Experts Can Sometimes Be Wrong On Their Topics of Expertise, and Experts Sometimes Disagree with Other Experts in the Same Field – It’s Okay To Disagree with Experts
People or organizations who are regarded as being experts in one field or another can be incorrect at times; therefore, one should not uncritically accept anything and everything “experts” have to say.
Sometimes, experts disagree with other experts in their field on the same topic.
When such situations arise, which expert should I believe, Expert 1 or Expert 2? And who is to say?
If you say I should listen to Expert 2 on topic Z and ignore Expert 1, why should I take your word for it?
What makes you the final arbiter on who is right or wrong on an issue, and why should I automatically bow the knee to what Group X says on Topic Z, just because you believe that Group X are experts or that Group X are even generally regarded by others as being experts?
One has to use critical thinking as one goes through life.
I do respect giving some amount of credence to people who have higher education and/or life experience regarding a topic, so I am by no means an advocate for applauding ignorance or for totally ignoring and disregarding what “experts” have to say on whatever subject matter they have chosen to specialize in.
Experts Sometimes Have Political (or other) Agendas and Will Use Their Platform and “Expert” Credentials to Lie About, Distort, or Omit Facts
I am not opposed to taking into consideration what so-called “experts” on a topic have to say, but I’m old enough, with a college degree and enough life experience accumulated, to know that sometimes experts are wrong – and sometimes, experts have agendas.
An example or two here:
Covid-19 Virus
Progressives and liberals often slant scientific news and findings to bend to the will of the Democrats and progressive values and causes: Covid is a good example of this.
Progressives have politicized science and medicine to determine how and who should wear masks, should schools be closed and for how long, who should be vaccinated (they press even those who are not likely to get or die from Covid to get vaccinated).
During the early stages of Covid and the lock-downs, Democrats were saying that Christians should not attend church services or Trump rallies, and yet, when black people and liberals met en masse for “Black Lives Matter” protests, where those BLM protesters were burning down buildings and looting stores, the “experts” in the scientific community (who lean left politically) were saying that BLM protests were NOT super spreader events.
It so happened that progressive scientists said any Christian or Republican gatherings were “super spreader” events, but not any groups of liberals or progressives who gathered, especially if those persons were gathering to promote liberal and progressive views. You can see the double standards there.
The standards issued by “experts” were not based on science and facts but on political favoritism.
So no, experts are not always correct or unbiased and can be safely ignored at times.
Edit: Speaking of Covid – these pieces came out a few days after I published this very blog post!:
Excerpts (transcript from television interview/panel):
HEMINGWAY: [The CDC] had tremendous power during this pandemic to control the lives of tens of millions of Americans in really bad ways. Children who will never be the same because of mask mandates; people who lost their jobs because of vaccine mandates. … The crushing of the economy – the loss of trust in public health is catastrophic. And I agree with Howie – changing or reorganizing the CDC does nothing even close to approaching what needs to be done to restore that trust.
(Link): Review finds CDC mishandled COVID-19 pandemic response
The “need for change came through loud and clear,” a review found.
August 17, 2022
A scathing internally initiated review of how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention handled COVID-19 has found that its approach toward the pandemic failed to meet the moment of crisis, and offered a series of changes intended to revamp the agency and make it more nimble.
“For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for COVID-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,” CDC Director Rochelle Walensky said in a statement on Wednesday.
— end excerpts —
And you want me to unquestioningly accept and agree with anything or everything that “experts” say?
The Experts and Gender Ideology Vs Biological Fact
Regarding gender ideology, today’s liberals and progressives are, due to a political queer theory political agenda, telling us absurd and false things, such as biological males can be deemed women just because those men want to identify as women.
Things have gotten so bad that progressives now are advocating for this insanity:
(Link): Trans Activists Want Archeologists to Stop Identifying Skeletons as Male or Female
The liberal and progressive “scientific experts” further lecture us that men can get pregnant, men can get periods, and women have penises.
All of that is false and biologically impossible, regardless of how many “experts” declare it so.
One does not have to have a degree in biology to recognize basic biological error, so no, I’d not advise agreeing with “experts” who declare that people with penises and/or XY chromosomes are female.
Arrogance in Intellectual Ability and Education Vs. Pride in Ignorance
A lot of Christian independent fundamentalist Baptists, the “King James Version Onlyists” in particular, take great pride in ignorance, while their opposition (sometimes staunch Calvinists) go the opposite, equally incorrect route and are patronizing and arrogant about their college educations and degrees.
While I can appreciate that having a background in the history and the transmission of the biblical text can possibly allow for more accurate understandings of the biblical text, I don’t (contra the Calvinists) believe it’s necessary for every Christian to attend seminary or learn ancient Hebrew or koine Greek to understand most of the Bible correctly or to debate a passage’s interpretation with another believer.
So, your “proudly ignorant” KJV Onlyists are in error to be proud about their ignorance (they often brag about how little education they have received), while their Calvinist opponents are equally wrong to act as though, because they know Koine Greek and have more college diplomas, that they “know better” than those who don’t know Koine or who don’t have as much college education, so other believers with not as many college degrees should take a seat and shut up.
Abuse Survivor Advocates Lack Critical Thinking Skills
Several weeks ago, an obnoxious ASA (“abuse survivor advocate”) calling herself (or himself) ‘BAccountablity‘ on Twitter insisted that a Christian group called GRACE (link to GRACE home page) are “experts” regarding the topic of abuse and how to handle it. (This is something I may want to write another, future blog post about.)
She feels that because GRACE asked reporter Julie Roys to step down from some conference that this is some kind of admission that Roys had in fact been guilty of abusing a teen under her guidance when Roys was in her early or mid 30s at the time (the teen girl was in a Sunday School class of some sort headed by Roys).
I submit that the reason GRACE asked Roys to step down is not because GRACE felt that Roys had “exploited a power differential” with a teen under her direction years previously but that the very ASAs on social media, such as BAccountablity, were creating such a fuss about Roys, that their stupid, obnoxious ruckus may have hampered the effectiveness or attendance level of the conference that Roys was promoting.
GRACE more than likely asked Roys to step back from the event so as to appease the very whiny, vocal ASA idiots on twitter who go on witch hunts, so as not to diminish the effectiveness or reach of the conference.
