JonDouglas
Senior Member
- Location
- New England
That's the article in MedPage. An excerpt:
— Policy must be based on indisputable evidence. Over the last year, one message has been clearly emphasized: trust science. Evidence, and only high-quality evidence, will form the basis for policy. How has this influenced the coronavirus vaccine campaign? On the one hand, there has been strict adherence to scientific rigor when it fits the desired narrative. On the other hand, scientists may differ in how they interpret the science. For example, some insist treatments are only "evidence-based" when they were evaluated in a double-blind randomized clinical trial and applied using protocols that exactly mirror the research studies. Others are willing to accept evidence from modeling exercises based on questionable assumptions. Yet, when advocating for greater acceptance of vaccines, the scientific standard is far from uniform. When communicating with the public, the same scientists may apply different standards depending on whether study conclusions fit the desired message.
Why would the world's greatest scientific thinkers apply the "good science" label so inconsistently? Perhaps the best explanation is what psychologists call confirmation bias, which is the tendency to interpret observations or data in a manner consistent with previously established beliefs and values. Thousands of studies conducted over the last 50 years show how confirmation bias clouds conclusions in the sciences, the arts, politics, judicial decisions, finance, and medicine. Nobel laureate Daniel Kahneman, PhD, has contributed numerous examples showing how, even among the most experienced scientists, preconceived notions color the interpretation of data and events. And worse, prior beliefs influence how we scrutinize information. Studies have consistently shown that people uncritically accept evidence that confirms their beliefs, while subjecting disconfirming information to rigorous skeptical evaluation.
More at Source.
You should have noted that the authors are not anti-vaccine. Also, by law every drug should have it's side effects made known and listed, especially for experimental drugs like the mRNS vaccines. Such does, as the author suggests, lead back to the complicated morass of vaccine advocacy, science, and confirmation bias.