From the start of the Wuhan outbreak there has been a tendency among medical experts and researchers to seize on a particular data point and then not update their understanding with fresh data.
Another example of this was the early estimate that 20% of COVID cases would fall into a severe or critical classification. Even in China and particularly internationally, the publicly available data never really supported that percentage.
Closer inspection of the "official" estimate put out by the WHO among other sources indicated it came from a single study of Wuhan cases, which then became embedded in the prevailing narrative.
Having dealt with catastrophic technology infrastructure failures during my career as a Voice and Data Engineer, I am very sympathetic to the position doctors are in at the outset of a major disease outbreak: information is sparse, data is constantly coming in largely unstructured, and what makes sense today can make no sense tomorrow.
However, the object lesson should always be a modicum of humility: recognize that the data is in a state of flux, recognize that the best available understandings not only are subject to change, but are likely to change, and retain the intellectual flexibility to adapt one's thinking to new data as it becomes available.
Reading this discussion about NSAIDS, it strikes me as yet another example of how the medical community failed to hew to that standard regarding COVID.
Yes, it is rather confusing why doctors weren't allowed to be doctors and make their own informed, independent judgement, but I suppose that in times of uncertainty they can outsource their knowledge to somewhat disassociate themselves from wrong doings. If you as a doctor made a decision that went wrong, that's on you. But if you were just following orders you don't have to blame yourself.
If California style misinformation laws become the norm (Sb2098), the problems you listed will go away. The law prohibits doctors from speaking up or disagreeing with Dr. Gavin Newsom.
Fortunately these policies weren't so ossified- I don't think we saw stores pulling NSAIDs off the shelf, but it does raise concerns as to why such a rash decision would be made and whether there may be some precedent set for future concerns.
It's an interesting perspective you provide, and it's one that has played out and will likely continue to play out. It's an unfortunate situation where there's an institutional belief that the masses need to be protected from themselves rather than be provided their own information and their own ability to critically assess and come to their own conclusions.
I was rather surprised to see that many NSAIDs that are OTC in the US are prescription-only in places like the UK. And like you said, a lot of this really comes down to reactionary medicine and policies- wait for some type of public perception to take hold and clamp down on these ideas, or try to get ahead of some randomly perceived perception of what may happen.
Hopefully more people are aware that there tends to be this reactionary approach, and that more individuals take it upon themselves to be educated to fight off these types of policies better.
Obviously, the anti-inflammatory effects of the NSAIDs was a big concern as to affecting the overall death ratio just like hydroxychloroquine early in the scamdemic.
Does anyone remember the 60,000 Italian lupus and RA patients who suffered zero deaths or ICU trips from SARS-CoV-2 and only 20 possibly false positives.
Well to contextualize it, the concerns of the hyperinflammatory state were with respect to later stages of the disease. There are some questions as to whether fever at the early onset of the disease may be important, but as to more severe lung or bacterial infection that information didn't seem appropriate or at least substantially founded.
Where is the widest brush I can buy? This is a medical cartel. And they don’t care one iota if you or your loved one dies. These type of “human beings” live on greed and profit. And everyone is “paid off” in some way, shape, or form. The CDC is a PRIVATE entity, just like the Federal Reserve. They have no skin in the game…except PROFIT. The Rockefeller’s cancelled ethical medicine, to our own detriment for generations upon generations.
