So any comments on the Stella Immanuel Video?

[Lucy the Valiant]

12 minutes ago, Danae said:

The problem is that right now there is just as much evidence that tapioca pudding with paprika prevents COVID. 

Well, except that there's not a whole team of currently certified medical doctors supporting its prophylactic use when combined with zinc, right? 😉 Or 243 clinical trials at the NIH for tapioca pudding, no? Or prestigious medical journals like the Lancet having to quietly retract studies that "discredit" it as useless? 

I'm going to sleep but will stay tuned. And hopeful.

[TCB]

1 minute ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Well, except that there's not a whole team of currently certified medical doctors supporting its prophylactic use when combined with zinc, right? 😉 Or 243 clinical trials at the NIH for tapioca pudding, no? Or prestigious medical journals like the Lancet having to quietly retract studies that "discredit" it as useless? 

I'm going to sleep but will stay tuned. And hopeful.

Your choice of words is loaded, as I’m sure you meant them to be. A team such as the one in the video does not inspire a lot of confidence. Ophthalmologists especially and even  urgent care drs are not who I would turn to as experts in Covid-19 care. An urgent care dr might see patients with it but it’s not like they follow up with all or maybe even many of those patients to be fully aware of outcomes.

Also the Lancet withdrawal was not “quiet”

These videos that come out are completely un-critiqued by the people spreading them and seemed to be believed without any evidence of questioning their validity.

I completely agree that HCQ has been politicized but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do to check one’s brain at the door and not apply any critical thinking to what is being said. I just saw someone I know post on FB that if FB bans it then that= it is true. That is a common mentality around here. I don’t know how people can stand living with such paranoia.

[Ausmumof3]

20 minutes ago, matrips said:

Just reporting what I heard on the news from the person that organized this- there were 6 hours of interviews and research and details that went along with this video.  It was all deleted.

eta details- a Dr Simone Gold, an emergeny medical physician was the one that organized the event to ask the fda for official permission to use it for covid.(paraphrasing)

Yes she claims to work at cedars Sinai.  This is what they had to say.

[katilac]

2 hours ago, Corraleno said:

And yet there are no objections to dexamethasone, which is also a relatively cheap generic drug that no one is going to make huge profits from. The difference is that dexamethasone has been shown to be highly effective in preventing deaths among patients on oxygen support in a large, high quality, randomized clinical trial, while the same study showed no benefit to HCQ.

Quoting because I'm not seeing anyone respond to the fact that it's another cheap medication, yet no one is opposing it or suppressing it. I don't even think 'relatively cheap' is an adequate description; it's a really cheap drug. 

  

[Joker]

Anyone who spends more than five minutes looking into the people involved with this know it’s worthless. I’m not sure HCQ doesn’t help but I know for dang sure this type of stuff isn’t helping. 

It just makes me sad that so many fall for this type of conspiracy crap. 

 

[katilac]

20 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I think it's fairly obvious that people are not suppressing HCQ because it's cheap -- that would require way too many people to participate in the conspiracy. 

It is not fairly obvious to many, many people. Big Pharma repressing the studies is a constant on social media and dubious websites. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by katilac

[Frances]

5 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

 

I think it does help to have conversations on FB and YT (well...FB more than YT).  Will everyone listen?  of course not. There's several good conversations I saw that came out of the Plamdemic video.  One was Dr. Mike on YT and another was a ER doctor privately rebutting people on FB with a point by point explanation with footnotes as to why is was so out there.  There was also a good conversation here IIRC.  

Yes, there are actual methods for doing studies.. .and that is something we *have* to bring up.  Peer reviews blind studies, etc. etc. Anecdotal is good for only so much.  It can perhaps point us in a new direction but it isn't good enough as proof.   But, this is how we can educate the people.   We shouldn't call them a bunch of yahoos with tinfoil hats and walk away.  

I think it’s far more likely that most people will watch the video with all of the misinformation and lies and that will be it.  I would guess there are very few that will stay around for a discussion and ultimately see the video for what it really is. Meanwhile, all of the misinformation and lies have real health and economic consequences. It’s just sickening to see this promoted at the highest levels by scientifically illiterate people.

