CCP Virus: “The Doctor Is In: Scott Atlas And The Efficacy Of Lockdowns, Social Distancing, And Closings” (UPDATED with letter from Professor Martin Kulldorff and epidemiologist Professor Sunetra Gupta)
Real science is never settled, and anyone who has certainty on such things is not qualified to discuss it — Lloyd Chambers. That applies to climate science, COVID-19, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. Repudiating rational debate on science is as anti-science as it gets.
The economic and personal and loss-of-life carnage from COVID-19 continues. No, not from the virus. From government policies. Up to 300 Million People May Be Infected by COVID-19, Stanford Guru John Ioannidis Says + Feckless Leaders Killing People
Dr. Ioannidis: Globally, the lockdown measures have increased the number of people at risk of starvation to 1.1 billion, and they are putting at risk millions of lives, with the potential resurgence of tuberculosis, childhood diseases like measles where vaccination programs are disrupted, and malaria.
RE: The Doctor Is In: Scott Atlas And The Efficacy Of Lockdowns, Social Distancing, And Closings.
RE: Martin Kulldorff, professor, Harvard Medical School: Letter to the editor: Scott Atlas and lockdowns
RE: COVID-19: Great Barrington Declaration by Medical Professionals and Epidemiologists
RE: The data is in — stop the panic and end the total isolation
RE: Time to Steepen the Curve and Accelerate Infection of Low-Risk People
RE: AIER: “The Pandemic that Killed Debate”
re: THE LONG-TERM IMPACT OF THE COVID-19 UNEMPLOYMENT SHOCK ON LIFE EXPECTANCY AND MORTALITY RATES
Stanford doctors repudiate scientific debate
I was dazed by this letter from 105 Stanford doctors attacking Dr Scott Atlas in which they ignore numerous data-based and science-based points that Dr Atlas has made.
This group claims to promote science, but instead repudiates science and reason by making an ad-hominem attack on Dr. Atlas, not addressing or even mentioning a single claim made by Dr Atlas. Not one. The “debate” is all about refusing to debate, and thus as anti-science as it could possibly be.
As infectious diseases physicians and researchers, microbiologist and immunologists, epidemiologists and health policy leaders, we stand united in efforts to develop and promote science-based solutions that advance human health and prevent suffering from the coronavirus pandemic. In this pursuit, we share a commitment to a basic principle derived from the Hippocratic Oath: Primum Non Nocere (First, Do No Harm).
To prevent harm to the public’s health, we also have both a moral and an ethical responsibility to call attention to the falsehoods and misrepresentations of science recently fostered by Dr. Scott Atlas, a former Stanford Medical School colleague and current senior fellow at the Hoover Institute at Stanford University. Many of his opinions and statements run counter to established science and, by doing so, undermine public-health authorities and the credible science that guides effective public health policy. The preponderance of data, accrued from around the world, currently supports each of the following statements:...
Their stunning display of any knowledge of risk assessment across disciplines is prima facie evidence of incompetence to advise anyone in any area. It looks to be a severe case of cognitive dissonance.
By failing to cite a single factual point of contention of what Dr Atlas actually claims, these doctors who are anti-science, can’t do risk assessment better than children, lack all objectively. Instead, they engage in make an ad-hominem attacks, relying on their credentials instead of facts and debate. If that is not obscene malpractice, what is it?
By refusing to look at reality outside a tiny area of their expertise, these doctors are de-facto killing many more people than COVID-19 ever will.
The interview video which set off this firestorem was censored from YouTube for vague reasons (e.g. political reasons), but it is available below. I watched the video and I was startled at how Dr. Atlas reeled off point after point of data-based and science based concerns about COVID policy, while adding appropriate balance and nuance and context. It was so unlike the dogmatic broken-record crap most of the world hears and believes.
The point is not that everything Dr. Atlas claims is true, the point is that there is so much that badly needs debating that refusing to do so becomes a serious intellectual crime. Shame on those doctors, because the wrong decisions have already resulted in massive and rapidly escalating losses of life years from government COVID policies driven by myopic “experts”.
Decide for yourself — watch the video, read the transcript
PLEASE: no correspondence unless you read the ENTIRE transcript and think about each point carefully and have a rational argument to make based on specific points.
Dr Atlas covers so many bases, so many that I’ll bet 99.9% of the public never even thought of most of them. He hits all the nails on the head about how to think about COVID policies, and this is only a tiny sampling:
- Costs vs benefit risk assessment in numerous areas are all strongly in favor of dropping the current policies, with compelling data that far more harm than good is being done.
- The deaths from economic reasons using long-established actuarial tables (the stuff insurance companies use) is already TWICE the deaths from COVID-19 itself—and those are very conservative numbers.
- Stroke and heart attacks are not getting to the emergency room, with huge life consequences for those experiencing them.
- The proper way to evaluate is “life years lost”, not deaths.
- “the most heinous misapplication of public policy in modern America”
Just applying to children and schooling alone:
- Emergency room visits for child abuse are up 35%, and mostly horrific cases.
- The #1 way to detect child abuse is through schools. With schools locked down, this doesn’t happen. Nor do glasses, hearing aids, school lunch, vaccinations.
- Loss of many skills like reading; half of children in some states don’t even login for online learning. This can have long-term consequences for millions of children.
There are so many fact-based and science-based assertions by Dr Atlas that clearly the ONLY thing left for these Stanford doctors to do was to IGNORE every one of numerous valid points—ignore all the facts pretending they do not exist—because they could not possibly debate most of the claims without looking like the idiots. Those doctors are the people you trust with your life to make judgment calls. God help me at Stanford*!
That these feckless Stanford doctors are comfortable with repudiating rational debate should be shocking enough given their credentials. But for them to do so when millions of lives are at stake is just de facto criminal.
It is a stunning display of why medical professionals should NEVER be who decides public policy—that’s the job of our leaders. These medical experts are blind to anything outside their specialty, but this is no surprise indeed it is routine—these “experts” don’t even know a tiny fraction of the field of medicine very well (hence getting handed-off to multiple doctors is commonplace), so to think they are qualified to advise on public policy crossing many fields of medicine, along with economics and social and individual lives and rights—that’s the line of Bad Thinking of children who don’t belong in the discussion.
* At Stanford, I had a superb ex-military surgeon sew up my face after my December 2018 crash, but in March 2018, only incompetent emergency room doctors with respect to my concussion (“you can go back to work in 3 days”)—ignorant quacks. The words “I don’t know” have never come out of a doctor’s mouth to my ears. A license to practice medicine is not a license to make shit up and pretend it is certain.
....It should be no surprise that scientists and doctors may disagree over the best response to the unprecedented challenges of the pandemic. But in responding to COVID-19, we cannot sacrifice the free exchange of ideas, the essential process to discover the scientific truths allowing us to fight the disease. America and its universities must allow differing views without intimidation or rebuke if it hopes to successfully develop responses to such crises and to solve the public health threats of the future.
I wish to correct the misinterpretation of my social media posts that allegedly endangered citizens and public officials. I have made it clear that this was not my understanding or intent. I would never urge or support violence. This manufactured controversy only distracts from what should be our shared goal: to save lives and reduce the harms from this pandemic. My intent was never to divide us, nor to do any harm.
...Unfortunately, the Stanford Faculty Senate has chosen to use its institutional voice to take sides in the debates over the complex scientific and medical questions raised by the pandemic. I fear that this precedent could further embroil the University into politics and raises the threat that the University will criticize other faculty who disagree with Stanford’s institutional views on these or other issues.
DIGLLOYD: way too kind a response to the vicious personal attack on him.