I am going to express disappointment with the way you are steering this "conversation" at this point. Having watched RFK Jr of late, it is clear he is not the dishonest, malicious individual that you are portraying him to be, nor is he particularly ignorant of many of the more technical issues surrounding the development and licensure of vaccines. To many that have actually listened to him, even those of us that are well versed in the scientific method, these assertions ring hollow.
Is he right about everything? Of course not, no one is. Does he represent an increasing number of Americans that have questions, and that want to see engagement by the establishment, rather than just being at the receiving end of lectures from "the experts"? Most definitely.
I presume the reason you got into your profession was to find ways to make people healthier through the practice of medicine, and to proactively ward off disease through vaccines. Many of us were concerned during the COVID-19 pandemic that the ensuing mass vaccination policies degraded from this more lofty purpose, transitioning into the realm of profit and control, and that this adversely impacted traditional medical care, particularly including trust in vaccines. This is the case among a (still) growing percentage of the populace.
As someone that wants to see the situation remedied, watching the establishment digging into their safe spaces and taking pot shots at RFK Jr is not a good look. Perhaps you resent him for what he has said and done in the past, which you believe has resulted in undeserved anger being directed at yourself and your peers, and that is understandable. Likewise, he has been ostracized for years, censored far more than most, so it would not be surprising if he feels a certain way was well. But at least he is willing to engage the other side, often in a one on many format, to present his arguments and concerns. And people are listening.
My suggestion is you do the same. You are probably the best person to do this with your combination of gravitas and ability to clearly communicate the issues. Doing the podcast with Vincent Racaniello is fine, but you need to also transcend beyond the echo chamber if you want your message heard by the skeptics, and many others that have always followed establishment guidance, but that are finding RFK Jr more than a simple conspiracy theorist.
Nothing productive would come from a debate with RFK Jr. Glad Jake Tapper rejected holding a town hall for RFK Jr.
George Lakoff -
"Of course, there are times when it is legitimate and necessary to debate and disagree. Some issues are matters of opinion or preference rather than fact. But when confronted by someone who does not regard facts as relevant, you’re better off skipping the debate and saving your energy for a more productive conversation.
As a general rule: Don't take the debate bait! Engaging someone with zero credibility or validity only helps them to gain status and spread lies. By trying to negate their false ideas, you'll end up activating them. Remember: They win by making the difference between lies and truth seem like a matter of opinion."
To be able to debate, facts and not impressions/misrepresentations must be required. Clearly Kennedy is incapable of marshaling scientific data (or interpreting it) and relies on conspiracy theories or things made of whole cloth.
So when you read the pfizer eua document and their research — amended with more deaths after eua— and you see no problem with the greater number of coronary related deaths in the vaccinated group?
Or the Cochran study about autism that is inconclusive that both sides cite? I read it, it proves not enough studies have been conducted…So it proves nothing.
I have never thought of science as decided. It is always ongoing, but right now, the field science is so full of bias, it stifles.
I never doubted vaccines until covid, but too many older relatives were directly injured by mRNA. So I started researching by looking at the fda and cdc and nih sites and listening to the fda advisory meetings and reading the documents. Wow. They dismiss everything. Child paralyzed 12 hours after experimental shot, unrelated bc children become suddenly paralyzed all the time, lol… it quite shameful the dismissals of adverse reactions in the meetings. And then we just have to use it and see… lol. Right. How’s that going with heart damage? I know of two teens who have pace makers now. What the heck.
I have now apologized to my grown child for vaccinating her. I had no idea how dangerous and toxic vaccines were or that physicians are paid according to vaccine percentages. How terrible.
No wonder when her pediatrician moved on we were harassed so violently about the hpv shot. But that one has cause immediate permanent injury to someone we know. So… we just were waiting on safe and effective, but that “doctor” wanted her money from pharma? Shameful.
Or the Cochran study about autism that is inconclusive that both sides cite? I read it, it proves not enough studies have been conducted…So it proves nothing. Therefore RFK shouldn't cite the data to advance his argument.
"So when you read the pfizer eua document and their research — amended with more deaths after eua— and you see no problem with the greater number of coronary related deaths in the vaccinated group?"
Please post the exact section you are references and point out the numbers.
