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?
Search: “bigtree”
We found 238 results for your search.
An old school “vaccines cause autism” antivaxxer hosted new COVID-19 antivaxxers at an antivax conference last month. Although one new antivaxxer, Geert Vanden Bossche, was discomfited and pushed back against old antivax tropes, the rest joined Del Bigtree in spewing longstanding antivax tropes.
Share this:
Del Bigtree almost bled to death from hemorrhoids, but still refused transfusion from donors vaccinated against COVID-19. Instead, he flew to Cancun to get “unvaccinated blood” at a quack cancer clinic. This sort of disinformation can kill. In Bigtree’s case, it almost did.
Share this:
In 2014, Andrew Wakefield unveiled Brian Hooker’s “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory featuring William Thompson, a CDC scientist who claimed that a vaccine-autism link was being covered up. Now, Steve Kirsch and other COVID-19 antivaxxers are resurrecting it.
Share this:
A prominent oncologist and cancer biologist, Wafik El-Deiry, recently amplified claims that COVID-19 vaccines cause “turbo cancer,” wanting a “civil discourse about science and actual answers that are missing.” Unfortunately, calls for “civil discourse” by an eminent oncologist about unfounded claims only lends undeserved credibility to them. So, once more into the fray…
