Remdesivir: Big global study finds drug doesn't help Covid-19 patients

  
Via:  Nerm_L  •  6 days ago  •  75 comments

By:   John Bonifield (CNN)

Remdesivir: Big global study finds drug doesn't help Covid-19 patients
Remdesivir has "little or no effect on mortality" for patients hospitalized with coronavirus and it doesn't seem to help Covid-19 patients recover any faster, either.

Sponsored by group News Viners

News Viners


As with everything else related to the pandemic, remdesivir appears to have been much ado about nothing.

Now we must endure the onslaught of competing studies.  Which 'science' are we to believe?  At the end of it all, the 'science' will only tell us that we still have to believe whatever we want to believe.

Do we swallow Morpheus' Red pill or Blue pill?  Does it really matter anymore?

Thank you, China.


S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



In a study it described as both conclusive and disappointing, the World Health Organization said the antiviral drug remdesivir has "little or no effect on mortality" for patients hospitalized with coronavirus and it doesn't seem to help patients recover any faster, either.

Until now, remdesivir has been the only drug that appeared to have specific effects for coronavirus. It was the only drug with an Emergency Use Authorization for Covid-19 from the US Food and Drug Administration.

Results of the WHO study have not been published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. But WHO posted them to a pre-print server.

The WHO study reviewed remdesivir and three other repurposed drugs: hydroxychloroquine, the HIV combination of lopinavir and ritonavir and interferon. None of them helped patients live any longer or get out of the hospital any sooner, WHO said.

The trial was able to generate conclusive evidence on the impact the drugs had on mortality, the need for ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.

"For each drug in the study, the effect on mortality was disappointingly unpromising," WHO said in a statement.

Several other studies had found that hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial drug, was of no benefit to coronavirus patients, as had several studies looking at the HIV drug combination.

The study covered more than 11,000 coronavirus patients in 30 countries. "The protocol was designed to involve hundreds of potentially over-stressed hospitals in dozens of countries," the international team of researchers wrote. They said they have submitted their findings to a medical journal.

Prior to the WHO study, a large controlled study of remdesivir in the US found that it shortens recovery time by about a third in severely ill, hospitalized adults with Covid-19, but does little to help those with milder cases.

Gilead Sciences, the drug's maker, said the findings did not mean the drug, sold under the brand name Veklury, is of no benefit.

"The emerging data appear inconsistent with more robust evidence from multiple randomized, controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals validating the clinical benefit of Veklury (remdesivir). We are concerned that the data from this open- label global trial have not undergone the rigorous review required to allow for constructive scientific discussion," Gilead said in a statement.

"The benefits of Veklury have been demonstrated in three randomized, controlled clinical trials, including a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial -- the gold standard for evaluating the efficacy and safety of investigational drugs."

The WHO-led researchers say their trial, called the Solidarity trial, will continue. "Newer antiviral drugs, immunomodulators and anti-SARS COV-2 monoclonal antibodies are now being considered for evaluation via the Solidarity Therapeutics trial," WHO said.

Monoclonal antibody treatments include Regeneron's dual antibody cocktail and Eli Lilly and Co's double antibody therapy.


Tags

jrGroupDiscuss - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
Nerm_L
1  seeder  Nerm_L    6 days ago

The evidence is crystal clear.  Scientific experts are just playing us for suckers.  

Red pills or blue pills, it really doesn't matter. 

Science is a manipulated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this

512

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1    6 days ago
Science is a manipulated dream world built to keep us under control in order to change a human being into this

Are you serious?   Or do you equate 'Science' with 'Big Pharma'?

 Which 'science' are we to believe?  At the end of it all, the 'science' will only tell us that we still have to believe whatever we want to believe.

Science provides explanations of natural phenomena.   You continue to conflate 'Science' with agents who misuse the results of Science.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1    6 days ago
Science provides explanations of natural phenomena.   

'Science' provides a myriad of explanations and hopes one is close.  It is often difficult to distinguish between 'covering the bases' and 'covering one's ass'.

You continue to conflate 'Science' with agents who misuse the results of Science.

So, the clinical trials are being conducted by agents misusing science.  Unless, of course, the studies provide results you want to believe.  

512

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1.2  MAGA  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.1    6 days ago

Thank you China are the key words here... 

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.1    6 days ago
'Science' provides a myriad of explanations and hopes one is close. 

Hope?   Science explores the frontier of knowledge.   Information quality is initially very low and improves with continued research.

Are you unaware that when the information is low the quality of the explanations will be low and considered as such by Science (low confidence, rejection, mere hypothesis)?   Are you unaware that multiple researchers across the planet will —when there are many unanswered variables in an area of research— formulate different explanations?   

Science is self-correcting in that over time, as quality evidence mounts, the explanations will converge and improve.   Science is not magic and cannot immediately find the single correct explanation for all phenomena.   To not understand that is to not understand how Science works.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
1.1.4  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.3    6 days ago
Science is self-correcting in that over time, as quality evidence mounts, the explanations will converge and improve.   Science is not magic and cannot immediately find the single correct explanation for all phenomena.   To not understand that is to not understand how Science works.

'Science' corrects itself with the astoundingly effective tool of hindsight.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.5  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @1.1.4    6 days ago

Science self-corrects based on new information.

Why are you constantly and absurdly trying to discredit Science?  

