Bad Advice

1. Science is a Self-Correcting Method, Not Absolute Certainty.

The beauty of science is that it’s enormously self-correcting, questioning, probing, skeptical, mutable.

Science is a process. At its core, science is a method for understanding the natural world, serving as an antidote to superstition and magical thinking. It relies on hierarchical, reasonable, and logical testing of possibilities, much like a mechanic diagnosing a car problem. The most crucial element is reproducibility; findings must be confirmed repeatedly by independent investigators to be considered factual.

Scientists can be wrong. While the scientific process is trustworthy, individual scientists and their initial hypotheses can be incorrect. History is replete with examples of celebrated scientists whose findings were later disproven, such as:

• Johannes Fibiger (Nobel Prize for worm causing cancer)
• Egas Moniz (Nobel Prize for lobotomy)
• Ancel Keys (trans fats as "heart-healthy")
• Stanley Pons & Martin Fleischmann ("cold fusion")

Truth emerges over time. These examples demonstrate that while scientists may hold biases or make errors, the scientific method eventually prevails, discarding disproven ideas. This inherent self-correction means scientific knowledge is constantly evolving, which can be unsettling for people seeking certainty, especially regarding health, but ultimately leads to robust truths like evolution and climate change.

2. Scientists Struggle to Communicate Beyond the Lab.

Given all of these issues, scientists might appear to be the last group able to effectively communicate science to the public.

Training hinders communication. Scientists are trained to be precise and acknowledge uncertainty, often framing hypotheses negatively (the null hypothesis) and avoiding definitive terms like "prove." This commitment to nuance makes them sound hesitant or waffling to the public, as seen when scientists couldn't definitively tell Congressman Dan Burton that the MMR vaccine doesn't cause autism.

Personality and perception create barriers. Stereotypes portray scientists as introverted, awkward, and detached from the real world, reinforced by media depictions. This public perception, coupled with scientists' preference for isolation over public engagement, makes them less charismatic communicators than celebrities or politicians. Furthermore, some scientists view public outreach by colleagues as "selling out" or simplifying complex work.

Complexity resists sound bites. Reducing complex scientific issues into brief, digestible sound bites is challenging and often feels intellectually dishonest to scientists. Explaining the nuances of thimerosal safety, for instance, requires detailing different mercury types, elimination rates, and comparative exposures, which is nearly impossible in a short interview and can leave the public more confused or scared.

3. Cultural Biases & Magical Thinking Cloud Health Decisions.

We are, all of us, at the mercy of fringe scientists with winning personalities.

Celebrity and charisma are persuasive. The public often relies on the perceived trustworthiness or charisma of the messenger rather than evaluating the scientific data themselves. This allows celebrities, politicians, and activists with no scientific expertise (like Jenny McCarthy, Charlie Sheen, or Robert F. Kennedy Jr.) to gain national platforms and spread misinformation, simply because of their fame or personality.

Magical thinking overrides logic. People often seek simple explanations for complex events, sometimes resorting to magical thinking or attributing causality based solely on temporal association ("my child got a vaccine, then developed autism"). This desire for control leads to unfounded beliefs, such as:

• Peanut butter causing leukemia
• Ghosts existing because they're on TV
• Himalayan sea salt curing anxiety
• Vaccines causing developmental disabilities despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary

Ideology trumps evidence. Decisions about health are frequently influenced by cultural, political, or religious beliefs rather than scientific consensus. Examples include:

• Religious groups opposing HPV vaccination due to concerns about sexual promiscuity, despite evidence showing no change in behavior.
• Political leanings influencing views on climate change or the safety of GMOs and gluten, often leading to the rejection of scientific facts in favor of ideological alignment.

4. Media Prioritizes Drama Over Scientific Accuracy.

“Look, our job is to be interesting. If it also happens to be true, great!”

The "feed the beast" pressure. The 24/7 news cycle and the need to generate advertising revenue create immense pressure on media outlets to prioritize stories that are interesting and controversial, often at the expense of scientific accuracy. This leads to sensationalized reporting and the promotion of false balance, presenting fringe views as equally valid as scientific consensus.

Misleading narratives and false balance. Media outlets frequently frame scientific issues as debates with two equally legitimate sides, even when the science is settled. This was evident in:

• ABC's 20/20 segment on the Hepatitis B vaccine, linking it to SIDS and MS despite evidence to the contrary, focusing on emotional anecdotes.
• Katie Couric's show on the HPV vaccine, highlighting rare adverse events and parental concerns without adequately presenting the overwhelming safety data or distinguishing correlation from causation.
• CNN's coverage of a bogus "miracle cure" for AIDS, driven by sensationalism during sweeps week.

