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

Do vaccines have a role to play? Yes of course, but not everyone needs or should have them.

Who shouldn't have them? With links, please.

And I've just looked up the Great Barrington Declaration with its 'tens of thousands of signatures from leading scientists and doctors. Like Mr Banana Rama and the like. That's what you get if you allow people to sign online without any form of verification - a document with zero credibility.

@pointythings

And I've just looked up the Great Barrington Declaration with its 'tens of thousands of signatures from leading scientists and doctors. Like Mr Banana Rama and the like. That's what you get if you allow people to sign online without any form of verification - a document with zero credibility.

So all the actual proper Dr's & Scientists who have signed and verified on it are all incorrect?

As has been said previously in this thread. The Science is not in the slightest Black & White for pro vaccine etc. There are many arguments for and against. At present we live in a free society where we have body autonomy. You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to mine.

The Great Barrington Declaration pre-dates the era of mass public vaccination so all its talk of the importance of natural (herd) immunity was written in a time before effective vaccines were developed. By definition therefore it has nothing useful to say about vaccination.

Also, you are wrong to say it is signed by thousands of leading scientists. It is actually signed by a handful of scientists and a lot of people lacking any expertise in the field of epidemiology or virology, or who may in fact not be scientists at all since you self-declare your status when you sign it.

[quote ollyollyoxenfree]@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.[/quote]
Why would Malone and McCullough peddle misinformation though? Malone is a very experienced virologist and is vaxxed, he's not a classic anti-vaxxer of old. Why would he risk his reputation and finances to peddle conspiracy theories. I think he just genuinely believes in what he says, not from any nefarious position but because he feels he has done the research and come to that conclusion. The interview with Joe Rogan was 3 hours long. He went into lots of detail to back up his opinions. I don't think you can just dismiss him. Sure, you don't agree with him but that doesn't mean he is peddling misinformation. I would bet he has more knowledge and experience than you in relation to this subject (a random on the internet).

@JassyRadlett

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 realise people need to have expertise in their field but I do have an issue with people working in senior public sector posts that have obvious conflicts of interest. For example, in my opinion Vallance should not be helping to shape policy on vaccines/vaccine passports etc. while retaining shares in Pfizer. If someone stands to gain financially from vaccines being used in greater quantities then they can no longer be considered truly impartial surely?

@Woowoe

For every scientist in this country and around the world, there is another saying the exact opposite They are Equally qualified in their field and most are highly regarded Most have peer reviewed papers published

The consensus is, because they have a different opinion on all of this, that they should be shut up, cancelled and removed from practice.

People should be allowed to listen to whom they want, without being called an anti vax conspiracy theorist.
Because those other scientists may just be right

Agree with every word of this!

Why would Malone and McCullough peddle misinformation though?

It's a good question, I honestly wouldn't be able to answer properly beyond speculation. What moviates the whole anti-vaccine movement? Why is it so tied up with things like anti-Semitism? I like facts and would quite like someone qualified to do a deep dive on these people.

It's the same issue with Michael Yeadon who used to work for Pfizer and claims the vaccines were desgined to kill people, not protect from COVID, and we'll all be dead in 2 years. Simultaneously they're also being used to "label" the population. I have no idea what motivates a scientist to behave in this way.

There is (alledgedly) a lot of bad blood between Malone and other scientists - his involvement with mRNA technology was when he was only a graduate student in the 80s and didn't contribute further. He dropped out and never finished his PhD. So maybe this is something to do with it, maybe not.

Many of the other scientists who push ivermectin (this is something Malone and McCullough do, alongside their otther claims) benefit financially. See groups like America's Frontline Doctors and FLCCC.

But honestly I have no idea and couldn't give you a satisfactory answer.

The interview with Joe Rogan was 3 hours long. He went into lots of detail to back up his opinions. I don't think you can just dismiss him. Sure, you don't agree with him but that doesn't mean he is peddling misinformation.

It was three hours long and lots of detailed nonsense yes @soredust

I would bet he has more knowledge and experience than you in relation to this subject (a random on the internet).
It isn't my word you need to take for it - I agree I could be a labrador in a wig for all you know. Many many scientists with relevant credentials, who are far more qualified in this area than Malone, have gone in detail to explain why his claims are rubbish.

flipflop76 if you really believe that there's an equal number of qualified and reputable scientists in both positions, you haven't been doing your research.

soredust a declaration that allows any Tom, Dick or Harry to sign it and self-certify as 'a scientist' undermines its own credibility. That should be obvious to any but the seriously hard of thinking.