 
 
 
CB
1.1.6  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.1.5    4 days ago

It's disinformation transfer. The only question is this: Is one in the trade of disinformation, or is one a transmitter of disinformation. The distinction is significant. There are parts of the United States that are in control (enthralled) by faith in superstitions, anecdotal stories, and persuasive personalities. These three types have long histories and backgrounds in hitting the ground running at a fast clip; while science must of necessity lag behind. . . for the evidential facts of the matter.

What is dangerous in this moment is, superstition, stories, and personalities have all ganged up to run ahead make their "deliverables" and make an additional effort to bad-mouth "science" that is due to come up behind slowly chugging along!

It is a diabolical practice and the people suffer wildly because of it. It's #1 purveyor is Donald Trump, the president, for whom we are 'taught' to put all eyes on. I have no other choice than to state it! This man, as president, is wholly the bane of the good which facts and patience can bring- as he seeks to mold the national consciousness into some mesmerized majority hanging on his every idea about what truth is.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
1.2  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  Nerm_L @1    4 days ago

"I take the red pill to remind me to take the blue pill." (The judge in What's Up Doc?)

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2  Baron Creek    6 days ago

I don't recall Remdesivir as being touted as a cure all. From April...

“Although a 31% improvement doesn’t seem like a knockout 100%, it is a very important proof of concept,” Fauci said. “What it has proven is that a drug can block this virus.” Deaths were also lower in trial participants who received the drug, he said, but that trend was not statistically significant . The shortened recovery time, however, was significant, and was enough of a benefit that investigators decided to stop the trial early for ethical reasons, he said, to ensure that those participants who were receiving placebo could now access the drug. Fauci added that remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19.

Note the statement "trend was not statistically significant", which is not a great leap from "little to no effect on mortality". 

The issue is whether the 31% improvement in stay is achieved...

CONCLUSIONS These Remdesivir, Hydroxychloroquine, Lopinavir and Interferon regimens appeared to have little or no effect on hospitalized COVID-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation and duration of hospital stay.

Please note even CNN mentions the study has not been peer reviewed. The referenced article is a pre-print

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Baron Creek @2    6 days ago

Thank you BC.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Baron Creek @2    6 days ago
I don't recall Remdesivir as being touted as a cure all. From April...

And yet, "Fauci added that remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19"

From the seeded article:

"Gilead Sciences, the drug's maker, said the findings did not mean the drug, sold under the brand name Veklury, is of no benefit."

Are we to believe any of this was really about finding a 'cure'?  Money talks, 'science' listens.  

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2    6 days ago
Money talks, 'science' listens.  

Again you are conflating 'Science' with the corporate misuse of same.

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.2.2  Baron Creek  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2    6 days ago
"Fauci added that remdesivir would become a standard treatment for COVID-19"

Let's put it back into context, by adding this in reference to mortality...

he said, but that trend was not statistically significant 

Why people got it into their heads that Remdesivir was a cure, is probably due to misleading media. Gilead, Dr. Fauci and now WHO have stated that there is no statistical difference in mortality. That was then and now. If you thought it was about some cure... that is on you.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.3  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.1    6 days ago
Again you are conflating 'Science' with the corporate misuse of same.

Really?  'Science' quickly dismissed the potential benefit of generic drugs used for another purpose.  'Science' also quickly embraced the need to study one of the most expensive drugs that had been developed for another purpose.

And there was a lot of scientific razzle dazzle to justify focusing attention on the most expensive drug.  Of course those scientists were better funded, published research that received more attention, and padded their curriculum vitae.  Other than that, the effort was completely objective.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.4  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.3    6 days ago

You continue to conflate Science with political and corporate agents pursuing an agenda.

Hello?

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.2.5  Split Personality  replied to  Baron Creek @2.2.2    6 days ago

I'd have to go back to see which date I sold Gilead and reaped a pretty good gain, but it was pretty plain from the beginning that remdisivir was not going to be a magic solution to anything.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.6  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Baron Creek @2.2.2    6 days ago
Why people got it into their heads that Remdesivir was a cure, is probably due to misleading media. Gilead, Dr. Fauci and now WHO have stated that there is no statistical difference in mortality. That was then and now. If you thought it was about some cure... that is on you

Remdesivir was touted as significantly improving recovery times.  Dr. Anthony Fauci was touting the promising potential of remdesivir for shortening recovery times.  And Dr. Fauci was indicating that shortening recovery times would lessen deleterious effects of extended intubation and lower mortality resulting from those deleterious effects.  The WHO repudiated that, as well.

Remdesivir is one of the most expensive drug therapies available.  Remdesivir is the only drug therapy given emergency use authorization by the FDA.  HHS purchased 500,000 treatment courses of Remdesivir based on the hyped 'science' of potential benefit.

Now the public must endure the onslaught of competing studies.  The public must listen to efforts to discredit the WHO.  We are back where we started.  People are being required to believe whatever they want to believe.  People will pick & choose from the morass of expert opinion, study results, and reporting to justify believing whatever they want to believe.

We could have saved a lot of time, money, and angst by simply believing what we wanted to believe without 'science' milking the cash cow.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
2.2.7  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @2.2.4    6 days ago
You continue to conflate Science with political and corporate agents pursuing an agenda. Hello?

The 'misuse' is taking place in hospitals using sick patients as lab rats.  The 'misuse' is not an abstraction.  

The entire effort of the scientific community involved in these clinical trials specifically pursues the goal of monetizing an illness.

 
 
 
TᵢG
2.2.8  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.7    6 days ago
The 'misuse' is not an abstraction.  

Who said it was an abstraction?   Science has been misused since its inception.

