Articles Causing Controversy
From time to time people bring an article in front of me and ask me to rebut it as if they think it is the perfect way to defeat my own sincerely held and often controversial opinions. "Here's an article - that'll shut him up..."
I've often had to go out and find some competing evidence or article with which to rebut such attempts and often find that I'm having to repeat myself. I therefore create this page as a repository for such articles and their rebuttal - to save me time looking stuff up.
I've often had to go out and find some competing evidence or article with which to rebut such attempts and often find that I'm having to repeat myself. I therefore create this page as a repository for such articles and their rebuttal - to save me time looking stuff up.
Food revolution: New diet may save lives and the planet
In which Walter Willett et al come up with a model diet that will sustainably feed the planet but which contains barely a sniff of meat.
In which Walter Willett et al come up with a model diet that will sustainably feed the planet but which contains barely a sniff of meat.
- The EAT Lancet diet is nutritionally deficient - rebuttal by Zoe Harcombe
Where Zoe, shows the particular nutrient deficiencies of the aforementioned cunning plan to save the planet. - EAT-Lancet report’s recommendations are at odds with sustainable food production
"Many studies have shown that in drought-prone regions of the world, in particular, and areas with poor soil quality, the most important thing is to maintain or build soil organic matter and this can only be achieved sustainably by integrating crop and livestock production and introducing nitrogen by deep-rooting leguminous plants rather than soluble fertiliser." - Impacts of soil carbon sequestration on life cycle greenhouse gas emissions in Midwestern USA beef finishing systems
- 20 Ways EAT Lancet’s Global Diet is Wrongfully Vilifying Meat
- THE CASE FOR SUSTAINABLE MEAT
"From Pimental’s total, we can calculate that such a cow uses over 12 million litres of water during its lifetime – equivalent to an acre of land under ten feet of water. But cows typically drink only 50 litres of water per day, which leads to a figure of 200 litres per kilo or just 0.2 percent of Pimental’s value. How did the agronomist create such a monumentally inflated figure?" - Should you EAT Lancet? - Marty Kendall's Optimising Nutrition take on the EAT-Lancet piece.
- EAT-Lancet's Plant-based Planet: 10 Things You Need to Know. Should every day be Meatless Monday? - Georgia Ede
"Unfortunately, we are going to have to look elsewhere for solutions, because the report fails to provide us with the clarity, transparency and responsible representation of the facts we need to place our trust in its authors. Instead, the Commission’s arguments are vague, inconsistent, unscientific, and minimize serious risk to life and health." - Eat Me, Lancet … These People Are A Perfect Example Of The Anointed
Tom Naughton's take on the report - biting wit from the producer of Fat Head - the movie. - EAT-Lancet Report is One-sided, Not Backed by Rigorous Science - Nina Teicholz
"It appears the EAT-Lancet report did not undergo external peer review. Rather, the authors (who are dubbed “Commissioners”) themselves did their own peer review—what most of us would call ‘checking one’s work.’ This is such a basic violation of The Lancet’s standards, one has to wonder what is going on here…" - The inconvenient truths behind the 'Planetary Health' diet - Erica Hauver (Sustainability Advisor)
"So, has the EAT-Lancet Commission achieved its goal of devising a diet that can reduce chronic disease trends and environmental damage while allowing us to feed billions more people by 2050?Sadly, the short answer is no. The commission’s Planetary Health Diet falls short, for three reasons. First, it is founded on outdated, weak nutrition science. Second, the commission failed to achieve an international scientific consensus for its dietary targets, in spite of its claims to have done so. Third, it has suffered from biased, or at least unrepresentative, leadership." - Is the EAT-Lancet (Vegan) Rule-Book Hijacking Our Health?
Summation of the 'Twitterscape' on this subject by Belinda Fettke - The World Health Organisation Pulls Sponsorship
In which even that bastion of global 'woolly-think' cannot stomach a vegan diet... - Should dietary guidelines recommend low red meat intake?
Another scientific rebuttal of the EAT - Lancet report.
Rebuttal to the Game Changers movie
- Here is the rebuttal by Prof. Grant Schofield
"76g doesn’t sound like much, but believe it or not was the highest meat and processed meat category in the results. What’s a 20% increase in terms of absolute risk? Because the risk is reported as HR not RR we can’t be exact, but the absolute risk of CRC in the study over 5.7 years was 0.5%, 20% would raise that to 0.6%, which is an increase in absolute risk of 0.1%, or one extra chance in a thousand."
