I wonder whether this medical student will be cancelled

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
Status
Not open for further replies.

Chartreuse Wombat

Full Member
7+ Year Member
Joined
May 7, 2014
Messages
1,644
Reaction score
3,441
stupidity because it’s all conjecture about what would have happened if we had some magical, democratic process of surveying BIPOC and poor people about how the federal government should deploy trillions of dollars to fight the pandemic. If he starts agreeing to go on tucker Carlson’s show to talk about this, then yea he probably will be cancelled. But if he lets the writing speak for itself, I doubt anyone at residency programs will even be aware he wrote this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Stupid question from an ignorant European:

„Kevin Bass is an MD/PhD student at a medical school in Texas. He is in his 7th year.“

How long does medical school last in the US?
 
Members don't see this ad :)
Stupid question from an ignorant European:

„Kevin Bass is an MD/PhD student at a medical school in Texas. He is in his 7th year.“

How long does medical school last in the US?
It sounds like he is a combined MD-PhD program, takes 6-10 years generally speaking
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Stupid question from an ignorant European:

„Kevin Bass is an MD/PhD student at a medical school in Texas. He is in his 7th year.“

How long does medical school last in the US?
7 years for MD/PhD is common
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Stupid question from an ignorant European:

„Kevin Bass is an MD/PhD student at a medical school in Texas. He is in his 7th year.“

How long does medical school last in the US?
Medical school is 4 years (for an MD). For students pursuing an MD/PhD, it's typically an additional 3-5 years of research, depending on how "real" the PhD is.

I'm kidding. No "real" PhD thinks an MD/PhD is real.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 6 users
Medical school is 4 years (for an MD). For students pursuing an MD/PhD, it's typically an additional 3-5 years of research, depending on how "real" the PhD is.

I'm kidding. No "real" PhD thinks an MD/PhD is real.
1675185577642.png
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 2 users
Just a quick glance at his Twitter feed and he admits he’s not a vaccine fan and he retweets Project Veritas. It will be easy for Residency programs to find him on social media.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Just a quick glance at his Twitter feed and he admits he’s not a vaccine fan and he retweets Project Veritas. It will be easy for Residency programs to find him on social media.

He has a big social media presence and actually former focus seemed to be pretty decent takes on diet/exercise stuff. Kind of like a B-list Peter Attia.

He was never anti vax. He himself got pericarditis I believe from a booster. So obviously that can lead to different views.

I'm trying to put covid on my back burner, but I followed him for a while on Twitter and enjoyed his exercise stuff. I think he communicates "science" fairly well on a twitter-style platform, I suspect that's how he got the Newsweek piece.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Did we get the flu vaccine wrong also? What about mumps? I’m just curious.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
I mean... Vinay Prasad, Monica Gandhi, Marty Makary, etc. are all still gainfully employed, so I presume this med student will end up doing fine. May just get blacklisted from a few places that he likely would've clashed with on this topic given the strength of his beliefs....

COVID vaccines KILLED people? The scientific community is murdering POC by... encouraging vaccine use and lockdowns? This seems more likes a NewsMax article rather than NewsWeek....
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
Courage or Stupidity?
Why write the piece? There are no specifics in the piece. There is no dissection of a particular study or convincing presentation of data that makes one think that we shouldn't have worn masks or shouldn't have gotten vaccines. It is not incisive.

In fact, it is more than not incisive. It is a bit divisive while deriding divisiveness. Very meta if you ask me. The kids today are damn good at meta. (I love the kids today btw, much smarter than me at the same age).

The piece was written for credit. The piece will speak to some people and irritate others. The author probably subscribes to the notion that all publicity is good publicity when it comes to careerism and in many regards he may be right. The piece is unlikely to not find it's way onto the author's CV and the author will land a good residency position somewhere. Some residency directors will exclude him (as they do everyone that they don't match highly, none of whom should consider themselves cancelled).

I'd put it in the stupid category because it is not good. It is sanctimonious and non-specific.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
In my defense, I was only given 700-1200 words, so yes, it is nonspecific, and I didn't have the opportunity to dwell on any specific point. I think I went over that limit, and even then, I cut paragraphs.

