“Far from showcasing science, false-balance debates allow evidence-free fringe ideas to leech vampirically off the respectability of well-established theories. Cigarette companies muddied the clear scientific consensus that smoking was harmful just this way. Faced with incontrovertible evidence of harm, they instead amplified fringe figures, encouraging debate to confound that messaging. One 1969 memo put it bluntly, stating that “doubt is our product since it is the best means of competing with the ‘body of fact’ that exists in the mind of the general public.” Cynical as this is, it is remarkably effective at crafting a public aura of doubt over science, the same practices adopted by fossil fuel companies today about climate change.”
I think it should be very possible to strike a balance between criticism of a company’s shady doings, and staying away from science/medicine denialism.
I also think that conversations like that aren’t possible if there are antivaxers involved, as it’s often advantageous to them to ignore any kind of distinction or nuance here. If we all agree that the fundamental science is sound and most vaccines are safe, then we’re in a good position to talk about pharma companies being shady in the particulars.