I sense it does not really give you any pleasure to review ("debunk"?) Alexander's essay, but your yearning for fairness and rationalist truth is crystal clear.
"I’m for truth, no matter who tells it.
I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such
I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."
Wow. Eye opening assessment. Thank you for this brilliant analysis of these two doctors and your time spent to share the important history of their prior work and live saving discoveries. You are right! Scott Alexander and his left wing cronies resort to pure character assassination. They have no REAL science to stand on. They have ruined “science” and have made “science” synonymous with greed, fake evidence and corruption! I appreciate your analysis. Thank you!
Honestly, it would be a relief if things were that simple. I have this frustrating sense that everyone involved in this exchange thinks they're doing the right thing, and for the right reasons.
This is why we need principles, especially in chaotic times. I don't care how right one thinks they are. Some basic standards of respect and even-handed evaluation of the evidence **must** be upheld, no matter what.
I'm a left-winger, and the people critiqued here seem idiots to me. Their attitude towards science isn't about any kind of political principle, it's about putting your brain into suspended animation when you put on your team jersey.
Unfortunately, tribalism can brain-fart either way.
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
Thank you for analysing this paper.
It has flaws no doubt but it is probably the pivotal piece of research in the whole pandemic regarding ivermectin.
A big statement yes, but remember mid way through this trial (Sept 2021) the TGA issued a ban on GP’s prescribing IVM to treat Covid, effectively stopping the trial. At the time Australia was dealing with a Delta outbreak and patients were accumulating in hospitals.
Without the intervention by the TGA it is likely the trial would have had 2000 or so patients by the end of the year and if on the same trajectory would have had results way, way better than the otherwise standard of care (essentially do nothing +/- budesonide and paracetamol and maybe monoclonals).
Whatever you think about the control group, this number of patients with this success coming from two respected doctors out of a developed country would have been impossible for the world ignore. They actually kept pretty good records on outcomes and complications and as far as cohort series go was perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
As it is, 600 patients is still very significant.
2000 or more would have been virtually irrefutable.
But alas, the good old TGA put a ban on it.
Uncanny timing, can’t help but wonder if it was expressly done just to stop the trial?
As per the original paper, study period was July-Sept 2021.
Ban from the TGA was introduced mid September, effectively stopping the trial at that point.
Reasons cited by the TGA were pretty flimsy in my opinion, something about people taking the wrong dose they’ve seen on social media (even though it’s prescription only in Australia) and a potential shortage of supply, even though it is in seeming abundance all over the world.
All sounds a bit dodgy, maybe worthy of a deep dive from Phil Harper or yourself
Thank you once again. I've added a section with this information, citing your comment. Phil has been digging into Australia indeed, and this will be more fuel to that fire.
The trial has limitations, although Scott Alexander barely recognised them.
He did however mention that Borody has a conflict of interest in that he has a patent on the trial drugs and therefore has a vested interest in a successful outcome. This is real although it has been suggested in the past that a good way to increase funding for out of patent drugs is to grant the researchers a patent over the treatment drug and the specific indication they are testing. Plenty of papers on this, have a look around it's quite well documented.
Borody's conflict of interest then leads into other issues such as selection bias in that maybe only patients likely to do well were included and maybe patients at high risk were not offered inclusion in the first place. Secondly there may be patient bias in that the patients agreed to be in the study and therefore modified their behaviour in order to give the study a positive result, such as under reporting their side effects.
Also, there was no mention of vaccination status and it's possible that all 600 were fully vaccinated (ie within 3 months of their last dose).
However, with more patients the cohort group becomes progressively more heterogeneous and by 2000+ patients it starts to become reflective of the general population.
Finally when analysing the data, in order to control for these biases, the best way to do it is to compare the cohort results to a "best case" cohort, which in this case is nothing but young patients (say under 30), free of comorbidities and fully vaccinated.
If the cohort group still significantly out performs this "best case" group then it is highly likely that the treatment works.
Borody and Clancy were on track to reach these numbers and do this analysis when the trial was halted so I guess we'll never know.
It's a real shame. If the TGA introduced the ban just to stop this trial then it is utterly awful and potentially they have cost people their lives.
