Chapman: Do As I Say, Not As I Do

Simon Chapman has this week been sharing his knowledge, wisdom, and jaw-dropping hypocrisy.

Careers are often built on lifetime commitment to particular phases of evidence. But if the evidence changes, it is absolutely critical for public trust in the integrity of public health that we acknowledge the facts have changed and, accordingly, that we have changed our minds too. 

[...] 

Two illustrations of the advance of junk and low-quality science are the resilience and influence of climate change denialism, and the current efforts by e-cigarette interest groups to claim that e-cigarettes have revolutionary potential to make smoking history. 

The interest groups behind these two major issues are succeeding in building momentum that may spread to challenge decades of public health and safety legislation.

So, erm, 'experts' must change if the evidence changes, but e-cigarettes threaten salaries and decades of lazy, policy-driven dogma, so they must be fought. Got it.

Further on, lesson 7 speaks of the importance of people in his profession listening to the public.

Ordinary people can make amazing advocates, and we should work with them far more. They bring a compelling authenticity to an issue.

While Lesson 8 stresses the importance of social media and engaging with people.

The internet has utterly revolutionised our lives. And utterly transformed advocacy. There are simply massive global participation rates in social media. Anyone in public health who is not part of this is the equivalent of a scholar in the Gutenberg era who declined to show interest in the potential of books.

All of which is very strange. You see, he is preaching this sage advice to up and coming public health advocates, but does the very opposite himself, as he boasted in January.

Blocking is a bit like putting a sticker on your mailbox saying “no junk mail accepted”, except that unlike with junk mail, it works! 

The concept of an internet troll is unavoidably subjective: what one person regards as hostile or inflammatory can be genuinely intended by the sender as an attempt to engage in debate. But having a Twitter account is not an obligation to engage with anyone seeking to do this

So what Chappers is saying is that social media is brilliant for engaging with the public, and ordinary people should be listened to. Except if the ordinary people disagree with his beliefs, in which case shut down social media avenues of engagement and avoid contact at all costs.

What a tool.