Anti-science kills: From Soviet embrace of pseudoscience to accelerated attacks on US biomedicine

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

The United States witnessed an unprecedented politicization of biomedical science starting in 2015 that has exploded into a complex, multimodal anti-science empire operating through mass media, political elections, legislation, and even health systems. Anti-science activities now pervade the daily lives of many Americans, and threaten to infect other parts of the world. We can attribute the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans from COVID-19, measles, and other vaccine-preventable diseases to anti-science. The acceleration of anti-science activities demands not only new responses and approaches but also international coordination. Vaccines and other biomedical advances will not be sufficient to halt COVID-19 or future potentially catastrophic illnesses, unless we simultaneously counter anti-science aggression.

Abstract

This Essay argues that COVID-19 exposed how a rising tide of anti-science rhetoric and activities can dramatically exploit society's vulnerabilities to an infectious disease, suggesting that anti-science extremism has become as big a threat as the virus itself.

Related collections

Most cited references 31

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Safety and immunogenicity of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine in two formulations: two open, non-randomised phase 1/2 studies from Russia

Denis Logunov, Inna Dolzhikova, Olga Zubkova … (2020)

Background We developed a heterologous COVID-19 vaccine consisting of two components, a recombinant adenovirus type 26 (rAd26) vector and a recombinant adenovirus type 5 (rAd5) vector, both carrying the gene for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) spike glycoprotein (rAd26-S and rAd5-S). We aimed to assess the safety and immunogenicity of two formulations (frozen and lyophilised) of this vaccine. Methods We did two open, non-randomised phase 1/2 studies at two hospitals in Russia. We enrolled healthy adult volunteers (men and women) aged 18–60 years to both studies. In phase 1 of each study, we administered intramuscularly on day 0 either one dose of rAd26-S or one dose of rAd5-S and assessed the safety of the two components for 28 days. In phase 2 of the study, which began no earlier than 5 days after phase 1 vaccination, we administered intramuscularly a prime-boost vaccination, with rAd26-S given on day 0 and rAd5-S on day 21. Primary outcome measures were antigen-specific humoral immunity (SARS-CoV-2-specific antibodies measured by ELISA on days 0, 14, 21, 28, and 42) and safety (number of participants with adverse events monitored throughout the study). Secondary outcome measures were antigen-specific cellular immunity (T-cell responses and interferon-γ concentration) and change in neutralising antibodies (detected with a SARS-CoV-2 neutralisation assay). These trials are registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04436471 and NCT04437875. Findings Between June 18 and Aug 3, 2020, we enrolled 76 participants to the two studies (38 in each study). In each study, nine volunteers received rAd26-S in phase 1, nine received rAd5-S in phase 1, and 20 received rAd26-S and rAd5-S in phase 2. Both vaccine formulations were safe and well tolerated. The most common adverse events were pain at injection site (44 [58%]), hyperthermia (38 [50%]), headache (32 [42%]), asthenia (21 [28%]), and muscle and joint pain (18 [24%]). Most adverse events were mild and no serious adverse events were detected. All participants produced antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 glycoprotein. At day 42, receptor binding domain-specific IgG titres were 14 703 with the frozen formulation and 11 143 with the lyophilised formulation, and neutralising antibodies were 49·25 with the frozen formulation and 45·95 with the lyophilised formulation, with a seroconversion rate of 100%. Cell-mediated responses were detected in all participants at day 28, with median cell proliferation of 2·5% CD4+ and 1·3% CD8+ with the frozen formulation, and a median cell proliferation of 1·3% CD4+ and 1·1% CD8+ with the lyophilised formulation. Interpretation The heterologous rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based COVID-19 vaccine has a good safety profile and induced strong humoral and cellular immune responses in participants. Further investigation is needed of the effectiveness of this vaccine for prevention of COVID-19. Funding Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation.

