6 ms·

Healthy skepticism belong in peer-reviews, in revisions of medical journals. Skepticism in the public space fosters anti-vaccine sentiments, adds to the already

Healthy skepticism belong in peer-reviews, in revisions of medical journals. Skepticism in the public space fosters anti-vaccine sentiments, adds to the already growing anti-vax movements and puts in risk the vulnerable in our society as they require shielding and for the rest of us to do our part.

ajkdhcb2 6y ago
I find your perspective extremely disturbing, and believe it empowers anti-vaxxers more than anything else.
- Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
  How could it possibly empower anti vaxxers to say to trust healthcare professionals, doctors and the worlds leading security and safety experts?
  - waihtis 6y ago
    I think anti-vaxx and other fringe groups are more driven by distrust in society, and by denying discussion to be had in the first place will further build anti-societal silos. It's a difficult problem, because inevitably there will be harm initially if you allow free discussion. But over time the harm will be less in comparison to complete shutdown of any public conversation about the vaccines. If the anti-vaxxers don't want the COVID vaccine, so be it. Let them pay with their health. That'll be the best course of action for beating down the quacks who will oppose any vaccinations.
    - Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
      There are several problems with that, and they can be seen online already. 1) It is much easier to spread misinformation than to collect facts and spread real data 2) Mistrust is insidious and spreads, allowing anti-vaxers then goes into other forms of anti institutional ideologies. 3) Herd immunity. If some kid has leukimia and cannot get vaccinated, he survives thanks to everyone else being vaccinated. Some 30 year old reactionary being an anti-vaxxer and getting covid and surviving it would be ok if he was not a vector of infection to the most vulnerable in society. So in my opinion teaching people basic scientific literacy (so they can check primary sources like published research), and fostering scientific respect and trust would do us wonders as a society. We put a man on the moon, and reduced child mortality by 90% by trusting science, why allow people who think the theory of gravity is "just a theory" spread their thoughts.
      - waihtis 6y ago
        > 3) Herd immunity. If some kid has leukimia and cannot get vaccinated, he survives thanks to everyone else being vaccinated. Some 30 year old reactionary being an anti-vaxxer and getting covid and surviving it would be ok if he was not a vector of infection to the most vulnerable in society. 100% true, I was not thinking far enough on this.
        johnisgood 6y ago
        You can develop resistance naturally. I was exposed to COVID-19, therefore I have antibodies and I am immune, supposedly for 6 months. > You can develop resistance naturally. When your body is exposed to a virus or bacteria, it makes antibodies to fight off the infection. When you recover, your body keeps these antibodies. Your body will defend against another infection. This is what stopped the Zika virus outbreak in Brazil. Two years after the outbreak began, 63% of the population had had exposure to the virus. Researchers think the community reached the right level for herd immunity.
- gr2zr4 6y ago
  sorry, but anti-vaxxers are empowered by doubtful and propagandistic press releases...when you have solid, scientific and independently peer-reviewed data the only thing that anti-vaxxers can do is be silent and accept them.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    That is just not how anti-vaxers work, if you ever talked to one. There is a multitude of problems they can say they found even with an RCT with 100k participants. You are assuming you are talking to a person with years of experience with science and critical thinking. That's not a typical antivaxer. And if you do talk to a person like that, no press release is a problem for them, they see right through it.
Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
That exact sentiment is the reason for this problem even existing. Peer review and medical journals are by no means exempt from usual human corruptions, and there is absolutely no rational way to say that certain concerns should only be allowed there, and that we should not be able to even discuss them outside of those closed circles.
- Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
  > Peer review and medical journals are by no means exempt from usual human corruptions Individual instances can be found, and errors do happen. However the idea that the biggest pharma companies, integrated by incredibly talented and hardworking people, and every safety institution (The american FDA, the EU security council etc) are all so compromised as to miss real problems and purposefully endanger the population is in my humble opinion absurd. What is the societal advantage on letting a baker share his uninformed opinion on epidemiology? Why let software engineers discuss the safety standards of the medical field? A ton of the situations and problems are heavily skewed to high technical knowledge of narrow field. I have no idea about how many volunteers are a good number to run a vaccine experiment, I have no idea what a good control group vaccine looks like or why use HepB and not measles. Me sharing my opinions on this topic only pollutes the conversation when I do not have the background knowledge to form an opinion on it. If you look for information on this topics it would be much better for society if my blog is not there and there is information from actual doctors and epidemiologists talking about it.
  - Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
    You don't seem to fully grasp the importance of free speech is and what it has done for the western society. What you are advocating is supressing speech, however clever little reasons you might have tried to find for it. None of the problems you described come even close to the clusterfuck of hurt we are going to experience in the society (and that other societies did and still do) if we are going to start supressing speech.
    - Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
calebm 6y ago
Remember the food pyramid (that said you should eat more carbs than any other category) which was published by the medical experts?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

ajkdhcb2 6y ago

I find your perspective extremely disturbing, and believe it empowers anti-vaxxers more than anything else.

Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
How could it possibly empower anti vaxxers to say to trust healthcare professionals, doctors and the worlds leading security and safety experts?
- waihtis 6y ago
  I think anti-vaxx and other fringe groups are more driven by distrust in society, and by denying discussion to be had in the first place will further build anti-societal silos. It's a difficult problem, because inevitably there will be harm initially if you allow free discussion. But over time the harm will be less in comparison to complete shutdown of any public conversation about the vaccines. If the anti-vaxxers don't want the COVID vaccine, so be it. Let them pay with their health. That'll be the best course of action for beating down the quacks who will oppose any vaccinations.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
    There are several problems with that, and they can be seen online already. 1) It is much easier to spread misinformation than to collect facts and spread real data 2) Mistrust is insidious and spreads, allowing anti-vaxers then goes into other forms of anti institutional ideologies. 3) Herd immunity. If some kid has leukimia and cannot get vaccinated, he survives thanks to everyone else being vaccinated. Some 30 year old reactionary being an anti-vaxxer and getting covid and surviving it would be ok if he was not a vector of infection to the most vulnerable in society. So in my opinion teaching people basic scientific literacy (so they can check primary sources like published research), and fostering scientific respect and trust would do us wonders as a society. We put a man on the moon, and reduced child mortality by 90% by trusting science, why allow people who think the theory of gravity is "just a theory" spread their thoughts.
    - waihtis 6y ago
      > 3) Herd immunity. If some kid has leukimia and cannot get vaccinated, he survives thanks to everyone else being vaccinated. Some 30 year old reactionary being an anti-vaxxer and getting covid and surviving it would be ok if he was not a vector of infection to the most vulnerable in society. 100% true, I was not thinking far enough on this.
      - johnisgood 6y ago
        You can develop resistance naturally. I was exposed to COVID-19, therefore I have antibodies and I am immune, supposedly for 6 months. > You can develop resistance naturally. When your body is exposed to a virus or bacteria, it makes antibodies to fight off the infection. When you recover, your body keeps these antibodies. Your body will defend against another infection. This is what stopped the Zika virus outbreak in Brazil. Two years after the outbreak began, 63% of the population had had exposure to the virus. Researchers think the community reached the right level for herd immunity.
gr2zr4 6y ago
sorry, but anti-vaxxers are empowered by doubtful and propagandistic press releases...when you have solid, scientific and independently peer-reviewed data the only thing that anti-vaxxers can do is be silent and accept them.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  That is just not how anti-vaxers work, if you ever talked to one. There is a multitude of problems they can say they found even with an RCT with 100k participants. You are assuming you are talking to a person with years of experience with science and critical thinking. That's not a typical antivaxer. And if you do talk to a person like that, no press release is a problem for them, they see right through it.

Erlich_Bachman 6y ago

That exact sentiment is the reason for this problem even existing. Peer review and medical journals are by no means exempt from usual human corruptions, and there is absolutely no rational way to say that certain concerns should only be allowed there, and that we should not be able to even discuss them outside of those closed circles.

Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago
> Peer review and medical journals are by no means exempt from usual human corruptions Individual instances can be found, and errors do happen. However the idea that the biggest pharma companies, integrated by incredibly talented and hardworking people, and every safety institution (The american FDA, the EU security council etc) are all so compromised as to miss real problems and purposefully endanger the population is in my humble opinion absurd. What is the societal advantage on letting a baker share his uninformed opinion on epidemiology? Why let software engineers discuss the safety standards of the medical field? A ton of the situations and problems are heavily skewed to high technical knowledge of narrow field. I have no idea about how many volunteers are a good number to run a vaccine experiment, I have no idea what a good control group vaccine looks like or why use HepB and not measles. Me sharing my opinions on this topic only pollutes the conversation when I do not have the background knowledge to form an opinion on it. If you look for information on this topics it would be much better for society if my blog is not there and there is information from actual doctors and epidemiologists talking about it.
- Erlich_Bachman 6y ago
  You don't seem to fully grasp the importance of free speech is and what it has done for the western society. What you are advocating is supressing speech, however clever little reasons you might have tried to find for it. None of the problems you described come even close to the clusterfuck of hurt we are going to experience in the society (and that other societies did and still do) if we are going to start supressing speech.
  - Arkhaine_kupo 6y ago

calebm 6y ago

Remember the food pyramid (that said you should eat more carbs than any other category) which was published by the medical experts?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]