Dr. Dan Wilson: Debunking Vaccine Myths & Misinformation

Author(s): Scott Douglas Jacobsen

Publication (Outlet/Website): The Good Men Project

Publication Date (yyyy/mm/dd): 2025/10/17

Dr. Dan Wilson is a molecular biologist and science communicator known for the YouTube channel Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson. He explains vaccine science, COVID-19 controversies, and other disputed health claims in clear language, aiming to raise scientific literacy and reduce misinformation. Wilson earned a B.S. in Biotechnology and Molecular Biology from Clarion University and a Ph.D. in Biological Sciences from Carnegie Mellon University, where he researched ribosome biogenesis. In the industry, he has worked on gene therapies, including adenovirus and AAV platforms. He appears on programs like This Week in Virology, where he interviews researchers to translate evolving evidence publicly.

In this interview with Scott Douglas Jacobsen, Dr. Dan Wilson explains how he debunks vaccine myths and pseudoscience while maintaining a central focus on empathy. He explains why misinformation spreads faster than corrections, describes recurring anti-vaccine tropes repackaged during COVID-19, and shares tactics that combine plain language, analogies, and “reality-breaking” facts. Wilson discusses the role of large platforms, algorithmic moderation pitfalls, and the importance of stories about disease harms alongside data. He contrasts global, self-correcting science with conspiracy theories that require implausible collusion, and he critiques maverick branding that misuses terminology. The conversation closes with practical content recommendations and a call for evidence-anchored communication.

Scott Douglas Jacobsen: Today, we are here with Dr. Dan Wilson, a molecular biologist turned science communicator who runs the YouTube channel Debunk the Funk with Dr. Wilson, where he explains vaccine science, COVID-19 controversies, and other disputed claims in plain language. He earned a Bachelor of Science in Biotechnology and Molecular Biology from Clarion University and a PhD in Biological Sciences from Carnegie Mellon University, where he researched ribosome biogenesis. In the industry, he has worked on vector-based gene therapies, including adenovirus and AAV platforms. Wilson also appears on programs such as This Week in Virology and interviews researchers to translate evolving evidence for the public, aiming to raise scientific literacy while reducing misinformation. Thank you for joining me. My first question is this: I have read, and I believe this is supported by peer-reviewed research, that debunking misinformation once it is already circulating is much more complicated than creating it.

Dr. Dan Wilson: Yes. Once claims are out there and believed, they are much harder to undo because scientists are not traditionally trained as communicators. They are trained to conduct research, write it up, and publish it in journals for their colleagues. There has also been a cultural attitude in science that spending time debunking or communicating with the public is a distraction from research. Colleagues may ask, “Why spend time on this instead of reviewing my paper or serving on a study section?” Scientists often feel pressure to say yes to everything.

This leaves science journalists and other communicators to address misinformation. While many do excellent work, they may not have the same platforms as those spreading misinformation. As a result, the debunking effort often lags.

Jacobsen: Within virology, how does this play out today? We frequently see U.S. health agencies, such as HHS and NIH, cited in public debates, and high-profile figures—including RFK Jr.—amplifying these claims. This should not be reduced to a single personality, since misinformation also has institutional and systemic roots. But how severe has the problem become since the start of the COVID-19 pandemic to the present moment? Where is this being sourced? Are they bats from Wuhan? Is it a bioweapon? Or just redubbings of old “Yellow Peril” plays? What is your take on the narratives that keep popping up? 

Wilson: You asked about virology, but it also extends into vaccinology. It has gotten bad. Having someone like Robert F. Kennedy Jr., hypothetically, as head of HHS has been compared to putting a flat-earther in charge of NASA. It’s a fair comparison, and it is a bad situation overall. RFK Jr. has built a career on denying that vaccines are safe, effective, and should be used. He has even questioned germ theory in specific contexts.

He has made claims that HIV does not cause AIDS and has expressed support for miasma theory over germ theory in some of his writings. To paint a clear picture of how dire the situation has become, consider that this is the person influencing vaccine policy. It shows in his actions.

