Jerry Coyne shows, correctly, that Freddie Sayers repeatedly tried to get me to say something he wanted me to say, namely that religion is good for human welfare.
You start your post saying that truth is all you care about.
Then you say "There is no doubt that vaccination against covid saved many lives, and the development of vaccines in an astonishingly short time was a major triumph of science."
There is in fact a 'doubt' and to say there is 'no doubt' is bordering on religious belief (in the new religion of science). Using good old fashioned regular science, there are still questions to be answered as to how many lives the covid vaccine saved. The development of the vaccines also wasn't done in the astonishingly short time you think. The majority of the work was done over the last 10-20 years.
You may call me an anti-vaxxer for questioning the vaccines but that is the whole point of science, to keep questioning it. So by using the words 'no doubt', it sounds very anti-science to me.
Also, he's right in retracting his claim that the vaccine prevented transmission. It may have done so in a negligible way, but that's not the reason to get the shot.
Yes, you are indeed an anti-vaxxer, and Dawkins is ten times the scientist you are, if you are indeed a scientist. At the very least, he knows the facts a lot better than you do, and what you're saying here is in fact injurious to public health.
Oh my. This paper is a mathematical model, it doesn't 'prove' that the vaccines saved lives. "A mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission and vaccination was separately fit to reported COVID-19 mortality and all-cause excess mortality in 185 countries and territories. The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programmes was determined by estimating the additional lives lost if no vaccines had been distributed". The vaccines were not tested on lives saved, they were tested preventing symptoms and a positive PCR. The Pfizer mRNA jab had an absolute efficacy of preventing of symptoms of 0.85%- ie most people didn't get symptoms- about 98%, about 97.15% did not get symptoms after vaccination. the likelihood of people under 80 dying from symptoms is very small anyway but it can't be established if stopping symptoms saved lives. The mathematical model is fatally flawed.
Quoting the Lancet, an admittedly historically reliable source of peer-reviewed medical research, on the subject of covid is a classic example of science as a religion and not a method for inquiry. The Lancet published a paper pronouncing the “lab leak theory” as a “conspiracy theory”. The damn thing came out of the lab, as was obvious to anyone with a pulse and two firing brain cells. The people (Zhengli, Daszak, Fauci, et al.) who helped steer the narrative are still walking around this crime scene of a planet, because science. Dawkins, Coyne, and any other science cultists need to employ the scientific method and come back to actual reality on this most serious case of medical malfeasance. Sasha Latypova’s Substack is a good place to start.
Before you can look at the evidence for the truth of what people believe about god and whether this is acceptable, one must first look at the evidence you are claiming is the truth of the pandemic which required faith in experts, turned many into zealots and made anyone questioning anything for scientific or personal reasons into dissenters, heretics and anti's However, if it had been profitable for pharma, the way the evidence of the truth of new virus was gathered it could also have proved the existence of the flower fairies https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer Do you believe in fairies Richard?
I would like to think that Dawkins the scientist understands the science of the vaccines, the quality of the testing, the demographic of the study participants, etc.. However, for what it is worth, my husband with chronic leukaemia was fully committed to the vaccines and died after the flu shot and three vaccines. Was that right for him? There is a difference in the volume of mRNA between Pfizer and Moderna, 30 vs 100. Can Dawkins unequivocally say that one size fits all, irrespective of different body types or the myriad of other differences between vaccine recipients? I have many vaccinated friends and most have had repeat infection. My body has not been the same since the injection. Dawkins believes in the science of the vaccines and that is his prerogative and maybe his express personal duty. I admit to not being an esteemed scientist, but am I to discount my personal experience and sovereignty? Just as there are many interpretations of God/No God, and for some Dawkins has put forth a persuasive case, there is not a global one size fits all. Perhaps we agree to disagree and enjoy our life as far as that is possible these days. I am not so naive as to think that this technology is going anywhere soon. It will slink its way into our lives by some portal. The sod has been turned, the factories are being built.
I have no idea what Nexus is but an article that challenges the vaccines isn't anti-vax, it's science. An article that challenges masks isn't anti-masks, it's science. And an article that challenges man-made climate change isn't anti-climate, it's science. You really need to stop viewing people that have different views to you as "anti" this or that.
Depends on what kind of article we're taking about. Science is a method. A quite specific method. Just writing an article challenging something isn't science.. it's opinion writing. In science, you make observations, you conduct experiments, you record data, you posit and test hypothesises and you publish articles on scientific journals and have peers do their very best to put holes in your theory or methods. And of course even then it's imperfect.
Note confirmation of the venn diagram overlap on all three points. Aren't articles detailing the properties of vaccines and masks, science? Aren't articles detailing man-made climate change science? They aren't 'views'. They are science. Being opposed to masks, vaccines or lockdowns on grounds they interfere with 'freedom' or on grounds unrelated to viral transmission isn't science. Cherry-picking information to suit such positions also isn't science, especially if the broader realm of scientific knowledge on the topic is overlooked or diminished. Being opposed to something is being "anti".
Your Venn diagram just points to science because science investigates and continues to investigate all theories. If we had dogmatically stuck to the same approved beliefs over the last 500 years, we would be in a much different place.
Yes your articles on vaccines, masks and climate change are science but much of science can be interpreted in different ways and should therefore be considered a view or theory. By saying 'this is the truth and you can't challenge it' is no different to saying 'there is a God and you blaspheme for saying otherwise'.
