Yes, this world is complex. So complex that you, dear readers, do not understand most. The author of this text, by way, neir. Hardly anyone knows how to change traffic light so that traffic in large cities flows better. What is unclear is majority of what is to be considered in statics of a bridge in order to prevent collapse. And it is not understood for most how new plants are created using genetic engineering. A cause for concern? Frankly, not. Because we live in a world where re are enough highly specialised people who can do just that and make our lives much easier: computer scientists, engineers, geneticists and researchers from or disciplines. In short: Science.
This principle is, however, very much to be called into question. Current example from Germany: Vaccinate subject. There are vehement opinions expressed here, including alleged insider knowledge and dubious sources. These are deliberately not explicitly mentioned here, because it is scientifically proven that myths are more likely to be strengned. The reason for renewed debate is book, in which filmmaker David Sieveking is daranmacht in a pseudo-aufklärerischer manner, to understand what vaccination is good for his children and which are not. He travels around world, speaks with various experts and at end develops his own personal vaccination schedule.Hundreds of thousands of subjects against research of a non-specialist
What sounds exemplary is extremely problematic. Because re is already a vaccination schedule. It is product of many years of intensive, objective evaluations of Permanent Vaccination commission of Robert Koch Institute. There are 18 experts, eleven of m professors who have been dealing with vaccinations for years. They check wher it needs vaccination against a particular pathogen, put toger all useful studies – often dozens with hundreds of thousands of subjects – and analyze m. In case of doubt, you can make elaborate modeling and evaluate it. Only vaccinations that make sense, that is, effective and safe as well as really necessary, are recommended. By way, if a Stiko member himself participated in development of a vaccine, it must not vote.
In contrast, David Sieveking, as a stranger, researched a few months for a film. What happens to him – and many ors – he finds studies that may be interesting. But he misplaces m because he lacks an overview. He is looking for experts who are not real experts. He overestimates effects of individual studies and refore draws false conclusions. His findings are similar to those of Stiko, as a penny novel to overall Schiller edition.Updated Date: 22 August 2018, 12:00