Quacks have long tried to portray themselves as “innovators” challenging an ossified medical consensus for the good of patients. This tradition continues among COVID-19 quacks, in particular the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance and its founders.
Quacks delude themselves that they are brave mavericks who are being persecuted for “innovation.” That’s why they attack scientific authority that tells them they are quacks and cranks as “corrupt” and “unimaginative.”
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?
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.
