Should We Always Trust Experts and Dismiss Nonexperts?

F/N: Followup to 36, on case based reasoning: https://thehealthcareblog.com/blog/2016/03/30/the-case-for-case-based-reasoning/ KF kairosfocus

PS: The comments thread is a capital illustration of the sort of polarisation I have been pointing to. And oh, yes, it brings up issues of fallacy of confident manner while setting up and knocking over strawman caricatures. Where BTW, inductive logic cannot deliver proof, apart from a weakened sense, where in general scientific explanations cannot rise to moral certainty. To be specific, ANOVA and double blind, control group placebo studies do not deliver strong sense proof. So, part of the problem is, our logic and epistemology are weak. kairosfocus

EG, Unfortunately, it starts with a strawman caricature: "if only THE SCIENTISTS would get out of the way . . . " It lost me at that point. The people who are reporting tests, case studies and protocols are medical doctors and research scientists. Starting with the leading relevant scientist in France. No true Sassenach doesn't hack it. Similarly, to characterise evidence as "initial anecdotes" in a context of "Science does not work that way . . . " manifests the strawman caricature fallacy. Someone has not done his homework well enough to responsibly describe the side/case he obviously opposes and we see clear signs of the connexion to evolutionary materialistic scientism and its selective hyperskepticism trying to substitute for prudence. That's within one minute. Polarising fail, at the outset. I forced myself to waste time viewing, in order to make a wider point. He goes on to a simplified survey of possible action mechanisms of the CQ family, then transitions to oh, you don't have clinical trials proof that this will work on SARS2 in the human body. Contradiction, he misreports in vitro by Raoult that it does kill SARS2, and glides over his earlier note as to how well this family of compounds gets into the body and its cells, with ability to fight invaders . . . in short, it is a promising broad spectrum anti pathogen. Also, he fails to address significance of, reducing cytokine storm. Where, of course converging evidence INCREASES likelihood beyond mere addition. The interlocking, mutually supportive whole is greater than the sum of its parts. And, we need to address the issue of a health emergency in which criteria for decision shift drastically because consequences of Type I and Type II errors shift. Here, on Type I [HCQ fails to directly kill SARS2], it is still a proved anti-inflammatory known to work in the body thus likely to help stave off a fatal cytokine storm. On Type II error, you refuse to use such a proved anti-inflammatory which also kills the virus in several possible ways. Where, BTW, a main reason why Chinese doctors tried the CQ family in the first instance was to address cytokine storms. Direct antiviral action is an additional effect. Also, by April 10, it wasn't "one small study from France" and more -- yet more strawman tactics. Where, too, pharmacology is the study of poisons in small doses and the CQ-HCQ family has been managed routinely for safety for 60+ years; the suggestion unsafe is out of order given what is already in the recent record from say the Lupus Society people as Dr Oz reported. The Type II error propagates into lending to peaking behaviour of the epidemic, with consequences of overwhelmed health care systems. Decision-making under the press of the equivalent of a world war is drastically different from decision outside of such a crisis. That insight is part of what returning to the cardinal virtue and charioteer of the virtues, prudence, brings to the table. KF kairosfocus

Ed proves that he is incapable of following the discussion. We have already discussed the drugs ability to do what is in the video, Ed. At least TRY to keep up. That part was in the first links from "Watts Up With That". ET

KF, here is a video that might be of interest with respect to hydroxychloroquine. https://youtu.be/va6j4JITJoE Ed George

Here is one doctor's recommendations to his peers on how to treat the disease. He publishes it on the site of a medical school. https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf This is from the Eastern Virginia Medical School. It is quite extensive. I got it from the latest MedCram video.

Thank you, Jerry

You are welcome. It is amazing how many post things without doing any reading from different sources. jerry

JS01, Recession, yes; depression or collapse and stagnation, not likely. Not unless there is massive depopulation and chaos comparable to the collapse of the Western Roman Empire or some sort of Zombie movie. Which is truly unlikely. Germany and Japan were back in business as growing states within a few years of WW2. KF kairosfocus

@Jstanley01

not to mention extent of nuclear weapon stocks around the world.

