The health of the people in our country

[Westernhawk]

It is not like no one has looked for this risk, or they are trying to hide something:

Off Campus Access - The University of Iowa Libraries

www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu

That is a meta-analysis of 87 studies totalling over 13 million children.

Thank you for bringing logic, reason, and scientific principles to a message board. Maybe there is hope for our country.

For those who are interested, a meta-analysis is the highest level of evidence that exists in research. A meta-analysis statistically combines findings from many studies. Let's just say it's slightly more powerful than a podcast.

 

[CP87]

Dang it, I thought my link would work, but you probably need a UIowa account to access. Here is some other info that is accessible:

The MMR Vaccine and Autism

Autism is a developmental disability that can cause significant social, communication, and behavioral challenges. A report published in 1998, but subsequently retracted by the journal, suggested that measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine causes autism. ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

And here is the meta-analysis, hopefully accessible: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32309885/

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Man we have a disconnect from what I'm typing and what you're reading. I'm not saying vaccines cause autism. I'm saying there is a correlation between the timing of autism cases skyrocketing and vaccine rollout. I'm also saying that there are two huuuuuuuge reasons why we would be told there is no connection even if there was. One is for money and the other is for the greater good. Some people choose to blindly believe the people saying there's no connection despite the obvious reasons they would lie, and some people put a bigger factor on the reasons to lie (if they had to) so choose to say they don't know either way. I'm the latter...

Point taken, and thanks for saying that correlation is quite different than causation. Funny graph to illustrate the point. In the graph below, there does appear to be a correlation . cheers...

It is not like no one has looked for this risk, or they are trying to hide something:

Off Campus Access - The University of Iowa Libraries

www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu

That is a meta-analysis of 87 studies totalling over 13 million children.

Very interesting and surprisingly civil discussion.

As has been thoroughly and correctly pointed out, numerous primarily retrospective studies have been completed, including the meta-analysis above, showing no statistically significant difference in autism rates amongst children who received or did not receive vaccines.

The argument has essentially been put to bed, but nevertheless there will always be those that stubbornly adhere to emotionally charged core beliefs regardless of the science. I guarantee you that some "flat-earthers" could be put into far earth orbit, see the earth as a globe with their own eyes, and still stick to their moronic beliefs.

As a health professional, I've experienced numerous encounters where people bring up various opinions and theories about all kinds of things medical. In many cases, there is the obvious intent to pull you into a debate - a debate you will never really win despite any degree of scientific evidence you bring to bear. Vaccines is a common one.

I met a lady years ago who was an rabid "anti-vaxxer." In a well-rehearsed fashion, she began expressing her "logic" that her unvaccinated kids have never been sick despite years of school and contacts with other children. My response was something to the effect, "Have you ever considered the possibility that your kids never got sick is because the other children had been vaccinated?" She stood there staring at me for a several stunned seconds before exclaiming, "Well, I must be doing something right," and marched away. I now politely dodge around those situations.

In a perfect world, we would have a large prospective randomized controlled trial comparing vaccinated children and unvaccinated children for 50 years. That's not scientifically possible, but available data nevertheless is very strong.

The Covid vaccine is a bit of a different animal. As a novel messenger RNA vaccine, there remain many unknowns moving forward, and there is no doubt that the criticisms of big pharma potentially putting its fingers on the scales to maximize profits probably hold at least some degree of validity, along with the accusations of governmental manipulation of information in an attempt to grab and maintain as much control over the populace as possible. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

At the end of the day, I've always characterized it as comparing two potential worlds - one where vaccines have existed for several years, and one where they were never developed. Even assuming the remote possibility that vaccines actually can and do very rarely cause autism or other health issues, which one would you choose?

 

[HuckFinn]

I love spurious correlations. I think they had one about the relationship between Danish cheese consumption and prevalence of death by bedsheet entanglement.

Hey. That one is well documented.

 

[CP87]

Very interesting and surprisingly civil discussion.

