5 ms·

> and tweets links to The American Conservative. Why do we care about this? Does he also have bad taste in summer outfits? > which attracted opposition from m

> and tweets links to The American Conservative. Why do we care about this? Does he also have bad taste in summer outfits? > which attracted opposition from many other scientists as inappropriate/unscientific (not simply wrong yet within the bounds of good-faith scientific inquiry) That is incorrect. The counter arguments were narrow and about statistical methods, specifically risk ratio usage and confounders. Neither side appeared out of bounds in this debate. > Peter McCullough appeared on an episode of Joe Rogan where even Joe Rogan correctly identified that his claims were implausible. Your evidence here is an HN thread which restates the issue. Double infections are exceedingly rare (currently): https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/israel-reports-rare-double-infection-of-covid-19-and-flu/ https://nypost.com/2022/01/03/israel-reports-rare-double-inf... Attack facts and claims, not people.

staticassertion 5y ago
> Why do we care about this? Does he also have bad taste in summer outfits? You can feign ignorance here but the answer is obvious. Anti-vax talking points are far more common in conservative media.
- Jimmc414 5y ago
  For the sake of argument even if they were conservatives or anti-vaxer or felons or insurrectionists the Freedom of Information Act still applies to them.
  - staticassertion 5y ago
    The initial statement was questioning their motives, not to remove the FOIA. > My guess is it's a group of charlatans looking to sell their own COVID cures
samsa 5y ago
The NY Post article you link to is about getting both Covid and influenza at the same time. That may be rare. Getting covid a second time after having previously had it (which is what McCullough erroneously claimed was near impossible) is in fact increasingly common.
- vorpalhex 5y ago
  Do you have a citation? > Cases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been reported, but remain rare . https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe...
  - samsa 5y ago
    This particular CDC page reports it was last updated in August.
  - geofft 5y ago
    I agree that they are rare. Dr. McCullough's claim was that they were impossible, that Rogan's friend who got it twice actually had influenza or something one of the times - a diagnosis he made based on no information other than appearing to have gotten it twice. If he merely claimed they were rare, that would not discredit him.
    - vorpalhex 5y ago
      To recap, you are upset because a doctor on a podcast used the phrase "impossible" instead of "very rare"?
      - akiselev 5y ago
        What's the point of professionals and experts if they don't communicate clearly and precisely? Why even have him on a podcast?
        coderaptor 5y ago
        Communicating technical concepts to lay audiences is difficult, and a universal problem these days. Very rare and impossible are nearly equivalent wrt policies that broadly and significantly impact personal health and liberty.
avs733 5y ago
Not facts and claims...common sense. Nothing suggests these folks are acting in good faith. They showed no willingness to bound an obviously over-scoped request. It is sad the judge didn't see this for what it is. They are abusing the process to make the FDA and Pfizer look bad by requesting an absurd number of things and not scoping out things that they obviously are not entitle to. Pfizer, like it or not is entitled to have their trade secrets protected. Like it or not, Pfizer and teh FDA have a responsibility to protect the private healthcare information of patients who participated. That takes time. If I was a vaccine trial participant I would be suing the pants off these loons. I feel like I'm living in crazy town...go read the emails that these loons attached of their own email conversation with the FDA. one person (the FDA rep) is trying to have a serious and productive conversation, the guy from PCP (or whatever) wants to stand on a street corner and shout. They attached this in support of their own lawsuit Extraordinary claims require at least some effort. It isn't the job of everyone to engage and disprove everything stupid people say...at some point saying 'this dude is a loon' is a sufficient counter to 'why won't you debate me'. The preponderance of evidence, including engagement with things like the American Conservative and Joe Rogan as a source of healthcare information meaningfully suggest against taking these people seriously and that's all that is necessary. [0] https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/032-Appendix-in-Support-filed-by-Public-Health-and-Medical-Professionals-for-Transparency-re-31-Reply.pdf https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/032-Appendix-in...
- ds206 5y ago
  Trust the science. Btw, my name is Science ;)
- Jimmc414 5y ago
  US citizens are legally entitled to this information.
  - avs733 5y ago
    >this information. what information...exactly what information? if I file a FOIA request for the presidents tax return and it gets denied for a legal exemption is that the government hiding something? There is a FOIA process, there are things that are exempt from disclosure - that is part of the law as well. FDA follows a process, outlined here: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/023-FDA-Appendix-in-Support-1.pdf https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/023-FDA-Appendi... (page 5+) In reality, the plaintiffs are the ones slowing the process of releasing this information down by being unreasonable. it means FDA is reviewing and denying OBVIOUSLY privileged or exempt documents that the group only asked for to then waive about the number of documents that the FDA 'wOuLdN't DiScLoSe'. If you are playing quantitative games with FOIA request document numbers you are acting in bad faith. When you are trying to scope as many exempt documents as possible into your request so you can later use that number to push your narrative, you are acting in bad faith. Because when you aren't interested in the content of the documents, nothing you are doing has anything to do with serious efforts at transparency.
isItpossible8 5y ago

staticassertion 5y ago

> Why do we care about this? Does he also have bad taste in summer outfits? You can feign ignorance here but the answer is obvious. Anti-vax talking points are far more common in conservative media.

