Podcast appearances and mentions of John Ioannidis

In deze uitzending: - Verenigd Koninkrijk neemt de rol van de VS over - Grondwaterpeil houdt gemoederen bezig - John Ioannidis kijkt terug op de Coronatijd - Mijn column

In deze uitzending: - Verenigd Koninkrijk neemt de rol van de VS over - Grondwaterpeil houdt gemoederen bezig - John Ioannidis kijkt terug op de Coronatijd - Mijn column

In preparation for our discussion of "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" by John Ioannidis from 2005, we read a very similar paper published 40 years earlier: Neher, A. (1967). Probability Pyramiding, Research Error and the Need for Independent Replication. The Psychological Record, 17(2), 257–262. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03393713

Vor fünf Jahren begannen weltweit die sogenannten Eindämmungsmaßnahmen aufgrund eines neuartigen und zunächst als sehr tödlich eingestuften Coronavirus. Gegen die Empfehlungen bestehender nationaler Pandemiepläne wurden allgemeine Schulschließungen, Ausgangssperren, Abriegelungen, Versammlungsverbote und sogar Impfpflichten beschlossen. Diese sogenannten nicht-pharmazeutischen Interventionen (NPIs) sollten die Ausbreitung des Virus verlangsamen und stellten gleichzeitig einen erheblichen Eingriff in die Freiheiten der Bürger und Bürgerinnen dar. „Für kaum eine der Maßnahmen gibt es Belege dafür, dass sie einen Unterschied bei der Verringerung der Fallzahlen gemacht haben.“ Mit einem der meistzitierten Wissenschaftler der Welt ziehe eine Bilanz bezüglich der Verhältnismäßigkeit und Wirksamkeit dieser Maßnahmen. John Ioannidis, Medizinprofessor und Top-Epidemiologe an der Stanford University, war zu Gast in Berlin und nahm sich die Zeit, mit mir über Pandemiepolitik zu sprechen. (15. März 2025) "Die meisten Leute, die die Narrative diktierten, hatten keine Ahnung von Epidemiologie." Wir beleuchten nicht nur die Fragen, wie gefährlich SARS-Cov2 wirklich war oder wie es dazu kommen konnte, dass der gesellschaftliche Debattenraum so vergiftet wurde. Wir sprechen auch über die Wirksamkeit von mod-RNA-Injektionen und die Bedeutung von durchgesickerten RKI-Protokollen, die den starken Einfluss der Politik auf die Wissenschaft offenbarten. Auf die Frage nach dem Ursprung des Virus in der Vorbesprechung antwortete Ioannidis: „Was den Ursprung des Virus betrifft, so war ich immer der Meinung, dass wir Transparenz in der Forschung brauchen, also im kritischen Fall volle Transparenz darüber, welche Experimente unter welchen Bedingungen und mit welchen Vorsichtsmaßnahmen durchgeführt wurden. Ohne eine solche Transparenz verlagert sich die Debatte aus der Wissenschaft heraus und wird zu einem Thema für die Geheimdienste, was für die Wissenschaft schade ist. Mir ist klar, dass sich das Gleichgewicht allmählich verschiebt und dass einige Geheimdienste behaupten, es handele sich um ein Leck im Labor. Ich kann Geheimdienste nicht beurteilen, das ist nicht mein Fachgebiet, aber ich mache mir Sorgen, dass die Aussage „Geheimdienste sagen, es handele sich um ein Leck im Labor“ leicht mit der Aussage „Also muss es ein schreckliches Virus gewesen sein und daher waren all die schrecklichen Maßnahmen, die wir ergriffen haben, gerechtfertigt“ in Verbindung gebracht werden kann. Das macht mich sehr unruhig.“ Artikel und Video: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/corona-bilanz-john-ioannidis/ Englisches Original: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/covid-19-policies-john-ioannidis/ deutsche Stimme: Andreas Sparberg, https://sparberg.de Produktionskosten: 3.500 € Meine Arbeit ermöglichen: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/unterstuetzung/

Five years ago, so-called containment measures began worldwide due to a coronavirus that was declared new and initially classified as very deadly. General school closures, curfews, lockdowns, assembly bans and even vaccination amndates were decided against the recommendations of existing national pandemic plans. These so-called non-pharmaceutical interventions(NPIs) were intended to slow the spread of the virus and at the same time represented a significant encroachment on the civil liberties of citizens. I take stock of the proportionality and effectiveness of these measures in a conversation with one of the world's most cited scientists. John Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and top epidemiologist at Stanford University, was a guest in Berlin and took the time to talk to me about pandemic policy. (15th of March 2025) We not only shed light on the questions of how dangerous SARS-Cov2 really was or how it could happen that the social debate space was so poisoned. We also talk about the effectiveness of mod-RNA injections and the significance of leaked RKI-minutes, which revealed the strong influence of politics on science. Asked about the origin of the virus in the preliminary discussion, Ioannidis replied: "Regarding the origin of the virus, I have always believed that we need transparency in research, so in the critical case we need full transparency on what experiments were done and in what conditions and precautions. In the absence of such transparency, the debate moves out of science and becomes an issue for the secret services, which is a pity for science. I realize that the balance is gradually shifting and that some secrete services claim that it was a lab leak. I cannot judge secret services, this is not my expertise, but I do worry that a narrative "secrete services say it was a lab leak" can be linked easily with a narrative "so, it must have been a horrible virus and therefore all the horrible measures we took were justified". This makes me very uneasy." Video and Article: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/covid-19-policies-john-ioannidis/ production costs: 3000 € support the blog: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/unterstuetzung/

