AI Says...
The paradox of ubiquity can be expressed as follows: in the modern world, a researcher or scientific figure can instantly spread ideas or hypotheses across all media platforms, becoming (virtually) omnipresent. But this media ubiquity in no way guarantees rigor, reliability, or validity. In other words: being everywhere does not mean being right.
This paradox takes on particular force when a scientist frees themselves from the traditional codes of academic publishing to favor the media stage. It then becomes possible to disseminate (and popularize) unverified or controversial ideas, creating a snowball effect that is difficult to stop.
It is in this context that the opportunism of scientific ego arises: some researchers, attracted by visibility, seek to impose their voice in the public debate at any cost, even at the expense of methodological caution.
The danger is twofold:
The effect of overexposure: unverified hypotheses are broadcast as if they were established facts.
The confusion between notoriety and scientific truth: the public may be led to believe those who speak loudly more than those who study quietly.
At this point, the paradox reverses: science is (medially) everywhere, but truth — that which is genuinely grounded — becomes increasingly rare.
The Didier Raoult Case and the Controversial Vaccine–Cancer Hypothesis
In a recent episode of Franceinfo’s podcast Le vrai ou faux, the question was raised:
“Is there a link between Covid-19 vaccination and cancer, as suggested by Didier Raoult?”
Raoult relayed the claim that two studies (one Italian, the other South Korean) allegedly showed a correlation between vaccination and an increased risk of cancer. He even cited sharp increases (for instance +37% or even +157%) for certain cancers and criticized the short duration of earlier studies — arguing that those who “impose” vaccination under pressure from the WHO or financial backers prevent long-term effects from being properly observed.
However, the podcast (and the accompanying fact-checks) highlighted a crucial point: while these studies observe correlations, they do not demonstrate causation. In other words, they do not prove that the vaccine causes cancer — they merely show a statistical association that may be explained by other factors (confounding variables, biases, overdiagnosis, etc.).
Fact-checking outlets also stressed the methodological limits:
The Italian authors themselves acknowledged that their results are preliminary and lack sufficiently strict control of confounding factors (such as smoking).
The Korean study was criticized for surveillance bias — vaccinated individuals, being in more frequent contact with the healthcare system, are more likely to have cancers detected.
The one-year follow-up period is considered far too short for a vaccine to cause a detectable solid tumor — cancers take years to develop.
In short, Raoult’s categorical conclusions are not supported by the scientific rigor required. His statements thus verge on an exercise of stubborn ego in the media arena.
Ego as a Discursive Engine — and Its Corrosive Effects on Science
The behavior of certain scientists — including some of great stature — who turn scientific inquiry into a personal platform represents a major risk to the collective credibility of science.
The escalation of spectacular claims The temptation is strong to announce a “shocking discovery” — especially if it draws media attention. Yet science does not advance through sensational announcements, but through cumulative verification, reproducibility, and the collective weight of evidence.
The privilege of voice When a media figure is already well-known, their words receive disproportionate attention, even without solid grounding. Personal prestige becomes an implicit form of credibility — what could be called a “Raoult effect.”
The confusion between provocative posture and epistemic rigor Making bold, unnuanced claims, attacking institutions, or denouncing a supposed scientific conspiracy — these are strategies that captivate audiences but undermine credibility. The opportunism of ego often favors spectacle over truth.
The amnesic effect of controversy A spectacular claim can leave a lasting impression, even if later disproved or corrected. The cognitive damage endures: the public remembers the shocking statement, not the refutation.
The erosion of collective trust When loud voices in science are wrong — or appear to be — it fuels distrust toward the entire scientific community. The paradox: the media ubiquity of a “scandal” helps erode the general credibility of science.
A Call for Humility and Scientific Responsibility
The Raoult case illustrates clearly that media ubiquity is not proof of validity. It also shows how ego opportunism can turn science into an argumentative arena rather than a shared pursuit of truth.
A few guiding principles deserve to be recalled:
Caution before dissemination: strong hypotheses must first pass through peer review, replication, and independent validation.
Distinguishing hypothesis from fact: in public discourse, one must clearly mark the difference between what is “possible/suggested” and what is “established.”
Transparency about uncertainty: acknowledging what we don’t know is a mark of rigor, not weakness.
Epistemic solidarity: scientific progress is collective, not individual. No researcher owns the whole of science.
Respect for public communication: media amplification should come with clarity, nuance, and accessibility.
Ultimately, the paradox of ubiquity calls for a counter-force: argumentative modesty, shared epistemology, and an ethics of dissemination. Without these, scientific ego — amplified by media exposure — can do more harm to science than it brings light.
Related Posts
