9 ms·

What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Bret (Eric's brother, biology PhD) had a 2h long conversation with Pierre Kory (MD) and it was

What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Bret (Eric's brother, biology PhD) had a 2h long conversation with Pierre Kory (MD) and it was taken down by YT. One of the things they talked was the recommendations of WHO and other organisations to focus on supportive care only (supporting the patient while their organism fights the disease by itself). They insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials. The argument that running experiments would cost lives doesn't seem coherent. It's not like we have this 100+ yrs practice of dealing with SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with well established protocols. What if we're clinging to a suboptimal strategy?

varispeed 5y ago
> insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials That signals they may have conflict of interest. For example accidentally finding a treatment that works, could mean huge loss for vaccine business. (Just to be clear, I am not anti-vax. I got vaccinated myself and I believe there is no better option right now, however, trying to limit doctors in finding other means sounds extremely fishy)
- marcinzm 5y ago
  Telling doctors to not randomly experiment on their patients outside of a controlled studies seems perfectly reasonable. Most medical groups tend to view uncontrolled human experimentation as very unethical and have for a long time.
  - varispeed 5y ago
    What would you say about doctors prescribing e.g. random SSRI?
    - marcinzm 5y ago
      Prescribing for what? Prozac, for example, is on-label approved for depression, ocd, panic disorder, bulimia and bipolar. I do believe doctors use too many medications off-label although I acknowledge that FDA on-label approval can be a large barrier.
      - varispeed 5y ago
        SSRI off-label for chronic pain. Many drugs routinely prescribed have or had unknown mechanism of action (prime example Acetaminophen (Tylenol)). Here we have no double blind trials for vaccines, no long term effect studies and every doctor is happy to jab everyone including kids.
  - cm2187 5y ago
    Thanks god doctors don't wait to have a random double blind experiment peer reviewed and published to act. I understand the practice of putting ICU patients on ventilators was found to be more harmful and following word of mouth, ICU specialists switched to less invasive care. Was that unethical?
    - marcinzm 5y ago
      The person I responded to alluded to a conspiracy while I simply pointed out that this seems standard guidance from medical groups. Which is a separate topic from it being good or bad for patients.
  - hellbannedguy 5y ago
    It's a weird line. Most doctors don't bother treating a patient with anything other than standard care procedures. Why--I honesty believe most don't care enough to look beyond the usual treatment. 8 minutes per patient, collect the most money from the out of the patient, and insurance company. Do not say or do anything than might bring a lawsuit. Write a script, or recommend a Nettie Pot. (I still think about a guy here whom paid $450 out of packet for a sinus infection, and was told to buy a nettie pot. Nothing wrong with not doing anything though. It was the price of the office visit.) Determine if you can get the patent in for another pricey office visit. Repeat. Go back to writing that vanity novel, or checking the stock market. (This has been my experience. They have about 50 drugs they commonly use, and when things get complicated, they refer, or claim it might be psychosomatic?) There's always a risk of a lawsuit too. Then there are doctors whom sometimes prescribe off label for a condition, or honestly try to keep current. I appreciate those doctors.
  - nradov 5y ago
    Medicine isn't an exact science. In the real world physicians conduct n=1 experiments on their patients all the time. They try a treatment and if the patient doesn't respond then they try something else. Decisions are often based on clinical experience and intuition rather than defined protocols.
  - lawnchair_larry 5y ago
    Nobody is talking about randomly experimenting on patients, so this is a disingenuous attempt at reframing.
  - fitzie 5y ago
    the question I would ask is when a new virus caused a pandemic, would you want the medical/healthcare system to test existing drugs for suitability? if some drugs are know to treat various pathogens and have a well established safety record shouldn't we allow any doctor to experiment using their experience and informed consent? waiting for a properly run study will cost lived especially when there are corporate and political interests controlling these tests. it would have been easy to run dozens of prophylactic studies while this virus was running rampant. same for testing the dozens of clinical sourced protocols. instead the medical testing establishment shutdown and ignore all clinical protocols that were successful used, and put the message out so that medical journals, big tech, pharmacy boards, hospitals, suppressed more discussion and application of these protocols.
yokaze 5y ago