May 27, 2022·edited May 28, 2022Liked by Modern Discontent
Thanks for sharing that article/study. I found it very intriguing. Personally I don't think most people give much thought to the use of the word "theory" as it relates to research, somehow we seem to fail to make the distinction clear during the years of elementary to secondary (high school) education, so a true understanding is probably reserved for those with a university education. Words such as "a study", or "research", "hypotheses", and theory, I believe in the minds of the "average" person (who ever that is ? !), are somewhat aligned with
"theory=fact, because, a "study" was done ! Perhaps, if the distinctions were made as part of the general base of knowledge taught to all public school students, we would have a much more intelligent population ? I am not talking about the extent of detail needed to insure all students go into research fields, I am talking about universal basics such as the difference in simple and compound interest for examples, things that all should be exposed to. I have always observed that individuals will read an article in a mass market publication, Family Circle or other such "super market" entertainment type publications. They will run an article that begins with: " a recent study shows....", it may be a harmless article like, a recent study shows people who spend more time outdoors score higher on overall life satisfaction and happiness. Now, nothing wrong with these entertaining articles, but it seems more and more, people truly do not understand that "a recent study shows..." really has no meaning, other than it's interesting, hypothesizing is fun and interesting. Just look at Critical Race Theory, it's one person's interesting hypothesis (now I am assuming it got to the stage of being formed into a hypothesis !?), but our society seems to not understand at all the "a study" does not prove an entire concept, it gives an INDICATION of a POSSIBLE explanation ! It's a place to begin. Further more, and much more SERIOUS, the biggest mistake we've made is to NOT incorporate (until university level studies, and not every one is going to seek a university education) the very basics of research studies in general education. SHOW students how the selection of WHO or WHAT you include in your study, what a "variable" is and how the types and numbers of variables you select can actually shape the study in any direction you wish it to go. In my mind, I think we owe at least such basic information to students just as much as we include such basics as how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and how to pronounce various letters and syllables. We would have a far superior over all level on literacy/intelligence, if people had the rudiments of how to read and interpret studies and theories ! Again, I use it only because it is such an issue presently, but of the hundreds of "theories" graduate students propose everyday in every graduate school, we (as a country) literally seize ONE among hundreds, probably closer to thousands, and rush to incorporate it into every public school curriculum ! ? That is a truly insane foundation for choosing curriculum, just ... pick a theory, any theory.... there are MANY theories about how the earth and life, actually began, some tied to spiritual beliefs, some to evolution, etc. but the important point is, we do NOT just pick one and suddenly make that THE THEORY to teach as if being a theory made it a proven scientific truth ! ! For that matter, do we even bother to see if the "theory" was ever put into hypothesis form ? Do we know what we are talking about as a society ? WHAT ARE WE THINKING, it's time (and the article you referenced is just another example in a different discipline, medical research) we began to EDUCATE our youth so they KNOW how to DISCERN what is a movable feast of " a recent study shows...." spread before them !
There certainly is a lot wrong with the way our education system in the US is organized. Even in university as a STEM major many students just did not want to take a lab class. It seemed tedious, burdensome, all this reasons that disincetivize students from wanting to take a lab course. Ironic that many of these students would want to go into research!
One thing I've noticed far more now than I did previously is how news outlets report on a study. The never mention the study's name or any link to it, but instead explains the study through credentials. What journal was the study published in, what University did the research come from, etc. All those are far more important than to even mention the actual study, but I do partially believe this happens due to news outlets just copying and pasting stories from other outlets, and somewhere along the way the study and the actual meat of the study is lost.
I think the use of scientific terms are mostly a consequence of the public's use vs terms used by scientists. Most people actually confuse a hypothesis and a theory. Hypotheses are assumptions or ideas that may not have been tested- they provide a direction for research. Theories are ideas or concepts that tend to be substantiated by evidence. I think many people may mistakenly use "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis".
May 28, 2022·edited May 28, 2022Liked by Modern Discontent
I think they do that mistakenly because they have no idea of the difference in the two terms ! I mean, LOL, just listen to the way, as you commented, that the media toss around words ! Honestly, I taught mainly grad students who came into the program without a clear understanding of the subtle differences in "theory" and "hypothesis", let alone knowing anything about standard deviation, or how to manipulate data at all, but they knew by the end of the semester, LOL, when they turned in their research proposals...LOL.. to me !
I had a graduate professor in a statistics class who gave us the data from home lending practices prior to the 2008 housing market crash which we had to analyze, and needless to say none of the discriminatory practices for which the MSM accused the big banks of practicing were true. In fact, we found the opposite to be true ... it was certainly an eye-opening experience (although I honestly didn’t believe the discriminatory allegations... albeit there are MANY other issues at play) and I applaud you for the valuable lesson you taught your students!
Oh, I am shocked, shocked to my soul, that you found the causal link to discriminatory practices (which, like you, I acknowledge existed and still exist) was not the predominant variable, just shocked....LOL ! "We, the people" always seem to jump on ONE thing, one event, one variable, and "ride it for all it's worth" in the media, oh, or, maybe it's not "we the people" after all ? Maybe it's an unbalanced and out of control group of media hounds posing as guardians of truth and justice ? ONCE the "press" guarded ALL "sides" of issues, calling out any who were gas lighting without regard to "offending" any group !
Yes, and that was part of the explanation as to why NSAIDs were concerned. I was going to include this recent study but I think the post was already longwinded. This study looked at in vitro assays and mouse studies. The researchers gave NSAIDs and measured ACEII mRNA expression as well as protein expression, and in most instances there was no increase in expression. In vitro cells also challenged with SARS-COV2 and provided NSAIDs also appeared to have reduced SARS-COV2 infection.
