Is Discussing the Consequences of Anti-Vaccine Disinformation Fun? – Science Based Medicine

[Editors note: Dr. Gorski is on vacation this week, and Dr. Howard has agreed to cover. Dr. Gorski will return to his usual slot next week.]

A core theme of my writing is that people who spread disinformation about COVID are protected from the consequences of their words. I previously noted this distance allows them to pontificate on the virus as if were a game, a brand-building opportunity. In contrast, someone who works in an ICU will have more patients if they successfully discourage vaccination in young people. Of course, an ICU doctor may be wrong, and a random internet commentator may be right. Evidence matters, not credentials. But healthcare workers have skin-in-the game, and that counts for something.

With this in mind, lets revisit my article about Objectivists and COVID. Ive since discovered that some Objectivists have said some wise things. For example, Ben Bayer, a fellow at the Ayn Rand Institute, wrote a staunch pro-vaccine article in which he said:

The biggest sign that many vaccine refusers care too little about their own interests isnt their attitude toward their health or the well-being of others. Its their attitude toward the truth. Its actually pretty dubious that many vaccine refusers think that Covid is dangerous but simply dont care enough to protect their or their loved ones health against it. Many dont 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 dont see that theyre 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 has significant real-world consequences for our patients.

He also penned an homage to healthcare workers titled If Youre a Doctor or Nurse, Dont Feel Guilty for Quitting in which he sympathized with burnt-out healers for the abuse theyve suffered at the hands of belligerent unvaccinated patients. He said to such workers:

If you cant find a way to make the joy of solving medical problems overcome the pain of being treated with disrespect, you shouldnt blame yourself if you want to quit. I, for one, wont blame you if you do quit out of righteous indignation for being treated like chattel. I still hope you dont quit: many others and I may need your help. But you dont owe it to us.

Exactly. Disinformation has significant real-world consequences for us.

Mr. Bayer gets it. This is not a game.

Not everyone gets it.

In retrospect, my prior article understated the degree to which other Objectivists advanced the myth that Covid is not a serious threat compared to the risks of the vaccine. I previously discussed the symbiosis between the Atlas Society, which claims to value rationality, and the Brownstone Institute, which has spread copious amounts of anti-vaxx rubbish, sanctified natural immunity, and issued oblique threats to behead people they disagree with. This article, which was also posted at the Atlas Society sans guillotine, lamented that

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.

Its no surprise its author is favorably featured on the website of anti-vaccine supercrank RFK Jr.

Beyond this, the Atlas Society also amplified radiologist Dr. Scott Atlas (read this), writer Dr. Naomi Wolf (read this), and who knows which other superspreaders of anti-vaccine disinformation. These are the people the Atlas Society legitimizes and amplifies during a pandemic.

Clinging to my teenage hope that leaders of the Atlas Society might actually care about rationality, I shared my previous article with Dr. Stephen Hicks a philosophy professor and Senior Scholar there. Maybe hes unaware of who his organization is promoting? Maybe hell want to learn more. Maybe hell care and even try do something about it.

Reader, I actually believed that about him and a few other people there for some stupid reason. Thats how nave I can be.

Dr. Hicks did disappoint, and though he did so in eminently predictable ways, his responses contain an important lesson: denying reality never ends well. Indeed, Dr. Hicks first attempted to deny reality by saying that I (and pretty much everyone I associate with) am pro-vaccines and anti-mandates. Even if they rushed to get vaccinated themselves, no one who is pro-vaccine would provide a friendly, warm forum for influential and outspoken anti-vaxxers to disseminate their disinformation.

After being presented with evidence the Atlas Society has done exactly this, Dr. Hicks rapidly pivoted to a new position that can be summarized as: Yes, we provide a friendly, warm forum for these people and thats good. He claimed that though he is pro-vaccine, Any intellectually honest organization *debates* complex issues.

Apparently Dr. Hicks believes its a complex issue whether or not young people should left vulnerable to a virus that has killed thousands of them when a safe and effective vaccine exists. After all, several honored Atlas Society interviewees believe that unvaccinated young people should be exposed to the virus, and theyve been very successful in their mission with inevitable results. Like I said, denying reality never ends well, even though its often not the denialists who pays the price.

Moreover, Dr. Hicks feels this 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. Did the flu really kill more children than COVID, as scholars at the Brownstone Institute often claim? Only a debate can settle which number is really higher, 25 or 1,500. May the most polished speaker win.

Of course, Dr. Hicks completely misrepresented what the Atlas Society actually does. They dont sponsor *debates* with anti-vaxxers. That would require them to provide a friendly, warm forum to a knowledgeable vaccine-advocate, something theyve not done as best as I can tell. I doubt they even know any. Instead, they hand dishonest anti-vaxxers a microphone to answer softball questions from a sycophantic interviewer who selects her guests because theyll say exactly what she wants to hear: COVIDs threat is overblown and those who try to limit it are stupid and corrupt.

