*Summary* *Introduction* - 0:00 - Beyond the Noise Episode 19 starts, hosted by Vincent Renello and Dr. Paul Offit - 0:20 - This episode is a video version of Dr. Paul's column on substack, Beyond the Noise *The Role of Debate and Questioning in Science* - 0:31 - Discussion on whether scientists should openly debate vaccine policies - 0:43 - *The host*
Thank you for the timestamps. You are invited to the official Discord group for Microbe TV via link discord.gg/RstZNK5k I also do timestamps and appreciate it when others do it. If you join the group, we can avoid duplicated efforts and send text messages there to coordinate efforts
I respect you both telling the truth of science. There are so many doctor's out here tell different stories but have never been on any panel to back of their theories. I will always listen to this channel.
I watched that meeting with the dozen or so scientist ‘experts’ including Paul and frankly I could have predicted exactly who was going to vote which way. The majority of them seemed disinterested, disconnected and clueless. This perfectly boils down why so many of our science and medical institutions have lost public trust in recent years and why so much research and game changers over the past decade turn out to be subpar. We are handing out expert titles to eveyone who just show up. Thank you Paul for being one of the few credible scientist today.
Paul and Vincent, I thank you both for the work you do to help us all understand science. One of my brothers has a different political view than I do. We had a chance to talk about it this past summer. I referred him to the differences in our sources of information. He understood. The main message he had for me was that he wanted the truth. Paul, you have stated exactly what you believe to be the truth. That means the world to me. The White House folks have decided on their messaging. If their message is rejected, they need to think about what they said. Corporate media still makes their income by instilling fear and conflict. (I spent a few years doing special projects for a number of news network shows. They told me what I just stated.) There will always be talking heads given provocative questions with a 30 second or two minute time to answer. Those who speak with conclusive authority will be asked back. Long form programming like what we see on Microbe TV will always be a much better means of communication. Knowing that you said the truth will always provide peace in your heart.
"Paul, you have stated exactly what you believe to be the truth. That means the world to me." But why? He means the world to antivaxxers too - at least for now. Dr Offit is just one expert with one view. A view that was in the minority at the ACIP meeting. "The White House folks have decided on their messaging" The ACIP (FDA) made this decision and decided on the messaging after looking at all the evidence and having an honest discussion among the experts on the panel.
This is the actuall lesson for everyone. All media has changed in the chase for the money. That lead to the totalitarism, I urge you to watch podcast with Mattias Desmet where he gives some insights to human psychology during the pandemic. The key note is that you should tell truth in public, cause if not - it will get worse.
Thank you Dr Offit. I greatly appreciate your informed discourse. I am sorry that you suffered for your honesty. Please continue to share the science with the public.
Dr. Offit is humble about what he knows and doesn’t but that’s what makes him credible. One of the issues is that our regulatory bodies have been arrogant and condescending. I think public health officials should give the public more credit or they’ll forever damage their reputations, with truly sad outcomes.
At some point we need to discuss not only the safety and effectiveness of individual vaccines but also the cumulative effect of hundreds of vaccines over a lifetime
So you are telling me that despite being a nurse you don’t know that ? These have been extensively discussed . Aren’t you a disgrace to medical profession ?
This is a crazy discussion. The key point is that the Offit was right and FDA was wrong on the bivalent and wrong on not limiting the recommendation for this year’s booster. The key point is to overhaul the FDA so recommendations are based on science, not politics.
@@alexdevcamp I hope you can see the problem Dr. Offit has created. I have seen that antivaxxer to whom you responded crowing about what he said in many places on the internet and claiming him as one of theirs.
@@alexdevcamp I followed the evidence from the beginning… hence the pure blood status. Let me guess you follow the “experts” and are quadruple++++ boosted.
How does a public health agency reconcile "We learn as we go" with vaccine mandates or coercive vaccine policies? Vaccine efficacy regarding preventing transmission was overpromised, and many members of the public expected, based upon public statements from officials, that getting COVID vaccinated would prevent getting infected. With those kinds of discrepancies and the social and economic harms done from lockdowns, people will want assurances that public health policies are based on thoroughly studied subject matter, not learn as they go science. Learn as you go science doesn't sound definitive enough for implementing restrictive public policies whicch some people don't want to comply with. Vaccine science has profound effects on public policy. Scientists may not want to debate vaccine science with the public, and people can say science isn't up for debate, but the public policies pertaining to vaccines, masks, lockdowns, school and business closures are very much debated and issues in many elections. Increasing the parameters for vaccine exemptions, and offering subsidies for the social and economic harms of lockdowns would help people rebuild businesses that were lost, and trust that was lost, but that would only be a small start. If a patient alleges a vaccine related adverse event from a especially from a mandated, or school or work required vaccine, they need medical care without hassles about insurance coverage, or arguments about causality. If people are left without adequate medical care and compensation after they note a temporal association with what they suspect is a vaccine adverse event, they and their friends may become very opposed to vaccines in general, not just the one they allege sickened them. And then, adding insult to injury, the vaccine proponents and cheerleaders mock them for their impairments, blame them, it only make the pharmaceutical companies appear more vicious and manipulative and corrupting of government. Having single payer healthcare and even some Universal Basic Income will be necessary before public trust is regained in public health.
The whole premise of democracy is that it is built on a well-educated citizenry. However, since the advent of social media, everyone is exposed to so much information and hence is required to participate in the debate in all of them, willingly or not. This causes the population to be less educated in relative terms, which amplifies the unreasonable, but exciting voices in the extremes. You can see how the politicians closer to the center are losing their voice in the US in recent years. Applying this understanding to public science education, the same pattern should hold true. Whether the situation will improve is up to debate, but I am sure for now, the answers we will get will be primarily strong yes's or no's.
But even when people who are highly educated on vaccines disagree or ask questions which contradict the vaccine agenda they are called conspiracy theorists and ostracized by most of the media and the vaccine scientists (note I did not say the scientific community because there are many scientists who are also being labeled as conspiracy theorists because they do not share the vaccine establishment's view on vaccines) Let's be real, there are groups with agendas and they do not want a public who is truly educated on vaccines because they want everyone to obey the vaccine establishment. It's not about being educated it's about being obedient. It's extremely anti-american honestly.
I'm sort of the source of information for family members who "hear things" and do not know what to believe. My father is 72 and retired. He is healthy, doesn't go very many places and is not subjected to crowded places. He has had three doses. I told him that he can forgo another dose for a few years or until something changes, his health, the virus, or he starts going to crowded places. My wife's grandmother is 91 and still occasionally meets with old friends and relatives. I told her that she'd better go ahead and get the booster, just to be safe.
Technically your Dad is still in a high risk group and probably should get a booster, especially if he’s only had three shots or it’s been awhile since his last shot. My 95 yr old Dad has had five shots and a mild case of Covid a year ago. He’s refusing to “ take any more damn shots” despite the encouragement of myself and my sister ( both retired nurse) and his gerontologist. We aren’t pushing it because it’s his life. And honestly he’s not going to live more than a few more years anyways. However your Dad could have another 20-25 years of life. I hope he gets another booster. To be clear I don’t think everyone needs to rush to get another shot. My own sons are in their thirties. They each had three shots and mild cases of Covid. I told them they could skip a booster for now
@@karenkaren3189 Yeah, I think it's a close call, his getting a booster. The factor that tilts my opinion is that as side-effects, he has gotten body aches and a slight fever for about a day.
The problem I see with the people I deal with when attempting to explain this nuance they don’t have the attention span. They are used to little chunks of info. They tune out with anything science related. I love it, my husband just wants told what to do.
I love Paul, I personally appreciated his views on the vaccines. Unfortunately people I’ve come in contact with that heard this, were in fact scared off from future vaccinations -my 85 year old mother one of them. I’m unable to change her mind. I can’t explain this to her.
Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear -- Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diphtheria, Pertussis, Hepatitis, Tetanus and many, many more. Bring 'em all back! And invest in the Funeral Home industry. Lower the population today!
Just for the record, here are some of the reasons why the US recommends a booster for everyone over the age of 6 months instead of a targeted approach: The U.S. healthcare is harder to access. The U.S. healthcare has poorer administrative efficiency. The U.S. healthcare is less equitable. Thea U.S. has a patchwork of coverage to pay for the costs. The CDC recommendations determine who pays for the vaccine. By providing universal recommendations, the following happens: - Private insurance companies and public insurers buy vaccines for all their enrollees. - The Bridge Program will pay for uninsured adults. - It will now be included in the federally funded Vaccines for Children program. As a result, no one who wants the booster will need to pay for it. In the U.S. the number of hospital beds per 1000 is lower. The U.S. has an inferior safety net. The average American has a poorer health status.