Aug 4, 2022·edited Aug 4, 2022Liked by Alexandros Marinos
Thank you. It was the paper by Borody that inspired me to buy Ivermectin and Doxicycline to treat Covid. The paper was presented on Trial site news. I have a copy. It wasnt included in Meta analysis apaarently because of a lack of baseline data, but it looked good enough to me.
These are all excellent points. Thank you for the backstory on Dr. Lykoudis. And yes, that quote from 1960 is hauntingly prophetic. I wish he could be awarded a Nobel prize posthumously.
Funny you said something about culture divide. Ever since this thread started with Mr. Alexander I felt in the back of my mind that he has a jealousy towards you.
“In ‘Before jealousy’ David Konstan suggests that there may not have been any ancient Greek jealousy to discuss. He reasonably claims that we should not assume that emotions are the same in all cultures or times. K’s thesis has two parts: first, no ancient Greek word quite covers the same range as modern words for jealousy (in English and other modern languages); second, ancient Greeks may not have felt jealousy as we understand it.” (2003)
Obviously the Greeks were and are far more evolved in terms of respect and social courtesy, as you alluded.
This all being said, in the Bible it says who can stand before jealousy? Proverbs 27:4. I do believe that is the root cause of all of this vitriol he is spewing. Truly is the only thing that explains the lengths he is going through to smear ivermectin and the doctors who support it.
This is basically a life or death situation in a lot of cases, the fight for ivermectin has to be continued and I appreciate your continued efforts in spite of the lies and resistance.
I really don't think Greeks are more cultured. You should hang out with a group of us for a while :D. I'm just racking my brain to figure out what the hell is going on. I honestly think Scott is a decent person who bought a story he was sold. I'm sure we've all been there. The real question is what one does in the face of new evidence. Rationalism and refusing to update don't go together.
I also like the idea of public peer review. At least it gets the paper out in the open. The Borody paper has been kept in the dark for too long. It shows real world evidence for Ivermectin, combination therapy. You can argue about some things, but the results were impressive. And tne good thing was that it was ethical. The researchers did not allow their control group to die, as in many RCT experiments. I also saw Borodys name as a contributing author on an early paper by Peter McCullough et al, regarding early ambulatory treatment of SARS Cov2, so obviously he was in the early treatment camp from the outset. What is wrong with that. We would not be in the mess we are now in, if early treatments had been prioritized.
Thank you for bringing Dr Borody and Dr Clancy’s work to a general audience. I’d previously heard of Dr Borody’s enthusiasm for Ivermectin but wasn’t aware Dr Clancy was involved. These guys are absolute legends in Australian medicine and the total lack of respect shown by the press and even worse the TGA towards Dr Barody is totally inexcusable. I remember when this was “news”, the mainstream including the TGA circled all their wagons and attacked. Very strange behavior towards one of Australia’s leading clinicians. I think Dr Clancy escaped any criticism, I don’t remember him being mentioned at all, best not to mention him as it may have given more credibility to Dr Barody’s study in the eyes of the general public. Dr Clancy was/is one of Australia’s leading immunologists (I think he may be retired now). I guess they won’t be getting any funding from the Australian Government unlike the awesomely accurate Doherty Institute modelers who get there “papers” waved around by the Prime Minister in support of the narrative. How did their predictions work out?
Massive, really profound and deep, respect for your writings on the details here. Most people (apparently) don't understand the costs levied on those of us who are inherently empirical or rules-based or compelled to recognize irregularities, or whatever we are that is different. I am quite sorry that these things are true, and grateful for your (painful) work to add clarity to the record and your readers' understanding of it.
Borody is the fucking GOAT. As soon as I saw the article about his triple therapy suggestion, I ordered ZiVerDo kits from India. I was way ahead of the game because I followed him.
> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the appropriate response to reading a study by two researchers with a history of bucking convention, being right, and saving a multitude of lives, cannot possibly be “@#!% you”.
I guess the counter-argument would be that they should have justified the things they did: justified why it wasn't in a peer-reviewed journal (and there might be legitimate reasons like politicized journal rejections, etc.), and justified why they used a synthetic control arm.
> Afterall, this is being pursued in public. If scientific debates are being settled with reputational assassination, carreer-ending accusations, and just garden variety disrespect, can we truly trust that there haven’t been chilling effects that would bias the seeming consensus?