He recently released a video claiming that vaccines did not contribute to decreases in child mortality, which is false. That is a long-standing anti-vaccine trope. It is undeniable that vaccines have significantly reduced child mortality worldwide. Improvements in sanitation, housing, and healthcare certainly contributed as well, but they cannot explain the elimination of diseases like measles in the U.S. Vaccines played a significant role in this achievement.

Now we have someone in charge who is promoting misinformation that has been a cornerstone of anti-vaccine rhetoric for decades. He is pushing toward a goal of restricting vaccines as much as possible, even taking steps to find loopholes to remove them from the market. At first, his ability to cause damage might be limited. But it has become clear that he is actively working to undermine vaccines, and that is deeply concerning.

Jacobsen: Large platforms are playing a role here. Some of the biggest podcasts operate as dual purveyors: on the one hand, amplifying everyday gossip—whether it’s about sports culture, music, or actors trying to reveal another side of themselves—and on the other hand, serving as vehicles for anti-science and pseudoscience. The first category isn’t necessarily bad; in fact, some of it humanizes public figures in healthy ways. However, on the other hand, there is an open palm, continually receiving and spreading harmful ideas.

This includes prominent anti-vaxxers, people blaming COVID-19 on conspiracies, and purveyors of pseudoscience. Some of it is relatively benign—like pseudoscientific archaeology—but when it comes to vaccines, the stakes are much higher. In this ecosystem, you and others like you have gained a significant following. While not as large as the big-name platforms, your audience is still substantial because you present a critical, professional, expert lens. What is your process for identifying misinformation and systematically taking it down, whether in a serious academic tone or with humour?

Wilson: One thing to know about me is that I used to believe many conspiracy theories. That stage of my life gave me a good sense of what circulates in conspiracy circles and why people find it convincing. I never fully believed anti-vaccine conspiracy theories, but I was aware of them.

When I became a scientist and started focusing on science communication, I decided to address vaccines since they fall within my field of expertise. I was already familiar with many of the anti-vaccine tropes. When I consider what needs to be addressed, I often examine the claims that have persisted over time.

Many anti-vaccine claims are not new; they get recycled repeatedly. We saw this throughout COVID-19. Most of the so-called “new” claims about vaccines during the pandemic had already been made about other diseases and vaccines in the past. They were repackaged for the current moment. That’s why I often target these recurring tropes—such as the generic claim that vaccines are unsafe—because they form the foundation of so much misinformation.

Claims that vaccines cause more harm than good were widespread during COVID-19 and are still circulating on large podcast platforms. To support these ideas, people often recycle the same tactics used against childhood vaccines that have been proven safe for decades. I focus on those topics, then go through my process: reading the scientific literature and trying to explain things in a way that might have convinced me back when I believed conspiracy theories. I know no single approach will reach everyone, but that’s the method I try to use.

Jacobsen: I’m thinking less about specific content and more about patterns. What claims are relatively easy to debunk or present correctly, and which are genuinely tricky? I don’t necessarily mean in terms of complexity, but in terms of presentation.

Wilson: Most anti-vaccine myths aren’t challenging to debunk in terms of evidence. It’s usually clear why they’re wrong. The real challenge lies in presentation—communicating the truth in a way that resonates with the audience.

For example, when people come forward with emotional stories—claiming that a vaccine injured them or someone they know—that becomes difficult. Their argument isn’t based on data but on personal pain, and you can’t simply dismiss that. To respond effectively, you need to go beyond statistics. You have to acknowledge their story while also providing real stories from the other side: what suffering from these diseases looked like before vaccines, and how much harm has been prevented because of them.

The goal is to help people see the broader picture and come to some resolution, even if they remain emotionally attached to their view. That requires much listening, careful preparation, and the ability to present historical context, personal stories, and statistics in a way that doesn’t come across as cold or dismissive—especially when someone may be aggressive or defensive in their stance.

Jacobsen: At the Beyond Belief Conference in the mid-2000s, Neil deGrasse Tyson spoke with Richard Dawkins. Dawkins, at the time, reflected the early New Atheist stance, arguing that simply presenting the facts should be sufficient. However, as we now know, people often double down when confronted with facts alone.

