KeithL
Administrator 
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 21, 2022 9:46:31 GMT -5
Indeed!
Science doesn't always get things right, but it's got the best track record, as well as an excellent track record of correcting things when it does get them wrong. This means that, as long as you keep track of the current state of things, science always has the best information available at any given time.
(But you DO have to actually keep up to date if you want to have the most accurate version of things.)
For example there was that study claiming that the MMR vaccine was somehow statistically linked to autism.
That study was eventually retracted, and completely discredited, when the doctor who wrote it admitted that the results were incorrect. (He produced the "study" on payroll from a lawyer who wanted it as "evidence" in a lawsuit and deliberately fabricated the conclusion to fill his contract.)
And, since then, multiple studies have shown the exact opposite. However people with agendas still continue to quote the original report as "evidence"... And continue to ignore all the newer information proving that it was totally incorrect. Or, even worse, to claim that all of the many new studies are "covering up the truth"...
(And the bulk of misinformation still being circulated makes it somewhat difficult to find the latest and most accurate information.)
In the case of CoVid-19 there absolutely was some information presented by credible sources early on that has now turned out to be incorrect... or at least optimistic. Things like how long the effects of the vaccine last and how completely it protects you... (The vaccine isn't very good at preventing you from catching CoVid-19... but it's EXTREMELY effective at preventing you from being hospitalized or dying.)
As well as details of exactly how much benefit you get by using masks and hand sanitizer... (Masks have turned out to be far from totally effective, but far better than nothing, while hand sanitizer is now considered to be far less important.)
And, to be quite blunt, both the news media, and many politically appointed experts, did often "simplify the truth" or offer conclusions that were, either optimistically or pessimistically, biased to fit their agenda.
(And sometimes it's just a matter of providing information the public can understand... which is why we say "peanut butter is safe" rather than spelling out the tiny percentage of us who are in fact allergic to it.)
However, the fact that we now have better and more accurate information, based on more recent data, does NOT mean that "someone lied" or "someone cannot be trusted". It simply means that we know more now than we did a year ago... which is far more useful than never learning anything new...
But it also means that, if you wish to remain informed, you DO have to keep up with the latest information.
And, yes, when it comes to something medical.... - a consensus of medical experts IN THE FIELD is worth far more than a consensus of just plain medical experts - and a consensus of MEDICAL EXPERTS is worth more than a consensus of ordinary scientists - and a consensus of ordinary scientists is usually still far more useful than a consensus of non-scientists - and a consensus of famous athletes, media celebrities, or "guys with YouTube channels", is almost always down at the bottom of the list - and, to be blunt, a consensus of "what ordinary people think" often fails to even earn a place on the list
"When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinking" Garbulky, other than I dislike the term "consensus" I believe you are correct. I don't like consensus combined with "science" because it suggests science is something in which the mob rules. Majority support of something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Its not as simple as taking a vote to decide what is "true". This is just me being nitpicky because I believe what you were trying to say is that you have take a look at numerous sources to support a science based opinion or belief. What people need to remember is that science is a process. Its about pushing an idea, a hypothesis forward and subjecting it to numerous challenges. If it fails to be reproducible, its a failed hypothesis. If data supports it, then it continues to be challenged until its considered a theory, then ultimately a law if data continues to support the idea. At any point even a law can be determined to be false. Any good scientist should be prepared to be proven wrong and proven wrong frequently. In its purest form, science is humbling. Arrogant, dogmatic people claiming to be following the science are often just cheerleaders of a coveted position, not true scientists. Its up to each one of us to use critical thinking in our decision making and we must be prepared to challenge what is presented. Remember anyone can be a scientist. Its not restricted to people with academic or professional credentials. All its takes is a curious, open mind. Indeed. Sometimes major findings can be completely overturned. It doesn't happen often for things that have been extensively researched from multiple fields, but it can. Science is never omniscient. It can only make decisions based on evidence they have. Which keep in mind is a heck of a lot more than people with no evidence, shaky evidence, gut feelings, and anecdotal knowledge. And I think that's what I'm stressing when I say look towards reliable information from institutions that are respected by people in their field. There is a strength in deeply researched subjects supported by scientific consensus. There is strength in known quality scientific institutions that have been considered reliable and publish scientifically sound and relevant information. It doesn't mean they are infallible or haven't at times made horrible mistakes or done bad things. But it does mean they have a track record that is good and respected by experts within their field. |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 21, 2022 9:47:57 GMT -5
Trey[/quote]
Whoa twice Covid 4 you?? (Did I read that correctly?)[/quote]
Yeah, weird story. My family got exposed about 2 years ago. My son in law came back from deployment for my wife's funereal and he was sick as a dog. He called it Deployment Flu and said everyone coming back from deployment got it. (This was likely from the initial outbreak in October 2019 at the Wuhan Military Games. Some of the teams got so sick they could not compete, Canada I think.) I got it and had classic first run covid symptoms and was pretty sick for 5 days. In bed, 101 fever sick. We had never heard of Covid, most people had not in February 2020. While I did not get too sick with the initial run of the virus, I had long haul symptoms for months, but again, did not know what was going on. I wear a mask at work and thought I was mask intolerant. Bad fatigue (which I had never experienced before) shortness of breath for months. I went to a post covid clinic once I heard of such a thing and they tested me for and found antibodies. Then in December of 2020 I got my first jab and it really helped with the long haul symptoms a lot.
