3 ms·

I really like the video but I disagree with his prescription for peer review to increase trust in science. People don’t distrust scientists because there isn’t

I really like the video but I disagree with his prescription for peer review to increase trust in science. People don’t distrust scientists because there isn’t enough peer review or because of pre-prints failing to replicate, they distrust scientific institutions because scientific institutions often communicate their current best theory as the truth and pretend that they can ‘prove’ things true by way of ‘scientific consensus.’ Going against the consensus can ruin or limit your career. Lots of examples: climate scientists making claims of ice free arctic by 2020, dietary science flip flopping on diet advice (fat and butter is bad, carbs are bad), covid vaccines being a silver bullet, ivermectin not being effective [1]. Add in problems in social ‘sciences’ like the Sokal affair, psychology replication crisis, mainstream economists failing to predict the GFC, definitions of foundational terms like “woman” changing, and you have a recipe for the general public not trusting academia or ‘scientific’ institutions in general. Science and academia in general is being polluted by politics and it is incentivising academics to exaggerate the accuracy of their knowledge. [1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2790173 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle... I added the reference here because Ivermectin was a horrible case of politicising science: mainstream institutions called it an animal medicine with full knowledge it was safe for humans. And now there is a potential mechanism for its effect, it looks like it may have been effective after all. During the pandemic I heard many scientists laugh at people for considering it, all because an authority they trusted told them it was silly.

tuatoru 3y ago
Your specific examples are of media wilfully misunderstanding what the science says in order to sensationalise, and get clicks. Get your science from the newspaper, get trash. Ivermectin, for instance, has been on the World Health Organisation's list of essential medicines for a long time. The replication crisis is a real thing, for sure. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Medicines#Anthelminthics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Me...
- brutusborn 3y ago
  I don’t think the media caused the psychology replication crisis. The media plays a part in all this, but the scientific institutions shouldn’t crumble to media or political pressure. See the FDA’s advice on Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” but fail to mention that there is no evidence that it is not safe for this particular indication. This implies it wasn’t banned for safety reasons. It was banned because many associated it with Trump and right wing conspiracy theories. There was no science used to justify banning it to begin with, and we are now years later, with a potential mechanism for the benefit and it is still banned! One more link to prove I’m not completely insane: the AMA and other mainstream medical bodies recommended not using it for Covid https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-apha-ashp-statement-ending-use-ivermectin-treat-covid-19 https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-aph...
  - tuatoru 3y ago
    Ivermectin is known to be an anthelminthic: it kills worms. That's what it's approved for. It is not known to have antiviral activity, so it's not approved for that use. It is acknowledged to be an official medicine for humans, not just an animal remedy as you claimed. Please keep to the point.
    - brutusborn 3y ago
      Oh I’m well aware of that, I think you may have missed my point: ivermectin was banned in many countries due to political reasons. Many doctors reported good outcomes when using it for Covid. We now know that the places that Ivermectin worked best for Covid were places where parasitic infections are more common. So although it wasn’t approved for Covid, it helped reduce harm because it allowed people to fight Covid without fighting a parasite simultaneously. But since it was ‘not known to have antiviral activity’ and trump said it worked well, it was banned. It’s a disgrace that authorities have punished doctors who did the right thing and have now been vindicated. It is absurd to have to wait for an authority to approve something you have good evidence will help your patients. This is why people have lost faith in health institutions. They make terrible decisions like this and then have the audacity to pontificate to the population.

tuatoru 3y ago

Your specific examples are of media wilfully misunderstanding what the science says in order to sensationalise, and get clicks. Get your science from the newspaper, get trash. Ivermectin, for instance, has been on the World Health Organisation's list of essential medicines for a long time. The replication crisis is a real thing, for sure. 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Medicines#Anthelminthics https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WHO_Model_List_of_Essential_Me...

brutusborn 3y ago
I don’t think the media caused the psychology replication crisis. The media plays a part in all this, but the scientific institutions shouldn’t crumble to media or political pressure. See the FDA’s advice on Ivermectin: https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19 https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-shoul... “Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” but fail to mention that there is no evidence that it is not safe for this particular indication. This implies it wasn’t banned for safety reasons. It was banned because many associated it with Trump and right wing conspiracy theories. There was no science used to justify banning it to begin with, and we are now years later, with a potential mechanism for the benefit and it is still banned! One more link to prove I’m not completely insane: the AMA and other mainstream medical bodies recommended not using it for Covid https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-apha-ashp-statement-ending-use-ivermectin-treat-covid-19 https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-aph...
- tuatoru 3y ago
  Ivermectin is known to be an anthelminthic: it kills worms. That's what it's approved for. It is not known to have antiviral activity, so it's not approved for that use. It is acknowledged to be an official medicine for humans, not just an animal remedy as you claimed. Please keep to the point.
  - brutusborn 3y ago
    Oh I’m well aware of that, I think you may have missed my point: ivermectin was banned in many countries due to political reasons. Many doctors reported good outcomes when using it for Covid. We now know that the places that Ivermectin worked best for Covid were places where parasitic infections are more common. So although it wasn’t approved for Covid, it helped reduce harm because it allowed people to fight Covid without fighting a parasite simultaneously. But since it was ‘not known to have antiviral activity’ and trump said it worked well, it was banned. It’s a disgrace that authorities have punished doctors who did the right thing and have now been vindicated. It is absurd to have to wait for an authority to approve something you have good evidence will help your patients. This is why people have lost faith in health institutions. They make terrible decisions like this and then have the audacity to pontificate to the population.