Seems like studying the vaccines themselves, the vaccine schedules, and other specifics might be the best way to address vaccine hesitancy. I had no hesitancy when I had my daughter vaccinated 40 years ago. Now I believe I would feel differently. Nothing like valid repeatable studies to help quell (or to validate) concerns.
This is the whole issue, the types of studies capable of really settling new questions are too difficult to secure funding for so instead it's just an endless back and forth without anything new added to the evidence base. It's like reading one of those who kidnapped Madeleine McCann forums, just endless rehashings of the same insufficient evidence. It's not bad evidence, it's just that new questions come to light, new drugs come on the market, and there needs to be a lot more basic science and less ivory tower polemics.
I am starting to feel as if the federal bureaucracy is like a massage parlor that is a front for prostitution and child sex trafficking... Yes, there are some legitimate therapies occurring and some clients are seeing health benefits. But beneath the facade, a lot of nefarious activities are underway. So when the police shut down the "massage parlor" the media shrieks about the poor folks who are no longer able to get a massage, but not a word about the value of shutting down the seedy part of the operation.
Agree completely with your conclusion that much publicly funded "scientific research" is basically useless and contributes nothing to our understanding of the gravely important issues. Each of these pointless studies takes dollars away from truly useful research activities. The hubris of many scientists, and certainly the most visible government Public Health officials during the COVID pandemic contributed to distrust and vaccine hesitancy. Pretending this is not a factor in the ongoing problem of negative vaccine perception and erosion of trust in science more generally will never help solve the problem. See my writings on Substack: Jeffrey Kocher MD. "Clear and Present Thinking"
Science Researchers aren't of the same quality that they were a generation ago.
I earned a PhD in the 1990s in social science. I literally would be embarrassed to have published any of those studies mentioned in the post.............While I was still teaching at a university (as a visiting professor), the department routinely assigned me to teach social science statistics. This was a core course needed by undergraduates from education to history to psychology. The truth of why I always taught those courses is that they had hired permanent faculty that weren't "comfortable" teaching basic statistics. And the students they attracted had hard time doing math, so I had to take as much math out of the course as possible in order to teach it.
Not terribly impressed with the NIH since it seems they clearly haven't a flaming clue what it means to be male or female. Something that one would think it would be essential to whatever services they're providing.
For example, they rather cluelessly insist that "every cell has a sex":
NIH: "FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Every Cell Has a Sex
The biological differences between the sexes ...."
For one thing, not every cell -- red blood cells for example -- have X or Y chromosomes. For another, going by Trump's EO that to have a sex is to produce large or small "reproductive cells", there is no way on gawd's green earth that any liver or heart cell is going to be producing those reproductive cells.
I clicked on the link. That's the Institute of Medicine, not the NIH, right? "Every Cell Has a Sex" is a silly and wrong section subtitle, but the section itself is not silly and wrong. Someone should have edited it out. The report doesn't stand or fall on it. Take a look for yourself.
Thanks for your comment. But if you look at the URL it says "www -- ncbi -- nlm -- NIH" -- and NIH is what Vinay was talking about.
I haven't the foggiest idea how those three organizations tie together and exactly what are their various roles. But you might take a gander at this article on the "Committee and Staff Biographies" which has 14 matches on "National Institutes of Health":
As for your "last sentence" -- mine? In that case my point is that it is our bodies that produce large or small "reproductive cells" in our gonads -- ovaries or testicles -- and not in our individual heart, liver, or kidney cells. Those other organ cells -- heart, etc. -- simply cannot produce those reproductive cells.
The problem with his “hatchet” to cut of NIH grant funding is that it not only cuts worthless research studies, but good research that ask important questions with good analytical methods. I am looking forward to the health economist, Jay Bhattacharya, becoming the NIH Director. One of his top goals is to reform the NIH in order to decrease the incidence of poor vs good studies. Remember the old saying: The enemy of good is perfection.