One day when I was in high school, one of the popular kids, Jeff, was at his desk at the back of the classroom violating the rules by smoking a cigarette on school property. It was between classes so students were still filing into the room and the teacher, Mr. Mills, had not yet arrived. Then, suddenly, in came Mr. Mills. He glanced towards Jeff, catching him with a lit cigarette puffing away between his lips. Though it was too late, Jeff quickly pulled the cigarette out of his mouth and hid it under his desk. Mr. Mills barked out, "Jeff, would you please put out that cigarette." A look of shock came over Jeff's face. He replied, "But Mr. Mills, I don't have a cigarette. How could you accuse me of such a thing. I don't even smoke. I hate the smell of cigarettes." This despite smoke curling up from below his desk. Jeff was popular and had a couple of his pals sitting around him, all of whom concurred, Jeff was not smoking a cigarette.
Up to that point I had never seen anything quite like that. Just deny what all evidence says is true. Simply say that the obvious facts are not true. Of course, this phenomenon exists today. People deny all evidence. Jeff has greatly expanded his number of followers, and he has become RFK Jr.
For the better part of 2 years, anyone who merely questioned the efficacy of Covid vaccinations, masking, or school, playground, and business closures was ridiculed, shamed, coerced, bullied, threatened with loss of job, and/or called a data cherry-picker. My own family doctor, in hushed tones at one of my checkups, intimated that her career was in jeopardy if she so much as questioned the narrative (and in previous appointments she very much questioned the narrative). Doctor Offit is continuing with the Covid-19 tactics of public smearing and name-calling. Far from countering RFK's claims, he calls him a liar, and as proof of his assertion, he tells us about two other people who called RFK a liar. Excuse some of us for having flashbacks to 2021.
I am educated in biology, virology, and probability and statistics. As recently as 2019, I would have concurred wholeheartedly with Doctor Offit on vaccine safety. However, is it any wonder that I and others like me all now have our ears a little more open to the question on the table, especially after an article like this?
And then almost two years after Covid ravaged many countries, NZ finally got Covid. By that time, most of the population was vaccinated. And deaths were a fraction of what other countries saw.
People who questioned the efficacy of XYZ were not ridiculed, they were pointed to the evidence (which was constantly being added to, and recommendations changing based on matching the changing situation re community cases, and the new knowledge gained). When those people _denied_ the evidence, _ignored_ the fact that advice given/restrictions when cases are low will necessarily differ from when cases are high (eg re masking, which seems to STILL be misrepresented as primarily protection for the wearer), and started parroting out the same anti-expert "gotchas" as each other while insisting on being recognised as "independent" critical thinkers, even within discussions that had *already* addressed and dismantled their claims...well sure, ridicule and shaming at being so wilfully ignorant and arrogant was warranted. Because their refusal to engage with public health measures made it worse for everyone, including themselves.
NZ had a nationwide lockdown days after the first case was identified and by and large everyone complied, even in places no cases were seen then, and not for several months after. Yes, it was a pretty strict lockdown, but it WORKED. We got rid of Covid from our community and then got to enjoy a return to pretty much normal life, albeit with much reduced tourism, for _months_ until the next case popped up. If only other places had taken it seriously and locked down, they too could have bought themselves time (to wait until a vaccine was available) and freedom (after a temporary curtailment of it).
But no.
While trumpeting how their ancestors had fought for their freedom with their lives, they showed no inclination to make *any* sacrifice, of anything at all, not even wearing a mask, ffs, in order to secure their future freedom nor save lives in the meantime. They refused to follow public health advice, claiming that some principle or other was more important. And this contributed to a massive death toll. Shame, shame, shame on them.
And that's not even starting on the people denying there was even a pathogen at all. Ugh.
Brian, do you know how your doctor’s career would have been in jeopardy? Would she have gotten in trouble with her state medical board? Or with hospital group administrators? Or does she think she would have been ostracized by colleagues?
She and I didn't further discuss the specifics of the threat to her. I only recall her saying--in hushed tones--that it could jeopardize her career, and I recall the feeling of disgust and alarm I felt that my doctor was even put in such a position. I used to imagine, as a kid in the 1970's, that conversations like that only took place in the Soviet Union.
