You forgot to ask why I hate America and want to stifle dissent and what I have against puppies.
You also seem obsessed with my labeling of this urologist as "right wing" when really it's a pretty trivial pointâwhich I'm not going to belabor. The point I was trying to get across earlier is that hysteria from one faction is not countered by hysteria from another, it's countered by reasoned debate and evidence.
You called me out for argument from authority, and while unintended, I acknowledged it and owned it. Here, I call you out for a non-obvious labeling of "right-wing", whatever that means, and you get all huffy. Okay then. Noted.
I wrote:
The Lancet has a long sad history of high profile retractions - they own 3/10 of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers - as of May 2019! This latest massive retraction for the COVID-19 study is just another to add to their trophy case. Don't try too hard to defend them - that would be a losing proposition. These are the wages of a repeatedly tattered reputation.
3/10 of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers! Making the Top 10 list is an achievement - but three times! That's ... skill.
Lazy8 wrote:
The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical publications in the world because they have high standards. By your metric they could enhance their credibility by lowering their standards and issuing fewer retractions. You will not save your boy's reputation by disparaging that of people who spend their careers making us all healthier.
By my metric? You have misunderstood what I was saying. Again: The Lancet has some major long-running issues. They are a shining example of how things go wrong, repeatedly, in the world of scientific paper publishing.
Lazy8 wrote:
You will not save your boy's reputation by disparaging that of people who spend their careers making us all healthier.
You clearly have acquired zero understanding of my motivations or specifics of my support for some things Trump, if you believe my interest in this topic & posts are to 'save my boy's reputation'. Though your continued unyielding defense of The Lancet, as esteemed and organization as it may be, reveals who 'your boy' is.
It's hard to comprehend how anyone can cling to this argument still, with 130K dead halfway thru the year and the memory of corpses piling up in New York and Italy and Wuhan faster than they could be buried still fresh in our minds, but there you have it.
There are some infectious disease experts who have stated that hydroxychloroquine is beneficial - particularly as one of three components in a treatment regimen. Are you only interested in majority opinion on a given subject? Science is never settled. That's why it's called 'science'.
Samedi offered an opinion based on his understanding. Check the comments on those two Twitter posts - there's more than one person reporting in about positive results, including various members of the medical community. Before his posts, I had already read numerous accounts of positive results â thus my echo of Samedi's Tweets.
Fine, test the proposition. If it helps we'll see it, if it doesn't we won't. As I pointed out earlier the initial sort-of-positive results weren't all that promising and it has not been a game changer in clinical use. If it helps at all it's pretty marginal. But the president of the United States has no expertise and should not be throwing his weight around to influence decisions to test or deploy drugs. All he can do is grandstand and get in the way.
I'm not seeing "right-wing". But I've scrolled back and scanned a month or two of his posts - which are all medical commentary of some type.
I did however find this Tweet. It does not support your comment.
Perhaps you can provide examples of why he is "right wing"? Your claim to defend, not mine.
Also - what exactly is your definition of "right wing"? Given the context you are using it, it must be a bad thing. No?
Also - are medical (or other) professionals disallowed from offering supporting opinions to politicians? Or is that a rule only applied when its the wrong party in power? We are (largely) color blind when it comes to race these days. Can we not be 'color blind' to religious and political preferences as well, when expertise is required?*
You forgot to ask why I hate America and want to stifle dissent and what I have against puppies.
You also seem obsessed with my labeling of this urologist as "right wing" when really it's a pretty trivial pointâwhich I'm not going to belabor. The point I was trying to get across earlier is that hysteria from one faction is not countered by hysteria from another, it's countered by reasoned debate and evidence.
If a community organizer from Chicago was in the Oval office, it would be fair to say the same thing, no? You seem to forget that a POTUS has many experts to draw upon. Just like you or I would, he listens to what's known or unknown and arrives at an opinion. Discount his opinion and you're discounting all those experts around him that are guiding him.
If a community organizer from Chicago were to behave similarly it would be completely fair, and justified, and important to level the same criticisms. The experts around him can speak for themselves, and have, and in Trump's case contradict him on a regular basis, because he doesn't listen to them and spouts off on topics he knows nothingâor less than nothingâabout.