Thats why she doesnt push back when her guests say wild and wacky things.

For example, what happened when Dr. Wolf said that thanks to Bill Gates and pharma, we were no longer free to say the pandemic is over? Nothing. What happened when she likened current anti-vaccination discrimination to the historical evils of racism, sexism, and anti-Semitism? Nothing. What happened when Dr. Atlas falsely claimed the Delta variant was less lethal and that high-risk people are the ones who die from the Delta variant, not anybody else? Nothing. What happened when he said that children die from the flu at a higher rate than from COVID? Nothing. What happened when he fear-mongered about boosters and opposed vaccinating children by saying, when people have a low-risk for an illness, I dont understand the case for giving them a vaccine? Nothing.

In the interviewers defense, she likely didnt know that Dr. Atlas was both making stuff up and plagiarizing Dr. Andrew Wakefields cult, merely substituting COVID for measles. She may not have known that his brand of COVID denialism is exactly why healthcare workers have been attacked and why many are quitting. However, she should have known that Dr. Atlas would spread disinformation to further his goal of infecting unvaccinated young people.

Like, what else would he do?

He doesnt hide his intentions. Early in the pandemic, he said, Those who are not at risk to die or have a serious hospital-requiring illness, we should be fine with letting them get infected. Even though effective vaccines are now available, he continues to worship at the altar of so-called natural immunity. To pick one example, he said:

To me, its 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 dont have a significant benefit from, to shield ourselves?

Dr. Atlas believes that if he says children do not have a significant risk from this illness enough times that means its true. He cant grasp the simple fact that some children do have a significant risk from this illness, and so we vaccinate children to protect children. Again, this is who the Atlas Society legitimizes and amplifies in the middle of a pandemic. Doctors who treat sick kids and provide accurate information are excluded from this echo chamber.

Thanks to the Atlas Society, some people now believe that more dangerous variants are less lethal, that 25 is more than 1,500, and that its a good when unvaccinated young people contract COVID. This is information pollution, and like someone blowing an air horn during 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 cant debate the optimal interval for vaccine doses with a prevaricator who denies the virus impacts young people at all.

And lets be clear about a few obvious things regarding vaccines for young people. It doesnt matter whether the flu or COVID is worse. It doesnt matter that most kids will be fine, that other things kill more kids, or that old people have a much higher risk. None of these factoids is an argument against vaccinating children, though that hasnt stopped writers at the Brownstone Institute from using them. Normal people dont want any young person to suffer or die from a vaccine-preventable disease. Of course, young people should be vaccinated against COVID. This is not a complex issue. It is a very simple issue, and doctors with skin in the game should not debate very simple issues with sheltered fabulists whose deceptions have ensured their ICUs were stuffed with low-risk patients.

Trying to have it both ways, Dr. Hicks said it was immoral to lie about vaccines but also that We need to celebrate our generations gadflies. Youll recognize that bit of sophistry as the Galileo gambit. Naturally, Dr. Hicks wasnt saying we need to celebrate gadflies who are brilliant vaccine-scientists. The Atlas Society undermines these people.

Dr. Hicks was also much more concerned about decorum towards anti-vaccine gadflies than the immoral lies they spread. He was very worried that anti-vaxxers were denied civility, a predictable deflection technique used by those who seek to shutdown debate by focusing on manners, not substance. Its just not nice to call someone a liar, I suppose, even when they claim 25 is larger than 1,500. In fact, we should celebrate such people, even when their disinformation leads to doctors getting punched in the face.

Using a meme of himself, Dr. Hicks implied that those who refute anti-vaxxers are akin to Nazi and Soviet disinformation boards and that not amplifying anti-vaxxers was akin to censorship, another predictable deflection technique. If someone feels Im the next Goebbels because I think its a bad idea to debate the premise that 25 is larger than 1,500, then thats a criticism Ill have to learn to live with.

At least Ive never called scientists I disagree with evil, corrupt, and criminal. I never said they were backpedaling and confessing to get ahead of the indictments. Dr. Wolf said all that and more that during her interview with the Atlas Society. Elsewhere, she claimed Dr. Fauci works for Israel, not Americans, something that could be straight out of a Nazi disinformation board actually. More recently, in an article at the Brownstone Institute of course, she revealed her fantasy to shave peoples heads and march them through the town square. She spoke about the need for Nuremberg Trials for Americas quislings and collaborators, noting that There is a reason treason is a capital offense.

Again, this is who the Atlas Society legitimizes and amplifies in the middle of a pandemic.

