1. Hotez doesn't know how to reach us emotionally. The photograph overwhelms the text, and it's a dramatic, dignified presentation of Joe Rogan. The text is then read and absorbed under the influence of the photograph of the strong, serious man who is only asking for debate.Joe Rogan wants a scientist to “debate” a vaccine denier. Turning him down was the right thing to do. @voxdotcom https://t.co/ouuuFuk1f4
— Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD (@PeterHotez) June 22, 2023
2. The text relies heavily on putting the word "debate" in scare quotes. It seems as though Hotez is making the scared-child argument that he doesn't have to debate — indeed, shouldn't debate — because what Rogan is calling a debate wouldn't really be a debate. My reaction is: Engage with Rogan over the terms of the debate so that it can be a real debate.
3. You won't even name your antagonist. He's just "a vaccine denier." First, say his name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him. Second, it's not accurate to call him a "vaccine denier." What does that even mean? He doesn't deny that vaccines exist and have an effect. He's concerned about side effects, inadequate testing, and corruption in the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry. Are you not concerned about these things? If not, I can call you a "denier." See how glib and infuriating that is?
4. He won't debate on Joe Rogan's podcast, but by tweeting he instigates debate, and now his tweet is festooned with rebuttal. Example:
5. Maybe some people will click through to Vox, but I suspect most people encountering Hotez on Twitter will get no further than that subtitle: "How to have better conversations about contentious scientific subjects." So what will they think? Yeah, surely there are better ways to have appropriate conversations about science topics. But what is Hotez giving us? Where's the better conversation coming from him? At least Joe is talking and trying to bring people together.Interesting that you’re citing Vox dot com, which was a Covid-19 denier website. pic.twitter.com/ZumLbM0vxc
— Cernovich (@Cernovich) June 22, 2023
6. Unlike nearly all of Hotez's readers, I will click through and read the Vox article. First, we're told that to debate is to concede that there is a legitimate ground for debate. I'll state the corollary: To refuse to debate is to assert that the there is no legitimate ground for debate. But do we believe that?
7. Second, we're told that debates are "performative," and so debaters are going to need to maintain their position and cannot approach the event with an open mind. Yes, you'll be performing the non-openness of your mind, but Hotez is already doing that with this tweet. Why not do it more boldly and substantively by standing up to Kennedy?
8. We're reminded that there will be viral clips taken out of context. One participant may be better than the other at generating spicy moments that work to his advantage. That might be what's really going on, so the participant who takes the debate as a serious debate is duped. Refusing to debate, Hotez is performing his sophistication. Are you buying that?
9. "Many areas of science really don’t benefit from 'debate.'" What's the use of talking about the substance? This is the presumption that ordinary people can't understand or won't try to understand. And look at how easily we get suspicious that the experts might be deceiving us. Ironically, this refusal to debate causes more suspicion.
10. Vox reminds us that Hotez has offered an alternative, which is for him to go on the podcast and just have Joe Rogan ask him questions. He doesn't want the aggression — the committed passion — that comes from RFK. Vox suggests taking questions from people who are not in "bad faith" but who are respectfully seeking information. This feels like an insinuation that RFK Jr. is in bad faith or that Hotez wants supersoft interlocutors. That doesn't elevate Hotez.
ADDED:
11. By tweeting, Hotez attracts not only rebuttal — #4, above — but also the kind of lightweight, fawning support that drives fair-minded people like me to scoff. Example:
12. And then you yourself keep coming back with more and more of your own laughing face in your Twitter feed — why?!Deeply troubled by the online attacks against Dr. @PeterHotez. Standing in solidarity with Peter & all our public health and medical professionals committed to delivering science-backed health information, particularly about vaccines. https://t.co/Q5raP3kjWq
— Chelsea Clinton (@ChelseaClinton) June 22, 2023
Latest @HoustonChron editor’s opinion piece. https://t.co/Ip1bL0sF9D
— Prof Peter Hotez MD PhD (@PeterHotez) June 22, 2023
Posts
125 comments:
I know Hotez, and have always thought him to be both smart and insufferable. The idea that he dresses in a lab coat at home while doing TV interview hits about says it all. He wants the attention more than he wants science, and he (along with Fauci, whom I also know) is a big reason for my disillusionment with how science is now being conducted. Not the way it was earlier in my career as a virologist.
“Party of science” refuses to engage in science.
See also, “party of democracy” refuses to engage in democracy, etc.
Hotez's inability to shut up about it is making him seem desperate, and desperate people aren't convincing. If he put half the energy into a debate that he is putting into avoiding a debate, this whole thing would be wrapped up by now.
you know when you can Tell, that a person's side is correct? (you KNOW when!)
It's when that person refuses ALL debate, and refuses to Even discuss it.
When ALL a person will say, is "Trust the Science" without EVER using any science..
You KNOW that person's side is correct! (it Might Not be true.. But it Sure is Correct)
Scott Adams has suggested that the debate be guided as follows:
1. Kennedy submits his three strongest arguments against/criticisms of vaccines.
2. The debate is limited to those subjects so neither side can "move the goalposts."
3. Each debater must submit the studies he will rely upon in advance.
4. Rogan's main role will be to keep the debaters focused on the three agreed upon points.
Great points, Ann.
But there is something else. Hotez has a chance to donate a million $ to charity. Or 2 or whatever it is up to.
By not debating, he is stopping a lot of good from being done. He could donate the money to get more vaccines for children, putting a thumb in Rfk's eye.
He should treat this like an Aids Walk or a charity dunk tank.
Stop being a dick, hotez. If you won't do it for science or medicine, Do it for the children.
John lgb Henry
Saw a clip of Morning Mika thanking this idiot for "saving the world".
Saddest part is people followed Hotez, Fauci, and the rest and took the unnecessary mRNA shots and became part of a mass medical experiment.
Hotez is a disingenuous idiot. "Credentialism" pushed by the left and universities is a joke.
Nobody is a "denier" that just wants honest answers to some very important questions. Why was the public lied to about the safety and effectiveness of mRNA? Why were cost effective early COVID treatments vilified?
Why has NOBODY studied the effect of the full vaccine cocktail injected into America's children? How can "scientists" say..."we don't know what caused the autism spike, but it definitely wasn't the insane vaccine cocktail".
Give us a break. You have to be a left wing moron not to want answers to these questions.
This is right out of the trans-activist playbook: refuse to engage with anyone who doesn't believe men can become women and vice versa. The abundant videos of activists going silent rather than respond to questions are mordantly funny.
