4 ms·

> ...compared to a heterodox (read: quack) researcher You do realise that it often takes heterodoxy - i.e. going against the orthodoxy in a field - to achieve

> ...compared to a heterodox (read: quack) researcher You do realise that it often takes heterodoxy - i.e. going against the orthodoxy in a field - to achieve a breakthrough? You also realise that the people Brett Weinstein is talking to are anything but quacks? Why, then, this cheap shot of implying that what they are discussing is quackery? What is to be gained by such behaviour? It is not as if the orthodox approach to the treatment of SARS2 has been set in stone, nor is it a spectacular success. If the treatment they discuss - mainly Ivermectin as prophylaxis, Ivermectin in combination with Fluvoxamine and some other preparations as treatment - work they should be used given the long experience with and low cost of these preparations. They indicate these preparations help against 'long-term covid', they claim to have proof of their efficacy. What is to be gained by ignoring what they have to say? I understand that Pfizer, Moderna, Curevac, Astra-Zeneca, J&J, Merck and a few others potentially stand to loose a great deal should the emergency use authorisation for their vaccines be withdrawn prematurely because of the proven efficacy of other preparations - this is what would happen if the rules were followed which state that EUA is only given where there are no alternatives. That is not a valid reason for not allowing them to present their claimed evidence. What is to be gained by defending the continued suppression of this information? It is clear that the information will come out in any case, most likely soon - it will be published no matter the hurdles which are being thrown up. Should their proof hold it will be yet another blow against the trust people have in the institutions of government. I say publish this information, without censorship, without interference. The mantra of "trust the science" can only hold when the scientific method is allowed to function. Censoring anything which goes against the orthodoxy is not science, it is authoritarianism. It is what allowed Trofim Lysenko to push his Lamarckian nonsense which eventually led to disastrous famines in the Soviet Union and Communist China [1]. Just like Lysenkoism was not science, authoritarian dogmatic orthodoxy is not science. Publish and discuss, in the open, without fear of repercussions, without censorship. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko#Consequences_of_Lysenkoism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trofim_Lysenko#Consequences_of...

wwweston 5y ago
> The mantra of "trust the science" can only hold when the scientific method is allowed to function. Do you have any evidence that the scientific method is currently not allowed to function in communities of expertise? Because even if ALL contrarian ideas were aggressively crushed in venues like YouTube or USA Today (not actually happening, plenty of contrarianism available on YouTube), it seems like the biological sciences might have their own venues for robust discussion.
- the_third_wave 5y ago
  Yes, there is plenty of evidence. One quick way of getting some of it is by actively seeking out those sources which are being blocked and checking their "credentials" (i.e. checking out their work more than which school they happened to have gone to). The scientific method can not function when part of the discussion is suppressed, for whatever reason. Also, nobody states that all contrarian ideas are being suppressed. The discussion here is on the subject of SARS2 treatments which are being suppressed. Do I know whether these suggested treatments work? No, I do not. Neither do you. The reason why none of us knows this is because discussion on the subject is being suppressed, not because there is evidence of these suggested treatments being ineffective. A good example of this is the recent disclosure of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin leading to a doubling of the survival rates of ventilated patients [1]. The paper is interesting, the discussion following the paper even more so. It is this discussion which should be allowed, not suppressed. This discussion should not consist of solely criticism of "this paper is not peer-reviewed" or "this paper has not been published in a major journal", the discussion should instead be had around the subject matter. Peer review and journal impact measurements are means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. I'd like to see the same type of paper and discussion around e.g. the efficacy of ivermectin and/or fluvoxamine, out in the open, without accusations of quackery, without politics, without interference by commercial interests. In short, I want the scientific process to work as intended. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v...
manwe150 5y ago
You seem to be getting reflexive downvotes, but let's stop for a minute and see what you are actually proposing according to the rules you mentioned: If something else gets an EUA at this point, it would have to have nothing comparable and solve a critical issue in the US. We have now considerable evidence that multiple different vaccines are highly effective at training your body to defend itself against COVID. Therefore, your statement implies this is new wonder drug which does better. So, it must both reverse permanent damage and be almost 100% effective at stopping and curing COVID. And it must both be something we've always known about and is something we have never seen before. Clearly this wasn't true 9-12 months ago before the vaccine trials finished, so this would have been quite different then, but I digress: we probably don't have a time machine (or do we? Pfizer et al. might stand to lose a great deal if we do). And, yes, if somehow all that happened, I think we'd all be very happy, even Pfizer et al. Also very confused. But happy.
- thu2111 5y ago
  It's actually not a new wonder drug. It's an old generic drug that doctors have been experimenting with for COVID treatment for quite some time now, which has passed all safety trials a long time ago, and which is cheap and widely available. You aren't aware of these things because Ivermectin has been the target of a massive campaign of information suppression, exactly of the type that is being reported on here. In contrast vaccines have been given emergency approval without finishing their trials, despite being based on entirely new technology, despite absolute risk reductions of less than 1% and despite that giving any medical treatment to an entire population including healthy people must always raise the question of side effects vs disease severity - questions that are also being suppressed. For example, here is an open letter written by some doctors who have run out of patience with medical authorities and their refusal to talk about early drug-based treatment: https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...
  - manwe150 5y ago
    I am aware of Ivermectin. It is hard not to be, given how often people talk about it being censured. The site you link seems to be asking for a EUA for giving it to the entire population, despite being less effective and higher side effects than vaccines. That does not meet the criteria for a hypothetical wonder drug. Looking somewhat briefly, I will note that site you link even states that the current vaccines are preferable, but that Ivermectin should have been considered as an interim measure.