Here is another that suggests those eating the most red meat have higher mortality
"After taking into account age and other influencing factors, the researchers found that increasing red meat consumption over an eight-year period was associated with a higher risk of death in the following eight years among both women and men."More specifically, increasing total red meat intake by 3.5 servings a week or more over the eight years was associated with a 10 per cent higher risk of death in the next eight years, increasing unprocessed red meat was associated with a 9 per cent higher risk, while upping processed red meat intake, such as bacon, hot dogs, sausages and salami, was associated with a 13 per cent higher risk."
"After taking into account age and other influencing factors, the researchers found that increasing red meat consumption over an eight-year period was associated with a higher risk of death in the following eight years among both women and men."More specifically, increasing total red meat intake by 3.5 servings a week or more over the eight years was associated with a 10 per cent higher risk of death in the next eight years, increasing unprocessed red meat was associated with a 9 per cent higher risk, while upping processed red meat intake, such as bacon, hot dogs, sausages and salami, was associated with a 13 per cent higher risk."
- Rebuttal - including input from Zoe Harcombe, Chris Masterjohn, Colin E Champ, Mark Sisson and others
"The raw data actually shows deaths rates falling with increased meat consumption up to the third or fourth quintile – and this is before all the other variables have been allowed for. This would suggest that meat consumption has a protective effect while weight, alcohol, calorie intake, lack of exercise and so on are all taking their toll."
Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomized controlled trials.
In which a number of people with respectable credentials and financial ties to the drug industry try to convince us that statins are good for us.
In which a number of people with respectable credentials and financial ties to the drug industry try to convince us that statins are good for us.
- Response by Malcolm Kendrick
"A number of people have asked for my views on the Lancet Paper ‘Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomized controlled trials.’ - Response by Zoe Harcombe
- A study was published in The Lancet, which was reported worldwide as “giving statins to people over the age of 75 could save thousands of lives.”
- This claim came from a press conference to launch the Lancet Paper, where a lead author, Colin Baigent, was quoted as saying: “Only a third of the 5.5 million over 75s in the UK take statins and up to 8000 deaths per year could be prevented if all took them.”
- This is false. It relies upon evidence in the over 75s for both deaths and primary prevention (people who do not already have heart disease) and neither was found.
- Figure 5 in The Lancet paper confirmed that the Rate Ratio (RR) for vascular deaths for over 75s was not statistically significant. Nor was it for those aged 70-75 for that matter. Even with the attempt to achieve a significant result, by excluding trials that failed to show benefit of statins, the RR for vascular deaths for over 75s was not statistically significant.
- Figure 4 in The Lancet paper confirmed that the RR for major vascular events for over 75s without vascular disease was not statistically significant. Nor was it for those aged 70-75 for that matter.
- This article was reported worldwide as ‘statins can save thousands of lives in the over 75s’. No statistical significance was achieved for deaths or primary prevention in this age group. The falsehoods need to be corrected.
The following journal paper has caused much controversy on the Internet.
It is hard to imagine why our body might want to kill itself, but that is what we are expected to believe if we read the following study. Cholesterol is a vital part of our metabolism and the low density lipoproteins have their role in protecting us as do the high density ones.
The important consideration in my mind is what is causing LDL-C to get to a point when it starts to cause harm to our body. Rather than using a drug to artificially restrict our production of cholesterol (which is still vitally required for a host of other functions in our body), we need to look to what is causing it to be high in the first place.
If LDL is what causes heart disease then I would ask "what causes LDL?" When you can find what causes the LDL then I would suggest eliminating that.
In the meantime blaming LDL for heart disease is like blaming fuel for causing the fire.
Speaking of using drugs to lower cholesterol - why don't we take a look at the Conflict Of Interest statement for the writers of this article - it is longer than the Abstract and the Conclusions!
It is hard to imagine why our body might want to kill itself, but that is what we are expected to believe if we read the following study. Cholesterol is a vital part of our metabolism and the low density lipoproteins have their role in protecting us as do the high density ones.
The important consideration in my mind is what is causing LDL-C to get to a point when it starts to cause harm to our body. Rather than using a drug to artificially restrict our production of cholesterol (which is still vitally required for a host of other functions in our body), we need to look to what is causing it to be high in the first place.
If LDL is what causes heart disease then I would ask "what causes LDL?" When you can find what causes the LDL then I would suggest eliminating that.
In the meantime blaming LDL for heart disease is like blaming fuel for causing the fire.