[Halftime Hope]

4 hours ago, Corraleno said:

One of the problems with many of the nonrandomized studies that claim to show a positive benefit is that patients with heart problems were automatically put in the nontreatment group, so there was an inherent bias in that patients with conditions that made them more likely to have a severe outcome from Covid were being compared to patients who had lower risk factors to begin with.

I just have to comment here.   The VA study did just the opposite of this.  All the patients were very sick and the HCQ which works best early was given to all of them late, but the HCQ+zinc+AZ combo was given to the very sickest patients, and then of course the study reported no benefit.  Even Dr. Scheult from Medcram called out (very diplomatically) that flaw in the study.  

[Halftime Hope]

3 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

If people want to take things prophylactically it makes a lot more sense to  take zinc and Quercetin. Quercetin doesn’t require a prescription. Doesn’t cause liver or heart problems. Why the cult love for hcq?  

Well, to address just the last part of your question:  Why the cult love for hcq?   Maybe because we've all seen the chart indicating that chloroquine is twice as effective an ionophore as quercitin, about 60% more effective than CoQ10, and about 70 or 75% more effective than EcGC (and I probably spelled that wrong...it's too late at night.)  Or perhaps people's love affair with it is that hydroxychloroquine itself (not chloroquine) has 4 or 5 separate mechanisms by which it is effective at blocking the progression of an early COVID illness.  (That would be me quoting Dr. Mobeen Syed who is really good at explaining the biochemistry. )  

The one I'm really interested in is ivermectin.  It seems to act even when the progression of the disease is much further down the road.  There should be some studies coming out on that soon. 

[Corraleno]

35 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I just have to comment here.   The VA study did just the opposite of this.  All the patients were very sick and the HCQ which works best early was given to all of them late, but the HCQ+zinc+AZ combo was given to the very sickest patients, and then of course the study reported no benefit.  Even Dr. Scheult from Medcram called out (very diplomatically) that flaw in the study.  

The VA study didn't just show "no benefit," it showed that the HCQ group had much worse outcomes, with significantly higher death rates. The fact that the most severe patients were put in the treatment group is the reason that many HCQ proponents dismissed the results of that study — and that is a valid criticism. However, many of those same people willingly accept the results of studies where the more severe patients are in the non-HCQ group, which is characteristic of many of the studies that claim HCQ is beneficial. You (general you) can't claim that non randomized studies are invalid when you don't like the conclusions, but are perfectly valid when they get the results you want to see. So far, the only genuinely randomized clinical trials have not shown any benefit.

 

14 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

The one I'm really interested in is ivermectin.  It seems to act even when the progression of the disease is much further down the road.  There should be some studies coming out on that soon. 

I'm really interested in this, too. If you know of any clinical trials (or even animal studies) that are currently underway, I would love to hear about them, because I have not been able to find anything and I've been puzzled by the lack of follow up on what seemed to be a quite promising in vitro study.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Halftime Hope]

1 hour ago, TCB said:

Your choice of words is loaded, as I’m sure you meant them to be. A team such as the one in the video does not inspire a lot of confidence. Ophthalmologists especially and even  urgent care drs are not who I would turn to as experts in Covid-19 care. An urgent care dr might see patients with it but it’s not like they follow up with all or maybe even many of those patients to be fully aware of outcomes.

Also the Lancet withdrawal was not “quiet”

These videos that come out are completely un-critiqued by the people spreading them and seemed to be believed without any evidence of questioning their validity.

I completely agree that HCQ has been politicized but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do to check one’s brain at the door and not apply any critical thinking to what is being said. I just saw someone I know post on FB that if FB bans it then that= it is true. That is a common mentality around here. I don’t know how people can stand living with such paranoia.

The reason ophthalmologists are seeing it, and you can look up reports in ophthalmology journals, is that in some COVID patients, the very first presenting symptom is an eye infection (conjunctivitis), and then the other symptoms follow.  Conjunctivitis can be really, really painful, so it tends not to be ignored.  

