Flu ***

[RogerS]

Other than what Robin has rightly added; I'll pass on your thoughts to my (doctor) wife about the medical profession being a bit useless. I'm sure she'll be happy to hear she's wasting her time trying to resuscitate babies.

What I find so bemusing is how those so untrusting of authority, science, and experts, are so willing to be trusting when it comes to cranks, conspiracy theorists, and the many charlatans who make a good living from herding the credulous.

Oh, you'd love the quote then by an idiotic person called Teamsaint over on the For3 (Friends of Radio 3) forum who says that the majority of medical staff only do it for the fame and the money.

 

[sploo]

Oh, you'd love the quote then by an idiotic person called Teamsaint over on the For3 (Friends of Radio 3) forum who says that the majority of medical staff only do it for the fame and the money.

I recall a discussion between my wife and some of her colleagues; back when they were very junior doctors. One of them had calculated that - on an hourly basis - they were actually paid less than the cleaners. Definitely in it for the fame and money

 

[Lons]

Oh, you'd love the quote then by an idiotic person called Teamsaint over on the For3 (Friends of Radio 3) forum who says that the majority of medical staff only do it for the fame and the money.

Like Sploo I'll also pass on TN's and Teamsaint's comments to the several members of my family in various capacities currently caring for and actually saving lives around the UK and abroad. They will also be delighted to know how valued their efforts are by some delusional people who are gullible enough to believe the rubbish spouted on social media. They certainly haven't witnessed the distress medical staff can suffer when they come home after losing a patient they fought so desperately to save.

If it were at all possible I would refuse those activists medical attention and let them suffer and wither away alone and in pain.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.

Has there never, in the history of medicine, been a procedure or treatment that turned out to be wrong? Are all doctors infallible gods who never make mistakes, never use the wrong techniques, and never have to change the way they practice medicine?

Not only does medicine advance, (we no longer perform Lobotomies, nor do we blow tobacco smoke up people's bottoms to revive them after drowning), but medicine has been known to be wrong from time to time. There may be quite a lot of friction when getting the new, improved treatment to replace the old. Not always, of course, but a fine example would be the discovery of a bacteria being the main cause of stomach ulcers. Discovered in 1983 (I looked it up) people were still being treated by "reducing stress" and taking antacids up until past 2000, from what I understand. Very slow to change. No one is perfect.

I live in a country where there is a more jaundiced view of medicine: doctors here don't ask for bribes, but handing over cash may suddenly bring about a miraculous change of treatment, with rapidly improving outcomes. Funny that.

 

[clogs]

Mr Noephyte
had a bad fall around 7 weeks ago, landed fair n sqaure on my shoulder......had an x ray and no broken bones, thank goodness.....
but still unable to use the arm...n cant sleep......
went to the osteopathe, that'll be €80 euros for a steroid injection into the joint if u please........
instant releif.....best few quid spent this year.......
like ur last sentance...how true.....
at least there's no waiting when u oil the wheels eh.....works for me....

 

[Trainee neophyte]

That is untrue

Science is science, at its heart is data taken from an experiment.
If the experiment follows the correct scientific protocols the data it produces is factual

Yes, you're right. But somehow, we are in the position of having the general public (or a significant subset) not trusting vaccines, because of a scientific report. How on earth did the gatekeepers manage to let that one through? Incompetence? Fraud? Intending to deceive?

it is painful that your posts are always littered with opinions presented as facts, you add them in like confetti to add weight to your argument. I must admit its rather clever, it makes picking apart the detail hard work. Its true that lies spread faster than the truth can catch up.

I am sorry that I bring you pain. It is not my intention. Perhaps you should lend less weight to what I write - I'm just the trainee, don't forget. I think I take exception to the word "lie", however. While I may or may not be correct in what I write, I am reasonably confident I have never set out to willfully deceive.

unfortunately the internet is awash with people misrepresenting science..........then you have conspiracy theories

So it is non scientists doing the misrepresenting, never the scientists? Or is anyone who fails the science code automatically cast out? Sounds more like like a religion by the minute. I think the BMJ would consider themselves quite scientific.

Governments have already paid billions to pharma companies to produce a covid vaccine whether it works or not.

the reality is the whole world wants a successful vaccine: government and people.
Please dont try and make out its scientists with a "golden calf"

"To produce a vaccine, whether it works or not". Now that is a statement to conjure with.

I will leave you with this: Top 10 Reasons Science Is Another Religion - Listverse

It is just a bit of tongue in cheek, for fun. Don't take it to heart. Poking fun at sacred cows and all that ;-)

 

[sploo]

So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.

