If anyone says you shouldn't challenge experts, here's an example of why you should

It's January 2021. We've been in lockdown, on and off, for twelve months. 

The government seems to believe that there is a great consensus among the public that lockdown is a good idea; Viv and I disagree both that it is, and that there is a consensus. Casual conversations we have had over the last few months lead us to believe that a fair proportion of the population is 'sceptic', but are scared to voice their opinions openly. 

The problem is that the government gets its message across, and media - both national and social - fall over themselves to enthuse about it. Dissent is not allowed; 'lockdown sceptics' are derided as granny-killers and covid-deniers; the 'experts' view is right, we are told.

Yet progress has always depended on challenging the orthodox viewpoint. Luther, Galileo, Newton, Stephenson and Einstein are not the only people in history who insisted on looking at things differently from the 'experts' of their time, and history has shown whether they, or those 'experts', were right. 

Furthermore, Viv might not be alive now if we had trusted 'experts'. 

Let me explain.

+ + + 

Just over ten years ago Viv started to have seizures. I became quite adept at dialling 999, and she would be stabilised and taken to A&E. Each time she was taken to a different hospital, but they always asked the same questions: did she have a history of epilepsy (yes, she had been on phenobarbitone as a child), how much alcohol did she drink (more than the NHS recommended amount, I would admit.). The doctors rarely asked anything more or arranged any tests before concluding she was a problem drinker, told her to cut down, and sent her home.

She started to have weird moments. I began to monitor her drinking carefully; once, after just one glass of wine she began to behave as if she'd had a whole bottleful, or more - swaying from side to side, falling over, injuring herself. She even stopped drinking entirely for a while and at least one of these episodes occurred then.

The seizures continued; the hospital trips continued. Each time they said 'alcohol'. At one hospital one of the porters wasn't at all polite about it, referring to her as a 'bloody alcy' at the top of his voice in A&E.

But, the more I monitored her, the more the 'alcohol' diagnosis didn't ring true.

We moved house, away from Yorkshire to the more comfortable (for us) surroundings of Hertfordshire. After three months she had a seizure and was 999'd to the Lister hospital at Stevenage. The doctors there didn't discharge her straight away, but kept her in and got a consultant to see her who arranged scans; these showed something on the left side of her brain that might explain the seizures. He prescribed antiepileptic medication; I rather wondered why the 'experts' who had seen Viv at hosptials in Yorkshire hadn't thought of this - the seizures could easily have been life-threatening.

The medication helped, the seizures eased; further help was given by a pharmacist in Ryde (Isle of Wight) when Viv started to feel unwell there. She suggested an over-the-counter anti-sickness drug costing about four pounds. Since that day in March 2015 Viv has not had another one of the seizures.

How much had the Yorkshire NHS spent helping Viv when a few tablets would have prevented the problems? But the 'experts' had their view of what was wrong, which differed from reality, but, might I suggest, it was because they were 'experts' that they did not consider alternatives.

We subsequently found out that Viv had a tumour, she's had treatment for it. But if the 'experts' had been more open minded we would have been spared a lot of grief, and the NHS would have been spared several 999 calls.

+ + + 

It is possible that those (including me and Viv) that question the judgements of 'experts' in relating to Covid could be right; we certainly are right to voice our concerns. 'Experts' are wrong far more often than they would have you believe.

Any scientist worth his salt will be more than happy to review his theories in the light of another's point of view, for that is how scientific knowledge is learnt. Those that deride sceptics without justifying their viewpoint may well be expressing opinions (which may be incorrect), rather than facts (which, by definition, are correct).