Back to normal in early 2021, I was working in long term care facilities and tested about 3 times a week. One day in March of last year I came in, tested and there were two lines where there was supposed to be one. I told everyone as I backed out of the facility, telling staff everything I touched while they sprayed me and the air around me with some nasty smelling germ killing stuff. It was honestly comical! I did not get very sick that go around, the timing fits for Delta. But then, I was vaccinated and had natural antibodies, so it makes sense I did not get very sick.
As I write this out I realize my comment was wrong. I have had the sh** three times. The most recent, likely Omicron, was around Christmas. My daughter was positive and I was too as I tested at a facility that morning. I figured I was so I stuck my hand in the facility to get the kit. That time I had a chest cold for 3 days and was bored out of my skull the rest of quarantine. Currently I am at home with laryngitis, which I was certain was Covid as I was tested, but then I had forgotten that I have had all three main types, so the Barry White effect is something else. It is safe to say that I am Covided out with the current iterations.
It makes sense I would get it a lot, I work in health care facilities and have two teenage kids living with me. I am really happy that we caught me when I was positive so I did not contaminate the facilities, that would be heart breaking. And I have to say, getting the vaccine and booster was a fine choice for me and the facilities I work at. Now I just need the weekend to be able to talk again.
Trey
|
|
|
|
Post by novisnick on Jan 21, 2022 9:55:33 GMT -5
Without science we probably wouldn’t be in an audio forum discussing a vaccine, more likely down by the stream gathering water. Gathering water? I thought it was wash day! Oh, that’s tomorrow. 😂🤣😂 |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 21, 2022 10:10:27 GMT -5
You have my condolences as well...
I think it's worth pointing out that virtually everyone who we hear from in government is either elected or appointed by someone who is... Therefore we cannot reasonably expect them to entirely avoid political considerations both in the decisions they make and what they say to us... And therefore it's up to US to avoid political considerations when making decisions about things that really have nothing to do with politics.
Likewise, medical experts are often forced to make a choice between what they know, what they think the public will understand, and how they expect the public to respond to that information. This sometimes forces them to sacrifice "transparency" in return for "getting the bigger message across to the most people".
I'm afraid it's always going to be up to us to take this sort of thing into account.
Thx LCSeminole, I've tried very hard to avoid politics. I wish the morons in government & the medical world would do the same- our lives depend on REAL information to make decisions. btw Thanks to all for the condolences. |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 21, 2022 10:10:56 GMT -5
Whoa twice Covid 4 you?? (Did I read that correctly?)[/quote] Yeah, weird story. My family got exposed about 2 years ago. My son in law came back from deployment for my wife's funereal and he was sick as a dog. He called it Deployment Flu and said everyone coming back from deployment got it. (This was likely from the initial outbreak in October 2019 at the Wuhan Military Games. Some of the teams got so sick they could not compete, Canada I think.) I got it and had classic first run covid symptoms and was pretty sick for 5 days. In bed, 101 fever sick. We had never heard of Covid, most people had not in February 2020. While I did not get too sick with the initial run of the virus, I had long haul symptoms for months, but again, did not know what was going on. I wear a mask at work and thought I was mask intolerant. Bad fatigue (which I had never experienced before) shortness of breath for months. I went to a post covid clinic once I heard of such a thing and they tested me for and found antibodies. Then in December of 2020 I got my first jab and it really helped with the long haul symptoms a lot. Back to normal in early 2021, I was working in long term care facilities and tested about 3 times a week. One day in March of last year I came in, tested and there were two lines where there was supposed to be one. I told everyone as I backed out of the facility, telling staff everything I touched while they sprayed me and the air around me with some nasty smelling germ killing stuff. It was honestly comical! I did not get very sick that go around, the timing fits for Delta. But then, I was vaccinated and had natural antibodies, so it makes sense I did not get very sick. As I write this out I realize my comment was wrong. I have had the sh** three times. The most recent, likely Omicron, was around Christmas. My daughter was positive and I was too as I tested at a facility that morning. I figured I was so I stuck my hand in the facility to get the kit. That time I had a chest cold for 3 days and was bored out of my skull the rest of quarantine. Currently I am at home with laryngitis, which I was certain was Covid as I was tested, but then I had forgotten that I have had all three main types, so the Barry White effect is something else. It is safe to say that I am Covided out with the current iterations. It makes sense I would get it a lot, I work in health care facilities and have two teenage kids living with me. I am really happy that we caught me when I was positive so I did not contaminate the facilities, that would be heart breaking. And I have to say, getting the vaccine and booster was a fine choice for me and the facilities I work at. Now I just need the weekend to be able to talk again. Trey [/quote] A heart wrenching story, yet somehow it sounds like you’re rising above it all (strength in family!) |
|
|
|
Post by drtrey3 on Jan 21, 2022 10:45:31 GMT -5
My wife dying was the bad part. The fatigue sucked, but while I am doing well and happy, I will never get over losing her. And that is OK. And yeah, strength in family!
