4 ms·

Again, lived experience. What is wrong with the discourse around this subject nowadays? Since when is it not done to express doubt about the pharmaceutical indu

by Ourgon 5y ago

Again, lived experience. What is wrong with the discourse around this subject nowadays? Since when is it not done to express doubt about the pharmaceutical industry - it used to be called Big Pharma but now suddenly they've been raised in status to be untouchable? No "oversimplification¨, just our experience, backed by quite a lot of research which has been demonised by the industry but seems to have a core of truth to it given our (and many other's) experience. Also, since when is consensus something to strive after in science, let alone medicine? Where does this one size fits all approach suddenly come from? Science progresses not through consensus by committee but through that was unexpected, let's study it some more. And then your last statement, pulling in politics... why? Let alone the fact that you seem to question whether we should go on with our lives... of course we need to go on with our lives, what else should we do? Don't you realise the incongruence of that statement? Should we just move from one panic to the next, always being afraid, always looking for shelter? Hell no, we shouldn't, nor will we. Not here at least.

dTal 5y ago
>Again, lived experience Describing your "lived experience" is fine. What's not fine is saying "I took ivermectin and felt a little better the next day, therefore it definitely works". That's not science. In fact it's the opposite of science - it's motivated reasoning. You want ivermectin to be effective, so you're eager to accept the results of an uncontrolled, unblinded trial with an n = 1. Presumably that's also why you incorrectly describe this position as "backed by quite a lot of research". >since when is consensus something to strive after in science... Where does this one size fits all approach suddenly come from? Since always. Replication is the heart of science and Truth is indeed one size fits all. The more people study a thing and get similar results, the more confident we are about that thing. When most scientists agree, we call that the "scientific consensus". >Should we just move from one panic to the next, always being afraid, always looking for shelter? ...Hell no, we shouldn't, nor will we. Your response to an accusation of political motivation is... to double down on the politics. This rather reinforces the impression that your "scientific" claims are emotionally motivated.
- Ourgon 5y ago
  Going on living is politics now, I see. You clearly have a different vision on politics than I do. Have a good life but take my advice to heart: don't blindly trust consensus, especially when dealing with the revolving door between the pharmaceutical industry, lobbyists and policy makers. This used to be common sense but it seems to be a sign of radicalism now - how things change.

by Ourgon 5y ago

dTal 5y ago

>Again, lived experience Describing your "lived experience" is fine. What's not fine is saying "I took ivermectin and felt a little better the next day, therefore it definitely works". That's not science. In fact it's the opposite of science - it's motivated reasoning. You want ivermectin to be effective, so you're eager to accept the results of an uncontrolled, unblinded trial with an n = 1. Presumably that's also why you incorrectly describe this position as "backed by quite a lot of research". >since when is consensus something to strive after in science... Where does this one size fits all approach suddenly come from? Since always. Replication is the heart of science and Truth is indeed one size fits all. The more people study a thing and get similar results, the more confident we are about that thing. When most scientists agree, we call that the "scientific consensus". >Should we just move from one panic to the next, always being afraid, always looking for shelter? ...Hell no, we shouldn't, nor will we. Your response to an accusation of political motivation is... to double down on the politics. This rather reinforces the impression that your "scientific" claims are emotionally motivated.

Ourgon 5y ago
Going on living is politics now, I see. You clearly have a different vision on politics than I do. Have a good life but take my advice to heart: don't blindly trust consensus, especially when dealing with the revolving door between the pharmaceutical industry, lobbyists and policy makers. This used to be common sense but it seems to be a sign of radicalism now - how things change.