I'm not anti mask. Masks work for a lot of things they are designed for. I am anti the removal of human rights. I am not anti vaccine. Some vaccines work for the things they are designed for. I am anti the removal of human rights. I am not anti climate change. Climate change has always happened, long before humans. I am anti the removal of human rights.
If the conclusions to the science you believe to be true are correct, then you have nothing to fear, the truth will prevail. Most people just want the truth. But by stifling opposing views, the truth will never emerge.
I’m just glad we’ve gotten straight to the point on those of your objections which are more social than scientific and without bloodshed. Well done. You are absolutely right that positions, even scientific positions, should be challenged where appropriate. It is one hundred percent correct that we would have gotten nowhere if there had not been people brave enough to challenge academic orthodoxy. Let’s just keep the distinctions clear. Science is science. Human rights is about human rights. Narrow it down and constructive discussions on the correct topics can take place.
Yeah that 'there is no doubt' is outrageous. Darwin's friend Alfred Wallace pointed to the lack of evidence and doubt around the smallpox vaccine in 1898, and couldn't believe his eyes that so many educated people fell for the assumption that the vaccine had been proven to work, when it clearly had not. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/lets-hope-the-monkey-pox-nonsense Wallace says ; 'They declare that "there is no proof that sanitary improvements were the main cause of the decline of small-pox… To the accuracy of these statements I demur in the strongest manner. There is proof‘
This correspondence… proves that small-pox obeys, and always has obeyed, the same law of subservience to general sanitary conditions as the other great groups of allied diseases and the general mortality.’ 'coupled with the almost total neglect of vaccination.’
Well said. One can still hope that men of Dawkins’ caliber can accept the results of the scientific method, correctly applied, over the mere appeal to authority.
While you may be confident that "there is no doubt that vaccination against covid saved many lives" we have had a lot of trouble finding clean data to support this. Excess mortality data does not seem to support this and most other data registries are so full of systemic bias they are hard to interpret, such as the "14 day grace period" aka the Bayesisn datacrime. Add to that the difficulty getting health agencies to release information with vaccine status identified. Certainly in younger age groups the evidence seems to suggest the cost outweighed the benefits. Not surprising given this group was very unlikely to die from COVID; even a modest increase in myocarditis deaths was unlikely to be unmatched.
I watched the interview before I saw the clickbait.
I thought it was a great interview – he was clearly being a tough interviewer, trying to lay traps. Which is fine – it makes things interesting.
But I thought it was pretty clear that you were *disagreeing* with the implied premises of his questions.
So when I saw the clickbait headlines, it did seem pretty disingenuous. You *clearly* weren't agreeing with the things he was wanting you to say. That much was obvious.
Still, I really liked all your responses in that interview, and for that reason alone, I'd commend anyone to watch it.
It’s 100% percent true that the rapid development of COVID vaccines (especially the mRNA ones) was one of, if not the greatest scientific achievement/s of this century so far!
But I don‘t think that refusing COVID vaccination is anti-social, as long as everyone who wants to get the vaccine can easily get it. Because, if you are vaccinated and, additionally, if you want to wear a mask to protect you even more, you shouldn’t need to worry much about unvaccinated people. Surely not more than you worry about people that are not vaccinated against the flu.
I think it’s much more questionable if such a pandemic is sufficient reason to give governments the power to enforce mask mandates and lock-downs, etc.
Unfortunately none of the vaccines is 100% effective, and even a properly fitted FFP-2 or N95 mask is only 95% effective in protecting against exposure. Therefore the only way to guarantee not catching it is to not be exposed. The opportunity to achieve herd immunity was lost, practically speaking, because the disease persisted long enough to mutate. Said persistence was abetted by, inter alia, poor understanding of the disease transmission mechanism and the widespread refusal to wear effective masks. Those seeking quantitative information on transmission and risk of exposure would benefit from Professor Bazant's online course on COVID 19 Transmission at MIT, which is previewed here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y__Z_PgAxQ
Of course, that’s true, but the point is that you still do not need to worry too much, because, if you‘re vaccinated and yet get COVID, the health risks are quite low on average. Not higher than for the flu at least. And before COVID no one ever would have said that it was anti-social not to get the flu vaccination.
It’s not correct to compare the overall number of deaths over the full three year period because a newly introduced virus will generally have a more severe impact than one that exists since decades and for which vaccination is available since a long time.
But if you compare CFR (case fatality risk), SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses are well in the same range.
Besides, it’s always extremely difficult to get valid fatality numbers for any virus...
E.g.:
“We included 77 estimates of the case fatality risk from 50 published studies, about one-third of which were published within the first 9 months of the pandemic. We identified very substantial heterogeneity in published estimates, ranging from less than 1 to more than 10,000 deaths per 100,000 cases or infections.”
A false argument. Over a typical three year period, ca 100 thousand people in the US die of flu, while in a comparable period, more than 1 million died of Covid. Ten times the mortality rate!
For some vaccines, in which herd immunity due to vaccination can halt spread of a virus, refusal could be anti-social.
Given that the Covid vaccine maybe doesn't halt spread enough to prevent the virus being endemic in a population, it's questionable whether we should consider it anti-social to refuse it.
I think that's what they were getting at, anyway.
(Personally, I gladly took the vaccine because I didn't want to get sick, and I figured the risk would be lower with the vaccine than without.)
