I fear that the undisputable benefits of debating do not translate well on debating nuanced scientific matters on podcasts.
This is because:
1.We need basic education in that particular scientific matter to understand what it is being debated, importantly what is fact and what is expert interpretation of that fact. Otherwise people will always get swayed by charisma and catchy phrases building narratives which can track the facts or not but, given catchy framing, it does not matter, the twist-of-tongue wit almost always wins.
2.We need basic education on what is a "truth" in science. People still default to an understanding that resembles the religious epistemology - the ultimate truth was given to us a while ago, there is nothing new to discover, all we have to do is interpret what the holy books told us. But scientific "truth" is a misnomer. It is the best theory we have at a given moment in time about a particular topic that helps understand a phenomena or solve a problem. Importantly, any theory is subject to change when new evidence emerges. In a fast moving complex system (eg new contagious virus spreading through populations and mutating), its very easy to lose credibility as an expert coming up with solutions at a particular time IF the public does not understand what is scientific "truth" and how such "truth" is almost bound to change.
3.We would need to discuss what should constitute scientific evidence that modifies the "truth" and whether it can be convincingly be presented as such in a podcast debate. I cannot see a format in which one can present a convincing case either way for say "The case for Hydroxychloroquine's in fighting covid".
4.And this is because it is difficult to debunk in real time potentially spurious evidence. Lets say you need 30 logical steps (supported by multiple datasets etc) to construct your argument for a theory. You only need the other side to throw 1 or 2 pieces of what-about-that into your argument to apparently discredit it. And it would take you perhaps another 10 logical steps to demonstrate why those what-about-that things were false; sometimes, what-about-that cannot be debunked other than by saying its most likely a coincidence which bears no relevance to the topic. But a coincidence is difficult to prove as a coincidence without going through a long explanatory process.
I think Hotez should not debate RKJ on the podcast not because he is a quack or a debate is not worthwhile but because having that conversation on a podcast would not advance our understanding on our best theory on vaccines, covid or otherwise.
Having said that, we do need to think about better forums to have such debates & better ways to prepare the public for them.
Right now, Rogan-type podcasts, Twitter or prime news programs create more heat than light.
As usual, you present a fair treatment of this "debate about whether to debate". I have one small quibble, and that is your characterization of Rogan as having "demanded" that Hotez engage in a debate. Unless I am misinformed (certainly possible), he simply made an offer - donation to a charity - if H. would debate RFK Jr.
I don't have time to watch Rogan's podcasts; however, my impression is that he believes in treating people with respect, and that is one reason why he is so popular. Not that he always lives up to his beliefs; I doubt that anyone is always respectful to everyone.
What’s your take on Jonathan Swift’s point about “political lying” resulting in fear-mongering falsehoods always outrunning realities? If a popular forum always propagates information of that sort, is participation advisable? (I’m open to being convinced. I did “debate” Bjorn Lomborg on Lex Fridman’s show - although it wasn’t really a debate https://revkin.substack.com/p/lex-fridman-bjorn-lomborg-and-me )
It is always good for the public & policy developers to be exposed to scientific debate. Public debate or discussion is an excellent way to do it, but hopefully not terribly mismanaged, badly organized and irrationally setup by incompetents, as the Presidential Debates were. They don't have to be that way. They can be done more like a discussion forum. A good example of how it can be done is here:
Rare Climate Debate - Dr. Judith Curry - Dr. Michael Mann - Dr. Patrick Moore - Dr. David Titley:
In addition debate between scientists & others with considerable expertise in a field, like RFKjr in this instance, on a internet moderated forum, would be an excellent way for the public to get a true picture of the state of knowledge in any given field. Without that debate you just don't get a realistic picture of the state of science in any given subject. And if there is a strong disagreement between prominent scientists on say covid vaccine effectiveness, then that pretty much determines that mandates cannot be justified. The public need to see that.
They are both also much more entertaining than just watching one guy stating his opinions & theories.
