Previous part: THE CLAIM: “SPACE EXPLORATION IS NOT IMPORTANT” as a showcase of science illiteracy – (Pt.2/3)
SOCIAL REACTIONS ON (ANY)PANDEMIC AS A SHOWCASE OF SCIENTIFIC ILLITERACY
In an era characterized by a decline in scientific literacy and widespread dissemination of misinformation, it is important to address an ongoing and contentious topic: the global pandemic. While pandemics have affected humanity throughout history, one would expect that we have developed a more objective approach to such events. However, the current situation demonstrates that misinformation and ignorance concerning basic knowledge in chemistry continue to prevail. It is disheartening to witness the persistence of science illiteracy and the spread of baseless claims.
As much as it baffles me, there seems to be a peculiar trend of applauding those who possess a stunning lack of comprehension when it comes to the intricacies of nature. For some inexplicable reason, these individuals are granted a platform to proudly express their bewilderingly nonsensical views, while many, but not all, who possess sound scientific knowledge and the ability to dissect scientific data find themselves hesitant to vehemently challenge such delusions. Perhaps they fear being unfairly branded, for example, as “conformist mainstream sheep,” or being forced to explain why scientific inquiry corrects our assumptions from time to time. This is, by the way, one of many tactics that those who spread their nonsense use to psychologically prepare the listener to accept wild claims. While I can empathize with such concerns, it is imperative to realize that accommodating and tolerating utter rhetorical nonsense is not the solution and correcting our assumptions is an integral part of the scientific process, after all. In contrast, scientifically illiterate individuals, who struggle to even identify basic components of an animal cell without resorting to the help of the internet, are incredibly susceptible to crafting misconstrued understandings of how nature works with potentially socially hazardous long-term effects. What’s more, they readily accept such misguided notions from individuals who only seek to affirm their own biased beliefs. These individuals have the audacity to insist that their unfounded claims hold equal weight to well-established scientific facts, subscribing to the nonsensical claim, like “a six can also be a nine.”
A very important remark here: Usually, such groups do not form their viewpoints based on a comprehensive understanding of natural processes. Instead, they rely on catchphrases or explanations provided by selected physicians or other highly educated individuals, or “insider sources” who may also lack a solid grasp on basic concepts of chemistry and biology. Nonetheless, due to their credentials and the reinforcement of confirmation bias among the listeners, they are often perceived as authorities.
As previously mentioned, individuals who even possess higher levels of education find themselves deeply entrenched in their confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance concerning nonsense they believe. Even nobel prise laurates fall into such rabbit hole (Nobelitis). Any effort to approach the topic from a scientific standpoint often encounter resistance. These individuals may present seemingly supportive “studies” that, upon closer examination, usually not align with the intended purpose or lack proper peer-review process. In some cases, they may assert that the absence of data itself reinforces their viewpoint. Despite my numerous attempts to engage with such individuals, I have found that communicating scientific information can sometimes result in misunderstandings or even hostility, particularly when dogmatic beliefs or movements are involved.
Why on earth are we still engaging in this regressive scientific nonsense, riddles me deeply. If we have the audacity to mock subjective beliefs like religion, then why do we meekly accept claims that nature is incapable of creating deadly pathogens? Are we really that intellectually feeble? And don’t even get me started on the scientifically illiterate individuals who dismiss the scientific method as fear-mongering while gullibly subscribing to pseudoscientific nonsense—propaganda graphics, manipulated videos, cherry-picked data, and all! It’s mind-boggling how people can be so quick to reject modern medicine and fervently spew pseudoscientific claims like “masks do nothing to contain the pandemic” just because they found a study where this question was answered from the point of the absolute viral containment, which doesn’t address the simple question of aerodynamics at all. Their inability to discern between these two things shows how little they understand, that different aspects add to the overall result.
Here’s a practical lesson in aerodynamics: I don’t see people attempting to blow out birthday candles with a mask on their faces. If it were truly the case that masks have no impact on the aerodynamic flow of breathing, then it would be interesting to witness someone actually blowing out the candles through the mask!
So, ‘a six can never be mistaken for a nine, and vice versa!’ When conducting a thorough analysis, it is crucial to establish clear reference points. Whether we are working in a tangible physical space or contemplating abstract mathematical concepts, having a firm grasp of our self-induced biases is paramount. Even the Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle in quantum mechanics offers one to some extent, despite its non-intuitive nature. It is our responsibility to take a firm, scientifically literate stance on various subjects. However, to acknowledge that providing absolute certainty or definitive answers, without substantial evidence, is not within the realm of scientific inquiry. Such absolute rhetoric is part of a pseudoscientific and ideological approach of online Gurus like S. Bakhdi, J. Campbell, J. Peterson, or J. Tour, who are even ready to flip-flop topically in order to stay important in general discussion. We should refrain from doing that at all costs. What we can offer is a scientific approach in respect to realistic and plausible outcomes that are, according to actual state of scientific truths, more likely to occur or to be true in comparison to other biased and a priori unfounded propositions. If we are wrong, then we are wrong, but such enlightening conclusion would help us in advancing our general learning curve. That is how the real scientific process works. Personally, I can accept being factually wrong in contrast to the opposition on the pseudoscientific side. If you somehow accept their well-prepared rhetorical nonsense as meaningful, it is a shame on you for being scientifically illiterate, not on them. To take their cherry-picked claims about vaccines’ adverse effects without hard and peer-reviewed evidence as meaningful ones is the most stupid thing one can do. No vaccine has been deemed completely free from adverse effects by any reputable scientist or study. While it is crucial to consider all aspects, it is equally important to avoid sensationalizing or exaggerating the significance of adverse effects, especially not to adhere to negative effects of viral infection as part of the vaccine. The last part of this sentence could be important in the future, since all those “vaccine skeptic” groups have to stay rhetorically alive and this method used to be their modus operandi in the past. So, let’s see how this prognosis holds its ground.
This balanced approach allows for a more objective examination of potential concerns surrounding vaccines in general. Same thing concerns the claim about whether a Covid-19 vaccine stops transmission or not. People who claim that scientists said that the vaccine will stop the transmission obviously never read any of the papers where this question emerged. What scientists, in fact, said was that they hoped the vaccine will stop viral transmission. They could not say otherwise for sure in the absence of obvious evidence. Big difference! But the public, in general, took this statement as “Yes” and true, and politicians simply incorporated it into their daily narrative. Why? Because and again, people demanded from their governments simple “yes/no” answers for very complex questions. Satirically enough, these are the very first people who started whining about this topic in particular. Therefore, the main scientific claim was, in general, that the vaccine helps the immune system in coping with new pathogens, and sometimes some very small portion of people will react differently, but life-threatening is not something to be considered as the main aspect of this or any vaccine. So, if being wrong concerning some characteristics of a vaccine is there that has to be admitted, it would be in the aspect of making factual adjustments concerning standpoints about e.g., the level of efficacy according to the latest data in connection to specific virus mutations, but surely not as a conclusion: “yeah, the vaccine is part of a conspiracy to kill people at high rates!” This means that continuous acquisition of knowledge and data leads us towards the correction of our worldviews and standpoints within the realm of reasonable and possible outcomes. It is something that a lot of scientifically illiterate propositions (e.g., conspiracy hypotheses, beliefs in the supernatural) do not offer in the long term. These rely (always) on a very complicated network of even more nonsensical claims to make the main one rhetorically “true”.
That is why, for example, Astrology/Homeopathy and Astronomy/Medicine are not the same thing. The first ones rely on using belief and ignorance as persuasive techniques, hoping that consumers are ignorant, as well as susceptible to diverse “belief systems”, as many are not aware of their susceptibility.
For example, there are people who reject the notion that any gods could exist and who are able to dissect and debunk any religious claim to the smallest critical point, yet they easily accept every controversial claim in other areas that rely on belief reasoning that they try to reject. To me, this underlines my point about the limits of critical thinking as a cognitive activity specialized for only one topic or area of interest. Even if a person rejects one specific belief system, without scientific literacy, this person usually substitutes their previous (typically religious) one with a new, more depersonalized one, such as astrology, homeopathy, conspiracies, and pseudoscience in general. I have observed people who are very good at asserting themselves critically in certain areas but are unable to extend their critical thinking to other areas that occur in daily life. The behavioral paradoxes are astonishing, yet understandable because, during our lifetime, we are exposed to different sources that promote a type of reasoning that relies on hope and non-factual believing, indoctrination, and conditioning. The number of those who succeed in “resetting” their cognitive apparatus and minimizing the destructive effects of such indoctrination during adulthood is minuscule, despite their educational levels (such as graduations and doctorates).
The pandemic itself, as a very stressful event, uncovered millions of cases where people, in the absence of immediate facts and assurance, filled their gaps of ignorance with empty yet well-constructed pseudoscientific rhetoric and anecdotal evidence. In contrast to this, biochemistry or astronomy rely on factual information and interpret reality as it is, accepting the gaps of ignorance as a normal thing. The best thing about science is that it does not rely on complex systems of different rules and ideas, even if some of them are individually complex, but on an interconnected system of laws of nature that are the same in every scientific realm. Additionally, everything boils down to the question: “What is the goal of overused and exaggerated skepticism?”
There is a clear distinction between “proactively assisting humanity in combatting the pandemic by providing information on potential vaccine side effects, while ensuring the public remains confident in the overall importance of vaccinations as a crucial measure to halt the widespread transmission of the virus” and “spreading unwarranted doubt and suspicion towards vaccines that exceeds constructive skepticism, resulting in a rejection of all safety measures and ultimately prolonging the duration of the pandemic.” The first example represents a thoughtful critique aimed at swiftly finding solutions to the ongoing crisis. The latter scenario highlights a general mistrust of authority, leading to the outright dismissal of any measures, regardless of their potential to improve the situation. Many individuals argue that the imposed measures during the pandemic were unnecessary, citing the relatively low danger posed by the disease itself. They often highlight countries like Sweden as examples, claiming that restrictive measures were implemented based on media indoctrination rather than solid scientific evidence. However, it is crucial to consider the nuanced nature of the data. The seemingly lower mortality rate in certain regions can be attributed to a significant number of people who conscientiously adhered to the prescribed measures including vaccination. These individuals demonstrated responsibility and took the necessary precautions, effectively mitigating the spread of the virus and reducing its overall impact. Had a larger portion of the population disregarded the measures, the global mortality rate could have been significantly higher. Therefore, it is essential to recognize the importance of collective action and appreciate the positive outcomes achieved through the diligent implementation of preventive measures. It is still disheartening to acknowledge that these “skeptical” groups have managed to disrupt the continuity of vital anti-pandemic measures while offering no viable alternatives, apart from dismissing the existence of the pandemic altogether, prolonging the pandemic and mistrust in science! Regrettably, many individuals have sought simplistic answers to complex questions, fueling the need for instant gratification. This is precisely why I choose not to rely on mainstream media as my primary source of information. It is not because I suspect them of spreading falsehoods, but rather due to their tendency to propagate oversimplified responses obtained from the government, which itself is constantly pressured to provide quick answers. While the government has, at times, based their responses on scientific evidence, there have been instances where hope has been mistakenly portrayed as “yes” certainty. In such cases, skeptics have promptly countered with a resounding “no.” Since the very beginning of this pandemic, I anticipated the emergence of opposing viewpoints on various issues surrounding it, and sadly, this prediction has proved to be true as time progresses. Those who are truly knowledgeable about the forces of nature are not swayed by nonsensical viewpoints. With their advanced polymathic insights, they have the ability to discern truth from falsehood and debunk those who fell into the rabbit hole of pseudoscience. While all ideas should be subject to scrutiny, over time, research and evidence reveal which ideas are more plausible and which are unequivocally false. As the esteemed humanist Salman Rushdie rightly said for religion, the principle holds true in every aspect of life: “Respect for religion’ has become a code phrase meaning ‘fear of religion.’ Religions, like all other ideas, deserve criticism, satire, and, yes, our fearless disrespect.”[1] Fortunately, we are witnessing the rise of a new wave of science communicators. They harness the power of digital platforms, just like their pseudoscientific counterparts, to disseminate scientific knowledge and dispel pseudoscience.[2]
What are the reasons for denial, relativization, and misinterpretation of pandemics?
A pandemic is a significant occurrence that affects both nature and human existence. It presents unique psychological challenges that we must navigate. As humans, we possess the ability to respond not only based on instinct [Limbic and R-Complex] but also by rational thought processes [Neocortex]. Our ability to analyze and abstract enables us to find innovative solutions, but it also leaves room for potential misinterpretations. It is both a blessing and a curse that our brains are capable of problem-solving while also being susceptible to creating illusions and deceptive thoughts. In this context, it can be said that the human brain is currently the smartest deception device available in nature.[3] I highlighted the inherent nature of human beings to occasionally succumb to logical fallacies and make uninformed decisions. This applies to us even in non-threatening or stressful situations. However, it becomes even more evident when we face challenging circumstances, such as a pandemic. These events occur at a microscopic level, beyond our ordinary perception, and thus challenge our ability to fully comprehend and navigate them. Such crisis is a fascinating opportunity to witness the distinction between individuals who possess common sense and critical thinking skills (developed through their expertise in a particular field), and those who possess scientific literacy. All groups share a desire to seek answers and solutions, but they surely begin from different premises.
