Malcolm Gladwell
👤 SpeakerAppearances Over Time
Podcast Appearances
Together, we went through every one of the medical problems listed on the chart. We kept finding the same thing. No difference. No difference. Any difference? Let's see, 0.6, 0.6.
Together, we went through every one of the medical problems listed on the chart. We kept finding the same thing. No difference. No difference. Any difference? Let's see, 0.6, 0.6.
But somehow, Kennedy reached the opposite conclusion. In his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, Kennedy writes, quote, since its approval, Dr. Offit's rotavirus vaccine has caused a wave of catastrophic illnesses and agonizing death.
But somehow, Kennedy reached the opposite conclusion. In his book, The Real Anthony Fauci, Kennedy writes, quote, since its approval, Dr. Offit's rotavirus vaccine has caused a wave of catastrophic illnesses and agonizing death.
He looked at the same thing you looked at. and decided that the rotavirus vaccine was causing this enormous burden of adverse reactions. I have to say, I got completely obsessed with this. Where is RFK Jr. getting his information? And what about the data from the clinical trial? Did he not read it? Did he read it and not understand it? Or did he read it and understand it and just say, eh?
He looked at the same thing you looked at. and decided that the rotavirus vaccine was causing this enormous burden of adverse reactions. I have to say, I got completely obsessed with this. Where is RFK Jr. getting his information? And what about the data from the clinical trial? Did he not read it? Did he read it and not understand it? Or did he read it and understand it and just say, eh?
You have a simple chart that has two columns. One column's called placebo and one column's called treatment. And he decided to completely ignore the column called placebo, right?
You have a simple chart that has two columns. One column's called placebo and one column's called treatment. And he decided to completely ignore the column called placebo, right?
He decided to reach a conclusion about the vaccine by fundamentally, not just misinterpreting, he's 180 degrees positive. wrong in his interpretation of the data. It's as if he took his hand and placed it over the side of the chart that says placebo. There has to be some agency here that allows you to look at something that has two rows and only see one row.
He decided to reach a conclusion about the vaccine by fundamentally, not just misinterpreting, he's 180 degrees positive. wrong in his interpretation of the data. It's as if he took his hand and placed it over the side of the chart that says placebo. There has to be some agency here that allows you to look at something that has two rows and only see one row.
half of an entire chapter denouncing the rotavirus vaccine. It's not like this is, this is not a, he's not making this observation in passing. He's going after, at length, one of the most significant public health advances of the last 25 years, right? Something that has saved millions of lives. This is not trivial stakes here, right? He's big game hunting here.
half of an entire chapter denouncing the rotavirus vaccine. It's not like this is, this is not a, he's not making this observation in passing. He's going after, at length, one of the most significant public health advances of the last 25 years, right? Something that has saved millions of lives. This is not trivial stakes here, right? He's big game hunting here.
But if you were a lawyer and made this argument in court, you would be humiliated by opposing counsel. Yeah, I mean, it would take five seconds. You would just hold up the chart and say, oops, that's the other side. Yeah. One last question, but a very specific one, which is, if you're going to do this, why does he link to the source that refutes his argument? So I can understand, I want to...
But if you were a lawyer and made this argument in court, you would be humiliated by opposing counsel. Yeah, I mean, it would take five seconds. You would just hold up the chart and say, oops, that's the other side. Yeah. One last question, but a very specific one, which is, if you're going to do this, why does he link to the source that refutes his argument? So I can understand, I want to...
I want to completely misinterpret the clinical data on Rotatech. I want to make this argument about vaccines, and I'm going to cross my fingers and hope that 95% of my readers don't notice. But then he gives you the link to the very thing that shows you that he's absolutely wrong. Who does this? He's not even a good liar.
I want to completely misinterpret the clinical data on Rotatech. I want to make this argument about vaccines, and I'm going to cross my fingers and hope that 95% of my readers don't notice. But then he gives you the link to the very thing that shows you that he's absolutely wrong. Who does this? He's not even a good liar.