JulianRoss said..
Or
The counter arguments were held in appropriate settings where appropriately qualified people could put their case. Rather than a public slanging match where johhny one stars with no formal education past grade 3 starts espousing facts that only he knows.
One of the smartest antivaxxers knows how to cook a souffl?, which seems to add to his credibility in the antivaxxer world. Hew indicated in an interview that he was soooo smart and could prove them all wrong, that the government might cause an accident in which he 'disappeared.'
Appropriate discussions are held by people with higher degree qualifications, who do peer reviewed research, so their opinions are worth listening to.
FYI, youtube isn't a place for scientific peer review.
Yeah that doesn't happen. The government polls the scenarios that would ruin their chances of a re-election, puts the epidemiologists who predict total and utter destruction in front of the cameras, then find the experts to promote their public health plan.
Avoid the actual anti-vax nuts and look at the medical professionals behind The Barrington Declaration, for example.
Another one: Anders Tegnell designed Sweden's response to be far less restrictive -- basically, "learn to live with the disease" -- and was IMMEDIATELY condemned by the western media outlets and other "experts". Literally an expert, following "the science", and there was no debate, just assumption that that approach was wrong.
BTW the wife is a published and peer-reviewed author. It's pretty interesting to be a fly on the wall and observe that process... I put a lot less faith in it as a gold standard now than I did before. Especially when it's not about data that can be replicated.