Let’s face it, half the country appears to be against cutting anything or anyone. Or is it just that it’s Trump? Or Elon? Hatchet or scalpel? I’d say 37 trillion in debt requires many hatchets.
as an "enfant terrible" during the height of the Covid ordeal, you wrote such intelligent and refreshing pieces in response to governmental orthodoxy. The problem today is very different; Musk could care less about "reviewing" any of the studies funded by the federal agencies he's gutting. I'm more interesting in stopping him than giving cover to his reckless behavior.
I know that it is not common knowledge among parents here, but the HPV vaccination rate is extremely high in the UK. A vaccine to prevent cancer!!!! I am looking forward to the day when there is a vaccine to prevent breast cancer. I know there are a few studies going on now.
Let's agree that vaccination and its effects is an important research topic. I hope that NIH will continue to fund *some* vaccine research, and that the funding will depend on assessment of scientific merit. Jay Bhattacharya is a serious guy, so I'm hoping the answer is yes. But I'm in the middle of preparing a vaccine-related grant proposal, and I'm deeply worried that the answer will turn out to be no.
Thank you, Vinay! Can’t get more common sense than your article!
The more and more of this wasteful spending I see across so many areas of our government, the more I feel that corruption and fraudulent use of taxpayer money (am sure many have pocketed tons!) as the likely motive behind all this madness. Or could so many in power really be so stupid??
Comments are less crazy than usual. Or maybe it’s just cuz I blocked all those with TDS – Trump derangement syndrome on the red side. Cuts are great. I’m the cheapest person you’ll ever meet. But why do we have to raise the debt ceiling if we are making the necessary cuts. For the billionaires of course. National debt goes down when a democrat is president. Fox never reports it. I didn’t read the piece by the way because you keep saying the same thing. Broken record VKP.
Whether expert, scientist, guru, authority, head, chief, or whatever label you assign someone (or they assert) as a reference with veracity to a point, the fraction of cases where such reference is due precisely, in actual knowledge, relevance, AND objective unbiased context, is very small. It's too bad that this problem is exacerbated by greater community (and ~press) extrapolations, where a majority of those engaging typically have much less qualification to judge than the average professional trained only in the subject. As usual, Vinay reiterates well some of the analysis necessary to vet and build any given case if you strive to truly understand, and certainly to participate in any attached decisions of significant. Strive for less skim, more depth and breadth.
Vinay, I love your work but Trump's demands on Columbia are based on bogus reasons -- the university did not put Jewish students at risk, nor did the student protests. Israel is not a sacred cow and protests against it are part of American political discourse.
I try to stay out of this discussion because I am neither american nor a trump fan.
But the world is not black and white, it seems a bit unreasonable to me that everything Trump administration does it is bad.
I don't know the reasons behind all of NIH grants (that should be an interesting study btw), but just by looking at this field of vaccine hesitancy, it doesn't seem good. Obtaining NIH grants for narrative reviews? Well, I wish that research in general was better funded in my country and practice. But it seems odd ti me to give a full grant just for producing a narrative review (specially in a time where LLM will probably do it such as good or even better because less opinative).
I think we should avoid our political biases and look at each topic the most unbiased and critical possible (not saying it's easy). As JM usually says, "as a neutral martian".
I assume by narrative reviews you are not referring to qualitative studies, correct? I am a quantitative researcher, but I understand the value of qual analysis. The ideal causal study is a mix-methods design. Sometimes getting the quant & qual researchers to collaborate can be challenging because some of my colleagues are disdainful of the value of qualitative research. Also, these are more expensive studies. Sigh
Seems like studying the vaccines themselves, the vaccine schedules, and other specifics might be the best way to address vaccine hesitancy. I had no hesitancy when I had my daughter vaccinated 40 years ago. Now I believe I would feel differently. Nothing like valid repeatable studies to help quell (or to validate) concerns.
