Science should be method of inquiry, not dogma

The editorial by Dr. Noreen Womack titled, “What happens to our kids when vaccine misinformation reigns?” laments that pediatricians — the experts in the care of children — suffer the skepticism of those who question vaccine orthodoxy. 

The Oxford English Dictionary records a 1590 usage of the word “misinformation” in a legal context describing a false statement. By the 20th century, “misinformation” gained traction in Cold War information warfare. Today in public health discourse, especially in the COVID era, the term “misinformation” is used by established institutions to designate any information not officially approved. Simply questioning the origins of the COVID virus or the efficacy of the vaccine subjects one to censorship. 

As George Orwell warned, language molds thought. Once a neutral term for simple falsehood, “misinformation” has been repurposed as a way to silence inquiry under the guise of protecting truth. 

Can a thoughtful person, working through the data and observing inconsistencies stumble upon a medical truth at variance with the current paradigm? Must self-appointed experts always be correct? This question leads to an understanding of the weaponization of the word “misinformation.” A citizen who interprets data differently from the CDC ceases to be a rational agent and becomes a moral deviant.  

Science should be thought of as a method of inquiry, not a corpus of dogma. When a skeptic is dismissed as a purveyor of “misinformation,” this shift marks the death of genuine science.  

THOMAS FLETCHER, M.D.

Sagle

Editor’s note: The opinions expressed in the letter are those of the author and not an official statement of PHD.