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 wordt gepakt op allerlei losse -soms te gedurfde- uitspraken, maar wie fileert de dagvaarding waarin per OMT-beslismoment de op dat moment beschikbare kennis wordt gedocumenteerd? Niemand. Wat was bij elke maatregel dan wél de wetenschappelijk onderbouwing? Weten we niet - waarschijnlijk was die er gewoon niet. Wat de zorgsector dan nog resteert is karaktermoord en borstklopperij: "Wij zijn deskundig dus wij hebben gelijk". Die houding is een serieus wetenschapper onwaardig.
That's why I adapted Michiel van Baal's meaningless column, so that the text now reflects what I think about it: completely opposite. Add a few sentences, change a few words, done. This only works if there is little substantive content. Normally I prefer to ask questions about verifiable statements, but everything below is simply meaningless opinion. In other words: 'Just an opinion'. Pure mood-making from me, just like that piece by Michiel van Baal and regularly published opinion pieces/columns by other, often anxious, 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 provide a platform for this. And I find that worrying, because Maurice de Hond is a creative scientific thinker who claims that the substantiation of experts is flawed and that the 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 this can be a basis for 'scientific consensus' about what we already know and what raises new questions. At least: if there is so much doubt that a consensus is needed. There are also facts that are established, then you are not talking about 'consensus'. But such mutual assessment is not without danger. This can cause harm to those who falsely rely on authority because they have not kept up with scientific insights. 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.
Inmiddels is er een overtuigend aantal peer reviewed publicaties dat aantoont dat de gevestigde deskundigen ernaast zitten met hun verouderde vuistregels. De deskundigen hebben zelf geen peer reviewed publicaties ter onderbouwing van het te gronde richten van de samenleving. Over de anderhalvemeter-regel wordt letterlijk gezegd: "Die hanteren we al decennia en er is nooit reden geweest om daaraan te twijfelen." Dat zijn de ware anti-wetenschappers: niet twijfelen aan hun eigen regels.
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.
Therefore, only opinions from experts with similar interests are admitted. This way, the anti-scientists remain comfortable in their seats, because they know for sure that their line is the only correct one and every opponent is dismissed as an inadequate amateur virologist. It is very easy to kill such a scientist 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 it, especially if you can keep him afraid with the threat that any 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 institutions lose their trust through fear-mongering with worn-out mantras, just like journalism. And in doing so, BNR unintentionally serves a scientific agenda that seeks open debate and a critical attitude, also towards institutions, which should always be critically questioned. That was once an important role for journalism, which has now 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, you only have to look across 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.”
Zoals Prof. Journalistiek Jonathan Foster het formuleerde (naar verluidt)
Dit is exact wat elke onderzoekende en kritische geest doet. De bevindingen van het uit het raam kijken worden op uitstekende wijze verzameld en verwoord door Maurice de Hond. De meer aansprekende Willem Engel zoekt inmiddels andere middelen dan wetenschappelijke uitwisseling, waar geen luisterend oor te vinden is. Hij probeert meer mensen zo ver te krijgen dat ze "look out the window" en bewandelt daarnaast juridische wegen om ook de deskundigen zover te krijgen. Hij heeft het volste vertrouwen in het juridisch instituut. Inmiddels is er wel een rechter op het laatste moment vervangen door een rechter die tijdens de zitting werd gewraakt en alle verzoeken tot demonstratie zijn herhaaldelijk afgewezen op wisselende gronden.
"De Hond heeft gelijk". Helaas kunnen media alleen in personificaties spreken. Het gaat er niet om dat "De Hond" gelijk heeft. Hij volgt de wetenschap met een open oog en kijkt uit het raam om te zien of waarnemingen die wetenschap bevestigen of ontkrachten. Hij geeft een actueel beeld van de laatste wetenschappelijk onderbouwde inzichten. Van belang is of die juist zijn, niet of iemand "gelijk" heeft.
We still don't know a lot about this virus, but we also know a lot. It is normal that with something new the insights initially jump in all directions and that is why you may have to evaluate your own position every week and test it against the latest insights. Sometimes they also contradict each other, that is part of science. It will take some time for scientific consensus to emerge, that is inevitable. 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', which are in any case signs of 'scientific incompetence'. [see also my later article about it 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.
