- Joined
- Jul 5, 2020
- Messages
- 3,992
- Reaction score
- 8,657
I mean Dr Oz makes a living distributing misinformation on tv and gets paid handsomely for it. He even ran for office.
California Medical Misinformation Bill
- Thread starter Pappy Van Propofol
- Start date
I mean Dr Oz makes a living distributing misinformation on tv and gets paid handsomely for it. He even ran for office.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,101
- Reaction score
- 3,090
Thank goodness he's in Pennsylvania and not Commiefornia
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
In medicine, there is this idea of an evidence hierarchy. It starts with expert opinion, then preclinical data (bench work, animal studies, etc), then retrospective studies, then observational studies, then with randomized trials.
As higher forms of information become available, we leave the less informative forms of data (so you leave expert opinion once you have a good observational study). We can judge each level with different scoring systems. For example, we can determine the bias present - usually by assigning a score or grade after review of the study specifics.
I feel like with much of the discussion regarding this topic, there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty. What do I mean by that?
Left’s say that I were to start a discussion and post an article that showed that hypothermia during anesthesia greatly improved neurological outcomes with no harm during craniotomies, and it was a small case series of 10. MOST would correctly point out that much higher quality studies have shown that this isn’t the case.
Now I don’t care that people cling to very low quality evidence studies that have obvious EXTREME BIAS (like some posted here). And it’s great you believe them. You have to believe in something! But I would encourage them to have some self introspection and consistency so that when others post low quality studies on this forum - they keep their mouth 100% shut and say to themselves “well I defended with strong conviction extremely horrible studies on this thread, so I need to be silent when others post their horrible studies on another subject and other threads.” That is called integrity. That is the opposite of what is called hypocrisy.
Regarding masks, the highest quality study was the Bangladesh study - and that was retrospective survey done over the phone! And really great on you if you feel that is wonderful data. We also have expert opinion (“obviously the virus is both droplets and aerosolized!”) But I would ask, for the last time, maybe it’s okay that others, like myself, have asked the question - “given the fact that before the pandemic, lots of studies showed that masks are ineffective, and during the pandemic, data has been mixed with many showing some efficacy, and others not, don’t you find it strange and highly unusual that the CDC didn’t run a single high quality study to try and answer this question?”
Regarding masks, I get that people are incensed because the bar to wear a mask is low. And that is fine that they ignore the myriad of articles that have come out of late (recent one in the WSJ last week) that discuss that ugly consequences of the measures placed on our kids (and actually…society) during this whole thing. It’s fine you don’t really care.
But for Pete’s sake, why do you criticize those who DO care about the consequences?
Because it isn’t about if masks work or not. It was about the refusal to really answer the question(s) and completely ignore the fact that with every choice, every measure, there are consequences - and some people could be greatly hurt by the consequences and so for some, it seems important to decide if the actions instituted was worth the harm.(yes I know..people died, people were in the ICUs. If you reflexively thought this…you are missing my point.)
The whole thing reminds me of the Russia-gate problem.
Trump is horrible, and was hugely damaging to the country. (Many refuse to see that because they thought his policies were good, so they justified or blindly ignored the severe damage caused and said any damage done was because of the opposition.) Those who saw this and really hated him turned a blind eye when it came out that the Russian collusion story was 100% fabricated. They didn’t read the apology and “oops…our bad” article by WaPo. They didn’t care that the others like CNN refused to acknowledge their lies/or complacency in their role in perpetuating the lie. They didn’t care because they hate Trump so much they wanted it to be true.
But for some of us- we felt like it was a HUGE deal that the system was so corrupt.
And so it is with the pandemic. It’s not the subject that matters, but the method - and we were concerned about the behaviors that seemed to leave the scientific method in the dust.
And again, it’s fine that some of you don’t have the curiosity to wonder why so many prominent physicians called for focused protection of the most vulnerable instead of blanket shutdowns of schools and businesses (called the Great Barrington Declaration) and that Dr Fauci then created a smear campaign against them rather than address the concerns - but for some that was a real “hmmm” moment. Because to many of you, the science isn’t a concern. The real culprit is COVID and the anti-Vaxers. And good in ya! Believe away!