Carl Sagan warned about how the lack of public knowledge in Science is dangerous:
"...I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…
…most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance…"
Debates can be effective. The South Korean government staged a debate on Nuclear Power before a citizen's jury. Before the debate 2/3rds of the jury were anti-nuclear. After those numbers flipped to the opposite. Now South Korea is restarting its Nuclear build program rather than the wind/solar scam.
"...In a stunning come-from-behind victory, South Korean citizens on a special jury voted 60 percent to 40 percent to re-start construction of two halted nuclear reactors.
Environmental Progress applauds the citizens jury for choosing wisdom over ideology, and praises South Korean President Moon Jae-in for honoring their decision.
EP especially applauds the university students, professors, and workers who protested and fought for a re-start to construction...."
I'm thinking it's reasonable to dispute the idea that Fauci and all levels of government lied to us about everything to do with Covid. "All and everything" makes rational discussion difficult, if not impossible.
Actually Fauci made some accurate statements at the beginning of the Plandemic, i.e. masks don't work, only to completely reverse them when the controllers decided they don't fit their narrative.
I've been a subscriber of yours for a few mths and watched many of your online videos. I've been impressed with your obvious knowledge but don't always agree on everything (mostly I do) however I read your analysis above as containing a touch of the implicit arrogance from the credentialled scientific community. I see it all the time. You are right that he should debate but I think you are a tad over-confident that one of the scientific community will win. Winning people over is most definitely not about having the strongest technical arguments. You have to convince and carry your audience with you. If you only debate in peer (pal) review journals you're aiming at the wrong audience.
This is fair. As you know I have no problem challenging the credentialed. I actually have no idea who would "win" a debate between Hotez and Kennedy, tbh I haven't really seen either much in action. For me it is more important that they have a debate than who might win, if that makes sense.
3 great reasons he should debate. For me, point 3 is the most critical. With the demise of a more factual/neutral main stream media, it is getting harder to get at the truth. Diversity of thought, discussed respectfully in a debate style environment is one of the best ways for people to get exposed to diverse ideas and form their own opinion.
Jun 19, 2023·edited Jun 20, 2023Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.
Roger, let’s not forget that the reason we are having a debate about a debate, is because of social media. Pre internet, science was relegated to journals and academia. Conclusions were distributed to the public via qualified messengers (doctors, etc…) as well as respected news journals. The internet has changed all of this. Giving more transparency where it was, arguably, lacking. As a result, it is my view that resistance from the scientific community against a debate can only be self serving. Science can be very complex, but so can legal disputes and national security issues. Makes no sense to me to openly debate legal cases and national security issues while ignoring science.
There was once a lot of talk, led by Carl Sagan I believe back circa 1980s of having a Science Court. Where questions of science relevant to public policy would be adjudicated in a type of court.
But now with the internet, it seems to me there is a better forum for such questions to be exposed for the benefit of the public, who pays for all of that science and must deal with the ramifications of bad science, and also the decision makers, bureaucrats and politicians.
And that is Open Interactive Peer Review. The Peer Review process as it stands is broken. It has been inundated with corruption so badly that Peer Review means has Establishment support or does not rock the boat. We have seen absolute garbage studies being published in peer reviewed journals during the Covid plandemic.
Thank you for the insights into the “process” of peer review. Very disappointing.
My opinion, the most important point you made is that the public pays for the research, so yes, this would dictate a certain level of transparency. Carl Sagan had a great idea.
Jun 19, 2023·edited Jun 19, 2023Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.
This really highlights the problems with the entire set of issues around vaccines. The problem is that there are two families of vaccines. We have the childhood vaccines for measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, polio etc. These vaccines are highly effective, life saving, and should be mandatory. From any rational viewpoint, these vaccines are lifesavers, and the herd immunity achieved saves the lives of even those children who cannot take the vaccines for valid medical reasons. But then we have the vaccines for COVID and the flu. These vaccines are really based on best guesses on what variety of the virus may be around, dont last very long, and are often ineffective. And when it comes to the COVID vaccine especially, there are very serious, valid questions as to whether the vaccine should be given to healthy children. If the debate doesnt start by admitting that not all vaccines are equal, there is really no point in debating. Because Kennedy will claim even childhood vaccines are dangerous and should be optional. Meanwhile Holzer will claim even the COVID vaccine should be mandatory. Neither claim can actually be supported. For the record, 60 year old man, fully vaxxed, caught COVID twice while fully vaxxed.