Thankfully I don't have a penchant for worshipping the words of any one person; mRNA is novel and they decidedly have not been proven to be safe or fully effective. Individual risk/benefit has to be considered before mandating these vaccines and it must be proven that the ability of these vaccines to prevent transmission has to be incredibly strong before mandating a young, healthy person who has already had covid twice to take it.
You mean if the person was dumb enough to get covid twice before getting vaccinated ? If you are ignorant about vaccines it does not mean every body else is as ignorant as yourself. Three large studies before March 2021 had clearly shown vavcines significantly reduced transmission . We later found out that “ significant transmission reduction “ ( upto 80% in some cohorts ) lasts only a few months still in middle of pandemic it was extremely important . Here are the rest of benefits of vaccine. 1: blood clots 6 times more common among unvaccinated 2: myocarditis- 8 to 11 times more common among unvaccinated 3: myocardial infarction - multiple times more common among the unvaccinated even upto a year after unprotected COVID ( getting COVID while unvaccinated) 4: autoimmune diseases 3 times more common among unvaccinated 5: still births 2 to 3 times more common to unvaccinated mothers 6: early births ( with plethora of life long problems and issues ) 2 to 3 times more common among unvaccinated . 7: 3rd trimester problems much higher in the unvaccinated 8: pulmonary fibrosis with COVID 9: brain damage from COVID ( shown on MRI ) before and after COVID 10: king COVID prevented by vaccine even up-to 91% 11: vaccine has shown promise in treat of king covid 12: babies of pregnant women who receive vaccine in third trimester have 74% lower chance of even catching the infection in the first 6 months .
I don't think there should be any reluctance to admit uncertainty or debate in earnest within full public view. The cost of limiting debate, silencing dissent or marginalizing critics is that when you push something and it turns out to be incorrect, you lose all your credibility. You are viewed as a dishonest broker and not trusted moving forward. Over the long haul honesty is more important than lies or false confidence in service of short term goals.
When we will learn? Trying to manage the public opinion by ... uh, lets say "filtering" the message, it will eventually come back to bite you. Particularly in science the information will become clear (because it is all eventually published). Just be honest.
I favor open discussion. Closed doors and “secrets” will always raise questions. I found in my pediatric practice my success in getting children vaccinated even with hesitant parents depended on full open honesty about what we know and what we don’t know. Better to get the difficult information and points of view from the scientists rather than from social media or other unreliable sources.
I think you misunderstand the problem here. What you do with parents is discuss with them what the experts have concluded. That's fine but that's not the issue here. Dr. Offit is disagreeing with what the experts as a group (and he is a member of that group) have concluded. He is airing his disagreements with the consensus of his expert group in public - among people who are do not have the background to understand the issues. All they see is disagreement among experts while antivaxxers present a united front.
@@williamverhoef4349 disagreement among experts on complicated unsettled science is a good thing. If they pretended to all agree and happened to be wrong, people would start to question everything else they've been told by the experts. Antivaxxers thrive in the opacity of expertise, not in the sunlight of open inquiry.
@@jludo "disagreement among experts on complicated unsettled science is a good thing" Yes it is. But airing dirty linen in public is not. What is needed is for experts in the relevant areas of science to get together, look at all the evidence, assess that evidence, and come to a conclusion about the evidence and what should be done based on it. That is what happened when they held the ACIP meeting. Dr. Paul Offit's opinion was in the minority, and it seems he didn't like that his opinion did not hold sway. Appealing to the public after losing among your scientific peers is a bad look for a scientist. And misrepresenting, or not effectively representing, why the majority voted the way they did, is a pretty bad look as well. " If they pretended to all agree and happened to be wrong, people would start to question everything else they've been told by the experts." People question the experts mostly because they are antivaxxers, grifters, cranks, or con artists. This is going to happen even if all the experts completely agree. Which is actually never. To have any hope at all with informing the public, the experts must discus their differences in expert meetings like the ACIP and then present a united front to the public. Otherwise, their disagreements will be used and abused by the groups mentioned above. In this particular case, antivaxxers have been using Dr. Paul Offit's disagreement with the decision of the majority vote to claim him as one of their own in order to further their antivax cause. "Antivaxxers thrive in the opacity of expertise" Nope. The thrive on misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. They thrive on any sign of disagreement among experts. They exaggerate and mischaracterise any disagreement among experts, and they twist it out of shape. "They thrive ... not in the sunlight of open inquiry. How long have you been studying the antivax industry? Of course, they thrive on experts disagreeing in public. And it's not as if there is no open enquiry. All scientific meetings are disagreements and open enquiry between scientists. If you want the public involved in this discussion, then you had better educate them about science first. .
Thank you Vincent, such an intelligent but laidback host. I love watching (and listening to) Paul Offit talk. It’s like the wonderful self-winding pocket watch my father had in the ‘50s, with a clear crystal on its back, so you could see the watch’s movement - its gear train, balance wheel, dial and jewels, all working with such precision and elegance…and he (P.O.) has an honest, very human face on the front, too: he’s never puffed up or without self-questioning. I would definitely trust this man with the lives of my grandchildren. We need our institutions and I generally trust them …though sometimes cum grano salis (as my father used to say). How great to have Dr. Offit help fine tune the CDC advice, to add that occasional grain of salt!
Amazing, How many Doctors & nurses were dismissed when questioning anything to do with the vaccine protocol? Paul had the guts to ask some basic questions knowing it would be controversial.
"How many Doctors & nurses were dismissed when questioning anything to do with the vaccine protocol?" So why would you listen to the opinion of a doctor or nurse with no recognised expertise in epidemiology, virology, or vaccinology as opposed to a panel of recognised experts in their fields. Doctors and nurses are mostly not scientists, and they do not have the knowledge and experience to be telling the recognised experts that they are wrong. "Paul had the guts to ask some basic questions knowing it would be controversial." It seems he didn't know it would be controversial. I'm pretty sure he would have pulled his punches and being far more circumspect if he had realised that he would be used and abused by antivaxxers to promote their cause.
@@highlandbob2470 I was fortunate to have a background in both science and medicine, as well as having studied antivax strategies and tactics for the past 15 years or so. These are the people who I have found to provide reliable and accurate medical and scientific information: There are the doctors who write for the "Science Based Medicine" website: - Dr. David Gorski who is a breast surgeon but has a 20-year history of writing about vaccines and debunking antivaxxers. - Dr. Jonathan Howard, a paediatrician who is a psychologist but diverted to treating COVID-19 patients during the pandemic and who spent his free time countering the nonsense written by doctors who didn't treat any patients during the pandemic and forgot they were supposed to be helping people rather than their political ideologies. On UA-cam, there is: - epidemiologist, Dr. Daniel Griffin of TWiV of course. - molecular biologist, Dr Dan Wilson, on his channel, "Debunk the Funk". - nanomedical scientist, Dr. Susan Oliver on her channel, "Back to the Science". On Substack, there is an epidemiologist who sits as an expert on the ACIP panel of the FDA, Dr. Katelyn Jetelina on her blog "Your Local Epidemiologist". Now the list of people to avoid: These disgraceful doctors put their political ideology ahead of public health: - Dr. Vinay Prasad. - Dr. Marty Makary. - Dr. Jay Bhattacharya - Dr. Martin Kulldorff - Dr. Sunetra Gupta. - Dr. Zubin Damania. - Dr. Scott Atlas. - Dr Andrew Pinsky. - Dr. Mobeen Syed. There is also this disgraceful nurse in the UK who pretends to be a medical doctor: - Dr John Campbell.
Questions and debate are good, as long as they are questions you approve of, right? You say there are quick acting systems, can you define your definition of quick and how many people can be harmed before the product is retracted? Also, are there proactive studies designed and running now to look for potential issues? What specific issues are those studies looking for?
@@williamverhoef4349 hi thanks for your reply. Please can you let me know your qualifications, and experience please, amd also how many years? Are you willing to reveal your identity or prefer to remain anonymous?
@@markytickers Anonymous? That lie is staring you right in the face, Marty Kickers. Also, you seem unduly impressed by qualifications. How would they help you to decide that my arguments are valid and true?
I think it's more that you need to be receptive to the evidence, and humble about what you know and what you don't know. Having knowledge and education is really important. Some areas of debate don't require that kind of knowledge, but they still require humility and that openness to the evidence.
I had the vaccine three weeks ago for the fall XBB 15. I’m doing OK. I’m 64 years old with diabetes so I felt I should get it and so did my family doctor.
Because of you, the uptake was only 1 Percent. Just tells me that they didn't give a crap about the effects on humans, just the money lost in the dropped uptakes. God help us all.
