Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Cancer Medicine Quackery

ProtocolKills.com: An old quack narrative reborn for COVID-19

Quacks claim that medicine, not the disease, kills, with their nostrums as the cure. ProtocolKills.com shows that victims and their families are often their best spokespeople because they are so sympathetic and questioning their testimonials is easily portrayed as attacking very sympathetic victims, just as Stanislaw Burzynski did for decades before the pandemic.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Politics Popular culture Skepticism/critical thinking

Quoth antivaxxers: “Big pharma got Tucker Carlson!”

Tucker Carlson was fired on Monday. Antivaxxers are blaming big pharma because he had aired a segment attacking Pfizer and its COVID-19 vaccine.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Science Skepticism/critical thinking

Antivaxxers attack scientific consensus as a “manufactured construct”

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?

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

“I know you are, but what am I?” John Leake and Peter McCullough vs. conspiracy theories

COVID-19 cranks and antivaxxers John Leake and Dr. Peter McCullough are unhappy at correctly being labeled conspiracy theorists. So what does Leake do? Engage in projection, of course!

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

Neil deGrasse Tyson demonstrates why debating cranks is a horrible idea

Astrophysicist and famed science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared on The Highwire, an antivax video podcast, to “debate” its host, antivax propagandist Del Bigtree. This incident demonstrates quite well why it is almost never a good idea for a scientist to agree to “debate” science deniers.