Advertising revenue is a conflict. While journalists often scrutinize scientists' ties to industry, the media's own reliance on advertising revenue creates a significant conflict of interest, incentivizing them to produce content that attracts viewers regardless of its factual basis. This dynamic makes it difficult for accurate, nuanced science reporting to compete with dramatic, fear-mongering narratives.

5. Debating Settled Science Often Elevates Misinformation.

When you agree to do that, you’re agreeing, at least tacitly, that the issue is debatable.

Legitimizing false claims. Participating in debates about scientific issues where the science is settled (like vaccine safety, evolution, or climate change) can inadvertently lend legitimacy to the denialist position. By presenting two sides, the media implies that a genuine scientific controversy exists, confusing the public and elevating individuals with no expertise to the level of scientific authorities.

Focus shifts from facts to performance. These debates often devolve into emotional or rhetorical battles where charisma and performance outweigh scientific evidence. The goal becomes winning over the audience rather than conveying accurate information, as seen in the Democracy Now! interview where the anti-vaccine advocate peppered the audience with misinformation, forcing the scientist into a defensive posture.

Alternative approaches can educate. While direct debates can be problematic, other forms of public engagement can effectively counter misinformation. Examples include:

• Bill Nye debating creationism, focusing on observable evidence and the implications for science education.
• Joe Schwarcz dismantling homeopathy claims by emphasizing scientific plausibility and the power of the placebo effect.
• Michael Shermer confronting Holocaust denialism with overwhelming historical evidence and exposing the opponent's anti-Semitic bias.

These successful examples show that engaging with denialism can be worthwhile if the focus is on educating the broader audience watching, rather than convincing the opponent or the immediate, often biased, crowd.

6. Humor Effectively Combats Science Denialism.

Nothing dismisses ill-founded beliefs better than humor.

Ridicule disarms denial. Comedians possess a unique ability to identify and expose the absurdities and hypocrisies inherent in science denialism. By using satire and ridicule, they can dismantle unfounded claims and make them appear preposterous in a way that scientists often cannot.

Memorable and engaging communication. Unlike dry scientific explanations, humor makes complex or controversial topics accessible and memorable. Shows like Penn & Teller: Bullshit!, The Colbert Report, The Daily Show, and Last Week Tonight use comedic formats to deliver hard facts and statistics, reaching large audiences who might not otherwise engage with science issues.

Examples of humor in action:

• Penn & Teller using bowling pins to illustrate vaccine protection.
• Stephen Colbert employing "truthiness" and playing an anti-vaccine character to highlight logical fallacies.
• Samantha Bee using exaggerated reactions (like foaming at the mouth) to underscore the dangerous absurdity of anti-vaccine claims.
• John Oliver using a "97 vs. 3" debate setup to expose false balance in climate change reporting.
• Jimmy Kimmel using a fake study on children's vaccine choice to mock parental refusal.

These comedic approaches effectively highlight the irrationality of denialist positions and resonate with viewers, often going viral and reaching millions more people than traditional science communication.

7. Advocating for Science Invites Personal Attacks & Intimidation.

The goal of these attacks is to get me to react—to say or do something that will discredit me.

Intimidation tactics are common. Scientists and advocates who speak out against popular misinformation often become targets of harassment and intimidation campaigns. These attacks are designed to silence them by making public advocacy personally and professionally costly.

Forms of attack include:

• Hate mail and death threats, often filled with vitriol, conspiracy theories, and religious condemnation.
• Frivolous lawsuits intended to drain financial resources and time, forcing advocates to defend themselves against baseless claims (like libel suits for expressing opinions).
• Physical harassment and stalking, sometimes involving confrontations designed to provoke a negative reaction that can be filmed and used to discredit the advocate.

The purpose is to silence. These tactics aim to push scientists and advocates to the sidelines, making them unwilling to engage in public discourse on controversial topics. The hope is that the effort and stress required to counter these attacks will outweigh the perceived benefits of speaking out, leaving the public sphere open to misinformation.

Institutional support is crucial. Navigating these attacks requires resilience and, ideally, support from one's institution. Hospitals and universities that stand by their scientists when they face backlash for defending science are essential in enabling continued advocacy despite the personal cost.

8. "Pharma Shill" Accusations Are a Common, Flawed Tactic.