The science is in a tough battle with the conspiracists. About a dozen years ago, while working as a supply teacher, I had a ten week assignment in a very expensive independent school. One of the topics that I was required to teach was microbiology to pupils who were 12-13 years old. The unit was called 'Microbes and Disease' and included a very basic introduction to vaccines, as required by the national curriculum. The next thing you know, I was the subject of a furious parental complaint that, by merely telling their daughter about the existence and function of vaccines, I was going to turn her autistic. The school took the parents' side. To do otherwise would have cost them tens of thousands of £s in lost school fees from all of that family's children. I was replaceable and was not invited back after Easter. I was fine with this, but I have to wonder about the education that the rest of the parents were paying handsomely for.
pseudoscience - a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method Let me know when you will be able to prove existence of immune system and anything that acts like alleged v-es.
I have huge respect for Offit. RE: boosters in USA: fact: USA is under vaccinated; fact: ONLY 20% took up the Bivalent boosters. The USA needs boosters in everybody, but we know very few will take it up.
Nobody needs boosters. Even mainstream news is beginning to report on the dna plasmid contamination problem. How could you possibly be recommending it at this point?
@@nicholasm2239 Mainstream news is one of the most unreliable sources of information. If they do include an expert it's often an outlier proposing a view which is miles from the consensus of medics and scientists. The like of Paul Offit are infinitely more reliable.
Dr Offitt, you should absolutely tell as accurate an interpretation of the data as possible. Always. Still, you should not be surprised by such backlash. Sadly, fear and defensiveness rule the roost, and this has killed off nearly all appreciation for nuance and shades of grey. We’re in the age of all or nothing thinking. It’s a depressing state of affairs. But always inform us with accurate interpretations of data
It is more to do with not giving antivaxxers a talking point to further their agenda. Dr. Paul Offit simply displayed a degree of naivete unexpected of someone who has been in the game for more than 20 years.
Paul is the best source of information on medical topics. He always thinks about what he says, and is very evidence based. Telling what you believe to be true is the best strategy. Unfortunately many people present opinions without having evidence to support them. I have watched many of Vincent's videos. Thank you Paul and Vincent.
Here in Mexico only the government is applying the COVID-19 shots, although the Pfizer and Moderna ones are in the process of being approved for sale (all vaccines were applied in the emergency stage). But the government is presently using the original strain Cuban and Russian vaccines only. If I understand correctly they still could be useful?
Antivaxxers will love you for saying that. Gives them lots of ammunition to spread vaccine hesitancy and rejection. On the other hand, they always present a united front, never disagreeing with anything any other antivaxxer says, even when there is blatant contradiction. They know how to play the game.
Certainly scientists should debate vaccine policy. Not only scientists of course, because scientific findings are not the only thing that affects public policy. Economic factors, social effects, as well as morals and ethics all come into the picture.
Of course all kinds of different scientists should have good robust debates. When examining anything there are many different types of specialists and experiences not to mention different points of view. To debate and discuss and examine things is what science is all about. To shut everyone up because somthing might be said that's wrong is practicaly insane❗❗It's outrageous.
You see to be unaware that this is exactly what happened with the panel of recognised experts in epidemiology, immunology, vaccinology at the ACIP (FDA). It's not that it wasn't discussed or debated, it was that Dr. Offit's view was in the minority.
You can both like the guy and disagree with him. But you have hit upon a reason why he should stop airing his disagreements in public, especially with the force and conviction that he does so, while not fairly presenting the majority position he disagrees with. People who don't have a background in science or medicine but who "like the guy" and will blindly accept what he says, even though the majority of experts on the ACIP disagreed with him. He is just one expert with one point of view. The bivalent vaccine was at least no worse than the original vaccine. So, no big deal. Except that the antivaxxers have a new involuntary false hero.
@@janinelargent9220 Give it up, arrogant antivaxxer. This guy knows more about virology, epidemiology, and vaccines than you will ever know or are capable of knowing. He's not arrogant, he just tells it the way he sees it. His only mistake is in not realising that he should not promote a personal opinion that is in a minority or say anything that anti-vaccine activists can use to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about vaccines because that is all these creatures need to do to win. I only hope you kept your personal opinion to yourself because, as a nurse, you could have had undue influence in persuading people not to get vaccinated with a truly life-saving vaccine.
Thanks for this discussion. It’s a classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If public health authorities had said, “We have this new vaccine, we think it will be more effective, but we can’t say for sure,” many people will say “I won’t be a Guinea Pig.” No matter what any doctor or public health official says, the times are too polarized and political, and the general public doesn’t understand the scientific process, and has deep skepticism and fear of pharmaceutical companies. Keep examining the data and giving your expert opinion, people will use it to inform their decisions, and some will use it to confirm their biases or twist what you say and exploit your words to advance some other argument/agenda.
How is that a damned if you don't, people getting an accurate confidence assessment from scientists and making the decision not to be a guinea pig. That seems like exactly what we want isn't it? Getting people most accurate info and letting them make their own health decisions with their dr?
@@jludo I agree with you, my point was that any uncertainty expressed by public officials will ‘damn’ them with certain people, who will say “See, they don’t know anything, it’s all experimental!” Whereas, if they state, “Everyone should get this vaccine, it’s better than the previous one,” people will say, “they’re lying, they don’t know that for certain yet.” I am okay with a certain degree of uncertainty, I am okay with officials changing their opinions as new data emerges over time, I agree with you that officials should give their honest opinions in full, including any uncertainty, and people should be free to discuss with their doctors and make decisions about their own healthcare. I do not believe anyone other than those in a clinical trial are “Guinea Pigs.” I’m merely stating that no matter what public health officials say, they’re bound to take flack for it, but that comes with the job.
The hardest thing to gain is trust and it is also the easiest to lose. Keep your integrity and keep being a scientiest, that is the right thing to do and demonstrates the correct behaviour. It is critical we have proper role models to help stem the tide of petty corruption that leads to mistrust.
@@williamverhoef4349 Strange that you selected only that section to quote and excluded the bit about a role model. Yes I hope Dr. Offit takes heed and understands that I fully support his stance, great that you agree 🙂
@@aetatissuaerationis1712 I'm not sure why you deliberately mischaracterised my comment in order, bizarrely, to agree with it. Yes, we need role models and Dr Offit could definitely be a good one with his depth of knowledge and experience. Unfortunately, he is failing. And it's not as if he is naive about antivaxxers and their tactics and about how he should conduct himself in public compared with among his peers. He has had 20 years of experience. So, it just puzzles me that he has not learnt how to avoid giving antivaxxers free ammunition to help spread vaccine hesitancy and rejection. They are having a field day with his personal opinions - which are in the minority among his peers at the ACIP (FDA) - about the ongoing vaccine doses, even claiming him as one of their own. There is no way this is a win for him. Or for us.
I like this guy! Thank you for stepping up as a scientist to disagree and with reason. More of you are needed. Don''t be afraid to speak up and have reason to!
Nope, we don't need more of this. We need a united front to defeat the loud-mouthed and well-funded minority of antivaxxers. They love it when we fight among ourselves and when some of us have to take time out defending people like Dr. Paul Offit who make the mistake of airing professional disagreements in public. I have seen antivaxxers gloating about him dumping on the CDC's decision, even claiming him as one of their own. He needs to understand that, when antivaxxers use what you have said as ammunition, you have failed.
The antivaxxers love him too. And why not? He has provided them with ammunition to further their cause of vaccine hesitancy and rejection. So, maybe, just maybe, he should reconsider how he deals with his disagreements with the majority decision of the ACIP.
Point blank, you ARE waffling. If the data and studies are showing what you all say they do, then you should have no problem backing up your opions with fact and accurate data. Yes, you all should debate the science, debate the papers if they are so steadfast. Otherwise you are not to be believed.
Paul’s messaging is correct. The primary reason people distrust is because the government agencies are not straightforward and honest. When they don’t tell the entire truth it breeds distrust. People see through it.
Then explain why the antivaxxers have had a field day with Dr Offit's disagreement with the majority decision of the ACIP, and why many of us have had to take time out defending him while correcting their mischaracterisations of what he has said. I expected far more of someone who has been at this for 20 years.
@@williamverhoef4349 Who cares? Seriously, Paul is right on this and the messaging should always be transparent. Too many times people are letting their ideology rule their decision making. Just tell the entire truth. There is nuance to the vaccine messaging and the one size fits all bogus narrative has bred the distrust not the other way around. To many people assume the general public are not capable of making an informed decision and now you somehow think it’s justified?
Well, if you enjoy airing dirty linen in public. The antivaxxers seem to love it. They gathered up the dirty linen and wrapped themselves up in it. Thank you Paul.
I like the learning as we go approach. I think to do it properly though, they need to be more incremental in the releases of new medical products. Of course it’s easy for me to say that from the sideline…. I still think there might be a way to do that - even in a pandemic. I also think they could try different approaches as they go and evaluate these approaches accordingly. I also think an issue we had in Covid was/is that even internal scientific debate was actively discouraged at times. That seems really dangerous. No easy answers, which is why I like Paul’s approach -it is honest and a accepts ambiguity.