I might be cancelled but probably not. I will probably be excluded from some residencies and I will lose some opportunities and gain others. I have lost many friends, but they were not friends. I am happy for the publicity, of course. But I meant what I said. Perhaps it was not good in some senses, but it was very popular so by some metric it was good. And, the people who matter, specifically my editor who is brilliant and who I respect immensely, thought it was good. You probably just did not agree, or it probably rubbed you the wrong way. Which is fine, as it did just that to many people.

And nah, I'm still in my PhD. I will have done one long PhD.

Tucker's producer did invite me onto his show, though.

As for being a B-list Peter Attia, Peter is a good friend of mine and sometimes asks me for input on his content and thinks I'm great so I have to be doing something right. Peter also says I should not go on Tucker.

Saying I am not a vaccine fan is ridiculous. I am fully vaccinated as are my children. I think that taking for granted that any particular medical intervention is necessarily good (just because it is, for example, a "vaccine") is bad scientific practice. I think being critical about all interventions is good policy and good for making science the strongest it can be. And this best serves our patients.

I didn't start thinking about the COVID vaccine until I started looking at the evidence. This was unrelated to my pericarditis, which I didn't link to the vaccine until I started digging into the literature. The perimyocarditis link to the COVID vaccine is real, especially when stratified by age. But we don't understand the full extent of it, or exactly how common it is, or the risk of long-term complications. These are currently unknown, and this unknown disturbs me greatly.

Finally, I think I would fit in in any residency. I don't bring myself to work, am focused on work, and do what I need to do to do my job. I am an older student and have spent enough time in the world to know that it is far from perfect and that I won't allow strong views, especially ones that might change in the future, to prevent my participation in it.

Watch for me should I decide to go on Tucker. If I do, I will only be communicating facts, specifically that there was a systematic and aggressive exclusion of a large part of the population from the policy discussion about COVID. (But really, that's par for the course in our country's public political discussions.) I am still thinking about it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
In my defense, I was only given 700-1200 words, so yes, it is nonspecific, and I didn't have the opportunity to dwell on any specific point. I think I went over that limit, and even then, I cut paragraphs.

I might be cancelled but probably not. I will probably be excluded from some residencies and I will lose some opportunities and gain others. I have lost many friends, but they were not friends. I am happy for the publicity, of course. But I meant what I said. Perhaps it was not good in some senses, but it was very popular so by some metric it was good. And, the people who matter, specifically my editor who is brilliant and who I respect immensely, thought it was good. You probably just did not agree, or it probably rubbed you the wrong way. Which is fine, as it did just that to many people.

And nah, I'm still in my PhD. I will have done one long PhD.

Tucker's producer did invite me onto his show, though.

As for being a B-list Peter Attia, Peter is a good friend of mine and sometimes asks me for input on his content and thinks I'm great so I have to be doing something right. Peter also says I should not go on Tucker.

Saying I am not a vaccine fan is ridiculous. I am fully vaccinated as are my children. I think that taking for granted that any particular medical intervention is necessarily good (just because it is, for example, a "vaccine") is bad scientific practice. I think being critical about all interventions is good policy and good for making science the strongest it can be. And this best serves our patients.

I didn't start thinking about the COVID vaccine until I started looking at the evidence. This was unrelated to my pericarditis, which I didn't link to the vaccine until I started digging into the literature. The perimyocarditis link to the COVID vaccine is real, especially when stratified by age. But we don't understand the full extent of it, or exactly how common it is, or the risk of long-term complications. These are currently unknown, and this unknown disturbs me greatly.

Finally, I think I would fit in in any residency. I don't bring myself to work, am focused on work, and do what I need to do to do my job. I am an older student and have spent enough time in the world to know that it is far from perfect and that I won't allow strong views, especially ones that might change in the future, to prevent my participation in it.