But seriously, why can’t you at least acknowledge that others have concerns? That others who DO care about the man behind the curtain want to ask questions?
I would asked, once again, that you to read this well written article and just consider some of the points made. You don’t have to agree. But it may make you a little more empathetic to others who disagree with you.
www.commonsense.news
As higher forms of information become available, we leave the less informative forms of data (so you leave expert opinion once you have a good observational study). We can judge each level with different scoring systems. For example, we can determine the bias present - usually by assigning a score or grade after review of the study specifics.
I feel like with much of the discussion regarding this topic, there is a lot of intellectual dishonesty. What do I mean by that?
Left’s say that I were to start a discussion and post an article that showed that hypothermia during anesthesia greatly improved neurological outcomes with no harm during craniotomies, and it was a small case series of 10. MOST would correctly point out that much higher quality studies have shown that this isn’t the case.
Now I don’t care that people cling to very low quality evidence studies that have obvious EXTREME BIAS (like some posted here). And it’s great you believe them. You have to believe in something! But I would encourage them to have some self introspection and consistency so that when others post low quality studies on this forum - they keep their mouth 100% shut and say to themselves “well I defended with strong conviction extremely horrible studies on this thread, so I need to be silent when others post their horrible studies on another subject and other threads.” That is called integrity. That is the opposite of what is called hypocrisy.
Regarding masks, the highest quality study was the Bangladesh study - and that was retrospective survey done over the phone! And really great on you if you feel that is wonderful data. We also have expert opinion (“obviously the virus is both droplets and aerosolized!”) But I would ask, for the last time, maybe it’s okay that others, like myself, have asked the question - “given the fact that before the pandemic, lots of studies showed that masks are ineffective, and during the pandemic, data has been mixed with many showing some efficacy, and others not, don’t you find it strange and highly unusual that the CDC didn’t run a single high quality study to try and answer this question?”
Regarding masks, I get that people are incensed because the bar to wear a mask is low. And that is fine that they ignore the myriad of articles that have come out of late (recent one in the WSJ last week) that discuss that ugly consequences of the measures placed on our kids (and actually…society) during this whole thing. It’s fine you don’t really care.
But for Pete’s sake, why do you criticize those who DO care about the consequences?
Because it isn’t about if masks work or not. It was about the refusal to really answer the question(s) and completely ignore the fact that with every choice, every measure, there are consequences - and some people could be greatly hurt by the consequences and so for some, it seems important to decide if the actions instituted was worth the harm.(yes I know..people died, people were in the ICUs. If you reflexively thought this…you are missing my point.)
The whole thing reminds me of the Russia-gate problem.
Trump is horrible, and was hugely damaging to the country. (Many refuse to see that because they thought his policies were good, so they justified or blindly ignored the severe damage caused and said any damage done was because of the opposition.) Those who saw this and really hated him turned a blind eye when it came out that the Russian collusion story was 100% fabricated. They didn’t read the apology and “oops…our bad” article by WaPo. They didn’t care that the others like CNN refused to acknowledge their lies/or complacency in their role in perpetuating the lie. They didn’t care because they hate Trump so much they wanted it to be true.
But for some of us- we felt like it was a HUGE deal that the system was so corrupt.
And so it is with the pandemic. It’s not the subject that matters, but the method - and we were concerned about the behaviors that seemed to leave the scientific method in the dust.
And again, it’s fine that some of you don’t have the curiosity to wonder why so many prominent physicians called for focused protection of the most vulnerable instead of blanket shutdowns of schools and businesses (called the Great Barrington Declaration) and that Dr Fauci then created a smear campaign against them rather than address the concerns - but for some that was a real “hmmm” moment. Because to many of you, the science isn’t a concern. The real culprit is COVID and the anti-Vaxers. And good in ya! Believe away!
But seriously, why can’t you at least acknowledge that others have concerns? That others who DO care about the man behind the curtain want to ask questions?
