|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 13:11:22 GMT -6
I get what you’re saying. And agree that it’s not exclusively an issue with the Right. Lots of center and left voices have been censored as well. My point is more that there are ideas that fit the current narrative and ideas that don’t. The ones that don’t fit the narrative, and get censored, tend to be promoting ideas that are “deemed” conservative while the ideas that are promoted are often deemed liberal. Really it’s a false dichotomy. It’s a lot of finger pointing really. Is the Lab Leak Theory a liberal or conservative idea? Really it’s neither. But in today polarized society it’s been pushed by many as a conservative conspiracy theory. Now that’s a whole other tangent we don’t have to go down. But regardless I personally feel that the censorship that is now commonplace is bad for us all. You say that YouTube doesn’t want to spread unproven medical theories that are presented as true. Well imagine a world where we weren’t allowed to discuss unproven theories. Science would come to screeching halt. The discussion of unproven theories is vital to the scientific method, not to mention public discourse/policy etc. All theories start as unproven. Removing them because they don’t fit a narrative is harmful to everybody, including the people pushing the mainstream narrative to begin with. The fact is that we, as a society, haven't figured out how this new method of idea distribution should be monitored, if at all. Social media has been weaponized by other countries. Bad actors have used it to amplify false narratives on both sides of the political fence...for some reason they are more successful targeting the conservative side, but they have had some success on the liberal side and among non-political subsets of society. If, say, Russia wants to sow discord between the US and China, they can send out the bots to amplify something like the Wuhan lab theory among the ultra nationalist groups on social media. It burns like wildfire, and before you know it the Asian American community is being targeted and physically attacked and our political divisions are widened. If, say, some guy who has made a fortune selling vitamins as the cure for whatever the current illness happens to be, he can go around saying that vitamins will prevent covid and as soon as YouTube takes a video down his audience blows up and the cash rolls in. He WANTS to be 'censored'. It's extremely complicated. I totally agree that we don't as a society know how to handle this. And that's its insanely complicated when you get into the details. I don't pretend to have the answers |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 13:31:30 GMT -6
I see what you mean but I disagree with your conclusions. The vaccine science is sound and well understood. The tech has been in development for decades. The approved vaccines have been proven beyond any doubt to be extremely effective and safe for the vast majority of people. Those aspects are not theory. By whatever standards you might judge the vaccines, you also must judge alternative treatments. Ivermectin has not been proven to be effective. To my knowledge there are no long term studies indicating that ivermectin is safe for humans at the dosage/duration required to defeat the virus. Ivermectin is not harmless and has been tied to significant issues: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5929173/Meanwhile, some of the assertions made by Weinstien et al regarding spike proteins seem to be based on a misunderstanding of the tech, and scientists with greater direct experience have said that the spike protein danger theory is untrue. And, again, you can't make the case that voices are being silenced and just shrug off the demonstrable, undebatable fact that they are actually the most widely heard voices in all of social media. I'm surprised you're not swayed at all by these things. Doesn't it trigger alarm bells when a doctor tells us ivermectin is a miracle cure, doctors are dumb and uninformed, and vaccines are a massive threat out of one side of his mouth, and then says ivermectin is unproven and that we should follow our doctor's recommendations including vaccines out of the other? Doesn't it ring any bells to learn that these media figures are building enormous platforms, making tons of money, and spreading ideas far and wide on the backs of big tech, all the while claiming that they're being silenced by big tech? When someone repeatedly and unapologetically asserts something that is demonstrably false or speaks out of both sides of their mouth they fail my personal sniff test. When someone stands to gain significant status and money by being 'censored', I question their motives. The actual guy that invented mRNA technology, Dr. Robert Malone was the one on the left in that video. I don’t think a misunderstanding of the tech was an issue at all. The long term effects of mRNA vaccines in humans are not known and won’t be known for quite some time. I should be careful...dangerously close to wading way out of my depth : ) But I'll say that, though he participated in the early development of (and claims to have invented) the tech, he was not part of the process of developing the vaccines in their current form. That's not to say he doesn't have the expertise to interpret the current tech, but his interpretation has been disputed and some would say debunked: www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-vaccine-cytotoxic/fact-check-covid-19-vaccines-are-not-cytotoxic-idUSL2N2O01XP |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 19, 2021 13:31:33 GMT -6
seawell I hear you, and I am fine with what Dr Malone said. What he said wasn’t what got that video taken down. And the other thing is that again one expert, no matter how esteemed, doesn’t have a veto over the whole process. I don’t know how many Dr Malones there are lined up on the other side who are just as knowledgeable and disagree with him. That’s an important piece of information that’s lacking from videos like these, or from the idea that just because the FDA doesn’t agree with someone there’s some kind of duty for their view to be made widely available. There are a LOT of people the FDA doesn’t agree with who we should ignore.
