[krmboya]

One word, transparency. Being open about the research and outcomes. This is a situation good science communicators can help with.

Engage the skeptics in open debate and address their concerns, not censorship and embarking on cancellation campaigns.

However uncomfortable it seems, the median person in society isn't going to do a thorough literature review to make up their mind, they'll do it based on personal instincts.

[tlogan]

I think that can work if you narrow the issue only to medical advice.

But trust is also eroded by completely unrelated things, like “Iraq has WMDs” and other stories pushed by our governments. Or even the recent argument that we need ID to access the internet in order to “protect children.” Sure.

The key point is that for things like vaccines, people need to trust the goverment and the process. Most people are not going to read medical papers. They should rely on government health agencies to tell them what to do.

So when trust is damaged (even by unrelated government decisions), it affects how people respond to medical guidance too.

[krmboya]

I agree with your points. But governments around the world frequently demonstrate that they can be easily compromised.

That's why free speech is an important counterweight to political power.

I credit all those who openly spoke out against the Iraq forever war preventing similar wars since then.