Challenges in Scientific Discourse During COVID-19

People, uh, had, uh, taken very strong positions,

and, uh, there was very strong polarization and,

uh,

partisanship and, uh, a sense of ideology, uh,

running the show. Uh, so that was not really, uh, the

best circumstances for doing science, especially for someone who

has no political ideology and, uh, doesn't want to

satisfy one narrative or another.

Uh, death threats were very commonplace.

Uh, uh-

Also to you?

Of course. Uh, I, I think both myself and every single member in my

family, uh, we were attacked in, in, in ways that

I could never have imagined that would be possible to

happen, and I, I think that the environment was

so toxic that, uh, the, the vast majority of, uh,

credentialed scientists who

might have some expertise that would be relevant to epidemiology,

of course, it

was a new virus, so no one really was an expert on this virus when it

all started. But at least people who had the background

and, uh, the credentials that would be relevant, most of those

self-silenced. I, I think that, uh, uh, I've

heard from so many people, uh, telling me that, uh,

"John, uh, this is unbelievable. Uh, we, we can't

believe that this is happening. If, if you are attacked in such a way,

uh, if we were to try to do anything or say anything, uh, we

would be completely annihilated.

We, we would disappear from the map, and, uh, uh, our

careers would end. Uh, who knows, maybe we'll be dead." I

mean, every- everything was possible at, at that time, the way

that, uh,

the, uh, behavior of the mob and of

politicians and, uh, and mass media and even legacy

media and influencers, uh, were operating.

And, uh, I think,

uh, this meant that even though eventually we

got two million

people writing about COVID-19,

when we needed it, the best epidemiologists just

stepped down. Uh, most of the people who

dictated the narratives had no clue about

epidemiology.

Mm-hmm.

Uh, they may have had some expertise, some of them,

in some other fields. Um, there were some

very good virologists, for example.

There were

a few people who had good expertise in some other fields, but not really in

epidemiologists. I, I think that epidemiologists were,

uh, very quickly, uh, seeing my paradigm and other people in

epidemiology who were equally silenced and destroyed,

they moved out.

Mm-hmm.

And they left epidemiology to people who were not

epidemiologists.

Mm-hmm.

What made you stay and, and speak about it and publish about it?

I, I think that, uh, it, it could have been, uh, uh,

obsession.

Mm-hmm.

Maybe I was opinionated and, uh, wrong. Who knows?

Uh, but I also felt that I, I had to,

to try to do the best science that I could, uh, because

I thought that it was a major crisis with multiple

dimensions,

and, uh, there were lots of things at stake.

I, I, I think that, uh, it, it would be,

uh, shameful for me to, uh, just, uh,

say I'm not gonna, uh, work on this once I, I started,

uh, working and, uh, doing my first studies in the field.

Uh,

it, it was something that could make a difference

if we made the right

choices or the, the wrong choices.

So, uh, yes, I, I'm, I'm sorry that I continued

to, to do science. Uh, uh, perhaps some of that was wrong.

Perhaps other pieces were more correct than, than others.

Who knows?

I think that that would take a very long time to, to

arbitrate. But I thought that it was important to try to get

as much reliable evidence as possible.