This is the whole issue, the types of studies capable of really settling new questions are too difficult to secure funding for so instead it's just an endless back and forth without anything new added to the evidence base. It's like reading one of those who kidnapped Madeleine McCann forums, just endless rehashings of the same insufficient evidence. It's not bad evidence, it's just that new questions come to light, new drugs come on the market, and there needs to be a lot more basic science and less ivory tower polemics.
I am starting to feel as if the federal bureaucracy is like a massage parlor that is a front for prostitution and child sex trafficking... Yes, there are some legitimate therapies occurring and some clients are seeing health benefits. But beneath the facade, a lot of nefarious activities are underway. So when the police shut down the "massage parlor" the media shrieks about the poor folks who are no longer able to get a massage, but not a word about the value of shutting down the seedy part of the operation.
Agree completely with your conclusion that much publicly funded "scientific research" is basically useless and contributes nothing to our understanding of the gravely important issues. Each of these pointless studies takes dollars away from truly useful research activities. The hubris of many scientists, and certainly the most visible government Public Health officials during the COVID pandemic contributed to distrust and vaccine hesitancy. Pretending this is not a factor in the ongoing problem of negative vaccine perception and erosion of trust in science more generally will never help solve the problem. See my writings on Substack: Jeffrey Kocher MD. "Clear and Present Thinking"
No one wants to take on the elephant in the room.
Science Researchers aren't of the same quality that they were a generation ago.
I earned a PhD in the 1990s in social science. I literally would be embarrassed to have published any of those studies mentioned in the post.............While I was still teaching at a university (as a visiting professor), the department routinely assigned me to teach social science statistics. This was a core course needed by undergraduates from education to history to psychology. The truth of why I always taught those courses is that they had hired permanent faculty that weren't "comfortable" teaching basic statistics. And the students they attracted had hard time doing math, so I had to take as much math out of the course as possible in order to teach it.
Not terribly impressed with the NIH since it seems they clearly haven't a flaming clue what it means to be male or female. Something that one would think it would be essential to whatever services they're providing.
For example, they rather cluelessly insist that "every cell has a sex":
NIH: "FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Every Cell Has a Sex
The biological differences between the sexes ...."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222287/#:~:text=Every%20Cell%20Has%20a%20Sex&text=Rapid%20advances%20in%20molecular%20biology,and%20XY%20in%20the%20male.
For one thing, not every cell -- red blood cells for example -- have X or Y chromosomes. For another, going by Trump's EO that to have a sex is to produce large or small "reproductive cells", there is no way on gawd's green earth that any liver or heart cell is going to be producing those reproductive cells.
I clicked on the link. That's the Institute of Medicine, not the NIH, right? "Every Cell Has a Sex" is a silly and wrong section subtitle, but the section itself is not silly and wrong. Someone should have edited it out. The report doesn't stand or fall on it. Take a look for yourself.
That last sentence is very confusing.
Thanks for your comment. But if you look at the URL it says "www -- ncbi -- nlm -- NIH" -- and NIH is what Vinay was talking about.
I haven't the foggiest idea how those three organizations tie together and exactly what are their various roles. But you might take a gander at this article on the "Committee and Staff Biographies" which has 14 matches on "National Institutes of Health":
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK222285/
Of particular note is that Anne -- five sexes -- Fausto-Sterling is in there like a dirty shirt.
You might also note that the Yale School of Medicine is peddling that same schlock:
https://medicine.yale.edu/news-article/every-cell-has-a-sex-x-and-y-and-the-future-of-health-care/
As for your "last sentence" -- mine? In that case my point is that it is our bodies that produce large or small "reproductive cells" in our gonads -- ovaries or testicles -- and not in our individual heart, liver, or kidney cells. Those other organ cells -- heart, etc. -- simply cannot produce those reproductive cells.
The problem with his “hatchet” to cut of NIH grant funding is that it not only cuts worthless research studies, but good research that ask important questions with good analytical methods. I am looking forward to the health economist, Jay Bhattacharya, becoming the NIH Director. One of his top goals is to reform the NIH in order to decrease the incidence of poor vs good studies. Remember the old saying: The enemy of good is perfection.
