I stand by original statement. Based on what we KNOW, both the vaccine and Covid carry increased risks of myocarditis. Until there is evidence that the vaccine reduces myocarditis risk after "breakthrough" infection, I'll stick with what we know - 1 plus 1 is greater than 1 - myocarditis risk associated with a vaccinated person getting Covid is greater than myocarditis risk of unvaccinated person getting Covid. I'm not willing to attribute to the vaccine a benefit (reducing myocarditis risk) without any evidence. I have good, albeit circumstantial evidence, of my original statement.Zobel said:
A majority of Americans have at least one of the comorbidities which increase risk of death from covid (obesity, heart disease, diabetes, asthma, high blood pressure) and something like 40% of adults have at least two. That percentage increases with age.
A comorbidity doesn't kill you. That's why it's not the cause of death. Being diabetic or overweight is a comorbidity to covid. Those aren't death sentences. This is such a tired and crappy argument.Great. I agree with what you've written here. Welcome to the realm of responsible opinion-having. You've gone from "if you are are vaccinated AND get Covid you have increased your risk of myocarditis relative to someone who has not been vaccinated" to "the risk may be higher and it may be lower."Quote:
I agree that Covid MAY carry a different myocarditis risk for vaccinated vs. unvaccinated. The risk MAY be higher and it may be lower. I'm trying not to speculate and only speak to facts we know.
Get the Vax
51,252 Views |
659 Replies |
Last: 13 days ago by Sapper Redux
Sapper Redux said:
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.abi9069
That Bangladesh study and the credulous use of it is a great litmus test. It is truly hat bad, but you can't make anyone see how bad it is if they want to infer that masks work because one isolated age strata (but not others) showed a tiny difference with one type of mask (but again, not others) on the other side of a thousand confounders.
I'm just fine with saying we probably can't get any kind of meaningful mask information at population scale.
You're backtracking. COVID is not COVID. People who are vaccinated have a reduced risk of getting COVID and the disease they get is milder. Without quantifying those two your original statement is pure speculation.
You have evidence the risk of myocarditis is associated with the severity of a Covid case? I've not seen anything to that effect.Zobel said:
You're backtracking. COVID is not COVID. People who are vaccinated have a reduced risk of getting COVID and the disease they get is milder. Without quantifying those two your original statement is pure speculation.
Exactly.
Maybe my choice of words isn't sufficiently precise to survive a semantic analysis, but all of my assertions are supportable by what I read, with sufficient circumspection. While I am capable of missing what I don't want to see, I will not take your judgement of my judgement as a final word there, dramatic upslopes not being cliffs and all.
As for "willful attack campaigns and personal discrediting" being crap, I guess this is just scientist doing their best engaging their colleagues in good faith disagreement, even thought these same people are now recommending exactly what Kuldorf, Bhattacharya, and Gupta recommended in 2020.
As for "willful attack campaigns and personal discrediting" being crap, I guess this is just scientist doing their best engaging their colleagues in good faith disagreement, even thought these same people are now recommending exactly what Kuldorf, Bhattacharya, and Gupta recommended in 2020.
I never saw that before, so my ignorance is on display. That's not good, and I don't agree with it.
Yet, you still continue to imply vaccinated persons who get Covid would somehow be at less risk from myocarditis than unvaccinated who get Covid. I don't make that assumption.Zobel said:
Exactly.
COVID induced myopathy is one of the categorizations for a severe case. Vaccines reduce severe COVID.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8531234/
Your suggestion that myocarditis happens with mild and severe cases at equal rates is contradictory. It makes no sense.
At any rate if you can't quantify an effect the answer isn't to ignore it. That reduces your certainty. You are speculating.
Quote:
The incidence of critical illness in patients with COVID-19 has been estimated at 5% overall and 22% in those requiring hospitalization. All reported patients with COVID-19-associated myocarditis required hospitalization, and 54% were critically ill, making it a morbid disease entity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8531234/
Your suggestion that myocarditis happens with mild and severe cases at equal rates is contradictory. It makes no sense.
At any rate if you can't quantify an effect the answer isn't to ignore it. That reduces your certainty. You are speculating.
