Some very basic points:
1. You should know that the Nuremberg Code ONLY applies to human subjects research. You should ALSO know that, after phase 3 trials with 10s of thousands of subjects and hundreds of millions of doses, #CovidVaccine is NOT human subjects research anymore.
2. Calling #CovidVaccine "experimental" is a conflation of a legal definition of "investigational," in which @US_FDA requires that designation on any drug not yet given a full FDA approval. Scientifically, it's just not true any more.
3. The Nuremberg Code is nearly 75 yrs old and mainly of historical interest. It was long ago supplanted by the Belmont Report and Declaration of Helsinki. Both ALSO emphasize informed consent, but antivaxxers love the Nuremberg Code because of its association with Nazi doctors.
4. That's why they point to the Nuremberg Code, rather than the more recent statements of human subjects research ethics, like the Belmont Report or the Declaration of Helsinki. It's a not-so-subtle Godwin.
5. Antivaxxers are not appealing to "informed consent." They are appealing to what I like to call "misinformed refusal," in which they are asked to decide based on grossly exaggerated claims for the risk of harm from vaccines and hugely minimized estimates of the benefits.
6. The gambit you used IS one of the oldest, stupidest antivax gambits there is, and I WAS dealing with it two decades ago. It's on par with the antievolution argument, "If evolution is true, why are there still monkeys?"
7. Basically, the "unvaccinated pose no threat to the vaccinated" gambit ignores the basic fact that no vaccine is 100% effective, as well as the importance of herd immunity, particular to those who can't be vaccinated. (As an aside, measles immunity is not always lifelong.)
8. Stop spreading antivaccine disinformation, which is what you are doing. This is not my first rodeo. There's no gambit or argument that you can pull out of your nether regions that I haven't seen and answered more times than I can count over the last couple of decades. /end
One more...I wrote a detailed list explaining the Nuremberg Code gambit. respectfulinsolence.com/2021/07/20/the…

• • •

Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to force a refresh
 

Keep Current with David Gorski, MD, PhD

David Gorski, MD, PhD Profile picture

Stay in touch and get notified when new unrolls are available from this author!

Read all threads

This Thread may be Removed Anytime!

PDF

Twitter may remove this content at anytime! Save it as PDF for later use!

Try unrolling a thread yourself!

how to unroll video
  1. Follow @ThreadReaderApp to mention us!

  2. From a Twitter thread mention us with a keyword "unroll"
@threadreaderapp unroll

Practice here first or read more on our help page!

More from @gorskon

21 Jul
Having unwillingly undergone a five week intensive exposure to "gender critical" arguments, I've concluded that a disturbing number of them boil down to taking "Ew, trans people ick me out" and cranking that feeling up to, "Trans people are an abomination against nature/God/etc."
Look, there are scientific controversies surrounding the treatment of trans adolescents, but a dispassionate, science-based discussion of how best to medically and surgically treat trans teens is not what the GC movement is about.
Moreover, science denialism is less about how "settled" a given scientific/medical issue is and more about the types of misleading arguments and conspiracy theories deployed against that issue.
Read 4 tweets
18 Jul
It never ceases to amaze me how many people seem blithely unaware that an inherent property of meta-analyses is: Garbage in, garbage out. Meta-analysis does not correct bias; it smooths out random errors. You can't turn a bunch or turds into gold through meta-analysis.
I mean, these are people who should know better, a disturbing number of them scientists and doctors.
They also don't seem to understand that meta-analysis, but its very nature, includes a number of judgment calls in deciding which studies to include and ranking their rigor (i.e., risk of bias). Methods matter. A lot.
Read 4 tweets
16 Jul
Oh, goody. Elgazzar is apparently threatening to sue. I would LOVE to see him try.
Here's a hint. @guardiannews is a UK publication, and UK libel laws are notoriously plaintiff-friendly. So you can bet the lawyers went over this story and vetted it heavily before it was published.
Ive just gone through this process with another UK publication over a commentary, and the legal vetting process is far more than what American publications do.
Read 4 tweets
15 Jul
Hmmm. Before the responses to this Tweet I had no idea that monocles generally require lubrication. No idea at all.🧐😂
I guess I'm confused now. Do monocles require lubrication or not?😂
Read 4 tweets
14 Jul
This is a very old technique by antivaxxers. During measles outbreaks pre-pandemic, antivaxxers would point to the number of fully vaccinated children getting the measles as "evidence" the MMR doesn't work, ignoring the denominators (how many unvaxxed vs. vaxxed).
It would always turn out that the risk of getting measles was many times higher in the unvaxxed. Raw numbers of infections are misleading if you don't know the denominator. You have to look at the fraction of vaccinated getting infected and compare it to the fraction unvaccinated
Given how long antivaxxers have used this technique, it is utterly unsurprising that they have started using it to try to claim that #CovidVaccine doesn't work. Again, before there even was a vaccine, I (and others) were predicting that antivaxxers would do exactly this.
Read 6 tweets
14 Jul
From the article: "It's ironic: The party of "pro-life" doesn't believe that children -- including teens -- have basic rights to preserve their well-being, separate from their parents' wishes or consent." Correct! cnn.com/2021/07/13/opi…
"The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children, and it is an issue of freedom." -@RandPaul, February 2015. respectfulinsolence.com/2015/02/03/is-…
Much of @GOP does not believe that children are separate beings with their own rights apart from "parental rights." It's the same belief that fuels parents' beliefs that they should be able to subject their children to religion-inspired quackery for life-threatening illnesses.
Read 4 tweets

Did Thread Reader help you today?

Support us! We are indie developers!


This site is made by just two indie developers on a laptop doing marketing, support and development! Read more about the story.

Become a Premium Member ($3/month or $30/year) and get exclusive features!

Become Premium

Too expensive? Make a small donation by buying us coffee ($5) or help with server cost ($10)

Donate via Paypal Become our Patreon

Thank you for your support!

Follow Us on Twitter!

:(