So we have government health experts publicly saying they engaged in misinformation. But they are the experts against which every other opinion is to be judged as misinformation.
1: https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/prevention-c...
Is "not recommended" == "discouraged"?
"He also acknowledged that masks were initially not recommended to the general public so that first responders wouldn’t feel the strain of a shortage of PPE."
As far as I understand, 'discouraging' is to saying publicly "Do not buy masks" and 'not recommending' might be just that, as in, not saying "Go and buy a masks or you'll spread the disease".
"You can increase your risk of getting it by wearing a mask if you are not a health care provider," Adams said. "Folks who don't know how to wear them properly tend to touch their faces a lot and actually can increase the spread of coronavirus," he added.
https://www.businessinsider.com/americans-dont-need-masks-pe...
Surgeon General Jerome Adams and Vice President Mike Pence have urged people against buying and wearing masks.
I think part of the solution to the misinformation problem is to A) have a much better education system, and B) have much better media presentation around the facts.
If you don’t have A, all is lost ultimately. There’s not much hope for democracy if the majority of the citizens are misinformed and incapable of critical thought.
I think you're trying to mock scientific experts, but what kind of expert would NOT be willing to change their recommendation based on new, strong, contrary information?
Of course experts would prefer not to make a recommendation until all the facts are known, to avoid being wrong. But that simply was not (still and is not) possible with the pandemic.
We have to decide how to react with the information we have and it's just rational to be willing to change our decision based on strong new information.