Yes, if you get myocarditis your case is more severe. I agree. You, more than anyone, should understand the problem of causation in your statement. Is the case severe because of myocarditis or is it the myocarditis that makes it severe. Or, did the patients that had more severe cases suffer from underlying conditions which include cardiovascular disease. You are speculating.Zobel said:
COVID induced myopathy is one of the categorizations for a severe case. Vaccines reduce severe COVID.Quote:
The incidence of critical illness in patients with COVID-19 has been estimated at 5% overall and 22% in those requiring hospitalization. All reported patients with COVID-19-associated myocarditis required hospitalization, and 54% were critically ill, making it a morbid disease entity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8531234/
Your suggestion that myocarditis happens with mild and severe cases at equal rates is contradictory. It makes no sense.
At any rate if you can't quantify an effect the answer isn't to ignore it. That reduces your certainty. You are speculating.
EDIT: Saying all that, it is much more informative and enjoyable discussing the matter on this forum than the Covid forum where much well-meaning and productive discussion is shut down. I'll admit that your points/analysis/logic make me think more critically about all of these issues related to Covid. Thanks.
Severe doesn't mean bad, it's a definition. It can be confusing because categories and case definitions can change from study to study.
Severe is a case categorization or definition based on certain symptoms or outcomes. For the Pfizer trial the FDA defined it as "confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death."
If you have clinical myocarditis associated with COVID I think for most definitions that will be categorized as severe COVID. If it results in hospitalization for sure that hits hospitalization numbers. Just like if you get clinical myocarditis associated with the vaccine that will be defined as a severe adverse event.
All that gets further confused by loose definitions of what constitutes myocarditis. For example some studies have used only elevated troponin levels as evidence of myocarditis. Or random surveillance finds myocarditis that's maybe best called subclinical.
At any rate from what I've read viral myocarditis frequently an autoimmune problem triggered by the viral infection. If that's the case, the spike protein triggering that in a controlled way via vaccine should by necessity happen at a lower rate than the same antigen from the virus doing it in an uncontrolled way. You can use the same logic for GBS except the target is nerve vs heart cells. But logic like isn't always a good guide.
And no problem. I enjoy good discussions, iron sharpens iron.
Severe is a case categorization or definition based on certain symptoms or outcomes. For the Pfizer trial the FDA defined it as "confirmed Covid-19 with one of the following additional features: clinical signs at rest that are indicative of severe systemic illness; respiratory failure; evidence of shock; significant acute renal, hepatic, or neurologic dysfunction; admission to an intensive care unit; or death."
If you have clinical myocarditis associated with COVID I think for most definitions that will be categorized as severe COVID. If it results in hospitalization for sure that hits hospitalization numbers. Just like if you get clinical myocarditis associated with the vaccine that will be defined as a severe adverse event.
All that gets further confused by loose definitions of what constitutes myocarditis. For example some studies have used only elevated troponin levels as evidence of myocarditis. Or random surveillance finds myocarditis that's maybe best called subclinical.
At any rate from what I've read viral myocarditis frequently an autoimmune problem triggered by the viral infection. If that's the case, the spike protein triggering that in a controlled way via vaccine should by necessity happen at a lower rate than the same antigen from the virus doing it in an uncontrolled way. You can use the same logic for GBS except the target is nerve vs heart cells. But logic like isn't always a good guide.
And no problem. I enjoy good discussions, iron sharpens iron.
New Nature article:Zobel said:
COVID induced myopathy is one of the categorizations for a severe case. Vaccines reduce severe COVID.Quote:
The incidence of critical illness in patients with COVID-19 has been estimated at 5% overall and 22% in those requiring hospitalization. All reported patients with COVID-19-associated myocarditis required hospitalization, and 54% were critically ill, making it a morbid disease entity.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC8531234/
Your suggestion that myocarditis happens with mild and severe cases at equal rates is contradictory. It makes no sense.
At any rate if you can't quantify an effect the answer isn't to ignore it. That reduces your certainty. You are speculating.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-021-01630-0
BLUF:
Quote:
We estimated an extra two (95% confidence interval (CI) 0, 3), one (95% CI 0, 2) and six (95% CI 2, 8) myocarditis events per 1 million people vaccinated with ChAdOx1, BNT162b2 and mRNA-1273, respectively, in the 28 days following a first dose and an extra ten (95% CI 7, 11) myocarditis events per 1 million vaccinated in the 28 days after a second dose of mRNA-1273. This compares with an extra 40 (95% CI 38, 41) myocarditis events per 1 million patients in the 28 days following a SARS-CoV-2 positive test. We also observed increased risks of pericarditis and cardiac arrhythmias following a positive SARS-CoV-2 test. Similar associations were not observed with any of the COVID-19 vaccines, apart from an increased risk of arrhythmia following a second dose of mRNA-1273. Subgroup analyses by age showed the increased risk of myocarditis associated with the two mRNA vaccines was present only in those younger than 40.