I am genuinely suprised people are still pushing the Great Barrington Declaration.

It was thoroughly torn apart in 2020 as the pandemic progressed, I don't even think the original signatories (the qualified, not made up ones) still quote it.

Spot on re it definitely not being 50/50 and actually if you do some digging on some of the scientists who are anti vax it’s not hard to find some dodgy info about them. There are two who have been very widely discredited (their names escape me) as they claim to be doctors/experts and actually have very dodgy qualifications from fourth rate colleges. It took me about 10 minutes of research to find this out.

@ollyollyoxenfree their motivation is fascinating I agree. Malicious, vicious, narcissistic, who knows? They’ve taken so many people in and convinced them - people have died as a direct result of their bullshit which must be quite a thing to have on your conscience.

Oh and I love the image of you being a labrador in a wig .

@jewel1968

Scientists do disagree. On balance I have had the vaccine and wear masks etc ... but I do know and read scientists that disagree with this approach. I am more persuaded by those that encourage vaccine etc .. doesn't mean I am right. Feels right to me and my limited understanding of what the scientists say.

I saw a epidemiologist on TV yesterday saying that kids wearing masks in school would not do any harm but these was no evidence it made any difference. Later that day I read another epidemiologist say there was evidence and referenced about 4 or 5 pieces of research. Both epidemiologists in the UK. Intuitively I side with mask wearing. I don't have time or skill to read and critique the research links she shared.

An epidemiologist is not an expert on viruses or any type of epidemic. They are experts at looking at macro data around the causes and incidents of diseases. They look at large data sets- not individual people . An epidemiologist discovered the link between cancer and smoking. Not because they were experts on cancer- but because of statistical correlation In multiple large population studies Epidemiologist are disagreeing on the data in terms of correlation and cause and effect. The data is changing and expanding all the time so that is to be expected. Scenitist, well engineers have done studies on microscopic structure of mask material and which are best sorts of masks. Whilst some are better than others all do reduce the chance of spearheading disease to some effect at a personal level. Epidemiologist may disagree across the data of the whole pandemic what level of effect this has, but the science proves it does at least reduce viral load passed on, which in turn reduces chances of passing on major infection to others. Read up about masks and viral load.

I saw you as more of a rottweiler @ollyollyoxenfree

Seriously, though, where does this idea come from that there are equal number of experts on each side of the argument?

Maybe it is something that people looking to justify their anti-vaccination beliefs tell themselves. But it simply is not true.

I realise people need to have expertise in their field but I do have an issue with people working in senior public sector posts that have obvious conflicts of interest. For example, in my opinion Vallance should not be helping to shape policy on vaccines/vaccine passports etc. while retaining shares in Pfizer. If someone stands to gain financially from vaccines being used in greater quantities then they can no longer be considered truly impartial surely?

I’ve just looked up Vallance’s declaration of interests - the shares in question aren’t Pfizer, but GSK (from his time working there). So there’s a tiny bit of bias or misinformation creeping in here that has shifted one set of pharmaceutical shares into another company which would be more directly relevant. (GSK is of course working on future vaccines.)

I think this is a difficult one - and the processes in place for recusal from decision-making where specific companies are involved are important (and I’ve seen them in action.) It’s right that the vaccines are approved, regulated and recommendations on deployment are made independently of central government (no matter my own personal feelings on JCVI…) But I’m not sure it’s proportionate to close the door to anyone with extensive private sector scientific experience, even if they have ongoing benefits from that experience.

At any rate, you’d struggle to find anyone senior and eminent in academia who hadn’t had large projects funded by private companies.

Can you explain the obvious conflict of interest you feel JVT has, as a result of working in the private sector? Is it simply an assumed bias towards the sector he worked in?

@thing47 that’s exactly it, isn’t it. The anti vaccine lobby were delighted when “prominent scientists” appeared to be backing them and didn’t do their due diligence on these guys qualifications and motivations in the most part.

The tiny number of anti vaxxers i know just appear to copy and paste any old shit they see that supports their narrative. Or at least they did. One of them died of Covid and the others have gone quiet .

www.conservativewoman.co.uk/sages-covert-coup/

@JassyRadlett I think this article explains my misgivings better than I can. (Disclaimer - I am not a conservative woman though so please don't judge me too harsly!)