I agree wth your statement, but it is also true that time lost due to ineptitude (e.g, by the CDC in the US), politization by officials like Trump and Bolsonaro, and widespread refusal by a significant fraction of the populace to adhere to practical guidance led to the accelerated evolution of the virus, with each succeeding variant being more virulent than its predecessor. Besides that there is the well established principle of public good. Seat belt laws, for example, exist to reduce the cost of health care by reducing the severity of injuries in auto accidents, though they are sold to the public as being beneficial to their safety. The same argument and benefits apply to Covid 19 vaccines.
This is all true. I had tried to write the above without sounding like I was offering my *own* opinions, but just summarising the state of discourse.
I do think it's probably a net-positive for people to be vaccinated – not just for themselves, but also for others around them. I'm sympathetic with those who are less pleased by the situation, since in many jurisdictions, vaccinations was effectively forced. And I understand that this dramatic curtailment of civil liberties is concerning in a free and democratic society.
Did it work? Or did you get sick after the vaccine? I mean sick of anything, not only Covid. Every vaxed friend or family member I have got sick after vaccine. Many got Covid several times. A few got serious symptoms from the vaccine. In lack of any independent studies we can trust on both sides of the divide, I simply ask real people's experiences to find out. Our household had one two shots mandadet vacvinated and two not vaccinated and Covid visited one unvaxed person for less than two days in two years and no otber sickness at all. Happy we didn't vax vulontarily because we had much better outcomes than anybody I know personally. Of course it is not a double-blind scientific study but it is valid empirical knowledge which humans used for millennia to get a pretty good sense for keeping save and to do tbe right thing.
Dawkins writes, "What I did say was that EVEN IF religious belief benefits human welfare, that doesn’t make it true. And the truth is what I care about."
The truth is that nobody knows what the truth is in regards to the very largest of questions. A reasonable theory is that we don't even have the questions right.
Imagine trying to explain the Internet to your dog. Your dog can see and hear the Internet, but she doesn't have the mental equipment needed to understand the level of abstraction involved with the Net, so no matter what you do, she'll never get it.
My speculative unproven claim is that this is most likely the situation we're in in regards to the largest of questions. My next claim is that such ignorance should be appreciated, because if reality is small enough that we could understand it, that would be a very sad discovery.
William writes, "One day I told him that I was going to write a book that would scientifically explain how the Universe came into existence, and that would completely destroy his biblical Genesis story."
The first PLANDEMIC, a 26-minute documentary, has been seen by over one billion people worldwide, setting a historic record. Dive into the explosive documentary that exposes hidden agendas, questions mainstream narratives, and sparks a global conversation. Brace yourself for eye-opening revelations that challenge the status quo.
PLANDEMIC 2:
The premiere of PLANDEMIC 2: Indoctornation set streaming records with 2 million viewers attending the global livestream. Journey deeper into the web of deception as Plandemic 2 uncovers the untold stories and exposes the powerful forces manipulating our world.
PLANDEMIC 3:
The Great Awakening unravels the layers of corruption and unveils a path towards a brighter future. Prepare to be inspired, awakened, and empowered to take a stand for liberty.
I don't have much scientific experience or education but I feel I understand the basic principles of the process. But I wouldn't make sweeping judgements or assessments of specific scientific findings or theories I have no knowledge of or experience in. How arrogant, once again, of you to do so in spiritual matters, especially with mystical experiences. If you never had a mystical experiences you shouldn't talk about it or judge on it. Mysticism doesn't neatly fit into your dualistic scientific understanding because science and logic is contained as part of all manifestations. The part can never understand the whole. Mystics, however, understands science without a problem as they understand the whole.
Hiya, yes I think Richard is being provocative and starting an academic (ie useless) discussion to get us all going!
For me there is no separation between science and mysticism. My scientific, intellectual mind led me to the same place as my yoga/magical/mystic/meditation (ie awareness practice and alignment with the health giving, creative forces through bodily movements and relaxation) practice did years ago.
That is that we are all one interconnected, inseparable whole. Science can't even define the edges of a human. When does the oxygen and carbon dioxide and the food and the waste, going in and out begin and cease to be human? Are the trillions of bacteria in our microbiome that we can't live without and which contain more genetic info that our genome and which switch our genes on and off and after our mood part of a human, or are we part of bacteria? Plants affect us without us even having to eat or touch them. The interaction between fungi and trees under the ground that science is just beginning to unearth is just the beginning.
Science may be more about the experience of understanding what's going on and mysticism may be more about how it feels to be part of what's going on. But I think as part of 'human' experience they are actually inseparable. And very helpful to each other.
Yep, the complexity is mind-boggkung and humbling when fully experienced through a mystical experience. And the interconnectedness of all things even more. Scientists only touching the surface here. Science has its place - but not at the head if the table. That's what many scientists don't get and that's were they become dangerous.
I am a bit gobsmacked that Dawkins nails his interpretation of some dodgy experiments as the facts, and calls those who disagree with him anti social, science deniers and disobedient refuseniks. This sounds just like Fauci.
Please show me the controls (every school girl knows you need controls right?) that were done when it was decided that a virus was the cause of the new disease and it's genome was picked from 56 million small fragments of RNA. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
No one believed Florence Nightingale in her time either, she thought that disease was begun by poor and dirty ennvironmental conditions, not caught. She has been accused of being a miasmist. Those putting masks on children's faces and stopping them going to school and putting toxins in their arms for fear of infected air are the miasmists and the real anti social refusers to look at the science.
