Our Covid Response

[Agema]

And what's your actual complaints about the paper?

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job

The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.

www.wired.com

To me, at least—someone who’s served as an editor at seven different journals, and editor in chief at two—the recent spate of decisions to bypass traditional peer review gives the lie to a pair of myths that researchers have encouraged the public to believe for years: First, that peer-reviewed journals publish only trustworthy science; and second, that trustworthy science is published only in peer-reviewed journals.

The irony of this is that it is in large part describing you.

Science used to be paywalled behind journal subscriptions or paper copies in specialised libraries: the public had limited access and next to no awareness of scientific literature at all. It was only with the advent of the internet and a move from pay to access to pay to publish that allowed this sort of communication between science and public. A problem with the desire to get information out there, and when it is flawed, its misinterpretation by people unable to tell good from bad: the latter being much of what we have been telling you is your problem. Over the last two years you have trumpetted numerous papers that have ended up retracted, and scientists that have been discredited. Nowhere have you expressed any humility: you're just blaming someone else (whilst, bizarrely, also pretending you weren't wrong).

Show me a RCT that masks work.

Okay. Where's the RCT that smoking causes cancer? Where's the RCT that HIV virus causes AIDS?

We don't need RCTs to tell us things. RCTs are the highest standard of study, but we can also demonstrate things to a high standard without them. You've retreated to bleating about RCTs because it's an intellectually fraudulent way to fob off the weight of evidence supporting mask usage as effective. And you're only doing that because of a ridiculous refusal to admit being wrong.

The guidelines have been wrong for 50+ years.

The question is stupid on numerous levels.
1) The circumstance of an anecdote told to me by my dad about one of his dead colleagues incredibly obviously precludes my ability to interrogate his dead colleague's diet in any meaningful detail.
2) The guidelines since 1980 or so have been flawed mostly over one specific issue (favouring fat reduction rather than sugar), but in many other respects were pretty good. However, this flaw led to problems that may have drawn people to higher risk of obesity and diabetes. From the given anecdote, it is obvious the colleague was neither obese nor (implicitly) diabetic.
3) Genetic predisposition to disease and illness is a thing.

 

[Silvanus]

And what's your actual complaints about the paper?

Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journals Don't Really Do Their Job

The rapid sharing of pandemic research shows there is a better way to filter good science from bad.

www.wired.com

To me, at least—someone who’s served as an editor at seven different journals, and editor in chief at two—the recent spate of decisions to bypass traditional peer review gives the lie to a pair of myths that researchers have encouraged the public to believe for years: First, that peer-reviewed journals publish only trustworthy science; and second, that trustworthy science is published only in peer-reviewed journals.

Big surprise: someone whose work is not peer reviewed, and who wants to shove advocacy into it, is giving justifications for why scrutiny and due process is unimportant.

Do you not see how much covid spreads in very highly vaccinated and immune populations? Yet you're gonna be concerned if the dude a table over from you in a restaurant is unvaccinated?

I'm generally not going to be "concerned", except on a broad societal level, because I live in a capital city and its unavoidable that I pass by quite a few unvaccinated people in any given week.

I'm still capable of recognising that my risk is greater than it would be if they were all vaccinated or otherwise immune. Though the risk would still exist.

Yes, this is mega basic stuff. Do you not know that you don't need to constantly have antibodies to be protected against a virus? Antibodies are only one part of your immune defense. And why do you need a constantly active antibodies against something when you body remembers which antibodies to make if you were to get infected again? You've gone rabbit hole deep into the "antibodies are everything" covid messaging.

You seem incapable of speaking outside of absolutes. I mentioned that something is significant, so therefore I must believe its "everything" and ignore everything else. No, I don't buy into your all-or-nothing rhetorical approach. Immunity has quite a few elements to it. Each is impactful. Lose one, your protection will be lower. Not gone; lower.

You're using Andrew Wakefield as why you don't trust experts? His own fucking redacted study literally says it didn't prove anything. You just had to read, that's it.

*facepalm*

I do trust experts. However, I approach their work by looking at the consensus. I don't pick certain specific ones who say things I like in a field of hundreds or thousands.

Andrew Wakefield is a prime example of the pitfalls of focusing on individual, media-present experts rather than the consensus, and coming to a dangerously wrong conclusion.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

The irony of this is that it is in large part describing you.

Science used to be paywalled behind journal subscriptions or paper copies in specialised libraries: the public had limited access and next to no awareness of scientific literature at all. It was only with the advent of the internet and a move from pay to access to pay to publish that allowed this sort of communication between science and public. A problem with the desire to get information out there, and when it is flawed, its misinterpretation by people unable to tell good from bad: the latter being much of what we have been telling you is your problem. Over the last two years you have trumpetted numerous papers that have ended up retracted, and scientists that have been discredited. Nowhere have you expressed any humility: you're just blaming someone else (whilst, bizarrely, also pretending you weren't wrong).



