WW3 Please SAY NO!

[Peter_Spaeth]

I am delighted Matt's wife got better, but it would not take me long to find numerous anecdotes of people who self medicated and had disastrous results. The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

[frankbmd]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

I am delighted Matt's wife got better, but it would not take me long to find numerous anecdotes of people who self medicated and had disastrous results. The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

[Carter08]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

Listen to a doctor you trust, especially if you don’t have a medical degree. Best advice anyone can give. Don’t listen to Twitter, Fox News or MSNBC.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Carter08

Listen to a doctor you trust, especially if you don’t have a medical degree. Best advice anyone can give. Don’t listen to Twitter, Fox News or MSNBC.

For me it depends. If it's something well established in medicine, yes. If it's something novel, the reality is the average practitioner does not have the time to immerse themselves in the research and data and is most likely just going to follow the mainstream recommendation which is usually fairly predictable.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by frankbmd

Question: How many of Pfizer’s reported studies and data do not support the purported indications for their products?

Answer: The studies reported with invisible ink.

There are very interesting pieces on what antidepressant trials show overall, when you include the ones that don't get submitted in support of an NDA because they were essentially failures.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

The plural of anecdote is not data. What we need above all else is agenda-free analysis of the best data we can get, to guide rational decisionmaking.

+1. Objective investigation into datasets is 100% what we are not going to get though.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

+1. Objective investigation into datasets is 100% what we are not going to get though.

You mean you don't think a clinical trial of a drug or vaccine sponsored by the company that stands to make millions of dollars if it's successful is objective?

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

You mean you don't think a clinical trial of a drug or vaccine sponsored by the company that stands to make millions of dollars if it's successful is objective?

Sir, I would never suggest that a doctor who is paid by a company to conduct a study for them and stands to make a lot more money in future as a KOL for that company if the product being test is approved has a vested interest in finding that it works and should be approved.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by G1911

Sir, I would never suggest that a doctor who is paid by a company to conduct a study for them and stands to make a lot more money in future as a KOL for that company if the product being test is approved has a vested interest in finding that it works and should be approved.

As I learned when I read extensively about the statin trials and talked to some very qualified and knowledgeable people on the "skeptical" side, the same data can be presented in very different ways even if one assumes the integrity of the data.

And the story of the FDA's recent approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug should be a wakeup call for anyone who blindly trusts the FDA.

[G1911]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I learned when I read extensively about the statin trials and talked to some very qualified and knowledgeable people on the "skeptical" side, the same data can be presented in very different ways even if one assumes the integrity of the data.

And the story of the FDA's recent approval of Biogen's Alzheimer's drug should be a wakeup call for anyone who blindly trusts the FDA.

I've seen how things get FDA approval up close. It sure ain't honest examination.

People and organizations with a financial interest to determine X almost always determine that X is true. People seem to be cognizant of this but nonetheless, over half the population will just agree to any appeal to institutional authority, and vigorously deny anything else, regardless of actual evidence or actually following the scientific method to arrive at truth. Most of the rest, like Irv, will disagree with anything these institutions and organizations proclaim because they have been caught lying an astounding number of times. Those who disbelieve the proclamations of government institutions are probably correct more than those that just believe whatever the state says (well, whatever the state says when it suits the party and that part of the state is run by affiliates of the party), but neither is reasonable. A claim to fact is true or not true based on truth itself, not who said it, which everyone knows but seems to always forget.

The Ivermectin theory didn't originate from the right; it first came from doctors essentially experimenting and reporting positive results. Essentially anecdotal 'my patients took it and had good outcomes' isn't actual proof, but it is often what leads to testing of existing medications for something else. The establishment quickly attacked it (as they attacked or ignored every option for Covid until the vaccine, which, ironically, it was the left who were the truthers at first because Bad Orange Man was President and appeared to see the 'vaccine' as the quickest way out of the mess) before any actual testing was done to see if the hypothesis was true. Thus the right started to run with it. When your industry is heavily invested in a narrative, it is usually career suicide to challenge said narrative. Once the issue becomes politicized, any chance of an honest investigation is DOA. We will never get an honest testing of the Ivermectin hypothesis, or a host of other things that cannot be honestly examined without risking throwing the party and their funding into trouble, as well as killing the careers of those doing the legwork that are supposed to prove X and not Y.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Between financially driven agendas and politically driven agendas, it seems almost nobody gives a damn about the actual truth. What a world. On things I care about, I try to educate myself as best I can. I've probably ended up with a bit of an anti-drug bias, admittedly, but I got there because almost no doctors are willing or informed enough to have an honest discussion with you about many classes of drugs.