Speaking of using drugs to lower cholesterol - why don't we take a look at the Conflict Of Interest statement for the writers of this article - it is longer than the Abstract and the Conclusions!
Low-density lipoproteins cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. 1. Evidence from genetic, epidemiologic, and clinical studies. A consensus statement from the European Atherosclerosis Society Consensus Panel
Aims
To appraise the clinical and genetic evidence that low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Methods and results
We assessed whether the association between LDL and ASCVD fulfils the criteria for causality by evaluating the totality of evidence from genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In clinical studies, plasma LDL burden is usually estimated by determination of plasma LDL cholesterol level (LDL-C). Rare genetic mutations that cause reduced LDL receptor function lead to markedly higher LDL-C and a dose-dependent increase in the risk of ASCVD, whereas rare variants leading to lower LDL-C are associated with a correspondingly lower risk of ASCVD. Separate meta-analyses of over 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials including more than 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and over 150 000 cardiovascular events demonstrate a remarkably consistent dose-dependent log-linear association between the absolute magnitude of exposure of the vasculature to LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD; and this effect appears to increase with increasing duration of exposure to LDL-C. Both the naturally randomized genetic studies and the randomized intervention trials consistently demonstrate that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL particle concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C, provided that the achieved reduction in LDL-C is concordant with the reduction in LDL particle number and that there are no competing deleterious off-target effects.
Conclusion
Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD.
Aims
To appraise the clinical and genetic evidence that low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (ASCVD).
Methods and results
We assessed whether the association between LDL and ASCVD fulfils the criteria for causality by evaluating the totality of evidence from genetic studies, prospective epidemiologic cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials of LDL-lowering therapies. In clinical studies, plasma LDL burden is usually estimated by determination of plasma LDL cholesterol level (LDL-C). Rare genetic mutations that cause reduced LDL receptor function lead to markedly higher LDL-C and a dose-dependent increase in the risk of ASCVD, whereas rare variants leading to lower LDL-C are associated with a correspondingly lower risk of ASCVD. Separate meta-analyses of over 200 prospective cohort studies, Mendelian randomization studies, and randomized trials including more than 2 million participants with over 20 million person-years of follow-up and over 150 000 cardiovascular events demonstrate a remarkably consistent dose-dependent log-linear association between the absolute magnitude of exposure of the vasculature to LDL-C and the risk of ASCVD; and this effect appears to increase with increasing duration of exposure to LDL-C. Both the naturally randomized genetic studies and the randomized intervention trials consistently demonstrate that any mechanism of lowering plasma LDL particle concentration should reduce the risk of ASCVD events proportional to the absolute reduction in LDL-C and the cumulative duration of exposure to lower LDL-C, provided that the achieved reduction in LDL-C is concordant with the reduction in LDL particle number and that there are no competing deleterious off-target effects.
Conclusion
Consistent evidence from numerous and multiple different types of clinical and genetic studies unequivocally establishes that LDL causes ASCVD.
- Here is the counter argument:
LDL-C does not cause cardiovascular disease: a comprehensive review of the current literature
"The idea that high cholesterol levels in the blood are the main cause of CVD is impossible because people with low levels become just as atherosclerotic as people with high levels and their risk of suffering from CVD is the same or higher. The cholesterol hypothesis has been kept alive for decades by reviewers who have used misleading statistics, excluded the results from unsuccessful trials and ignored numerous contradictory observations."
On Covid-19
Coronavirus Vaccination Interactive Map - NY Times
Malcolm Kendrick on Covid 19 and blood clotting
Talking about glycocalyx and stuff
Talking about glycocalyx and stuff
Letter to Physicians: Four New Scientific Discoveries Regarding COVID-19 Immunity and Vaccines – Implications for Safety and Efficacy
"Doctors for Covid ethics has sent the following letter to tens of thousands of doctors in Europe, summarising four recent scientific findings critical to the COVID-19 vaccination program. The letter explains each finding as it relates to the biology of COVID-19 vaccines, including interactions with the immune system.
Taken together, the letter warns that these new pieces of evidence force all physicians administering COVID-19 vaccines to re-evaluate the merits of COVID-19 vaccination, in the interests of their own ethical standing, and their patients’ safety and health."
"Doctors for Covid ethics has sent the following letter to tens of thousands of doctors in Europe, summarising four recent scientific findings critical to the COVID-19 vaccination program. The letter explains each finding as it relates to the biology of COVID-19 vaccines, including interactions with the immune system.
