Book Review: 'Science Fictions' Shows How Human Flaws Undermine Science
By: Robert VerBruggen (National Review)
The term 'science' is a large umbrella used to hide a variety of sins. The types of science that seems most susceptible to fraud, bias, negligence, and hype are those most heavily dependent upon statistical analysis. The underlying point often overlooked in this type of science is that statistical significance only suggests a correlation and not a causation. Statistical significance only refines the scientific questions needed to determine understanding of cause and effect.
Statistics is a tool for engineering, not science. Correlation is adequate for developing engineering solutions. Engineers are concerned with developing something that provides a desired result; something that works. Why something works is less important than demonstrating that the something does work. There isn't any need for peer review in engineering because the end product either works or doesn't.
The public needs to become aware that a published study drawing conclusions from statistical significance is not quite science. Statistical correlation is not a description of causation. Peer review cannot replace the ultimate engineering test of demonstrating practical application. Half-baked engineering is not science.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
In June, The Lancet retracted a major study based on a massive data set.
The study suggested that the drug hydroxychloroquine actively harms COVID-19 patients. But critics highlighted irregularities in the numbers, some of the study's own authors were unable to audit the data to investigate the concerns, the company that claimed to have collected the information from thousands of hospitals did not appear to have the infrastructure and resources necessary to have done so, and several major hospitals in Australia whose participation would have been needed to make the numbers work told the Guardian they had not been involved. The New England Journal of Medicine had to pull a different study based on the same data.
The entire thing was a perfect stew of bad science, even aside from the core fact that the actual data were, er, "unreliable." To begin with, these were "observational" studies, which can't really tell whether a drug is causing a bad outcome; they were not randomized experiments. Thanks to the premature endorsement of hydroxychloroquine by President Trump, the straightforward and boring question of whether the drug worked had become political, so the media were all too happy to trumpet any negative finding. And the journals that ran these studies, despite having peer-review processes, failed to detect the problem.
It's too bad that this happened too late for Stuart Ritchie to discuss it in his new book Science Fictions: How Fraud, Bias, Negligence, and Hype Undermine the Search for Truth, because it illustrates all of his main points. Science Fictions is a handy guide to what can go wrong in science, nicely blending eye-popping anecdotes with comprehensive studies. As the subtitle suggests, Ritchie is concerned with four issues in particular: fraud, bias, negligence, and hype. He explains how each of these get in the way of the truth, and makes a number of suggestions for fixing the process.
The chapter on fraud is easily the most harrowing, because it involves scientists who deliberately mislead their peers and the public. Here we meet Paolo Macchiarini, who claimed to be able to transplant tracheas, including artificial tracheas, by "seeding" them with some of the recipient's stem cells so the recipient's body wouldn't later reject them. Macchiarini published several papers touting his successes. It later turned out that his patients were dying, but it took years for the scandal to come to light and for the institutions involved to admit their mistakes.
Frauds such as manipulated images and fake data can be easy enough to catch when a critic is looking for them, but most journals and peer reviewers tend to start from the assumption that scientists are at least well-intentioned. Heck, fraudsters often are well-intentioned in a perverse sense, trying to advance theories they genuinely believe to be true and important without going through the hassle of proving them. Yet in surveys, about 2 percent of scientists admit to faking data at least once, and a review of thousands of biology papers containing "western blots" (a technique to detect proteins) found that 4 percent included duplicated images.
If it's easy for scientists to publish fraudulent results, it's even easier for bias to creep into the process. We conservatives are always skeptical when left-leaning academics produce results that seem a bit too convenient, of course. But just as often, scientists might simply want a result that's exciting and likely to bring them prestige, or one that undermines a rival.
This kind of bias is encouraged by the publication process. It's hard to publish a study that arrives at a "null" result, meaning that the researcher tried to find an effect (say, that a certain food makes people energetic or that a certain style of argument changes people's minds) but the result was statistically insignificant. "Turns out there's nothing there, at least as far as I could measure" is an incredibly boring conclusion, and most journals aren't interested in relaying it. When you spread that lack of interest across an entire scientific literature, it introduces bias: Effects look a lot stronger than they are when you ignore all the times they failed to show up.
