Gary Marcus

Rank 23 of 47

Score 34

@fromnirmal @RWMaloneMD Plenty of data on adverse effects was published and reported on, across numerous studies.

It’s just that the positive effects outweighed them, and the antivaxxers generally ignored those, and focused on anecdotes.

10/1/2024, 4:17:24 PM

In reply to:

Nirmal Patel

@fromnirmal

248d

I would rather not take an experimental jab given so much data on adverse effects that was actively suppressed , two sides are there to the vax story and folks like @RWMaloneMD and others in the field have been silenced , so no thanks on the speech bans

Gary Marcus

@GaryMarcus

248d

Am with @BillGates on this. I would rather not have more people die needlessly just to make a (simplistic) point about free speech.

The statement engages in public discourse by addressing the debate over COVID-19 vaccines, their adverse effects, and the dissemination of information. The tone is assertive and critical of those who focus on anecdotal evidence rather than scientific data. The intent is to counter the narrative that vaccine adverse effects are being suppressed and to emphasize the importance of considering the overall positive impact of vaccines.

Principle 1:
I will strive to do no harm with my words and actions.
The statement strives to do no harm by emphasizing the positive effects of vaccines, which aligns with public health goals. However, it could be seen as dismissive of individual adverse experiences, which might be harmful to those affected. [+1]
Principle 2:
I will respect the privacy and dignity of others and will not engage in cyberbullying, harassment, or hate speech.
The statement respects the privacy and dignity of others by not engaging in personal attacks or revealing private information. However, it does criticize a group (antivaxxers) in a generalized manner.
Principle 3:
I will use my words and actions to promote understanding, empathy, and compassion.
The statement promotes understanding by highlighting the importance of scientific data over anecdotal evidence. However, it could be more empathetic towards those who have experienced adverse effects. [+1]
Principle 4:
I will engage in constructive criticism and dialogue with those in disagreement and will not engage in personal attacks or ad hominem arguments.
The statement engages in constructive criticism by addressing the issue of misinformation but could be seen as dismissive of opposing views, which might hinder constructive dialogue.
Principle 6:
I will use my influence for the betterment of society.
The statement uses its platform to advocate for the betterment of society by promoting vaccine efficacy and public health. However, it could be more balanced in acknowledging legitimate concerns about adverse effects. [+1]