4 ms·
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containment-was-b33 https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm... The whole substack is g
by 650 5y ago
https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containment-was-b33 https://eugyppius.substack.com/p/what-convinced-you-containm...
The whole substack is great, but people from all over the globe talk about the hygiene theatre and pushing of optics during the past 2 years.
"It’s been nearly two years now and my confidence in publicly funded science is completely destroyed. I don’t believe anyone reasonably intelligent can read the COVID literature and come out the other side without concluding that universities and governments cannot tell the difference between science and scientism. Our society is completely in the grip of people who have effectively evolved under selection pressure to strongly resemble scientists without actually being scientists. Their work looks roughly right from a distance - there are data tables, charts, equations - but when you sit down and read it the scientific method has gone AWOL. I am now explicitly open to counter-narrative claims I’d never have previously considered."
- dekhn 5y agolet's be clear, the problems are mostly limited to public health and human health medical biology. There are entire swaths of biology, chemistry and physics which are not nearly as bad when it comes to turning data into actionable knowledge.
- strken 5y agoThat article mentions "the senseless attacks on hydroxycloroquine" as an example of scientific failure. I disagree. Small initial studies with low sample sizes often find effects that fail to replicate in larger studies, and to the best of my knowledge, that's what happened here. Can you elaborate on why you think it's an effective treatment?
- dnautics 5y agoNot the article author, but until such time as the larger study is done, the attacks could be construed as senseless. There were lots of "attacks" on hcq in the beginning when at best the response should have been, "we're skeptical but looking into it".
- aaomidi 5y agoI mean, that is effectively what happens. It's dangerous to give validity to a potential solution when the impacts and side effects of it are unknown.
- argvargc 5y agoHCQ can be effective when used early and in correct dosages, as shown in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. One widely-publicised, large Lancet study claiming it was "unsafe" was later retracted as it turned out to be made up BS. [0] Living meta-study of 300+ likely non-pretend control studies on 400k+ patients: https://c19hcq.com/ https://c19hcq.com/ (Edit to add: And this was apparent early-on. Nothing much has changed with HCQ's profile since it was first identified as an effective, safe therapeutic in early 2020.) [0] https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-monumental-fraud-not-a-huge-scandal/ https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-m...
- strken 5y agoDon't really have the time to go through these right now, but I'll look through them later. Thanks! Initial impression is that taking the average of every published paper across different metrics makes you vulnerable to publication bias (and probably other stuff), but I'd need to make a funnel plot and check out the opinions of actual trained scientists to know whether that's true here. I'm guessing that some studies on each side are probably going to have suspicious or outright false data, too (like the one you mention).
- inter_netuser 5y agocan you link to the retraction of that study?
- dazilcher 5y agohttps://tinyurl.com/55rext65 https://tinyurl.com/55rext65