you seriously think that a man who has made millions as a professional liar (actor) is just as good as a army of public health officials who are dedicated to improving the lives of everyone?
I think not trusting public health recommendations is a good thing given that they are often not based on sound science.
Where is your critical evaluation of your own statement? Where is your proof for attacking a entire profession?
My point is that neither an actor, doctor, or government agency is a good source of information: you have to look at the sources they are using (and determine if they are accurately portraying the sources).
The only really good public health recommendation I can think of is to wash your hands. Read the book Good Calorie, Bad Calorie if you want to learn how dietary public health recommendations are not at all based on good science.
In the best case scenario our public health recommendations have generally distracted us from the truth. I would probably get heavily down-voted for discussing the worst case.
No, trusting scientific sources. If you see someone (including an author) correctly interpreting scientific studies (and not cherry-picking them) then you can think about trusting their arguments.
Still, you have to trust the book's author did not cherry-pick studies in order to make his case for selling the book. This may go against his economic interests.
You don't need to put trust into any one book. Of course it would be foolish to look at just one book or just books from one point of view on a subject. If you look at the evidence from different sources site it will become apparent who is cherry-picking and mis-interpreting. Maybe everybody is, and you make up your own mind.
I think not trusting public health recommendations is a good thing given that they are often not based on sound science.
Where is your critical evaluation of your own statement? Where is your proof for attacking a entire profession?