I agree with a more incremental approach. The problem is the multi billion dollar elephant in the room, big pharma. Scientists don't like to address the pressure that money creates and pretend it's all just scientific disagreement.
It was an extremely wise decision to put it out fast . I just wish it was way faster than It turned out to be and for the whole world not just the important people of the world. It was in fact way too slow .
May be lyposoms with mRNA must transfect only deltoid cells. After vaccination (theoretically)lyposoms with mRNA need a period of time to melt with deltoid cells (minutes, hours?) In this period of time,may be deltoid muscle must not be used to decrease rysk of blood spread. If forearm is suport,(sustain) like after shoulder sprain,deltoid muscle did not contract. If
Various circulating white blood cells also pick up the mRNA particles and use their ribosomes to produce spike proteins. So, probably doesn't matter if you use your muscles.
I purposefully move my arm to help distribute the vaccine My arm gets less sore and I WANT the vaccine to disperse itself through my body Retired Nurse
@@karenkaren3189 theoretically, lyposoms with mRNA after transfect deltoid myocyte induce sintesis of Spike proteine . Spike antigen will be exocytate and ,theoretically, fagocitate by immune cells. Cell that produce Spike will be at least damaged.because inflamation occur.
A channel like this will not attract conspiratorial minds because it is sensible. Level-headed information must run through the filter of John Campbell's channel to encourage its confused viewers to conflate their lack of scientific literacy with facts. "The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is an illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking.
Just a heads up: this guy is an antivaxxer. Interesting, isn't it? That is now the second antivaxxer I've spotted in the comments agreeing with what Dr. Offit is doing.
Just so everyone knows - the above comment is meant as sarcasm by a well-known antivaxxer who spreads deadly disinformation in the commentary sections of many UA-cam channels. And this is why it was a mistake for Dr. Offit deciding to go public with his disagreement with the majority decision of the ACIP of which he is part - yes, ironically, Dr. Paul Offit is one of those "trusted experts" this antivax loon is railing against! Pretty funny, hey? But antivaxxers are like that. They have no background whatsoever in medicine or science but have no hesitation whatsoever telling those who do this as their day job that they are wrong. In science circles, this sort of behaviour is known as "the arrogance of ignorance", and it fits this guy to a tee.
Hi Microbe T V, the stated topic for this video is that whether or not scientists should debate vaccine policies in the public forum. My opinion for what little it is worth is that until such time as there ares some established scientific principles for vaccine policy there is nothing far any scientist to discuss!. This rather dogmatic attitude is one which I take because there appears to be a great deal of confusion about just what the word means!. Far too many people, politicians and journalists in particular seem to think that it is a title, an objective noun, when in fact it is only an active noun, meaning that any person as and when they are applying scientific principles and method to what they are doing is at that time and at that time only a 'scientist'. All of the rest of the time they are just people exactly the same of the rest of us. Back to the matter in hand, just as ordinary people those who work in scientific activities are just as much entitled to throw in what they can contribute and if they do so without any narcissistic claims to fame or qualification we out here in the mist should be better able to consider the relative merits of what we hear without so much confusion. What actually happened is everyone and their dogs jumped in on the topic and launched a tidal wave of speculation and random assertion without any of them having to offer any evidential support, far too many people then jumped on whatever bandwagon was closest to their preconceptions cognitive delusions and 'beliefs'. This had the immediate and direct effect of a huge number of speculative measures based on hope rather than expectation, all of them of course totally failed to accomplish anything of merit, apart that is for the slight increase in public scepticism. Cheers, Richard.
I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. It sounds a little wishy washy and self-contradictory. Can you state in a nutshell the point you are trying to make?
@@williamverhoef4349 Hi William Verhoef, thank you for this reply, I will do my best to respond appropriately but in the event that it still does not get across please try again, perhaps with more specifics. I started on the bit about the definition of scientist being one which appears to be mis-understood, in part at least because it seems so few people even understand what science is!. Agin it is a simple enough definition, again it is and active noun meaning that it something that people do not something that people are. That definition that I got from Karl Popper many years ago is that science is the systematic, coherent, logical observation and investigation of reality, any reality in any manner, as long as it is systematic and replicable. In simpler terms it is just a way of working, a method. From that it clearly derives that a scientist is any person doing anything that way!, but only for as long as they do it!. Sitting here working through this like this is I think quite good for me!, the fact that it comes out very much the same way that it went in fifty years ago speaks to the very consistency and coherence that I value. I have never been able to understand just why so many people find this so difficult! but more recently I have been made even more aware of that extraordinary human propensity for self deceit and delusion, I do now vaguely recall the long period in my life when I too sought certainty and proof, also the disappointment when I had to learn such resource is beyond me. Now I think I know how so many others in their desperation will latch on to any proposition no matter how absurd, like God or democracy, anything that offers any sort of certainty, just to help allay anxiety and doubt, two primary neurological conditions, not problems to be cured!. Cheers, Richard.
@@richardharvey1732 That was pretty long-winded way of saying that "scientist" is a noun; and that 'science" is a either a noun or verb depending on context; and that science is what a scientist does. Sorry, I corrected it a little, because 'science' can definitely be used as a noun: the body of knowledge called science. The rest of your comment sounds interesting but somewhat irrelevant to the topic of the video you are responding to. Never mind though, you sound like you learned something along the way, which is more than many can say.
@@williamverhoef4349 Hi William Verhoef, thank you very much for this articulate and sensible response, also for giving me yet another opportunity to expound a bit more. That definition of 'science' that I offer is meant to be a rather narrow and specific one because I think the distinctions are so important. As humans each with our personal mind-set and vocabulary genuine communication can be quite difficult. I do agree that the body of knowledge that has been generated by the application of scientific method is called 'scientific knowledge' a proper noun, but that two word label does not mean that knowledge is itself science, as a noun!. As to the rest of my post I do indeed have a tendency to ramble on, part of this is that my primary motivation for doing these comments is so that I can find out what I think by reading what I write!, if some of what I offer makes some sense to any other person that is a bonus but not my reason for doing it! This is in no small part due to the fact that after all these years I understand that my skill very much depends on application!, what I call the 'use it or lose it' principle!. Cheers, Richard.
*Summary*
*Introduction*
- 0:00 - Beyond the Noise Episode 19 starts, hosted by Vincent Renello and Dr. Paul Offit
- 0:20 - This episode is a video version of Dr. Paul's column on substack, Beyond the Noise
*The Role of Debate and Questioning in Science*
- 0:31 - Discussion on whether scientists should openly debate vaccine policies
- 0:43 - *The host*
Thank you: for the list and for the example how you used AI to create this. Very interesting!
Thank you for the timestamps. You are invited to the official Discord group for Microbe TV via link
discord.gg/RstZNK5k
I also do timestamps and appreciate it when others do it. If you join the group, we can avoid duplicated efforts and send text messages there to coordinate efforts
I respect you both telling the truth of science. There are so many doctor's out here tell different stories but have never been on any panel to back of their theories. I will always listen to this channel.
I watched that meeting with the dozen or so scientist ‘experts’ including Paul and frankly I could have predicted exactly who was going to vote which way. The majority of them seemed disinterested, disconnected and clueless. This perfectly boils down why so many of our science and medical institutions have lost public trust in recent years and why so much research and game changers over the past decade turn out to be subpar. We are handing out expert titles to eveyone who just show up. Thank you Paul for being one of the few credible scientist today.
Paul and Vincent, I thank you both for the work you do to help us all understand science. One of my brothers has a different political view than I do. We had a chance to talk about it this past summer. I referred him to the differences in our sources of information. He understood. The main message he had for me was that he wanted the truth. Paul, you have stated exactly what you believe to be the truth. That means the world to me.
The White House folks have decided on their messaging. If their message is rejected, they need to think about what they said. Corporate media still makes their income by instilling fear and conflict. (I spent a few years doing special projects for a number of news network shows. They told me what I just stated.) There will always be talking heads given provocative questions with a 30 second or two minute time to answer. Those who speak with conclusive authority will be asked back.
Long form programming like what we see on Microbe TV will always be a much better means of communication. Knowing that you said the truth will always provide peace in your heart.
"Paul, you have stated exactly what you believe to be the truth. That means the world to me."
But why? He means the world to antivaxxers too - at least for now. Dr Offit is just one expert with one view. A view that was in the minority at the ACIP meeting.
"The White House folks have decided on their messaging"
The ACIP (FDA) made this decision and decided on the messaging after looking at all the evidence and having an honest discussion among the experts on the panel.
This is the actuall lesson for everyone. All media has changed in the chase for the money. That lead to the totalitarism, I urge you to watch podcast with Mattias Desmet where he gives some insights to human psychology during the pandemic. The key note is that you should tell truth in public, cause if not - it will get worse.
