Stanford professor who challenged lockdowns and 'scientific clerisy' declares academic freedom 'dead

Stevicus said:

I can understand that, but this is Stanford where this guy was working as a professor of medicine. As I said in my OP, someone who can achieve that position is obviously not some uneducated hillbilly from the sticks.

To those of us among the Great Unwashed, how are we to tell the difference between the nut jobs in Academia versus the supposedly sane ones? (And it's not just one against a thousand; apparently this open letter was signed by thousands of scientists.)

Either academia has been lax in granting advanced degrees to thousands of idiots and nut jobs, or there might be some other explanation for this.

Click to expand...

Would you knowingly increase the death toll if it meant less inconvenience to other's daily life? The answer those scientists were giving was a resounding Yes.

This is not just science anymore, it is a political agenda.

Koldo said:

Would you knowingly increase the death toll if it meant less inconvenience to other's daily life? The answer those scientists were giving was a resounding Yes.

This is not just science anymore, it is a political agenda.

Click to expand...

I'm willing to accept some extra death in exchange
for some things: more liberty, better economy,
social relationships, recreation, schooling kids.

We make trade-offs for deaths on many things, eg....
traffic laws, highway design, vehicle design, burning
fossil fuels, waging wars, policing.
Many say that human life is sacred. But this is untrue.
It's important, but it must be balanced against other
competing important things, eh.

PureX said:

I don't see why it would be.

I know colleges like to hire professors that are active in their field, as a promotional tool to get more students. But it ends up putting that professor in a position of wearing two different hats. And in this case I think the professor in question got his hats a bit confused. Teaching science is not doing science. And doing science is not teaching it. The "academy" is about teaching, not doing. His job was to teach the prevailing scientific theories in the classroom, not promoting or debating his own. And he should have understood this.

On the other hand, if his academic cohorts are complaining because of some objection he posed in a scientific journal to mainstream scientific thought they are the ones that should have known better, as they hired the man for exactly that qualification.

Click to expand...

Many universities do research. I try to keep up on science news when I can, and whenever some important newsworthy discovery occurs, it's almost always associated with the name of a university - sometimes several universities.

Koldo said:

Would you knowingly increase the death toll if it meant less inconvenience to other's daily life? The answer those scientists were giving was a resounding Yes.

This is not just science anymore, it is a political agenda.

Click to expand...

"Knowingly"? That's the key question, isn't it?

We're also talking about more than just a minor inconvenience.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of arguments which include speculative projection, such as "if we didn't do X, more people would have died." It doesn't seem purely objective or detached enough to be interpreted as a scientific argument. And you even added the adverb "knowingly" to load it even more, but is it a valid question? Is that the kind of question a scientist would ask?

As long as everyone knows which hat they're wearing and when. Which can become especially difficult when students are trying to learn by doing. Stil, in that instance the teacher needs to be a teacher. Not the doer. The roles come with different responsibilities.

One of the best artists, and best art teachers (professor) I've ever known used to "steal" ideas from his students all the time. Because students are really good at thinking "outside the box" , since they don't yet know what inside the box looks like. But as the teacher he would point out these examples and praise them for the class to recognize. Then he'd go beck to his own studio and try to figure out why what he's just seen was so interesting, and so powerful, and use it as inspiration for his own artworks.

He often learned more from us than we learned from him. And was happy to say so. And it was an amazing feeling to see bits of ourselves in his artworks.

So the crossover is probably a good thing. But there are lines that I think need to be adhered to. And responsibilities upheld.

Revoltingest said:

I'm willing to accept some extra death in exchange
for some things: more liberty, better economy,
social relationships, recreation, schooling kids.

We make trade-offs for deaths on many things, eg....
traffic laws, highway design, vehicle design, burning
fossil fuels, waging wars, policing.
Many say that human life is sacred. But this is untrue.
It's important, but it must be balanced against other
competing important things, eh.

Click to expand...

Sure. I have no qualms with your view. My criticism is to those that hide it from plain sight to fulfill their political agenda.

Stevicus said:

"Knowingly"? That's the key question, isn't it?

We're also talking about more than just a minor inconvenience.

I'm also somewhat skeptical of arguments which include speculative projection, such as "if we didn't do X, more people would have died." It doesn't seem purely objective or detached enough to be interpreted as a scientific argument. And you even added the adverb "knowingly" to load it even more, but is it a valid question? Is that the kind of question a scientist would ask?

Click to expand...

I am going to quote the Great Barrington Declaration:

"As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection."

Another part of the text says:

"Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home."

What they are saying here is that the ones with a minimum risk of death should contract the disease so we can achieve herd immunity. However, if we risk the lives of millions of people that are at a minimum risk it still means that thoudands are going to die.