Trey
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 21, 2022 11:02:53 GMT -5
It's also worth emphasizing that, while science is sometimes wrong, it is more often just slightly inaccurate... The strength of science is that, when it is inaccurate, eventually someone notices, the process itself tends to lead to GREATER ACCURACY... (Which makes it a far better option than just guessing... or doing what someone else has just guessed...)
The lay public also has a rather flawed view about what it usually means when "a scientific claim is overturned".
For example, we have not recently "discovered that Isaac Newton was wrong after all"... We have merely learned that, in some situations we hadn't considered before, Newton's laws of motion aren't good enough to do the whole job... And, when we discovered that to be the case, we revised and expanded those laws (with relativity).
For example, if we were planning a trip to a distant star, we would need to use some newer math...
But we still use good old Newtonian physics to aim rockets and figure out how fast things fall when we drop them... And, in those applications, it is just as accurate as it ever was.
(It most certainly has not been "debunked" or "discredited".)
Likewise, archaeologists and geologists are continually fine tuning the dates on fossils, and of when certain geological events occurred... And, on rare occasions, we actually do find out that "we were just plain wrong"... But it's far more common to find out that "we were just a little bit off and now we have a more accurate number"... Note that, with many modern scientific methods, we not only get an answer, but also an estimate of how accurate we believe that answer is likely to be.
(And the sort of articles you find in popular media tend to gloss over - or outright omit - details like that.)
Always remember that, in any real world situation, all you can hope to have is the best information available...
"When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinking" Garbulky, other than I dislike the term "consensus" I believe you are correct. I don't like consensus combined with "science" because it suggests science is something in which the mob rules. Majority support of something doesn't mean it can't be wrong. Its not as simple as taking a vote to decide what is "true". This is just me being nitpicky because I believe what you were trying to say is that you have take a look at numerous sources to support a science based opinion or belief. What people need to remember is that science is a process. Its about pushing an idea, a hypothesis forward and subjecting it to numerous challenges. If it fails to be reproducible, its a failed hypothesis. If data supports it, then it continues to be challenged until its considered a theory, then ultimately a law if data continues to support the idea. At any point even a law can be determined to be false. Any good scientist should be prepared to be proven wrong and proven wrong frequently. In its purest form, science is humbling. Arrogant, dogmatic people claiming to be following the science are often just cheerleaders of a coveted position, not true scientists. Its up to each one of us to use critical thinking in our decision making and we must be prepared to challenge what is presented. Remember anyone can be a scientist. Its not restricted to people with academic or professional credentials. All its takes is a curious, open mind. Indeed. Sometimes major findings can be completely overturned. It doesn't happen often for things that have been extensively researched from multiple fields, but it can. Science is never omniscient. It can only make decisions based on evidence they have. Which keep in mind is a heck of a lot more than people with no evidence, shaky evidence, gut feelings, and anecdotal knowledge. And I think that's what I'm stressing when I say look towards reliable information from institutions that are respected by people in their field. There is a strength in deeply researched subjects supported by scientific consensus. There is strength in known quality scientific institutions that have been considered reliable and publish scientifically sound and relevant information. It doesn't mean they are infallible or haven't at times made horrible mistakes or done bad things. But it does mean they have a track record that is good and respected by experts within their field. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 21, 2022 11:07:37 GMT -5
I would assume that a scientific consensus would be reached only among supposedly qualified scientific experts because we are talking about something specialized. And that would be a democracy as consensus is reached by a majority, not necessarily being unanimous. Perhaps some of those are considered more esteemed but a consensus is not reached by weighting each member, it is reached by a majority. That doesn't mean the majority is always correct. I agree science should not be a democracy but that isn't always the case. Well it is not like a 60% of all scientists voted for this, kind of majority.... I really do mean it's not a democracy. It's not supposed to be. In science there are plenty of disagreements among reputable people. Some reputable people can put out ideas that aren't supported by the evidence. So a consensus of experts, ideally backed by evidence and sound conclusions is what it takes. Science has been wrong on many many counts - most which sound like nitpicking but are actually important. Remember the Aether? That was scientifically accepted and was completely wrong. Yet, it was the ability of expert consensus to change with new data that was science's strength. When people criticise science for being wrong, I ask well what is the better alternative? NOT come to a scientific consensus by experts based on available evidence and sound reasoning? Just wing it? Go off easily digestible sound bytes that sound good but lack rigorous expert investigation and supportive evidence? That's a recipe for unsound thinking I am not disagreeing with you about the importance of science - in the sense of science being the correct definition of the word and not a perverted or politicized science, but true science, as objective as possible. And generally speaking, "consensus" does imply a level or degree of confidence, an assumption that critical thinking and processes have been employed by those with applicable knowledge to arrive at the "right" answer. But true science is a process of always seeking the truth and welcoming credible dissent so that the truth can prevail. These days in science and everything else, there is a tendency to try and silence dissent. Also, keep in mind the relative influence of people within a group. Highly esteemed people can be very intimidating to the point where those who may question instead choose to remain silent. Or some may automatically go along with the highly esteemed based on their credentials or based on agreeing with them in general (same as in politics - someone you like, you agree with and don't even listen carefully to what they are saying). The process of "groupthink" also enters into it. Take a look at the invasion of Iraq and how there was consensus on that. With consensus comes a snowball effect in which the momentum of that consensus may make it more difficult to present evidence against the tide. In the current situation of Covid, there does appear to be dissent against the consensus that has valid evidence to support it, but that dissent has been ostracized or silenced. For example, someone altered Dr. Malone's Wikipedia page to remove the section of him being the mRNA pioneer, even though that is what he is. The motive must have been to remove his credibility when speaking of the hazards of using mRNA in vaccines. I think we've all been in situations in which the consensus becomes safety in numbers and anyone who thinks differently is ridiculed or ignored. So while I do say in general a consensus gives us confidence, we still must not give up questioning it especially in the case of Covid when this consensus has changed repeatedly as more information is discovered, and those who go against the consensus are ridiculed, ostracized and silenced. Something else - look at Congress. Now if you look at the democrats, there is consensus among them. Look at the republicans, there is consensus among them as well. But if you combine the two, then there is no consensus. And they pretty much just stick to their party lines. Each party endlessly ridicules and criticizes the other. And each goes to great lengths to try and silence the other side or stack the deck. We always hope the truth will prevail but these days, there's so many things that interfere with that happening. |
|
|
|
Post by tropicallutefisk on Jan 21, 2022 11:35:02 GMT -5
"We always hope the truth will prevail but these days, there's so many things that interfere with that happening."