I'm not claiming to be a scientific expert - you seem to have far more of a background in that area than I do to be fair - but the close ties between big pharma and the key players who are currently helping to dictate vaccine policy in the UK make me a bit uneasy. Not sure if this kind of situation is avoidable or not, but there often seems to be a viewpoint on Mumsnet that scientists supporting the current narrative are morally beyond reproach whereas the scientists challenging it are doing so purely to rake in the cash. I wonder if it's really as straightforward as all that?

@nojudgementhere ah the delightful Conservative Woman website 😱.

You might want to dig a bit deeper into that one - it’s not a pleasant read.

I don’t for one minute think all pro vaccine scientists are morally superior, I just don’t buy the nonsense of the conspiracy theories around the vaccines and I’m absolutely supportive of their efficacy and safety. If you look at the number of doses that have been given worldwide the stats speak for themselves.

I spent Christmas alone in 2020 and with my family in 2021. The difference? Vaccines.

@nojudgementhere I can understand your hesitancy - and I agree that no scientists or others should operate without scrutiny (others will tell you about my rants about the JCVI over the years, I’m sure.)

However I do think that article is working from a bit of a false premise and is obfuscating how the scientific and research landscape in the UK works (and in particular how governments including Conservatives have designed it to work) - which makes in almost vanishingly unlikely that someone working at the cutting edge of life sciences (or any sciences, really) won’t have been funded at some point by private or third sector interests.

I also think it might be slightly timed out now by the number of times Sage has suggested something that’s not been translated into policy - which makes me think that the system is probably working as I should (though I may disagree with some of the decisions) - advisers of all kinds provide advice (and Sage’s is necessarily and rightly constrained to scientific evidence) while the government of the day makes its decisions based on broader factors and other evidence (including factors some of us may find distasteful - but it’s a sign of the system more or less working.)

(And yes, yay vaccines - we got to see my vulnerable in-laws over Christmas. Hoping that vaccines and other pharmaceutical breakthroughs will allow me to see my own family, in a notoriously Covid-averse country, some time this year.)

I think scientists often have to choose between being academics, which brings kudos and recognition, and being in the private sector, which brings wealth, at lease comparatively . Switching between the two, or even having one foot in each camp isn't all that unusual.

A lot of research is funded, jointly or in part, by big corporations and big companies generally aren't known for their altruism, they want to make money from their discoveries. In an ideal world, scientific research would all be free from commercial considerations, but that isn't the real world.

I don't see the scientists challenging the consensus as being in it for the cash necessarily, but I do think they enjoy being in the limelight, they like having people listening to them. Whereas the vast majority of researchers in this field are just diligently getting on with their day jobs and have no interest in pushing themselves forward.

An anti-vaxxer acquaintance of mind is very into 'holistic healthcare' and I guess is generally fairly anti-establishment and a proponent of alternative medicine. He shared a 90 minute video on social media called something like 'The Time is Now'. The same organisation was asking you to pay to support theme and get more content, as well as peddling a conference and various wares.

The video itself was full of osteopaths and 'whistle-blowing' nurses claiming to be revealing the truth of the pandemic. It didn't take much digging to find out that the chief whistleblowing nurse was an active anti-vaxxer on social media from as early as 2018 and has her own website promoting her books and selling clothing. Lots of people are profiting from this in their own small way. It's not just 'Big Pharma' on the make.

advisers of all kinds provide advice (and Sage’s is necessarily and rightly constrained to scientific evidence) while the government of the day makes its decisions based on broader factors and other evidence

God, yes, thank you. I keep saying this! Scientists offer advice on the science. Decisions about masks, lockdowns, distancing etc etc are made by politicians. They are policy decisions – we can all agree with them or not according to personal preference, but they aren't scientific decisions.

I blame the government for this. They have merged the two, either deliberately or because they don't really understand the science, and used the dictum that they are 'following the science' as a way of deflecting so that now a lot of people think it is Chris Whitty's fault that such measures are being introduced. It really isn't. The scientists' messages are much more nuanced and subtle than they are given credit for.

I have a feeling there are a lot of science people here on this thread. I do think part of the problem is people like me with limited science understanding get bamboozled by scientists. Look at me not really knowing what an epidemiologist was. I know now