The entire effort of the scientific community involved in these clinical trials specifically pursues the goal of monetizing an illness.

You continue to conflate Science with the misuse of same.  Science does not seek to monetize anything;  Science is a base of knowledge and discipline that seeks to discover and explain natural phenomena.   Why are you constantly and absurdly trying to discredit Science?  

 
 
 
Baron Creek
2.2.9  Baron Creek  replied to  Nerm_L @2.2.6    6 days ago
And Dr. Fauci was indicating that shortening recovery times would lessen deleterious effects of extended intubation and lower mortality resulting from those deleterious effects.

No, what he said was...

Deaths were also lower in trial participants who received the drug, he said, but that trend was not statistically significant

I am not sure how you manage to massage that statement into "lower mortality". 

 
 
 
Tacos!
3  Tacos!    6 days ago

There's an old saying (OK, it's probably/definitely less than a century old): A man with one watch always knows what time it is; a man with two watches is never sure.

Prior to the WHO study, a large controlled study of remdesivir in the US found that it shortens recovery time by about a third in severely ill, hospitalized adults with Covid-19, but does little to help those with milder cases. . . .  "The emerging data appear inconsistent with more robust evidence from multiple randomized, controlled studies published in peer-reviewed journals validating the clinical benefit of Veklury (remdesivir). We are concerned that the data from this open- label global trial have not undergone the rigorous review required to allow for constructive scientific discussion," Gilead said in a statement.

So why is the WHO so ready to give up on it?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @3    6 days ago
So why is the WHO so ready to give up on it?

WHO conducted a study and followed the evidence to arrive at a conclusion.

We're seeing a consistent pattern concerning 'science'.  Competing studies arrive at contradictory conclusions followed by attempts to discredit those that conducted the studies.  In the end, the public is placed in the position of believing whatever they want to believe.  Polling and public opinion determines which of the contradictory conclusions are believable.

The same pattern can be observed with the issues of climate change, environmental sciences, social sciences, and any other of the sciences where humans and human activities are large factors.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.1  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1    6 days ago
WHO conducted a study and followed the evidence to arrive at a conclusion.

I think we were supposed to assume the people who conducted all the other studies did that, too. "Scientific method" and all that, right?

In the end, the public is placed in the position of believing whatever they want to believe. 

Yeah, and apparently who the WHO believes is somewhat arbitrary. I mean, I don't see the WHO saying anything like "upon further review, we realized the methodology in those earlier studies was deeply flawed."

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.1    6 days ago
I think we were supposed to assume the people who conducted all the other studies did that, too. "Scientific method" and all that, right?

IMO there isn't any reason to doubt the methodology of any of the studies.

Yeah, and apparently who the WHO believes is somewhat arbitrary. I mean, I don't see the WHO saying anything like "upon further review, we realized the methodology in those earlier studies was deeply flawed."

WHO didn't comment about prior studies because what WHO is reporting isn't a review or replication of prior studies.

According to the seeded article, WHO conducted an independent study.  The conclusion from WHO's independent study contradicts conclusions drawn from other independent studies.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.3  Tacos!  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.2    5 days ago
The conclusion from WHO's independent study contradicts conclusions drawn from other independent studies.

It seems to me that makes them all useless.

I don't know why there is a conflict in their studies. It could be almost anything.

A couple things I have observed in various studies is that experiments and data don't always measure the thing scientists claim they do. Additionally (or alternatively), a scientist can collect data perfectly, plot it perfectly and reach a totally unjustified conclusion. 

There is a lot more to good science than just "the facts." Figuring out what the experiment needs to be and what it actually shows are kind of an art. It might demand a talent for common sense that the scientist personally lacks. This belies the popular myth that science dispassionately and perfectly reveals the truth.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.3    5 days ago
This belies the popular myth that science dispassionately and perfectly reveals the truth.

Where do you find anyone claiming that the practice of science always reveals the truth;  that is, where do you find people claiming that all scientists are inerrant and perfectly honest, that all empirical observations are correctly captured and that science delivers truth rather than its best approximation of same?

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.5  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.4    5 days ago

Just pick up a paper. All this stuff about "follow the science" is a good example. The assertion is generally that we should implement pubic policy based on a scientific recommendation for the simple reason that it came from a scientist. In those moments, there is never an allowance that scientists are as flawed as anyone else, and that that might impact their work product.

The scientific method is inherently imperfect because it relies on people who are imperfect.

 
 
 
Gordy327
3.1.6  Gordy327  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.5    5 days ago
The scientific method is inherently imperfect because it relies on people who are imperfect.

No one claimed the Scientific Method was ever perfect. But it is the best method of determining scientific truths with the highest probability.

The assertion is generally that we should implement pubic policy based on a scientific recommendation for the simple reason that it came from a scientist.

No, it is (or should be) based on the best available evidence at the time. Scientists gather and relay the evidence, with which to base any recommendation on. 

In those moments, there is never an allowance that scientists are as flawed as anyone else, and that that might impact their work product.

No one is saying scientists are not flawed like everyone else. But dismissing or ignoring their recommendations or evidence simply because they are "flawed" is disingenuous. If you want to refute what a scientist says, refute the evidence then, as that is the basis for such recommendations.

Additionally (or alternatively), a scientist can collect data perfectly, plot it perfectly and reach a totally unjustified conclusion. 

That's one reason why there is peer review and/or repeat studies.

This belies the popular myth that science dispassionately and perfectly reveals the truth.