0 comments Cited 514 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate

Mark Dredze, Amelia M. Jamison, SiHua Qi … (2018)

Objectives. To understand how Twitter bots and trolls (“bots”) promote online health content. Methods. We compared bots’ to average users’ rates of vaccine-relevant messages, which we collected online from July 2014 through September 2017. We estimated the likelihood that users were bots, comparing proportions of polarized and antivaccine tweets across user types. We conducted a content analysis of a Twitter hashtag associated with Russian troll activity. Results. Compared with average users, Russian trolls (χ 2 (1) = 102.0; P < .001), sophisticated bots (χ 2 (1) = 28.6; P < .001), and “content polluters” (χ 2 (1) = 7.0; P < .001) tweeted about vaccination at higher rates. Whereas content polluters posted more antivaccine content (χ 2 (1) = 11.18; P < .001), Russian trolls amplified both sides. Unidentifiable accounts were more polarized (χ 2 (1) = 12.1; P < .001) and antivaccine (χ 2 (1) = 35.9; P < .001). Analysis of the Russian troll hashtag showed that its messages were more political and divisive. Conclusions. Whereas bots that spread malware and unsolicited content disseminated antivaccine messages, Russian trolls promoted discord. Accounts masquerading as legitimate users create false equivalency, eroding public consensus on vaccination. Public Health Implications. Directly confronting vaccine skeptics enables bots to legitimize the vaccine debate. More research is needed to determine how best to combat bot-driven content.

0 comments Cited 248 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Modeling COVID-19 scenarios for the United States

(2020)

We use COVID-19 case and mortality data from 1 February 2020 to 21 September 2020 and a deterministic SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infectious and recovered) compartmental framework to model possible trajectories of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions in the United States at the state level from 22 September 2020 through 28 February 2021. Using this SEIR model, and projections of critical driving covariates (pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates and mask use per capita), we assessed scenarios of social distancing mandates and levels of mask use. Projections of current non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies by state—with social distancing mandates reinstated when a threshold of 8 deaths per million population is exceeded (reference scenario)—suggest that, cumulatively, 511,373 (469,578–578,347) lives could be lost to COVID-19 across the United States by 28 February 2021. We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario.

0 comments Cited 201 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): PLoS Biol

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): PLoS Biol

Journal ID (publisher-id): plos

Journal ID (pmc): plosbiol

Title: PLoS Biology

Publisher: Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )

ISSN (Print): 1544-9173

ISSN (Electronic): 1545-7885

Publication date (Electronic): 28 January 2021

Publication date Collection: January 2021

Publication date PMC-release: 28 January 2021

Volume: 19

Issue: 1

Electronic Location Identifier: e3001068

Affiliations

[1 ] Departments of Pediatrics and Molecular Virology & Microbiology, Texas Children’s Center for Vaccine Development, National School of Tropical Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, Texas, United States of America

[2 ] Hagler Institute for Advanced Study at Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America

[3 ] Department of Biology, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, United States of America

[4 ] James A Baker III Institute of Public Policy, Rice University, Houston, Texas, United States of America

[5 ] Scowcroft Institute of International Affairs, Bush School of Government and Public Service, Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, United States of America

Author notes

I have read the journal's policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests: Peter Hotez is a collaborator on a low cost COVID19 vaccine for global health which was recently licensed by Baylor College of Medicine to a commercial third party for scale up and production.

* E-mail: hotez@ 123456bcm.edu

Author information

Peter J. Hotez https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8770-1042

Article

Publisher ID: PBIOLOGY-D-20-03024

DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001068

PMC ID: 7842901

PubMed ID: 33507935

SO-VID: 550fbccd-30ec-47fe-84fd-6cb876b9c8c0

License:

This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

History

Page count

Figures: 1, Tables: 0, Pages: 9

Funding

The author received no specific funding for this work.

Comments

Comment on this article

scite_

Cited by 18

See all cited by

Most referenced authors 283

See all reference authors

- Version 1

Anti-science kills: From Soviet embrace of pseudoscience to accelerated attacks on US biomedicine

Read this article at

Abstract

Abstract

Related collections

Novel Coronavirus Disease COVID-19

Most cited references 31

Safety and immunogenicity of an rAd26 and rAd5 vector-based heterologous prime-boost COVID-19 vaccine in two formulations: two open, non-randomised phase 1/2 studies from Russia

Weaponized Health Communication: Twitter Bots and Russian Trolls Amplify the Vaccine Debate

Modeling COVID-19 scenarios for the United States

Author and article information

Journal

Affiliations

Author notes

Author information

Article

History

Page count

Funding

Categories

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 385

Cited by 18

Most referenced authors 283