If I have a medical issue I ain’t going to Joe Rogan.
Aaron Rogers is the perfect example of someone shopping for the answer they want vs the consensus of medical experts.
Tribalism when it comes to their health is just plain stupid
Not talking about tribalism.
The problem is there's a long history of cases of such a "consensus"among "experts" being entirely wrong for long periods of time.
And who do you count as being part of an "expert community" anyway?
The "consensus" can be wrong, because such communities of accredited "experts" are a socio-political phenomenon. They exist for social and political reasons, and their membership is determined by political, economic, and social factors, and are influenced by he same biases that influence the rest of a society.
For example, look how long it took to realise autism presents differently in girls, or heart attacks can present differently in women. Yes, it's in a sense 'self-correcting' but that process of correction can take a very long time - decades or even centuries.
For example, right now, as i understand it (and I might be wrong, not being an 'expert' myself), there's a shift in the idea that Chagas disease is not domestically spread in the US, but is a disease largely of immigrants from areas where it's endemic. They've discovered (largely by accident due to blood-donation screening) that its present in Americans who have never been to Latin America, and indeed they've now found that it's present in the insect population of several states. Hence people may be contracting it from insect bites within US borders.
They didn't consider this before because they'd never bothered to systematically check. I find it hard to believe that that failure to notice the domestic nature of the disease and the insistence it was a disease purely of foreign migrants had nothing to do with systemic bias towards national pride.
That is the one argument of climate-change deniers that I took seriously from the start - the idea that a 'false consensus' can emerge. Because there are many historical examples of that happening. Particularly in small fields (am I obliged to to believe the 'consensus of experts' on race and IQ, for example? Most of those who go into that field have an ideological agenda for doing so. In very small fields 'peer review' can be just fellow-believers agreeing with each other).
As it happens with Climate Change it soon became clear, as each alternative argument fell by the wayside, not fitting the observed facts, and particularly as the deniers kept resurrecting already-debunked arguments, that the bias and motivated reasoning was entirely on the denialist side.
Also, if you are going to weight "experts" by how prestigious are their positions and qualifications, when it comes to Constitutional law, you'd have to conclude that the verdicts of Alito, Thomas, Barratt, and Roberts, holding the most "prestigious" positions in the subject, can't be challenged by mere laypeople.
And when it comes to doctors - I had medical issues for decades - kept going to the accredited 'experts' and they kept telling me there was nothing physically wrong and it was all psychological. When I argued that maybe they (individually and collectively) didn't know everything (as there have always been medical issues that doctors as a profession didn't know about so why should our era be any different) they'd dismiss the idea and insist that _now_ they wouldn't miss anything. Their 'expertise' over-rode my own direct experience of what my body was telling me, apparently.
Aftter 30 years of this they finally did the right test to find I did indeed have a chronic, life-long, medical issue, and it turns out to be something medical science has only just (in the last few years) started to acknowledge, and still barely understands. (Every paper on it I find in the literature stresses how poorly-understood it is and how little it has been studied - though what case-histories and studies there are report symptoms identical to some of those I've been looking for an explanation for most of my life).
Or how about all the 'financial experts' who failed to see the financial crash coming? The 'experts' at the credit-rating agencies that rated junk mortgages AAA?
I'm not a fan of 'experts' as a group. They're part of the Professional Managerial Class and like all classes they have a class-interest that they defend. (Or, as George Bernard-Shaw put it "all professions are conspiracies against the laity")
I know this all concedes something to anti-vaxxers and climate-change-deniers (neither of whom I have any time for) but I don't think it can be helped. You can't simply invoke "the concensus" and declare that solves everything. It's more complicated than that.