My previous post was the letter to the Journal of Medical Ethics as first designed. Before I was able to get it to the correct editor, this happened and a paragraph was added:
letter to the Journal of Medical Ethics (part of the BMJ) sent Jan 11, 2021:
Dear Editor,
(So far my initial comment...)
... after I found the video interview where Dr Mary Ramsey for PHE declares the safety of vaccines, I felt prompted to do a little research and - surprise, surprise: The first academic paper I found, from 2016, states that allergies to PEG will most likely be underdiagnosed. (I can provide that link from a fb post later if required; today a follow-up reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303372103_Immediate-type_hypersensitivity_to_polyethylene_glycols_PEGs_a_review).
Would it be fair to say that, given Dr Ramsay's position she could or even should have known of these findings? If at least one of those points is answered in the affirmative, then we have here a situation where, I am inclined to argue, an overcoming of epistemic injustice is actively prevented. Trustworthiness of a public authority rests on credibility, and that, like 'following the science' means in my understanding weighing the evidence one can reasonably have access to - not denying it.
Thank you.
letter to the Journal of Medical Ethics (part of the BMJ) sent Jan 11, 2021:
Dear Editor,
(So far my initial comment...)
... after I found the video interview where Dr Mary Ramsey for PHE declares the safety of vaccines, I felt prompted to do a little research and - surprise, surprise: The first academic paper I found, from 2016, states that allergies to PEG will most likely be underdiagnosed. (I can provide that link from a fb post later if required; today a follow-up reference: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303372103_Immediate-type_hypersensitivity_to_polyethylene_glycols_PEGs_a_review).
Would it be fair to say that, given Dr Ramsay's position she could or even should have known of these findings? If at least one of those points is answered in the affirmative, then we have here a situation where, I am inclined to argue, an overcoming of epistemic injustice is actively prevented. Trustworthiness of a public authority rests on credibility, and that, like 'following the science' means in my understanding weighing the evidence one can reasonably have access to - not denying it.
Thank you.
RSS Feed