But one can at least excuse their obstinance in the say way Biden's refusal to debate is understandable. But that's social science, not medical science. A medical scientist unwilling to defend his views shouldn't be taken seriously on the grounds that Feynman established when he observed he'd rather have questions that can't be answered than answers that can't be questioned.
Hotez is only winning with left wing lunatics. University "intellectual" culture supports avoiding debate and the shout down and censorship of opinions and facts they don't like. It stems from there.
But anyone with any discerning intelligence knows this asshole cannot defend his "science".
By being a coward and refusing to debate, he lost the debate.
But, it sets the precedent for Joe Biden not to acknowledge or debate JFK Jr. either. College educated white women won't care.
Nobody talks about the real reason he won't do it
Demmies are scared shirtless of rfk as a candidate. They have already conceded Iowa and NH to him since Brandon won't be on the ballot. The only question how big his majority will be.
They can't let him have any visibility at all and a rogan debate will be highly visible.
As TuCa points out, he's like Beetlejuice. DO NOT EVEN MENTION HIS NAME!!
If he were not a candidate, would this be an issue?
John lgb Henry
I thought this Hotez guy was billed as some kind of super-intellect, a champion of reason and science and all that, courageously holding the line against Deniers of all kinds. But Prof A, it looks as if you crushed him without breathing hard, exposed him as yet another member of the camp of "Shut up, they explained."
Remember the Dark Ages, when the Catholic Church accused Galileo of heresy for suggesting that the earth orbited the sun in contravention to the "settled science" that the sun orbited the earth? What with vaccine heresy, global warming - er, climate change, that is - heresy, diversity is our strength heres, etc., we are rapidly entering a new Dark Age.
Well, it appears to me that Hotez is avoiding the emotional impact of having a counterpart who won't roll over and have his stomach patted. Open inquiry? We don't need no stinkin' open inquiry. And if politics is going to be practiced, he wants only HIS politics to be practiced.
I am no fan of RFKjr, who has a long history of advocacy based on pseudo-science, emotionalism, and conspiracy theories. But The Powers That Be (TPTB) set themselves up for this by their squelching of debate during the pandemic. Any sensible person looking at the data from Sweden in real time knew that if you were under 50, Covid was a nothing, and if you were 50-65, it wasn't much. Why lockdown if those are the facts? And acquired immunity? Don't talk about that. Masks? Pretty worthless and arguably harmful. And forcing people under 65 without symptoms to get the vaccine, which in the event was therapeutic rather than preventative? What was the point? But did TPTB allow a sensible discussion of the facts? No.
So now we have another crusading, demagogic plaintiff's lawyer as the paladin against TPTB.
Great.
Somehow I get the distinct feeling that Hotez is scared that the debate would end up with Rogan and RFK Jr giving him a wedgie.
Much like Elon Musk's offer to fight Zuckerberg (which was accepted) its all posturing on both sides.
RFKjr knew there was going to be no debate, that's why he offered to.
“9. "Many areas of science really don’t benefit from 'debate.'" What's the use of talking about the substance? This is the presumption that ordinary people can't understand or won't try to understand. And look at how easily we get suspicious that the experts might be deceiving us. Ironically, this refusal to debate causes more suspicion.”
Let me suggest an alternative - that many areas of theology don’t benefit from ‘debate’. My view is that millions likely died because Hotez refused to debate the orthodoxy of the COVID-19 response. Ivermectin was effectively banned as a horse dewormer despite its successes (and that the testing was intentionally designed to fail), that masking and lockdowns were necessary, and most importantly that the experimental artificial mRNA gene therapy product was a safe and effective vaccine. It turns out to have never been safe, and only slightly effective, and then only for the first dose, and only for the early variants. Mankind probably would have benefitted from an honest discussion of these topics. But that was not to be, with religious intolerance replacing reasoned scientific debate.
Bottom line. The guys a chicken shit and doesn't even believe the crap he's been spouting.
Rogan is anything but a soft pitch interviewer. Unless he's high. But let Rogan interview him.
So confident of his position, isn’t he!?!?
/sarc
If you have so much of the facts and science available then you should be able to go wipe the floor in a debate with a ‘denier’. Seems you should easily be able to make a fool of your opponent. So why not do that and finish this one and for all? That is what makes people think you aren’t all that. Plus Rogan said bring someone else if you aren’t the right person for the debate stage.
Bravo, Althouse.
"First, say his name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him. Second, it's not accurate to call him a "vaccine denier." What does that even mean?"
All very reasonable, like the rest of the post. But as the post also makes clear, for progs there is no legitimate ground for debate, and no need. They have the power, even if they can't quite control the likes of Rogan and RFK. They decide The Science, even though there are still some heretics in the ranks. Treating opponents as persons or striving for accuracy is the least of their concerns.
Without open inquiry and debate, we persist in error.
It started with “climate denier,” and it’s been a favorite from their playbook ever since.
Leftist thought crime speech-crime stomp down obey the narrative language:
"mis-information"
"Dis-information"
"Election denier"
"Vaccine Denier"
which means you're a white supremacist and a "phobe" of some sort. etc... You will be cancelled by the lying liars who lie.
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him.”
We could debate that.
The main problem with "science" today is it's insistence on infallibility. They insist that science doesn't fail and cannot fail, and so scientific pronouncements must be believed without question.
Not only does this require a complete ignorance of history, and specifically the history of science, it stands the scientific method on its head.
Science used to welcome and encourage questioning scientific pronouncements. The main difference between religion and science was that religion required blind faith and science required skepticism. But then the Progressives came along and decided that experts were the answer (both in the 1920's and the 2020's) and science became a religion.
Progress in science is made through at least a form of debate. Scientific knowledge advances when one scientist is able to show that his or her model explains the phenomenon he or she is observing better than the prior models. The case for a particular vaccine ought to be easy. Does the vaccine, inclusive of side effects, effectively increase human safety and well being? Admittedly some of those are going to be value judgments. But science (and policy) are advanced by having a debate. If Mr. Kennedy's arguments are so feeble and ridiculous, a reasonably intelligent scientist ought to have little difficulty dispatching them.
Isn't "Vaccine Denier". a Straw Man argument?
Peter Hotez is a combination of Michael Avenatti and Bill Nye.
Perfect for CNN and MSNBC, in other words.
People hate the regime co-opted press so much that their scorn only helps RFK jr.
First, say his name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him.
The women's vote.
Fauci refused to answer a simple question.
