In this second part of my analysis of Scott Alexander’s article on ivermectin, I will focus on a particular method he relies on in his criticism of several papers, and a favorite of the “fraud hunters” squad whose work he builds on. In his article, Scott writes:
If we try to be charitable to Scott, maybe what happened is he bit off more than he could chew, and started cutting corners, unconsciously. If he were just raising questions, we could perhaps forgive him, but he's reaching conclusions, which is different. It looks like his ego has gotten out of control, thinking he can wrestle any dragon with just a month or so of effort.
Thank you for your work, Alexandros. I fear that good anti-viral medicine will become increasingly necessary in the next few months and years. If we do not win the information war, many people will be deprived of life saving medicine. This is not just some game for intellectuals. Lives are at stake.
Thanks for focusing on this. I only have a master of science degree so only have an introductory level to research/statistics. But the psychological aspects of this takedown competition is quite interesting to me—sort of like watching the archetypal “young gun” scenario in old westerns, where the new gun tries to take out the long-standing favorites. 🙄 I’ll stick with Paul Marik and Flavio Cadegiani thanks very much; I have read and followed their work for two years, and I survived so far, in large part due to them. They have earned my trust (and my affection and loyalty, since I have watched them be maligned and persecuted, in the case of Dr Marik, simply for practicing good medicine for patients benefit). I am unvaccinated, and have not had COVID. That is an amazing fact to me, as I have generally lived my normal life, though have focused on losing some weight and getting more exercise, and eating healthy, since I’m 69. But I have prophylaxed for the past year with Vitamin D (5000 p/d) Zinc, Quercetin, NAC, and Ivermectin (per FLCCC). I have not experienced any negative side effects from the (2x p/week) ivermectin. Maybe it works after all. No, it’s not a research study. I’m just saying. 😁
It would be one thing if he were playing loose and falsely debunking weather reports. But he's playing at something where people's lives are literally on the line. Scumbag of the first order!
"What started as a moderately useful tool in the hands of an expert has been turned into an all-purpose slime blaster, used to generate costless, unsupported insinuations about the work of scientists from around the world, by applying cookie-cutter heuristics far removed from the original narrow test..."
Like catnip for lobbyists who excel at Enron accounting to produce numbers that fit the model. Imagine what would happen if a tool like PCR test were turned into a slime blaster! *smirk*
It's Mathew. Matthew is a different guy. (And we do actually get mixed up. We even have the same middle initial, which has a low enough p-value to suggest intention.)
My only comment would be this: I wonder how he would fare with the non-existent data that covers the peer reviewed trials of the so-called vaccines. Because there is absolutely NOTHING. I suggest Scott Alexander puts that in his pipe and smoke it, rather than the other stuff he seems to be on, provided copiously by a lady called Mari, surname Juana.
If we try to be charitable to Scott, maybe what happened is he bit off more than he could chew, and started cutting corners, unconsciously. If he were just raising questions, we could perhaps forgive him, but he's reaching conclusions, which is different. It looks like his ego has gotten out of control, thinking he can wrestle any dragon with just a month or so of effort.
Thank you for your work, Alexandros. I fear that good anti-viral medicine will become increasingly necessary in the next few months and years. If we do not win the information war, many people will be deprived of life saving medicine. This is not just some game for intellectuals. Lives are at stake.
Thanks for focusing on this. I only have a master of science degree so only have an introductory level to research/statistics. But the psychological aspects of this takedown competition is quite interesting to me—sort of like watching the archetypal “young gun” scenario in old westerns, where the new gun tries to take out the long-standing favorites. 🙄 I’ll stick with Paul Marik and Flavio Cadegiani thanks very much; I have read and followed their work for two years, and I survived so far, in large part due to them. They have earned my trust (and my affection and loyalty, since I have watched them be maligned and persecuted, in the case of Dr Marik, simply for practicing good medicine for patients benefit). I am unvaccinated, and have not had COVID. That is an amazing fact to me, as I have generally lived my normal life, though have focused on losing some weight and getting more exercise, and eating healthy, since I’m 69. But I have prophylaxed for the past year with Vitamin D (5000 p/d) Zinc, Quercetin, NAC, and Ivermectin (per FLCCC). I have not experienced any negative side effects from the (2x p/week) ivermectin. Maybe it works after all. No, it’s not a research study. I’m just saying. 😁
It would be one thing if he were playing loose and falsely debunking weather reports. But he's playing at something where people's lives are literally on the line. Scumbag of the first order!
"What started as a moderately useful tool in the hands of an expert has been turned into an all-purpose slime blaster, used to generate costless, unsupported insinuations about the work of scientists from around the world, by applying cookie-cutter heuristics far removed from the original narrow test..."
Like catnip for lobbyists who excel at Enron accounting to produce numbers that fit the model. Imagine what would happen if a tool like PCR test were turned into a slime blaster! *smirk*
It's Mathew. Matthew is a different guy. (And we do actually get mixed up. We even have the same middle initial, which has a low enough p-value to suggest intention.)
My only comment would be this: I wonder how he would fare with the non-existent data that covers the peer reviewed trials of the so-called vaccines. Because there is absolutely NOTHING. I suggest Scott Alexander puts that in his pipe and smoke it, rather than the other stuff he seems to be on, provided copiously by a lady called Mari, surname Juana.