Previous research has shown that people are not impartial recipients of information. They lean into information provided by experts (Clark et al., 2012) and those with personal (or “lived”) experience with the issue at hand (Mounk, 2023). People also are more receptive to information that coincides with their own personal experience and beliefs (Lord et al., 1979; Edwards & Smith, 1996). With these lines of research in mind, we conducted two experiments to investigate how people react to scientific information that is critical of psychiatric medications. In both experiments, we used vignettes to investigate how three specific factors predict individuals’ reactions to such information: (1) the expertise of the messenger providing the information (doctor/not a doctor); (2) the messenger’s personal experience with taking psychiatric medications (does/does not take); and (3) individuals’ own personal experience with taking psychiatric medications (does/does not take). In both Experiment 1 (N=431) and Experiment 2 (N=999), messenger expertise mattered: participants rated the messenger and information as more credible and were less inclined to censor the information when the messenger was a “doctor.” In both experiments, participants who used psychiatric medications rated the information as more harmful compared to those who did not use medications.