I would asked, once again, that you to read this well written article and just consider some of the points made. You don’t have to agree. But it may make you a little more empathetic to others who disagree with you.
Dr. Fauci’s Legacy
Dr. Marty Makary on the public health risk of putting America’s fate in the hands of one doctor.
www.commonsense.news
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
I couldn’t find the tweet that I copied for those numbers, but I did find this which is likely the source of the tweet I saw.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
Vaccines make immunity worse? What? Why did they even study that? Are these people horrible? Don’t they know people where dying!!? They didn’t work in the ICUs and see the horror? The scientist that even asked this question should be delicensed.
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them - PubMed
Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2004
- Messages
- 27,969
- Reaction score
- 56,440
Admittedly I just read the abstract of the article that opinion piece was based on, but I don't see anything in it that talks about the vaccine being harmful for the immune system.Vaccines make immunity worse? What? Why did they even study that? Are these people horrible? Don’t they know people where dying!!? They didn’t work in the ICUs and see the horror? The scientist that even asked this question should be delicensed.
Adverse effects of COVID-19 vaccines and measures to prevent them - PubMed
Recently, The Lancet published a study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the waning of immunity with time. The study showed that immune function among vaccinated individuals 8 months after the administration of two doses of COVID-19 vaccine was lower than that among the unvaccinated...
COVID-19 vaccines don’t weaken the immune system; Lancet study misrepresented in Virology Journal comment
No scientific evidence supports the claim that COVID-19 vaccination weakens the immune system. On the contrary, vaccination helps our immune system to better defend itself against infection. Large-scale clinical trials and scientific studies found that the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines...
- Joined
- Oct 10, 2007
- Messages
- 4,253
- Reaction score
- 7,082
This thread is off the rails but going back to that original point that study does not support what you wrote so thank you for even being willing to post it. It also validates that Twitter is a biased horrible source of medical information.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
Not having heard of any young, healthy people dying from COVID seems a bit, disingenuous.
D
deleted1116990
CDC no longer recommending masks in hospitals.
Not covered by any news sources except for a few op-ed pieces by random outrage trolls saying they will kill everyone.
Total clownshow.
Not covered by any news sources except for a few op-ed pieces by random outrage trolls saying they will kill everyone.
Total clownshow.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,101
- Reaction score
- 3,090
Do you know of any who have?
- Joined
- Apr 30, 2004
- Messages
- 4,152
- Reaction score
- 1,978
I certainly do.
Arch Guillotti
Senior Member
Staff member
Administrator
Volunteer Staff
Lifetime Donor
20+ Year Member
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2001
- Messages
- 9,568
- Reaction score
- 6,457
yes
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,101
- Reaction score
- 3,090
People who are healthy die all the time. What's the final breakdown of the people who die with COVID by age group? More or less than car accidents and overdoses for healthy young people?
Last edited:
D
deleted1116990
The odds of dying of covid if you get it based on your age has been a highly suppressed statistic from very early on in the pandemic. It kind of gave the whole game away. Why would they want to keep people in the dark about what their actual risk was and (proven with data) have the public mistakenly believe their risk of hospitalization or death was many multiples higher than it actually was? There was no attempt from the public health authorities to respond to the public survey data and say "whoa, hold on, lets get some things straight -- no you healthy 40 year olds don't have a 10% risk of dying if you get this, that's only 90 year olds with multiple co-morbidities, stop freaking out, here are the actual numbers for your group..." That didn't happen in favor of the ticking death counter on CNN instead. The question of why is important.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
Didn't realize we were playing a game of "anecdote=data."
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
I'm going to venture that "more young people have died from COVID than from the vaccine" even though the absolute mortality from either is exceedingly low.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
The retrospectoscope is strong in this one.
- Joined
- Mar 3, 2005
- Messages
- 842
- Reaction score
- 423
Are you arguing that every single strain of the virus has had exactly the same response to the vaccine and the same proportion of asymptomatic cases? With new strains every few months these statements absolutely could be true at one point in time and false at another.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
That isn't what he said.
