Should We Always Trust Experts and Dismiss Nonexperts?

_{Barry Arrington

April 9, 2020

Intelligent Design}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This article makes a tremendous amount of sense.

Academic credentials are important, if only because they provide a useful heuristic to learn more about a topic. Since you have to start somewhere, it makes sense to listen first to the people who are paid to teach and research that topic. Ultimately, however, the validity of scientific claims depends on the arguments and evidence in their favor.

Thus, if someone makes a claim he can’t substantiate with good arguments and evidence, his credentials should not matter. Conversely, even if someone has no credentials, without evidence of substantive incompetence, this is not a reason to reject his claims.

Comments

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_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
07:42 AM
7
07
42
AM
PDT}

Off topic. I notice that News hasn’t posted anything in almost a week. I hope she is OK.Ed George_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
07:14 AM
7
07
14
AM
PDT}

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-agebornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT}

Bornagain77: Our World in Data https://ourworldindata.org/coronavirus Excellent website!!JVL_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
06:02 AM
6
06
02
AM
PDT}

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/coronavirusbornagain77_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
04:22 AM
4
04
22
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
02:48 AM
2
02
48
AM
PDT}

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_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
02:14 AM
2
02
14
AM
PDT}

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_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:52 AM
1
01
52
AM
PDT}

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_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:08 AM
1
01
08
AM
PDT}

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_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
01:03 AM
1
01
03
AM
PDT}

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_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:56 AM
12
12
56
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:54 AM
12
12
54
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:50 AM
12
12
50
AM
PDT}

JT, actually, Science is in big trouble as part of where our civilisation is. Ideologisation. KFkairosfocus_{April 11, 2020
April
04
Apr
11
11
2020
12:19 AM
12
12
19
AM
PDT}

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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
08:01 PM
8
08
01
PM
PDT}

Opinions don't cure anything. The SCIENCE behind what Raoult is doing is sound. What do you have against science, Jim?ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:30 PM
6
06
30
PM
PDT}

@seversky Derek Lowe does not have a high opinion of the work.Jim Thibodeau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
06:14 PM
6
06
14
PM
PDT}

Earth to Jim T- How do you know that science works just fine when you don't understand science? :razz:ET_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
05:15 PM
5
05
15
PM
PDT}

@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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:37 PM
4
04
37
PM
PDT}

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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
04:14 PM
4
04
14
PM
PDT}

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
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
03:25 PM
3
03
25
PM
PDT}

“ 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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
02:16 PM
2
02
16
PM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT}

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. Vividvividbleau_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
01:31 PM
1
01
31
PM
PDT}

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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
01:29 PM
1
01
29
PM
PDT}

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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
11:46 AM
11
11
46
AM
PDT}

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. KFkairosfocus_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
11:28 AM
11
11
28
AM
PDT}

@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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
07:47 AM
7
07
47
AM
PDT}

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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PDT}

^^^^^^^^^^ 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_{April 10, 2020
April
04
Apr
10
10
2020
01:33 AM
1
01
33
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply