Opinion | Who Owns Information? We Do, of Course
In the last post on Hormones and Immunity we briefly mentioned herd immunity, and in the next post we talk more about it through a complicated array of terms and jargon which are frankly being so poorly used in the media it’s difficult to know what to think, other than the worst.
The point of this post is one I’ve been trying to make for weeks, and it is this: we must think for ourselves.
There’s a danger in believing only what we’re told and not seeking out differing data and opinion — a “second opinion” in medical parlance. There’s even more danger when the gatekeepers of what we’re being told censor those differing data and opinions.
Eg, after considering information and thinking for themselves, Drs. Dan Erickson and Artin Massihi last week held a press conference and posted a video of their observations and opinions on the pandemic that differed from the “official line.” YouTube blatantly and unapologetically censored their views by deleting the video entirely because the doctors’ message differed from what the WHO and the CDC are saying about COVID-19 — “We quickly remove flagged content … that explicitly disputes the efficacy of local health authority recommended guidance…”
YouTube can do what they want, of course, but if their removal of differing opinions makes you angry… well, good, you’re thinking for yourself. Agreeable information (or not) isn’t the issue. The issue is that differing information is not inherently dangerous. More often it’s helpful, and I’d argue that in this climate it’s essential.
When there are two extremes, the truth is often found in the middle. But how will we know what the “middle” is unless we familiarize ourselves — as individuals — with data from differing sides? And how will we get those data if the keepers of information decide what we can and cannot know?
The truth is there are no “sides”. There is no “safe”, for that matter. Antibodies or not, sick or well, masked or brazenly naked-faced… there is no “zero risk” one way or the other — ie, “zero risk doesn’t exist.” There is only acceptable risk and each of us should decide for ourselves how much risk we’re willing to accept for the benefit of our health, our finances, our families, and all the other trappings of our lives. To do that, we’ll need to question what we’re being told to think.
In my opinion, a person has great capacity to be — and often is — thoughtful, intelligent, curious, and caring. Most people generally do the best they can with what they have. As such the effort we put into forming our individual opinions and perspectives matters because when we considerately form an opinion it makes the information our own. And ownership is essential… as gatekeepers well know.
One last considered thought: In this time of mandated distancing, “lock-downs,” and the consequent fear and anxiety I’m seeing in my practice, it’s important to remember that we “work for” neither the media nor the government; they work for us. And an informed Us is worth working for.
My goal in the Superpower Series and beyond is to do essentially what Drs. Erickson and Massihi did: provide information that allows the curious, the caring, the frustrated — anyone who wants it, really — to go deeper and ask questions. Because questions, with a little effort, elicit answers (and probably more questions!); answers from various sources create opinions; opinions create debates (that elicit more questions, if we’re lucky). All of which allows us to — wait for it — think for ourselves.
So… what do you think?