The Lancet has a long sad history of high profile retractions - they own 3/10 of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers - as of May 2019! This latest massive retraction for the COVID-19 study is just another to add to their trophy case. Don't try too hard to defend them - that would be a losing proposition. These are the wages of a repeatedly tattered reputation.
The Lancet is one of the most prestigious medical publications in the world because they have high standards. By your metric they could enhance their credibility by lowering their standards and issuing fewer retractions. You will not save your boy's reputation by disparaging that of people who spend their careers making us all healthier.
Except that ... "hydroxychloroquine as a treatment but as prophylaxisâa preventative" is not at all what almost everyone talking about hydroxychloroquine is referring to! Using hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis, is about as relevant as testing it to see if it can prevent jock itch.
The massive number of opinions and anecdotal comments are from using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment.
There are anecdotes claiming hydroxychloroquine is a miraculous treatment. Those have not been confirmed by legitimate testing; the evidence so far is to the opposite. This gets damned tiresome repeating, so I'm not going to belabor this any more.
Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy alone and in combination with azithromycin in hospitalized patients positive for COVID-19.
Conclusions and Relevance In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.
You missed:
Design Multi-center retrospective observational study
That's basically a collection of anecdotes. Get back to me when you have a double-blind placebo controlled study.
Colossal bullshit. This is the global warming alarmist science redux!
With coronavirus killing fewer than those killed annually by the flu, and other than senior homes & hospitals, I doubt anyone is going to entertain widespread mask use beyond this year.
It's hard to comprehend how anyone can cling to this argument still, with 130K dead halfway thru the year and the memory of corpses piling up in New York and Italy and Wuhan faster than they could be buried still fresh in our minds, but there you have it.
Masks are proving their worth daily. They are likely to be a feature of urban life for some time to come, and are probably a big reason this year's flu season was so mild.
New research from Karolinska Institutet and Karolinska University Hospital shows that many people with mild or asymptomatic COVID-19 demonstrate so-called T-cell-mediated immunity to the new coronavirus, even if they have not tested positively for antibodies. According to the researchers, this means that public immunity is probably higher than antibody tests suggest. The article is freely available on the bioRxiv server and has been submitted for publication in a scientific journal.
Consultant Soo Aleman and her colleagues at Karolinska University Hospital’s infection clinic have monitored and tested patients and their families since the disease period.
“One interesting observation was that it wasn’t just individuals with verified COVID-19 who showed T-cell immunity but also many of their exposed asymptomatic family members,” says Soo Aleman. “Moreover, roughly 30 per cent of the blood donors who’d given blood in May 2020 had COVID-19-specific T cells, a figure that’s much higher than previous antibody tests have shown.”
Very good news from a public health perspective
“Our results indicate that public immunity to COVID-19 is probably significantly higher than antibody tests have suggested,” says Professor Hans-Gustaf Ljunggren at the Center for Infectious Medicine, Karolinska Institutet, and co-senior author. “If this is the case, it is of course very good news from a public health perspective.”
T-cell analyses are more complicated to perform than antibody tests and at present are therefore only done in specialised laboratories, such as that at the Center for Infectious Medicine at Karolinska Institutet.
“Larger and more longitudinal studies must now be done on both T cells and antibodies to understand how long-lasting the immunity is and how these different components of COVID-19 immunity are related,” says Marcus Buggert.
So - now an opinion on a current high profile health matter â from someone in the medical field is dishonest â and also indicative that they are in the right-wing?
Did I stutter or something? Yes, thought it was perfectly obvious that it was dishonestâsomething you agreed to (at least that it was unsupported by evidence) a few posts back.
What you're doing here is called argument from authority. Never mind the evidence, this guy is an expert so he ought to know.
I can assure you, that it wasn't intentional. Although in retrospect, it may seem that way. It's an easy trap to fall into when taking one item of the content that you want to amplify, but fail to pay enough heed to other data (an opinion, not fact; urologist and prostate cancer surgeon â infectious disease expert).
