5 ms·

"It feels right to me because it’s the most troll-ish possible solution. Everybody was wrong!" - I know this is said tongue-in-cheek, but this mischaracterizes

"It feels right to me because it’s the most troll-ish possible solution. Everybody was wrong!" - I know this is said tongue-in-cheek, but this mischaracterizes the medical scientists who have been working themselves to the bone trying to understand this virus and disease. Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain (or at least, we're very explicit about the claim's certainty). And what we know for certain in medical science is actually quite small. People, both for clout and for profit, make up bullshit when there are gaps in knowledge. "Believing science", as stated a few times in this article, should actually be framed as: reserving judgement until we have evidence. We should have a bit more respect and patience for the process of acquiring actual knowledge. And people who make claims beyond what we actually know should be held accountable culturally (and financially) for being liars.

robbedpeter 5y ago
"A lot of what you're seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about, consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science," "And that’s the reason why I say people who then criticize me about that are actually criticizing science" It's a problem with differentiating science from the scientists, and when someone mistakes themselves for an arbiter of truth, they damage public trust in science as a concept. The scientific method, big S Science, is the best tool humans have. People are fallible, flawed, arrogant, tribal idiots, and Science lets us rise above our weakness. Criticizing Fauci for being a weaselly political hack, repeatedly lying in public "for the greater good", lashing out with the above claims, and other serious ethical defects are fine - he's human. He is also capable and trained in understanding scientific data, and is undeniably an expert. However, as he has made so abundantly clear, he's lost perspective and recognition of his own flaws and biases, and doubled down on the politicization of science and the pandemic response. We need apolitical dispassionate scientists with the understanding that they as people are separate from their studies and recommendations. When the scientist starts lying to the public for reasons that amount to "I know better" or "the public is too stupid or incompetent to handle the truth," it undermines Science. "Believe Science" should be a no-brainer. It shouldn't be a team blue political slogan, or used to defend personal failings - both of which are despicable.
- jacquesm 5y ago
  The attacks on Fauci are despicable. Note that he's anything but a weaselly political hack, but he did get replaced by one during the Trump reign. The man has more integrity than the bulk of that particular administration.
  - naasking 5y ago
    I'm honestly baffled by this. The man literally lied to the public and openly admitted to lying. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Fauci, and plenty of reasons to be question whether public health officials should be lying to the public about public health.
    - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
      > openly admitted to lying Proof please
      - naasking 5y ago
        Fauci admits to lying about masks and explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXttHlUgK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXttHlUgK8 Maybe you think Fauci changed his mind based on new evidence on mask effectiveness, but he literally says he advised against masks due to a fear of PPE shortages, and not due to changing evidence. So either way he lied: either he lied about mask effectiveness thus spreading health misinformation, or he lied about why he advised against wearing masks thus undermining public trust in his advice. Fauci admits to moving the goalposts on vaccination rates and explains it's because of his "gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... I could dissect these even further and point out numerous other instances, but these are egregious enough to undermine public trust IMO. Public health officials should not be deceiving the public, they should be above reproach.
        5y ago
fallingknife 5y ago
> Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain Medical science made the claim that multiple sclerosis was "female hysteria," until imaging technology was able to see the damage. A doctor I know today claims that a lot of patients symptoms are really psychological and everyone at work is annoyed when they come in. When I brought up the case of multiple sclerosis, and maybe many patients have disorders which are not known to medical science because they are dismissed in the same way, I was met with a "that's ridiculous" defense. When I pressed further and ask for evidence on that point, I was given the fact that these patients with unexplained symptoms are highly correlated with anxiety. When I asked if having an undiagnosed medical disorder, and being told by doctors who clearly don't want to help you, and are clearly annoyed you are there, that it's all in your head might give someone anxiety, it was not well received. Medical science comes to all kinds of BS conclusions about the unknown without a shred of evidence.
- astrange 5y ago
  A doctor isn't a medical scientist, he's a kind of very self-confident mechanic.
bobcostas55 5y ago
>Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain What would you say about the FDA's recent approval of aduhelm? Do we know that it works "for certain"? Or is the FDA not part of the medical science establishment?
- jcranmer 5y ago
  The FDA's scientific committee nearly unanimously voted against aduhelm. The political side of the FDA overruled that consensus to give preliminary approval, which has been thoroughly panned by a large portion of the medical and scientific community, prompted three resignations from said committee, and has prompted a Congressional investigation. Aduhelm's approval basically came about in violation of the FDA's processes, so it's hopefully merely a one-off example of corruption rather than a harbinger of the death of science at the FDA.
native_samples 5y ago
"Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain" Unfortunately I read papers that do this, all the time. Science in general not only makes claims well beyond what's known for certain but does it so consistently that vast numbers of people, including many scientists themselves, have lost sight of the scientific method and have normalized bad, unscientific behaviour. And this is ultimately how you end up with more than half of all drug trials being fraudulent or useless ...

