5 ms·

if you are getting your medical information from a substack page, I don't think anything anyone here will convince you otherwise... pointing out elsewhere in t

if you are getting your medical information from a substack page, I don't think anything anyone here will convince you otherwise... pointing out elsewhere in the thread that when the CDC fucked up, they ultimately admitted it and changed recommendations, does not support your argument.

timr 5y ago
The "substack page" is written by a doctor and professor at UCSF who specializes in clinical trials, evidence-based medicine and medical reversals.
- CamperBob2 5y ago
  If this pandemic has proven anything at all, it's that incompetent and/or corrupt doctors are a dime a dozen. Pick any intervention, no matter how counterproductive, implausible, or just plain stupid, and you can probably find a fully-accredited MD somewhere who's evangelizing it from the rooftops. Medical doctors are not scientists, or even engineers. They are more like highly-skilled technicians. NTTAWWT, but the MD degree by itself shouldn't bring individual doctors anywhere as much social and scientific credibility as it does. For most Americans, the best source of information on COVID has been, and remains, their public health authorities.
  - zpeti 5y ago
    > If this pandemic has proven anything at all, it's that incompetent and/or corrupt doctors are a dime a dozen. Not sure which side of the argument you are on, but it's funny, did you see how the death count for vaccinated people on the 22,000 pfizer study has been corrected from 17 to 24 people? And the FDA has asked for 76 years to ongoingly release the safety data on the vaccine? I'm vaccinated, but I'm super angry and worried about wtf is going on here. What's certain is, yes: If this pandemic has proven anything, it's that there are incompetent and corrupt people EVERYWHERE on ALL SIDES.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      In reality, the so-called "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency" aren't interested in truth or transparency. They are just spamming the FDA with gratuitous FOIA requests in order to grind their political axe: https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data... If these people were operating in good faith, it would endanger their valued reputations as certified antivax nutjobs.
  - clairity 5y ago
    > "...the best source...has been, and remains, their public health authorities." a contradictory conclusion, and somehow both falling for and denying the appeal to authority fallacy at the same time. you discount doctors being 'experts' but then claim another group of 'experts' being the right ones (with no justification, no less). there is no shortcut when it comes to triangulating reality. all the data must be considered, not just your favored sources. otherwise, you will be biased and very likely incorrect (you shouldn't even have favored sources). note that the original article literally points out a bias/fallacy that public health officials have fallen prey to.
    - CamperBob2 5y ago
      Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. The authorities are more likely to be correct than an individual physician with a Twitter account, a bunch of junk-science citations, and an axe to grind. It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion, but somehow, it never is.
      - timr 5y ago
        > Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. Prasad is routinely interviewed & quoted by the "left-wing media". You are eager to fixate on the "wing" of the media coverage, but not engage with the argument being made. Public health "authorities" are groups of people with opinions. Other people with expertise are no more or less qualified to have opinions, even if you don't agree with those opinions. If those opinions are backed by evidence and reason, and your opinions are backed by appeals to authority, then you lose. > It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion Close, but wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person advancing a hypothesis, whether that person is within the consensus or outside of it. Citing an authority does not excuse you from the burden of proof, any more than it excused the church in the time of Gallileo.
        CamperBob2 5y ago
        You keep using that phrase, "appeal to authority." Are you sure you understand what it means?

timr 5y ago

The "substack page" is written by a doctor and professor at UCSF who specializes in clinical trials, evidence-based medicine and medical reversals.

CamperBob2 5y ago
If this pandemic has proven anything at all, it's that incompetent and/or corrupt doctors are a dime a dozen. Pick any intervention, no matter how counterproductive, implausible, or just plain stupid, and you can probably find a fully-accredited MD somewhere who's evangelizing it from the rooftops. Medical doctors are not scientists, or even engineers. They are more like highly-skilled technicians. NTTAWWT, but the MD degree by itself shouldn't bring individual doctors anywhere as much social and scientific credibility as it does. For most Americans, the best source of information on COVID has been, and remains, their public health authorities.
- zpeti 5y ago
  > If this pandemic has proven anything at all, it's that incompetent and/or corrupt doctors are a dime a dozen. Not sure which side of the argument you are on, but it's funny, did you see how the death count for vaccinated people on the 22,000 pfizer study has been corrected from 17 to 24 people? And the FDA has asked for 76 years to ongoingly release the safety data on the vaccine? I'm vaccinated, but I'm super angry and worried about wtf is going on here. What's certain is, yes: If this pandemic has proven anything, it's that there are incompetent and corrupt people EVERYWHERE on ALL SIDES.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    In reality, the so-called "Public Health and Medical Professionals for Transparency" aren't interested in truth or transparency. They are just spamming the FDA with gratuitous FOIA requests in order to grind their political axe: https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data/ https://www.snopes.com/news/2021/11/19/fda-2076-vaccine-data... If these people were operating in good faith, it would endanger their valued reputations as certified antivax nutjobs.
- clairity 5y ago
  > "...the best source...has been, and remains, their public health authorities." a contradictory conclusion, and somehow both falling for and denying the appeal to authority fallacy at the same time. you discount doctors being 'experts' but then claim another group of 'experts' being the right ones (with no justification, no less). there is no shortcut when it comes to triangulating reality. all the data must be considered, not just your favored sources. otherwise, you will be biased and very likely incorrect (you shouldn't even have favored sources). note that the original article literally points out a bias/fallacy that public health officials have fallen prey to.
  - CamperBob2 5y ago
    Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. The authorities are more likely to be correct than an individual physician with a Twitter account, a bunch of junk-science citations, and an axe to grind. It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion, but somehow, it never is.
    - timr 5y ago
      > Public health authorites != some random "doctor" being interviewed or quoted by right-wing media. Prasad is routinely interviewed & quoted by the "left-wing media". You are eager to fixate on the "wing" of the media coverage, but not engage with the argument being made. Public health "authorities" are groups of people with opinions. Other people with expertise are no more or less qualified to have opinions, even if you don't agree with those opinions. If those opinions are backed by evidence and reason, and your opinions are backed by appeals to authority, then you lose. > It should be obvious that the burden of proof lies with the outlying opinion Close, but wrong. The burden of proof lies on the person advancing a hypothesis, whether that person is within the consensus or outside of it. Citing an authority does not excuse you from the burden of proof, any more than it excused the church in the time of Gallileo.
      - CamperBob2 5y ago
        You keep using that phrase, "appeal to authority." Are you sure you understand what it means?