Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
LovingA2andMI
LovingA2andMI's Journal
LovingA2andMI's Journal
December 13, 2020
In the case of the Seven Step Scientific Method, Groupthink can be distributing and destructive. Questioning why is how those who need to know, know any risks associated with the action that is asked to be done. That way, Humans can make a informed decision in whatever decision they ultimately decide.
I know this article will be questioned. Some might even try and have the post deleted altogether. Nevertheless, Dr. Fuller, a University of Michigan Virologist makes an VALID point that deserves thought about the Scientific Method being rushed in the case of the COVID vaccine. Also, not everyone that questions the speed in which this vaccine is being widely distributed is "Anti-Vax". That is a label used in some cases to shut down those with valid questions deserving answers.
https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about-ann-arbor/2020/12/11/why-a-university-of-michigan-professor-voted-no-on-pfizers-covid-vaccine/
Why a University of Michigan professor voted 'No' on Pfizer's COVID vaccine
Preword: Groupthink is a powerful method to have unification. It occurs in subtle ways. First, by having someone appear as the "Authority figure of Trust". This way a parroting effect takes place. Parroting occurs when those who are not as knowledgeable on the subject matter at hand repeat what they believe is Trusted information from an "Authority Figure". The Figure can be a Person, Place or Thing, similar to a Noun.In the case of the Seven Step Scientific Method, Groupthink can be distributing and destructive. Questioning why is how those who need to know, know any risks associated with the action that is asked to be done. That way, Humans can make a informed decision in whatever decision they ultimately decide.
I know this article will be questioned. Some might even try and have the post deleted altogether. Nevertheless, Dr. Fuller, a University of Michigan Virologist makes an VALID point that deserves thought about the Scientific Method being rushed in the case of the COVID vaccine. Also, not everyone that questions the speed in which this vaccine is being widely distributed is "Anti-Vax". That is a label used in some cases to shut down those with valid questions deserving answers.
ANN ARBOR, Mich. – The FDA advisory committee that recommended the Pfizer vaccine largely agreed it was safe and effective. Seventeen members voted for it and four voted against it.
One of those No votes came from Dr. A Oveta Fuller, a virologist and viral pathogen researcher at the University of Michigan. Dr. Fuller said she was concerned about the vaccine’s long-term impact.
“Because we are in a COVID pandemic and because so many lives are affected and because the public needs to understand so they know what to do,” Dr. Fuller said. “I felt like this is a lot. A heavy responsibility. It is very sobering and that’s how I take it.”
It’s not a lack of confidence in the research, it’s that she believes some specific questions about the risks did not get answered. Dr. Fuller said more data would help her be certain that she has done her due diligence.
As a researcher and an expert in how viruses behave, she still had questions on the table in terms of autoimmunity and hyper immunity. She just wanted a bit more research to answer a few more questions before creating a full path to widespread vaccinations to the masses.
“I am a great advocate for vaccines. I’m a virologist by training, I think viruses are amazing. I teach them. I study them. I engage the community about them,” Dr. Fuller said. “I think vaccines are a major way that we can stop or prevent infections but ‘a stitch in time saves nine.’”
****Dr. Fuller says it would be better to release the vaccine gradually instead of going almost directly from the study to being given to millions of people.*****
One of those No votes came from Dr. A Oveta Fuller, a virologist and viral pathogen researcher at the University of Michigan. Dr. Fuller said she was concerned about the vaccine’s long-term impact.
“Because we are in a COVID pandemic and because so many lives are affected and because the public needs to understand so they know what to do,” Dr. Fuller said. “I felt like this is a lot. A heavy responsibility. It is very sobering and that’s how I take it.”
It’s not a lack of confidence in the research, it’s that she believes some specific questions about the risks did not get answered. Dr. Fuller said more data would help her be certain that she has done her due diligence.
As a researcher and an expert in how viruses behave, she still had questions on the table in terms of autoimmunity and hyper immunity. She just wanted a bit more research to answer a few more questions before creating a full path to widespread vaccinations to the masses.
“I am a great advocate for vaccines. I’m a virologist by training, I think viruses are amazing. I teach them. I study them. I engage the community about them,” Dr. Fuller said. “I think vaccines are a major way that we can stop or prevent infections but ‘a stitch in time saves nine.’”
****Dr. Fuller says it would be better to release the vaccine gradually instead of going almost directly from the study to being given to millions of people.*****
https://www.clickondetroit.com/all-about-ann-arbor/2020/12/11/why-a-university-of-michigan-professor-voted-no-on-pfizers-covid-vaccine/
Profile Information
Gender: Do not displayHome country: Nowhere
Current location: Nothing
Member since: Mon Dec 12, 2011, 05:20 AM
Number of posts: 7,006