Could a philosophical naturalist clarify if mass killings using nuclear weapons constitute: a) 'natural selection'? b) 'artificial selection'? It surely there is a change in the allele frequencies after the event. Since we are animals and we have evolved, the 'ToE' has to offer some explanation. Truthfreedom

@55 Ed George

and given that it is being so widely prescribed in the US

You know the number of people who are receiving HCQ? Please do share! Truthfreedom

KF @ 59: Indeed, we already decided to take the risk. Except I would argue that we went through the fence and over the edge in a fog, so it's hard to know while still in midair what the damage will be. History shows a range of possibilities:

The Three Categories of Economic Downturns Known to History 1) Recessions – are short-wave (business cycle) inventory events which occur every 7-10 years. They are caused by the overcapacity that builds up during economic booms. Fiscal stimulus (increased government spending) and monetary reflation (printing money) may work at the margins. Recessions may be sharp but are relatively short (months). Examples: The business-cycle recessions in the United States since World War II. 2) Depressions – are long-wave debt crises which occur about once a generation, usually following and/or preceding wars. They are caused by the cascading defaults that ensue when an economy can no longer service its debts and maintain the value of its currency at the same time. Depressions are relatively long (years). Examples: The Weimar Republic Hyperinflation 1921-25, The Great Depression 1929-42. 3) Destitution – is the state of an economy that fails to rebound over decades due to non-cyclical civilization-ending events. Destitution is caused by invasion, pandemic, famine, or some combination thereof, which results in governmental and societal collapse usually accompanied by a demographic collapse. Destitution remains permanent until a new civilization emerges. Examples: The Bronze Age Collapse, The Fall of Rome, The Conquest of the Aztec Empire.

Number 1 is what our President has gone all-in on. Number 2 seems likely to me. Number 3 cannot be ruled out, given the possibility of deadlier second and third waves, not to mention extent of nuclear weapon stocks around the world. Personally at this point, I wouldn’t rule out any of the above along with whatever permutations in between. jstanley01

Thank you, Jerry. Those medcram videos are great! ET

I have repeatedly stated that I support its use in a hospital setting

I believe that some are arguing rather logically that the hospital is the wrong time to prescribe and a wise management of the disease is to get it early. Thus, it should be done before hospitalization is needed. The real solution to this crisis is preventing someone who has the virus from needing hospitalization. This particular video is about how to enhance the immune system. But it ends up analyzing the advantages of reducing the number of those needing hospitalization. And these advantages are extremely positive in lessening death from the disease and especially demands on the hospital system. However, if the patient gets to the hospital with the disease and did not receive prior treatment, then by all means give them the treatment. But that is sub-optimal. MedCram which is a US medical site for doctors and medical professionals has been advocating this for weeks. https://www.youtube.com/user/MEDCRAMvideos/videos Start at 1:45 of this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1LHgyfPPQ8&t=942s jerry

JS01, you raise good points. I would speak of economic damage rather than risks, though: it's that certain. Unfortunately, it was arguable that absent strict social isolation under war-like conditions, up to 40 millions might otherwise have died; comparable to the European phase of WW2. The toll for Spanish Flu speaks to that. My own view is that a serious economic casualty had to be taken one way or another once this disease broke out internationally, and I am by no means sure that the losses otherwise would be lower than what we face now; and while a bad flu season is a comparative, this could easily have been far worse, indeed, chatter on how it damages red blood cells and organs should raise some concern. Sometimes, you have a choice of frying pan or fire. Even now, there is a significant issue of follow on waves. That is part of why finding effective treatments is so urgent. A vaccine is not coming along in a hurry. The good news is, once a lid is put on it, economies will begin to come back, especially the US and Chinese economies that now seem to be primary global drivers. (I'm not sure whether India has a full seat in that club yet.) KF kairosfocus

EG, I could do a full bore roll the tape but why do so. The point is, that in 52 you claimed, regarding HCQ "it has not undergone efficacy testing." That is false, based on around the world testing that has been noted on here at UD for weeks, and I called you on it. Moreover, there is an issue that there is a call based on experience, to recognise that once symptoms emerge, early treatment with a cocktail makes a big difference (never mind, that later treatment also helps), which cuts across your [in-]hospital remarks. I have particularly noted from Dr Oz, on how an outpatient test parallel to that of Prof Raoult, was stopped by political decision. Dr Zelenko's work is also directly relevant. KF kairosfocus

Having shut down the economy based on expert medical opinion, one question begs itself: What do medical experts know about the risks associated with shutting down an economy compared to anyone else? In fact, an expert in one field is a mere layman in all other fields, including medical experts regarding economics. Consider that one expert, from his vantage point, may calculate that swerving to avoid a tree and running into a fence instead is self-evidently superior to hitting the tree. Where another expert, from her vantage point, sees that just beyond the fence there is a 200-ft. cliff. If there is one criticism that economists have leveled -- some of whom claim to know Trump – it is that nobody talked to them about the economic risks before taking drastic action. See: John Taylor: COVID-19 And the Economy | Hoover Virtual Policy Briefing jstanley01

Yes, Ed, you do have serious comprehension issues. We don't know the mortality rate. We don't know who was given the treatment. ET

