3 ms·

The author of this article is selling outrage and we are all buying. They are getting views and benefiting from this anti-government outrage. The author repeate

The author of this article is selling outrage and we are all buying. They are getting views and benefiting from this anti-government outrage. The author repeatedly appealed to long-covid patient authority like their medical opinion has any weight at all. This fear = views = status = profit conflict of interest is the problem in current America and why it feels like no one can understand anything and trust in our institutions is at a low. “The NIH RECOVER study is pointless,” said Jenn Cole, a long Covid patient based in Brooklyn, N.Y., who wanted to enroll in the study but found the process inaccessible. The research is “a waste of time and resources,” she said, and fails to use patients’ tax dollars for their benefit. “We didn’t need to recreate” existing studies that already answered these questions, said Cole, the long Covid patient. This isn't journalism. This is garbage. This article produces anger, not understanding.

anigbrowl 4y ago
There was a great deal more to the article than you're suggesting, and I didn't read it as 'anti government outrage.' You can support government interventions and still think the NIH is doing a mediocre job on this project. There's a lot of comparative and contextual information in the article that you seem to have ignored.
- hayst4ck 4y ago
  We spend 4 billion a year on Alzheimers, and what do we have to show for it? We spent at least 500 billion on AIDS and we have PrEP after 40 years of research. The author's core assertion is that 1 billion should buy a potential treatment. The entire article is centered around this core premise. That is a flawed idea at it's core and shows that the author is writing on a subject beyond their pay grade. Worse, it's reinforcing emotions that other people who are not experts under the guise of being well researched. This article increases net ignorance. > Instead, the NIH spent the majority of its money on broader, observational research that won’t directly bring relief to patients. "Instead of spending money to solve the problem, they are first trying to understand the problem." Is that not absolutely absurd to you? Am I insane for reading the author's statement that way? Does the rest of the article really not follow the same conceit? The author makes the assertion that if there is no treatment there there is nothing to show. I would argue that to prove "nothing to show" you would have to argue that understanding of long COVID has not been increased. I do not think the article addressed what 1 billion got us, only what 1 billion did not get us.
  - anigbrowl 4y ago
    No, that's a misrepresentation of the content. I'm not going to get into a silly cherry picking argument, you can read my sibling comment for where I've commented on the substance of the article.
perardi 4y ago
OK, the headline and the first few graphs are a bit angering…which, mind you, they spent a billion dollars with nothing to show for it…but then the rest of the piece goes into in-depth discussions on what went wrong. It’s pointing out the lack of an org chart for figuring out who is responsible for what. It’s pointing out their observational study basically doesn’t include a control arm. It arguably does lean a little heavy on long COVID patient advocacy…but given they spent that much money and produced nothing, at all, apparently not even a patient registry…that’s bad! That’s not misplaced anger at our institutions—when you can't even come up with an org chart, that’s objectively bad!

anigbrowl 4y ago

There was a great deal more to the article than you're suggesting, and I didn't read it as 'anti government outrage.' You can support government interventions and still think the NIH is doing a mediocre job on this project. There's a lot of comparative and contextual information in the article that you seem to have ignored.

hayst4ck 4y ago
We spend 4 billion a year on Alzheimers, and what do we have to show for it? We spent at least 500 billion on AIDS and we have PrEP after 40 years of research. The author's core assertion is that 1 billion should buy a potential treatment. The entire article is centered around this core premise. That is a flawed idea at it's core and shows that the author is writing on a subject beyond their pay grade. Worse, it's reinforcing emotions that other people who are not experts under the guise of being well researched. This article increases net ignorance. > Instead, the NIH spent the majority of its money on broader, observational research that won’t directly bring relief to patients. "Instead of spending money to solve the problem, they are first trying to understand the problem." Is that not absolutely absurd to you? Am I insane for reading the author's statement that way? Does the rest of the article really not follow the same conceit? The author makes the assertion that if there is no treatment there there is nothing to show. I would argue that to prove "nothing to show" you would have to argue that understanding of long COVID has not been increased. I do not think the article addressed what 1 billion got us, only what 1 billion did not get us.
- anigbrowl 4y ago
  No, that's a misrepresentation of the content. I'm not going to get into a silly cherry picking argument, you can read my sibling comment for where I've commented on the substance of the article.

perardi 4y ago

OK, the headline and the first few graphs are a bit angering…which, mind you, they spent a billion dollars with nothing to show for it…but then the rest of the piece goes into in-depth discussions on what went wrong. It’s pointing out the lack of an org chart for figuring out who is responsible for what. It’s pointing out their observational study basically doesn’t include a control arm. It arguably does lean a little heavy on long COVID patient advocacy…but given they spent that much money and produced nothing, at all, apparently not even a patient registry…that’s bad! That’s not misplaced anger at our institutions—when you can't even come up with an org chart, that’s objectively bad!