Other times, scientists are driven to make null results disappear, rather than just giving up and moving to the next project. There are plenty of techniques for doing so. They can separate the data into a bunch of subgroups and check each one separately. They can try different statistical methods. They can use the data to answer questions they didn't plan on answering. If they run enough different analyses, they'll find something that hits that magical threshold of statistical significance — even if just by luck.
Some scientists have even "hacked" their data this way without, apparently, realizing they're doing anything wrong. In 2016, the prominent nutrition researcher Brian Wansink published a blog post in which he described a project that appeared to have "failed" until he told the graduate student analyzing the data to keep trying different approaches to find something to "salvage." This set critics on Wansink's trail, and it turned out to be part of a much broader pattern of sloppy work. An email came to light in which he explicitly instructed a subordinate to try "tweeking" [sic] an analysis to make an insignificant result turn significant. Many of his papers were retracted, and he resigned from Cornell.
The problems don't stop at fraud and bias. There's also plain negligence. Anyone who follows statistical research is familiar with countless instances in which "coding errors," "spreadsheet errors," "data-entry errors," etc. screwed up a study. (Anyone who's actually worked with spreadsheets and statistical software has made plenty of those errors, too, and hopefully caught them before it was too late.) Many of these mistakes are probably never discovered, but large reviews looking for specific problems, such as mathematical impossibilities, find that an astonishing number of scientific papers, maybe even half, contain at least one clearly incorrect figure.
Finally, there is the issue of hype. It's tempting to blame the media when a complicated study loaded with caveats is boiled down to a simplistic, clicky headline, but Ritchie doesn't let the scientific establishment off that easy. He points out that in many cases, the hype begins with the press releases that accompany major studies, which the study authors themselves typically have a hand in writing. A 2014 study matched press releases with the papers they were based on, and found that the releases regularly encouraged readers to change their behavior in ways the study didn't justify, buried the fact that research was conducted on animals instead of people, and conflated correlation with causation.
When you add all this together, you end up with vast swaths of scientific literature that can't be trusted. Ritchie's own field of psychology was roiled a few years back by the revelation that many oft-cited studies couldn't be replicated when other researchers tried to rerun them. Similar phenomena have emerged in other fields as well — most disturbingly in medicine, where lives hang in the balance.
There are lots of ways to address these problems — and science's flaws have garnered increasing attention in recent years, so there's a chance the establishment will do something about them. Ritchie's suggestions are too numerous and detailed for me to do justice, but here are a few: Scientists should more frequently "pre-register" their work, meaning they explain what they plan to do ahead of time so they can't change it later to get better results. Journals should be more willing to publish null results and attempts to replicate previous studies, and might even commit to publishing studies before the results are known. Technology should make it easier to bring the output of statistical-analysis software into the body of a paper, reducing the mundane copy-and-paste errors so many studies seem to suffer from. Funders should insist that all findings, including the null ones, be published. And so on.
The scientific method is sound. But scientists are human beings with human flaws, and it’s only by controlling those flaws that we can make science better.
Tags
Who is online
32 visitors
The scientific method is only one step in the engineering process. Yes, the scientific method works. But using the scientific method to only generate statistical correlations is really just half-baked engineering. Peer review can't replace practical application as the ultimate engineering test of statistical significance.
Clearly "science" has been used & abused in an epic battle against the drug hydroxychloroquine. We are living through a very dark period in our history.
The point is that science has not weighed in on hydroxychloroquine. The drug has only been subjected to a pass/fail test of practical application determined by statistical correlation. That's engineering and not science.
Science would explain why hydroxychloroquine should or should not work. Controlled studies for the practical application of the drug determines whether or not the drug works and really doesn't require knowing why the drug does or does not work. Engineering may use science but is not science.
The current meme is to 'believe the science'. But it's not really science. The experts aren't making recommendations based on science; the recommendations are really based upon practical experience. Anyone can test practical experience. Try it and see if it works or not. That doesn't require expert knowledge of biology, medicine, or chemistry. The controlled studies are really just trying the drug to find out if it works or not.
The public doesn't need any expertise to test practical experience. The so-called experts put their socks on one foot at a time just like anyone lucky enough to have two socks and two feet. And anyone can try something to see if it works or not. The experts only avoid the consequences of trying something that fails spectacularly and then report those consequences as statistically significant.
