61–70 of 82 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As I already stated, Bret and Heather both have PhD's in biology and the episode in question with Dr. Kory also featured Dr. Malone the inventor of mRNA vaccine technology. You are misrepresenting the content.
I’m curious about their motive for misrepresenting the content - I agree that they are, but it’s not obvious what the angle is for a commenter here.
There are certain topics which Youtube will not allow, they have various soft means of enforcing boundaries around those edges. One of those topics is analysis and discussion of Covid 19. They (Bret and Heather) have been very careful to stay within the stated rules, yet this still happened. At some point, enough of us viewers will decide that it is worth overcoming the network effects, and get used to some new platf…
Our ability to discuss things like adults has been under threat for a shockingly long while now, and only been getting worse. This is partly due to such a large portion of society being unable to discuss things like adults without lapsing into political "Us vs Them"-ism nearly instantly.
On a related note; Why exactly is it that such a large portion of the discussion here tends toward actual adult conversation? Is it purely because of the specific type of crowd this platform attracts? Is there any lesson that could be learned by the larger platforms from this to improve their services in this regard?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A random blog just isn't the standard for medical evidence. Aren't you aware of the actual standard and know what kind of studies, rigor and peer-review is necessary? You need multiple peer-reviewed randomized control trials, at least 30.
> random blog Let's put it this way - more people on this site know who Derek Lowe is (and respect his opinions) than every person combined that was involved in those 31 studies.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This statement, "You shouldn't have the right to decide for me where science happens," is anti-scientific. I'm reminded of Carl Sagan's description in _The Demon-Haunted World_ of people who make profoundly unscientific statements using the words of science, because they want the authority and respect accorded those words, not realizing that the authority and respect comes from the methods of science, not just the wo…
I'm curious if you believe that only scientists can practice science.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals. Again, this is not a decision I've made, but the actual definition of the things. I can't call a lollipop a frog and then get mad when it doesn't jump, or someone licks it. It is what it is.
>Using the words "hypotheses" or "scientific discussion" doesn't make those things hypotheses or scientific discussion. The first takes place within the parameters of experimentation, and the latter in papers and journals. As a scientist, I can definitively say this is false. Both these things happen over beers quite frequently. To further If science only happened in labs and journals, how did we ever get to the poin…
Is it not obvious that some kinds of scientific and medical practice must always be severely gated in all modern societies because of its extreme and intimate relationship to public health and trust? And when we're talking about medicine or vaccines, we are talking about human research subjects. What would amateur empiricism in medicine and vaccination even mean here?
When you talk about the foundations of early medical science, you're not referring to Gray's Anatomy dig-up-the-bodies-in-the-graveyard style of original human research, right? You surely don't have a modern vision of amateur medical research with human subjects, right? In the historical context that stuff is breathtaking and pioneering. In the modern context that would be breathtaking for another reason.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic) They linked to the Wikipedia page. Which appears to say that the effect found "in vitro" is unobtainable unless you take a massive OD. Useful drugs have an OD amount that is greater than the effective dose. https://xkcd.com/1217/ Supposedly larger scale tests are being done, so we'll see.
The idea is to take Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Weinstein is not suggesting taking a massive overdose of Ivermectin. He makes this clarification repeatedly.
It's overdose or nothing.
I heard his name over the Evergreen thing but forgot it. I listened to the episode "Doing science in an emergency" [0]. It's terrible. Lots of circular logic and self congratulation. It reminded me of reddit's "IAmVerySmart" sub. I don't think anyone should be banned (he hasn't been), but this isn't a hill for anyone to die on. He seems to have fallen into a weird rabbit-hole where he fails to admit any possibility o…
I downvoted you because it seems like your comment is largely composed of empty insults ("it's terrible", "reminded me of reddit's 'IAmVerySmart' sub", "weird rabbit-hole"). You don't give any examples for the specific criticism you make (circular logic). You say he fails to admit any possibility of error whereas I know that he readily admits the possibility of error. There are also a few cases where your comment is…
The most glaring example of his circular logic starts around 29min mark in the podcast I linked to (#83). He is discussing lab leak hypothesis and the logic is this:
* if we assume there was a lab leak, then that's good news: the means novel viruses in nature are much rarer than expected.
* based on that we should stop gain of function research because natural gain of function is much rarer than lab leaks from man made gain of function research
* since we now agree lab leaks are much more likely than natural novel viruses, it makes no sense to believe covid 19 was anything other than a lab leak.
He jumps from "IF it was a lab leak" to "the rot in our science society is so bad" in 1 sentence. His wife takes over and repeats the assumption that all science is totally corrupt (where did that come from?) and that we should believe its a lab leak because then we can just close all the labs and never have another zoonotic virus. Wtf, where did that come from?
See the problem?
I felt sorry for him over the Evergreen stuff. He was right to object. I don't think anyone should be banned from YouTube short of calls for violence (or CP). I also think YT have a terrible approach to the censorship they do (it's arbitrary, it's often wrong, it's unappealable etc).
Im just saying this isn't a hill worth dying on. He is not making much sense as far as I can see.
Fyi, I also replied on the other thread.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The idea is to take Ivermectin as a prophylactic. Weinstein is not suggesting taking a massive overdose of Ivermectin. He makes this clarification repeatedly.
Fyi, Ivermectin only works at very high doses. Taking it at safe doses doesn't work at a prophylactic or anything else. It's overdose or nothing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fyi, Ivermectin only works at very high doses. Taking it at safe doses doesn't work at a prophylactic or anything else. It's overdose or nothing.
This is exactly the subject under discussion. I don't think it's anywhere near as clear as you make it out to be. There is insufficient evidence at this point to say definitively how useful Ivermectin is or isn't.
Maybe low dose cyanide is the cure, but I won't recommend it till there IS evidence.