This is a public peer review of Scott Alexander’s essay on ivermectin, of which this is the third part (though it was written before the rest of the series). You can find an index containing all the articles in this series here. After I published my article on an error in
Flavio Cadegiani is a brave and competent doctor. His researches on anti androgens have saved thousands of lives. He has brought the paper’s raw data to light since day one. Anyone can check on this. Sadly his case is one more on the high pile of infamous aggressions doctors that dared to treat covid patients have suffered. The truth will prevail.
Scott's comments are an example of how discourse has gone on for the last two years. A rumour, whisper in someone's ear, and you go get the Brand Name Pfizer vaccine because it is safe. Except that if the same gimlet eye was trained on what they did, these other people would look like angels.
Welcome to the real world. In a situation requiring fast response in the face of uncertainty, it is the lack of correction from feedback that is the killer, literally.
The whole of the establishment from top to bottom desperately wanted a tidy solution, and damned if they weren't going to control whatever needing control to get it. Whether it really worked or not.
This is normal, this is how everything works, in every domain. Most of the time it really doesn't matter. My objection to the vaccines or whatever was the ridiculous notion that everyone should do the same thing. 9 out of 10 things won't work, so you don't give one thing to everyone.
1. Media has largely failed, perhaps due to a combination of the internet, social media incentives, growing government size politicizing media, etc.
2. Rationalists come along and say, "Well, we don't know how to fix media, but we do have an alternative of rationalism."
3. Most humans -- even self-proclaimed rationalists -- struggle to interpret a fire-hose of straight data, science, and theory (what rationalism offers), so they want a journalist to simplify things for them and write in an emotional, humorous, and clever way.
4. Scott finds his niche. He's smarter than journalists so he can use the tools of rationalists, and he has the natural word artistry of a journalist.
5. Except that Scott isn't doing real journalism, but instead doing some sort of concoction of half-rationalism and half-sensationalist journalism (the picture caption of Cadegiani alone proves that). Scott didn't seem to do the most basic journalistic acts of contacting Cadegiani for comment.
If that's right, then I think there is a huge market for someone to combine rationalism and good journalism, and outcompete grifters like Scott.
When I resided in Brasil, I knew extremely competent dentists, physicians, and biologists. Scott Alexander doesn't know enough about the country to assess the political climate nor the level of science that exists there. His mindset is imperialistic. From here forward, I will doubt anything that someone so silly writes.
My wife and I have listened to the flccc.net weekly Wednesday zoom meeting for over a year, and Flavio has been a guest a number of times. He's always been impressive, I only wish his English was more perfect. He has been a target for the same reason anyone else is who says Covid is easily treatable and who treats patients and keeps them out of the hospital, much less from dying.
crimes against humanity - can be directed at those insisting we need more trials to test ivermectin. In a pandemic , at least offer acheap , repurposed safe drug . I trust doctors who treat patients , attempt to find solutions rather than following big pharma
Strangely but perhaps also not so strangely these days, today on 10th June 2022 the paper by F Cadegiani et al, "Proxalutamide Reduces the Rate of Hospitalization for COVID-19 Male Outpatients: A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Trial" was retracted by the Chief Editors of Frontiers In Medicine after advice from an undisclosed "external expert". It notes that "The authors disagree with this retraction."
Flavio Cadegiani is a brave and competent doctor. His researches on anti androgens have saved thousands of lives. He has brought the paper’s raw data to light since day one. Anyone can check on this. Sadly his case is one more on the high pile of infamous aggressions doctors that dared to treat covid patients have suffered. The truth will prevail.
Scott's comments are an example of how discourse has gone on for the last two years. A rumour, whisper in someone's ear, and you go get the Brand Name Pfizer vaccine because it is safe. Except that if the same gimlet eye was trained on what they did, these other people would look like angels.
Welcome to the real world. In a situation requiring fast response in the face of uncertainty, it is the lack of correction from feedback that is the killer, literally.
The whole of the establishment from top to bottom desperately wanted a tidy solution, and damned if they weren't going to control whatever needing control to get it. Whether it really worked or not.
This is normal, this is how everything works, in every domain. Most of the time it really doesn't matter. My objection to the vaccines or whatever was the ridiculous notion that everyone should do the same thing. 9 out of 10 things won't work, so you don't give one thing to everyone.
Shocking behavior by Scott. Here's a hypothesis:
1. Media has largely failed, perhaps due to a combination of the internet, social media incentives, growing government size politicizing media, etc.
2. Rationalists come along and say, "Well, we don't know how to fix media, but we do have an alternative of rationalism."
3. Most humans -- even self-proclaimed rationalists -- struggle to interpret a fire-hose of straight data, science, and theory (what rationalism offers), so they want a journalist to simplify things for them and write in an emotional, humorous, and clever way.
4. Scott finds his niche. He's smarter than journalists so he can use the tools of rationalists, and he has the natural word artistry of a journalist.
5. Except that Scott isn't doing real journalism, but instead doing some sort of concoction of half-rationalism and half-sensationalist journalism (the picture caption of Cadegiani alone proves that). Scott didn't seem to do the most basic journalistic acts of contacting Cadegiani for comment.
If that's right, then I think there is a huge market for someone to combine rationalism and good journalism, and outcompete grifters like Scott.
When I resided in Brasil, I knew extremely competent dentists, physicians, and biologists. Scott Alexander doesn't know enough about the country to assess the political climate nor the level of science that exists there. His mindset is imperialistic. From here forward, I will doubt anything that someone so silly writes.
this article really suits your substack title "do your own research."
love it.
Another great essay.
My wife and I have listened to the flccc.net weekly Wednesday zoom meeting for over a year, and Flavio has been a guest a number of times. He's always been impressive, I only wish his English was more perfect. He has been a target for the same reason anyone else is who says Covid is easily treatable and who treats patients and keeps them out of the hospital, much less from dying.
crimes against humanity - can be directed at those insisting we need more trials to test ivermectin. In a pandemic , at least offer acheap , repurposed safe drug . I trust doctors who treat patients , attempt to find solutions rather than following big pharma
Strangely but perhaps also not so strangely these days, today on 10th June 2022 the paper by F Cadegiani et al, "Proxalutamide Reduces the Rate of Hospitalization for COVID-19 Male Outpatients: A Randomized Double-Blinded Placebo-Controlled Trial" was retracted by the Chief Editors of Frontiers In Medicine after advice from an undisclosed "external expert". It notes that "The authors disagree with this retraction."
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fmed.2022.964099/full
Nice to see someone standing up to the bad guys.