I was the (potential) whistleblower once and I was defeated, of sorts.
I walked away knowing I told the truth and didn’t mislead anyone in anyway.
The other parties however went from strength to strength and maybe bad mouthed me in the process.
At least you can look your family and loved ones in the eye and know you’re honest, something perhaps Scott Alexander, G M-K and even maybe Nick Mark can’t.
I suspect all the people you named are sleeping soundly each nigh, fully believing they are fighting on the side of the angels. Everyone is the hero of their own story, after all.
This is why we must do the work to the highest standard we can muster. Because anything less opens us up to exactly the same kind of failures of perception.
I would've voted for Hillary in 2016 if I'd been American but then when James Damore happened I noticed how fundamentally the 4th estate had been hollowed out and I felt like Truman reaching the horizon. I just do not have the expertise to judge if Ivermectin works medically but it is clear that that the 4th estate is not doing its job anymore. There are too many red flags. And yes, it is incredibly disappointing that my previous hero of rationality, Scott Alexander, does not have the integrity to engage with your hard work.
Still, I think Ivermectin is the strongest story out there to show how corrupt and air tight the bubble has become. It is scary to see how effectively it can be kept from the main public. Although I am convinced that Ivermectin is perfectly safe and an almost perfect Pascal wager notice that I hesitate to order it for when I get covid again. The social pressure is enormous.
That's the thing. I am still making my mind up about what I really think about ivm's effectiveness, especially in light of the latest variants, natural immunity, and all the rest. But if we're looking for a place where all the world's experts have revealed their absolute disregard for evidence, I don't know of a better arena.
That using ivermectin, including prophylactically, is "an almost perfect Pascal wager" reflects poorly on S.A.'s moral compass. Ivermectin is clearly safe even at doses substantially higher than used against SARS-2. So why carry on a dishonest campaign against its efficacy, even if one personally doubts the efficacy? To do so reeks of motivations beyond the capacity of most people, thank God.
I live in France, it is hard to find a source online I feel I can trust. Several of the FLCCC's listed pharmacy's turned out to be frauds after some research.
>Perhaps irrationally, I still retain some hope that Scott has the kind of epistemic honor that will convince him to retract his article
Maybe some day, but I don't see it happening now, or even a year from now. If he ever retracts it, and if the scientific establishment ever admits how much it got wrong during covid, it will be after covid has faded into memory. Right now emotions are still running high and people are still too epistemically tribal about all things covid related. I'm optimistic that we may get a retraction by 2050 or so.
> he explains that subgroup slicing which is not pre-registered should be discarded, even the correlation makes sense and the strength of the observed correlation yields p-values smaller than 0.01
possible typo? "even the correlation" -> "even _when_ the correlation"
> And while I can grant Scott the assumption that much of this was an honest mistake, his subsequent refusal to engage in dialogue about these sorts of issues in his essay makes me question his other output, where I’ve not spent the time to analyze the quality of the evidence and reasoning.
I know you've been along for the ride on this, I've tried to balance being fair and understanding while highlighting the deep flaws with the piece, as well as its implications. I'll tell you, it's not an easy balance.
I think it's obvious that Scott fears the loss of status and unwanted attention that a tacit nod of possible approval to Ivermectin would entail. I don't blame him for this. I don't expect him to sacrifice his reputation to save lives.
I do think however, that he should have not done this analysis at all if he lacked the courage to see it through regardless of where the evidence led.
I was the (potential) whistleblower once and I was defeated, of sorts.
I walked away knowing I told the truth and didn’t mislead anyone in anyway.
The other parties however went from strength to strength and maybe bad mouthed me in the process.
At least you can look your family and loved ones in the eye and know you’re honest, something perhaps Scott Alexander, G M-K and even maybe Nick Mark can’t.
Doesn’t pay well but it’s a nice feeling
I suspect all the people you named are sleeping soundly each nigh, fully believing they are fighting on the side of the angels. Everyone is the hero of their own story, after all.
This is why we must do the work to the highest standard we can muster. Because anything less opens us up to exactly the same kind of failures of perception.
I would've voted for Hillary in 2016 if I'd been American but then when James Damore happened I noticed how fundamentally the 4th estate had been hollowed out and I felt like Truman reaching the horizon. I just do not have the expertise to judge if Ivermectin works medically but it is clear that that the 4th estate is not doing its job anymore. There are too many red flags. And yes, it is incredibly disappointing that my previous hero of rationality, Scott Alexander, does not have the integrity to engage with your hard work.
Still, I think Ivermectin is the strongest story out there to show how corrupt and air tight the bubble has become. It is scary to see how effectively it can be kept from the main public. Although I am convinced that Ivermectin is perfectly safe and an almost perfect Pascal wager notice that I hesitate to order it for when I get covid again. The social pressure is enormous.
That's the thing. I am still making my mind up about what I really think about ivm's effectiveness, especially in light of the latest variants, natural immunity, and all the rest. But if we're looking for a place where all the world's experts have revealed their absolute disregard for evidence, I don't know of a better arena.
That using ivermectin, including prophylactically, is "an almost perfect Pascal wager" reflects poorly on S.A.'s moral compass. Ivermectin is clearly safe even at doses substantially higher than used against SARS-2. So why carry on a dishonest campaign against its efficacy, even if one personally doubts the efficacy? To do so reeks of motivations beyond the capacity of most people, thank God.
Order it for sure; hoping to balance the peer pressure out
I live in France, it is hard to find a source online I feel I can trust. Several of the FLCCC's listed pharmacy's turned out to be frauds after some research.
Are you an equestrian?
>Perhaps irrationally, I still retain some hope that Scott has the kind of epistemic honor that will convince him to retract his article
Maybe some day, but I don't see it happening now, or even a year from now. If he ever retracts it, and if the scientific establishment ever admits how much it got wrong during covid, it will be after covid has faded into memory. Right now emotions are still running high and people are still too epistemically tribal about all things covid related. I'm optimistic that we may get a retraction by 2050 or so.
> he explains that subgroup slicing which is not pre-registered should be discarded, even the correlation makes sense and the strength of the observed correlation yields p-values smaller than 0.01
possible typo? "even the correlation" -> "even _when_ the correlation"
thanks. fixed/clarified.
> And while I can grant Scott the assumption that much of this was an honest mistake, his subsequent refusal to engage in dialogue about these sorts of issues in his essay makes me question his other output, where I’ve not spent the time to analyze the quality of the evidence and reasoning.
A very mature and profound conclusion.
I know you've been along for the ride on this, I've tried to balance being fair and understanding while highlighting the deep flaws with the piece, as well as its implications. I'll tell you, it's not an easy balance.
I think it's obvious that Scott fears the loss of status and unwanted attention that a tacit nod of possible approval to Ivermectin would entail. I don't blame him for this. I don't expect him to sacrifice his reputation to save lives.
I do think however, that he should have not done this analysis at all if he lacked the courage to see it through regardless of where the evidence led.
Yup. If indeed he fears the ostracism that comes from taking one of the two positions possible, he should not have entered the conversation at all.