As has been thoroughly and correctly pointed out, numerous primarily retrospective studies have been completed, including the meta-analysis above, showing no statistically significant difference in autism rates amongst children who received or did not receive vaccines.

The argument has essentially been put to bed, but nevertheless there will always be those that stubbornly adhere to emotionally charged core beliefs regardless of the science. I guarantee you that some "flat-earthers" could be put into far earth orbit, see the earth as a globe with their own eyes, and still stick to their moronic beliefs.

As a health professional, I've experienced numerous encounters where people bring up various opinions and theories about all kinds of things medical. In many cases, there is the obvious intent to pull you into a debate - a debate you will never really win despite any degree of scientific evidence you bring to bear. Vaccines is a common one.

I met a lady years ago who was an rabid "anti-vaxxer." In a well-rehearsed fashion, she began expressing her "logic" that her unvaccinated kids have never been sick despite years of school and contacts with other children. My response was something to the effect, "Have you ever considered the possibility that your kids never got sick is because the other children had been vaccinated?" She stood there staring at me for a several stunned seconds before exclaiming, "Well, I must be doing something right," and marched away. I now politely dodge around those situations.

In a perfect world, we would have a large prospective randomized controlled trial comparing vaccinated children and unvaccinated children for 50 years. That's not scientifically possible, but available data nevertheless is very strong.

The Covid vaccine is a bit of a different animal. As a novel messenger RNA vaccine, there remain many unknowns moving forward, and there is no doubt that the criticisms of big pharma potentially putting its fingers on the scales to maximize profits probably hold at least some degree of validity, along with the accusations of governmental manipulation of information in an attempt to grab and maintain as much control over the populace as possible. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

At the end of the day, I've always characterized it as comparing two potential worlds - one where vaccines have existed for several years, and one where they were never developed. Even assuming the remote possibility that vaccines actually can and do very rarely cause autism or other health issues, which one would you choose?

Some things just don't lend themselves to RCTs. You have probably seen these, but if not, you might enjoy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial

Objective To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Private or commercial aircraft between September 2017 and August 2018. Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were...

www.bmj.com

 

[#1DieHardHawk]

Some things just don't lend themselves to RCTs. You have probably seen these, but if not, you might enjoy:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/

Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma when jumping from aircraft: randomized controlled trial

Objective To determine if using a parachute prevents death or major traumatic injury when jumping from an aircraft. Design Randomized controlled trial. Setting Private or commercial aircraft between September 2017 and August 2018. Participants 92 aircraft passengers aged 18 and over were...

www.bmj.com

That's hilarious, especially for those of us who have toiled through the whole process.

Here's one that I'm still not sure if it's real or not. If a parody, they put a hell of amount of work into it. Kudos to them in that case.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322530755_Analysis_and_Qualitative_Effects_of_Large_Breasts_on_Aerodynamic_Performance_and_Wake_of_a_Miss_Kobayashi's_Dragon_Maid_Character

 

[CP87]

This portion of the tongue-in-cheek article sounds familiar...

The medicalisation of free fall​

It is often said that doctors are interfering monsters obsessed with disease and power, who will not be satisfied until they control every aspect of our lives (Journal of Social Science, pick a volume). It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency. The widespread use of the parachute may just be another example of doctors' obsession with disease prevention and their misplaced belief in unproved technology to provide effective protection against occasional adverse events.

Parachutes and the military industrial complex​

However sinister doctors may be, there are powers at large that are even more evil. The parachute industry has earned billions of dollars for vast multinational corporations whose profits depend on belief in the efficacy of their product. One would hardly expect these vast commercial concerns to have the bravery to test their product in the setting of a randomised controlled trial. Moreover, industry sponsored trials are more likely to conclude in favour of their commercial product,11 and it is unclear whether the results of such industry sponsored trials are reliable.

