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

The text discusses how those in power often avoid being confronted, and instead label anyone who challenges them as crazy.

The covid lockdown has demonstrated that many people in the scientific community can be easily swayed or bought by government narratives. The truth is that they were wrong about almost all significant risks, including the effectiveness and safety of masks, lockdowns, and the covid vaccines. One could debate whether they knew they were wrong at the time, but it is still the case that many of them refuse even today to accept responsibility. Recent media attacks on Joe Rogan's podcast, which features Robert F. Kennedy Jr. who is running in the Democratic primary elections in 2024 as a candidate, have brought the issue of denial in the covid-devout to the fore. RFK has been a vocal critic of unchecked vaccines and covid mandate policies for many years. Corporate media have launched a coordinated attack on Kennedy. They demand that his interview with Joe Rogan, as well as other social media platforms be censored on the basis that he is'spreading harmful medical misinformation'. Joe Rogan responded by saying that if Hotez is so certain that RFK misinforms the public, then he must be willing to debate this issue openly and honestly. Rogan agreed to donate $100,000 to a charity of Hotez’s choosing in exchange for Hotez's cooperation. Peter, if what RFKjr says is'misinformation,' I will donate $100,000.00 to a charity of your choosing if he is willing to debate me on my show without time limits.

The pro-mandate crowd will always respond in this way - throw as many hatchets at anyone who dares to stray from the narrative of government and big pharma, from the comfort of their laptops or corporate media megaphone. Hotez is bullied by Joe Rogan! Hotez's attempts to 'count the coup' and poke fun at RFK, while hiding behind MSM, are just part of a more sinister propaganda message. Hotez, or any other doctor or scientist for that matter, is claiming they do not need to defend their views in a debate with someone who isn't an expert in their respective field. Expert fallacy: An argument that is based on a non-critical appeal to an expert opinion. It focuses on the shame (in the opinion of the expert) that the other person should feel for challenging their expertise. It's a high priest syndrome. This is how puppets who are approved by the establishment declare that they will not be confronted by anyone whom they don't consider to be their peers. This was happening across the nation at the peak of the covid craze, and many doctors faced losing their licenses to practice. This fosters a climate that is based on fear and discourages dissension within the scientific community. There are very few 'experts,' who are willing to discuss the merits and the covid response. They are afraid of being ostracized. This elitist mentality leads to scientific dictature. America was so close to a nightmare of medical tyranny that it was palpable. All the crying, whining, and victimhood are distractions. It's a way of avoiding admitting that they are afraid to debate their arguments. A way to avoid comparing data to data and determining who is right or wrong. Scientists and medical practitioners should never be against debating facts with others. They should always strive to find the truth even if that means they have to admit when they are wrong. If a scientist is unwilling to debate the facts with others, even those they will publicly criticize, this suggests they have ideological biases. It implies that they aren't real scientists.