when we’re dealing with a virus as scary as measles. measles is the most infectious thing that we are currently aware of. Ninety percent of people who are in a room with someone with measles, if you’re unvaccinated, will be infected with measles.

48:37

So, sorry, I could go on and on and on about this, but it messes you up!

Rebecca Ching: Our new Secretary of Health and Human Services said that measles outbreaks are, like, common and whatever, it’s no big deal.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah.

Rebecca Ching: Say more, please. [Laughs]

Dr. Jessica Steier: So measles, first of all, the last measles death was a decade ago, right, so a whole decade, and the reasons we haven’t, by the way, been seeing a whole lot of measles or death from measles is because of the measles vaccine! I don’t understand how people don’t understand that. But yeah, for him to say that it’s common is just bewildering. It is not common. Again, it’s been ten years, a decade since we saw someone die. It was eradicated in the US for a time. But because it’s so contagious (and I know a lot of people know this) we had to have such high herd immunity, such high thresholds of vaccine uptick of that 95% or higher that even slight reductions below that 95% spell disaster for something as contagious as measles. So yeah.

Rebecca Ching: I was reading that part of its efficacy and spreading is because it can linger in the air for hours.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yep.

Rebecca Ching: And I thought that was just different than what we came to understand about COVID. We weren’t sure at first. And that people sometimes don’t show symptoms up until maybe a couple weeks later. So they can — yeah, they might not know they have it because they’re not exhibiting the symptoms.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, that’s exactly right.

Rebecca Ching: It’s still scary stuff!

Dr. Jessica Steier: It is scary, and you’re still super contagious even if you’re not symptomatic but you’ve been infected, right? So terrifying. Measles scares me.

Rebecca Ching: You talk about immune amnesia.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Mm-hmm.

Rebecca Ching: And so, in a non-specialized way, that tells me, okay, that means that my immune system forgets to do its job. Measles comes in, it fritzes everything, and it doesn’t fight the things it needs to fight.

50:41

Dr. Jessica Steier: Correct, and that could last for years.

Rebecca Ching: So if I get measles, and I still survive, I could probably be open and subject to getting a life-long bunch of illnesses because my immune system has been suppressed? Is that correct?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yes. Well, I’m not an immunologist, by the way. I’m not a hundred percent. My lay, non-immunologist perspective is exactly what you said. It’s almost like our immune system forgets how to fight properly, leaving us susceptible to really bad things happening if and when we ultimately come into contact with other pathogens, yeah. And there are so many other outcomes too like SSPE (I forget what that stands for) and encephalopathy and brain swelling and inflammation. This idea that measles is this, “Just a rash, no big deal –.”

I mean, there were some really powerful posts from doctors. There’s this pediatrician who’s like, “Today I resuscitated a kid who was choking on a piece of chicken and had 104 fever and was dealing with all these things,” and none of that scared me. You know what scares me? Measles scares me. And it’s because so many of our doctors haven’t seen measles. This is like uncharted territory for so many of us, you know? It’s really, really scary, and people are underestimating it.

Rebecca Ching: If there’s one thing you want to say about vaccines and autism, to those listening, what would you say?

52:07

Dr. Jessica Steier: I would tell people that this whole rubbish, all of this conversation started when this guy Andrew Wakefield, he was getting paid by a law firm who was trying to mount a lawsuit against the MMR vaccine manufacturers. He, himself, was coming up with a competitor vaccine. He did this absurd “study.” I put study in air quotes. It was not a study. It was this observation of —

Rebecca Ching: It was abusive.

Dr. Jessica Steier: — yeah, of a dozen kids having a conversation with their parent. There was nothing scientific about this, but this seed got planted and it doesn’t matter that it was retracted. It doesn’t matter that he lost his medical license. It doesn’t matter that we’ve literally looked at this issue for decades now. We’ve done longitudinal studies. There was a massive Denmark longitudinal study over ten years, 500- or 600- or 700,000 children. We looked at that. We’ve now looked at meta-analyses of 1.2 million children. We’ve looked at this in every way possible. I mean, there’s nothing. There’s not even a shred of evidence of this being true, and we just can’t get the horse back in the barn, or whatever the saying is, you know? It’s taken off. But there’s nothing to it. It’s pure fiction.

Rebecca Ching: It’s pure fiction, and it’s so offensive to —

Dr. Jessica Steier: It is offensive!

Rebecca Ching: It’s offensive to anyone with different neurologies —

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yes

Rebecca Ching: — who are incredibly important and valid in our community. They are not a mistake, an accident, whatever. It’s just horrendous, and it’s getting into some scary stuff that we saw in World War II with the attempt to clean up our gene pool. It scares me. It scares me deeply.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, it’s giving eugenics. Sorry, go on.