Taken together, the letter warns that these new pieces of evidence force all physicians administering COVID-19 vaccines to re-evaluate the merits of COVID-19 vaccination, in the interests of their own ethical standing, and their patients’ safety and health."
Doctor: Heart Failure From MRNA Jabs “Will Kill Most People” - Dr Charles Hoff
“We now know that only 25 percent of the ‘vaccine’ injected into a person’s arm actually stays in your arm. The other 75 percent is collected by your lymphatic system and literally fed into your circulation so these little packages of messenger RNA, and by the way in a single dose of Moderna ‘vaccine’ there are literally 40 trillion mRNA molecules. These packages are designed to be absorbed into your cells. But the only place they can be absorbed is around your blood vessels and the place where they are absorbed is the capillary networks – the tiniest blood vessels where the blood flow slows right down and where the genes are released. Your body then gets to work reading and then manufacturing trillions and trillions of these spike proteins. Each gene can produce many, many spike proteins. The body then recognises these are foreign bodies so it makes antibodies against it so your are then protected against COVID. That’s the idea.”
“So it is absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form because your blood platelets circulate round your blood vessels, and the purpose of blood platelets is to identify damaged vessels and stop bleeding. So, when the platelet comes through the capillary it suddenly hits all these COVID spikes and it becomes absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form to block that vessel.”
Therefore, these spike proteins can predictably cause blood clots. They are in your blood vessels (if mRNA ‘vaccinated’) so it is guaranteed. Dr Bahrdi then said to me that the way to prove this is to do a blood test called a D-dimer blood test.
“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.”
Dr Hoffe explains he has been performing D-dimer tests on his mRNA ‘vaccinated’ patients and he has worryingly identified that 62 percent of them had these microscopic blood clots.
“These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.”
The result, says Dr Hoffe, is that these patients have what is termed Reduced Effort Tolerance (RET) which means they get out of breath much easily than they used to. It is because the blood vessels in their lungs are now blocked up. In turn, this causes the heart to need to work harder to try to keep up against a much greater resistance trying to get the blood through your lungs.
This is called pulmonary artery hypertension – high blood pressure in the lungs because the blood simply cannot get through effectively. People with this condition usually die of heart failure within a few short years.
“We now know that only 25 percent of the ‘vaccine’ injected into a person’s arm actually stays in your arm. The other 75 percent is collected by your lymphatic system and literally fed into your circulation so these little packages of messenger RNA, and by the way in a single dose of Moderna ‘vaccine’ there are literally 40 trillion mRNA molecules. These packages are designed to be absorbed into your cells. But the only place they can be absorbed is around your blood vessels and the place where they are absorbed is the capillary networks – the tiniest blood vessels where the blood flow slows right down and where the genes are released. Your body then gets to work reading and then manufacturing trillions and trillions of these spike proteins. Each gene can produce many, many spike proteins. The body then recognises these are foreign bodies so it makes antibodies against it so your are then protected against COVID. That’s the idea.”
“So it is absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form because your blood platelets circulate round your blood vessels, and the purpose of blood platelets is to identify damaged vessels and stop bleeding. So, when the platelet comes through the capillary it suddenly hits all these COVID spikes and it becomes absolutely inevitable that blood clots will form to block that vessel.”
Therefore, these spike proteins can predictably cause blood clots. They are in your blood vessels (if mRNA ‘vaccinated’) so it is guaranteed. Dr Bahrdi then said to me that the way to prove this is to do a blood test called a D-dimer blood test.
“The blood clots we hear about which the media claim are very rare are the big blood clots which are the ones that cause strokes and show up on CT scans, MRI, etc. The clots I’m talking about are microscopic and too small to find on any scan. They can thus only be detected using the D-dimer test.”
Dr Hoffe explains he has been performing D-dimer tests on his mRNA ‘vaccinated’ patients and he has worryingly identified that 62 percent of them had these microscopic blood clots.
“These people have no idea they are even having these microscopic blood clots. The most alarming part of this is that there are some parts of the body like the brain, spinal cord, heart and lungs which cannot re-generate. When those tissues are damaged by blood clots they are permanently damaged.”
The result, says Dr Hoffe, is that these patients have what is termed Reduced Effort Tolerance (RET) which means they get out of breath much easily than they used to. It is because the blood vessels in their lungs are now blocked up. In turn, this causes the heart to need to work harder to try to keep up against a much greater resistance trying to get the blood through your lungs.
This is called pulmonary artery hypertension – high blood pressure in the lungs because the blood simply cannot get through effectively. People with this condition usually die of heart failure within a few short years.
