I haven't seen any of these. I just run into irrational and offensive people like you that accuse me of wanting to drink bleach when I bring up the topic of Ivermectin.
This article removed all doubt for me. I needed to see the thought process while pouring over the studies.
You shouldn't make so many assumptions about people based on your political bias. Some people want to understand. That doesn't make them foolish or antivaxers.
So go study medicine, assuming you have 10 years to burn and are willing to take a massive pay cut.
The average HN'er probably knows how to program a computer and some of them may even know how to program one well.
If a guy that runs a fishing boat with not even the most basic idea about programming, hardware, software, satellite systems, general relativity and integrating all of the above into a working solution came to them with a request to really understand how his GPS works before he would put it to use we'd likely tell them to just trust the experts.
It's not quite the same. The people who build / maintain GPS have a lot more reason to trust them, and as a result, people do.
Until a while ago, if I recall correctly. GPS was <<lying>>. Its accuracy was deliberately hobbled to within tens of meters in order to prevent it being used for destructive purposes, I believe.
Did the GPS system know your position with a much greater accuracy ?
Yes.
Did the GPS system by design not provide this accurate information and instead sent something less accurate?
Yes.
How do you call that thing where you tell a partial truth? At best, a half truth.
For example the US government remarks about masks in February 2020 (I think it was February), were partly true.
It's trusted because it's been far more trustworthy than public health guidance and policy. And the same goes for airplanes, brake pads, and other tired comparisons. Trusting one does not imply one should trust all other proclaimed experts in all other fields in all other contexts.
That's a tautology. It's more trustworthy because it hasn't been politicized.
> So “believe experts”? That would have been better advice in this case. But the experts have beclowned themselves again and again throughout this pandemic, from the first stirrings of “anyone who worries about coronavirus reaching the US is dog-whistling anti-Chinese racism”, to the Surgeon-General tweeting “Don’t wear a face mask”, to government campaigns focusing entirely on hand-washing (HEPA filters? What are those?) Not only would a recommendation to trust experts be misleading, I don’t even think you could make it work. People would notice how often the experts were wrong, and your public awareness campaign would come to naught.
> But also: one of the data detectives who exposed some fraudulent ivermectin papers was a medical student, which puts him somewhere between pond scum and hookworms on the Medical Establishment Totem Pole. Some of the people whose studies he helped sink were distinguished Professors of Medicine and heads of Health Institutes. If anyone interprets “trust experts” as “mere medical students must not publicly challenge heads of Health Institutes”, then we’ve accidentally thrown the fundamental principle of science out with the bathwater. But Pierre Kory, spiritual leader of the Ivermectin Jihad, is a distinguished critical care doctor. What heuristic tells us “Medical students should be allowed to publicly challenge heads of Health Institutes” but not “Distinguished critical care doctors should be allowed to publicly challenge the CDC”?
I think it is horribly demeaning to respond to someone asking how GPS work by saying "you can't try to understand without years of training, just trust us." That is exactly the kind of response that alienates people and fosters mistrust.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre_Kory
Really, in a just world that guy would lose his license to practice medicine. I find it interesting that 'the lone voice' has such a power over 'the establishment', as though the lone voice is always right because they're the underdog.
There is an excellent movie about the theme of an infectious disease where some blogger/journalist goes all out on promoting 'Forsythia', a medication that does absolutely nothing against the disease, but that - using the exact same mechanisms as Ivermectin, HCQ and others - gets promoted to the hilt. I'm not sure if this is life imitating art or some kind of coincidence but it is uncanny to which degree the stories overlap:
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1598778/
We so want to believe in that miracle cure that big pharma is denying us.
I mean, that's half the job of a professional programmer right there.
It's great you changed your mind but I bet there's plenty of people who haven't. Like I wonder what Bret Weinstein now thinks.