The main theme of my writing is that people who spread misinformation are protected from their consequences. This distance allows them to pontificate on the virus as if they were a game, a brand-building opportunity. A doctor may be wrong, and a commentator may be right. Evidence is more important than credentials. The healthcare workers have skin in the game.
Let's revisit my article about objectivists and covid. Some Objectivists have said things that are wise. Ben Bayer, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote a pro-vaccine article.
The biggest sign that many vaccine refusers care too little about their own interests isn’t their attitude toward their health or the well-being of others. It’s their attitude toward the truth. It’s actually pretty dubious that many vaccine refusers think that Covid is dangerous but simply don’t care enough to protect their or their loved ones’ health against it. Many don’t want to get vaccinated because they really believe that Covid is not a serious threat compared to the risks of the vaccine in the first place. This is actually the deepest root of the moral problem.
Because of their beliefs, vaccine refusers don’t see that they’re recklessly letting their guard down against a serious threat. Because of their belief, they even mount crusades to convince others to join them.
Exactly. Disinformation can have real-world consequences for our patients.
He sympathized with healthcare workers who had suffered abuse at the hands of their employers and wrote If You're a Doctor or Nurse, Don't Feel Guilty for Quitting. He said to them.
If you can’t find a way to make the joy of solving medical problems overcome the pain of being treated with disrespect, you shouldn’t blame yourself if you want to quit. I, for one, won’t blame you if you do quit out of righteous indignation for being treated like chattel. I still hope you don’t quit: many others and I may need your help. But you don’t owe it to us.
Exactly. Disinformation can have real-world consequences.
Mr. Bayer knows what he's talking about. This is not a game.
Not everyone gets it.
The myth that Covid is not a serious threat compared to the risks of the vaccine was overstated in my previous article. The Atlas Society claims to value rationality, and the Brownstone Institute has spread anti-vaxx rubbish, sanctified natural immunity, and issued oblique threats to behead. The article was also posted at the Atlas Society.
Pfizer and people like Anthony Fauci are demanding 3rd and now 4th shots. Shots without end, always with the promise that the next one will achieve the goal.”
The author is featured on the website of anti-vaccine supercrank RFK Jr.
The Atlas Society amplified Dr. Scott Atlas, writer Dr. Naomi Wolf, and others. These are the people the Atlas Society supports.
I shared my previous article with a philosophy professor and senior scholar at the Atlas Society because I hoped they would care about rationality. Maybe he will want to learn more. Maybe he will care and try to do something about it.
For some stupid reason, I believed that about him and a few other people there. I can be that way.
Though he did not live up to expectations, his responses contain an important lesson: denying reality never ends well. Even if they rushed to get vaccine themselves, no one would know they were pro-vaccines.
After being presented with evidence that the Atlas Society has done this, Dr. Hicks pivoted to a new position that can be summarized as: Yes, we provide a friendly, warm forum for these people and that's good. He claimed that he is pro-vaccine and any intellectually honest organization debates complex issues.
It is a complex issue, whether or not young people should be left vulnerable to a virus that has killed thousands of them when a safe and effective vaccine exists. Several honored Atlas Society interviewees believe that unvaccinated young people should be exposed to the virus, and they have been very successful in their mission with inevitable results. Denying reality never ends well, even though the denialists pay the price.
The complex issue should be decided via a debate. He thinks that anti-vaxxers and doctors who treat COVID patients should duke it out in a performance of sorts, where who is right and who is wrong is determined by who puts on the best show. Scholars at the Brownstone Institute claim that the flu killed more children than carbon dioxide. Only a debate can decide which number is higher. The speaker who is most polished will win.
The Atlas Society was misrepresented by Dr. Hicks. They don't sponsor debates with anti-vaxxers. It would require them to provide a friendly, warm forum to a knowledgeable vaccine-advocate, something they have not done as best as I can tell. I don't think they know any. They give dishonest anti-vaxxers a microphone to answer softball questions from a sycophantic interviewer who selects her guests because they will say exactly what she wants to hear.
She doesn't push back when her guests say crazy things.
When Dr. Wolf said that thanks to Bill Gates and pharma, we were no longer free to say that the Pandemic is over, what happened? Nothing. She likened the current anti-vaccination discrimination to the historical evils of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism. What happened when Dr. Atlas said that high-risk people are the ones who die from the Delta variant, not anyone else? Nothing. What happened when he said that children die from the flu at a higher rate than other people? Nothing. When he opposed vaccinations because he didn't understand the case, what happened? Nothing.
She probably didn't know that Dr. Atlas was plagiarizing Dr. Andrew Wakefield's work. She might not have known that his brand of denialism is why healthcare workers have been attacked and why many are quitting. She should have known that Dr. Atlas was going to spread misinformation to further his goal.
What else would he do?
He doesn't hide his intentions. Even though effective vaccines are now available, he continues to say that those who are not at risk to die or have a serious hospital-requiring illness should be allowed to get infections. He said to pick one example.
To me, it’s unconscionable that a society uses its children as shields for adults. Children do not have a significant risk from this illness… Are we [as] a society, a civilization … going to inject our children with an experimental drug that they don’t have a significant benefit from, to shield ourselves?
Dr. Atlas believes that if he says that children don't have a significant risk from this illness, it's true. He doesn't understand that some children have a significant risk from this illness and so we have to protect them. This is who the Atlas Society supports in the middle of a crisis. This echo chamber excludes doctors who treat sick kids.
