If you have friends who are conspiracy theorists/hate masks/vaccines...

[Campfirewood]

I really recommend the Royal Institution Christmas lectures from the BBC... I've really enjoyed (my geek-ery coming out here) learning about why the coronavirus is so successful, why masks work, how we test (why is a PCR more sensitive than LFT) and then how vaccines work. There are over 3 hours of info/tests/experiments but it's really interesting. Including the professor who helped create the AZ Vaccine, Katie Ewer, (bit of a girl crush on her).

As someone who is generally nervous about vaccines (but I've had them all, whilst scared!) it really helped. They are very intelligent people, who cumulatively, have studied their fields for hundreds of years telling me why it's just science and, makes sense has really helped.

Anyway, they're here...

www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episodes/b00pmbqq/royal-institution-christmas-lectures

Yes I think most of the contrary scientists I read are ok with vaccines although I can think of one who isn't. He isn't an epidemiologist though, he is a cardiologist.

You are right it's more about lockdown and masks I see the scientists disagree on.

@jewel1968

How do you spot the crank scientists though. As I said I intuitively align with the mainstream scientists but when I read and hear the outliers I can see why they are persuasive. They sound knowledgeable and have impressive qualifications etc....

It's incredibly difficult I agree.

If you delve a little bit you can immediately see a trend - most are not qualified to be talking about the things they claim to be experts on.

Someone who is genuinely qualified to disagree with the "mainstream" needs to have a relevant PhD, solid research portfolio which generally includes being affiliated with a institution where they have built up a network of peers & mentees. Typically these people will have 50+ relevant publications.

Van Bossche is a good example (he doesn't recommend vaccination for the general public & claims it has been a huge mistake). In reality, he got his PhD in the 70s in a lab science discipline, has a single publication from then, and has not been working as a research scientist since. Despite this, he has gained a huge following and is often quoted on here.

Peter McCullough is another notable example - a cardiologist who is fairly well known in his own field and has published a great deal in this area. Despite this, he is not an epidemioloigist and does not the have expertise to be making the claims he does regarding vaccination. This is evidenced in his most recent retracted reserch publication with one other co-author (also a red flag) which uses incredibly flawed metholodology to claim a high rate of cardiac complications from vaccination to try and scare people from being vaccinated.

Typically their views do not exist alone - as well as being anti-vaccination they tend to also peddle false claims about masks, coronavirus itself, and suppression policies like lockdowns, testing & ventiliation. And the most problematic thing - their claims are not backed by robust evidence, typically are incorrectly referenced and no input from relevant experts.

But obviously the average person shouldn't be expected to do this amount of digging. This is why I'd suggest that if the vast majority of experts recommend something, I'm not sure why you'd listen to the couple of outliers.

@jewel1968

Yes I think most of the contrary scientists I read are ok with vaccines although I can think of one who isn't. He isn't an epidemiologist though, he is a cardiologist.

You are right it's more about lockdown and masks I see the scientists disagree on.

Peter McCollough I presume?

Posted about him above. He is one of the worst peddlers of misinformation including pushing drugs for which there is no robust evidence including ivermectin & HCQ.

I know a few it’s not just Vaccine deniers or Conspiracy theories their view of life is difficult, awkward about everything. Their own opinion is correct and everyone else is trying to do them down.

Scientific language being hard to understand is such a problem that I actually knew someone whose job it was to run courses on how scientists could better communicate with non-scientists.

It's an old trope that probably isn't 100% true, but if you're very gifted in science then you may not be especially gifted at language and communication. Although probably the most important part is just that we tend to forget to ourselves what is jargon and what is everyday language, when it is all everyday to us.

No, not Peter but same argument as Peter. I guess they are mates.

I do think as a population we are not very scientific or logical in our thinking. The pandemic has really highlighted that

@BertieBotts

Scientific language being hard to understand is such a problem that I actually knew someone whose job it was to run courses on how scientists could better communicate with non-scientists.

It's an old trope that probably isn't 100% true, but if you're very gifted in science then you may not be especially gifted at language and communication. Although probably the most important part is just that we tend to forget to ourselves what is jargon and what is everyday language, when it is all everyday to us.

I can think of a couple of people who definitely fit this stereotype, but in reality, most excellent scientists are good at communcating their work to a variety of audiences.

