Is Ivermectin an existential threat?

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

I don’t know. Ask the individuals or groups.

I think we both know.

If you know then spit it out.

To improve the human condition. Step towards Utopia.

[Borgia_dude]

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

I don’t know. Ask the individuals or groups.

I think we both know.

If you know then spit it out.

To improve the human condition. Step towards Utopia.

I’m sure some see that as a goal of science. It can be.

When an oil company does research on how to more efficiently extract oil from the ground and uses science to better understand the physics, is that goal a utopia or is the goal capitalist in purpose?

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

Science is for science questions. I have “faith” in objective repeatable data. I don’t have faith in gut feelings and hopeful desire.

Cool. Show me your objective repeatable data from the streets for mask mandates.

That’s called moving the goalposts. “Repeatable data from the streets?” Good grief.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

I don’t have faith in gut feelings and hopeful desire.

You didn’t hopefully desire the vaccine?

I “desired” the vaccine after initial data as to efficacy and safety were released. The same data that resulted in vaccine EUAs.

[WuWei]

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

@WuWei

@Borgia_dude

I don’t know. Ask the individuals or groups.

I think we both know.

If you know then spit it out.

To improve the human condition. Step towards Utopia.

I’m sure some see that as a goal of science. It can be.

When an oil company does research on how to more efficiently extract oil from the ground and uses science to better understand the physics, is that goal a utopia or is the goal capitalist in purpose?

Good point. Yes.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

I don’t have faith in gut feelings and hopeful desire.

You didn’t hopefully desire the vaccine?

I “desired” the vaccine after initial data as to efficacy and safety were released. The same data that resulted in vaccine EUAs.

Did you not “hope” it would work, including on the variants?

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

That’s called moving the goalposts. “Repeatable data from the streets?” Good grief.

Yes. Euphemism for “in execution under field conditions by the expected operators”.

Not in a lab.

[JayJay]

@WuWei

@JayJay

@WuWei

WHAT!? The gold standard?!?

Nice try, but there’s nothing wrong with the methodology,

The scientists have to follow the methodology, however.

And it will never be higher quality than the original studies.

Done properly, the methodology is another layer in weeding out the lower quality studies.

The bigger no no these folks did was averaging together studies that had different outcomes.

That’s an error these guys should have known better than to make.

Which makes me call into question either their competence…

…or their bias.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

Done properly, the methodology is another layer in weeding out the lower quality studies.

Mmmmmm. I might be able to almost agree with that. Or at least identify them for further review.

@JayJay

The bigger no no these folks did was averaging together studies that had different outcomes.

I don’t think I agree with that.

[JayJay]

@WuWei

@JayJay

Done properly, the methodology is another layer in weeding out the lower quality studies.

Mmmmmm. I might be able to almost agree with that. Or at least identify them for further review.

@JayJay

The bigger no no these folks did was averaging together studies that had different outcomes.

I don’t think I agree with that.

The methodology fails when you do that.

I’m not the right person to give you the math behind why, however.

Let me see if I can find an online link because I consulted with an expert who explained this to me.

And yes even poor studies should not be dismissed out of hand…only called out for what they are and potentially redone if they can be.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

I don’t have faith in gut feelings and hopeful desire.

You didn’t hopefully desire the vaccine?

I “desired” the vaccine after initial data as to efficacy and safety were released. The same data that resulted in vaccine EUAs.

Did you not “hope” it would work, including on the variants?

I knew it worked. There was efficacy data. Variants were not part of the decision when the vaccine was first made available.

[WuWei]

@JayJay

The methodology fails when you do that.

Except that’s what it really is.

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

I don’t have faith in gut feelings and hopeful desire.

You didn’t hopefully desire the vaccine?

I “desired” the vaccine after initial data as to efficacy and safety were released. The same data that resulted in vaccine EUAs.

Did you not “hope” it would work, including on the variants?

I knew it worked. There was efficacy data. Variants were not part of the decision when the vaccine was first made available.

Ok, if you say so.

[JayJay]

“Hope” is not involved…only a measure of the different risk v reward.

Even now against a very contagious variant, the vaccine “works”.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

That’s called moving the goalposts. “Repeatable data from the streets?” Good grief.

Yes. Euphemism for “in execution under field conditions by the expected operators”.

Not in a lab.

Design a study in which the efficacy if any device is performed in a completely uncontrolled manner. You would have no ability to confidently say masks were worn by those who say they wore them or if they were worn appropriately. Controlled studies with healthcare providers or hospitalized patients are excluded from “data on the streets.”

Nirvana fallacy in 3…2…1…

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

Design a study in which the efficacy if any device is performed in a completely uncontrolled manner.

Operating conditions. In service testing.

[SottoVoce]

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

Design a study in which the efficacy if any device is performed in a completely uncontrolled manner.

Operating conditions. In service testing.

Assessing mask usage and efficacy is not analogous to a diesel engine or other non-biologic process. The FDA doesn’t assess medical device safety and efficacy like the NHTSA assesses vehicle safety.

[TommyLucchese]

@zantax

Meh, only took it because of my age and prior smoking history.

So you clearly don’t believe it’s dangerous or that people shouldn’t get it. That’s my point. You took it but you want to dissuade others from taking it. Why?

[zantax]

@TommyLucchese

@zantax

Meh, only took it because of my age and prior smoking history.

So you clearly don’t believe it’s dangerous or that people shouldn’t get it. That’s my point. You took it but you want to dissuade others from taking it. Why?

When have I discouraged anyone from getting it again?

[WuWei]

@SottoVoce

@WuWei

@SottoVoce

Design a study in which the efficacy if any device is performed in a completely uncontrolled manner.

Operating conditions. In service testing.

Assessing mask usage and efficacy is not analogous to a diesel engine or other non-biologic process. The FDA doesn’t assess medical device safety and efficacy like the NHTSA assesses vehicle safety.

Why not?