In other words, some ASAs (Abuse Survivor Advocates) are a lot like the very vocal, obnoxious, complaining progressives on Twitter who so hound and harass a person or business, that others often silence themselves and step down so as to avoid being collateral damage in the Cancel Culture wars.
Kind of like this:
Roys wrote in a several year old book that she invested a lot of attention in the teen girl in her church class, because Roys was highly Codependent in her life at that time, and one trait of several of Codependents is that they feel it is their duty and obligation to fix and rescue every person around them, especially hurting, needy, or damaged people.
That is, Codependents seek after a wounded person not to exploit a power differential to abuse the person, but out of a care-taking compulsion.
(And most Christian churches and denominations encourage such unhealthy behavior in girls and women.
Many gender complementarian churches push Codependent behaviors and thinking process into women from a young age, telling them it is how “God designed girls and women” to be and live life.
Christians confuse Codependency with “Biblical Womanhood.”)
Roys attempting to help the troubled teen girl, as outlined in her book that the ASAs discussed on blogs and social media, twisted and disgustingly distorted the events to make Roys out to be a predator or some kind of pedophile.
The ASAs (including Ashely Easter, Amy Smith, BAccountablity, and I think Julie Anne Smith of the “Spiritual Sounding Board” blog, among others) were mistaking Codependent care-taking for abuse (for supposedly exploiting a so-called “power differential.”)
Well, no. I don’t have to grant that GRACE is an expert on the topic of Codependency.
GRACE (link to their home page once more) seem to present themselves as “experts” of abuse in churches – not as experts on Codependency.
If the GRACE organization is mistaking typical Codependency care-taking compulsions as being the same thing as, say, a perverted 35 year old male youth pastor deliberately using his influence or official station over a 17 year old to get into her pants, they are wrong and completely ignorant on the topic of Codependency.
I myself am a recovered Codependent (I wrote more about my experiences and lessons learned from being a former Codependent here).
I was very Codependent for about 35 years or so, due to parental and Southern Baptist influence, with Southern Baptists and their “gender complementarian” doctrines passing off Codependency as being the same thing as “Biblical Womanhood.”
I don’t care how “expert” the GRACE group is regarding abuse, or if they asked Julie Roys to step down – they know nothing about Codependency, if they were mistaking typical Codependent compulsive care taking and rescuing behavior for “exploitation of power differentials.”
Codependents are prey for abusers; they are not the abusers.
Often times, Narcissists, bullies, and con artists gravitate to and either abuse or exploit Codependents, not vice versa.
Depicting a Codependent as the “bad guy” is demonic.
It’s a type of blame shifting and gas-lighting (which is one form of narcissistic abuse).
It’s also DARVO, flipping around the victim and abuser roles, to argue that the victim is the abuser. It’s sick.
But that’s precisely what Amy Smith, Ashely Easter, BAaccountablity, and other ASAs were doing in regards to Roys and Anna Duggar.
A search on GRACE’s site for the topic of Codependency turned up nothing on the topic of Codependency (at the times I ran searches), for one, and again, secondly (get used to me pointing this out),
if GRACE members are confusing the usual Codependent drive for care-taking and helping others with an “exploitation of power differentials,” (and at that for the express purpose of abusing other people) they – and the ASAs on Twitter hounding Julie Roys over her involvement with a teen years ago are wrong – and are also being idiots.
Layperson Expertise
I did take psychology courses back in college, made A’s in those (but my degree is not in psychology).
I used to have clinical depression and anxiety, Christianity did not help me conquer those, so I spent over 35+ years doing research on my own to find my way out of depression and to manage my anxiety. (The psychiatrists I saw for around 21 or so years were unable to cure me of either condition).
I spent many years reading books and free, online articles by therapists, psychiatrists, and psychologists about Codependency (and tangential topics, such as domestic abuse, sociopathy, narcissistic abuse, pedophilia, boundaries, assertiveness, etc).
The research in those topics I carried out in middle-age helped free me from depression and more effectively handle my anxiety disorder – as well as spot toxic people much more quickly, so I can keep them out of my life.
So, I may not be a traditional expert, in that I do not have a formal college degree in psychology and so forth, but I am no dummy, either, and I can spot when other people do not have a correct understanding on certain topics (such as Codependency. I was extremely Codependent for around 35+ years, so I am more than familiar with it).
I am also wise and intelligent enough to question other people, even when and if those people are regarded as “experts.”
Unlike “BAaccountability,” I don’t put my brain aside or turn it off and unquestioningly accept anything and everything “experts” (or anyone else) say, whether it’s GRACE or someone with ten college degrees attached to their name.
Specialists Acknowledge that Other Experts in Their Field Make Mistakes, Get Things Wrong, and Don’t Know Enough
In my research on Codependency (and narcissistic abuse and other subjects), I learned from people who are regarded as experts on these matters that other experts are lacking.
That is, I’ve seen videos online by licensed therapists and psychologists who will explain that they specialize in Codependency and/or in Narcissistic Abuse, and that their colleagues in the field are often ignorant about those topics and get things wrong – including treatment approaches with clients of theirs.
Mental Health Professionals who specialize in Codependency and/or NA (Narcissistic Abuse) explain in their materials that when in university, mental health courses do not, or did not, cover topics such as NA or Codependency in depth – such subjects are not discussed very much, if at all, in University course work.
One psychologist who I follow on You Tube (I’ve also read his book and articles) specializes in treating Codependency, but as an off-shoot, he also specializes in NA, because many of his Codependent patients were either raised by narcissists or are married to one.
This psychologist has explained that many therapists are themselves Codependent and don’t even recognize it until later in life (if at all), and most therapists (and other mental health professionals) are not very knowledgeable about Narcissism, either… which is a view confirmed by yet another psychologist I’ve followed on You Tube who specializes in NA.
Quite often, treatment mistakes are made, where, for example, if a Codependent woman is married to a Narcissistic man, the couples counselor, psychologist, or therapist they see for therapy will sometimes do things like give bad instruction to the Codependent spouse, because the therapist does not understand the dynamics of narcissistic abuse.
In other cases, the Narcissistic spouse will take on and adopt Codependent or “victim like” traits in therapy, so that the therapist gets “fooled” into thinking that the Narcissistic is a normal, empathetic, loving individual.
This also happens with Vulnerable Narcissists who are in therapy (video about that: 5 Reasons Covert Narcissists Are Missed or Misdiagnosed).