If you genuinely understand something and know the literature inside & out you become pretty good at explaining it to the average person. These people have had decades of chatting about their work to non-scientist family members and anyone else who asks what they do.

I enjoyed those lectures, although they didn't actually tell me a great deal more than I had already found out beforehand. But as others have pointed out, any conspiracy theorist I know will just bleat "MSM' or "Big Pharma" if I suggested they watch the programmes. I am not even telling the ones I know that I have had Covid despite being fully boosted. They see every breakthrough case as proof the vaccines are worthless, and conveniently ignore the fact that deaths and ICU admissions are no longer in lockstep with cases now that the vast majority of us are vaccinated.

@Youarefakenews

If you wish to be taken seriously when talking about vaccines, either pro or anti, you should of course read and listen to the information being given out by Mr Van Tam in these lectures. However to come to a balanced view, you should also read and listen to evidence that does not support Mr Van Tam and the Goverment response.

I don't think calling people conspiracy theorists etc just because they have looked at the evidence and came to different conclusions.

He isn't "Mr Van Tam".

He is Sir Jonathan Stafford Nguyen-Van-Tam MBE FRCPath FRSB FMedSci

What are your credentials?

Youarefakenews you are falling for the fallacy that opposing viewpoints should be given equal credibility even when the weight of research and evidence is with one viewpoint rather than another.

'Balance' means including this weighting, not just lending equal credence willy-nilly. So if 90% of qualified scientists say one thing about COVID whilst 10% say the opposite thing, and both have presented peer reviewed and well designed data (hint: the deniers tend not to have done this), then on the balance of probability it is still the case that the 90% are correct.

Thank you OP. I would love to share these lectures with my DP, but he refuses to watch or listen to anything on mainstream media anymore, as he 'knows' it's all lies and propaganda. (His newfound role as the font of all knowledge has been fed to him by conspiracy theorists via YouTube). 😢

Isn't the whole point about science to question stuff as per Karl Popper?

I am vaxxed but I enjoyed watching the Joe Rogan interviews with Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCulloch (both proper scientists/doctors) to get a different perspective. I will also watch the BBC show. Always good to hear different viewpoints rather than blindly accepting one narrative as the absolute truth.

And lets not forget that things change. Pfizer were claiming that their vaccines were 100% effective in early 2021 and Astra Zeneca was rolled out as being safe before it was stopped due to safety concerns (blood clots and a few deaths). Always important to do due diligence especially with relation to your health and body autonomy and make an informed decision.

I am vaxxed but I enjoyed watching the Joe Rogan interviews with Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCulloch (both proper scientists/doctors) to get a different perspective. I will also watch the BBC show. Always good to hear different viewpoints rather than blindly accepting one narrative as the absolute truth.

@soredust

It is always good to get a different perspective but you will not get an unbiased or accurate one from Malone or McCullough.

They have both continually made claims not backed up by any kind of evidence throughout the pandemic. Their interview a couple of days ao was no exception.

Malone's favourite false claims - that he "invented RNA and DNA vaccines" has persuaded a lot of people to turn a blind eye to that fact he peddles nonsense.

And is enjoyed the right word given that they are claiming vaccination has been a huge mistake and we will all suffer terrible consequences...? And that everyone bar their followers is undergoing "mass formation psychosis", whatever that may be?

@ollyollyoxenfree

I am vaxxed but I enjoyed watching the Joe Rogan interviews with Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCulloch (both proper scientists/doctors) to get a different perspective. I will also watch the BBC show. Always good to hear different viewpoints rather than blindly accepting one narrative as the absolute truth.

@soredust

It is always good to get a different perspective but you will not get an unbiased or accurate one from Malone or McCullough.

They have both continually made claims not backed up by any kind of evidence throughout the pandemic. Their interview a couple of days ao was no exception.

Malone's favourite false claims - that he "invented RNA and DNA vaccines" has persuaded a lot of people to turn a blind eye to that fact he peddles nonsense.

Well, I am not going to get an unbiased perspective from the BBC either? They have been implicated in just as much biased reporting over the years and on the other side the Malone and McCullouch will claim they are right and everyone else is wrong. Both sides are intransigent in my opinion.

And when it comes to masks I have read so many different scientific papers, some saying masks work, others saying masks are only minimally effective or don't work at all. I'm not prepared to put all my eggs in one basket though and will remain open to all points of view and read from both sides.