 

[PCHawk]

It is not like no one has looked for this risk, or they are trying to hide something:

Off Campus Access - The University of Iowa Libraries

www-ncbi-nlm-nih-gov.proxy.lib.uiowa.edu

That is a meta-analysis of 87 studies totalling over 13 million children.

Kennedy's point is the connection of the people who do the studies and the companies who make the profits if the studies pass. Also the pressure put on the people who do the studies that say there are connections. The system isn't working if it's a known thing you're going to get ostracized if you go against Big Parma. That's Kennedy's talking points, not mine. He does a really good job of proving his talking points.

 

[PCHawk]

Very interesting and surprisingly civil discussion.

As has been thoroughly and correctly pointed out, numerous primarily retrospective studies have been completed, including the meta-analysis above, showing no statistically significant difference in autism rates amongst children who received or did not receive vaccines.

The argument has essentially been put to bed, but nevertheless there will always be those that stubbornly adhere to emotionally charged core beliefs regardless of the science. I guarantee you that some "flat-earthers" could be put into far earth orbit, see the earth as a globe with their own eyes, and still stick to their moronic beliefs.

As a health professional, I've experienced numerous encounters where people bring up various opinions and theories about all kinds of things medical. In many cases, there is the obvious intent to pull you into a debate - a debate you will never really win despite any degree of scientific evidence you bring to bear. Vaccines is a common one.

I met a lady years ago who was an rabid "anti-vaxxer." In a well-rehearsed fashion, she began expressing her "logic" that her unvaccinated kids have never been sick despite years of school and contacts with other children. My response was something to the effect, "Have you ever considered the possibility that your kids never got sick is because the other children had been vaccinated?" She stood there staring at me for a several stunned seconds before exclaiming, "Well, I must be doing something right," and marched away. I now politely dodge around those situations.

In a perfect world, we would have a large prospective randomized controlled trial comparing vaccinated children and unvaccinated children for 50 years. That's not scientifically possible, but available data nevertheless is very strong.

The Covid vaccine is a bit of a different animal. As a novel messenger RNA vaccine, there remain many unknowns moving forward, and there is no doubt that the criticisms of big pharma potentially putting its fingers on the scales to maximize profits probably hold at least some degree of validity, along with the accusations of governmental manipulation of information in an attempt to grab and maintain as much control over the populace as possible. "Never let a good crisis go to waste."

At the end of the day, I've always characterized it as comparing two potential worlds - one where vaccines have existed for several years, and one where they were never developed. Even assuming the remote possibility that vaccines actually can and do very rarely cause autism or other health issues, which one would you choose?

Your last point goes with what I'm saying. There is a huge benifit to downplaying the side affects of vaccines. If a product is 99% helpful and 1% hurtful, it's obvious you need to take it. That doesn't make it easy to inject a product into your kid that's 1% hurtful tho. Because of that, the best thing to do is downplay the 1% to help ease the minds of parents for the greater good. It's unfortunate, but it's the right thing to do. Once someone wraps their brain around that obvious truth, it's pretty easy to question whether a product is 99% good 1% bad, 80% good 20% bad, or 55% good 45% bad. Because all three of those options would still serve a greater good.

People also tend to assume all vaccines are equal. There's obviously no way that's true. People get caught up in the black and white argument of whether all vaccines are good or bad when each specific vaccine needs its own argument.

You have to factor three things against each other to decide how worth it a vaccine is to take. 1 is how deadly the disease is. 2 is how harmful the vaccine is. 3 is how well the vaccine works to stop the disease. You need to have a pretty good idea on all three things to make a logical decision and every vaccine for every disease will have different numbers.

Take polio for example. The disease was really bad. It was killing people and injuring people like crazy. So that number is really high. We also know that the vaccine worked really well to stop it since pretty much no one gets it anymore. So since those two numbers are extremely favorable, the number on how harmful the vaccine is can be pretty high too and it will still be overall better to give to everyone.