Here are a few web pages by mental health professionals who validate what I said above – sometimes “experts” in this career make mistakes and don’t fully understand the personality disorders they are hired to treat:
(Link – pdf format): Does our Codependency Help or Harm our Clients?
(Link – video on You Tube): When therapists don’t “get” narcissistic relationships
(Link – video on You Tube, 10 minutes long): When To Quit Therapy For Narcissistic Abuse [When Mental Health Professionals Do Not Understand Narcissist Abuse]
(Link): Why Couples Therapy Doesn’t Work For People In Abusive Relationships With Narcissists
(Link): Raised By Narcissists? Why You Can’t Afford the Wrong Therapist
Excerpt:
Regina Collins is a licensed professional counselor based in Alexandria, Virginia, specializing in working with narcissist trauma. Many of her clients come to her having been retraumatized by therapists who don’t understand narcissism or narcissistic family dynamics.
(Link): Dear Therapist: You Missed My Husband’s Narcissism and It Devastated My Family
Excerpts:
Yet the family’s therapist, a respected psychologist in their community, failed to identify David’s personality disorder or the symptoms of complex trauma the rest of the family was struggling with.
Alicia’s experience is not uncommon. Although some therapists understand NPD and its impact, most do not.
Whether counselors, therapists, psychologists, or psychiatrists, most clinicians do not receive adequate education and training to effectively recognize and treat people with personality disorders and those caught within their traumatizing orbit.
Such practitioners not only fail to help clients in grave need, but they frequently exacerbate such clients’ trauma by invalidating their experience and giving ill-conceived if not dangerous advice.
— end excerpts —
The point being, is that even if someone attends a university and gets a degree in some mental health field (and/or goes on to obtain a medical degree and becomes a psychiatrist),
that if these persons have not deeply studied topic X (such as Codependency or Narcissism),
and if, like many schools, topic X is not comprehensively taught, that individual goes into practice, takes on patients, and they get things wrong, they teach in error, and they pass on ineffective approaches to their patients!
Just because someone has a diploma on their wall stating that they have four to eight years in psychology, therapy, or psychiatry, does not necessarily mean they fully or accurately understand some topics, not even the topics they are hired to treat (such as narcissism, marital disputes, codependency – whatever it may be).
Being an expert on a topic does not make a person infallible – not even regarding Topic X.
I’ve also read in books and seen content online by people who work in the mental health field who issue warnings to anyone who wants to start seeing a therapist (or psychologist or psychiatrist) that some of them are incompetent and/or have their own mental health problems (some therapists are themselves narcissists, codependents, whatever).
Being an expert on a topic doesn’t mean that the expert is perfect, or doesn’t have his or her own set of problems.
Examples of Experts Being Wrong, Disagreeing With Other Experts, and Experts Lying or Distorting Facts to Promote Their Own Agenda
Here below is a collection of links to articles or news stories pointing out that Experts are sometimes incorrect, sometimes Experts are pushing an agenda (not facts based information), and sometimes Experts get into red hot disputes and disagreements over a topic they’re experts in.
I wouldn’t expect anyone to read 100% of the examples and content I provide below word-for-word (unless you’re very bored and have a lot of time to kill), but I would ask that you at least SKIM IT OVER.
This post may be amended in the future, after publication, to add additional examples.
(Link): Why Experts Are Usually Wrong
June 13, 2010
By Post Staff Report
Every day, expert advice assaults us from newspapers, websites and televisions. But judging by the state of the world and our lives, it doesn’t seem to be doing us much good.
Blame the media (of course), but know that’s only a small part of the problem. Experts — that is, actual scientists, not just Dr. Phil — are often wrong, more often than we might think.
Scientists themselves have examined the reliability of their own findings, and have come to some sobering conclusions. Take medical research, which has been especially well-scrutinized. About two-thirds of the findings published in top medical journals end up being refuted within a few years.
As much as 90% of medical knowledge has been gauged to be substantially or completely wrong. We spend about $95 billion annually on medical research in the US, but average life span here has barely increased since 1978 — and most of the improvement was due to the drop in smoking rates.
The picture of expert trustworthiness is no better or even worse in most other fields.
One examination of published economics findings concluded that the wrongness rate is essentially 100%. In that light, is it surprising that we weren’t as well-protected as we thought from investment and banking system disasters?
Why all the wrong? Usually because of a hunger for easy answers that you can’t get from chaotic, complicated systems. But that doesn’t stop Oprah — who must feed a daily show — or even scientists, whose careers are tied to making a splash in prestigious research journals.
These journals want the same sorts of exciting, useful findings that we all appreciate. And what do you know? Scientists manage to get these exciting findings, even when they’re wrong or exaggerated.
It’s not as hard as you might think to get a desired but wrong result in a scientific study, thanks to how tricky it is to gather good data and properly analyze it, leaving plenty of room for ambiguity and error, honest or otherwise.
If you badly want to prove an experimental drug works, you can choose your patients very carefully, and find excuses for tossing out the data that looks bad.
If you want to prove that dietary fat is good for you, or that fat is bad for you, you can just keep poring over different patient data until you find a connection that by luck seems to support your theory — which is why studies constantly seem to come to different findings on the same questions.
You might expect that other, more rigorous scientists would catch these sorts of shenanigans, but they often don’t, and in fact the vast majority of published research isn’t even verified. And even when bad research is outed, hardly anyone notices — we’ve all long since moved on to the next exciting finding.
Not that there isn’t some minority of expert advice that’s good, and even critically important. Most people just don’t know how to pick it out from the constant stream of flawed and conflicting findings — the housing market is recovering, the housing market is getting worse, video games deaden children’s brains, video games boost rapid thinking.
That’s why much of the public has simply stopped listening to experts, and sometimes with potentially catastrophic results, as when parents don’t get their children recommended vaccines and treatments, or believe they can eat whatever they want, or invest their savings in whatever stocks seem exciting.
The rest of us often trust experts blindly, because we’re programmed to do so practically from birth. Call it the “Wizard of Oz” effect: first with our parents, then our teachers, and then on to the authoritative voices in our textbooks and on TV news, we’re brought up to believe there are always people whose knowledge and judgment should be taken over our own.
Experiments suggest that our brains’ decision-making capabilities get put on hold when we’re presented with what we think is expert advice, regardless of how bad the advice is.