IMO its the press and the social media companies that are destroying trust in the information we get. Some of their actions are malicious and calculated in order to drive a desired narrative and stifle any dissent. However, there is just a lot of dull journalists who push out bad news due to incompetence. This is why I have contended that if a person has a lazy child with low IQ the best chance that child has to earn a living would be to seek work as journalist. It seems the standards are pretty low these days. Though to be fair there are still some very good, hard working journalists out there who are fighting the good fight in communicating pertinent info in as close to an unbiased perspective as humanly possible.
|
|
|
|
Post by marcl on Jan 21, 2022 12:14:21 GMT -5
It's also worth emphasizing that, while science is sometimes wrong, it is more often just slightly inaccurate... The strength of science is that, when it is inaccurate, eventually someone notices, the process itself tends to lead to GREATER ACCURACY... (Which makes it a far better option than just guessing... or doing what someone else has just guessed...)
The lay public also has a rather flawed view about what it usually means when "a scientific claim is overturned".
For example, we have not recently "discovered that Isaac Newton was wrong after all"... We have merely learned that, in some situations we hadn't considered before, Newton's laws of motion aren't good enough to do the whole job... And, when we discovered that to be the case, we revised and expanded those laws (with relativity).
For example, if we were planning a trip to a distant star, we would need to use some newer math...
But we still use good old Newtonian physics to aim rockets and figure out how fast things fall when we drop them... And, in those applications, it is just as accurate as it ever was.
(It most certainly has not been "debunked" or "discredited".)
Likewise, archaeologists and geologists are continually fine tuning the dates on fossils, and of when certain geological events occurred... And, on rare occasions, we actually do find out that "we were just plain wrong"... But it's far more common to find out that "we were just a little bit off and now we have a more accurate number"... Note that, with many modern scientific methods, we not only get an answer, but also an estimate of how accurate we believe that answer is likely to be.
(And the sort of articles you find in popular media tend to gloss over - or outright omit - details like that.)
Always remember that, in any real world situation, all you can hope to have is the best information available...
Indeed. Sometimes major findings can be completely overturned. It doesn't happen often for things that have been extensively researched from multiple fields, but it can. Science is never omniscient. It can only make decisions based on evidence they have. Which keep in mind is a heck of a lot more than people with no evidence, shaky evidence, gut feelings, and anecdotal knowledge. And I think that's what I'm stressing when I say look towards reliable information from institutions that are respected by people in their field. There is a strength in deeply researched subjects supported by scientific consensus. There is strength in known quality scientific institutions that have been considered reliable and publish scientifically sound and relevant information. It doesn't mean they are infallible or haven't at times made horrible mistakes or done bad things. But it does mean they have a track record that is good and respected by experts within their field. Absolutely! One of my brothers used to send me links supposedly debunking radiometric dating. I learned so much! I'd dig back to the source, find that "scientists say age of sample much YOUNGER than first thought" ... turned out to be the sample was 1,900,000 years old instead of 2,100,000 years old (i.e. considerably more than 10,000). AND they understood why, AND improved the procedures. Terms are often used inaccurately too. A "scientific theory" is not just some idea some guy made up in his head. By definition it requires facts, analysis and peer review. People counter with "it's just a theory", but a proper theory beats an unsubstantiated opinion pretty much every time. And needless to say the "Theory of Relativity" is more than adequate for our practical applications so far. Back to the sort of point of the thread (I think) there's life sciences research. The Moderna and Pfizer vaccines were not developed in 6-12 months, but rather were a practical application of over 10 years of research. Having the science in place, it only took a couple months to synthesize the vaccine. The rest was rigorous clinical trials to ensure safety and efficacy ... in that order. The emergency use approval was granted with 2 months data vs 6 months data, because for a vaccine 2 months is enough. The substance of the vaccine that could cause an adverse reaction is long gone by 2 months. Billions of doses later the chance of a reaction is comparable to the chance of getting hit by lightning, and there are essentially no medical conditions that put the vaccine at higher risk than the infection. My last two years working I was at Merck and they had just recently ended a partnership with Moderna ... ironic, because it might have paid off big if they waited another year. Merck has a huge vaccine business and has been responsible for some of the most important ones like the Hepatitis A/B, MMR and Gardasil (human papillomavirus) vaccines. It's been said that, with the exception of potable water, nothing ... not even antibiotics ... contribute to extending human life as much as vaccines. And they have no long term side effects, by their very nature. And looking at history the very few recalls that have happened were for production issues - human error, essentially - and not the behavior of the vaccine. Working in and around the pharmaceutical industry and clinical trials for over 20 years I observed very strict regulations, careful inspections and audits ... and no compromise when it came to safety, even at the expense of profits. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 21, 2022 12:56:04 GMT -5