Watch for me should I decide to go on Tucker. If I do, I will only be communicating facts, specifically that there was a systematic and aggressive exclusion of a large part of the population from the policy discussion about COVID. (But really, that's par for the course in our country's public political discussions.) I am still thinking about it.
Thanks for coming on to defend yourself. I don't think it's necessary though, as we know what you are. Here's a thought. Talk about things you're qualified to talk about. It should help you at your thesis defense should you opt to stick it out and not start a podcast on Spotify.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
In my defense, I was only given 700-1200 words, so yes, it is nonspecific, and I didn't have the opportunity to dwell on any specific point. I think I went over that limit, and even then, I cut paragraphs.

I might be cancelled but probably not. I will probably be excluded from some residencies and I will lose some opportunities and gain others. I have lost many friends, but they were not friends. I am happy for the publicity, of course. But I meant what I said. Perhaps it was not good in some senses, but it was very popular so by some metric it was good. And, the people who matter, specifically my editor who is brilliant and who I respect immensely, thought it was good. You probably just did not agree, or it probably rubbed you the wrong way. Which is fine, as it did just that to many people.

And nah, I'm still in my PhD. I will have done one long PhD.

Tucker's producer did invite me onto his show, though.

As for being a B-list Peter Attia, Peter is a good friend of mine and sometimes asks me for input on his content and thinks I'm great so I have to be doing something right. Peter also says I should not go on Tucker.

Saying I am not a vaccine fan is ridiculous. I am fully vaccinated as are my children. I think that taking for granted that any particular medical intervention is necessarily good (just because it is, for example, a "vaccine") is bad scientific practice. I think being critical about all interventions is good policy and good for making science the strongest it can be. And this best serves our patients.

I didn't start thinking about the COVID vaccine until I started looking at the evidence. This was unrelated to my pericarditis, which I didn't link to the vaccine until I started digging into the literature. The perimyocarditis link to the COVID vaccine is real, especially when stratified by age. But we don't understand the full extent of it, or exactly how common it is, or the risk of long-term complications. These are currently unknown, and this unknown disturbs me greatly.

Finally, I think I would fit in in any residency. I don't bring myself to work, am focused on work, and do what I need to do to do my job. I am an older student and have spent enough time in the world to know that it is far from perfect and that I won't allow strong views, especially ones that might change in the future, to prevent my participation in it.

Watch for me should I decide to go on Tucker. If I do, I will only be communicating facts, specifically that there was a systematic and aggressive exclusion of a large part of the population from the policy discussion about COVID. (But really, that's par for the course in our country's public political discussions.) I am still thinking about it.
If you opt to broadcast your message through a known propagandist (see his deceptive editing of the Kanye interview to fit his narrative), you will tarnish and probably invalidate whatever good points you think you’ve made. If you still opt to go on his program, I think you’ll have proven to residency programs that what you’re after is really publicity rather than sincere impact on policy making.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
In my defense
You can't have it all. There is a cost to being a public intellectual, and there can be an unfairness and conservatism that determines who emerges as an academic shining light.

Academics have a tradition of looking down on "lay press" initiatives that goes back.... well forever.


There is a reason for this. What is the intention of such work? Is it to reveal to the public a truth that has remained obscure to the academics themselves? Or is it to promote the author themselves as a public personality. Overwhelmingly, it is the second. Although there are many very good works of science writing for the general public, these are usually intended to communicate truths that are well established within the scientific community but remain opaque to the general public. Even these works carry academic risk. (e.g. Sean Carroll)

A lesson I learned from the pandemic is that it is almost impossible to apply the instincts of a scientist (equivocate when appropriate, discuss levels of confidence, acknowledge alternative hypotheses) to public messaging. At some point you need populist messaging. It is up to our public political figures to do this wisely. It is a hard thing to do and I don't know what the perfect message would have been. It certainly was not "hoax!".

Unless you are already an eminence within the scientific community that you are working within, you will likely hurt yourself academically by promoting your public brand. This is just my opinion and maybe it is a generational one. There are a lot of self-made personal brands out there with high viewership and influence. This boomer isn't biting.

You can always publish anonymously, or voice your strongly held opinions anonymously here (a certain beauty to this). Of course, there is no brand building when you do this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
I think the responses are quite good and reflect what I was thinking as well.

