@ren_dc Good points and I agree with your caution about a populist like Bridgen overselling a line for personal political gain. My sense though is that expert bodies can be prone to inertia, a ‘we know best’ elitism and sometimes even commercial capture. That seemed to be what Bridgen was alleging with Pharma. Overall I suppose I err more towards caution about expertise and how, once an expert consensus forms, it can ossify into a vested interest, and be very hard to dislodge. If, for example and, just playing out a thought experiment, #Covidvaccines, did prove ultimately to be more harmful than helpful for younger people after a long-term risk-benefit analysis but the authorities wanted to hush that up because it’s inconvenient for the narrative or could open a door to compensation for injury, I wonder then whether it does take a character like Bridgen to call it out and say the emperor has no clothes. In a true #democracy, we must have a plurality of voices, however inconvenient their views. The ideal here would be to see politicians we respect look at the evidence independently and hear from experts of different persuasions in a formal inquiry. That would reassure the public who are turning away from the vaccines because of the uncertainty and rumours.