Thank you Dr Offit. I greatly appreciate your informed discourse. I am sorry that you suffered for your honesty. Please continue to share the science with the public.
Nope. The antivaxxers love him. They are gloating. That means he failed. Period.
Dr. Offit is humble about what he knows and doesn’t but that’s what makes him credible. One of the issues is that our regulatory bodies have been arrogant and condescending. I think public health officials should give the public more credit or they’ll forever damage their reputations, with truly sad outcomes.
At some point we need to discuss not only the safety and effectiveness of individual vaccines but also the cumulative effect of hundreds of vaccines over a lifetime
So you are telling me that despite being a nurse you don’t know that ? These have been extensively discussed . Aren’t you a disgrace to medical profession ?
"We think it's better, let's try it".
What the hell!!!! is going on?
Are we an initial experiment you conduct before the mice get it?
This is a crazy discussion. The key point is that the Offit was right and FDA was wrong on the bivalent and wrong on not limiting the recommendation for this year’s booster. The key point is to overhaul the FDA so recommendations are based on science, not politics.
The two highest ranking scientists on the FDA committee resigned over the poor science surrounding the Covid vaccines; that should tell us something
Dr. Offit is always a voice of reason.
The only reasonable thing I heard him say was that he would not take anymore Covid shots.
@@Invitational2 sounds like you love to hear things you already agree with instead of letting evidence lead your reason
@@alexdevcamp
I hope you can see the problem Dr. Offit has created. I have seen that antivaxxer to whom you responded crowing about what he said in many places on the internet and claiming him as one of theirs.
@@alexdevcamp I followed the evidence from the beginning… hence the pure blood status. Let me guess you follow the “experts” and are quadruple++++ boosted.
@@Invitational2 What is your source of evidence?
How does a public health agency reconcile "We learn as we go" with vaccine mandates or coercive vaccine policies? Vaccine efficacy regarding preventing transmission was overpromised, and many members of the public expected, based upon public statements from officials, that getting COVID vaccinated would prevent getting infected. With those kinds of discrepancies and the social and economic harms done from lockdowns, people will want assurances that public health policies are based on thoroughly studied subject matter, not learn as they go science. Learn as you go science doesn't sound definitive enough for implementing restrictive public policies whicch some people don't want to comply with.
Vaccine science has profound effects on public policy. Scientists may not want to debate vaccine science with the public, and people can say science isn't up for debate, but the public policies pertaining to vaccines, masks, lockdowns, school and business closures are very much debated and issues in many elections.
Increasing the parameters for vaccine exemptions, and offering subsidies for the social and economic harms of lockdowns would help people rebuild businesses that were lost, and trust that was lost, but that would only be a small start.
If a patient alleges a vaccine related adverse event from a especially from a mandated, or school or work required vaccine, they need medical care without hassles about insurance coverage, or arguments about causality. If people are left without adequate medical care and compensation after they note a temporal association with what they suspect is a vaccine adverse event, they and their friends may become very opposed to vaccines in general, not just the one they allege sickened them. And then, adding insult to injury, the vaccine proponents and cheerleaders mock them for their impairments, blame them, it only make the pharmaceutical companies appear more vicious and manipulative and corrupting of government.
Having single payer healthcare and even some Universal Basic Income will be necessary before public trust is regained in public health.
The whole premise of democracy is that it is built on a well-educated citizenry. However, since the advent of social media, everyone is exposed to so much information and hence is required to participate in the debate in all of them, willingly or not. This causes the population to be less educated in relative terms, which amplifies the unreasonable, but exciting voices in the extremes. You can see how the politicians closer to the center are losing their voice in the US in recent years. Applying this understanding to public science education, the same pattern should hold true.
Whether the situation will improve is up to debate, but I am sure for now, the answers we will get will be primarily strong yes's or no's.
But even when people who are highly educated on vaccines disagree or ask questions which contradict the vaccine agenda they are called conspiracy theorists and ostracized by most of the media and the vaccine scientists (note I did not say the scientific community because there are many scientists who are also being labeled as conspiracy theorists because they do not share the vaccine establishment's view on vaccines) Let's be real, there are groups with agendas and they do not want a public who is truly educated on vaccines because they want everyone to obey the vaccine establishment. It's not about being educated it's about being obedient. It's extremely anti-american honestly.
I'm sort of the source of information for family members who "hear things" and do not know what to believe. My father is 72 and retired. He is healthy, doesn't go very many places and is not subjected to crowded places. He has had three doses. I told him that he can forgo another dose for a few years or until something changes, his health, the virus, or he starts going to crowded places. My wife's grandmother is 91 and still occasionally meets with old friends and relatives. I told her that she'd better go ahead and get the booster, just to be safe.
Technically your Dad is still in a high risk group and probably should get a booster, especially if he’s only had three shots or it’s been awhile since his last shot.
My 95 yr old Dad has had five shots and a mild case of Covid a year ago. He’s refusing to “ take any more damn shots” despite the encouragement of myself and my sister ( both retired nurse) and his gerontologist. We aren’t pushing it because it’s his life. And honestly he’s not going to live more than a few more years anyways.
However your Dad could have another 20-25 years of life. I hope he gets another booster.
To be clear I don’t think everyone needs to rush to get another shot. My own sons are in their thirties. They each had three shots and mild cases of Covid. I told them they could skip a booster for now
@@karenkaren3189 Yeah, I think it's a close call, his getting a booster. The factor that tilts my opinion is that as side-effects, he has gotten body aches and a slight fever for about a day.
Is your Dad seeing any grandchildren or family members? He can still catch Covid and is in a high risk age group. Why not get vaccinated?
The problem I see with the people I deal with when attempting to explain this nuance they don’t have the attention span. They are used to little chunks of info. They tune out with anything science related. I love it, my husband just wants told what to do.
You're all ears when they explain the nuances as to why they believe the v@x is not for them
I love Paul, I personally appreciated his views on the vaccines. Unfortunately people I’ve come in contact with that heard this, were in fact scared off from future vaccinations -my 85 year old mother one of them. I’m unable to change her mind. I can’t explain this to her.
Thanks, yes, you have hit the problem on the head. Let's hope he learns from his mistakes.
Return with us now to those thrilling days of yesteryear -- Smallpox, Polio, Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Diphtheria, Pertussis, Hepatitis, Tetanus and many, many more. Bring 'em all back! And invest in the Funeral Home industry. Lower the population today!
Read Turtles All the Way Down...learn the truth.
@@dandelionwine8487 - It's not the truth. It's not even convincing as lies, except to morons.
In a previous podcast, you recommended that your infant grandchild receive a COVID vaccine. Are you now walking that back?
Just for the record, here are some of the reasons why the US recommends a booster for everyone over the age of 6 months instead of a targeted approach:
The U.S. healthcare is harder to access.
The U.S. healthcare has poorer administrative efficiency.
The U.S. healthcare is less equitable.
Thea U.S. has a patchwork of coverage to pay for the costs.
The CDC recommendations determine who pays for the vaccine. By providing universal recommendations, the following happens:
- Private insurance companies and public insurers buy vaccines for all their enrollees.
- The Bridge Program will pay for uninsured adults.
- It will now be included in the federally funded Vaccines for Children program.
As a result, no one who wants the booster will need to pay for it.
In the U.S. the number of hospital beds per 1000 is lower.
The U.S. has an inferior safety net.
The average American has a poorer health status.
De Offit is the reason why I still believe in science. (And this Uber nerdy podcast) I so value your take on it all. Thank you!
Thankfully I don't have a penchant for worshipping the words of any one person; mRNA is novel and they decidedly have not been proven to be safe or fully effective. Individual risk/benefit has to be considered before mandating these vaccines and it must be proven that the ability of these vaccines to prevent transmission has to be incredibly strong before mandating a young, healthy person who has already had covid twice to take it.
You mean if the person was dumb enough to get covid twice before getting vaccinated ? If you are ignorant about vaccines it does not mean every body else is as ignorant as yourself.
Three large studies before March 2021 had clearly shown vavcines significantly reduced transmission . We later found out that “ significant transmission reduction “ ( upto 80% in some cohorts ) lasts only a few months still in middle of pandemic it was extremely important . Here are the rest of benefits of vaccine.
1: blood clots 6 times more common among unvaccinated
2: myocarditis- 8 to 11 times more common among unvaccinated
3: myocardial infarction - multiple times more common among the unvaccinated even upto a year after unprotected COVID ( getting COVID while unvaccinated)
4: autoimmune diseases 3 times more common among unvaccinated
5: still births 2 to 3 times more common to unvaccinated mothers
6: early births ( with plethora of life long problems and issues ) 2 to 3 times more common among unvaccinated .
