4 ms·

What? How do you figure that? Some person points out actual instances of poor quality research and you imply he is anti-vaccine? I can find no record of this pe

What? How do you figure that? Some person points out actual instances of poor quality research and you imply he is anti-vaccine? I can find no record of this person discouraging vaccination.

adolph 5y ago
Ok, maybe its just a coincidence that it was published right when the current dangers of misinformation are so high and so many are failing to believe science.
- wizzwizz4 5y ago
  The solution to “people aren't believing academia” is to make academia more trustworthy (probably by filtering for trustworthiness rather than making individuals more trustworthy), not to encourage scientism. Seeking the truth is still important, after all.
  - adolph 5y ago
    Wasn’t trustworthiness what “peer reviewed journals” was all about? Clearly research fraud isn’t “seeking the truth.”
- zucker42 5y ago
  Well of course I'm not going to believe blatantly fraudulent "science". That has nothing to do whether or not I would take a COVID vaccine (I have). Trying to suppress the truth that there is shoddy or false research to keep up appearances is ridiculous. There's something between ignoring scientific evidence you dislike and credulously taking everything a scientist says as fact. And the "dangers of misinformation" have been high for a long time now (perhaps since antiquity). Modern climate change denial has its roots in the 90s, and modern vaccine skepticism is similarly old.
  - adolph 5y ago
    What is your plan for identifying the "blatantly fraudulent?" How do you know your medical provider agrees with you about what is "blatantly fraudulent?"
    - joshuaissac 5y ago
      > What is your plan for identifying the "blatantly fraudulent?" One way is to assume that all health research is fraudulent, unless proven otherwise through replication by multiple unrelated parties.
- faeriechangling 5y ago
  >failing to believe science Believing in science means believing in falsification and sceptism. This was published during the ongoing replication crisis in medicine where we're finding that more than half of cancer studies don't replicate [1]. This replication crisis hasn't been put on hold and all science is now deemed irrefutable or you are VACCINE HESISTANT and DANGEROUS. I'm mostly confident in the COVID vaccines because we're at billions of doses and there is so much uncorrelated data about the vaccines, and they're so controversial and their safety/efficacy is being looked at by so many people that one can be relatively confident about their efficacy and safety (so long as you look at uncensored information to avoid systemic bias). We don't need to be science denialists and start denouncing scepticism on safety grounds, we can point out there are special reasons to be confident in the vaccines. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/18/510304871/what-does-it-mean-when-cancer-findings-cant-be-reproduced https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/18/5103048...
  - adolph 5y ago
    don't replicate != fraudulent I'm mostly confident in the COVID vaccines <- Is this "mostly" qualifier not the dangerous front end of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy?
    - faeriechangling 5y ago
      I've got both vaccines especially early for my age group (clinical vulnerability) and I've been lobbying my vaccinated peers to at least get one dose, so apparently not. I say "mostly confident" because we have literally zero data of effects after 3 years and can only make inferences, and it's foolish to feign knowledge you do not have to avoid being called "hesitant", but my lack of confidence does not make me hesitate to recommend the vaccine. I also lack knowledge of long term effects of COVID itself which may in fact be worse than the long term effects of any vaccine given COVID does most of what the vaccines do plus extra nasty stuff.
      - adolph 5y ago
        You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation? Which vaccines were in "both vaccines?" An mRNA and J&J, or just both administrations of a two-shot mRNA vaccine?

What? How do you figure that? Some person points out actual instances of poor quality research and you imply he is anti-vaccine? I can find no record of this person discouraging vaccination.

adolph 5y ago

Ok, maybe its just a coincidence that it was published right when the current dangers of misinformation are so high and so many are failing to believe science.

wizzwizz4 5y ago
The solution to “people aren't believing academia” is to make academia more trustworthy (probably by filtering for trustworthiness rather than making individuals more trustworthy), not to encourage scientism. Seeking the truth is still important, after all.
- adolph 5y ago
  Wasn’t trustworthiness what “peer reviewed journals” was all about? Clearly research fraud isn’t “seeking the truth.”
zucker42 5y ago
Well of course I'm not going to believe blatantly fraudulent "science". That has nothing to do whether or not I would take a COVID vaccine (I have). Trying to suppress the truth that there is shoddy or false research to keep up appearances is ridiculous. There's something between ignoring scientific evidence you dislike and credulously taking everything a scientist says as fact. And the "dangers of misinformation" have been high for a long time now (perhaps since antiquity). Modern climate change denial has its roots in the 90s, and modern vaccine skepticism is similarly old.
- adolph 5y ago
  What is your plan for identifying the "blatantly fraudulent?" How do you know your medical provider agrees with you about what is "blatantly fraudulent?"
  - joshuaissac 5y ago
    > What is your plan for identifying the "blatantly fraudulent?" One way is to assume that all health research is fraudulent, unless proven otherwise through replication by multiple unrelated parties.
faeriechangling 5y ago
>failing to believe science Believing in science means believing in falsification and sceptism. This was published during the ongoing replication crisis in medicine where we're finding that more than half of cancer studies don't replicate [1]. This replication crisis hasn't been put on hold and all science is now deemed irrefutable or you are VACCINE HESISTANT and DANGEROUS. I'm mostly confident in the COVID vaccines because we're at billions of doses and there is so much uncorrelated data about the vaccines, and they're so controversial and their safety/efficacy is being looked at by so many people that one can be relatively confident about their efficacy and safety (so long as you look at uncensored information to avoid systemic bias). We don't need to be science denialists and start denouncing scepticism on safety grounds, we can point out there are special reasons to be confident in the vaccines. [1] https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/18/510304871/what-does-it-mean-when-cancer-findings-cant-be-reproduced https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2017/01/18/5103048...
- adolph 5y ago
  don't replicate != fraudulent I'm mostly confident in the COVID vaccines <- Is this "mostly" qualifier not the dangerous front end of misinformation and vaccine hesitancy?
  - faeriechangling 5y ago
    I've got both vaccines especially early for my age group (clinical vulnerability) and I've been lobbying my vaccinated peers to at least get one dose, so apparently not. I say "mostly confident" because we have literally zero data of effects after 3 years and can only make inferences, and it's foolish to feign knowledge you do not have to avoid being called "hesitant", but my lack of confidence does not make me hesitate to recommend the vaccine. I also lack knowledge of long term effects of COVID itself which may in fact be worse than the long term effects of any vaccine given COVID does most of what the vaccines do plus extra nasty stuff.
    - adolph 5y ago
      You are recommending something over nothing despite not being confident in the data about your recommendation? Which vaccines were in "both vaccines?" An mRNA and J&J, or just both administrations of a two-shot mRNA vaccine?