Oh I’m well aware of that, I think you may have missed my point: ivermectin was banned in many countries due to political reasons. Many doctors reported good outcomes when using it for Covid. We now know that the places that Ivermectin worked best for Covid were places where parasitic infections are more common.
So although it wasn’t approved for Covid, it helped reduce harm because it allowed people to fight Covid without fighting a parasite simultaneously. But since it was ‘not known to have antiviral activity’ and trump said it worked well, it was banned.
It’s a disgrace that authorities have punished doctors who did the right thing and have now been vindicated. It is absurd to have to wait for an authority to approve something you have good evidence will help your patients.
This is why people have lost faith in health institutions. They make terrible decisions like this and then have the audacity to pontificate to the population.
I don’t think the media caused the psychology replication crisis. The media plays a part in all this, but the scientific institutions shouldn’t crumble to media or political pressure.
“Ivermectin has not been shown to be safe or effective for these indications,” but fail to mention that there is no evidence that it is not safe for this particular indication. This implies it wasn’t banned for safety reasons. It was banned because many associated it with Trump and right wing conspiracy theories.
There was no science used to justify banning it to begin with, and we are now years later, with a potential mechanism for the benefit and it is still banned!
I really like the video but I disagree with his prescription for peer review to increase trust in science.
People don’t distrust scientists because there isn’t enough peer review or because of pre-prints failing to replicate, they distrust scientific institutions because scientific institutions often communicate their current best theory as the truth and pretend that they can ‘prove’ things true by way of ‘scientific consensus.’ Going against the consensus can ruin or limit your career.
Lots of examples: climate scientists making claims of ice free arctic by 2020, dietary science flip flopping on diet advice (fat and butter is bad, carbs are bad), covid vaccines being a silver bullet, ivermectin not being effective [1]. Add in problems in social ‘sciences’ like the Sokal affair, psychology replication crisis, mainstream economists failing to predict the GFC, definitions of foundational terms like “woman” changing, and you have a recipe for the general public not trusting academia or ‘scientific’ institutions in general. Science and academia in general is being polluted by politics and it is incentivising academics to exaggerate the accuracy of their knowledge.
[1] https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...
I added the reference here because Ivermectin was a horrible case of politicising science: mainstream institutions called it an animal medicine with full knowledge it was safe for humans. And now there is a potential mechanism for its effect, it looks like it may have been effective after all. During the pandemic I heard many scientists laugh at people for considering it, all because an authority they trusted told them it was silly.
I wonder if this is a net positive, since media hype would increase likelihood of future funding or investment, so the hype generates accelerated progress.
It could also be the opposite: shiny result causes over investment in an area of tech which isn’t productive.
What kind of social aspects could they be missing? I would hope their methodology would include checking on patients post-treatment to see how their relationships etc. were going but I must admit I haven’t read one of their papers in a while.
Do you doubt the validity of current research? Every time I look at MAPS research it becomes clearer that psychedelics have very high efficacy for some issues. I’d be interested to hear why this hasn’t convinced you.
I would also add the social element - if you want your kids and grandkids to be able to read it, pass custody of the website well before you die (perhaps in a will?) and tell as many friends and family as you can. I know I would happily administer a deceased friend's website until i could no longer myself.
Your intuition is correct: raising and teaching children is a difficult skill to master, much easier said than done.
But if you have patience and determination the difficulties will be manageable. The love one feels for ones child is a deep well to draw from during frustrating or difficult times.
My limited experience shows that a good way to influence children is to lead by example, and build on previous knowledge to provide context.
Using gardening as an example, choose a fruit or vegetable your child likes, then go with them to a store and buy seeds / trees / whatever. Then get them to help you plant it and look after it. Children love harvest time, the excitement is palpable.
If you have chickens you can feed them wheat. If your child likes bread then you can show the child how to turn wheat into bread.
The key is not to force things. Monkey see, monkey do. If my nephews see me doing yoga, suddenly they are all trying their best to copy me.
For programming, I am not sure. But i think the best way is to start with a simple language that can alter something visual, so that there is clear cause/effect.
So although it wasn’t approved for Covid, it helped reduce harm because it allowed people to fight Covid without fighting a parasite simultaneously. But since it was ‘not known to have antiviral activity’ and trump said it worked well, it was banned.
It’s a disgrace that authorities have punished doctors who did the right thing and have now been vindicated. It is absurd to have to wait for an authority to approve something you have good evidence will help your patients.
This is why people have lost faith in health institutions. They make terrible decisions like this and then have the audacity to pontificate to the population.