He said, he doesn't know of any young person who survived COVID (proven case of COVID) who then later contracted COVID and died.
That is a very important point.
I would venture to guess none of us know of ANY young person who survived COVID who died from the second COVID infection.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
You say important, I say pedantic. Again playing the anecdote=data game.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
Why? I'm curious why you don't think recognizing natural immunity is important. IF natural immunity gives just as good of protection as an immunization, why would you call it pedantic to point out that the science community in general (like yourself apparently) completely ignores that fact?
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
Given how ubiquitous COVID infections have been, I don't know how you would even reliably study the question you are trying to answer. That doesn't automatically make the question irrelevant, but the fact remains that any deaths that could be ascribed to the vaccine are much less than any deaths from COVID itself, even though I'm sure the numbers in both categories are exceedingly small.
Mortality reduction isn't the only indicator of benefit, though.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
What are you getting at with this then? That risk/benefit hasn't been totally accurate? Okay, I can buy that. But the implication above is that vaccines are killing young people off from myocarditis, even though it's been pretty well established that the absolute risk of this occurring is exceedingly low, and the risk of myocarditis from COVID itself is higher than that from the vaccine (albeit still exceedingly low).
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
Actually no it isn’t. The risk of myocarditis is higher with the vaccine despite the results of a study posted on this thread. Why do European countries not allow Moderna below age 40? There are more than one study that has looked at this.
But that is besides the point. Read the tweet closely.
He is making an argument that NATURAL IMMUNITY matters.
The risk of myocarditis from a vaccine is highest AFTER someone has gotten infected OR had a single dose (or two) of the vaccine.
He then mentions that if you have been infected already (and survived), your chance of dying from a subsequent infection is zero. So a vaccine ONLY brings risk at that point. And natural immunity protects you as well as a vaccine. So to not allow someone to play basketball because they weren’t vaccinated even though they carry natural immunity is about the dumbest policy that could ever even be conceived - yet that is what happened.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
Do you have a reliable way to prove you've already been infected?
D
deleted1116990
That's his problem. Why is it any of your business? The vaccine is available to everybody if they want it and feel it's necessary to protect themselves. They can also wear masks if they feel they make a difference as well.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
Just a covid test I guess.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
Eh, I thought the tweet was dumb because Makary is blaming the government for the actions of a privately owned basketball team who was able to set their own rules. And they did. And Kyrie Irving, who signed a contract, didn’t abide by team rules. So they sat him and didn’t pay him. That’s his own fault - no one else. I think it’s kind of hilarious that what Makary says and what his intent was, in actuality was pinning blame on a privately owned corporation for decisions that it should be free to make. But I don’t know if Republicans believe that anymore based on what I’ve seen.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
Also, since the virus will be with us for 10,000 years and is highly contagious, we can assume that everyone will eventually have antibodies and t-cell memory (either from multiple infections just like any other cold virus, or from vaccine and subsequent infections).
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
It’s an interesting perspective.
I suspect the private company got its information on what to do FROM the government.
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2004
- Messages
- 3,049
- Reaction score
- 6,409
They got information, yes. But teams set their own rules with regard to vaccination and players were not required. However, if a team decided to mandate vaccination (which they did for all staff and fans as well) and the player didn’t abide, they didn’t play or get paid. That is contractual.
FYI Kyrie also believes earth is flat and we never landed on the moon. If Makary wants to hold him up as an example of an overly intrusive government gone awry, that’s fine, but there are better examples. Personally I don’t think Makary really thought it through.
Last edited:
D
deleted1116990
There is literally an argument being made, by doctors, that because viruses evolve and prior immunity, either natural or vaccine-mediated, cannot perfectly account for these future variants, that we need to continue mitigation efforts including masking for source control and booster mandates indefinitely. Because a number other than exactly zero might contract it and die from complications. In other words change the nature of human existence as we have always known it going forward.
