In a review of a recent book in Science, the author notes:
Virologist and vaccine expert Peter Hotez has provided the definitive work on this era with his new tome, The Deadly Rise of Anti-science, which presents a short, readable overview of the lives lost to the virus and the fierce backlash against sensible public health measures perpetuated by right-wing politicians and media outlets, by uninformed citizens and bad actors on social media, and by a small gaggle of contrarian doctors and scientists who irresponsibly engaged in various degrees of Covid denialism.
I have listened to the author of the book time and time again. In my experience and in my opinion, his dicta are all too often counter productive. This is NOT anti-science as it is anti-elitism. Individuals like the book's author and the Science author in my opinion and my experience have portrayed themselves as the keepers of the truth and that anyone who varies from them is anathema.
Probably the most hilarious part of the review is:
Hotez, a man whose compassion and dedication to healing are on display throughout the book, describes the personal cost he paid for his efforts to publicly combat antiscientific policies and rhetoric during the pandemic when he devoted huge amounts of time to communicating his evidence-based opinion to an increasingly polarized public. The toll included doxing, death threats, intimidation from government officials and hate groups, and harassment of his family and some of his colleagues. A common refrain from his ideological opponents was that he was a “pharma shill,” as if anti-vaxxers and Covid deniers were not making fortunes by selling phony treatments and preventatives.
Again in my opinion and my experience the use of the word "compassionate" is the elite calling themselves elite! Public Health is NOT science, it is the dealing with humans in such a manner that they are more than willing to safeguard themselves and humanity as a whole. It demands sensitive and non-egotistical professionals to deal with the fear and anxiety of patients. It eschews arrogance and elitism.
Three factors drove the public response. First and foremost the true source of the virus. Was it some Chinese invented virus or a natural one? Still unknown and being debated. Second, what is the mechanism of the spread; hand, mouth, nose, eye? What was the particle spreading the virus. The list goes on. Third, the vaccine. A new and innovative approach that allowed for rapid expansion, namely mRNA. Did it work like smallpox or polio vaccines? No, at best it was akin to influenza. Namely it lasted at best for six months. Furthermore it did not prevent infection nor did it prevent transmission. But the elite made us believe otherwise.
The major problem from the elite was the refusal ever to say "We do not know". Elites cannot say that. Furthermore the elites seek to demonize anyone who questions their group think. The author of this book in my opinion and my experience was a classic example of an elite whose persona turned off any attempt to develop a Public Health response.
As to anti-science. Science is often a dialectic. It is "on one hand and on the other hand". We have seen through the centuries that science can become an amalgam of views, more than just opinions, but positions based upon logic and/or experimental facts. Pasteur and others founded virology by means of that dialectic. Denial of the productive value of such a dialectic is itself true "anti science". The bow tie wearing arrogant elites would suppress not just positions but the very act of asking questions. To them "truth" is theirs alone, what they state is the alpha and omega of reality and any who would dare question the elite's views are anathema.
Posts
