Pro-COVID-Mandate Scientists Use The “Expert” Fallacy To Avoid Fair Debate

If there is one thing the covid lockdown event has shown with extreme clarity, it’s that a large number of people within the scientific community are easily swayed (or easily bought) when it comes to government narratives.  The level of false information spread by numerous medical and scientific “professionals” over the course of the past few years has been staggering.  

They have been proven wrong on almost every significant risk factor, from the effectiveness of masks to the effectiveness of lockdowns and even the effectiveness of the covid vaccines.  Now, one could argue whether or not they were aware at the time that they were wrong, but the fact remains that a large number of them refuse to this day to admit fault.  They continue to insist that they were right despite all the evidence to the contrary.  

The issue of denial among the covid devout has been brought to the forefront once again with recent media attacks against Joe Rogan and his podcast featuring Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who is running as candidate in the Democratic primaries in 2024.  RFK is a well known skeptic of covid mandate policies and an outspoken critic of the unchecked emergency vaccine rollout.  The questions he presents and the arguments he makes are very similar to those the alternative media were pressing from the very beginning of the pandemic, but as a presidential hopeful RFK garners a level of public recognition that is apparently frightening to the establishment.

The corporate media has engaged in a coordinated assault on Kennedy, demanding that his interview with Joe Rogan be censored by Spotify as well as social media platforms on the grounds that he was “spreading dangerous medical misinformation.”  Avid covid cultists including a doctor and well known defender of big pharma by the name of Peter Hotez piled on the bandwagon, dismissing RFK’s information and making the usual accusations of “conspiracy theory.”  

In turn, Joe Rogan suggested that if Hotez was so confident that RFK was misinforming the public then he should be willing to debate the issue properly and openly.  In exchange, Rogan would donate $100,000 to the charity of Hotez’s choice.  The response by Hotez is typical of people that aggressively support covid mandates and vaccine requirements – He ran away.  

Peter, if you claim what RFKjr is saying is “misinformation” I am offering you $100,000.00 to the charity of your choice if you’re willing to debate him on my show with no time limit. https://t.co/m0HxYek0GX

— Joe Rogan (@joerogan) June 17, 2023

Since then, Hotez and the media have engaged in a form of gaslighting in order to deflect away from the debate, suggesting that he has come “under attack” because people dare to ask him questions.  

This is the classic response of the pro-mandate crowd – Throw as many hatchets as possible at anyone who strays from the government and big pharma narrative, all from the safety of their laptops and the corporate media megaphone.  Then, play the victim when they are challenged and create a circus to distract from the fact that they were the original attackers.

To summarize the situation down to it’s core:

Hotez: Joe Rogan is spreading misinformation!

Rogan: I’ll give you $100k for the charity of your choice to come on my show and prove that it’s misinformation.

Leftist Media: Joe Rogan is bullying Hoetz!  Censor him!   

However, beyond the attempts by Hotez to “count coup” and jab at RFK while hiding behind the MSM, a much more insidious propaganda message is at play.  Namely, the claim that there is no need for Hotez or any doctor or scientist to defend their positions in an open debate with anyone who is not also an “expert” in their field.  In other words they are using the appeal to authority ploy, also known as the expert fallacy.

The expert fallacy is an argument based on an uncritical appeal to expert opinion, pointing to the shame that (in the expert’s opinion) the other person ought to feel at challenging their expertise.  Some call this the “Genetic Fallacy” – Judging an argument by its source rather than by its content.

It is a kind of high priest syndrome, a way for establishment approved puppets to declare themselves immune to confrontation from anyone they do not deem to be their peers.  The problem is, pro-mandate doctors and scientists often attack their peers as well when they release contradictory information, accusing them of being unprofessional and anti-science.  

This happened across the country at the height of the covid frenzy and many doctors were threatened with losing their license to practice.  In California, the state even passed a law that makes it possible for the government to dictate what is and what is not covid misinformation and punish any doctors who go against the grain.    

This creates a climate of fear within the scientific community and stifles dissent.  Ultimately, there are few “experts” willing to step forward to debate the merits of the covid response because they are afraid they will be ostracized.  Meaning, the only people left to debate are the peasants outside of the scientific priesthood, and those people aren’t fit to shine the shoes of men so high as Hotez, right? 

This elitist attitude leads to scientific dictatorship.  America came so close to the nightmare of medical tyranny it was palpable.  And, the faulty science and the medical “experts” that promoted it helped to push our society to the edge.

The expert fallacy, all the wailing and the whining and the victimhood, it’s all a means of distraction.  A way to avoid admitting they are afraid to debate the merits of their arguments; a way to avoid matching data with data and exploring who was really right and who was really wrong.  Scientists and medical professionals should not be opposed to debate the facts with anyone, ever.  Their goal should be the truth, even if it means admitting they are wrong at times.  When a scientist is afraid to argue the facts, especially with people that are willing to publicly admonish, it suggests that they are acting on ideological biases and avoiding fair scrutiny of those biases.  It suggests that they are not real scientists.