Monday 29 June on BNR radio: a discussion about the corona measures, with Ab Osterhaus and Maurice de Hond. The article below is my response to whining squeaks about this from the healthcare sector: a blog by Michiel van Baal, head of Communications & Public Affairs at the KNMG medical federation. Of course, he does not welcome that debate.
His blog also shows: no need for substantive substantiation, but criticism of the form, criticism of the person, criticism of the process, criticism of peripheral phenomena. Nobody looks for the sources mentioned by De Hond, or they do it but quickly put them aside. Preferably, however, Willem Engel is shot, an easier victim who has a striking overlap with Maurice de Hond in terms of views. So those aerosols don't seem to be so plucked out of thin air.
Willem Engel is caught on all kinds of loose - sometimes too daring - statements, but who dissects the summons in which the knowledge available at that time is documented for each OMT decision moment? Nobody. So what was the scientific basis for each measure? We don't know – it probably just wasn't there. What remains for the healthcare sector is character assassination and chest-beating: "We are experts so we are right". That attitude is unworthy of a serious scientist.
That's why I adapted Michiel van Baal's meaningless column, so that the text now reflects how I think about it myself: completely opposite. Add a few sentences, change a few words, done. This only works if there is little content in it. Normally I prefer to ask questions about verifiable statements, but everything below is just meaningless opinion. In other words: 'Just an opinion'. Pure mood mongering from me, just like that piece by Michiel van Baal and regularly appearing opinion pieces/columns by other, often fearful, Dutch people.
Below is the edited text of the column that you here you can read. He is also on the site of Adformatie.
Science vs anti-science, now on BNR
It didn't surprise me when I heard that BNR had the 'debate' between Maurice de Hond and Ab Osterhaus. In a desperate attempt to be heard, De Hond had challenged 'the experts' to a debate, and once again the leading policy advisors did not give in. Osterhaus did accept, an influencer who is regularly deployed at the public broadcaster. The relevance of the debate will probably not be what Maurice had expected.
None of the national broadcasters dared to offer a platform for this. And I find that worrying, because Maurice de Hond is a creative scientific thinker who claims that the substantiation of the experts is flawed and that this lack of scientific substantiation causes enormous damage to society. A debate platform with key figures is important: let them argue with each other and test each other's substantiation, then that can be a basis for 'scientific consensus' about what we already know and what raises new questions. That is, if there is so much doubt that a consensus is needed. There are also facts that are certain, then you are not talking about 'consensus'. But such a mutual test is not without danger. For those who falsely invoke authority because they have not kept up with scientific insights, this can be harmful. So be it.
Anti-science
First scientists and anti-scientists. The essence of science is that you cannotSure. Scientists make up a hypothesis and then try to find evidence that that hypothesis is NOT true. If that doesn't work, then it's 'true'. At least for the time being: Newton's law of gravity stood for a long time, until Einstein showed that it sometimes did not suffice for stars and planets. His theory of relativity was unassailable for a long time, until quantum researchers discovered that it cannot be reconciled with quantum mechanics at the smallest level. Science is in fact based on searching for what is not true, that's how scientific progress works. The instrument for this, although it is certainly not perfect, is peer reviewed publishing.
There is now a convincing number of peer-reviewed publications that show that the established experts are wrong with their outdated rules of thumb. The experts themselves have no peer-reviewed publications to substantiate the destruction of society. About the one-and-a-half-meter rule, it is literally said: "We have been using it for decades and there has never been reason to doubt it." Those are the true anti-scientists: don't doubt their own rules.
Once again, Einstein is now being overtaken by quantum researchers, only this time the quantum researchers have to resort to obscure channels and populism because they are excluded from the public debate and because they are denied any access to scientific discourse.
Beyond doubt
Today, then, there is an influential group of established experts who are facing a similar paradigm shift, which would turn their expertise upside down. They know correctlywellSomething very certain and they look in science for exactly those phrases from studies that confirm their right about drip contact (the basis of the many measures). They then refer to a paragraph from an almost 100-year-old medical manual. Other things they ignore: The same handbook proves that air transmission is more important than droplet contact, but no one has bothered to read that book again. They also ignore previous publications from their own institutes. No statement is even made about new peer-reviewed publications and plausible hypotheses, which are drawn to attention by critical scientists such as Maurice de Hond. Hear, see and speak no evil. It is exactly the opposite of what scientists should do, hence my term: anti-science.
