It's people like him who are the aggressive ones, because they play the victim and use authority to try to silence people for having alternative views.
Ah yes, it’s not an obvious lie, it’s an “alternative view”.
[deleted]
Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
11–20 of 23 posts
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious: as you appear to be talking about COVID vaccines, which vaccine do you believe was "ineffective (though apparently safe)", given there are a number of vaccines that were developed in different countries using different methodologies. All the articles I've seen in reputable scientific journals suggest most vaccines, at least those developed in Western countries, were effective. Pointers to articles from s…
It's unclear whether it makes sense to engage with folks who question the effectiveness of COVID vaccines, especially if they are not trained in the medical research/sciences. merely for the practical reason that historically, these discussions/arguments aren't productive, quickly devolve into people calling each other ignorant idiots, and most of the "facts" people cite are really just strongly-held beliefs which ar…
While I understand this position (i.e., https://xkcd.com/386/), it (along with an unholy union of the Internet, confirmation bias, pay-per-click, and echo chambers) appears to have contributed to an explosion in reality disconnection that is becoming actually threatening, e.g., there has been a surge in "vaccine hesitancy" for rabies vaccines in pets.
At some point, assertions like "[COVID] vaccines are ineffective" need to be challenged (which? over what time frame? where's the data?) or they become "everybody knows ...".
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#13It's people like him who are the aggressive ones, because they play the victim and use authority to try to silence people for having alternative views.
Ah yes, it’s not an obvious lie, it’s an “alternative view”.
Well, it's easier to accuse someone of lying when their opinions are based on facts, which are in the realm of objectivity, making them vulnerable to being proven wrong.
> When I went into the more conservative, rural areas of east Texas, essentially everyone I talked to had lost a loved one because they refused a COVID-19 vaccine.
Tell me where the facts are in a statement like this, because I see a whole lot of political framing and appeals to emotion, and no facts.
> In the intensive-care unit, you saw some people deny COVID-19 existed, yet in their dying words feel remorse and advise their friends: ‘Don’t do what I did, get your COVID-19 immunization.’
The idea of a conservative person in rural east Texas saying anything like this is already somewhat questionable, but the wording Hotez chose for this li'l slice of drama is downright ludicrous.
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, it’s not an obvious lie, it’s an “alternative view”.
Well, it's easier to accuse someone of lying when their opinions are based on facts, which are in the realm of objectivity, making them vulnerable to being proven wrong. > When I went into the more conservative, rural areas of east Texas, essentially everyone I talked to had lost a loved one because they refused a COVID-19 vaccine. Tell me where the facts are in a statement like this, because I see a whole lot of pol…
> Well, it's easier to accuse someone of lying when their opinions are based on facts, which are in the realm of objectivity, making them vulnerable to being proven wrong.
This is word salad.
> Tell me where the facts are in a statement like this, because I see a whole lot of political framing and appeals to emotion, and no facts.
The statement you provided is an account of an experience. Unsure what you think you're proving or disproving, but vaccine data generally isn't represented in "A single person knows of it working or not"-style data.
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm curious: as you appear to be talking about COVID vaccines, which vaccine do you believe was "ineffective (though apparently safe)", given there are a number of vaccines that were developed in different countries using different methodologies. All the articles I've seen in reputable scientific journals suggest most vaccines, at least those developed in Western countries, were effective. Pointers to articles from s…
It's unclear whether it makes sense to engage with folks who question the effectiveness of COVID vaccines, especially if they are not trained in the medical research/sciences. merely for the practical reason that historically, these discussions/arguments aren't productive, quickly devolve into people calling each other ignorant idiots, and most of the "facts" people cite are really just strongly-held beliefs which ar…
In my view it definitely is worth engaging. In order for people to get vaccinated they need to give informed consent. In order for people to give informed consent they need to understand the risks and rewards of getting a vaccine. Arguably what I just said is my strongly held belief and inconsistent with observed evidence, but I'd still like to talk about it without calling anyone an idiot.
When it comes to training, if someone wanted to argue against my position by questioning the credentials of my scientific education perhaps they could be persuasive.
If someone was more interested in taking part in medical research/sciences and also discussions of policy relating to them I could have quite constructive conversations I expect.
