3 ms·

Heying is not a "vaccine skeptic" [1], she is just critical of the way the vaccines against SARS2 were developed and deployed. Prophylactic Ivermectin is a subj

Heying is not a "vaccine skeptic" [1], she is just critical of the way the vaccines against SARS2 were developed and deployed. Prophylactic Ivermectin is a subject worth a discussion on its own since it is not clear at all [2] whether this a) worked for the first strains or if it did whether the efficacy remained for following strains. While a single data point doesn't prove nor disprove its efficacy I'll give it anyway: when everyone in my family - me (56yo male, 2 doses of Moderna), my wife (51yo, 2 doses of Moderna), my daughters of 10 and 17 - got SARS2 I was the only one who took Ivermectin. I had a light fever (38°C) for a day, the next day I was free of symptoms. My wife was ill for a week with fever, she was tired for more than 3 weeks. My 17yo daughter had a fever for about 2 days but was free from symptoms after that. My 10yo daughter had a slightly raised temperature for 5 days, no other symptoms and symptom-free after those 5 days. Was it the Ivermectin which helped me to beat all the others even though a) I'm a man and as such supposedly more vulnerable and b) the oldest which is supposed to be a factor? Who knows? I don't but I do know it did not hurt me, it being dirt-cheap and nearly free of side effects. I think you're blindsided by your adherence to the official narrative on SARS2 vaccines and as such unable - or unwilling - to see her arguments for what they are. The scientific method does not require adherence to any narrative, it requires rationality and inquisitiveness and a willingness to accept unexpected results whether those prove or disprove your thesis. You are of course free to express doubts about her ideological position but those doubts do not make her a bad scientist no more than anyone in a white lab coat following the required narrative is automatically a good scientist. [1] as you probably know if you've delved into the subject, both she as well as her husband (Brett Weinstein) are vaccinated against many things most people don't have to deal with given their occupations. They just don't trust the experimental vaccines against SARS2. [2] mostly because any research around the subject was deigned to be off-limits

tptacek 4y ago
People can judge for themselves whether Heying's ivermectin advocacy, which continued into this year and may, for all I know, continue to this day, is a mark against her. To me, it clearly is. Her arguments include the notion that suppression of prophylactic ivermectin constitutes "the crime of the century". People in my extended family took ivermectin instead of vaccines because of advocacy like this. I don't have a strong opinion about academic freedom and, if pressed, would say the biggest problem our culture has with higher education is the fact that we force too many people into it (I didn't go). Heying's beliefs about college don't motivate me. They clearly motivate you. I think you should consider that they've also dragged some weird beliefs about COVID along for the ride.

tptacek 4y ago

People can judge for themselves whether Heying's ivermectin advocacy, which continued into this year and may, for all I know, continue to this day, is a mark against her. To me, it clearly is. Her arguments include the notion that suppression of prophylactic ivermectin constitutes "the crime of the century". People in my extended family took ivermectin instead of vaccines because of advocacy like this. I don't have a strong opinion about academic freedom and, if pressed, would say the biggest problem our culture has with higher education is the fact that we force too many people into it (I didn't go). Heying's beliefs about college don't motivate me. They clearly motivate you. I think you should consider that they've also dragged some weird beliefs about COVID along for the ride.