As for accusations that Samadi's post is dishonest, I think that's too harsh. Consider the environment - huge uncertainty on most aspects of coronavirus abounds. My take would be Samadi was consumed by passion - passion to push towards a solution, as anyone in a given field of work would be, if a crisis hit their field of work / industry. (Tourism and travel industries have some vocal opinionated people too)
Essentially then, to avoid falling into the hole known as argument from authority, anyone in the medical field, infectious disease expert or otherwise, can certainly express their opinions (freedom of speech, etc) but those opinions should never be echoed, or repeated. I believe that's what you're outlining. Imagine if that behavior were instituted across all things, including say, business & politics. So goodbye to whistle blowers going public? No one would be allowed to echo them, because: thoughtcrime.
Nonetheless, I accept that an argument from authority is an invalid argument.
Lazy8 wrote:
He's a urologist. He is contradicting pretty much everybody in the infectious disease specialties. I'll take those authorities over yours.
There are some infectious disease experts who have stated that hydroxychloroquine is beneficial - particularly as one of three components in a treatment regimen. Are you only interested in majority opinion on a given subject? Science is never settled. That's why it's called 'science'.
Samedi offered an opinion based on his understanding. Check the comments on those two Twitter posts - there's more than one person reporting in about positive results, including various members of the medical community. Before his posts, I had already read numerous accounts of positive results â thus my echo of Samedi's Tweets.
Lazy8 wrote:
As for the right wing part...you did read it, right? Whatever, check out his twitter feed if you want to confirm.
I'm not seeing "right-wing". But I've scrolled back and scanned a month or two of his posts - which are all medical commentary of some type.
I did however find this Tweet. It does not support your comment.
Perhaps you can provide examples of why he is "right wing"? Your claim to defend, not mine.
Also - what exactly is your definition of "right wing"? Given the context you are using it, it must be a bad thing. No?
Also - are medical (or other) professionals disallowed from offering supporting opinions to politicians? Or is that a rule only applied when its the wrong party in power? We are (largely) color blind when it comes to race these days. Can we not be 'color blind' to religious and political preferences as well, when expertise is required?
Lazy8 wrote:
Perhaps you should read what the rest of the medical community has to say. The parts that aren't basing their pharmaceutical recommendations on what a New York real estate mogul thinks.
If a community organizer from Chicago was in the Oval office, it would be fair to say the same thing, no? You seem to forget that a POTUS has many experts to draw upon. Just like you or I would, he listens to what's known or unknown and arrives at an opinion. Discount his opinion and you're discounting all those experts around him that are guiding him. Lazy8 wrote:
The Lancet has a long sad history of high profile retractions - they own 3/10 of top 10 most highly cited retracted papers - as of May 2019! This latest massive retraction for the COVID-19 study is just another to add to their trophy case. Don't try too hard to defend them - that would be a losing proposition. These are the wages of a repeatedly tattered reputation. Lazy8 wrote:
Both statements are pure conjecture on your part. Show your work.
Already did. Here's the link if you missed it; this is what's referred to in the business as a "gold standard" study: double blind, large sample size, placebo controlled. This is not studying hydroxychloroquine as a treatment but as prophylaxisâa preventative. Studying hydroxychloroquine as a treatment (post-infection) is ongoing, but very likely a waste of time, which is why the early French study didn't excite anybody until the president made it a priority.
Except that ... "hydroxychloroquine as a treatment but as prophylaxisâa preventative" is not at all what almost everyone talking about hydroxychloroquine is referring to! Using hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis, is about as relevant as testing it to see if it can prevent jock itch.
The massive number of opinions and anecdotal comments are from using hydroxychloroquine as a treatment. The facts are also that hydroxychloroquine is a known drug with a significant history of usage - and its side effects are well known and documented. It's being selected as a possible treatment for the same reasons that when you go into your doc and say 'it hurts here' - they prescribe something from an array of choices to see how it works for your ailment. If you report back that one of the known possible side effects is unacceptable, your doc reaches back into the array of similar products. This is no different, IMO.
Sharyl: Studies from China and France sparked early hope that a malaria drugâ hydroxychloroquineâ might work against coronavirus.