[Halftime Hope]

7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The VA study didn't just show "no benefit," it showed that the HCQ group had much worse outcomes, with significantly higher death rates. The fact that the most severe patients were put in the treatment group is the reason that many HCQ proponents dismissed the results of that study — and that is a valid criticism. However, many of those same people willingly accept the results of studies where the more severe patients are in the non-HCQ group, which is characteristic of many of the studies that claim HCQ is beneficial. You (general you) can't claim that non randomized studies are invalid when you don't like the conclusions, but are perfectly valid when they get the results you want to see. So far, the only genuinely randomized clinical trials have not shown any benefit.

 

I'm really interested in this, too. If you know of any clinical trials (or even animal studies) that are currently underway, I would love to hear about them, because I have not been able to find anything and I've been puzzled by the lack of follow up on what seemed to be a quite promising in vitro study.

Girl, I'm so tired I didn't really follow your logic.  We've had 5 deaths this weeks at my workplace, only one due to COVID, and I'm beat.  

Did you see the pre-print for the observational study on ivermectin out of Broward county?  It's in peer review right now, and for the peer review they saved the matched cohorts data which is even better than what they published in the pre-print.  I hope it will be published soon. 

[katilac]

3 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

The reason ophthalmologists are seeing it, and you can look up reports in ophthalmology journals, is that in some COVID patients, the very first presenting symptom is an eye infection (conjunctivitis), and then the other symptoms follow.  Conjunctivitis can be really, really painful, so it tends not to be ignored.  

Ophthalmologists seeing people who have Covid in their daily practice seems to make sense, but they wouldn't treat them, correct? Or even test them? What would an ophthalmologist do beyond referring them for a Covid test? 

[wathe]

5 hours ago, TCB said:

There is mounting evidence that even just using a surgical mask will keep you safe from getting sick. I personally feel safer with an N95 or a PAPR because of the evidence that the virus can be airborne, but a hospital in Boston reduced their transmission rates to staff by 50% by having all patients and staff wear a surgical mask. So that might well be enough in an urgent care setting.

Yes.  Surgical mask is standard of care PPE for caring for hospitalized covid patients in my province (population14.5 million), with n95's strictly reserved only for aerosol generating medical procedures.  Covid rates for healthcare workers have been very low province-wide.  In my hospital, despite 20ish covid admissions, some of whom were inpatients for months, and many more covid positives seen through emerg, we have had zero cases of covid in clinical staff. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by wathe

[Halftime Hope]

2 minutes ago, katilac said:

Ophthalmologists seeing people who have Covid in their daily practice seems to make sense, but they wouldn't treat them, correct? Or even test them? What would an ophthalmologist do beyond referring them for a Covid test? 

I don't really know.  (Again, I really don't know.)  Why wouldn't I treat a virus if I was competent to do so, and it was in my area of expertise.  Particularly if no one else was doing it, if people are being told there is nothing else that will help until they are sick enough to be admitted to a hospital?  

[popmom]

8 hours ago, Frances said:

And you think lay people discussing it on Facebook, YouTube, etc is productive how? I’m not sure who you define as elite, but there are actual accepted methods for determining the efficacy of treatments. Since the majority of people involved in such research are usually highly educated, I guess they might qualify as elite. I don’t see how random people posting videos and discussing it on the internet adds anything to the process. 

The policies were developed because people’s lives, health, and livelihoods are at stake. But I’m sure there are still lots of avenues available for those who desire to spread misinformation and discuss things about which they know little to nothing.

Apologies if this has been said already. I didn't read every comment.

Not lay people. Why not have a major news outlet give them some prime time air? Have someone interview them. Bring them (and their anecdotal evidence) INTO THE LIGHT. Engage them. Have a publicized debate with scientists on the opposing side. Why not? I totally agree that silencing these people serves no constructive purpose. How many of you have your kids study logic and debate? Isn't this a classical ed site? That's exactly what is needed right now.

[Ausmumof3]

29 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The VA study didn't just show "no benefit," it showed that the HCQ group had much worse outcomes, with significantly higher death rates. The fact that the most severe patients were put in the treatment group is the reason that many HCQ proponents dismissed the results of that study — and that is a valid criticism. However, many of those same people willingly accept the results of studies where the more severe patients are in the non-HCQ group, which is characteristic of many of the studies that claim HCQ is beneficial. You (general you) can't claim that non randomized studies are invalid when you don't like the conclusions, but are perfectly valid when they get the results you want to see. So far, the only genuinely randomized clinical trials have not shown any benefit.