The power of (mis)reasoning is relentless, persistently urging us to confront and explore even the most elusive concepts. This unwavering pressure often leads us to formulate hasty and subjective explanations regarding ongoing phenomena. In the face of the pandemic, countless individuals are compelled to piece together fragments of knowledge, attempting to make sense of unfamiliar territories. Although many can acquire a vast array of biochemical knowledge [4], but without scientific literacy, these tools merely fall into the hands of those who are easily swayed by ideology. In the modern age, it is disheartening to observe individuals who possess ample knowledge, access to resources, and, presumably, intellectual abilities to scrutinize issues through a scientific lens, yet often engage in flawed reasoning, substituting causation with mere correlation. Moreover, their incapacity to comprehend scientific literature is a prevalent concern that has been highlighted in prior discussions and references. The prevalence of individuals with extensive formal education who are drawn towards such narratives is not insignificant, and there is a possibility that this trend could intensify over time. This phenomenon seems to transcend various contexts and can be observed within different groups. Interestingly, I have noticed that among social scholars in particular, there appears to be a greater inclination towards embracing pseudoscientific narratives, despite their strong belief in adhering to scientific principles and methodologies.
The proliferation of pseudoscientific along with egocentric narratives is evident, encompassing various topics such as the anti-vaccination movement, denial of the pandemic, and unfounded political arguments against mandatory vaccination. This pattern has persisted throughout history, and is a recurring feature in previous pandemics that humanity has faced.[5] Throughout history, it’s astonishing to discover that even highly esteemed intellectuals such as Immanuel Kant, found themselves swayed by unscientific beliefs, like his skepticism towards vaccination.[6] Without a doubt, it is evident that Immanuel Kant, despite his unwavering ability to analyze certain questions critically, displayed a lack of knowledge when it came to the natural sciences. This resulted in him embracing superstitious ideas and presenting unsubstantiated claims. In essence, even for his era, Kant failed to demonstrate a thorough understanding of scientific principles. During times of pandemics, individuals of two kinds emerged: those who grasped the true nature of the problem at hand, and those who, unable to comprehend the situation, resorted to asserting far-fetched scenarios.[7] Based on extensive historical records, it is fascinating to note that none of these seemingly “crazy” scenarios have ever occurred.
There are also societies where pseudoscience and scientific illiteracy have acquired an official status as a business model years or decades before the pandemic even occurred. As an example, I would mention the European region, including a few German-speaking countries, especially Switzerland [8] and Austria, where pseudoscience and different sorts of conspiracy hypotheses, often imported from other countries, find their most fertile grounds. Why these countries? Well, simply because they are economically and technologically very advanced, and one would expect to see the opposite of the current situation concerning the relation to science and rational debate. In Austria, for example, there were officially around 20,000 registered quacks around 2017. They had some sort of permit to practice “medicine,” whereas there were only 15,000 formally educated physicians [9]. The number of formally educated physicians who practice quackery is unclear, but they are present. Many of them possess additional “education” in acupuncture, TCM, homeopathy, etc. In such social circumstances, where pseudoscience booms, there should be no surprise when a group of formally highly educated people arises, who misinterpret and cherry-pick available data to strengthen their already present confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance [10] [11], or who are simply susceptible to such a narrative.
When it comes to pandemics, having a strong foundation in scientific knowledge allows us to evaluate and select the most likely scenarios based on the available data. It is important to discard unfounded claims and refrain from approaching the topic with a lens of conspiracy hypothesist. [12]
It is like Planck time [13] in quantum physics. I will try to explain it satirically using the logic of conspiracy hypothesist : Just because we are yet unable to measure smaller time intervals than momentarily possible, that does not imply the existence of a conspiracy where alien lizard-like politicians and big-money interests decided to sabotage our scientific development so they can take away our freedoms from us[14]
Anti-vaccination movements and other anti-pandemic rhetoric nonsense. How did it begin?
Throughout the years, vaccinations have proven to be an incredibly effective measure in preventing a wide range of diseases. However, despite this well-documented success, there are unfortunately still anti-vaccination movements that persist. These movements, akin to stubborn weeds, have been around since the early 20th century. One seminal event that fueled the anti-vaccination sentiment was the controversial research by Dr. Andrew Wakefield [15], falsely linking the MMR vaccine to autism in the 1990s. This misinformation gave rise to a new era of baseless claims and pseudoscience surrounding vaccination, which regrettably gained traction and influenced public opinion. Numerous health practitioners, both past and present, have been unwittingly influenced by these notions. This has laid the further groundwork for subsequent exaggerated and baseless doubts surrounding vaccines and modern medicine. One might assume that the rapid exchange of scientific information facilitated by modern communication would dispel such movements and their unfounded assertions. Regrettably, this has not been the case. While we should certainly appreciate the myriad opportunities afforded by the internet, we must also recognize that this very technology has provided a platform for pseudoscientific movements to thrive, allowing their rhetoric to swiftly reach a vast audience on an unprecedented scale. In today’s digital landscape, individuals are faced with an abundance of information, which often poses a significant challenge in discerning fact from fiction. This challenge is not limited to the general public but extends even to highly educated individuals. Despite their esteemed backgrounds, professionals in various fields occasionally succumb to the allure of pseudoscience, inadvertently perpetuating misinformation. (Dr.) Wakefield, like many other respected physicians and researchers, found himself entangled in the controversial realm of pseudoscience at a certain juncture of his career. In recent times, numerous well-organized antivaccination groups [16] have emerged, often championed by individuals lacking a solid grasp on scientific principles, including some (ex)physicians, legal experts, and public figures. Navigating through their misguided narratives can be a daunting challenge. Their persuasive rhetoric tends to be more effective than true science communication, influencing the general population’s response to the ongoing pandemic. This outcome aligns with what could be expected in such circumstances. Historical documents unequivocally demonstrate that throughout the course of humanity, similar social patterns and misguided arguments have persistently hindered our ability to combat pandemics through the formidable power of modern science. While it is undeniable that any approach to combating diseases possesses its inherent limitations, the potential drawbacks associated with scientific advancements pale in comparison to the alternative propositions, such as relying solely on natural selection or building natural immunity within the timescale of one generation. These alternative movements have tended to captivate individuals who may lack a fundamental understanding of natural processes or struggle to comprehend the concept of probability [such as whether it is more probable that medication for a specific disease helps or kills you]. Yet, when it comes to saving lives and ensuring the well-being of society, the efficacy and urgency to embrace scientific solutions are resoundingly clear, rendering such pseudoscientific notions utterly baseless.
According to my standpoint, it is evident that our society produces a considerable number of individuals who possess impressive formal education, but lack a solid foundation in scientific literacy. Many of these individuals are particularly susceptible to the allure of pseudoscience and pseudo-philosophy. This situation aptly supports the popular saying, “The fool’s wise man.” A prime example lies in the medical field, where aspiring physicians often focus solely on rote memorization, without truly comprehending the evolutionary and climatological processes that contribute to the development of specific medical conditions.[17] For instance, physicians who prioritize their online presence over investing their time to learn about the consequences of [dys]evolution and what it means in terms of modern diseases. Some of them may also feel disillusioned by the scientific community due to past experiences (e.g., could not apply for a job as an active scientist, or inability to be a part of this group in any capacity, etc.) and as a result carry the resentment toward the community and its active scientific work, particularly during times like pandemics. Furthermore, it is not uncommon to encounter individuals who continue to embrace pseudoscientific beliefs even after completing their advanced degrees. However, it is essential to avoid generalizations, as there are indeed professionals who possess a comprehensive understanding of these concepts within their respective fields. It is worth noting that those actively engaged in scientific research are often too preoccupied with their work in laboratories to devote significant time to running associations or maintaining a daily YouTube channel, unlike their counterparts.
Who actively took up the ideological banner of leading such movements?
Short answer: Various groups, which include far-right ideological movements, liberal demagogues, vloggers, social commentators, religious organizations, conspiracy hypothesists, and politicians, exhibit certain overlapping characteristics despite their differences. One such characteristic is a strong resistance to authority that is often expressed in extreme and irrational ways. These groups often circulate questionable claims, despite the fact that these claims have been thoroughly debunked multiple times in the past and present. One such example is the narrative surrounding potential limitations on individual freedoms due to mandatory vaccination. These groups aim to sway a significant number of individuals through fear tactics that are based on highly improbable scenarios. Additionally, it is worth noting that some of these political parties or movements, which propagate such narratives, frequently position themselves as opposition to the governing party and, in many cases, align with far-right ideologies. They may present themselves as champions of independent thought, but this portrayal is far from accurate. Their primary goal is to strategically secure political advantages or, even more concerning, seize control of the government machinery. It is puzzling to note that these parties would be willing to compromise our cherished freedom given the opportunity. However, until that moment arises, they, along with scientifically uninformed scholars and misguided scientists as their “credible sources,” audaciously position themselves as staunch defenders of our invaluable freedoms and democratic principles. During the 1930s, the Nazis implemented a political strategy that bears similarities to some current political developments. As they came into power, they demonstrated a disregard for the principles of freedom that had been previously upheld. This shift in governance prompted many to reevaluate their perspectives, realizing that the previous administration, once deemed flawed, now appeared more favorable in comparison. Even intellectuals who had initially embraced the persuasive Nazi narrative began to recognize the importance of preserving the values of the past.
On the other hand, there are law experts with scientifically inaccurate views and flawed arguments too. Some argue that compulsory vaccination infringes upon our rights to make individual health decisions. While it is essential to address such concerns, we must anchor our focus on protecting our civilization and understanding the catastrophic consequences that can arise from disregarding the necessity of vaccines. In reality, the narrative dismisses any semblance of these inquiries. It presents a well-crafted rhetoric that cleverly portrays these concerns as genuine acts of compassion for our fellow human beings. However, upon closer examination, it becomes evident that such assertions are nothing more than self-centered arguments driven by ideological motives. These arguments propose that each individual should be solely responsible for their own well-being no matter what, all under the guise of “freedom”. Certainly, prioritizing personal responsibility is essential, yet it is crucial to acknowledge that there are instances where factors beyond our control influence the overall well-being of a community, irrespective of individual choices or preferences. If we were to follow the previous logic, wouldn’t it be somewhat dubious to suggest that we shouldn’t get angry when someone sneezes directly into our face? It’s hard to imagine that we shouldn’t hold that person accountable for potentially endangering our health and well-being. This perspective seems to imply that anyone can freely go about spreading germs without any regard for the consequences. Throughout history, we have witnessed the recurrence of arguments similar to the ones presented 200 years ago [18], as well as during various other pandemics. Such narratives have emerged across multiple social domains whenever the need arises to implement new regulations, ensuring the continued functioning of a civilized society, both at the local and global level. A pseudoscientific propaganda that misuses scientific terminology on a regular basis claims that its main goal is to introduce much-needed skepticism into public discourse, such as questioning the appropriateness of compulsory vaccination. However, it subtly tries to promote the notion that vaccines are lethal and highly dangerous. To untrained ears, this may initially sound like a rational and constructive discourse, leading many to fall for it. But in reality, it is far from that.
Short excursus concerning scepticism:
Skepticism is valuable in assessing ideas, but it can become counterproductive if taken to an extreme. Balancing skepticism with evaluating the long-term consequences of our decisions is important. Astrophysicist Carl Sagan discussed this concept in his essay “The Burden of Skepticism“:
“It seems to me what is called for is an exquisite balance between two conflicting needs: the most skeptical scrutiny of all hypotheses that are served up to us and at the same time a great openness to new ideas. Obviously those two modes of thought are in some tension. But if you are able to exercise only one of these modes, whichever one it is, you’re in deep trouble.
If you are only skeptical, then no new ideas make it through to you. You never learn anything new. You become a crotchety old person convinced that nonsense is ruling the world. (There is, of course, much data to support you.) But every now and then, maybe once in a hundred cases, a new idea turns out to be on the mark, valid and wonderful. If you are too much in the habit of being skeptical about everything, you are going to miss or resent it, and either way you will be standing in the way of understanding and progress.
On the other hand, if you are open to the point of gullibility and have not an ounce of skeptical sense in you, then you cannot distinguish the useful as from the worthless ones. If all ideas have equal validity then you are lost, because then, it seems to me, no ideas have any validity at all.
