Unfortunately, the "how dare you" quote from the title cannot be attributed to seventeen year old activist who skipped school. Part of me wishes it could, but actually, it was a serious question from one MD PhD - let's call her Elle - to a successful businessman, mathematician by training - let's call him Matt - who "dared" to challenge lockdown dogma.

First, I'll acknowledge my bias by choosing word "dogma". That said, I would still write this same post even if Matt argued for stricter lockdowns. Here is why.

Throughout 2020, our dear Matt did not like what he heard and saw from various "experts". As a mathematician, he was looking at the numbers and noticed that various media-promoted conclusions did not make sense to him - mathematically. Then he started to play with the numbers, with different models, and those conclusions were still off in his opinion. Then he seeked a help from biochemist - someone who was more familiar with biological mechanisms - and even with a help from biochemists, those conclusions were still off. Then Matt and biochemist actually joined forced with another MD PhD and actually produced peer-review research supporting their initial observations - the media-promoted conclusions are not supported by evidence. So, Matt dared to offer new perspective, new conclusions and actually persuaded the government of one European country to give up on strict lockdown. Then he dared to suggest how various experts were wrong - and that's when Elle lost it.

First and foremost, there is a reason for ambiguity in this post when talking about "the conclusions". From perspective of scientific method and the principle of falsifiability (the capacity for some proposition, statement, theory or hypothesis to be proven wrong), every conclusion, regardless of "consensus", can be challenged. So, what matters is that Matt had an observation, then done a bit of research consulting with other scientists of different perspectives, then he himself made a prediction, performed testing and published new conclusions that everybody can challenge. In other words, he followed scientific method. And everybody's free to challenge - his conclusions.

Yet, that is not what Elle has done. She said - and I'll quote - "how dare you to dispute top scientists? You should know your place and stay there." So, no address of any conclusions. No scientific method.

Long story short, I gently tried to point out to Elle that we should beware of elitism. Scientific discussion should be open to everyone who can challenge the preconceived knowledge. For example, one Albert Einstein was simple clerk in patent office when he dared to challenge some of the greatest physicist. Long story every shorter, she did not like that and now I'm enrolled in one of those social media feed where she insults me, even when I point out how I am irrelevant in this story.

My point is that Elle and "experts" and Matt are also irrelevant: the valid scientific conclusions are independent of one's perspective, qualifications and perceived-elitism. The conclusions either work or they don't. When it comes to challenging those conclusions, even the ones made by top scientists are fair game. No alibis.

On that note, I recommend this read about elitism and science.

https://thebrainscientist.com/2019/06/01/everyone-has-a-right-to-science/