My pet theory is that the death of journalism and the rise of keyboard warriorism has degenerated discourse on all sides and Scott is just a high-IQ microcosm. The former has subconsciously taught people that asking questions of people before publishing stuff about them "isn't needed". The latter seems to just be societal childishness; people simply wouldn't act like this in person to each other. It also probably speaks to the lack of people of wisdom that society looks up to. Humanity is in a transition into the digital world and most people are being immature about it.
I assume at the time of publishing the preprint, Borody was expecting to get the results in a proper journal. He still might, given some of the delays we've seen with other papers. Or, like you mention, maybe politics has intervened. But regardless, he wouldn't have known any of this at the time. As for providing justification, I do imagine that in medicine there is a baseline of background understanding, and it is he who makes the extraordinary claim (that the authors don't even know how to put together a control group) who has to provide the evidence of the claim, not vice versa. That said, it would definitely be good to have more exposition in the paper in general. It's short, and the fact it never got published leaves a sour taste.
> I assume at the time of publishing the preprint, Borody was expecting to get the results in a proper journal.
Sure but they must have known, especially from their past experiences, that people would use this against them. They wouldn't have even needed to speculate about why peer review was taking so long or whatever was happening. They could have just written that they're publishing as a pre-print in the spirit of BioRxiv and plan to submit for peer review.
> As for providing justification, I do imagine that in medicine there is a baseline of background understanding, and it is he who makes the extraordinary claim (that the authors don't even know how to put together a control group) who has to provide the evidence of the claim, not vice versa.
But this isn't a peer-reviewed article targeted towards scientific peers. This was a public article for the general public. I thought I knew a lot about science but this is my first time hearing about synthetic controls. Given that they knew they were writing publicly, a single sentence defending synthetic controls makes a lot of sense.
I could forgive them for such naïveté in early 2020, but publishing in October of 2021, they should have shed their naïveté about the political maelstrom they were wading into. Sadly, science has been politicized. Welcome to 21st century Lysenkoism.
To my knowledge, early reactions to their work was positive. I'm also pretty sure all papers, preprints included, are aimed at a scientific audience. In any case, I think we're entering subjective realms.
Sure, my point is just that, "get your *!#* together" is not a crazy reaction to have when we're talking about the fate of millions of people. That includes having some forethought about how your work will be used and perceived.
Scott also doesn't have his *!#* together, as you point out, but I think we should demand more of everyone. In other words, I think that while your criticism of Scott is valid, I think it's overly defensive. We should also be demanding more of the alternative viewpoints.
Yeah, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is. I don't think it *is* reasonable to ask scientists to do more than their standard science work. Keep in mind, this is self-funded work. It's like looking a gift horse in the mouth. We're given a study, we can choose to keep it, or throw it out, that's it. Maybe you or I would have done things differently, but to enter the realm of "you should have known x" or "you should have done y" when none of those things are standard for anyone else doesn't feel appropriate.
That's a reasonable perspective. The part that I disagree with is "when none of those things are standard for anyone else". I think a higher standard should be standard for everyone, particularly in a politically charged topic. I agree this is a non-scientific opinion (whether it's ethics, culture, etc.).
Besides the obvious "manipulative experiments", scientists in fields like evolutionary ecology use "natural experiments" wherein Nature set up both the experimental and control conditions.
An analysis using synthetic controls is a hybrid between a manipulative experiment (the treatment) and a natural experiment (the control). There is nothing untoward about this.
I have no fundamental problem with synthetic controls, but I also understand why someone might be skeptical of them, and I think it's reasonable to demand someone explain why they're doing it. If a scientist has two options: one harder and better, and another easier and worse (all else equal), shouldn't they have to justify picking the latter?
That might avoid attacks on the method, or not, depending upon the critic. But lives were at stake in this case, so I agree with the highly qualified Australian physicians that the usual controls would be unethical.
Is there any critical mass level of credentials that can protect a scientist once they cross the line and dare take on 'The Vaccine INQUISITION' -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8n4MfhjUc
I have avoided stating my opinion about Dr. Scott Suskind's attacks on physicians, scientists and by extension regular folk for their thinking outside of the ridiculous orthodoxy of no early treatment for Covid. His @#!% you is the last straw. So Alexandros, ban me if you see fit. But I will not retract the following opinion.
