6 ms·

Yes, rather absurdly, I learned about him like a month ago on ZeroHedge when they started following him; he was brushed off for weeks, his message being, "Look

Yes, rather absurdly, I learned about him like a month ago on ZeroHedge when they started following him; he was brushed off for weeks, his message being, "Look at patient behavior, this is not actually ARDS, our ventilator strategy is probably wrong." Crazy to think that so many doctors around the world, experts, and policy makers didn't really question the fundamental nature of the disease, and perhaps telling that it took an ER doctor in NYC posting on youtube for a month to bring it proper attention.

nerdponx 6y ago
What I don't understand about this is - didn't China figure this all out already?
- pests 6y ago
  I distinctly remember months ago of a Chinese doctor in China claiming this same thing. I thought it was a bit far fetched at the time but I'm getting incredible deja vu with this new release.
  - jplayer01 6y ago
    It's not just the Chinese. Doctors have been concerned about the abnormally high death rate for ventilators for months too. I've been seeing comments to the effect of looking for alternatives to ventilators because there were indications that did more harm than good. I guess not every hospital had this idea, but I know the sentiment was around for a while.
jonkho 6y ago
Also, how does this affect the actual death rate numbers in NYC if unnecessary deaths caused by outcomes of ventilator use are factored into the picture? Could change the picture quite drastically.
- james-mcelwain 6y ago
  It's not like we're going around incubating healthy people -- you have to be pretty sick to get put on a ventilator. Even if the treatment turns out to be a net negative, most of these patients didn't have very good odds in the first place, so it's pretty unlikely it would affect the death rates "drastically."
  - jonkho 6y ago
    Sources? I would disagree, reports show that by not intubating, outcomes are dramatically improved. [1][2] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-in-10-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-died-in-study https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ventilators-specia/as-virus-advances-doctors-rethink-rush-to-ventilate-idUSKCN2251PE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ventil...
    - james-mcelwain 6y ago
      I'm taking issue with the use of the word "dramatically" not the claim that it could improve patient outcomes.
      - jonkho 6y ago
        Sounds like mincing words. Still you have not provided sources to support your assumptions whatsoever.
fragmede 6y ago
Dr Ignaz Semmelweis had this ludicrous theory, back in 1846, of “cadaverous particles” causing high deaths in women who had just given birth. Despite evidence that it worked, he spent the rest of his life trying to get people to listen. The doctors of the day were so threatened by the possibility that they were the ones killing their patients that they rejected the practice. We haven’t culturally evolved much further it seems. ”Wacky” ideas are routinely rejected by mainstream science; eg ulcers being caused by germs rather than stress, and can be cured as such. What societal changes need to come about that this doctor doesn't have to make YouTube videos for a month? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/3756639...
- azinman2 6y ago
  Probably because there are so many ludicrous theories that are just plain wrong, and likely they outnumber the crazy ideas that will turn out to be true. Just look at MMS / injecting bleach debacle going on.
- beagle3 6y ago
  There’s a saying, “progress is made one funeral at a time”, especially in science but also in other areas; smbc had a good comic about it too a whole back (am in mobile and can’t find it now). Linus Pauling famously and successfully used all his night to reject the idea of quasicrystals. The Updated concept of crystals was adopted shortly after his death; i can’t say I was able to track the history - there is an enormous amount of whitewashing - but it seems initially everyone rejected quasicrystals, but eventually people started to look at ahechtman’s evidence - and accept it, except not publicly because the luminaries of the field led by Pauling rejected it. And then Pauling’s funeral allowed the science to finally advance.
  - ineedasername 6y ago
    When I studied computational linguistics, my professors told me that a great deal of promising research on linguistics in the US had been similarly stifled by Noam Chomsky and his adherents, the result being a relative stagnation in "continental" linguistics compared to that seen in Europe.
achillesheels 6y ago
Yes it is. Frankly my view of the medical professional community is much lower now. MDs are really just glorified infantry on the frontlines. The lack of creativity, which presupposes degrees of original and independent thought, is striking.
- 8bitsrule 6y ago
  Of course we need to factor in malpractice lawsuits, administrative restrictions, tidal paperwork etc. etc. into anything which may have happened to medical professionals' creativity.
- NineStarPoint 6y ago
  There are, rightly or wrongly, strong incentives to not be creative. To do the thing the medical consensus recommends, even if it is incredibly flawed, leaves the doctor personally safe. To try an experimental idea on your own could get you sued for medical malpractice. Which is I suppose to say, that MDs have been given a strong incentive by our system to suppress creativity. (Personally, I think there’s a good reason for this in normal times. Medical research is hard and personal opinion will never compare to years of research, especially when lives are on the line. In times where years of research aren’t actually an option though...)
humaniania 6y ago
You should be very careful about reading ZH. There is so much toxic paranoia on there it can be bad for your mental health.