Sometimes not even that. Yesterday Dr Fauci couldn't bring himself to admit that protests could spread the virus:
Here Dr. Fauci commented on the science and directly avoided making a political recommendation. Jim Jordan is trying to get Dr. Fauci to go beyond the extremely clear statement of crowds and infection into making a political statement (that can then be spun). Dr. Fauci is not going to get into the protest politics and is trying very hard to stick with the science of infectious disease (his expertise).
I really hate political spin fishing as shown here by Jim Jordan. Do the work for the American people, Jordan, rather than waste time trying to get damaging sound bites and/or discredit Dr. Fauci.
To the contrary, Dr Fauci knows never to say anything that the powerful left might dislike.
I really hate political spin fishing
I'm sure you do. How about we do some contact testing on people involved in protests?
To the contrary of what? Dr. Fauci in your video stuck to the science. Every crowd with close proximity is a bad idea. He did not distinguish left crowding from right crowding. To criticize him for avoiding partisan politics is unfair.
I agree with Dr. Fauci on this point. And I support official actions that mitigate the spread of this virus regardless of the demographic factors.
But you won't answer that question.
Duly noted.
Yes, Dr. Fauci repeated the broad guideline that any public gathering facilitates the spread of the virus. But do not ignore that Dr. Fauci has not avoided making political statements in other settings and venues. Dr. Fauci has unequivocally stated that public gatherings on beaches and at bars will (not may) increase the number of infections. Dr. Fauci has unequivocally stated that state governments have lowered restrictions on business activities and social gatherings too quickly.
Dr. Fauci has publicly condemned specific activities involving social gathering. So, claiming that Dr. Fauci is simply trying to avoid making a political statement can be easily refuted by many examples of Dr. Fauci's other remarks concerning politically sensitive issues concerning restrictions on public gatherings.
Dr. Fauci is playing politics just as is Jim Jordan. Dr. Fauci is really trying to avoid accountability for his other political activities.
Which question, this?:
You think I am dodging this
question? You cannot deduce my opinion from what I wrote??:
Tell me how you wish me to word an answer that clicks with you and I will see if I agree. In the meantime, why pretend that I have not expressed my position that proper safety protocols should be applied to EVERYONE regardless of demographics? Why pretend as though I am in some way avoiding a killer question by you?
You are expanding the context. I was EXPLICITLY talking about this video, so let's stay focused. In this video Dr. Fauci is doing everything he can to avoid playing politics. He is trying to stick with a purely scientific response within his area of expertise.
That's the same political game that Dr. Fauci is playing in the video. Jim Jordan is asking a valid question: should the government take steps limiting protests to control spread of the virus? Don't ignore Jim Jordan since he is asking the questions that Dr. Fauci refuses to answer.
As Jordan points out, Dr. Fauci has not been reluctant to make definitive recommendations concerning government restrictions on other activities. In this instance Dr. Fauci is explicitly avoiding making a recommendation for what the government should do concerning protests. Repeating the guideline to avoid gatherings of people is not specific guidance for government action. As Jordan says, recommendations made by Dr. Fauci have prompted government restrictions on church services which are protected by the same 1st amendment that protects protests.
Dr. Fauci has been issuing warnings and recommendations concerning phased reopening of state economies and easing of government limitations on activities that contribute to spreading the virus. Jim Jordan is asking Dr. Fauci if governments should apply those limitations on protests. That's a valid question.
Dr. Fauci is playing a political game rather than doing his job of providing guidance for government response to spread of the virus.
That is not a legitimate question for Dr. Fauci; it is not a question of science but rather of authoritarian method. Dr. Fauci already provided the science-based answer that gatherings such as protests would be prone to spread the virus. Dr. Fauci is not in a position to take government action so it is flat out unfair to expect him to step on political toes. The correct move is for Dr. Fauci to answer questions within his area of expertise and within his purview and to leave political, authoritarian decisions to those who are in political / official positions in government.
Then what is a legitimate question for Dr. Fauci?
As you've pointed out, Dr. Fauci can't impose anything onto the public. So, what is Dr. Fauci's role? Official curmudgeon? What role do scientific experts play in the government's response to the pandemic?
Science Informant and advisor.
Information and advise. But scientists cannot be blamed when politicians do not listen.
Isn't the role of government experts to formulate policy? Formulated policy is more than just advice. Expert advice is nothing more than an opinion and attempting to influence government to act on that opinion is entirely political.