You wonder whether there is a cultural difference at play in Dr. Suskind's disrespect and flippant dismissal of the duty to try to understand one's opponent. Yes, there is, and it derives from the ethnic difference between being The Chosen versus being from a culture that historically accepted Original Sin, i.e., human fallibility. Those whose culture assures them that they are always right are prone to the scorched earth approach.
I've owned large rural properties in both Mississippi and north Florida. Problems with trespassing and adjoining property owners were always tense, but my opponents, though rough-tough rednecks, were cautious about escalating a disagreement. During 40 years of causing me problems, disputes always stayed at the level of words and were eventually resolved. The only times in my life when an antagonist put a clenched fist in front of my face were 1) because of a lost drag race and 2) over a girl. Both of those fists belonged to Ashkenazim. On a larger scale, let's ask the Palestinians what they think about the question of scorched earth.
Expecting Dr. Suskind to conduct himself differently is a waste of effort. Rationality is an attitude, not a set of epistemological principles.
I don't know, man. Lots and lots of Ashkenazim on both sides of this conversation, many of which have paid immense personal cost for standing up for their beliefs. I suppose we should leave it at this.
Zev Zelenko and Harvey Risch are among my heroes. My point is not about ethnic solidarity or lack thereof, but about a propensity, not a universality, for extreme language or action. I'm done.
I hope you'll change your impression some day. Generalizing out of two examples leaves a chance to be wrong...
As Alexandros mentioned, there are lots of Ashkenazims on both sides of this conversation, and of ANY conversation. As any other human beings, Ashkenazims often disagree with one another. Even though the media never give us a chance to make our point of view public (you certainly have never heard of us), I belong to Jewish organizations (being an Ashkenazy myself) which fight against Israeli's colonial policy and for the respect of all the rights of the Palestinian People — as United Nations have defined them.
I sense it does not really give you any pleasure to review ("debunk"?) Alexander's essay, but your yearning for fairness and rationalist truth is crystal clear.
"I’m for truth, no matter who tells it.
I’m for justice, no matter who it is for or against.
I’m a human being, first and foremost, and as such
I’m for whoever and whatever benefits humanity as a whole."
- Malcom X
So grateful to you Alexandros. This is important work.
Wow. Eye opening assessment. Thank you for this brilliant analysis of these two doctors and your time spent to share the important history of their prior work and live saving discoveries. You are right! Scott Alexander and his left wing cronies resort to pure character assassination. They have no REAL science to stand on. They have ruined “science” and have made “science” synonymous with greed, fake evidence and corruption! I appreciate your analysis. Thank you!
Honestly, it would be a relief if things were that simple. I have this frustrating sense that everyone involved in this exchange thinks they're doing the right thing, and for the right reasons.
This is why we need principles, especially in chaotic times. I don't care how right one thinks they are. Some basic standards of respect and even-handed evaluation of the evidence **must** be upheld, no matter what.
I'm a left-winger, and the people critiqued here seem idiots to me. Their attitude towards science isn't about any kind of political principle, it's about putting your brain into suspended animation when you put on your team jersey.
Unfortunately, tribalism can brain-fart either way.
Thank you for analysing this paper.
It has flaws no doubt but it is probably the pivotal piece of research in the whole pandemic regarding ivermectin.
A big statement yes, but remember mid way through this trial (Sept 2021) the TGA issued a ban on GP’s prescribing IVM to treat Covid, effectively stopping the trial. At the time Australia was dealing with a Delta outbreak and patients were accumulating in hospitals.
Without the intervention by the TGA it is likely the trial would have had 2000 or so patients by the end of the year and if on the same trajectory would have had results way, way better than the otherwise standard of care (essentially do nothing +/- budesonide and paracetamol and maybe monoclonals).
Whatever you think about the control group, this number of patients with this success coming from two respected doctors out of a developed country would have been impossible for the world ignore. They actually kept pretty good records on outcomes and complications and as far as cohort series go was perfectly acceptable in my opinion.
As it is, 600 patients is still very significant.
2000 or more would have been virtually irrefutable.
But alas, the good old TGA put a ban on it.
Uncanny timing, can’t help but wonder if it was expressly done just to stop the trial?
I did not realize that the trial was stopped because the TGA banned the use of ivermectin. This is.. horrifying.
As per the original paper, study period was July-Sept 2021.