Some ideas are better than others. The machinery for distinguishing them is an essential tool in dealing with the world and especially in dealing with the future. And it is precisely the mix of these two modes of thought that is central to the success of science.” – Carl Sagan
A compelling example of misguided skepticism emerges when asserting that individuals should solely rely on their own “common sense” when navigating complex issues like the pandemic. While it may be tempting to believe that personal intuition alone is sufficient to make informed decisions, empirical evidence suggests otherwise. In reality, many individuals fail to effectively harness even this inherently flawed cognitive tool. According to their “common sense”, the risk and likelihood of fatality from the infection is almost non-existent. However, the lowered mortality rate of SARS-CoV-2 is not solely attributed to the virus itself, but rather a result of the collective efforts and preventive measures implemented to reduce its impact. These measures have been crucial in minimizing the potential harm caused by the virus. Consider the scenario of a global population of 8 billion people during a flu pandemic or any historical pandemic, where the level of social and cultural exchange is equivalent to present times. Envision this scenario without the advancements of modern measures, vaccines, and other medical interventions that we rely on today. The mortality of a flu pandemic would undoubtedly be significantly higher than what current historical records indicate. It is evident that even the mortality caused by SARS-CoV-2 could have been further mitigated if strict measures were universally implemented and adhered to worldwide. Therefore, the anti-pandemic general claim itself is not even part of common-sense reasoning, let alone being a critical or scientifically literate one. True common-sense dictates that we should always prioritize our well-being and take necessary precautions. It is prudent to treat anything that poses a potential threat to our existence as risky until we have a thorough understanding of the danger at hand and can devise effective solutions to protect ourselves. Even the most straightforward measures aimed at enhancing our survivability should be regarded as constructive steps in the right direction. The ongoing “pandemic” common-[non]sense claims could be described with the following analogy: Imagine you are in the African savannah with friends, and you see a staring lion [virus] not so far away. Yet, you say to yourself, “I am sure he will not attack; he is not hungry. And if he attacks [possible infection], I believe that the person by my side would be attacked instead of me [this is a part of the well-known asocial argument: people must die anyway], so I will be safe. Even if a lion attacks me, I still have some chances to survive, maybe without a hand or leg [long-term consequences of an infection], but I will survive. So, I’ll simply go and pass by the lion”. Acting according to actual common sense would be to seek some initial protection, like a tree [a mask]. Even if lions can climb some trees, until a lion reaches me, I’ll create some weapons for protection [vaccine] which would exponentially increase my chances of survival.
The issue of antivaccination legal argumentation raises serious concerns about the implications for personal freedom. If the logic behind such arguments were to be consistently applied, it could potentially lead to a situation where even the prohibition of harmful actions, such as killing, is deemed as an infringement on personal liberties. While this could be comparable to a slippery slope argument, there are indeed groups that advocate for this line of reasoning and question any form of restriction on individual freedoms without adequately considering the long-term consequences. This begs the question: where do we draw the line?
In addition to other important regulations is significance of various obligatory instructions that we encounter in our daily lives. These encompass essential aspects such as vaccination requirements, the usage of seat belts while driving, the prohibition of sexual harassment, the imperative to refrain from corporal punishment towards children, and numerous rules governing communal living arrangements. While these measures may, at first glance, appear to curtail personal freedoms, they serve a vital purpose: preserving harmonious social structures over individual desires. By implementing such measures, societies ensure that they can operate in an orderly and cohesive manner, as opposed to succumbing to a “survival of the fittest” mentality. The presence of these necessary restrictions and obligatory instructions is what ultimately allows free societies to flourish, preventing the descent into chaos and anarchy. Many people often misconstrue the concept of free speech, mistakenly believing it to be synonymous with unrestricted freedom. However, there is a distinction between the two. In today’s society, where numerous pseudoscientific movements and narratives are prevalent, proves that free speech exists and is safeguarded. Take, for instance, the ability to openly express opinions on matters such as the use of safety belts or even mobilize political campaigns advocating for changes in safety belt policies. Nevertheless, in order to foster a civilized and cohesive society, we are obliged to adhere to certain regulations that provide a reasonable level of security for all individuals involved. It is quite astonishing that legal experts often overlook the fact that every legal system comprises a collection of various restrictions. Ranging from constitutional provisions to the simplest regulations, these restrictions are necessitated for the greater benefit of society as a whole.
Of course, now I anticipate the following rebuttal: according to this explanation, we could use it for justifying the theocratic legal systems where oppression against unbelievers is designed to maintain a peaceful social structure too. Firstly, such a rebuttal would represent a weird combination of three argumentative fallacies: argumentum ad antiquitatem, straw-man argument, and Cum hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy (mistaking correlation for causation). Secondly, explanation: any legal system and any regulation à la theocratic one has been designed to directly suppress (not maintain) everything else that does not comply with the actual form of government, political system, and social values. Medication (in our case: vaccination) has nothing to do with suppressing our right to change the actual political system or social values if the conditions for such change are given. We are very much free to do that if organized properly. Whether we are vaccinated or not doesn’t matter. Vaccinations should be addressed as a scientific and factual question concerning public health only, without any ideological interference. Meaning, when faced with unfamiliar circumstances or confronted with new measures, it is crucial to approach the situation with a rational mindset. Rather than allowing fear to hinder our analysis, we must draw upon our past experiences and recognize that pandemics are a natural occurrence, often exacerbated by rapid global climate change [19]. Nature is inherently capable of producing pathogens and impacting our lives, irrespective of any conspiracy hypotheses. Moreover, human activities can exacerbate these phenomena, leading to more rapid and devastating consequences.
Who is most susceptible to these movements?
As mentioned previously, everyone who lacks basic knowledge about how nature works, everyone who cannot grasp the concept of scientific probability, as well as the concept of urgent necessity. There are many aspects of how such a person cultivates fallacious logic and argumentation. In many cases, anecdotal evidence, false analogies (e.g. Nazism is the same as compulsory vaccination), etc., come in very handy as the main ideological feeding trough for the strengthening of confirmation bias and cognitive dissonance. Once again, within these groups, there are too many highly educated people affected by this. Various YouTube videos and meme graphics are available for this purpose too. To be honest, there are some scientific videos; sometimes they are in the same format and length, yet they address claims from a core scientific approach. For example, is a certain claim biochemically plausible or not? Do the laws of physics and chemistry allow that such claim can be true? This kind of questioning is done by scientifically literate people who basically live off debunking pseudoscience and conspiracies.[20] In the realm of scientific videos, there are often recordings of research that present a clear and straightforward viewpoint. These videos focus on the subject matter at hand without venturing into unnecessary ideological or argumentative narratives. In contrast, there are pseudoscientific videos that attempt to debunk well-established facts, which unfortunately garner more attention. These challengers, with their fabricated or misinterpreted arguments, often fail to stand up to scrutiny, as they disregard the wealth of evidence that already debunks their claims. Here, an esteemed commentator [a scientifically illiterate physician, virologist, politician, etc] expertly weaves together a collection of persuasive arguments into a compelling narrative. With their extensive eloquence, they present a well-reasoned perspective that may easily be perceived as logical and highly informative. It is understandable that, given the limited time and resources available to fact-check every claim, many individuals find this to be both credible and enlightening. When the content includes carefully curated graphs and in-video recordings, the commentator’s claims are likely to come across as compelling and credible. To truly evaluate the reliability and credibility of such claims, employing the touchstones of scientific literacy that I introduced in the first part of this entire saga could give a valuable framework for analysis. By applying these touchstones we can discern the true nature and integrity of the information being presented.
Pandemic: Unexpected, Planned, or Simply a Part of the Natural Process?
A friend of mine, a nerdy chemist, said something profound back in 2004 [I will try to paraphrase it]: “See, this new virus [SARS-CoV-1] has the potential to cripple the world in the long term, and people do not get it. The way how fast we live… well, I’ll give us a maximum of 15 years before we experience one big pandemic sweeping our civilization once again… and again, people and many of my colleagues don’t and won’t get it. They often forget how evolution works… it affects everything in our nature. While we are sitting here [around the fire] and talking about this, some crazy things are happening in your and my body too…. Who knows, maybe some process is occurring, whereby right at this moment, as we speak, a pathogen from my dog mutates and acquires the ability to spread to us… This is so awesome and, at the same time, so scary too“. Being as geeky and nerdy as I usually am, my friend’s words nudged me to start reading factually scientific news and developments about this particular virus [21] and microorganisms in general. A clarification, I intentionally said, “I started reading” instead of “researching” because I do not assume I am capable of doing proper research according to the rules and processes of biochemistry. Therefore, reading factually is the proper combination of words describing the process of gaining scientifically literate insights about a specific topic. [22] In the year 2004, and even before the emergence of SARS-CoV-2, the majority of people was clueless concerning this particular topic. My personal annual commitment, however, involved keeping abreast of the latest advancements in physics, biology, and chemistry, not only expanded my comprehension of the intricacies of the microscopic realm, but also profoundly influenced my perception of the significance of the fundamental sciences, as well as what it truly means to be scientifically literate. In the past, as in the present, we behold “scientists” [surely intellectually capable] who minimize the urgency and potential aftermaths of this virus, even before conclusive evidence has materialized. It seems we are dealing with a breed of individuals who possess scholarly credentials but lack a true scientific understanding by any reasonable standard. They artfully employ rhetoric steeped in relativity while failing to furnish robust, comprehensive, and unbiased evidence to support their assertions. Their rhetoric is brilliantly presented, backed by compelling correlations that serve as powerful benchmarks in their arguments. They and any listener who may have gaps in knowledge, will gravitate towards explanations that fill those gaps in the most straightforward manner. This definitely leads to the formation of strong confirmation biases. Challenging these pseudoscientific perceptions and convictions can be an arduous task, akin to the mythological struggle of Sisyphus. The detrimental effects of the irresponsible downsizing of the problem during the pandemic, it is evident, even to those without expert knowledge in social dynamics, that such behavior will inevitably exacerbate the societal response to future outbreaks. Drawing from historical parallels, it becomes clear that combating future pandemics will be considerably more challenging. This will be further compounded by the strengthening of pseudoscientific narratives, eroding public trust in science and modern medicine. Despite these challenges, it remains imperative to persist in efforts to communicate science and debunk falsehoods whenever possible. In a world marked by constant social change and movements, there remains a glimmer of hope that a social paradox may arise, compelling enough individuals to embrace scientific reasoning and critical thinking, even amidst the influence of pseudoscience.
In contrast, dedicated scientists have embarked on groundbreaking research on SARS-CoV-1 (also known as SARS-1) and uncovered its elusive nature. Their unwavering determination led them to swiftly identify the virus’s origin and sequence its genome during the years 2003 and 2004. These meticulous investigations yielded remarkable insights, as underscored by their remarkable achievements:
“Studies of coronavirus replication reveal several mechanisms that account for the repeated, persistent infections typical of coronaviral disease. High rates of mutation and RNA-RNA recombination produce viruses that are extremely adaptable and capable of acquiring or regaining virulence. The relatively large coronavirus genome tolerates deletions, mutations, and substitutions and can recover from deleterious mutations.”[23
Debunking the Myth: Was the Virus “Bioengineered”?
It is important to clarify some misconceptions surrounding the origin of the virus. There seems to be a tendency to mistakenly interchange terms such as “virus escaped laboratory,” “purposely let out,” and “virus was bioengineered.” However, these phrases do not indicate the same thing. Although it is possible for pathogens to accidentally escape from a laboratory, this does not automatically imply that the pathogen in question was intentionally created by humans.[24] Almost every large city possesses at least one biochemical laboratory with the highest biohazard level. Such laboratories have a few basic functions: to oversee the most dangerous pathogens, to conduct research, and to develop contingency plans concerning endemic, epidemic, and pandemic cases. Simple research could surely cause a pathogen to evolve into a new strain. Contrary to popular belief, laboratories do not isolate pathogens from nature to prevent their natural evolution. Therefore, it is incorrect to assume that humans are solely responsible for creating new diseases by manipulating pathogens obtained from nature. Even when a virus becomes isolated from its natural environment, it still possesses the ability to evolve. Isolation does not prevent the virus from adapting and developing resistance to antiviral compounds. Over time, when exposed to different treatments, the virus may produce strains that are resilient to these interventions. Natural selection and evolution are not bound by the isolation of a pathogen from its typical natural environment. Rather than relying on the virus to circulate freely among animals, encountering various immune systems and gradually adapting to target the human immune system, we proactively isolate the virus and conduct meticulous experiments to better understand it. This approach allows us to develop effective strategies to combat the virus in the real world with greater safety and confidence. Experiments of this nature have the potential to trigger an evolutionary response, potentially leading to the emergence of more virulent pathogens. However, SARS is a virus that has undergone zoonotic evolution.[25] The virus simply had an opportunity to circulate freely long enough within the animal world and therefore could adapt to inflict harm on the human immune system. We realized this when the virus acquired the potency to cause us harm. Before that, we were ignorant about it or we simply downplayed the possible danger. At that point, it was too late, and the first step of evolutionary adaptation was concluded [further steps are consequent mutations]. In the event of Wuhan laboratories fulfilling their standard protocols as any other laboratory would, the likelihood of the virus escaping from the confines of the laboratory remains exceedingly low. It is important to approach this matter with objectivity and reason, for even if such an event were to occur, it certainly does not imply a deliberate release of a bioengineered virus. In the hypothetical scenario that the virus was indeed bioengineered, professional experts armed with their profound knowledge in biochemistry would swiftly identify any “unnatural” alterations within its genetic sequences that deviate from a natural and elegant evolutionary process. Our fabricated creation would be unmistakably discernible, and its ability to mutate as effortlessly and seamlessly as its naturally occurring counterparts would undoubtedly be compromised. [26]
In the years 2003 and 2004, considerable advancements were made in our understanding of this particular strain of coronavirus. It was observed that these viruses exhibit a remarkable capacity for rapid mutation, indicating their evolutionary adaptability. Undoubtedly, this represents a noteworthy scientific accomplishment, highlighting our ability to swiftly and effectively gain insights into pathogenic organisms and promptly disseminate this knowledge. Both capabilities are the direct result of scientific advancements. When even individuals who possess a certain level of education begin to assert that the successive mutations of SARS-CoV-2 are a fabrication, one cannot help but be astonished and baffled by such alarming ignorance. The educational background of individuals is inconsequential in the context of comprehending evolutionary processes [27]. The mere possession of advanced formal education does not invalidate the importance of understanding the fundamental principles of evolution in a broader and long-term perspective. Evolutionary mechanisms extend beyond living organisms, encompassing phenomena such as abiogenesis and autocatalytic processes. Therefore, a true understanding of evolution should not rely solely on appeals to authority based on formal education.