Just to point out, why are you doing this? Your blog, your bio, your opinion are very anti-medicine, yet you want to be a doctor. It seems like you are more interested in clicks and internet fame than actually making a difference. I know plenty of people who had a bad experience in medicine and try everyday to change the system and not burn it to the ground.

What makes you an expert? You are still in pre-graduate training. You haven't done a residency program or ID fellowship. You are making an opinion from bits and pieces and not the entire picture. The most important part of medicine is to understand your limitations. A good doctors knows when their knowledge ends and someone else is better.

Your twitter bio says centrist but you post inflammatory tweets like this one

1675268658937.png


What is the point of this tweet?

As someone who looks at residency applications, you have red flags that are besides your inflammatory views. I would be concerned that you wouldn't work as a team and blame others instead of looking how to improve yourself.

You will be in a tough spot for residency applications and MATCH among other things. The internet is forever and a quick google search would give many pause with what comes up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
He got the blue check and is self-proclaimed "followed by Joe Rogan" though, so there's that. Well on his way.
 
In my defense, I was only given 700-1200 words, so yes, it is nonspecific, and I didn't have the opportunity to dwell on any specific point. I think I went over that limit, and even then, I cut paragraphs.

I might be cancelled but probably not. I will probably be excluded from some residencies and I will lose some opportunities and gain others. I have lost many friends, but they were not friends. I am happy for the publicity, of course. But I meant what I said. Perhaps it was not good in some senses, but it was very popular so by some metric it was good. And, the people who matter, specifically my editor who is brilliant and who I respect immensely, thought it was good. You probably just did not agree, or it probably rubbed you the wrong way. Which is fine, as it did just that to many people.

And nah, I'm still in my PhD. I will have done one long PhD.

Tucker's producer did invite me onto his show, though.

As for being a B-list Peter Attia, Peter is a good friend of mine and sometimes asks me for input on his content and thinks I'm great so I have to be doing something right. Peter also says I should not go on Tucker.

Saying I am not a vaccine fan is ridiculous. I am fully vaccinated as are my children. I think that taking for granted that any particular medical intervention is necessarily good (just because it is, for example, a "vaccine") is bad scientific practice. I think being critical about all interventions is good policy and good for making science the strongest it can be. And this best serves our patients.

I didn't start thinking about the COVID vaccine until I started looking at the evidence. This was unrelated to my pericarditis, which I didn't link to the vaccine until I started digging into the literature. The perimyocarditis link to the COVID vaccine is real, especially when stratified by age. But we don't understand the full extent of it, or exactly how common it is, or the risk of long-term complications. These are currently unknown, and this unknown disturbs me greatly.

Finally, I think I would fit in in any residency. I don't bring myself to work, am focused on work, and do what I need to do to do my job. I am an older student and have spent enough time in the world to know that it is far from perfect and that I won't allow strong views, especially ones that might change in the future, to prevent my participation in it.

Watch for me should I decide to go on Tucker. If I do, I will only be communicating facts, specifically that there was a systematic and aggressive exclusion of a large part of the population from the policy discussion about COVID. (But really, that's par for the course in our country's public political discussions.) I am still thinking about it.

This is the new architype of the twitter contrarian - its more important to be right than to be helpful. It seems like you need a lot of external validation. The ability to leverage opinions of other "influencers" seems really important to you, why? Do yourself a favor and read about modern narcissism


If it's not grandiosity, then what is narcissism?

Shame over guilt; rage over anger; masturbation over sex; envy over greed; your future over your past but her past over her future...

Imagine what you look like to another person. Now recall what you looked like in the mirror this morning-- that's really what they see. They are making instantaneous judgments about your personality based on that mirror image. They are hearing your voice like it comes form a recording, not as you hear from your mouth. You're the only person who experiences yourself as you do.

The narcissist feels unhappy because he thinks his life isn't as it should be, or things are going wrong; but all of those feelings find origin in frustration, a specific frustration: the inability to love the other person.

He's a man in a glass box, unable to connect. He thinks the problem is people don't like him, or not enough, so he exerts massive energy into the creation and maintenance of an identity: if they think of me as X...

