Yes, when I attempted to teach Chemistry to medical students I found they were good at rote learning but in general had disappointing IQ and deductive reasoning skills. I saved the life of one young aspiring medico when she approached a flask of ether with a Bunsen Burner.
Notre Dame University started admitting first year students into my Chemistry and Physics classes with zero high school qualifications so they could charge huge fees to students hoping to take a fast route to Medicine. Too many Epidemiologists and not enough Single Cell Scientists these days.
Masks could catch aerosols, evaporate the water, and make viruses effecitvely smaller and easier to breath deep into the lungs. And while masks may reduce inhalation of aerosols, they may also reduce exhalation of aerosols. So mechanisms are not a clear face mask argument to me. Humidification is another potential beneficial mechanism. The main potential benefit of masks is not reduction in infection, but reduction in severity, but reducing initial viral dose. This was never tested, and not even suggested by mask promoters, which is pathetic and just shows how disconnected discussion is. They missed their best argument.
In other words, there is always the possibility to realize something about mechanisms we did not think about before. And it's not like gravity. It's interactions with biological systems and there will always be things we don't expect.
Another physics speculation: The better your filter material, the harder it is to breathe through, the more air is thus redirected along poorly fitted edges. A paradoxical effect.
Vinay is far better than most, but he does need to get woke about a lot still.
Simply having the evidence or studies (supporting the benefits of a treatment or intervention) makes little or no difference to ordinary people unless there is a compnay or institution with an incentive to advertise and promote those benefits regularly (daily or weekly).
Here is an example. This article below claims that there are 12,000 peer reviewed studies on the health benefits of turmeric. (I have seen some of them.) For example, one 2008 study found that a turmeric based preparation is comparable to statins (like Lipitor) in efficacy, and much safer. But how many people in the US will ever hear about that study?
The fundamental problem with modern medicine is not lack of RCT studies. The fundamental problem is that all the incentives in the system are geared towards keeping people perennially sick, and permanently dependent on drugs and doctors. All the incentives are for medical intervention, and none for natural prevention (some lip service to prevention notwithstanding).
Don't forget migraines which afflict tens of millions of North Americans. My daughter has a persistent cough and two doctors and an allergist are 'baffled' as they try to figure out the right pharmaceutical to prescribe. As you note, no attempt is made at understanding human diseases.
I've learned medical professionals (I'm not pointing to Prasad here but making a general statement) are astonishingly bad at reason and logic. At least Prasad is highly critical of what's becoming of allopathic medicine. Something many people have observed a long time ago. I myself was indifferent until 2020. Not anymore.
Haven't there been multiple RCT studies that show IVM and HCQ can be quite effective within 1-5 days of observing symptoms? Yet, Prasad doesn't seem convinced about those treatments. No one is saying they're a cure but they do seem to help in some cases.
By the same “leaving the back door open” analogy one can also see why masks don’t work, bc exhaled air full of virus simply leaks thru any gaps between the face and mask, people touch their faces and so forth. It’s known that PPE is at the bottom of the hierarchy of effective protection from contamination.
We also need to remember that the longer people wear masks, the longer their brains are out of oxygen, so we have to forgive them for lack of reasoning.
AMEN. difficult to trick physics.. If the stall speed on my Cessna 182 is 60 mph, then it is that. no RCT needed. I can only change it by changing the physics, like putting on micro vortex generators to smooth out the air flow (airfoil). that drops to 55 mph now. So zip pop.. didn't require a RCT. It is what it is. What makes thing complex in medicine is that patients are humans and the DNA profiles are different, the protein synthesis and reactions are not always exact. There is a range of responses. Simple.. I can eat a peanut butter sandwich and love it. My grandkid eats it and he has a violent allergic reaction. While our genetic codes are similar, they are not exact. Thus RCTs might show it but would be awful to perform- because of potential terrible side effects. Ditto the COVID shots.. but who is gonna stand up and say oops sorry for all the morbidity and mortality?
EBM’s reliance on the “gold standard” RCTs is wonderful for big capital/philanthropy because they are prohibitively expensive and easy to control with $$$$.