 

I'm really interested in this, too. If you know of any clinical trials (or even animal studies) that are currently underway, I would love to hear about them, because I have not been able to find anything and I've been puzzled by the lack of follow up on what seemed to be a quite promising in vitro study.

There is some stuff about this at the bottom of the giant Wuhan thread right now.  Running out the door so I don’t have time to dig it up.

[katilac]

11 minutes ago, Halftime Hope said:

I don't really know.  (Again, I really don't know.)  Why wouldn't I treat a virus if I was competent to do so, and it was in my area of expertise.  Particularly if no one else was doing it, if people are being told there is nothing else that will help until they are sick enough to be admitted to a hospital?  

I guess that was the point of my question: why would treating covid-19 or anything similar be in the area of expertise for an ophthalmologist? Yes, they are doctors, but so is my gynecologist, and I wouldn't expect him to take point on treating covid. 

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, popmom said:

Apologies if this has been said already. I didn't read every comment.

Not lay people. Why not have a major news outlet give them some prime time air? Have someone interview them. Bring them (and their anecdotal evidence) INTO THE LIGHT. Engage them. Have a publicized debate with scientists on the opposing side. Why not? I totally agree that silencing these people serves no constructive purpose. How many of you have your kids study logic and debate? Isn't this a classical ed site? That's exactly what is needed right now.

How do you debate someone who claims to have cured 350 patients of Covid, but offers no proof? How do you even have a rational debate with someone who believes disease is caused by demon sperm and vaccines include space alien DNA? Why on earth should any of these nutcase conspiracy theories be given any more "air time" than they already get? Should we also have public debates about whether 5G towers cause Covid and whether there will be trackable microchips in Covid vaccines? How about we just acknowledge these people are nuts???

[popmom]

18 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

How do you debate someone who claims to have cured 350 patients of Covid, but offers no proof? How do you even have a rational debate with someone who believes disease is caused by demon sperm and vaccines include space alien DNA? Why on earth should any of these nutcase conspiracy theories be given any more "air time" than they already get? Should we also have public debates about whether 5G towers cause Covid and whether there will be trackable microchips in Covid vaccines? How about we just acknowledge these people are nuts???

You debate the IDEA or the anecdotal evidence. The person's character or unorthodox beliefs (which last I checked you are free to practice any religion you choose in our country w/out discrimination) would not come into play. The second it does, it ceases to be a true debate. What is everyone afraid of? 

Someone help me out? Is Corraleno"s reply a logical fallacy? I need to brush up. but I'm thinking this is a logical fallacy. Sorry. totally don't mean to offend. I may be on the spectrum, and I'm EXTREMELY left brained.

@Corraleno run through this list. I know I'm going to make people mad. But this more than ever is needed in our discourse. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html#:~:text=Fallacies are common errors in,evidence that supports their claim.

Slippery Slope maybe?

This one's better. https://thebestschools.org/magazine/15-logical-fallacies-know/

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by popmom

[KidsHappen]

13 minutes ago, popmom said:

You debate the IDEA or the anecdotal evidence. The person's character or unorthodox beliefs (which last I checked you are free to practice any religion you choose in our country w/out discrimination) would not come into play. The second it does, it ceases to be a true debate. What is everyone afraid of? 

Someone help me out? Is Corraleno"s reply a logical fallacy? I need to brush up. but I'm thinking this is a logical fallacy. Sorry. totally don't mean to offend. I may be on the spectrum, and I'm very left brained.

@Corraleno run through this list. I know I'm going to make people mad. But this more than ever is needed in our discourse. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html#:~:text=Fallacies are common errors in,evidence that supports their claim.

Sliippery Slope maybe?

 

You are thinking of Ad hominem. 

[katilac]

14 minutes ago, popmom said:

You debate the IDEA or the anecdotal evidence. The person's character or unorthodox beliefs (which last I checked you are free to practice any religion you choose in our country w/out discrimination) would not come into play. The second it does, it ceases to be a true debate. What is everyone afraid of? 