Experts, such as Dr. Fauci, have the authority to create policy that the government implements. Since the government can use force to impose those policies onto the public, the authority for implementing policy has been distributed throughout the bureaucracy and is subject to oversight. Dr. Fauci is more than just an advisor. Dr. Fauci has the same authority as other agency heads in determining what the government can force onto the public.
Implementing Dr. Fauci's policy utilizes the government's authority to impose those policies onto the public. Dr. Fauci has more authority than is being acknowledged.
A question about science — in particular about the coronavirus or about pandemics in general.
Note how Dr. Fauci answered Jordan's questions. He avoided questions that demanded he weigh in on government action and answered the scientific factors implied by the question.
Read the transcript. Right off the bat Jordan asks a question about government authority:
The question should not be about protesting. Protesting does not specify conditions. A protest can be done in many ways. The act of protesting in itself does not spread the virus. The question should be something like: do large congregations of people in close proximity without masks chanting, yelling moving about increase the spread of the virus? Fauci answered that question.
Later in the exchange, Fauci weighs in on the science aspect alone. He purposely does not opine on government force. Jordan gets his scientific / medical answer but instead badgers Fauci to opine on government force: an area in which Fauci is not an expert and over which has no authority:
Jordan continues in this interview to relentlessly badger Fauci to produce a quotable statement about protests. Jordan even admits it is government authorities who do the limiting yet he is badgering Fauci not about the science, but about protests. This is the typical dishonest bullshit in which politicians and journalists engage.
Ask Fauci about the science; ask about crowds, masks, proximity, virus. Do not badger a scientist to opine on protesting.
Jordan was just pushing a political narrative.
Imo he could have been far more effective just asking about medical repercussions then take that message to its political ends, after the fact.
Instead he just wanted to put on a show.
Dr. Fauci's job is to formulate policy that the government may or may not implement. Dr. Fauci is talking about science but Jim Jordan is asking about policy.
Jim Jordan is asking about how the government should respond to protests according to the policy that Dr. Fauci has participated in formulating. Since Dr. Fauci has, apparently, played a key role in formulating policy then Dr. Fauci is an expert on that policy.
Dr. Fauci may be an expert on some facets of science but Dr. Fauci's position in government is as an expert on formulating policy. Dr. Fauci is a policy maker; that's his role. Expertise on some aspects of science is incidental to Dr. Fauci's role in government. Dr. Fauci isn't providing testimony as an advisor; Dr. Fauci is testifying as a policy maker who is directly accountable to Congressional oversight.
Then this is your problem; this is just flat out wrong. Dr. Fauci is not a policy maker, he advises policy makers.
Being specific, Dr. Fauci's job is NOT to determine how to deal with protesting. His job is to advise on the scientific factors of a crowd given a COVID-19 pandemic. He did so. Jordan kept badgering him for a statement on protesting itself after Dr. Fauci had already opined on the science of crowds.
Do you think that Jordan is stupid? Is Jordan incapable of taking Dr. Fauci's comment like this one:
... and use that to formulate a policy on the use of government force?
Now, are you able to see Fauci's recommendations regarding crowds and apply that to the various protests, churches, bars, etc.? Do you recognize that a protest of 20 people maintaining social distancing, wearing masks and holding signs is profoundly different from a protest of 100 people running about, screaming, etc. without social distancing, masks and other precautions?
There is no need for Dr. Fauci to step over into government action. Anyone with half a brain can take his scientific opinion and apply it. Jordan was clearly badgering in order to generate a quote that he could use for political advantage. Pretty pathetic but that is the nature of partisan politics today.
Here is Dr. Fauci dealing with Senator Paul:
Go to Fauci's reply at 1:30 and you will hear as very clear description from the man himself on his role and why he tries to be careful with his answers.
Dr. Fauci's role is to participate in formulating policy. That's what a government advisory role means. Dr. Fauci participates in formulating health policy in the same manner as John Bolton participated in formulating security policy as National Security Advisor.
Dr. Fauci's job is precisely to answer health policy questions concerning how to deal with protesting. Dr. Fauci is a policy expert. That's no different than asking foreign or security policy experts questions about specific foreign activities.