|
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 14:32:48 GMT -6
To the "this is all OK" guys - it's OK : essentially this boils down to censorship is good if it fits my mindset, or censorship is bad in any and all circumstances. Choose one and own your decision. You can't have it both ways. If the censored are quacks, let them be quacks - the truth will right itself. No need for big tech intervention.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 15:03:19 GMT -6
To the "this is all OK" guys - it's OK : essentially this boils down to censorship is good if it fits my mindset, or censorship is bad in any and all circumstances. Choose one and own your decision. You can't have it both ways. If the censored are quacks, let them be quacks - the truth will right itself. No need for big tech intervention. Uh... YouTube has made its policy clear. YouTube is essentially saying that they don't want their platform to be used to spread misinformation about a global health crisis, intentionally or otherwise, so if someone wants to do that they can go elsewhere. These guys, being media personalities, very likely knew their video would be taken down and they posted it anyway. Great for their business...they get to wave the 'censored' flag to draw more attention to their other platforms which are built by, amplified by, and monetized by big tech. Their 'censored' ideas are among the most widely distributed by the very companies that are supposedly silencing them. How does that work? You realize Big Tech is also Twitter, where Weinstien has half a million followers. Censorship? Google, which owns damn near everything including YouTube...Google 'Weinstien Covid' and his ideas are right up there on the first page of results. How is that big tech censorship of ideas? Patreon, where his subscribers pay him up to 25k a month for access to his ideas. How is that censorship? Apple podcasts, where Weinstien is currently number one in the natural sciences category. That's censorship? They're being 'censored' and being invited to testify before congress. Huh? Wealth, recognition, and the widespread distribution of ideas...You call that censorship? If you take some time to get the lay of the land with these folks you'll see what I mean. They are media figures. They're playing the same game that all media figures play. Controversial takes on hot topics generates more eyeballs. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 15:45:47 GMT -6
So censorship is not happening then? Whew!! I feel soooooo much better now.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 16:04:28 GMT -6
To the "this is all OK" guys - it's OK : essentially this boils down to censorship is good if it fits my mindset, or censorship is bad in any and all circumstances. Choose one and own your decision. You can't have it both ways. If the censored are quacks, let them be quacks - the truth will right itself. No need for big tech intervention. Uh... YouTube has made its policy clear. YouTube is essentially saying that they don't want their platform to be used to spread misinformation about a global health crisis, intentionally or otherwise, so if someone wants to do that they can go elsewhere. These guys, being media personalities, very likely knew their video would be taken down and they posted it anyway. Great for their business...they get to wave the 'censored' flag to draw more attention to their other platforms which are built by, amplified by, and monetized by big tech. Their 'censored' ideas are among the most widely distributed by the very companies that are supposedly silencing them. How does that work? You realize Big Tech is also Twitter, where Weinstien has half a million followers. Censorship? Google, which owns damn near everything including YouTube...Google 'Weinstien Covid' and his ideas are right up there on the first page of results. How is that big tech censorship of ideas? Patreon, where his subscribers pay him up to 25k a month for access to his ideas. How is that censorship? Apple podcasts, where Weinstien is currently number one in the natural sciences category. That's censorship? They're being 'censored' and being invited to testify before congress. Huh? Wealth, recognition, and the widespread distribution of ideas...You call that censorship? If you take some time to get the lay of the land with these folks you'll see what I mean. They are media figures. They're playing the same game that all media figures play. Controversial takes on hot topics generates more eyeballs. Trying to understand, are you saying that its not censorship unless its absolute? That when a social media giant removes peoples videos it doesn't qualify as censorship if those voices have other outlets?