Believing that lizard people have infiltrated the government is never, ever irrelevant. 

[popmom]

Just now, KidsHappen said:

You are thinking of Ad hominem. 

THANK YOU LOL

[popmom]

1 minute ago, katilac said:

Believing that lizard people have infiltrated the government is never, ever irrelevant. 

SURE! If you're a facist. 😉

[Corraleno]

29 minutes ago, popmom said:

 

@Corraleno run through this list. I know I'm going to make people mad. But this more than ever is needed in our discourse. https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/academic_writing/logic_in_argumentative_writing/fallacies.html#:~:text=Fallacies are common errors in,evidence that supports their claim.

What's really needed "more than ever in our discourse" is not treating nuts who believe in lizard people and space aliens and astrally-traveling witches as if they are sane, rational people whose opinions deserve serious consideration.

[popmom]

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

What's really needed "more than ever in our discourse" is not treating nuts who believe in lizard people and space aliens and astrally-traveling witches as if they are sane, rational people whose opinions deserve serious consideration.

you didn't read that list did you? That's ok. I didn't expect anyone to. sad. Very sad. Especially for a classical ed forum. Those beliefs have nothing to do with whether or not the drug works. Nothing at all. I'm sure their school of thought could find someone else to represent them in a debate. Again what is everyone afraid of?

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by popmom

[El...]

15 minutes ago, KidsHappen said:

You are thinking of Ad hominem. 

I've been thinking about this. Yes, people are saying that because this person also believes some crazy things, and perhaps doesn't have the professional affiliations she claims, she isn't a good source of information. That could be ad hominem. 

However, she claims she's right, not on the basis of ideas that can be argued, or studies that can be evaluated. She's saying, "I'm a doctor, I know things, believe my assertions because of my credentials." 

So, no, I don't think this is an ad hominem fallacy. The thing in question is her credibility, if she isn't producing any other evidence. And she's really, really not credible. 

[popmom]

6 minutes ago, elroisees said:

I've been thinking about this. Yes, people are saying that because this person also believes some crazy things, and perhaps doesn't have the professional affiliations she claims, she isn't a good source of information. That could be ad hominem. 

However, she claims she's right, not on the basis of ideas that can be argued, or studies that can be evaluated. She's saying, "I'm a doctor, I know things, believe my assertions because of my credentials." 

So, no, I don't think this is an ad hominem fallacy. The thing in question is her credibility, if she isn't producing any other evidence. And she's really, really not credible. 

Her specific comment was ad hominem. It has nothing to do with whether what Coorelano said was an accurate assessment of the woman's character. This is the place of real debate. Real debate would determine her credibility. Not any of us here just speculating about her. Debate has certain rules. If she can't keep the rules, she's disqualified. Why not give her the chance? What are you all afraid of? If she can't defend her position logically, she loses. And we have better information. This absolutely should happen. I watched her clip. She said she was willing to die on this hill. Somebody give her the chance.

ETA: for the record, I'm very leery of this group. I just firmly believe that silencing those with whom we disagree (even under the guise of protecting health) is facist.

Edited July 29, 2020 by popmom

[Frances]

1 minute ago, popmom said:

You debate the IDEA or the anecdotal evidence. The person's character or unorthodox beliefs (which last I checked you are free to practice any religion you choose in our country w/out discrimination) would not come into play. The second it does, it ceases to be a true debate. What is everyone afraid of? 

Who said anyone is afraid? Reputable people would first have to determine if the anecdotal evidence even exists or can be verified in any way. Why would any reputable media source rush to schedule a debate based on some random video starring a woman with completely wacko ideas being touted by scientifically illiterate people at the highest level who regularly dismiss health professionals and scientists because their facts, findings, and advice go against their plans and desires? It would be very easy for the people in the video to spout any lies they wanted to during a debate, just as they are doing in the video. And then what, fact checking afterwards that people ignore because their preconceived notions have been confirmed? 

Real, scientific knowledge about the about the virus, prevention, treatments, etc. is already available from reputable sources for anyone who wants it. 