Now take covid. That disease is nowhere near as bad as polio and the vaccine is nowhere near as good at stopping it. Because those two numbers are so bad, it needs to be way more safe to take in order to justify the risk.

Now look at giving covid to a child who already has natural immunity. The risk to that child is as close to zero percent as you can get. It's so close to zero that the other two numbers would have to be almost perfect to justify the risk. People don't really agree yet on how much the vaccine helps. But almost everyone understands now that it's not near as good as they once hoped so we know that number is nowhere near perfect. So when you decide whether or not to give your kid who already had covid a booster, and you know two of the three numbers aren't favorable, you better be damn sure the vaccine is pretty much 100% safe. That's really tough to know since it's a brand new kind of treatment.

 

[PCHawk]

As far as medical studies go. When the vaccine came out, everyone from Fauci to Biden said firmly "if you get the vaccine, you won't get covid". Years later they came out and admitted they never even tested the vaccine to see if it prevented transmission. It's possible they only lied then because it was a pandemic and they did it for "the greater good". But it's also possible they're just liars. "Masks don't work. Oh wait, now they do" is another example.

 

[CP87]

Kennedy's point is the connection of the people who do the studies and the companies who make the profits if the studies pass. Also the pressure put on the people who do the studies that say there are connections. The system isn't working if it's a known thing you're going to get ostracized if you go against Big Parma. That's Kennedy's talking points, not mine. He does a really good job of proving his talking points.

Kennedy's point is wrong and nonsensical. If a study is funded by a company, that must be disclosed. Studies funded by bodies with vested interest, i.e. industry-funded research, are looked at with great skepticism in the scientific community, and with good reason; food and supplement companies are notorious for this.

There is some top-down pressure within the scientific community (e.g. NIH funding has a big influence on what gets studied), but it is a large, decentralized community by nature. And even if you thought big Pharma was slipping money to NIH to fund certain studies, that still would not have any influence on the outcome of those studies.

And if you think big Pharma is slipping money to the thousands of researchers who have studied the question of link between MMR vaccines and autism, with these researchers spread across many unconnected institutions in this country and abroad, and each of these researchers has up to a dozen students working under them, and all of these individuals are coordinating to massage the results in a certain way to give them the result they needed, and no one ever blows the whistle on that? There are not 1 or 2 people who can be paid off in this situation.

Further, there are academic groups who make it their mission to find academic fraud through statistical analysis (https://datacolada.org/). These people would have to be paid off, as well.

And not only would thousands of people from different countries, cultures, institutions, etc. from all around the world have to be on the take, they would all have to be malicious actors who do not care that they are covering up a known harm because they are lining their own pocket books.

Kennedy does not "prove" any of his points, he just throws out a lot of conjecture. Anyone with a fundamental working knowledge of how research is performed across the world would immediately recognize how ludicrous his ideas are.

To your point of social media and peer pressure leading to the spreading of lots of stupid ideas, I am on board. All of the stupid "horse paste" talk when some were proposing ivermectin (a commonly used anti-parasitic with demonstrated anti-viral properties) as a COVID treatment did a lot of harm. It shouted down those proposing a reasonable solution (not how science should work), but then when the solution was actually tested experimentally and DID NOT work*, people refused to believe that result because all of the stupid horse-paste talk convinced those people that the whole world is biased. But that does not change how hard it would be to pull of global research fraud on a topic of great public health interest.

*As an aside, the ivermectin as treatment of COVID results are a bit nuanced. I have not dug into the literature lately, but there was some evidence of effectiveness from some studies, and no positive effect in others, and non-trivial risk of negative complications. There is some indication that ivermectin was actually effective in countries that tend to have endemic parasitic worms, and not effective in countries without this issue (parasitic worms are not a common problem in this country). The reasoning being that by treating the parasitic worm (which is what ivermectin is primarily used for), the body was better able to fight the virus. Not sure where that research has gone since I last checked over a year ago.