In the preceding subchapter, I made reference to science YouTube videos. If you desire to witness an exemplar of an informative video rooted in scientific knowledge, I highly recommend viewing the ensuing video: The Evolution of Bacteria on a “Mega-Plate” Petri Dish (Kishony Lab) – YouTube. This example elucidates the dynamics of pathogen evolution through real-time experimentation. It serves as a concise and accessible introduction to the subject matter, designed to be comprehensible even to those without an extensive background in biology. The experimental process showcased in the video encompasses the evolutionary patterns observed in all pathogens, both in natural settings and controlled environments. Given the pervasive nature of human social interactions and the influence of climate change, it should come as no surprise that pathogens such as the SARS virus have the potential to undergo significant mutations. The emergence of the Omicron[28] variant of SARS-CoV-2 further attests to the inevitability of such evolutionary processes.
In the above-mentioned paper, it has been stated that:
“The tendency of coronaviruses to undergo mutation and recombination represents a significant challenge for vaccine development. To date [2004], no vaccine has been produced that can provide highly effective, long-term protection against respiratory coronavirus infections. Genetic approaches represent the best hope of overcoming this propensity for mutability, according to workshop presenters.”[29]
This implies that, based on my understanding of the concept, conventional vaccines are considerably less suitable or effective in addressing this specific issue. In contrast, genetic vaccines present a more viable solution for containing the transmission of such pathogens, offering enhanced safety measures and expedited development processes compared to traditional alternatives. [30] This is a very important point. Numerous research domains came into existence with the specific aim of advancing this cause, engaging the expertise of countless scientists who devoted their efforts towards the practical development of these endeavors. [31] [Warning, now comes my satire] “Ah, but let us not forget the mighty army of goofballs parading on the sidewalks and in various media platforms. These fine folks, armed with handpicked “experts” and an abundance of “research” from the prestigious institution of Google University, tirelessly strive to undermine the endeavors of genuine scientists. Their reasons? Well, the trinity of ego, cluelessness, and a knack for embracing utter nonsense.”
IMPORTANT: When I say ignorance [in fields like chemistry and biology], please bear in mind that the concepts and comprehensions I mention here are a part of elementary and high-school education. At least, it should be!
In the aftermath of the SARS-1 outbreak nearly a decade after, the world encountered another coronavirus known as MERS. Fortunately, diligent research efforts regarding the SARS-1 virus did not cease and, subsequently, contributed to a deeper understanding of MERS and its predecessor. Regrettably, despite these advancements, a complacent approach hindered the implementation of practical measures and contingency plans to address the potential threat of a global pandemic. Esteemed scientists have aptly underscored that:
“Research during the past ten years has revealed the existence of a diverse pool of coronaviruses circulating among various bat species and other animals, suggesting that further introductions of highly pathogenic coronaviruses into the human population are not merely probable, but inevitable“[32]
There is a notable body of scientific literature comprising numerous peer-reviewed papers that meticulously document the intensive nature of research activities undertaken to address this grave concern. Moreover, the aforementioned article also presents an additional assertion:
“Huge progress has been made over the past ten years in the elucidation of the functions and structures of the proteins of the SARS-CoV, and research on vaccine development has also progressed, with a number of strategies being developed and evaluated in experimental animal models. However, it should also be noted that after 2005–2006, it became difficult to obtain funding for research on SARS-CoV in many countries, especially for efforts to discover new antiviral therapies…. Similarly, there was no incentive to further develop SARS-CoV vaccines, in the absence of an overt threat to human health. Funding agencies and peer reviewers were probably short-sighted in this respect, but many virologists also failed to take seriously the threat of the re-emergence of SARS or of a SARS-like virus.”[33]
Please note that the paper referenced was published in 2013. This indicates that any assertions or allegations suggesting recent developments in vaccine research, particularly within the past two years (around 2020), are entirely unfounded and lacking in factual basis. Additionally, the paper highlights the failure of numerous virologists to adequately recognize the gravity of the SARS outbreak. These observations were made well in advance of the current pandemic. Despite possessing relevant expertise, these virologists exhibited a lack of comprehension regarding the nature of the problem and its associated risks. Unfortunately, we are witnessing the emergence of a new generation of similar “experts” today. Until 2013, significant data regarding SARS-1 and MERS, along with potential strategies for effective treatments, had been meticulously accumulated. Yet, these valuable insights and precautionary advisories were disregarded, echoing the unfortunate trend observed throughout history in response to prior pandemics. Despite a substantial 15-year window for preparedness, which the esteemed scientific community persistently emphasized, we as a collective society faltered gravely. Rather than posing the question of “if,” experts repeatedly emphasized that it was merely a matter of “when” such an event would occur, underscoring our profound failure in readiness. In conjunction with scientists lacking scientific literacy, medical professionals, and other individuals of public influence, alongside the presence of anti-vaccination movements, our rapidly advancing modern society has given rise to its own set of social repercussions: the relativization and misinterpretation of facts, often accompanied by false analogies, and the outright denial of the issue at hand. Famous astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: The rise of flat-Earthers in the United States is evidence of two things: 1) the protection of [free] speech, and 2) the failure of our educational system“[34] I would actually modify and allow this quote to evolve into the following:”The rise of flat-Earthers or any such baseless claim worldwide is evidence of three things: 1) the protection of free speech, 2) the failure of our educational system and 3) rise of social culture where opinions have status of a fact. These two thoughts respectively express the condition of our present collective mind. Our society has been fortunate that the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) did not manifest the same level of severity as both SARS-1 and SARS-2. The potential devastation that this pathogen could have inflicted upon the world, given its high mortality rate, is something that we are grateful to have avoided.[35] In a hypothetical situation where a MERS pandemic arises, it is unlikely that there would be ample time for political debates or the exploitation of such a crisis for misguided agendas. Instead, human beings would likely fight over every available vaccine in order to increase their chances of survival. I am aware that I am making a lot of assumptions here. However, understanding that humans possess dormant survival instincts, it becomes increasingly improbable to witness civilized behavior in situations of extreme adversity, where a significant number of individuals succumb. Furthermore, the ongoing pandemic serves as a potent reminder of the prevalence of self-centeredness within our societal structure. Only after the devastating impact of MERS and SARS-2 do people suddenly take an interest in biology, chemistry, and viruses. Sadly, it’s a bit too late for that now and the lack of scientific literacy is glaringly evident, as individuals blindly embrace the misguided advice of their personal physicians and “scientist” friends. It’s almost comical how they fail to grasp the severity of an airborne pathogen that evolves at an alarming rate. Pervasive acceptance of rhetorical fallacies led many individuals to subscribe to the notion that governments, scientists, and physicians acknowledging the existence and severity of the pandemic were somehow implicated in a global conspiracy which should lead to whatever the narrative itself suggests. This narrative, based on misinformation, propagated fear and disregarded the well-established reality of pandemics as recurring events throughout human history.[36]
“The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is often described as an ‘unprecedented’ event, as the outbreak of the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) took many by surprise. However, from a scientific and historical standpoint, the novel coronavirus pandemic was entirely predictable.[37]
We find ourselves amidst an era that presents a unique and challenging set of circumstances. It is both a privilege and a burden to bear witness to this phenomenon within the span of our own lives. Still, we are fortunate to reside in an era where advancements in scientific knowledge have endowed us with improved means of survival and the ability to effectively contend with this affliction. If we were to imagine ourselves in the context of the 18th century, the magnitude of the situation would be even more daunting. Although questions may arise regarding the adequacy of governmental responses, it is evident that their handling of the matter may have been fallible, given the extent to which it has been subject to manipulation and exploitation.
Science Behind the New Vaccine
In the pursuit of vaccine development, financial support plays a crucial role, akin to any other human endeavor. Suppose an institute secures funding for the pre-development phase of a vaccine, along with the initial stages of clinical trials. In the absence of a pandemic, where no additional resources need to be allocated for expedited results, the timeline for obtaining data could span over the course of the initial year. However, the advancements in technology within the realm of vaccine research and production have rendered the processes more efficient and precise in contemporary times. Thus, it is imperative to refrain from drawing comparisons between the present-day procedures and those conducted over three decades ago, given the significant technological advancements that contribute to expeditious outcomes. When an institute allocates resources to a project, it becomes necessary to secure additional incentives before progressing to the subsequent phase. In the absence of new funding, the development of any vaccine is compelled to be postponed. So, the protracted timeline for vaccine development does not solely stem from the extensive mandatory testing protocols or the commitment to ensuring vaccine efficacy. Rather, the primary cause lies in the insufficient financial support available at different stages of the development process.
In an ideal scenario, when an institute receives substantial funding (as seen during the pandemic), ample infrastructure, and global support, the progress of research and development becomes expedited. Without any delays, multiple stages can be conducted simultaneously, production capacities can be swiftly expanded, and the risks of developing the wrong product can be minimized. This streamlined approach enables the rapid acceleration of various endeavors, including the development of vaccines and other groundbreaking innovations.[38] Still, the potential for vaccine producers, including CEOs and stakeholders, to leverage the current pandemic for financial gain cannot be completely ruled out. It is conceivable that such actors may capitalize on the situation to maximize profits. However, it is crucial to distinguish this aspect from the underlying technology employed in the production of vaccines. The efficacy and safety of vaccines are determined by scientific principles and meticulous research, independent of any potential financial motives. Furthermore, there may be instances where vaccine manufacturers negotiate with governments for increased remuneration to prioritize vaccine distribution and logistical arrangements. Nevertheless, these scenarios should not be conflated with the technological processes involved, as the realm of chemistry adheres to precise rules and principles that govern the production and applicability of vaccines. While I am composing this article, it is rather intriguing that there are purportedly a plethora of esteemed physicians and scientists [39] from various corners of the globe who curiously oppose the implementation of new vaccines and question their effectiveness. Strangely enough, among these individuals, you may find a few who have long been associated with dubious scientific practices, but others were not. Therefore, it is worth pondering why these individuals choose to defy the very principles they once embraced in their own fields of study. Throughout the course of time, our understanding has grown regarding the factors that drive individuals to engage in pseudoscientific discourse. The same erroneous assumptions surrounding vaccines and novel medications have persisted across different periods, including past pandemics. The underlying cause for such misplaced assertions can primarily be attributed to a lack of scientific literacy intertwined with deeply rooted ideological convictions.[40]
In Germany exists an organization known as “Ärzte für Aufklärung” [physicians for enlightenment], which, during the course of the pandemic, has disseminated a significant volume of discredited assertions regarding preventive measures and the nature of the virus. [41]
One of the arguments put forth was the assertion that masks are ineffective in preventing the transmission of the virus. Firstly, it is important to clarify that neither FFP2 nor medical masks offer a 100% guarantee against infection, with the exception of specialized ABC-masks. This fact has not been contested. However, these masks do create a higher level of aerodynamic resistance for viral particles and other microorganisms, thus impeding their unrestricted movement. [42] The consideration arises as to whether prolonged and consistent use of masks could potentially have a detrimental impact on our respiratory system as well. Although several studies have been conducted on this topic, it is important to note that they primarily establish correlations rather than establishing causations. Nevertheless, it is a valid inquiry, as masks do introduce a certain level of airflow resistance and may accumulate particles which could potentially be harmful. Individuals with pre-existing respiratory conditions are likely to be more sensitive to these effects. It is recommended that such concerns be addressed on an individual basis. There are other factors to consider that can influence the outcome regarding this matter, such as the correct usage and proper handling of masks, including regular replacement as recommended. These should not be misconstrued as arguments against the overall utilization of masks. Any cloth material effectively slows down the airflow, thereby limiting the dispersion of aerosols. This principle finds its roots in the fundamentals of physics. In the context of questioning the efficacy of wearing masks, an analogy has been widely circulated on the internet. Allow me to paraphrase it for you. The proposition put forth by those opposed to masks is as follows: “If masks are indeed effective, then why is it necessary to maintain a minimum distance of two meters; if the recommended distancing of two meters is effective, then why do masks need to be worn; and if both measures are effective, then why impose a lockdown?” To counter this line of reasoning, an alternative analogy can be presented: “If the presence of airbags in vehicles serves as an effective safety measure, then why is it also imperative to wear seatbelts; if seatbelts alone are fully effective, then why do vehicles need to be equipped with airbags; and if both safety mechanisms are indeed effective individually, then why do we still rely on brakes to ensure our safety?“
The topic of anti-vaccine argumentation revolves around various surveys conducted among physicians who hold skepticism towards vaccines. These surveys, at times, present their arguments, while in other instances, they merely provide statistics regarding the percentage of physicians opposing vaccines and vaccination. However, there is a dearth of surveys that delve into the correlation between vaccine skepticism and specific worldviews. Questions surrounding the political orientation, adherence to homeopathy, religious beliefs, and other pertinent factors remain unexplored within these surveys. An intriguing avenue for research would be to conduct a comprehensive investigation comparing the number of individuals opposing vaccination with those who align with worldviews traditionally associated with pseudoscientific and scientifically illiterate notions. Remarkably, no such survey has been conducted thus far.