Both sides stretch data on vaccines. I read the links doctors post on both sides. Vaccine advocates ignore severe side effects as “noise” something naturally occurring. Or the other vaccine/metals in the placebo cause as much adverse health issues as the vaccine, so therefore the vaccine is safe. This is such a logical fallacy. I am allergic the most all metal after a flu shot in 2004. Was it the vaccine? I can’t say, but I had no other medicines/life changes.
I also saw a lot of weird stuff happen and still see weird medical stuff since the mRNA gene editing injections (we can argue the gene editing… but the industry leaders involved certainly are excited about editing genes to stop cancer with the same tech…) As an older rather than younger teacher, I can confirm that statistics showing a rise in mental disorders such as autism and ADHD and depression are sky high compared to 20/30 years ago. Is it social toxicity? Or something in our environment? Is it the geo engineering in the skies? The industrial chemically built farms? Or the medicines/vaccines we use? And when will doctors want to know?
“Both sides stretch data on vaccines.” This is spot on. Many people want to understand things as they are, they’re not interested in the cherry picking of either “side.”
What an absolute take-down of RFK. Two people remember events differently! You've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man has nothing to say that is worth listening to. Excellent work.
After mentoring the Nye/Ham debate in your discussion with Racaniello on this topic, it’s very thoughtful of you to provide us with these details that are such an excellent, straightforward example of what can or is cannot accomplished depending on the HONESTY of the debate when he/she is the validity of the EVIDENCE being used. On another podcast “Making Sense”, Sam Harris also talks similarly about why RFK,Jr questionable honesty in his use of information since much of it is cherry-picked to suit and manipulated to bolster his OPINIONS versus just presenting currently accepted facts. Just thought you’d want to know that other scientists have recognized RFK Jrs blatant dishonesty and are willing to point it out as it happened on Rogan’s show.
Unfortunately many podcasts become popular today by hyping differences of OPINIONS without presenters being challenged to support their opinions. It’s like the difference between a Olympic wrestling match, with holds being refereed and thus participants being held responsible for their actions in real time vs World Wide wrestling matches with its anything goes approach. How would the responsible wrestler (in this case you) fare in a world wide wrestling match? And in today’s world, which venue would garner most attention? We know the answers to that so it’s a combination of an honest, responsible refereed debater as well as venue’s responsibility to be responsible for the veracity of the information being aired. If the host of exchange between individuals is unwilling to uphold his responsibility for the veracity of the information it shouldn’t be called a debate. IMO it should be aired as an opinionated discussion so the audiences (who have their own opinions) are thereby forewarned of the nature of the information being presented.
"Unfortunately many podcasts become popular today by hyping differences of OPINIONS without presenters being challenged to support their opinions."
You're correct, most hosts aren't experts in these subjects so they just ask questions and allow the guests to pontificate. This is why people so desperately want to see someone like Offit in conversation with RFK jr. No one is challenging what he is saying in real time. Most people aren't going to do deep dive research themselves so the scientists need to go on shows like Rogan's and meet people where they are.
equating the Nye/Ham debate as an example of why NOT to debate RFK Jr is nothing but a Straw Man argument and a poor one at that. in fact, by reading your piece I became more inclined to believe you have ulterior motives here. since Kennedy has called you out publicly, you should be the first to invite debate to clear things up. after the Covid fiasco, you can't blame anyone for being skeptical about vaccines. I first became aware of you from Dr.Z's podcast. I was impressed by your willingness to push back on the insane movement to vaccinate every human being alive.
please reconsider your actions here doc...it's a bad look for you and just makes RFK more believable. if you have been unfairly maligned, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain...
“Nye countered that to deny evolution meant ignoring 250,000 years of fossil records.” Presumably you or he meant 250,000 fossil species, which is about the right number. We have not been keeping records of fossils for 250,000 years. If you or he meant the duration of the fossil record, then Nye argued that the earliest fossils go back billions of years.
“Nye said that carbon dating of rocks showed that Ham was off by about 4.5 billion years.” This is just a blunder by either you or Nye. Carbon-14 has a half life of only 5,730 years, so carbon dating can be used only up to about 100,000 years. After that, the number of remaining C-14 atoms is below detection limit. And Carbon-14 is not used to date rocks but organic samples.