Here are a couple of examples of what I was talking about with respect to issues about "consensus." The current consensus ridicules the use of ivermectin on Covid. Like my brother in law, who is a doctor, laughs it off saying that's medicine for animals. And he is far from alone in saying that. If a doctor prescribes ivermectin, the pharmacies won't even fill it. Yet, here is a peer-reviewed study whose data supports the use of ivermectin in preventing or lessening the effects of Covid: www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matchingI think we all agree that true science involves continual analysis of data to provide evidence to support conclusions. So what happens if data is suppressed? Here, the British Medical Journal, a highly respected publication, takes issue with the lack of raw data for Covid: www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102Recently Pfizer wanted to delay release of their data over a period of several years. Why? How does that serve the objectives of true science? |
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Jan 21, 2022 13:27:36 GMT -5
|
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38 
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 14:20:41 GMT -5
Here are a couple of examples of what I was talking about with respect to issues about "consensus." The current consensus ridicules the use of ivermectin on Covid. Like my brother in law, who is a doctor, laughs it off saying that's medicine for animals. And he is far from alone in saying that. If a doctor prescribes ivermectin, the pharmacies won't even fill it. Yet, here is a peer-reviewed study whose data supports the use of ivermectin in preventing or lessening the effects of Covid: www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matchingI think we all agree that true science involves continual analysis of data to provide evidence to support conclusions. So what happens if data is suppressed? Here, the British Medical Journal, a highly respected publication, takes issue with the lack of raw data for Covid: www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102Recently Pfizer wanted to delay release of their data over a period of several years. Why? How does that serve the objectives of true science? Deciding what drugs to use is not done by consensus, observational studies are interesting but don't demonstrate effectiveness(they present lines of research that could potential be followed). While that population study did show a decrease in infections ( 7%), people live very different lives from one another so how do we know the decrease was due to ivermectin and not other factors...clinical trials. The variables in population studies are enormous (read the Discussion and Limitations section of the paper), in clinical trials they are controlled to the best of our ability. While I haven't checked in a while, I don't believe the clinical trials have been done for this drug. It's not surprising doctors and pharmacies won't give it out. Taking medication always has a risk, and until the trials are finished and the drug is shown to be effective, advising someone to take that risk without proof that there's any benefit is unethical and they could be putting their career at risk. While ridicule might not be appropriate, neither is prescribing a drug with known risks for unknown results. |
|
|
|
Post by monkumonku on Jan 21, 2022 14:32:41 GMT -5
Here are a couple of examples of what I was talking about with respect to issues about "consensus." The current consensus ridicules the use of ivermectin on Covid. Like my brother in law, who is a doctor, laughs it off saying that's medicine for animals. And he is far from alone in saying that. If a doctor prescribes ivermectin, the pharmacies won't even fill it. Yet, here is a peer-reviewed study whose data supports the use of ivermectin in preventing or lessening the effects of Covid: www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matchingI think we all agree that true science involves continual analysis of data to provide evidence to support conclusions. So what happens if data is suppressed? Here, the British Medical Journal, a highly respected publication, takes issue with the lack of raw data for Covid: www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102Recently Pfizer wanted to delay release of their data over a period of several years. Why? How does that serve the objectives of true science? Deciding what drugs to us is not done by consensus, observational studies are interesting but don't demonstrate effectiveness(they present lines of research that could potential be followed). While that population study did show a decrease, people live very different lives from one another so how do we know the decrease was due to ivermectin and not other factors...clinical trials. The variables in population studies are enormous, in clinical trials they are controlled to the best of our ability. While I haven't checked in a while, I don't believe the clinical trials have been done for this drug. It's not surprising doctors and pharmacies won't give it out. Taking medication always has a risk, and until the trials are finished and the drug is shown to be effective, advising someone to take that risk without proof that there's any benefit is unethical and they could be putting their career at risk. While ridicule might not be appropriate, neither is prescribing a drug with known risks for unknown results. Pardon my ignorance but what are the differences between clinical trials versus the study I linked? And have true clinical trials been conducted on the Covid vaccines, considering the speed at which they were brought to market and received emergency use approval? This is not the only study that has found Ivermectin to be effective and from what I have read, it has been in use for a while. Though not for Covid, obviously, but in the applications in which it has been used, at recommended dosages, it is considered safe. Also, while this may be cynicism, I find it interesting that so much has been done to denigrate Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid when it is so inexpensive and readily available, compared to the profits being generated by the EUA vaccines and boosters. Could politics and undue influence from the pharmaceutical companies be involved? |
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 15:00:13 GMT -5