But that attempt is always futile, not because you can't trick the other person-- you can, for an entire lifetime, it's quite easy. But even then, the man in the box is still unsatisfied, still frustrated, because no amount of identity maintenance will break that glass box.

If the other person is also in a glass box, then you have a serious problem. If everyone is in their own glass box, well, then you have America.

I guess [Twitter] is a kind of glass box?

[Twitter] is a neutral tool, it's what you do with it that matters. You think the "I'm better than everybody!" status updates are evidence of narcissism, and maybe they are, but the deeper pathology exists in those who derive their identities from that online presence while simultaneously retreating from the real world. Show me a man or woman who posts pictures of themselves in bathing suits and I shrug my shoulders. Show me a person who spends more than an hour a day on [Twitter] and it isn't their job and I'll show you a future divorce even if they're not married yet. Show me a middle aged person who spends >1 hr a day on [twitter], and I'll show you someone who has been to a psychiatrist. It's not an insult, it is a statement of fact. Each person tries to find ways of affirming themselves; but when it is done through identity and not behavior, it always leads to misery.

Sure, you can convince 5000 people you're anything. Then what?

It is self-reinforcing. The type of person who withdraws into facebook is already stunted in their potential for happiness; and if you're spending all your energy on facebook then you're not spending it in ways that might actually work. The problem isn't facebook, the problem is you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
This is the new architype of the twitter contrarian - its more important to be right than to be helpful.
And it's more important to be externally validated than to be right, or even honest.
 
This is the new architype of the twitter contrarian - its more important to be right than to be helpful. It seems like you need a lot of external validation. The ability to leverage opinions of other "influencers" seems really important to you, why? Do yourself a favor and read about modern narcissism

I will say. If you feel like you know you’re right. But everyone else thinks you’re wrong. Odds are probably you’re wrong. If you’re not wrong though you’re a bit angry at the world. And feel righteous. (I guess you’re angry at world either way lol.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
I will say. If you feel like you know you’re right. But everyone else thinks you’re wrong. Odds are probably you’re wrong. If you’re not wrong though you’re a bit angry at the world. And feel righteous. (I guess you’re angry at world either way lol.)
After sweating it out over potential firing by the local CEO, certainly not in the mood for forgetting, much less forgiveness.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
After sweating it out over potential firing by the local CEO, certainly not in the mood for forgetting, much less forgiveness.
You were almost fired for not getting the 4th shot/2nd booster?
 
1675295372198.png


HAHAHAHAHA

I have intentionally not read the article/Tweet because I avoid these internet debates but...

Dude. Medicine isn't actually a meritocracy. You can't just get in "somewhere good" based on excellent scores and grades.

And I don't mean that in the standard "exams can't measure doctoring" or whatever. I mean even if you were objectively evaluated to be an amazing doctor, that's simply not enough.

Entropy rules. Everywhere. I don't know how you choose to define "success", because we all value different things, but "they" absolutely hold the keys required for "success" as is traditionally defined in the career path of an American medical doctor.

Now, if you're planning on doing something outside the classic "med school --> residency --> fellowship --> practice full time medicine", then sure, you don't need "them".
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
View attachment 365421

HAHAHAHAHA

I have intentionally not read the article/Tweet because I avoid these internet debates but...

Dude. Medicine isn't actually a meritocracy. You can't just get in "somewhere good" based on excellent scores and grades.

And I don't mean that in the standard "exams can't measure doctoring" or whatever. I mean even if you were objectively evaluated to be an amazing doctor, that's simply not enough.

Entropy rules. Everywhere. I don't know how you choose to define "success", because we all value different things, but "they" absolutely hold the keys required for "success" as is traditionally defined in the career path of an American medical doctor.

Now, if you're planning on doing something outside the classic "med school --> residency --> fellowship --> practice full time medicine", then sure, you don't need "them".
This guy won't be a clinician. No way. He doesn't have the temperament. He's like some of the crew at the double deuce before Dalton showed up. This guy needs to be nice until someone with some sense tells him when it's time to not be nice.
 