[popmom]

2 minutes ago, Frances said:

Who said anyone is afraid? Reputable people would first have to determine if the anecdotal evidence even exists or can be verified in any way. Why would any reputable media source rush to schedule a debate based on some random video starring a woman with completely wacko ideas being touted by scientifically illiterate people at the highest level who regularly dismiss health professionals and scientists because their facts, findings, and advice go against their plans and desires? It would be very easy for the people in the video to spout any lies they wanted to during a debate, just as they are doing in the video. And then what, fact checking afterwards that people ignore because their preconceived notions have been confirmed? 

Real, scientific knowledge about the about the virus, prevention, treatments, etc. is already available from reputable sources for anyone who wants it. 

um the same media that thinks Sean Penn is someone I should listen to about politics. He's been given lots of air time in the past.

Edited July 29, 2020 by popmom

[Frances]

1 minute ago, popmom said:

um the same media that thinks Sean Penn is someone I should listen to about politics.

They are the ones saying people are afraid?? I don’t watch or listen to any news, only read it, so I’m lost here.

Edited July 29, 2020 by Frances

[popmom]

Just now, Frances said:

They are the ones saying people are afraid??

HUH? not following you. I think you are honing in on some minutia of my comment instead of taking the whole counsel of it. 

[Corraleno]

12 minutes ago, popmom said:

Her specific comment was ad hominem. It has nothing to do with whether what Coorelano said was an accurate assessment of the woman's character. This is the place of real debate. Real debate would determine her credibility. Not any of us here just speculating about her. Debate has certain rules. If she can't keep the rules, she's disqualified. Why not give her the chance? What are you all afraid of? If she can't defend her position logically, she loses. And we have better information. This absolutely should happen. I watched her clip. She said she was willing to die on this hill. Somebody give her the chance.

ETA: for the record, I'm very leery of this group. I just firmly believe that silencing those with whom we disagree (even under the guise of protecting health) is facist.

Stalla Immanuel is making factual, scientific claims for which she has provided zero evidence, and which are contradicted by the best current scientific research. SHE is the one relying on a logical fallacy — appeal to authority. Maybe you should read your list of logical fallacies a little more closely before making comments about the "sad" lack of logical thinking on a classical ed forum. 🙄

 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Frances]

14 minutes ago, popmom said:

HUH? not following you. I think you are honing in on some minutia of my comment instead of taking the whole counsel of it. 

I’m confused about the Sean Penn comment and what media it refers to and why? I’m not following you.

Edited to add that I think you mistakenly thought I was referring to the media when I said there are reputable sources of information available on the virus. I wasn’t, but I certainly would trust some of the best more than a random conspiracy theory video on social media. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Frances

[popmom]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

 Maybe you should read your list of logical fallacies a little more closely before making comments about the "sad" lack of logical thinking on a classical ed forum. 

 

Damn, girl! There you go again! lol

[Jean in Newcastle]

4 minutes ago, popmom said:

um the same media that thinks Sean Penn is someone I should listen to about politics. He's been given lots of air time in the past.

You choose very strange media to follow.  There is an abundance of sources to follow on all sorts of topics.  I follow actual medical journals etc. for medical news and studies.  Not quacks on Youtube.  I look for similarly knowledgeable sources for other topics like politics, science, etc.  I suppose I might read something by Sean Penn if it were about his craft - acting, screenwriting and directing. 

[Ausmumof3]

Why do we expect a live debate over science?  Science happens via studies and peer review.  I’m not saying I’m against the idea but it would be different.  The only similar kind of thing I’ve heard of is with anti vaxxers.  If zinc plus hydroxychloroquine has enough anecdotal support to warrant studies we should do the studies.

 

[popmom]

1 minute ago, kand said:

I’m not understanding. Much of this thread has been devoted to examining what evidence we do and don’t have of whether the drug does or doesn’t work. People have delved into the studies and shared links and shared knowledge about how randomized trials work and what are strengths and weaknesses of various studies done so far. I don’t see any sign of fear as regards this topic at all. So I’m confused what you think people would be afraid of. 

really? okay. I'm not saying that specifically only the people on this thread are afraid of something. Man...yall are more literal than me! lol 

[popmom]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Why do we expect a live debate over science?  Science happens via studies and peer review.  I’m not saying I’m against the idea but it would be different.  The only similar kind of thing I’ve heard of is with anti vaxxers.  If zinc plus hydroxychloroquine has enough anecdotal support to warrant studies we should do the studies.

