JAMA v. Gab post.
- Thread starter Cowguy
- Start date
Honestly I doubt we’ll see a perfect study until there’s truly a postmortem of the pandemic. It’s just the first real deep dive by a credible organization. And I don’t think you’re being a dick at all. We should all think critically about any data surrounding COVID.
Thanks, dude.
You nailed it, we won’t know much until we get a few years down the timeline.
The FDA wanting to treat it like the Kennedy hit doesn’t give me any faith though.
Always be critical of every study. Always be skeptical of every internet rumor/source. That is not being a dick. Peer-reviewed article does not mean that it is infallible, but when it survives the critical approach, it gains that additional credibility that it needs for further study and policy. Throughout the pandemic, people are seeing, for the first time, how science works.
I think this is the piece that the media and bureaucrats seemed to have lost sight of. Their inability to admit this early has largely led to the backlash fueling the vaccine debate. The “listen to MY science as it is gospel” approach hasn’t proven to be the appropriate approach.
The problem with this premise is that peer-reviewed no longer means anything. With today's rise of "experts", you see way too many peer-reviewed documents that get published and the only thing the peers actually reviewed is whether the study fit the global narrative.
A good article on some of the challenges with the peer-review process:
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
The problem with this premise is that peer-reviewed no longer means anything. With today's rise of "experts", you see way too many peer-reviewed documents that get published and the only thing the peers actually reviewed is whether the study fit the global narrative.
A good article on some of the challenges with the peer-review process:
Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals
Peer review is not perfect by any stretch, but to call it worthless is incredibly disingenuous at best. Now, there are journals that are MUCH better than others. Knowing those higher end journals is part of the process. Also, just because some are certainly lower end with a less rigorous review process does not make those worthless. All of them should be scrutinized.
Nice thread. I think this is what most of us want.
It will be a shame when the Child of Corn shows.
It will be a shame when the Child of Corn shows.
Oh he won’t post here. Maybe if I’d titled the post “space aliens and libturds don’t want you to know this”
worthless is probably a strong word, but its fair to say that the phrase "peer-reviewed" no longer ensures accuracy nor carries the weight that it has historically.
It (peer-review) never has been infallible, which is why you will see so many secondary studies challenging the initial conclusions, especially in big issues. The general public may have always viewed it as overly "pure," but the scientific community, to my knowledge, has not. There are no "perfect" studies and even less "perfect" publications since there are restrictions to journal articles (space, etc) that can obscure important details, though generally unintentional.
That is what drives me bonkers about the media "medical experts." One study does not move the needle for me in any way. It might make me look at something differently, but one study is not enough to change policy or dogma. Succession of studies along with the initial study surviving time and scrutiny does.
Science is agnostic, but scientists are human and susceptible to error, whether intentional or not. When it hits the journal, now it gets the opportunity to be shredded by many views, experiences, and expertise. Just as an example of that, the history of Biogenesis and disproving Spontaneous Generation is a fascinating window into that world.
Where you and I may be in agreement, and I think this is what you mean, is "peer-review" in the eyes of the general public may not be seen in as flattering light, and that is a good thing if done right.
The science pushed out to the masses is not agnostic and hasn’t been for a long time.
Four outta five Dentists agree.
Four outta five Dentists agree.
I'd note it was exactly 1 study that shutdown HCQ and turned everyone into medical quacks regarding a drug that's been used globaly for decades. It took one study to create the term Anti-Vaxxer with the linkage of vaccines to autism in children. Its easy to say "one study does not move the needle for me", yet there are numerous examples of us moving the needle at a national or even global scale based on JUST one study, particularly when that one study gives us the narrative that we desire.
And while I agree with your last paragraph, I do believe that the peers themselves are broken. Whether its due to funding sources, ideaology, or simply societal pressure, the peers doing the reviews are already of the same scientific opinion and thus accept (too often without question) the results because they fit their preconceived notions.
On HCQ, one study did nothing on that front. HCQ had no previously established antiviral traits, so the onus is to prove that it did. It would take many studies addressing several areas to change that. On the autism/MMR vaccine, one fraudulent study only moved the needle for those that wanted it to. In the wide medical community, nothing changed.
It was exactly one study that showed that HCQ (a drug taken for decades) was harmful and thus it was suspended. Dozens of studies showed that it had some measure of efficacy (which makes sense given its an anti-inflammatory and the primary symptom of advanced COVID was inflammation). But it was shut down and those who recommended it were considered quacks. And it was all based on 1 study and the fact that that study aligned with the preferred political narrative.
Edit: Added a link to further data on the topic. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/
Studies are still on-going. Add to that, the authors of those studies that "showed efficacy" have distanced themselves from those claims. Even with that distancing, there are still studies ongoing and in review. There have been several studies that have shown it to be useless or essentially useless in the management of COVID. It was not just one.
But it was one biased study that showed it was harmful. And that was the one that Fauci, and every Democrat and left-leaning media person that could get on TV spouted.
As for people distancing themselves from their results, I'd submit that as exhibit 2 in regards to our conversation about peer review. What leftist wants to be associated with the science that says that everything Fauci and the Democratic overlords said in order to get rid of Trump was blatantly wrong.
Are all scientists leftists? I just don't get your second point. I think I understand what you are trying to say, but you are simply cramming an opinion into a narrative. That opinion, with no evidence, no data, no support.