Okay. Where's the RCT that smoking causes cancer? Where's the RCT that HIV virus causes AIDS?

We don't need RCTs to tell us things. RCTs are the highest standard of study, but we can also demonstrate things to a high standard without them. You've retreated to bleating about RCTs because it's an intellectually fraudulent way to fob off the weight of evidence supporting mask usage as effective. And you're only doing that because of a ridiculous refusal to admit being wrong.



The question is stupid on numerous levels.
1) The circumstance of an anecdote told to me by my dad about one of his dead colleagues incredibly obviously precludes my ability to interrogate his dead colleague's diet in any meaningful detail.
2) The guidelines since 1980 or so have been flawed mostly over one specific issue (favouring fat reduction rather than sugar), but in many other respects were pretty good. However, this flaw led to problems that may have drawn people to higher risk of obesity and diabetes. From the given anecdote, it is obvious the colleague was neither obese nor (implicitly) diabetic.
3) Genetic predisposition to disease and illness is a thing.

What papers and scientists did I trumpet that have been discredited? You act like I link to people like Bret Weinstein or that guy that "invented" mRNA vaccines. You constantly link to poor studies and act like you some expert purveyor of knowledge.

Where's this non-RCT proof that masks work? This will probably have you link to some bad paper about masks like that one paper comparing schools that included remote learning and was a complete bullshit paper. It's super obvious if masks do anything, it's very little at best. You need an RCT for that. Masks aren't like parachutes where it's fucking obvious they work. And all the actual RCTs on masks show they do nothing or very little.

The Study That Helped Spur the U.S. Stop-Smoking Movement

Most Americans born into the generations that came after the Baby Boom have gone their entire lives aware that smoking can cause lung cancer. But this fact has not always been well-known – and at one time it wasn’t known at all.

www.cancer.org

Doctors are still giving really bad info to patients on what to eat. My mom's doctor told her to limit egg consumption when that makes no sense and would probably only have her eating less healthy. That's why I asked if he followed the guidelines or actually ate a heart healthy diet. Also, you can be "skinny fat" and develop diabetes just like an obese person.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Big surprise: someone whose work is not peer reviewed, and who wants to shove advocacy into it, is giving justifications for why scrutiny and due process is unimportant.



I'm generally not going to be "concerned", except on a broad societal level, because I live in a capital city and its unavoidable that I pass by quite a few unvaccinated people in any given week.

I'm still capable of recognising that my risk is greater than it would be if they were all vaccinated or otherwise immune. Though the risk would still exist.



You seem incapable of speaking outside of absolutes. I mentioned that something is significant, so therefore I must believe its "everything" and ignore everything else. No, I don't buy into your all-or-nothing rhetorical approach. Immunity has quite a few elements to it. Each is impactful. Lose one, your protection will be lower. Not gone; lower.



*facepalm*

I do trust experts. However, I approach their work by looking at the consensus. I don't pick certain specific ones who say things I like in a field of hundreds or thousands.

Andrew Wakefield is a prime example of the pitfalls of focusing on individual, media-present experts rather than the consensus, and coming to a dangerously wrong conclusion.

Tell me why the paper is actually wrong...

Sure, you're risk is probably ever so very slightly higher around unvaccinated but it's so slight, it would be ridiculous to even consider it let alone worry about it. And you're going to catch covid anyway, what does it matter if it's from an immune person or not immune person?

You're protected from severe disease, what else do you fucking want? We can't stop people from catching colds.

I don't just listen to one person. You can't also listen to everyone either. You find a few trustworthy and knowledgeable people and pay attention to what they say. When has say Paul Offit been wrong about anything he's said in this whole pandemic? He's the top US vaccine expert and outside of probably a prediction here and there (which everyone has been wrong on at some point), he's been spot-on about the science every time.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

I don't just listen to one person. You can't also listen to everyone either. You find a few trustworthy and knowledgeable people and pay attention to what they say. When has say Paul Offit been wrong about anything he's said in this whole pandemic? He's the top US vaccine expert and outside of probably a prediction here and there (which everyone has been wrong on at some point), he's been spot-on about the science every time.

Paul Offit's hospital correctly requires even people who've had covid to also be vaccinated

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Paul Offit's hospital correctly requires even people who've had covid to also be vaccinated

And Paul Offit doesn't agree with that. Your point? The science is literally not on your side, why do you go against the science?

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

And Paul Offit doesn't agree with that. Your point? The science is literally not on your side, why do you go against the science?

