4 ms·

How do we know the source isn't just spreading FUD? I'm as skeptical as the next guy, but the writer's poor English is making my BS-sense tingle.

• redisman 6y ago
  Looking at Wikipedia (which reads like it was written by a PR person) he seems fairly qualified to talk about viruses https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Haseltine#HIV/AIDS_research_and_public_policy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_A._Haseltine#HIV/AIDS_...
  • bichiliad 6y ago
    I actually looked the author up as well. I was pretty surprised that what seem to be pretty glaring grammatical errors made their way into what ostensibly is a pretty important article. I wonder if he would publish it with Forbes on the condition that nothing was reworded.
    • plorkyeran 6y ago
      There is no editor involved for Forbes Contributors. They're basically just third-party bloggers that post on the Forbes site.
  • diogenescynic 6y ago
    He’s also been critical of other drug trials, so it seems like this is something he does... seems like a reasonably trustworthy source.
    • lbeltrame 6y ago
      I found the arguments lacking. I don't think there was any plan on preventing infection on the first batch of vaccines, and even the FDA does recommend a minimum of 50% efficacy. Infection prevention or preventing severe symptoms, are however part of the secondary endpoints of the trials, something that it is not mentioned in the article. For a counter argument, see https://mobile.twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1308474303810330625 https://mobile.twitter.com/nataliexdean/status/1308474303810...