Send us a textShort Summary: A rare, insider's look at the messy realities of scientific research with Stanford's Dr. John Ioannidis. The good, the bad, and the ugly about how scientific research actually works.About the guest: John Ioannidis, MD, PhD is a professor at Stanford University in medicine, epidemiology, population health, and biomedical data science, with an MD from the University of Athens and a PhD from Harvard in biostatistics. He directs the Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), focusing on improving research methods and practices. Renowned for his paper “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” he's among the most cited scientists globally, tackling biases and reproducibility in science.Note: Podcast episodes are fully available to paid subscribers on the M&M Substack and everyone on YouTube. Partial versions are available elsewhere. Full transcript and other information on Substack.Key Takeaways:Science's “replication crisis” isn't new—it's baked into how tough and bias-prone research is, hitting all fields, not just “soft” ones like psychology.Ioannidis's famous claim, “most published findings are false,” holds up: stats show many “significant” results are flukes due to weak studies or bias.Peer review's a mixed bag—only a third of papers improve, and unpaid, tired reviewers miss a lot, letting shaky stuff slip through.Publishing's a $30 billion game with 50,000+ journals; big players like Elsevier rake in huge profits from subscriptions and fees, often over $10,000 per paper.Researchers game the system—think fake co-authorships or citation cartels—boosting metrics like the H-index, which tracks papers with matching citation counts.Ioannidis's early COVID-19 fatality rate (0.2-0.3%) was spot-on but sparked a firestorm as politics warped science into “clan warfare.”NIH funding's clogged by red tape and favors older researchers, starving young innovators and risky ideas that could shake things up.He's building tools like a public database of scientist stats (4 million downloads!) to spotlight gaming and push for transparent, fair research.*Not medical advice.Support the showAll episodes, show notes, transcripts, etc. at the M&M Substack Affiliates: Lumen device to optimize your metabolism for weight loss or athletic performance. Use code MIND for 10% off. Readwise: Organize and share what you read. Athletic Greens: Comprehensive & convenient daily nutrition. Free 1-year supply of vitamin D with purchase. KetoCitra—Ketone body BHB + potassium, calcium & magnesium, formulated with kidney health in mind. Use code MIND20 for 20% off any subscription. MASA Chips—delicious tortilla chips made from organic corn and grass-fed beef tallow. No seed oils or artificial ingredients. Use code MIND for 20% off. For all the ways you can support my efforts