We know that standing health policy concerning controls on spread of the virus wasn't implemented for protests. Are protests an exception to standing health policy? Did failure to apply health policy to protests undermine government efforts to control spread of the virus? Dr. Fauci is a policy expert who is responsible for answering those questions.
The purpose of oversight is to determine if policy is being implemented appropriately and to determine if failure to implement policy requires Congressional action through legislation. The standing health policy that Dr. Fauci participated in formulating hasn't been uniformly implemented. Is that a problem that needs to be addressed?
I see you are going to simply keep insisting that Dr. Fauci makes policy and refuse to recognize the difference between that and advising policy-makers on matters of science (participation).
Dr. Fauci weighing in on the virus-specific dangers of crowds is proper. Him weighing in on how to deal with protests, in particular, is not.
see @2.1.18
There is no way everything can be uniformly implemented. Be it between protests, stadium venues or between a bar and a grocery store.
Everything has different needs.
Jordan was wanting him to say something specifically about the protests for his own political needs. Not for any health risks.
Dr. Fauci formulates policy, as you point out, in an advisory capacity. Dr. Fauci's expert advice is the basis for policy. Dr. Fauci's advice makes the policy. That's no different than the National Security Advisor's role. But Dr. Fauci doesn't have authority to implement the policy he participates in formulating. Implementation of policy is constrained by Constitutional limitations. Dr. Fauci's role is to provide policy advice for those with Constitutional authority to implement policy.
Jim Jordan is asking about inconsistent implementation of policy. Implementation of policy has been delegated to the states. Is that inconsistent implementation a problem? Dr. Fauci deliberately chose to avoid offering policy advice to those with authority to implement policy. Dr. Fauci deliberately chose to not do his job.
Is there a need for the Federal government to exert authority over states to implement standing health policy? Does the Federal government need to impose national restrictions and requirements to control spread of the virus? Since the Executive branch is not implementing policy at the national level does Congress need to create legislation that implements that policy at the national level? Should implementation of policy that Dr. Fauci advocates depend upon the pubic following Dr. Fauci's advice without government involvement?
Dr. Fauci is using the political strategy of playing both ends to the middle. Dr. Fauci is advising to avoid gatherings that contribute to spreading the virus. That doesn't provide any useful information for how to implement policy based on Dr. Fauci's advice. Dr. Fauci wants to tell government what to do while avoiding accountability for doing what he has advised doing.
Obviously Jim Jordan wanted Dr. Fauci to provide advice on exceptions to standing health policy. If protests are an exception to standing health policy due to other priorities then there are certainly other exceptions, as well. Standing health policy would be secondary to other priorities. If there are no exceptions to standing health policy then other priorities are secondary to standing health policy.
An exception due to overriding priorities allows other exceptions based on priorities other than health. Are priorities for conducting church services more important than health concerns? How would those priorities be different than the priorities that allowed an exception for protests?
The 1st amendment provides protections for protests, religious services, and political rallies. Why is it appropriate for standing health policy to take priority over some of those protected activities and not others? If the government has the authority to restrict church services and political rallies that are protected by the 1st amendment then why doesn't the government have authority to restrict protests?
Dr. Fauci can't answer those Constitutional questions but Dr. Fauci can provide policy advice concerning exceptions to standing health policy. Is the health policy Dr. Fauci participated in formulating secondary to Constitutional protections?
Seems to me that you're admitting that Jordan wanted to put words in Fauci's mouth, and you resent Fauci for not playing along.
Is that an expert opinion?
Fauci did give his opinion. He was clear on gatherings and wearing masks.
Again, Jordan just wanted him to call out protests specifically. Why would he want that other than partisan political reasons.
And again, Fauci answered his question.
And I will say again, there is no uniform policy. There cannot be nor should there be.
Trying to treat everything the same is not only impossible, it would be stupid.
"Government experts?" Interesting choice of words. But you'll have to be more specific than that.
Expert advice should be based on what is known and on what the available evidence shows. But policy is not the same as advice.
No, he does not. He can only advise on policy. But it's the government that actually makes the policy, with or without accepting the advice..
True. He is the head of the NIAID & NIH. But he still only advises.
A flat out erroneous statement!
It's the government that actually imposes policies, not Dr. Fauci.
Then Mr. Jordan is addressing the wrong individual.
You're just repeating the same error and attributing something to Dr. Fauci that is not within his purview.
