Although Truther’s approach has drawn criticism from some researchers who say he legitimizes the anti-vaccine movement, one thing can’t be denied about his strategy—it works. Curious listeners often stumble into his spaces with legitimate questions and concerns about vaccines, but it’s not uncommon for them to walk away with changed minds. While that outcome may surprise some science communicators, it shouldn’t. News stories published during the pandemic and research predating COVID showed that quite a few vaccine “deniers” could be convinced that vaccination was a smart choice; all they needed was someone to explain the science clearly and address their fears respectfully. Building trust is the way forward for vaccine advocates, in other words.

Ultimately, the key to communications approach isn’t winning an argument, but understanding the facts and reaching the right conclusion, which is harder to do when we isolate ourselves from different perspectives. “For me, it would just get kind of boring to lecture people or have a space where everyone agrees with each other,” Truther adds. “I actually want to understand why people disagree with me, understand arguments people have that are different from mine. To me, that brings us closer to the truth.”

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood, Cam English and Real Truther on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the best way to combat vaccine skepticism.

The Real Truther hosts The Real Truther Show every Tuesday and Thursday on X. Follow him @thereal_truther.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

How does this process work? IVF is a fertility treatment where eggs are retrieved from ovaries, fertilized with sperm in a lab, and resulting embryos are transferred to the uterus. Embryo selection, often through preimplantation genetic testing (PGT), involves screening embryos for genetic abnormalities before implantation. While these technologies offer hope to many, they come with notable risks.

Technical challenges

The first problem is that IVF isn’t seamless. Multiple embryo transfers increase the chance of twins or higher-order pregnancies, raising complications like preterm birth and low birth weight. Ovarian hyperstimulation syndrome, a potential side effect from fertility drugs, can cause abdominal pain, bloating, and in rare cases, blood clots. There’s also a slightly elevated risk of birth defects and hypertensive disorders. If more people opt to use IVF as a means of “designing” their babies, there’s a chance these negative outcomes will become more frequent.

Then there are concerns about the accuracy of embryo screening. Polygenic risk scores are not iron-clad guarantees, they’re statistical associations based on limited population data. While they’re accurate up to a point, they can’t account for every variable that influences the traits we’re interested in, for example environmental factors that affect disease risk. In short, PGT can’t tell you when or even if a particular trait will materialize—only that it might.

Ethical dilemmas

But assuming these reproductive technologies work as intended, the greatest concerns stem from unresolved ethical dilemmas. For instance, what happens when parents select an embryo with a lower risk of cancer but a higher risk of diabetes? Or consider a scenario where someone wants a child with a physical deficit like deafness? These scenarios raise the question of regulation. Who determines how these reproductive technologies are used, and what basis do they make these decisions? The risk of abuse by governments is obvious.

Philosopher Jonathan Anomaly is a well-known proponent of embryo selection and the author of Creating Future People: The Science and Ethics of Genetic Enhancement. While he acknowledges the validity of these myriad concerns about designer babies, he argues that they’re surmountable with technological improvements and sensible rules that balance parental autonomy with common sense.

Is embryo selection the start of a biomedical revolution, or a gateway to a totalitarian future? Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they explore the messy ethics of embryo selection with Jonathan Anomaly.

Jonny Anomaly is a former professor and currently head of communications at Herasight, a company that provides polygenic embryo screening. Find him on X @JonathanAnomaly

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

In hyperreal environments like Instagram and X, fine-tuned narratives—cultivated by capable but ethically suspect storytellers like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr—create a “reality” that feels authentic but lacks an original reference point. Author and legal scholar Ron Chapman argues that these platforms surgically exploit psychological truths to guide decisions, fostering a world where emotion trumps fact. Combined with the prevailing social dogma that “my lived experience” is the ultimate standard of morality, hyperreality distorts our judgement—driving us to make decisions that could harm ourselves and others.