In this episode, I had the privilege of speaking with John Ioannidis, a renowned scientist and meta-researcher whose groundbreaking work has shaped our understanding of scientific reliability and its societal implications. We dive into his influential 2005 paper, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, explore the evolution of scientific challenges over the past two decades, and reflect on how science intersects with policy and public trust—especially in times of crisis like COVID-19. We begin with John taking us back to 2005, when he published his paper in PLOS Medicine. He explains how it emerged from decades of empirical evidence on biases and false positives in research, considering factors like study size, statistical power, and competition that can distort findings, and why building on shaky foundations wastes time and resources. “It was one effort to try to put together some possibilities, of calculating what are the chances that once we think we have come up with a scientific discovery with some statistical inference suggesting that we have a statistically significant result, how likely is that not to be so?” I propose a distinction between “honest” and “dishonest” scientific failures, and John refines this. What does failure really mean, and how can they be categorised? The discussion turns to the rise of fraud, with John revealing a startling shift: while fraud once required artistry, today's “paper mills” churn out fake studies at scale. We touch on cases like Jan-Hendrik Schön, who published prolifically in top journals before being exposed, and how modern hyper-productivity, such as a paper every five days, raises red flags yet often goes unchecked. “Perhaps an estimate for what is going on now is that it accounts for about 10%, not just 1%, because we have new ways of massive… outright fraud.” This leads to a broader question about science's efficiency. When we observe scientific output—papers, funding—grows exponentially but does breakthroughs lag? John is cautiously optimistic, acknowledging progress, but agrees efficiency isn't what it could be. We reference Max Perutz's recipe for success: “No politics, no committees, no reports, no referees, no interviews; just gifted, highly motivated people, picked by a few men of good judgement.” Could this be replicated in today's world or are we stuck in red tape? “It is true that the progress is not proportional to the massive increase in some of the other numbers.” We then pivot to nutrition, a field John describes as “messy.” How is it possible that with millions of papers, results are mosty based on shaky correlations rather than solid causal evidence? What are the reasons for this situation and what consequences does it have, e.g. in people trusting scientific results? “Most of these recommendations are built on thin air. They have no solid science behind them.” The pandemic looms large next. In 2020 Nassim Taleb and John Ioannidis had a dispute about the measures to be taken. What happened in March 2020 and onwards? Did we as society show paranoid overreactions, fuelled by clueless editorials and media hype? “I gave interviews where I said, that's fine. We don't know what we're facing with. It is okay to start with some very aggressive measures, but what we need is reliable evidence to be obtained as quickly as possible.” Was the medicine, metaphorically speaking, worse than the disease? How can society balance worst-case scenarios without paralysis. “We managed to kill far more by doing what we did.” Who is framing the public narrative of complex questions like climate change or a pandemic? Is it really science driven, based on the best knowledge we have? In recent years influential scientific magazines publish articles by staff writers that have a high impact on the public perception, but are not necessarily well grounded: “They know everything before we know anything.” The conversation grows personal as John shares the toll of the COVID era—death threats to him and his family—and mourns the loss of civil debate. He'd rather hear from critics than echo chambers, but the partisan “war” mindset drowned out reason. Can science recover its humility and openness? “I think very little of that happened. There was no willingness to see opponents as anything but enemies in a war.” Inspired by Gerd Gigerenzer, who will be a guest in this show very soon, we close on the pitfalls of hyper-complex models in science and policy. How can we handle decision making under radical uncertainty? Which type of models help, which can lead us astray? “I'm worried that complexity sometimes could be an alibi for confusion.” This conversation left me both inspired and unsettled. John's clarity on science's flaws, paired with his hope for reform, offers a roadmap, but the stakes are high. From nutrition to pandemics, shaky science shapes our lives, and rebuilding trust demands we embrace uncertainty, not dogma. His call for dialogue over destruction is a plea we should not ignore. Other Episodes Episode 116: Science and Politics, A Conversation with Prof. Jessica Weinkle Episode 112: Nullius in Verba — oder: Der Müll der Wissenschaft Episode 109: Was ist Komplexität? Ein Gespräch mit Dr. Marco Wehr Episode 107: How to Organise Complex Societies? A Conversation with Johan Norberg Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit  Manfred Glauninger Episode 103: Schwarze Schwäne in Extremistan; die Welt des Nassim Taleb, ein Gespräch mit Ralph Zlabinger Episode 94: Systemisches Denken und gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Episode 92: Wissen und Expertise Teil 2 Episode 90: Unintended Consequences (Unerwartete Folgen) Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry Episode 67: Wissenschaft, Hype und Realität — ein Gespräch mit Stephan Schleim References Prof. John Ioannidis at Stanford University  John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False, PLOS Medicine (2005) John Ioannidis, A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, weare making decisions without reliable data (2020) John Ioannidis, The scientists who publish a paper every five days, Nature Comment (2018) Hanae Armitage, 5 Questions: John Ioannidis calls for more rigorous nutrition research (2018) John Ioannidis, How the Pandemic Is Changing Scientific Norms, Tablet Magazine (2021) John Ioannidis et al, Uncertainty and Inconsistency of COVID-19 Non-Pharmaceutical1Intervention Effects with Multiple Competitive Statistical Models (2025) John Ioannidis et al, Forecasting for COVID-19 has failed (2022) Gerd Gigerenzer, Transparent modeling of influenza incidence: Big data or asingle data point from psychological theory? (2022) Sabine Kleinert, Richard Horton, How should medical science change? Lancet Comment (2014) Max Perutz quotation taken from Geoffrey West, Scale, Weidenfeld & Nicolson (2017) John Ioannidis: Das Gewissen der Wissenschaft, Ö1 Dimensionen (2024)  

Is it acceptable for doctors to lie to their patients, or withhold some of the truth, if it's in the patient's best interest? In this episode, hosts and finance professors Jonathan Berk and Jules van Binsbergen welcome back John Ioannidis, professor of medicine at Stanford University, to discuss the ethical implications of concealing the truth in the medical world, even when it's for the greater good. The conversation touches on the importance of building and maintaining trust in healthcare, cases where that trust has been tested or fractured, the paternalism mindset in medicine, the potential biases in medical research funding, and why building back trust in healthcare is a steep climb.  Find All Else Equal on the web:  https://lauder.wharton.upenn.edu/allelse/All Else Equal: Making Better Decisions Podcast is a production of the UPenn Wharton Lauder Institute through University FM.

