pointing out elsewhere in the thread that when the CDC fucked up, they ultimately admitted it and changed recommendations, does not support your argument.
Medical doctors are not scientists, or even engineers. They are more like highly-skilled technicians. NTTAWWT, but the MD degree by itself shouldn't bring individual doctors anywhere as much social and scientific credibility as it does. For most Americans, the best source of information on COVID has been, and remains, their public health authorities.
Not sure which side of the argument you are on, but it's funny, did you see how the death count for vaccinated people on the 22,000 pfizer study has been corrected from 17 to 24 people?
And the FDA has asked for 76 years to ongoingly release the safety data on the vaccine?
I'm vaccinated, but I'm super angry and worried about wtf is going on here.
What's certain is, yes: If this pandemic has proven anything, it's that there are incompetent and corrupt people EVERYWHERE on ALL SIDES.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data...
If these people were operating in good faith, it would endanger their valued reputations as certified antivax nutjobs.
a contradictory conclusion, and somehow both falling for and denying the appeal to authority fallacy at the same time. you discount doctors being 'experts' but then claim another group of 'experts' being the right ones (with no justification, no less).
there is no shortcut when it comes to triangulating reality. all the data must be considered, not just your favored sources. otherwise, you will be biased and very likely incorrect (you shouldn't even have favored sources). note that the original article literally points out a bias/fallacy that public health officials have fallen prey to.
It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion, but somehow, it never is.
Prasad is routinely interviewed & quoted by the "left-wing media". You are eager to fixate on the "wing" of the media coverage, but not engage with the argument being made.
Public health "authorities" are groups of people with opinions. Other people with expertise are no more or less qualified to have opinions, even if you don't agree with those opinions. If those opinions are backed by evidence and reason, and your opinions are backed by appeals to authority, then you lose.
> It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion
Close, but wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person advancing a hypothesis, whether that person is within the consensus or outside of it. Citing an authority does not excuse you from the burden of proof, any more than it excused the church in the time of Gallileo.