  • Haha
  • Like
Reactions: 4 users
mad season 15 GIF

Up next is this, followed by "the mainstream medical folks are in cahoots" followed by podcasts with Tucker/NewsMax and whatever other goons/kranks one can grift off. Sooner or later, you'll crack into pieces and get tossed from the medical staff. You'll sue, and you'll lose your defamation case. You'll have to start raising funds for your and your detractors attorney's fees (hello anti-slapp). It only gets worse from here...

So, its up to you.. jump into the fringe right vortex, get your bags, and get tossed from the medical community... or get off your soapbox and advance real science quietly and effectively within an area you are an expert at actually.

doctor who vortex GIF
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Private practice along the coasts is run by libertarian narcissists. Keep your mouth shut, tell Tucker to go to hell, and do your thing at a community program on the coasts.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Private practice along the coasts is run by libertarian narcissists. Keep your mouth shut, tell Tucker to go to hell, and do your thing at a community program on the coasts.
Love this. Lots of paths to doing good by being a doctor. None of which run through Tucker.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
I guess I just don't get it. Why is it "factual" to dunk on the COVID response at this point? Am I missing a new study or something. I know the 4th shot isn't effective but most people I know didn't get it, and no one I know was mandated to get it. No one at my hospital ever asked if I even got the first booster. The initial series seemed to work fairly fairly well against severe disease. Death rates are down. Reasonable people have moved on.

So what is any of this about?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 7 users
I don’t think the piece was stupid. While I disagree with his criticisms of the science, I don’t think he was wrong about the public relations efforts of the science community.

From a scientific perspective, it appears to me that measures with masks, vaccines, and temporary shutdowns were all based on the best data available.

However, we shut down debate about the vaccine, forcing legitimate critics underground, leaving Atlas and Alex Jones as the public face of dissent -not really the best demonstration of “the culture of science”. We failed to empathize with a large chunk of society who had doubts about the vaccine -not the best bedside manner. And, of course, there was the whole keeping kids out of school for a year… which didn’t seem to have a wealth of evidentiary support.

Mistakes were made…
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
I guess I just don't get it. Why is it "factual" to dunk on the COVID response at this point? Am I missing a new study or something. I know the 4th shot isn't effective but most people I know didn't get it, and no one I know was mandated to get it. No one at my hospital ever asked if I even got the first booster. The initial series seemed to work fairly fairly well against severe disease. Death rates are down. Reasonable people have moved on.

So what is any of this about?

I *think* it's also about loss of trust.

If the CDC is still recommending a 4th shot for everyone (like a previously infected 20 year old young man) then is that some sort of bat signal that they've lost the plot?

I give a lot of grace about decisions made in early pandemic. No one knew WTF was going on. It was scary. The early NEJM clinical trial was dramatic. It did certainly appear the vax stopped spread. So I don't think anyone was "lying" about it then. That's revisionist history IMO to suggest people were lying about stopping transmission. I certainly believed it. I don't now, but that's what happen when as Walter says "new **** has come to light."

But a few of glaring issues currently I'm more critical of with regard to institutional response:
- blanket rec'd everyone get a 4th shot. no one is listening, but as far as I recall the CDC and Jha say everyone needs that shot. ?no data though?
- never running a RCT on paxlovid in vaccinated people. The UK is doing it.
- some colleges are still mandating boosters. I'm not sure why.
 
I don’t think the piece was stupid. While I disagree with his criticisms of the science, I don’t think he was wrong about the public relations efforts of the science community.

From a scientific perspective, it appears to me that measures with masks, vaccines, and temporary shutdowns were all based on the best data available.

However, we shut down debate about the vaccine, forcing legitimate critics underground, leaving Atlas and Alex Jones as the public face of dissent -not really the best demonstration of “the culture of science”. We failed to empathize with a large chunk of society who had doubts about the vaccine -not the best bedside manner. And, of course, there was the whole keeping kids out of school for a year… which didn’t seem to have a wealth of evidentiary support.

Mistakes were made…
A variety of national and supranational organizations published recommendations for managing a pandemic prior to 2020. Go down that rabbit hole, when these organizations made recommendations (about masks, social distancing, school/work closures, lockdowns, border controls, etc) and were clear about the level of evidence supporting each recommendation.
 
