Why are so many posters quick to dismiss an OP's concerns based on scientific opinion without even a cursory google first?

[CampCretaceous]

Of course we shouldn't believe "everything we read on the internet" but often I see a post where OP has a concern based on a widely accepted opinion in scientific community, often with growing body of evidence etc (I'm not talking about Covid here where any research is extremely new but more generally)

Quite often the OP might be worrying overly about something which is mentioned in authoritative literature, discussed in the NHS or on .org websites and medical journals which might constitute for example a very small increased risk of something (often with regards to children) which they often recognise, but rather than analyse that or discuss cause and effect etc the vast majority of posters will respond with "never heard that, load of nonsense", "don't believe everything you read on the internet", "who on earth told you that?", "I think you must have misunderstood", "xyz is harmless", "never did me any harm" etc

I can't understand how posters can state this so confidently without even a quick google that would show that often the OP is referring to fairly established trends, even if they are overinflating the risk (it's hard to look at your own situation objectively sometimes which is why I presume they post)

It's completely unhelpful to the OP because it just shows the replies are totally ignorant and lack any value or reassurance!

Also often on the pregnancy board see factually incorrect info thrown around all over the place with posters not stopping for a minute to check if their reassurances are actually correct!

It's a self-defence thing. With regard to things which may increase the risk of a certain condition, you get two groups of people. Firstly, people whose children have xyz condition and want to reassure themselves that nothing they did or didn't do increased the risk. Secondly, people who did xyz thing or xyz circumstance applied to their child, who want to reassure themselves that their child isn't going to get xyz condition.

I suppose so. I just find it so baffling as it's obstructive to a thread providing help for OP and also to an interesting conversation when it's full of completely dismissive and uninformed replies

I get things wrong all the time but before I post something if I'm not sure I do fact check first or at least make an effort to understand what it is the OP is posting about!

Of course we shouldn't believe "everything we read on the internet" but often I see a post where OP has a concern based on a widely accepted opinion in scientific community, often with growing body of evidence etc (I'm not talking about Covid here where any research is extremely new but more generally) - Because in many cases "widely accepted opinion in scientific community, often with growing body of evidence etc" means fuck all. The scientific community is just as corrupt, mendacious and deceitful as any other community.
From personal experience I know that scientifically illiterate junk is regularly cited by a grandee in Public Health as adding to "a growing body of evidence...".
Trust no-one, not even a doctor.

I'm sure there's an element of that involved in science but if you are saying then that all published studies are entirely fictitious or at least manipulated I'm not sure where we go from there...

Assume that the earth is flat?

It's also one thing to comment critically on a particular researcher's work and bias and another to dismiss anything an OP says out of hand without any effort to understand. "Never heard of that, sounds rubbish" is distinct to commenting analytically on what is being said

but if you are saying then that all published studies are entirely fictitious or at least manipulated - No, in many cases, not all, as above.
The World Health Organisation recently issued a position paper on an issue of Public Health.
They backed up their claims citing a paper that had been retracted two months previously by the publishing journal. Not easy to get "peer reviewed" papers retracted.
It was junk.

Whatever the specifics of that particular statement, it sounds like you have at least some background info on it

That's completely different to what I'm describing. And I can't believe it applies to every bit of "generally accepted" scientific opinion, such as that the earth is round