A couple years ago, Joe Rogan was panned for giving airtime to unpopular narratives about how healthcare and public health were handling the Covid crisis. Fortunately, Spotify held its ground, and the public was able to hear different perspectives, some well-informed and some not, that encouraged critical thinking.
What became most apparent to me is misinformation exists on all sides. When I discussed this with those close to me, I found that people are generally willing to say one thing privately while being reluctant to speak critically publicly. Sometimes it even went so far as to publicly deconstruct conversations while appearing to be scientific and rational, when in fact bias and fear seemed to be driving the bus.
I recently came across a video by Dr. Z, or ZDoggMD, a popular physician who does good work in bringing awareness to important issues (you may recall his hip-hop-style videos about issues in healthcare), which deconstructed a conversation Joe Rogan had with the controversial epidemiologist and cardiologist Dr. Peter McCullough. I was saddened to see how science and reason were misrepresented in that deconstruction.
The issue I had was not with the disagreement about research. I encourage such dialogues. The issue I had was with the wielding of "science denialism," logical fallacies, and irrationality to diminish support for an unpopular narrative.
I have found that those of us who are considered well-educated tend to be the most fearful of carefully and logically looking at unpopular narratives for fear of the phrase "conspiracy theory" being invoked. It often seems that what is true matters less than avoiding what is unseemly. I know this has been true of me. But if experiencing health is our true goal, not merely caring about health (healthcare) or publicizing a view of health (public health), then we owe it to ourselves, our families, our patients, and the public to follow reason over avoiding the boogeyman.
Below is my own deconstruction of Dr Z's deconstruction, in which I spotlight the misrepresentation of science and reason.
Where do you agree or disagree? What's missing from the conversation? What is included that should not be there? Please share your thoughts.
Comments