No one claims (or should not claim) that science always reveals truth. It would be nice if that were the case. But alas, it is not.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.5    5 days ago
The assertion is generally that we should implement pubic policy based on a scientific recommendation for the simple reason that it came from a scientist.

Anyone who asserts that Science is to be taken as perfect does not understand Science.    Anyone claiming that the practice of science always reveals the truth is confused.   Anyone claiming that Science ever deems truth about that natural world is reading what is not there.   Anyone claiming that Science should be accepted on authority is confused.   Anyone who accepts those claims does not understand Science.

Science has demonstrably been a more reliable source of information than other sources (such as human intuition, belief, etc.).    Accordingly, 'follow the science' is a good heuristic but not to the exclusion of scrutiny or consideration of other sources of information (if they exist for the question at hand).

The scientific method is inherently imperfect because it relies on people who are imperfect.

You have that completely backwards.   Human imperfection is the reason why the scientific method exists.   By default, human beings are imperfect.   The scientific method evolved to mitigate that imperfection.   It is net positive in that regard (it mitigates human imperfection but does not introduce negative consequences).   The method has not evolved to the point where all human imperfection has been checked (one wonders if that is even possible).   So if you really seek to fault the scientific method for not being able to eliminate 100% of human imperfection then that would be correct, but to present the scientific method as imperfect because of human imperfection misses the whole point.   It is like faulting the checks & balances of the CotUS for failing to eliminate corruption and errors in our three branches of government.   Does one blame the CotUS for mitigating but not eliminating human imperfection or does one blame the human beings (or human nature)?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.8  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.3    5 days ago
It seems to me that makes them all useless.

IMO all of them are only useless to the extent that the need to make a choice hasn't been eliminated.  The motivation is to be provided an answer that doesn't require making a choice.

All choices have consequences.  Once someone makes a choice then they can be blamed for the consequences.  A definitive answer avoids the need to make a choice and avoids being blamed for the consequences of a choice.  

A couple things I have observed in various studies is that experiments and data don't always measure the thing scientists claim they do. Additionally (or alternatively), a scientist can collect data perfectly, plot it perfectly and reach a totally unjustified conclusion. 

Methodology won't overcome inherent weaknesses in the process.  Methodology won't make attempts to answer irrelevant questions more relevant.  Methodology won't make an overly constrained experiment less biased.

There is a lot more to good science than just "the facts." Figuring out what the experiment needs to be and what it actually shows are kind of an art. It might demand a talent for common sense that the scientist personally lacks. This belies the popular myth that science dispassionately and perfectly reveals the truth.

Facts are conditional.  Adding or removing a variable, making an assumption, or applying an analogy alters the conditional context of facts.  Facts are relevant within the context of how the facts are obtained.

Facts do not eliminate the need to make a choice or the consequences of a choice.  Facts do not allow us to avoid being blamed for the consequences of making a choice.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.8    5 days ago

Yeah, the scientific method cannot fix all the failings of the human agents.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.10  Tacos!  replied to  Gordy327 @3.1.6    5 days ago
No one is saying scientists are not flawed like everyone else.

People implicitly do precisely that when they demand that public policy follow the recommendations of scientists without any further analysis of the recommendation itself. And if you do want to contest the recommendations, you're a "science denier" even if you are a scientist yourself. What's more, we frequently see peer review perverted into an argumentum ad populum, discrediting the minority findings through brute force.

Here, we have one study in disagreement with multiple previous studies. Shouldn't those multiple earlier studies carry some weight?

No one claimed the Scientific Method was ever perfect.

You are doing a lot of claiming for all people

If you want to refute what a scientist says, refute the evidence then, as that is the basis for such recommendations.

So, the default position is "the scientist is right" and the burden is on others to prove him wrong.

Anyway, this study doesn't appear to even do that. It just has a different result. I don't see an argument as to why we should not accept the earlier studies. What I do see is an argument as to why we should not accept the new study.

.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.11  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.9    5 days ago
Yeah, the scientific method cannot fix all the failings of the human agents.

Methodology can also amplify the failings of human agents.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.12  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.10    5 days ago
So, the default position is "the scientist is right" and the burden is on others to prove him wrong.

Why spin to the extreme?   No, science is not to be taken on authority.   It is not the scientist, it is the findings/evidence the scientist(s) presents (and the explanation thereof).

The default position is to evaluate all information available to you.   The information that comes from Science is usually better than intuition or belief but should not be taken as truth.   If one questions the information, then one should investigate until one is comfortable (or the info is rejected).

This is done all the time;  fellow scientists verifying experiments of others, etc.   Scientific findings are based on evidence and reason, not based on the authority of a scientist.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.13  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.11    5 days ago
Methodology can also amplify the failings of human agents.

Illustrate how the scientific method can amplify the failings of a scientist.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.14  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.7    5 days ago
Anyone who asserts that Science is to be taken as perfect does not understand Science.

I agree, but it sure is driving a lot of our politics, isn't it.

Science has demonstrably been a more reliable source of information than other sources (such as human intuition, belief, etc.).

I'd invite you to demonstrate this allegedly demonstrable claim, but honestly that sounds boring as well as impossible. I think you are making a claim that you believe in good faith, but I can't imagine how you would set about proving it. I also don't think it much matters. I don't see anyone here disputing that science has some utility. I also don't see anyone here claiming we should chuck it in the garbage and just go with our guts. The whole thing is a bit of a red herring.

The method has not evolved to the point where all human imperfection has been checked (one wonders if that is even possible). 

Pretty sure that's what I said.