KF, do you have a serious comprehension issue? I have repeatedly stated that I support its use in a hospital setting. I believe there is ample evidence to support this. Where I would draw the line at this point is prescribing it to people with minor symptoms until a full clinical trial has been completed. But again, if it had significant curative powers, and given that it is being so widely prescribed in the US that there are shortages, I would have expected to see a reduction in mortality rates by now. This has not happened. Canada, which does not allow it to be prescribed for COVID-19 and a higher median age, has a lower mortality rate. Ed George

EG, the drug has been repeatedly tested. All over the world. The time for belittling that is over. KF kairosfocus

F/N, OT: Women of the Gulag, a reminder https://www.the-american-interest.com/2020/04/11/the-forgotten-women-of-the-gulag/ KF kairosfocus

KF, there are enough doctors in the US using it that it is in short supply. That strongly suggests that a significant fraction of those infected are getting it. Yet we still see a higher mortality in the US than in Canada. This in spite of the fact that Canada is not using the drug and the median age in Canada is higher than that in the US, putting more Canadians at a higher risk because of their age. Don’t get me wrong, I am all in favour of using this drug in the hospital as long as the patients are informed that it has not undergone efficacy testing. Under those conditions, if I were hospitalized, I would agree to the treatment. Ed George

Just because it, hydroxychloroquine, has been approved for use doesn't mean it is being widely used. And it needs to be used in conjunction with zinc for maximum effect- that's what the science says, anyway. IOW Ed George argues from ignorance, as usual. We don't know what the death rate is because we don't know the numbers of infected. We don't know the number of people taking any form of chloroquine. ET

EG, we are seeing a stout resistance to its use and even political stopping of studies. I suspect a good number of doctors in such an ambulance chasing society will therefore shy away from it; especially from early treatment. However, from the obvious small minority there are indicators of good results consistent with results elsewhere. KF kairosfocus

BA77, I have put up your graph alongside a couple of others that help give context. KF kairosfocus

KF@45, Hydroxychloroquine has been approved for use in US hospitals for a while. If it was very effective we would expect to see a lower fatality rate as compare to a country that does not use it. The fatality rate in the US currently stands at 3.8%. Canada, which has a similar criteria for testing, and a similar proportionate number of the population tested, currently has a fatality rate of 2.5%. Ed George

BA & JVL, OWID is indeed great, and I have been using its work. KF kairosfocus

Earth to Bob O'H- as an evolutionist you don't have any idea how science is done. ET

BO'H: over several weeks UD has posted several fact-driven articles on Covid-19. One of the relevant facts has been that over about five days, the HCQ cocktail causes a steady, strong decline to zero. It is a bit sad that you are not familiar with that key observation, which he and others have put up in both French and English. It is then worse that you take that as an excuse to refuse to address the underlying logic behind inductive reasoning and why we see lawlike regular patterns in the world. Okay, we cannot stop you from doing that, but we can draw our own conclusions. KF kairosfocus

Bob O'H says that I am

"oblivious to your cluelessness about how science is actually done."

This is especially rich coming from a Darwinist, Bob O'Hara, contrary to the dream world ivory tower that you live in, the fact that you are a Darwinist, in and of itself, proves beyond any shadow of a doubt that you would not know real science if it bit you on the rear end. Again, if I met someone like you, who ignores evidence when it does not suit his preferences, working at the Chemical factory where I worked in Texas, I would fire them immediately and do my damnedest to see that they never worked in the gulf coast area again. As far as real science is concerned, and how it actually operates in the real world, you are a danger to yourself and everyone else around you. Again, you would not real science if it bit you on the rear end! bornagain77

@Kairosfocus 30:

(JT) Prof Raoult heads a leading institute and doubtless is doing many papers in parallel, where, he is publishing with colleagues. In short the evidence you point to implies that his research factory is working well, thank you. As you full well know, as an experienced researcher.

What an stylish punch in the face. :) This is why our adversaries hate D. Raoult, because he (among countless others), has proven their beloved Bearded god/ barnacle collector was wrong. That is why they resort to slander. Read and relish yourself (peer-reviewed):

"Moreover, Karl Popper claimed that the theory of evolution was not a scientific theory (Popper, 2002). From our point of view, the theory of evolution is a scientific theory however it is an outdated theory. Darwin's theory should not become a religion but remain a scientific theory from another era that can be refined based on the actual insights from microbial genomics." Vicky Merhej and Didier Raoult

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3428605/#!po=27.5974 Truthfreedom

@41 Bob O'H Giving up? It sounds like that. Truthfreedom

ba77 @ 35 - you may disagree, but that doesn't change the fact that you're making false and insulting accusations. It's not worth engaging further, as you are oblivious to your cluelessness about how science is actually done. kf @ 36 - I have no idea what you're referring to in your first paragraph, so I'm afraid not going to bother with the rest. Life's too short. Bob O'H

Off topic. I notice that News hasn’t posted anything in almost a week. I hope she is OK. Ed George