Has there never, in the history of medicine, been a procedure or treatment that turned out to be wrong? Are all doctors infallible gods who never make mistakes, never use the wrong techniques, and never have to change the way they practice medicine?

The problem is; this is the logic that says "Pilots do sometimes crash planes. There's never been a recorded incident of a milkman crashing a 747; therefore I want my milkman to fly my plane".

Of course there are mistakes, errors, inaccuracies, and even downright fraud. That's true of any sector or profession (humans being the common factor). The point is that, in the main, experts tend to be more right than wrong (experience and all that), and certainly in fields such as medicine I suspect a large percentage go into it with a desire to help.

The issue is how a few are able to highlight the errors in order to discredit entire fields. Usually those people are the ones who have never been (and will never be) anywhere near the truth - but they're good salesmen, and tend to do well (money and/or fame) from herding the gullible.

 

[Trainee neophyte]

The problem is; this is the logic that says "Pilots do sometimes crash planes. There's never been a recorded incident of a milkman crashing a 747; therefore I want my milkman to fly my plane".

Of course there are mistakes, errors, inaccuracies, and even downright fraud. That's true of any sector or profession (humans being the common factor). The point is that, in the main, experts tend to be more right than wrong (experience and all that), and certainly in fields such as medicine I suspect a large percentage go into it with a desire to help.

The issue is how a few are able to highlight the errors in order to discredit entire fields. Usually those people are the ones who have never been (and will never be) anywhere near the truth - but they're good salesmen, and tend to do well (money and/or fame) from herding the gullible.

I think my real beef (to use an americanism) is not with science or medicine, but with the media. Every week we get the headline scientific breakthrough, which is never followed up, and never qualified. Not being a scientist, it is not my job to conduct experiments, peer review papers, or secure funding for research. I just want to know the "truth". Of course, there are so many layers of propaganda, politics, money and so on to get in the way that hardly anyone knows what reality is any more. As for finding a definitive truth - we have "alternative facts" to make it whatever you want it to be.

Didn't we have another thread once, which started off on a similar vein? Which reminds me - not much talk about Brexit on the telly...I wonder why not?

 

[lurker]

Yes your problem is with the media.
Their job is to make money for their employers, tweeking the facts or down right lies , it matters not a jot.

Generally it's not scientists fault that their research is taken out of context.
That piece of scum that made up a pack of lies about MMR so that he could profit should never have been published. And as you say it does make you wonder what lancet was up to, pure incompetence. But don't forget even with this learned journal there is someone just in it for the money.

 

[SammyQ]

That piece of scum that made up a pack of lies about MMR so that he could profit should never have been published.

Yerr!! Working, sorry, propagandizing, for Trump now int he?

Sam

 

[sploo]

I think my real beef (to use an americanism) is not with science or medicine, but with the media. Every week we get the headline scientific breakthrough, which is never followed up, and never qualified. Not being a scientist, it is not my job to conduct experiments, peer review papers, or secure funding for research. I just want to know the "truth". Of course, there are so many layers of propaganda, politics, money and so on to get in the way that hardly anyone knows what reality is any more. As for finding a definitive truth - we have "alternative facts" to make it whatever you want it to be.

Didn't we have another thread once, which started off on a similar vein? Which reminds me - not much talk about Brexit on the telly...I wonder why not?

That is indeed the problem. If I recall correctly there's a chapter in Ben Goldacre's excellent "Bad Science" book on this (as well as a huge number of other forms of quackery and misused statistics).

Unfortunately, the media organisations that often publish such poor quality material are also the ones that appear to be vested in discrediting good science and expert advise - thus benefiting from the very doubt and distrust they sow in the first place.

As lurker noted; they're there to make money - so "100% increase in rates of <insert deadly disease> if you eat pineapples!!!!" sells more papers than "it appears that approximately 2 in 1,000,000 develop <insert deadly disease> (up from 1 in 1,000,000), based on research in countries that eat huge amounts of tropical fruit".

 

[RobinBHM]

I think my real beef (to use an americanism) is not with science or medicine, but with the media.

these days the internet can be used to find any obscure scientific report which supports ones view and can be turned into a persuasive argument.
and then that is conflated into "scientists are divided", when in fact the bulk of the scientific community are in agreement.

Also, annoyingly the media, especially TV will use 2 opposing arguments: on one side the real scientist and on the other the conspiracist......

 

[Lons]

So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.

I don't recall anyone ever suggesting that so it's difficult to see why you said it other than to be controversial.

 

[SammyQ]

"So there is no such thing as a sacred cow when it comes to science, or medicine? I would dispute that, but there you go - it is just an opinion.