Another [sad] example is Robert Malone. [43] The individual in question garnered widespread attention through an extensive viral reach. As a not-so-active scientist, it is still expected that he possesses knowledge in his respective field. It is worth noting that he possesses a background in formal education and prior experience in genetic experimentation, albeit not of recent nature. His [recent] contributions to scientific endeavors have been notably scarce or non-existent. Nevertheless, he chose to criticize the development of vaccines, asserting his expertise in the field [remember the argumentative fallacy argumentum ad verecundiam] and claiming sole inventorship of the mRNA vaccine. Moreover, he asserted that this technology remains underdeveloped. The individual in question possesses reputable credentials that warrant consideration, but it is important to delve into the underlying personal motivations behind his decision to adopt a “maverick mode.” Upon close examination, it becomes apparent that many of his assertions lack substantiation and rely heavily on selective interpretation. His involvement in mRNA experimentation took place in the late 1980s in collaboration with a group of colleagues. Their research involved the introduction of genetic material into mouse cells with the aim of developing a novel vaccine. He authored a paper in 1989, which outlined the successful delivery of RNA into cells using lipids, and it also included certain conclusions, namely:
“The RNA/lipofectin method can be used to directly introduce RNA into whole tissues and embryos (R.W.M., C. Holt, and I.M.V., unpublished results), raising the possibility that liposome-mediated mRNA transfection might offer yet another option in the growing technology of eukaryotic gene delivery, one based on the concept of using RNA as a drug.”[44]
As a co-Author in a Science paper from 1990 he also explained that this technology:
“may provide alternative approaches to vaccine development.”[45]
It is difficult for me to ascertain whether this action, from an objective standpoint, can be classified as a groundbreaking vaccine invention. However, I can offer my subjective perspective based on the individual’s recent public appearances, suggesting that the likelihood of such a claim being verifiable is highly improbable. As previously mentioned, he has shown significant support towards emerging technologies, prompting curiosity as to what may have precipitated a change in his stance. Claiming insufficient recognition and acknowledgment as a pioneer in this scientific domain, he seems to express dissatisfaction towards the achievements of subsequent researchers who have diligently contributed in this specific field. Again, Malone has made minimal contributions over the past three decades with regards to this subject matter.
In the realm of core scientific disciplines, the passage of a significant timeframe such as 30 years has witnessed a multitude of notable advancements and breakthroughs. Our comprehension of genetics has undergone substantial transformation. His assertion of being the “foremost” authority in this context appears excessively optimistic and lacks scientific rigor. Scientific progress is an endeavor nurtured by the collective contributions of countless researchers worldwide. Each stride taken by an individual scientist is built upon the foundational discoveries made by their predecessors. For instance, the work in question can trace its origins back to pioneering experiments conducted during the 1970s. So where are the acknowledgments to those scientists? Should they be considered as vaccine inventors too? Scientific progress is an ongoing pursuit in which each discovery or invention, regardless of its magnitude, contributes to the continuum of scientific knowledge and understanding.
It is a frequently held misconception regarding Nikola Tesla [46] that he is idolized as the preeminent inventor and physicist who single-handedly revolutionized the field of electricity, as well as being its inventor. Sure, Nikola Tesla was a great inventor and engineer. However, it is essential to acknowledge that his accomplishments were built upon the foundation established by previous scientists [47]. It should be clarified that he did not invent electricity itself, as it is a natural phenomenon. While Tesla possessed some understanding of physics derived from his experiences and experiments, he was not a trained physicist. Consequently, certain inventions attributed to him were deemed unrealistic due to his lack of comprehensive knowledge in specific areas of physics and the underlying principles governing them. Tesla held misconceptions regarding electrical waves, space-time, general relativity, and other scientific concepts that had already been rigorously tested and mathematically explained, even during his own lifetime.
In the case of Malone (and potentially others), it becomes apparent that his ego and pride have been affected. This scenario exemplifies a category of “skeptics” whose actions are primarily motivated by wounded egos. Rather than approaching the matter in a scientific manner, they choose to propagate content that fuels anti-vaccination movements and far-right rhetoric, providing numerous claims without substantial evidence.[48] Malone’s statement introduces a logical discrepancy that warrants careful consideration. On one hand, there are individuals [and Malone himself] who assert that mRNA vaccines have only been in existence for the past two years. On the other hand, Malone claims to be an expert who pioneered the development of mRNA vaccines in the late 1980s. These two assertions cannot simultaneously hold true, but they may both be false, which appears to be the more plausible scenario.[49] As previously indicated, the advancement of science is a collective endeavor, and throughout the years, this particular genetic technology has made significant strides in the realm of potential cancer therapies.[50] When medical professionals or other individuals assert that the novel viral vector and mRNA vaccines rely on unverified technology, I find myself “intellectually disoriented“. Over the past decade or two, extensive research and rigorous testing have been conducted to refine and validate these innovative approaches. Even as a law scholar myself, I know that. The ongoing development of this technology should not be misconstrued as a lack of expertise or understanding. The complexity of diseases, such as cancer, which present formidable challenges in terms of containment and deciphering must be recognized. Extensive research and development spanning over two decades should not be underestimated or undervalued. While it is true that this is the first successful implementation of a vaccine treatment [51] [52] [53] for a specific disease using this technology, it is essential to acknowledge the prior trials and experiences in tackling more intricate medical cases. These facts should be considered common knowledge at this point. The significant milestone of administering over eight billion vaccine doses without witnessing a corresponding surge in vaccine-related deaths, as some assert, provides robust evidence in support of the efficacy and safety of this modern medical intervention. People who possess a limited understanding of science occasionally seem to harbor a desire for a catastrophic event to transpire. It appears they hope for a situation where a minute fraction of the population, due to a proven causative link rather than mere correlation, succumbs to vaccination. This hypothetical scenario would allow them to proclaim with fervor, “Behold, our concerns were justified! The vaccine was insufficiently tested!” Such an approach is definitely gloating and certainly not a scientific one. To simply exclude the fact that any vaccine is more tested than any other medication [because test groups are larger], yet not criticize usual medication in the same manner as the vaccine, shows how much thought was invested into selective reasoning and cherry-picking. It is very much true when Neil DeGrasse Tyson says: “… there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behaviour fill the vacuum left by ignorance.”
IMPORTANT: There are those who would use my criticism and accuse me of “canceling” specific “experts”. First and foremost, it is important to express that my intention is not to criticize opposing viewpoints, provided they are supported by peer-reviewed and reliable data that validate their significance and warrant serious consideration, without undue idealization. In the absence of such substantiated evidence, it becomes necessary to subject any unfounded or selectively chosen assertions to rigorous scrutiny. Therefore, when confronted with claims such as the notion that a vaccine has the ability to alter our genetic makeup, it is incumbent upon those making such claims to furnish substantial evidence that surpasses anecdotal or unsubstantiated sources such as memes or videos on platform such as YouTube, and instead offers empirical, credible, and rigorously reviewed data. I challenge the premise that purely rhetorical and sophistic assertions should be inherently considered as valid. It is disconcerting to observe individuals with formal education presenting superficial and oversimplified propositions for highly intricate issues, presuming that their status as “scientists” would suffice to lend credibility to their claims. In proffering such assertions, one merely assumes the role of a mere maverick [Ger.: Querdenker] or contrarian without embodying the qualities of a critical or scientifically literate thinker. In this context, apart from Carl Sagan’s renowned adage, the principle known as Hitchens’s razor resonates fittingly: “that what can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence”. Furthermore, I must assert that I have a strong disapproval towards the current phenomenon known as “cancel culture”. Particularly when it involves retrospectively judging individuals or statements from the past based on present-day social standards. Hence, any allegations made against me within this context hold no validity whatsoever.
Excurse: Ivermectin
Some individuals argue for the utilization of ivermectin as a therapeutic treatment for SARS, despite the absence of comprehensive clinical trials to date. It is worth noting that the manufacturers of ivermectin themselves discourage its use due to potential adverse effects. I find the cognitive and behavioral inconsistency described below to be quite intriguing: individuals who demonstrate a willingness to self-experiment with medications lacking proper human testing, while simultaneously asserting that vaccines are insufficiently tested and consequently denouncing their efficacy and safety.
While there is some promising evidence that suggests ivermectin, both as a standalone treatment and in combination with other medications, may have efficacy against certain viral infections, its precise effectiveness against SARS viruses is still awaiting rigorous clinical testing. The initial assessments of ivermectin’s effectiveness primarily relied on laboratory experiments and a limited number of clinical trials that were either inconclusive or methodologically flawed. Furthermore, the potential adverse effects of this treatment warrant thorough consideration. However, allow me to present a balanced perspective on the subject in order to avoid being accused of cherry-picking. It is worth noting that while there exist some studies that suggest potential benefits of ivermectin in the context of SARS viruses, it is important to emphasize that these studies lack peer-reviewed status and do not endorse widespread clinical usage of ivermectin. Rather, they call for further investigation and specific testing of this compound in relation to SARS viruses and human subjects. However, it is equally critical to consider a meta-study that underscores the inconclusive nature of recent data pertaining to ivermectin, while also highlighting the potential risks it may pose to human health.
As previously indicated, I am pleased to provide you with several instances of studies which, in certain aspects, underscore potential advantages of ivermectin. Notably, the initial study [Randomized Controlled Trial – Study 1] stands out as an exceptional case, as it presents comprehensive research findings. [54] It gives us a following insight:
“Results: Among 556 screened patients, 400 were enrolled and 363 completed follow-up. The mean patient age was 40 years, and 59% were men. The median recovery time was 7 (4-10, treatment group) and 9 (5-12, placebo group) days (hazard ratio, 0.73; 95% confidence interval, 0.60-0.90). The number of patients with a ≤7-day recovery was 61% (treatment group) and 44% (placebo groups) (hazard ratio, 0.06; 95% confidence interval, 0.04-0.09). The proportion of patients who remained RT-PCR positive on day 14 and whose disease did not progress was significantly lower in the treatment group than in the placebo group.
Conclusions: Patients with mild-to-moderate COVID-19 infection treated with ivermectin plus doxycycline recovered earlier, were less likely to progress to more serious disease, and were more likely to be COVID-19 negative by RT-PCR on day 14.”
However, this study, as well as other similar ones, were criticized in a systematic study review [55] [Study 2], where researchers state the following:
“Results: We included 29 RCTs which enrolled 5592 cases. Overall, the certainty of the evidence was very low to low suggesting that ivermectin may result in important benefits. However, after excluding trials classified as “high risk” or “some concerns” in the risk of bias assessment, most estimates of effect changed substantially: Compared to standard of care, low certainty evidence suggests that ivermectin may not reduce mortality (RD 7 fewer per 1000) nor mechanical ventilation (RD 6 more per 1000), and moderate certainty evidence shows that it probably does not increase symptom resolution or improvement (RD 14 more per 1000) nor viral clearance (RD 12 fewer per 1000).
Conclusion: Ivermectin may not improve clinically important outcomes in patients with COVID-19 and its effects as a prophylactic intervention in exposed individuals are uncertain. Previous reports concluding important benefits associated with ivermectin are based on potentially biased results reported by studies with substantial methodological limitations. Further research is needed.”
