Censorship won’t help media crack down on quack science
PremiumSpotify mustn’t gag anyone but insist on evidence-based arguments
Misinformation is like porn—people think they know it when they see it. But I’ve spent more than a year studying medical misinformation and find that the term isn’t particularly enlightening. The dictionary calls it “false information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." Much of what gets labelled as such is really minority opinion, which can be presented either responsibly or in a way that’s misleading.
This distinction applies to star Spotify podcaster Joe Rogan and his controversial interviews with scientists. The most heavily criticized episode, featuring biologist Robert Malone’s concerns over covid vaccines, was further on the fringe than listeners were led to believe, but there’s no reason to assume Malone was lying rather than expressing wildly overconfident opinions.
In medical matters, airing minority views might cause people to make poor decisions, such as skipping jabs, so Spotify’s remedy—an advisory with spot-casts—is reasonable. What celebrity singers and their fans are flagging as misinformation has a subjective quality that makes it impossible to police in a scientific way. There’s a spectrum of minority opinion in science—from the bold and visionary to the crazy and dangerous. The question for Spotify and others is how to tell the difference and present minority views responsibly, in the right context, so viewers get a sense of where the actual preponderance of evidence lies.
That means that minority arguments must be backed with logic and evidence. Both Rogan and I have interviewed science writer Gary Taubes, for example, whose minority viewpoint on higher fat diets has gained traction. And I have also interviewed vaccine expert Paul Offit, who has written a book poking holes in a variety of mainstream medical beliefs, from the need for cancer screenings and daily vitamins to the imperative to fight fevers. Lately, he’s taken a contrarian turn by not advocating covid booster mandates, though he does support boosters for high-risk people.
The problem with Rogan’s Malone episode was not that he criticized covid jabs. We must look at all medical interventions critically. And on the surface, Malone might seem like a reasonable voice on the pandemic. His experiments 30 years ago helped create a foundation for mRNA vaccines. The problem was that his critique relied on plain speculation and baseless assertions.
Rogan’s three-plus hours with Malone covers ivermectin as experimental therapy, the side effects of covid jabs, including menstrual irregularities, apart from the concern that vaccines would worsen the disease, shortcomings in clinical trials and confusion over vax effects on transmission.
My podcast covered these topics too. But unlike Malone, my interview subjects mostly spoke within their specific areas of expertise, and offered scientific evidence. They also drew very different conclusions than he did. Some, such as chemist Derek Lowe, used not just data but an understanding of biochemistry to explain why jabs are unlikely to cause enhanced vulnerability to disease, even though that has happened with some other vaccines.
Malone’s arguments were rambling and often rested not on evidence, but on his claimed insider status at the US Department of Defense and other government agencies. Sometimes there was a kernel of real data, but his interpretations were alarmist. While other experts have raised concerns about menstrual irregularities, he suggested the shots would cause premature menopause. That point needed rebuttal.
In an apology, Rogan promised to try to bring on guests “with differing opinions." That’s laudable, but what really matters is making sure listeners know the scientific consensus. Mavericks always capture public imagination. In 2012, Rogan interviewed Peter Duesberg, who had been an acclaimed virologist with a contrarian view that HIV doesn’t cause Aids. Colleagues have said his critiques were valuable in the 1980s, but there’s now overwhelming evidence that HIV does cause Aids. Plenty of mainstream journalists gave Duesberg airtime because the public loves a good underdog story—the triumph of the rebel nobody believed. It’s also one of the reasons media outlets gave Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes a free pass when she claimed she was changing the world of blood testing. But the burden of proof should be on the maverick to bring powerful evidence. Science writer Gary Taubes did that when it came to debunking low-fat diets. Malone and Holmes instead relied on name-dropping, innuendo and sometimes paranoia.
Sure, the crowd can be wrong. Dissenting views are worth listening to, as long as they’re backed by evidence and a rational argument. Asking media to censor “misinformation" isn’t likely to work because it’s not that simple. Most people don’t know it when they see it.
Never miss a story! Stay connected and informed with Mint. Download our App Now!!