Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

“CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory, resurrected by “new school” antivaxxers

In 2014, Andrew Wakefield unveiled Brian Hooker’s “CDC whistleblower” conspiracy theory featuring William Thompson, a CDC scientist who claimed that a vaccine-autism link was being covered up. Now, Steve Kirsch and other COVID-19 antivaxxers are resurrecting it.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Medicine Politics

“New school” anti-(COVID-19)-vaxxers are all-in on “old school” vaccines-cause-autism antivax

Over the last month, Orac has noticed that “new school” COVID-19 antivaxxers are rediscovering old school “vaccines cause autism” pseudoscience in a huge way. Also, there’s transphobia. Lots of transphobia. WTF is going on?

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Clinical trials Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

Retracted papers never die in the age of COVID-19

Last month, a study showed that papers about COVID-19 that are retracted tend to be cited far more than average and continue to be heavily cited after retraction. Clearly, scientific publishing and the scientific community need to do better.

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Science Skepticism/critical thinking

Antivaxxers attack scientific consensus as a “manufactured construct”

Neil deGrasse Tyson invoked the concept of a scientific consensus while supporting vaccines in his debate with Del Bigtree. Why was his statement about how “individual scientists don’t matter” compared to scientific consensus so triggering to antivaxxers? Why do antivaxxers reject the very concept of a scientific consensus and promote a hyper-individualistic view of how science should be conducted?

Categories
Antivaccine nonsense Bad science Medicine Skepticism/critical thinking

Neil deGrasse Tyson demonstrates why debating cranks is a horrible idea

Astrophysicist and famed science communicator Neil deGrasse Tyson appeared on The Highwire, an antivax video podcast, to “debate” its host, antivax propagandist Del Bigtree. This incident demonstrates quite well why it is almost never a good idea for a scientist to agree to “debate” science deniers.