Deciding what drugs to us is not done by consensus, observational studies are interesting but don't demonstrate effectiveness(they present lines of research that could potential be followed). While that population study did show a decrease, people live very different lives from one another so how do we know the decrease was due to ivermectin and not other factors...clinical trials. The variables in population studies are enormous, in clinical trials they are controlled to the best of our ability. While I haven't checked in a while, I don't believe the clinical trials have been done for this drug. It's not surprising doctors and pharmacies won't give it out. Taking medication always has a risk, and until the trials are finished and the drug is shown to be effective, advising someone to take that risk without proof that there's any benefit is unethical and they could be putting their career at risk. While ridicule might not be appropriate, neither is prescribing a drug with known risks for unknown results. Pardon my ignorance but what are the differences between clinical trials versus the study I linked? And have true clinical trials been conducted on the Covid vaccines, considering the speed at which they were brought to market and received emergency use approval? This is not the only study that has found Ivermectin to be effective and from what I have read, it has been in use for a while. Though not for Covid, obviously, but in the applications in which it has been used, at recommended dosages, it is considered safe. Also, while this may be cynicism, I find it interesting that so much has been done to denigrate Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid when it is so inexpensive and readily available, compared to the profits being generated by the EUA vaccines and boosters. Could politics and undue influence from the pharmaceutical companies be involved? Some of the differences are outlined in the paper. "Being a prospective observational study that allowed subjects to self-select between treatment vs. non-treatment instead of relying on randomization, important confounders may have been differentially present, which could otherwise explain the differences observed. " I will note that the authors state quite clearly that they worked hard to control as many variables as possible, so it's likely a good study and yes, the results are interesting, but I've watched pharmaceutical companies (for investing purposes) bring drug to clinical trials for a number of reasons only to have them show not benefit over a placebo, happens all the time, especially with new cancer therapies. The emergency use will be granted if there isn't currently an effective treatment for the illness, again something that is seen in drugs that treat rare cancer types. Clinical trial are controlled as much as possible so that all the participants (including the people administering the study) can not alter the outcome. This included being randomized and double blind so no one knows who is receiving the drug and who is getting a placebo. Then doing an in depth analysis to determine if the observed effects are due to the drug or another factor. As Richard Feynman said, "I know how easy it is to make mistakes and fool myself" The clinical trials have most certainly been done on all the vaccines and have been done in multiple countries, just here is Canada we have www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/list-authorized-trials.htmlClinical Trial Data Page 37 covid-vaccine.canada.ca/info/pdf/pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine-pm1-en.pdfThere are also a number of independent review boards looking over the data to make sure nothing was overlooked, in Canada we have NACI which puts out regular updates www.canada.ca/content/dam/phac-aspc/documents/services/immunization/national-advisory-committee-on-immunization-naci/recommendations-use-covid-19-vaccines/pfizer-biontech-10-mcg-children-5-11-years-age/pfizer-biontech-10-mcg-children-5-11-years-age.pdf I'm not sure about the politics, but there is nothing stopping the producers of ivermectin from starting a clinical trial. If you look at the top link you will see tons of COVID-19 treatments undergoing clinical trials. Seems to me they may have some data showing it's not economical (ie. the clinical trial may not show it's effective beyond the placebo) but that's just my speculation. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 21, 2022 15:27:09 GMT -5
I've done quite a bit of research on this... so let me add my two cents.
First of all it is almost impossible to ever do a "full proper clinical trial" on a vaccine.
In order to do a full true clinical trial, you would have to: - select a large group of people randomly from the general population - separate them into a test group and a control group - give the test group the vaccine and give the control group a placebo injection
- expose everyone in both groups to the virus (or make sure they are exposed equally)
- see how many people in each group get sick, how many get very sick, and how many die
It's pretty obvious that there are all sorts of ethical objections to doing that sort of testing. 1) because, unless we actually expose people to the virus, we don't actually know exactly who has been exposed, how much exposure they've had, and what variants were involved 2) and, since we're not controlling who is being vaccinated, we also can't control a whole slew of other factors either (Are people who got vaccinated also more likely to observe social distancing and wear a mask - because they're more careful? Are they LESS likely to do so - because they think "they're safe"?) 3) and there's that little issue that a lot of people may never know they've been infected or may not report it to anyone if they are
At best we can do a sort of retroactive analysis of the data we have... and that is exactly what we're doing. And most of the data we have involves people who end up hospitalized or dead. (Here in the USA we don't know how many people catch CoVid-19, get over it, and don't report it, or how many catch it and don't even know they have it.)
(In some places, like Israel, where they have centralized medical care for everyone, and less concern for personal privacy, they do have more detailed statistics about stuff like that.)