DizzyStarship said:
Science does not have our backs. Never did, never will. Coming from the fascist country of Australia, the video is their propaganda at best.
Maybe my sarcasm meter is broken…is this for real?
What does this even mean? And never? I mean, seems like this says otherwise, as much that's led to this came from the scientific community:Quote:
Science does not have our backs. Never did, never will.
Loyalty said:DizzyStarship said:
Science does not have our backs. Never did, never will. Coming from the fascist country of Australia, the video is their propaganda at best.
Yeah, **** Joseph Lister, Jonas Salk, Alexander Fleming, etc. They clearly didn't care about people…
Right, but the point he's making is there is a risk of myocarditis associated both with the vaccine and the disease. If the risk of the vaccine is less than the disease but is perfect you can compare the two outright. On the other hand if the vaccine offers no protection you take on both risks outright.
There are two risk pivots between them - one is the absolute reduction of COVID after vaccination which clearly eliminates all of the disease risk. The other is the reduction in severity of COVID which reduces certain risks beyond infection.
There are two risk pivots between them - one is the absolute reduction of COVID after vaccination which clearly eliminates all of the disease risk. The other is the reduction in severity of COVID which reduces certain risks beyond infection.
The text of the paper attempts to tease that out as best as possible. It's extremely difficult, in part because many of the vaccinated people who presented with myocarditis also had a previous Covid infection. The confidence intervals start to overlap the more you break it down.Zobel said:
Right, but the point he's making is there is a risk of myocarditis associated both with the vaccine and the disease. If the risk of the vaccine is less than the disease but is perfect you can compare the two outright. On the other hand if the vaccine offers no protection you take on both risks outright.
There are two risk pivots between them - one is the absolute reduction of COVID after vaccination which clearly eliminates all of the disease risk. The other is the reduction in severity of COVID which reduces certain risks beyond infection.
TLDR: WHO says no reason to boost healthy kids.
Quote:
WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan said Tuesday that "there is no evidence right now that healthy children or adolescents need boosters. No evidence at all."
Cadegiani has published several papers in COVID, and several have been clearly fraudulent.
Should also note this area falls into the potential for worms confounder category.
Should also note this area falls into the potential for worms confounder category.
The pre-print of this was released last month. Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz is an epidemiologists who has made a habit of reviewing papers like this during the pandemic, and he reviewed the study here.
Potential issues he found.
Bias
- Undisclosed bias by authors - several are members of the FLCCC who is an ivermectin promotion org (including our now-famous friend Pierre Kory)
- Cadegiani is sketchy
- Two authors report a direct financial conflict of interest (Kerr and Cadegiani) from a manufacturer of ivermectin
Study design
- no control for confounders which might increase risk of covid. for example not control for occuption, income, and no analysis of the results for other risk-factors for covid or death. I think the study was renamed from "quasi-randomized" to "observational" between preprint and publication because of this
- no control of or way to know whether people were taking ivermectin before intervention began (in either group)
- unclear whether people who picked up the medicine actually took it, or took it consistently - seems like first week a lot of people picked up medicine, but a much lower number continued to receive, but all were included in the "ivermectin" arm
- so there is an unknown amount of ivermectin users in the control group and an unknown amount of non ivermectin users in the treatment arm
- the same authors who have previously criticized other studies for dosing errors (i.e., study doesn't work because people aren't taking enough) ignore the fact that the dosing here is 4x less than they recommend
Potential fraud / errors
- Zero deaths in patients under 30 in entire group before the analysis was done to match for comparison, but there are deaths in the under 30 cohort after matching (which is not possible) compare table 7 vs 8
- Cases brought in for treatment from other cities were 114-0 all on ivermectin (unlikely)
Anyway. Usual suspects, usual sloppy data, usual sloppy conclusions, and still no RCT, placebo controlled. Zero minds changed.
21/n It's also worth noting that the people who've been complaining about low ivermectin doses, people not taking drugs etc in NEGATIVE trials are very happy to ignore these issues when it comes to a POSITIVE result
— Health Nerd (@GidMK) December 16, 2021
I wonder why that is 🤔🤔🤔
Potential issues he found.