Wrong again! He's the science advisor on the matter.
Well, of course Jim Jordan was attempting to force Dr. Fauci into providing a specific answer. If you watch the video provided in @2.1.1 to the end (the video of Jim Jordan questioning Anthony Fauci), Jim Clyburn changes the question to focus on political fundraisers in Texas. But that doesn't alter the nature of the question, political fundraisers are also protected by the 1st amendment. Apparently Jim Jordan was goading Dr. Fauci into saying that he couldn't answer the question why protests weren't restricted and church services were restricted.
Dr. Fauci can answer policy questions but cannot answer Constitutional questions. Jim Jordan posed a question that Dr. Fauci couldn't answer. Jim Jordan was asking about policy with the obvious intent of directing Dr. Fauci towards a final admission that he could not address Constitutional questions. The Constitution takes precedent over policy and Dr. Fauci is in no position to offer advice for Constitutional questions.
The standing health policy that Dr. Fauci participated in formulating has been used as justification for restricting activities protected by the Constitution. In the case of protests, the Constitutional protections took precedence over health concerns. Jim Jordan was attempting to direct Dr. Fauci into admitting that he cannot answer questions about activities protected by the Constitution. Jim Jordan was attempting to focus attention on the limitations of Dr. Fauci's authority as a policy advisor.
He's attempting to get Fauci to answer a political loaded question. Fauci isn't stupid enough to fall for it, much to some folks' dismay. He answered the question about viral spread, but he won't follow Jordan's script.
Fauci job is science and using it to advise the formulation of health policy. You're mad at him for staying in his own lane, and not falling for Jordan's trap.
Which is a devious and underhanded tactic.
Dr. Fauci is not dealing with Constitutional matters. That's for politicians and the courts.
Dr. Fauci's area of expertise is in science. So why would anyone expect him to, not to mention why should he, address constitutional questions or issues?
Public health concerns like a pandemic seem a justifiable reason to temporarily overlook Constitutional protections.
Which is a problem and could enflame the pandemic even more.
See first statement.
Blame the politics, not the science. The science has studied and continues to study hydroxychloroquine and its efficacy against Covid. So far, it's not conclusive that hydroxychloroquine is especially effective.
Blame the conceited motivations of scientists, too.
Practical application of hydroxychloroquine has conclusively demonstrated that the drug can be safely administered to humans and that the drug is effective as a treatment for malaria and lupus. Hydroxychloroquine isn't a new, novel, or unknown drug without a history of practical use.
The anecdotal evidence concerning use of hydroxychloroquine as treatment for COVID-19 was based upon a wealth of practical experience using the drug. The drug has likely been tried for other diseases based upon practical experience, as well, because it's safety and effectiveness has been conclusively demonstrated.
When asked about hydroxychloroquine, Dr. Fauci had a choice. Dr. Fauci could have explained that the drug has a history of safe use, could have acknowledged that the anecdotal evidence was encouraging, and also explained that the drug could be tried but its effectiveness against COVID-19 hasn't been conclusively demonstrated. But Dr. Fauci chose to Ignore past practical experience with the drug, chose to claim a need for studying the drug as if the drug was something new and unknown, and indicated the drug should not be tried until studies were performed.
Dr. Fauci chose a response based upon his conceit as a renowned expert to remain so he could remain in the spotlight rather than letting practical (albeit anecdotal) front line trials throw shade on his position as the expert the public should listen to.
No, I blame the political machinations affecting scientists.
Malaria and lupus is what hydroxy was intended for. That is already known and established. But it is not intended nor has been established to effectively treat Covid. Granted, more testing needs to be conducted. But as it stands, current data suggests it is not effective for Covid therapy.
Nothing anecdotal about it. Actual studies have been conducted and published in peer reviewed journals.
No, he could have simply said hydroxy has not been shown to be effective for Covid and that more tests were necessary. So any claims that hydroxy was effective or should be used for Covid is misleading.
You do understand that a drug needs to be tested before using it as a treatment for a condition it was not intended for nor shown to effectively treat, right? Just because it's known to be effective for other ailments does not mean it's effective or safe for other ailments it's not intended to treat.
His responses have been politically influenced, trying to tip toe the line between politics and science. A most unenviable position to be in.
