This is really a fantastic series that needed to be done. For all of his writing talent SA seems to have a deeply imbedded governance module that kicks in as soon as he wanders too far from the herd.
That makes it really frustrating to read his work on verboten topics because he tends to lay out all of the evidence and logic that are ignored or suppressed and then bizarrely and inexplicably veer off course on flimsy pretexts.
SA provides an excellent illustration of the theory that highly rational people are just good at providing reasons for the conclusions they reach by irrational means, at least within a certain domain. Or maybe it's that we all have specific zones of rationality and irrationality.
I do love the test of "how do they respond to those pointing out errors". That also seems hard to game. I suppose you could ignore substantive criticism and then make a big show of correcting minor errors.
I'd love it if somehow Do Your Own Research combined with the FLCCC and Round the Earth and Kirsch to advocate for generic medicine and the public domain in a way that could at least tilt the playing field back from the ghoulish pharmacy industry. One can dream.
Unfortunately there's too much money to be made by ignoring this stuff.
It's all a fraud and everyone who puts in an effort to understand these things knows it. But there's nothing to be done - bread and circuses for eternity...
We have the the pleasure of conceptually jousting with the ardent defenders of the status quo. What a calling!
This is really a fantastic series that needed to be done. For all of his writing talent SA seems to have a deeply imbedded governance module that kicks in as soon as he wanders too far from the herd.
That makes it really frustrating to read his work on verboten topics because he tends to lay out all of the evidence and logic that are ignored or suppressed and then bizarrely and inexplicably veer off course on flimsy pretexts.
SA provides an excellent illustration of the theory that highly rational people are just good at providing reasons for the conclusions they reach by irrational means, at least within a certain domain. Or maybe it's that we all have specific zones of rationality and irrationality.
Like say Sam Harris rationalizing everything under influence of TDS.
I do love the test of "how do they respond to those pointing out errors". That also seems hard to game. I suppose you could ignore substantive criticism and then make a big show of correcting minor errors.
Yeah, people could attempt such things, but it's fairly straightforward to point that out.
This has been, and continues, to be the most lucid and productive early treatment review for Ivermectin on the web. Thank you so much. Keep'em coming!
I'd love it if somehow Do Your Own Research combined with the FLCCC and Round the Earth and Kirsch to advocate for generic medicine and the public domain in a way that could at least tilt the playing field back from the ghoulish pharmacy industry. One can dream.
Unfortunately there's too much money to be made by ignoring this stuff.
It's all a fraud and everyone who puts in an effort to understand these things knows it. But there's nothing to be done - bread and circuses for eternity...
We have the the pleasure of conceptually jousting with the ardent defenders of the status quo. What a calling!
Thanks, Alex. This series has been a great read.
If only most people knew how much easier the patented novel drugs (Paxlovid, Molnupiravir, Remdesivir, etc) have had it.