Whenever I see anyone describing those countering medical disinformation as “tribal,” those spreading misinformation as “thinking for themselves” or “encouraging thought,” and the process of countering disinformation as “debate,” I know I’m not dealing with a serious argument. 1/
https://twitter.com/drjohnm/status/1378472685760577536
Indeed, whether he realizes it or not, John’s portrayal of the situation with respect to #COVID19 disinformation is EXACTLY the same portrayal of vaccine advocates I’ve seen from antivaxxers going back to when I first noticed that there were antivaxxers. 2/
Antivaxxers love to portray themselves as iconoclasts, as “thinking for themselves,” all while portraying science advocates as close-minded and tribal and their efforts as “fostering thought and debate.” So do quacks. So do climate science deniers. 3/
Indeed, whether John realizes it or not, accusing critics of “tribalism” while portraying your side as thinking for itself and the discussion as “debate” is practically a sine qua non of science denial. (I hope he doesn’t realize it.) 4/
And, yes, sometimes the line between misinformation and scientific debate isn’t always clear. This was particularly true early in the #COVID19 #pandemic. More than a year in, though? Not so much. Not anymore. 5/
Indeed, one way to recognize cranks is that they are still pushing the same messages undermining public health now that they were a year ago. Scientists change their minds when evidence demands it and admit previous errors. Cranks do not. 6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