Ban from the TGA was introduced mid September, effectively stopping the trial at that point.
Reasons cited by the TGA were pretty flimsy in my opinion, something about people taking the wrong dose they’ve seen on social media (even though it’s prescription only in Australia) and a potential shortage of supply, even though it is in seeming abundance all over the world.
All sounds a bit dodgy, maybe worthy of a deep dive from Phil Harper or yourself
Thank you once again. I've added a section with this information, citing your comment. Phil has been digging into Australia indeed, and this will be more fuel to that fire.
The trial has limitations, although Scott Alexander barely recognised them.
He did however mention that Borody has a conflict of interest in that he has a patent on the trial drugs and therefore has a vested interest in a successful outcome. This is real although it has been suggested in the past that a good way to increase funding for out of patent drugs is to grant the researchers a patent over the treatment drug and the specific indication they are testing. Plenty of papers on this, have a look around it's quite well documented.
Borody's conflict of interest then leads into other issues such as selection bias in that maybe only patients likely to do well were included and maybe patients at high risk were not offered inclusion in the first place. Secondly there may be patient bias in that the patients agreed to be in the study and therefore modified their behaviour in order to give the study a positive result, such as under reporting their side effects.
Also, there was no mention of vaccination status and it's possible that all 600 were fully vaccinated (ie within 3 months of their last dose).
However, with more patients the cohort group becomes progressively more heterogeneous and by 2000+ patients it starts to become reflective of the general population.
Finally when analysing the data, in order to control for these biases, the best way to do it is to compare the cohort results to a "best case" cohort, which in this case is nothing but young patients (say under 30), free of comorbidities and fully vaccinated.
If the cohort group still significantly out performs this "best case" group then it is highly likely that the treatment works.
Borody and Clancy were on track to reach these numbers and do this analysis when the trial was halted so I guess we'll never know.
It's a real shame. If the TGA introduced the ban just to stop this trial then it is utterly awful and potentially they have cost people their lives.
Thank you. It was the paper by Borody that inspired me to buy Ivermectin and Doxicycline to treat Covid. The paper was presented on Trial site news. I have a copy. It wasnt included in Meta analysis apaarently because of a lack of baseline data, but it looked good enough to me.
These are all excellent points. Thank you for the backstory on Dr. Lykoudis. And yes, that quote from 1960 is hauntingly prophetic. I wish he could be awarded a Nobel prize posthumously.
Funny you said something about culture divide. Ever since this thread started with Mr. Alexander I felt in the back of my mind that he has a jealousy towards you.
“In ‘Before jealousy’ David Konstan suggests that there may not have been any ancient Greek jealousy to discuss. He reasonably claims that we should not assume that emotions are the same in all cultures or times. K’s thesis has two parts: first, no ancient Greek word quite covers the same range as modern words for jealousy (in English and other modern languages); second, ancient Greeks may not have felt jealousy as we understand it.” (2003)
Obviously the Greeks were and are far more evolved in terms of respect and social courtesy, as you alluded.
This all being said, in the Bible it says who can stand before jealousy? Proverbs 27:4. I do believe that is the root cause of all of this vitriol he is spewing. Truly is the only thing that explains the lengths he is going through to smear ivermectin and the doctors who support it.
This is basically a life or death situation in a lot of cases, the fight for ivermectin has to be continued and I appreciate your continued efforts in spite of the lies and resistance.
I really don't think Greeks are more cultured. You should hang out with a group of us for a while :D. I'm just racking my brain to figure out what the hell is going on. I honestly think Scott is a decent person who bought a story he was sold. I'm sure we've all been there. The real question is what one does in the face of new evidence. Rationalism and refusing to update don't go together.
I also like the idea of public peer review. At least it gets the paper out in the open. The Borody paper has been kept in the dark for too long. It shows real world evidence for Ivermectin, combination therapy. You can argue about some things, but the results were impressive. And tne good thing was that it was ethical. The researchers did not allow their control group to die, as in many RCT experiments. I also saw Borodys name as a contributing author on an early paper by Peter McCullough et al, regarding early ambulatory treatment of SARS Cov2, so obviously he was in the early treatment camp from the outset. What is wrong with that. We would not be in the mess we are now in, if early treatments had been prioritized.
