I can't judge the science but take Dr. Hooman's side because he is much more respectful than you, Dr. Gorski. Name callers tend to bend facts to prove they are right. Mr. Kennedy is also much more respectful and a true freedom fighter, imo, even if his science is somewhat flawed.
-
-
This Tweet is unavailable.
-
Of course. And that tactic *also* sidesteps the very reasonable observation that it is often appropriate to be angry about someone like RFK Jr. spreading antivaccine disinformation that can lead people to die unnecessarily during a pandemic.
End of conversation
-
-
-
Similarly, ideologues often use anger or "lack of civility" in those providing information, evidence, and data that disconfirm their preexisting beliefs as a convenient excuse to reject having to engage with that disconfirming evidence or take it seriously.
-
This is a tactic not limited to quacks and antivaxxers. It's often a tactic wielded against minorities agitating for change, against racism, and for equal rights.
- Show replies
New conversation -
-
-
Here's a hint: Such ideologues are usually not reachable. When the person providing disconfirmatory information, data, and evidence is 100% polite and civil, they'll just find another reason to reject the disconfirming evidence. I've seen it more times than I can remember.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.