> They insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials. The argument that running experiments would cost lives doesn't seem coherent. Clinical trials are structured experiments which follow a certain protocol, ethical review, etc... > It's not like we have this 100+ yrs practice of dealing with SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with well established protocols We do have 100+ years of practice in dealing with various diseases, circumstances, including pandemics, etc... In that sense SARS-CoV-2 is nothing special. Protocols have been developed to ensure that we actually gain knowledge, and not at the expense of the patients. Should we skip on ethical review boards? Or patient confidentiality? Which part of a clinical study are you suggesting are superfluous?
- zackees 5y ago
  All these protocols for treating disease was changed for this virus. Patients were banned from taking HCQ in the state. I know several this happened too. Pretending the system is working as intended is a farce.
- saddlerustle 5y ago
  Yes. Ethical review boards, patient confidentiality, and modern clinical studies did not exist during any other pandemic comparable with SARS-CoV-2. Like in wartime, when the threat is to society as a whole not just individuals, individual rights take a back seat.
  - olliej 5y ago
    And yes we had experimentation on all sorts of minorities, general exploitation, and in some cases into infliction of harm. What good old days those were.
    - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
      You're not protecting anyone from the next Tuskegee Experiment by witholding potentially lifesaving medications from them. You're _repeating it_. According to Worldofmeters: At the moment the United States has 1848 deaths per million people. Thailand has 21. Cambodia has 20. Taiwan 18. Vietnam 0.6. Laos 0.4.
zozbot234 5y ago
I think arguing that supportive care is grossly suboptimal is going to be a pretty difficult take to sustain, given that a huge majority of the infected manage a full recovery from SARS-CoV-2 with no treatment at all. This complicates the cost-benefit outlook for any early treatment; it would be entirely wasted on those patients, while the potential for severe side effects (as seen also, e.g. from HCQ) would remain.
- micouay 5y ago
  Then why administer the vaccines? (With potential side effects due to the short period of clinical trials compared to the use of Ivermectin.) The way to control the epidemic is to make enough people immune to drive it to extinction. It would be preferable to use all available means to attain that. This way you protect all people (not only the people who got the treatment), including the vulnerable ones.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - nradov 5y ago
    Driving the SARS-CoV-2 virus to extinction is not a viable goal any time soon. Unlike smallpox there are animal reservoirs.
lupire 5y ago
What did Bret say about ivermectin?
- micouay 5y ago
  The whole conversation is on Bitchute and Vimeo: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/ https://vimeo.com/557811163 https://vimeo.com/557811163
sms737 5y ago
> What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Refuse to work for Google. Shun and shame every single Google employee. Exclude them from intellectual circles. Those furthering our dystopian future should be treated as such.
smohare 5y ago
This rhetoric sounds eerily reminiscent of the double standards advocated by practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) pseudoscience.
wwweston 5y ago
> What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Sure, and I rather suspect there are all sorts of venues that scientists could use to communicate scientific reasons challenging the status quo, ones in which there'd be a process of discourse with other domain experts capable of independently evaluating claims. YouTube is significant mass media. But the idea that it's a crucial early stage link in the scientific process is one of the most ridiculous things about this conversation. When you deal in mass distribution, the dynamics and responsibilities are different than when you're in conversation/process with other domain experts. If you can't build up a decent threshold of support within circles of expertise first, it's likely your counterclaim won't have real value for a mass market. Or worse. And if you want access to a mass market anyway without having to face those challenges first, it's possible that what you're about is more personal privilege than substantial contribution to the marketplace of ideas. And given how ridiculously diverse and incredibly free the online marketplace for ideas is right now, considering how it has never been easier to get mass distribution of even pretty questionable ideas, it's a pretty weird time to take the posture that we're actually suffering under an oppressively censored discourse regime.
- natural219 5y ago
  > When you deal in mass distribution, the dynamics and responsibilities are different than when you're in conversation/process with other domain experts. Why? Is the implicit assumption here that people are too stupid or irresponsible to handle hearing information & coming to their own conclusion on it? This seems like a distressingly common viewpoint nowadays...
  - DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
    > Is the implicit assumption here that people are too stupid or irresponsible to handle hearing information & coming to their own conclusion on it? At risk of being flippant, have you been on Facebook lately at all in the past 5-6 years?
    - squidlogic 5y ago