Did he profit from big pharma off of the vaccine?
Media(D) - *shut up! you jab deniers.* Get your jab... don't ask questions. The Nazis are smiling.
"He's concerned about side effects, inadequate testing, and corruption in the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry."
*Take the jab and shut up, the corrupt left said. You vaccine denier.*
the same cretins who stand behind corrupt Joe Biden and corrupt Hillary would like you to take the jab.
btw- these same money-whore lying leftist assholes are working on the next killer disease.
Vox reminds us that Hotez has offered an alternative, which is for him to go on the podcast and just have Joe Rogan ask him questions.
Isn't Hotez then just debating Joe Rogan?
The Chelsey Clinton tweet makes me want to puke. "Committed to delivering science backed information, particularly about vaccines".
The LAST thing they are doing is delivering anything "science backed". And why the hell should we give a shit about what Chelsey Clinton thinks?
All of this, and the fact the half of America just goes along with it, or doesn't pay attention...makes me feel like we're fucked.
That last photo of Peter Hotez in his lab(?) reminds me of Jerry Lewis in the Nutty Professor.
I trust no one who feels the need to put credentials in their twitter account.
Not only is he not winning, he's giving Kennedy more and more attention. It's the BS effect.
To state the obvious. If the Doctor has facts and scientific truth on his side, he should be able to slice and dice ANY non-medical person who he "debates". He would open the eyes of many people. If he DID have science on his side.
So why doesn't he debate then? Simple, Hotez doesn't want to address all the problems with the vaccine and our CV-19 policy. Better to call RFK names, and pull the "I am an expert. Shut up" card.
One of the most frustrating things about 21st century America, is we don't get a free-flow of information anymore. We get top-down propaganda and suppression of opposing views.
I agree with your points professor, but my first thought when I saw that picture of Rogan was "Dr. Evil."
Can't have debates. Can't have speakers on campus with differing views. Can't present those views on TicTok/Facebook, etc, lock up climate/vaccine "deniers".
Dang those right wingers are bad...
Holtz has accused RFK of "spreading conspiracy theories". You know like:
1) Saddam/AQ/WMD
2) Kremlin seized control of the US with blackmail
3) Hunter Biden laptop "Russian disinformation."
4) COVID "lab leak" misinformation.
5) Trump pee-pee tape
h/t Glenn Greenwald. Don't how to imbed tweets.
"9. "Many areas of science really don’t benefit from 'debate.'" What's the use of talking about the substance? This is the presumption that ordinary people can't understand or won't try to understand."
While it is true that "ordinary people" are less well equipped to evaluate competing claims than scientists (and, indeed, many in the public won't even try), that doesn't mean debates are useless. Debate is all we have The onus is on the debaters to defend their position carefully and clearly. Unfortunately, it's also on the public to listen and to think for themselves.
But the elite (for want of a better term) have taken advantage of this problem. With their journalist allies, they have learned to refuse to debate; claiming the science is settled and that only a few cranks hold the position of their opponents. The public at large has no way to know this is not true. This is the standard ploy in climate change, and it works so well there it has been adopted for the covid vaccines.
Covid, however, has impacted so many people directly, and the benefits claimed made have been so obviously overblown (whether it be vaccines, masks, or lockdowns) that I am hopeful the general public may finally wise up to how science works. It is exactly through debate of competing claims that fields advance.
I am currently listening to Richard Fenyman's freshman physics lectures from 1961 and have been struck by how often he makes this point: science must continually question itself. The science is never "settled". For him, understanding that truth was just as important as the facts he was serving up to his students. He was doing more than teaching science, he was attempting to create scientists.
"If any one cometh unto you, and bringeth not this teaching, receive him not into your house, and give him no greeting.
For he that giveth him greeting partaketh in his evil works.
Watch out that you do not lose what we have worked for, but that you may be rewarded fully." - Science
Well, Chelsea is only "deeply troubled." Had she been "profoundly troubled" I'd have to share her concern.
Hotez cannot afford to be in debate with RFKJr. He couldn't even afford to have another appearance on Joe Rogan's podcast, because he would be eviscerated, politely. There is only one possible tactic: Assemble the vast population of sympathetic voices from the Borg to chime in and give the appearance of a quorum, that "debate" is BAD and some thing that is a candidate for President has to remain in the category of "He Who Shall Not Be Named", Voldemort style. Since even simpletons can recognize the 'Voldemort' tactic, the sympathetic response is enhanced, and there will be plenty of people that voice agreement in their head because they recognize it, not because they automatically agree with it.
As you note, RFKJr doesn't disavow vaccines, he objects to the ones with poisonous adjuvants like mercury, and questions the efficacy of the ones using aluminum, because they haven't been proven as safe. I can't find much of anything to object to, with his arguments. I find it very interesting that the opposing side of the debate doesn't want to even state their positions, much less defend them. That is not a sign of integrity, or competence.
This post is flailing. Stop with the language games and the random insults, and actually engage with the reasons why people think Kennedy is a charlatan.
Kennedy argued, without any theory or any evidence, that aluminum in vaccines causes autism. Twenty years after the aluminum was removed, autism rates haven't come down - that's clear evidence that his made-up idea was wrong, but he's still pushing it.
Like a lot of commenters here, Kennedy pushes the idea that there are too many vaccines, too soon. Like the commenters here, if you try to ask what his evidence is, why he thinks there are too many, and why he thinks a different schedule would be better, he has nothing to say. It's a smokescreen; he doesn't like vaccines but can't articulate any real reasons, so he fabricates the idea of too many, too soon just to sow doubt.
So tell us: How do you debate someone who just makes up his own facts out of nothing?
Make no mistake, Hotel is a weathervane and am empty suit. Like Biden, Harris, and Pelosi, he opposed Trump's vaccine when it was politically expedient to do so, and he switched sides when politics demanded. None of that lends any credence to Kennedy, though.
My impression from his tweets is that Hotez is not as knowledgeable as he wants people to believe. He is propped up as an expert by a corrupt system in order to protect that system and he will be unable to defend his position if he is challenged by a highly intelligent, self educated non-expert. He is afraid of being embarrassed and that is his motivation. Also, I note that he refuses to post photo of RFK, Jr. who is actually the person he would be debating. He doesn't want to mention RFK, Jr. because he is liked by many Democrats.