Also, a null finding does not mean that ivermectin did not work (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)...just that the study was not well enough controlled to be able to demonstrate whatever small and inconsistent effect ivermectin seemed to be having. In that sense, ivermectin was like most other things that were being tried at the time for COVID...most of them were not showing consistent, positive effect. Luckily, there are now effective treatments available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9880713/

 

[CP87]

As far as medical studies go. When the vaccine came out, everyone from Fauci to Biden said firmly "if you get the vaccine, you won't get covid". Years later they came out and admitted they never even tested the vaccine to see if it prevented transmission. It's possible they only lied then because it was a pandemic and they did it for "the greater good". But it's also possible they're just liars. "Masks don't work. Oh wait, now they do" is another example.

Yeah, lots of examples of poor public health messaging during COVID. The PH experts didn't trust the public to deal with the nuanced truth, so they lied about their degree of certainty on these topics. That came back to bite them, and now they have lost trust. Those couple years will be studied for a long time by PH messaging experts.

 

[Westernhawk]

As far as medical studies go. When the vaccine came out, everyone from Fauci to Biden said firmly "if you get the vaccine, you won't get covid". Years later they came out and admitted they never even tested the vaccine to see if it prevented transmission. It's possible they only lied then because it was a pandemic and they did it for "the greater good". But it's also possible they're just liars. "Masks don't work. Oh wait, now they do" is another example.

Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?

 

[Glass1/2fullguy]

Kennedy's point is the connection of the people who do the studies and the companies who make the profits if the studies pass. Also the pressure put on the people who do the studies that say there are connections. The system isn't working if it's a known thing you're going to get ostracized if you go against Big Parma. That's Kennedy's talking points, not mine. He does a really good job of proving his talking points.

You'd find the tucker interview podcast i posted w/ Casey Means MD very interesting. Kennedy is not an expert on what he says and why most don't take what he says seriously. Casey Means is a Standford Med grad and was in the field for like 5 years before her mission changed.

About — Casey Means MD

www.caseymeans.com

 

[PCHawk]

Kennedy's point is wrong and nonsensical. If a study is funded by a company, that must be disclosed. Studies funded by bodies with vested interest, i.e. industry-funded research, are looked at with great skepticism in the scientific community, and with good reason; food and supplement companies are notorious for this.

There is some top-down pressure within the scientific community (e.g. NIH funding has a big influence on what gets studied), but it is a large, decentralized community by nature. And even if you thought big Pharma was slipping money to NIH to fund certain studies, that still would not have any influence on the outcome of those studies.

And if you think big Pharma is slipping money to the thousands of researchers who have studied the question of link between MMR vaccines and autism, with these researchers spread across many unconnected institutions in this country and abroad, and each of these researchers has up to a dozen students working under them, and all of these individuals are coordinating to massage the results in a certain way to give them the result they needed, and no one ever blows the whistle on that? There are not 1 or 2 people who can be paid off in this situation.

Further, there are academic groups who make it their mission to find academic fraud through statistical analysis (https://datacolada.org/). These people would have to be paid off, as well.

And not only would thousands of people from different countries, cultures, institutions, etc. from all around the world have to be on the take, they would all have to be malicious actors who do not care that they are covering up a known harm because they are lining their own pocket books.

Kennedy does not "prove" any of his points, he just throws out a lot of conjecture. Anyone with a fundamental working knowledge of how research is performed across the world would immediately recognize how ludicrous his ideas are.

To your point of social media and peer pressure leading to the spreading of lots of stupid ideas, I am on board. All of the stupid "horse paste" talk when some were proposing ivermectin (a commonly used anti-parasitic with demonstrated anti-viral properties) as a COVID treatment did a lot of harm. It shouted down those proposing a reasonable solution (not how science should work), but then when the solution was actually tested experimentally and DID NOT work*, people refused to believe that result because all of the stupid horse-paste talk convinced those people that the whole world is biased. But that does not change how hard it would be to pull of global research fraud on a topic of great public health interest.