7: 3rd trimester problems much higher in the unvaccinated
8: pulmonary fibrosis with COVID
9: brain damage from COVID ( shown on MRI ) before and after COVID
10: king COVID prevented by vaccine even up-to 91%
11: vaccine has shown promise in treat of king covid
12: babies of pregnant women who receive vaccine in third trimester have 74% lower chance of even catching the infection in the first 6 months .
Interesting, and at times (sadly) hilarious. Thank you!
Always tell the truth. People are smarter than you think
With your multiple dumb posts and no truths in any of them it seems you are neither smart nor care about facts .
I don't think there should be any reluctance to admit uncertainty or debate in earnest within full public view. The cost of limiting debate, silencing dissent or marginalizing critics is that when you push something and it turns out to be incorrect, you lose all your credibility. You are viewed as a dishonest broker and not trusted moving forward. Over the long haul honesty is more important than lies or false confidence in service of short term goals.
When we will learn? Trying to manage the public opinion by ... uh, lets say "filtering" the message, it will eventually come back to bite you. Particularly in science the information will become clear (because it is all eventually published). Just be honest.
they delete comments they can't debate.
I am in favor of open information. But then I am comfortable living with uncertainty. Too many people expect science to be certain all the time.
Medicine is not an exact science; science should be based on scientific laws not a hope and a prayer
I favor open discussion. Closed doors and “secrets” will always raise questions. I found in my pediatric practice my success in getting children vaccinated even with hesitant parents depended on full open honesty about what we know and what we don’t know. Better to get the difficult information and points of view from the scientists rather than from social media or other unreliable sources.
I think you misunderstand the problem here. What you do with parents is discuss with them what the experts have concluded. That's fine but that's not the issue here. Dr. Offit is disagreeing with what the experts as a group (and he is a member of that group) have concluded. He is airing his disagreements with the consensus of his expert group in public - among people who are do not have the background to understand the issues. All they see is disagreement among experts while antivaxxers present a united front.
@@williamverhoef4349 disagreement among experts on complicated unsettled science is a good thing. If they pretended to all agree and happened to be wrong, people would start to question everything else they've been told by the experts. Antivaxxers thrive in the opacity of expertise, not in the sunlight of open inquiry.
@@jludo
"disagreement among experts on complicated unsettled science is a good thing"
Yes it is. But airing dirty linen in public is not. What is needed is for experts in the relevant areas of science to get together, look at all the evidence, assess that evidence, and come to a conclusion about the evidence and what should be done based on it. That is what happened when they held the ACIP meeting. Dr. Paul Offit's opinion was in the minority, and it seems he didn't like that his opinion did not hold sway. Appealing to the public after losing among your scientific peers is a bad look for a scientist. And misrepresenting, or not effectively representing, why the majority voted the way they did, is a pretty bad look as well.
" If they pretended to all agree and happened to be wrong, people would start to question everything else they've been told by the experts."
People question the experts mostly because they are antivaxxers, grifters, cranks, or con artists. This is going to happen even if all the experts completely agree. Which is actually never. To have any hope at all with informing the public, the experts must discus their differences in expert meetings like the ACIP and then present a united front to the public. Otherwise, their disagreements will be used and abused by the groups mentioned above. In this particular case, antivaxxers have been using Dr. Paul Offit's disagreement with the decision of the majority vote to claim him as one of their own in order to further their antivax cause.
"Antivaxxers thrive in the opacity of expertise"
Nope. The thrive on misinformation, disinformation and outright lies. They thrive on any sign of disagreement among experts. They exaggerate and mischaracterise any disagreement among experts, and they twist it out of shape.
"They thrive ... not in the sunlight of open inquiry.
How long have you been studying the antivax industry? Of course, they thrive on experts disagreeing in public. And it's not as if there is no open enquiry. All scientific meetings are disagreements and open enquiry between scientists. If you want the public involved in this discussion, then you had better educate them about science first.
.
Thank you Vincent, such an intelligent but laidback host.
I love watching (and listening to) Paul Offit talk. It’s like the wonderful self-winding pocket watch my father had in the ‘50s, with a clear crystal on its back, so you could see the watch’s movement - its gear train, balance wheel, dial and jewels, all working with such precision and elegance…and he (P.O.) has an honest, very human face on the front, too: he’s never puffed up or without self-questioning. I would definitely trust this man with the lives of my grandchildren.
We need our institutions and I generally trust them …though sometimes cum grano salis (as my father used to say). How great to have Dr. Offit help fine tune the CDC advice, to add that occasional grain of salt!
Amazing, How many Doctors & nurses were dismissed when questioning anything to do with the vaccine protocol? Paul had the guts to ask some basic questions knowing it would be controversial.
Honestly most of the questions I heard were baseless and hysterical. Paul's questions were based in evidence
And the secret is to know who to listen to.
"How many Doctors & nurses were dismissed when questioning anything to do with the vaccine protocol?"
So why would you listen to the opinion of a doctor or nurse with no recognised expertise in epidemiology, virology, or vaccinology as opposed to a panel of recognised experts in their fields. Doctors and nurses are mostly not scientists, and they do not have the knowledge and experience to be telling the recognised experts that they are wrong.
"Paul had the guts to ask some basic questions knowing it would be controversial."
It seems he didn't know it would be controversial. I'm pretty sure he would have pulled his punches and being far more circumspect if he had realised that he would be used and abused by antivaxxers to promote their cause.
The key is to find unbiased recognized experts. Too many are not, on both sides of Covid vaccine debates.
@@highlandbob2470
I was fortunate to have a background in both science and medicine, as well as having studied antivax strategies and tactics for the past 15 years or so.
These are the people who I have found to provide reliable and accurate medical and scientific information:
There are the doctors who write for the "Science Based Medicine" website:
- Dr. David Gorski who is a breast surgeon but has a 20-year history of writing about vaccines and debunking antivaxxers.
- Dr. Jonathan Howard, a paediatrician who is a psychologist but diverted to treating COVID-19 patients during the pandemic and who spent his free time countering the nonsense written by doctors who didn't treat any patients during the pandemic and forgot they were supposed to be helping people rather than their political ideologies.
On UA-cam, there is:
- epidemiologist, Dr. Daniel Griffin of TWiV of course.
- molecular biologist, Dr Dan Wilson, on his channel, "Debunk the Funk".
- nanomedical scientist, Dr. Susan Oliver on her channel, "Back to the Science".
On Substack, there is an epidemiologist who sits as an expert on the ACIP panel of the FDA, Dr. Katelyn Jetelina on her blog "Your Local Epidemiologist".
Now the list of people to avoid:
These disgraceful doctors put their political ideology ahead of public health:
- Dr. Vinay Prasad.
- Dr. Marty Makary.
- Dr. Jay Bhattacharya
- Dr. Martin Kulldorff
- Dr. Sunetra Gupta.
- Dr. Zubin Damania.
- Dr. Scott Atlas.
- Dr Andrew Pinsky.
- Dr. Mobeen Syed.
There is also this disgraceful nurse in the UK who pretends to be a medical doctor:
- Dr John Campbell.
Questions and debate are good, as long as they are questions you approve of, right? You say there are quick acting systems, can you define your definition of quick and how many people can be harmed before the product is retracted? Also, are there proactive studies designed and running now to look for potential issues? What specific issues are those studies looking for?
"can you define ... how many people can be harmed before the product is retracted?"
Another clueless comment from someone who utterly clueless.
@@williamverhoef4349 hi thanks for your reply. Please can you let me know your qualifications, and experience please, amd also how many years? Are you willing to reveal your identity or prefer to remain anonymous?
@@markytickers
Anonymous? That lie is staring you right in the face, Marty Kickers. Also, you seem unduly impressed by qualifications. How would they help you to decide that my arguments are valid and true?
I think it's more that you need to be receptive to the evidence, and humble about what you know and what you don't know. Having knowledge and education is really important. Some areas of debate don't require that kind of knowledge, but they still require humility and that openness to the evidence.
@@MrFiffles nicely put. I agree, all the evidence needs to addressed. Also, remembering absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
I had the vaccine three weeks ago for the fall XBB 15. I’m doing OK. I’m 64 years old with diabetes so I felt I should get it and so did my family doctor.
Your family doctor only follows guidelines they will not and cannot give you their opinion
Because of you, the uptake was only 1 Percent. Just tells me that they didn't give a crap about the effects on humans, just the money lost in the dropped uptakes.
God help us all.