So if you really seek to fault the scientific method for not being able to eliminate 100% of human imperfection then that would be correct

It's just an observation. I'm not seeking anything. I don't have anything personally against science.

It is like faulting the checks & balances of the CotUS for failing to eliminate corruption and errors in our three branches of government. 

That would also be a legitimate observation. Why do you seem to have a problem with observing that a system is not perfect?

Does one blame the CotUS for mitigating but not eliminating human imperfection or does one blame the human beings (or human nature)?

Why concern yourself with blame? Are we hurting someone's feelings? Are we being unjust to someone?

Anyway, it's not a zero sum problem. It doesn't need to be one or the other. The truth is it's both. Any system of learning or government will have been created by people and will therefore be inherently imperfect. The involvement of imperfect humans in those systems only exacerbates the imperfection.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.15  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.11    5 days ago
Methodology can also amplify the failings of human agents.

Not if it is done correctly. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.16  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.14    5 days ago
I agree, but it sure is driving a lot of our politics, isn't it.

Most science is not, especially where the scientific method can be properly applied. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.17  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.15    5 days ago
Not if it is done correctly. 

Methodology will not overcome propagation of error.  

An experiment can be biased by simply using a favorite pipette.  The preferences of someone conducting a study introduces biases that won't be addressed by methodology.  Errors introduced by preference will be consistent and won't be detected by statistics.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.18  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.17    5 days ago

Nerm,

Obviously, you have never been in the sciences. There is no such thing as a favorite pipette. Different sizes are used for different amounts. Bias can only be had in interpretation of data, which is why there is peer review, but not in the process since the process must be spelled out in the methodology part. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.19  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.14    5 days ago
I agree, but it sure is driving a lot of our politics, isn't it.

Yes but there is, for some, motivation to fault Science based on the actions of those who are acting on scientific findings and/or misrepresenting same.

Why do you seem to have a problem with observing that a system is not perfect?

It is the simplistic message being projected, Tacos!.   Nobody has stated the Science is perfect or that the scientific method guarantees perfection from human agents.    But Science is under misguided attack nowadays especially with COVID-19.   It appears to be an attempt to discredit Science for political purposes.   I object when religious groups like Ken Ham's Answers In Genesis do this and, for the very same reason, object to this practice for political purposes.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.20  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.17    5 days ago
Methodology will not overcome propagation of error.  

Yes it does Nerm.  Do you not recognize the notion of empirical testing?   One can propagate errors and produce a false explanation but you presume that there is no verification testing taking place that will eventually catch the error.

Beyond that, part of the scientific method is peer review.   And even more so, there is the systemic competition that results in other scientists being motivated to find the work of others to be wrong.   The more important the finding or theory the more to be gained by finding it to be wrong or, even better, finding a superior theory.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.21  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.19    5 days ago
Nobody has stated the Science is perfect

You keep claiming that, but it's obviously not true, as I have illustrated. "Follow the science" has become the new orthodoxy. The new political buzzword phrase. The way some politicians are accused of not following the science, they might as well be accused of being witches. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.22  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.21    5 days ago
You keep claiming that, but it's obviously not true, as I have illustrated. "

The phrase 'nobody has stated ...' is normally understood to be referring to present company.   You know that, right?   Clearly, Tacos!, no matter how absurd the thought, someone on the planet most likely has expressed it.   So common sense alone should clarify the colloquial phrase as referring to present company.  

Being overly explicit now:

No NT member commenting on this article has stated ...    ≅    Nobody has stated ...

(for future reference)

"Follow the science" has become the new orthodoxy. The new political buzzword phrase. The way some politicians are accused of not following the science, they might as well be accused of being witches. 

Do you recognize that I (et. al.) are noting that it is incorrect to simply accept the results of Science as if it were religious gospel?   Science is not authoritarian.   Science produces findings/explanations. 

People can and will spin.   It is good if people can distinguish the spin from Science itself.    It is bad if they cannot.   It is curious if they refuse to after this is brought to their attention multiple times.

 
 
 
Tacos!
3.1.23  Tacos!  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.22    5 days ago
The phrase 'nobody has stated ...' is normally understood to be referring to present company.

Then it is an inappropriate statement as nothing in my comments can reasonably be construed as only applying to the people commenting on this seed. In fact, I don't see any reason to construe the topic of scientific testing and public policy as being somehow limited to only present company. The people of NT are not the topic.

Do you recognize that I (et. al.) are noting that it is incorrect to simply accept the results of Science as if it were religious gospel?

I wasn't really concerned with what you personally accept. Why would I be? You don't direct public policy, which is what I have been talking about.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.24  TᵢG  replied to  Tacos! @3.1.23    5 days ago
Then it is an inappropriate statement as nothing in my comments can reasonably be construed as only applying to the people commenting on this seed.

Do you understand that my language: 'nobody has stated that Science is perfect' means: nobody commenting here has stated that Science is perfect?

If so, then your comment @3.1.21 is irrational.   If not, read TiG @3.1.22.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.27  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.18    5 days ago
Obviously, you have never been in the sciences. 

Assumptions introduce biases that methodology won't address.

There is no such thing as a favorite pipette.  Different sizes are used for different amounts.

People don't use calibrated glass tubes and rubber bulbs any longer.  And latex suction tubes haven't been used for decades.

Does your pipette fit your hand?

Bias can only be had in interpretation of data, which is why there is peer review, but not in the process since the process must be spelled out in the methodology part. 

Meta research (yes, that is a real thing) has been documenting problems in science for quite a while.

