So ... you are now claiming that a urologist and prostate cancer surgeon, who has appeared on various Fox News shows (which everyone here will confirm is a dishonest right-wing media outlet!) and ABC's Good Morning America (also a secret, but dishonest right-wing media outlet!) ... is part of "dishonest right-wing media"? Really?
Here's a recent - like REALLY RECENT - quote from Dr. David Samadi:
â-
Dr. David Samadi from RoboticOncology voices concerns of COVID-19's impact on prostate cancer screenings NEW YORK, July 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ â A concerning fallout from the March COVID-19 shutdown has been the disastrous drop in cancer screenings. This worrisome discovery is according to a study in May by Epic Health Research Network. A review of data from 39 health systems from 190 hospitals in 23 states, found alarming statistics: prostate specific antigen (PSA) screenings for detecting prostate cancer fell by 60 percent.
"In my years as a urologist and prostate cancer surgeon, I've never been more concerned for my patients than now," exclaimed Dr. David Samadi, Director of Men's Health and Urologic Oncologist at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, New York. "By putting off preventive services and screenings to avoid potential exposure to COVID-19, will very likely lead to another huge health crisis of a significant increase in undiagnosed cancer cases in the next few years."
â-
YES! Clear evidence that he's part of "dishonest right-wing media"!
Yes, I am saying that. You posted one of his dishonest tweets.
His point about people putting off preventive care and diagnostics is well-taken, couldn't agree more. He might even be a fine urologist. But saying that hydroxychloroquine "worked all along" he is making a claim no one has proved (and that there is considerable evidence against) and is promoting what is very likely a quack cure for political reasons. Shame on him.
As for quoting Newsweek to justify...er, something or other...re-read my earlier post. One faction's dishonesty does not cancel out another's.
The first one counts. That is just the kind of media hyperventilation we're both complaining about. The second...not so much. It's about the retraction, not the original paper, and gives it that dramatic spin in retrospect.
Show me where I have ever suggested there is a need for "dishonest" right-wing media?
Quoting dishonest right-wing media consistently implies a need for it. Don't even have to scroll very far to find it. May I present...Dr. David Samadi.
Or are you retracting the above retraction?
So ... you are now claiming that a urologist and prostate cancer surgeon, who has appeared on various Fox News shows (which everyone here will confirm is a dishonest right-wing media outlet!) and ABC's Good Morning America (also a secret, but dishonest right-wing media outlet!) ... is part of "dishonest right-wing media"? Really?
Here's a recent - like REALLY RECENT - quote from Dr. David Samadi:
â-
Dr. David Samadi from RoboticOncology voices concerns of COVID-19's impact on prostate cancer screenings NEW YORK, July 3, 2020 /PRNewswire/ â A concerning fallout from the March COVID-19 shutdown has been the disastrous drop in cancer screenings. This worrisome discovery is according to a study in May by Epic Health Research Network. A review of data from 39 health systems from 190 hospitals in 23 states, found alarming statistics: prostate specific antigen (PSA) screenings for detecting prostate cancer fell by 60 percent.
"In my years as a urologist and prostate cancer surgeon, I've never been more concerned for my patients than now," exclaimed Dr. David Samadi, Director of Men's Health and Urologic Oncologist at St. Francis Hospital in Roslyn, New York. "By putting off preventive services and screenings to avoid potential exposure to COVID-19, will very likely lead to another huge health crisis of a significant increase in undiagnosed cancer cases in the next few years."
â-
YES! Clear evidence that he's part of "dishonest right-wing media"!
yeah. it's a hoax. don't listen to Fauci or any of the others. they just want Biden in office and the collapse of America. this is all politics.
But, FTA: "Models predict the disease will peak in mid-to-late July, almost two months after cases began to surge with the reopening of the Texas economy and a busy Memorial Day weekend. Texas has become one of the worst spots in nation for the spread, and all eyes are on the state and Houston as health and government leaders desperately try to slow the outbreak."
The first one counts. That is just the kind of media hyperventilation we're both complaining about. The second...not so much. It's about the retraction, not the original paper, and gives it that dramatic spin in retrospect.
Show me where I have ever suggested there is a need for "dishonest" right-wing media?
Quoting dishonest right-wing media consistently implies a need for it. Don't even have to scroll very far to find it. May I present...Dr. David Samadi.
Okay, so "totally unreliable" is a bit of a stretch. Granted. If only all the fake papers could be explained away as politically inconvenient. There's much much more to it than that. The problem with garbage papers and their hopeful detection & eventual retraction has been going on for a long time - well before Trump. Most everyone knows by now about #fakenews, or has some understanding what's implied. Unfortunately, most everyone has no idea that fake papers are a major blot on the medical & research community. And yes, publish or perish is a known thing - largely within the research community, not known so much by the public. Also fake papers are a big thing in the whole climate change 'industry' - the lawyers are making bank as the fraudulent papers & 'climate scientists' are uncovered (see Mark Steyn v Michael Mann, & the site Watts Up With That, etc)
Taking on medical papers â there are many links out there to read for further background and example. (Google list of fake medical papers)
If only we all could trust everything that comes out of the mouths of politicians, scientists, medical professionals, etc etc. They can be as misinformed as the public at large.
And the media - theoretically responsible for keeping us up to date on all critical matters, like say COVID-19?
Recall: "The media said it would literally kill you if you took it simply because POTUS promoted it as a cure. Thousands of people likely DIED because of this." - Dr. David Samadi
There's nothing that can be done to fix that industry except nuke it and start over, IMO. Most are so far detached from any semblance of traditional journalism that the profession should be renamed and the old name retired to a museum. That could be difficult though - as Newseum couldn't find enough traction to stay financially viable.
The fact that bad papers get retracted is a feature, not a bug. I'm glad there are sites monitoring retractions and I hope they get more attention. Correcting mistakes and malfeasance means more than admitting there were mistakes and malfeasance; it makes studies that were confirmed more credible. Closer to the truth.
When was the last time you or Donald Trump retracted anything, be it a mangled interpretation of real data or an outright lie? And no, deleting an embarrassing tweet does not count. That's not an admission of error, it's an attempt to erase the error from the public's memory.
As for the Dr. David Samadi quote: when did "the media" ever say anything like that? Do you have a quote you can present to prove that point, or is Dr. David Samedi...lying?
If you propose to "nuke it and start over" what is your starting point and why would anyone trust you with that task? Yes, there is dishonest, agenda-driven media, mostly on the left. You're trying to counter it with dishonest, agenda-driven right-wing media. How does that improve matters? The cure for dirty water is cleaner water, not dirty water of a different color.
When was the last time you or Donald Trump retracted anything, be it a mangled interpretation of real data or an outright lie?
As far as Trump goes, I'm not his apologist, am well aware of his failings, and won't defend his Tweets.
As for the Dr. David Samadi quote: when did "the media" ever say anything like that? Do you have a quote you can present to prove that point, or is Dr. David Samedi...lying?
Okay, so "totally unreliable" is a bit of a stretch. Granted. If only all the fake papers could be explained away as politically inconvenient. There's much much more to it than that. The problem with garbage papers and their hopeful detection & eventual retraction has been going on for a long time - well before Trump. Most everyone knows by now about #fakenews, or has some understanding what's implied. Unfortunately, most everyone has no idea that fake papers are a major blot on the medical & research community. And yes, publish or perish is a known thing - largely within the research community, not known so much by the public. Also fake papers are a big thing in the whole climate change 'industry' - the lawyers are making bank as the fraudulent papers & 'climate scientists' are uncovered (see Mark Steyn v Michael Mann, & the site Watts Up With That, etc)
Taking on medical papers â there are many links out there to read for further background and example. (Google list of fake medical papers)
If only we all could trust everything that comes out of the mouths of politicians, scientists, medical professionals, etc etc. They can be as misinformed as the public at large.
And the media - theoretically responsible for keeping us up to date on all critical matters, like say COVID-19?
Recall: "The media said it would literally kill you if you took it simply because POTUS promoted it as a cure. Thousands of people likely DIED because of this." - Dr. David Samadi
There's nothing that can be done to fix that industry except nuke it and start over, IMO. Most are so far detached from any semblance of traditional journalism that the profession should be renamed and the old name retired to a museum. That could be difficult though - as Newseum couldn't find enough traction to stay financially viable.
The fact that bad papers get retracted is a feature, not a bug. I'm glad there are sites monitoring retractions and I hope they get more attention. Correcting mistakes and malfeasance means more than admitting there were mistakes and malfeasance; it makes studies that were confirmed more credible. Closer to the truth.
When was the last time you or Donald Trump retracted anything, be it a mangled interpretation of real data or an outright lie? And no, deleting an embarrassing tweet does not count. That's not an admission of error, it's an attempt to erase the error from the public's memory.
As for the Dr. David Samadi quote: when did "the media" ever say anything like that? Do you have a quote you can present to prove that point, or is Dr. David Samedi...lying?
If you propose to "nuke it and start over" what is your starting point and why would anyone trust you with that task? Yes, there is dishonest, agenda-driven media, mostly on the left. You're trying to counter it with dishonest, agenda-driven right-wing media. How does that improve matters? The cure for dirty water is cleaner water, not dirty water of a different color.