Whoa, refusing the MMR is definitely an antisocial act? Is it because of the measles, mumps or German measles? The 'measles' vaccine was introduced in 1968, when deaths were already virtually zero. There is no scientific evidence that a vaccine for it is necessary https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/how-power-couple-pharma-regulation and there is much evidence that a debate about the dangers of the MMR (which Iwas banned from Twitter for mentioning pre Musk) is necessary. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/mmr-and-autism
Science and evidence are never definite, settled and are always in doubt.
Just still so utterly surprised and confused that such an impactful scientific mind is so easily distracted by, and obsessed with, the Covid-19 vaccine debate.
Darn tootin’ it’s antisocial. The right wing insists that individual choice supersedes what is best for the greater good. We certainly see this in the skewed, inappropriate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, placing so-called “rights” to own handguns over the 1st Amendment rights of ALL PEOPLE to pursue a LIFE of liberty and justice. ME! ME! ME! Generation of wing-nuts who wouldn’t dream of stepping up and doing CIVIC DUTY. Anti-vax’ers completely ignore the science and theory behind PUBLIC health. Anyone who needs that spelled out had better re-evaluate their moral compass.
How can it be antisocial if it is not impairing transmission? The benefit to greater good is based on the idea that an intervention will benefit those other than the agent, is it not? At this stage, likely due to one of more of the following, the mRNA vaccines are actually worsening outcomes: 1) antibody dependent disease enhancement, 2) antigentic priming, 3) immune tolerance (from repeated dosing).
If you can’t accept and abide by the US Constitution, then either get it amended to suit your liking or move to another country whose laws are more in-synch with the ideals of the type of government you wish to live under.
Who the hell do YOU think you are? I know, abide AND HAVE READ the constitution; I also know about the fascist billionaires who want to subvert this democracy and how they use propaganda to play on weak-minded people who aren’t capable of critical thinking and who join mobs and support lawlessness with a mob mentality. So, William Pritting--what have YOU ever done to give back to this country?
You know what else? I joined on my own volition; I didn’t owe anything when I joined--I joined to give back. I can assure you that in 2023, I would NEVER make that kind of sacrifice for the selfish, fascist-minded, racist people that represent America today.
OK--so you are little more than a profiteer, part of the military-industrial complex. You didn’t serve anyone so much as you served yourself. I was active duty; so was my husband and I know enough about keeping secrets from US enemies. You can remember that next time you tell American citizens to leave the country. Vaccinations are not a violation of individual rights to protect themselves; better think twice about mincing words or playing games with legal parlance, too--I don’t get the sense that you are even educated.
I spent 33-2/3 years as a defense contractor in the satellite business with a “Beyond Top Secret” Security Clearance so I could do all of my work in a “SCIF” in order to create the products that have kept the USA safe from foreign enemies!
You obviously don’t know the first damn thing about who the enemies of the USA are if you want to violate people’s right to protect themselves, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
“The Great Collapse of Society”
The Frankfurt School and “Critical Theory”
The “Frankfurt School,” or Institute for Social Research, was set up by a group of Marxist intellectuals in Germany in 1923, affiliated to the University of Frankfurt and independently of the Communist Party, which has been influential in the development of Marxist theory ever since.
The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further advance their ‘quiet’ incremental cultural revolution (Fabian Socialism) – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
Divide and Conquer.
The oppressed and their oppressors.
1. The creation of racism offenses.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking/drug abuse.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pan-sexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors.’
You start your post saying that truth is all you care about.
Then you say "There is no doubt that vaccination against covid saved many lives, and the development of vaccines in an astonishingly short time was a major triumph of science."
There is in fact a 'doubt' and to say there is 'no doubt' is bordering on religious belief (in the new religion of science). Using good old fashioned regular science, there are still questions to be answered as to how many lives the covid vaccine saved. The development of the vaccines also wasn't done in the astonishingly short time you think. The majority of the work was done over the last 10-20 years.
You may call me an anti-vaxxer for questioning the vaccines but that is the whole point of science, to keep questioning it. So by using the words 'no doubt', it sounds very anti-science to me.
I'm sorry but you don't have the slightest idea of what you're talking about. Richard is right here: the covid vaccine saved millions of lives. Here's one reference, but there are many more: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(22)00320-6/fulltext
Also, he's right in retracting his claim that the vaccine prevented transmission. It may have done so in a negligible way, but that's not the reason to get the shot.
Yes, you are indeed an anti-vaxxer, and Dawkins is ten times the scientist you are, if you are indeed a scientist. At the very least, he knows the facts a lot better than you do, and what you're saying here is in fact injurious to public health.
Oh my. This paper is a mathematical model, it doesn't 'prove' that the vaccines saved lives. "A mathematical model of COVID-19 transmission and vaccination was separately fit to reported COVID-19 mortality and all-cause excess mortality in 185 countries and territories. The impact of COVID-19 vaccination programmes was determined by estimating the additional lives lost if no vaccines had been distributed". The vaccines were not tested on lives saved, they were tested preventing symptoms and a positive PCR. The Pfizer mRNA jab had an absolute efficacy of preventing of symptoms of 0.85%- ie most people didn't get symptoms- about 98%, about 97.15% did not get symptoms after vaccination. the likelihood of people under 80 dying from symptoms is very small anyway but it can't be established if stopping symptoms saved lives. The mathematical model is fatally flawed.