Fortunately, just being aware of the extent to which even gold-plated expert advice tends to go wrong is a big first step towards being able to filter out the worst of it. …
Yes, some “experts” are driven by a political agenda, NOT the objective truth:
(Link): The Experts Are Lying to You
Excerpts:
Their laundering of the truth is deliberate and tactical
by Andrew Doyle
… Even reputable academic journals are willing to jettison inconvenient truths if they better suit their desired reality. When the New England Journal of Medicine argued that “sex designations on birth certificates offer no clinical utility”, few of us were surprised. The Journal of the Royal Society of Chemistry has even produced new guidelines to “minimise the risk of publishing inappropriate or otherwise offensive content”. If the truth hurts, it ought to be avoided.
… Such blunders are only the more egregious examples of the kind of white lies and misrepresentations we find on an almost daily basis in the national press.
Occasionally there is a backlash, such as when the BBC modified the quotation of a rape victim so that her attacker was not misgendered. But on the whole this routine twisting of the truth goes unnoticed.
We have grown accustomed to reporters telling us what to think about a story, rather than simply relaying the key facts and leaving us to judge for ourselves.
When journalists, academics and politicians advance a worldview in direct opposition to observable reality, they risk creating what Jürgen Habermas once described as a “legitimation crisis”, by which trust in figures of authority is irreparably depleted.
This seems particularly germane given reports this week that the head of the World Health Organisation privately believes that Covid-19 leaked from a laboratory in Wuhan. It wasn’t that long ago that the scientific consensus dismissed this as little more than a racist conspiracy theory.
Throughout the pandemic we saw experts silenced or marginalised if they offered views that deviated from the accepted narrative. YouTube videos that posited the lab-leak theory were removed. …
Meanwhile, experts who peddle “accepted” narratives remain free to indulge in blatant untruths that we are expected to take on trust. In June 2020, more than 1,200 medical practitioners signed a letter arguing that existing restrictions put in place to curb the spread of coronavirus ought not to apply to Black Lives Matter demonstrations. …
That figures of authority are so often caught in lies has brought about an erosion of confidence in our institutions. I barely scraped a GCSE in Biology, but when esteemed scientific journals are publishing authors who maintain that “sex is a spectrum”, it gives the false impression that my understanding of the subject is superior to theirs. Experts appear to have forgotten that the legitimacy of their claims is grounded in evidence and research, not by waving around a doctoral certificate.
… When experts are so patently captured by an ideology, they surrender their capacity to think critically. And that’s not good news for any of us.
… Scepticism about expertise is important: no human being is infallible or free from bias, however well-qualified. Yet at the same time, we rely on figures in authority with specialist insight for the practical business of living. When journalists begin to conflate truth and fiction, or when academics substitute wishful thinking for empirical knowledge, we are left unmoored from reality. For the sake of our collective sanity, we need to restate the primacy of the truth.
(Link): CDC Rochelle Walensky lays out agency overhaul after botched pandemic response
by Abigail Adcox, Healthcare Reporter
August 17, 2022
The head of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention announced plans for an overhaul of the agency, citing its failure to meet expectations in its response to the coronavirus pandemic.
CDC Director Rochelle Walensky outlined plans to reorganize the agency in a meeting with staff on Wednesday, embracing recommendations from an external review to prioritize public health needs faster and improve the agency’s communication with the public.
“For 75 years, CDC and public health have been preparing for COVID-19, and in our big moment, our performance did not reliably meet expectations,” Walensky said in a statement. “My goal is a new, public health action-oriented culture at CDC that emphasizes accountability, collaboration, communication, and timeliness.”
Walensky admitted that the agency was not prepared to handle the country’s response to the pandemic, saying it was responsible for “some pretty dramatic, pretty public mistakes — from testing, to data, to communications,” in a video message obtained by Bloomberg.
(Link): “Extremism experts have been ideologically captured by progressive politics” | Simon Cottee
Excerpts:
Indeed, the phrase “experts say” seems to have become a standard reportorial convention in news stories on radicalisation. And more often than not what the experts have to say is a veritable counsel of doom: “I think we’re truly in free fall, and don’t have any sense of how to grasp this,” one prominent scholar told Slate, referring to the threat of the far-Right in America.
Almost always, the alarmist rhetoric of the expert quoted mirrors and legitimises the alarmist political concerns of the progressive media platforms which petition them for comment.
The epistemic authority of extremism experts used to derive from a period of sustained academic research carried out under the patronage of an academic institution or think-tank, or from direct experience of policing extremists.
That’s now changed, chiefly because epistemic authority everywhere has become atomised. You don’t need to be a scholar or former counter-terrorism cop to be an extremism expert anymore: you just need the right kind of “lived experience”.
…With a finite number of terrorist groups to map and study, the experts needed to branch out: so they heartily embraced the concept of extremism, a category so capacious and permissively malleable that it encompasses not only behaviour and thought but conceivably anything that the expert in question deems politically undesirable or “problematic”.
This made the field acutely vulnerable to exploitation by political activists whose interest is less to study extremists than to manufacture them in an effort to stigmatise and silence their political opponents.
… The extreme still lurks where it always has: at the extreme. What has instead happened is that extremism experts have been ideologically captured by progressive politics, believing that anything that challenges elite dogmas — such as the belief that a woman can become a man or that masking mandates are effective — are forms of extremism that must be somehow explained and then silenced in the interests of online “safety”.
… The rise of the extremism expert did not happen independently of the rise of the intensely politicised age in which we now live. It is, in fact, a symptom of that politicisation. Extremism experts are the new clergy, telling us what to affirm and revere and what to fear and banish. …
(Link): Why Experts are Almost Always Wrong
Excerpts:
Blogger Eric Barker points out that political experts’ predicitons are only slightly better than a random guess, and way worse than a statistical model. In fact, so called experts were better at predicting events outside their own field.
… Another study found that “experts” who try to predict the outcome of Supreme Court cases weren’t that much better than a computer. The world saw evidence of that in their recent decision about health care, surprising nearly every “expert” out there.
But that’s politics. Other fields should be better, right? Nope. Technology is the same way. Another scientist analyzed the accuracy of technology-trend predictions. About eighty percent of them were wrong, regardless of whether those predictions were made by experts or not.
In 2005, Tetlock wrote a book about expert prediction called “Expert Political Judgment: How Good Is It? How Can We Know?” In it, he explains that not only are experts often wrong, but they’re nearly never called out on it…
— end excerpts —
(Link): MATTHYS: The CDC’s ‘Reset’ Shows Just How Dangerous Government Narratives Can Be
Excerpts:
Aug 22, 2022
Google, Meta, Twitter and other platforms should not be faulted for seeking information guidance from experts including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) officials.
