Science should continue to question its conclusions and view – which is to say, scientists should do so, since ‘science’ isn’t really a thing.
But what is the right thing to do when one expert, out of tens of thousands of experts, is plainly and simply lying about the science, and lying in a way that will cause the death of people? That’s a serious question: what is the right course of action?
Yes, this is a serious question.
Some would argue that the person disagreeing with the “accepted” position should be silenced (as the Wuhan police did to the first doctor who raised an alarm about Covid), prosecuted as a criminal, or made to disappear (as still happens in some countries).
Others would argue that a diversity of opinions is valuable and false information should be refuted with evidence.
I think the answer to your serious question depends on whether one believes that people have a right to form their own opinions or whether they must be told what to do and obey.
Some would point out that this is an evasion of the actual issues under discussion.
Great – you’re now getting close to the starting point of my question. After the false information has been refuted with evidence – which is the case here – what should happen then?
Sure, there’s a real issue about whether social media companies should muzzle those who are spreading false information about a deadly pandemic. That’s a difficult question since it requires balancing competing goods. But I think you’re evading your own responsibility here. We’re not dealing here with some abstract discussion about scientists arguing over complex, technical issues. What we have is you promoting someone presenting a mixture of cherry-picked data and outright fabrication. Since his claims represent the position of perhaps 0.1% of the world’s experts (at best), and since if he’s wrong the consequences will be deadly, what do you think your responsibility is to investigate his claims before promoting them? Have you watched the video refutation? Have you gone and looked up all of the studies on, say, natural immunity vs vaccines? Or on HCQ? Or anything else?
Bottom line: Malone is spouting complete hogwash that’s getting people killed. You’re helping him. That’s a bad thing.
I think those people would be incorrect
Could you give an example of the complete hogwash that he has spouted?
I use the “colloquial you” as is commonly done in casual speak. Are you not familiar with it?
Not at all. Consumers must be protected on a variety of fronts.
I am familiar with it, and I was not aware that the FDA prohibits casual speech of individuals.
Of hogwash? See the refutation video – there were plenty in there. Endorsing an HIV-denialist. Suggesting that HCQ works against covid. Claiming evidence for more adverse vaccination events in those who have been infected previously.
Could you give an example of one of his claims that isn’t hogwash?
I hope that works better this time than it did for me, but don’t hold your breath:
Thank you, Steve.
Yes, that his background, training, patents, and other factors reveal that few, if any, people are more qualified to speak on this topic.
…um.
I do indeed, my mother and that’s how I alighted here but my siblings and I have given up because this Christian woman refuses to listen to anything. I am done trying to convince evangelicals of anything. I wish them well with their vaccine theories.
I’m sorry for that william. Very wise on being done trying to convince evangelicals of anything. And it’s not just evangelicals. All one can do here is plant flags.
To be fair, there is a whole different level of discourse on here which has surprised me in terms of openness. I opted for a mystery religion approach based upon the ideas in Fear and Trembling.
I have been posting a lot here:
It’s hard to hear for some but this fellow simply devours the Bible as history without being rude or anything except just the facts. It appears that Exodus was written as late as 250 BC with the same sort of dual authorship as most other places in the O.T. There was no Exodus or Moses or Josephy or dual seven year famines. These ideas all had to do with how the priestly caste wanted to set up Judaism post-exile.
I never said that it did.
One-line comments are not allowed so here’s another line.
You are assuming fundamentalists and evangelicals have the intellectual capacity to weigh different competing data. I disagree. If you look at the skeptics posts on Reddit, they are riddled with racism and hate; people who don’t understand the VERS system and people who are incredibly ornery, many of them of Scots-Irish descent. I want them fighting for me in a war but making policy? Eh. No.
That is not true. Much of what he talks about is epidemiology, which he has no expertise in. In any case, can you give any examples of his claims about covid vaccines that aren’t hogwash? His claims about his credentials may be a trifle exaggerated, but they’re not what he’s getting into trouble for. Which of his claims have you investigated?
Well, Steve, it appears we will not come to a point of agreement.
Thank you for your input, William1.
I do think that there are many intelligent people among fundamentalists and evangelicals, and I also think that there are many intelligent people of Scots-Irish descent.
We should agree to disagree on that.
You’re right. It seems impossible to blame one group of this–humans have a deep need to be distrustful of some things, or insecure, it seems. @beaglelady has posted on nonreligious vaccine denials with yoga deep breathing and health shakes that protect against Covid without a vaccine, and BBC notes people in most religions do the same.
Realizing it’s not a given group, but a human tendency, helps us be aware of our own potential blind spots.
Covid-19 vaccines and the danger of religious misinformation - BBC News
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.