Coronavirus: Thread

[grarpamp]

Pro-COVID-Mandate Scientists Use The "Expert" Fallacy To Avoid Fair Debate

https://twitter.com/joerogan/status/1670196590928068609

If there is one thing the covid lockdown event has shown with extreme
clarity, it's that a large number of people within the scientific
community are easily swayed (or easily bought) when it comes to
government narratives.  The level of false information spread by
numerous medical and scientific “professionals” over the course of the
past few years has been staggering.

They have been proven wrong on almost every significant risk factor,
from the effectiveness of masks to the effectiveness of lockdowns and
even the effectiveness of the covid vaccines.  Now, one could argue
whether or not they were aware at the time that they were wrong, but
the fact remains that a large number of them refuse to this day to
admit fault.  They continue to insist that they were right despite all
the evidence to the contrary.

The issue of denial among the covid devout has been brought to the
forefront once again with recent media attacks against Joe Rogan and
his podcast featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running as
candidate in the Democratic primaries in 2024.  RFK is a well known
skeptic of covid mandate policies and an outspoken critic of the
unchecked emergency vaccine rollout.  The questions he presents and
the arguments he makes are very similar to those the alternative media
were pressing from the very beginning of the pandemic, but as a
presidential hopeful RFK garners a level of public recognition that is
apparently frightening to the establishment.

The corporate media has engaged in a coordinated assault on Kennedy,
demanding that his interview with Joe Rogan be censored by Spotify as
well as social media platforms on the grounds that he was “spreading
dangerous medical misinformation.”  Avid covid cultists including a
doctor and well known defender of big pharma by the name of Peter
Hotez piled on the bandwagon, dismissing RFK's information and making
the usual accusations of “conspiracy theory.”

In turn, Joe Rogan suggested that if Hotez was so confident that RFK
was misinforming the public then he should be willing to debate the
issue properly and openly.  In exchange, Rogan would donate $100,000
to the charity of Hotez's choice.  The response by Hotez is typical of
people that aggressively support covid mandates and vaccine
requirements – He ran away.

    Peter, if you claim what RFKjr is saying is “misinformation” I am
offering you $100,000.00 to the charity of your choice if you’re
willing to debate him on my show with no time limit.
https://t.co/m0HxYek0GX
    — Joe Rogan (@joerogan) June 17, 2023

Since then, Hotez and the media have engaged in a form of gaslighting
in order to deflect away from the debate, suggesting that he has come
“under attack” because people dare to ask him questions.

This is the classic response of the pro-mandate crowd – Throw as many
hatchets as possible at anyone who strays from the government and big
pharma narrative, all from the safety of their laptops and the
corporate media megaphone.  Then, play the victim when they are
challenged and create a circus to distract from the fact that they
were the original attackers.

To summarize the situation down to it's core:

Hotez: Joe Rogan is spreading misinformation!

Rogan: I’ll give you $100k for the charity of your choice to come on
my show and prove that it’s misinformation.

Leftist Media: Joe Rogan is bullying Hotez!  Censor him!

However, beyond the attempts by Hotez to “count coup” and jab at RFK
while hiding behind the MSM, a much more insidious propaganda message
is at play.  Namely, the claim that there is no need for Hotez or any
doctor or scientist to defend their positions in an open debate with
anyone who is not also an “expert” in their field.  In other words
they are using the appeal to authority ploy, also known as the expert
fallacy.

The expert fallacy is an argument based on an uncritical appeal to
expert opinion, pointing to the shame that (in the expert’s opinion)
the other person ought to feel at challenging their expertise.  Some
call this the “Genetic Fallacy” - Judging an argument by its source
rather than by its content.

It is a kind of high priest syndrome, a way for establishment approved
puppets to declare themselves immune to confrontation from anyone they
do not deem to be their peers.  The problem is, pro-mandate doctors
and scientists often attack their peers as well when they release
contradictory information, accusing them of being unprofessional and
anti-science.

This happened across the country at the height of the covid frenzy and
many doctors were threatened with losing their license to practice.
In California, the state even passed a law that makes it possible for
the government to dictate what is and what is not covid misinformation
and punish any doctors who go against the grain.

This creates a climate of fear within the scientific community and
stifles dissent.  Ultimately, there are few “experts” willing to step
forward to debate the merits of the covid response because they are
afraid they will be ostracized.  Meaning, the only people left to
debate are the peasants outside of the scientific priesthood, and
those people aren't fit to shine the shoes of men so high as Hotez,
right?

This elitist attitude leads to scientific dictatorship.  America came
so close to the nightmare of medical tyranny it was palpable.  And,
the faulty science and the medical “experts” that promoted it helped
to push our society to the edge.

The expert fallacy, all the wailing and the whining and the
victimhood, it's all a means of distraction.  A way to avoid admitting
they are afraid to debate the merits of their arguments; a way to
avoid matching data with data and exploring who was really right and
who was really wrong.  Scientists and medical professionals should not
be opposed to debating the facts with anyone, ever.  Their goal should
be the truth, even if it means admitting they are wrong at times.
When a scientist is afraid to argue the facts, especially with people
they are willing to publicly admonish, it suggests that they are
acting on ideological biases and avoiding fair scrutiny of those
biases.  It suggests that they are not real scientists.