TY and especially for reminder to subscribe to Beyond the Noise
The science is in a tough battle with the conspiracists. About a dozen years ago, while working as a supply teacher, I had a ten week assignment in a very expensive independent school. One of the topics that I was required to teach was microbiology to pupils who were 12-13 years old. The unit was called 'Microbes and Disease' and included a very basic introduction to vaccines, as required by the national curriculum. The next thing you know, I was the subject of a furious parental complaint that, by merely telling their daughter about the existence and function of vaccines, I was going to turn her autistic. The school took the parents' side. To do otherwise would have cost them tens of thousands of £s in lost school fees from all of that family's children. I was replaceable and was not invited back after Easter. I was fine with this, but I have to wonder about the education that the rest of the parents were paying handsomely for.
pseudoscience - a collection of beliefs or practices mistakenly regarded as being based on scientific method
Let me know when you will be able to prove existence of immune system and anything that acts like alleged v-es.
I have huge respect for Offit. RE: boosters in USA: fact: USA is under vaccinated; fact: ONLY 20% took up the Bivalent boosters.
The USA needs boosters in everybody, but we know very few will take it up.
Nobody needs boosters. Even mainstream news is beginning to report on the dna plasmid contamination problem. How could you possibly be recommending it at this point?
@@nicholasm2239 Mainstream news is one of the most unreliable sources of information. If they do include an expert it's often an outlier proposing a view which is miles from the consensus of medics and scientists.
The like of Paul Offit are infinitely more reliable.
You get a few more...have my share. 😂
We absolutely do not need boosters in everybody; even Saint Offit has declined
@@janinelargent9220 Boosters will reduce the incidence of infection for 3 months meaning that fewer will suffer Long Covid. DON'T GET INFECTED!
Dr Offitt, you should absolutely tell as accurate an interpretation of the data as possible. Always. Still, you should not be surprised by such backlash. Sadly, fear and defensiveness rule the roost, and this has killed off nearly all appreciation for nuance and shades of grey. We’re in the age of all or nothing thinking. It’s a depressing state of affairs. But always inform us with accurate interpretations of data
It is more to do with not giving antivaxxers a talking point to further their agenda. Dr. Paul Offit simply displayed a degree of naivete unexpected of someone who has been in the game for more than 20 years.
Paul is the best source of information on medical topics. He always thinks about what he says, and is very evidence based. Telling what you believe to be true is the best strategy. Unfortunately many people present opinions without having evidence to support them. I have watched many of Vincent's videos. Thank you Paul and Vincent.
Here in Mexico only the government is applying the COVID-19 shots, although the Pfizer and Moderna ones are in the process of being approved for sale (all vaccines were applied in the emergency stage). But the government is presently using the original strain Cuban and Russian vaccines only. If I understand correctly they still could be useful?
Dr.Offit you are my hero. Speaking truth.
Yes, openly discuss, debate and defends position. Challenge is good.
Agreed
Antivaxxers will love you for saying that. Gives them lots of ammunition to spread vaccine hesitancy and rejection. On the other hand, they always present a united front, never disagreeing with anything any other antivaxxer says, even when there is blatant contradiction. They know how to play the game.
Certainly scientists should debate vaccine policy. Not only scientists of course, because scientific findings are not the only thing that affects public policy. Economic factors, social effects, as well as morals and ethics all come into the picture.
Of course all kinds of different scientists should have good robust debates. When examining anything there are many different types of specialists and experiences not to mention different points of view. To debate and discuss and examine things is what science is all about. To shut everyone up because somthing might be said that's wrong is practicaly insane❗❗It's outrageous.
You see to be unaware that this is exactly what happened with the panel of recognised experts in epidemiology, immunology, vaccinology at the ACIP (FDA). It's not that it wasn't discussed or debated, it was that Dr. Offit's view was in the minority.
How can anybody not like this guy?
You can both like the guy and disagree with him. But you have hit upon a reason why he should stop airing his disagreements in public, especially with the force and conviction that he does so, while not fairly presenting the majority position he disagrees with. People who don't have a background in science or medicine but who "like the guy" and will blindly accept what he says, even though the majority of experts on the ACIP disagreed with him. He is just one expert with one point of view. The bivalent vaccine was at least no worse than the original vaccine. So, no big deal. Except that the antivaxxers have a new involuntary false hero.
Yes, he has plenty of people who find him arrogant (and at this point focused more on damage control than science)
@@janinelargent9220
Give it up, arrogant antivaxxer. This guy knows more about virology, epidemiology, and vaccines than you will ever know or are capable of knowing. He's not arrogant, he just tells it the way he sees it. His only mistake is in not realising that he should not promote a personal opinion that is in a minority or say anything that anti-vaccine activists can use to spread fear, uncertainty, and doubt about vaccines because that is all these creatures need to do to win. I only hope you kept your personal opinion to yourself because, as a nurse, you could have had undue influence in persuading people not to get vaccinated with a truly life-saving vaccine.
Thanks for this discussion. It’s a classic damned if you do, damned if you don’t. If public health authorities had said, “We have this new vaccine, we think it will be more effective, but we can’t say for sure,” many people will say “I won’t be a Guinea Pig.” No matter what any doctor or public health official says, the times are too polarized and political, and the general public doesn’t understand the scientific process, and has deep skepticism and fear of pharmaceutical companies. Keep examining the data and giving your expert opinion, people will use it to inform their decisions, and some will use it to confirm their biases or twist what you say and exploit your words to advance some other argument/agenda.
How is that a damned if you don't, people getting an accurate confidence assessment from scientists and making the decision not to be a guinea pig. That seems like exactly what we want isn't it? Getting people most accurate info and letting them make their own health decisions with their dr?
@@jludo I agree with you, my point was that any uncertainty expressed by public officials will ‘damn’ them with certain people, who will say “See, they don’t know anything, it’s all experimental!” Whereas, if they state, “Everyone should get this vaccine, it’s better than the previous one,” people will say, “they’re lying, they don’t know that for certain yet.”
I am okay with a certain degree of uncertainty, I am okay with officials changing their opinions as new data emerges over time, I agree with you that officials should give their honest opinions in full, including any uncertainty, and people should be free to discuss with their doctors and make decisions about their own healthcare. I do not believe anyone other than those in a clinical trial are “Guinea Pigs.”
I’m merely stating that no matter what public health officials say, they’re bound to take flack for it, but that comes with the job.
Mainstream media in Canada were just as bad at times, always bleating about "mixed messaging" every time some recommendation changed.
As a,scientists yes in this case definitely the information should be shared with the public
The hardest thing to gain is trust and it is also the easiest to lose. Keep your integrity and keep being a scientiest, that is the right thing to do and demonstrates the correct behaviour. It is critical we have proper role models to help stem the tide of petty corruption that leads to mistrust.
"to help stem the tide of petty corruption"
Right, so this is what you think Dr. Offit is doing. I hope he reads your comment and takes heed.
@@williamverhoef4349 Strange that you selected only that section to quote and excluded the bit about a role model. Yes I hope Dr. Offit takes heed and understands that I fully support his stance, great that you agree 🙂
@@aetatissuaerationis1712
I'm not sure why you deliberately mischaracterised my comment in order, bizarrely, to agree with it. Yes, we need role models and Dr Offit could definitely be a good one with his depth of knowledge and experience. Unfortunately, he is failing. And it's not as if he is naive about antivaxxers and their tactics and about how he should conduct himself in public compared with among his peers. He has had 20 years of experience. So, it just puzzles me that he has not learnt how to avoid giving antivaxxers free ammunition to help spread vaccine hesitancy and rejection. They are having a field day with his personal opinions - which are in the minority among his peers at the ACIP (FDA) - about the ongoing vaccine doses, even claiming him as one of their own. There is no way this is a win for him. Or for us.
When you recommended mask mandate did you follow the data? I think not. Then why you have grudges toward public?
I like this guy! Thank you for stepping up as a scientist to disagree and with reason. More of you are needed. Don''t be afraid to speak up and have reason to!
Nope, we don't need more of this. We need a united front to defeat the loud-mouthed and well-funded minority of antivaxxers. They love it when we fight among ourselves and when some of us have to take time out defending people like Dr. Paul Offit who make the mistake of airing professional disagreements in public. I have seen antivaxxers gloating about him dumping on the CDC's decision, even claiming him as one of their own. He needs to understand that, when antivaxxers use what you have said as ammunition, you have failed.
Nuances of medicine and science need to be transparent . Always appreciate Dr. Offit 😊
The antivaxxers love him too. And why not? He has provided them with ammunition to further their cause of vaccine hesitancy and rejection. So, maybe, just maybe, he should reconsider how he deals with his disagreements with the majority decision of the ACIP.
@@williamverhoef4349 like not give objective findings? What benefits occur with that?
@@armandgallanosa What?
I agree, we have to be honest and follow the evidence
That's what the ACIP did. They followed the evidence, had an honest discussion, and made a decision.
follow the money and you will find science
No one goes into science for the money.
If only you could make money being a scientist.
I would gladly take blame for discouraging covid injections!
The people agree! 3% uptake for current booster.
I appreciate Paul’s idea to tell the truth.
So do antivaxxers. They are having a field day.