*As an aside, the ivermectin as treatment of COVID results are a bit nuanced. I have not dug into the literature lately, but there was some evidence of effectiveness from some studies, and no positive effect in others, and non-trivial risk of negative complications. There is some indication that ivermectin was actually effective in countries that tend to have endemic parasitic worms, and not effective in countries without this issue (parasitic worms are not a common problem in this country). The reasoning being that by treating the parasitic worm (which is what ivermectin is primarily used for), the body was better able to fight the virus. Not sure where that research has gone since I last checked over a year ago.

Also, a null finding does not mean that ivermectin did not work (absence of evidence is not evidence of absence)...just that the study was not well enough controlled to be able to demonstrate whatever small and inconsistent effect ivermectin seemed to be having. In that sense, ivermectin was like most other things that were being tried at the time for COVID...most of them were not showing consistent, positive effect. Luckily, there are now effective treatments available: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9880713/

You and I aren't near as far off on our thinking as you probably think we are. I completely agree with most of this post. There are just a couple things in my mind that change how certain I am of it all. I agree with how you lay out how hard it is to "buy off" everyone. But I factor in a couple more things. One is most people know not to bite the hand that feeds them. Kind of like Big Pharma being a paid advertiser of the media. That alone doesn't mean they can't run negative stories on Big Pharma. But do you really bite the hand that feeds you? The other is if someone does bite the hand that feeds them, they are called conspiracy theorist anti vaxers and discredited. An issue I have with your posts (one of the very few) is on one hand you say there would be more studies showing negative data. And on the other hand, you say anyone who shows negative data is crazy. If you're going to be thought of as a conspiracy theorist antivaxer if you show negative data, life is going to be way easier for you if you just don't show it. Kennedy talks about that too. He's an environmental lawyer that sues polluters. He didn't want to go down this road. But people kept coming to him to the point where he felt his hand was forced. Life would be way easier for him if he would have ignored all the people asking for his help.

I love the way you talk about ivermectin and almost completely agree with that too, other than I've probably seen more info on the benefits of it. But there's one small difference on how we think there too. You say they made a mistake on how bad they criticized it calling it horse paste. I go one step further and ask myself why they would criticize it so bad. The answer I come up with to that question is pretty damning. They mocked a perfectly safe, cheap drug that possibly showed signs helping. But at the same time pimped really expensive brand new drugs that had no long term studies done on safety or affectiveness. There's just no good reason to do that.

 

[PCHawk]

You'd find the tucker interview podcast i posted w/ Casey Means MD very interesting. Kennedy is not an expert on what he says and why most don't take what he says seriously. Casey Means is a Standford Med grad and was in the field for like 5 years before her mission changed.

About — Casey Means MD

www.caseymeans.com

I'll check it out.

 

[PCHawk]

Are you familiar with the term "confirmation bias"?

Yes. Does it apply here?

 

[PCHawk]

Yeah, lots of examples of poor public health messaging during COVID. The PH experts didn't trust the public to deal with the nuanced truth, so they lied about their degree of certainty on these topics. That came back to bite them, and now they have lost trust. Those couple years will be studied for a long time by PH messaging experts.

So it sounds like you fully trust they only lie during an emergency and I question if they lie all the time. Both thought processes are understandable. There is an old video of Fauci talking about surgical masks not working on viruses because the particles are too small. I don't believe that science suddenly changed. There's another video of him saying you don't need a vaccine if you have natural immunity. I don't believe that science has changed.

But if you believe they are capable of lying during a pandemic, and you believe its really important to take vaccines, I'm surprised you don't think it's possible to lie about vaccines. I guess one difference is they could only control the narrative on covid for a few years before it all came crashing down on them so it's hard to believe the narrative on past vaccines wouldn't have already blown up in their faces. But at the same time, if Musk wouldn't have bought Twitter, the lies on covid would have never come out. There has never been a way for mass pushback before that.