Tyson’s approach, paraphrased, was to have sensitivity to where the person is at and to gauge the delivery accordingly. That seems like common sense—we do it in most areas of life. For example, if someone is grieving and believes they’ll be reunited with their loved ones in the afterlife, you don’t immediately correct them with scientific evidence. You wait, or you offer comfort.

So, how do you convey scientific thinking without simply presenting “the gold standards of methodology” to someone, especially on hot-button issues?

Wilson: I try to use many analogies. I break concepts down to the basics and ask myself, “How would I want this presented if I were an undergraduate—or even a high school student—taking an introductory course?” Then I connect that explanation back to the broader concept I’m trying to convey or debunk.

My goal is to frame complex issues in simple, relatable ways. That’s generally my approach, though coming up with specific examples on the spot can be difficult.

Jacobsen: What about when new issues arise—like when SARS-CoV-2 first emerged and conspiracy theories spread almost immediately? Some people, the same day, were already spouting conspiracies on their platforms. Others, with an Alex Jones-type persona, leaned more naturally into conspiratorial thinking.

On the other hand, there were people whose perspectives changed after experiencing tragedy, such as when they saw loved ones die in overcrowded New York hospitals during the pandemic because they hadn’t been vaccinated. In those cases, trauma became the reality test. How do you think about this spectrum, where some can be educated beforehand, and others only change their minds through harsh personal experience?

Wilson: That’s the range we’re dealing with. In addition to analogies, I focus on phrases or facts that can serve as “reality breaks” for people immersed in conspiracies. When I believed conspiracies myself, I had built an entire worldview around them. Crawling out of that rabbit hole required multiple reality breaks before I could entirely leave it behind.

With vaccines, one example is that pediatricians vaccinate their own children. If vaccines were truly harmful and there were a global cover-up, why would doctors risk their own families? You can extend that to scientists, world leaders, even purveyors of vaccine misinformation—many of them are vaccinated or vaccinate their kids. Highlighting that contradiction can sometimes prompt people to rethink.

I also thought of an analogy for virus deniers—the “flat-earthers of biology.” Some claim viruses aren’t real or don’t cause disease. For them, I compare genetic methods in biology to crime scene investigation. At a crime scene, a sample may contain DNA from multiple humans, pets, pigeons, squirrels, and bacteria. Yet investigators can isolate human DNA and even identify individuals. Similarly, we can isolate viral genetic material from a complex sample. That analogy can help people see how viruses are identified.

Jacobsen: Without leaning too much on personalities, some public figures do warrant critique. One I hadn’t heard of until recently was Houtra, but more prominently, Brett Weinstein of the Weinstein brothers. How do you view their approach? What are the common epistemic traps in their delivery of data, whether outright falsehoods or skewed interpretations?

Wilson: Both Weinstein brothers present themselves as mavericks—rogue experts ostracized by mainstream colleagues. That image is inherently appealing: the insider turned outsider who now brings information “they don’t want you to know.” From that position, they misuse terminology and frame their arguments in ways that lend undue credibility to fringe claims. I’ve specifically called out Bret Weinstein for misusing terms.

He often uses terminology he doesn’t fully understand. I’ve pointed this out before, and while he’s responded to me on his podcast, he’s refused to engage with me directly. That itself fits the pattern: presenting as the ostracized expert while avoiding direct scrutiny from specialists who could call them out.

They insulate themselves in echo chambers, speaking primarily to their own audiences or to like-minded individuals. When Bret Weinstein talks about COVID and vaccines, he frequently misuses immunology terminology, then follows with a dramatic claim such as, “This could be the biggest bioweapon ever, whether by accident or design.” It sounds alarming, but collapses under examination. It’s often little more than repeating jargon without grasping the meaning. Still, when presented with confidence, it becomes an effective propaganda tool.