I completely agree that Hotez could set up conditions for the debate and could frame it more to his liking, such as a teacher being challenged by a student, etc., giving himself ample time to explain the science. He is doing Rogan's listening public a disservice as well as by discrediting Rogan. The implication is that no one is smart enough to understand this material. That position is is incredibly insulting. People want more and better information and he is rejecting that request. IMO Hotez comes across as a weaking and a creep.
@Althouse, I really love it when you set up a post that makes it so easy to respond. Many thanks.
He doesn't deny that vaccines exist and have an effect. He's concerned about side effects, inadequate testing, and corruption in the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry. Are you not concerned about these things? If not, I can call you a "denier." See how glib and infuriating that is?
Glib, yes. Infuriating, probably. True? Absolutely.
"How to have better conversations about contentious scientific subjects."
And blindly asserting that “the science is settled” isn’t the way to have any sort of conversation. History is littered with examples of (formerly) settled science that no one believes anymore. The phlogiston theory is long gone, thankfully. However, the “science” of eugenics keeps trying to make a comeback, or so I perceive.
The earth is not the center of the universe. Nor is the sun. Nor are planetary orbits perfectly circular. Newtonian mechanics do not work at very small scales or very high speeds. Will quantum mechanics and the General Theory of Relativity someday be replaced with better theories? Maybe, maybe not. But no competent physicist would say that it’s impossible because “the science is settled.” The way we learn, the way science moves forward is search out ways in which scientific predictions and observed reality are at odds and determine ways to reconcile them, by either adjusting the theory or by discovering ways in which the observations are erroneous.
I would also argue that what Hotez is doing is even worse. Like Anthony Fauci before him, he’s saying that he’s the scientist so shut up.
Refusing to debate, Hotez his performing his sophistication. Are you buying that?
Me neither. I think he’s refusing to debate because he has no answers for Kennedy’s issues. I cannot picture a reasonable person disagreeing with me.
By tweeting, Hotez attracts not only rebuttal — #4, above — but also the kind of lightweight, fawning support that drives fair-minded people like me to scoff.
I’m scoffing too.
1) I think Joe Rogan has a greater audience than Vox
2) Scare quotes should go on the vaccine. The vaccine in question doesn't actually vaccinate anyone. Both Fauci and Biden got Covid after taking multiple rounds of the "vaccine".
3) It seems what the younger generation got out of JK Rowling's "Harry Potter" is not to call Voldemort by his name, which oddly was the exact opposite message I got from JK Rowling. Don't be afraid to name your fear. Identify it directly.
4) Yes, the debate is happening, with or without Dr. Hotez.
5) Speaking of appropriate conversations about science, Jordan Peterson just had Dr. James Lindsay on his podcast. Dr. Lindsay is the guy that got various peer review science journals to publish his made-up scientific papers to prove that these journals were not serious about science.
6) The Vox comment about refusing to debate can be turned around. Dr. Hotez is refusing to debate because the position he is being asked to defend is not legitimate, so why do it?
7) Yep, it is a performance.
8) Vox? Vox is worried about viral content? Nonsense.
9) Ok, this is where I needed to click the Vox story. Is there one science that can possible benefit from not having rigorous debate? Did they give the example of one? It sure isn't the science of medicine or pharmacology. Vox is doing the stupid "scientific consensus". Everytime I hear that concept, I think of the Spanish Inquisition and Galileo. Consensus is bullshit.
10) Just after Vox suggests Dr. Hotez agreed to an alternative. The next paragraph states "It makes sense for a scientist like Hotez not to engage in a public debate on Joe Rogan’s podcast." So much for the alternative... oh wait, Vox wants a distinction between Q&A vs debate. The only distinction would be if Joe Rogan, or anyone else, could only ask questions and have to accept whatever answer is given. Otherwise, a debate is very much a Q&A event.
11) She persists. Has Chelsea Clinton's husband ever made back and returned the money he took from investors and lost? Oh yeah, he had "nothing to say" to the people's who money he lost. The left is not much into talking.
12) Dr. Hotez makes a better "Vernon Dursley" than Richard Griffiths. He seems to come by it more naturally.
I read an article recently, written by a journalist of course, as they all are, about hurricanes and climate change. The article claimed that science has established that hurricanes are increasing in number and strength, and that that is due to global warming. This is a dubious claim. But the journalist included a link to this fact, so I followed it. The source she linked to said no such thing. In fact, it didn't say anything about hurricane numbers one way or the other! But 99% of the people reading that article came away thinking "science" has established that climate change is increasing hurricanes.
We need to develop a more critical populace, and I don't see any way to do that other than debate. At the dawn of the internet, I believed/assumed it would foster a better informed public. Amazingly, it has done the opposite.
Hotez is a fraud, a liar, a moron, and a coward all rolled into one fat sack of shit.
If Hotez really, really, believed he was/is 100% accurate, and that he's backed up by "science," he'd have no hesitation to sport around with Kennedy. That he won't says it all.
Myself, I'd be OK with Hotez, Kennedy, Rogan and Chelsea having a debate in a deep sea submersible designed and constructed by a politically correct and appropriately diverse, equitable, and inclusive team of adventurous explorers.
Great post, I should add.
I don't like this guy but I agree with him. Next you guys will be asking a doctor to debate a homeopath
We're reminded that there will be viral clips taken out of context.
Yes, they've seen how that can be used against you to make people think you're suggesting something wild, like injecting bleach, for instance.
I have not listened to the Rogan podcast with Kennedy yet. I did listen to the one he did with Bari Weiss. Either I misunderstood his earlier stance on vaccines (several years ago) or he is trying to get away from a "vaccines cause autism" and go more for a "we need more research" stance for his campaign.
When he was just talking about the pharmaceutical industry and its involvement in our politics, I thought he had some interesting things to say.
I disagree with you about Rogan's photo at vox. He looks dictatorial and intimidating. The lighting is dark, the shirt is militant. I wouldn't expect them to choose something approachable, even though Rogan has a ton of photos that are charming. Most on the Left will find that this shot reinforces their fear of him.
"Hotez doesn't know how to reach us emotionally."
He reaches me emotionally. I see an unfunny clown with a bowtie and oversized glasses who I would very much like to tell to fuck off.
Hotel has the appearance of a nutter.
You shall not question the leftist mob narrative.
Hotez debating Kennedy puts pressure on Biden to do the same.
I'm sure the pressure to not debate is coming from the highest levels.
The damage done to the American people: economic carnage, children's education, mental health, social decay. The responsibility for all of it falls on the Men Of Science and Power Hungry Politicians who promoted an insane array of policies that have left us weaker as a nation.