 

There is absolutely a place for this in academia. Universities host debates all the time over lesser issues. This needs to be one. One of the medical schools or perhaps the AMA could sponsor it. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by popmom

[Ausmumof3]

And here’s the thing.  The retracted Lancet study was questioned based on an inaccuracy for their Australian data.  Because it was so high profile it was picked up and retracted very quickly.  The whole world is looking at this really closely.  If it’s a giant conspiracy to cover up surely someone in the scientific world is coming up with some questions.  I think the popularity of this is in part because good science takes time and we are desperate for a miracle cure to get us out of this situation.  

[Ausmumof3]

2 minutes ago, popmom said:

There is absolutely a place for this in academia. Universities host debates all the time over lesser issues. This needs to be one. 

But you really can’t debate yourself to good data.  You need something to debate about.  

[popmom]

1 minute ago, Ausmumof3 said:

And here’s the thing.  The retracted Lancet study was questioned based on an inaccuracy for their Australian data.  Because it was so high profile it was picked up and retracted very quickly.  The whole world is looking at this really closely.  If it’s a giant conspiracy to cover up surely someone in the scientific world is coming up with some questions.  I think the popularity of this is in part because good science takes time and we are desperate for a miracle cure to get us out of this situation.  

I totally agree with you! These are extraordinary times. And perhaps that is why I think silencing these doctors in not the right move.

[popmom]

11 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

You choose very strange media to follow.  There is an abundance of sources to follow on all sorts of topics.  I follow actual medical journals etc. for medical news and studies.  Not quacks on Youtube.  I look for similarly knowledgeable sources for other topics like politics, science, etc.  I suppose I might read something by Sean Penn if it were about his craft - acting, screenwriting and directing. 

That "strange media" would be CNN. A quick Google search will verify.

Edited July 29, 2020 by popmom

[Frances]

4 minutes ago, popmom said:

I totally agree with you! These are extraordinary times. And perhaps that is why I think silencing these doctors in not the right move.

They are hardly being silenced when our scientifically illiterate leader is touting them despite admitting knowing nothing about them or their credentials. They are getting tons of publicity.

[popmom]

1 minute ago, Frances said:

They are hardly being silenced when our scientifically illiterate leader is touting them despite admitting knowing nothing about them or their credentials. They are getting tons of publicity.

BINGO! This is what y'all are really all about! Goodnight! 

[Corraleno]

42 minutes ago, Frances said:

They are hardly being silenced when our scientifically illiterate leader is touting them despite admitting knowing nothing about them or their credentials. They are getting tons of publicity.

So this whole bizarre conversation was designed to get to a smug little "gotcha" moment proving that the only reason people won't seriously engage with the demon sperm lady is because they hate Trump. Hilarious. 

Edited July 29, 2020 by Corraleno

[Ausmumof3]

10 minutes ago, popmom said:

BINGO! This is what y'all are really all about! Goodnight! 

Can you engage with any of the data or studies provided please?  I feel frustrated because I’ve taken a bit of a time to provide links and explain what I know.  And then as soon as someone makes a political comment you assume that is what it’s all about.  

[Corraleno]

3 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

Can you engage with any of the data or studies provided please?  I feel frustrated because I’ve taken a bit of a time to provide links and explain what I know.  And then as soon as someone makes a political comment you assume that is what it’s all about.  

It's almost as if it was never really about the data....

[Jean in Newcastle]

20 minutes ago, popmom said:

That "strange media" would be CNN. A quick Google search will verify.

Which is not a medical journal which is what I explicitly said that I used for medical information. Critical thinking requires choosing the right experts for the right subjects. I agreed that Sean Penn’s expertise was not medical (also in what you quoted from me. ). But neither is the woman who is the subject if this thread who has been proven to have misrepresented her credentials. 

[popmom]

1 minute ago, Corraleno said:

It's almost as if it was never really about the data....

It wasn't about the data. It was never about the data. It was about not censoring opposing opinions. But y'all win. I admit defeat to C's mad debating skillz.