“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.
Earlier this month the Cochrane Collaborative was forced to walk back the conclusions of a review by Tom Jefferson et al that had been spun in the media as proving that “masks don’t work.” Tom Jefferson himself has been problematic about vaccines for a long time, but the rot goes deeper. What is it about the evidence-based medicine paradigm that results in misleading conclusions?
Dr. Vinay Prasad compares college booster mandates to mandating Ozempic in obese students. How are these things different from each other? Let me count the ways. How disingenuous is Dr. Prasad? Let me count the ways.