And as for Youtube's Policy. It may be crystal clear, IDK, I've never looked at it but I'll take your word for it. But I assume their policy is something to the effect of, "if it contradicts the CDC its out". Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, I honestly am not sure. But if that is the standard, is that not problematic as well? Hasn't the CDC changed its guidelines constantly? Are the doctors at the CDC better than the doctors at Standford, the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins etc? Do they hold the keys to the truth? Isn't the challenging a government body a pillar of democracy.
I guess what I'm saying is why not let doctors argue with other doctors? Let the researchers, clinical lab scientists, policy makers etc debate it and express their views openly. Yeah some of them are going to be idiots, some are bull shit artists, some are whackos, and some of them are contrarian but also correct. Lets separate the wheat from the chaff in open dialog and debate.
I think what scares a lot us is that censorship always starts small, but it knows no bounds. Eventually it swallows everyone unless its tightly reigned in and controlled, like a wild animal. The 1st amendment is a good example. It protects the freedom of speech but has tight limits on the types of speech not allowed, (openly inciting violence, threatening someones life etc). If Youtube has a clear policy on how they handle this stuff great. That's needed, and helpful. But it remains a bad policy non the less, IME.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 16:19:23 GMT -6
So censorship is not happening then? Whew!! I feel soooooo much better now. Biggest tech Apple buried Bret Weinstien's ideas way way way way way down at the number one spot in his podcast category. Like, if it hadn't been for big tech intervention Bret's podcast might have risen higher than #1? He's in the top ten in the general science category along with his 'canceled' friends Sam Harris and Jordan Peterson. Joe Rogan, who regularly invites alternative thinkers on his podcast including Bret Weinstien, is a big tech media giant making tens of millions a year via his enormous audience. The most widely viewed posts on Facebook, day after day after day, are from conservative figures and media outlets. The highest rated cable 'news' is unabashedly conservative. Terrestrial radio is absolutely dominated by conservative voices. Please explain how any of this equals suppression, or censorship, or choosing sides, or whatever. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 16:33:57 GMT -6
So censorship is not happening then? Whew!! I feel soooooo much better now. Please explain how any of this equals suppression, or censorship, or choosing sides, or whatever.  . Really? OK, please send me a link to the above video on youtube, and you win. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 16:40:33 GMT -6
Uh... YouTube has made its policy clear. YouTube is essentially saying that they don't want their platform to be used to spread misinformation about a global health crisis, intentionally or otherwise, so if someone wants to do that they can go elsewhere. These guys, being media personalities, very likely knew their video would be taken down and they posted it anyway. Great for their business...they get to wave the 'censored' flag to draw more attention to their other platforms which are built by, amplified by, and monetized by big tech. Their 'censored' ideas are among the most widely distributed by the very companies that are supposedly silencing them. How does that work? You realize Big Tech is also Twitter, where Weinstien has half a million followers. Censorship? Google, which owns damn near everything including YouTube...Google 'Weinstien Covid' and his ideas are right up there on the first page of results. How is that big tech censorship of ideas? Patreon, where his subscribers pay him up to 25k a month for access to his ideas. How is that censorship? Apple podcasts, where Weinstien is currently number one in the natural sciences category. That's censorship? They're being 'censored' and being invited to testify before congress. Huh? Wealth, recognition, and the widespread distribution of ideas...You call that censorship? If you take some time to get the lay of the land with these folks you'll see what I mean. They are media figures. They're playing the same game that all media figures play. Controversial takes on hot topics generates more eyeballs. Trying to understand, are you saying that its not censorship unless its absolute? That when a social media giant removes peoples videos it doesn't qualify as censorship if those voices have other outlets?
And as for Youtube's Policy. It may be crystal clear, IDK, I've never looked at it but I'll take your word for it. But I assume their policy is something to the effect of, "if it contradicts the CDC its out". Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, I honestly am not sure. But if that is the standard, is that not problematic as well? Hasn't the CDC changed its guidelines constantly? Are the doctors at the CDC better than the doctors at Standford, the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins etc? Do they hold the keys to the truth? Isn't the challenging a government body a pillar of democracy.
I guess what I'm saying is why not let doctors argue with other doctors? Let the researchers, clinical lab scientists, policy makers etc debate it and express their views openly. Yeah some of them are going to be idiots, some are bull shit artists, some are whackos, and some of them are contrarian but also correct. Lets separate the wheat from the chaff in open dialog and debate.