The core challenge in hyperreality for both content creators and consumers is balancing persuasion’s power with ethical responsibility. But how do we do that exactly?

In his book Truth and Persuasion: In the Digital Revolution, Chapman explores how influence shapes our world in an era of competing truths, examining how persuasion is crafted, consumed, and contested across political speeches, TikTok trends, and brand campaigns. It offers a roadmap to decode, resist, and responsibly wield influence in a digital age dominated by social media algorithms and viral content.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they explore the consequences of hyperreality with Ron Chapman.

Ron Chapman is a federal criminal defense attorney and author of the book Truth and Persuasion. Visit his Substack and follow him on X @RonChapmanAtty.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Never uncertain but frequently wrong, Kennedy had to ignore extensive scientific evidence to make such declarations. mRNA vaccines have been rigorously tested, with clinical trials involving tens of thousands of people showing over 90% efficacy in preventing severe COVID-19 outcomes. Studies estimate the shots have saved millions of lives globally over the last five years, reducing hospitalizations and deaths even as variants emerged.

While mRNA vaccines are best known for saving lives during the pandemic, they hold truly transformative potential for addressing chronic diseases, Kennedy’s pet project since taking the helm at HHS. In cancer therapy, for instance, mRNA can be tailored to encode neoantigens—unique proteins found on an individual’s tumor cells. By sequencing a patient’s tumor, scientists identify these neoantigens and design vaccines that prompt the immune system to recognize and attack cancer cells while sparing healthy tissue. The flexibility of mRNA technology allows rapid vaccine development customized to each patient’s unique case, revolutionizing oncology by offering targeted, effective, and adaptable treatments.

Defunding mRNA research stifles innovation in a platform with proven potential beyond COVID-19. The technology’s rapid adaptability could be critical for preventing or mitigating future pandemics, yet Kennedy risks undermining that progress by relying on discredited studies and misrepresenting data, undermining trust in vaccines along the way. By prioritizing supposedly “safer” platforms, he jeopardizes scientific innovation, leaving the U.S. vulnerable to future health crises. Simply put, it’s a decision that prioritizes ideology over evidence.

Join Dr. Liza Lockwood and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the consequences of halting mRNA vaccine progress.

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Some experts say the answer lies in legalizing and regulating all drugs, treating them much like pharmaceutical products that can be dispensed by licensed physicians or sold over the counter by reputable retailers. This approach, the argument goes, would significantly reduce the risk of users consuming contaminated (and thus more harmful) drugs and encourage them to seek medical care when necessary. Ultimately, the goal with this policy is to make drug use safer instead of reducing or eliminating it.

While this strategy probably has some merit, it also carries risks that shouldn’t be overlooked. For example, experts on both sides of the debate recognize that legalization will increase drug use. “There’s no question about it,” says Bertha Madras, a professor of psychobiology at Harvard Medical School. And that surge in use will very likely fuel an increase in drug abuse, which most people recognize as a serious threat to public health. A related cost comes in the form of increased public investment in health care related to drug use—an expense covered by all taxpayers, not just individuals who decide to use.

To help us make sense of these competing claims, emergency medicine physician Liza Lockwood fields some of the most common questions about drug use and regulation, breaking down the risks and benefits of legalization in detail.

Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the science and ethics of drug legalization

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

The conversation was further complicated by updated vaccine guidance issued by the FDA and CDC in May, which recommended that only high-risk groups receive annual COVID boosters, revising the previous guidance that all Americans over the age of 6 months receive the shot each year. While the new recommendation makes a certain degree of sense, some physicians have noted that it introduces new questions for patients, doctors, and pharmacists that federal officials have yet to answer. Vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit outlined several such questions recently, including this one:

“I am a pharmacist who gives dozens of Covid-19 vaccines every day. Am I supposed to determine whether someone is in a high-risk group before I give the vaccine? And how could I possibly know whether people are telling the truth. Will I get into trouble if I give a Covid vaccine to a healthy young person?”

