Over the weekend, Dr. Peter Hotez, the co-director of the Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development (CVD) and author of the forthcoming book Preventing the Next Pandemic: Vaccine Diplomacy in a Time of Anti-Science, tweeted a Vice article titled “Spotify Has Stopped Even Sort of Trying to Stem Joe Rogan’s Vaccine Misinformation.” It came after podcast host Joe Rogan brought presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on his show to vocalize his anti-vaccine stance. 

Hotez called the podcast interview “nonsense” and shared that he received attacks on Twitter as a result. 

The conversation brewed a storm, to say the least. After Hotez denied an immediate offer from Rogan of $100,000 to the charity of his choice to debate RFK Jr. in real time on his show, Twitter CEO Elon Musk tweeted, “He’s afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong.”

But Hotez says he is willing to talk about his research on Rogan’s show, tweeting back, “Joe, you have my cell, my email. I’m always willing to speak with you.” But he did not agree to a debate format outright. The onslaught of online attacks from America’s richest man and anti-vaxxers alike accusing Hotez of being a fraud and a liar, and benefiting off Big Pharma, prompted Mark Cuban to wade in, among other prominent names and a slew of medical professionals. 

He’s afraid of a public debate, because he knows he’s wrong

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) June 17, 2023

 “Trying to bully Dr Hotez is ridiculous,” Cuban tweeted.

Misinformation vs. scientists 

The mess brings into question how the social platform functions as an additive to scientists who share medical information. And more, the heated exchange probes whether or not scientists and doctors feel safe speaking out on Twitter.

Hotez shared on the platform how people targeted him outside of the internet’s walls. 

“Ugh I just was stalked in front of my home by a couple of antivaxers taunting me to debate RFKJr,” tweeted Hotez, who told Axios the platform has become more friendly to misinformation and anti-vaccine views as part of an anti-science movement.

I’m still hoping to remain on Twitter, but we’ll see how things go. This was and should be an important outlet for scientists, although far more challenging in its new form. https://t.co/wfgmBjAGAm

— Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD (@PeterHotez) June 20, 2023

“I’m still hoping to remain on Twitter, but we’ll see how things go. This was and should be an important outlet for scientists, although far more challenging in its new form,” Hotez tweeted Tuesday Morning.

Other scientists who have prominent Twitter followings say they are skeptical of how the platform fosters an environment conducive to their work. 

“I too have grappled with leaving Twitter. Multiple times I’ve needed to take breaks to step away from the vile rhetoric & misinformation,” Dr. Scott Hadland, the chief of adolescent medicine at Mass General, who has over 48,000 followers, tweeted. “Many close colleagues have already left. This place can be fixed & @Twitter should do it before it’s too late.” This tweet alone garnered personal online attacks. 

I too have grappled with leaving Twitter. Multiple times I’ve needed to take breaks to step away from the vile rhetoric & misinformation.

Many close colleagues have already left.

This place can be fixed & @Twitter should do it before it’s too late.

— Scott Hadland, MD (@DrScottHadland) June 20, 2023

Bertalan Meskó, Ph.D., the director of the Medical Futurist, says he has used Twitter for over a decade—often sharing research on digital health technology. Even with the same following of over 85,000, he writes to Fortune that he feels he has reached fewer people. Still, he doesn’t want to concede to the noise. 

“Social media platforms come and go, and even those that stay change a lot,” he says. “I’ll use as many relevant platforms as possible, and I’ll fine-tune the formats of my messages based on how platforms change, but neither platform is more important than the others.”