Jacobsen: There’s a space for humour mixed with contempt while presenting facts, especially in popular forums like YouTube. If you remove the humour, the arguments and evidence remain, but style matters. With figures like the Weinsteins—or even Sabine Hossenfelder in some instances—the dynamic is clear: intelligent individuals, each with their own expertise, extend themselves beyond their respective domains. They co-opt terminology from expert fields, as you said, and wrap it in the appeal of the “maverick.”

That’s the clothing—the branding. The reality is closer to the emperor having no clothes. These are not fools. They are smart people applying their intelligence in the wrong arena. That’s what makes them effective but also damaging. As a journalist, I strive not to reduce critiques to personal attacks. I deal with experts, whether through lived experience or lifelong study, and the damage comes when sharp minds misuse authority outside their proper scope.

Jacobsen: Often, I’m speaking with either an expert in their academic field or a spokesperson for a community organization. I can’t absorb 10,000 hours of lived experience in Ukraine or a lifetime of virology research, but I can, with enough interviewing experience, know which questions to ask so I can help convey a general sense—with details—of the reality within their domain of expertise. Does that seem like a fair characterization?

Wilson: Yes, totally.

Jacobsen: The United States has the First Amendment. Canada has laws against hate speech, emergency tribunals, and commissions. Combating misinformation seems more complicated because it spreads quickly on privately owned platforms, including X, Meta, Instagram, TikTok, and YouTube. At the same time, what are some of the benefits of being able to speak freely as an expert while combating misinformation?

Wilson: It’s definitely a double-edged sword. Being able to share information freely on platforms like Instagram, Twitter, or YouTube is a benefit for those of us debunking misinformation. However, I’ve seen the algorithms cause real damage, as they can’t always distinguish between those spreading misinformation and those debunking it.

For example, creators often get flagged simply because they repeat a false claim to explain why it’s wrong. The system can’t always differentiate between someone promoting bad information and someone correcting it, so content gets taken down. If that restriction loosens, it helps, but leaving misinformation completely unchecked causes real harm. We witnessed this during the COVID-19 pandemic, when information spread incredibly quickly and affected everyone—through lockdowns, economic disruptions, illness, and death. People were scared, so they turned to the internet, where content went viral quickly. Sometimes the viral content was accurate, but very often it was not.

During the pandemic, there wasn’t an effective way to catch and filter misinformation quickly. As a result, things went viral that were incorrect—sometimes originating from official sources, sometimes misinterpreted by the public, and sometimes deliberately distorted by those spreading misinformation. That created much confusion. Some people even used content removals as “proof” that they had been right all along, which only fueled distrust and momentum for loosening restrictions everywhere.

Jacobsen: What is the American public generally good at figuring out on its own with enough time? 

Wilson: Honestly, this might not sound optimistic, but I don’t think the American public as a whole is excellent at discerning fact from fiction. That said, when it comes to vaccines, most people in the U.S. still believe vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary because their benefits outweigh the risks.

However, there’s also a large enough portion of the population swayed by anti-vaccine rhetoric that we’ve seen people elected or put into positions of power who promote extreme misinformation—claims like vaccines being bioweapons—which are easily debunked with even a basic Google search.

So while many people are capable of separating fact from fiction, many are not. As a society, we have much work to do to ensure misinformation doesn’t win. The stakes are high: if misinformation dominates, people die, lose years of life, or lose years of healthy living. We’re already seeing the effects—this year, the United States recorded its first measles deaths in decades.

If not the 1990s, then at least the early 2000s—after that, measles was considered eradicated in the United States. But now it’s back. There are enough cases, and enough people refusing medical advice, that children are dying. The same thing is happening with pertussis: we now have pertussis deaths again. And we even saw the first polio case in decades in the U.S. in the past couple of years. All of those deaths were among unvaccinated people.

So we see that problem, and we also see people foregoing evidence-based cancer treatments because of things they read online or hear from influencers. For example, many people are unaware that Steve Jobs might have survived much longer if he had opted for conventional treatment. His pancreatic cancer was in a form and stage that was initially treatable, but he delayed treatment in favour of alternative therapies rooted in Eastern philosophy. That decision cost him time and, ultimately, his life.