Millions of people that didn't have to put themselves at risk unnecessarily because vaccines have been a thing for quite some time and were on the making. Which is a much safer way to achieve herd immunity.

Not to mention they didn't take even consideration if the health services were going to be able to deal with so many sick people all at once...

Just because you fall outside a world full of peer review regarding a deadly disease amd get called out over it doesn't mean academic freedom is dead.
And I really question the guys ethics, because there is absolutely no such thing as academic freedom when it research regarding people (this is extremely heavily regulated and very good and necessary reasons, because academic freedom ha, on many occasions, been a nightmare for others).
America's disliking of intellectualism and academia is probably even why academic research falls under Internal Review Board guidelines while more trusted and abusive institutions, such as the police, are still allowed to police themselves and decide for themselves if they acted inappropriately or not.

Koldo said:

Not to mention they didn't take even consideration if the health services were going to be able to deal with so many sick people all at once...

Click to expand...

Thats what the anti-lockdown/being smart about covid crowd seems reluctant to acknowledge. Covid is so damn contagious it flooded many hospitals around the world and stuffed them beyond capacity. My dad fell off a ladder. Because of covidiots he had to wait for a proper bed in the hospital. And that's not the worst of it. Not caring about the medical system overloading is heinously cruel as it has forced medical workers into a position that should have stayed a hypothetical situation in their college ethics courses: deciding who lives and who dies.

Shadow Wolf said:

Thats what the anti-lockdown/being smart about covid crowd seems reluctant to acknowledge. Covid is so damn contagious it flooded many hospitals around the world and stuffed them beyond capacity. My dad fell off a ladder. Because of covidiots he had to wait for a proper bed in the hospital. And that's not the worst of it. Not caring about the medical system overloading is heinously cruel as it has forced medical workers into a position that should have stayed a hypothetical situation in their college ethics courses: deciding who lives and who dies.

Click to expand...

Everyone seems to have forgotten about this, which was like, the main reason for the lockdowns in the first place.

SkepticThinker said:

Everyone seems to have forgotten about this, which was like, the main reason for the lockdowns in the first place.

Click to expand...

Yup. They just don't care their actions affect others. They flooded the healthcare systems. That detracted from the quality of care, and also if treatment was recieved, and they have taxed, burned out, over worked, stressed out, spread thin and mentally and emotionally battered and physically exhausted healthcare workers throughout the nation.
But no, it's all about me and me deciding what's best for me and me alone. Everybody else just has to deal with it.

Koldo said:

I am going to quote the Great Barrington Declaration:

"As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection."

Another part of the text says:

"Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home."

What they are saying here is that the ones with a minimum risk of death should contract the disease so we can achieve herd immunity. However, if we risk the lives of millions of people that are at a minimum risk it still means that thoudands are going to die.

Millions of people that didn't have to put themselves at risk unnecessarily because vaccines have been a thing for quite some time and were on the making. Which is a much safer way to achieve herd immunity.

Not to mention they didn't take even consideration if the health services were going to be able to deal with so many sick people all at once...

Click to expand...

The bottom line, though, is that all of this could have been discussed openly, where there is greater transparency and people can make informed decisions and be aware of the risks. There's no need for any kind of paternalistic attitude from one group of scientists who believe that they know better than their peers who have the same medical degrees and same level of education.

If what you're saying is true, you're as much as suggesting that these doctors (who signed the declaration) are quacks who must have gotten their degrees fraudulently.

Stevicus said:

The bottom line, though, is that all of this could have been discussed openly, where there is greater transparency and people can make informed decisions and be aware of the risks. There's no need for any kind of paternalistic attitude from one group of scientists who believe that they know better than their peers who have the same medical degrees and same level of education.

If what you're saying is true, you're as much as suggesting that these doctors (who signed the declaration) are quacks who must have gotten their degrees fraudulently.

Click to expand...

They are not quacks. They just don't have the attitude one would expect from doctors (as in seeking to preserve human life as their most important goal).

Koldo said:

They are not quacks. They just don't have the attitude one would expect from doctors (as in seeking to preserve human life as their most important goal).

Click to expand...

Well, there's also the quality of life, which is more than simply keeping the heart pumping. There are plenty in the medical profession who seem pretty mercenary, where making money and profits is their most important goal. By default, that's the attitude I would expect from doctors, until they demonstrate otherwise.

Stevicus said:

Well, there's also the quality of life, which is more than simply keeping the heart pumping.

Click to expand...

Sure, but not to point where going to school is more important than many many lives, right? Else, where does it stop?

There are plenty in the medical profession who seem pretty mercenary, where making money and profits is their most important goal. By default, that's the attitude I would expect from doctors, until they demonstrate otherwise.

Click to expand...

I also regard them as mercenary, I just don't see that as being the perception of the public at large.