This Paul Offit, right? Want to make sure we're talking about the same guy

Should I Still Get a COVID-19 Vaccine If I Was Previously Infected? | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Dr. Paul Offit explains why people who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 should still get the COVID-19 vaccine.

www.chop.edu

 

[Phoenixmgs]

This Paul Offit, right? Want to make sure we're talking about the same guy

Should I Still Get a COVID-19 Vaccine If I Was Previously Infected? | Children's Hospital of Philadelphia

Dr. Paul Offit explains why people who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 should still get the COVID-19 vaccine.

www.chop.edu

But I think it's fair to say that the answer to the question can natural infection protect against moderate to severe disease associated with re-exposures is, yes.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

But I think it's fair to say that the answer to the question can natural infection protect against moderate to severe disease associated with re-exposures is, yes.

I...did you just ignore literally everything else about that video to pull a sound byte? Including the direct advice both before and after that as to why it's useful to get a vaccine even if you've already been infected?

 

[thebobmaster]

That's Phoenix for you. He'll hear what he wants to hear, believe what he wants to believe, and reality better damn well work to his beck and call if it doesn't want to be ignored.

 

[Seanchaidh]

 

[Agema]

You constantly link to poor studies and act like you some expert purveyor of knowledge.

I am an expert purveyor of knowledge. It is literally my job, and I have lots of experience in it. I am employed to both interpret and explain complex information for the education of under- and postgraduate students, and produce scientific output of international standing.

I have overwhelmingly linked reasonable studies. You are just too incompetent to assess how good studies are - as evinced by the complete dross that you have uncritically posted yourself - and too intellectually dishonest to listen or learn.

Where's this non-RCT proof that masks work? This will probably have you link to some bad paper...

And here you demonstrate in full force just how incompetent you are. There is rarely if ever a single, all or nothing, paper that conclusively answers any question. It's a body of work across dozens, hundreds of studies. Even worse, you've already been told this. Many of these studies have already been posted over the last two years, and you've just refused to accept any of them with a series of ever-more feeble and irrational objections. What's the point in posting them again, when you ignored them first time round?

Doctors are still giving really bad info to patients on what to eat. My mom's doctor told her to limit egg consumption when that makes no sense and would probably only have her eating less healthy. That's why I asked if he followed the guidelines or actually ate a heart healthy diet. Also, you can be "skinny fat" and develop diabetes just like an obese person.

All I'm reading is "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah."

 

[Silvanus]

I don't just listen to one person. You can't also listen to everyone either. You find a few trustworthy and knowledgeable people and pay attention to what they say. When has say Paul Offit been wrong about anything he's said in this whole pandemic? He's the top US vaccine expert and outside of probably a prediction here and there (which everyone has been wrong on at some point), he's been spot-on about the science every time.

Do you actually understand what a scientific consensus is?

It's not finding "a few trustworthy and knowledgeable people" and exclusively listening to their opinions. Because even if someone is an expert, they can be out of step with the consensus, compromised in other ways, etc-- and there's no reason to be listening to them over anyone else in the same field.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I...did you just ignore literally everything else about that video to pull a sound byte? Including the direct advice both before and after that as to why it's useful to get a vaccine even if you've already been infected?

Why do you need more protection if you have enough protection? You do realize probably at least 90% of the population is fine with being protected from severe disease. Why would you force them to get something they know that they don't need?

The Truth About Myocarditis, Kids, Boosters, Natural Immunity, & More (w/Dr. Paul Offit)

Answers to our top COVID vaccine questions, straight from the dude.

zdoggmd.com

But I think if somebody says, “Look, I don’t want to get, I don’t want to have to get a vaccine. I don’t want to have to be, say, mandated to get a vaccine, because I’ve been naturally infected,” I think that’s actually a reasonable argument to make.

That's Phoenix for you. He'll hear what he wants to hear, believe what he wants to believe, and reality better damn well work to his beck and call if it doesn't want to be ignored.

That's literally what the fucking science and CDC says. If you don't want to believe facts, then that's your choice. Stop forcing your beliefs on other people is all I got to say.

Here's the chart from the CDC:

https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/113253

 

[Phoenixmgs]

I am an expert purveyor of knowledge. It is literally my job, and I have lots of experience in it. I am employed to both interpret and explain complex information for the education of under- and postgraduate students, and produce scientific output of international standing.

I have overwhelmingly linked reasonable studies. You are just too incompetent to assess how good studies are - as evinced by the complete dross that you have uncritically posted yourself - and too intellectually dishonest to listen or learn.



And here you demonstrate in full force just how incompetent you are. There is rarely if ever a single, all or nothing, paper that conclusively answers any question. It's a body of work across dozens, hundreds of studies. Even worse, you've already been told this. Many of these studies have already been posted over the last two years, and you've just refused to accept any of them with a series of ever-more feeble and irrational objections. What's the point in posting them again, when you ignored them first time round?



All I'm reading is "Blah blah blah, blah blah blah, blah."