President Trump: And it may work, in which case itâs going to save a lot of lives.
Sharyl: But with President Trumpâs first endorsement there was a major media-driven effort to portray hydroxychloroquine as dangerous quackery. The campaign was assisted by an online report in mid-April. It said for sick coronavirus patients treated by the Veterans Administration, hydroxychloroquine did not help and was linked to increased deaths.
â Sharyl: Camps largely divided along political lines. Many right-leaning media figures sided with hydroxychloroquine while the left-leaning press backed remdesivir. Each accusing the other of ignoring real science.
Dr. William OâNeill: I've never seen science politicized in 40 years of practice.
Sharyl: Cardiologist Dr. William OâNeill is a medical director at the Henry Ford Health System in Detroit, Michigan where theyâre studying both remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine.
Some people in the media are treating hydroxychloroquine as if it's something that's being pitched by charlatans, it's dangerous, and that's been debunked and discredited. What do you make of that?
Dr. OâNeill: I think that's very harmful. President Trump touted it early and so then the media set out to disprove and discredit it without any regard for science. I think those of us that are actually involved in the scientific endeavor feel that there is some value to it and it has to be tested.
Sharyl: Dr. OâNeill says heâs prescribed hydroxychloroquine to help numerous coronavirus patients and saw improvement in all of them. Heâs less impressed, so far, by remdesivir.
Dr. OâNeill: There's a lot of hype for the drug. I saw the original new England Journal article study and I saw the Lancet study and to me it's just like a big Ho Hum. I just don't see a big benefit to it.
â Sharyl: A third scientist we spoke to, who says hydroxychloroquine has been unfairly disparaged, is Dr. Jane Orient, head of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
How do you account for the difference in medical and scientific opinion about this drug? Because some people seem so certain that it can be a positive benefit to coronavirus patients, maybe even crucial in the early days, whereas some people are convinced it should absolutely not be used.
Dr. Orient: That's a very good question. But the ones who have the most experience are very enthusiastic about the possibilities. And we do have naysayers that we suspect may have a little conflict of interest because they are so enthusiastic about remdesivir, which is a new drug that hasn't been approved for anything. And that so far is showing a really very equivocal or even negative results.
Sharyl: All three scientists criticized that VA report casting doubt on hydroxychloroquine as little more than a list of cases with crucial details missing. It turns out one author of the report received research funding from Gilead, the maker of remdesivir, including a 247-thousand dollar grant in 2018.
Orient: I think we have to look at the money. There's no big profits made in hydroxychloroquine. It's very cheap, easy to manufacture, been around for 70 years. It's generic. Remdesivir is a new drug that could be very expensive and very lucrative if it's ever approved. So I think we really do have to consider there's some financial interest involved here.
Now that's real journalism - a rare thing these days. There's more in that report from Attkisson. A worthy read at the link, even though its from May.
All of the above commentary pertains to our discussion and responses to yesterday /today.
Objective The purpose of this study was to evaluate the role of hydroxychloroquine therapy alone and in combination with azithromycin in hospitalized patients positive for COVID-19.
Conclusions and Relevance In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.
â-
The science continues.
(And let's both try to keep the discussion shorter! Time is a finite thing.)
Colossal bullshit. This is the global warming alarmist science redux!
With coronavirus killing fewer than those killed annually by the flu, and other than senior homes & hospitals, I doubt anyone is going to entertain widespread mask use beyond this year.
So, let's take that claim at face value. 99% are harmless. If that is extrapolated to the mortality rate, it's reasonably close to the data (so far) - about 1% of infected die. Assuming everyone in the U.S. eventually contracts the virus - which would happen if no vaccine is produced, no preventative measures, etc. - means roughly 3.5 million fatalities directly attributable to the virus. Who knows how many more from other causes: accidents, heart attacks, strokes, overdoses, etc. etc. - all went untreated because facilities were overwhelmed.
So if 99% of cases are not fatal (i.e. 'harmless') that means Trump is okay with 3+ million deaths. Lovely. c.