One reason I like RFK is he's one of the few speaking the truth of how the elites betrayed this country.
Yes, the leftist bastard did the right thing, refusing to go on a show, because any debater against him could just quote him to himself until the cows came home, demolishing anything the "scientist" says on air with something else he affirmed previously. No petard needed, he'd hoist himself.
Joe plays a good game of "let's you and him fight" for the entertainment of viewers, but the participants are the ones left beaten at the end of the show. Don't try something that you know, going in, will be your defeat. Good choice, Mr. Scientist Guy.
If you haven't already you should check out Molly McPherson. Teaches and consults emergency communications in this fast paced social media environment. Sara McCord is also interesting. I can relate to the discussion, but sometimes it is totally over my head. Both on TT.
This discussion brings to mind Molly McPherson and Sara McCord. PR Communications pros who cover similar issues and topics. I found them on TT. Best one word description - Revealing.
"Many areas of science really don’t benefit from 'debate.'"
As the great Richard Fineman liked to say to his backward students who tried to analogize their way past the conundrums of modern physics, that's not even wrong.
The only area of science that doesn't benefit from debate, with or without scare quotes, is pseudoscience. Every published paper is either evidence or rebuttal. Every conference is, or should be, an open debate. Hotez's smug refusal to debate is a tacit admission that the entire COVID pharmacology is a fraud.
I don't know who if anyone planned it this way, but I suspect I am not the only one who had never heard of this guy and now I know about him. As the face of opponents of vaccine denier RFK. (It's fine as a catch-all label, like election denier Trump). Whom I am still nevertheless planning to vote for over Biden in the Dem primary. Who I think has done better than I expected as president after I voted against him in the 2020 California primary. Which gave me shitty choices that look to be better than my shittier choices in 2024.
I think that one of the reasons he runs from debate is that the government and the medical establishment told us - promised us - that the covid vaccines would prevent infection and the hard, cold, and confirmed fact is that they did not.
That gives the debater on the con side an advantage that simply cannot be overcome.
There are no areas of science that do not benefit from debate. There are areas of "Science" that do not benefit from debate because too many people treat "Science" the same as "Religion" and base their debate on faith. I can agree that debating "Science" or "Religion" is almost always non-productive, because they are based on faith. But science.....science needs debate. and doubt. The problem is that almost no one can follow the math anymore, so their trust in science is based on faith and faith alone. At one time, atoms were the building blocks of the universe. When I was in school, it was protons, neutrons, electrons and photons. There was no debate. That was it. Subatomic particles now include 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 5 bosons.....and there is debate if that is all.
"9. "Many areas of science really don’t benefit from 'debate.'"
I think they mean "the science". Not "science".
Blogger Original Mike said...
"9. "Many areas of science really don’t benefit from 'debate.'" What's the use of talking about the substance? This is the presumption that ordinary people can't understand or won't try to understand."
While it is true that "ordinary people" are less well equipped to evaluate competing claims than scientists (and, indeed, many in the public won't even try), that doesn't mean debates are useless. Debate is all we have The onus is on the debaters to defend their position carefully and clearly. Unfortunately, it's also on the public to listen and to think for themselves.
Maybe relevant, In the UK (and maybe still) on TV there was a show called Mastermind. The premise was that a specialist on a subject was asked questions on that subject. The subjects were extremely narrow, such that there was a zero chance that there was anyone else in the world could answer those questions. The subjects were of the order "Austrian tea cup designs from 1908 to 1909"
Even if it's a subject that one knows nothing about, an expert in a subject would have no problems demonstrating competency. If presented correctly, the 'lay person' would have only minimal trouble understanding a concept, even if they could not relay such a concept to others.
There's a lot of people who need to read this.
Cargo Cult Science
by RICHARD P. FEYNMAN
Some remarks on science, pseudoscience, and learning how to not fool yourself. Caltech’s 1974 commencement address.
https://calteches.library.caltech.edu/51/2/CargoCult.htm
John lgb Henry
"Fair-minded people like me" -- said every person ever.
"Hotez doesn't know how to reach us emotionally." Precisely. Hotez is not running for office. He's not a TV talking head. He "debates" in scholarly journals as a profession. Which is the appropriate way for scientific debates to be had: in writing (in journals or in newsletters if there is journal gatekeeping, which there is), with citations that allow people to assess evidence based you're citing for your claims. Like, "wifi breaks down the blood brain barrier" and "cell phones cause cancer" and "vaccines cause autism". Joe Rogan's show is the exact opposite.
And why are fair-minded people like yourself fetishizing this face to face cage match? I would think you're fully capable of looking up RFK's evidence for his claims about MMR and all the other childhood vaccines, 5G, wifi cancer, cell phone cancer, Bill Gates: chip implants, and all his other standard tin-hat conspiracy theory bullshit by yourself. You could do just a little bit of research and apply a little cruel neutrality to the contention that RFK is just "concerned about side effects, inadequate testing, and corruption in the relationship between government and the pharmaceutical industry" -- most especially because you're "drawn to him".
Blogger The Crack Emcee said...
I don't like this guy but I agree with him. Next you guys will be asking a doctor to debate a homeopath
I assume that Crack does not know the author of the "Pure Food and Drug Act."
Hint. He was a homeopath.
May be time to mention Jan schon
.The Schön scandal concerns German physicist Jan Hendrik Schön (born August 1970 in Verden an der Aller, Lower Saxony, Germany) who briefly rose to prominence after a series of apparent breakthroughs with semiconductors that were later discovered to be fraudulent.[1]
Before he was exposed, Schön had received the Otto-Klung-Weberbank Prize for Physics and the Braunschweig Prize in 2001, as well as the Outstanding Young Investigator Award of the Materials Research Society in 2002, all of which were later rescinded.[2]
And for those who put their faith (and that's all it is) in "published peer reviewed articles in reputable journals:
In 2001, he was listed as an author on an average of one newly published research paper every eight days.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sch%C3%B6n_scandal
All since retracted.
He may may hold some kind of record for most retracted publications (dozens)
Hell, I've even published peer reviewed articles in reputable journals. Eg; journal of pharmaceutical engineering, journal of packaging technology, journal of package engineering.
I always think of Marx whenever I mention those.
John lgb Henry
Chelsea lightweight? She was pre-med at Stanford and her parents are really smart.
Fine. No debate. Have them battle this out MMA style with Joe providing commentary.