I *think* it's also about loss of trust.

If the CDC is still recommending a 4th shot for everyone (like a previously infected 20 year old young man) then is that some sort of bat signal that they've lost the plot?

I give a lot of grace about decisions made in early pandemic. No one knew WTF was going on. It was scary. The early NEJM clinical trial was dramatic. It did certainly appear the vax stopped spread. So I don't think anyone was "lying" about it then. That's revisionist history IMO to suggest people were lying about stopping transmission. I certainly believed it. I don't now, but that's what happen when as Walter says "new **** has come to light."

But a few of glaring issues currently I'm more critical of with regard to institutional response:
- blanket rec'd everyone get a 4th shot. no one is listening, but as far as I recall the CDC and Jha say everyone needs that shot. ?no data though?
- never running a RCT on paxlovid in vaccinated people. The UK is doing it.
- some colleges are still mandating boosters. I'm not sure why.
People didn't "trust" anything long before mandates, the 4th shot, and paxlovid were available or even conceived of.
 
Two of the most destructive words to society ever uttered via orange turd: "Fake news."

If mainstream news is fake, then nothing is real. And if nothing is real, anything is possible. Moon landings: fake. Vaccines: worthless. Biden: skin suit wearing lizard. Q: as real as your mom.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Reactions: 4 users
People didn't "trust" anything long before mandates, the 4th shot, and paxlovid were available or even conceived of.
This may be correct. But it seems worse now though, right?

Of course lots of blame to go around (politics, etc) , the trust issue doesn’t all fall 100% on FDA/CDC, etc. but they’ve got to take some blame, right?
 
The only thing more fun than drinking pina coladas you say? Assigning blame.

I find this approach highly productive with my wife.

3D No GIF by X.H. Aqeel
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Politics and social media- please don’t mix together unless you’re ready for the consequences.

Data and facts are as strong (or weak) as opinions. We are living in dangerous times where we decimated the standards of what we define as the truth. As stated above “fake news” has become part of our lives now and there ain’t no going back!
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
This may be correct. But it seems worse now though, right?

Of course lots of blame to go around (politics, etc) , the trust issue doesn’t all fall 100% on FDA/CDC, etc. but they’ve got to take some blame, right?
Of course it's worse now. The entire/solitary platform of the MAGA caucus of the Republican party is to undermine trust in national institutions and norms to burn democracy in America to the ground. That's it. That's all they believe in. This dates back to (at least) 2015 election and was popular enough at that time to win the White House.

Of course, COVID didn't exist at that point. COVID didn't help, but that's largely because the "don't trust anything" guy was running the response. That's how we get ****ty opinion pieces like the OP suggesting that there should have been public commentary by everyones' uninformed uncle Roscoe before a national response was mobilized. The President himself suggested injecting disinfectant, like bleach, on a nationally televised press conference. Should that consideration have been studied?

In retrospect, I'm sure the CDC wishes they did some things differently. My guess is they also believe they saved millions of lives, so they sleep fine at night.

Again, all reasonable people have moved on at this point.