The 7 biggest problems facing science, according to 270 scientists

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.28  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.20    5 days ago
Yes it does Nerm.  Do you not recognize the notion of empirical testing?   One can propagate errors and produce a false explanation but you presume that there is no verification testing taking place that will eventually catch the error.

Who funds replication?  How does a scientist publish replication research?

Replication isn't part of the scientific method.  The inability of the scientific method to overcome errors and biases has been addressed by requirement to perform independent trials, either concurrently or consecutively, for regulatory approval.  But not all research has been subjected to regulatory approval.  Not all published research is being replicated because there is little incentive.

Beyond that, part of the scientific method is peer review.   And even more so, there is the systemic competition that results in other scientists being motivated to find the work of others to be wrong.   The more important the finding or theory the more to be gained by finding it to be wrong or, even better, finding a superior theory.

Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals

"But does peer review `work' at all? A systematic review of all the available evidence on peer review concluded that `the practice of peer review is based on faith in its effects, rather than on facts'. 2  But the answer to the question on whether peer review works depends on the question `What is peer review for?'."

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.29  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.28    5 days ago
Replication isn't part of the scientific method. 

Yes it is.   The researcher will first seek to falsify his/her own research by replicating the experiment (or equivalent).

Why are you trying so hard to discredit Science?   This is just bizarre.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.30  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.29    4 days ago
Yes it is.   The researcher will first seek to falsify his/her own research by replicating the experiment (or equivalent).

What Is Science?  

(The article includes a fairly detailed description of the scientific method.)

A clinical trial is supposed to attempt to refute the scientific conclusions derived from the development research.  The clinical trial is the replication that is required for regulatory approval.  

But the purpose of the clinical trial is not to refine a hypothesis to fit observations.  The observations are of untreated patients.  The therapy is intended to avoid what has been observed.  The clinical trial is field work intended to generate results that do not fit prior observations.  

Clinical trials test research to develop therapies but there aren't any independent observations for comparison and refinement.  Peer review isn't reviewing the developmental research that the clinical trials test.  And peer review can't compare results of the trials to independent observations.  The only thing peer review can do is ensure conformity to methodology.

In the case of remdesivir, WHO conducted an independent study using field data from use of the therapy.  WHO tested the clinical trials with an independent study of field observations.  The results of the WHO study refutes the results of the clinical trials.  And you've been explaining that is how science is supposed to work.

Why are you trying so hard to discredit Science?   This is just bizarre.

I am explaining how modern science is functioning.  Modern science doesn't conform to the idealized mythology of 19th century science.  Science has changed; the facts are undeniable.  Denying the undeniable, as shown by evidence, depends upon faith and believing whatever you want to believe.

I am only presenting evidence and following that evidence to a rational conclusion.  What are you doing?

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.31  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.30    4 days ago
I am only presenting evidence and following that evidence to a rational conclusion. 

You continue your attempt to redefine the term 'Science' ... expanding its domain so that you can attribute to Science the flaws of the greater domain.    For example, when a corporation or political/religious group misuses Science to advance its agenda, you want to include these groups in the domain of Science.

To what end?


You should read the article you just linked:

The steps of the scientific method go something like this:
  1. Make an observation or observations.
  2. Ask questions about the observations and gather information.
  3. Form a hypothesis — a tentative description of what's been observed, and make predictions based on that hypothesis.
  4. Test the hypothesis and predictions in an experiment that can be reproduced.
  5. Analyze the data and draw conclusions; accept or reject the hypothesis or modify the hypothesis if necessary.
  6. Reproduce the experiment until there are no discrepancies between observations and theory. "Replication of methods and results is my favorite step in the scientific method," Moshe Pritsker, a former post-doctoral researcher at Harvard Medical School and CEO of JoVE, told Live Science. "The reproducibility of published experiments is the foundation of science. No reproducibility – no science."

Some key underpinnings to the scientific method:

  • The hypothesis must be testable and falsifiable, according to North Carolina State University . Falsifiable means that there must be a possible negative answer to the hypothesis.
  • Research must involve deductive reasoning and inductive reasoning . Deductive reasoning is the process of using true premises to reach a logical true conclusion while inductive reasoning takes the opposite approach.
  • An experiment should include a dependent variable (which does not change) and an independent variable (which does change).
  • An experiment should include an experimental group and a control group. The control group is what the experimental group is compared against.

Your article directly supports what I have been saying.   Why on Earth would you present it and then pretend it supports your attempt to generalize the meaning of the word 'Science'?

Bizarre.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.32  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.31    4 days ago
You continue your attempt to redefine the term 'Science' ... expanding its domain so that you can attribute to Science the flaws of the greater domain.    For example, when a corporation or political/religious group misuses Science to advance its agenda, you want to include these groups in the domain of Science.

By providing a source that defines science?  Or is LiveScience an unacceptable source?  

Your article directly supports what I have been saying.   Why on Earth would you present it and then pretend it supports your attempt to generalize the meaning of the word 'Science'?

You seem to be attributing a different meaning to what the article actually says.  Perhaps that can be attributed to lack of experience?