To help cut through the confusion, emergency medicine physician Dr. Liza Lockwood answers the most common questions about COVID-19 vaccines: how do they work, and why do they only protect against severe disease and death—as opposed to preventing infection and transmission? Are the new guidelines from FDA/CDC justifiable?

Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss they break down the latest science around COVID vaccination:

Dr. Liza Lockwood is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Many researchers argue that these severe measures were well-intended attempts to reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, but public health officials did a poor job of justifying their implementation. For instance, mass protesting and rioting in the summer of 2020 — before COVID vaccines had been authorized — were endorsed by “dozens of public health and disease experts,” according to NPR, while most other activities were prohibited in the name of minimizing viral transmission. “[A]s public health advocates, we do not condemn these gatherings as risky for COVID-19 transmission,” an open letter signed by these experts declared. “We support them as vital to the national public health …”

Adding fuel to the outrage fire, scientists who criticized these inconsistent infection-control measures were censored by social media platforms under pressure from the federal government. This environment helped birth the MAHA movement, which with RFK, Jr. at the helm has accelerated its broader opposition to conventional medicine—most notably well-studied pediatric vaccines that have a long track record of preventing infectious disease and saving lives.

The history of the COVID-19 pandemic is a painful narrative with a lot of lessons to teach, if we’re willing to learn them. As health scientist Jess Steier recently explained, “It’s a story about what happens when public health policy collides with deeply held American values about autonomy and skepticism of authority—and how even well-intentioned overreach can have consequences that last far longer than the crisis that justified it.”

The ultimate solution to the excesses of the MAHA movement is a stronger bond between scientists and the general public. But rebuilding that relationship requires transparent communication, acknowledging uncertainty, and fostering open debate rather than dogmatic mandates. Above all else, the fallout from COVID policies underscores the need for humility in public health to prevent further erosion of credibility and the rise of reactionary movements like MAHA.

Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the lessons scientists are learning from the pandemic:

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Biltekoff parallels 19th-century dietary reformers—detailed in Laura Shapiro’s Perfection Salad—who tried to use nutrition science for social engineering, with Alice Waters’s “Delicious Revolution” in the San Francisco Bay Area, which prioritized sensory pleasure and tradition over standardization. Both movements sought cultural transformation through diet, but with contrasting ideologies. The similarities between these movements and the factions in our current food safety debates are striking.

One of the most important lessons that comes out of Biltekoff’s analysis relates to definitions: the public often views processed food as unnatural and additive-heavy, while industry defines it broadly (e.g., yogurt, pasta, and Cheetos all qualify). Simultaneously, however, consumers demand flavorful, nutritious food that will keep in their refrigerators and pantries until they’re ready to eat it—qualities usually made possible by food processing. In other words, the food industry is correctly responding to their customers’ buying habits, yet those same people have been convinced that the products they willingly purchase are made by unethical companies and causing chronic disease.

This schizophrenic dynamic intensified with the onslaught of anti-food industry documentaries like Super Size Me and Food, Inc., which cleverly framed food safety issues as symptoms of broader cultural problems, like corporate greed. Industry responses to these films were typically fact-focused rebuttals that overlooked the cultural concerns actually driving popular opposition to the modern food system, an approach Biltekoff calls “food scientism.”

Ultimately, Biltekoff advocates combining cultural and scientific expertise to address food challenges, acknowledging complexities in feeding the world sustainably.

Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the messy politics of food safety and science communication.

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

The ongoing measles outbreak in the U.S. has fueled intense speculation about how politics influences vaccine hesitancy. With over 1,200 confirmed cases reported across 37 jurisdictions by mid-2025, the outbreak underscores the reemergence of a disease once eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, largely due to declining vaccination rates. According to recent data from a Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF) Tracking Poll, a significant portion of Americans, particularly Republicans, are encountering and accepting misinformation about the measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. The poll indicates that 20 percent of Republicans and 21 percent of independents believe or lean toward the notion that the MMR vaccine is more dangerous than measles itself, compared to just 11 percent of Democrats. This dichotomy is also evidenced by 35 percent of Republicans and 26 percent of independents accepting the false link between the shot and autism, against only 10 percent of Democrats.