I would question your assertions about childhood vaccines. If you listen to RFKjr, there is a lot of corruption going on there. A lot more to look at than your simplistic view. RFK seems to be quite open to childhood vaccination but not imposed and done with total transparency.
From what I'm seeing the childhood vaccination program has documented poor overall outcomes, and that is the gold standard in effectiveness, which is why they are avoiding that topic like it was the plague. To my limited knowledge, it is looking to me that childhood vaccines, like most vaccines should be focused on high risk groups rather than mandated for everyone. Big Pharma hates that idea, because it would seriously impair their gravy train.
Im sorry, but the case is closed on childhood vaccines. Polio, measles, whooping cough, smallpox, etc vaccines are documented to save lives and produce herd immunity. Any claims to the contrary are simply unsupported by any reliable study. Happy to talk about flu and covid vaccines, but there is no debate about the standard childhood vaccines.
Nonsense. Undoubtedly some vaccines in some circumstances will save lives and produce herd immunity. But your believe in blanket, all encompassing, childhood vaccination is nothing short of ridiculous. As is almost always the case, medical intervention works far better when fine tuned to the individual patients. To stop an epidemic in its tracks, a rapid emergency vaccination program may be warranted. And I'm sure RFKjr would agree with that. FYI:
" The graphic is from a paper which was published in April 24, 2017: Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children "
"....Key points from that paper:
Vaccinated children were over four-fold more likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum
Vaccinated children were 30-fold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 22-fold more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were over five-fold more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 340 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 5.9-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 3.8-fold more likely to be diagnosed with middle ear infection (otitis media) than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have had surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 2.4-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children
The message from the drug companies to America is clear:
Liability protection is a must. Thank you Congress for that. We are the only industry in America without any liability. Perfect. This allows us to create customers for life.
Parents should make sure to vaccinate all your kids with all possible vaccines. That way, there will not be a control group to compare the outcomes with so nobody will be able to prove that vaccines make things worse.
The drug companies of America thank you for your cooperation, whether it is willing or unwilling. You will cooperate..."
Well said. In particular the section entitled "Debate is good for Democracy and in fact it is necessary" hits it on the head. If only more people realized how important it is to engage in meaningful discussions not always to change minds but develop understanding and form alliances. All of life is compromise on one level or the other. Whether with family and loved ones, friends in politics and in international relations, the only person who gets to decide unilaterally is a dictator (or your parents ;) ) or an abuser. Life under either of those circumstances is never good for the ones under their thumb. Debate is necessary. Scientists and others need to quit looking down their proverbial noses at those they deem less knowledgeable or to be cranks. These actions only fuel skeptics, breed mistrust and make it look like you got something to hide.
Jun 19, 2023·edited Jun 19, 2023Liked by Roger Pielke Jr.
This would be more a debate on public policy (vaccine mandates) than on science. So Hotez excuse that we don't debate science is a red herring. He should take on Kennedy because bigger science policy debates are coming soon.
What is perhaps the biggest science policy debate of all time is about to go nova: the origin of the SARS-CoV2 virus. The evidence for it being a lab leak is increasing. Fauci, Dazsak, and Kristian Andersen need to answer for their duplicity and attempts to prevent this debate from taking place. And what role if any did US funding of gain of function research at WIV play in the pandemic?
Science and policy often overlap. People like Hotez can't dismiss people like RFK jr who, even though he is nuts, carry a lot of gravitas.
Hotez believes that because he is right, everyone should believe him. Hotez believes when his mind changes, everyone should still believe him. Like a choir director who changes the song selection, everyone should just sing along. It's likely both Kennedy and Hotez are wrong. A debate would be a good entertainment but settle nothing.