Bias
- Undisclosed bias by authors - several are members of the FLCCC who is an ivermectin promotion org (including our now-famous friend Pierre Kory)
- Cadegiani is sketchy
- Two authors report a direct financial conflict of interest (Kerr and Cadegiani) from a manufacturer of ivermectin
Study design
- no control for confounders which might increase risk of covid. for example not control for occuption, income, and no analysis of the results for other risk-factors for covid or death. I think the study was renamed from "quasi-randomized" to "observational" between preprint and publication because of this
- no control of or way to know whether people were taking ivermectin before intervention began (in either group)
- unclear whether people who picked up the medicine actually took it, or took it consistently - seems like first week a lot of people picked up medicine, but a much lower number continued to receive, but all were included in the "ivermectin" arm
- so there is an unknown amount of ivermectin users in the control group and an unknown amount of non ivermectin users in the treatment arm
- the same authors who have previously criticized other studies for dosing errors (i.e., study doesn't work because people aren't taking enough) ignore the fact that the dosing here is 4x less than they recommend
Potential fraud / errors
- Zero deaths in patients under 30 in entire group before the analysis was done to match for comparison, but there are deaths in the under 30 cohort after matching (which is not possible) compare table 7 vs 8
- Cases brought in for treatment from other cities were 114-0 all on ivermectin (unlikely)
Anyway. Usual suspects, usual sloppy data, usual sloppy conclusions, and still no RCT, placebo controlled. Zero minds changed.
LOL, is there a running list of which doctors are not to be trusted/believed?
No. But I've been following covid publications because it's interesting to me. When a doctor is charged with crimes against humanity for ethical violations the name kinda sticks in your mind.
The primary ones who should be charged haven't been, though (Daszak/Fauci). (well, a nominal filing with the ICC). Not only did they (illegally) funnel the money to create this disease which has killed so many, they've also slandered/orchestrated attacks against other doctors who have questioned them.Zobel said:
No. But I've been following covid publications because it's interesting to me. When a doctor is charged with crimes against humanity for ethical violations the name kinda sticks in your mind.
I do wish there was a list somewhere of non-credible doctors.
It's really difficult to try to have a serious conversation with you. In this latest interaction you presented a paper. I replied with concerns from a reputable source. You completely ignored the response rather than engaging the merits of the discussion with a laugh/cry and a throwaway implication of ad hom. When I replied to that, you did a whataboutism pirouette to something that has nothing to do whatever with the quality of the original paper or whether the therapy (prophylaxis? who can tell?) in the paper works or not.
How do you think I should proceed in this conversation? What can I do so that when we talk there's mutual benefit?
How do you think I should proceed in this conversation? What can I do so that when we talk there's mutual benefit?
I really don't care if you do proceed, respectfully.Zobel said:
It's really difficult to try to have a serious conversation with you. In this latest interaction you presented a paper. I replied with concerns from a reputable source. You completely ignored the response rather than engaging the merits of the discussion with a laugh/cry and a throwaway implication of ad hom. When I replied to that, you did a whataboutism pirouette to something that has nothing to do whatever with the quality of the original paper or whether the therapy (prophylaxis? who can tell?) in the paper works or not.
How do you think I should proceed in this conversation? What can I do so that when we talk there's mutual benefit?
I'm not interested in debating the paper, you've presented some decent arguments, some of which I agree with. Sometimes you want to get into a debate on a subject in detail and others you want to just take a broad position and ignore any specifics, it seems, which is your wont/right.
This isn't a medical forum and though we had a snotty doctor up above in the thread who doesn't need/care about laypersons opinions, philosophically, I just have a different opinion on Ivermectin and HCQ, but I don't really feel a need to debate it in detail.
You did, however, bring up 'crimes against humanity' in this discussion (as the white paper I posted was so upsetting?), and I find that an interesting moral point as the people responsible for millions of deaths from this disease should, imho, be charged and tried in a court of law for their actions. This I consider a moral imperative, all should support.
Feel free to respond, or not.
He doesn't want mutual benefit. This is an opportunity to for him to troll and degrade. There's nothing more.
I am neither trolling nor degrading, anyone. That's absurd, and of course asserted without any evidence, typical gas light here.craigernaught said:
He doesn't want mutual benefit. This is an opportunity to for him to troll and degrade. There's nothing more.
I just don't have much interest in trying to have a good faith convo if there's no good faith on both sides. You're an active poster and I generally enjoy talking to you, but in the end if it's just going to be a waste of time I won't.