I also follow Laura Dodsworth who has done intensive research and published a very well informed book about the pandemic ("A State of Fear"). I didn't find her rabid or conspiratorial, she seems to address some of the genuine concerns quite effectively in my opinion.

@soredust

The BBC (and any other media outlet) is not the same as direct reporting from those claiming to be experts

I fully expect the media to report science poorly and have an agenda, it's why I'd recommend going to multiple sources and tracking down the scientists original comments if you're interested.

The BBC getting things wrong is very different from Malone & McCullough deliberating peddling misinformation about COVID, vaccines, policies and treatments.

And when it comes to masks I have read so many different scientific papers, some saying masks work, others saying masks are only minimally effective or don't work at all.

Yes - you will find this for everything. Anti-depressants, vitamins, exercise, HRT etc etc

It's why we rely on experts who have relevant experience & training to review and summarise scientific evidence. No one individual can do it alone.

Well, I am not going to get an unbiased perspective from the BBC either? They have been implicated in just as much biased reporting over the years and on the other side the Malone and McCullouch will claim they are right and everyone else is wrong. Both sides are intransigent in my opinion

Hmm, I’m not sure about this. The BBC is absolutely not perfect but there is a pathway of accountability (although this is also not perfect).

A self published, self promoting scientist is accountable to no one. They’re under no obligation to back up anything they’re saying or work to any particular standard. They’re effectively self-editing their own criticisms at source.

@jewel1968

Yes I think most of the contrary scientists I read are ok with vaccines although I can think of one who isn't. He isn't an epidemiologist though, he is a cardiologist.

You are right it's more about lockdown and masks I see the scientists disagree on.

Actually, that's not really so either.

The science behind lockdowns is that they work in the extremely limited way in which they are intended to work ie they slow the rate of transmission so that hospitals, and the NHS more generally, don't get overwhelmed. They 'flatten the curve' to use the parlance which was bandied about.

Whether the benefits of a lockdown outweigh the problems it causes to the economy, to people's mental health, to children's education and so on is another question entirely.

But that is a political / policy decision, not a scientific one.

@ollyollyoxenfree

I am vaxxed but I enjoyed watching the Joe Rogan interviews with Dr Robert Malone and Dr Peter McCulloch (both proper scientists/doctors) to get a different perspective. I will also watch the BBC show. Always good to hear different viewpoints rather than blindly accepting one narrative as the absolute truth.

@soredust

It is always good to get a different perspective but you will not get an unbiased or accurate one from Malone or McCullough.

They have both continually made claims not backed up by any kind of evidence throughout the pandemic. Their interview a couple of days ao was no exception.

Malone's favourite false claims - that he "invented RNA and DNA vaccines" has persuaded a lot of people to turn a blind eye to that fact he peddles nonsense.

Malone was heavily involved in the development of the MRNA vaccines though so I don't think you could really label it as a false claim? I'm sure he knows a fair bit more about how they work and their possible drawbacks than either of us!

healthfeedback.org/claimreview/the-development-of-mrna-vaccines-was-a-collaborative-effort-robert-malone-contributed-to-their-development-but-he-is-not-their-inventor/

Also, I find it a little strange that so many of the eminent scientists on the pro-vaxx side have such a conflict of interests - i.e. Vallance with his shares in Pfizer and Van Tam with his historical very close ties to pharmaceuticals. I'm not really sure why this is legally acceptable when in any other circumstances it would be disallowed?

If I go back to my earlier point where one epidemiologist says there is NO evidence to support wearing of masks in schools and another epidemiologist saying there is evidence.

I’m always very wary of a scientist making a definitive all-or-nothing statements, simply because science is not designed to work that way - there are almost always more questions - and I’ve very rarely met a scientist who hasn’t caveated their recommendations very carefully.

This is especially true on Covid, where two years ago we knew very very little indeed, and there are still so many unanswered questions and so much uncertainty.

It’s a really challenging environment. As humans, we cleave to certainty and clarity and we are naturally attracted to arguments that appear to offer clear, unequivocal answers.

Which is what can make scientific communications really challenging, because on some of the most important issues - Covid and other medical science, climate change, for example - there is uncertainty, and there is much we don’t yet understand or that we’re still discovering about incredibly complex mechanisms.

