No Cure for Impatience
Taki´s Magazine,
by
Theodore Dalrymple
Original Article
Posted By: earlybird,
5/17/2020 9:40:41 AM
As is well-known by the naive, science is the disinterested search for truth about the empirical world. Vanity, greed, pride, rivalry, enmity, thirst for fame and other human passions do not enter into it. (Snip)
Science is akin to the high jump: There is no point in being the second ever to jump over any given height. (Snip)
Since the beginning of the Covid-19 epidemic, I have observed a syndrome emerging in scientific research, namely publication of hopeful findings before there is any real evidence that the hope is well- or properly founded. One or other of the hopes may be justified in the end, but the syndrome is not in
Reply 1 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/17/2020 10:00:42 AM (No. 413551)
Dalrymple’s comments on hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin are interesting. One side has been arguing that hydroxychloroquine has proved to be a safe medication Others have said that it can be dangerous for some patients. Dalrymple is the first I’ve seen who highlights the reason why this “proven safe” med is not so safe when given for coronavirus. The dose. The dose for coronavirus is much, much larger than that normally given for malaria and other ailments. Quantity makes a difference. And combined with azythromycin - which can also have negative effects on the hearts of some - one can see the reasons for concern about use without a trial with a control group. Something that there wasn’t sufficient time for.
2 people like this.
Reply 2 - Posted by:
MDConservative 5/17/2020 10:23:39 AM (No. 413570)
And then we get back to the basic facts: 1) COVIDS is NOT sweeping the country. There are few COVIDS-involved deaths not reported. Even with these expanded numbers, COVIDS looks no worse than a seasonal flu outbreak. 2) COVIDS is not killing massive amounts of the population. 3) COVIDS strikes hardest in selective populations - elderly and those with certain pre-conditions.
And one more: The hysteria infused our society by false data, inaccurate models, and plain old quackery, supplemented by political profiteering, will take more than an "all clear" declaration to recover from. Serious damage to our civic life has been done - permanent damage. Much more than COVIDS itself inflicted.
6 people like this.
Reply 3 - Posted by:
Skeptical1 5/17/2020 11:04:27 AM (No. 413617)
Dalrymple's complains about the NEJM article that reported clinical results of compassionate use of remdesivir. Should the data have been kept a secret? The paper said clearly that a proper clinical trial was still needed before drawing any conclusions, which, of course, did happen a little later.
Similarly, Raoult's report on HCQ makes it clear that he did not do a controlled study. I think that clinicians would find this kind of information useful, even knowing that it's not dispositive.
It seems to me that the fault is with the general public, who let wishful thinking cloud their understanding of early data.
1 person likes this.
Reply 4 - Posted by:
MrDeplorable 5/17/2020 12:29:35 PM (No. 413738)
Dalrymple thesis was: "Since the beginning of the Covid-19 epidemic, I have observed a syndrome emerging in scientific research, namely publication of hopeful findings before there IS NOT IN ITSELF HARMLESS if it raises false hopes, puts additional pressure on politicians, and leads to a misdirection of financial and other resources."
If I'm the only reader confused by the author's DOUBLE NEGATIVE, I'll just chalk it up to my own mental slowness and move on. Otherwise, a good article.
1 person likes this.
Reply 5 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/17/2020 12:36:12 PM (No. 413749)
Re #3, I think it was the hype that concerned Dalrymple. The raising of false hopes. The questioning of the need for it be administered in hospital when some when public with their rants that “others were given the drug for malaria and had no problems”, etc, etc, etc….
There was confusion in the minds of many lay persons and media types about hydroxychlorquinone when it began to be trumpeted as the best possible treatment option and no consideration was given to the differential between the very large dose required for coronavirus vs. the much smaller dose that was approved for treating malaria, etc. It wasn’t the drug that was the problem. It was the administration of a much larger dose of that drug, for an entirely new application, in a cocktail with an antibiotic known to cause heart problems in some. A double whammy that had not been adequately tested.
0 people like this.
Reply 6 - Posted by:
earlybird 5/17/2020 12:37:21 PM (No. 413751)
Correction:
when some WENT public with their rants
1 person likes this.
Reply 7 - Posted by:
jeffkinnh 5/17/2020 3:09:06 PM (No. 413880)
Sorry, we are in the middle of a pandemic and 10s of thousands have died. This writer decries impatience but if we waited for people like this to develop, test, and certify that something actually works, we would be 3 years out and the pandemic would be over.
No we are not going to get high certainty and some things will be flat out wrong. The exacting scientists are NOT bringing us anything useful. In fact, many of the worlds "experts" have been flat out wrong as well. So no, we are not going to wait around for them to come up with the approved method to deal with this virus. We are going to try things out and report on hopeful results and refine them as we go along. We will probably save some lives instead of cowering in our homes waiting for official approval to take action.
2 people like this.
Below, you will find ...
Most Recent Articles posted by "earlybird"
and
Most Active Articles (last 48 hours)
Comments:
A very thoughtful, well-reasoned, and undeniably provocative article from an author (also a doctor) whose work is posted often. Read what he says and think about it.