COVID-19 “contrarians” like Dr. Vinay Prasad have long complained about being labelled “antivaccine,” which they view as unfair. Why, then, do they embrace antivax messages like “do not comply,” even if they don’t use the exact words?
Steve Kirsch is known for his ludicrous challenges issued to vaccine advocates to “debate” vaccines. Now he wants to “collaborate” with provaccine scientists to test whether vaccines cause autism. His proposal is equally ludicrous.
“Not antivax” COVID contrarian Dr. Vinay Prasad demonstrates why skepticism is necessary and how evidence-based medicine (EBM) fundamentalism harms childhood health by inadvertently (I hope) echoing a very old antivax trope about randomized clinical trials for the childhood vaccine schedule, you know, to “rebuild confidence.”
Podcaster Joe Rogan conveyed a “debate” challenge by antivax conspiracy theorist RFK Jr. to Dr. Peter Hotez. COVID-19 contrarian Dr. Vinay Prasad, wanting to be on Rogan’s podcast, sucked up to both, saying RFK Jr. made many “reasonable” points. What gives? And should scientists ever agree to debate cranks?
Antivaccine activists and quacks often weaponize legitimate concerns about industry conflicts of interest in medicine into the “shill gambit,” in which they accuse critics and defenders of science-based medicine of being in the pay of big pharma. However, the rise of physician-influencers and, in particular, Subscription Substack show that not all conflicts of interest are from industry or even financial.