No you haven't, you've constantly linked me to poor studies. Like that horrible one about % of old people that died that doesn't tell you anything about how well a state protected or didn't protect old people. All the states that did like the worst overall did the best in protecting the elderly? Because that makes sense...

There are no good mask studies that say they work, they are all extremely cherry picked (especially with regards to time periods). Many have just horrible methods like the school one comparing schools that masked and didn't mask and includes remote learning as schools that masked, which is hilariously bad. The one journalist figured it out because the study had more total schools than the state or district even had. Also, why do the RCTs of masks say they either do very little or do nothing at all?

I know you don't like actual facts.

Do you actually understand what a scientific consensus is?

It's not finding "a few trustworthy and knowledgeable people" and exclusively listening to their opinions. Because even if someone is an expert, they can be out of step with the consensus, compromised in other ways, etc-- and there's no reason to be listening to them over anyone else in the same field.

You don't understand what a scientific consensus is because you keep saying there's a scientific consensus about all these things when there isn't. Most of the things the US did, the rest of our peer nations didn't do. If there's some scientific consensus on all this stuff, why'd most of the world not listen to this "consensus"? Even one of the most ardent covid safety public health voices out there, Leana Wen, has said cloth masks are nothing more than a decorative face covering.

That's why I listen to more than one person... And I listen to people with different perspectives and leanings. It's like just watching/reading say left news and only getting the one perspective while someone else watches/reads less overall news but partakes in left and right and center news outlets.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Why do you need more protection if you have enough protection? You do realize probably at least 90% of the population is fine with being protected from severe disease. Why would you force them to get something they know that they don't need?

The Truth About Myocarditis, Kids, Boosters, Natural Immunity, & More (w/Dr. Paul Offit)

Answers to our top COVID vaccine questions, straight from the dude.

zdoggmd.com

But I think if somebody says, “Look, I don’t want to get, I don’t want to have to get a vaccine. I don’t want to have to be, say, mandated to get a vaccine, because I’ve been naturally infected,” I think that’s actually a reasonable argument to make.

Man, I'm not gonna watch an hour of a podcast, so I'm just going to assume that, like in that sub three minute video you ignored most of, he said you should get it anyway immediately after

 

[Silvanus]

You don't understand what a scientific consensus is because you keep saying there's a scientific consensus about all these things when there isn't. Most of the things the US did, the rest of our peer nations didn't do. If there's some scientific consensus on all this stuff, why'd most of the world not listen to this "consensus"?

I've... not said there's a scientific consensus for US public health policies. Researchers and scientists usually aren't policy advocates; it's not their job to direct what countries should do. They advise on the science and politicians then balance that with other political considerations.

There is a scientific consensus for... you know, the science. Masks, vaccines, community transmission. What they do.

That's why I listen to more than one person... And I listen to people with different perspectives and leanings. It's like just watching/reading say left news and only getting the one perspective while someone else watches/reads less overall news but partakes in left and right and center news outlets.

You pick a small number of media personalities and then follow the ones who say the stuff you want to be true.

There are no good mask studies that say they work

Oh, honestly, just stop it with that BS.

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2014564118

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2119266119

Factors affecting adherence to non-pharmaceutical interventions for COVID-19 infections in the first year of the pandemic in the UK | BMJ Open

https://www.poverty-action.org/sites/default/files/publications/Mask_Second_Stage_Paper_20211108.pdf.pdf

Lancet Review

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

You pick a small number of media personalities and then follow the ones who say the stuff you want to be true.

And if they then say things he doesn't want to be true, he ignores that bit

 

[Agema]

Why do you need more protection if you have enough protection?

We can just point out the rank hypocrisy of you cherry picking the opinion of Paul Offit when it suits you and not when it doesn't. If Paul Offit saying infection confers some immunity is good enough for you, then why is Paul Offit recommending you get vaccinated even if you have been infected not good enough for you?

No you haven't, you've constantly linked me to poor studies. Like that horrible one about % of old people that died that doesn't tell you anything about how well a state protected or didn't protect old people.

I'm not sure what is wrong with that study. It pretty much just tells us the percentage of old people who died. You have identified no clear flaws with it.

You're complaining about an argument, which is that if data show lots of Floridian oldsters died, this is inconsistent with your claim that Florida was unusually good at protecting the elderly. That's nothing to do with the quality of the study. The argument may be right or wrong, but at face value, it's valid according to the data presented. What you're doing by attacking the study is attempting to pretend there's something wrong with it so you don't have to deal with the argument from it, as you have no contrary data. And as you have presented no compelling argument against the study, calling it shit is just worthless ad hominem.

You will notice that when I tell you why I think a study is shit, I explain. You occasionally also try to explain why you don't think studies are good, except as you don't really understand what you're reading, your explanation is usually very low quality. And then when I correct you, you get pissy and act like I don't have training, qualifications and over two decades experience. But I do have those, and you do not.

 

[Seanchaidh]