Thanks to the Atlas Society, some people now believe that more dangerous variant are less lethal and that it is a good thing when unvaccinated young people contract Covid. Information pollution is like someone blowing an air horn at a concert, it destroys our ability to debate complex issues. While debates in medicine are important and healthy, a precondition for any meaningful discussion is a shared commitment to honesty and reality. One can't debate the optimal interval for vaccine doses with a prevaricator who doesn't believe in the impact of the virus on young people.
There are a few obvious things about vaccines for young people. It doesn't matter if the flu is worse or not. It doesn't matter if most kids will be fine or if other things kill more kids or old people. Writers at the Brownstone Institute still use the factoids despite the fact that they are not an argument against vaccinations. Normal people don't want a young person to die from a vaccine preventable disease. Young people should be protected against the disease. This isn't a complex issue. It is a very simple issue, and doctors with skin in the game should not debate it.
It was immoral to lie about vaccines, but also that we need to celebrate our generation. You will recognize that bit of sophistry as the Galileo gambit. The doctor wasn't saying we need to celebrate vaccine scientists. These people are undermined by the Atlas Society.
decorum towards anti-vaccine people was more important than immoral lies they spread. He was worried that the anti-vaxxers would be denied civility, a technique used by those who want to shut down debate by focusing on manners. It's not nice to call someone a liar when they claim 25 is larger than 1,500. We should celebrate such people, even if they lead to doctors getting punched in the face.
Dr. Hicks implied that those who refute anti-vaxxers are akin to the Nazis and the Soviets, and that not amplifying anti-vaxxers was akin to censorship. I think it's a bad idea to argue that 25 is larger than 1,500.
I have never called scientists I disagree with. I didn't say they were backpedaling to get ahead of the indictments. During her interview with the Atlas Society, Dr. Wolf said a lot. She claimed that Dr. Fauci works for Israel, which could be a reference to the Nazi propaganda board. She spoke about the need for Nuremberg trials in an article at the Brownstone Institute.
This is who the Atlas Society supports in the middle of a crisis.
A lot of angry, armed people were attracted to Dr. Wolf's message. terrified public health officials have quit en mass. Dr. Fauci and his daughters have needed personal security from law enforcement at all times. I suggest you read the article Who will be held responsible for this carnage? at the Atlas Society.
The most likely candidate here is Fauci himself. But I can already tell you his excuse. He never signed a single order. His fingerprints are on no legislation.
Everyone who cares about civility and opposing censorship knows that cranks who make threats against scientists need to be exposed and marginalized.
Dr. Peter Hotez has received vile threats and Dr. Hicks asked how to tally the costs/benefits of mistakes and lying on both sides. The hate mail that Dr. Hotez received was filled with horrible things. It was quite upsetting. I wonder if anyone of the people who messaged Dr. Hotez heard Dr. Wolf call him a shill.
You can see both sides.
He said he was a victim of guilt-by-association. He said that he never said anything about time-traveling via vaccine. Why should I be held accountable for the actions of people in my organization?
If lazy workers with poor craftsmanship use the sh oddiest materials to build one of his buildings, how would Howard Roark react? He would say, "Hey, don't look at me, bro." as it crumpled to the ground. I made the drawings.
I don't think so.
Readers of SBM know these techniques very well. The essay was inspired by what Dr. Hicks said at the end of the conversation. He said that the discussion was mostly fun and that he enjoyed it.
There is it. It was a game all the time.
The Pandemic has been little more than a game for amoral groups and grifters. The whole spectacle was very entertaining after learning that over 300,000 Americans died due to anti-vaccine misinformation. The greatest mass death event in American history is just an intellectual puzzle, discussed in a state of ignorantness about the real damage caused by some of its players.
Multiple people tried to impress Dr. Hicks that this wasn't just a discussion about which superpower is best. Despite our efforts, Dr. Hicks did not show any recognition of the consequences of anti-vaccine misinformation. I talked about how some doctors shame those who acknowledge individual children who have died.
I believe that individuals matter, and so I've made a point of recognizing them, including doctors who were friends and teachers of mine. I try not to treat people like numbers on a website. The speakers at the Atlas Society do that.
I don't think anyone else felt that way, especially the healthcare workers. They are fed up with having to clean up the mess created by the media. They are tired of being treated as pawns on a chessboard, whose value must be weighed against the harms of offending delicate anti-vaxxers. I noted the irony of competent people quitting their jobs because of them. Not you, Mr. Bayer.
It's a waste of time to engage with someone who treats healthcare workers like game pieces for their intellectual entertainment. I won't do it again. I didn't talk with Dr. Hicks. I was frustrated that he was willing to debate only dishonest anti-vaccine voices, but not the real issue: Is it ethical to legitimize and amplify only dishonest anti-vaccine voices?
I don't think it is.
I won't interact with Dr. Hicks on social media, but I'm always open to different viewpoints. I hope he responds to my piece titled: Those Who Believe in Time-Traveling via Vaccines With Nanopatticles and Other Essential Pandemic Voices. I don't believe in time-traveling via vaccines, and I have treated many COVID patients. I would be happy to give a talk at the Atlas Society titled: This is What Ayn Rand Warned About if these character flaws aren't disqualifying.
It's unlikely they'll platform someone who's willing to stand alone against a group, but I'm glad that Dr. Hicks and one of his critics found some common ground.
All Rights Reserved © 2024
