A big problem with the Stanford event is that in my experience, these COVID contrarians don’t want genuine scientific debate (i.e. which is grounded in basic reality). They want uncritical media amplification, and have reacted badly whenever people have tried to focus them on the actual science.
The new President of Stanford promised to protect academic freedom. I wrote about how he has broken that promise by giving opening remarks at a conference featuring speakers who led attacks on researchers at Stanford, particularly the Stanford Internet Observatory. stanforddaily.com/2024/10/03/f...
By standing with tenured faculty and powerful political operatives against contingent researchers and trainees at Stanford, President Jonathan Levin has already betrayed academic freedom, writes Mallo...
That does seem to be the pattern with contrarian "heterodox" grifters. If they stay in the science lane, and they are right, they should be vindicated. But they move into the public / influencer lane which is (needless to say) less rigorous and more remunerative.
One pattern I noticed with Vinay Prasad on the bad site is that he’d just block anybody who said anything remotely critical of him. He’s not interested in debate, he’s interested in propagandizing his own view.
Several of them have previously quote tweeted me, presumably to get a pile on, then gone awfully quiet when I’ve asked them to unambiguously state their view on basic info like early IFR etc.
Adam: this is exactly it. We could argue for days about the real unanswered questions, the uncertainties in what we know, but this meeting is not about that. It's about a set of pre-fabricated conclusions that they want endorsed.