In Deutschland ist die Aufarbeitung der Pandemiepolitik in aller Munde. Bundespräsident Steinmeier drängt aktuell auf eine Aufarbeitung und würde sogar selbst tätig werden, wenn der am 23.2.2025 neu zu wählende Bundestag diese Aufgabe nicht schnellstmöglich angeht. Der amtierende Gesundheitsminister Karl Lauterbach, der das Corona-Management maßgeblich mitzuverantworten hat, bekräftigt die Notwendigkeit einer Aufarbeitung. In mehreren Bundesländern sind Untersuchungsausschüsse und Enquete-Kommission mit der Aufarbeitung befasst. Im Sächsischen Landtag werden die geleakten und komplett ungeschwärzten Protokolle des Covid-19-Krisenstabs des Robert-Koch-Instituts als Beweismittel eingebracht. Die Rolle des Robert-Koch-Instituts ist insbesondere aufgrund der Protokolle ein zentraler Aspekt der Aufarbeitung, zeigen die Dokumente doch, dass die Politik starken Einfluss auf die weisungsgebundene Behörde nahm und viele der sogenannten nicht-pharmazeutischen Interventionen (NPIs) im RKI eher kritisch diskutiert wurden. Weder gab es laut den Experten der obersten Seuchenschutzbehörde eine Pandemie der Ungeimpften, noch empfahlen sie das anlasslose Testen asymptomatischer Menschen, auch generelle Schulschließungen wurden nicht als sinnvoll erachtet. Trotzdem gab es in Deutschland über viele Jahre historische Grundrechtseinschränkungen, die laut Verkündung der Regierung notwendig waren, um die Ausbreitung des Virus zu verlangsamen und das Gesundheitssystem zu entlasten. Das RKI, welches unter starkem politischen Einfluss stand und sogar die Risikoeinschätzung zu Corona auf Anordnung der Politik nicht herabsetzte, hatte im Juli 2023 die StopptCOVIDStudie veröffentlicht. Sie fungierte als Abschlussbericht über die „ Wirksamkeit und Wirkung von anti-epidemischen Maßnahmen auf die COVID-19-Pandemie in Deutschland“. Zu den Ergebnissen der Studie, die sich mehrfach auf die sogenannte Reproduktionszahl des Virus (R-Wert) bezieht, zählt folgende Aussage: „ Die betrachteten Modelle zeigen, dass NPI mit einer deutlichen Reduktion der COVID-19 Ausbreitung in Deutschland assoziiert waren, die je nach Strenge der NPI, unterschiedlich stark ausgeprägt war.“ Weiter heißt es: „ Die in unserer Studie betrachteten NPI trugen wesentlich zur Bekämpfung der Pandemie bei…“ Aktuell ist eine noch nicht begutachtete Evaluation der STOPPTCovidStudie erschienen. Ein Team von acht Wissenschaftlern, darunter der weltberühmte Medizinstatistiker Prof. John Ioannidis hat sich die Arbeit des Robert-Koch-Instituts angeschaut und auf ihre Fundiertheit geprüftt. Erstautor ist Bernhard Müller, außerordentlicher Professor an der Fakultät für Physik und Astronomie der Monash Universität in Australien, der frühzeitig kritisierte, dass die der RKI-Studie zugrunde liegenden Daten nicht öffentlich waren und daher eine Begutachtung durch Dritte nicht möglich war. Mit ihm spreche ich über die Methodik und die Ergebnisse der Studie und wie seiner Meinung nach eine Aufarbeitung der Pandemiepolitik aussehen könnte. Artikel und Quellen: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/rki-studie-massnahmen-wirkung/ Meine Arbeit unterstützen: https://blog.bastian-barucker.de/unterstuetzung/

Heute wieder eine Episode in der ich kurz über eine Thema der Wissenschaftspraxis reflektieren möchte, den meisten Zuhörern wahrscheinlich nicht klar ist, dessen Konsequenzen sich auch mir noch nicht völlig erschließen, ich freue mich also auf Emails und Kommentare. Das Thema ist wenig erbaulich, ist aber ein Puzzlestein, der gut in das Bild passt, das wir in einigen früheren Episoden schon angesprochen haben. Die Qualität des wissenschaftlichen Publikationswesens scheint sich im Sturzflug zu befinden und dies seit vielen Jahren. Die deutsche Physikerin Sabine Hossenfeldern sagt leicht polemisch: »Scientific Process is slowing down and most of what gets published in academia is now bullshit.« Was erleben wir in den letzten Jahrzehnten und warum hat mich eine persönliche Beobachtung zu dieser Episode gebracht? Warum ist das Motto der 1660 gegründeten Royal Society heute aktueller als je zuvor. »Nullius in Verba« Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 106: Wissenschaft als Ersatzreligion? Ein Gespräch mit Manfred Glauninger Episode 104: Aus Quantität wird Qualität Episode 91: Die Heidi-Klum-Universität, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Ehrmann und Prof. Sommer Episode 86: Climate Uncertainty and Risk, a conversation with Dr. Judith Curry Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Episode 71: Stagnation oder Fortschritt — eine Reflexion an der Geschichte eines Lebens Episode 68: Modelle und Realität, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Andreas Windisch Episode 47: Große Worte Episode 41: Intellektuelle Bescheidenheit: Was wir von Bertrand Russel und der Eugenik lernen können Episode 39: Follow the Science? Fachliche Referenzen Report of the Investigation Committee on the Possibility of Scientific Misconduct in the Work of Hendrik Schön And Coauthors Publikationen von Jan Hendrik Schön (Google Scholar) John Ioannidis, Das Gewissen der Wissenschaft, Ö1 Dimensionen (2024) John Ioannidis, The scientists who publish a paper every five days, Nature Comment (2018) John P. A. Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False (2005) Jesse Singal, Quick Fix, Picador (2022) Erica Thompson, Escape from Model Land, Basic Books (2022) Sabine Hossenfelder, Lost in Math: How Beauty Leads Physics Astray (2020) Beall's List Jeffrey Beall Sabine Hossenfelder, Science is in trouble and it worries me (2024)

Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent explore the harmful effects of tone policing within the medical community, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic. They argue that tone policing is being used to protect prominent figures who have spread misleading information, such as Dr. John Ioannidis and Emily Oster, while silencing legitimate criticism.  The hosts emphasize the importance of maintaining open debate and challenge the hypocrisy of those who prioritize politeness over truth, even as the pandemic continues to claim lives. The discussion underscores the need for transparency and accountability in public health discourse.   Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/    The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