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#16Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's unclear whether it makes sense to engage with folks who question the effectiveness of COVID vaccines, especially if they are not trained in the medical research/sciences. merely for the practical reason that historically, these discussions/arguments aren't productive, quickly devolve into people calling each other ignorant idiots, and most of the "facts" people cite are really just strongly-held beliefs which ar…
While I understand this position (i.e., https://xkcd.com/386/ ), it (along with an unholy union of the Internet, confirmation bias, pay-per-click, and echo chambers) appears to have contributed to an explosion in reality disconnection that is becoming actually threatening, e.g., there has been a surge in "vaccine hesitancy" for rabies vaccines in pets. At some point, assertions like "[COVID] vaccines are ineffective"…
'ineffective' and 'effective' do not have very strict definitions. Something could be ineffective compared to how effective it was presented as being, such as the recent COVID vaccine. Here is one example of Joe Biden spreading vaccine misinformation: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2021-video-saying-vaccina...
"[COVID] vaccines are ineffective" is a fair assertion if the standard of something being 'effective' is preventing getting infected at all.
A better way to challenge the validity of that assertion is to make more effective COVID vaccines. In my view, bypassing the stage of creation of spike proteins and more directly getting the cells able to produce the relevant antibodies when needed would be a better vaccine, possibly more effective. It would also likely be safer (as the spike protein itself is dangerous, and the immune response to it can also be dangerous, by the sounds of it when the vaccine has not stayed localised in the arm but moved to the heart), so a vaccine that has solved that issue would do better when looked at in terms of a risk / reward ratio.
"[COVID] vaccines are effective [enough to be worth the risk of side-effects]" is something that would be better addressed through improving the vaccines themselves, possibly through improved public messaging, but I don't think as yet the data is there that supports that in an unequivocal way, and improved vaccines with greatly improved efficacy and safety which are then accurately described would be the best way to get the message accross.
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#17There are two political gains we should coordinate our attacks to achieve: Better vaccines (safer, more powerful) A more informed public regarding vaccines
You cannot achieve research and educational goals by attacking others.
The article was both about attacks on scientists and attacks on science itself.
My view disagrees with that of Peter Hotez, as I think that science should be vigorously attacked, especially by trying to disprove all kinds of scientific things, while also trying to prove things that contradict science. I expect that after such attacks, science would be strengthened rather than destroyed though.
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#18Earlier quoted context omitted.
While I understand this position (i.e., https://xkcd.com/386/ ), it (along with an unholy union of the Internet, confirmation bias, pay-per-click, and echo chambers) appears to have contributed to an explosion in reality disconnection that is becoming actually threatening, e.g., there has been a surge in "vaccine hesitancy" for rabies vaccines in pets. At some point, assertions like "[COVID] vaccines are ineffective"…
'ineffective' and 'effective' do not have very strict definitions. Something could be ineffective compared to how effective it was presented as being, such as the recent COVID vaccine. Here is one example of Joe Biden spreading vaccine misinformation: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2021-video-saying-vaccina... "[COVID] vaccines are ineffective" is a fair assertion if the standard of something being 'effective' is…
Someone (including the President of the US) asserting that any vaccine is 100% effective and will prevent someone from "getting infected at all" simply means that individual does not understand how vaccines and infectious diseases caused by viruses work.
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#19Earlier quoted context omitted.
'ineffective' and 'effective' do not have very strict definitions. Something could be ineffective compared to how effective it was presented as being, such as the recent COVID vaccine. Here is one example of Joe Biden spreading vaccine misinformation: https://www.newsweek.com/joe-biden-2021-video-saying-vaccina... "[COVID] vaccines are ineffective" is a fair assertion if the standard of something being 'effective' is…
Someone (including the President of the US) asserting that any vaccine is 100% effective and will prevent someone from "getting infected at all" simply means that individual does not understand how vaccines and infectious diseases caused by viruses work.
Indeed. My point is that this sets a standard for what is considered 'effective' and if it falls short of that standard, those who say it's 'ineffective' by that unrealistic standard, that is still correct.
Something can be ineffective compared to something else. Such as a COVID vaccine being ineffective compared to some expectations or representations of it.
Re: Vaccine specialist Peter Hotez: scientists are ‘under attack for political gain
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, it's easier to accuse someone of lying when their opinions are based on facts, which are in the realm of objectivity, making them vulnerable to being proven wrong. > When I went into the more conservative, rural areas of east Texas, essentially everyone I talked to had lost a loved one because they refused a COVID-19 vaccine. Tell me where the facts are in a statement like this, because I see a whole lot of pol…
> Well, it's easier to accuse someone of lying when their opinions are based on facts, which are in the realm of objectivity, making them vulnerable to being proven wrong. This is word salad. > Tell me where the facts are in a statement like this, because I see a whole lot of political framing and appeals to emotion, and no facts. The statement you provided is an account of an experience. Unsure what you think you're…
> This is word salad.
Try reading it again, maybe twice or more, and figuring out what is meant.