“Noah’s Ark contained 14,000 animals which, paired male and female, represented 7,000 different species. Given that there are 16 million different species of animals on the Earth today, this would mean that 11 new species would have had to have been created every day, ” You must compare apples with apples. Ham said that the Ark contained only land vertebrates, and that number referred to genera not species. The 16 million species include invertebrates and marine creatures, that Ham argues were not obligate passengers because they could have survived off the Ark. Ham certainly doesn't think that invertebrates evolved from vertebrates, or that fish evolved from reptiles. It is important to address the actual argument being made, not a straw man. Applies to the important vaccine debate too.
It's no good having journalists interview these people alone. No journalist can be an expert on every topic, they don't have time. Quality journalism should be the moderation of two experts on a topic. In the Nye/Ham situation you had Nye right there putting the facts under Ham's nose, so it's useful. With an RFK town hall, you'd need a scientist with the pro-vaccine facts and data ready to refute RFK's most common claims. Otherwise it just perpetuates misinformation. And we need good moderators... which should be the skill journalists learn these days as their main value-add.
Kenney is paid by Children's Health Defense to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year. This compromises his integrity and is why he's not genuinely mistaken but intentionally fraudulent. Incentives matter. Kennedy might argue that it's a cause he genuinely cares about, that their values align and working for them is a natural fit. It's similar to what Dr. Offit feels about the field of childhood vaccines. His concern about making sure children get vaccinated happens to coincide, but is not influenced by, income he derives from Merck licensing deals. You can look at how much Kennedy makes from CHD, as it's a charity which discloses this information. What Merck pays inventors to license their patents is proprietary information. It would be helpful to have full transparency around this.
This is a superb discussion as usual, and helps frame the perils of entering into a debate with someone whose primary goal is to "win" at all costs.
The concept of "debating" is fraught with intrinsic human weaknesses. We like to win. We are swayed by conviction, theater, and tribe more than "the facts." We are emotional creatures, prone to manipulation. We equate association with cause and effect. And we are generally terrible with high level mathematics and biostatistics unless we have deep intelligence and thorough training.
Before this comment thread gets distorted by people cherry picking their favorite vaccine-hostile information, or dropping anecdotes about sad events that temporally/coincidentally seem associated with vaccination, we should pause and consider the courage that people like Dr. Offit show as they keep standing up against misinformation despite that hostility.
Instead of letting the "debate" devolve into a Musk/Zuckerberg cage match farce, he instead goes to the well again with his reserve of experience, knowledge, and command of the overall data.
As a physician and patient, I followed his dissent regarding the wisdom of the bivalent booster last year. It's ironic that some anti-vax groups cherry picked that dissent and broadcast it to serve their own closed-minded broader conclusions. He showed how to debate fairly. (https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/paul-offit-philadelphia-covid-vaccine-bivalent-booster-20221108.html) I admit that I am biased towards aggressive vaccination, and did not see much evidence for antigenic imprinting negatively affecting Covid risk reduction/booster outcomes. But I'm a clinical guy, and I am fortunate to have experts like Dr. Offit to do the heavy, often thankless, analytical lifting and debating in the appropriate forums.
And we are fortunate to have vaccines. The benefits of approved vaccines outweigh the risks, and most of the time this benefit is substantial. Less death, suffering, disfigurement and disability. Nothing I can think of is 100% risk free, and so of course vaccines can have adverse events. So can eating food.
I like this graph showing consistent mortality reduction for Covid vaccine recipients:
And recently I liked reading this "small" study out of Utah looking at over 2 million Utahns, which concluded that: "Mortality rates in the 44 weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination did not show trends suggesting an increase in mortality related to COVID-19 vaccination, reinforcing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines." It's just one of many studies, data, and analyses that have been reassuring.
Plus, I think we can agree it's fun to see people from Utah properly referred to as Utahns. Might be a good way for us all to start finding common ground.
I am going to express disappointment with the way you are steering this "conversation" at this point. Having watched RFK Jr of late, it is clear he is not the dishonest, malicious individual that you are portraying him to be, nor is he particularly ignorant of many of the more technical issues surrounding the development and licensure of vaccines. To many that have actually listened to him, even those of us that are well versed in the scientific method, these assertions ring hollow.
Is he right about everything? Of course not, no one is. Does he represent an increasing number of Americans that have questions, and that want to see engagement by the establishment, rather than just being at the receiving end of lectures from "the experts"? Most definitely.
