A comment I recently received made a striking claim: that doctors, scientists, and vaccine developers cannot be trusted, and that their true intention is to harm and make as much dirty money as possible rather than public health. So today I wanted to write about conspiracy theories.

In reality, modern medicine and vaccine development involve millions of independent researchers, institutions, and regulatory bodies across the world. Although no system is flawless and criticism remains essential, the idea of a coordinated global effort to intentionally harm populations is not supported by credible scientific evidence.

While such statements may sound extreme, they reflect a broader pattern often seen in conspiracy thinking — the tendency to reduce complex systems into a single, malicious narrative. At the same time, it is important to recognize that skepticism toward powerful institutions does not emerge out of nowhere; it is often shaped by real historical failures, loss of trust, and perceived inconsistencies. Acknowledging this does not mean accepting extreme conclusions, but it helps explain why such claims can feel convincing to some.

So why do such beliefs persist? Psychologically, they are often rooted in a deep mistrust of authority and a desire to find clear, intentional explanations for complex and unsettling events. In uncertain times, it can feel more convincing to believe that powerful actors are “in control,” (which is true in some situations) even if their intentions are perceived as harmful, rather than accepting uncertainty, complexity, or systemic imperfection.

Why do we tend to believe?

One of the key reasons why even intelligent individuals may believe in conspiracy theories is the way the human brain processes information. People do not simply absorb facts objectively; instead, they interpret information through existing beliefs and expectations. This is often explained by concepts such as confirmation bias — the tendency to seek out and prioritize information that supports what we already believe. In this way, once someone begins to suspect that powerful institutions are untrustworthy, they are more likely to notice and remember evidence that reinforces this view, while dismissing contradictory information.

Another important factor is the human need for control and certainty. The modern world is complex, unpredictable, and often overwhelming. Events like global pandemics, economic crises, or political instability create anxiety and a sense of helplessness. Conspiracy theories can offer a psychologically comforting alternative: instead of randomness or systemic failure, they provide a clear narrative where events are intentional and controlled by identifiable actors. Paradoxically, believing that “someone is in control” — even with harmful intentions — can feel less frightening than accepting uncertainty.

Finally, distrust in institutions plays a significant role. Historical events, political scandals, and cases of misinformation have contributed to a growing skepticism toward governments, media, and scientific authorities. While this skepticism is not entirely unfounded and can be healthy in moderation, it can also evolve into a generalized distrust where all official information is seen as deceptive. At this point, alternative explanations — regardless of their credibility — may start to appear more convincing simply because they challenge authority.

Counter-argument

It is important to acknowledge, however, that not all distrust toward institutions is irrational. Throughout history, there have been real cases of corruption, misinformation, and unethical practices within governments, corporations, and even scientific communities. These examples show that questioning authority can sometimes be justified and even necessary in order to hold powerful actors accountable.

However, the key distinction lies in how this skepticism is applied. Critical thinking involves questioning claims while still relying on evidence, multiple sources, and logical reasoning. Conspiracy thinking, on the other hand, often starts with a fixed belief and selectively gathers information to support it, dismissing any contradictory evidence as part of the “cover-up.” In this sense, the problem is not skepticism itself, but when skepticism turns into absolute distrust without evidence-based evaluation.

All in all…

Ultimately, the persistence of conspiracy theories is not simply a matter of intelligence or ignorance, but a reflection of how the human mind copes with uncertainty, complexity, and lack of control. In a world where information is overwhelming and trust in institutions is fragile, people naturally search for explanations that feel coherent and meaningful.

Understanding this does not mean accepting all claims as valid, but it does require recognizing the psychological mechanisms behind them. Rather than dismissing individuals who believe in conspiracy theories, a more constructive approach is to encourage critical thinking, open dialogue, and a careful evaluation of evidence.

Because in the end, the real challenge is not just determining what is true or false, but learning how we come to believe in the first place.