Another study from 2020[56] [Study 3] aims to emphasize the general in vitro benefits of ivermectin in respect to other SARS viruses and, therefore, states:
“Although these early results are consistent with efficacy, it is clear that only the results from large rigorous randomized clinical trials (Table 3) will definitively establish ivermectin’s utility to treat or prevent SARS-CoV-2 infection. It is to be hoped that the results from these trials will emerge in the next few months to document ivermectin’s credentials or otherwise as a viable therapeutic for COVID-19 infection, and potentially infection by many other viruses.”
At the end, the next one [Study 4] explores the usefulness of hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin. The study itself neither favors nor opposes the use of ivermectin, but states the following:
Results: For HCQ and chloroquine we found ample in vitro evidence of antiviral activity. Cohort studies that assessed the use of HCQ for COVID-19 reported conflicting results, but randomized controlled trials (RCTs) demonstrated no effect on mortality rates and no substantial clinical benefits of HCQ used either for prevention or treatment of COVID-19. We found two clinical studies of artemisinins and two studies of NTZ for treatment of viruses other than COVID-19, all of which showed mixed results. Ivermectin was evaluated in one RCT and few observational studies, demonstrating conflicting results. As the level of evidence of these data is low, the efficacy of ivermectin against COVID-19 remains to be proven. For chloroquine, HCQ, mefloquine, artemisinins, ivermectin, NTZ and niclosamide, we found in vitro studies showing some effects against a wide array of viruses. We found no relevant studies for atovaquone and albendazole.
Conclusions: As the search for an effective drug active against SARS-CoV-2 continues, we argue that pre-clinical research of possible antiviral effects of compounds that could have antiviral activity should be conducted. Clinical studies should be conducted when sufficient in vitro evidence exists, and drugs should be introduced into widespread clinical use only after being rigorously tested in RCTs. Such a search may prove beneficial in this pandemic or in outbreaks yet to come.
Now, I would like to mention a general meta-study [systematic review] which addresses inconsistencies and fallacies within studies that aim to assess the benefits of ivermectin. This review [58] is quite extensive and analyzes various key points and research areas. As stated in the review, the objective is:
“To assess the efficacy and safety of ivermectin compared to no treatment, standard of care, placebo, or any other proven intervention for people with COVID‐19 receiving treatment as inpatients or outpatients, and for prevention of an infection with SARS‐CoV‐2 (postexposure prophylaxis).” As main results, Review states the following: “We found 14 studies with 1678 participants investigating ivermectin compared to no treatment, placebo, or standard of care. No study compared ivermectin to an intervention with proven efficacy. There were nine studies treating participants with moderate COVID‐19 in inpatient settings and four treating mild COVID‐19 cases in outpatient settings. One study investigated ivermectin for prevention of SARS‐CoV‐2 infection. Eight studies had an open‐label design, six were double‐blind and placebo‐controlled. Of the 41 study results contributed by included studies, about one third were at overall high risk of bias. Ivermectin doses and treatment duration varied among included studies. We identified 31 ongoing and 18 studies awaiting classification until publication of results or clarification of inconsistencies.” Furthermore, concerning adverse effects, it has been also emphasized that: “Adhering to recommended doses, ivermectin is generally well tolerated. Adverse effects — which seem to arise partially from the rapid death of parasites, leading to hyperinflammation and anaphylactic reactions — include weakness, drowsiness, diarrhoea, nausea, and vomiting. In addition, ivermectin can cause fever and rash. Rare serious adverse effects can occur, such as vision problems, neurotoxicity, and liver damage (González‐Canga 2008)”.
Even previously mentioned Study 3 [59] indicates the danger of intoxication:
“In fact, a key consideration in clinical intervention using ivermectin is its host-directed (IMPα-directed) mechanism of action. Host-directed agents that impact cellular activities that are essential to healthy function must be tested with caution; although ivermectin has an established safety profile in humans [24,26], and is FDA-approved for a number of parasitic infections [1,3,5], it targets a host function that is unquestionably important in the antiviral response, and titration of a large proportion of the IMPα repertoire of a cell/tissue/organ is likely to lead to toxicity. With this in mind, where a host-directed agent can be a “game-changer” in treating viral infection may well be in the initial stages of infection or potentially even prophylactically by keeping the viral load low so that the body’s immune system has an opportunity to mount a full antiviral response.”
Based on the current body of evidence, it is imperative to conduct additional research on the compound known as ivermectin in order to ascertain its potential efficacy and safety in combating SARS viruses. Presently, the available data suggests a lack of substantial evidence supporting the use of ivermectin as an effective therapeutic agent against SARS. The decision to utilize ivermectin independently and attributing subsequent recovery solely to its administration may stem from a fallacy of causation based on personal experiences (referred to as the “anecdotal evidence fallacy”). The improvement observed might be independent of the usage of ivermectin, as individuals may naturally recover from certain conditions over time. Nonetheless, it is not uncommon for individuals to interpret such personal experiences as confirming their pre-existing confirmation bias in favor of ivermectin. Should a substantial body of evidence emerge in favor of the advantages of ivermectin compared to its limitations, it is incumbent upon us to embrace these findings. This is the very essence of the scientific method. If a form of ivermectin specifically tailored for human usage were to be developed in the future, it would likely be a modified variant derived from its chemical constituents, rather than the existing ivermectin compound.
Returning to the topic of “vaccines”, an additional query often arises concerning DNA alteration. Is there a potential for these mRNA vaccines to induce DNA modification or mutations? The unequivocal response is negative. If individuals possessed a foundational understanding of basic biology and chemistry, typically acquired during their early education, this entire debate would be rendered superfluous. I am inclined to posit that the majority of those expressing opposition toward the novel vaccine are unable to accurately delineate the fundamental components of an animal cell, let alone differentiate between the terms DNA, chromosome, gene, and genome. (I purposely interchanged them for illustrative purposes.) Then, how on earth would one understand the distinctions between monomers and polymers, nucleotides and RNA, RNA and DNA, Uracil and Thymine, polymerase and ribosomes, DNA translation and transcription, and the responsible agents within the cell? It can prove to be quite challenging. These fundamental concepts are often introduced in early education, yet they can easily slip from memory as time goes on. The recent pandemic has highlighted the prevalence of such gaps in knowledge. While it is natural to harbor skepticism towards new information, it is important to remember that skepticism alone does not disprove a concept. Any skeptic has to provide hard evidence to support their claim, especially when we already have enough data that shows that something works, otherwise, the claimer is simply “thrashing the empty straw”! I will try to explain this question according to the understanding of basic biology and chemistry. First, let us see how regular and complete DNA and RNA molecules behave and afterward address mRNA.
So, any change in DNA does not lead to mutation, changes in DNA are mutations, a big difference! This is how nature works. Since the DNA molecule simply likes to replicate itself [if the conditions are right], sometimes during this process, it can cause alterations to occur and become a part of the newly replicated DNA strain. The reason why DNA replicates itself much easier than RNA is because DNA has a double helix structure which can separate in the middle, thus creating two complementary molecules. These molecules are similar to RNA molecules but should not be regarded the same. The discrepancy primarily arises due to variations in nucleotides, specifically the presence of thymine (T) in DNA instead of uracil (U) in RNA. Furthermore, RNA is typically a singular linear strand of nucleotide bases (adenine, guanine, cytosine, and uracil), lacking the ability to form two complementary molecules. Moreover, it is important to note that RNA is unable to autonomously replicate itself or transcribe its genetic information onto DNA, particularly in the majority of organisms.[60] It is pertinent to note that certain viruses possess a level of inherent danger that far exceeds that of vaccines. Specifically, in the case of RNA viruses, under specific conditions and with a distinct RNA structure, they have the capacity to self-replicate. It is plausible that such RNA molecules could potentially transpose their genetic information onto the DNA of the host organism, as exemplified by retroviruses. However, the process of RNA replication is comparatively less reliable than that of DNA replication. As a consequence, RNA viruses exhibit a considerably higher mutation rate when compared to most DNA viruses. The ongoing pandemic provides a tangible illustration of this phenomenon, with the emergence of multiple mutations in the SARS-CoV-2 virus. These mutations are intrinsic to RNA viruses themselves and not a result of vaccine administration. The presented discussion pertains to organisms possessing comprehensive assemblages of DNA and RNA molecules. Within this context, there are clear rules in chemistry that define such permissibility and prohibition. Thus, the transcription process involving a complete RNA molecule onto a DNA molecule is inherently challenging. In fact, it is riddled with considerable complexity. Considering this, one may contemplate the transcription of smaller RNA fragments, such as mRNA, and its accompanying intricacies.
First, here is how new vaccines work: rather than introducing an antigen, a vaccine introduces protected mRNA into the body. Specific type of cells (not all!!!) take this mRNA and send it to ribosomes [imagine them as small factories that keep our body supplied with the most important chemical compounds/proteins], where it will be decoded as a set of instructions to build the spike protein that the virus uses to connect to host’s cells. No other protein can be produced, just the (stabilized) spikes, and the spikes themselves are harmless. The spike protein is secreted by the cell into the intercellular space and blood. Therefore, it will be recognized by the immune system, allowing antibodies to be formed to defend against the invader if the body encounters it again. The mRNA does not last long, which is why the mRNA in the vaccine is protected. Human mRNA survives up to 24 hours before it is degraded and its building blocks are recycled for a new molecule. The same thing happens with the vaccine’s mRNA. The introduced mRNA functions only for a day or so, after which no more spike proteins can be produced. That is because the affected cells lost the information on how to build them. If the cell wants to produce the mRNA by itself and constantly, it needs complete DNA. We could compare this process to a computer: think of the cell as a computer where mRNA is the Random-Access Memory (RAM) and DNA is the core memory. Without constant renewal from DNA (core memory), the mRNA (RAM) gets erased after a relatively short time.[61]
There are viral vector vaccines as well. They have a somewhat different approach, and it would be too long to write about them here too. [62] However, when it comes to the same question regarding mRNA vaccines, one can offer a following answer: “The vector vaccines work by delivering small pieces of DNA with viral information to our cell nuclei. While extremely rare, these strands of DNA can randomly insert into our DNA. That being said, please understand the following: our DNA changes continuously, and such natural changes are far more common than those caused by the integration of adenovirus DNA. Moreover, we are also frequently exposed to adenoviruses that cause the common cold.” [63] As an individual who has received a vector vaccine, I do not have any concerns regarding the “stability” of any aspect of my genome. This assurance stems from the conclusive evidence showcasing the effectiveness of these vaccines against various diseases, including Ebola, Dengue fever, and their potential application in treating cancer.[64] The lack of concern on my part stems from the research conducted by Ya Zhao et al., which suggests that our physiological system possesses a multitude of mechanisms designed to identify irregular or erroneous cellular processes. These mechanisms, in turn, enable our body to swiftly intervene and halt any aberrant mutations or malfunctioning behavior, as stated here: “Cells can avoid the effects of so-called ‘nonsense’ mutations by several methods, including a newly discovered mechanism driven by microRNA molecules.” [65]
RNA and mRNA are distinct entities, with mRNA being a specific type of RNA. RNA molecules lack the capacity to modify DNA. Exceptions exist when the enzyme reverse transcriptase is present, enabling limited DNA modification. However, it is important to note that this ability is possessed by certain viruses, including RNA viruses, and is not applicable to vaccines. The fact that viruses, in general, possess the capability to alter our DNA should be a topic of concern deserving greater attention. Based on my understanding, the Epstein-Barr virus, commonly referred to as the kissing disease, is prevalent in over 90% of individuals. DNA modifications it induces significantly contribute to the development of potentially lethal lymphomas in later stages of life. It is important to note that this relationship is not merely a correlation, but rather a causative factor. If we are genuinely concerned about the impact on our DNA, it is prudent to prioritize viruses, rather than vaccines, and direct greater attention towards them.
The issue of vaccine efficacy is subject to varying perspectives. Some individuals assert that the vaccine’s effectiveness is insufficient, citing instances where vaccinated individuals still contract the virus. This leads them to question the vaccine’s efficacy due to its innovative and relatively untested nature. Moreover, concerns regarding the safety of the vaccine are raised, as it is argued that it elicits an excess of adverse effects. However, as discussed earlier, I encourage skeptics to identify a medical intervention that guarantees 100% efficacy and devoid of potential, yet acceptable, side effects. To date, no conclusive examples have been provided, rendering the entire argument against the new vaccine essentially unfounded. Furthermore, even e.g. the “well-tested” TBE [FSME] vaccine exhibits limited efficacy: “All the vaccines gave seroconversion rates of over 87%”[66] and three shots are part of complete immunisation accordingly. Many individuals who are opposed to the current vaccinations willingly choose to receive TBE vaccines in the hopes of attaining some level of protection, despite the possibility that such protection may not be fully effective. It is worth noting that these individuals do not typically voice concerns about the TBE vaccine’s efficacy. Critics may argue that this vaccine is voluntary, as opposed to compulsory, presenting a straw-man fallacy, because a tick bite does not result in a global pandemic or strain the healthcare system as severely as the SARS virus does.