In April 2020 I was suffering from some very painful inflammation in my left elbow - every morning I woke up with excruciating pain in my arm and I was terrified to take Ibuprofen (which I knew full well would knock it out in a few days at maximum strength). So I suffered needlessly until one day I said screw it - and cured my pain with Advil & an elbow brace.
So much has come to light in the past two years and it really just makes me question everything.
I'm sorry you had to go through that. It's rather ridiculous to think about how many people's behaviors were suddenly changed because of uncertainty. It also doesn't help that they just couldn't tell who had COVID so you'd never know if using OTCs to treat something like muscle pain or a headache you may just be "helping" COVID. It's all rather ridiculous.
May 28, 2022·edited May 28, 2022Liked by Modern Discontent
Yep, I avoided ibuprofen for the better part of a year due to this and my wife was considering changing her BP meds, because there were similar theories/fears about ARBs. It seems both were unfounded.
That said, taking any antipyretic during a viral infection is probably a mistake because fever appears to increase various immune responses that are likely helpful in combating the infection. Of course they do tend to make people feel better, but I have a fuzzy recollection that there are studies that taking them actually lengthens the time to full recovery.
That definitely is true. There are question as to whether a fever should be allowed to persist early on to allow for a proper immune response. I didn't realize but apparently you are not supposed to take an NSAID after receiving a vaccine for this same reason.
I think the studies are overall mixed and it likely depends on the disease and the overall effects. Many of these drugs have several mechanisms of action, so even if it reduces a fever (which may not be good early on in an infection) other mechanisms may contribute to some type of therapeutic benefit.
Maybe I'll consider looking into fevers more and make a post about it.
"No one knew how dangerous COVID would be, or that it would become the global pandemic that it now is."
FALSE. Its time to stop using these phrases in retrospective reporting. The Diamond Princess data perfectly predicted the impact of the flu rebranded as a novel pathogen.
Furthermore, what use is NIAID and all of the GOF experimentation and study under the supposed auspices of pandemic preparedness.
They knew. Those are just equivocations they use to deflect culpability.
From the start of the Wuhan outbreak there has been a tendency among medical experts and researchers to seize on a particular data point and then not update their understanding with fresh data.
Another example of this was the early estimate that 20% of COVID cases would fall into a severe or critical classification. Even in China and particularly internationally, the publicly available data never really supported that percentage.
Closer inspection of the "official" estimate put out by the WHO among other sources indicated it came from a single study of Wuhan cases, which then became embedded in the prevailing narrative.
https://allfactsmatter.substack.com/p/narrative-fail-were-missing-some?s=w
Having dealt with catastrophic technology infrastructure failures during my career as a Voice and Data Engineer, I am very sympathetic to the position doctors are in at the outset of a major disease outbreak: information is sparse, data is constantly coming in largely unstructured, and what makes sense today can make no sense tomorrow.
However, the object lesson should always be a modicum of humility: recognize that the data is in a state of flux, recognize that the best available understandings not only are subject to change, but are likely to change, and retain the intellectual flexibility to adapt one's thinking to new data as it becomes available.
Reading this discussion about NSAIDS, it strikes me as yet another example of how the medical community failed to hew to that standard regarding COVID.
Yes, it is rather confusing why doctors weren't allowed to be doctors and make their own informed, independent judgement, but I suppose that in times of uncertainty they can outsource their knowledge to somewhat disassociate themselves from wrong doings. If you as a doctor made a decision that went wrong, that's on you. But if you were just following orders you don't have to blame yourself.
Frankly, the idea of a doctor too scared to own his decisions scares the Hell out of me.
I'm old enough to remember when being a professional person--in any profession--entailed a certain sense of ethics.
If California style misinformation laws become the norm (Sb2098), the problems you listed will go away. The law prohibits doctors from speaking up or disagreeing with Dr. Gavin Newsom.
Fortunately these policies weren't so ossified- I don't think we saw stores pulling NSAIDs off the shelf, but it does raise concerns as to why such a rash decision would be made and whether there may be some precedent set for future concerns.
It's an interesting perspective you provide, and it's one that has played out and will likely continue to play out. It's an unfortunate situation where there's an institutional belief that the masses need to be protected from themselves rather than be provided their own information and their own ability to critically assess and come to their own conclusions.
I was rather surprised to see that many NSAIDs that are OTC in the US are prescription-only in places like the UK. And like you said, a lot of this really comes down to reactionary medicine and policies- wait for some type of public perception to take hold and clamp down on these ideas, or try to get ahead of some randomly perceived perception of what may happen.
