I’ve noticed a trend - in aerosol, masking, treatment discussions- and am making a suggestion.
We can disagree about evidence - that’s expected, and healthy, and we learn from it.
But if the disagreement turns into a theory that assumes others do not have everyone’s
/1

best interests at heart - maybe think twice. Allegations that, for example data are hidden (versus not reported yet), or more seriously - hidden to purposely obscure the truth, because of an ideological position are truly attacks on other people’s professionalism and ethics.
2/

So, if your “proven” evidence base results in a current scenario where swaths of public health and healthcare professionals are behaving in concert against the greater good, and endangering others, maybe it is more of a controversial take than you recognize.
4/

Can we leave the tinfoil hats at the door and focus on science and best practice?

TL;DR
if an evolving hypothesis or evidence base being true involves willfully blind professionals in healthcare or public health hiding evidence to avoid changing a practice or being wrong
5/

and in doing so they are endangering others or hurting patient outcomes, maybe step back. Consider all the legitimate reasons why the evidence is seen differently before invoking bad intentions.
(Like if you’ve ever said “Agency x” FINALLY acknowledged aerosol transmission” ...)