wwweston 5y ago

> The mantra of "trust the science" can only hold when the scientific method is allowed to function. Do you have any evidence that the scientific method is currently not allowed to function in communities of expertise? Because even if ALL contrarian ideas were aggressively crushed in venues like YouTube or USA Today (not actually happening, plenty of contrarianism available on YouTube), it seems like the biological sciences might have their own venues for robust discussion.

the_third_wave 5y ago
Yes, there is plenty of evidence. One quick way of getting some of it is by actively seeking out those sources which are being blocked and checking their "credentials" (i.e. checking out their work more than which school they happened to have gone to). The scientific method can not function when part of the discussion is suppressed, for whatever reason. Also, nobody states that all contrarian ideas are being suppressed. The discussion here is on the subject of SARS2 treatments which are being suppressed. Do I know whether these suggested treatments work? No, I do not. Neither do you. The reason why none of us knows this is because discussion on the subject is being suppressed, not because there is evidence of these suggested treatments being ineffective. A good example of this is the recent disclosure of the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin leading to a doubling of the survival rates of ventilated patients [1]. The paper is interesting, the discussion following the paper even more so. It is this discussion which should be allowed, not suppressed. This discussion should not consist of solely criticism of "this paper is not peer-reviewed" or "this paper has not been published in a major journal", the discussion should instead be had around the subject matter. Peer review and journal impact measurements are means to an end, not ends in and of themselves. I'd like to see the same type of paper and discussion around e.g. the efficacy of ivermectin and/or fluvoxamine, out in the open, without accusations of quackery, without politics, without interference by commercial interests. In short, I want the scientific process to work as intended. [1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.05.28.21258012v...

manwe150 5y ago

You seem to be getting reflexive downvotes, but let's stop for a minute and see what you are actually proposing according to the rules you mentioned: If something else gets an EUA at this point, it would have to have nothing comparable and solve a critical issue in the US. We have now considerable evidence that multiple different vaccines are highly effective at training your body to defend itself against COVID. Therefore, your statement implies this is new wonder drug which does better. So, it must both reverse permanent damage and be almost 100% effective at stopping and curing COVID. And it must both be something we've always known about and is something we have never seen before. Clearly this wasn't true 9-12 months ago before the vaccine trials finished, so this would have been quite different then, but I digress: we probably don't have a time machine (or do we? Pfizer et al. might stand to lose a great deal if we do). And, yes, if somehow all that happened, I think we'd all be very happy, even Pfizer et al. Also very confused. But happy.

thu2111 5y ago
It's actually not a new wonder drug. It's an old generic drug that doctors have been experimenting with for COVID treatment for quite some time now, which has passed all safety trials a long time ago, and which is cheap and widely available. You aren't aware of these things because Ivermectin has been the target of a massive campaign of information suppression, exactly of the type that is being reported on here. In contrast vaccines have been given emergency approval without finishing their trials, despite being based on entirely new technology, despite absolute risk reductions of less than 1% and despite that giving any medical treatment to an entire population including healthy people must always raise the question of side effects vs disease severity - questions that are also being suppressed. For example, here is an open letter written by some doctors who have run out of patience with medical authorities and their refusal to talk about early drug-based treatment: https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-releases/flccc-alliance-statement-on-the-irregular-actions-of-public-health-agencies-and-the-widespread-disinformation-campaign-against-ivermectin/ https://covid19criticalcare.com/videos-and-press/flccc-relea...
- manwe150 5y ago
  I am aware of Ivermectin. It is hard not to be, given how often people talk about it being censured. The site you link seems to be asking for a EUA for giving it to the entire population, despite being less effective and higher side effects than vaccines. That does not meet the criteria for a hypothetical wonder drug. Looking somewhat briefly, I will note that site you link even states that the current vaccines are preferable, but that Ivermectin should have been considered as an interim measure.