Recently, I was asked to debate some people who I would categorize as "COVID misinformation celebrities" in a rather large public forum online.
This is a classic dilemma for someone like me. I treat real patients. I do real research. I am faculty at a real (and prestigious) medical school. Should I engage and debunk medical misinformation, or would I just be "lending the opposition credibility" by appearing on a virtual stage with its purveyors?
In the last couple years, my general take has been to ignore the conspiracy theorists, the data deniers, and the generally bad-faith opposition. Early in the pandemic, I used to dunk on these people on Twitter, but eventually felt that my engagement probably did more to help the grifters gain clout than it clarified facts for our shared audiences. I realized I was wasting precious hours trying to put out what amounts to an erupting volcano of misinformation with my trusty fire hose. Instead, my focus has been on adding information to the internet by writing for people eager for genuinely useful information that they can use to make the best choices -- i.e., you!
But I am beginning to worry that nobody from "our side" is showing up to these fights anymore. And I get it, because I'm also tired. Still, when misinformation -- or even benign misinterpretations from more well-meaning corners -- goes uncorrected, those wrong ideas are more likely to perpetuate.
The question then is, which fights should I show up to and which dumpster fires should I just let burn out on their own? On one hand...this classic comic...
Every time I engage in a debate with the opposition, I lose hours (or more) of productivity -- time I could have spent doing more research, writing and engaging policy makers, or even writing this here newsletter! So, there are lost opportunity costs to consider.
On the other hand, if social media is the most powerful way to reach people, is it dereliction of duty to sit out, justified by the (truthful) cop-out that, "I've got better things to do"? There are not that many people who have a real command of the medical literature who also have the experience, the time, and the stomach to do this type of work. Sometimes I feel like the Bat Signal is being flown, but nobody is responding. That's why I have, at times, engaged with "the opposition" when many of my colleagues would not.
Here's a brief thoughtful on this by Ben Mazer, MD, MBA, based on work by Carl Bergstrom, PhD.
I'm honestly torn on what to do in these situations and I welcome your feedback. Where should I draw the line?
Jeremy Faust, MD, is editor-in-chief of Ƶ, and an emergency medicine physician at Brigham and Women's Hospital. This post originally appeared in .