Dont know much about Hotez, but I do know that the science does change as more information is discovered. A true scientist will change their opinion as the facts are gathered.
A debate isn't meant to settle anything. A debate is about giving feedback to the public who pay for all this stuff, including Hotez, and suffer from whatever bad decisions our leaders make based on bad science that is declared true. A good debate and a lot of people can change their opinion. That can have a big impact on policy.
"Hotez believes when his mind changes, everyone should still believe him."
A worse example is Kristian Andersen. Andersen first claimed the SARS-CoV2 virus was an engineered virus. He changed 180 degrees in just a couple of days after communications from Anthony Fauci. Then he said that his original position was disinformation.
I fear that the undisputable benefits of debating do not translate well on debating nuanced scientific matters on podcasts.
This is because:
1.We need basic education in that particular scientific matter to understand what it is being debated, importantly what is fact and what is expert interpretation of that fact. Otherwise people will always get swayed by charisma and catchy phrases building narratives which can track the facts or not but, given catchy framing, it does not matter, the twist-of-tongue wit almost always wins.
2.We need basic education on what is a "truth" in science. People still default to an understanding that resembles the religious epistemology - the ultimate truth was given to us a while ago, there is nothing new to discover, all we have to do is interpret what the holy books told us. But scientific "truth" is a misnomer. It is the best theory we have at a given moment in time about a particular topic that helps understand a phenomena or solve a problem. Importantly, any theory is subject to change when new evidence emerges. In a fast moving complex system (eg new contagious virus spreading through populations and mutating), its very easy to lose credibility as an expert coming up with solutions at a particular time IF the public does not understand what is scientific "truth" and how such "truth" is almost bound to change.
3.We would need to discuss what should constitute scientific evidence that modifies the "truth" and whether it can be convincingly be presented as such in a podcast debate. I cannot see a format in which one can present a convincing case either way for say "The case for Hydroxychloroquine's in fighting covid".
4.And this is because it is difficult to debunk in real time potentially spurious evidence. Lets say you need 30 logical steps (supported by multiple datasets etc) to construct your argument for a theory. You only need the other side to throw 1 or 2 pieces of what-about-that into your argument to apparently discredit it. And it would take you perhaps another 10 logical steps to demonstrate why those what-about-that things were false; sometimes, what-about-that cannot be debunked other than by saying its most likely a coincidence which bears no relevance to the topic. But a coincidence is difficult to prove as a coincidence without going through a long explanatory process.
I think Hotez should not debate RKJ on the podcast not because he is a quack or a debate is not worthwhile but because having that conversation on a podcast would not advance our understanding on our best theory on vaccines, covid or otherwise.
Having said that, we do need to think about better forums to have such debates & better ways to prepare the public for them.
Right now, Rogan-type podcasts, Twitter or prime news programs create more heat than light.
As usual, you present a fair treatment of this "debate about whether to debate". I have one small quibble, and that is your characterization of Rogan as having "demanded" that Hotez engage in a debate. Unless I am misinformed (certainly possible), he simply made an offer - donation to a charity - if H. would debate RFK Jr.
I don't have time to watch Rogan's podcasts; however, my impression is that he believes in treating people with respect, and that is one reason why he is so popular. Not that he always lives up to his beliefs; I doubt that anyone is always respectful to everyone.
What’s your take on Jonathan Swift’s point about “political lying” resulting in fear-mongering falsehoods always outrunning realities? If a popular forum always propagates information of that sort, is participation advisable? (I’m open to being convinced. I did “debate” Bjorn Lomborg on Lex Fridman’s show - although it wasn’t really a debate https://revkin.substack.com/p/lex-fridman-bjorn-lomborg-and-me )
It is always good for the public & policy developers to be exposed to scientific debate. Public debate or discussion is an excellent way to do it, but hopefully not terribly mismanaged, badly organized and irrationally setup by incompetents, as the Presidential Debates were. They don't have to be that way. They can be done more like a discussion forum. A good example of how it can be done is here:
Rare Climate Debate - Dr. Judith Curry - Dr. Michael Mann - Dr. Patrick Moore - Dr. David Titley:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jDLucr1-SuI
In addition debate between scientists & others with considerable expertise in a field, like RFKjr in this instance, on a internet moderated forum, would be an excellent way for the public to get a true picture of the state of knowledge in any given field. Without that debate you just don't get a realistic picture of the state of science in any given subject. And if there is a strong disagreement between prominent scientists on say covid vaccine effectiveness, then that pretty much determines that mandates cannot be justified. The public need to see that.