However, the fiasco that resulted in CDC announcing its major organizational “reset” last week after an external review showed years of mismanaging COVID public information, shows the danger to our country when monopoly platforms rely exclusively on politically-motivated government officials for all coronavirus information.
…Recent FOIA information dumps show that CDC officials worked to directly influence these platforms to censor specific users and content on behalf of the government and in clear violation of the First Amendment’s freedom of speech protections. Even the White House openly admitted to its efforts to directly pressure the platforms to censor COVID information that deviated from the government’s narrative.
(Link): Why Experts Get It Wrong
Excerpts:
By James Warren
New research explains why those we rely upon for advice so frequently lead us astray
April 2011
…”Yes, I think it’s an example of the fallibilities of expertise people can bring to their work,” says Mehta, a business administration professor at the University of Illinois. With most basketball experts congregating in Houston, the matter is especially relevant to him because he’s just dissected why those we often rely upon for advice can be so wrong.
…”There is a blanket assumption that knowledge and expertise are always good,” Mehta says. “What we show is that it’s not always true. Expertise is a double-edge sword.”
There is no shortage of popular literature from various fields, including foreign affairs and business, about smart people making dumb mistakes. David Halberstam’s “The Best and the Brightest” remains a primer on botched government decision-making by experts; namely, how key aides to Presidents John Kennedy and Lyndon Johnson, most of them products of an American academic and social elite, got us into the mess of the Vietnam War.
And, for sure, there is previous academic literature suggesting that experts can fall prey to false memories, and thus make false comparisons and inferences, precisely because of their greater-than-average memories of specific subjects.
(Link): Expert Opinion Can’t Be Trusted if You Consult the Wrong Sort of Expert
(Link): CDC Issues Eye-Opening Monkeypox ‘Safer Sex’ Guidelines, Expose Their Shriveling Credibility
(Link): Stop Listening To The Davos Great Reset ‘Experts’ Who Created The Global Energy Crisis
The World Economic Forum’s anti-fossil fuel prescriptions have caused an energy emergency and often impact the world’s poorest populations.
(Link): The Experts Will Be Wrong: They Always Are
Excerpts:
Despite the constant demand for “expert predictions and analysis,” research shows these predictions are typically no more accurate than randomly generated guesses.
A daily Democrat talking point (in every TV ad) says President Trump “didn’t listen to experts” while Trump says he “certainly listens” to experts. Joe Biden then warns: “Follow the science, listen to the experts, do what they tell you.”
But the “god of science” isn’t the final, always-certain authority, Rich Lowry counters: “Science can make the atom bomb; it doesn’t tell us whether we should drop it. Science can tell us how to get to the moon; it doesn’t tell us whether we should go. Science can build nuclear reactors; it doesn’t tell us whether we should deploy them.”
In the first congressional hearing after the pandemic, on May 12, U.S. Sen. Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, concluded: “The history of this is going to be wrong prediction after wrong prediction.”
Paul noted the same expert modelers who predicted 2 million deaths from coronavirus made inaccurate, inflated predictions for mad cow disease and other crises where the warnings exceeded the outcomes.
(Link): Expertise as a Liability? Experts May Overcompensate Decisions When Told They Are Wrong
(Link): Why Experts Always Seem To Get It Wrong
Excerpts:
by Greg Satell
Feb 19, 2014
A Battle of Experts
…The original paper that had given rise to the debate was deeply flawed. Feynman had even read it before leaving for Brazil and discarded it because it contained a fundamental—and very obvious—error.
Apparently, none of the great physicists arguing the issue had actually read the original paper. It had somehow just slipped through and nobody really checked it. They just assumed that someone, somewhere had vetted it, so they went on with their debate, oblivious to the fact that they were wasting their time on gibberish.
Feynman never considered himself an expert, but likened himself to a confused ape, which was one reason he saw further and more clearly than everyone else.
The Confidence Trap
One of the things that makes experts so convincing is that they exude confidence. They can talk calmly and knowledgeably about a subject, make reference to relevant facts and build a compelling logic for their case. A good expert is always impressive, but still usually wrong.
In fact, in 20 year study of political experts, Philip Tetlock found that that their predictions were no better than flipping a coin. Further, he found that pundits who specialized in a particular field tended to perform worse than those whose knowledge was more general. In the contest between the hedgehog and the fox, the fox nearly always wins.
This is so counterintuitive that it hardly seems possible, but it’s true. The reason lies in the confidence of the predictions. Specialists, with their deep knowledge of a particular subject, tend to not to incorporate information outside their domain, which makes for a cleaner, more definitive story line.
Foxes, with their broad-based knowledge are less sure of themselves. They also tend to be right more often. Confusion, more often than not, trumps certainty.
The Rise Of The Machines
As Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee describe in their new book, The Second Machine Age, computers are starting to outperform humans in cognitive tasks. Google flu trends identifies outbreaks more effectively than doctors can. Image analysis software beats trained pathologists and a simple algorithm outdoes procurement experts.
…Still, more than we’d like to admit, humans tend to be poor information processors and those who profess to have superior powers of insight are usually just fooling themselves.
(Link): No Wonder We Lost Trust in the Expert Class
Excerpts:
by Victor David Hanson
Unfortunately, its incompetent government trusted radical environmental advisers, many of them foreign experts. Sri Lanka believed it could become the woke darling of the “environmental, social, governance” movement, and in that way draw in unlimited Western woke investment.
Instead, it has embraced a policy of national suicide.
Recently, a group of 55 distinguished pro-administration economists assured us that President Joe Biden’s massive borrowing and new entitlements agenda were not inflationary. In September 2021, these economists with 14 Nobel Prize winners among them declared that Biden’s inflationary policies would actually “ease” inflation.
Last month, inflation spiked to an annualized rate of 9.1%.
….On the eve of the 2020 election, news accounts revealed some of the lurid contents on Hunter Biden’s lost laptop. Emails and photos began to incriminate the entire Biden family for leveraging millions of dollars from foreign grandees for access to a bought Joe Biden.
Fifty retired intelligence officers, however, without evidence, swore that the laptop’s appearance could be due to “Russian disinformation.” Yet after authentication—Hunter Biden himself never denied the lost laptop was his—few, if any, of those marquee “experts” apologized for their election-driven dissimulation.