I presume the reason you got into your profession was to find ways to make people healthier through the practice of medicine, and to proactively ward off disease through vaccines. Many of us were concerned during the COVID-19 pandemic that the ensuing mass vaccination policies degraded from this more lofty purpose, transitioning into the realm of profit and control, and that this adversely impacted traditional medical care, particularly including trust in vaccines. This is the case among a (still) growing percentage of the populace.
As someone that wants to see the situation remedied, watching the establishment digging into their safe spaces and taking pot shots at RFK Jr is not a good look. Perhaps you resent him for what he has said and done in the past, which you believe has resulted in undeserved anger being directed at yourself and your peers, and that is understandable. Likewise, he has been ostracized for years, censored far more than most, so it would not be surprising if he feels a certain way was well. But at least he is willing to engage the other side, often in a one on many format, to present his arguments and concerns. And people are listening.
My suggestion is you do the same. You are probably the best person to do this with your combination of gravitas and ability to clearly communicate the issues. Doing the podcast with Vincent Racaniello is fine, but you need to also transcend beyond the echo chamber if you want your message heard by the skeptics, and many others that have always followed establishment guidance, but that are finding RFK Jr more than a simple conspiracy theorist.
What a thoughtful and respectful comment James! Thank you for writing this.
No, I don't think globalists are putting mRNA vaccines in our food. Let's have a serious discussion Sandy.
Nothing productive would come from a debate with RFK Jr. Glad Jake Tapper rejected holding a town hall for RFK Jr.
George Lakoff -
"Of course, there are times when it is legitimate and necessary to debate and disagree. Some issues are matters of opinion or preference rather than fact. But when confronted by someone who does not regard facts as relevant, you’re better off skipping the debate and saving your energy for a more productive conversation.
As a general rule: Don't take the debate bait! Engaging someone with zero credibility or validity only helps them to gain status and spread lies. By trying to negate their false ideas, you'll end up activating them. Remember: They win by making the difference between lies and truth seem like a matter of opinion."
To be able to debate, facts and not impressions/misrepresentations must be required. Clearly Kennedy is incapable of marshaling scientific data (or interpreting it) and relies on conspiracy theories or things made of whole cloth.
Do you read the studies?
of course, I am a scientist
So when you read the pfizer eua document and their research — amended with more deaths after eua— and you see no problem with the greater number of coronary related deaths in the vaccinated group?
Or the Cochran study about autism that is inconclusive that both sides cite? I read it, it proves not enough studies have been conducted…So it proves nothing.
I have never thought of science as decided. It is always ongoing, but right now, the field science is so full of bias, it stifles.
I never doubted vaccines until covid, but too many older relatives were directly injured by mRNA. So I started researching by looking at the fda and cdc and nih sites and listening to the fda advisory meetings and reading the documents. Wow. They dismiss everything. Child paralyzed 12 hours after experimental shot, unrelated bc children become suddenly paralyzed all the time, lol… it quite shameful the dismissals of adverse reactions in the meetings. And then we just have to use it and see… lol. Right. How’s that going with heart damage? I know of two teens who have pace makers now. What the heck.
I have now apologized to my grown child for vaccinating her. I had no idea how dangerous and toxic vaccines were or that physicians are paid according to vaccine percentages. How terrible.
No wonder when her pediatrician moved on we were harassed so violently about the hpv shot. But that one has cause immediate permanent injury to someone we know. So… we just were waiting on safe and effective, but that “doctor” wanted her money from pharma? Shameful.
Where’s the balanced science?
Or the Cochran study about autism that is inconclusive that both sides cite? I read it, it proves not enough studies have been conducted…So it proves nothing. Therefore RFK shouldn't cite the data to advance his argument.
"So when you read the pfizer eua document and their research — amended with more deaths after eua— and you see no problem with the greater number of coronary related deaths in the vaccinated group?"
Please post the exact section you are references and point out the numbers.
Thanks
As always, Paul, well said!!!