Regarding the explanation of CO2 concentration in the masked space by Del Bigtree, the additional and I think critical factor in this kind of analysis is to account for the respective volumes of mask space vs inhaled air. In short, the measured concentration of CO2 under the mask (a very small volume) must be corrected for the effect of dilution in the act of breathing (a large volume of external air inhaled together with the CO2 retained under the mask). For example, if the ratio of these volumes are 1:100, the measured concentration under the mask will be 100 times lower in the lungs. There will be some CO2 accumulation effect, but it is not equivalent to the CO2 measurement under the mask. Nevertheless, even if the CO2 effect is benign, mask mandates are unethical for many other reasons.
Careful with your physics explanation of masks. Droplets will be 'aerosolized' by the weave of the masks. These aerosols will go deeper into the lungs. This is a very complex issue so please don't over simplify it in your article promoting better use of physics! The only masks that physics supports as effective are true respirators (and they protect the wearer only) with as you say eye protection.
Conclusion [[ Things that enter the body, especially the blood, are considered poisonous until their safety is confirmed. ]]
In the first place, medicine is intermediate between the natural sciences (physics, quantum chemistry,chemistry) and the humanities and literature.
In the case of natural science, hypotheses are proved by experiments with eight-nine probabilities and become theories.
Experiments can be repeated infinitely.
On the other hand, medical experiments cannot be repeated using the same human body.
There are individual differences even in animal experiments, and infinite repetition is fundamentally impossible.
People who are the target of medicine have such large individual differences that even 100 billion people can be sufficiently identified due to genetic differences.
It just makes up for it with stats.
Can medicine and pharmacy give answers to human responses using calculation formulas?
It won't be possible until 1000 years from now.
Therefore, it is not a natural science at present.
Evidence is that medical treatment cannot be calculated.
At most, AI will be able to find out which medical treatment seems to be good from a large number of experiences. (AI is based on statistics)
Therefore, medicine is not yet a science, but an intermediate between science, humanities, and literature.
It's not a natural science, so in medicine, the one with the loudest voice often wins. (Like CDC, FDA, Fauci)
So for me personally, this is the first conclusion.
Yes, when I attempted to teach Chemistry to medical students I found they were good at rote learning but in general had disappointing IQ and deductive reasoning skills. I saved the life of one young aspiring medico when she approached a flask of ether with a Bunsen Burner.
Notre Dame University started admitting first year students into my Chemistry and Physics classes with zero high school qualifications so they could charge huge fees to students hoping to take a fast route to Medicine. Too many Epidemiologists and not enough Single Cell Scientists these days.
They both matter. Mechanisms can be misleading too. Example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9282120/
Masks could catch aerosols, evaporate the water, and make viruses effecitvely smaller and easier to breath deep into the lungs. And while masks may reduce inhalation of aerosols, they may also reduce exhalation of aerosols. So mechanisms are not a clear face mask argument to me. Humidification is another potential beneficial mechanism. The main potential benefit of masks is not reduction in infection, but reduction in severity, but reducing initial viral dose. This was never tested, and not even suggested by mask promoters, which is pathetic and just shows how disconnected discussion is. They missed their best argument.
In other words, there is always the possibility to realize something about mechanisms we did not think about before. And it's not like gravity. It's interactions with biological systems and there will always be things we don't expect.
Another physics speculation: The better your filter material, the harder it is to breathe through, the more air is thus redirected along poorly fitted edges. A paradoxical effect.
Vinay is far better than most, but he does need to get woke about a lot still.
Simply having the evidence or studies (supporting the benefits of a treatment or intervention) makes little or no difference to ordinary people unless there is a compnay or institution with an incentive to advertise and promote those benefits regularly (daily or weekly).
Here is an example. This article below claims that there are 12,000 peer reviewed studies on the health benefits of turmeric. (I have seen some of them.) For example, one 2008 study found that a turmeric based preparation is comparable to statins (like Lipitor) in efficacy, and much safer. But how many people in the US will ever hear about that study?
tinyurl.com/2p987uer
The fundamental problem with modern medicine is not lack of RCT studies. The fundamental problem is that all the incentives in the system are geared towards keeping people perennially sick, and permanently dependent on drugs and doctors. All the incentives are for medical intervention, and none for natural prevention (some lip service to prevention notwithstanding).
Don't forget migraines which afflict tens of millions of North Americans. My daughter has a persistent cough and two doctors and an allergist are 'baffled' as they try to figure out the right pharmaceutical to prescribe. As you note, no attempt is made at understanding human diseases.