Unequal battle
These anti-scientific experts from, for example, the RIVM do not like to debate with the more critical, investigative science. They would be putting their reputation and position at stake. The researchers with their new insights have nothing to lose, but the experts bear full responsibility for the disastrous impact that their advice has on society. If that impact is proportional, they will have to make it plausible that the misery they have prevented is in the same order of magnitude. They cannot, despite being asked to do so repeatedly. The scientific researchers can even show why the experts can't: that claim cannot be substantiated on the basis of the facts, the data and the latest state of science. This is extremely painful for the established experts.
That is why only voices from experts with similar interests are allowed. In this way, the anti-scientists remain comfortably seated in their seats, after all, they know for sure that their line is the only correct one and every opponent is dismissed as an incomplete amateur virologist. It is dead easy to beat such a scientist to death with disqualification, authoritarian behavior, character assassination, manipulation in the media, cherry-picking from (old) studies and distorted facts. As an established anti-scientist, you have little to fear from the journalist in the middle, who has little time to really delve into, especially if you can keep him afraid with the threat that every contradiction will inevitably lead to hell and damnation.
When the scientists then in frustration proceed to increasingly sharp words and even fight a stage to make their voice heard, you shout very loudly: 'you see, they are rioters, conspiracy nuts, this is not doing science, they are just doing something. We are still right'. So the anti-scientific establishment always wins. Through the WHO, they have set out an effective communication strategy to which all self-respecting media have been willing to cooperate: after all, public health was at stake. Fortunately, that tide is starting to turn.
The listener loses
The ultimate loser is the listener, who is not helped by this to discover what is 'true' and what is not. Scientific institutes lose their trust by fear-mongering with worn-out mantras, just like journalism. And in doing so, BNR unintentionally serves a scientific agenda, which is looking for open debate and a critical attitude, also with regard to institutions, which should always be critically questioned. That was once an important role for journalism, which has since been stripped down. A critical view and a transparent discourse are a prerequisite for the functioning of democracy. This applies to judges, government, but especially to science and journalism. If you want to know where the lack of all this leads, then you only have to look at the other side of the ocean.
Immerse yourself
By which I mean that you don't have to give people like Maurice de Hond a stage. There should have been a substantiation of the measures and a substantiated response to the concerns months ago, that should not go through a stage. He appeals to science, so analyze what he says and don't rant at him by, for example, referring to someone else (such asherehappens in the article by Michel van Baal: Reference is made to a vicious and in any case rather biased piece about Willem Engel in the hope that it reflects negatively on Maurice de Hond.).
“If someone says it’s raining and another person says it’s dry, it’s not your job to quote them both. It’s your job to look out the window and find out which is true.â€
Zoals Prof. Journalistiek Jonathan Foster het formuleerde (naar verluidt)
This is exactly what every inquisitive and critical mind does. The findings of looking out of the window are collected and expressed in an excellent way by Maurice de Hond. The more appealing Willem Engel is now looking for other means than scientific exchange, where there is no listening ear to be found. He is trying to get more people to "look out the window" and is also taking legal steps to get the experts to do so. He has full confidence in the legal institute. In the meantime, a judge has been replaced at the last minute by a judge who was challenged during the hearing and all requests for demonstration have been repeatedly rejected on varying grounds.
"De Hond is right". Unfortunately, media can only speak in personifications. It's not about "The Dog" being right. He follows science with an open eye and looks out the window to see if observations confirm or disprove that science. He provides an up-to-date picture of the latest scientifically substantiated insights. What matters is whether they are correct, not whether someone is "right".
There is still a lot we don't know about this virus, but we do know a lot about it. It is normal that with something new, the insights initially shoot in all directions and that is why you may have to evaluate your own position on a weekly basis and test it against the latest insights. Sometimes they also contradict each other, that's part of science. It takes a while before scientific consensus emerges, there is no other way. If you don't do all that, it may well turn out that the establishment has been stuck in mantras for months while other facts were on the table very early on. In science, this is called 'groupthink' or 'tunnel vision', in any case signs of 'scientific incompetence'. [see also my later article on the trampling on the guidelines for Scientific Integrity.]
In short, giving this 'debate' a platform is an extremely desperate act to prod the incumbent experts. Science should be done with critical analysis, but they have not been able to do that. To use a metaphor from Mark Rutte: science is a fragile vase. It should also be the natural ally of good journalism, because both are supposed to be looking for the truth. However, neither the experts nor the journalists are interested in this yet. So BNR, do what you have to do: dive into the subject, find out well and question De Hond if you want just as critically as you question others. Conversations and the exchange of ideas on this subject deserve a journalistic platform. The social relevance is incomparably greater than the political fly-catching for which the national broadcasters usually set aside evenings without any problem.