One day when I was in high school, one of the popular kids, Jeff, was at his desk at the back of the classroom violating the rules by smoking a cigarette on school property. It was between classes so students were still filing into the room and the teacher, Mr. Mills, had not yet arrived. Then, suddenly, in came Mr. Mills. He glanced towards Jeff, catching him with a lit cigarette puffing away between his lips. Though it was too late, Jeff quickly pulled the cigarette out of his mouth and hid it under his desk. Mr. Mills barked out, "Jeff, would you please put out that cigarette." A look of shock came over Jeff's face. He replied, "But Mr. Mills, I don't have a cigarette. How could you accuse me of such a thing. I don't even smoke. I hate the smell of cigarettes." This despite smoke curling up from below his desk. Jeff was popular and had a couple of his pals sitting around him, all of whom concurred, Jeff was not smoking a cigarette.
Up to that point I had never seen anything quite like that. Just deny what all evidence says is true. Simply say that the obvious facts are not true. Of course, this phenomenon exists today. People deny all evidence. Jeff has greatly expanded his number of followers, and he has become RFK Jr.
For the better part of 2 years, anyone who merely questioned the efficacy of Covid vaccinations, masking, or school, playground, and business closures was ridiculed, shamed, coerced, bullied, threatened with loss of job, and/or called a data cherry-picker. My own family doctor, in hushed tones at one of my checkups, intimated that her career was in jeopardy if she so much as questioned the narrative (and in previous appointments she very much questioned the narrative). Doctor Offit is continuing with the Covid-19 tactics of public smearing and name-calling. Far from countering RFK's claims, he calls him a liar, and as proof of his assertion, he tells us about two other people who called RFK a liar. Excuse some of us for having flashbacks to 2021.
I am educated in biology, virology, and probability and statistics. As recently as 2019, I would have concurred wholeheartedly with Doctor Offit on vaccine safety. However, is it any wonder that I and others like me all now have our ears a little more open to the question on the table, especially after an article like this?
And then almost two years after Covid ravaged many countries, NZ finally got Covid. By that time, most of the population was vaccinated. And deaths were a fraction of what other countries saw.
People who questioned the efficacy of XYZ were not ridiculed, they were pointed to the evidence (which was constantly being added to, and recommendations changing based on matching the changing situation re community cases, and the new knowledge gained). When those people _denied_ the evidence, _ignored_ the fact that advice given/restrictions when cases are low will necessarily differ from when cases are high (eg re masking, which seems to STILL be misrepresented as primarily protection for the wearer), and started parroting out the same anti-expert "gotchas" as each other while insisting on being recognised as "independent" critical thinkers, even within discussions that had *already* addressed and dismantled their claims...well sure, ridicule and shaming at being so wilfully ignorant and arrogant was warranted. Because their refusal to engage with public health measures made it worse for everyone, including themselves.
NZ had a nationwide lockdown days after the first case was identified and by and large everyone complied, even in places no cases were seen then, and not for several months after. Yes, it was a pretty strict lockdown, but it WORKED. We got rid of Covid from our community and then got to enjoy a return to pretty much normal life, albeit with much reduced tourism, for _months_ until the next case popped up. If only other places had taken it seriously and locked down, they too could have bought themselves time (to wait until a vaccine was available) and freedom (after a temporary curtailment of it).
But no.
While trumpeting how their ancestors had fought for their freedom with their lives, they showed no inclination to make *any* sacrifice, of anything at all, not even wearing a mask, ffs, in order to secure their future freedom nor save lives in the meantime. They refused to follow public health advice, claiming that some principle or other was more important. And this contributed to a massive death toll. Shame, shame, shame on them.
And that's not even starting on the people denying there was even a pathogen at all. Ugh.
Brian, do you know how your doctor’s career would have been in jeopardy? Would she have gotten in trouble with her state medical board? Or with hospital group administrators? Or does she think she would have been ostracized by colleagues?
She and I didn't further discuss the specifics of the threat to her. I only recall her saying--in hushed tones--that it could jeopardize her career, and I recall the feeling of disgust and alarm I felt that my doctor was even put in such a position. I used to imagine, as a kid in the 1970's, that conversations like that only took place in the Soviet Union.
Both sides stretch data on vaccines. I read the links doctors post on both sides. Vaccine advocates ignore severe side effects as “noise” something naturally occurring. Or the other vaccine/metals in the placebo cause as much adverse health issues as the vaccine, so therefore the vaccine is safe. This is such a logical fallacy. I am allergic the most all metal after a flu shot in 2004. Was it the vaccine? I can’t say, but I had no other medicines/life changes.