Hopefully more people are aware that there tends to be this reactionary approach, and that more individuals take it upon themselves to be educated to fight off these types of policies better.
Obviously, the anti-inflammatory effects of the NSAIDs was a big concern as to affecting the overall death ratio just like hydroxychloroquine early in the scamdemic.
Does anyone remember the 60,000 Italian lupus and RA patients who suffered zero deaths or ICU trips from SARS-CoV-2 and only 20 possibly false positives.
Well to contextualize it, the concerns of the hyperinflammatory state were with respect to later stages of the disease. There are some questions as to whether fever at the early onset of the disease may be important, but as to more severe lung or bacterial infection that information didn't seem appropriate or at least substantially founded.
If the CDC, NIH, FDA, WHO, give you advice, do the opposite. These agencies are responsible for countless deaths. They’re worthless.
I wouldn't use such a wide brush, but it at least should provide incentive to question many policies.
Where is the widest brush I can buy? This is a medical cartel. And they don’t care one iota if you or your loved one dies. These type of “human beings” live on greed and profit. And everyone is “paid off” in some way, shape, or form. The CDC is a PRIVATE entity, just like the Federal Reserve. They have no skin in the game…except PROFIT. The Rockefeller’s cancelled ethical medicine, to our own detriment for generations upon generations.
I recall early on in the pandemic that the call was put out to avoid Ibuprofen due to it possibly causing ACE2 over expression...see for example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7128661/
“speculative” science.
Thanks for sharing that article/study. I found it very intriguing. Personally I don't think most people give much thought to the use of the word "theory" as it relates to research, somehow we seem to fail to make the distinction clear during the years of elementary to secondary (high school) education, so a true understanding is probably reserved for those with a university education. Words such as "a study", or "research", "hypotheses", and theory, I believe in the minds of the "average" person (who ever that is ? !), are somewhat aligned with
"theory=fact, because, a "study" was done ! Perhaps, if the distinctions were made as part of the general base of knowledge taught to all public school students, we would have a much more intelligent population ? I am not talking about the extent of detail needed to insure all students go into research fields, I am talking about universal basics such as the difference in simple and compound interest for examples, things that all should be exposed to. I have always observed that individuals will read an article in a mass market publication, Family Circle or other such "super market" entertainment type publications. They will run an article that begins with: " a recent study shows....", it may be a harmless article like, a recent study shows people who spend more time outdoors score higher on overall life satisfaction and happiness. Now, nothing wrong with these entertaining articles, but it seems more and more, people truly do not understand that "a recent study shows..." really has no meaning, other than it's interesting, hypothesizing is fun and interesting. Just look at Critical Race Theory, it's one person's interesting hypothesis (now I am assuming it got to the stage of being formed into a hypothesis !?), but our society seems to not understand at all the "a study" does not prove an entire concept, it gives an INDICATION of a POSSIBLE explanation ! It's a place to begin. Further more, and much more SERIOUS, the biggest mistake we've made is to NOT incorporate (until university level studies, and not every one is going to seek a university education) the very basics of research studies in general education. SHOW students how the selection of WHO or WHAT you include in your study, what a "variable" is and how the types and numbers of variables you select can actually shape the study in any direction you wish it to go. In my mind, I think we owe at least such basic information to students just as much as we include such basics as how to add, subtract, multiply, and divide, and how to pronounce various letters and syllables. We would have a far superior over all level on literacy/intelligence, if people had the rudiments of how to read and interpret studies and theories ! Again, I use it only because it is such an issue presently, but of the hundreds of "theories" graduate students propose everyday in every graduate school, we (as a country) literally seize ONE among hundreds, probably closer to thousands, and rush to incorporate it into every public school curriculum ! ? That is a truly insane foundation for choosing curriculum, just ... pick a theory, any theory.... there are MANY theories about how the earth and life, actually began, some tied to spiritual beliefs, some to evolution, etc. but the important point is, we do NOT just pick one and suddenly make that THE THEORY to teach as if being a theory made it a proven scientific truth ! ! For that matter, do we even bother to see if the "theory" was ever put into hypothesis form ? Do we know what we are talking about as a society ? WHAT ARE WE THINKING, it's time (and the article you referenced is just another example in a different discipline, medical research) we began to EDUCATE our youth so they KNOW how to DISCERN what is a movable feast of " a recent study shows...." spread before them !
There certainly is a lot wrong with the way our education system in the US is organized. Even in university as a STEM major many students just did not want to take a lab class. It seemed tedious, burdensome, all this reasons that disincetivize students from wanting to take a lab course. Ironic that many of these students would want to go into research!