Here is a bit better graph for understanding exactly what we are talking about in terms of Raoult's impressive "mortality rate of 0.5 per cent, in elderly patients" in France Median Age vs. Case fatality rate of COVID-19 https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/case-fatality-rate-of-covid-19-vs-median-age bornagain77

Bornagain77: Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus Excellent website!! JVL

as to Bob's citation of South Korea's abnormally low fatality rate to try to be more in line with Raoult's result for a low fatality rate among the elderly in his 1000 patient study, here is a more realistic look: Fatality Rates worldwide https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/deaths-covid-19-vs-case-fatality-rate also see Total confirmed cases vs. deaths https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-19-total-confirmed-cases-vs-total-confirmed-deaths per Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus bornagain77

BO'H: I noted, on evidence you could readily access [have you really followed what has been covered here at UD in recent weeks?] that the key pattern is that in 5 - 7 days typically, there is a distinctive reduction NOT paralleled by other approaches. Both Doctors and patients are speaking to that. Earlier, I even noted on the 4th power fluid flow with constriction law to suggest a possible reason why some patients speak of significantly better feeling within a day; notably a state legislator in the news over the past few days. With all due respect, you are obscuring significant differences that do not fit your preferred narrative. The bigger picture is, that all of this reflects the squandering of social capital due to needless polarisation, building on the earlier problem of imagining that skepticism is a virtue (which is then substituted, ill-advisedly, for prudence). FYI, all that is being argued for is that with clinician supervision, early off label use of HCQ [preferably in a cocktail with antibiotics and Zn supplement] is warranted on cumulative evidence in hand, and that reports of clinical success in such treatments in significant numbers carry weight. As was noted already, we do not need a double-blind, no-sun control study to reasonably and confidently infer that the Sun is likely to rise later this morning. Especially, in a context with a reasonable dynamical model on the table. That extends to more probabilistic cases, the inference moving to an odds form. This is of course, a matter of applied inductive logic, and I argue that it pivots on the principle of distinct identity. Namely, A is itself, i/l/o its core, distinguishing characteristics. Just so, A will exhibit stable properties reflecting such characteristics. And even when A is subject to change, that change will reflect a deeper level of such characteristics, e.g. growth, senescence, process of a disease across phases etc. For sadly apt example, cancers are currently assessed on four stages. In that context, projected outcomes can be probabilistic, e.g. a sample of RA material has a given decay constant that reliably predicts that a given fraction of the population will decay per unit time, although we cannot predict just which atoms will do so. The probabilistic behaviour is thus seen to reflect characteristics of the nuclear structure. So, we can come back in from the angle of observations. When under reasonably similar circumstances, we can see a pattern of behaviours for cases of a given type, with some reliability [heavy unsupported objects fall at the rate g N/kg], or odds [if that is a fair die, it will tumble to a deuce 1/6 of the time, more or less], we can responsibly infer that underlying stable properties are being reflected in the behaviour. Double-blind, control group studies are only one of various forms of experiment design to that end. Under relevant circumstances [esp. familiar from Astronomy and Astrophysics in the first instance] observation studies can be pivotal. For relevant historical case, I point to Ptolemy, Brahe, Kepler, Newton and Haley. The observations of Mars were pivotal to elucidating the inference, elliptical orbits. Onward, further studies injected the issue of perturbations then chaos. Along the way, a fair part of statistics emerged by way of exploring variations in observation, e.g. Gauss' Normal error curve and the challenge of the personal equation. Now, I am not arguing that double blind control studies boil down to bureaucratic red tape. When we have time, resources and the like, they are useful. So is ANOVA and so are other similar devices of investigation. No, our problem is that we face urgency in the face of a pandemic with a significant, rapid onset fatality rate. In that context, it is manifestly questionable to demand a prolonged investigation that as a part of its procedure exposed a material part of the subjects to a known ineffective treatment that could be rapidly fatal. Further to this, it is already established that as at March 19 the US FDA approved compassionate and exploratory off label use of HCQ, then within days of the second Raoult study, it issued a further level of emergency approval. In that context, a mass of success cases is growing, documented doubtless through standard clinician case files. The belittling of Dr Raoult and others, the implicit -- not even worth mentioning -- dismissal of earlier studies and protocols, etc, is therefore imprudent and in context needlessly polarising. We are NOT dealing with a few isolated anecdotes but with a reasonably consistent pattern. Namely, that it seems reasonable that when symptoms emerge, it is sensible to try this cocktail, just as it would be to look at other possible emerging treatments. For instance, I note a treatment that may have promise for dangerously advanced cases:

Six critically ill coronavirus patients in Israel who are considered high-risk for mortality have been treated with Pluristem’s placenta-based cell-therapy product and survived, according to preliminary data provided by the Haifa-based company. The patients were treated at three different Israeli medical centers for one week under the country’s compassionate use program and were suffering from acute respiratory failure and inflammatory complications associated with COVID-19. Four of the patients also demonstrated failure of other organ systems, including cardiovascular and kidney failure. Not only have all the patients survived, according to Pluristem, but four of them showed improvement in respiratory parameters and three of them are in the advanced stages of weaning from ventilators. Moreover, two of the patients with preexisting medical conditions are showing clinical recovery in addition to the respiratory improvement. “We are pleased with this initial outcome of the compassionate use program and committed to harnessing PLX cells for the benefit of patients and healthcare systems,” said Pluristem CEO and president Yaky Yanay. “Pluristem is dedicated to using its competitive advantages in large-scale manufacturing to potentially deliver PLX cells to a large number of patients in significant need.”

Notice, a familiar pattern: six cases, 100% survival, fleshed out by some clinical details. Should we dismiss as merely "anecdotal"? I suggest, not. KF kairosfocus

Bob O'H

Liar. I don’t want people to needlessly die.

I disagree and again I hold that the only way to solve this matter is for you to climb down from your ivory tower and face the real world consequences of your own mortality.. "Will you or won't you take the potentially life saving drug when it is your own life that is on the line?" Here is the testimony of a democratic lawmaker who had a seemingly 'miraculous' recovery when she took the drug when she was at death's door:

Michigan Democratic lawmaker: Hydroxychloroquine saved my life https://video.foxnews.com/v/6148095138001#sp=show-clips

I've seen several testimonies of similar nature. All who swear that it was the Hydroxychloroquine treatment that saved their life. It is easy to gamble when it is not your own life on the line Bob! again, the impressive results of the new 1000 patient study,

: “The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5 per cent, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.”

In 'elderly patients' being the key point. That low rate of mortality for elderly patients is the key point that is very impressive about the study. It is exactly that point that stands in contrast to the high mortality rates for elderly when compared to other groups with this horrid disease. bornagain77

PS: A bit on the Avastin story:

Avastin was not initially developed to treat eye conditions. Based upon the results of clinical trials demonstrating its safety and effectiveness, Avastin was approved as a chemotherapy drug by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for the treatment of metastatic colorectal cancer. As a condition of approval, the manufacturer produced a “label” explaining the indications, risks, and benefits. The label explains that Avastin works by blocking a substance known as vascular endothelial growth factor or VEGF. Blocking or slowing VEGF helps prevent further growth of the blood vessels that the cancer needs to continue growing. Once the FDA approves a device or medication, physicians may use it “off-label” for other purposes. Ophthalmologists are using Avastin “off-label” to treat AMD and similar conditions because research indicates that VEGF is one of the causes for the growth of the abnormal vessels that cause these conditions. Most patients who receive these treatments have less fluid and more normal-appearing maculas, and enjoy improved vision. Bevacizumab also treats macular edema in some diabetic patients and cases of retinal vein occlusion . . .

Whose report should we believe, why? kairosfocus

TAMMIE LEE HAYNES @ 16 - this is probably pedantry, but if C.P. Snow said that 100 years ago, he was probably ignored because most 15 year olds are ignored (especially those from Leicester). II'm not sure what you're referring to, if it's his Rede Lecture about the Two Cultures, that was in 1959. Bob O'H

ba77 @ 17 -

Bob O’H apparently wants some people to needlessly die, Bob O’H is a moral monster.

Liar. I don't want people to needlessly die.

Didier Raoult, (according to Dr. Oz who spoke with him by phone early this morning about the impressive positive results of the 1061 patient study), refuses to do a blind study in this instance since he rightly observes that it is unethical to do so. i.e. Didier Raoult does not want people to needlessly die!

I'm sure he doesn't want people to needlessly die, but if his treatment is ineffective, that's what will happen.

Moreover, we already have a base line for the likelihood of death without the drug from the thousands upon thousands of deaths from people who have already died without the drug.

Try reading the article, not cherry picking. The very next paragraph basically states that this isn't a baseline:

These numbers shouldn't be taken as the inevitable toll of the virus, however. The case-fatality rate is determined by dividing the number of deaths by the total number of cases. Epidemiologists believe the total number of infections with SARS-CoV-2 is underestimated because people with few or mild symptoms may never see a doctor. As testing expands and scientists begin using retrospective methods to study who has antibodies to SARS-CoV-2 circulating in their bloodstreams, the total number of confirmed cases will go up and the ratio of deaths to infections will likely drop. For example, in South Korea, which conducted more than 140,000 tests for COVID-19, officials found a fatality rate of 0.6%.