I also saw a lot of weird stuff happen and still see weird medical stuff since the mRNA gene editing injections (we can argue the gene editing… but the industry leaders involved certainly are excited about editing genes to stop cancer with the same tech…) As an older rather than younger teacher, I can confirm that statistics showing a rise in mental disorders such as autism and ADHD and depression are sky high compared to 20/30 years ago. Is it social toxicity? Or something in our environment? Is it the geo engineering in the skies? The industrial chemically built farms? Or the medicines/vaccines we use? And when will doctors want to know?
“Both sides stretch data on vaccines.” This is spot on. Many people want to understand things as they are, they’re not interested in the cherry picking of either “side.”
What an absolute take-down of RFK. Two people remember events differently! You've proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that the man has nothing to say that is worth listening to. Excellent work.
Tell that to the FDA, CDC and Pharmaceutical companies that lost lawsuits filed by RFK Jr.
I keep asking for someone to provide a relevant example of one of these lawsuits....but so far no one has!
It was sarcasm
The bad actor problem you describe can be circumvented by allowing both debaters to share their screen and pull up studies
After mentoring the Nye/Ham debate in your discussion with Racaniello on this topic, it’s very thoughtful of you to provide us with these details that are such an excellent, straightforward example of what can or is cannot accomplished depending on the HONESTY of the debate when he/she is the validity of the EVIDENCE being used. On another podcast “Making Sense”, Sam Harris also talks similarly about why RFK,Jr questionable honesty in his use of information since much of it is cherry-picked to suit and manipulated to bolster his OPINIONS versus just presenting currently accepted facts. Just thought you’d want to know that other scientists have recognized RFK Jrs blatant dishonesty and are willing to point it out as it happened on Rogan’s show.
Unfortunately many podcasts become popular today by hyping differences of OPINIONS without presenters being challenged to support their opinions. It’s like the difference between a Olympic wrestling match, with holds being refereed and thus participants being held responsible for their actions in real time vs World Wide wrestling matches with its anything goes approach. How would the responsible wrestler (in this case you) fare in a world wide wrestling match? And in today’s world, which venue would garner most attention? We know the answers to that so it’s a combination of an honest, responsible refereed debater as well as venue’s responsibility to be responsible for the veracity of the information being aired. If the host of exchange between individuals is unwilling to uphold his responsibility for the veracity of the information it shouldn’t be called a debate. IMO it should be aired as an opinionated discussion so the audiences (who have their own opinions) are thereby forewarned of the nature of the information being presented.
"Unfortunately many podcasts become popular today by hyping differences of OPINIONS without presenters being challenged to support their opinions."
You're correct, most hosts aren't experts in these subjects so they just ask questions and allow the guests to pontificate. This is why people so desperately want to see someone like Offit in conversation with RFK jr. No one is challenging what he is saying in real time. Most people aren't going to do deep dive research themselves so the scientists need to go on shows like Rogan's and meet people where they are.
equating the Nye/Ham debate as an example of why NOT to debate RFK Jr is nothing but a Straw Man argument and a poor one at that. in fact, by reading your piece I became more inclined to believe you have ulterior motives here. since Kennedy has called you out publicly, you should be the first to invite debate to clear things up. after the Covid fiasco, you can't blame anyone for being skeptical about vaccines. I first became aware of you from Dr.Z's podcast. I was impressed by your willingness to push back on the insane movement to vaccinate every human being alive.
please reconsider your actions here doc...it's a bad look for you and just makes RFK more believable. if you have been unfairly maligned, you have nothing to lose and everything to gain...
We agree!
The facts are overwhelming!
“Nye countered that to deny evolution meant ignoring 250,000 years of fossil records.” Presumably you or he meant 250,000 fossil species, which is about the right number. We have not been keeping records of fossils for 250,000 years. If you or he meant the duration of the fossil record, then Nye argued that the earliest fossils go back billions of years.
“Nye said that carbon dating of rocks showed that Ham was off by about 4.5 billion years.” This is just a blunder by either you or Nye. Carbon-14 has a half life of only 5,730 years, so carbon dating can be used only up to about 100,000 years. After that, the number of remaining C-14 atoms is below detection limit. And Carbon-14 is not used to date rocks but organic samples.
