“Do your own research”: What Medicare’s open enrollment frenzy reveals about the lure and limits of self-guided health science

A vivid example of the limits of that popular advice is the annual fall ritual for older Americans: Medicare Open Enrollment, which runs through December 7. During this period, the government asks beneficiaries to compare dozens of plans, each with different premiums, deductibles, drug coverage, and provider networks, and then pick the one that best suits their health and finances. In practice, tens of millions of seniors are effectively told to research the decision on their own, yet many never examine their choices at all.

A poll on healthy aging released as enrollment opened shows how difficult that “opportunity” can be. Among Michigan adults age 65 and older, 27% said they did not review their Medicare coverage options for 2026 when they had the chance the previous fall, while another 35% spent less than an hour on it. Another 21% said they understood key insurance terms only a little or not at all, even though most still felt confident about making Medicare choices and said plans were easy to compare.

That does not mean beneficiaries made poor decisions. Nor does it prove they were overconfident. The poll measured what people said about their own understanding and confidence, not whether they were skilled at comparing plans or selected the best option. What it does suggest is that confidence and understanding are not the same thing. Some of that confidence may reflect what decision researchers call “satisficing”: choosing something that seems good enough instead of exhaustively weighing every alternative. Faced with too much complexity and too little time, that is a very human response.

There is a useful distinction here. Comparing coverage for your own doctors, prescriptions, and budget is a personal choice. Deciding whether medical evidence overturns expert consensus is a technical one.

That difference sits at the center of one of the most charged phrases in American life: “doing your own research.” Once, DYOR was a sign of curiosity and civic engagement, suggesting a desire to think critically, seek truth, and avoid blind obedience to authority. Today, especially among health and science experts, it often signals amateur overconfidence, conspiracy thinking, selective sourcing, and rejection of scientific consensus.

What began as a call to inquiry has become a symbol of skepticism, misinformation, and even political identity. Yet behind the ridicule is a more complicated reality: many people are not rejecting expertise out of pure defiance. They are trying to find answers in an information environment that has become increasingly murky.

Why “doing your own research” has surged

Modern health communication is under strain. Millions of Americans face structural and practical barriers to reliable medical advice. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, more than 100 million people lack regular access to adequate primary care. Getting an appointment can take weeks or months, and many visits last only about 15 minutes—barely enough time for a rushed physician to address one concern, let alone the complexities of chronic disease, treatment choices, vaccine risk, or new infections.

So people look elsewhere: to friends, social media, YouTube, X, Google searches, and increasingly AI. In a fragmented information landscape, “doing your own research” is no longer fringe behavior. For many people, it is inevitable.

Several forces drive this self-directed search for information:

1. Many trusted sources are too technical: In a recent radio interview on this topic, I suggested sources such as the CDC, NIH, Mayo Clinic, Cleveland Clinic, and the Science Literacy Project, where I am a researcher and writer. But even accurate sources can be hard to use. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality estimates that the average U.S. adult reads at about a ninth-grade level and notes that many health-education materials exceed that level. That does not mean every page from those organizations is too difficult; it means credibility does not automatically equal clarity.

2. Advice can conflict: In fast-moving situations such as the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific consensus can shift as new evidence appears. For lay readers, that can look like confusion or inconsistency, which undermines trust. The problem gets worse when some of the alternative advice is plainly unscientific, dishonest, or dangerous, including claims pushed by groups such as America’s Frontline Doctors and Children’s Health Defense, founded by Robert F. Kennedy Jr., both of which have spread medical misinformation.

3. Information overload and institutional distrust: Many people increasingly feel patronized or manipulated by hidden agendas and biases, and they want to become their own fact-checkers and journalists. That shifts the work of sorting, curating, and contextualizing knowledge onto individuals who often lack the tools to do it well. Trust can erode further when public officials make unsupported claims or appear to dismiss established evidence.

The most visible and prolific source of unsupported health claims is Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr., whose statements about vaccines and other public health issues repeatedly conflict with established evidence. The pattern goes beyond Kennedy and reaches the top: President Trump has repeated false claims about the childhood vaccine schedule and a nonexistent link between vaccines and autism. With Kennedy leading HHS, Jay Bhattacharya at NIH, acting FDA Commissioner Kyle Diamantas, and politically aligned advisers shaping federal health policy, traditional sources of science and health information can no longer be taken on faith. Information from government sources should be weighed carefully, separating political messaging and agency decisions from scientific evidence reviewed by independent researchers and institutions.

Mis- and disinformation continue to distort science and public policy. Subscribe to our Daily and Weekly Digests for incisive coverage of disruptive innovations in AI, agricultural biotechnology, food, chemicals, nuclear energy, vaccines, and other disruptive innovations.

The problems with DIY science

“Doing your own research” is often a reasonable response to frustration with institutions, knowledge gaps, and the limits of the healthcare system. But the search for understanding carries real risks. The internet offers far more than information; it also offers misinformation, and it is often hard to tell the difference. Trying to investigate complex health issues without formal training can easily go astray for several psychological and epistemic reasons:

• Beginner’s bubble. In the early stages of learning, confidence can rise faster than actual skill, a pattern known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. People with limited knowledge in a field may overestimate their ability. A study of UK adults found that people in early diagnostic tasks became more confident faster than they became accurate—a cautionary sign for amateur researchers trying to sort through medical claims. Overconfidence combined with misinformation can be dangerous. But there is a nuance here: a separate study found that COVID skepticism was tied to lower relevant knowledge, not necessarily to overconfidence, and that greater vaccine skepticism predicted lower overall confidence. So Dunning-Kruger should not be treated as a catch-all explanation for skepticism. Still, the broader point holds: confidence is not a reliable proxy for competence.

