If attacked for spreading misinformation, a perfectly reasonable response is to invite the attacker to meet for a moderated, public debate. And that is what happened; Hotez was not bullied.
Hotez responded by stating (paraphrased) that science is not about debate but published scientific studies. In other words, a public debate, open to the rubes, is a waste of time because they will not understand the matters discussed and will only respond emotionally.
Same thing happened in January 2022 when Sen. Ron Johnson convened a roundtable discussion: Covid-19: A Second Opinion. In attendance on the panel were Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Pierre Kory, and others.
Also invited were Rochelle Walensky (CDC), Albert Bourla (Pfizer CEO), Anthony Fauci (NIAID), Robert Califf (FDA), and seven others. ALL declined the invitation.
No I’m sorry you’re wrong. Everything JFK Jr. has asserted has already been thoroughly and publicly debunked over and over again for years. There’s little worth debating other than specific policies regarding masking and technical controls for vaccine production. Why would a professor of virology debate those things with a lawyer who believes the measles vaccine causes autism?
I'm arguing for debate. In addition to the other example I provided, you see the same phenomena in climate science. Climate alarmists will not appear in a public debate with climate "deniers."
As a public figure and a virologist, why WOULDN'T he debate a lawyer who has been debunked? It would be an opportunity to publicly embarrass him and shut him down in a matter of minutes. Given how often he has appeared on CNN and MSNBC, he likes being in the public eye, so why WOULDN'T he agree to a debate?
For the love of all that is Holy, he needs to step up and defend his position.
If attacked for spreading misinformation, a perfectly reasonable response is to invite the attacker to meet for a moderated, public debate. And that is what happened; Hotez was not bullied.
Hotez responded by stating (paraphrased) that science is not about debate but published scientific studies. In other words, a public debate, open to the rubes, is a waste of time because they will not understand the matters discussed and will only respond emotionally.
Same thing happened in January 2022 when Sen. Ron Johnson convened a roundtable discussion: Covid-19: A Second Opinion. In attendance on the panel were Peter McCullough, Harvey Risch, Pierre Kory, and others.
Also invited were Rochelle Walensky (CDC), Albert Bourla (Pfizer CEO), Anthony Fauci (NIAID), Robert Califf (FDA), and seven others. ALL declined the invitation.
No I’m sorry you’re wrong. Everything JFK Jr. has asserted has already been thoroughly and publicly debunked over and over again for years. There’s little worth debating other than specific policies regarding masking and technical controls for vaccine production. Why would a professor of virology debate those things with a lawyer who believes the measles vaccine causes autism?
I'm arguing for debate. In addition to the other example I provided, you see the same phenomena in climate science. Climate alarmists will not appear in a public debate with climate "deniers."
As a public figure and a virologist, why WOULDN'T he debate a lawyer who has been debunked? It would be an opportunity to publicly embarrass him and shut him down in a matter of minutes. Given how often he has appeared on CNN and MSNBC, he likes being in the public eye, so why WOULDN'T he agree to a debate?
For the love of all that is Holy, he needs to step up and defend his position.
Debate is about speaking performance, and is a specific skill. It is not a useful tool for determining factual truth.
The best way to debate Hotez/scientists is to perform a study, get it peer reviewed, and then published.
Posting this again here:
Copying a tweet thread content from Haraldur Liefson:
"A live debate is a great way to figure out who is the better debater, who is more charming, who is better at winning a room over.
All skills that politicians need to have to be able to perform their job.
It’s however not a great way to get to the truth about anything.
Jon Stewart will win pretty much anyone in a live debate.
Yes, he’s smart. But he mostly wins because he’s good at debating, he’s done it for decades, he’s charming and funny. He knows the angles.
But he would also win the debate if he was totally wrong.
He could debate a scientist and that person would most likely look like a total fool. Even if they were 100% right on all the facts.
He could run circles around them. But that doesn’t mean he would be right.
It would just mean he’s a better live debater."
Very good, sir.
Separate note: https://www.yahoo.com/news/hunter-biden-charged-failing-pay-133201200.html
Great questions. Thank you for a truly thought provoking post.