The phrase “intellectual dishonesty” gets thrown around a lot these days. It’s used to delegitimize arguments that aren’t in keeping with “the scientific consensus” - they are arguments that use data selectively to support a narrative. They are the opposite of a rational, balanced, and nuanced summary of the data.
This is a fantastic review, because it goes to the heart of the issue: the Authors are starting with a politically pre-determined outcome (Vaccines have a positive cost-benefit for adolescents) and then cherry picking data, or stuffing the argument with extraneous or in-applicable data, hoping that their credentials and the reputation of the journal are able to persuade lay people, or provide grist for the talking head pundits. In reality, they undermine their credentials and the reputation of the journal. And they offer no innovation to get to a positive cost-benefit, by focusing on high risk adolescents with multiple co-morbidities. The result of this intellectual dishonesty is, invariably, distrust. And worse yet, anger- because as time goes on this looks more and more intentional, deliberate, and manipulative.
This is a fantastic review, because it goes to the heart of the issue: the Authors are starting with a politically pre-determined outcome (Vaccines have a positive cost-benefit for adolescents) and then cherry picking data, or stuffing the argument with extraneous or in-applicable data, hoping that their credentials and the reputation of the journal are able to persuade lay people, or provide grist for the talking head pundits. In reality, they undermine their credentials and the reputation of the journal. And they offer no innovation to get to a positive cost-benefit, by focusing on high risk adolescents with multiple co-morbidities. The result of this intellectual dishonesty is, invariably, distrust. And worse yet, anger- because as time goes on this looks more and more intentional, deliberate, and manipulative.