So, let's take that claim at face value. 99% are harmless. If that is extrapolated to the mortality rate, it's reasonably close to the data (so far) - about 1% of infected die. Assuming everyone in the U.S. eventually contracts the virus - which would happen if no vaccine is produced, no preventative measures, etc. - means roughly 3.5 million fatalities directly attributable to the virus. Who knows how many more from other causes: accidents, heart attacks, strokes, overdoses, etc. etc. - all went untreated because facilities were overwhelmed.
So if 99% of cases are not fatal (i.e. 'harmless') that means Trump is okay with 3+ million deaths. Lovely. c.
So - now an opinion on a current high profile health matter â from someone in the medical field is dishonest â and also indicative that they are in the right-wing?
Did I stutter or something? Yes, thought it was perfectly obvious that it was dishonest—something you agreed to (at least that it was unsupported by evidence) a few posts back.
What you're doing here is called argument from authority. Never mind the evidence, this guy is an expert so he ought to know.
He's a urologist. He is contradicting pretty much everybody in the infectious disease specialties. I'll take those authorities over yours.
As for the right wing part...you did read it, right? Whatever, check out his twitter feed if you want to confirm.
Perhaps you should be advocating the total banning of all commentary from everyone in the medical community until the peer reviewed studies are in - and triple-checked!
#NEWRULES
Perhaps you should read what the rest of the medical community has to say. The parts that aren't basing their pharmaceutical recommendations on what a New York real estate mogul thinks. Here's some perspective on the recent retractions. Here's some more. (You will need to sign up for a free account; totally worth it.)
Both statements are pure conjecture on your part. Show your work.
Already did. Here's the link if you missed it; this is what's referred to in the business as a "gold standard" study: double blind, large sample size, placebo controlled. This is not studying hydroxychloroquine as a treatment but as prophylaxis—a preventative. Studying hydroxychloroquine as a treatment (post-infection) is ongoing, but very likely a waste of time, which is why the early French study didn't excite anybody until the president made it a priority.
So ... you are now claiming that a urologist and prostate cancer surgeon, who has appeared on various Fox News shows (which everyone here will confirm is a dishonest right-wing media outlet!) and ABC's Good Morning America (also a secret, but dishonest right-wing media outlet!) ... is part of "dishonest right-wing media"? Really?
Here's a recent - like REALLY RECENT - quote from Dr. David Samadi:
â-
Dr. David Samadi from RoboticOncology voices concerns of COVID-19's impact on prostate cancer screenings NEW YORK, July 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ â A concerning fallout from the March COVID-19 shutdown has been the disastrous drop in cancer screenings. This worrisome discovery is according to a study in May by Epic Health Research Network. A review of data from 39 health systems from 190 hospitals in 23 states, found alarming statistics: prostate specific antigen (PSA) screenings for detecting prostate cancer fell by 60 percent.
"In my years as a urologist and prostate cancer surgeon, I've never been more concerned for my patients than now," exclaimed Dr. David Samadi, Director of Men's Health and Urologic Oncologist at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, New York. "By putting off preventive services and screenings to avoid potential exposure to COVID-19, will very likely lead to another huge health crisis of a significant increase in undiagnosed cancer cases in the next few years."
â-
YES! Clear evidence that he's part of "dishonest right-wing media"!
Yes, I am saying that. You posted one of his dishonest tweets.
So - now an opinion on a current high profile health matter â from someone in the medical field is dishonest — and also indicative that they are in the right-wing?
Perhaps you should be advocating the total banning of all commentary from everyone in the medical community until the peer reviewed studies are in - and triple-checked!
#NEWRULES
Lazy8 wrote:
His point about people putting off preventive care and diagnostics is well-taken, couldn't agree more. He might even be a fine urologist. But saying that hydroxychloroquine "worked all along" he is making a claim no one has proved (and that there is considerable evidence against) and is promoting what is very likely a quack cure for political reasons. Shame on him.
Both statements are pure conjecture on your part. Show your work.
Lazy8 wrote:
As for quoting Newsweek to justify...er, something or other...re-read my earlier post. One faction's dishonesty does not cancel out another's