Unverified assertions concerning the efficacy and adverse effects of vaccines warrant a thoughtful response. Consider the following analogy: Picture yourself behind the wheel of a vehicle, when suddenly, a portion of your braking system malfunctions [based on whether it is divided diagonally or longitudinally]. The line of reasoning against vaccines is akin to suggesting that “if brakes are not operating at 100% efficiency, it is preferable to refrain from braking altogether! Instead, allow the car to coast and come to a halt naturally, or by means of collision with another object, as the potential risks to life remain unchanged, be it with 50% or 0% braking capacity available!”
When considering the scenario of disease or pathogen mutation, such occurrences introduce novel challenges. In such cases, the adaptation of existing vaccines becomes necessary in order to enhance their effectiveness. However, even previously developed medications may still offer some level of assistance. For example, if a previous medication is capable of increasing immunity by a mere 2 percent, these incremental improvements can play a significant role in determining whether a patient experiences mild symptoms or requires the assistance of a respirator. This principle also holds true for vaccines targeting the SARS-2 virus. The administration of vaccines across different variants has demonstrated a noticeable increase in the likelihood that patients, if infected, will experience a mild, moderate, or even asymptomatic course of the disease. The fundamental purpose of any vaccine is to assist the body in successfully navigating an infection and ultimately surviving it. Assertions that a vaccine must possess the ability to completely prevent the transmission and dissemination of pathogens in order to be deemed effective are pure nonsense. While many vaccines do indeed confer this added benefit, it is not an essential criterion for assessing their efficacy. Hence, in the context of emerging viral strains, the effectiveness of vaccines may be somewhat diminished, yet remains vital in facilitating recovery post-infection, until a more updated vaccine is developed. For instance, consider the Omicron variant of SARS-CoV-2, which exemplifies the rapid pace of scientific inquiry: On Dec. 1st 2021 one of the first publications about Omicron’s infectivity, vaccine breakthrough, and antibody resistance has stated:
“At this moment, the scientific community knows little about Omicron’s infectivity, vaccine breakthrough, and antibody resistance. … Therefore, the study of Omicron’s 15 RBD mutations can lead to valuable understanding of Omicron’s infectivity, vaccine breakthrough, and antibody resistance. … Based on a well-tested and experimentally confirmed deep learning model trained with tens of thousands of experimental data, we investigate the impacts of Omicron’s RBD mutations to its infectivity. We show that Omicron is about ten times more infectious than the original virus or about twice as infectious as the Delta variant. Using the structures of 132 known antibody-RBD complexes, we reveal that Omicron’s vaccine-escape capability is about twice as high as that of the Delta variant.” [67]
A week later on Dec. 8th 2021 a publication about Insights on the mutational landscape of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant which states that:
“Our analyses suggest that as compared to previous variants of concern, the Omicron variant has increased antibody escape breadth due to mutations in class 3 and 4 antibody epitopes as well as increased escape depth due to accumulated mutations in class 1 antibody epitopes.”[68]
A further week later, on Dec. 14th 2021, the most important publication concerning vaccine efficacy came out “mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine boosters induce neutralizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant”, which states following [whole summary]:
“Recent surveillance has revealed the emergence of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (BA.1/B.1.1.529) harboring up to 36 mutations in spike protein, the target of vaccine-induced neutralizing antibodies. Given its potential to escape vaccine-induced humoral immunity, we measured neutralization potency of sera from 88 mRNA-1273, 111 BNT162b, and 40 Ad26.COV2.S vaccine recipients against wild type, Delta, and Omicron SARS-CoV-2 pseudoviruses. We included individuals that were vaccinated recently (<3 months), distantly (6-12 months), or recently boosted, and accounted for prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. Remarkably, neutralization of Omicron was undetectable in most vaccinated individuals. However, individuals boosted with mRNA vaccines exhibited potent neutralization of Omicron only 4-6-fold lower than wild type, suggesting that boosters enhance the cross-reactivity of neutralizing antibody responses. In addition, we find Omicron pseudovirus is more infectious than any other variant tested. Overall, this study highlights the importance of boosters to broaden neutralizing antibody responses against highly divergent SARS-CoV-2 variants.”[69]
These examples—small warning: studies are not yet peer-reviewed—clearly show how far our technology has advanced, enabling us to use visibly faster methods for research, testing, and production of modern medicine. We no longer live in the 90s or decades prior, where we can use them as a benchmark for the contemporary effectiveness of development and research. Those who subconsciously or consciously rely on such benchmarks demonstrate that they are not keeping up with the state-of-the-art scientific inquiry methods and advancements. It is highly likely that their conclusions and analyses will be incorrect in numerous aspects. Naturally, there will always exist medical scenarios where, despite the administration of medication or vaccines, a patient experiences severe illness or mortality. Such occurrences can only be mitigated to some extent by harnessing modern scientific advancements.
Regarding side effects, it is important to acknowledge that all medications carry some degree of risk. As previously mentioned, over 8 billion vaccine doses have been administered worldwide, with individuals often receiving multiple doses. Given the extensive and rapid distribution of vaccines, it is reasonable to expect a higher number of reported side effects if the concerns raised by vaccine skeptics were valid. Millions of proven severe side effects [causal, not correlative!] cases were anticipated by them; however, the actual number falls significantly below expectations. Despite prolonged usage and extensive testing since the 1970s, certain vaccines still disclose potential severe side effects. In some cases, the inherent risks must be accepted to ensure the well-being and survival of a majority of the global population. The achievement of such a goal would simply be a fantasy in the absence of modern medicine and vaccines. Individuals who struggle with accepting authority may be inclined to endorse unfounded claims regarding the effectiveness and safety of medical interventions. Inevitably, demanding “100% efficacy – 100% safety!” policy is ridiculous. The potential negative effects of the vaccine are significantly less severe when compared to the known post-Covid-19 infection consequences. This is particularly worrisome for individuals who have chosen not to receive the vaccine, as it may be reminiscent of the impact experienced during the unrestrained spread of the 1918 flu pandemic, a time when a vaccine was not yet available. Notably, survivors or individuals born during that period were at a heightened risk of developing various illnesses later in life:
“But beyond the high death toll, the full impact of the 1918–1919 pandemic wouldn’t be realized until more than 60 years later. In 2009, Finch and Crimmins published a study examining epidemiological data on individuals born in 1919, who were newborns or second- or third-trimester fetuses during the height of the pandemic. The data revealed that these individuals had approximately 25% more heart disease after age 60, as well as increased diabetes risk, compared to a similar cohort of individuals not born in 1919, including those who were older infants during the pandemic.” [71]
Hence, when individuals begin to assert that the Covid-19 vaccine poses a predicament, it is advisable for them to peruse the statistical evidence pertaining to the post-pandemic health complications stemming from diseases for which no vaccine was accessible. By doing so, they will comprehend that viruses inflict more profound and enduring harm on our well-being. The oversimplified attribution of all SARS-2 post-pandemic health issues merely to the vaccine lacks any substantiated basis. In addition, the number of required immunization shots for a particular disease is contingent upon the pathogen’s capacity for mutability. In the event that a virus exhibits frequent and rapid mutations, it is logical to infer a continuous need for the development of vaccines against new strains. In the case of SARS viruses, a significant breakthrough would be achieved if a method could be devised to periodically create new vaccines that confer immunity against evolving mutations, akin to the approach employed for influenza. This is particularly crucial given that SARS affects distinct organs in diverse manners. There are indications suggesting that this virus could have deleterious impacts on specific organs during early childhood development.
————-
Here I will end this short, sometimes annoying and aggressive, exposition about scientific [il]literacy. I hope I could inspire or at least irritate You to think about space exploration, the pandemic, and other ongoing phenomena in a different way than it was previously the case. Scientific literacy, as one very profound reasoning ability, affects our decision-making process in a way that no other type of reasoning does. It helps us in the rational identification of useful questions and ideas in the vast cosmos of scientific truth and in connecting these with probable scenarios that do not require filling the missing gaps of ignorance with superstition or with the most unlikely outcomes. In short, it allows us to be ignorant and to say: “I do not know! Yet I won’t allow being susceptible to empty demagogy”, as well as to work on minimizing that ignorance. If I somehow succeeded at least in irritating the reader to question his/her own viewpoints, then my weird way of science communication was successful.
Sometimes, however, science communication meets very hard walls, and any prospect to inspire someone to grasp what scientific literacy is falls into a conversational black hole. Why is that the case? Well, people usually suppose that they are able to think critically, as well as that such reasoning is more than enough to assert anything. One has only to visit various video platforms where some bloggers go beyond their critical capacity and address some questions in very simplified and fallacious manners. If they want to critique movies, cars, actors, or the economy, then so be it. But occasionally, everyone leaves their main topical confinements and addresses themes that cannot be explained using the style of movie criticism. To question someone’s critical abilities is definitely not welcomed. Trust me, I have been there, and I am still there. Sometimes there are those who mistakenly interpret their wittiness, i.e. “being street smart”, as a critical or scientifically literate way of thinking. Surely, they possess a very effective language, and if one tries to communicate with them intellectually, it is more likely that one will fail to present the topic and arguments properly.
For instance, I am a typical book learner. I have a tendency to write and speak from a scientifically literate perspective. However, every time I talk with people who are scientifically illiterate or who have never studied anything, yet possess wittiness, I bump into a huge problem in presenting my arguments. These people are as quick as a whip and are very street smart – all due to their “experience” or sometimes they are educated people who indeed possess a nice vocabulary and rhetorical advantage. How to react to this is an individual decision. However, I would like to offer a personal remark: every time I see that the debate tends to go in the direction of ideological convictions/worldviews, as well as it slowly enters the premises of confirmation bias, I simply try to de-escalate the conversation – if possible – and exclude myself from the dialogue as soon as it goes. I always keep in mind that someone’s inability [sometimes: unwillingness] to understand or to adapt their personal worldviews according to the actual and not cherry-picked scientific data is not a valid argument against it and neither is it my fault, for that matter. The following saying, too often falsely attributed to Mark Twain: “Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience!” [70] describes my modus operandi much more accurately. That being said, I still like to think I do not leave conversations too quickly. At least I am there as long as the combination of my irritating, cynical, and sometimes funny [I hope so] assertions push even the most hard-core quack into some thinking.
But, if one debates publicly, then it’s a public service and it is for the benefit of those watching. In that case, I would surely stay until the end. I have seen lots of and participated in some public debates between opposing viewpoints. Scientists vs pseudoscientists, climate change deniers vs climate scientists, creationists vs evolution scientists, etc. Many of the debates are/were fruitful and interesting. Yet, nobody in the audience, nor I, expected to see that scientifically illiterate individual actually change its viewpoint and at the end of the debate say, “Wow, you are right! What a silly thing I’ve been saying all these years!”. That would be too much and too optimistic to expect. The only thing which remains is to stay calm and not to fall for fallacious argumentation yourself. Therefore, stay vigilant in identifying nonsense!
I find books, webpages and graphics, which are suitable for kids as great starting point for acquiring some insights about specific bio-chemistry subjects. They are easy to understand and help a lot in creating a first structured scientific filter, which allows early detection of quackery and pseudoscientific claims:
- RNA Lesson for Kids – Video & Lesson Transcript | Study.com
- What Are Germs? (for Kids) – Nemours KidsHealth
- Meet the primary players of your immune system | by Jennifer Jhang | Medium
- DNA from the Beginning – An animated primer of 75 experiments that made modern genetics. (dnaftb.org)
- Protein Synthesis (biology-questions-and-answers.com)
- RelativeSizeofParticles-Infographic-1920px_v8.jpg (1920×1080) (visualcapitalist.com)
- Relative size of airborne respiratory pathogens. | Download Scientific Diagram (researchgate.net)
- Science surgery: “What’s the difference between the words genome, gene and chromosome?” – Cancer Research UK – Cancer news
[1] Salman Rushdie: ‘I Stand With Charlie Hebdo, as We All Must’ – WSJ; last time acquired 12.12.2021
[2] For example: Professor Dave Explains – YouTube; Anton Petrov – YouTube; Conspiracy Toonz – YouTube; Dave McKeegan – YouTube
[3] 147 Visual Phenomena & Optical Illusions (michaelbach.de); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[4] E.g. James Tour who was debunked many times by Dave Farina (in Professor Dave Explains series)
[5] As historian Jacob Steere-Williams emphasize: ““Historically speaking,” he explains, “these myriad responses reemerge from pandemic to pandemic in recycling patterns of seemingly historical truisms. We ignore, we deny, we blame.””; Troubling Parallels: Using Historical Analysis to Understand Pandemics of the Past (wiley.com); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[6] I. Kant claimed that vaccines transfer animal traits on humans; Geschichte: Impfgegner vor 200 Jahren – science.ORF.at; last time acquired 12.12.2021
[7] More here (in German): „Kritik ähnlich wie vor 200 Jahren“ | kurier.at; last time acquired 12.12.2021
Also here (in German): Historiker Malte Thießen: Warum es beim Impfen ans Eingemachte geht | Gesellschaft | BR KulturBühne | BR.de; last time acquired 12.12.2021
And here: Frontiers | Societal Impacts of Pandemics: Comparing COVID-19 With History to Focus Our Response | Public Health (frontiersin.org); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[8] e.g. Homeopathy: Switzerland – The European Committee for Homeopathy (homeopathyeurope.org)
[9] Johannes Fischler: New cAge (Aschaffenburg, Alibri Verlag, 2017), p.147
[10] One such group is active in Austria as well: https://www.initiative-corona.info/
[11] A summarized information in English about the Founder Dr. Christian Fiala is not easy to find. On Wikipedia there is a summarized version in German: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Fiala or in German: https://www.psiram.com/de/index.php/Christian_Fiala
[12] In order to declare something as theory it must be proven first. A conspiracy as a term exist in legal sciences also, which is usually part of criminal law and defined as criminal offense. Therefore, I reject use of the term “conspiracy theory” because, until proven plausible, such claim is simply an empty claim.