Jacobsen: Yes, there’s a notion sometimes of so-called Western science or Western ways of knowing. I imagine you’ve come across this. But whoever is practicing science is simply doing science. It isn’t geographically or hemispherically bound. To apply the term “different ways of knowing” makes little sense if those ways do not tell you something valid about the objective world—reliably, validly, and repeatably.

So how do you convey, in your video presentations, the idea that there has to be a universal standard for determining what is true and what is not? For example, a dowser with divining rods may believe they have a special ability to find water, but if their results are no better than chance, then what they think is false. How do you get across the idea that cultural labels like “Western science” are misleading, and that science is simply a method, not a cultural artifact?

Wilson: You’re right—there’s no such thing as Western medicine or Western science. Both medicine and science are global endeavours. I try to emphasize that as much as possible, because one of the things that kept me stuck in conspiratorial thinking was the belief in monolithic they’s—whether “they” were scientists, doctors, or governments, supposedly all conspiring to maintain the status quo. That isn’t true.

Scientists continually strive to expand the boundaries of knowledge. The real currency in science is research papers. To publish, results need to be novel, meaningful, and ideally exciting. If scientists discovered something that could cure cancer or dramatically improve human health, that discovery would be published because publishing groundbreaking work is how careers are made.

If a scientist were to overturn long-held beliefs, they’d be famous. They’d get the next Nobel Prize. They’d earn all the credibility and recognition they could want in science. No one is going to pass that up to fall in line with some supposed “status quo.” And again, the scientific community is global. So for conspiracy theories to be true, you’d have to believe that this oppressive force exists not only in the U.S. but also in other countries with labs just as sophisticated—if not more advanced—than ours, doing similar or even better experimentation.

That goes back to what I call “reality-breaking” thoughts. You have to show people the scale of what they’re claiming. If you believe there’s a conspiracy, then what does that require? It requires believing that all scientists are ignoring evidence, all scientists are being bought off, or all scientists are too incompetent to notice. Do you really think that? Do you think every doctor in the world is okay with watching their own patients—or their own family members—die of cancer or of vaccine-preventable diseases, despite supposedly knowing how to prevent it? When you pull back the layers, you see how implausible it really is.

So I try to drill into people’s heads that the scientific community is like any other community. Take the Lord of the Rings fandom. Stephen Colbert is famous for knowing everything about it—he can tell you Merry and Pippin’s cousin’s name. It’s impressive. But if he said something wrong about the Balrog, or about Morgoth’s ancestry—well, actually Melkor before he was called Morgoth—fans would correct him. (And yes, you’re right, he was a Vala, not a Maia.) The point is, no matter who you are, if you get something wrong, the community will call you out.

That’s how science works. If someone says something that doesn’t hold up—if other people can show through experiments and data that it’s wrong—they’ll correct it. Because at the end of the day, scientists are committed to reality. They’re committed to what nature is telling us, just like Tolkien fans are committed to what’s in the text. Nothing else matters. There’s no force oppressive enough to silence angry nerds when they see something wrong.

That’s what I try to present in many of my videos.

Jacobsen: Joe Rogan is mixed. I don’t agree with people who say he’s all bad, and I don’t agree with people who say he’s all good. Clearly, he has a massive platform. He does give airtime to people who spread nonsense, and while they have freedom of speech, the problem comes in the fallout—mainly when misinformation influences people in positions of power.

I don’t have an immediate solution for that. Rogan books the guests he finds interesting, and as long as his benchmark for credibility is lower than scientific standards, he will continue to invite pseudoscience promoters. So, any solutions? Honestly, the only real solution I see is post-hoc correction. 

Wilson: My opinion is that Rogan needs someone who is both willing and prepared with all the facts to sit across from him and say—maybe not literally, but effectively—“Joe, when it comes to vaccines and COVID, you’re wrong, and here’s why.” Then walk him through the evidence point by point. Please don’t call him an idiot outright, because he’d shut down, but challenge him directly with facts.

