In a recent article by the former head of the NIH, in the NY Times, the author notes:
Future historians will judge the development of safe and effective mRNA vaccines for Covid in 11 months as one of the greatest medical achievements in human history. We felt that at last we were on a path to conquering this disease and stopping the terrible death toll. And to a major extent, that came true: Current estimates by the Commonwealth Fund, a nonprofit foundation supporting research on health care, are that more than three million lives were saved in the United States between December 2020 and November 2022 by Covid vaccines. If you were vaccinated, you might be one of them. I might be also. Yet ultimately more than 50 million adult Americans declined vaccination — even after the shots were made widely available at no cost. Though medicine and public health make poor bedfellows with politics, one’s political party was a strong predictor of resistance. So was religion, with white evangelical Christians (my own group) the most resistant of all. Public distrust, driven by social media, cable news and even some politicians, reflected a host of concerns: whether Covid-19 was real, whether it was really all that serious, whether the vaccines were rushed, whether there were common and serious side effects that had been hidden, whether the mRNA would alter the recipient’s DNA, and whether companies had skirted the rules about safety. More outlandish conspiracies also circulated on social media: that the vaccines contained microchips or cells from recently aborted fetuses, for example. People of faith were particularly hard hit by misinformation.
The author then presents his “philosophical” version of “truth”. He states:
What do we mean by truth anyway?
Let’s consider a set of concentric circles that represent various levels of truth. At the center is what could be called the zone of necessary truth. Items in this zone consist of statements about a concrete reality that just has to be the way that it is. Those items would have to be true in any imaginable universe, and they don’t care how we feel. In this rather narrow zone, the main entries are from mathematics and possibly from the nature of time. ….
Unfortunately this alleged layer of truth has been buffeted by the minds of mathematicians over the centuries. Non-Euclidian geometry just a simple example. He continues:
The next circle out, which is the home for a much wider range of reality claims, is firmly established facts. These are conclusions that are overwhelmingly supported by evidence, but discerning them has required human observation. We can safely place here most scientific conclusions about objective reality that have been supported by multiple experimental approaches and sustained over many decades…
The author asserts DNA as such an example. However how we perceive DNA today as compared to how it was perceived in 1953 is dramatically different. Science at this level is a continual battle of ideas. It is one of “on the one hand and then on the other” For example, what is cancer? In 1964 I read Watson’s book on the Gene. Now when I read the literature it is dramatically more complex.
As we move further out from the center, we reach claims that are potentially true, but the evidence is currently insufficient to move them into the circle of firmly established facts. We can call this the zone of uncertainty. Here’s an example: Did mask mandates provide benefit to a community in reducing Covid transmission? One careful study in Bangladesh said yes, but other large-scale studies in the West have had difficulty documenting that — with a major reason being that compliance has been so uneven. On the other hand, many studies have shown personal benefit from consistent mask-wearing in reducing risk to individuals and their close contacts.
This statement can be an example of how “politicians” mess things up. To answer the mask issue we must first understand how the disease is transmitted. Since COVID is a single stranded RNA virus, which attached to cells via an ACE2 membrane receptor, it may be just nano particle like. No one knows. If nano then masks of the typical variety are useless. Furthermore, viruses can enter the surface of the eye, go down the gland to the nose then from there anywhere. So must we wear eye protection as well. Nano masks and nano eye protection are not readily available. Level 2 bio-hazard facilities may have them but never saw them on the E train. This issue is still not resolved and the author unfortunately seems clueless and balmes the public for even raising the question.
Going even farther out, we get into territory where facts and evidence are frankly scanty or just irrelevant. This is the zone of subjective opinion. Some examples: Tattoos are cool. Dogs make better pets than cats. Shoes with brown leather tops and thick white soles look really good on men (on this last one, opinions at my house do not match). Disagreements about topics in this zone do not threaten the order of things. In fact, they make our society richer and more interesting because people have different tastes.
The above are opinions, not facts. I like blue not orange. Perhaps it is the genetic makeup of my limbic system.
When disagreements arise about what is true, it is really important to assess which zone we are working in. Looking at our concentric circles, I think we can all accept that claims in the outermost zone are subjective, so it’s fine to disagree about those. But here’s the point I really want to emphasize: As you move inward to zones where there is more and more actual evidence, it becomes more and more important to track down that evidence, and not just say that everything is a matter of opinion. When you get to the solid foundation in the innermost two circles, these are matters of currently established truth that have to be true for everybody. Those facts don’t care how you feel, and they can’t be — and are not — a matter of opinion.
Opinions are available to all. Truth may be very difficult to determine. COVID was a challenge. What was shown was that the arrogance of “experts” and politicians isolated the public in a lack of trust. In my opinion and my experience the political experts exuded gross arrogance and talked down to the public. The author is a physician and a scientist. That duplex lends itself to a certain mindset. In contrast I studied medicine and see myself fundamentally as an engineer. When using my engineering expertise to raise capital in a venture world, I could only succeed by understanding how to communicate with the investors, I had to get to their level of understanding, I had to convince them with facts, and avoided truths. For in a venture environment today’s truth may be tomorrow’s falsity. Think dotcom bust.
For a scientist, however, especially one under the rubric of the Government, they speak ex Cathedra. The arrogance of the scientist isolated the citizens and led to islands of disbelief. This article has no self doubt, just a continuation of the attitude of “truth” is theirs and if you fail to accept it you are anathema!
The author talks of efficacy. He alleges that the mRNA vaccine has high efficacy. In reality we face moving targets. Namely the virus mutates continuously. Secondly, the mRNA vaccine does NOT prevent infection, frankly no vaccine does. It just primes the immune system through B cells antibodies, T cells and the rest of the adaptive immune response. It does not prevent transmission. It takes days to get the primed immune system to react, and during that time we have the possibility to transmit. These are complex issues, dealing with an moderate understanding of the immune system. Political science types seem to fail to understand that 99.999% of the people are clueless! Thus when they make dicta to be obeyed, and find out that the extreme dicta are not TRUTH, they lose all confidence. Once lost never regained!
Posts