Agree. Not a fan of HOW they are doing what NEEDS done
Let’s face it, half the country appears to be against cutting anything or anyone. Or is it just that it’s Trump? Or Elon? Hatchet or scalpel? I’d say 37 trillion in debt requires many hatchets.
as an "enfant terrible" during the height of the Covid ordeal, you wrote such intelligent and refreshing pieces in response to governmental orthodoxy. The problem today is very different; Musk could care less about "reviewing" any of the studies funded by the federal agencies he's gutting. I'm more interesting in stopping him than giving cover to his reckless behavior.
I know that it is not common knowledge among parents here, but the HPV vaccination rate is extremely high in the UK. A vaccine to prevent cancer!!!! I am looking forward to the day when there is a vaccine to prevent breast cancer. I know there are a few studies going on now.
Let's agree that vaccination and its effects is an important research topic. I hope that NIH will continue to fund *some* vaccine research, and that the funding will depend on assessment of scientific merit. Jay Bhattacharya is a serious guy, so I'm hoping the answer is yes. But I'm in the middle of preparing a vaccine-related grant proposal, and I'm deeply worried that the answer will turn out to be no.
Bernie Black, Northwestern
Thank you, Vinay! Can’t get more common sense than your article!
The more and more of this wasteful spending I see across so many areas of our government, the more I feel that corruption and fraudulent use of taxpayer money (am sure many have pocketed tons!) as the likely motive behind all this madness. Or could so many in power really be so stupid??
I don’t know which, as a whole, is worse / publicly funded research or pharma funded based on this sad little essay, Vinay! 🥴
Comments are less crazy than usual. Or maybe it’s just cuz I blocked all those with TDS – Trump derangement syndrome on the red side. Cuts are great. I’m the cheapest person you’ll ever meet. But why do we have to raise the debt ceiling if we are making the necessary cuts. For the billionaires of course. National debt goes down when a democrat is president. Fox never reports it. I didn’t read the piece by the way because you keep saying the same thing. Broken record VKP.
Whether expert, scientist, guru, authority, head, chief, or whatever label you assign someone (or they assert) as a reference with veracity to a point, the fraction of cases where such reference is due precisely, in actual knowledge, relevance, AND objective unbiased context, is very small. It's too bad that this problem is exacerbated by greater community (and ~press) extrapolations, where a majority of those engaging typically have much less qualification to judge than the average professional trained only in the subject. As usual, Vinay reiterates well some of the analysis necessary to vet and build any given case if you strive to truly understand, and certainly to participate in any attached decisions of significant. Strive for less skim, more depth and breadth.
Vinay, I love your work but Trump's demands on Columbia are based on bogus reasons -- the university did not put Jewish students at risk, nor did the student protests. Israel is not a sacred cow and protests against it are part of American political discourse.
Meanwhile the NFL has just been sponsored by Novartis, billions ripped off from our Medicare system through the Entresto scam. Unbelievable.
I try to stay out of this discussion because I am neither american nor a trump fan.
But the world is not black and white, it seems a bit unreasonable to me that everything Trump administration does it is bad.
I don't know the reasons behind all of NIH grants (that should be an interesting study btw), but just by looking at this field of vaccine hesitancy, it doesn't seem good. Obtaining NIH grants for narrative reviews? Well, I wish that research in general was better funded in my country and practice. But it seems odd ti me to give a full grant just for producing a narrative review (specially in a time where LLM will probably do it such as good or even better because less opinative).
I think we should avoid our political biases and look at each topic the most unbiased and critical possible (not saying it's easy). As JM usually says, "as a neutral martian".
I assume by narrative reviews you are not referring to qualitative studies, correct? I am a quantitative researcher, but I understand the value of qual analysis. The ideal causal study is a mix-methods design. Sometimes getting the quant & qual researchers to collaborate can be challenging because some of my colleagues are disdainful of the value of qualitative research. Also, these are more expensive studies. Sigh