This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
It feels like no one bothers addressing any of his arguments, and that they were just waiting for Scott to write a response post so they can pretend it's the final word.
Look, way back when, for my sins I trawled through that Cochrane meta roundup of all the ivermectin and other possible cures studies, and the vast majority of them were shoddy, threw everything in so it's hard to say which if any had a positive effect, and the best effects constantly and consistently showed up in developing world countries and/or areas with high poverty levels and high parasitic infection levels (including the study from Florida - which is an area of high parasite load).
So the conclusion "ivermectin helps by reducing parasite load" is the reasonable one, not that "ivermectin has an anti-viral effect". The only study that would make me incline to the second one is the Israeli one, because that seems to have been carried out on a city population with high standards of living (on the other hand, it was formerly agricultural region, is to the west of the West Bank which does have high parasitic infection levels, and it may have included poorer/immigrant population in the study, I haven't looked into it deeply enough yet).
Alexandros ignores any comments to that effect and continues on with "all the studies show this works! Cadegiani shows it works!" while Cadigiani is a huckster and the other co-authors of his study all have bees in their bonnets about vaccination.
Frankly, if I were looking to buy a new kettle and looking for recommendations, I wouldn't trust Alexandros on that.
Ok, and the counter argument to that is that even if you throw out all the supposedly shoddy studies, you still have a signal, that the negative studies are just as shoddy if you hold them to the same standard, and that if the worms are responsible, we should see some evidence specifically in support of that hypothesis. You do have an advantage on me, in that I didn't actually look up all the relevant studies, but it's just weird how no one is responding to the points he's raising.
It's just bizarre to feel so strongly about him, but think Scott is ok at the same time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You know, just for that I'm going to read some more of his posts, because you seem to have accurately described my unconscious process. I'm pretty much in the "Ivermectin probably has little effect on Covid, and all the studies purportedly showing that are terrible." But I'll at least give him a chance to address that position.
Oh wow, wasn't expecting that. Kudos!
If you want to cut through the unrelated side swipes, and the minutiae, I'd say the core of the argument is that even if you remove the studies Gideon / Scott don't like you still have a strong pro-ivermectin signal, and that the worms hypothesis doesn't hold water. I don't know if I can point to a specific place this is well articulated, because 37 blog posts... but if you want to give him a fair shot, this is what I'd focus on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link