EDIT: I should correct myself, there is a second platform to the cited caucus. Self-aggrandizement. This seems pertinent to the author who will score an amazing residency, crush his boards, take the absolute best care of his patients, needs nothing anyone else has to offer, and is followed by Joe Rogan.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 5 users
However, we shut down debate about the vaccine
Who did? As @Mandelin Rain mentions above, there is active and public debate regarding efficacy of continued vaccination going forward. Debate regarding impact of exposure related immunity also very public for a long time. Maybe some media outlets were not as open with this, but the "scientific community" (whatever that is) continues to have this debate. A given institution can be wrong. If it is wrong based on best estimates, it is not venal. (As an aside, when an institutions response seems deeply flawed, root cause analysis is warranted, I believe this is being attempted regarding CDC/FDA).
We failed to empathize with a large chunk of society who had doubts about the vaccine -not the best bedside manner.
Who failed to empathize. In my red county, this is how it worked. 97% of docs got vaccinated (like docs everywhere) but only 60+ percent of nurses did (this is very interesting) and we could not afford to not have those nurses. No one shamed anyone, but we encouraged vaccination continuously. Were medical personnel frustrated? Yes, and in some regions this became quite ugly. An intensivist in FL may have lost their s#@t when the 15th unvaccinated 65 year old is admitted to the ICU that day/week. I think in general, doctors responses were human.
And, of course, there was the whole keeping kids out of school for a year… which didn’t seem to have a wealth of evidentiary support.
Now widely acknowledged as a bad decision.
Mistakes were made…
Of course. However, is this particular article addressing them, which would take considerable expertise, or is it promoting a certain brand of contrarianism that sells but helps absolute nobody achieve good health outcomes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 users
Of course it's worse now. The entire/solitary platform of the MAGA caucus of the Republican party is to undermine trust in national institutions and norms to burn democracy in America to the ground. That's it. That's all they believe in. This dates back to (at least) 2015 election and was popular enough at that time to win the White House.

Of course, COVID didn't exist at that point. COVID didn't help, but that's largely because the "don't trust anything" guy was running the response. That's how we get ****ty opinion pieces like the OP suggesting that there should have been public commentary by everyones' uninformed uncle Roscoe before a national response was mobilized. The President himself suggested injecting disinfectant, like bleach, on a nationally televised press conference. Should that consideration have been studied?

In retrospect, I'm sure the CDC wishes they did some things differently. My guess is they also believe they saved millions of lives, so they sleep fine at night.

Again, all reasonable people have moved on at this point.

EDIT: I should correct myself, there is a second platform to the cited caucus. Self-aggrandizement. This seems pertinent to the author who will score an amazing residency, crush his boards, take the absolute best care of his patients, needs nothing anyone else has to offer, and is followed by Joe Rogan.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Who did? As @Mandelin Rain mentions above, there is active and public debate regarding efficacy of continued vaccination going forward. Debate regarding impact of exposure related immunity also very public for a long time. Maybe some media outlets were not as open with this, but the "scientific community" (whatever that is) continues to have this debate. A given institution can be wrong. If it is wrong based on best estimates, it is not venal. (As an aside, when an institutions response seems deeply flawed, root cause analysis is warranted, I believe this is being attempted regarding CDC/FDA).

Who failed to empathize. In my red county, this is how it worked. 97% of docs got vaccinated (like docs everywhere) but only 60+ percent of nurses did (this is very interesting) and we could not afford to not have those nurses. No one shamed anyone, but we encouraged vaccination continuously. Were medical personnel frustrated? Yes, and in some regions this became quite ugly. An intensivist in FL may have lost their s#@t when the 15th unvaccinated 65 year old is admitted to the ICU that day/week. I think in general, doctors responses were human.

Now widely acknowledged as a bad decision.

Of course. However, is this particular article addressing them, which would take considerable expertise, or is it promoting a certain brand of contrarianism that sells but helps absolute nobody achieve good health outcomes.
I will start off by saying that I am just as guilty as anyone of holding these views...

1) Early in the pandemic, can you think of a single notable member of the scientific community who questioned the public health stance on masks, lockdowns, vaccines who WASN'T largely excommunicated (at least at the time)? I cannot. Things have changed now... but there was a day when even voicing a contrarian view on these topics was a hell-worthy trespass (even on SDN)

2) We all (hopefully) gently encouraged our reluctant patients to wear masks and get vaccinated when chatting with them one-on-one. However, every single doctor who was interviewed on TV regarding this topic spoke about those stubborn unmasked/unvaccinated masses with thinly veiled contempt and disgust. Perhaps this was due to the media selecting the medical specialists who best supported the narrative... but the condescension was ubiquitous, and true leading scientists (e.g. Fauci) did not necessary push back on the smugness

Truth is... it is nearly impossible to convince someone to do something by implying they are an idiot or morally repugnant for disagreeing. Times were scary and getting everyone on board was urgent... but in retrospect, I believe we (the scientific community) allowed the media to take the wrong tone with getting the message out.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 users
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top