While these numbers suggest that partisanship is a useful metric for measuring vaccine hesitancy, zooming out and considering a broader context paints a different picture. The same polling data shows that, despite widespread exposure to false claims—such as the idea that vitamin A can prevent measles—83 percent of adults and 78 percent of parents remain confident in the MMR vaccine’s safety.

Moreover, less than five percent of adults say it’s “definitely true” that the MMR vaccine has been proven to cause autism, or that getting the measles vaccine is more dangerous than a measles infection. Finally, “much larger shares [of the public] say those same claims are ‘definitely false,'” KFF reported. Most Americans, whatever their political affiliation, are not anti-vaccine, with about half falling in the “malleable middle,” meaning they can be convinced to immunize their children.

This points to a potential but serious issue with politicized vaccine messaging. Research shows that amplifying vaccine hesitancy tends to encourage more of it; if the media reports that vaccine skepticism is commonplace, Americans are more likely to adopt that perspective. “The most powerful way to convince students to get vaccinated for influenza was telling them that a large proportion of fellow students had also opted for vaccination,” one analysis of vaccine-promotion strategies concluded. “There is considerable evidence that letting people know what other people do is one of the most effective ways of increasing that behavior,” the authors added.

In other words, since large majorities of the public and parents are “very” or “somewhat confident” that the MMR vaccine is safe, those facts should be stressed to the minority who are scared or skeptical of vaccines. Bottom line: politicizing vaccine hesitancy is a PR faux pas. Public health experts, physicians, and journalists should be encouraging all Americans to vaccinate their kids.

Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the link between political partisanship and vaccine hesitancy.

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish

Many journalists are fair-weather fans of science, adopting an evidence-based stance only when it aligns with their political leanings. For instance, every major media outlet has rightly chastised Health and Human Services Secretary RFK, Jr. for his anti-vaccine stance, yet it was these same news organizations that amplified his movement for decades, putting clicks and ad revenue ahead of their obligation to inform readers.

This selective enthusiasm from the press distorts the public’s understanding of science, giving them tacit permission to reject evidence that runs afoul of their ideological commitments—a troubling phenomenon we see at work in the Make American Health Again (MAHA) campaign.

Second, science journalists often lack deep knowledge of the fields they cover. Accurately reporting on complex topics like genetics or epidemiology requires years of study to develop a baseline understanding of those fields, yet many reporters rely on press releases and fail to engage experts who can correct their misunderstandings, leading to oversimplified or inaccurate stories that misrepresent nuanced findings. As a result, the public is forced to interpret sensational headlines without context.

Perhaps most importantly, science journalists rarely acknowledge their mistakes, further damaging trust. When errors or misinterpretations are exposed – for instance, flawed reporting about COVID-19 – corrections are seldom issued. Whether it’s the result of pride, ignorance, or ideological bias, this refusal to admit fault reinforces skepticism toward science itself, as audiences conflate journalistic failures with scientific ones.

To fix this mess, journalists need to embrace the rigorous standards they pay lip service to: prioritize impartiality where possible, cultivate a deeper understanding of science, and seek accountability. The solutions are obvious. The real question is, will reporters even acknowledge they have a problem?

Join Dr. Liza Dunn and Cam English on this episode of Facts and Fallacies as they discuss the issues plaguing science journalism and how to solve them.

Dr. Liza Dunn is a medical toxicologist and the medical affairs lead at Bayer Crop Science. Follow her on X @DrLizaMD

Cameron J. English is the director of bio-sciences at the American Council on Science and Health. Follow him on X @camjenglish