In this episode of the Radically Genuine Podcast, Dr. Roger McFillin is joined by Dr. Ian Harris, an esteemed orthopedic surgeon in clinical practice in Sydney, Australia. He is a professor of orthopedic surgery with a PhD in evidence based medicine and surgery. He directs a research unit that focuses on outcomes of surgery and has published and presented widely in the field of surgical outcomes. He is the author of “Surgery, The Ultimate Placebo” and co-authored the book “Hippocrasy: How doctors are betraying their oath.”They explore the power of the mind in healing and the implications of placebo effects in surgical outcomes. From knee arthroscopies to spinal fusions, discover how expectations can influence recovery and why some common surgeries may not be as effective as believed. Gain insights into the scientific scrutiny of surgical procedures and the importance of rigorous evidence in medical practices. This conversation challenges conventional medical wisdom and highlights the need for transparency and patient-centered care.Timestamps and Key Points:Introduction (0:00 - 2:25)- Dr. Roger McFillin introduces the podcast and the topic of the placebo effect in medical interventions.- Brief explanation of the placebo effect and its significance in mental health and pain management.Guest Introduction (2:25 - 2:57)- Introduction of Professor Ian Harris, an orthopedic surgeon and professor with a PhD in evidence-based medicine.- Highlight his research focus on surgical outcomes and his books, "Surgery, The Ultimate Placebo" and "Hypocrisy, How Doctors Are Betraying Their Oath."Placebo Effect in Mental Health and Surgery (2:57 - 5:18)- Discussion on how placebo treatments can rival actual drugs in mental health.- Exploration of the placebo effect's impact on invasive medical interventions and surgeries.Understanding Placebo in Surgery (5:18 - 9:20)- Professor Harris explains the definition and confusion around the term "placebo."- Introduction of the concept of non-specific effects and how they relate to surgical outcomes.Scientific Scrutiny of Surgeries (9:20 - 17:25)- Explanation of how rigorous scientific studies (three-arm studies) help to understand the true effectiveness of surgical procedures.- Comparison of active treatment, placebo surgery, and no treatment groups.Surgeon's Perspective and Clinical Decisions (17:25 - 19:53)- Professor Harris shares his journey from a general orthopedic surgeon to an evidence-based practitioner.- Discussion on observational versus experimental evidence in surgery.Examples of Ineffective Surgeries (19:53 - 27:59)- Specific examples of common surgeries with questionable effectiveness, such as arthroscopic knee surgeries and spine fusions.- Mention of geographic variations in surgical rates and the influence of financial incentives.Patient Expectations and Ethical Implications (27:59 - 33:32)- The role of patient expectations in treatment outcomes.- Ethical considerations of using placebo treatments and the importance of informed consent.Challenges in Medical Evidence (33:32 - 41:33)- Discussion on the flawed nature of much medical evidence, as highlighted by Dr. John Ioannidis' research.- The systemic issues in medical training and the influence of pharmaceutical companies on medical guidelines.The Role of Science in Medicine (41:33 - 57:18)- Emphasis on the need for scientific rigor in clinical practice.- The benefits of systems like Australia's Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme and the limitations of pre-existing medical procedures.Conclusion (57:18 - 59:22)- Key takeaways from the conversation.- Encouragement for medical professionals to provide evidence-based care and for patients to seek informed consent.- Thanking Professor Harris for his insights and promoting his book for further reading.Closing Remarks (59:22 - 59:26)- Dr. McFillin closes the episode with a reminder of the podcast's mission to provide radically genuine conversations on important topics.Note: This podcast episode is designed solely for informational and educational purposes, without endorsing or promoting any specific medical treatments. We strongly advise consulting with a qualified healthcare professional before making any medical decisions or taking any actions.*If you are in crisis or believe you have an emergency, please contact your doctor or dial 911. If you are contemplating suicide, call 1-800-273-TALK to speak with a trained and skilled counselor.RADICALLY GENUINE PODCASTDr. Roger McFillin / Radically Genuine WebsiteYouTube @RadicallyGenuineDr. Roger McFillin (@DrMcFillin) / XSubstack | Radically Genuine | Dr. Roger McFillinInstagram @radicallygenuineContact Radically GenuineConscious Clinician CollectivePLEASE SUPPORT OUR PARTNERS15% Off Pure Spectrum CBD (Code: RadicallyGenuine)—-----------FREE DOWNLOAD! DISTRESS TOLERANCE SKILLS—----------

Jonathan Howard's latest podcast episode revisits the early COVID-19 predictions of Dr. John Ioannidis, a prominent figure known for his controversial stance on herd immunity and the pandemic's severity. Howard plays clips from Ioannidis' interviews and writings, highlighting significant discrepancies between his optimistic projections and the actual outcomes of the pandemic. The episode also addresses Ioannidis' views on vaccine side effects, contrasting them with the broader scientific consensus. Howard provides a thorough fact-check, drawing from various sources to debunk misleading claims and emphasize the importance of evidence-based approaches to public health. List of Resources Dr. John Ioannidis' interview on "Perspectives on the Pandemic" (April 17, 2020) "A Fiasco in the Making: As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data" by Dr. John Ioannidis (Stat News, March 17, 2020) "Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Harms of Exaggerated Information and Non-Evidence-Based Measures" by Dr. John Ioannidis (March 19, 2020) "COVID Cases Up 250% in Two Months: This Variant Is Harder to Duck" (The Gothamist, July 4, 2024) "COVID Levels in Bay Area Wastewater Now as High as Winter Peak" (Bay Area News, July 2024) "More ER Patients in Florida Test Positive for COVID: The Surge Is Different This Time" (Florida Health News, July 2024) NIH Study: "Reinfections from the Virus that Causes COVID-19 Likely Have Similar Severity as the Original Infection" (July 11, 2024) "COVID Vax Not Linked to Sudden Deaths in Young Adults" (MedPage Today, 2024) "Hundreds of Young Americans Have Now Been Killed by the Coronavirus Data Shows" (Washington Post, April 8, 2020) Dr. Ioannidis' statements in various interviews and articles (April 2020 - June 2020) Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

