Quillette’s Heterodox Fail
Why Claire Lehmann’s position on vaccines is a betrayal of the growing heterodox community.
Claire Lehmann, owner and publisher of Quillette defended their “strong pro-vax editorial position” articulated in four articles: “Looking for COVID-19 ‘Miracle Drugs’? We Already Have Them. They’re Called Vaccines,” “Vaccines and the Coronavirus Crank Crisis,” “Making the (Conservative) Case for Vaccine Passports,” and “Vexed by the Un-Vaxxed.”
A number of Quillette readers expressed outrage and disgust in social media and on the Quillette forum. In an email to subscribers Lehmann defended her mainstream position of, “being pro-vax during a pandemic [is] supported by the overwhelming majority of people in Australia, Canada, the UK, and the US today.”
I am among those who are disappointed by Quillette’s coverage of the pandemic. Her defence of socially compelled immunization misses the point that there is a growing community who objects to being placed in the traditional boxes of leftwing or rightwing, communist or capitalist, liberal or conservative, libertarian or patriot. Nor can we be described fairly as either “Vax” or “Anti-Vax.”
Members of this heterodox community are diverse in background and outlook. We are parents, professionals, and entrepreneurs who have realized that legacy institutions, including political parties, educational institutions and mainstream media, no longer reflect our values. They appear out of touch with the reality of earning a living and raising a family.
One of our characteristics is that we understand that complex and fast-evolving matters, such as the COVID pandemic and its therapies, cannot be boiled down into simple one-size-fits-all solutions. We are able to handle ambiguity and complexity because that is the reality we experience in our lives. The narrative that scientific elites are certain of the answers to multidimensional questions relating to health, education, energy and other matters of public policy is implausible, if not laughable.
To characterize this group as anti-science and Flat Earthers, as Lehmann does, is disingenuous. On the contrary many in this group are highly educated although we are disassociated from academic institutions and not captive to their self-serving, increasingly unhinged ideologies. Many of us are leaders who routinely seek advice from experts of various sorts, and it is instinctive for us to take into account the expert’s background and motivations. Business people who blindly follow the advice of experts don’t last long.
To distill the complexities relating to virus pathology, epidemiology, immunology, public health and the role of authorities into two tribes: those who are Pro-Vax versus those who are Anti-Vax betrays a lack of intellectual sophistication. And to presume that the heterodox community is Anti-Vax reveals that the defender has succumbed to a tribal mindset.
Community members have been abandoning mainstream media because we observe headlines that express tribal positions rather than accurately summing up specific events and findings. Headlines from the New York Times, CNN, CBC, ABC, BBC and Fox are so predictable they are not worth reading. Instead we get our news from sources such as longform interviews and presentations on podcasts, Youtube and Substack. We have to resort to BitChute and personal websites in some cases because interesting perspectives have been “fact-checked” by graduates without awareness that their political views are not universal. Algorithms routinely label trigger-words as “misinformation” irrespective of the point the writer is making.
Is everything we hear from Joe Rogan, Lex Fridman, Jordan Peterson, Bret Weinstein, Heather Heying, to name a few, true and accurate? Of course not. Can we make up our own minds about what to believe or not? Yes. Is it fair to label dozens of hours of intelligent conversation as heretical? Only if you don’t care to listen to the details and understand their perspectives.
Irrespective of individual views about the merits of vaccines we dislike being treated like unruly children with directives along the lines of “wear a mask, get vaccinated or you will be in trouble.” Many of us have lived under totalitarian regimes ourselves and escaped them, or have parents and other relatives who have succumbed. We have seen the adverse consequences of authoritarian governments and can recognize when politicians pander to fears, real or overblown, to create a class of outcasts and drive a wedge through communities.
We particularly don’t like being told half-truths to manipulate our behavior. For instance it is shortsighted for the Australian Government Department of Health to issue a press release placing restrictions on prescribing ivermectin for COVID-19 because, irrespective of efficacy, prescribing it might limit the progress towards mass vaccination. Doctors generally do not get dosing information from “unreliable social media posts and other sources” so it is insulting to stop them from treating their patients to the best of their knowledge and abilities.
The heterodox community is not necessarily contrarian or anti-authority, however, we appreciate honesty and are looking for leaders and writers who have a grasp of history, and are able to spell out complex matters and debate them without lapsing into tribal bromides.
The latest article in Quillette, Understanding the Motivated Reasoning of Anti-Vax Refuseniks is particularly patronising and myopic. Richard Redding, Distinguished Professor of Jurisprudence at Chapman University, states that “Even if one acknowledges that there may be a grain of truth to… the liberal impulse to control citizens’ behaviors… What is the harm in being temporarily “controlled” for one’s own good? Surely it’s worth compromising one’s political principles as a means to safeguard our most precious asset — i.e., our lives, and those of our loved ones.”
Aren’t the author and Lehmann aware that the term “refusenik” was an unofficial term for individuals, typically, but not exclusively, Soviet Jews, who were denied permission to emigrate? Is this a model of government that a heterodox publication should be advocating?
The situation in Australia and New Zealand is different to other parts of the world because the majority of the population believe that SARS-CoV-2 can be conquered through vaccines and will not become endemic. In the light of what we have learned in other jurisdictions we need to move beyond dreams of returning to a pre-COVID existence and ask, how can we best handle a disease that nearly everyone will at some point contract? There are many questions aside from techniques for persuading Anti-Vaxxers to fall in line that are critical to address for the wellbeing of citizens, such as: In the light of the history of medical testing and attendant medical reversals how can we mitigate the stress resulting from overdiagnosis? What progress has been made over the last two years in preventing mortality and long term symptoms? How can we make faster progress in reducing the prevalence of preventable comorbidities?
The fast growing discipline of virology is beyond fascinating. There is so much yet to discover about the relationship between the human body and the trillions of sub-microscopic entities that exist in and around us. The subject is settled only for those who have a highschool conception of science and are unable to handle its details.
Perhaps Quillette can stop hectoring its supporters and report on diverse viewpoints to regain its credibility as a place where free thought lives.
Tom Beakbane is president of a brand marketing company in Toronto. With an honours degree in biochemistry and neurophysiology from Durham University in England, he was puzzled by the gap between textbook theories of human behaviour and his experiences creating business communications. He closed the gap by tapping into developments at the frontiers of science, explained in the recently published book How to Understand Everything. Consilience: A New Way to See the World. You can follow him on Twitter @TomBeakbane.