Thank you for bringing Dr Borody and Dr Clancy’s work to a general audience. I’d previously heard of Dr Borody’s enthusiasm for Ivermectin but wasn’t aware Dr Clancy was involved. These guys are absolute legends in Australian medicine and the total lack of respect shown by the press and even worse the TGA towards Dr Barody is totally inexcusable. I remember when this was “news”, the mainstream including the TGA circled all their wagons and attacked. Very strange behavior towards one of Australia’s leading clinicians. I think Dr Clancy escaped any criticism, I don’t remember him being mentioned at all, best not to mention him as it may have given more credibility to Dr Barody’s study in the eyes of the general public. Dr Clancy was/is one of Australia’s leading immunologists (I think he may be retired now). I guess they won’t be getting any funding from the Australian Government unlike the awesomely accurate Doherty Institute modelers who get there “papers” waved around by the Prime Minister in support of the narrative. How did their predictions work out?
Massive, really profound and deep, respect for your writings on the details here. Most people (apparently) don't understand the costs levied on those of us who are inherently empirical or rules-based or compelled to recognize irregularities, or whatever we are that is different. I am quite sorry that these things are true, and grateful for your (painful) work to add clarity to the record and your readers' understanding of it.
Borody is the fucking GOAT. As soon as I saw the article about his triple therapy suggestion, I ordered ZiVerDo kits from India. I was way ahead of the game because I followed him.
Ditto
I just ordered the Let’s Talk Sh!T book. Couldn’t resist for both the title and subject matter. 😂 (better gut microbes)
> What I am pretty sure of, however, is that the appropriate response to reading a study by two researchers with a history of bucking convention, being right, and saving a multitude of lives, cannot possibly be “@#!% you”.
I guess the counter-argument would be that they should have justified the things they did: justified why it wasn't in a peer-reviewed journal (and there might be legitimate reasons like politicized journal rejections, etc.), and justified why they used a synthetic control arm.
> Afterall, this is being pursued in public. If scientific debates are being settled with reputational assassination, carreer-ending accusations, and just garden variety disrespect, can we truly trust that there haven’t been chilling effects that would bias the seeming consensus?
My pet theory is that the death of journalism and the rise of keyboard warriorism has degenerated discourse on all sides and Scott is just a high-IQ microcosm. The former has subconsciously taught people that asking questions of people before publishing stuff about them "isn't needed". The latter seems to just be societal childishness; people simply wouldn't act like this in person to each other. It also probably speaks to the lack of people of wisdom that society looks up to. Humanity is in a transition into the digital world and most people are being immature about it.
I assume at the time of publishing the preprint, Borody was expecting to get the results in a proper journal. He still might, given some of the delays we've seen with other papers. Or, like you mention, maybe politics has intervened. But regardless, he wouldn't have known any of this at the time. As for providing justification, I do imagine that in medicine there is a baseline of background understanding, and it is he who makes the extraordinary claim (that the authors don't even know how to put together a control group) who has to provide the evidence of the claim, not vice versa. That said, it would definitely be good to have more exposition in the paper in general. It's short, and the fact it never got published leaves a sour taste.
> I assume at the time of publishing the preprint, Borody was expecting to get the results in a proper journal.
Sure but they must have known, especially from their past experiences, that people would use this against them. They wouldn't have even needed to speculate about why peer review was taking so long or whatever was happening. They could have just written that they're publishing as a pre-print in the spirit of BioRxiv and plan to submit for peer review.
> As for providing justification, I do imagine that in medicine there is a baseline of background understanding, and it is he who makes the extraordinary claim (that the authors don't even know how to put together a control group) who has to provide the evidence of the claim, not vice versa.
But this isn't a peer-reviewed article targeted towards scientific peers. This was a public article for the general public. I thought I knew a lot about science but this is my first time hearing about synthetic controls. Given that they knew they were writing publicly, a single sentence defending synthetic controls makes a lot of sense.
I could forgive them for such naïveté in early 2020, but publishing in October of 2021, they should have shed their naïveté about the political maelstrom they were wading into. Sadly, science has been politicized. Welcome to 21st century Lysenkoism.
To my knowledge, early reactions to their work was positive. I'm also pretty sure all papers, preprints included, are aimed at a scientific audience. In any case, I think we're entering subjective realms.
