[DocSavage87]

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

I think the underlying mechanism of disease (and therefore the main targets for therapy) is a case where we need to be very cautious.  I'm not opposed to active funding of alternate (devil's advocate) research as long as the scientists are rigorous and not quacks.  However, these examples should not be used to dismiss evidence of severity of a pandemic, which is much easier to "know" based on things like death counts, or the potential for morbidity based on systemic effects not present in the same degree.

What is considered state-of-art in medicine tends to be very conservative, and I very much enjoyed my time working with neurosurgeons who tend to be much less cautious in embracing and financing new technology.  Medical policy likewise tends to be very conservative.  Which is why Atlas's promotion of very minority viewpoints at an extremely large scale is more striking.  It's as if we mandated taking antibiotics for ulcers before we had Marshall and Warren's research, let alone confirmatory investigations on their results.

[DocSavage87]

I have perhaps a bit more tolerance for heterodox views because the field of medicine is littered with views about disease that turned out not to be true and were debunked by individuals who held minority viewpoints, sometimes against seemingly overwhelming evidence. There was "overwhelming" evidence that ulcers were caused by stress, until an Australian doctor actually drank a vial of H. pilori and gave himself an ulcer.  Likewise, everyone "knew" that hormone replacement therapy reduced the risk of cardiovascular disease in post-menopausal women, to the point where many people considered it unethical to run a randomized, placebo-controlled study of hormone replacement; lo and behold, that study showed that not only does estrogen replacement therapy not reduce cardiovascular disease, but that it increases the risk.

I think the underlying mechanism of disease (and therefore the main targets for therapy) is a case where we need to be very cautious.  I'm not opposed to active funding of alternate (devil's advocate) research as long as the scientists are rigorous and not quacks.  However, these examples should not be used to dismiss evidence of severity of a pandemic, which is much easier to "know" based on things like death counts, or the potential for morbidity based on systemic effects not present in the same degree.

What is considered state-of-art in medicine tends to be very conservative, and I very much enjoyed my time working with neurosurgeons who tend to be much less cautious in embracing and financing new technology.  Medical policy likewise tends to be very conservative.  Which is why Atlas's promotion of very minority viewpoints at an extremely large scale is more striking.  It's as if we mandated taking antibiotics for ulcers before we had Marshall and Warren's research, let alone confirmatory investigations on their results.