Share this comment
This is why Sam Harris won’t have people like this on his pod. Throwing “data” out there like it’s study supported facts from people with a profit motive is irresponsible journalism. Now have Dr Peter hotez or Dr Daniel Griffin on to explain how vaccines are safe and effective - after years of use and thousands of studies. Just because i…
This is why Sam Harris won’t have people like this on his pod. Throwing “data” out there like it’s study supported facts from people with a profit motive is irresponsible journalism. Now have Dr Peter hotez or Dr Daniel Griffin on to explain how vaccines are safe and effective - after years of use and thousands of studies. Just because influencers have good points to make about big pharma dosent mean we should consider them medical specialists. Responsible journalism brings debate to this issue instead of just scaring parents without evidence.
Thanks
I wouldn't say that these guests were not knowledgeable enough, or somehow inappropriate. I just think that having 3 against 1 didn't have the usual Honestly magic. Bari could have just interviewed Calley Means alone and put to him all the relevant and researched questions. I love those one on one interviews from the beginning days when Bari was pulling on a thread until something unraveled. I think she's brilliant there.
Agreed.
While I'm not completely opposed to this approach to interviewing only one side in a bit of a soft-ball way to get them to open up, it works better in a much longer format where they run out of canned responses and let their guard down.
That said, the reader/listener would benefit much more from a balanced and civil debate on these issues. Bari pushes back a bit, but as she said she can't fact check on stage. Someone representing the other side can easily cover that.
I'm supportive of continuous investigation into the safety of our foods. I'm opposed to prioritizing the unqualified regurgitations of self-promoters. The individuals interviewed obviously fall into the second category.