Debating scientific findings is injurious to public health. Ok, Tomás de Torquemada
Quoting the Lancet, an admittedly historically reliable source of peer-reviewed medical research, on the subject of covid is a classic example of science as a religion and not a method for inquiry. The Lancet published a paper pronouncing the “lab leak theory” as a “conspiracy theory”. The damn thing came out of the lab, as was obvious to anyone with a pulse and two firing brain cells. The people (Zhengli, Daszak, Fauci, et al.) who helped steer the narrative are still walking around this crime scene of a planet, because science. Dawkins, Coyne, and any other science cultists need to employ the scientific method and come back to actual reality on this most serious case of medical malfeasance. Sasha Latypova’s Substack is a good place to start.
Yes, the irony.
Before you can look at the evidence for the truth of what people believe about god and whether this is acceptable, one must first look at the evidence you are claiming is the truth of the pandemic which required faith in experts, turned many into zealots and made anyone questioning anything for scientific or personal reasons into dissenters, heretics and anti's However, if it had been profitable for pharma, the way the evidence of the truth of new virus was gathered it could also have proved the existence of the flower fairies https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/x-ray-crystallography-and-3d-computer Do you believe in fairies Richard?
This is a classic case of smart people losing control of the 'truth' and their credibility https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing the Emperors got no clothes.
Jo
🙏🏽
I would like to think that Dawkins the scientist understands the science of the vaccines, the quality of the testing, the demographic of the study participants, etc.. However, for what it is worth, my husband with chronic leukaemia was fully committed to the vaccines and died after the flu shot and three vaccines. Was that right for him? There is a difference in the volume of mRNA between Pfizer and Moderna, 30 vs 100. Can Dawkins unequivocally say that one size fits all, irrespective of different body types or the myriad of other differences between vaccine recipients? I have many vaccinated friends and most have had repeat infection. My body has not been the same since the injection. Dawkins believes in the science of the vaccines and that is his prerogative and maybe his express personal duty. I admit to not being an esteemed scientist, but am I to discount my personal experience and sovereignty? Just as there are many interpretations of God/No God, and for some Dawkins has put forth a persuasive case, there is not a global one size fits all. Perhaps we agree to disagree and enjoy our life as far as that is possible these days. I am not so naive as to think that this technology is going anywhere soon. It will slink its way into our lives by some portal. The sod has been turned, the factories are being built.
I have no idea what Nexus is but an article that challenges the vaccines isn't anti-vax, it's science. An article that challenges masks isn't anti-masks, it's science. And an article that challenges man-made climate change isn't anti-climate, it's science. You really need to stop viewing people that have different views to you as "anti" this or that.
Depends on what kind of article we're taking about. Science is a method. A quite specific method. Just writing an article challenging something isn't science.. it's opinion writing. In science, you make observations, you conduct experiments, you record data, you posit and test hypothesises and you publish articles on scientific journals and have peers do their very best to put holes in your theory or methods. And of course even then it's imperfect.
Note confirmation of the venn diagram overlap on all three points. Aren't articles detailing the properties of vaccines and masks, science? Aren't articles detailing man-made climate change science? They aren't 'views'. They are science. Being opposed to masks, vaccines or lockdowns on grounds they interfere with 'freedom' or on grounds unrelated to viral transmission isn't science. Cherry-picking information to suit such positions also isn't science, especially if the broader realm of scientific knowledge on the topic is overlooked or diminished. Being opposed to something is being "anti".
Your Venn diagram just points to science because science investigates and continues to investigate all theories. If we had dogmatically stuck to the same approved beliefs over the last 500 years, we would be in a much different place.
Yes your articles on vaccines, masks and climate change are science but much of science can be interpreted in different ways and should therefore be considered a view or theory. By saying 'this is the truth and you can't challenge it' is no different to saying 'there is a God and you blaspheme for saying otherwise'.
I'm not anti mask. Masks work for a lot of things they are designed for. I am anti the removal of human rights. I am not anti vaccine. Some vaccines work for the things they are designed for. I am anti the removal of human rights. I am not anti climate change. Climate change has always happened, long before humans. I am anti the removal of human rights.
If the conclusions to the science you believe to be true are correct, then you have nothing to fear, the truth will prevail. Most people just want the truth. But by stifling opposing views, the truth will never emerge.
I’m just glad we’ve gotten straight to the point on those of your objections which are more social than scientific and without bloodshed. Well done. You are absolutely right that positions, even scientific positions, should be challenged where appropriate. It is one hundred percent correct that we would have gotten nowhere if there had not been people brave enough to challenge academic orthodoxy. Let’s just keep the distinctions clear. Science is science. Human rights is about human rights. Narrow it down and constructive discussions on the correct topics can take place.
Yeah that 'there is no doubt' is outrageous. Darwin's friend Alfred Wallace pointed to the lack of evidence and doubt around the smallpox vaccine in 1898, and couldn't believe his eyes that so many educated people fell for the assumption that the vaccine had been proven to work, when it clearly had not. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/lets-hope-the-monkey-pox-nonsense Wallace says ; 'They declare that "there is no proof that sanitary improvements were the main cause of the decline of small-pox… To the accuracy of these statements I demur in the strongest manner. There is proof‘
This correspondence… proves that small-pox obeys, and always has obeyed, the same law of subservience to general sanitary conditions as the other great groups of allied diseases and the general mortality.’ 'coupled with the almost total neglect of vaccination.’