I think what scares a lot us is that censorship always starts small, but it knows no bounds. Eventually it swallows everyone unless its tightly reigned in and controlled, like a wild animal. The 1st amendment is a good example. It protects the freedom of speech but has tight limits on the types of speech not allowed, (openly inciting violence, threatening someones life etc). If Youtube has a clear policy on how they handle this stuff great. That's needed, and helpful. But it remains a bad policy non the less, IME.
I guess I'm saying that the theory that big tech is silencing alternative/conservative voices just doesn't hold water. Each platform has its own challenges and they're all trying to balance individual expression vs. public good, as well as sorting out the public utility vs private publisher thing. Yes, you've got the YouTube policy correct more or less. The argument against their decision is clear. People want to be able to use tech platforms as they wish and anything short of total freedom is viewed as censorship. The argument for their decision is more nuanced. Where do they draw the line with individual freedom? Promoting violence? Nudity? Advertising for bogus products? They have a set of rules which apply to different forms of expression. If you want to do things that are against the rules, you gotta go elsewhere. I understand why this is viewed as censorship but it's clearly a complicated issue and I don't think it's unreasonable for a company to establish ground rules for users. |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 16:54:28 GMT -6
Please explain how any of this equals suppression, or censorship, or choosing sides, or whatever. . Really? OK, please send me a link to the above video on youtube, and you win. ***Edited my first sentence because it had a bit more hair on it than I intended and I don't want my comments to come across as criticisms of Bill as a person. Edited my last few sentences because they were veering into sarcasm and politics and I don't want to offend or be censored : ) *** There is absolutely no way you can argue that big tech, as a whole, has silenced his voice. YouTube has a policy against posting certain things, clearly stated. It's a private platform. He broke the rules on a private platform and his video was removed. |
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 19, 2021 16:56:53 GMT -6
Trying to understand, are you saying that its not censorship unless its absolute? That when a social media giant removes peoples videos it doesn't qualify as censorship if those voices have other outlets?
And as for Youtube's Policy. It may be crystal clear, IDK, I've never looked at it but I'll take your word for it. But I assume their policy is something to the effect of, "if it contradicts the CDC its out". Please correct me if I'm wrong about that, I honestly am not sure. But if that is the standard, is that not problematic as well? Hasn't the CDC changed its guidelines constantly? Are the doctors at the CDC better than the doctors at Standford, the Cleveland Clinic, Johns Hopkins etc? Do they hold the keys to the truth? Isn't the challenging a government body a pillar of democracy.
I guess what I'm saying is why not let doctors argue with other doctors? Let the researchers, clinical lab scientists, policy makers etc debate it and express their views openly. Yeah some of them are going to be idiots, some are bull shit artists, some are whackos, and some of them are contrarian but also correct. Lets separate the wheat from the chaff in open dialog and debate.
I think what scares a lot us is that censorship always starts small, but it knows no bounds. Eventually it swallows everyone unless its tightly reigned in and controlled, like a wild animal. The 1st amendment is a good example. It protects the freedom of speech but has tight limits on the types of speech not allowed, (openly inciting violence, threatening someones life etc). If Youtube has a clear policy on how they handle this stuff great. That's needed, and helpful. But it remains a bad policy non the less, IME.
