4 ms·

>>In her conclusion, “What Vaccination Controversy Can Teach Us about Medicine and Modernity,” Hausman posits that “[e]pistemologically, science does not offer

>>In her conclusion, “What Vaccination Controversy Can Teach Us about Medicine and Modernity,” Hausman posits that “[e]pistemologically, science does not offer us a lot of help in identifying and explaining the various threads that are woven through vaccination controversy” (p. 220). Instead, Hausman suggests “The answer is science and something else” (p. 219). The something else requires an objective, nuanced understanding of the many belief and cultural systems that contribute to one’s underlying understanding of and approach to illness and health and how to deal with both. I don't think it is that complicated. I don't think "science" is even the answer. The answer, to me, revolves around people and their actions. 1) An open and up front admission that medical breakthroughs are not typically as definitive as we want them to be. 2) A concerted effort to recognize and validate both the pros and cons of a medical procedure. No medical procedure (even one as simple as taking an OTC painkiller or allergy medication) is risk free. No medical procedure is perfect. If something is being touted as a miracle cure/perfect solution or as demon spit designed to make it easier for the government to control us, more information is clearly needed. 3) Research figureheads and teams being willing to say "We don't know" instead of trying for platitudes and reassurances and unsupported suggestions. 4) If a recommendation is going to be made, make it just that, a recommendation. Do not try and force that recommendation on people and be willing to have that recommendation challenged. 5) Repeat, repeat, repeat. The bread and butter of the scientific method is for ideas to be challenged and verified through repeated quality experimentation and study trying to get the same results. The idea that a single study can prove a concept or process is laughable, and study/experiment authors should by up front on just about everything on their process so that their results can be tested. Be willing to take criticism and never operate under the assumption that your work is the end-all/be-all of a field.

IceMetalPunk 4y ago
> Do not try and force that recommendation on people and be willing to have that recommendation challenged. How dangerous does "not doing the thing" need to be to the people around those making the decision before it should be forced? Obviously there is a limit -- for instance, we all agree that deciding not to change your plans to drive home when you get shit-faced is and should be illegal -- so where does that limit occur, and why there?
- lax4ever 4y ago
  1) I don't believe the considerations are equal because those in the medical profession do not make laws, and should never be empowered to make laws, often because their focus is too narrow (don't get me wrong, politicians are not perfect, but go with me on this one). Making drunk driving illegal was not a decision medical professionals made, it was one made by elected representatives. 2) There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to anything. Drunk driving doesn't seem like an apt comparison to the vaccination thing because while we know a whole bunch about drunk driving, there are a whole lot of questions around vaccines (and other medical procedures. Beyond that, current medical practices are constantly being challenged and improved. Trying to keep the idea broad, but also not ignore the vaccine elephant in the room), in particular the COVID ones. Some of these are questions that require more research into COVID itself. Some of the questions require more research into the delivery method. Some of them require more research into human biological functions as we understand them. Since these questions remain (and on the same vein there are questions about a vast portion of medical procedures), medical practices (even above and beyond vaccines) should remain in question and as recommendations only. EDIT: 3) There are portions of our community that seem to think we should just take a medical professional's word without any additional consideration, in particular with vaccines, but even though I think the COVID vaccine has likely helped a large group of people I also think there is a valid argument that the messaging and integrity of those most pushing the vaccine have shown themselves to be very poor, in large part because there was no willingness to acknowledge that they don't know something or that they could possibly be wrong. For example, the vaccine, in it's early days, was touted by many people (Trump, Fauci, Biden, Pfizer and Moderna execs, Walensky, etc.) as the perfect solution. You get the vaccine, you never have to worry about COVID again. You won't get the disease, you won't transmit the disease, you are no longer a danger. But that clearly wasn't the case and we are being shown data that shows that all of these people should have known better. None of them have turned around and said they were wrong. None of them even acknowledged the possibility. That, in and of itself, hits one's integrity and reliability hard. 4) Anything that falls under the umbrella of "science" should be open to challenge and should welcome the challenge. The scientific method demands no less.
  - IceMetalPunk 4y ago

IceMetalPunk 4y ago

> Do not try and force that recommendation on people and be willing to have that recommendation challenged. How dangerous does "not doing the thing" need to be to the people around those making the decision before it should be forced? Obviously there is a limit -- for instance, we all agree that deciding not to change your plans to drive home when you get shit-faced is and should be illegal -- so where does that limit occur, and why there?

lax4ever 4y ago
1) I don't believe the considerations are equal because those in the medical profession do not make laws, and should never be empowered to make laws, often because their focus is too narrow (don't get me wrong, politicians are not perfect, but go with me on this one). Making drunk driving illegal was not a decision medical professionals made, it was one made by elected representatives. 2) There is no "one-size-fits-all" solution to anything. Drunk driving doesn't seem like an apt comparison to the vaccination thing because while we know a whole bunch about drunk driving, there are a whole lot of questions around vaccines (and other medical procedures. Beyond that, current medical practices are constantly being challenged and improved. Trying to keep the idea broad, but also not ignore the vaccine elephant in the room), in particular the COVID ones. Some of these are questions that require more research into COVID itself. Some of the questions require more research into the delivery method. Some of them require more research into human biological functions as we understand them. Since these questions remain (and on the same vein there are questions about a vast portion of medical procedures), medical practices (even above and beyond vaccines) should remain in question and as recommendations only. EDIT: 3) There are portions of our community that seem to think we should just take a medical professional's word without any additional consideration, in particular with vaccines, but even though I think the COVID vaccine has likely helped a large group of people I also think there is a valid argument that the messaging and integrity of those most pushing the vaccine have shown themselves to be very poor, in large part because there was no willingness to acknowledge that they don't know something or that they could possibly be wrong. For example, the vaccine, in it's early days, was touted by many people (Trump, Fauci, Biden, Pfizer and Moderna execs, Walensky, etc.) as the perfect solution. You get the vaccine, you never have to worry about COVID again. You won't get the disease, you won't transmit the disease, you are no longer a danger. But that clearly wasn't the case and we are being shown data that shows that all of these people should have known better. None of them have turned around and said they were wrong. None of them even acknowledged the possibility. That, in and of itself, hits one's integrity and reliability hard. 4) Anything that falls under the umbrella of "science" should be open to challenge and should welcome the challenge. The scientific method demands no less.
- IceMetalPunk 4y ago