Bob O'H

kf @ 15 - but patients who don't get the same treatment show the same "fairly consistent pattern" - most recover. Indeed, in Roult's original study where he did have a control group, recovery was greater in the control group (but it was a small study with a variety of problems, so this isn't definitive). So yes, we do need a control group. Bob O'H

JT, Prof Raoult heads a leading institute and doubtless is doing many papers in parallel, where, he is publishing with colleagues. In short the evidence you point to implies that his research factory is working well, thank you. As you full well know, as an experienced researcher. KF kairosfocus

Sev, has it registered that there was earlier in vitro and clinical work that Prof Raoult was following up on? That work already provided significant reason that by Feb 24th Bahrain had taken it on board and established a protocol. China, had protocols in place. So did S Korea. His escalating scope of treatment built on that earlier work, where he seems to be the leading researcher on infectious diseases in France. In that context, given the issue of a fairly fast moving significantly fatal . . . recall, suggestions, 1 in 40 to 30, with up to 1 in 20 where resources are overwhelmed . . . pandemic, there are significant ethical issues. Besides, there is abundant precedent for proceeding on cumulative clinical cases. Again, the underlying issue is substitution of hyperskepticism for prudence, multiplied by overly cumbersome and costly bureaucratic procedures. We need to recognise, for instance, that the general view is, that a vaccination is perhaps 12 - 18 months away. The circumstances require responsiveness to urgency, significant fatality and growing evidence of effectiveness. Such do shift what is the least bad option. Good options went out the window long since. KF kairosfocus

JT, actually, Science is in big trouble as part of where our civilisation is. Ideologisation. KF kairosfocus

According to a quick search Raoult has 2,908 papers. If he started doing research on his 20th birthday, worked 7 days a week, and never took a vacation, he’s published one paper every six days for the last 48 years. Very impressive! :-) Jim Thibodeau

Opinions don't cure anything. The SCIENCE behind what Raoult is doing is sound. What do you have against science, Jim? ET

@seversky Derek Lowe does not have a high opinion of the work. Jim Thibodeau

Earth to Jim T- How do you know that science works just fine when you don't understand science? :razz: ET

@Seversky 21

Raoult’s method, according to one critic, is to task a young researcher at IHU with an experiment, then co-sign the piece before it is submitted to publication. “Raoult is thus able to reach this absolutely insane number of publications every year,” according to one anonymous source quoted by the site Mediapart.

Wow! Resorting to slander, Seversky? One critic and one anonymous source? Seriously? That is very low. Maybe you can not stand thad Didier Raoult is a rabid anti-darwinian? A Third Way of Evolution proponent? The most prolific french scientist? Just maybe? Truthfreedom

Seversky puts his two cents in the be considered a moral monster also.,,, Sigh I guess the atheists on UD are at least consistent in wanting there to be needless death. After all they argue tooth and nail for unrestricted abortion.

Proverbs 8:36 But those who fail to find me harm themselves; all who hate me love death."

bornagain77

Bornagain77@ 17

Didier Raoult, (according to Dr. Oz who spoke with him by phone early this morning about the impressive positive results of the 1061 patient study), refuses to do a blind study in this instance since he rightly observes that it is unethical to do so. i.e. Didier Raoult does not want people to needlessly die!

Has it occurred to you that the only way Raoult can know that using an untreated control group would be unethical would be if his trial had already shown his drug therapy to be effective. But that's the problem. His trial was too small to show that. He doesn't know that people would needlessly die.

Moreover, I remind that Didier Raoult is not some fly by night quack scientist, but that he is instead the number 1 top-rated expert in Communicable Diseases in the world.

Is that right?

Not surprisingly, Raoult’s rapid rise raised as many eyebrows as huzzahs. While his fans applaud the 3,000 scientific articles Raoult has co-signed, his critics argue that these staggering numbers do not add up. Do the math, they remark, and it turns out the Marseillais researcher publishes more papers in a month than most productive researchers publish in a career. Raoult’s method, according to one critic, is to task a young researcher at IHU with an experiment, then co-sign the piece before it is submitted to publication. “Raoult is thus able to reach this absolutely insane number of publications every year,” according to one anonymous source quoted by the site Mediapart. More disturbingly, the critic added, “it is simply impossible for Raoult to verify all of these papers.