But, from the data we have, we do know that, in areas where more than half of the people have been vaccinated, more than 90% of those who end up in the hospital are from among the minority who are unvaccinated. That's pretty compelling statistical evidence that those who are unvaccinated are at much higher risk. If half the people have been vaccinated, and 95% of those who are hospitalized are unvaccinated, it's pretty obvious that being vaccinated reduces your risk of being hospitalized.
(It's even more compelling once you realize that a much higher percentage of those in high-risk categories have been vaccinated than the average population.)
Since we don't know how many people from either group get a mild case that they don't report, we don't know the actual numbers there. (However we DO know that quite a few people who have been vaccinated have still gotten CoVid-19 ... but that VERY few of them have ended up in the hospital.)
We don't know for sure whether there will be long term effects from the vaccine, although from our experience with similar drugs we have a good idea the number will be low. But, likewise, we have no idea how many people who become infected with CoVid-19 will also have lingering long term problems due to it either. (And it seems likely that, since the virus causes extensive damage to various bodily systems, the consequences of being infected, and becoming seriously ill from CoVid-19, will be the worse of the two.)
As for Ivermectin... There have indeed been studies that show promising results for Ivermectin as a TREATMENT for those who are already infected with CoVid-19. We also now have other treatment options that seem to be somewhat effective (which is why the number of deaths among those who are hospitalized has decreased.)
However it is almost always far better to take precautions to avoid getting sick than to allow oneself to get sick - and then hope that you respond well to treatment. The vaccine offers long term protection against serious infection... The alternative would be to either CONTINUOUSLY dose yourself with Ivermectin, or some other treatment, in the hope of avoiding infection... Or waiting until you get sick and then hoping that you respond well to treatment...
I'm not really sure that anyone was "denigrating Ivermectin as a treatment"... It was merely being pointed out that we have a far better option available - the vaccine.
I should also point out that the vaccine itself is NOT at all expensive. Therefore, not counting money that was invested in the development effort, and the costs of storing, transporting, and administering it, nobody is "getting rich off the vaccine"... According to one article some time ago "the US was paying about $20 per dose... while the EU was negotiating a price of $17 per dose from one supplier"...
(So, in fact, someone is "making more profit off you" if you test yourself once a week for a month or two than if you get vaccinated instead.)
Deciding what drugs to us is not done by consensus, observational studies are interesting but don't demonstrate effectiveness(they present lines of research that could potential be followed). While that population study did show a decrease, people live very different lives from one another so how do we know the decrease was due to ivermectin and not other factors...clinical trials. The variables in population studies are enormous, in clinical trials they are controlled to the best of our ability. While I haven't checked in a while, I don't believe the clinical trials have been done for this drug. It's not surprising doctors and pharmacies won't give it out. Taking medication always has a risk, and until the trials are finished and the drug is shown to be effective, advising someone to take that risk without proof that there's any benefit is unethical and they could be putting their career at risk. While ridicule might not be appropriate, neither is prescribing a drug with known risks for unknown results. Pardon my ignorance but what are the differences between clinical trials versus the study I linked? And have true clinical trials been conducted on the Covid vaccines, considering the speed at which they were brought to market and received emergency use approval? This is not the only study that has found Ivermectin to be effective and from what I have read, it has been in use for a while. Though not for Covid, obviously, but in the applications in which it has been used, at recommended dosages, it is considered safe. Also, while this may be cynicism, I find it interesting that so much has been done to denigrate Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid when it is so inexpensive and readily available, compared to the profits being generated by the EUA vaccines and boosters. Could politics and undue influence from the pharmaceutical companies be involved? |
|
|
|
Post by housetech on Jan 21, 2022 15:35:23 GMT -5
Remember the brew ha ha over HCQ? They lied. National Library of Medicine- "Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe." HCQ was made in 1935, given to US troops in the Pacific in 1944-45, made available to public in 1955, and used to treat the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus and to prevent and treat malaria. My 70+ neighbor has taken it for arthritis 4 years and during that time delivered food to the covid sick of her church, never got the virus. btw, her doctor told her "No" on the vax. Then there is their reports on Ivermectin here- pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=ivermectinFollow the money, it's always about the money. Remember every person is different and will may react differently to any drug and even supplements. What works for me may not work for my sister. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 21, 2022 15:41:57 GMT -5
Good point...
And, while it's one thing to say that "Ivermectin has been used safely for years"... I do wonder how many hundreds of millions of doses have actually been administered to humans... (And specifically in the dosage necessary to be effective in treating CoVid-19.)
There's also the issue of whether it would be used as a treatment or a prophylactic... As a treatment there's always a significant risk that it won't work for a significant number of cases... And many drugs that are considered to be "safe and effective treatments" are absolutely NOT recommended for long-term prophylactic use.
(Whereas, by its nature, a vaccine is a long term prophylactic that prevents the problem, rather than merely treating it after the fact.)
It's also worth noting that the list of ingredients contained in each vaccine is on file and publicly available (you can Google it)... What they're attempting to delay releasing are details of how the vaccine is manufactured... (And it seems quite reasonable to me to consider those details as "trade secrets".)