Koldo said:

I am going to quote the Great Barrington Declaration:

"As immunity builds in the population, the risk of infection to all – including the vulnerable – falls. We know that all populations will eventually reach herd immunity – i.e. the point at which the rate of new infections is stable – and that this can be assisted by (but is not dependent upon) a vaccine. Our goal should therefore be to minimize mortality and social harm until we reach herd immunity.

The most compassionate approach that balances the risks and benefits of reaching herd immunity, is to allow those who are at minimal risk of death to live their lives normally to build up immunity to the virus through natural infection, while better protecting those who are at highest risk. We call this Focused Protection."

Another part of the text says:

"Young low-risk adults should work normally, rather than from home."

What they are saying here is that the ones with a minimum risk of death should contract the disease so we can achieve herd immunity. However, if we risk the lives of millions of people that are at a minimum risk it still means that thoudands are going to die.

Millions of people that didn't have to put themselves at risk unnecessarily because vaccines have been a thing for quite some time and were on the making. Which is a much safer way to achieve herd immunity.

Not to mention they didn't take even consideration if the health services were going to be able to deal with so many sick people all at once...

Click to expand...

The other part of the nonsense is that these young people are going to go home where the more vulnerable are staying. Covid is airborne. How are you going to prevent the more vulnerable from catching it from the less vulnerable at home?
It has been amply demonstrated that lockdown decreased the rate of infection. Slowing down the infection rate so that health services are not overwhelmed and enough time for vaccines and medicines get developed is the reason for the lockdowns.
Nobody agrees with the lockdowns happening today in China precisely because these rationale are gone now.

Koldo said:

Sure, but not to point where going to school is more important than many many lives, right? Else, where does it stop?

Click to expand...

Well, again, that's why these issues have to be openly discussed without anyone feeling compelled or pressured to toe the line on a specific position. If educated men and women of good conscience have an honest disagreement, then open discussion and debate are essential for reaching some form of understanding.

I've seen some articles which note that there have been potentially long-term effects of social isolation, particularly with children remote learning. There were effects the lockdowns had on the economy which we may never recover from (such as supply chain issues). It's not just a mere inconvenience or minor thing.

That is the reality we're dealing with now, whereas people who assert how many people "would have died" if we did X - or how many have been saved because we did Y - that's just speculation. We don't know if that would have actually happened.

If one scientist is setting themselves up as an authority and telling another peer/scientist that "my speculation is superior to yours," I see that as mere arrogance, not science.

In any case, science doesn't have the final word on public policy, so it becomes a societal issue, where the needs of all the people have to be balanced and put into perspective. I subscribe to the principle that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few or the one.

I also regard them as mercenary, I just don't see that as being the perception of the public at large.

Click to expand...

Regarding the public at large, most people seem to like their own doctors, but there still appears to be a general mistrust of the profession in general. It's probably similar with lawyers.

Biology and the Medical science still over use statistical modeling, which is the same math used by gambling casinos. This is why doctors will not all agree. They will each see different odds based on their experiences at the various gaming tables of science.

Like at a roulette table, each doctor will pick their lucky numbers and place bets, all with the hope of winning. When the CDC says it knows better than all else, it must be card counting or loading the dice. This is not allowed at the casinos of science, so you will get rebellion to central control. Science based on odds is not clear cut so how can anyone claim absolute rule?

In medicine, there is what is called a placebo. This is often sugar pills that are mixed in among a test drug, to see if any symptoms or results will appear, based on faith healing. Some people will get better, while some will develop the expected symptoms, simply by thinking there are using the new drug. They are really doing faith healing or faith hurting based on the power of suggestion; placebo affect.

Picture there is a lottery where the jackpot is getting large. Many people will now have the urge to buy a ticket, even though they know the odds are slim to none. Something like a placebo affect occurs; land of odds, where more and more people start to feel a lucky; placebo buzz due to having the ticket pill. This may be extrapolated to their being generous with friends and family, accepting credit for what has not yet occurred; sacrifice to the gods of odds and chance.

A reverse placebo affect can also occur with a negative lottery, where the threat of the heavy jackpot falling on you, is getting larger and larger; COVID hype. People will run out to buy a safety ticket; try anything to get clear of the falling mass than hang over us all.

Medicine is not rational enough to avoid this betting affect and inducing the placebo affect, which is often as worse as the disease. In the end, some of the approaches to COVID had worse lingering side affects, especially for the children, which the data had always said were never at risk.

The negative lottery was played by the CDC, and led to placebo problems we now need to address, with no accountability. Do no harm was ignored. This is the problem with Big Government and casino science, which is also the math used by politicians and pollsters, to influence predictions. Science needs to get out of this circle of chance so it can become more objective and not just a tool.