They are both also much more entertaining than just watching one guy stating his opinions & theories.
Carl Sagan warned about how the lack of public knowledge in Science is dangerous:
"...I have a foreboding of an America in my children’s or grandchildren’s time — when the United States is a service and information economy; when nearly all the manufacturing industries have slipped away to other countries; when awesome technological powers are in the hands of a very few, and no one representing the public interest can even grasp the issues; when the people have lost the ability to set their own agendas or knowledgeably question those in authority; when, clutching our crystals and nervously consulting our horoscopes, our critical faculties in decline, unable to distinguish between what feels good and what’s true, we slide, almost without noticing, back into superstition and darkness…
…most evident in the slow decay of substantive content in the enormously influential media, the 30 second sound bites (now down to 10 seconds or less), lowest common denominator programming, credulous presentations on pseudoscience and superstition, but especially a kind of celebration of ignorance…"
Debates can be effective. The South Korean government staged a debate on Nuclear Power before a citizen's jury. Before the debate 2/3rds of the jury were anti-nuclear. After those numbers flipped to the opposite. Now South Korea is restarting its Nuclear build program rather than the wind/solar scam.
https://environmentalprogress.org/big-news/2017/10/19/victory-pro-nuclear-win-in-south-korea-gives-momentum-to-atomic-humanists-everywhere
"...In a stunning come-from-behind victory, South Korean citizens on a special jury voted 60 percent to 40 percent to re-start construction of two halted nuclear reactors.
Environmental Progress applauds the citizens jury for choosing wisdom over ideology, and praises South Korean President Moon Jae-in for honoring their decision.
EP especially applauds the university students, professors, and workers who protested and fought for a re-start to construction...."
Hotez is a pharma shill and a disgrace. The pharma companies he covers for are worse than mob cartels.
I'm thinking it's reasonable to dispute the idea that Fauci and all levels of government lied to us about everything to do with Covid. "All and everything" makes rational discussion difficult, if not impossible.
Actually Fauci made some accurate statements at the beginning of the Plandemic, i.e. masks don't work, only to completely reverse them when the controllers decided they don't fit their narrative.
I've been a subscriber of yours for a few mths and watched many of your online videos. I've been impressed with your obvious knowledge but don't always agree on everything (mostly I do) however I read your analysis above as containing a touch of the implicit arrogance from the credentialled scientific community. I see it all the time. You are right that he should debate but I think you are a tad over-confident that one of the scientific community will win. Winning people over is most definitely not about having the strongest technical arguments. You have to convince and carry your audience with you. If you only debate in peer (pal) review journals you're aiming at the wrong audience.
This is fair. As you know I have no problem challenging the credentialed. I actually have no idea who would "win" a debate between Hotez and Kennedy, tbh I haven't really seen either much in action. For me it is more important that they have a debate than who might win, if that makes sense.
I'm pretty sure RFKjr would beat up Hotez bad, which is why he is scared to debate him.
3 great reasons he should debate. For me, point 3 is the most critical. With the demise of a more factual/neutral main stream media, it is getting harder to get at the truth. Diversity of thought, discussed respectfully in a debate style environment is one of the best ways for people to get exposed to diverse ideas and form their own opinion.
Agreed.
Roger, let’s not forget that the reason we are having a debate about a debate, is because of social media. Pre internet, science was relegated to journals and academia. Conclusions were distributed to the public via qualified messengers (doctors, etc…) as well as respected news journals. The internet has changed all of this. Giving more transparency where it was, arguably, lacking. As a result, it is my view that resistance from the scientific community against a debate can only be self serving. Science can be very complex, but so can legal disputes and national security issues. Makes no sense to me to openly debate legal cases and national security issues while ignoring science.