Sure, my point is just that, "get your *!#* together" is not a crazy reaction to have when we're talking about the fate of millions of people. That includes having some forethought about how your work will be used and perceived.
Scott also doesn't have his *!#* together, as you point out, but I think we should demand more of everyone. In other words, I think that while your criticism of Scott is valid, I think it's overly defensive. We should also be demanding more of the alternative viewpoints.
Yeah, I think this is where the fundamental disconnect is. I don't think it *is* reasonable to ask scientists to do more than their standard science work. Keep in mind, this is self-funded work. It's like looking a gift horse in the mouth. We're given a study, we can choose to keep it, or throw it out, that's it. Maybe you or I would have done things differently, but to enter the realm of "you should have known x" or "you should have done y" when none of those things are standard for anyone else doesn't feel appropriate.
That's a reasonable perspective. The part that I disagree with is "when none of those things are standard for anyone else". I think a higher standard should be standard for everyone, particularly in a politically charged topic. I agree this is a non-scientific opinion (whether it's ethics, culture, etc.).
Besides the obvious "manipulative experiments", scientists in fields like evolutionary ecology use "natural experiments" wherein Nature set up both the experimental and control conditions.
An analysis using synthetic controls is a hybrid between a manipulative experiment (the treatment) and a natural experiment (the control). There is nothing untoward about this.
I have no fundamental problem with synthetic controls, but I also understand why someone might be skeptical of them, and I think it's reasonable to demand someone explain why they're doing it. If a scientist has two options: one harder and better, and another easier and worse (all else equal), shouldn't they have to justify picking the latter?
That might avoid attacks on the method, or not, depending upon the critic. But lives were at stake in this case, so I agree with the highly qualified Australian physicians that the usual controls would be unethical.
Is there any critical mass level of credentials that can protect a scientist once they cross the line and dare take on 'The Vaccine INQUISITION' -https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cj8n4MfhjUc
I don't believe so. Many scientists at the peak of the pecking order were eviscerated by Fauci during the HIV wars.
Yeah but I'm sure they were all homophobic. I'm joking.
Ultra-Orthodox Science is as dangerous as religion it seems.
I have avoided stating my opinion about Dr. Scott Suskind's attacks on physicians, scientists and by extension regular folk for their thinking outside of the ridiculous orthodoxy of no early treatment for Covid. His @#!% you is the last straw. So Alexandros, ban me if you see fit. But I will not retract the following opinion.
You wonder whether there is a cultural difference at play in Dr. Suskind's disrespect and flippant dismissal of the duty to try to understand one's opponent. Yes, there is, and it derives from the ethnic difference between being The Chosen versus being from a culture that historically accepted Original Sin, i.e., human fallibility. Those whose culture assures them that they are always right are prone to the scorched earth approach.
I've owned large rural properties in both Mississippi and north Florida. Problems with trespassing and adjoining property owners were always tense, but my opponents, though rough-tough rednecks, were cautious about escalating a disagreement. During 40 years of causing me problems, disputes always stayed at the level of words and were eventually resolved. The only times in my life when an antagonist put a clenched fist in front of my face were 1) because of a lost drag race and 2) over a girl. Both of those fists belonged to Ashkenazim. On a larger scale, let's ask the Palestinians what they think about the question of scorched earth.
Expecting Dr. Suskind to conduct himself differently is a waste of effort. Rationality is an attitude, not a set of epistemological principles.
I don't know, man. Lots and lots of Ashkenazim on both sides of this conversation, many of which have paid immense personal cost for standing up for their beliefs. I suppose we should leave it at this.
Zev Zelenko and Harvey Risch are among my heroes. My point is not about ethnic solidarity or lack thereof, but about a propensity, not a universality, for extreme language or action. I'm done.
I hope you'll change your impression some day. Generalizing out of two examples leaves a chance to be wrong...
As Alexandros mentioned, there are lots of Ashkenazims on both sides of this conversation, and of ANY conversation. As any other human beings, Ashkenazims often disagree with one another. Even though the media never give us a chance to make our point of view public (you certainly have never heard of us), I belong to Jewish organizations (being an Ashkenazy myself) which fight against Israeli's colonial policy and for the respect of all the rights of the Palestinian People — as United Nations have defined them.
Norman Finkelstein is another of my heroes. I respect your work against the continuing colonization.