Turley discussed him in 2021
"Physicist Richard P. Feynman once said “Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.” Feynman’s statement captures how science depends upon constant questioning and challenging of assumptions. Yet, what is healthy debate to some is criminal dissent to others. Dr. Peter Hotez, a professor of pediatrics and molecular virology at Baylor College of Medicine is calling for federal hate-crime protections to be extended to cover criticism of Dr. Anthony Fauci and other scientists. The frequent MSNBC and CNN guest wants Congress to expand hate crimes to “scientists currently targeted by far-right extremism in the United States.”
In a July 28 paper in Plos Biology titled “Mounting Antiscience Aggression in the United States,” Hotez encourages Congress to focus on the “band of ultraconservative members of the US Congress and other public officials with far-right leanings are waging organized and seemingly well-coordinated attacks against prominent US biological scientists.”
Hotez insists that it is not enough to support such science but to criminalize attacks on their research. This suggestion is just one of a number of ideas briefly put forward to support scientists but it is the most chilling. Referring Nazi and fascist movements in history, Hotez argues that good science requires cracking down on the right. He concludes:
“As Nobel Laureate and Holocaust survivor Elie Wiesel once pointed out, neutrality or silence favors the oppressor. We must take steps to protect our scientists and take swift and positive action to counter the growing wave of far-right antiscience aggression. Not taking action is a tacit endorsement, and a guarantee that the integrity and productivity of science in the United States will be eroded or lose ground.”
<
What is most striking about the article of Hotez is its lack of analytical balance. He rages against the right without even acknowledging how social media companies have already enforced a massive censorship program that bars even reporting the results of public clinical trials or repeating CDC positions on vaccinations. For a year, Big Tech has been censoring those who wanted to discuss the origins of pandemic and those who suggested the lab theory were attacked as right-wing conspiracy theorists. It was not until Biden admitted that the virus may have originated in the Wuhan lab that social media suddenly changed its position. Facebook only recently announced that people on its platform will be able to discuss the origins of Covid-19 after censoring any such discussion."
https://jonathanturley.org/2021/08/04/baylor-professor-calls-for-prosecution-of-criticism-of-fauci-and-other-scientists-as-hate-crime/
Hotez screed:
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369
Tom T said:
>> Kennedy argued, without any theory or any evidence, that aluminum in vaccines causes autism. Twenty years after the aluminum was removed, autism rates haven't come down - that's clear evidence that his made-up idea was wrong, but he's still pushing it. <<
Similarly, late in the podcast with Rogan, JFK Jr. said "25 percent of Americans are hungry." A real debater would hammer him mercilessly on this ridiculous claim and destroy his credibility. "OK JFK Jr., lets get in a car right now and lets see how many of these 85 million hungry Americans you can find."
Hotez sounds like the wrong person to do this, though.
Quaestor, science is debate. But A DEBATE is a particular, rhetoric oriented format we generally reserve for politicians and the most annoying college students. In scientific debates -- on the pages of journals, generally -- there are professional consequences of making shit up, a norm that obviously does not apply to rhetorical debates.
“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him.”
We could debate that.
How? What part of that two-part statement is debatable?
I mean, I don't feel drawn to RFKJr, but it's inarguable that many people do. Is it that he's not a real person? I suppose you could say you're drinking "real" as in "authentic beer-swilling Person of the People," like, you know, Elizabeth Warren...
I remarked to my wife three years ago that the "experts" did not know what to do with Covid-19 so they gave us masks, social distancing, shutdowns and fake vaccines. All that hullabaloo did nothing to a virus that was generally non-lethal and would evolve into even less malignant forms.
They had to do something because they are "experts". That they cannot defend their actions today should be no surprise. In reality, even true experts are just as fallible as your car mechanic who makes mistakes every day.
The difference is that your car mechanic is far more likely to take responsibility for his mistakes that our bureaucrat "experts" like Hotez.
Vox always has the best takes. I'm going to go with their opinion.
"his name: Robert F. Kennedy Jr. He's a real person, and many of us feel drawn to him."
Nostalgia is a powerful drug. Clouds the mind.
"I don't like this guy but I agree with him. Next you guys will be asking a doctor to debate a homeopath"
Nope.
No one debates whether F=ma anymore.
The trouble is, the soft sciences have a habit of thinking everything is just like F=ma if they say it is.
Stop with the language games and the random insults, and actually engage with the reasons why people think Kennedy is a charlatan.
No, YOU engage in the reasons why there should be a debate. Again, if Kennedy is a "Charlatan" than a Doctor should be able to give the reasons why. In public. In an debate. In an exchange of views.
Saying, "We can't debate "X-ers", they're bad" is just another way to say "We're right. Case closed. Shut up". Smart Honest people are willing to debate anyone.
Aggie @ 10:28: "...[RFK Jr] he objects to the [vaccines] with poisonous adjuvants like mercury,..."
For the record, I think "mercury" (thimerosal, actually) was once used as a preservative for vaccines packaged in multi-dose vials. This practice stopped years and years ago (well, at least in the West; I can't speak for the whole planet, obviously). So if RFK Jr is still beating on that drum, he's wasting his time and credibility on a non-issue. Which is a shame, because he obviously has credibility and insofar as he directs it at real issues --like whether mRNA works worth a damn and whether we're being told what's really going on-- it would be a good thing.
IMHO.
Aggie @ 10:28: "...[RFK Jr] he objects to the [vaccines] with poisonous adjuvants like mercury,..."
For the record, I think "mercury" (thimerosal, actually) was once used as a preservative for vaccines packaged in multi-dose vials. This practice stopped years and years ago (well, at least in the West; I can't speak for the whole planet, obviously). So if RFK Jr is still beating on that drum, he's wasting his time and credibility on a non-issue. Which is a shame, because he obviously has credibility and insofar as he directs it at real issues --like whether mRNA works worth a damn and whether we're being told what's really going on-- it would be a good thing.
IMHO.
Aggie @ 10:28: "...[RFK Jr] he objects to the [vaccines] with poisonous adjuvants like mercury,..."
For the record, I think "mercury" (thimerosal, actually) was once used as a preservative for vaccines packaged in multi-dose vials. This practice stopped years and years ago (well, at least in the West; I can't speak for the whole planet, obviously). So if RFK Jr is still beating on that drum, he's wasting his time and credibility on a non-issue. Which is a shame, because he obviously has credibility and insofar as he directs it at real issues --like whether mRNA works worth a damn and whether we're being told what's really going on-- it would be a good thing.
IMHO.
Mark said:
"Much like Elon Musk's offer to fight Zuckerberg (which was accepted) its all posturing on both sides.
