Let’s start with a simple, low-stakes example: fluoridated drinking water. On the one hand, fluoride is a simple ion that shows up in various concentrations, including naturally through calcium fluoride, in bodies of water all across the world. When humans ingest too little of it, particularly at a young age, it leads to weakened tooth enamel and greater rates of cavities; when humans ingest too much of it, it leads to tooth discoloration and various severities of dental fluorosis. In extreme cases, significantly too much or too little fluoride can also lead to other problems, such as osteoporosis (with too little) or skeletal fluorosis (with too much).

In most places in the United States and Canada, our drinking water is fluoridated at a specific level that’s safe and effective for humans of all ages ... And yet, there are major cities in the world, like Portland, OR or Calgary, Alberta, where the public or city council, respectively, has voted (in the case of Portland, repeatedly) to not add fluoride to their drinking water. As expected, the typical cavity rates in children — when controlled for socioeconomic demographics — are about 40% higher. The idea that “our water is natural” and “adding fluoride isn’t” has proven more powerful in swaying public opinion in these locations than the science supporting fluoride’s safety and effectiveness. To the voting public, a fear of chemicals and an affinity for what feels natural was more compelling than the dental health of poor children, despite near-universal support from dental health professionals.

Even his own fucking example doesn't demonstrate the harm of looking into the data yourself.

It's just pointing and jeering at someone who's beliefs are not based on the provided data at all, and baselessly smearing anyone who looks for the data themselves to be somehow equivalent.

There is no excuse, with all the wonderful scientists and science communicators telling the truth about a whole slew of issues in our world.

Hahaha science communicators always tell the truth, science communicators said so and they always tell the truth!

The best scientists in the world — even the ones who hold contrarian beliefs of their own — all agree that we should base our policies on the scientific consensus that we’ve achieved.

No they fucking don't, if they did they wouldn't hold beliefs that could be labeled 'contrarian'. By holding to those beliefs they demonstrate a belief that at least sometimes the scientific consensus can fail to settle on or lagg behind the truth. Some of them might still broadly believe in the accuracy of the publicly presented scientific consensus outside of their specific topics of dissent. But IMO at this point that probably means they just haven't interacted with enough new editors and science communicators yet, and come to terms how many corrupt and intellectually bankrupt gatekeepers currently shepherd that 'consensus'.

But that requires a kind of transformation within yourself. It means that you need to be humble, and admit that you, yourself, lack the necessary expertise to evaluate the science before you. It means that you need to be brave enough to turn to the consensus of scientific experts and ask, legitimately, what we know at the present stage. And it means you need to be open-minded enough to understand that your preconceptions are quite likely to be wrong in some, many, or possibly even all ways.

"Doubt yourself more! Believe you are incapable of understanding literally anything on your own, I want limitless opportunity to gaslight people even harder."