Which only reinforces my impression that she was incredibly naive. In antivax hands, "informed consent" really means "misinformed refusal," in which parents refuse vaccines for their children because they believe antivax lies about the harms caused.
-
-
Replying to @gorskon @StabellBenn and
Here is the full debate: https://twitter.com/StabellBenn/status/1100044631864168450 … So the part I marked is the actual part that you disagree with and the basis of your attack on professor
@StabellBenn ? Again, I have no knowledge of this, first time I meet you and I find this all very peculiar.pic.twitter.com/jGZ7YxazBA
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KasperKepp @gorskon and
As you say: you have “no knowledge of all this”.
@gorskon does. When@ProfPHansen speaks of “experts on#VaccineHesitancy and misinformation”, David here is one of them. I have a pretty reasonable knowledge too. What David says is true.pic.twitter.com/SEenr8yzwG
1 reply 1 retweet 10 likes -
Replying to @Rosewind2007 @gorskon and
"What David says is true." As I read, please correct if wrong,
@gorskon says that the term "informed consent" is typically used by antivaxx groups.@StabellBenn thinks not. Is this disagreement the basis for the attack? Why was the context not included above?@gorskonpic.twitter.com/PgOkRYVk2P
4 replies 1 retweet 0 likes -
Replying to @KasperKepp @Rosewind2007 and
Dr. Gorski was explaining that antivaccine groups use the term informed consent to mask something else, misinformed refusal, and that well intentioned scientists accepting that framing may too easily, and too often, unintentionally help and enable the antivaccine effort.
2 replies 1 retweet 14 likes -
Replying to @doritmi @Rosewind2007 and
Ok, thanks. So: 1)
@StabellBenn thinks the word "informed constent" is mainly used in good faith 2)@gorskon@StabellBenn agree that informed consent per se is right? (?) 3) = Just disagree on the etxent of misuse? Again, probably country-dependent (little hesitancy in Denmark)1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @KasperKepp @Rosewind2007 and
I think your description is right. And hesitancy certainly varies by country, and I don’t know enough about it in Denmark.
1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
Replying to @doritmi @KasperKepp and
I will say that the main reason people like me interact with Dr./Prof. Stabell is that her work and comments are used by American antivaccine activists, likely in ways that would not occur to her initially.
1 reply 1 retweet 2 likes -
Replying to @doritmi @Rosewind2007 and
Well in this case I think you are making a big mistake, based on what I can understand at this point.
@StabellBenn is a highly cited professor of vaccines. She devoted her life to develop vaccines to save kids' lives in poor countries. Just a few excerpts from google scholar:pic.twitter.com/ggSaGbCrVh
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KasperKepp @Rosewind2007 and
I know Dr. Stabell is a serious scientist. That’s not in doubt. But I met her when antivaccine activists made very happy use of previous statements by her. Again, statements that I suspect she did not know would be used that way.
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes
Antivaxxers frequently take advantage of the naivete of scientists and their lack of familiarity with how antivaxxers misuse and misrepresent terms like "informed consent." Scientists really need to learn these tropes, so that they don't inadvertently feed antivax narratives.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.