Jimmc414 5y ago
For the sake of argument even if they were conservatives or anti-vaxer or felons or insurrectionists the Freedom of Information Act still applies to them.
- staticassertion 5y ago
  The initial statement was questioning their motives, not to remove the FOIA. > My guess is it's a group of charlatans looking to sell their own COVID cures

samsa 5y ago

The NY Post article you link to is about getting both Covid and influenza at the same time. That may be rare. Getting covid a second time after having previously had it (which is what McCullough erroneously claimed was near impossible) is in fact increasingly common.

vorpalhex 5y ago
Do you have a citation? > Cases of reinfection with COVID-19 have been reported, but remain rare . https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfection.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/your-health/reinfe...
- samsa 5y ago
  This particular CDC page reports it was last updated in August.
- geofft 5y ago
  I agree that they are rare. Dr. McCullough's claim was that they were impossible, that Rogan's friend who got it twice actually had influenza or something one of the times - a diagnosis he made based on no information other than appearing to have gotten it twice. If he merely claimed they were rare, that would not discredit him.
  - vorpalhex 5y ago
    To recap, you are upset because a doctor on a podcast used the phrase "impossible" instead of "very rare"?
    - akiselev 5y ago
      What's the point of professionals and experts if they don't communicate clearly and precisely? Why even have him on a podcast?
      - coderaptor 5y ago
        Communicating technical concepts to lay audiences is difficult, and a universal problem these days. Very rare and impossible are nearly equivalent wrt policies that broadly and significantly impact personal health and liberty.

avs733 5y ago

Not facts and claims...common sense. Nothing suggests these folks are acting in good faith. They showed no willingness to bound an obviously over-scoped request. It is sad the judge didn't see this for what it is. They are abusing the process to make the FDA and Pfizer look bad by requesting an absurd number of things and not scoping out things that they obviously are not entitle to. Pfizer, like it or not is entitled to have their trade secrets protected. Like it or not, Pfizer and teh FDA have a responsibility to protect the private healthcare information of patients who participated. That takes time. If I was a vaccine trial participant I would be suing the pants off these loons. I feel like I'm living in crazy town...go read the emails that these loons attached of their own email conversation with the FDA. one person (the FDA rep) is trying to have a serious and productive conversation, the guy from PCP (or whatever) wants to stand on a street corner and shout. They attached this in support of their own lawsuit Extraordinary claims require at least some effort. It isn't the job of everyone to engage and disprove everything stupid people say...at some point saying 'this dude is a loon' is a sufficient counter to 'why won't you debate me'. The preponderance of evidence, including engagement with things like the American Conservative and Joe Rogan as a source of healthcare information meaningfully suggest against taking these people seriously and that's all that is necessary. [0] https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/032-Appendix-in-Support-filed-by-Public-Health-and-Medical-Professionals-for-Transparency-re-31-Reply.pdf https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/032-Appendix-in...

ds206 5y ago
Trust the science. Btw, my name is Science ;)
Jimmc414 5y ago
US citizens are legally entitled to this information.
- avs733 5y ago
  >this information. what information...exactly what information? if I file a FOIA request for the presidents tax return and it gets denied for a legal exemption is that the government hiding something? There is a FOIA process, there are things that are exempt from disclosure - that is part of the law as well. FDA follows a process, outlined here: https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/023-FDA-Appendix-in-Support-1.pdf https://phmpt.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/023-FDA-Appendi... (page 5+) In reality, the plaintiffs are the ones slowing the process of releasing this information down by being unreasonable. it means FDA is reviewing and denying OBVIOUSLY privileged or exempt documents that the group only asked for to then waive about the number of documents that the FDA 'wOuLdN't DiScLoSe'. If you are playing quantitative games with FOIA request document numbers you are acting in bad faith. When you are trying to scope as many exempt documents as possible into your request so you can later use that number to push your narrative, you are acting in bad faith. Because when you aren't interested in the content of the documents, nothing you are doing has anything to do with serious efforts at transparency.

isItpossible8 5y ago