A recent study found that physicians and scientists who are perceived as “experts” are prevalent within the antivax community and more influential because of their status as physicians and scientists. Why do physicians continue to tolerate antivax quacks within our ranks?
Search: “how they view us”
We found 1,005 results for your search.
Minerva published an op-ed disguised as a “study” decrying “censorship and defamation.” It was really just criticism and quality control, but the usual suspects are all over it as evidence of evil.
Share this:
Quacks delude themselves that they are brave mavericks who are being persecuted for “innovation.” That’s why they attack scientific authority that tells them they are quacks and cranks as “corrupt” and “unimaginative.”
Share this:
After being forced through legal threats to “apologize” by a bunch of quacks and attacked by a hack journalist, Dr. Allison Neitzel tells her side of the story with respect to the hack. It’s a sad story, but I would much rather have her in my profession than the quacks who threatened her.
Share this:
Neil deGrasse Tyson invoked the concept of a scientific consensus while supporting vaccines in his debate with Del Bigtree. Why was his statement about how “individual scientists don’t matter” compared to scientific consensus so triggering to antivaxxers? Why do antivaxxers reject the very concept of a scientific consensus and promote a hyper-individualistic view of how science should be conducted?