Totally unreliable? Really? Or just when the result is politically inconvenient?
In a crisis there is enormous pressure to publish without careful review. Journals are run by fallible human beings, but retracting bad papers is how you keep a medical publication system reliable. Admitting when you're wrong, taking steps to correct problem. Y'know, the opposite of doubling down or changing the subject when you're caught in a lie.
And those instances, from that one guy that one time? Those are anecdotes. They're interesting but they aren't useful in judging the effects of drugs on diseases and the body. Bodies recover from diseases most of the time, with no intervention at all. You need to try the drug on lots of people and look at the stats to know if it has better results than doing nothing.
I've always liked "the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data.'"
And notice the ongoing pattern by the undereducated political operatives: "those educated people are stupid; don't believe them." They started by labeling them as "elites" - which is rich, considering their leader has golden bathrooms and brags about his (nonexistent) wealth.
And it's so Orwellian to hear them say "the people who have spent their lives, their careers, trying to understand as much about this as they can - those people are the ones to ignore. Instead, listen to me so I can have your votes and remain in my position of power."
Though, there are documented instances out there, by medical professionals (docs & infectious disease specialists) of Hydroxychloroquine being an effective route to shorten the effects or the stay in hospital. Peer verified clinical trials - no - getting that done requires a lot of time.
Strange though how easily the medical journals were frauded with the fake negative info about Hydroxychloroquine from a tiny company, now defunct, that never had any medical staff ... brings into question the reliability of the entire medical publication system. Well actually, over recent years, it's already proven that they're totally unreliable..
Totally unreliable? Really? Or just when the result is politically inconvenient?
In a crisis there is enormous pressure to publish without careful review. Journals are run by fallible human beings, but retracting bad papers is how you keep a medical publication system reliable. Admitting when you're wrong, taking steps to correct problem. Y'know, the opposite of doubling down or changing the subject when you're caught in a lie.
And those instances, from that one guy that one time? Those are anecdotes. They're interesting but they aren't useful in judging the effects of drugs on diseases and the body. Bodies recover from diseases most of the time, with no intervention at all. You need to try the drug on lots of people and look at the stats to know if it has better results than doing nothing.
Okay, so "totally unreliable" is a bit of a stretch. Granted. If only all the fake papers could be explained away as politically inconvenient. There's much much more to it than that. The problem with garbage papers and their hopeful detection & eventual retraction has been going on for a long time - well before Trump. Most everyone knows by now about #fakenews, or has some understanding what's implied. Unfortunately, most everyone has no idea that fake papers are a major blot on the medical & research community. And yes, publish or perish is a known thing - largely within the research community, not known so much by the public. Also fake papers are a big thing in the whole climate change 'industry' - the lawyers are making bank as the fraudulent papers & 'climate scientists' are uncovered (see Mark Steyn v Michael Mann, & the site Watts Up With That, etc)
Taking on medical papers â there are many links out there to read for further background and example. (Google list of fake medical papers)
If only we all could trust everything that comes out of the mouths of politicians, scientists, medical professionals, etc etc. They can be as misinformed as the public at large.
And the media - theoretically responsible for keeping us up to date on all critical matters, like say COVID-19?
Recall: "The media said it would literally kill you if you took it simply because POTUS promoted it as a cure. Thousands of people likely DIED because of this." - Dr. David Samadi
There's nothing that can be done to fix that industry except nuke it and start over, IMO. Most are so far detached from any semblance of traditional journalism that the profession should be renamed and the old name retired to a museum. That could be difficult though - as Newseum couldn't find enough traction to stay financially viable.
Though, there are documented instances out there, by medical professionals (docs & infectious disease specialists) of Hydroxychloroquine being an effective route to shorten the effects or the stay in hospital. Peer verified clinical trials - no - getting that done requires a lot of time.
Strange though how easily the medical journals were frauded with the fake negative info about Hydroxychloroquine from a tiny company, now defunct, that never had any medical staff ... brings into question the reliability of the entire medical publication system. Well actually, over recent years, it's already proven that they're totally unreliable..
Totally unreliable? Really? Or just when the result is politically inconvenient?
In a crisis there is enormous pressure to publish without careful review. Journals are run by fallible human beings, but retracting bad papers is how you keep a medical publication system reliable. Admitting when you're wrong, taking steps to correct problem. Y'know, the opposite of doubling down or changing the subject when you're caught in a lie.
And those instances, from that one guy that one time? Those are anecdotes. They're interesting but they aren't useful in judging the effects of drugs on diseases and the body. Bodies recover from diseases most of the time, with no intervention at all. You need to try the drug on lots of people and look at the stats to know if it has better results than doing nothing.
