3 ms·

I admire your conviction. And I suspect you would have had the same conviction about smoking had you lived in the 1960s and noticed that many doctors recommend

I admire your conviction. And I suspect you would have had the same conviction about smoking had you lived in the 1960s and noticed that many doctors recommended smoking. No, it does matter why a doctor believes what they believe. The vast majority of them just follow the official top down advice. And some actors, notably tobacco and pharmaceutical industries, have been using that to subvert science (to great effect and profit) for decades. Which, again, I note, is not a statement about IVM or HCQ or Cominraty - it’s about the reasons for your own convictions, which seem to completely ignore decades of evidence. It does not at all matter that doctors know better than me about 99% of medical things. When I have a specific issue, it is far more likely I can know more about it by spending 100 hours studying, than a trained doctor does without studying. It is likely he would know more than me if he spent 5 hours, but it is very unlikely that he has. I haven’t disagreed with doctor about many things in my life. But in the 3 or so things which I found vitally important to research, and in which I came to a different conclusion than the specialists, I was proven right.

jacquesm 5y ago
In the 1960's smoking was already considered very bad for your health, in fact a large 1951 study amongst the doctors themselves pretty much proved that, but that didn't stop lobbying and advertising by the Tobacco companies, including the use of actors posing as doctors from continuing to push the false narrative and if not for some pretty heavy legal restrictions they would still be doing this today (and they still do, in some countries). And real doctors promoting smoking goes back much further than that, all the way to the early 1900's. It's that kind of activity that undermines the authority the profession, but it's the wrong conclusion to make that if doctors were wrong about smoking they are also wrong about everything else. Usually they are not. https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/media/articles/smoking-a-100-year-story-that-doesn-t-end-here https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/media/articles/smokin...
- beagle3 5y ago
  > but it's the wrong conclusion to make that if doctors were wrong about smoking they are also wrong about everything else. Usually they are not. Indeed. And usually, there is no significant objection to the medical consensus, so it is irrelevant the "all medical advice" space. The interesting (from my perspective, but also from an information theoretic one) things are those about which there is disagreement. And the "usually right" on those subjects goes down significantly - perhaps it's still "usually", but maybe it's just 60% rather than the 99% of the "right" things which inspire people to blindly believe doctors about everything. And perhaps it's just 20%; We'll likely know about today's status only in 30 years. For example, there is still consensus about statin use to reduce cardiac problems through cholesterol lowering. I looked a little into that; the evidence is severely lacking, especially if you consider all cause mortality rather than just "lowering myocardial infraction risk" (which you can achieve 100% with Cyanide!). I have informally surveyed about 20 doctors, of which one was a cardiologist. Everyone other than the cardiologist was convinced statins are the best thing since sliced bread, have no risks, and excellent efficiency. Not one of them actually knew much about, e.g. statin effect on all cause mortality, or much of anything else related to statins except the official line and up-to-date (the service) summaries. The cardiologist still thought statins were a good thing, but was much more reserved about recommending them to anyone with high blood lipids, because he actually read the research and had actual experience (and discussions with informed colleagues).
  - jacquesm 5y ago
    The quote 'science improves one death at the time' comes to mind.

jacquesm 5y ago

In the 1960's smoking was already considered very bad for your health, in fact a large 1951 study amongst the doctors themselves pretty much proved that, but that didn't stop lobbying and advertising by the Tobacco companies, including the use of actors posing as doctors from continuing to push the false narrative and if not for some pretty heavy legal restrictions they would still be doing this today (and they still do, in some countries). And real doctors promoting smoking goes back much further than that, all the way to the early 1900's. It's that kind of activity that undermines the authority the profession, but it's the wrong conclusion to make that if doctors were wrong about smoking they are also wrong about everything else. Usually they are not. https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/media/articles/smoking-a-100-year-story-that-doesn-t-end-here https://www.rgare.com/knowledge-center/media/articles/smokin...

beagle3 5y ago
> but it's the wrong conclusion to make that if doctors were wrong about smoking they are also wrong about everything else. Usually they are not. Indeed. And usually, there is no significant objection to the medical consensus, so it is irrelevant the "all medical advice" space. The interesting (from my perspective, but also from an information theoretic one) things are those about which there is disagreement. And the "usually right" on those subjects goes down significantly - perhaps it's still "usually", but maybe it's just 60% rather than the 99% of the "right" things which inspire people to blindly believe doctors about everything. And perhaps it's just 20%; We'll likely know about today's status only in 30 years. For example, there is still consensus about statin use to reduce cardiac problems through cholesterol lowering. I looked a little into that; the evidence is severely lacking, especially if you consider all cause mortality rather than just "lowering myocardial infraction risk" (which you can achieve 100% with Cyanide!). I have informally surveyed about 20 doctors, of which one was a cardiologist. Everyone other than the cardiologist was convinced statins are the best thing since sliced bread, have no risks, and excellent efficiency. Not one of them actually knew much about, e.g. statin effect on all cause mortality, or much of anything else related to statins except the official line and up-to-date (the service) summaries. The cardiologist still thought statins were a good thing, but was much more reserved about recommending them to anyone with high blood lipids, because he actually read the research and had actual experience (and discussions with informed colleagues).
- jacquesm 5y ago
  The quote 'science improves one death at the time' comes to mind.