To anti-vaccine activists and certain members of the media, I will always be the poster child for conflict of interest—even though any compensation that I received for co-inventing a vaccine ended in 2008.

Discrediting the messenger. A primary tactic used by science denialists is to accuse advocates of being financially compromised, often labeling them "Pharma shills" or "biostitutes." This ad hominem attack attempts to undermine the credibility of the person speaking, regardless of the scientific evidence they present.

The accusation is often illogical. The claim that scientists advocate for vaccines solely for financial gain is often inconsistent with the facts. In the author's case, the accusation ignores:

• The decades of non-profit, NIH-funded research.
• The fact that compensation for the patented vaccine ended years ago.
• The overwhelming body of independent scientific studies supporting vaccine safety.
• The author's history of criticizing pharmaceutical companies when warranted (e.g., oral polio vaccine, FluMist).

Transparency can be weaponized. Even disclosing financial relationships or collaborations, as required by ethical guidelines, can be twisted by opponents to imply sinister motives. The media, sometimes seeking controversy, may highlight these disclosures to suggest a lack of independence, making it difficult for scientists to be transparent without facing accusations of bias.

No easy defense exists. Responding to the "Pharma shill" accusation is inherently difficult; almost any defense can sound defensive or like a prepared statement. The best, albeit often unsatisfying, approach is to stand by the science and the integrity of one's work, recognizing that for those committed to the accusation, no explanation will suffice.

9. Personal Passion Fuels the Fight for Scientific Truth.

I think that it might have something to do with seeing myself in all of these children—seeing in every story a little boy staring out of that hospital window.

Childhood experiences shape advocacy. Deeply personal experiences can serve as powerful motivators for dedicating one's career to child health and advocacy. Surviving a ruptured spleen thanks to a pediatrician's dedication instilled a profound respect for medicine, while a traumatic hospital stay due to clubfoot surgery, surrounded by children with polio, highlighted the devastating impact of preventable diseases and the vulnerability of children.

Mentorship inspires dedication. Training under pioneers in vaccine development, like Dr. Stanley Plotkin (inventor of the rubella vaccine), demonstrated the immense power of science to protect entire populations. Collaborating with dedicated researchers committed to addressing global health problems, like Fred Clark and his work on rotavirus in Haiti, further fueled a passion for using science to alleviate suffering.

Witnessing preventable suffering drives action. Caring for children hospitalized or permanently disabled by diseases that could have been prevented by vaccines, or seeing parents choose ineffective alternative therapies over life-saving medical care, creates a powerful emotional imperative to speak out. These experiences underscore the real-world consequences of misinformation and denialism.

Advocacy is a form of self-expression. While the stated reasons for advocacy are often altruistic (protecting children, promoting science), there is also a personal dimension. The emotional weight of witnessing suffering, perhaps resonating with one's own past vulnerability, can fuel a relentless drive to fight for what is right, even in the face of intense opposition.

10. Fraudulent Science, Like Wakefield's, Undermines Trust.

No one has done more to promote the anti-vaccine movement than Andrew Wakefield. And, ironically, no one has done more to destroy it.

A charismatic figure gains traction. Andrew Wakefield, a physician with a compelling personality and a seemingly groundbreaking study published in a prestigious journal (The Lancet), became an instant hero to parents seeking an explanation for autism. His theory, linking the MMR vaccine to autism and intestinal problems, gained widespread media attention and fueled the anti-vaccine movement.

Fraudulent basis is exposed. Investigative journalism and subsequent official inquiries revealed that Wakefield's study was not merely flawed but based on falsified data and undisclosed conflicts of interest. He had received funding from lawyers suing vaccine manufacturers and had subjected children to unnecessary procedures without ethical approval.

Consequences of the fraud. As a result of these findings, Wakefield was banned from practicing medicine in the UK, his Lancet paper was retracted, and his work became an example of scientific misconduct. Despite this, he continued to promote his disproven theories, often aligning himself with other conspiracy theorists and further marginalizing himself from the scientific and medical communities.

The fraud's double-edged impact. While Wakefield's initial fraud caused immense harm by scaring parents away from vaccines, leading to preventable outbreaks, his eventual exposure and continued promotion of discredited ideas ultimately undermined the credibility of the anti-vaccine movement in the eyes of the mainstream media and a significant portion of the public. His self-destruction became a cautionary tale that helped shift the
[ERROR: Incomplete response]

Last updated: June 12, 2025