I guess I'm saying that the theory that big tech is silencing alternative/conservative voices just doesn't hold water. Each platform has its own challenges and they're all trying to balance individual expression vs. public good, as well as sorting out the public utility vs private publisher thing. Yes, you've got the YouTube policy correct more or less. The argument against their decision is clear. People want to be able to use tech platforms as they wish and anything short of total freedom is viewed as censorship. The argument for their decision is more nuanced. Where do they draw the line with individual freedom? Promoting violence? Nudity? Advertising for bogus products? They have a set of rules which apply to different forms of expression. If you want to do things that are against the rules, you gotta go elsewhere. I understand why this is viewed as censorship but it's clearly a complicated issue and I don't think it's unreasonable for a company to establish ground rules for users. Thank you for clarifying, that makes more sense. It’s certainly a tough conundrum for social media platforms to navigate: freedom of expression vs public good vs misinformation etc. I’m glad I don’t have the responsibility of figuring that all out! However, I will say this. I believe what Dr Bill, and others like myself are saying is not that alternative voices have been “silenced” but that they have been “censored”. And that censorship is inherently dangerous. If I’m misrepresenting anyone please correct me  It’s pretty irrefutable that some of these people are bigger than ever, in part because of the opposition thrown at them. But it’s still a dangerously slippery slope when YouTube removes people’s videos. Especially in light of the arguably bigger problem of cancel culture and the self censorship they happens when people are afraid to speak their minds. Even a minor perceived offense can get someone fired from their job, loose their grant, have their career ruined etc etc. IME it’s all part of a larger, very dangerous, trend of people silencing (or attempting to silence) others who think differently. |
|
|
|
Post by drbill on Jun 19, 2021 17:01:22 GMT -6
However, I will say this. I believe what Dr Bill, and others like myself are saying is not that alternative voices have been “silenced” but that they have been “censored”. And that censorship is inherently dangerous. Yes, thank you for the perspective tbone! |
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 17:03:09 GMT -6
Videos not removed...clips which apparently don't violate YouTube's policy, including several from the same discussion.
|
|
|
|
Post by ehrenebbage on Jun 19, 2021 17:11:52 GMT -6
However, I will say this. I believe what Dr Bill, and others like myself are saying is not that alternative voices have been “silenced” but that they have been “censored”. And that censorship is inherently dangerous. Yes, thank you for the perspective tbone! I completely understand and agree with the idea that censorship is inherently dangerous. I'm not sure that I agree that someone who violates the clear terms of use on a private platform can claim to be censored, but maybe that's just me. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 19, 2021 18:13:12 GMT -6
The notion that the right suffers unduly from censorship is a canard as old as politics. Pure malarkey.
|
|
|
|
Post by teejay on Jun 20, 2021 16:33:57 GMT -6
Ivermectin for Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 Infection
Conclusions:
Moderate-certainty evidence finds that large reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally. From the American Journal of Therapeutics A peer reviewed and published meta-analysis of Ivermectin effectiveness. Copywrite Wolters Kluwer Heath.
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 21, 2021 5:54:33 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by seawell on Jun 21, 2021 10:15:30 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 21, 2021 16:03:38 GMT -6
Thanks man - I am not an expert in meta-analysis, but as I see it there is a potential problem in that they included basically everything including preprint and unpublished articles. For example, they explain this choice by saying
"We did not consider publication on preprint web sites to constitute a risk of bias because all studies were scrutinized and peer reviewed by us during the review process and, where additional information was needed, we contacted the authors for clarification."
Dono about the validity of that -- again, I'm not an expert but that sounds questionable. Maybe it's normal? I don't know.
Just reading through here are some potential issues with the 22 treatment trials they did include -
- widely varying dosing
- multiple different comparators (e.g., placebo, standard of care, hydroxychloroquine, etc)
- inconsistent admission standards (i.e., is there a source of bias in who was included or excluded by severity?)
- inconsistent or unknown selection bias or randomization of patients
- inconsistent blinding of participants (i.e., do the patients know)
- only six were published in peer reviewed journals
- comparison for efficacy is an assumed all-cause mortality but studies draw from all over the globe / from widely different countries
Even all that being said, what they found was moderate evidence on GRADE approach, a system used to guide subjective scores of certainty in these kind of analysis. Moderate means "The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect." But remember, GRADE is subjective. Another set of researchers may look at the same info and say it is low "The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect."
