We often discuss academic "silencing" as a sort of nasty attack on people's credentials, but rarely does that include police detectives investigating people for publishing scientific articles 👀👀👀
And while I have absolutely no expertise in paediatric forensics, I've read Dr. Brook's piece which while retracted is still available as a preprint, and it does not seem like a wild and unscientific document researchgate.net/profile/C-Broo…
Needless to say - Dr. Brook could be totally wrong. He is also not an expert in paediatric forensics
But as I said, I've read his piece, and followed the references. It's not a wild or unsupported theory as far as I can tell 🤷♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
2/n The article reports a survey that was run by @smh and @theage talking to adults about whether they were "likely" to be vaccinated "in the months ahead"
3/n According to the article, with nearly a third responding that they were unlikely to be vaccinated, there is a serious reason for concern representing an "alarming level of vaccine hesitancy"
Graduate students are the backbone of all scientific endeavours, and often do amazing work without which we would all be lost
Perhaps more importantly, it is fundamentally unscientific to argue that someone's publication record makes any difference to the truth of their arguments
This is one of the reasons that I usually stay away from offering explicit policy opinions. As a scientist, I can give you a pretty good estimate of the impact of COVID-19, but it's up to us as a society to decide what to do about that
We can say from an epidemiological viewpoint which path has which benefits and costs, but ultimately the decision of which is more beneficial is not scientific
Some people have consistently argued that freedom is the most important value
This is a valid ethical viewpoint! Epidemiologically, we can perhaps place a cost on that ideation, but whether this cost is justified is not a scientific decision
2/n The study is here, and it's a cluster-randomized controlled trial, where people living in dorms of Singapore were given one of the 4 treatments or a vitamin C control during large COVID-19 outbreaks in the dorms ijidonline.com/article/S1201-…
3/n The results seem to show that people who take HCQ or P-I have fewer infections than those who only have vitamin C, with a really impressive risk reduction
The weirdest thing about the whole herd immunity through natural infection argument is that it's never happened ever for any disease long-term so it was always a wild idea for COVID-19
Like, sure, pandemics died out - eventually most diseases became endemic and killed only a small number of people each year
But that's definitely what's been bandied about as herd immunity
Imagine if instead of "herd immunity" the message had been "recurring outbreaks with a slowly diminishing fatality rate until after months/years the number of yearly deaths would get low enough to not bother any more"