I guess I'm kinda confused - if a person shares a paper in a discussion thread, my assumption is they want to discuss the paper or at least observe a discussion.
I brought up crimes against humanity because the corresponding author of the paper you posted was recommended for indictment for them by the Brazilian senate for how they handled a different covid study, which is why the name was familiar to me. This involved giving high dose anti-androgenic hormones to both men and women apparently without informed consent, which can cause infertility in men and severe birth defects in babies in the womb and isn't supposed to be given to women at all. He also is the author of yet another covid study that is almost certainly completely made up. As one author put it, let's hope the hormone study was made up, too.
At any rate, when the corresponding author of a study has a history of fraud and really, really bad ethical and medical practices, it is pretty relevant to note.
You have a different opinion on ivermectin, presumably informed by research like the paper you linked, but you don't feel a need to debate, but you took the initiative to post the paper.
But look, even in this post you can't help but insult people. "Snotty doctor" - seriously? I don't think trolling is the right word here, but this also doesn't seem like you are willing to carry on a serious conversation.
Don't get me wrong - I actually would prefer and enjoy a serious conversation. That's why I come to this forum. Just doesn't seem like that's why you do.
I guess I'm kinda confused - if a person shares a paper in a discussion thread, my assumption is they want to discuss the paper or at least observe a discussion.
I brought up crimes against humanity because the corresponding author of the paper you posted was recommended for indictment for them by the Brazilian senate for how they handled a different covid study, which is why the name was familiar to me. This involved giving high dose anti-androgenic hormones to both men and women apparently without informed consent, which can cause infertility in men and severe birth defects in babies in the womb and isn't supposed to be given to women at all. He also is the author of yet another covid study that is almost certainly completely made up. As one author put it, let's hope the hormone study was made up, too.
At any rate, when the corresponding author of a study has a history of fraud and really, really bad ethical and medical practices, it is pretty relevant to note.
You have a different opinion on ivermectin, presumably informed by research like the paper you linked, but you don't feel a need to debate, but you took the initiative to post the paper.
But look, even in this post you can't help but insult people. "Snotty doctor" - seriously? I don't think trolling is the right word here, but this also doesn't seem like you are willing to carry on a serious conversation.
Don't get me wrong - I actually would prefer and enjoy a serious conversation. That's why I come to this forum. Just doesn't seem like that's why you do.
You seem to want to continue to want to discuss/argue about that white paper, which...I don't. I've conceded you made some good points, I don't follow that author, and I just...found it of interest. I do consider my opinion informed, and do have a difference of opinion but I'm not willing to just engage in a link/study/paper/discussion only on the basis of your (non-published/public) criteria of doctors whose studies are ok. Frankly, I think it would be a derail of the thread to go too far down that rabbit hole, anyway. Ivermectin and HCQ are not...really on topic, but there is a forum for such discussion.Zobel said:
I just don't have much interest in trying to have a good faith convo if there's no good faith on both sides. You're an active poster and I generally enjoy talking to you, but in the end if it's just going to be a waste of time I won't.
I guess I'm kinda confused - if a person shares a paper in a discussion thread, my assumption is they want to discuss the paper or at least observe a discussion.
I brought up crimes against humanity because the corresponding author of the paper you posted was recommended for indictment for them by the Brazilian senate for how they handled a different covid study, which is why the name was familiar to me. This involved giving high dose anti-androgenic hormones to both men and women apparently without informed consent, which can cause infertility in men and severe birth defects in babies in the womb and isn't supposed to be given to women at all. He also is the author of yet another covid study that is almost certainly completely made up. As one author put it, let's hope the hormone study was made up, too.
At any rate, when the corresponding author of a study has a history of fraud and really, really bad ethical and medical practices, it is pretty relevant to note.
You have a different opinion on ivermectin, presumably informed by research like the paper you linked, but you don't feel a need to debate, but you took the initiative to post the paper.
But look, even in this post you can't help but insult people. "Snotty doctor" - seriously? I don't think trolling is the right word here, but this also doesn't seem like you are willing to carry on a serious conversation.
Don't get me wrong - I actually would prefer and enjoy a serious conversation. That's why I come to this forum. Just doesn't seem like that's why you do.
Again, philosophically, I think crimes against humanity have been committed and support prosecuting the people responsible for this as relates to Covid-19.
Last week you were upset I brought up too many specifics on a subject you didn't want to discuss and now I just don't really disagree with you but you are...frustrated by my lack of specific disagreement?
