3 ms·

I found this story interesting, largely because of the parallels to today. Scott Atlas to me is clearly cut from the same clothe as Trofim Lysenko, and the use

I found this story interesting, largely because of the parallels to today. Scott Atlas to me is clearly cut from the same clothe as Trofim Lysenko, and the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for Covid are the modern-day equivalent of Lysenkoism. I always wonder if these people are smart and know what they're spouting is bullshit, or just too stupid to realize it. In the end, it probably doesn't matter, the outcome is the same.

nradov 6y ago
That is a mischaracterization. There are multiple clinical studies which indicate that Ivermectin may be somewhat helpful for treating COVID-19. Other studies have shown no effect. It's too early to declare a firm conclusion and research continues. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/
- raphlinus 6y ago
  Ok, I'll grant the evidence is not yet in on ivermectin, but that hasn't stopped many of the same folks as were advocating HCQ from pushing it. The paper to be published in Frontiers of Pharmacology was pulled because it didn't meet the scientific standards of the journal. Or perhaps because the editorial board has an anti-ivermectin agenda and censored the maverick scientists. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes... Another story on this I found fairly credible: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 And here's an authoritative source (the NIH): https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... They conclude that the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin. My accusation of Lysenkoism is for the people prescribing it without solid evidence. Obviously if the drug shows promise it should be investigated in real trials, as was done for HCQ. I'm not going to edit my original post but I think it would have been stronger if I had stuck to HCQ and not gotten into the ivermectin controversy - there's definitely still a chance it will turn out to be useful.
Guthur 6y ago
This story is an example of the dangers of centralised power and cronyism and less to do with the individuals rights or wrongs. Lysenko had the support of Stalin even when he was proven wrong time and again.
- raphlinus 6y ago
  That's actually the point I'm trying to make here. The HCQ boosters have the support of a large faction of a major political party in the US, including a governor who recently hosted a roundtable featuring a number of prominent modern-day Lysenkoists including Dr. Atlas.
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  I personally saw Lysenkoism as essentially extreme political doctrine being indistinguishable from extreme religious fundamentalism. It looks very similiar towards US protestant reaction to evolution because it went against literalist dogma that itself ignored that there are two contradictory genesis accounts. The idea of any difference from birth was anathema - never mind that theories themselves would have noted enviromental changes via mutation via outlier results at the very least. Never mind that selective breeding is older than /writing/ and ranchers would be aware that it isn't just a difference in feeding and training between riding and plough horses. In both cases the very suggestion that their foundation could be wrong meant that those who disagreed couldn't be merely wrong but had to be actively and maliciously trying to keep "the truth" down. Of course the two explanations are perfectly compatible - Stalin and his cronies would see "acceptance of the Bourgeoisie pseudoscience of genetics" as a potentially deadly sign of weakness to allow within their domain which is why it would be unthinkable to accept.
jdminhbg 6y ago
> the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for Covid are the modern-day equivalent of Lysenkoism I don't think HCQ is effective against Covid, but it's hardly an insane, biologically-impossible thing to be true. Lysenkoism is closer to thinking wearing a copper bracelet is protective against Covid.
3a443fe3608d 6y ago
Just like today’s political hacks are pushing legalized racial discrimination (affirmative action) in education and corporations despite many studies showing that mere racial diversity does not improve the performance of a company or institution. You could say modern DEI programs are also the modern day equivalent of Lysenkoism. Ineffective at best and actively detrimental to success at worst.
- bavent 6y ago
  Is anyone else noticing an influx over the last few days of new-ish accounts posting things like this?
  - girvo 6y ago
    Yep. It’s disconcerting to be honest.
  - 3a443fe3608d 6y ago
    I don’t think that flagging a comment presenting a legitimate take on the article is really conducive to discussion. Above me there’s a commenter describing how anyone that opposed Lysenko was canceled. That is the same thing happening to critics of DEI today. You can draw similar parallels to the battle between the two scientific ideologies in the article - similarly today there is a battle between the merits of equality and equity.
narrator 6y ago
Lysenko wasn't an outsider, he was representative of the institutional establishment views. Anyone who opposed him was canceled. In the Soviet Union under Stalin this meant death. I don't think HCQ curing Covid could ever claim to represent the institutional establishment view. Lysenkoism is what happens when there is an elimination of critics of scientific doctrine through terror. Another instance of this in the Soviet Union was that Beria, the head of the NKVD had to directly appeal to Stalin to get him to stop a party conference to denounce relativity as "Jewish Physics", because it would completely derail the atomic bomb project if it became ideology as Lysenkoism had. Stalin was smart enough to put a stop to this particular ideological crusade.