nerdponx 6y ago

What I don't understand about this is - didn't China figure this all out already?

pests 6y ago
I distinctly remember months ago of a Chinese doctor in China claiming this same thing. I thought it was a bit far fetched at the time but I'm getting incredible deja vu with this new release.
- jplayer01 6y ago
  It's not just the Chinese. Doctors have been concerned about the abnormally high death rate for ventilators for months too. I've been seeing comments to the effect of looking for alternatives to ventilators because there were indications that did more harm than good. I guess not every hospital had this idea, but I know the sentiment was around for a while.

jonkho 6y ago

Also, how does this affect the actual death rate numbers in NYC if unnecessary deaths caused by outcomes of ventilator use are factored into the picture? Could change the picture quite drastically.

james-mcelwain 6y ago
It's not like we're going around incubating healthy people -- you have to be pretty sick to get put on a ventilator. Even if the treatment turns out to be a net negative, most of these patients didn't have very good odds in the first place, so it's pretty unlikely it would affect the death rates "drastically."
- jonkho 6y ago
  Sources? I would disagree, reports show that by not intubating, outcomes are dramatically improved. [1][2] [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-in-10-covid-19-patients-on-ventilators-died-in-study https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-22/almost-9-... [2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ventilators-specia/as-virus-advances-doctors-rethink-rush-to-ventilate-idUSKCN2251PE https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-ventil...
  - james-mcelwain 6y ago
    I'm taking issue with the use of the word "dramatically" not the claim that it could improve patient outcomes.
    - jonkho 6y ago
      Sounds like mincing words. Still you have not provided sources to support your assumptions whatsoever.

fragmede 6y ago

Dr Ignaz Semmelweis had this ludicrous theory, back in 1846, of “cadaverous particles” causing high deaths in women who had just given birth. Despite evidence that it worked, he spent the rest of his life trying to get people to listen. The doctors of the day were so threatened by the possibility that they were the ones killing their patients that they rejected the practice. We haven’t culturally evolved much further it seems. ”Wacky” ideas are routinely rejected by mainstream science; eg ulcers being caused by germs rather than stress, and can be cured as such. What societal changes need to come about that this doctor doesn't have to make YouTube videos for a month? https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/375663920/the-doctor-who-championed-hand-washing-and-saved-women-s-lives https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2015/01/12/3756639...

azinman2 6y ago
Probably because there are so many ludicrous theories that are just plain wrong, and likely they outnumber the crazy ideas that will turn out to be true. Just look at MMS / injecting bleach debacle going on.
beagle3 6y ago
There’s a saying, “progress is made one funeral at a time”, especially in science but also in other areas; smbc had a good comic about it too a whole back (am in mobile and can’t find it now). Linus Pauling famously and successfully used all his night to reject the idea of quasicrystals. The Updated concept of crystals was adopted shortly after his death; i can’t say I was able to track the history - there is an enormous amount of whitewashing - but it seems initially everyone rejected quasicrystals, but eventually people started to look at ahechtman’s evidence - and accept it, except not publicly because the luminaries of the field led by Pauling rejected it. And then Pauling’s funeral allowed the science to finally advance.
- ineedasername 6y ago
  When I studied computational linguistics, my professors told me that a great deal of promising research on linguistics in the US had been similarly stifled by Noam Chomsky and his adherents, the result being a relative stagnation in "continental" linguistics compared to that seen in Europe.

achillesheels 6y ago

Yes it is. Frankly my view of the medical professional community is much lower now. MDs are really just glorified infantry on the frontlines. The lack of creativity, which presupposes degrees of original and independent thought, is striking.

8bitsrule 6y ago
Of course we need to factor in malpractice lawsuits, administrative restrictions, tidal paperwork etc. etc. into anything which may have happened to medical professionals' creativity.
NineStarPoint 6y ago
There are, rightly or wrongly, strong incentives to not be creative. To do the thing the medical consensus recommends, even if it is incredibly flawed, leaves the doctor personally safe. To try an experimental idea on your own could get you sued for medical malpractice. Which is I suppose to say, that MDs have been given a strong incentive by our system to suppress creativity. (Personally, I think there’s a good reason for this in normal times. Medical research is hard and personal opinion will never compare to years of research, especially when lives are on the line. In times where years of research aren’t actually an option though...)

humaniania 6y ago

You should be very careful about reading ZH. There is so much toxic paranoia on there it can be bad for your mental health.