Ok, you say, but its the best we can do right now with Ivermectin. yeah. I agree. The problem is we have people saying - look we need to have full disclosure and take a hard stance on ethics with <<one medicine>> who are simultaneously taking the complete opposite approach with <<some other medicine>>. There isn't a ton of hard evidence for Ivermectin being helpful (and I'll admit I'm biased and skeptical toward it, partly because if it were a slam dunk it seems by now you'd see some large trial demonstrating it, and it hasn't.) Do the same checks I mentioned above against the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J clinical trials. The quality of the studies is not really comparable.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tbone81 on Jun 21, 2021 16:34:44 GMT -6
Thanks man - I am not an expert in meta-analysis, but as I see it there is a potential problem in that they included basically everything including preprint and unpublished articles. For example, they explain this choice by saying "We did not consider publication on preprint web sites to constitute a risk of bias because all studies were scrutinized and peer reviewed by us during the review process and, where additional information was needed, we contacted the authors for clarification." Dono about the validity of that -- again, I'm not an expert but that sounds questionable. Maybe it's normal? I don't know. Just reading through here are some potential issues with the 22 treatment trials they did include - - widely varying dosing - multiple different comparators (e.g., placebo, standard of care, hydroxychloroquine, etc) - inconsistent admission standards (i.e., is there a source of bias in who was included or excluded by severity?) - inconsistent or unknown selection bias or randomization of patients - inconsistent blinding of participants (i.e., do the patients know) - only six were published in peer reviewed journals - comparison for efficacy is an assumed all-cause mortality but studies draw from all over the globe / from widely different countries Even all that being said, what they found was moderate evidence on GRADE approach, a system used to guide subjective scores of certainty in these kind of analysis. Moderate means "The authors believe that the true effect is probably close to the estimated effect." But remember, GRADE is subjective. Another set of researchers may look at the same info and say it is low "The true effect might be markedly different from the estimated effect." Ok, you say, but its the best we can do right now with Ivermectin. yeah. I agree. The problem is we have people saying - look we need to have full disclosure and take a hard stance on ethics with <<one medicine>> who are simultaneously taking the complete opposite approach with <<some other medicine>>. There isn't a ton of hard evidence for Ivermectin being helpful (and I'll admit I'm biased and skeptical toward it, partly because if it were a slam dunk it seems by now you'd see some large trial demonstrating it, and it hasn't.) Do the same checks I mentioned above against the Pfizer, Moderna, or J&J clinical trials. The quality of the studies is not really comparable. Hey Matt, you bring up some good points but your list of “potential issues” could be said for every meta data analysis study. A meta data study is only as good as the studies being…uh, studied (that’s a tongue twister). As I understand them, meta data studies all have that inherent challenge. I don’t know one way or another if ivermectin is a good COVID treatment. But just to point out some questionable conclusions from the other end, , at least one of the studies that advocates against ivermectin based their conclusions on the fact that both test groups (placebo and ivermectin users) still tested positive on a PCR test 7 days post. The researchers noted that the ivermectin group reported less symptoms however. IME that’s a poor conclusion criteria. PCR tests are problematic for many reasons and a 7 day span might not be enough for any one to test COVID negative for any reason. I think that’s why so many of us are skeptical of so much. I fully admit though that we all draw these lines in the sand based on our own biases. Myself included |
|
|
|
Post by matt@IAA on Jun 21, 2021 16:55:15 GMT -6
Well all meta analysis are subject to the quality of studies they include - garbage in garbage out. But not all meta analyses use the same rigor for inclusion. And all are subject to the inclusion bias of the authors. There are qualities or robustnesses to meta analyses just like studies. They could have cast a tighter net around their inclusion on any of the points I outlined by looking at their table. Those were choices they made and some of them are pretty significant. Just using ivermectin vs placebo would be an interesting view for example. Or they could have just analyzed the six peer reviewed papers. If they did one or the other and their conclusion was skewed, does that invalidate their conclusion? Kinda? But we don’t know. In other words we see the picture they paint - the sensitivity to this or that, how they judged this or that bias - but we don’t see what they didn’t paint. That’s why I admire people like Ionnadis so much, they go behind and question stuff like this. As meta analysis goes I don’t think this one is super compelling.
But that’s why it’s always a gray scale and you have to try to have the same (in)credulity toward everything and check your priors and all that. And at the end of the day you’re comparing different degrees of compelling evidence and doing the best you can. Which is why our current cultural climate is so wonky - people paint everything in binary terms. It’s actually much more messy than that, and I think people grant that messiness to their own areas of expertise but deny it to areas outside. Just human nature.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ward on Jun 21, 2021 18:22:32 GMT -6
A friend shared this with me, and well . . . it's pretty sensible.  |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 21, 2021 22:38:28 GMT -6
A friend shared this with me, and well . . . it's pretty sensible. View AttachmentI totally agree with this sentiment, and if I ever meet any of these men I will smack them upside their dumb straw heads. |
|
|
|
Post by bgrotto on Jun 22, 2021 12:41:02 GMT -6
|
|