[13] Planck Time | COSMOS (swin.edu.au); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[14] As you see, it so very easy to develop conspiracy out of anything in order to connect missing points and data in one [surely, nonsensical] thought
[15] More about him and his motivations here: Andrew Wakefield – RationalWiki; last time acquired 12.12.2021
[16] Anti-vaccination movement – RationalWiki; last time acquired 12.12.2021
[17] For this purpose, I would recommend a literary work written by well-known evolutionary biologist and paleoanthropologist Daniel E. Lieberman: The Story of the Human Body: Evolution, Health and Disease
[18] „Man hat gesagt, das ist nicht liberal, es geht um die Eigenentscheidung. Es gibt so viele Bereiche, in den man indirekt dazu gezwungen wird“;.More here (in German):„Kritik ähnlich wie vor 200 Jahren“ | kurier.at; last time acquired 15.12.2021
[19] Very nicely described in the David Attenborough’s book “A Life on Our Planet: My Witness Statement and a Vision for the Future”
[20] To name a few: Professor Dave Explains – YouTube; SciManDan – YouTube; Conspiracy Toonz – YouTube; Dave McKeegan – YouTube
[21] One of my first databases, I poured yearly through, was/is the National Library of Medicine – National Center for Biotechnology Information; In respect to SARS-2 Viruses one can search about it here: SARS-CoV-2 Resources – NCBI (nih.gov); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[22] In this respect I use following quote:
“Please stop saying you researched it. You didn’t research anything and it is highly probable you don’t know how to do
so. Did you compile a literature review and write abstracts on each article? Or better yet, did you collect a random sample of sources and perform independent probability statistics on the reported results? No?
Did you at least take each article one by one and look into the source (that would be the author, publisher and funder), then critique the writing for logical fallacies, cognitive distortions and plain inaccuracies? Did you ask yourself why this source might publish these particular results? Did you follow the trail of references and apply the same source of scrutiny to them? No? Then you didn’t … research anything. You read or watched a video, most likely with little or no objectivity. You came across something in your algorithm manipulated feed, something that jived with your implicit biases and served your confirmation bias, and subconsciously applied your emotional filters and called it proof.” – Linda Gamble Spadaro; https://conversational-leadership.net/quotation/stop-saying-you-researched-it/
[23] More about here: CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH AND SARS – Learning from SARS – NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov); last time acquired 10.12.2021
[24] Full article: No credible evidence supporting claims of the laboratory engineering of SARS-CoV-2 (tandfonline.com); last time acquired 10.12.2021
[25] There is the case of Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases whose statements were often cherry-picked and misused for purposes of claiming that SARS-Viruses were bioengineered. Please read following fact-check archives concerning his case in order to understand the processes and terms that Dr. Fauci addressed publicly and in his E-Mail correspondences:
Fact-checking the Paul-Fauci flap over Wuhan lab funding – The Washington Post;
Dr. Anthony Fauci Archives – FactCheck.org
All acquired 01.01.2022
[26] More about here: Did coronavirus come from a lab? | New Scientist and The COVID lab-leak hypothesis: what scientists do and don’t know (nature.com); last time acquired 10.12.2021
[27] ORIGINS OF MAJOR HUMAN INFECTIOUS DISEASES – Improving Food Safety Through a One Health Approach – NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov); last time acquired 10.12.2021
[28] Update on Omicron (who.int); last time acquired 10.12.2021
[29] More about here: CORONAVIRUS RESEARCH AND SARS – Learning from SARS – NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[30] “Working with a live virus is costly and very involved, requiring that researchers use special biosafety laboratories and wear bulky personal protective equipment so that the virus is ‘biocontained,’ and no one gets infected,” Maquat says; More about here: COVID-19 vaccine: What’s RNA research got to do with it? : NewsCenter (rochester.edu); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[31] “In 2007, Maquat founded The Center for RNA Biology as a means of conducting interdisciplinary research in the function, structure, and processing of RNAs. The Center involves researchers from both the River Campus and the Medical Center, combining expertise in biology, chemistry, engineering, neurology, and pharmacology”; More about here: COVID-19 vaccine: What’s RNA research got to do with it? : NewsCenter (rochester.edu); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[32] From SARS to MERS: 10 years of research on highly pathogenic human coronaviruses – ScienceDirect; last time acquired 12.12.2021
[33] From SARS to MERS: 10 years of research on highly pathogenic human coronaviruses – ScienceDirect
[34] Neil deGrasse Tyson blames U.S. schools for flat-Earthers — and teachers aren’t amused – The Washington Post; last time acquired 10.12.2021
[35] More about it here: From SARS and MERS to COVID-19: a brief summary and comparison of severe acute respiratory infections caused by three highly pathogenic human coronaviruses | Respiratory Research | Full Text (biomedcentral.com); Published: 27 August 2020; last time acquired 23.10.2020
[36] Frontiers | Pandemics Throughout History | Microbiology (frontiersin.org); last time acquired 10.12.2021
[37] History of Infectious Diseases (news-medical.net); last time acquired 10.12.2021
[38] More about it here: COVID-19 vaccine: How was it developed so fast? (medicalnewstoday.com); last time acquired 12.12.2021
As well here: Vaccine Q&A: How Long Does It Take to Make Vaccines? | NC State News (ncsu.edu); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[39] An article concerning that topic: Scientists opposing Corona measures – The Line between Healthy Scientific Scepticism and providing support to the absurd QAnon movement | Lars Jaeger
[40] For example: Italian anti-vaxxer fuels doubt over COVID-19 danger in Russia and Ukraine | by @DFRLab | DFRLab | Medium; Published: 14 April 2020; last time acquired 12.10.2021
[41] “Ärzte für Aufklärung” verbreiten irreführende Behauptungen über Covid-19 (correctiv.org); last time acquired 23.10.2021
„Ärzte für Aufklärung“ stellen unbelegte und falsche Behauptungen zu Impfungen auf (correctiv.org); last time acquired 23.10.2021
[42] Everyone should know that any object that obstructs movement will cause the object in motion to encounter resistance. It is basic physics, 101! In this case, we are talking about aerodynamics. In this regard, I would like to recommend two self-explanatory scientific videos about physical experiments with masks: How Well Do Masks Work? (Schlieren Imaging In Slow Motion!) and High-speed camera captures how different types of face masks work
[43] More about (in English): Robert Malone: Vaccine Scientist, Vaccine Skeptic – The Atlantic; last time acquired 12.12.2021
More about (in German): Robert Malone: Wie ein Impfforscher zur Symbolfigur der Impfkritiker wurde (rnd.de); last time acquired 12.12.2021
[44] 6077.full.pdf (pnas.org); last time acquired 12.01.2018
[45] Direct Gene Transfer into Mouse Muscle in Vivo (science.org); last time acquired 23.09.2018
[46] Usually my fellow countrymen [Balkan people] view him as a cultural idol, regardless of any factual reality regarding Tesla’s role in science whatsoever.
[47] Just to name few: Benjamin Franklin, Allesandro Volta, Wilhelm Webber, Andre-Marie Ampere, Georg Ohm. These also sat on shoulders of previous scientists who pawed the way for future scientific work.
[48] More in the following articles that analyses R. Malone’s claims.
In English:
Scientist Misleads on COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness and Vaccine Safety for Children – FactCheck.org
FACT FOCUS: Unfounded theory used to dismiss COVID measures | AP News
All acquired on 01.02.2022
[49] More about: The development of mRNA vaccines was a collaborative effort; Robert Malone contributed to their development, but he is not their inventor – Health Feedback; Published on: 26 Aug 2021; last time acquired 05.09.2021
[50] An mRNA Pioneer Discusses How Her Work Led to the COVID Vaccines – Scientific American; published 15 September 2021; last time acquired 27.09.2021
[51] More about vaccine, statistics, as well as about adverse event reaction frequency after vaccination:
Stats.: COVID-19 vaccine doses by country | Statista; last time acquired 23.12.2021
Safety: Vaccine safety | NCIRS; last time acquired 23.12.2021
About adverse events (AEFI): Vaccine Adverse Events: Separating Myth from Reality – American Family Physician (aafp.org); Published: 15 June 2017; last time acquired 23.12.2021
Surveillance for Adverse Events After COVID-19 mRNA Vaccination | Vaccination | JAMA | JAMA Network; Published: 3 September 2021; last time acquired 23.12.2021
COVID-19: Allergic reactions to SARS-CoV-2 vaccines – UpToDate; ongoing peer-review report and statistic; last time acquired 23.12.2021
COVID-19 vaccine safety: Weekly report on side effects following immunization – Canada.ca; ongoing report and statistic; last time acquired 23.12.2021
Safety of COVID-19 vaccines | European Medicines Agency (europa.eu); ongoing report and statistic; last time acquired 23.12.2021
Selected Adverse Events Reported after COVID-19 Vaccination | CDC; ongoing report and statistic; last time acquired 23.12.2021
[52] Comparable with other vaccines in use: WHO vaccine reaction rates information sheets; last time acquired 23.12.2021; polio-vaccine-rates-information-sheet.pdf (who.int); last time acquired 23.12.2021 MODULE 3 – Rates of adverse vaccine reactions – WHO Vaccine Safety Basics (vaccine-safety-training.org); last time acquired 23.12.2021
[53] How We Know That the COVID-19 Vaccines Work | Office for Science and Society – McGill University; last time acquired 26.12.2021
[54] Clinical Trial of Ivermectin Plus Doxycycline for the Treatment of Confirmed Covid-19 Infection – Full Text View – ClinicalTrials.gov; and following Publication: Ivermectin in combination with doxycycline for treating COVID-19 symptoms: a randomized trial – PubMed (nih.gov); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[55] Bias as a source of inconsistency in ivermectin trials for COVID-19: A systematic review. Ivermectin’s suggested benefits are mainly based on potentially biased results – PubMed (nih.gov); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[56] The broad spectrum host-directed agent ivermectin as an antiviral for SARS-CoV-2 ? (nih.gov); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[57] From hydroxychloroquine to ivermectin: what are the anti-viral properties of anti-parasitic drugs to combat SARS-CoV-2? – PubMed (nih.gov); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[58] Ivermectin for preventing and treating COVID‐19 (nih.gov); last time acquired 25.12.2021
[59] The broad spectrum host-directed agent ivermectin as an antiviral for SARS-CoV-2 ? (nih.gov); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[60] More about „From DNA to RNA”: From DNA to RNA – Molecular Biology of the Cell – NCBI Bookshelf (nih.gov) ; last time acquired 24.12.2021
[61] More detailed explanation of how mRNA vaccine works: Developing mRNA-vaccine technologies (nih.gov); Important notice: this publication is from November 2012; last time acquired 24.12.2021
[62] How do vector vaccines work? | Covid-19 vaccination explained (naturalsciences.ch); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[63] Does the vector vaccine affect our DNA? | Covid-19 vaccination explained (naturalsciences.ch); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[64] Have vector vaccines already been used against other diseases? | Covid-19 vaccination explained (naturalsciences.ch); last time acquired 24.12.2021
[65] Mutations: Stop that nonsense! | eLife (elifesciences.org); last time acquired 25.12.2021
[66] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6532705/; last time acquired 25.12.2021
[67] Omicron (B.1.1.529): Infectivity, vaccine breakthrough, and antibody resistance (nih.gov); last time acquired 26.12.2021
[68] Insights on the mutational landscape of the SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (nih.gov); last time acquired 26.12.2021
[69] mRNA-based COVID-19 vaccine boosters induce neutralizing immunity against SARS-CoV-2 Omicron variant (nih.gov); last time acquired 26.12.2021
[70] Mark Twain in fact said following quote: “Never argue with a fool; onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
[71] A century of COVID-19: what history tells us about the long-term effects of a pandemic
Scientifically Literate Junction 