At the height of the massive 2020 enforced quarantine and lockdowns, some 1,200 medical and health “professionals” signed a petition claiming that thousands of left-wing protesters should be exempt from the very quarantine they had insisted on for others.
The experts absurdly claimed that denying tens of thousands the right to break quarantines to protest in the street was a greater health threat than COVID-19.
…All these depressing examples have one common denominator: Elite experts and degreed professionals massaged and warped their knowledge to serve ideological masters, rather than the truth.
In the process, they caused untold damage to their country and fellow citizens. They disgraced their profession. They tarnished the scientific community. And sold their souls to ideologues.
— end excerpts —
(Link): Don’t Put Too Much Faith in the Experts
Excerpts:
by John Stossel
July 2020
Politicians issued stay-at-home orders. They said we must trust the “experts.”
“Follow the science. Listen to the experts. Do what they tell you,” said Joe Biden, laughing at what he considered an obvious truth.
But “there is no such thing as ‘the science!'” replies science reporter Matt Ridley in my new video about “expert” predictions. “Science consists of people disagreeing with each other!”
The lockdowns, he adds, were “quite dangerously wrong.”
Because Imperial’s model predicted that COVID-19 would overwhelm hospitals, patients were moved to nursing homes. The coronavirus then spread in nursing homes.
Ordering almost every worker to stay home led to an economic collapse that may have killed people, too.
“The main interventions that helped prevent people dying were stopping large gatherings, people washing their hands and wearing face masks, general social distancing—not forcing people to stay home,” says Ridley.
Even New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo now admits: “We all failed at that business. All the early national experts: ‘Here’s my projection model.’ They were all wrong.”
If he and other politicians had just done just a little research, then they would have known that Imperial College researchers repeatedly predict great disasters that don’t happen. Their model predicted 65,000 deaths from swine flu, 136,000 from mad cow disease, and 200 million from bird flu.
The real numbers were in the hundreds.
After such predictions were repeatedly wrong, why did politicians boss us around based on those same “experts” models?
“If you say something really pessimistic about how many people are going to die,” explains Ridley, “the media want to believe you. The politicians daren’t not believe you.”
This bias towards pessimism applies to fear of climate change, too.
(Link): Experts and Studies: Not Always Trustworthy
By Kayla Webley Tuesday,
June 29, 2010
To read the factoids David Freedman rattles off in his book Wrong is terrifying. He begins by writing that about two-thirds of the findings published in the top medical journals are refuted within a few years. It gets worse. As much as 90% of physicians’ medical knowledge has been found to be substantially or completely wrong. In fact, there is a 1 in 12 chance that a doctor’s diagnosis will be so wrong that it causes the patient significant harm.
And it’s not just medicine.
Economists have found that all studies published in economics journals are likely to be wrong. Professionally prepared tax returns are more likely to contain significant errors than self-prepared returns. Half of all newspaper articles contain at least one factual error.
So why, then, do we blindly follow experts? Freedman has an idea, which he elaborates on in his book Wrong: Why Experts Keep Failing Us — and How to Know When Not to Trust Them. Freedman talked to TIME about why we believe experts, how to find good advice and why we should trust him — even though he’s kind of an expert.
[Interview with the book’s author]:
…In Wrong you write about the “Wizard of Oz” effect. Basically, from a young age we’re taught to think that someone else always knows best. First our parents, then our teachers, and so on.
The fact of the matter is, unless you’re the smartest person in the world, there is someone out there who knows more than you do. So it’s not that we want to discard expertise — that would be reckless and dangerous.
The key becomes, how do we learn to distinguish between expertise that’s more likely to be right and expertise that’s less likely to be right?
…What have you learned about bad advice?
Bad advice tends to be simplistic. It tends to be definite, universal and certain. But, of course, that’s the advice we love to hear. The best advice tends to be less certain — those researchers who say, ‘I think maybe this is true in certain situations for some people.’
We should avoid the kind of advice that tends to resonate the most — it’s exciting, it’s a breakthrough, it’s going to solve your problems — and instead look at the advice that embraces complexity and uncertainty.
But it’s not really natural to take less-certain studies and advice seriously, is it?
You’re exactly right, and that’s part of the problem. It goes against our intuition, but we have to learn to force ourselves to accept, understand and even embrace that we live in a complex, very messy, very uncertain world.
Therefore, the experts who are more likely to steer us in the right direction are the ones who acknowledge that.
It probably would be helpful if all study reports came with a little warning label like cigarette packs that simply spelled out generically that, by the way, experts are usually wrong.
You say brain scans show that when presented with expert advice, we actually lose our ability to make our own decisions.
Yes. Now, let me point out, I always feel a little funny when I quote the results of a brain-scan study or even quote the findings of any study because, of course, my book is all about pointing out the problems with studies.
But for what it’s worth, people have actually looked at this question of what happens to brain activity when people are given expert advice, and sure enough, you see that the brain activity dies out in a way that suggests the person is thinking for themselves less.
The brain actually shuts down a bit in the face of expert advice. When we hear an expert, we surrender our own judgment.
So we essentially just blindly follow experts?
That’s exactly what it is. And there are certain experts who, not only is their advice very resonant, but they themselves are very resonant. Some experts project tremendous confidence.
They have marvelous credentials. They can be very charismatic — sometimes their voice just projects it. Some experts get very, very good at this stuff. And what do you know? It really sort of lulls us into accepting what they say. It can take a while to actually think about it and realize their advice makes no sense at all.
You found some cases of experts who willingly discarded data that didn’t fit with the conclusion they were after?
That is a huge understatement — it is almost routine. Now, let me point out that it’s not always nefarious. Scientists and experts have to do a certain amount of data sorting.
Some data turns out to be garbage, some just isn’t useful, or it just doesn’t help you answer the question, so scientists always have to edit their data, and that’s O.K.
The problem is, how can we make sure that when they’re editing the data, they’re not simply manipulating the data in the way that helps them end up with the data they want?
Unfortunately, there really aren’t any safeguards in place against that. Scientists and other experts are human beings, they want to advance their careers, they have families to support, and what do you know, they tend to get the answers they chase.
So you’re saying, if I set out to prove that wine is good for you, I can find the data to back up that claim?