There was once a lot of talk, led by Carl Sagan I believe back circa 1980s of having a Science Court. Where questions of science relevant to public policy would be adjudicated in a type of court.
But now with the internet, it seems to me there is a better forum for such questions to be exposed for the benefit of the public, who pays for all of that science and must deal with the ramifications of bad science, and also the decision makers, bureaucrats and politicians.
And that is Open Interactive Peer Review. The Peer Review process as it stands is broken. It has been inundated with corruption so badly that Peer Review means has Establishment support or does not rock the boat. We have seen absolute garbage studies being published in peer reviewed journals during the Covid plandemic.
Thank you for the insights into the “process” of peer review. Very disappointing.
My opinion, the most important point you made is that the public pays for the research, so yes, this would dictate a certain level of transparency. Carl Sagan had a great idea.
Good points!
This really highlights the problems with the entire set of issues around vaccines. The problem is that there are two families of vaccines. We have the childhood vaccines for measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, polio etc. These vaccines are highly effective, life saving, and should be mandatory. From any rational viewpoint, these vaccines are lifesavers, and the herd immunity achieved saves the lives of even those children who cannot take the vaccines for valid medical reasons. But then we have the vaccines for COVID and the flu. These vaccines are really based on best guesses on what variety of the virus may be around, dont last very long, and are often ineffective. And when it comes to the COVID vaccine especially, there are very serious, valid questions as to whether the vaccine should be given to healthy children. If the debate doesnt start by admitting that not all vaccines are equal, there is really no point in debating. Because Kennedy will claim even childhood vaccines are dangerous and should be optional. Meanwhile Holzer will claim even the COVID vaccine should be mandatory. Neither claim can actually be supported. For the record, 60 year old man, fully vaxxed, caught COVID twice while fully vaxxed.
I would question your assertions about childhood vaccines. If you listen to RFKjr, there is a lot of corruption going on there. A lot more to look at than your simplistic view. RFK seems to be quite open to childhood vaccination but not imposed and done with total transparency.
From what I'm seeing the childhood vaccination program has documented poor overall outcomes, and that is the gold standard in effectiveness, which is why they are avoiding that topic like it was the plague. To my limited knowledge, it is looking to me that childhood vaccines, like most vaccines should be focused on high risk groups rather than mandated for everyone. Big Pharma hates that idea, because it would seriously impair their gravy train.
Im sorry, but the case is closed on childhood vaccines. Polio, measles, whooping cough, smallpox, etc vaccines are documented to save lives and produce herd immunity. Any claims to the contrary are simply unsupported by any reliable study. Happy to talk about flu and covid vaccines, but there is no debate about the standard childhood vaccines.
Nonsense. Undoubtedly some vaccines in some circumstances will save lives and produce herd immunity. But your believe in blanket, all encompassing, childhood vaccination is nothing short of ridiculous. As is almost always the case, medical intervention works far better when fine tuned to the individual patients. To stop an epidemic in its tracks, a rapid emergency vaccination program may be warranted. And I'm sure RFKjr would agree with that. FYI:
https://stevekirsch.substack.com/p/vaccines-are-very-good-for-the-drug
" The graphic is from a paper which was published in April 24, 2017: Pilot comparative study on the health of vaccinated and unvaccinated 6- to 12- year old U.S. children "
"....Key points from that paper:
Vaccinated children were over four-fold more likely to be diagnosed on the Autism Spectrum
Vaccinated children were 30-fold more likely to be diagnosed with allergic rhinitis (hay fever) than non-vaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 22-fold more likely to require an allergy medication than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were over five-fold more likely to be diagnosed with a learning disability than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 340 percent more likely to be diagnosed with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 5.9-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with pneumonia than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 3.8-fold more likely to be diagnosed with middle ear infection (otitis media) than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 700 percent more likely to have had surgery to insert ear drainage tubes than unvaccinated children
Vaccinated children were 2.4-fold more likely to have been diagnosed with any chronic illness than unvaccinated children
The message from the drug companies to America is clear:
Liability protection is a must. Thank you Congress for that. We are the only industry in America without any liability. Perfect. This allows us to create customers for life.