Rebecca Ching: Yeah, it’s giving it big time. Okay, can we talk about raw milk and the blatant disagreements around its health claims?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, God.

Rebecca Ching: It’s in my local grocery store. They sell it!

54:01

Dr. Jessica Steier: What! Where do you live? Is that legal? Oh, my gosh!

Rebecca Ching: I’m in California. There’s a little market. It’s a bougie market. My daughter works there, and I was grabbing some milk, and I saw raw milk, and I thought, “Oh!” I thought you had to go somewhere to get it, so I don’t know. I don’t know.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, don’t buy the raw milk for a lot of reasons, even before bird flu, H5N, even before this, it’s just not a good idea. It gets you sick, and there are all kinds of bacteria, viruses, parasites. Pasteurization, all it is is heating the milk. It kills the pathogens. And there’s this idea that, “Oh, raw milk is more nutritious,” in absolutely no clinically-meaningful way is that accurate, and there are these myths about, “Oh, it cures lactose intolerance.” I mean, none of this is true. Now throw in the fact that we’re also dealing with this other virus that can be transmitted via raw milk. There’s no benefit. It’s pure risk, no benefit. Don’t drink it.

Rebecca Ching: You’re talking about the bird flu, right?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yes.

Rebecca Ching: Yeah. Oh, okay, how about fluoride? This one boggles my mind because, I mean, again, I’m not in your space, but yeah, it’s kept — I’ve got friends from other countries that are like, “Wow, you guys have such great teeth here in America!” [Laughs]

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah.

Rebecca Ching: Anyways, what would you say about the “controversy” — I put air quotes — the “controversy” around fluoride in drinking water, which was it Idaho or Utah is poised to get rid of it, yeah. 

Dr. Jessica Steier: Utah. Yep. Yep, I mean, there’s so much I want to say. Fluoride, a naturally-occurring mineral. It’s unbelievably impactful on our oral health. Before we had this — I mean, I think people forget oral health, by the way, it’s not just in your mouth. It impacts your whole body. People die from infections that stem from poor oral health. I think, again, public health is a victim of its own success. There have been a lot of studies out there recently that are causing a lot of concern about linking it to low IQ. What people fail to realize is those studies are looking at countries outside of the US with naturally-occurring fluoride levels more than double what we have in our fluoridated water supply.

56:14

We’re talking those studies found minimal impact, we’re talking a two-to-three IQ point difference, and I mean, there’s a whole lot of controversy even around the way we measure IQ. Two-to-three IQ points is a margin of error and also not clinically significant. Those reports that came out did nothing to acknowledge the overwhelming benefits of fluoride. People completely failed to realize the health equity importance of fluoride and that there are a lot of people who don’t have the luxury of going to their dentist once or twice a year for cleanings or taking their kids for those things. And so, fluoride is a very easy way for — having fluoride in our water supply is a very easy way to expose us to a very powerful preventative health tool. And by the way, in other countries, even if they don’t fluoridate their water, they put fluoride in things like milk, in salt. I mean, this idea that, “Other countries don’t use fluoride. Why is America using it?” it just — there’s a lot I can say. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Thank you. All right, and this one seems to get pushed down, but it was pretty sexy during the recent presidential election about red dye in food and its impact on health, please.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, God. Okay.

Rebecca Ching: [Laughs]

Dr. Jessica Steier: Just real, real briefly, I mean, there’s a lot. I’ve tackled this a lot. There are pre-clinicals. When I say pre-clinical, I’m talking about in rats who are exposed to levels of red dye that are so purely hypothetical, theoretical they are orders of magnitude higher than anything that we as humans would ever be exposed to. Yes, there is some evidence that it can cause cancer in those rats.

So now, I mean, depending on how you feel about research, unless you’re a rat and unless you’re consuming boatloads of red dye, you really don’t have to be concerned. In this country, we take something called a risk-based approach whereas other countries take a hazard-based approach.

58:08

I always give the example of a shark, right? A shark is a hazard but unless you’re in the water it’s not a risk, right? So here in the US, we take into account how much red dye we would need to eat.

Rebecca Ching: Jessica, you have not seen Sharknado.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, psh! [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: I’m sorry, you have not seen Sharknado, and I’m sorry. My parents also brought me to Jaws, and I was five years old and I sat in the theatre, and Sharknado proved all my fears true. So therefore —

Dr. Jessica Steier: Okay.

Rebecca Ching: I’m just kidding.

Dr. Jessica Steier: I’m sorry. No, no.

Rebecca Ching: I couldn’t resist, I’m sorry! [Laughs]

Dr. Jessica Steier: No! But you know what it is? Well, it’s funny because a lot of the MAHA people, to them, this is Sharknado, and they think we’re focusing so much on these additives. “Is dye necessary in our foods? Is it necessary?” No, it’s not necessary, but there are things like a lot of psychology to preferences and the ways that we like our food to be. It’s a whole other conversation.

Rebecca Ching: Totally.

Dr. Jessica Steier: But also, eliminating them is not gonna have any kind of wild impact on our health. It frustrates a lot of us in public health because there are so many other things that we know have such a greater impact, and we’re not talking about those things, and we’re focusing on red dye? I mean, the only other thing I’ll say is I’m sure there’ll be people listening who are like, “Well, what about ADHD and hyperactivity?” In a subset of children with existing ADHD, it might exacerbate some of those symptoms. However, it does not cause ADHD. So anyway, I just wanted to make that distinction.

Rebecca Ching: And then lastly, you touched on this briefly, but I just want you to talk about the misrepresentation of conflicts of interest when talking about scientific consensus. What do you want us to understand about that when we hear that noise in the interwebs?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, and you’re gonna be hearing a lot more about that because, you know, RFK’s probably clearing out our entire vaccine advisory board because of what he’s calling conflicts of interest.

1:00:07

First of all, if someone did something like some sort of advisory work for a pharma company, like, three decades ago, that doesn’t strike me as a conflict of interest, right? People should be demanding that scientists are involved in every layer including industry, who else is going to do the science? Who else is going to understand the science and understand the studies and understand the safety data and the efficacy data? And doing some sort of advisory work for industry is very different than profiting off of vaccine sales. Those are completely different things, and I think that they just oversimplify and they throw around this conflict of interest completely ignoring the context of the relationship that they’re called in a conflict of interest. It’s absurd. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Thank you. Do you have any thoughts on the most effective ways to help rebuild trust in communities where it’s not just skepticism but cynicism and misinformation have taken root?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, that’s a big question. That’s a nut that I’m trying to crack. I’d say that the big thing that I try to remind people is that these are human beings. I mean, I think we’re talking about major medical agencies like health and science agencies. They’re so vilified, they’re sort of wrapped up as this evil for-profit entity, like of course ignoring how unbelievably regulated and how all lies — there’s so much transparency and all that good stuff. Human beings work at these agencies, human beings who were drawn to this field because they actually give a crap. I’ve got to tell you, public health is not a lucrative field to get into. If you’re in the field of public health, you’re doing it because you actually care about people. And I just want to remind people they think we’re all pharma shills.

1:02:00

There’s a total misunderstanding of actual flow of money and how so many of us are living paycheck to paycheck. Like I said, we do not get into this field to be rich. So I think there’s just this blanket dehumanization that has happened, and we need to rehumanize health and science.

Rebecca Ching: That’s through story, through connection.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yes.

Rebecca Ching: Yeah, and I do think you’ve brought up a lot of good things for people to think about, and it’s also important for us to have good tools and good resources that you offer. So we don’t have to have all the answers but we can go, “Oh, my gosh. Let me just share with you what Jessica Steier just did on her reel. That just really gave language to what I’ve been feeling.” So thank you for that.

You wrote a poem that I’d love for you to read here, if you’re okay with that, and I’d love for you to share a little bit about what were you doing, what was going on in your mind right before you wrote this, and then I’d love for you to read it.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah, I’d be honored to. It’s been a really emotional time for so many people. I am not unique in this. And I guess it was a week ago at this point. I was lying in bed with my kids, I was getting them to bed, and I hung around even after they fell asleep, and I was listening to them breathe, and I was just having this experience where I was really reflecting on the state of the world and what kind of world are we leaving to them, and it became a lot to handle. And so, my outlet, I actually just did it on my phone. I opened up my little Notes app, and I jotted this down. I’m happy to share it now. I didn’t really think that anyone else would read it, so I’m honored that you actually read it.

“First, they came for the institutions, claiming conflicts and hidden agendas at play. ‘Follow the money,’ they said with conviction, while building their empires of doubt by day. Then they came for the scientists, ‘Bought and biased,’ they declared, while selling their own truth for profit, their hypocrisy left unspared. Then they came for the methods, ‘Wrong questions!’ they would cry. But what they meant was simpler. The answers made their worldview die. Then they came with their research, YouTube videos, and random blogs, trading peer review for popularity and evidence for monologues. They called themselves The Truth Seekers while burning books of centuries’ light, claiming we were all blind followers while leading their own into endless night. And when the consequences came, when preventable ills took their toll, they asked why science failed them, never seeing the truth they stole. Now, who is left to study, to question, to explore, to find when skepticism turns to cynicism and we leave the scientific method behind?”