varispeed 5y ago

> insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials That signals they may have conflict of interest. For example accidentally finding a treatment that works, could mean huge loss for vaccine business. (Just to be clear, I am not anti-vax. I got vaccinated myself and I believe there is no better option right now, however, trying to limit doctors in finding other means sounds extremely fishy)

marcinzm 5y ago
Telling doctors to not randomly experiment on their patients outside of a controlled studies seems perfectly reasonable. Most medical groups tend to view uncontrolled human experimentation as very unethical and have for a long time.
- varispeed 5y ago
  What would you say about doctors prescribing e.g. random SSRI?
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    Prescribing for what? Prozac, for example, is on-label approved for depression, ocd, panic disorder, bulimia and bipolar. I do believe doctors use too many medications off-label although I acknowledge that FDA on-label approval can be a large barrier.
    - varispeed 5y ago
      SSRI off-label for chronic pain. Many drugs routinely prescribed have or had unknown mechanism of action (prime example Acetaminophen (Tylenol)). Here we have no double blind trials for vaccines, no long term effect studies and every doctor is happy to jab everyone including kids.
- cm2187 5y ago
  Thanks god doctors don't wait to have a random double blind experiment peer reviewed and published to act. I understand the practice of putting ICU patients on ventilators was found to be more harmful and following word of mouth, ICU specialists switched to less invasive care. Was that unethical?
  - marcinzm 5y ago
    The person I responded to alluded to a conspiracy while I simply pointed out that this seems standard guidance from medical groups. Which is a separate topic from it being good or bad for patients.
- hellbannedguy 5y ago
  It's a weird line. Most doctors don't bother treating a patient with anything other than standard care procedures. Why--I honesty believe most don't care enough to look beyond the usual treatment. 8 minutes per patient, collect the most money from the out of the patient, and insurance company. Do not say or do anything than might bring a lawsuit. Write a script, or recommend a Nettie Pot. (I still think about a guy here whom paid $450 out of packet for a sinus infection, and was told to buy a nettie pot. Nothing wrong with not doing anything though. It was the price of the office visit.) Determine if you can get the patent in for another pricey office visit. Repeat. Go back to writing that vanity novel, or checking the stock market. (This has been my experience. They have about 50 drugs they commonly use, and when things get complicated, they refer, or claim it might be psychosomatic?) There's always a risk of a lawsuit too. Then there are doctors whom sometimes prescribe off label for a condition, or honestly try to keep current. I appreciate those doctors.
- nradov 5y ago
  Medicine isn't an exact science. In the real world physicians conduct n=1 experiments on their patients all the time. They try a treatment and if the patient doesn't respond then they try something else. Decisions are often based on clinical experience and intuition rather than defined protocols.
- lawnchair_larry 5y ago
  Nobody is talking about randomly experimenting on patients, so this is a disingenuous attempt at reframing.
- fitzie 5y ago
  the question I would ask is when a new virus caused a pandemic, would you want the medical/healthcare system to test existing drugs for suitability? if some drugs are know to treat various pathogens and have a well established safety record shouldn't we allow any doctor to experiment using their experience and informed consent? waiting for a properly run study will cost lived especially when there are corporate and political interests controlling these tests. it would have been easy to run dozens of prophylactic studies while this virus was running rampant. same for testing the dozens of clinical sourced protocols. instead the medical testing establishment shutdown and ignore all clinical protocols that were successful used, and put the message out so that medical journals, big tech, pharmacy boards, hospitals, suppressed more discussion and application of these protocols.

yokaze 5y ago

> They insist on not using other treatments outside clinical trials. The argument that running experiments would cost lives doesn't seem coherent. Clinical trials are structured experiments which follow a certain protocol, ethical review, etc... > It's not like we have this 100+ yrs practice of dealing with SARS-CoV-2 epidemic with well established protocols We do have 100+ years of practice in dealing with various diseases, circumstances, including pandemics, etc... In that sense SARS-CoV-2 is nothing special. Protocols have been developed to ensure that we actually gain knowledge, and not at the expense of the patients. Should we skip on ethical review boards? Or patient confidentiality? Which part of a clinical study are you suggesting are superfluous?