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.33  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.32    4 days ago

Nerm,

Both of my daughters are in medical research. They follow the scientific method. When something doesn't turn out the way they expected they go through a process by which they recheck everything and if the results are still what they didn't expect, they have to find out why.  Now sometimes that is very telling and other times it is not. If there is nothing worthy found out, then they have to go back to the drawing board. They don't try to make a square peg fit a round hole, which is what you are implying. It is a very frustrating and rewarding, but it is what it is. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.34  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.33    4 days ago
Nerm, Both of my daughters are in medical research. They follow the scientific method. When something doesn't turn out the way they expected they go through a process by which they recheck everything and if the results are still what they didn't expect, they have to find out why.  Now sometimes that is very telling and other times it is not. If there is nothing worthy found out, then they have to go back to the drawing board. They don't try to make a square peg fit a round hole, which is what you are implying. It is a very frustrating and rewarding, but it is what it is. 

Pierre,

No, I'm not going to go there.  Suffice to say I have been a working scientist and engineer.  You aren't telling me anything I have not already experienced.

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.35  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.34    4 days ago
"Suffice to say I have been a working scientist"

Paid for by who?  Science deniers?

That's Perrie by the way.  

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.36  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.34    4 days ago
Suffice to say I have been a working scientist and engineer.  You aren't telling me anything I have not already experienced.

Then I totally don't understand your point at all. My daughter's research is not being dictated to. They are not being told what to find. They are not being told to have a certain outcome. They are following the science. They have made advancements and have had setbacks, but that is normal. 

Is it that you have been forced to come up with a finding? btw.. my dad was an electrical engineer for the Apollo mission (LEM) and he was never forced by NASA to produce something that would not work, even though he worked for via Grumman. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.37  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.32    4 days ago
By providing a source that defines science

Your source supports my point about the scientific method.    But you are clearly just arguing for the sake of argument so you can do that by standing in front of a mirror;  you do not need me.

 
 
 
TᵢG
3.1.38  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.34    4 days ago
Suffice to say I have been a working scientist and engineer. 

... who for some unknown reason cannot distinguish between the scientific method (and Science itself:  knowledge and method) and the abuse thereof.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.39  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Tessylo @3.1.35    4 days ago
aid for by who?  Science deniers?

Paid for by the Congress of the United States of America.

That's Perrie by the way.  

Yes, my mistake.  Sorry for misspelling Perrie's name. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
3.1.40  Tessylo  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.39    4 days ago
"Paid for by the Congress of the United States of America."

Sure, if you say so!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.41  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.36    4 days ago
Then I totally don't understand your point at all. My daughter's research is not being dictated to. They are not being told what to find. They are not being told to have a certain outcome. They are following the science. They have made advancements and have had setbacks, but that is normal. 

Where have I indicated that the research results are dictated?  What I have pointed out is that errors and biases can intrude into the research and methodology won't overcome that intrusion.

Is it that you have been forced to come up with a finding? btw.. my dad was an electrical engineer for the Apollo mission (LEM) and he was never forced by NASA to produce something that would not work, even though he worked for via Grumman. 

My area was environmental research in an industrial setting.  How do we produce what we need without polluting?  Not the type of sexy science that will make headlines and grab public attention.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.42  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.41    4 days ago
Where have I indicated that the research results are dictated?  What I have pointed out is that errors and biases can intrude into the research and methodology won't overcome that intrusion.

Errors are inevitable. Bias should never happen if you are following procedure. As I pointed out earlier, there is no such thing as a favorite pipette. There is a pipette for a specific use. That is part of the methodology. 

My area was environmental research in an industrial setting.  How do we produce what we need without polluting?  Not the type of sexy science that will make headlines and grab public attention.

Now this information was very enlightening. You are in a field that does have some political pressure. I know conservatives want to say that we don't impact the earth as much as liberals think we do. So I now have a better view of why you have come to this conclusion. 

I can promise you, that does not enter most other fields of science. 

btw.. in case you think that I am exaggerating my daughters' work, here is Maddy's:

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Madeline_Halpern2

And here is Cat's:

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02536365

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.43  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.42    4 days ago
Now this information was very enlightening. You are in a field that does have some political pressure. I know conservatives want to say that we don't impact the earth as much as liberals think we do. So I now have a better view of why you have come to this conclusion. 

Was.  The agency I worked for was closed to pander to environmentalists and score political points.  And since I had worked with industry and had worked on environmental issues I couldn't find work anywhere.  Industry wouldn't hire me because I was an environmentalist.  Government agencies wouldn't hire me because I was too close to industry.  My career as a scientist ended when Al Gore and Newt Gingrich started giving each other political blow jobs.

The agency I worked for was replaced by the National Biological Survey.  So, closing the agency didn't save one thin taxpayer's dime.  Cataloging plants and animals won't do anything to ensure the country can produce what it needs without polluting.

Some political pressure is an understatement.  I have witnessed scientists pursuing an agenda.  I have witnessed scientists performing studies that fit preconceived notions.  I have witnessed how biased research used the methodology to hide the bias and pass through peer review.  I was on the inside and I can tell you that you've been lied to.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
3.1.44  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Nerm_L @3.1.43    4 days ago

Well, now I have a full picture of why you feel the way you do. Sometimes, just talking about personal experience can guide us to an individual's perspective and that is important. 

I am aware of the intense political pressure in the field of environmental impact. It's a shame. I am sure that there are many scientists who are interested in accuracy if left to their own devices. Also, the field is fraught with a lot of guesswork. When I was teaching earth science, I became very interested in the ice core studies, but what I found out is that since we can't put the planet into a lab, a lot of subjective information was applied. That is not true scientific method, is it? Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that 8 billion humans do affect our environment in a negative way, but to prove that is much harder to do, given the variables. 