We’re learning all the time, but the irony is that every time our knowledge improves it creates an opportunity for someone malign to dent people’s confidence, because the previous knowledge wasn’t perfect, or could be improved on, or the circumstances changed.

But in all of this I clearly have my own bias - I shrink from those who claim total certainty, because I don’t trust them.

Malone's favourite false claims - that he "invented RNA and DNA vaccines" has persuaded a lot of people to turn a blind eye to that fact he peddles nonsense

God, yes, total bollocks. Don't trust any scientist who claims that he or she (mostly likely 'he') invented something. Research doesn't work like this, it is always a collaborative effort and theories usually go through many, many refinements, which is indeed exactly what has happened to RNA-based vaccines over the years.

As I posted elsewhere yesterday, the concept of RNA vaccines has been developed in numerous labs around the world for a long time. The new malaria vaccine is a RNA vaccine. Malone is just one of many people who has had a hand in its development – heck my 22-year-old DD was doing original research using RNA sequencing for her Masters last year! It really isn't the big deal some have made it out to be.

Also, I find it a little strange that so many of the eminent scientists on the pro-vaxx side have such a conflict of interests - i.e. Vallance with his shares in Pfizer and Van Tam with his historical very close ties to pharmaceuticals. I'm not really sure why this is legally acceptable when in any other circumstances it would be disallowed?

I’m confused. I can’t think of many fields where very experienced/qualified people wouldn’t have worked for many years in their areas of expertise?

Is your issue around people moving from corporate to senior public sector posts? I agree there need to be guardrails around those processes.

However, their current roles aren’t in research - so the evidence being quoted doesn’t originate with them. It’s the primary sources for all this that we should be scrutinising. I think it’s reasonable to scrutinise whether, say, JVT gives undue weight to studies funded or drugs manufactured by one of his previous employers, for example. Having a clear idea of people’s potential motives is important. Access to clear data and primary sources is really important.

I think you can't generalise across these topics - you're not a conspiracy theorist just because you don't believe that masks may provide optimum protection or if you have questions about the benefits of vaccinating children, e.g. Not my opinion but know scientists who do hold different positions regarding these so it's not helpful when debates become this polarised. Science is not 'right/wrong' - you come up with hypothesis and then prove/disprove them but this is based on the scientist's judgement and which studies they look at or include in meta-analysis for example.

For example, as pointed out earlier, really good quality controlled studies on masks v non-masks with regards to very small aerosols (as in the case of SARS-Cov-2) aren't plentiful and there are definitely many who would argue against general mask wearing in the community. Some because they don't believe - on the data they have looked at - that the small aerosols would be prevent from entering our body by using a fabric or basic surgery mask. Others because they might have an opinion on whether perhaps allowing people to mix in a transient way in an enclosed space for a short time (e.g. a shop) might be a good thing in triggering the immune system but without overloading it with high viral loads.

Also, I've spoken with many eminent immunologists who are privy to data not generally available (e.g. ICU patient data on those severely ill across Europe during the pandemic) and although all are pro vaccination there have been those who have questioned the necessity to vaccinate children, especially those in primary years, are at such low risk from Covid.

So, it's not all - pro-vax/anti-vax just because someone has concerns about an aspect of vaccination or don't believe that all masks are necessarily helpful in all situations.

Science is really about having a more open debate than being this polarised.

Do vaccines have a role to play? Yes of course, but not everyone needs or should have them.
Do masks have a role to play? Again, Certainly but the rules around them make little sense. As an example, If I walk round the pub to go to the toilet I must wear a mask. Yet I can sit at the table maskless, have all the hand to face interaction we all do subconsciously and leave traces wherever my hands go.
Were lockdowns a good idea? The very first lockdown was most definately a good idea, it was needed until we found what we were dealing with. The subsequent lockdowns in my opinion would of been better aimed at the at risk groups. It was the start of Summer and the ideal time to let the Young and Healthy out to mix and create their own immunity.

I'm of course not suggesting that for those of you that disagree that you shouldn't want or have things go differently. What we do need to appreciate like I said earlier, the full implications of each step that has been taken so far had many more knock on issues that have impacted greatly on many more peoples lives.

For those of you who are shouting ALL the scientists other than the fruitcakes support mass vaccination etc, I suggest you google and read The Great Barington Declaration, It goes along with what I say above and is signed by Thousands of leading Scientists, Dr's and other associated professionals.