I spend probably too much time on Twitter. Mostly in vain. It is like passing a horrible car accident on the highway. You never want things to be as bad as they look. That thought is often two-edged as it cuts both in your favor and against it. Often things are not as bad as they look, and that’s great, but quite frequently, things are much worse. It is of the latter that I will be speaking about today.
While browsing on one of my Twitter sessions, I came across the following tweet by Bret Weinstein.
However, It was not from his account that I originally came across it. The tweet was brought to my attention by one of his many critics who was lambasting him for advocating against vaccinations—saying that this was typical behavior of some belonging to the IDW. The IDW for some of you who may not know is an acronym for the Intellectual Dark Web. It’s not a formal group, but those numbered among the ranks are Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Dave Rubin, Ben Shapiro, and others who typically associate with them.
Now, whether or not Bret Weinstein was acting in accordance with those who share the same label, I am not here to dispute or defend. I know very little of all the members of the IDW, and I am not familiar with how they would speak about vaccinations or any other relating thoughts. I am, however, drawn to the implications of all the criticisms that the aforementioned tweet received.
Bret made an appeal to the idea that we do not know everything that there is to know about vaccines and what we do not know could hurt us. To me, this seems to be a relatively noncontroversial statement. We do not know everything about anything. Ignorance, no matter how minimal, always makes room for potential risk and disaster.
Bret, in the same tweet, praises vaccines and says that he, himself, vaccinates his children. As if to say that the potential risk is not greater than the risks that we know. It may be possible that there are unintended consequences for vaccinating our children, but, at least in this instance, the devil we do not know about is not nearly as bad as the one we do know. Although in the future we may be eating our very words, we may be dead before any severe consequences come, but that does not negate their seriousness.
I do not claim to know anything about anything pertaining to vaccinations. Nevertheless, I cannot pass up a chance for a modern allegory. The homogeneous nature of the criticisms levied against the tweet spoke to something quite disturbing. They were attacking him for attempting to add just one iota of doubt to the conversations surrounding vaccines. They seemed truly angry at his skepticism. As if the medical practice of vaccination was some holy rite that ought not to be questioned.
What Was Not Being Said
Many individuals went after the tweet above out of some fear that he was proselytizing for anti-vaxxers. A group that is not at all popular online. It’s clear that Bret does not want to ban vaccines, nor does he think that they are abhorrently dangerous. As mentioned above, he vaccinates his own children. What he was doing, or at least what he seemed to be doing, is injecting the conversation with a bit of skepticism.
It seems that most treat vaccines and medicine in general with the idea that all popular treatments are without risk and can only improve the life of the recipient. Modern medicine, in some respects, has become the new messiah promising new life, vitality, and longevity to anyone who drinks from her cup. She is to be embraced whole heartedly, without question, and with complete devotion.
Her direct disciples and those of the other sister faiths, like the cult of pharmacology, do not like to believe that there are risks involved with their faith. To believe that there are risks is to imply that their rituals could be dangerous. They seem to think that even the potential risk is the end all be all for their practices. Which, of course, is utter nonsense.
Risk exists at every level of life. There is risk involved with driving to work, sitting too long, sleeping too long, exercising, going to the movies, etc. No matter what you are doing, where you are going, or who you are interacting with, you will be at risk. For Bret to say that vaccines have risk, is about the most vanilla thing anyone could say. He might as well have said that people need air to live or the earth is round. The fact that vaccines have risks, whether known or not, is unavoidable as everything in existence has risks. To live is to be at risk. The only way to completely mitigate risk is by dying. Presumably, the dead are in danger of nothing, unless you believe the old stories.
Summing up the controversy
As far as I can tell, those who criticized Bret for airing doubts about vaccines could only do so on ideological grounds or for personal reasons. Many of the retorts bespoke personal incredulity and smacked of clout mongering. When someone says something as dull as people need air or vaccines have risks, and they are met wild off the wall criticisms. It speaks more about the individual making the criticism than the idea being criticized.