One thing I've noticed far more now than I did previously is how news outlets report on a study. The never mention the study's name or any link to it, but instead explains the study through credentials. What journal was the study published in, what University did the research come from, etc. All those are far more important than to even mention the actual study, but I do partially believe this happens due to news outlets just copying and pasting stories from other outlets, and somewhere along the way the study and the actual meat of the study is lost.
I think the use of scientific terms are mostly a consequence of the public's use vs terms used by scientists. Most people actually confuse a hypothesis and a theory. Hypotheses are assumptions or ideas that may not have been tested- they provide a direction for research. Theories are ideas or concepts that tend to be substantiated by evidence. I think many people may mistakenly use "theory" when they really mean "hypothesis".
I think they do that mistakenly because they have no idea of the difference in the two terms ! I mean, LOL, just listen to the way, as you commented, that the media toss around words ! Honestly, I taught mainly grad students who came into the program without a clear understanding of the subtle differences in "theory" and "hypothesis", let alone knowing anything about standard deviation, or how to manipulate data at all, but they knew by the end of the semester, LOL, when they turned in their research proposals...LOL.. to me !
I had a graduate professor in a statistics class who gave us the data from home lending practices prior to the 2008 housing market crash which we had to analyze, and needless to say none of the discriminatory practices for which the MSM accused the big banks of practicing were true. In fact, we found the opposite to be true ... it was certainly an eye-opening experience (although I honestly didn’t believe the discriminatory allegations... albeit there are MANY other issues at play) and I applaud you for the valuable lesson you taught your students!
Oh, I am shocked, shocked to my soul, that you found the causal link to discriminatory practices (which, like you, I acknowledge existed and still exist) was not the predominant variable, just shocked....LOL ! "We, the people" always seem to jump on ONE thing, one event, one variable, and "ride it for all it's worth" in the media, oh, or, maybe it's not "we the people" after all ? Maybe it's an unbalanced and out of control group of media hounds posing as guardians of truth and justice ? ONCE the "press" guarded ALL "sides" of issues, calling out any who were gas lighting without regard to "offending" any group !
Yes, and that was part of the explanation as to why NSAIDs were concerned. I was going to include this recent study but I think the post was already longwinded. This study looked at in vitro assays and mouse studies. The researchers gave NSAIDs and measured ACEII mRNA expression as well as protein expression, and in most instances there was no increase in expression. In vitro cells also challenged with SARS-COV2 and provided NSAIDs also appeared to have reduced SARS-COV2 infection.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8835123/
This study just adds to the discussion, but it at least indicates that there's more going on that initially assumed.
In April 2020 I was suffering from some very painful inflammation in my left elbow - every morning I woke up with excruciating pain in my arm and I was terrified to take Ibuprofen (which I knew full well would knock it out in a few days at maximum strength). So I suffered needlessly until one day I said screw it - and cured my pain with Advil & an elbow brace.
So much has come to light in the past two years and it really just makes me question everything.
I'm sorry you had to go through that. It's rather ridiculous to think about how many people's behaviors were suddenly changed because of uncertainty. It also doesn't help that they just couldn't tell who had COVID so you'd never know if using OTCs to treat something like muscle pain or a headache you may just be "helping" COVID. It's all rather ridiculous.
Yep, I avoided ibuprofen for the better part of a year due to this and my wife was considering changing her BP meds, because there were similar theories/fears about ARBs. It seems both were unfounded.
That said, taking any antipyretic during a viral infection is probably a mistake because fever appears to increase various immune responses that are likely helpful in combating the infection. Of course they do tend to make people feel better, but I have a fuzzy recollection that there are studies that taking them actually lengthens the time to full recovery.
That definitely is true. There are question as to whether a fever should be allowed to persist early on to allow for a proper immune response. I didn't realize but apparently you are not supposed to take an NSAID after receiving a vaccine for this same reason.
I think the studies are overall mixed and it likely depends on the disease and the overall effects. Many of these drugs have several mechanisms of action, so even if it reduces a fever (which may not be good early on in an infection) other mechanisms may contribute to some type of therapeutic benefit.
Maybe I'll consider looking into fevers more and make a post about it.
"No one knew how dangerous COVID would be, or that it would become the global pandemic that it now is."
FALSE. Its time to stop using these phrases in retrospective reporting. The Diamond Princess data perfectly predicted the impact of the flu rebranded as a novel pathogen.
Furthermore, what use is NIAID and all of the GOF experimentation and study under the supposed auspices of pandemic preparedness.
They knew. Those are just equivocations they use to deflect culpability.