Jo
Wow. You believe in climate science (rightfully so) but you’re a general common vaccine denier. That is really strange.
Well said. One can still hope that men of Dawkins’ caliber can accept the results of the scientific method, correctly applied, over the mere appeal to authority.
While you may be confident that "there is no doubt that vaccination against covid saved many lives" we have had a lot of trouble finding clean data to support this. Excess mortality data does not seem to support this and most other data registries are so full of systemic bias they are hard to interpret, such as the "14 day grace period" aka the Bayesisn datacrime. Add to that the difficulty getting health agencies to release information with vaccine status identified. Certainly in younger age groups the evidence seems to suggest the cost outweighed the benefits. Not surprising given this group was very unlikely to die from COVID; even a modest increase in myocarditis deaths was unlikely to be unmatched.
I watched the interview before I saw the clickbait.
I thought it was a great interview – he was clearly being a tough interviewer, trying to lay traps. Which is fine – it makes things interesting.
But I thought it was pretty clear that you were *disagreeing* with the implied premises of his questions.
So when I saw the clickbait headlines, it did seem pretty disingenuous. You *clearly* weren't agreeing with the things he was wanting you to say. That much was obvious.
Still, I really liked all your responses in that interview, and for that reason alone, I'd commend anyone to watch it.
It’s 100% percent true that the rapid development of COVID vaccines (especially the mRNA ones) was one of, if not the greatest scientific achievement/s of this century so far!
But I don‘t think that refusing COVID vaccination is anti-social, as long as everyone who wants to get the vaccine can easily get it. Because, if you are vaccinated and, additionally, if you want to wear a mask to protect you even more, you shouldn’t need to worry much about unvaccinated people. Surely not more than you worry about people that are not vaccinated against the flu.
I think it’s much more questionable if such a pandemic is sufficient reason to give governments the power to enforce mask mandates and lock-downs, etc.
Unfortunately none of the vaccines is 100% effective, and even a properly fitted FFP-2 or N95 mask is only 95% effective in protecting against exposure. Therefore the only way to guarantee not catching it is to not be exposed. The opportunity to achieve herd immunity was lost, practically speaking, because the disease persisted long enough to mutate. Said persistence was abetted by, inter alia, poor understanding of the disease transmission mechanism and the widespread refusal to wear effective masks. Those seeking quantitative information on transmission and risk of exposure would benefit from Professor Bazant's online course on COVID 19 Transmission at MIT, which is previewed here: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2Y__Z_PgAxQ
Of course, that’s true, but the point is that you still do not need to worry too much, because, if you‘re vaccinated and yet get COVID, the health risks are quite low on average. Not higher than for the flu at least. And before COVID no one ever would have said that it was anti-social not to get the flu vaccination.
It’s not correct to compare the overall number of deaths over the full three year period because a newly introduced virus will generally have a more severe impact than one that exists since decades and for which vaccination is available since a long time.
But if you compare CFR (case fatality risk), SARS-CoV-2 and influenza viruses are well in the same range.
Besides, it’s always extremely difficult to get valid fatality numbers for any virus...
E.g.:
“We included 77 estimates of the case fatality risk from 50 published studies, about one-third of which were published within the first 9 months of the pandemic. We identified very substantial heterogeneity in published estimates, ranging from less than 1 to more than 10,000 deaths per 100,000 cases or infections.”
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3809029/
John Hopkins determined a case fatality “ratio” of 1.1% for COVID19, what is quite low and certainly not higher than for influenza.
https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality
A false argument. Over a typical three year period, ca 100 thousand people in the US die of flu, while in a comparable period, more than 1 million died of Covid. Ten times the mortality rate!
I'm curious: Why / how is it uncertain that refusing the COVID-19 vaccine is an anti-social act?
For some vaccines, in which herd immunity due to vaccination can halt spread of a virus, refusal could be anti-social.
Given that the Covid vaccine maybe doesn't halt spread enough to prevent the virus being endemic in a population, it's questionable whether we should consider it anti-social to refuse it.
I think that's what they were getting at, anyway.
(Personally, I gladly took the vaccine because I didn't want to get sick, and I figured the risk would be lower with the vaccine than without.)
I agree wth your statement, but it is also true that time lost due to ineptitude (e.g, by the CDC in the US), politization by officials like Trump and Bolsonaro, and widespread refusal by a significant fraction of the populace to adhere to practical guidance led to the accelerated evolution of the virus, with each succeeding variant being more virulent than its predecessor. Besides that there is the well established principle of public good. Seat belt laws, for example, exist to reduce the cost of health care by reducing the severity of injuries in auto accidents, though they are sold to the public as being beneficial to their safety. The same argument and benefits apply to Covid 19 vaccines.
This is all true. I had tried to write the above without sounding like I was offering my *own* opinions, but just summarising the state of discourse.
I do think it's probably a net-positive for people to be vaccinated – not just for themselves, but also for others around them. I'm sympathetic with those who are less pleased by the situation, since in many jurisdictions, vaccinations was effectively forced. And I understand that this dramatic curtailment of civil liberties is concerning in a free and democratic society.