This is clownworld, and I'm done taking it seriously.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,101
- Reaction score
- 3,090
In Dailymail today "Opioid crisis cost the US a record $1.5TRILLION in 2020 and deaths rose to all-time high as fentanyl use rocketed during pandemic, new figures show — as officials say lockdowns pushed people over edge" The economic toll of opioids for 2020 marks a 37 per cent increase from 2017 69,000 deaths
D
deleted1116990
Fentanyl is the number one cause of death for age 18-45. Yet we are still focusing energy on bickering about masking kids and forcing boosters on college students. The number of patients I have had tell me stories this year about young family members dying of overdoses is easily in the double digits this year and a doctor here just lost a kid to it. I know, first or secondhand, of not a single person under the age of 30 dead from Covid.
If you bring up the fentanyl crisis to a permacovid nut you will be accused of being a bigot getting misinformation from Fox News about a fake border crisis. The gaslighting is revolting. We know where the fentanyl is coming from and we know what it's doing. Then we can talk about the human trafficking the border situation is engendering. I just treated a patient who had to endure months of forced prostitution to pay off debts to traffickers. Her story was horrible.
- Joined
- Dec 21, 2008
- Messages
- 1,642
- Reaction score
- 714
Wasn't directing the question at him directly; what I meant was it may have been a useful recommendation if we actually had a reliable way of knowing immune status.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,885
- Reaction score
- 20,917
I do agree that in the US unintentional fentanyl overdose is a greater threat to young people. I also know a family who lost their adult child to it. I don’t know why we are such a highly addicted society or why some societies have more addictive tendencies that others.
There is a lot of misinformation about fentanyl floating around nowadays too. A few of my patients have asked me if they’ll be receiving it and express concern when I tell them it will be part of their anesthetic. I reassure them that it is safe in appropriate doses. I try make sure my patients get accurate information about fentanyl.
I live and work in a border city. We take border wall call every other month. We get dozens of border wall falls every one of those months. Sometimes 3 in one day. Whether they came from Ghana, Haiti, Nepal, or Guatemala, all their stories are horrible. The horror started thousands of miles away and long before they got anywhere near the border. That’s why they’re at the border. The severe lower extremity injuries just add to the horror.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
Yeah but people were dying in ICUs.
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2006
- Messages
- 11,885
- Reaction score
- 20,917
The reality is that we are living in a post fact world. Everything is a propaganda war. On every side…..from yoga moms to nazis. There is more misinformation than information. It’s fueled by media, social media, and even SDN. Thus the title of this thread.
D
deleted1116990
That's a very fair take. Agree completely.
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2010
- Messages
- 6,101
- Reaction score
- 3,090
Yes and now due to the mandates more people are dying.
D
deleted1116990
Anybody catch Biden saying "a vital part of preparing for hurricane season is to get vaccinated now"?
Literally what? That's the important message to convey to people about to be hit by a category 4 hurricane? Wild.
Literally what? That's the important message to convey to people about to be hit by a category 4 hurricane? Wild.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
I am so glad I got vaccinated early on - I had no fear of it - and because of that (and probably because I was exposed to lots of covid positive patients) I never got it or knew if I did.
However, I can’t imagine why anyone who isn’t vaccinated now would even consider getting vaccinated at this point.
D
deleted875186
Yet we have a CDC that is “relaxing” opioid guidelines for chronic pain by some weird twisted logic.
- Joined
- Jun 3, 2007
- Messages
- 4,694
- Reaction score
- 3,096
Are the authors anti-Vaxer’s? I bet they were hydroxychloroquine pushers.
Or maybe, they just want people to not try and guess what people can or cannot handle, and not care about how they think the information would change people’s behavior - and maybe they just really care about science and truth.
www.bmj.com
Or maybe, they just want people to not try and guess what people can or cannot handle, and not care about how they think the information would change people’s behavior - and maybe they just really care about science and truth.
FDA urged to publish follow-up studies on covid-19 vaccine safety signals
The FDA has been criticised for taking more than a year to follow up a potential increase in serious adverse events in elderly people receiving Pfizer’s covid-19 vaccine, Maryanne Demasi reports In July 2021 the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) quietly disclosed findings of a potential...