Unfortunately, Dr. Wolfs message resonates with a lot of angry, armed people. As a result, terrified public health officials have censored themselves by quitting en masse. Dr. Fauci has needed personal security from law enforcement at all times, including at his home. So have his daughters. If youre wondering about a source for such hatred towards Dr. Fauci, I suggest reading the article Who Will Be Held Responsible for this Devastation? on the Atlas Society webpage. It said that The carnage of lockdowns and vaccine mandates is unspeakable and will last a generation or two or more and asked Who is left to blame?

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.

Anyone who actually cares about civility and opposes censorship knows that cranks who incite credible threats against scientists need to be exposed and marginalized, not amplified and celebrated.

Dr. Hicks further engaged in bothsideism by asking, How do we tally the costs/benefits of mistakes and lying on both sides? Apparently he sees little difference between Dr. Peter Hotez, who has received countless, vile threats for his vaccine-advocacy, and the anti-vaxxers who make and occasionally act on such threats. According to Dr. Hotez, the hate mail he received was filled with all sorts of Nazi imagery, Nuremberg hangings and terrible, terrible stuff. It was pretty upsetting. I wonder if any of the people who messaged Dr. Hotez heard Dr. Wolf call him a conflicted pharma shill during her interview with the Atlas Society.

Both sides, you see.

As a last resort, Dr. Hicks nursed grievances, saying he was a victim of a guilt-by-association. To paraphrase an assertion he made on multiple occasions: I never said anything about time-traveling via vaccine nanopatticles. So why should I be held accountable as a senior leader of an organization that legitimizes people who say such things?

Is this how Howard Roark would react if lazy workers with poor craftsmanship used the shoddiest materials to construct one of his buildings? As it crumpled to the ground, would he say, Hey, dont look at me, bro. I just made the drawings?

I dont think so.

These deflection techniques are very familiar to regular readers of SBM. However, it was what Dr. Hicks said at the end of the conversation that inspired this essay. Reflecting on the discussion, he said the whole thing was just a mostly fun Twitter thread on Covid and that he mostly enjoyed the wide-ranging discussion today.

And there is it. It was just a game the whole time.

Indeed, the pandemic has been little more than a game and brand-building opportunity for amoral disinformation groups and the grifters they promote. Having been informed that over 300,000 Americans died due to the type of anti-vaccine disinformation his organization legitimizes, Dr. Hicks could only reflect on how entertaining the whole spectacle was. The greatest mass death event in American history is just an intellectual puzzle, discussed in a state of purposeful ignorance regarding the real damage caused by some of its players.

Multiple people tried to impress upon Dr. Hicks that this wasnt just a conversation about which superpower is best. Despite our efforts, like all the people I write about, Dr. Hicks never showed any recognition that flesh-and-blood people, including children, have suffered as a consequences of anti-vaccine disinformation. I discussed previously how some contrarian doctors even shame those who dare to acknowledge any individual child lost to COVID.

In contrast, I believe that individuals matter, and so Ive made a point of recognizing them, including doctors who were friends and teachers of mine. I make an effort not treat people as mere numbers on a government website. Speakers at the Atlas Society do that.

Though the experience was mostly fun for Dr. Hicks, I dont think anyone else felt that way, especially the healthcare workers. They are burnt-out and checking-out as they are fed up with having to mop up the mess created by disinformation superspreaders. They are tired of sheltered talkers treating their lives and the lives of their patients as mere pawns on a chessboard, whose value must be weighed against the harms of offending delicate anti-vaxxers. I previously noted the irony of competent people quitting their jobs not despite Objectivists, but because of them. (Not you, Mr. Bayer).

At least I learned something valuable: Its a waste of time to engage with someone who treats healthcare workers like game pieces for their intellectual entertainment. I wont do it again. I certainly didnt have fun talking with Dr. Hicks. Not only did I grasp the stakes involved, but I was also frustrated that he was willing to debate anything except the only thing that mattered: Is it ethical to legitimize and amplify only dishonest anti-vaccine voices in a pandemic where over 1 million Americans have died?

I dont think it is.

Though I wont interact with Dr. Hicks on social media, Im always open to different perspectives. So, I really hope he pens a rebuttal to my piece titled: Those Who Believe in Time-Traveling via Vaccines With Nanopatticles and Other Essential Pandemic Voices. You see, I dont believe in time-traveling via vaccines with nanopatticles, my essays dont have pictures of guillotines, and Ive treated many COVID patients. If these character flaws arent disqualifying, Id be thrilled to give a talk at the Atlas Society titled This is What Ayn Rand Warned About.

And while its unlikely theyll platform someone whos willing to stand alone against a group, Im glad that Dr. Hicks and one of his critics found some common ground.

Dr. Jonathan Howard is a neurologist and psychiatrist based in New York City who has been interested in vaccines since long before COVID-19.

View all posts

Read the original here:

Is Discussing the Consequences of Anti-Vaccine Disinformation Fun? - Science Based Medicine