Parents should make sure to vaccinate all your kids with all possible vaccines. That way, there will not be a control group to compare the outcomes with so nobody will be able to prove that vaccines make things worse.
The drug companies of America thank you for your cooperation, whether it is willing or unwilling. You will cooperate..."
https://data.cdc.gov/d/v6ab-adf5/visualization no other comment needed.
Your link shows absolutely nothing. I provide real data from a real study, you provide an empty link that shows nothing.
The link is to official US childhood mortality rates 1900-2018. If you think it shows nothing there is something wrong with your system.
Good points!
Great observation.
The best comment on this thread.
Hotez and other scientists should also admit sciences failures. A century ago "the science" supported eugenics.
Sorry to remind you, but you've made an excellent argument why you should debate Alex Epstein...
Ball is 100% in his court. I'm ready, anytime ;-)
Well said. In particular the section entitled "Debate is good for Democracy and in fact it is necessary" hits it on the head. If only more people realized how important it is to engage in meaningful discussions not always to change minds but develop understanding and form alliances. All of life is compromise on one level or the other. Whether with family and loved ones, friends in politics and in international relations, the only person who gets to decide unilaterally is a dictator (or your parents ;) ) or an abuser. Life under either of those circumstances is never good for the ones under their thumb. Debate is necessary. Scientists and others need to quit looking down their proverbial noses at those they deem less knowledgeable or to be cranks. These actions only fuel skeptics, breed mistrust and make it look like you got something to hide.
This would be more a debate on public policy (vaccine mandates) than on science. So Hotez excuse that we don't debate science is a red herring. He should take on Kennedy because bigger science policy debates are coming soon.
What is perhaps the biggest science policy debate of all time is about to go nova: the origin of the SARS-CoV2 virus. The evidence for it being a lab leak is increasing. Fauci, Dazsak, and Kristian Andersen need to answer for their duplicity and attempts to prevent this debate from taking place. And what role if any did US funding of gain of function research at WIV play in the pandemic?
Science and policy often overlap. People like Hotez can't dismiss people like RFK jr who, even though he is nuts, carry a lot of gravitas.
Yes, almost all of these high-profile issues are about policy that invokes science, and not this or that scientific claim.
Hotez believes that because he is right, everyone should believe him. Hotez believes when his mind changes, everyone should still believe him. Like a choir director who changes the song selection, everyone should just sing along. It's likely both Kennedy and Hotez are wrong. A debate would be a good entertainment but settle nothing.
Dont know much about Hotez, but I do know that the science does change as more information is discovered. A true scientist will change their opinion as the facts are gathered.
A great video to show how reliable Hotez is at "The Science":
Peter Hotez - Vaccine Expert:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sj6-QDVYbv8
A debate isn't meant to settle anything. A debate is about giving feedback to the public who pay for all this stuff, including Hotez, and suffer from whatever bad decisions our leaders make based on bad science that is declared true. A good debate and a lot of people can change their opinion. That can have a big impact on policy.
Good point. The attention such a debate would grab would spur more comments, as well. Thanks.
"Hotez believes when his mind changes, everyone should still believe him."
A worse example is Kristian Andersen. Andersen first claimed the SARS-CoV2 virus was an engineered virus. He changed 180 degrees in just a couple of days after communications from Anthony Fauci. Then he said that his original position was disinformation.
Peter McCullough wrote a superb piece on Hotez just now. It also references a piece by A Midwestern Doctor which is definitive. I strongly recommend that you, Roger, read both. I am sure your readers will. https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/rfk-jr-challenges-peter-hotez-to-7fc
(I have also added this paragraph to my original posting. Just have it separately for those who have already read that.)