Seversky

“ April 10, 2020 at 12:46 pm One hundred years ago CP Snow pointed out that the public lacks the ability, expertise, resources, and time necessary to check what scientists do. So if the public is to accept what scientists tell them, it is on faith. If the public loses that faith, science wont work. It has no plan B.” Science works just fine thanks. Jim Thibodeau

Vivid, it is that as treated he saw a distinct pattern of suppressing the virus over several days, when in a significant number otherwise it progresses in a damaging pattern. This is not, take symptomatic relief in 7 days you will be okay. KF kairosfocus

Bob “. “I treated lots of patients and most recovered” isn’t evidence of much if most patients will recover anyway.” Good point been thinking about that as well. Vivid vividbleau

Bob O'H apparently wants some people to needlessly die, Bob O'H is a moral monster. Again, I suggest that Bob O'H climb down out of his ivory tower and let us test him with the disease in person to see if he will choose to take the real drug or not when faced with his own mortality. Didier Raoult, (according to Dr. Oz who spoke with him by phone early this morning about the impressive positive results of the 1061 patient study), refuses to do a blind study in this instance since he rightly observes that it is unethical to do so. i.e. Didier Raoult does not want people to needlessly die! Moreover, we already have a base line for the likelihood of death without the drug from the thousands upon thousands of deaths from people who have already died without the drug.

How deadly is the new coronavirus? A recent study of COVID-19 cases in the United States estimated a mortality rate of 10% to 27% for those ages 85 and over, 3% to 11% for those ages 65 to 84, 1% to 3% for those ages 55 to 64 and less than 1% for those ages 20 to 54. https://www.livescience.com/is-coronavirus-deadly.html

Compared to the impressive results of the new 1000 patient study,

: “The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5 per cent, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.”

Moreover, I remind that Didier Raoult is not some fly by night quack scientist, but that he is instead the number 1 top-rated expert in Communicable Diseases in the world.

Expertise in Communicable Diseases: HELP Worldwide Based on 18,517 articles published since 2010 In each column, black bars show the relative amount of expertise for each place or person. Longer is better. For example, D Raoult is the top-rated expert in Communicable Diseases in the world. Past data are available. http://expertscape.com/ex/communicable+disease

bornagain77

One hundred years ago CP Snow pointed out that the public lacks the ability, expertise, resources, and time necessary to check what scientists do. So if the public is to accept what scientists tell them, it is on faith. If the public loses that faith, science wont work. It has no plan B. For that reason, Snow said, science must be absolutely ruthless in punishing those who speak falsehoods, even in good faith. Take a look at Global warming. Remember the "Climate-gate Scandal" of 2009? Top Climate Scientists like Dr Michael Mann and Dr Philip Jones got caught red-handed deceiving the public. Okay, you always get a few bad apples. But it is far worse. Infinitely worse. For Mann, Jones, at all, it was covered up. Business as usual. No criminal charges for fraud. Nobody fired. Nobody losing their cushy tenure. Nobody thrown out of professional societies. No nothing. And here's the problem. its not a few bad apples. Its all bad apples. Anyone who places any trust in those millions of climate scientists, is a fool. You're probably better off with Bernie Madoff. Same with Origin of Life. All those Peer reviewed Biology Texts, published by the top publishing houses. All those chapters about the Miller Urey experiment, But surprise surprise, no mention of the chirality problem . Another scientific field totally controlled by crooks. Again, only a fool would believe any claim whatsoever by anyone in that field. TAMMIE LEE HAYNES

BO'H: Perhaps, we need to look at some basic inductive logic further informed by the general observation that our internal biochemistry and physiology are pretty much the same. When just for Dr Raoult, 24 then 80 then 1061 patients show a fairly consistent pattern, that is the way to bet regardless of want of control group studies. We do not need a control group study to realise it is highly likely for the sun to set tonight and rise on the morrow. That obtains even with a more probabilistic result. KF kairosfocus

@13 Bob O'H

So basic even politicians have been known to understand it.

And if now certain people were capable of understanding that, logically speaking, the term 'natural selection' is a botched job... Or that you can not say (without looking deranged) that the 'self' is an illusion (because hey, the self-you has first to exist so it can start making references to it-self) :) Or that nothing can not 'explode' and 'create' a Universe... Or... Truthfreedom

ba77 - whatever sample size Raoult end up with, it's useless as a study unless we can show what would have happened if the patients hadn't been given the same drug regimen. "I treated lots of patients and most recovered" isn't evidence of much if most patients will recover anyway. This is not some esoteric idea - it's really basic science. So basic even politicians have been known to understand it. Bob O'H