People literally died because the media was more interested in demonizing Donald Trump than getting the facts right.
Also -Hydroxychloroquine (aka Plaquenil) sulfate (the full generic name) is no longer covered by patent protection. There's at least four generic makers supplying it. Cost per tab is ultra-low.
Those who claimed Trump's motivation in promoting the drug was that he directly profited from its sale - and those people ought to apologize. Of course all we'll ever hear is crickets.
No, there's no randomly-controlled trial that indicates this. So far, in fact, the only reliable clinical study so far said the oppositeâthat hydroxychloroquine is not effective as a preventative measure.
If he's referring to the recent retractions of other studies claiming to show no effect against C-19 and harmful side effects...that's how ethical scientists behave. When they see they've been misled or mistaken they publicly correct the record.
I don't expect everybody to grasp the difference between failing to demonstrate something is false and proving that thing is true. That's a logic thing. Most people suck at it. Media types are not excepted here-they bring their own agendas and ignorance to reporting, even on medical topics. Even on matters of life and death.
Another logic thing: dishonest people saying something doesn't make what they said false. Trumpalists can take some small comfort in that. The most important feature of true things is that they're true no matter who says them.
Some hard concepts here, so I'll try and summarize: there is no reliable evidence that hydroxychloroquine has any positive effect on the progress of C-19. We haven't exhaustively proved it has no clinical value yet, but if it were the miracle drug the people hyping it claimed that would have been apparent by now.
Also true.
Though, there are documented instances out there, by medical professionals (docs & infectious disease specialists) of Hydroxychloroquine being an effective route to shorten the effects or the stay in hospital. Peer verified clinical trials - no - getting that done requires a lot of time.
Strange though how easily the medical journals were frauded with the fake negative info about Hydroxychloroquine from a tiny company, now defunct, that never had any medical staff ... brings into question the reliability of the entire medical publication system. Well actually, over recent years, it's already proven that they're totally unreliable..
People literally died because the media was more interested in demonizing Donald Trump than getting the facts right.
Also -Hydroxychloroquine (aka Plaquenil) sulfate (the full generic name) is no longer covered by patent protection. There's at least four generic makers supplying it. Cost per tab is ultra-low.
Those who claimed Trump's motivation in promoting the drug was that he directly profited from its sale - and those people ought to apologize. Of course all we'll ever hear is crickets.
No, there's no randomly-controlled trial that indicates this. So far, in fact, the only reliable clinical study so far said the opposite—that hydroxychloroquine is not effective as a preventative measure.
If he's referring to the recent retractions of other studies claiming to show no effect against C-19 and harmful side effects...that's how ethical scientists behave. When they see they've been misled or mistaken they publicly correct the record.
I don't expect everybody to grasp the difference between failing to demonstrate something is false and proving that thing is true. That's a logic thing. Most people suck at it. Media types are not excepted here-they bring their own agendas and ignorance to reporting, even on medical topics. Even on matters of life and death.
Another logic thing: dishonest people saying something doesn't make what they said false. Trumpalists can take some small comfort in that. The most important feature of true things is that they're true no matter who says them.
Some hard concepts here, so I'll try and summarize: there is no reliable evidence that hydroxychloroquine has any positive effect on the progress of C-19. We haven't exhaustively proved it has no clinical value yet, but if it were the miracle drug the people hyping it claimed that would have been apparent by now.
Because anyone saying hydroxychloroqine works, as far as we know right now, is either ignorant or willfully misinforming the public.
Hereâs the latest from UpToDate, one of the more important information sources for medical care providers. Itâs like Wikipedia in that itâs updated constantly. (Hence its name). The italics are mine, so you can skip the other polysyllabic words if they give you trouble.
âWe generally do not use other agents off-label for treatment of COVID-19. In particular, we suggest not routinely using hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine outside the context of a clinical trial given the lack of clear benefit and potential for toxicity (Grade 2C). We also suggest not using lopinavir-ritonavir for COVID-19 therapy outside of a clinical trial (Grade 2B). (See 'Hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine' above and 'Others' above.)â
What is Grade 2? â2. Weak recommendation: Benefits and risks closely balanced and/or uncertainâ What is Grade C? âC. Low-quality evidence: Evidence from observational studies, unsystematic clinical observations, or from randomized trials with serious flawsâ
and
âWhile hydroxychloroquine is being studied as a prophylactic agent, one randomized trial found that it was not effective for prevention. We recommend that neither this medication nor any other be used for prophylaxis outside of clinical trials.â
So the issue here is not that politics or Trump is preventing us from using a helpful medicine - instead, itâs that
TRUMP AND HIS POLITICS ARE PROMOTING TREATMENTS THAT ARENâT USEFUL.
