This is a public peer review of Scott Alexander’s essay on ivermectin, of which this is the tenth part. You can find an index containing all the articles in this series here. Among the critiques of various studies, Scott highlights two studies as “bigger and more professional” that “don’t show good results for ivermectin.” The first one of these is Lopez-Medina et al., so let’s see what we’ve got with that one.
> If we are to make sense of this landscape, I sincerely believe we’re better off accepting people’s biases and making the most of what evidence and analysis they provide, rather than trying to discredit and get them out of the conversation for infractions real or imagined.
Another way of putting this is "[...] we’re better off disregarding people’s biases and focusing on the evidence and claims [...]".
In my opinion, Scott's major failure in this episode is his overconfidence from which he extrapolates ad hominems.
What’s irked me most about Scott Alexander and GM-K is their mocking sense of superiority and belief that they are truly objective, free of any agenda, when it seems very obvious that they’re hell bent on proving IVM doesn’t “work” no matter what.
But I guess another perspective on this is what was the impact of Scott’s original analysis? And what would be the impact if Scott acknowledged your analysis and adjusted his own opinion accordingly?
Remember of course that the Cochrane review on IVM has been recently updated and reaches the same conclusion as first time, ie IVM is very unlikely to be of benefit in treating Covid.
I think this Cochrane review would have greater impact on the various decision making bodies than Scott’s analysis.
In the “responses” section to this article Marc Rendell calls upon GM-K to collaborate and study the Mexican data together objectively.
I’m guessing he got no reply from Gideon.
If so, then GM-K’s credibility could not be shot to damnation any further, the failure to collaborate with Rendell is surely the final nail in the coffin for this guy.
Given he seems to have plenty of time to write “Ivermectin didn’t save...” type of articles, surely he could work together with a few others (including yourself) to get mutually agreed conclusions.
But keep up the good work, I’ve learned something new from every article you’ve written
Yeah... the criticisms of ivmmeta sure feel out of place. I have had my doubts about their objectivity as well (as I do about everything). But in the end, they are the ones that go the furthest to lay out the details of their reasoning in a transparent manner of any participants in this debate (actually you might have them beat by now regarding some of the details here).
And as you note, and as i've seen elsewhere on several occasions before, they take in and respond to feedback from others in a very timely manner. That goes a long way with my in establishing trust; much more so than say, snarky shots from the hip.
> If we are to make sense of this landscape, I sincerely believe we’re better off accepting people’s biases and making the most of what evidence and analysis they provide, rather than trying to discredit and get them out of the conversation for infractions real or imagined.
Another way of putting this is "[...] we’re better off disregarding people’s biases and focusing on the evidence and claims [...]".
In my opinion, Scott's major failure in this episode is his overconfidence from which he extrapolates ad hominems.
What’s irked me most about Scott Alexander and GM-K is their mocking sense of superiority and belief that they are truly objective, free of any agenda, when it seems very obvious that they’re hell bent on proving IVM doesn’t “work” no matter what.
But I guess another perspective on this is what was the impact of Scott’s original analysis? And what would be the impact if Scott acknowledged your analysis and adjusted his own opinion accordingly?
Remember of course that the Cochrane review on IVM has been recently updated and reaches the same conclusion as first time, ie IVM is very unlikely to be of benefit in treating Covid.
I think this Cochrane review would have greater impact on the various decision making bodies than Scott’s analysis.
Also, you referenced the GM-K article
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o917
In the “responses” section to this article Marc Rendell calls upon GM-K to collaborate and study the Mexican data together objectively.
I’m guessing he got no reply from Gideon.
If so, then GM-K’s credibility could not be shot to damnation any further, the failure to collaborate with Rendell is surely the final nail in the coffin for this guy.
Given he seems to have plenty of time to write “Ivermectin didn’t save...” type of articles, surely he could work together with a few others (including yourself) to get mutually agreed conclusions.
But keep up the good work, I’ve learned something new from every article you’ve written
Yeah... the criticisms of ivmmeta sure feel out of place. I have had my doubts about their objectivity as well (as I do about everything). But in the end, they are the ones that go the furthest to lay out the details of their reasoning in a transparent manner of any participants in this debate (actually you might have them beat by now regarding some of the details here).
And as you note, and as i've seen elsewhere on several occasions before, they take in and respond to feedback from others in a very timely manner. That goes a long way with my in establishing trust; much more so than say, snarky shots from the hip.
I speculate this is the price for hubris. When you've invested so much in your position and gained from it.