Bloody ‘ell!
I only read through that letter as a courtesy to yourself & the 2 (!) comments asking my opinion, but I think I would have been happier to have paid no more attention to this fella than simply having watched the short video I posted earlier.
I know that probably sounds ignorant, but I am a little further removed from the immediacy of all this than yourselves and quite enjoy not being on the Corona merri-go-round, wherever possible. This thread is the only time I’ve bothered having the conversation & that’s turned into a great long saga!
Clarke – “who would you say it’s written for? Who’s his intended audience,”
GVB – “As a scientist I do not usually appeal to any platform of this kind…(this letter being) an exception”
I only followed the link left by ET so I don’t know what “platform of this kind” he’s referring to or who that specific audience might be.
Clarke – “Crucially, is it written for his peers, and if not, why not?”
Absolutely not written for his professional peers, I think he’s quite clear about that.
GVB – “For those who are not experts in this field, I am attaching below a more accessible and comprehensible version of the science”
It’s obviously written for the likes of everyday folk (like me!) & people in policy/decision making positions?….I feel like I’m taking a comprehension test 🙂
He’s also quite clear about the more science’y stuff you’re looking for. A paper to be published later, but a summary on LinkedIn (which could possibly be more technical) & analysis having been sent to the WHO which would, no doubt, be more in depth.
GVB – “I am completing my scientific manuscript, the publication of which is, unfortunately, likely to come too late”
GVB – “…a summary of my findings…on LinkedIn”
GVB – “I provided international health organizations, including the WHO, with my analysis….based on scientifically informed insights”
Clarke – “and what response is it intended to evoke?”
Well, I only just skimmed through the “more accessible” bit (it’s late & I can’t be arsed with it all just now). But when I saw the words “bioweapon of mass destruction”, the first response that sprang to mind was “sh!t meself!!” :-)))
But, I think Bossche put it a bit more intelligently, as follows:
GVB – “So, there is not one second left for gears to be switched and to replace the current killer vaccines by life-saving vaccines.”
The fact that he’d “urged (The international health organisations) to consider (his) concerns and to initiate a debate” seemed quite reasonable, given what’s on his mind.
Overall, I think I’ll side with you on this one and, personally, I’ll just write him off as a crack pot for the time being, until I hear otherwise or come across corroborating reports from sources I’m more familiar with.
The alternative is that this is going to be a flippin’ lonely planet, even if he’s only half right. Ignorance/cognitive dissonance can be bliss sometimes :-)))
Sorry, let me be more serious for a moment. Scientists spend their entire careers exploring various possibilities & arguing the toss over what is & what isn’t, so I’m not heading for the hills just yet.
I’ve not seen anyone else I’m familiar with going on about this and, as I’m sure you’ll be the first to agree, there’s a lot of hysterical rubbish out there.
Admittedly, apart from Craig’s site, I only trawl through the online once a week, for a couple of days, and I wasn’t due to have a browse till tomorrow so maybe there’s a conversation being had that I haven’t yet read.
But to be honest, after a stupid number of hours spent churning out a ridiculous volume of “spittle-flecked” “blather” over the past few days, I’m inclined to extend my absence from the digital world a few more days, CM blog included.
Beach, coffee shops, bicycle rides & general pottering are calling me. Hopefully when I next click on, Bossche will have calmed down a bit.