You can. We see that all the time. In fact, we’re seeing it constantly. There are studies that come out that say obesity is actually good for you and those that say exercise doesn’t do you any good. If there’s a certain answer that you want, for example, an exciting research finding that’s going to get published in a research journal, then you will probably find some way to achieve it.
You say that some advice is good and even critically important. So how do we go about picking out the good from the bad? It seems like finding a needle in a haystack.
It is a needle in a haystack. Part of the problem is, we’re kind of lazy about it. We would like to believe that experts have the answer for us. And what we pay the most attention to are the most recent, most exciting findings….
(Link): Why can’t some scientists just admit they were wrong about Covid?
(Link): Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts
(Link): Partisan Bias Affects What Americans Think of the Coronavirus
April 2020
There’s a distinct difference in the way Americans react to the threat of the coronavirus pandemic, research suggests. “Even when—objectively speaking—death is on the line, partisan bias still colors beliefs about facts,” write Chicago Booth’s John Barrios and Rice University’s Yael V. Hochberg.
(Link): Expertise Blinds Us
July 2022
by M B Dougherty
Even at the end of the fight, which Douglas won by a knockout, the scorecard had Tyson within one good round of defeating Douglas. Such was the investment in Tyson’s greatness that even the official scorers feared telling the whole truth about the fight to themselves.
I think about those experts, as well as Lampley and Merchant, all the time now that I write about politics.
During the pandemic, experts told us that border closures hurt the fight against the pandemic — until they couldn’t say it anymore. They told us racism was spreading faster than the virus. “I’ve seen anti-Asian racists before looking loose and relaxed.” Or it’s the central banks. We’ve learned the lessons of history and know that inflation is transitory.
Obviously, when I watch the Douglas-Tyson fight years later, it is easy for me to see what was happening.
And of course, years later, Merchant and Lampley can tell you all sorts of things about the fight that a layman wouldn’t immediately see.
But on that night, their eyes were shelled by their knowledge.
Their mouths were shut by the normal human impulse not to say something that their brains were over-conditioned to dismiss. Their thoughts were limited by what everyone else thought: 90 seconds for this tuna can.
(Link): Scientists Find No Evidence That Depression Is Caused by “Chemical Imbalance” or Low Serotonin Levels – July 25, 2022
After decades of research, there remains no clear evidence that serotonin levels or serotonin activity are responsible for depression, according to a comprehensive review of prior research led by University College London (UCL) scientists.
The major new umbrella review – an overview of existing meta-analyses and systematic reviews – was published on July 20 in the journal Molecular Psychiatry. It suggests that depression is not likely caused by a chemical imbalance, and calls into question what antidepressant medications do.
This is because most antidepressants are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), which were originally said to function by correcting abnormally low serotonin levels. In fact, there is no other accepted pharmacological mechanism by which antidepressants affect the symptoms of depression.
(Link): Depression is likely not caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain, study says – July 21, 2022
“Many people take antidepressants because they have been led to believe their depression has a biochemical cause, but this new research suggests this belief is not grounded in evidence.”
(Link): A Decisive Blow to the Serotonin Hypothesis of Depression
(Link): Huge New Study Suggests Depression Isn’t a Serotonin Imbalance After All
(Link): No link between depression and serotonin, finds major analysis
A review of 17 previous studies finds no evidence for a link between depression and low serotonin levels, which SSRI antidepressants focus on – though not everyone is convinced by the findings
(Link): Doctor suspended for prescribing trans hormone drugs without properly assessing patients
May 27, 2022
by Ryan Foley
A doctor based in the United Kingdom has had his license suspended over allegations that he prescribed cross-sex hormones to patients without adequately assessing them beforehand, one of whom took their own life a few months later.
The Medical Practitioners Tribunal ordered the erasure of Dr. Michael Webberley’s license to practice medicine Wednesday following a six-month suspension. Webberley is alleged to have run an online clinic that prescribed puberty blockers to kids as young as 9 without being assessed by a doctor.
— end —
So, here’s a guy with at least eight years of formal education who later in life changed his opinions to the point he changed political affiliation – just because someone is an “expert” doesn’t mean they don’t later go on in life to admit they were wrong about something previously, even areas in their own field of expertise:
(Link): Physician explains why heterodox views on COVID led to his Republican conversion
Dr. Pierre Kory discusses free speech, COVID-19 and politics
May 28, 2022
Physician Dr. Pierre Kory explained how his anti-establishment views on COVID-19 affected his change in political parties Friday on “The Ingraham Angle.”
DR. PIERRE KORY: Science should not be involved with politics, and I’m seeing these divisions breaking out in medicine that seem to be influenced by political allegiances.
And I’m not for that. But when you look at some of the things that have been going on, we’re literally talking about disinformation boards and people going after my medical license because my scientific opinions are different from theirs and there’s this single truth.
It’s extremely dystopian, and I find it really disorienting, and it’s bad for medicine. It’s bad for patients. The lack of self-awareness — of really what I’m seeing now from the Left and from Left-leaning media — that they’re abandoning their principles. I used to be for free expression, free speech and really questioning authority, and now they’re the authoritarians. And so like Elon [Musk], I’m very disoriented by it.
Another, similar example:
(Link): I’m a doctor and a Democrat, and I won’t let the mob force me to choose between the two
I used to view Democrats as champions of free speech
by P. Kory
May 20, 2022
… He’s right—and the Democrat party’s newfound and aggressive affinity for censoring debate and strong-arming doctors is making many of us rethink our political allegiance.
…At the same time, I used to view Democrats, and the center-left more broadly, as the champions of free speech both in civil society and in our professional institutions.
But now, as with today’s progressive political movement, medical boards are adopting policies that censor opinions, defining such speech as mis- or disinformation, especially scientific opinions around COVID.
Medical professionals who refuse to toe the party line risk censorship, cancellation, and even the loss of license—a fate far worse than getting banned from Twitter.
The trend is forcing doctors who exhibit critical thinking to face an existential choice: join the mob and support what many of us believe are dangerous policies without a sound scientific basis, or stand up and risk losing your livelihood.
This trend has troubling long-term implications for patients—something all of us will become at some point in our lives.
A new study in the journal Pediatrics sets out to refute a central claim made by critics of pediatric gender transition: that social pressure rather than organic processes is the major cause of transgender self-identification among youth. Among the study’s authors is Jack Turban, an oft-quoted proponent of “gender affirming care” (GAC) and propagator of the affirm-or-suicide myth.
