When the political stakes are high and science is relied on to form policy, then insults are the order of the day. It’s not exclusive to climate science. Now we are seeing it in the fields of immunology and virology.
The Michael Mann of virology: Dr. med. Carsten Drosten. Photo: Charite Hospital
Last October, a group of leading experts authored “The Great Barrington Declaration“, where they expressed their “grave concerns about the damaging physical and mental health impacts of the prevailing COVID-19 policies” and advocated more “focused protection” and “herd immunity” instead of lockdowns.
Insecurities and over-sensitivities exposed
But for the virology scientists behind the draconian measures of lockdowns, curfews, cancellations, distancing, school closings, mask-wearing, etc., this was viewed as a direct attack. And, like in climate science, what got revealed were their inner insecurities and over-sensitivities.
The latest is Germany’s leading virologist and COVID-alarmist Dr. Carsten Drosten. The German-edition of RT reports: “Pseudo-experts”: Drosten defames renowned colleagues from Harvard, Oxford and Stanford.” Drosten is a stringent proponent of strict lockdowns to combat the illness in Germany.
Mannian-Rahmstorfian type over-sensitivities come to a head
In a recent podcast on NDR German public radio, Drosten lashed out at critics and addressed the issue of what he called “science denial”, citing “climate research deniers” as an example. Drosten clarified: ‘This is this FLICC [Fake Experts, Logical Fallacies, Impossible Expectations, Cherry Picking and Conspiracy Myth] principle that we should perhaps discuss here on the basis of public arguments.’”
Drosten calls Harvard, Stanford and Oxford “pseudo-experts”
In the podcast, Drosten warned that the public (in his view) was being misled by pseudo-experts and that the government was dithering. Drosten then warned against relaxing the restrictions. In the podcast, Drosten singled out the “pseudo-experts”:
- Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg
- The Great Barrington Declaration authors
Drosten, who in the podcast overflowed with condescension and haughtiness, said the “pseudo-experts” like to “bask in the light of the TV spotlight”…”may have professorships or doctorates, but in a different subject” and that they are often “people who have been retired for a long time”.
Drosten then admonished the media not to give these people attention because they cannot be trusted.
Who are these “pseudo-experts” that the media and policymakers in no case should heed, according to Drosten? RT writes:
The scientists dubbed ‘pseudo-experts’ by Drosten are Dr Martin Kulldorff, Dr Sunetra Gupta and Dr Jay Bhattacharya.
Kulldorff, a Swedish ‘pseudo-expert’, is a professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and both a biostatistician and epidemiologist at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. His expertise includes the detection and surveillance of infectious diseases and the evaluation of vaccine safety. 159 scientific papers have been (co-)authored by the supposed FLICC expert.”
The reaction to Drosten’s haughtiness came swiftly and harshly at Twitter, some characterized his comments as unhinged.
For example, Kuldroff reacted at Twitter:
As an infectious disease epidemiologist, I would welcome a public scientific discourse with
@c_drosten. Debate is better than slander.”
Marcus Franz tweeted:
Is Professor #Drosten man enough to apologize to the Oxford, Harvard and Stanford colleagues, whom he defamed as “pseudo-experts”, or will he continue his self-destruction?”