Death rate from Covid-19 (with positive PCR) from Ivor Cummins video
VAERS data on deaths following influenza and covid-19 vaccinations (table only up to June 2021 - not complete year yet)
A Critical Analysis of the Covid Response
29 MARCH 2021
“Without lockdowns, the situation would have been worse”. This is the claim of lockdown advocates. However, this is the equivalent of administering treatment to a patient and claiming that despite a negative outcome the treatment is effective, because without the treatment the patient’s condition would have been even worse. Never in past epidemics or pandemics have lockdowns been imposed as a mitigation strategy over a large area or for a long period of time. Studies have shown that lockdowns cause unintended negative consequences to social well-being, mental health, physical health, mobility, employment, education, and the economy at large while undermining fundamental rights. Lockdown-induced deaths occur in younger people, causing an increase in total years of life lost. The comparison of epidemic curves in places with strict lockdowns and those with less stringent measures shows no significant differences in COVID-19 indicators (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). A simple cost-benefit analysis would clearly show that lockdown harms greatly outweigh any claimed benefits.
29 MARCH 2021
“Without lockdowns, the situation would have been worse”. This is the claim of lockdown advocates. However, this is the equivalent of administering treatment to a patient and claiming that despite a negative outcome the treatment is effective, because without the treatment the patient’s condition would have been even worse. Never in past epidemics or pandemics have lockdowns been imposed as a mitigation strategy over a large area or for a long period of time. Studies have shown that lockdowns cause unintended negative consequences to social well-being, mental health, physical health, mobility, employment, education, and the economy at large while undermining fundamental rights. Lockdown-induced deaths occur in younger people, causing an increase in total years of life lost. The comparison of epidemic curves in places with strict lockdowns and those with less stringent measures shows no significant differences in COVID-19 indicators (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). A simple cost-benefit analysis would clearly show that lockdown harms greatly outweigh any claimed benefits.
- AIER (American Institute of Economic Research). Lockdowns Do Not Control the Coronavirus: The Evidence. https://www.aier.org/article/lockdowns-do-not-control-the-coronavirus-the-evidence/COVID-19 Alternative Strategy: A Case for Health and Socioeconomic Wellbeing (2020). https://www.aier.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/covid_recovery_ireland_white_paper_-_17th_nov.pdf
- Chaudhry, R. et al. A country level analysis measuring the impact of government actions, country preparedness and socioeconomic factors on COVID-19 mortality and related health outcomes. E Clinical Medicine 25 (2020) 100464. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30208-X/fulltext
- Great Barrington Declaration: https://gbdeclaration.org/
- Johnston, L. UK lockdown was a ‘monumental mistake’ and must not happen again – Boris scientist says (2020). https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1320428/Coronavirus-news-lockdown-mistake-second-wave-Boris-Johnson
- Kulldorff, M. American Institute of Economic Research (2020). https://www.aier.org/article/twelve-principles-of-public-health/
- McClintock, T. Lockdowns are killing us. Mountain Democrat. February, 2021. https://www.mtdemocrat.com/opinion/guest-column-lockdowns-are-killing-us/
- Meunier, T. Full lockdown policies in Western Europe countries have no evident impacts on the COVID-19 epidemic (2020). https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.24.20078717v1
- Norway ‘could have controlled infection without lockdown’: health chief. https://www.thelocal.no/20200522/norway-could-have-controlled-infection-without-lockdown-health-chief
- Schneider, P. Canadian Health Expert: Cost of Lockdowns are at least 10 times higher than benefits. January 15, 2021. https://phillipschneider.com/canadian-health-expert-costs-of-lock-downs-are-at-least-10-times-higher-than-the-benefits/
- PanData: https://www.pandata.org/
Seroprevalence of covid 19 antibodies in the USA indicating that large part of the population likely has been infected already - before vaccination might have come into play. From video by Dr. John Campbell.
MIT researchers 'infiltrated' a Covid skeptics community a
few months ago and found that skeptics place a high
premium on data analysis and empiricism.
"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that
science is a process, and not an institution."
few months ago and found that skeptics place a high
premium on data analysis and empiricism.
"Most fundamentally, the groups we studied believe that
science is a process, and not an institution."
"Indeed, anti-maskers often reveal themselves to be more sophisticated in their understanding of how scientific knowledge is socially constructed than their ideological adversaries, who espouse naïve realism about the “objective” truth of public health data."
"In other words, anti-maskers value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over “expert” interpretations."