I've learned medical professionals (I'm not pointing to Prasad here but making a general statement) are astonishingly bad at reason and logic. At least Prasad is highly critical of what's becoming of allopathic medicine. Something many people have observed a long time ago. I myself was indifferent until 2020. Not anymore.
Haven't there been multiple RCT studies that show IVM and HCQ can be quite effective within 1-5 days of observing symptoms? Yet, Prasad doesn't seem convinced about those treatments. No one is saying they're a cure but they do seem to help in some cases.
By the same “leaving the back door open” analogy one can also see why masks don’t work, bc exhaled air full of virus simply leaks thru any gaps between the face and mask, people touch their faces and so forth. It’s known that PPE is at the bottom of the hierarchy of effective protection from contamination.
See the quora post below (The nature of empirical evidence in medicine):
https://www.quora.com/profile/Vijay-Gupta/posts
Note that what matters most in the real world is not the evidence itself, but the marketing of that evidence.
Love your take, simple and clear. I’m tired of being manipulated, so tired
What a perspective! Thanks Vinu.
We also need to remember that the longer people wear masks, the longer their brains are out of oxygen, so we have to forgive them for lack of reasoning.
AMEN. difficult to trick physics.. If the stall speed on my Cessna 182 is 60 mph, then it is that. no RCT needed. I can only change it by changing the physics, like putting on micro vortex generators to smooth out the air flow (airfoil). that drops to 55 mph now. So zip pop.. didn't require a RCT. It is what it is. What makes thing complex in medicine is that patients are humans and the DNA profiles are different, the protein synthesis and reactions are not always exact. There is a range of responses. Simple.. I can eat a peanut butter sandwich and love it. My grandkid eats it and he has a violent allergic reaction. While our genetic codes are similar, they are not exact. Thus RCTs might show it but would be awful to perform- because of potential terrible side effects. Ditto the COVID shots.. but who is gonna stand up and say oops sorry for all the morbidity and mortality?
EBM’s reliance on the “gold standard” RCTs is wonderful for big capital/philanthropy because they are prohibitively expensive and easy to control with $$$$.
Regarding the explanation of CO2 concentration in the masked space by Del Bigtree, the additional and I think critical factor in this kind of analysis is to account for the respective volumes of mask space vs inhaled air. In short, the measured concentration of CO2 under the mask (a very small volume) must be corrected for the effect of dilution in the act of breathing (a large volume of external air inhaled together with the CO2 retained under the mask). For example, if the ratio of these volumes are 1:100, the measured concentration under the mask will be 100 times lower in the lungs. There will be some CO2 accumulation effect, but it is not equivalent to the CO2 measurement under the mask. Nevertheless, even if the CO2 effect is benign, mask mandates are unethical for many other reasons.
Careful with your physics explanation of masks. Droplets will be 'aerosolized' by the weave of the masks. These aerosols will go deeper into the lungs. This is a very complex issue so please don't over simplify it in your article promoting better use of physics! The only masks that physics supports as effective are true respirators (and they protect the wearer only) with as you say eye protection.
Conclusion [[ Things that enter the body, especially the blood, are considered poisonous until their safety is confirmed. ]]
In the first place, medicine is intermediate between the natural sciences (physics, quantum chemistry,chemistry) and the humanities and literature.
In the case of natural science, hypotheses are proved by experiments with eight-nine probabilities and become theories.
Experiments can be repeated infinitely.
On the other hand, medical experiments cannot be repeated using the same human body.
There are individual differences even in animal experiments, and infinite repetition is fundamentally impossible.
People who are the target of medicine have such large individual differences that even 100 billion people can be sufficiently identified due to genetic differences.
It just makes up for it with stats.
Can medicine and pharmacy give answers to human responses using calculation formulas?
It won't be possible until 1000 years from now.
Therefore, it is not a natural science at present.
Evidence is that medical treatment cannot be calculated.
At most, AI will be able to find out which medical treatment seems to be good from a large number of experiences. (AI is based on statistics)
Therefore, medicine is not yet a science, but an intermediate between science, humanities, and literature.
It's not a natural science, so in medicine, the one with the loudest voice often wins. (Like CDC, FDA, Fauci)
So for me personally, this is the first conclusion.