The contrarians have no clothes

Image source

As the COVID pandemic has ravaged the world, this collective of "free thinkers" turned contrarians have revealed themselves as pied pipers leading lay people off the edge of rationality. Capitalizing on the pervasive sentiment that established institutions no longer function for the common good, they have conducted an open assault on professional expertise with terrible consequences. According to their narrative, a shadowy group of elites and academics conspire against their divergent opinions and, in unison, seek to silence their dissenting voices with the intent of eroding individual freedoms, enriching themselves at the expense of the ordinary person and their health. 

What started as a collection of aggrieved academics and social commentators, some with credentials, others with none, has grown from the dark corners of intellectual thought and the internet into a mainstream phenomenon that threatens the solvency of reality itself. These self-fashioned Promethean acolytes gained notoriety by providing a foil to the cancel culture movement that several saw as an illiberal progressive movement unfairly "silencing" controversial public figures and stuffiness of Academia. Once regarded as heralds of a second Enlightenment that promised to challenge the powers that be suffocating freedom of thought - are now some of the most prolific purveys of misinformation.

Not to say that people's concerns with large industries or government agencies are completely unfounded nor that a healthy level of mistrust isn't warranted. The number of historical incidents where large corporate industries or governments have obfuscated the truth, made questionably ethical decisions, or flat out lied is too many to count. A quick internet search results in an overwhelming amount of examples that would make any reasonable person question the intentions of large faceless and powerful entities. 

One can hardly argue that the response to the COVID pandemic has been smooth, uniform, devoid of confusing and contradicting public messaging, and conducive to blind trust. A whole book dedicated to discussing recommendations later reversed and, worse, how blatantly false studies made it past peer-review in some of the most prominent medical/science journals would not be enough. In truth, public health policy has never been an exact science; despite being based on the available science, several other factors such as economic, social, and political concerns influence the recommendations made. 

For most who work in medicine and sciences, this messiness is just part of the sausage-making that has brought us to this age of relative safety and stability. Today's difference is the level of visibility the public has access to and how quickly this information can spread thanks to the internet and modern media. Transparency and expediency are not inadequate but come at the expense of bypassing traditional vetting sources and the editorial process. These processes were initially put in place to prevent fraud, control for quality, and combat the quackery that has often plagued medicine and science. 

In this unregulated space, contrarians and their views, primarily rejected by professional consensus and "mainstream" thought, have flourished by appealing to a niche audience already distrusting Academia, "The Establishment," and feeling attacked by cancel culture. An audience that wholeheartedly embraces the rebel underdog spirit that is an integral part of the American psyche and represents a general feeling that a conglomerate of powerful individuals and institutions lays siege to the ordinary American, whose only interest is to maintain power. 

Today though, it is hard to argue that this group of contrarians and their followers are not a force to be reckoned with. Their fringe beliefs gone "mainstream" now threaten the creation of professional consensus and its value. Contrarians with credentials have successfully turned objectivity in the sciences into a wedge issue, allowing a small minority to directly challenge the professional consensus in the public view. Objective science, which relies on a uniform epistemological understanding of the scientific method and the virtue of dispassionate pursuit of objective truth, is now part of the broader epistemological divide from the ongoing culture wars.

Before the COVID pandemic, contrarians opposed to the professional consensus were welcome additions to academic discussions in science and medicine. This dialogue was typically limited to academic/professional conferences, private email exchanges, or through editorials in science journals where aberrant opinions face stiff resistance by professionals who helped form the consensus in question. Few "professionals" would expect that a contrarian's views and ideas would directly challenge the status quo, causing a paradigmatic shift in the consensus like the discoveries of Darwin and Einstein. Discoveries of such magnitude are rare occurrences, especially in modernity, where progress in basic science and medicine is mostly iterative and ever more specialized in solving known problems.

In contrast, the COVID pandemic presented a novel and strange problem, the likes of which have not been experienced since the Spanish flu. Despite all the advances in science and medicine since the 1920s, COVID provided a vast expanse of unknown problems so poorly understood that "Establishment" institutions struggled to create a coherent and unified consensus on how to respond. A task made even more difficult by contrarians thrusting expert dialogue into the public and political arena, turning even the most fundamental discussions on how to react to COVID into epistemological battlegrounds. 

Splintering the public in a manner more akin to political disagreements than one reflective of scientific discourse in pursuit of objective truth. Exploiting the underlying mistrust in institutions, contrarians present themselves as engaged in a David vs. Goliath-esque battle in which their opinions are being ignored and silenced by the "Establishment." In doing so, these contrarians continue to push disproven treatments or fear-monger safety concerns about the COVID vaccines.   

Attempts to correct, challenge, or restrict the spread of contrarian misinformation often result in accusations of censorship by shills for the establishment or, worse, a string of personal attacks via social media leading to doxing and death threats. A prospect most professionals and academics would rather avoid, maintaining focus on their essential work. In contrast, one of the most striking characteristics of these contrarians is that they do not practice bedside medicine; the most vocal amongst them also tend to be the furthest from the front lines.

What motivates these contrarians? It is one thing to seek out the truth challenging conventional thought for the benefit of society, and another to fashion oneself as the arbiter of objectivity solely based on providing a counter-argument to the wisdom of the majority of experts. Are these so-called "free thinkers" actually slaves to their Egos? Sure, Ego delivers the strength to endure being the odd person out. Still, Ego is also why several people refuse to acknowledge that the emperor has no clothes. 

History demonstrates that few individuals are brave enough to do so, especially in front of a large audience. Only a genuinely sociopathic individual would be comfortable profiting from potentially or purposefully harming others. Maybe, it isn't that they are seeking fame or money, but instead, they find themselves in the shoes of the emperor from the classic fable.

To accept that they have been wrong is to take some responsibility for contributing to the unnecessary deaths from COVID. Admitting their errors would set them free, but true freedom requires the humility to be held accountable. Perhaps fear of accountability drives these contrarians further to the edge; the more their followers pursue them for objectivity, the further from reality both become.