This episode of "We Want Them Infected" explores the early pandemic predictions made by Dr. John Ioannidis and the subsequent misinformation that spread from credible academic sources to conspiracy theorists and political figures. Hosts Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orant analyze Ioannidis's claims, such as the prediction that only 40,000 Americans would die from COVID-19 and the assertion that most deaths were not directly caused by the virus. They also discuss the impact of these predictions on public perception and policy. The episode includes an open invitation for doctors criticized on the podcast to join for a civil and evidence-based debate, highlighting the importance of accurate information and scientific integrity.   List of Resources Stat News Article by Dr. John Ioannidis: "A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data" - March 17, 2020. BMJ Article by Dr. Ioannidis: "Coronavirus 2019: the harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures" - March 19, 2020. Science-Based Medicine Blog: Articles by Jonathan Howard critiquing pandemic misinformation. Fareed Zakaria Interview with Dr. Ioannidis: "Why the coronavirus models aren't totally accurate" - April 9, 2020. Neil Ferguson's COVID-19 Model: Early pandemic predictions and their context. Fox News Segment: Mark Levin's introduction of Dr. Ioannidis and the subsequent interview. CDC Report: COVID-19 deaths and comorbidities. QAnon Social Media: Misinformation posts regarding COVID-19 death statistics. President Trump's Retweets: Amplification of COVID-19 misinformation. Santa Clara Antibody Study: Analysis and critiques of the study's findings. Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Have you ever sifted through a mountain of health advice only to feel more lost than when you started?    That's where Dr. Elizabeth Yurth comes in—guiding us through aging research with her knowledgeable insights. In today's episode, we discuss anti-aging medicine, the pitfalls of research bias, and the gender discrepancies that muddy the waters of scientific studies.  With a nod to John Ioannidis' work, we talk about the need for validating scientific claims. When theory meets practice, the truth can be surprising. We share firsthand experiences from clinical work, revealing how animal studies fare once they reach the human testing ground.    Overall, we explore the heart of longevity, where social connections and stress-free living are crucial.    Dr. Elizabeth Yurth is the Co-Founder and Chief Medical Officer of Boulder Longevity Institute, where she has been providing Tomorrow's Medicine Today to her clients since 2006. Dr. Yurth has completed over 500 hours of Continuing Medical Education (CME) training in the areas of Longevity, Epigenetics, Nutrition, Bioidentical Hormone Replacement Therapy, Regenerative Peptide Treatments, and Regenerative Orthopedic Procedures.  Thank you to our sponsors for making this episode possible: Quicksilver: Visit quicksilverscientific.com/nat and use code Nat for 10% off your first purchase of PushCatch® Liver Detox. BiOptimizers: For Sleep Breakthrough use code bionat at checkout to save on your order at bioptimizers.com/bionat   Find more from Dr. Elizabeth Yurth:  Website: https://boulderlongevity.com/  Instagram: @boulderlongevityinstitue  Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/@boulderlongevityinstitutel5018    Find more from Nathalie: YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCmholC48MqRC50UffIZOMOQ  Join Nat's Membership Community: https://www.natniddam.com/bsp-community  Sign up for Nats Newsletter: https://landing.mailerlite.com/webforms/landing/i7d5m0  Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/nathalieniddam/  Website: www.NatNiddam.com    Facebook Group: https://www.facebook.com/groups/biohackingsuperhumanperformance  What We Discuss:  (00:02) Navigating Aging Research and Recommendations (07:22) Clinical Testing Ground for Longevity Drugs (20:05) Benefits and Risks of Antioxidants (31:42) Cycling Supplements and Aging Measurements (35:47) Reevaluating Biological Aging and Longevity (45:03) Low-Dose Naltrexone for Repurposed Medication (54:56) Drug Repurposing for Various Health Conditions (01:00:33) Weight Loss Drugs and Their Effects (01:11:24) Cellular Health and Longevity Discussion Key Takeaways: Research findings should be critically evaluated, considering factors such as study design, reproducibility, and applicability to humans. LDN can be effective in reducing cramps and arthritis symptoms by deactivating microglial cells. Amlexanox is an underutilized drug with anti-allergic and anti-inflammatory properties. Tessafensin, a triple uptake inhibitor, may aid in weight loss and improve cellular function.  

Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent dive into the pro-infection movement that supports infecting unvaccinated children to achieve herd immunity. They discuss the recent conviction of Trump and the public's reaction, highlighting the parallels between political and medical misinformation.  The episode critically examines statements made by figures like Dr. Scott Atlas and Dr. Vinay Prasad, pointing out their inconsistencies and the potential harm of their advocacy. The hosts stress the importance of relying on scientific evidence and the dangers posed by spreading misleading information.   Resources CDC COVID-19 Information: CDC World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Updates: WHO Johns Hopkins University COVID-19 Tracker: Johns Hopkins Science-Based Medicine Articles: Science-Based Medicine FDA COVID-19 Vaccine Information: FDA Dr. Scott Atlas Interview with Tucker Carlson: Tucker Carlson Interview Vinay Prasad's Articles on COVID-19: Vinay Prasad ZDoggMD YouTube Channel: ZDoggMD Dr. John Ioannidis's Research: John Ioannidis National Institute of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Resources: NIH Connect with us further on https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Hosts Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent critically examine the strategy of intentionally infecting unvaccinated populations to reach herd immunity. The discussion revisits predictions made by health experts in the early stages of the pandemic, highlighting how optimistic expectations often fell short in the face of evolving challenges, such as the emergence of new variants. The conversation covers significant dates and statements from various health experts, analyzing their implications and the reality of their outcomes. The hosts discuss the ethical and practical considerations of exposing children and young adults to the virus, questioning the morality and feasibility of such approaches. Reflecting on the journey of the pandemic, the episode emphasizes the complexity of herd immunity as a concept and its role in public health strategy. It calls for a nuanced understanding of herd immunity, recognizing the importance of vaccination and the limitations of natural infection in controlling the spread of COVID-19. Through this detailed examination, "We Want Them Infected" provides listeners with a comprehensive understanding of herd immunity, challenging previous assumptions and advocating for a more cautious and evidence-based approach to ending the pandemic.   List of Resources Articles by health experts mentioned in the podcast (e.g., Dr. John Ioannidis, Marty McCary, Monica Gandhi, Dr. Lucy McBride). Science-Based Medicine website for articles on herd immunity and COVID-19 predictions. Johns Hopkins resources on herd immunity and vaccination strategies. The Great Barrington Declaration and its frequently asked questions for perspectives on herd immunity. CDC and WHO guidance on COVID-19, vaccination, and herd immunity. Research studies on the effectiveness of natural immunity and vaccination against COVID-19 variants.   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

01:00 Why do people watch livestreams? 02:00 Hasan Piker is the most popular left-wing stream, as lame as Red Scare podcast, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/hasan-piker-a-swashbuckling-bromance 21:00 How Hasan Piker Became Our Generation's Top Political Pundit, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oza5eNpWP00 23:30 Livestreamer Destiny doesn't know much: https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1771765706993873080 45:00 India's exploitative sugar industry, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/world/europe/india-sugar-cane-fields-child-labor-hysterectomies.html 47:00 Thinking for ourselves, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/opinion/politics-intellectual-humility.html 49:00 Free speech and anti-semitism, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/03/24/us/politics/kenneth-marcus-college-antisemitism-complaints.html 50:00 Biden can't stop Israel's Gaza invasion, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AeAMSMhMrJQ 1:00:40 Russia is defeating NATO in Ukraine 1:03:45 American foreign policy is directed by a tiny elite against popular opinion Usually presidents don't matter much to your real life, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_bpaaio1U 1:26:20 Devotional followers of favorite e-personalities such as Sam Harris, https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/episode/supplementary-material-2-dissident-dialogues-bloodbaths-genocidal-debates 1:06:00 Ukraine and a Trump presidency, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=39_bpaaio1U 1:46:20 Decoding Academia: "Two leading COVID contrarians: Vinay Prasad and John Ioannidis" https://www.patreon.com/DecodingTheGurus/posts 1:58:00 Economist Ronald Coase, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Coase 2:08:30 Why do narcissists like conspiracy theories? 2:17:00 My experience with Modafinil, Aderall, ADHD 2:20:00 Israel and ethnic cleansing 2:31:00 Pessimists pay no price, https://www.ft.com/content/6b21b2a4-577f-4d8f-9b53-dfb8771ce4c8 2:36:40 Ben Braddock, crank: https://twitter.com/GraduatedBen/status/1770841563679039750 2:38:00 Fourth Black Female Harvard Scholar Accused of Plagiarism Amid Assault on DEI Initiatives, https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2024/3/22/cross-plagiarism-harvard-anonymous-complaint/ 2:42:00 WEHT to Skip Bayless? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wggJHXJW7hw