RFKjr knew there was going to be no debate, that's why he offered to."
Who are you, an incarnation of the Great Kreskin?
HOW DO YOU KNOW RFKjr's thoughts and motives?
You do this all the time here.
Hotez can't debate because debate leads inexorably to an unacceptable outcome: that there are limits to the safety and efficacy of vaccines, including the Covid vaccines. If that's true, vaccine mandates are dictatorial or criminal or both. The establishment cannot accept any path that undermines Safe and Effective.
Tim said: When I was in school, it was protons, neutrons, electrons and photons. There was no debate. That was it. Subatomic particles now include 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 5 bosons.....and there is debate if that is all.
You can't be serious. Bohr, Einstein, Gell-Mann, Feynmann, Heisenburg,Fermi, Dirac and many others spent their 20th century lives lives debating what atoms were made of, and how their various componenets interacted.. I've seen their opposing views in the news all the time since at least the 1960's, and their confirmed discoveries were in physics textbooks from the 1950's on.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model#Historical_background
p.s. homeopathy is mystical ju-ju and nothing more. It posits spooky interactions and "essences" of atoms no physicist has ever observed. But if you think dissolving aspirin tablets into a swimming pool conveys aspirin properties to the pool water, you might just be a "Sciencey" leftist.
There is no point for an Olympic Greco-Roman wrestler to waste his time with some fools from the WWE.
Kennedy also denies that HIV causes AIDS. Any reason why that won’t be subjected to a debate referred by a meathead taking mushrooms like Joe Rogaine?
Most people barely pass high school science courses. Most people don’t take them in college, let alone go on to major in a related field. Those who go on to medical school are rarer still. People believe what they want to believe. Your position implies that most people are rational and educable. In reality they are neither, especially in the US. Even economics has developed an entire field devoted to researching the prevalence of irrational choices in just their consumption patterns.
Anyone who wants to discuss or criticize or embrace the facts of what Kennedy attacks already has them available to review. The only reason to remove the dry filter of the written record on that knowledge would be a preference for drama and spectacle of the kind of rhetoric he would employ against a non-lawyer in real time. That’s not the preference of anyone favoring factual accuracy and sound reasoning.
The Greeks knew that rhetoric distorts. They knew that politicians (like Bobby) are prone to misleading with demagoguery. They knew the difference between pathos, logos and ethos. Spotify and its broadcasters do not; they only want audience.
Why not reopen “debates” on 1930s German racial science?
As the Auschwitz Memorial already pointed out when Kennedy compared his self-righteous anti-vaccine efforts with the struggles of Anne Frank, his distortions are “a sad symptom of moral and intellectual decay.”
There is no decent reason to feed it.
This is how I knew Global Warming was bullshit, way back in 2000.
At the time, there was a lot of conspiracy theories that man didn't go to the moon.
Scientists fell all over each other to explain the science and how the detractors got their points wrong.
At the same time, Bjorn Lomberg said, "Well, global warming probably exists, but I don't think we should do anything about it."
"Scientific America" banned him.
There has been no thimerosol in vaccines for decades. Autism diagnosis rates continue to increase. Anyone even mentioning the minute quantities of the less toxic form of mercury known as thimerosol in a few vaccines decades ago at this point is not worth addressing.
Andrew Wakefield, the father of the modern anti-vaccine movement, was stripped of his medical license for fabricating data in his original fake autism-vaccine paper. The other authors all recanted - he did not. It was also revealed that he was coming out with his own version of a vaccine to compete with the MMR standard whose safety he attacked in that “study.” (You can’t really call it a study since the Lancet retracted it). The better word for it is “hoax,” and one of the most successful (or influential) hoaxes in modern medicine, at that.
Kennedy is trying to position himself as a uniter of a combined and unrealized anti-corporatist and anti-government movement. In doing so, he is pushing the biggest hoax in medicine - one started by a guy who wanted his own piece of the action by standing to profit off of a vaccine he invested in as an alternative to the same MMR vaccine he fraudulently alleged as unsafe. Kennedy stands behind a wanna-be vaccine profiteer in fraudulently attacking the competing vaccines that were made by “big pharma.”
The only kind of a mind that wouldn’t recognize that hypocrisy as too corrupt to take seriously is one too corrupted in itself to discern what’s even worth saying to an honest audience, anywhere.
@Owen, hold up, there. RFKJr is not 'still beating the drum' on thimerosal, you're slipping your clutch. I heard this on the Rogan podcast. What you relate is more or less exactly what he said. RFKJr was laying out his position and his reasoning, from the start, on his questioning of vaccine safety, and relating how he caught a pharmaceutical executive in a lie about adjuvants. I've never listened to him before, and I found this to be time pretty well spent. His points about the unseemly, facilitated, rancid symbiosis between pharmaceutical companies and lawmakers - or, certain lawmakers - to be disgraceful. I came to that conclusion myself, about halfway through the COVID Gold Rush.
I do note that the overwhelming majority of RFKJr critics seem to be cherry-picking their debating points (not saying this is you) so that they can twist them a little and show RFKJr as a crank. It's precisely the same playbook that was deployed unfairly, time after time, on Trump. I didn't think much of it then, either, or of the people that use the tactic.
I didn't hear a crank on that podcast, I saw someone that is rational and reasoned. It's a scary thing, for other politicians, at least those of a certain stripe, to be challenged to explain the supposed merits of their own disastrous policies, rather than receiving a free pass and a tongue bath from a media weasel. I think he's a worthwhile candidate.
6. Unlike nearly all of Hotez's readers, I will click through and read the Vox article. First, we're told that to debate is to concede that there is a legitimate ground for debate. I'll state the corollary: To refuse to debate is to assert that the there is no legitimate ground for debate. But do we believe that?
Unless you're a religious zealot fruitcake who deludedly believes that the one True all knowing and Almighty God has told you the One True Way to be, then it's open to debate
7. Second, we're told that debates are "performative," and so debaters are going to need to maintain their position and cannot approach the event with an open mind. Yes, you'll be performing the non-openness of your mind, but Hotez is already doing that with this tweet. Why not do it more boldly and substantively by standing up to Kennedy?
Debate is a spectator sport. It's not about changing the minds of the debaters, it's about changing the minds of the audience.
So, unless even you believe that your position is such garbage that you can't possibly convince an honest audience that you're right, you participate in the debate to educate the listeners
The bow tie is a clue.
Owen said:
So if RFK Jr is still beating on that drum [mercury], he's wasting his time and credibility on a non-issue.