 

[CP87]

You and I aren't near as far off on our thinking as you probably think we are. I completely agree with most of this post. There are just a couple things in my mind that change how certain I am of it all. I agree with how you lay out how hard it is to "buy off" everyone. But I factor in a couple more things. One is most people know not to bite the hand that feeds them. Kind of like Big Pharma being a paid advertiser of the media. That alone doesn't mean they can't run negative stories on Big Pharma. But do you really bite the hand that feeds you? The other is if someone does bite the hand that feeds them, they are called conspiracy theorist anti vaxers and discredited. An issue I have with your posts (one of the very few) is on one hand you say there would be more studies showing negative data. And on the other hand, you say anyone who shows negative data is crazy. If you're going to be thought of as a conspiracy theorist antivaxer if you show negative data, life is going to be way easier for you if you just don't show it. Kennedy talks about that too. He's an environmental lawyer that sues polluters. He didn't want to go down this road. But people kept coming to him to the point where he felt his hand was forced. Life would be way easier for him if he would have ignored all the people asking for his help.

I love the way you talk about ivermectin and almost completely agree with that too, other than I've probably seen more info on the benefits of it. But there's one small difference on how we think there too. You say they made a mistake on how bad they criticized it calling it horse paste. I go one step further and ask myself why they would criticize it so bad. The answer I come up with to that question is pretty damning. They mocked a perfectly safe, cheap drug that possibly showed signs helping. But at the same time pimped really expensive brand new drugs that had no long term studies done on safety or affectiveness. There's just no good reason to do that.

It sounds like most of your criticisms are of the media, and I am much more open to your points in that arena. It just seems to me that you are conflating media and the scientific community, and they are 2 completely different entities. My points were specific to the scientific community and medical communities, and I stand by those.

That said, science and medicine are practiced by humans, and humans are biased. And the academy is AT LEAST 90% liberal-leaning (more in some disciplines, slightly less in others). But I put a lot of blame on the right in this instance...it is hard to convince your adherents to go into science or academia if you are constantly spouting an anti-expertise and anti-establishment message (how oxymoronic is it that our modern "conservatives" are anti-establishment?). The homogeneity of political thought within the academy and science is a problem, though.

 

[CP87]

So it sounds like you fully trust they only lie during an emergency and I question if they lie all the time. Both thought processes are understandable. There is an old video of Fauci talking about surgical masks not working on viruses because the particles are too small. I don't believe that science suddenly changed. There's another video of him saying you don't need a vaccine if you have natural immunity. I don't believe that science has changed.

But if you believe they are capable of lying during a pandemic, and you believe its really important to take vaccines, I'm surprised you don't think it's possible to lie about vaccines. I guess one difference is they could only control the narrative on covid for a few years before it all came crashing down on them so it's hard to believe the narrative on past vaccines wouldn't have already blown up in their faces. But at the same time, if Musk wouldn't have bought Twitter, the lies on covid would have never come out. There has never been a way for mass pushback before that.

Gray areas, I suppose. I never looked at them as lies, I looked at them as over-simplifications. All science is shrouded in discussions of probabilities and uncertainties, and trying to communicate these in their fullest can lead to a jumbled message. But during COVID, some things blurred the line toward lies. There were public figures implying that those vaccinated from COVID would not get the disease, which is a ridiculous claim (even the best known vaccines don't have 100% efficacy). The vaccines have proven very effective at preventing death and hospitalization, but there is no way they could have lived up to that promise. So, I guess they were telling a lie for the greater good, which is what you have been claiming all along. I don't extrapolate that to all public health and medical messaging because I have some understanding of what goes into the process of shaping such a message, I have an understanding of supporting claims with evidence, and I think COVID was a uniquely challenging situation that these folks had to navigate. But I could easily see how much some of these actions could have destroyed trust. There were plenty in the media landscape who preyed off this distrust, making the situation even worse.