Ooh Boy...obviously, TN, you obviously have never been present when two or more scientists meet and confer. Even at caffeine break. They constantly evaluate, discuss, question, offer alternatives. It's called "refining". It helps to establish the veracity of a proposed theory, analysis or test result.

The very idea of a 'sacred cow' is answerable as follows: Bullocks.

"Opinion"? No, just hypothesis, tested by one-changed-variable experimentation and (preferably) statistical designation of resulting data. THEN you can call it a fact - whether or not the data supported the premise!!

Sam

 

[Benchwayze]

Please don't get me started on the food pyramid. My granddaughter is just coming to the end of her training as a nurse. She knows only what she has been taught of course but you should hear her argument for the the anti-fat position. 60 years of misinformation yet the powers that be will not admit their mistake despite the prevalence of obesity. Not everyone is an idle glutton as MS Hopkins would have you believe.

John

 

[rwillett]

Sacred cows in science? Mmmm, I have worked in research (formal methods in computer science, mathematically proving programs will work exactly as designed as opposed to probably might work, some of the time, more or less as planned, kind of useful for things like life support systems and nuclear reactors, but I digress) and I dabble in astronomy. I try to follow the science as much as I am able (which isn't very far these days, you need to really keep on top of things otherwise it moves away from you).

Anyway, scientists love proving something, e.g. that the Standard Model for particle physics (Standard Model - Wikipedia and The Standard Model | CERN). Proving something here means the model is standing up and doing what is expected.

However proving something doesn't fit the Standard Model is even better, any scientist would love to be the one to prove the Standard Model is wrong, this would be earth shattering news (possibly literally according to the conspiracy theory loons as we inadvertently create a black hole that swallows the Earth).

I cannot think of a single scientist of my acquaintance, including some at CERN, who wouldn't jump at the chance of proving a long established 'sacred cow' is wrong and ritually slaughtering it. (Possibly taking my metaphors too far now). Anybody finding the Standard Model or Theory of Relativity has flaws or is wrong would jump to the the head of the queue for the next Nobel prize. I'm not saying that the Standard Model is complete, it's not but it seems to stand up most of the time but we, that sounds pretentious as I have no idea TBH, the real scientists haven't linked it to gravity. There is a theory that there is a gravitional particle.

Anyway, sacred cows don't stay sacred for long with real scientists.

Rob

 

[RogerS]

Please don't get me started on the food pyramid. My granddaughter is just coming to the end of her training as a nurse. She knows only what she has been taught of course but you should hear her argument for the the anti-fat position. 60 years of misinformation yet the powers that be will not admit their mistake despite the prevalence of obesity. Not everyone is an idle glutton as MS Hopkins would have you believe.

John

So stuffing your face every day with too many calories won't make you fat ? Wow...pass me another Mars bar or two !

 

[Trainee neophyte]

The very idea of a 'sacred cow' is answerable as follows: Bullocks.

If there are no sacred cows, why the vehement screech of "Unbeliever! Heretic!" etc when anyone suggests that Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change might not be a real thing? It's fun to do, because the high priests of climate change go purple in the face if you ever even vaguely hint that there may be other things afoot than CO2.

Or something more current - try posting on Facebook, YouTube or instagram that Hydroxychloroquine is an effective treatment for Covid19. Apparently it can't be done (I don't have Facebook etc, so never been censored myself) It has been decided that only "agreed-upon" facts are allowed, and they are just the gatekeepers we need to keep us all safe. You can argue, extremely effectively in my opinion, that these organisations are not scientists therefore don't count, but this is exactly the science-as-religion, sacred cow effect I am talking about. Using the mystique of science as esoteric knowledge to shut down desent in views and keep the religion safe from heretics and unbelievers, whilst safely shepherding the masses to the fold.

They are doing the same thing with Hunter Biden 's laptop exposé, so it's not just science that is being controlled, but politics as well it would seem. But then, science is politics, when it comes to coronavirus.

Anyway, back to flu shots - I have derailed the thread yet again, for which I apologise.

 

[TheTiddles]

I wouldn’t normally engage in what has become trying to educate the uneducable, however I’d point out that intellectual capacity is a normal type distribution with long tails, if you reside to one side of it and associate with others that do, it’s often very hard to imagine the enormous swathe of people that occupy the other part of the distribution and just how far the other side extends, it really does go a long way

Aidan

 

[Lons]

I guess you don't need to look too far to find other people as paranoid as yourself, it's hard to know how people survive or get any sleep at night whilst constantly looking over their shoulder for big brother.