… That a study like this can pass the peer-review process unscathed, especially at a time when European countries are shutting down or putting severe restrictions on pediatric transition, is a sorry statement about the quality of knowledge gatekeeping in the medical research community.
American journalists tout its findings without giving readers relevant information about its flaws, while left-of-center journalists in Britain have been busy blowing the whistle on the pediatric gender-medicine scandal. The U.S. has a long way to go to bring medical practice in line with scientific knowledge and common sense.
Another “expert” – clearly, this psychologist is left leaning and is anti-second amendment, which drives his view point:
(Link): The Case Against Prescription Antidepressants
Excerpts:
by Markham Heid
Experts still don’t know how they work, and new research finds little evidence of long-term benefit
April 2022
You’ve probably heard that mental health disorders, including depression, are caused by chemical imbalances in a person’s brain. You’ve probably also heard that antidepressant drugs work by correcting these chemical imbalances.
None of this appears to be true.
The so-called “chemical imbalance theory” of mental illness, though once widely embraced by psychiatrists, is not backed up by solid science and is now increasingly and openly questioned by experts.
….While antidepressants can alter the brain’s neurochemical activity, exactly how these alterations help people with depression, anxiety, or other mental health problems — or even if they help — is now a topic of heated debate within the field of psychology.
The truth is that despite decades of research into SSRIs and other commonly prescribed antidepressants, psychiatrists can’t really tell you how they work. This is one reason why some experts are calling for a reconsideration of how we use these drugs.
Experts sometimes admit they don’t have permanent solutions – but of course, there is an anti-second amendment undergirding this piece, so there’s a little of an anti-firearm, liberal agenda going on:
(Link): Experts say there is no fully effective solution to stop mass shootings before they happen.
People with advanced degrees, even people who work as medical doctors or psychiatrists, can be immoral, deviant, pieces of trash, such as:
(Link): Why Did So Many Doctors Become Nazis?
In the answer, and its consequences, a bioethicist finds moral lessons for today’s professional healer
(Link): Rhode Island children’s health official charged with possession of child porn
June 7, 2022
Jeffrey Hill, 46, who works as the state Department of Health’s violence and injury prevention program manager, had been under investigation since March following a tip from the National Center for Missing and Exploited Children, state police told WPRI-TV.
The identities of two additional formative members of a castration fetish site which hosts child sexual abuse fantasies have now been revealed as influential academics.
Dr. Thomas Johnson and professor Richard J. Wassersug advised WPATH and attended conferences to change terminology in official guidelines.
Along with a third child castration fetish forum member, Krister Willette, the men were involved in lobbying that led WPATH to alter the term “gender identity disorder” to “gender dysphoria”.
Various experts cannot agree on this topic:
(Link): What is “personhood”? The ethics question that needs a closer look in abortion debates
Suppose that fetuses are persons. Since pregnant people are too, how should conflicts between them be settled?
Progressive “experts” refuse to clearly define the word “woman” to mean “adult, human female” because doing so would conflict with their political agenda, which is to promote Queer Theory, which includes normalizing men in women’s spaces and pedophilia:
Women are not born with penises. I don’t have to have a degree in biology to know that:
(Link): Labour MP: J.K. Rowling Is Wrong, Some Women Are ‘Born With Penises’
Despite having 8+ years education, doctors are dumb dumbs who don’t know everything:
(Link): FLASHBACK: When ‘Experts’ Claimed Gas Prices Would NOT Skyrocket Under Biden
…But what really gets me about the current situation is that the so-called experts and the mainstream media dismissed concerns that gas prices would go up under Biden.
(Link): Washington Post: ‘Experts’ say that women of color will be the most impacted by the end of Roe
Whenever any mainstream media source cites “experts” in the headline, you know you’re in for some BS. The experts are always activists and liberal professors who teach in the gender grievance studies department.
The Washington Post has found some experts who claim that, of course, women of color will be most affected by the overturning of Roe v. Wade. Why? Because a disproportionately high share of abortion “patients” are women of color — a result of systemic inequalities.
… Can women of color not tell their sexual partners to put on a condom?
I’m supposed to take this guy seriously?
(Link): The Professor And Inventor Who Identifies As A Cheetah Named ‘Spottacus
(Link): Your Smartwatch’s Heart Rate Monitor Was Developed by a Furry
Dr. David Benaron is an inventor whose team at Stanford laid the groundwork for the optical heart rate monitor. He’s also a cheetah named Spottacus.
The video below discusses how “experts,” including a pediatrician who wrongly asserts that her son is a girl, are driven by lunacy and socio-political agendas. Pay special attention to the content that starts at the 12.00 mark:
(Link, video on You Tube, 16 minutes long): Forcing kids to transition: two horrific cases that EVERYONE needs to know
Concluding Thoughts
So. No. I don’t have to automatically defer to GRACE or any other group or person who are widely considered “experts.” Sometimes experts are incorrect, they clash with other experts in their subject matter, and they are sometimes driven by agenda and not by truth or evidence, which colors their conclusions.
These Abuse Survivor Advocates who insist I have to defer to GRACE’s take on abuse, or on Julie Roys, are in error, are very naive, and showing they lack in critical thinking.
I utilize critical thinking. I am under no obligation to unquestioningly accept the views or conclusions of any “expert” (or group of experts).
I’ve said this before and will likely continue to say this in future posts about this (assuming I have the time, energy, and interest to follow through with posts I have sitting in my draft area right now),
but while I appreciate some of the work some of these ASAs have done (such as Julie Anne Smith, Amy Smith, Ashley Easter, etc) in supporting persons victimized by churches, at times, and as of the last few years, some of them have really gone off the rails and are attacking the wrong people,
and I cannot support them in all of their actions and attitudes.
These women are definitely lacking in a correct understanding of Codependency and have demonstrated as such.
This post may be edited after publication to add more links or other content.
Related Material on This Blog:
(Link): Victim Blaming Codependents or Victim Blaming People Who Exhibit Codependent Behaviors
(Link): Pathologies of Victimhood by R. Gunderman – The Dangers of Victimhood Mentality
More Related Material:
Matt Walsh is sometimes incorrect and a tool bag, but he is correct about this:
“Experts”:
“Experts”:
“Experts” who will bend the truth to promote their political agenda:
(Link): Seattle Children’s Hospital and University of Washington refused to correct misleading trans report
—— — — —
Christian Pundit 