Hacker News Reader

Comment by Omnus | Hacker News Reader

"So much faith"? People are just following the science. Are you really arguing that because one bad situation has occurred involving pharmaceutical companies, we should assume every new drug or treatment is bogus or based on evil motives?

View on HN

In 2020 there’s science and The Science. The latter seems to be more religious in its application and what it means to its devotees. That makes life difficult.

Politicians, having long ago squandered their own credibility, are now working their way through someone else's. But it's not an easy partnership. Politicians, especially during an emergency, need to produce fast, clear, consistent answers; science, as I'm sure you know, is about the gradual and painstaking accumulation of knowledge, and about nuance and qualification and uncertainty and interpretation. Scientists love to be proved wrong; politicians can't stand it.

I don't think it's religious per say but it is definitely ingrained in the my team Vs the other mentality us humans seem to have

Okay, please explain the science that people are following. As for the one bad situation, please take a look at this list - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_pharmaceutic.... this is the top 20.

I'm not going to explain how clinical trials work and why you should trust that process. Again, bad situations do not invalidate all work being done in a field.

Are we talking about the same process which allowed companies for decades to hide trials which where not in their favor? Or until recently where not obliged to publish the trial results? Not to forget, many trials are not reproducible either.

Compared to the "hard" sciences, medicine has not very high standards. And trials are completely profit-motivated, that's a bad incentive. These trials are conducted by the same companies who had no qualms to sell highly addictive stuff to people. Why should I trust that the data they publish is the data they collected?

Unfortunately it's impossible to have this conversation when the person is saying "I'm following the science but I won't explain the science to you". You may as well run into a brick wall

No. The onus is on you to explain why experts who have devoted their entire lives to groundbreaking vaccine research are wrong. It's like arguing with a 5 year old.

Bahaha why should the onus be on me, who is not a scientist, to explain the science that I don't know and nobody seems willing to explain?

If somebody said I've discovered time travel and the onus is on you to prove me wrong you'd call them out.

Explain the science or gtfo

None of those criticisms apply to these vaccine studies. There are many issues that can arise in trials, of course. But the current batch of 3-phase mRNA-based vaccine trials have all been intensely scrutinized at every turn. I think it will be difficult for you to argue otherwise, but feel free to enlighten us about the data corruption conspiracy if you have some evidence.

They didn't pick up the reactions people with allergies have in the "intense scrutiny". What have they tested it for? What sort of scrutiny did this vaccine come under?

Why would you not explain this? By explaining it you answer the question. It seems like a strange thing not to explain?

Too many people are claiming they are following the science but instead are playing politics.

Also too many people are claiming they are following the science but don't know the first thing about how science works.

Edit: not accusing anyone in particular, just e.g. when some mayor says "we're following the science" I know he's just parroting what he's been told because he has no scientific training whatsoever.

Next time somebody tells you they're just following the science, simply ask them to explain it so you can understand.

I agree with you on this one. If you try and have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of this vaccine it seems like a lot of the people for say: "we believe in the science" or something along those lines but then will give zero real insight into said science

Reply on news.ycombinator.com