How would you characterize this type of flippant arrogance without it being, well, insulting? Is the term 'snotty doctor' really off base?
Quote:Quote:diehard03 said:Quote:
Quote:
It's cool man. Thanks for the correction. It's not like I have been doing this for over a decade before covid hit or anything.
Im with you overall, but i think bears mentioning that the powers that be have put on a masterclass on how not to communicate in this situation. When you present yourself as an expert and use condescension as a tool, you lose the ability backtrack when the science leads you in another direction.
We are experts. Even when we end up being wrong, our wrong is based on tons of similar experience combined with all the most current information. When the most current information changes, then we update our opinions making them less wrong. That's how this works. We only know when we're wrong when new information proves it.
Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.
I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion
You also (responsively) posted a meme about how we are not vaccinating population groups that are not at risk of serious consequences from infection (which the vaccine doesn't prevent). That's not serious argument/discussion, either, I'd note, as well as being factually wrong despite your resort to Dwight Shrute as a source, per the WHO link I've provided since (as well as common sense about healthy kids).
Please don't be upset, is all I am saying, as to my position, or unwillingness to debate exclusively on your terms. You're welcome of course to your own opinions on any of this just as you are to your concepts of doctrine/dogma/theology.
Not upset. Keepin it irenic!
There are certain roles that require an intensive amount of training and experience, and where the safety of others is directly at stake. Doctor happens to be one of them. I've mentioned some others like pilots, military officers, judges, and engineers. All of these jobs require education, training, certification, and further continual education, certification and training. Why is that? Because it would be foolish and criminal to allow someone without all of that do those roles. So when someone like me, who has all of this plus, a decade of experience, and many instances of direct experience with the condition at hand, it would be equally foolish and criminal for me to put aside all of that to take direction from a layperson. What you interpret as arrogance is simple competence, and unwillingess to admit that an non-professional can come anywhere close to that level of competence. I'd as soon take your advice on the way to deal with COVID as I would take it on the best way to do a cesarean section.Quote:
How would you characterize this type of flippant arrogance without it being, well, insulting? Is the term 'snotty doctor' really off base?
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.
Let me give an example. 40 years ago niacin was given for cholesterol problems. We know from good studies that high HDL and low LDL are associated with less heart attacks. Niacin is known to cause HDL to rise and LDL to lower, and therefore was also thought to reduce heart attacks. Based on everything we knew at the time, including a lot of studies, this was a good preventative medicine. However, it turns out that we were wrong. Studies tested the direct effects of niacin on preventing heart attacks and the results were controversial but did not show any effects. So despite having excellent, well-informed reasons for using it, we were wrong.Quote:
Compare that to a layperson. They can pretty much say anything with no evidence or experience and end up being right eventually. Even broken clocks are right twice a day. But it's not like we're going to take Joe Blow's unfounded opinion seriously even if he eventually ends up being correct.
I'm not always right, and no doctor or part of our medical system is. But my wrong opinion is better informed and judged than any layperson's accidentally correct opinion
Around the same time, some people were taking an herbal medicine called red yeast extract to lower cholesterol. You could find it in herbal medicine shops that also see rhino horn, tiger testicles, saw palmetto, and a hundred other "remedies" that don't do anything. However, once this medicine was tested, it was found to actually prevent heart attacks. Turns out the active ingredient of red yeast extract is a statin, and that established the standard of care all the way until now.
The wrongness in the first paragraph is a considered, measured, and tested wrongness. It incorporated the latest knowledge in biochemistry, pharmacology, and medical studies. The second paragraph was literally just someone using an herb based on a verbal tradition. These same people peddle a hundred ineffective treatments. Even though red yeast extract works, they had no idea why, what dosing to use, the possible side effects, or possible interactions with other medicines. The herbalists were right and the doctors were wrong. But the herbalists were lucky and ignorant, while the doctors were knowledgable and unlucky. It happens, but give me the doctors in the first paragraph over the herbalists in the second every day of the week.
The system used by doctors is also self-correcting, so even when we are wrong we fix it. We now know 1000x more than the herbalists pushing red yeast extract. We've created better versions of statins and we know the side effects and drug interactions. We know the target doses and what to measure when treating people with this. The herbalists were ignorant and right, but now the doctors are knowledgable and right. At least until we find more information to correct ourselves like we always do. Contrast this with verbal tradition and politics. These things do not tend to correct themselves when better information is available.
No material on this site is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See full Medical Disclaimer.