• Technical studies can be hard to assess. Even when scientific reviews offer useful criticism, many studies are too complex for nonspecialists to interpret well. One example involves Kennedy citing a 2017 observational study in Africa, based on data from the 1980s, to justify ending U.S. support for Gavi, the international vaccine alliance. Leaving aside the age of the data, the paper reported only a mild association, not proof of causation. Because it was observational, it could not establish that the vaccine caused deaths. Former CDC Director Tom Frieden has noted the study’s limits and emphasized the broader evidence pointing in the opposite direction. Science depends on replication and context, neither of which appears to interest Kennedy and his allies.

• Mistrust of consensus. Some people assume that if a view is mainstream, it must be biased or wrong—perhaps because of Big Pharma, Big Oil, Big Food, or some other powerful interest. But scientific consensus usually reflects years of replicated studies and accumulated evidence, not groupthink. Confidence grows when findings converge across independent teams and methods. Funding sources and conflicts of interest should always be examined, but no claim should be accepted or rejected simply because it carries a dismissive label.

What research says about DYOR culture

There is still limited research on the culture of DYOR. A 2023 study by two Harvard researchers examined how U.S. adults viewed “doing your own research” and found that favorable attitudes toward it were linked to lower trust in scientific institutions and to more COVID-19 misperceptions over time. “Gut feelings” and “alternative facts” were often treated as more legitimate than evidence from science experts. The study measured attitudes, not what people actually researched, and it cannot prove that DYOR caused later distrust or misperceptions. The associations were modest. It is a warning about anti-expert attitudes tied to DYOR, not proof that every independent search is harmful.

Can DIY inquiry ever help?

The strongest argument for DYOR is not that beginners can reliably defeat experts. Philosopher Neil Levy argued in a 2022 Springer Nature article that lay inquiry can deepen understanding, uncover blind spots, and help affected communities shape research. In some online contrarian groups he examined, members gathered data, debated source quality, and taught one another how to evaluate evidence. That complicates the stereotype that dissenters simply echo establishment claims. It does not show that their conclusions are correct, or that all skeptics think in the same way.

Levy pointed to AIDS activists who learned enough virology to be taken seriously by researchers and to help influence the field. He draws a line between exploratory inquiry—trying to understand how evidence and explanations fit together—and inquiry aimed at proving experts wrong, as in the Kennedy-led MAHA movement. When a novice struggles to confirm a technical consensus, the right response is more questions and consultation with knowledgeable people, not an immediate rejection of the consensus itself.

It is easy to see how the phrase took on its current force. “Do Your Own Research” has deep roots in anti-establishment thought. American conspiracy theorist Milton William “Bill” Cooper helped popularize it in the 1990s. It gained traction with anti-vaccine activists in the 2010s and spread further through QAnon networks during the COVID pandemic. What once sounded like a plea for critical thought now often serves as a political signal: a rejection of elites and a declaration of ideological independence.

How we got here, and how to move forward

We are now dealing with a multi-layered crisis: declining trust in expert institutions, the easy spread of false information online, the growing influence of self-promoting grifters, and the rise of self-reliance in information gathering without adequate tools. Responding to that reality may require a new social contract around knowledge. It could include the following:

1. Respect people trying to cope: Navigating today’s information and misinformation environment is extremely hard. As far as possible, people trying to make sense of confusing and contradictory messages should be met with respect, not ridicule. That does not mean treating unsupported claims from public officials as untouchable. And it does not mean I have to hide my contempt for the hard-line crowd that insists mRNA vaccines killed more people than COVID or that no vaccine has ever been safe and effective.

2. Build trust instead of demanding it: “Trust me, I’m an expert” is rarely persuasive. Transparency, empathy, and a willingness to explain matter more than assertion.

3. Offer information, not just instructions: Give people knowledge they can use. A fact-based explanation may persuade more effectively than a command, though firm mandates may still be justified in certain situations, such as vaccination requirements in the military or mask requirements in healthcare settings.

4. Be honest about uncertainty: Experts should avoid pretending that more certainty exists than really does. Saying “we don’t know yet” when appropriate can strengthen credibility, even if disinformation merchants will still claim certainty.

5. Explain without dismissing: Telling people a study is too complicated to discuss its flaws does not build confidence. It is better to say, “Here is what the study found, what it did not show, and how it fits into the larger body of evidence.”

What happens next

Doing your own research is neither automatically good nor automatically bad. It depends on how it is done, what tools people have, and which sources they trust. With enough media literacy, humility, and engagement with experts, the phrase could once again reflect healthy skepticism and curiosity. Without those elements, it can become a vehicle for misinformation and institutional distrust.

Kennedy has urged Americans to “do your own research” when making health decisions. He has compared vaccine research to parents shopping for baby products, describing DYOR as part of responsible parenting. He has also framed it as a civic duty in a democracy. It is an appealing appeal to individual autonomy, but without reliable starting points and help interpreting evidence, it can lead people deep into disinformation.

For Medicare, doing your own research can mean checking whether a plan covers your doctors, prescriptions, and expected costs, then using the Medicare Plan Finder or a free State Health Insurance Assistance Program counselor to compare choices. For a scientific claim, it means looking for reliable evidence from people with relevant expertise who can help interpret it.

It is no surprise that many of the easiest information sources available today lean away from evidence-based science. Changing that will take time, and it may never be fully solved. In the end, the goal is not to stop people from asking questions, but to meet them where they are—with context and clarity instead of condescension, and guidance instead of coercion.

In a noisy global information environment, the challenge is not persuading people to do their own research or discouraging them from it. It is helping them do it well.