I’d like to clarify my position further and to address the different perspectives involved in these discussions. While I understand your rationale and the weight you place on refuting misinformation, I think our approaches diverge on how best to engage with both the evidence and the audience.
First, I want to acknowledge that the balance of evidence, as it currently stands, does support the safety and efficacy of vaccines. I agree that there is no credible evidence to suggest vaccines are deadly to young athletes and that this study adds meaningful data to the discussion. However, as someone in academia, I am trained to scrutinize studies critically—not just for what they conclude, but also for what they leave unresolved. The study’s methodological limitations and the absence of certain critical data points cannot be ignored, even when the broader balance of evidence aligns with its general findings.
Your approach to “winning” over antivaxxers by swiftly and decisively refuting their claims makes sense in a layperson’s context. For those outside academia, a clear and assertive stance might feel like the most effective way to counter bad-faith narratives. However, from an academic perspective, I approach these situations differently. Science is not about issuing verdicts but rather about fostering inquiry, dialogue, and a deeper understanding of the complexities involved. A rigorous critique of methodology is not “nit-picking”; it’s a necessary component of ensuring that studies withstand scrutiny and that their findings are interpreted appropriately.
Moreover, I believe that framing these discussions as “victories” or “defeats” risks reinforcing a binary mindset that is counterproductive to the goals of science. The aim is not to “win” against individuals but to collectively elevate the level of discourse and understanding for everyone—whether they are staunchly opposed or simply unsure. For example, those who are vaccine-hesitant but open to evidence may be more influenced by a tone that emphasizes scientific rigor and nuance rather than categorical dismissals. While bad-faith actors may not change their views, the broader audience observing these interactions includes individuals who might find a more measured approach persuasive.
I reiterate that science is an iterative process. Evidence evolves, methodologies improve, and conclusions are refined over time. As such, even when a study supports our broader arguments, we must remain cautious about overstating its implications. This doesn’t diminish its importance—it enhances the credibility of the evidence by acknowledging its scope and limitations.
While I share your commitment to countering misinformation, I believe that the path to fostering trust in science lies in a balanced approach. It’s about presenting evidence with integrity, critiquing it with fairness, and engaging with others in a way that encourages inquiry rather than alienation. The real “victory,” in my view, is not in defeating individuals but in advancing a shared understanding of truth.
Cheers,
Gui