No, RFKJR is talking about aluminum.
The Rogan interview with RFKJR is on Spotify. You might want to listen to it.
scientific skills and debating skills are two different skill sets.
A lot of the stuff now being written/debated ignores the lethality of the original Covid 2 strain. They also take things out of context, like side effects (300 times the number of x problems, ignoring that X problems are rare).
Finally often flawed studies are extrapolated as the whole or ignores history (are autistic children, who often have a very low IQ, more common now or just more visible because in 1950s they were put into institutions, not kept at home and disrupting the family).
That said, the experts and bullying overdid it.
The end result of the failure to admit problem (dare I say coverup) causes anger and distrust.
The Dengue vaccine here in the Philippines probably saved lives, but killed half a dozen kids. As a result, a bunch of kids died of measles and other routine childhood diseases that could have been prevented if their parents had let them have the shot.
The best longform comment I ever wrote just got wiped by Blogger as I was previewing.
Y'all's loss.
Tim, I was backing you up but I guess you'll have to take my word for it.
it takes 3-4 years to develop a vaccine
it takes 1 shot to protect yourself
it takes 2 shots to protect yourself
it takes 3 shots to protect yourself
this guy would lose an argument with himself.
and appaerntly hes the go to guy
we are phucked
The vaccines were completely ineffective and may have done more harm. Pfizer executives should be prosecuted.
In order to effectively "debate" RFKjr, one must become him. He has been subsumed and researching his position for decades. He knows every counter argument, and every point of vulnerability (can I say "Chink in the armor?") No one cam do that.
That being said, I do not know which side is correct. RFKjr has some effective argument in the JRE interview. I have a sneaky suspicion that some bad things that happened to me may be due to the COVID vaccine, but I cannot prove it.
Who is right? Who is wrong?
Hey puddin! Lab leak or pangolin?
When I was in school, it was protons, neutrons, electrons and photons. There was no debate. That was it. Subatomic particles now include 6 quarks, 6 leptons and 5 bosons… and there is debate if that is all.
As pointed out up-thread, that's nonsense in terms of how physics developed during those years. I'll add that you must have been in school a very long time ago, because (Physics Nobel Prize winning) physicist Enrico Fermi expressed the following frustration he was having way back in the 1950's:
“If I could remember all those names [referring to the growing population of subatomic particles], I would have been a botanist.”
One might note that the new quarks subsequently added (during the 60's) to the physics subatomic particle inventory actually had the effect of dramatically simplifying and reducing the overall population of subatomic particles that people like Fermi otherwise would have had to learn.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Feynman
So if RFK Jr is still beating on that drum [mercury], he's wasting his time and credibility on a non-issue.
No, RFKJR is talking about aluminum.
Oh, I see. His defenders consider this “progress.”
Maybe next he can move on to talk about the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide in the vaccines. I mean, technically if might have the same PFAS in it that’s contaminating other water supplies.
What has he officially recanted about Wakefield, thimerosol and whether HIV causes AIDS? A guy who will never admit when he’s clearly wrong is not worth taking seriously just because he quietly shifts his conspiracies to a different flavor of speculation.
"Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts."
Feynman
Anti-science is a belief in the superstitions of ignoramuses.
Can’t figure out why they never got us to the moon. Or discovered penicillin. What a mystery.
The vaccines were completely ineffective and may have done more harm. Pfizer executives should be prosecuted.
Excellent suggestion! Maybe once you rid due process of requiring “findings of fact” for a grand jury to find reason to indict then charges will be brought. Superstitions and baseless conspiracies should definitely be given equal standing to facts in our courts of law.
Butkus51 said...
it takes 3-4 years to develop a vaccine
it takes 1 shot to protect yourself
it takes 2 shots to protect yourself
it takes 3 shots to protect yourself
---
Also, we didn't have time to teast re transmission because "Speed of Science!"
Also, use known to be severely underreported VAERS while deeming any harms before receiving 2nd dose "unvaccinated".
Also, use PCR test even inventor said was not for diagnosis.
Also try to hide Pfizer data for about the same duration as average lifespan, similar to Kennedy assasination files, by chance.
puddin' approved!!
We have emails from Pfizer and J&J where executives admitted they were ineffective puddinhead
Gator,
And it's easy to forget all the admissions Scarf Lady put out in her book.
Scott Atlas says she ran policy more than Da Fauch, refused to look at any data Atlas presented.
john henry said...
"... Hotez has a chance to donate a million $ to charity."
That isn't a good argument. The people putting up the money could just give it to charity. Why wait? They have the money. Donate it. Even let the Dr choose his charity without having to debate. (An equally bad argument)
Recent study from the Clevland Clinic, puddin. Those up to date in the covid vaccinations (like me) are at greater risk of catching covid.
Here's an easier to read lay person article on the paper.
Science is so darn messy.
Science is so darn messy.
I guess. Certainly it’s much messier for people who rely on preprints, can’t differentiate between an observational study and an RCT, believe four confounders (including age and gender) are sufficient for ruling out other explanations and feel that avoiding infection (whether symptomatic or not - they don’t say) is a more important outcome than preventing death and disability.
But at least that website you linked to asked about being “owed” an apology and has a very uneducable readership, if the comments section is any indication. Sounds like they have a very political and emotional axe to grind, too. I went on their “about us” page and see that they are two self-described “journalists,” one political philosopher and a sociologist. Are they just angry about being inadequate in their contributions to virology, medicine and public health? Apparently they’ve spent the last 3 years nursing grudges over quarantines and trying to make it sound nefarious that some researchers - surprise, surprise! - are actually able to make a living. How suspicious!
Nancy Reyes,
Except it wasn't all that lethal. See: Diamond Princess.
Lab leak or pangolin, puddin?
Lab leak or pangolin- ?
Oh, I see what you’re up to, now.
Litmus test or non-agenda oriented positioning?
Anyway, are you saying that pandemics don’t happen naturally? Was the 1918 influenza outbreak sent to us by government scientists? How about the medieval plague?
Pangolin. I knew it.
This would be a more credible thread if anyone noticed the many times RFK Jr. has appeared on shows and refused to answer any substantive policy questions, only talk about how inspirational and unifying he is by avoiding "issues."
If your contention is to vouch for the hygiene and zoonotic disease-prevention safety of eating bats at wet markets in Chinese provinces, just say so.
But other than that you certainly have a sneaky way of going about mainstreaming right-wing conspiracies.
Post a Comment