Here are a couple of examples of what I was talking about with respect to issues about "consensus." The current consensus ridicules the use of ivermectin on Covid. Like my brother in law, who is a doctor, laughs it off saying that's medicine for animals. And he is far from alone in saying that. If a doctor prescribes ivermectin, the pharmacies won't even fill it. Yet, here is a peer-reviewed study whose data supports the use of ivermectin in preventing or lessening the effects of Covid: www.cureus.com/articles/82162-ivermectin-prophylaxis-used-for-covid-19-a-citywide-prospective-observational-study-of-223128-subjects-using-propensity-score-matchingI think we all agree that true science involves continual analysis of data to provide evidence to support conclusions. So what happens if data is suppressed? Here, the British Medical Journal, a highly respected publication, takes issue with the lack of raw data for Covid: www.bmj.com/content/376/bmj.o102Recently Pfizer wanted to delay release of their data over a period of several years. Why? How does that serve the objectives of true science? Deciding what drugs to use is not done by consensus, observational studies are interesting but don't demonstrate effectiveness(they present lines of research that could potential be followed). While that population study did show a decrease in infections ( 7%), people live very different lives from one another so how do we know the decrease was due to ivermectin and not other factors...clinical trials. The variables in population studies are enormous (read the Discussion and Limitations section of the paper), in clinical trials they are controlled to the best of our ability. While I haven't checked in a while, I don't believe the clinical trials have been done for this drug. It's not surprising doctors and pharmacies won't give it out. Taking medication always has a risk, and until the trials are finished and the drug is shown to be effective, advising someone to take that risk without proof that there's any benefit is unethical and they could be putting their career at risk. While ridicule might not be appropriate, neither is prescribing a drug with known risks for unknown results. |
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 10,261
|
Post by KeithL on Jan 21, 2022 15:52:42 GMT -5
The real issue is NOT that "hydroxychloroquine may prove to be a useful and somewhat effective treatment for CoVid-19 infections"... (As far as I know, while there are still conflicting reports, it is at least somewhat effective.... )
The issue is that having a treatment that helps some people recover more quickly some of the time is NOT a justification for failing to at least try to avoid getting seriously ill in the first place. This would be analogous to suggesting that "you don't have to worry about breaking your leg because we have great treatments for a broken leg". I suspect that most of the "brew ha ha" was over the idea that, thanks to so much misinformation, people were already unreasonably fearful about the vaccine... The real issue was that the ready availability of a somewhat effective treatment would give them another excuse to avoid the best option - the vaccine. In short it "muddied the waters" about the reality - which is that the vaccine is the safest and most effective treatment available for CoVid-19. Remember the brew ha ha over HCQ? National Library of Medicine- Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe. HCQ was made in 1935, given to US soldiers in the Pacific in 1945, made available to public in 1955, and used to treat the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus and to prevent and treat malaria. My 70+ neighbor has taken it for arthritis 4 years and during that time delivered food to the covid sick of her church, never got the virus. |
|
mikes
Minor Hero
Posts: 38
|
Post by mikes on Jan 21, 2022 16:07:38 GMT -5
Remember the brew ha ha over HCQ? National Library of Medicine- "Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic review would show HCQ to be effective against COVID-19, more effective when provided earlier, not associated with worsening disease and safe. We searched PubMed, Cochrane, Embase, Google Scholar and Google for all reports on HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients. This included preprints and preliminary reports on larger COVID-19 studies. We examined the studies for efficacy, time of administration and safety. HCQ was found to be consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting. It was also found to be overall effective in inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse events were found. HCQ is consistently effective against COVID-19 when provided early in the outpatient setting, it is overall effective against COVID-19, it has not produced worsening of disease and it is safe." HCQ was made in 1935, given to US troops in the Pacific in 1944-45, made available to public in 1955, and used to treat the symptoms of rheumatoid arthritis and systemic lupus erythematosus and to prevent and treat malaria. My 70+ neighbor has taken it for arthritis 4 years and during that time delivered food to the covid sick of her church, never got the virus. btw, her doctor told her "No" on the vax. Then there is their reports on Ivermectin here- pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/?term=ivermectinFollow the money, it's always about the money. Remember every person is different and will may react differently to any drug and even supplements. What works for me may not work for my sister. That's the point of clinical trials to understand all the factors, evaluate safety and effectiveness. You need to do a trial for a specific drug to treat a specific disease on a specific group of people, and before that is done all studies do is provide possible research paths (they even break down trials for the same disease in different stages). It's long and tedious but the process has developed from past mistakes. It should be noted that Hydroxychloroquine is currently undergoing a number clinical trials and is on the list in the link below (page 4 and 6). www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/drugs-health-products/covid19-industry/drugs-vaccines-treatments/list-authorized-trials.htmlI never understood the "follow the money" line, I've followed pharma companies. They make money by developing treatments that show effectiveness in clinical trials, if they don't produce outcomes that outperform placebos then they don't get approved, don't get sold and they don't make money. If we use the same "follow the money" thinking , why haven't the producers of ivermectin started a clinical trial so they can get their piece of the COVID-19 treatment pie. Following the money leads me to conclude that they have data to indicate it would not be definitively more effective than the placebo so would likely not pass a clinical trial so they decided to not spend the money. |
|