nradov 6y ago

That is a mischaracterization. There are multiple clinical studies which indicate that Ivermectin may be somewhat helpful for treating COVID-19. Other studies have shown no effect. It's too early to declare a firm conclusion and research continues. https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/medical-evidence/ivermectin/

raphlinus 6y ago
Ok, I'll grant the evidence is not yet in on ivermectin, but that hasn't stopped many of the same folks as were advocating HCQ from pushing it. The paper to be published in Frontiers of Pharmacology was pulled because it didn't meet the scientific standards of the journal. Or perhaps because the editorial board has an anti-ivermectin agenda and censored the maverick scientists. https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes-controversial-ivermectin-paper-pre-publication-68505 https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/frontiers-removes... Another story on this I found fairly credible: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90552 And here's an authoritative source (the NIH): https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/ https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-the... They conclude that the evidence is not yet strong enough to recommend for or against the use of ivermectin. My accusation of Lysenkoism is for the people prescribing it without solid evidence. Obviously if the drug shows promise it should be investigated in real trials, as was done for HCQ. I'm not going to edit my original post but I think it would have been stronger if I had stuck to HCQ and not gotten into the ivermectin controversy - there's definitely still a chance it will turn out to be useful.

Guthur 6y ago

This story is an example of the dangers of centralised power and cronyism and less to do with the individuals rights or wrongs. Lysenko had the support of Stalin even when he was proven wrong time and again.

raphlinus 6y ago
That's actually the point I'm trying to make here. The HCQ boosters have the support of a large faction of a major political party in the US, including a governor who recently hosted a roundtable featuring a number of prominent modern-day Lysenkoists including Dr. Atlas.
Nasrudith 6y ago
I personally saw Lysenkoism as essentially extreme political doctrine being indistinguishable from extreme religious fundamentalism. It looks very similiar towards US protestant reaction to evolution because it went against literalist dogma that itself ignored that there are two contradictory genesis accounts. The idea of any difference from birth was anathema - never mind that theories themselves would have noted enviromental changes via mutation via outlier results at the very least. Never mind that selective breeding is older than /writing/ and ranchers would be aware that it isn't just a difference in feeding and training between riding and plough horses. In both cases the very suggestion that their foundation could be wrong meant that those who disagreed couldn't be merely wrong but had to be actively and maliciously trying to keep "the truth" down. Of course the two explanations are perfectly compatible - Stalin and his cronies would see "acceptance of the Bourgeoisie pseudoscience of genetics" as a potentially deadly sign of weakness to allow within their domain which is why it would be unthinkable to accept.

jdminhbg 6y ago

> the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin for Covid are the modern-day equivalent of Lysenkoism I don't think HCQ is effective against Covid, but it's hardly an insane, biologically-impossible thing to be true. Lysenkoism is closer to thinking wearing a copper bracelet is protective against Covid.

3a443fe3608d 6y ago

Just like today’s political hacks are pushing legalized racial discrimination (affirmative action) in education and corporations despite many studies showing that mere racial diversity does not improve the performance of a company or institution. You could say modern DEI programs are also the modern day equivalent of Lysenkoism. Ineffective at best and actively detrimental to success at worst.

bavent 6y ago
Is anyone else noticing an influx over the last few days of new-ish accounts posting things like this?
- girvo 6y ago
  Yep. It’s disconcerting to be honest.
- 3a443fe3608d 6y ago
  I don’t think that flagging a comment presenting a legitimate take on the article is really conducive to discussion. Above me there’s a commenter describing how anyone that opposed Lysenko was canceled. That is the same thing happening to critics of DEI today. You can draw similar parallels to the battle between the two scientific ideologies in the article - similarly today there is a battle between the merits of equality and equity.

narrator 6y ago

Lysenko wasn't an outsider, he was representative of the institutional establishment views. Anyone who opposed him was canceled. In the Soviet Union under Stalin this meant death. I don't think HCQ curing Covid could ever claim to represent the institutional establishment view. Lysenkoism is what happens when there is an elimination of critics of scientific doctrine through terror. Another instance of this in the Soviet Union was that Beria, the head of the NKVD had to directly appeal to Stalin to get him to stop a party conference to denounce relativity as "Jewish Physics", because it would completely derail the atomic bomb project if it became ideology as Lysenkoism had. Stalin was smart enough to put a stop to this particular ideological crusade.