So... it's complicated and nuanced. :)
Did it work? Or did you get sick after the vaccine? I mean sick of anything, not only Covid. Every vaxed friend or family member I have got sick after vaccine. Many got Covid several times. A few got serious symptoms from the vaccine. In lack of any independent studies we can trust on both sides of the divide, I simply ask real people's experiences to find out. Our household had one two shots mandadet vacvinated and two not vaccinated and Covid visited one unvaxed person for less than two days in two years and no otber sickness at all. Happy we didn't vax vulontarily because we had much better outcomes than anybody I know personally. Of course it is not a double-blind scientific study but it is valid empirical knowledge which humans used for millennia to get a pretty good sense for keeping save and to do tbe right thing.
Thanks, that makes sense.
You care about the truth?? But you are fine for the govt etc to push the vaccines and make claims they couldn't have known at the time?
Dawkins writes, "What I did say was that EVEN IF religious belief benefits human welfare, that doesn’t make it true. And the truth is what I care about."
The truth is that nobody knows what the truth is in regards to the very largest of questions. A reasonable theory is that we don't even have the questions right.
Imagine trying to explain the Internet to your dog. Your dog can see and hear the Internet, but she doesn't have the mental equipment needed to understand the level of abstraction involved with the Net, so no matter what you do, she'll never get it.
My speculative unproven claim is that this is most likely the situation we're in in regards to the largest of questions. My next claim is that such ignorance should be appreciated, because if reality is small enough that we could understand it, that would be a very sad discovery.
How I Learned To Stop Caring About Other People’s Religious Beliefs
https://open.substack.com/pub/william3n4z2/p/how-i-learned-to-stop-caring-about?r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web
William writes, "One day I told him that I was going to write a book that would scientifically explain how the Universe came into existence, and that would completely destroy his biblical Genesis story."
I'm not religious either, but....
https://www.tannytalk.com/p/intrigued-by-the-book-of-genesis
I'm disappointed to see this from Freddie Sayers, but you, Richard, handled it perfectly eloquently.
The Plandemic Video Series:
PLANDEMIC 1:
The first PLANDEMIC, a 26-minute documentary, has been seen by over one billion people worldwide, setting a historic record. Dive into the explosive documentary that exposes hidden agendas, questions mainstream narratives, and sparks a global conversation. Brace yourself for eye-opening revelations that challenge the status quo.
PLANDEMIC 2:
The premiere of PLANDEMIC 2: Indoctornation set streaming records with 2 million viewers attending the global livestream. Journey deeper into the web of deception as Plandemic 2 uncovers the untold stories and exposes the powerful forces manipulating our world.
PLANDEMIC 3:
The Great Awakening unravels the layers of corruption and unveils a path towards a brighter future. Prepare to be inspired, awakened, and empowered to take a stand for liberty.
https://stopworldcontrol.com/plandemicseries/
What are your views on Alfred Wallace, Richard?
https://nakedemperor.substack.com/p/history-never-repeats-itself-but
I don't have much scientific experience or education but I feel I understand the basic principles of the process. But I wouldn't make sweeping judgements or assessments of specific scientific findings or theories I have no knowledge of or experience in. How arrogant, once again, of you to do so in spiritual matters, especially with mystical experiences. If you never had a mystical experiences you shouldn't talk about it or judge on it. Mysticism doesn't neatly fit into your dualistic scientific understanding because science and logic is contained as part of all manifestations. The part can never understand the whole. Mystics, however, understands science without a problem as they understand the whole.
Hiya, yes I think Richard is being provocative and starting an academic (ie useless) discussion to get us all going!
For me there is no separation between science and mysticism. My scientific, intellectual mind led me to the same place as my yoga/magical/mystic/meditation (ie awareness practice and alignment with the health giving, creative forces through bodily movements and relaxation) practice did years ago.
That is that we are all one interconnected, inseparable whole. Science can't even define the edges of a human. When does the oxygen and carbon dioxide and the food and the waste, going in and out begin and cease to be human? Are the trillions of bacteria in our microbiome that we can't live without and which contain more genetic info that our genome and which switch our genes on and off and after our mood part of a human, or are we part of bacteria? Plants affect us without us even having to eat or touch them. The interaction between fungi and trees under the ground that science is just beginning to unearth is just the beginning.
Science may be more about the experience of understanding what's going on and mysticism may be more about how it feels to be part of what's going on. But I think as part of 'human' experience they are actually inseparable. And very helpful to each other.
https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/a-tiny-water-flea-has-31000-genes
Jo
Yep, the complexity is mind-boggkung and humbling when fully experienced through a mystical experience. And the interconnectedness of all things even more. Scientists only touching the surface here. Science has its place - but not at the head if the table. That's what many scientists don't get and that's were they become dangerous.
You are so right.
I am a bit gobsmacked that Dawkins nails his interpretation of some dodgy experiments as the facts, and calls those who disagree with him anti social, science deniers and disobedient refuseniks. This sounds just like Fauci.
Please show me the controls (every school girl knows you need controls right?) that were done when it was decided that a virus was the cause of the new disease and it's genome was picked from 56 million small fragments of RNA. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/seeing-is-believing
No one believed Florence Nightingale in her time either, she thought that disease was begun by poor and dirty ennvironmental conditions, not caught. She has been accused of being a miasmist. Those putting masks on children's faces and stopping them going to school and putting toxins in their arms for fear of infected air are the miasmists and the real anti social refusers to look at the science.