"Its members value individual initiative and ingenuity, trusting scientific analysis only insofar as they can replicate it themselves by accessing and manipulating the data firsthand."
"They are highly reflexive about the inherently biased nature of any analysis, and resent what they view as the arrogant self-righteousness of scientific elites."
"Many of the users believe that the most important metrics are missing from government-released data."
"One user wrote: 'Coding data is a big deal—and those definitions should be offered transparently by every state. Without a national guideline—we are left with this mess'."
"The lack of transparency within these data collection systems—which many of these users infer as a lack of honesty—erodes these users’ trust within both government institutions and the datasets they release."
"In fact, there are multiple threads every week where users debate how representative the data are of the population given the increased rate of testing across many states."
"These groups argue that the conflation of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases therefore makes it difficult for anyone to actually determine the severity of the pandemic."
"For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less."
"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies... that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph."
"While these groups highly value scientific expertise, they also see collective analysis of data as a way to bring communities together within a time of crisis, and being able to transparently and dispassionately analyze the data is crucial for democratic governance."
"In fact, the explicit motivation for many of these followers is to find information so that they can make the best decisions for their families—and by extension, for the communities around them."
"The message that runs through these threads is unequivocal: that data is the only way to set fear-bound politicians straight, and using better data is a surefire way towards creating a safer community."
"Data literacy is a quintessential criterion for membership within the community they have created."
"Arguing anti-maskers need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed & inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: they are deeply invested in forms of critique & knowledge production they recognize as markers of scientific expertise"
"We argue that anti-maskers’ deep story draws from similar wells of resentment, but adds a particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic, condescending elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking from the public."
And yet in the conclusion they lament "the skeptical impulse that the 'science simply isn’t settled,' prompting people to simply 'think for themselves” to horrifying ends."
They then compare it to the January 6 Capitol riot.
"In other words, anti-maskers value unmediated access to information and privilege personal research and direct reading over “expert” interpretations."
"Its members value individual initiative and ingenuity, trusting scientific analysis only insofar as they can replicate it themselves by accessing and manipulating the data firsthand."
"They are highly reflexive about the inherently biased nature of any analysis, and resent what they view as the arrogant self-righteousness of scientific elites."
"Many of the users believe that the most important metrics are missing from government-released data."
"One user wrote: 'Coding data is a big deal—and those definitions should be offered transparently by every state. Without a national guideline—we are left with this mess'."
"The lack of transparency within these data collection systems—which many of these users infer as a lack of honesty—erodes these users’ trust within both government institutions and the datasets they release."
"In fact, there are multiple threads every week where users debate how representative the data are of the population given the increased rate of testing across many states."
"These groups argue that the conflation of asymptomatic and symptomatic cases therefore makes it difficult for anyone to actually determine the severity of the pandemic."
"For these anti-mask users, their approach to the pandemic is grounded in more scientific rigor, not less."
"These individuals as a whole are extremely willing to help others who have trouble interpreting graphs with multiple forms of clarification: by helping people find the original sources so that they can replicate the analysis themselves, by referencing other reputable studies... that come to the same conclusions, by reminding others to remain vigilant about the limitations of the data, and by answering questions about the implications of a specific graph."
"While these groups highly value scientific expertise, they also see collective analysis of data as a way to bring communities together within a time of crisis, and being able to transparently and dispassionately analyze the data is crucial for democratic governance."
"In fact, the explicit motivation for many of these followers is to find information so that they can make the best decisions for their families—and by extension, for the communities around them."
"The message that runs through these threads is unequivocal: that data is the only way to set fear-bound politicians straight, and using better data is a surefire way towards creating a safer community."
"Data literacy is a quintessential criterion for membership within the community they have created."
"Arguing anti-maskers need more scientific literacy is to characterize their approach as uninformed & inexplicably extreme. This study shows the opposite: they are deeply invested in forms of critique & knowledge production they recognize as markers of scientific expertise"
"We argue that anti-maskers’ deep story draws from similar wells of resentment, but adds a particular emphasis on the usurpation of scientific knowledge by a paternalistic, condescending elite that expects intellectual subservience rather than critical thinking from the public."
And yet in the conclusion they lament "the skeptical impulse that the 'science simply isn’t settled,' prompting people to simply 'think for themselves” to horrifying ends."
They then compare it to the January 6 Capitol riot.
Download the .pdf from MIT below.
| the-supremely-scientific-nature-of-anti-lockdown-analysts-mit-research.pdf |