As for the "biased study against HCQ," HCQ has known side effects that are potentially harmful. We know there are dose-related negative effects. It is not a perfectly safe drug for all situations (not that many are). It never has been. It is an anti-protozoal drug that may have limited anti-inflammatory traits. There is precedence for that in other drug classes such as tetracycline. There are so many steps needed in order to prove efficacy for anything but protozoal infections (that work has already been done), and there is no "just one study" that can accomplish this. Dose, dose response, etc. all has to be done to show any effect. We have a known dose for anti-protozoal applications. We also know drugs that are used for multiple disease treatments have varying doses to achieve their effect. Look at Ketamine as an example (yes, I am going veterinary medicine, because that is what I know best). The sedative dose is well over 10 times the analgesic dose. Different illness, different dose, many studies to show this. Even with that, I am fully in support of reasonable and safe study as to the effectiveness of HCQ to COVID, if there is any. So far, I am not convinced. In fact, the data supports that it is a good anti-protozoal drug, but not an anti-viral (which makes sense due to the mechanism of action).
You are hoping HCQ works to support Trump. I can assure you that clinicians are always happy to have as many therapeutic modalities as possible to treat many conditions. Sure, attack big-Pharma, and I will be right by you on that, but the simple fact is, nothing has shown clearly beneficial effects of HCQ in treating a viral disease, such as COVID-19.
Don't get me started on where the recommendations for the maximum daily human sodium chloride intake came from.
Just assuming they might be choosing to push the limit up so people would intake more salt.
Wtf is this salt crap about (strategic arms limitation treaty) ?
I/DBros. are still clotted and waiting for the worst!
JB, I'm telling you that you can put salt on those fries. Not a good idea if you're on dialysis and can't get to your regularly scheduled treatments though.Wtf is this salt crap about (strategic arms limitation treaty) ?
I use "Special Shit" on the fries I make, highly recommended:
Welcome to SpecialShit.com
www.specialshit.com
Bookmarked. Will be ordering.
Are all scientists leftists? Nope. However, the ones that aren't seem to be called "science deniers" in today's parlance.
As for HCQ, what would actually convince you that it could be a beneficial treatment, and certainly would have been more beneficial than our initial treatment strategies based on these studies: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33042552/
As for supporting Trump, you're projecting. I acknowledge that Trump got screwed, but Biden is president now and we're still doing the same STUPID shit. Somehow, half the world (all with a lower COVID death rate than the US) used HCQ and Ivermectin as their primary treatments, and there is significant evidence that the treatments were beneficial. Are they perfect? Nope, but like you said, no treatment is (including the Vaccine). But because of political expedience, its become easier to simply mock and name-call outside opinions rather than actually address them with science. See the FDA tweet below as a clear example of such disdain and malfeasance:
As if the FDA didn't know that Ivermectin had been prescribed for YEARS to humans, or that it was the primary treatment for bringing India's raging Covid outbreak under control this summer. Those facts are inconvenient to today's scientists. Whether that's due to political ideology, or simply indicative of the absolute strength of the Big Pharma lobby, I don't know, but its clear as day that we are deliberately choosing to ignore and ostracize (rather than investigate) any alternatives to our current Covid strategies.
I get it, you have dug your heels in on HCQ and ivermectin. Absolutely nothing is going to change that view. By extension, you are stating that physicians would rather see their patients die rather than using an unproven, but many in the public "feel" it should work, therapy. If clear and convincing evidence shows that they are, in fact, effective, I will absolutely change where I stand. If they are effective, that would certainly be a game changer in antiviral chemotherapeutics. I won't hold my breathe. What you are unintentionally promoting is human testing. Drugs have their limitations on what they are to be used for, and there needs to be clear evidence that any drug, new or old, can be used for other conditions. It does happen, colchIcine is one such example, and yes, Big Pharma shot the price up to absurd levels. Still, there is precedence for off-label usage to show effectiveness, and it can be approved. This, IMO, is just an odd battle.
The people who claim ivermectin and HCQ work are the same people that say there's not enough evidence to support the covid vaccine...
Go figure.
Not that you asked
, but here's how I do the fries:Very thin sliced and about 1/2" wide. Put in ziplock bag, add some olive oil and a generous helping of Special Shit. Let set for 20-30 minutes. Put a sheet of parchment paper in a baking pan; remove fries and spread single layer on the paper. Very lightly sprinkle them with more Special, and bake in 375 degree oven. Turn them over after 20 minutes or so and finish cooking to desired crispness. A lot of busy work I know, but damned good ending!
Your link did not take me to Gab, so I’m not sure it can be trusted
Thanks JB!!!Not that you asked
Very thin sliced and about 1/2" wide. Put in ziplock bag, add some olive oil and a generous helping of Special Shit. Let set for 20-30 minutes. Put a sheet of parchment paper in a baking pan; remove fries and spread single layer on the paper. Very lightly sprinkle them with more Special, and bake in 375 degree oven. Turn them over after 20 minutes or so and finish cooking to desired crispness. A lot of busy work I know, but damned good ending!
I've claimed ivermectin and HCQ work, and I've never made any claim against the vaccine.
I can tell you, as soon as I start seeing "gab" links, I know its time to exit the thread.
