> This seems totally uncalled for. After 2020? Totally called for. Default assumption should now be that public health "experts" are worse at understanding dis

> This seems totally uncalled for. After 2020? Totally called for. Default assumption should now be that public health "experts" are worse at understanding disease than laymen. Their predictions and recommendations were just so systematically atrocious and exaggerated. > he’s a cancer survivor. I’d say he knows a lot about diseases. That's a non sequitur if there ever was one. Having had cancer grants no expertise in understanding the macro behavior of respiratory viruses. > Based on his bio, he seems more than credible Credibility comes from accurate predictions that other people could not have made, not empty credentialism.