5 ms·

Now take your logic and apply it to COVID-19.

reidjs 4y ago
Was there a lot of controversy among the scientific community ? The experts seemed to all say pretty much the same thing - masks indoors, social distance, get vaccinated, etc.
- codefreeordie 4y ago
  Indeed. What would happen to the career of a scientist who even tried to do something else? (many careers were ended. In some cases, states threatened to pull licenses or even imprison researchers for even considering alternatives)
  - nvr219 4y ago
    > states threatened to pull licenses or even imprison researchers for even considering alternatives Where?
    - codefreeordie 4y ago
      All sorts of places, including some unlikely ones. California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Texas all pulled licenses for refusing to uphold the narrative. Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Arizona all threatened to do so, though I have been unable to determine whether any licenses were actually pulled. California threatened criminal charges, though I have no evidence that any were ever actually filed.
      - nvr219 4y ago
        I don't think any of that is true.
        codefreeordie 4y ago
        ok.
- aceon48 4y ago
  Not true. Some doctors tried to prescribe off label treatments and were prohibited, fired, etc (for example ivermectin or hydroxy
  - mft_ 4y ago
    The same treatments that have been shown to offer little benefit, or even be detrimental?
  - mjhay 4y ago
    You guys are still going on about ivermectin?
  - robbiep 4y ago
    HCQ was an interesting thought in early March 2020 (my brother as an ICU doc was considering getting some for our parents). But the data was very quickly available that it was essentially worthless, and certainly nowhere near as useful as some other cheap, off patent medication such as steroids which was rapidly demonstrated to be highly effective at cutting mortality by the UK’s medical industrial complex. People who acted in bad faith on data that was demonstrably bad were rightly defenestrated by the medical and scientific community. However many of those same people found themselves right at home in a new cheer squad of people who are more than happy to invest in beliefs over data. The mop up on the shitty evidence is drawing to a conclusion, with events such as the recent NEJM publishing of the ivermectin study. But stupid knows no bounds and the scientific method is going to be mopping up the damage from this one for a long time
    - ncmncm 4y ago
      People suggesting ivermectin ought to be interesting were not wrong. It could plausibly have had some effect, based on the biochemistry. It just turned out not to work. I don't know of any evidence that trying it, when we had literally nothing else, did anybody any harm. All the harm came from people using it instead of, later, doing the things that did turn out to actually work. Probably a few people even cleared up a chronic worm infection they didn't know about. What I did not see, and expected to see, was a study of relative infection rates in people already on ivermectin for an on-label use vs. people who were not. These came out pretty early vis a vis chloroquines, showing that people who had been taking that got COVID-19 just like anybody else. Maybe periodic ivermectin doses wasn't a thing...
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
TaupeRanger 4y ago
Say specifically what your criticisms are. Such a generalized statement sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy rant.

Was there a lot of controversy among the scientific community ? The experts seemed to all say pretty much the same thing - masks indoors, social distance, get vaccinated, etc.

codefreeordie 4y ago
Indeed. What would happen to the career of a scientist who even tried to do something else? (many careers were ended. In some cases, states threatened to pull licenses or even imprison researchers for even considering alternatives)
- nvr219 4y ago
  > states threatened to pull licenses or even imprison researchers for even considering alternatives Where?
  - codefreeordie 4y ago
    All sorts of places, including some unlikely ones. California, Massachusetts, Maine, and Texas all pulled licenses for refusing to uphold the narrative. Washington, Michigan, Minnesota, Illinois, New York, New Jersey, and Arizona all threatened to do so, though I have been unable to determine whether any licenses were actually pulled. California threatened criminal charges, though I have no evidence that any were ever actually filed.
    - nvr219 4y ago
      I don't think any of that is true.
      - codefreeordie 4y ago
        ok.
aceon48 4y ago
Not true. Some doctors tried to prescribe off label treatments and were prohibited, fired, etc (for example ivermectin or hydroxy
- mft_ 4y ago
  The same treatments that have been shown to offer little benefit, or even be detrimental?
- mjhay 4y ago
  You guys are still going on about ivermectin?
- robbiep 4y ago
  HCQ was an interesting thought in early March 2020 (my brother as an ICU doc was considering getting some for our parents). But the data was very quickly available that it was essentially worthless, and certainly nowhere near as useful as some other cheap, off patent medication such as steroids which was rapidly demonstrated to be highly effective at cutting mortality by the UK’s medical industrial complex. People who acted in bad faith on data that was demonstrably bad were rightly defenestrated by the medical and scientific community. However many of those same people found themselves right at home in a new cheer squad of people who are more than happy to invest in beliefs over data. The mop up on the shitty evidence is drawing to a conclusion, with events such as the recent NEJM publishing of the ivermectin study. But stupid knows no bounds and the scientific method is going to be mopping up the damage from this one for a long time
  - ncmncm 4y ago
    People suggesting ivermectin ought to be interesting were not wrong. It could plausibly have had some effect, based on the biochemistry. It just turned out not to work. I don't know of any evidence that trying it, when we had literally nothing else, did anybody any harm. All the harm came from people using it instead of, later, doing the things that did turn out to actually work. Probably a few people even cleared up a chronic worm infection they didn't know about. What I did not see, and expected to see, was a study of relative infection rates in people already on ivermectin for an on-label use vs. people who were not. These came out pretty early vis a vis chloroquines, showing that people who had been taking that got COVID-19 just like anybody else. Maybe periodic ivermectin doses wasn't a thing...
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

TaupeRanger 4y ago

Say specifically what your criticisms are. Such a generalized statement sounds like the beginning of a conspiracy rant.