1:04:51

Rebecca Ching: How does that feel to read that out loud?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Honestly, I’m choking up. I don’t know if you can tell, but there’s a lot of emotion. It really is scary. I’m constantly told, “Oh, you’re exaggerating! It’s not that bad!” I think it’s worse than a lot of us really are willing to admit, and it’s a scary time, and it just feels like the unraveling decades of progress, it feels like we’re reverting to dark, to medieval times, to the dark ages, and it’s very, very scary. These people, they’ve taken control of the narrative, and they have flipped the script. These people, these brilliant scientists, people who have dedicated their lives to public service and to helping others and to medicine are being vilified and fired and choked and not able to do this unbelievably impactful work. It’s horrific. It’s the erasure of science, of evidence. It’s horrific. So it’s quite painful.

1:06:01

Rebecca Ching: Yeah, I felt that reading it too. It’s not fun thinking about the conversations that I might need to have with my kids that I’ve already had to have with my kids and to kind of know that nothing is guaranteed about their future right now, and that’s humbling. It is terrifying, and that’s why I want to amplify leaders like you and support you and give lots of public gratitude for what you do. It is mattering.

And so, a couple questions I want to wrap up with I always ask folks before they leave. How do you personally define leadership, and how has that definition evolved from what you were taught growing up?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Hmm, oh, gosh. How do I define leadership? Well, I’d say how I don’t define it is where I’d start. It’s not just steering the ship, right? It’s really leading, and I think that word has really lost meaning, and I’ve worked for so many different people over the course of my life, and I’ve engaged with many different leaders who I feel like really didn’t earn or deserve that title of leader. They led with fear. They led with negative feedback. And so, I’d say, I mean, as cheesy and as totally cliché as it sounds, a leader inspires. A leader really plays into people’s strengths. I don’t ever want the people who I lead to be constantly aware that there’s a hierarchy. We’re in this together. It’s a team mindset. I think that’s what a true leader facilitates.

Rebecca Ching: Aberration. Yeah.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yep.

Rebecca Ching: All right, I wrap up with some quickfire questions that are hopefully a little more lighter than the ones I’ve been asking you!

Dr. Jessica Steier: [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: So Jess, what are you reading right now?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Booster Shots by Dr. Adam Ratner. Yeah, it’s so funny, I just had him on the pod. He’s an MD/MPH. He wrote this book five years ago. I guess he had a crystal ball because it’s all about measles and how measles could come back.

1:08:10

Rebecca Ching: Ooh.

Dr. Jessica Steier: I know. It’s an amazing read.

Rebecca Ching: Okay. What song are you playing on repeat?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, “A minor.” [Laughs] Kendrick Lamar.

Rebecca Ching: Dude.

Dr. Jessica Steier: [Laughs] No, I can’t. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Oh, my gosh.

Dr. Jessica Steier: What is it? A brain worm? I forget. There’s that expression. I can’t get it out of my head!

Rebecca Ching: I can’t either but I’m leaning into it. My kids are sick of it. They’re like, “Mom! Stop it!”

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah.

Rebecca Ching: And I’m like, “No.”

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, I love it.

Rebecca Ching: “This was so much more than the song.”

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, yeah. It was.

Rebecca Ching: It was a revolution! What is the best TV show or movie that you’ve seen recently?

Dr. Jessica Steier: I’m rewatching the series Fringe. I don’t know if you’ve ever heard of it. It’s sci-fi kind of, science leaning. I love it, so that’s my pick right now.

Rebecca Ching: Now, I’m an eighties kid. I’m a gen-xer through and through, so I always ask guests what their favorite piece of pop culture is from that decade, and if they don’t have one, what their favorite piece of pop culture is from the decade that you grew up in.

Dr. Jessica Steier: So I’m an eighties baby, but I’d say I really grew up in the nineties. I’m a millennial. But no, I’m gonna stick to eighties. The brilliant movies, those classic eighties movies like Weekend at Bernie’s, Please Don’t Tell Mom the Babysitter’s Dead. You know that?

Rebecca Ching: Oh, my gosh. That vein?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Those classic movies.  That vein, exactly. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: What is your mantra right now?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Surviving not thriving. [Laughs] Does that count as a mantra? One foot in front of the other. I’m literally just taking everything day by day. I’m not my best, but I’m getting through it.

Rebecca Ching: Oh, man. I mean, this isn’t Netflix and chill time, so I hear you.