“Noah’s Ark contained 14,000 animals which, paired male and female, represented 7,000 different species. Given that there are 16 million different species of animals on the Earth today, this would mean that 11 new species would have had to have been created every day, ” You must compare apples with apples. Ham said that the Ark contained only land vertebrates, and that number referred to genera not species. The 16 million species include invertebrates and marine creatures, that Ham argues were not obligate passengers because they could have survived off the Ark. Ham certainly doesn't think that invertebrates evolved from vertebrates, or that fish evolved from reptiles. It is important to address the actual argument being made, not a straw man. Applies to the important vaccine debate too.
It's no good having journalists interview these people alone. No journalist can be an expert on every topic, they don't have time. Quality journalism should be the moderation of two experts on a topic. In the Nye/Ham situation you had Nye right there putting the facts under Ham's nose, so it's useful. With an RFK town hall, you'd need a scientist with the pro-vaccine facts and data ready to refute RFK's most common claims. Otherwise it just perpetuates misinformation. And we need good moderators... which should be the skill journalists learn these days as their main value-add.
I believe you mean Children's Health Defense, a very different organization from the Children's Defense Fund.
Kenney is paid by Children's Health Defense to the tune of hundreds of thousands a year. This compromises his integrity and is why he's not genuinely mistaken but intentionally fraudulent. Incentives matter. Kennedy might argue that it's a cause he genuinely cares about, that their values align and working for them is a natural fit. It's similar to what Dr. Offit feels about the field of childhood vaccines. His concern about making sure children get vaccinated happens to coincide, but is not influenced by, income he derives from Merck licensing deals. You can look at how much Kennedy makes from CHD, as it's a charity which discloses this information. What Merck pays inventors to license their patents is proprietary information. It would be helpful to have full transparency around this.
FYI: he was paid $500K last year.
This is a superb discussion as usual, and helps frame the perils of entering into a debate with someone whose primary goal is to "win" at all costs.
The concept of "debating" is fraught with intrinsic human weaknesses. We like to win. We are swayed by conviction, theater, and tribe more than "the facts." We are emotional creatures, prone to manipulation. We equate association with cause and effect. And we are generally terrible with high level mathematics and biostatistics unless we have deep intelligence and thorough training.
Before this comment thread gets distorted by people cherry picking their favorite vaccine-hostile information, or dropping anecdotes about sad events that temporally/coincidentally seem associated with vaccination, we should pause and consider the courage that people like Dr. Offit show as they keep standing up against misinformation despite that hostility.
Instead of letting the "debate" devolve into a Musk/Zuckerberg cage match farce, he instead goes to the well again with his reserve of experience, knowledge, and command of the overall data.
As a physician and patient, I followed his dissent regarding the wisdom of the bivalent booster last year. It's ironic that some anti-vax groups cherry picked that dissent and broadcast it to serve their own closed-minded broader conclusions. He showed how to debate fairly. (https://www.inquirer.com/health/coronavirus/paul-offit-philadelphia-covid-vaccine-bivalent-booster-20221108.html) I admit that I am biased towards aggressive vaccination, and did not see much evidence for antigenic imprinting negatively affecting Covid risk reduction/booster outcomes. But I'm a clinical guy, and I am fortunate to have experts like Dr. Offit to do the heavy, often thankless, analytical lifting and debating in the appropriate forums.
And we are fortunate to have vaccines. The benefits of approved vaccines outweigh the risks, and most of the time this benefit is substantial. Less death, suffering, disfigurement and disability. Nothing I can think of is 100% risk free, and so of course vaccines can have adverse events. So can eating food.
I like this graph showing consistent mortality reduction for Covid vaccine recipients:
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/united-states-rates-of-covid-19-deaths-by-vaccination-status
And recently I liked reading this "small" study out of Utah looking at over 2 million Utahns, which concluded that: "Mortality rates in the 44 weeks following the COVID-19 vaccination did not show trends suggesting an increase in mortality related to COVID-19 vaccination, reinforcing the safety of COVID-19 vaccines." It's just one of many studies, data, and analyses that have been reassuring.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10073592/
Plus, I think we can agree it's fun to see people from Utah properly referred to as Utahns. Might be a good way for us all to start finding common ground.