[dekhn]

Could you tell me, in honest words, what you think would come from the debate? Would it generate any additional information that would allow intelligent people to judge anything about the debated topic? Or do you just want to see a slugfest?

[tmaly]

Most people have made up their minds on one side of this debate. But there is a possibility that some people may change their minds if the expert is persuasive.

[fwungy]

It would demonstrate to the public what a real expert like Peter Hotez or Paul Offit is next to an ambulance chaser like RFK. RFK is the most prominent anti-vaxxer around. Humiliating him would cut the legs of the movement.

This was also a huge loss for charity. The $3M could have helped a lot of people.

[krapp]

>Humiliating him would cut the legs of the movement.

No, it wouldn't, at all. People have been humiliating conspiracy theorists with the facts for decades, and the only result is that conspiracy theory has become mainstream. If all it took was a superior rational argument from an expert to convince people of the error of anti-vaxxers, there would be no anti-vaxxers. Yet even on HN, a forum that should be a nexus of rational thought, they dominate any thread where vaccines are a subject. The "sunlight is the best disinfectant" shit isn't working.

What will happen is exactly what people like RFK want to happen - their message will spread, the "experts" will be reframed and reedited and taken out of context through memes and bad-faith videos and exposes, and people will (as they always do) have sympathy for the "underdog" (the anti-vaxxers) and skepticism towards "experts" and wonder what they must be trying to hide.