^^^^^^^^^^ Bob O'H needs to get out of his ivory tower more often

Chloroquine: Professor Raoult unveiled to Macron a new study involving more than 1,000 patients https://www.en24.news/c24/2020/04/chloroquine-professor-raoult-unveiled-to-macron-a-new-study-involving-more-than-1000-patients.html Media pundits, medical establishment in denial about hydroxychloroquine? - video Apr. 10, 2020 - 6:28 - Reaction from Dr. Stephen Smith, founder of the Smith Center for Infectious Diseases and Urban Health, and Dr. Ramin Oskoui, cardiologist and CEO of Foxhall Cardiology. https://video.foxnews.com/v/6148507499001#sp=show-clips Prof Raoult has now presented the results of a far wider study on 1,061 patients to the French president. According to the findings published in English, the success rate in removing all trace of the virus within 10 days was 91.7 per cent. The death rate was just 0.5 per cent, namely five patients. Ten others required intensive care. “A good clinical outcome and virological cure was obtained in 973 patients within 10 days (91.7 per cent). Prolonged viral carriage at completion of treatment was observed in 47 patients (4.4 per cent) and was associated to a higher viral load at diagnosis…but viral culture was negative at day 10,” it reads. It concluded: “The HCQ-AZ combination, when started immediately after diagnosis, is a safe and efficient treatment for COVID-19, with a mortality rate of 0.5 per cent, in elderly patients. It avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosity in most cases.” https://www.serialpressit.com/2020/04/09/controversial-french-virologist-claims-chloroquine-breakthrough-for-coronavirus-as-macron-visits-serialpressit-news/

bornagain77

The obsession with hydrochloroquine, azithromycin and zinc as potential treatments for COVID-19 was inspired in part by a study published by Dr Didier Raoult. We all hope he is on to something but that study was based on just 24 participants.

Indeed, and has been criticised for having some awful methodology. Bob O'H

And sometimes your wife is not your wife. lol Andrew asauber

To put it more straightforwardly- plumbers, lawyers, and scientists are not your wife. Andrew asauber

"But suppose you know a plumber or a lawyer whom you trust implicitly" Sev, You are already jumping to conclusions with this. It would take an awful lot of supposing to hand over your judgement this way. I would trust my plumber or my lawyer only as far as I know what they are doing and they would have to get my approval before doing anything that would have any effect on me. Trust is for suckers. Andrew asauber

This seems like a contextual issue. I know a guy who lacks formal biology education but has found some conceptual inaccuracies in Weizmann Institute 2014 book “Life’s Blueprint”. Sometimes outsiders -even without expertise- can notice things that experts (insiders) don’t see. I think we all have experienced that at some point in life. OLV

Poli, it depends on what parts of engineering. And there is such a thing as sound economics, just it usually does not tell power brokers and the like what they want to hear or promote. KF kairosfocus

Not if their on Wall Street. Vivid vividbleau

It pays to keep track of different disciplines. Some parts of science (eg "climate" and economics) are totally wrong and corrupt. Other parts (eg engineering) are usually clean and trustworthy. Biology is mixed, with a tradition of stupid theory-blinded orthodoxy versus a growing contingent of plain non-theoretical observation. polistra

Sev, the issues are first experts in what and when relevant experts disagree. Expertise in argumentation and in detecting manipulation can be highly relevant. Especially, when subject matter experts disagree. When strategic decision-making is in the mix, experience -- notice the shift -- in sifting and working with conflicting experts and noisy, often contradictory information and claims can be highly relevant. So will be ethical considerations tied to prudence and turning on issues such as do no harm, seek balance of evidence, deal with how to tickle the tails of sleeping dragons, questions over balance of knowledge and ignorance, factors from other domains [economics] etc can all be relevant. And in a day of cultural conflict and polarisation too many experts are hired guns. Gotta go out now, DV more later. Stay safe all. KF kairosfocus

Should we always trust experts and dismiss non-experts? No, of course not. We are all fallible. We can all be wrong. But suppose you know a plumber or a lawyer whom you trust implicitly because they have always done excellent work for you. Let's assume the plumber or the lawyer have a hobby interest in medical matters and read a lot about it. Let's further suppose you or a loved one falls ill with what is obviously a serious but undiagnosed disorder. Who would you consult first, the plumber or lawyer or a doctor? Yes, experts can be wrong but that doesn't make them all wrong. Yes, non-experts can be right but that doesn't make them all right. The only way to find out who is right in a given case is to look for the evidence - and as much of it as you can find. The obsession with hydrochloroquine, azithromycin and zinc as potential treatments for COVID-19 was inspired in part by a study published by Dr Didier Raoult. We all hope he is on to something but that study was based on just 24 participants. As a cautionary note, again, remember Andrew Wakefield who published a study in The Lancet which sounded the alarm about a possible link between the MMR vaccine and autism in children based on just 12 patients? That set off a furore which has reverberated down the years and persists to this day in the form of the anti-vaccine movement. Yet none of the subsequent, much larger studies have found any such link. I wish we had Star Trek tricorders which can diagnose an illness in seconds and a laboratory which can whip up a batch of a drug or a vaccine in minutes so that Dr McCoy can go around curing people instantly with a quick burst from his hypospray. But we don't have any of that so it's back to dogged, grinding research to find a cure or at least a vaccine.. That's the only way to find out what actually works. Seversky

Pathos, ethos, logos. No expert is better than the underlying facts, reasoning and assumptions. kairosfocus