One 1969 memo put it bluntly, stating that “ doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.” Cynical as this is, it is remarkably effective at crafting a public aura of doubt over science, the same practices adopted by fossil fuel companies today about climate change.įor proponents of unevidenced positions, debate is a device for converting nonsense into audience. Faced with incontrovertible evidence of harm, they instead amplified fringe figures, encouraging debate to confound that messaging. Cigarette companies muddied the clear scientific consensus that smoking was harmful just this way. Far from showcasing science, false-balance debates allow evidence-free fringe ideas to leech vampirically off the respectability of well-established theories. The whole sorry experience was a hard lesson. The segment that aired however was whittled down to a disconnected mess, my criticisms absent completely. It culminated in a string of increasingly ridiculous assertions from an irate Wakefield before I ended the interview, reminding him of the blood on his hands.
I reproached him for telling people that the medical and scientific profession was lying to them while he, a proven fraud, was not. After I outlined why Wakefield’s claims were baseless and detailed his utter deficit of credibility, Wakefield dismissed me as an agent of a pharmaceutical conspiracy, which was (and is) nonsense. The studio experience proved immensely frustrating. I reluctantly agreed to the debate with a proviso that I would speak on why giving him a platform to air discredited lies was a mistake in the first place. He was appearing either way the only question was whether he would encounter opposition. The producer however, cited strong local interest and claimed a rival broadcaster sympathetic to his claims was offering Wakefield an uncontested slot. Given Wakefield’s incontrovertible dishonesty, I urged them reconsider Wakefield’s appearance. In the din of media attention, I received an excited call that year from an Irish regional radio station Wakefield was coming into studio, would I debate him? In his 2016 documentary, however, he painted himself as a martyr to a clandestine global conspiracy. His paper was retracted in 2010, and he was struck off the medical register for gross misconduct. Vaccine uptake plummeted, with deadly effect. Through constant press conferences and the embrace of the antivaccine movement, that weak study of just 12 children led to panic across Europe. One of those myths is antivaccine ideology, revived in 1998, when gastroenterologist Andrew Wakefield alleged a link between the measles-mumps-rubella (MMR) vaccine and autism. This is a Trojan horse for the most odious of mythologies.
When evidence overwhelmingly supports one position while discrediting another, treating them as equivalent gives a misleading impression that a settled question-vaccination-is scientifically contentious. The mistake Hotez dodged and I made-no matter how well meant-was to participate in an adversarial format that presents science and pseudoscience as equals, creating a false balance between truth and lies. Trust me, I’ve made the mistake of debating perhaps the world’s most infamous antivaccine figure, and all it does is debase science and harm the public.
That’s precisely the circus that vaccine scientist Peter Hotez wisely refused in mid-June, amid a storm of angry invective and even threats on his life.Įven without adding the unedifying spectacle of the world’s richest man, Elon Musk, most popular podcaster, Joe Rogan, and a sycophantic fanbase into the mix, debating debunked antivaccine activists such as Robert Kennedy, Jr., is simply misguided. Having one moderated by a clueless contrarian, and buoyed by a loudmouthed billionaire, would be one surefire way to make it even worse. Of all the ways to discuss science, debating debunked antivaccine activists, historically speaking, is an awful idea.
0 kommentar(er)
