Ad hominem attacks (e.g., Dr. Ardis is controlled opposition) and divide-and-conquer strategies are commonly used to defuse movements and prevent them from gaining traction.
Mainstream TV journalists are notorious for presenting only one side of a breaking news story. At the same time, these same journalists invariably marginalize and dismiss health freedom advocates as a fringe movement made up of rabid conspiracy theorists.
it is vitally important to avoid falling into the same trap by instinctively advocating a hypothesis without considering other possibilities, especially one as controversial and emotionally charged as this one.
We must be able to freely share and express different viewpoints without the threat of gaslighting, shadow banning, and outright censorship, which are an anathema to an informed and civil society. It’s perfectly ok to disagree. That’s a form of healthy debate.
Steve Kirsch concurs, as noted by his comment in his aforementioned article:
The point is that different people have different hypotheses that they believe. It’s good to hear different points of view. That’s how we learn.Kirsch, ibid.