Speaker 1: Today, I want to talk to you about a topic that has become very controversial
in the last few days in the United States.
Should doctors and scientists debate anti-vaxxers?
This is a question that's been raised by many people in general in the wake of the COVID
19 pandemic.
But in addition to that, more recently, we have seen an argument take place significantly
happening on social media between people like Joe Rogan and Elon Musk and folks like Dr.
Peter Hotez, who is a doctor and works on vaccines.
On the one hand, there is the argument that doctors and scientists should not engage in
debates with anti-vaxxers because when a doctor or a scientist debates an anti-vaxxer, they
legitimize and lend their credibility to an anti-vaxxer for a position that doesn't actually
deserve legitimacy and credibility.
This is the position of Dr. Peter Hotez.
He's a doctor, a vaccine expert, professor at the Baylor College of Medicine, and he
has frequently been targeted by anti-vax harassment campaigns and even threats.
Hotez says debating anti-vaxxers is a losing proposition.
They're not interested in facts or evidence.
They want to spread fear and doubt.
And when you engage with them in a supposed debate, you play into their hands.
You give them a platform to reach more people with their dangerous lies and that it shouldn't
be done.
Dr. Peter Hotez also says that debating anti-vaxxers from a practical standpoint is a waste of
time and a waste of resources because there's real work that can be done educating the public,
explaining the benefits of vaccination.
And he says instead of debating anti-vaxxers, what doctors and scientists should do is just
focus on communicating with people who are hesitant about vaccines, they're unsure about
vaccines.
They don't have all of the information, address their concerns with empathy and respect, and
that that's a much better use of time and resources than debating anti-vaxxers.
Okay, that's one side.
On the other hand, there are those who say doctors and scientists should debate anti-vaxxers.
Now, some of the people saying that are the anti-vaxxers, but even people who accept the
science and understand the science of vaccines will sometimes say no.
The doctors in the scientists should debate the anti-vaxxers because when they do that
they can.
Assuming the doctors and scientists are correct, they will expose the flaws and the errors
of the anti-vaxxers.
They will potentially persuade followers of the anti-vaxxers to change their minds and
to come to the side of science and reason.
And I've heard Joe Rogan make this argument.
He's a popular podcast host and comedian.
He's been accused by some of spreading anti-vax misinformation.
And he says, Listen, the anti-vax movement has followers already.
There is no downside to debating them, doctors and scientists who are confident in their
arguments and that the facts are on their side can actually do some good.
When the doctors and scientists ignore or avoid the anti-vaxxers, they miss an opportunity
to challenge them and to show why they are wrong.
And Joe Rogan also says that when you debate anti-vaxxers, you're respecting their freedom
of speech and expression.
You're not participating in censoring or silencing them, which only makes them more defiant or
rebellious.
If if nobody is going to talk to them, it will make them more defiant and rebellious.
So instead of dismissing anti-vaxxers as crazy or stupid, try to understand where they're
coming from, what motivates them to reject vaccines and meet them head on and convince
them with the facts that potentially will win out.
Where am I on this issue?
I actually don't think there is a simple or definitive answer about whether doctors and
scientists should debate anti-vaxxers, and I'll explain why.
And I will say one other thing before I delve more deeply into this.
In general, when it comes to debates.
The person who wins is most often just like more charismatic or a better communicator.
It's not necessarily the person who's factually correct, and I think that that's a really
important thing to understand, unless it's opinion's right, which is like, okay, these
are just opinions about what movie is good or what food is good.
Different scenario when we're talking about factual stuff where there is a truth about
vaccines.
We have to remember that in general with debate, the better communicator, the more articulate
or charismatic person often wins.
And you might be a scientist with all the facts on your side, but you just might not
be good in a so-called debate format.
And that is something that has to be considered as well.
Okay.
If you are talking about debating vaccines in front of an audience, that's mostly people
already convinced about vaccines or supportive of vaccines, then I don't think it's really
worth the time to debate anti-vaxxers because you're basically preaching to the choir.
You've got a you've got a pro-vaccine audience, you debate an anti-vaxxer you do great.
You haven't convinced anyone.
That scenario seems like a waste of time.
Instead, I would try to encourage people to spread the word and advocate for vaccination.
If you've got an audience of people who are mostly undecided or conflicted about vaccines,
then it might make sense to consider debating anti-vaxxers.
And I do think in those situations, doctors and scientists could reach a key group of
people who might benefit from hearing both sides of the argument.
Assuming you have charismatic and articulate people from from medicine and science.
Doctors and scientists could appeal to the audience and show them why vaccines are safe
and effective.
In addition to this, if the format is a structured debate, clear rules and criteria.
It benefits those with the facts on their side, which in this case is doctors and scientists
and doctors and scientists who might shy away from these insane sort of like kill stream
type, insane, bonkers debates where people just shout over each other.
That doesn't seem like a good idea.
If you have a more formal, structured format with a good moderator, that also benefits
the side with the facts on their hands and you're able to refute anti-vaxxers with facts
and data.
I think that's good chaotic, informal debate without rules and standards.
I think it's not a good scenario in which to debate anti-vaxxers.
You'd have you'd have you'd be at a disadvantage in that sort of a scenario, and it's better
not to get dragged into that.
So the answer to Should doctors and scientists debate anti-vaxxers depends on a lot of things.
It depends on what is the format, how serious are structured is the debate?
Who's in the audience?
What's the point?
And what else could those doctors and scientists be doing with their time?
As usual, these issues are not black and white, but I want to hear from you.
Let me know in a comment.
Let me know in an email.
What do you think about this core question?
Should medicine and science debate anti-vaxxers or does it lend them the credibility and legitimacy
that they should not be given?
We'll take a quick break and be back with much more right after this.
Let's not forget that we're dealing with independent community media here, and we are primarily
supported by folks like you, people who watch some clips on YouTube or listen to the audio
podcast or whatever the case may be.
We do the show day in and day out for everybody.
We give it away for free, all of the content other than the bonus show, of course.
But we do this subsidized by somewhere around 0.7% of the audience that supports us directly
through mechanisms like memberships that join Pacman dot com you that group 0.7% which maybe
we could go to grow to 1% or one and a half percent someday.
These are the folks making the show possible for everybody at no cost.
And so I encourage you to sign up at join Packman dot com and among other great member
benefits you do get access to the daily bonus show an incredible award winning extra show
on which today I will be telling a number of very interesting stories from my trip last
week.
Join Pacman dot com is the place to sign up.
You can use the coupon code.
Indicted again.