A lot of people don’t like the truth though if they did there would not be a single antivaxer .
Point blank, you ARE waffling. If the data and studies are showing what you all say they do, then you should have no problem backing up your opions with fact and accurate data. Yes, you all should debate the science, debate the papers if they are so steadfast. Otherwise you are not to be believed.
Experts don't have all the answers, but they usually have a lot of REALLY good questions.
Experts have most of the answers. They also have good questions that they will do their best to answer.
I appreciate your honesty
So did the antivaxxers though.
Paul’s messaging is correct. The primary reason people distrust is because the government agencies are not straightforward and honest. When they don’t tell the entire truth it breeds distrust. People see through it.
Then explain why the antivaxxers have had a field day with Dr Offit's disagreement with the majority decision of the ACIP, and why many of us have had to take time out defending him while correcting their mischaracterisations of what he has said. I expected far more of someone who has been at this for 20 years.
@@williamverhoef4349 Who cares? Seriously, Paul is right on this and the messaging should always be transparent. Too many times people are letting their ideology rule their decision making. Just tell the entire truth. There is nuance to the vaccine messaging and the one size fits all bogus narrative has bred the distrust not the other way around. To many people assume the general public are not capable of making an informed decision and now you somehow think it’s justified?
Hang in there and continue what you're doing. It's greatly appreciated.
Well, if you enjoy airing dirty linen in public. The antivaxxers seem to love it. They gathered up the dirty linen and wrapped themselves up in it. Thank you Paul.
I like the learning as we go approach. I think to do it properly though, they need to be more incremental in the releases of new medical products. Of course it’s easy for me to say that from the sideline…. I still think there might be a way to do that - even in a pandemic. I also think they could try different approaches as they go and evaluate these approaches accordingly. I also think an issue we had in Covid was/is that even internal scientific debate was actively discouraged at times. That seems really dangerous. No easy answers, which is why I like Paul’s approach -it is honest and a accepts ambiguity.
I agree with a more incremental approach. The problem is the multi billion dollar elephant in the room, big pharma. Scientists don't like to address the pressure that money creates and pretend it's all just scientific disagreement.
It was an extremely wise decision to put it out fast . I just wish it was way faster than It turned out to be and for the whole world not just the important people of the world. It was in fact way too slow .
Do the anti-vaxxers realize that Paul developed a vaccine?? 😂😂 They don’t really know him.
May be lyposoms with mRNA must transfect only deltoid cells.
After vaccination (theoretically)lyposoms with mRNA need a period of time to melt with deltoid cells (minutes, hours?)
In this period of time,may be deltoid muscle must not be used to decrease rysk of blood spread.
If forearm is suport,(sustain) like after shoulder sprain,deltoid muscle did not contract.
If
Various circulating white blood cells also pick up the mRNA particles and use their ribosomes to produce spike proteins. So, probably doesn't matter if you use your muscles.
I purposefully move my arm to help distribute the vaccine
My arm gets less sore and I WANT the vaccine to disperse itself through my body
Retired Nurse
@@karenkaren3189 theoretically, lyposoms with mRNA after transfect deltoid myocyte induce sintesis of Spike proteine .
Spike antigen will be exocytate and ,theoretically, fagocitate by immune cells.
Cell that produce Spike will be at least damaged.because inflamation occur.
@@peterginsburg2465
If (?) liposoms with mRNA melt with miocardial sarcolema inflamation occur also at that level(theoretically)
Oh well, nice of this poster to at least reveal his abject ignorance of medical science in no uncertain terms.
Similarly, should dentists debate whether toothbrushing is good for teeth.
A channel like this will not attract conspiratorial minds because it is sensible. Level-headed information must run through the filter of John Campbell's channel to encourage its confused viewers to conflate their lack of scientific literacy with facts.
"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance; it is an illusion of knowledge." -Stephen Hawking.
Yes.
Just a heads up: this guy is an antivaxxer. Interesting, isn't it? That is now the second antivaxxer I've spotted in the comments agreeing with what Dr. Offit is doing.
No! scientist’s shouldn’t be allowed to debate publicly and freely. Only the “trusted experts”. Should be allowed to propagate .
Just so everyone knows - the above comment is meant as sarcasm by a well-known antivaxxer who spreads deadly disinformation in the commentary sections of many UA-cam channels. And this is why it was a mistake for Dr. Offit deciding to go public with his disagreement with the majority decision of the ACIP of which he is part - yes, ironically, Dr. Paul Offit is one of those "trusted experts" this antivax loon is railing against! Pretty funny, hey? But antivaxxers are like that. They have no background whatsoever in medicine or science but have no hesitation whatsoever telling those who do this as their day job that they are wrong. In science circles, this sort of behaviour is known as "the arrogance of ignorance", and it fits this guy to a tee.
Beat it, loony-tunes.
Hi Microbe T V, the stated topic for this video is that whether or not scientists should debate vaccine policies in the public forum. My opinion for what little it is worth is that until such time as there ares some established scientific principles for vaccine policy there is nothing far any scientist to discuss!.
This rather dogmatic attitude is one which I take because there appears to be a great deal of confusion about just what the word means!. Far too many people, politicians and journalists in particular seem to think that it is a title, an objective noun, when in fact it is only an active noun, meaning that any person as and when they are applying scientific principles and method to what they are doing is at that time and at that time only a 'scientist'. All of the rest of the time they are just people exactly the same of the rest of us.
Back to the matter in hand, just as ordinary people those who work in scientific activities are just as much entitled to throw in what they can contribute and if they do so without any narcissistic claims to fame or qualification we out here in the mist should be better able to consider the relative merits of what we hear without so much confusion.
What actually happened is everyone and their dogs jumped in on the topic and launched a tidal wave of speculation and random assertion without any of them having to offer any evidential support, far too many people then jumped on whatever bandwagon was closest to their preconceptions cognitive delusions and 'beliefs'. This had the immediate and direct effect of a huge number of speculative measures based on hope rather than expectation, all of them of course totally failed to accomplish anything of merit, apart that is for the slight increase in public scepticism.
Cheers, Richard.
I see you’re not an expert on public health.
I'm having trouble understanding what you are trying to say. It sounds a little wishy washy and self-contradictory. Can you state in a nutshell the point you are trying to make?
@@williamverhoef4349 Hi William Verhoef, thank you for this reply, I will do my best to respond appropriately but in the event that it still does not get across please try again, perhaps with more specifics.
I started on the bit about the definition of scientist being one which appears to be mis-understood, in part at least because it seems so few people even understand what science is!. Agin it is a simple enough definition, again it is and active noun meaning that it something that people do not something that people are. That definition that I got from Karl Popper many years ago is that science is the systematic, coherent, logical observation and investigation of reality, any reality in any manner, as long as it is systematic and replicable. In simpler terms it is just a way of working, a method.
From that it clearly derives that a scientist is any person doing anything that way!, but only for as long as they do it!.
Sitting here working through this like this is I think quite good for me!, the fact that it comes out very much the same way that it went in fifty years ago speaks to the very consistency and coherence that I value.
I have never been able to understand just why so many people find this so difficult! but more recently I have been made even more aware of that extraordinary human propensity for self deceit and delusion, I do now vaguely recall the long period in my life when I too sought certainty and proof, also the disappointment when I had to learn such resource is beyond me. Now I think I know how so many others in their desperation will latch on to any proposition no matter how absurd, like God or democracy, anything that offers any sort of certainty, just to help allay anxiety and doubt, two primary neurological conditions, not problems to be cured!.
Cheers, Richard.
@@richardharvey1732
That was pretty long-winded way of saying that "scientist" is a noun; and that 'science" is a either a noun or verb depending on context; and that science is what a scientist does. Sorry, I corrected it a little, because 'science' can definitely be used as a noun: the body of knowledge called science. The rest of your comment sounds interesting but somewhat irrelevant to the topic of the video you are responding to. Never mind though, you sound like you learned something along the way, which is more than many can say.
@@williamverhoef4349 Hi William Verhoef, thank you very much for this articulate and sensible response, also for giving me yet another opportunity to expound a bit more.
That definition of 'science' that I offer is meant to be a rather narrow and specific one because I think the distinctions are so important. As humans each with our personal mind-set and vocabulary genuine communication can be quite difficult.
I do agree that the body of knowledge that has been generated by the application of scientific method is called 'scientific knowledge' a proper noun, but that two word label does not mean that knowledge is itself science, as a noun!.
As to the rest of my post I do indeed have a tendency to ramble on, part of this is that my primary motivation for doing these comments is so that I can find out what I think by reading what I write!, if some of what I offer makes some sense to any other person that is a bonus but not my reason for doing it!
This is in no small part due to the fact that after all these years I understand that my skill very much depends on application!, what I call the 'use it or lose it' principle!.
Cheers, Richard.