Jo
Whoa, refusing the MMR is definitely an antisocial act? Is it because of the measles, mumps or German measles? The 'measles' vaccine was introduced in 1968, when deaths were already virtually zero. There is no scientific evidence that a vaccine for it is necessary https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/how-power-couple-pharma-regulation and there is much evidence that a debate about the dangers of the MMR (which Iwas banned from Twitter for mentioning pre Musk) is necessary. https://georgiedonny.substack.com/p/mmr-and-autism
Science and evidence are never definite, settled and are always in doubt.
Jo
Two words: Jamie Foxx
https://twitter.com/NaturallyFTW/status/1646722892783050755
Can Dawkins tell us when will these stop to be coincidences?
Just still so utterly surprised and confused that such an impactful scientific mind is so easily distracted by, and obsessed with, the Covid-19 vaccine debate.
Darn tootin’ it’s antisocial. The right wing insists that individual choice supersedes what is best for the greater good. We certainly see this in the skewed, inappropriate interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, placing so-called “rights” to own handguns over the 1st Amendment rights of ALL PEOPLE to pursue a LIFE of liberty and justice. ME! ME! ME! Generation of wing-nuts who wouldn’t dream of stepping up and doing CIVIC DUTY. Anti-vax’ers completely ignore the science and theory behind PUBLIC health. Anyone who needs that spelled out had better re-evaluate their moral compass.
How can it be antisocial if it is not impairing transmission? The benefit to greater good is based on the idea that an intervention will benefit those other than the agent, is it not? At this stage, likely due to one of more of the following, the mRNA vaccines are actually worsening outcomes: 1) antibody dependent disease enhancement, 2) antigentic priming, 3) immune tolerance (from repeated dosing).
Links to peer-reviewed journal articles substantuating your claims?
https://brownstone.org/articles/vax-gene-files-accidental-discovery/
newspaper article
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4037
editorial
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.03.16.484616v2?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
No evidence of adverse effects presented
https://en.protothema.gr/pfizer-mrna-vaccine-goes-into-liver-and-changes-into-dna-swedish-study-finds/
unknown effects, per authors
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-393X/11/5/991
speculative
If you can’t accept and abide by the US Constitution, then either get it amended to suit your liking or move to another country whose laws are more in-synch with the ideals of the type of government you wish to live under.
Who the hell do YOU think you are? I know, abide AND HAVE READ the constitution; I also know about the fascist billionaires who want to subvert this democracy and how they use propaganda to play on weak-minded people who aren’t capable of critical thinking and who join mobs and support lawlessness with a mob mentality. So, William Pritting--what have YOU ever done to give back to this country?
You know what else? I joined on my own volition; I didn’t owe anything when I joined--I joined to give back. I can assure you that in 2023, I would NEVER make that kind of sacrifice for the selfish, fascist-minded, racist people that represent America today.
OK--so you are little more than a profiteer, part of the military-industrial complex. You didn’t serve anyone so much as you served yourself. I was active duty; so was my husband and I know enough about keeping secrets from US enemies. You can remember that next time you tell American citizens to leave the country. Vaccinations are not a violation of individual rights to protect themselves; better think twice about mincing words or playing games with legal parlance, too--I don’t get the sense that you are even educated.
I spent 33-2/3 years as a defense contractor in the satellite business with a “Beyond Top Secret” Security Clearance so I could do all of my work in a “SCIF” in order to create the products that have kept the USA safe from foreign enemies!
You obviously don’t know the first damn thing about who the enemies of the USA are if you want to violate people’s right to protect themselves, as guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
“The Great Collapse of Society”
The Frankfurt School and “Critical Theory”
The “Frankfurt School,” or Institute for Social Research, was set up by a group of Marxist intellectuals in Germany in 1923, affiliated to the University of Frankfurt and independently of the Communist Party, which has been influential in the development of Marxist theory ever since.
The Frankfurt School believed that as long as an individual had the belief – or even the hope of belief – that his divine gift of reason could solve the problems facing society, then that society would never reach the state of hopelessness and alienation that they considered necessary to provoke socialist revolution. Their task, therefore, was as swiftly as possible to undermine the Judeo-Christian legacy. To do this they called for the most negative destructive criticism possible of every sphere of life which would be designed to de-stabilize society and bring down what they saw as the ‘oppressive’ order. Their policies, they hoped, would spread like a virus—‘continuing the work of the Western Marxists by other means’ as one of their members noted.
To further advance their ‘quiet’ incremental cultural revolution (Fabian Socialism) – but giving us no ideas about their plans for the future – the School recommended (among other things):
Divide and Conquer.
The oppressed and their oppressors.
1. The creation of racism offenses.
2. Continual change to create confusion.
3. The teaching of sex and homosexuality to children.
4. The undermining of schools’ and teachers’ authority.
5. Huge immigration to destroy identity.
6. The promotion of excessive drinking/drug abuse.
7. Emptying of churches.
8. An unreliable legal system with bias against victims of crime.
9. Dependency on the state or state benefits.
10. Control and dumbing down of media.
11. Encouraging the breakdown of the family.
One of the main ideas of the Frankfurt School was to exploit Freud’s idea of ‘pan-sexualism’ – the search for pleasure, the exploitation of the differences between the sexes, the overthrowing of traditional relationships between men and women. To further their aims they would:
• attack the authority of the father, deny the specific roles of father and mother, and wrest away from families their rights as primary educators of their children.
• abolish differences in the education of boys and girls
• abolish all forms of male dominance – hence the presence of women in the armed forces
• declare women to be an ‘oppressed class’ and men as ‘oppressors.’
https://william3n4z2.substack.com/?utm_medium=web