robbedpeter 5y ago

"A lot of what you're seeing as attacks on me, quite frankly, are attacks on science, because all of the things that I have spoken about, consistently from the very beginning, have been fundamentally based on science," "And that’s the reason why I say people who then criticize me about that are actually criticizing science" It's a problem with differentiating science from the scientists, and when someone mistakes themselves for an arbiter of truth, they damage public trust in science as a concept. The scientific method, big S Science, is the best tool humans have. People are fallible, flawed, arrogant, tribal idiots, and Science lets us rise above our weakness. Criticizing Fauci for being a weaselly political hack, repeatedly lying in public "for the greater good", lashing out with the above claims, and other serious ethical defects are fine - he's human. He is also capable and trained in understanding scientific data, and is undeniably an expert. However, as he has made so abundantly clear, he's lost perspective and recognition of his own flaws and biases, and doubled down on the politicization of science and the pandemic response. We need apolitical dispassionate scientists with the understanding that they as people are separate from their studies and recommendations. When the scientist starts lying to the public for reasons that amount to "I know better" or "the public is too stupid or incompetent to handle the truth," it undermines Science. "Believe Science" should be a no-brainer. It shouldn't be a team blue political slogan, or used to defend personal failings - both of which are despicable.

jacquesm 5y ago
The attacks on Fauci are despicable. Note that he's anything but a weaselly political hack, but he did get replaced by one during the Trump reign. The man has more integrity than the bulk of that particular administration.
- naasking 5y ago
  I'm honestly baffled by this. The man literally lied to the public and openly admitted to lying. There are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Fauci, and plenty of reasons to be question whether public health officials should be lying to the public about public health.
  - NikolaeVarius 5y ago
    > openly admitted to lying Proof please
    - naasking 5y ago
      Fauci admits to lying about masks and explains why: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXttHlUgK8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLXttHlUgK8 Maybe you think Fauci changed his mind based on new evidence on mask effectiveness, but he literally says he advised against masks due to a fear of PPE shortages, and not due to changing evidence. So either way he lied: either he lied about mask effectiveness thus spreading health misinformation, or he lied about why he advised against wearing masks thus undermining public trust in his advice. Fauci admits to moving the goalposts on vaccination rates and explains it's because of his "gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks": https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covi... I could dissect these even further and point out numerous other instances, but these are egregious enough to undermine public trust IMO. Public health officials should not be deceiving the public, they should be above reproach.
      - 5y ago

fallingknife 5y ago

> Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain Medical science made the claim that multiple sclerosis was "female hysteria," until imaging technology was able to see the damage. A doctor I know today claims that a lot of patients symptoms are really psychological and everyone at work is annoyed when they come in. When I brought up the case of multiple sclerosis, and maybe many patients have disorders which are not known to medical science because they are dismissed in the same way, I was met with a "that's ridiculous" defense. When I pressed further and ask for evidence on that point, I was given the fact that these patients with unexplained symptoms are highly correlated with anxiety. When I asked if having an undiagnosed medical disorder, and being told by doctors who clearly don't want to help you, and are clearly annoyed you are there, that it's all in your head might give someone anxiety, it was not well received. Medical science comes to all kinds of BS conclusions about the unknown without a shred of evidence.

astrange 5y ago
A doctor isn't a medical scientist, he's a kind of very self-confident mechanic.

bobcostas55 5y ago

>Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain What would you say about the FDA's recent approval of aduhelm? Do we know that it works "for certain"? Or is the FDA not part of the medical science establishment?

jcranmer 5y ago
The FDA's scientific committee nearly unanimously voted against aduhelm. The political side of the FDA overruled that consensus to give preliminary approval, which has been thoroughly panned by a large portion of the medical and scientific community, prompted three resignations from said committee, and has prompted a Congressional investigation. Aduhelm's approval basically came about in violation of the FDA's processes, so it's hopefully merely a one-off example of corruption rather than a harbinger of the death of science at the FDA.

native_samples 5y ago

"Actual medical science, and science in general, doesn't make claims beyond what we know for certain" Unfortunately I read papers that do this, all the time. Science in general not only makes claims well beyond what's known for certain but does it so consistently that vast numbers of people, including many scientists themselves, have lost sight of the scientific method and have normalized bad, unscientific behaviour. And this is ultimately how you end up with more than half of all drug trials being fraudulent or useless ...