zackees 5y ago
All these protocols for treating disease was changed for this virus. Patients were banned from taking HCQ in the state. I know several this happened too. Pretending the system is working as intended is a farce.
saddlerustle 5y ago
Yes. Ethical review boards, patient confidentiality, and modern clinical studies did not exist during any other pandemic comparable with SARS-CoV-2. Like in wartime, when the threat is to society as a whole not just individuals, individual rights take a back seat.
- olliej 5y ago
  And yes we had experimentation on all sorts of minorities, general exploitation, and in some cases into infliction of harm. What good old days those were.
  - cheaprentalyeti 5y ago
    You're not protecting anyone from the next Tuskegee Experiment by witholding potentially lifesaving medications from them. You're _repeating it_. According to Worldofmeters: At the moment the United States has 1848 deaths per million people. Thailand has 21. Cambodia has 20. Taiwan 18. Vietnam 0.6. Laos 0.4.

zozbot234 5y ago

I think arguing that supportive care is grossly suboptimal is going to be a pretty difficult take to sustain, given that a huge majority of the infected manage a full recovery from SARS-CoV-2 with no treatment at all. This complicates the cost-benefit outlook for any early treatment; it would be entirely wasted on those patients, while the potential for severe side effects (as seen also, e.g. from HCQ) would remain.

micouay 5y ago
Then why administer the vaccines? (With potential side effects due to the short period of clinical trials compared to the use of Ivermectin.) The way to control the epidemic is to make enough people immune to drive it to extinction. It would be preferable to use all available means to attain that. This way you protect all people (not only the people who got the treatment), including the vulnerable ones.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- nradov 5y ago
  Driving the SARS-CoV-2 virus to extinction is not a viable goal any time soon. Unlike smallpox there are animal reservoirs.

lupire 5y ago

What did Bret say about ivermectin?

micouay 5y ago
The whole conversation is on Bitchute and Vimeo: https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/ https://www.bitchute.com/video/qHjNQIynVb5O/ https://vimeo.com/557811163 https://vimeo.com/557811163

sms737 5y ago

> What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Refuse to work for Google. Shun and shame every single Google employee. Exclude them from intellectual circles. Those furthering our dystopian future should be treated as such.

smohare 5y ago

This rhetoric sounds eerily reminiscent of the double standards advocated by practitioners of so-called alternative medicine (SCAM) pseudoscience.

wwweston 5y ago

> What else should scientists do than challenging the status quo? Sure, and I rather suspect there are all sorts of venues that scientists could use to communicate scientific reasons challenging the status quo, ones in which there'd be a process of discourse with other domain experts capable of independently evaluating claims. YouTube is significant mass media. But the idea that it's a crucial early stage link in the scientific process is one of the most ridiculous things about this conversation. When you deal in mass distribution, the dynamics and responsibilities are different than when you're in conversation/process with other domain experts. If you can't build up a decent threshold of support within circles of expertise first, it's likely your counterclaim won't have real value for a mass market. Or worse. And if you want access to a mass market anyway without having to face those challenges first, it's possible that what you're about is more personal privilege than substantial contribution to the marketplace of ideas. And given how ridiculously diverse and incredibly free the online marketplace for ideas is right now, considering how it has never been easier to get mass distribution of even pretty questionable ideas, it's a pretty weird time to take the posture that we're actually suffering under an oppressively censored discourse regime.

natural219 5y ago
> When you deal in mass distribution, the dynamics and responsibilities are different than when you're in conversation/process with other domain experts. Why? Is the implicit assumption here that people are too stupid or irresponsible to handle hearing information & coming to their own conclusion on it? This seems like a distressingly common viewpoint nowadays...
- DaiPlusPlus 5y ago
  > Is the implicit assumption here that people are too stupid or irresponsible to handle hearing information & coming to their own conclusion on it? At risk of being flippant, have you been on Facebook lately at all in the past 5-6 years?
  - squidlogic 5y ago