Dr. Jessica Steier: No. No.

Rebecca Ching: What is an unpopular opinion that you hold? And I’m laughing because I’m like, “Can you pick one? [Laughs]

Dr. Jessica Steier: Well, this has nothing to do with science. Is that okay?

Rebecca Ching: Okay. Yes, bring it! Yes.

1:10:05

Dr. Jessica Steier: Okay. Will Ferrell is the most overrated actor ever. He is not funny. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Jess!

Dr. Jessica Steier: Trust me. I have gotten into heated — someone right now is cursing me out right now. I know. They’re just turning off the podcast. I’m sorry, he plays the same character in every — just that same — I don’t know, is that really skill? [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Okay, so I felt that way about Chevy Chase because I could not get into all the vacation movies and his later stuff a little bit more, but Will Ferrell? That is a bit sacrilege.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Okay. There you go.

Rebecca Ching: But I respect it. I respect it. We could still get along and be in relationship with different movie tastes and movie actor tastes. Imagine that! We don’t have to have death threats over this. [Laughs]

Dr. Jessica Steier: Mm-hmm. A wild concept!

Rebecca Ching: Yes, a wild concept. And who or what inspires you to be a better leader and human?

Dr. Jessica Steier: My dogs. [Laughs] Is that an okay answer?

Rebecca Ching: It is! [Laughs] I love my dogs.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Obviously my children, no, for sure. But I don’t know. There’s something about the way the dogs look at me like there’s this purity. There’s this beauty. I want to be the person who my dogs think I am. [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: We don’t deserve dogs in a lot of ways.

Dr. Jessica Steier: No! No.

Rebecca Ching: They’re amazing.

Dr. Jessica Steier: No!

Rebecca Ching: Jess, where can people find you and connect with all of your incredible work?

Dr. Jessica Steier: Oh, my gosh. Thank you so much. Everywhere! So on social media we’re at @unbiasedscipod. If you search for us, it’s Unbiased Science Podcast. We do a long-form Substack article. You can search for Unbiased Science on Substack.

Rebecca Ching: It’s excellent!

Dr. Jessica Steier: And we have a weekly podcast, The Unbiased Science Podcast, which airs wherever you tune into your podcasts. I think those are the main places, yeah. 

Rebecca Ching: Awesome.

Dr. Jessica Steier: Yeah! [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Thank you for making the time for this conversation. I know everything was so high level, but I appreciate you sharing not just your wisdom but your heart and why you’re doing what you’re doing right now. So thank you so much for being you!

1:12:12

Dr. Jessica Steier: I don’t want this to end! This was so fun. Thank you so much! [Laughs]

Rebecca Ching: Well, I hope you can come back anytime! I’d love to have you come back. All right, take care!

Dr. Jessica Steier: Take care!

[Inspirational Music]

Rebecca Ching: From Dr. Steier’s interview in this episode of The Unburdened Leader. I so appreciated Jess’ response when I gently questioned her about the title of her podcast and newsletter Unbiased Science, and she noted her commitment to not having an echo chamber in her work but acknowledges that it’s still there, and we don’t hear that from folks spreading misinformation. I think it feels important that it’s just a tension she’s holding. And she also noted that we start with an education based not in science but in relationships. Think of your favorite teacher, or think of something that moved you. It’s about connection, right? And she truly lives this, pushing back on misinformation with care and dignity, no matter how she’s treated. It blows me away. And Jess brought home how incredible people dedicated to public service are being vilified and how this is erasing researchers and incredible public servants who have received notice of their termination from The Department of Health and Human Services.

So I want to leave with you a few questions as you reflect and move forward. What did you learn from today’s conversation that challenged or expanded your thinking? How do you want to be bolder in supporting valid science communication and leaders like Jess? And what impacted you the most from my conversation with Dr. Jess today?

1:04:02

Think about that and who you want to share it with because it’s easy to feel like speaking up is too complicated, too risky, or not worth it, especially when conversations get labeled as too political. But as we explored today, everything that impacts our safety, well-being, and ability to thrive is political. The choices of whether or not to engage, it’s whether we do so with courage and integrity, and I know you all are up for it in your own way, your own unique and powerful way. Even when it’s imperfect, even when it’s messy, even when you’re still figuring it out, just think of me because I’m with you on this because this is the ongoing work of an Unburdened Leader.

Thank you all so much for joining this episode of The Unburdened Leader. You can find this episode, show notes, free Unburdened Leader resources, along with ways to sign up for my new Substack newsletter and ways to work with me at www.rebeccaching.com. And this episode was produced by the incredible team at Yellow House Media!

[Inspirational Music]