Administering the drug to determine if it helps a patient with COVID-19 is a test. It's not a controlled study that can be statistically validated but, nevertheless, it is a test. Calling the observed results 'anecdotal' doesn't invalidate the results.
Dr. Fauci chose to provide a conceited response. Dr. Fauci obviously does not have practical experience with hydroxychloroquine and chose to diminish the value of practical experience with the drug. The anecdotal evidence was provided by doctors practicing medicine. Dr. Fauci does not practice medicine so cannot obtain practical experience.
Obvious statement is obvious. Clinical studies are being performed. I even stated studies have not shown the efficacy of hydroxy in treatment regimens.
Yes, it is a controlled study. Hydroxy is used in clinical trials.
I explicitly said it wasn't anecdotal. So I'm not sure how you got that idea.
Dr. Fauci is an expert in infectious diseases and immunology and director of the NIAID. So I'm not sure where you get the idea he doesn't have practical experience? Your statement is just one of ignorance!
And I explicitly said that trying the drug on a case-by-case basis is also a test. And that type of empirical test is just as valid as any other type of test. Controlled clinical trials are not the only source of information concerning use of hydroxychloroquine. Statistics is being used as a substitute for practical knowledge. But that doesn't mean statistics surpasses practical knowledge.
How many patients does Dr. Fauci treat in a year? How many decisions and choices does Dr. Fauci make in a year that directly affects the health of individual patients under his care?
Dr. Fauci may have practical experience managing people like a statistical herd but Dr. Fauci doesn't have practical experience practicing medicine.
So there's nothing anecdotal about it.
Clinical trials are practical applications to actually test the drug and its effects. They are the best source of information regarding the drug.
He has a long career of contributions to various research and medical contributions to the study of diseases, one notably being HIV/AIDS. So his work does have benefits and effects for patients.
You do realize Dr. Fauci is a medical doctor in addition to being a scientist, right? So the claim he doesn't have practical experience in medicine is downright false!
Dr. Fauci called information obtained from empirical case-by-case trials anecdotal. Dr. Fauci indicated that he doesn't trust information from empirical case-by-case trials and alluded that such empirical information are not reliable facts. Dr. Fauci indicated he only trusts information from a herd response.
Yes, clinical trials are an engineering study utilizing statistics. There isn't a need to know anything about the drug or the disease, the engineering study only determines whether or not the drug works. In the case of medicine, a clinical trial determines herd response. The herd response is extrapolated into a probability of individual response.
Practicing physicians are more concerned with individual response than herd response. Practicing physicians must deal with the statistical outliers. And clinical trials don't provide information for how to deal with statistical outliers.
Dr. Fauci's practical experience has been to accept the adverse outcome for statistical outliers. Dr. Fauci is more concerned with the health of the herd than with the health of individuals.
A 2014 study matched press releases with the papers they were based on, and found that the releases regularly encouraged readers to change their behavior in ways the study didn't justify, buried the fact that research was conducted on animals instead of people, and conflated correlation with causation.
AKA Intellectual dishonesty.
Wow! Such big words. How about a source?
How about the article above? That's where it came from.
Didn't you read it?
Pretty sure that far right wing propaganda is far from believable.
So what course of action are you promoting for those who contract Covid if studies are not to be trusted?
Decline steroids because of a distrust of the data analysis that shows a 35% better ventilator survival rate?
Request hydroxychloroquine because of a distrust of studies that it has no overall positive results in the treatment of Covid and a distrust in long published studies that show possible side effects including hallucinations, suicidal behavior, confusion, and uh death.
The course of treatment is being developed from experience obtained with practical application. The studies are not science; they're engineering studies. Something has been tried and that something either worked or didn't work.
The course of action that is needed is to speak plainly to the public. That doesn't require expertise or PhDs. We tried hydroxychloroquine and it didn't work very well. The experts spewing mumbo jumbo about controlled studies and statistical significance as a way to stroke their egos about their expertise really does suggest another agenda rather than using common sense. The experts are talking down to the public which gives the impression that the public is stupid.
It doesn't require any expertise to understand that something was tried and that something either worked or didn't work.
The question is whether or not hydroxychloroquine works. A gish gallop of mumbo jumbo doesn't answer that question so the patient is in a position of having to try it to see if it works. A patient can run their own study for the practical application of the drug without relying on statistical pseudoscience.