None the less, I don't think that is playing into the scientists dealing with the pandemic. They are just motivated to find the vaccines and treatments at record speed. Kind of think of this as getting being the first to get a man on the moon in less than a decade. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.45  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @3.1.44    4 days ago
Well, now I have a full picture of why you feel the way you do. Sometimes, just talking about personal experience can guide us to an individual's perspective and that is important. 

I try to avoid becoming the topic of discussion.  I could tell all sorts of stories but that would seem rather meta.  Cult of personality is another problem affecting science.

I am aware of the intense political pressure in the field of environmental impact. It's a shame. I am sure that there are many scientists who are interested in accuracy if left to their own devices. Also, the field is fraught with a lot of guesswork. When I was teaching earth science, I became very interested in the ice core studies, but what I found out is that since we can't put the planet into a lab, a lot of subjective information was applied. That is not true scientific method, is it? Now don't get me wrong, I do believe that 8 billion humans do affect our environment in a negative way, but to prove that is much harder to do, given the variables. 

Sometimes I wonder if environmental science has anything to do with science any longer.  Climate change is making the situation worse.

None the less, I don't think that is playing into the scientists dealing with the pandemic. They are just motivated to find the vaccines and treatments at record speed. Kind of think of this as getting being the first to get a man on the moon in less than a decade. 

But that really isn't the topic of the seed.  There isn't any reason to question the methodology followed for the clinical trials or for WHO's independent study.  The safeguards should ensure that all the independent studies followed appropriate methodology.  The point is that the clinical trials and the WHO study arrived at contradictory conclusions.

This has become a consistent pattern in science.  Independent studies produce contradictory conclusions followed by attempts to discredit those conducting the studies.  (That's what I experienced doing environmental research.)  The contradiction is resolved in the court of public opinion rather than by scientific clarification.  Science hasn't provided a definitive answer so the public is required to believe what they want to believe.

Should remdesivir be adopted as a therapy for COVID?  That depends on which study you choose to believe.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
3.1.46  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @3.1.38    4 days ago
... who for some unknown reason cannot distinguish between the scientific method (and Science itself:  knowledge and method) and the abuse thereof.

Are the regulatory protocols required by the FDA the scientific method?  Is the regulatory review by the FDA the same as peer review?

Developmental research obviously requires use of the scientific method.  But that developmental research usually isn't published in its entirety or peer reviewed because the development is intellectual property.  Clinical trials that test the developmental research are designed to fulfill requirements for FDA approval.

So, which agent is misusing and misrepresenting science?  Does protecting intellectual property misuse science?  Do regulatory requirements misuse science?

 
 
 
Split Personality
3.2  Split Personality  replied to  Tacos! @3    5 days ago

The oldest clock was made in 1386

The oldest watch was dated 1505 and still works.

 
 
 
CB
4  CB     5 days ago
Thank you, China.

Okay. It is time to grow up. Unless one can prove that China deliberately abused the world with this specific virus. It is time to let this deflection go. 'merica First is responsible for how we deal with this virus now and for months now. It's Trump's virus and he is has no choice but to own it! Seniors wake up!

'Old man' Trump is killing you even as he flopped his fat ass down at the front of the line when he distorted himself to catch I suspect a mild version of the virus! It was Trump first!

Time to call it like it is!

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @4    4 days ago
Okay. It is time to grow up. Unless one can prove that China deliberately abused the world with this specific virus. It is time to let this deflection go. 'merica First is responsible for how we deal with this virus now and for months now. It's Trump's virus and he is has no choice but to own it! Seniors wake up!

We should express gratitude to China at every opportunity for revealing that what we've been doing for the last four decades has been stupid.

The coronavirus did not force the United States to become dependent upon imports or give up our ability to produce what we need or hand control of our healthcare system to the financial sector.

The coronavirus did not force the United States to ignore that society depends upon essential workers who are not college educated or technologically avant garde or social influencers.

The coronavirus did not force the United States to trade common sense for hyperbole. 

Thank you, China.  You've shown us who we really are.  Time will tell if the United States is too stupid to learn anything from what China has allowed us to see.

 
 
 
CB
4.1.1  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @4.1    4 days ago

Okay. Do you agree this is the Trump virus today and all that it means?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
4.1.2  seeder  Nerm_L  replied to  CB @4.1.1    4 days ago
Okay. Do you agree this is the Trump virus today and all that it means?

How can it be the 'Trump virus'?  SARS-CoV-2 did not originate in the United States.  The pandemic is the result of SARS-CoV-2 escaping China.

Trump didn't force people to travel to China, become infected, and carry the virus out of China.  Trump did not force people to carry the virus into the United States.

In fact, the complaint has been that Trump didn't force anyone to do anything.  Just because Trump didn't force people to do something doesn't mean Trump didn't do anything.  

At the end of March I received a postcard with the guidelines.  You should have received one, too.  The guidelines are straightforward, everyone has been told what they need to do.  Just because Trump's name is on the card doesn't make the guidelines wrong.  Don't blame Trump for people ignoring the guidelines they received. 

I scanned my copy, here it is.

512     512

 
 
 
CB
4.1.3  CB   replied to  Nerm_L @4.1.2    4 days ago

Nerm, Related to presidents, where and when did you first here the phrase, "The buck stops here!"? 

Now you can play a game of Trump plays by a different set of rules and that it does not matter; but then, he can play with his rules apart from our rules out of the public sector. In the private sector even better. Do you agree?

As long as he sits in the oval office, this "situation" of coronavirus is the Trump virus affecting 'merica!

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

Dulay
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
Kavika
JohnRussell
arkpdx
GregTx


75 visitors