Unfortunately, he’s siloed himself deeper into a conspiratorial rabbit hole by primarily inviting anti-vaxxers and COVID denialists, instead of credible, pro-science voices who could push back. He used to host scientists and evidence-based communicators, but during the COVID pandemic, his guest pool devolved into denialists and sensationalists who reinforced his biases.

There was an opportunity missed when Rogan publicly challenged Dr. Peter Hotez to debate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Opinions differ in the scientific community about whether anyone should have taken that stage. Someone should have. Hotez is an excellent communicator with an H-index of around 140, which is extraordinary, but he doesn’t do debates—and that’s his right. Debating is a skill, and scientists aren’t typically trained for it. Still, someone should have been ready and willing to counter RFK Jr.’s claims in that forum. That could have been valuable.

He’s been an academic physician for a long time—publishing, producing research, and even creating affordable medical products for people who need them. He’s excellent.

Jacobsen: I’ve interviewed Gordon Guyatt of evidence-based medicine several times. When I interviewed Harriet Hall—she’s since passed away—she brought up science-based medicine. So I asked Gordon, “Have you ever heard of evidence-based medicine followed by science-based medicine? They made some tweaks to it.” He said, “I’ve never heard of it.” Clearly, science-based medicine was in the orbit, adding a skeptical lens, but evidence-based medicine was the core—Eric Topol, Gordon Guyatt, and now Peter Hotez. I wasn’t fully aware. What is the one video, maybe two, everyone should watch to get the best characterization of you and what you stand for?

Wilson: I’ll name two. First, a recent video where I went through Suzanne Humphries’ appearance on the Joe Rogan show. She’s one of the original anti-vaxxers who has been spreading misinformation for a long time. Rogan had her on earlier this year. I made a 90-minute video breaking down her claims and explaining why they’re wrong. That’s a strong representation of what I do.

Second, I debated two anti-vaxxers live on stage in New York City, alongside another YouTuber, Professor Dave Explains. That was a good demonstration of what happens when people relying only on hyperbole and stories are confronted by two people who know the science and can call them out directly.

Jacobsen: The greatest joy of my life is interviewing secular freethought leaders globally. Take Leo Igwe—he deals with witchcraft allegations that lead to people being killed in parts of West Africa. Then, on the other end, you have highly advanced societies importing talent while their core education systems often plateau at a sixth- to eighth-grade reading level. It’s a strange global landscape. People usually ask what we’re supposed to say to those working on YouTube, science communication, or secular activism. I think the only proper response is ‘thank you.’

So, Dr. Wilson, thank you very much for the work you do, and for teaming up with ‘Professor’ Dave Explains to advance evidence and reason in public discourse.

Jacobsen: It’s essential work, and we need more of it—and more urgently. Whether this is a temporary chapter or the new normal in the United States, I don’t know. However, I hope we will see a scientifically skeptical and informed phase of culture emerge in the next decade.

Wilson: I hope so, too, Scott. Thanks so much for having me—and for thanking me. It really is appreciated.

Last updated May 3, 2025. These terms govern all In-Sight Publishing content—past, present, and future—and supersede any prior notices.  In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen is licensed under a Creative Commons BY‑NC‑ND 4.0; © In-Sight Publishing by Scott  Douglas  Jacobsen 2012–Present. All trademarks, performances, databases & branding are owned by their rights holders; no use without permission. Unauthorized copying, modification, framing or public communication is prohibited. External links are not endorsed. Cookies & tracking require consent, and data processing complies with PIPEDA & GDPR; no data from children < 13 (COPPA). Content meets WCAG 2.1 AA under the Accessible Canada Act & is preserved in open archival formats with backups. Excerpts & links require full credit & hyperlink; limited quoting under fair-dealing & fair-use. All content is informational; no liability for errors or omissions: Feedback welcome, and verified errors corrected promptly. For permissions or DMCA notices, email: scott.jacobsen2025@gmail.com. Site use is governed by BC laws; content is “as‑is,” liability limited, users indemnify us; moral, performers’ & database sui generis rights reserved.