Die heutige Episode gehört zu den wenigen, die eine gewisse Zeitlichkeit haben. Es war vor rund vier Jahren, als die Covid-Pandemie auch in Europa richtig angekommen ist. Ab 16. März 2020 wurde der erste österreichweite Lockdown verfügt. Dies war der Anfang einer ganzen Reihe von Maßnahmen, die große Auswirkungen auf Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft und Gesundheit der Menschen hatten. Vier Jahre später würde man erwarten, dass diese Maßnahmen, die in dieser Form einzigartig seit dem Zweiten Weltkrieg waren, breit in Wissenschaft, Medien und Öffentlichkeit reflektiert und diskutiert werden. Dies nicht nur, um die konkrete Krise aufzuarbeiten, sondern auch um zu fragen, wie wir mit zukünftigen Krisen umgehen sollten. Was beobachten wir in etablierten Medien, Wissenschaft und Politik? So gut wie nichts, was nach einer ernsthaften Aufarbeitung aussieht. Der Titel dieser Episode ist daher: »Covid. Die unerklärliche Stille nach dem Sturm?«  Der heutige Gesprächspartner ist wieder Jan David Zimmermann, was mich sehr freut! Jan ist Autor, Publizist und Wissenschaftsforscher, hat auch gerade ein neues und äußerst empfehlenswertes Buch herausgebracht — Lethe, Vom Vergessen des Totalitären. Außerdem ist er Redakteur beim Stichpunkt-Magazin. In dieser Episode diskutieren wir nicht fachlich die Maßnahmen, die gesetzt oder unterlassen wurden, sondern vielmehr den Prozess, der zu diesen Maßnahmen geführt hat, sowie die Rolle von Wissenschaft und Expertise in diesem Zusammenhang. Wir fallen dabei nicht in die post-hoc fallacy, also aus dem Rückblick alles besser zu wissen. Sondern die Betrachtung ist eine aus der heutigen Zeit, aber vor allem hinsichtlich der Frage, was wir richtig und falsch gemacht haben, und wie wir von hier an weitergehen sollten. Wir versuchen also (nach Heinz von Förster) eine Beobachtung zweiter Ordnung. Was hat Corona angestoßen oder welche Trends in der Gesellschaft deutlicher gemacht? Beobachten wir neue totalitäre Tendenzen, eine Polarisierung, wie Wissenschaft in Krisen agiert? Covid per se bedarf einer Nachbearbeitung, aber auch die Folgeeffekte auf Wissenschaft, Politik und Gesellschaft für andere, ähnliche Probleme. Denn es wird fallweise behauptet, wir hätten einen Mechanismus, eine »Blaupause« entwickelt, um auch mit anderen (ähnlichen) Krisen umzugehen. Ist diese wünschenswert und Erfolg versprechend? Was bedeutet Ausnahmezustand; vor allem, auch wenn damit langfristig Politik gemacht wird? »Souverän ist, wer über den Ausnahmezustand entscheidet«, Carl Schmitt Wie autoritär ist Gesellschaft der vormaligen »Mitte« geworden? Alle möglichen ideologischen Seiten finden autoritäre Ideen und auch Gewalt plötzlich rechtfertigbar? Was bedeutet Entscheiden unter Unsicherheit — oder allgemeiner: Wie sollten wir als Gesellschaft mit Unsicherheit umgehen? Wir diskutieren die verschiedenen Aspekte in Bezug auf folgende Phasen der Krise: Zeit vor 2020 Frühjahr/Sommer 2020 Herbst-Winter 2020 (vor der Impfung) Nach der Impfung 2021 2022 und später Wie gefährlich kann Forschung sein? Gain of Function Research, Lab Leaks? Wer sollte über solche Wissenschaft entscheiden? »Wissenschaft ist nicht einfrieren von Erkenntnis« Zur Cochrane Studie über Masken siehe Podcast Episode 72. Was bedeutet Krisenmanagement in solchen Situationen? Haben wir Maßnahmen von Privilegierten für Privilegierte auf dem Rücken der restlichen Gesellschaft erlebt?  »Luxury beliefs are the new status symbols«, Rob Henderson Das Verhalten der Wissenschaft während der Pandemie wurde von einzelnen hochrangigen Wissenschaftern wie John Ioannidis untersucht, und das Ergebnis war wenig schmeichelhaft: »Even the best peer-reviewed journals often presented results with bias and spin.« »Whatever the origins of the virus, the refusal to abide by formerly accepted norms has done its own enormous damage.« »most of this work was of low quality, often wrong, and sometimes highly misleading.« »The disdain for reliable study designs was even celebrated.« »Big Tech companies […] developed powerful censorship machineries« »There was a clash between two schools of thought, authoritarian public health versus science—and science lost.« Man muss sich nach solchen Analysen natürlich die Frage stellen: Sind unsere Wissenschaftstugenden mittlerweile völlig korrodiert? Was hat es mit der Great Barrington Declaration auf sich und was waren die unerfreulichen Folgen für die beteiligten Wissenschafter? Niemand wird primär dafür kritisiert, im Jahr 2020 Fehler gemacht zu haben, aber wenn man sich 2024 dafür rühmt ist das ernüchternd. Dies zeigt sich auf drastische Weise am Auftritt des deutschen Soziologen Heinz Bude (der Mitglied des deutschen Krisenstabes war): Heinz Bude: »Noch einmal aus dem Nähkästchen geplaudert: Wir müssen ein Modell finden, um Folgebereitschaft herzustellen, dass so ein bisschen wissenschaftsähnlich ist. Und das war diese Formel flatten the curve. Wie können wir die Leute überzeugen mitzutun... Das sieht so nach Wissenschaft aus. Wenn ihr schön diszipliniert seid, könnt ihr die Kurve verändern. […] Das haben wir geklaut von einem Wissenschaftsjournalisten. Das haben wir nicht selber erfunden. Wir fanden das irgendwie toll, dass man so ein Quasi-Wissenschaftsargument hat.« Anderer Diskutant: »Das bedeutet, dass sich die Wissenschaft in einem normativ vorgegebenen Rahmen engagiert. […] Diese normativen Vorgaben muss man einkaufen« HB: »Wissenschaft ist ja auch operativ interessant. « AD: »Aber wenn man sich normativ sehr sicher ist. Ich glaube, viele Leute waren sich sehr schnell sehr sicher.« Bude zuckt mit den Achseln. Heinz Bude war außerdem ein Verfechter der Zero-Covid Idee, die sehr schnell diskreditiert war. Was bedeutet es auch, wenn Wissenschaft »operativ interessant« wird? Das Vertrauen in die Wissenschaft geht verloren — wie ist das zu bewerten? Wird hier nicht oftmals Ursache mit Wirkung verwechselt? Wie kann das Vertrauen in Institutionen und Wissenschaft wieder hergestellt werden? Matt Taibbi spricht im Rahmen der Twitter Files vom Censorship Industrial Complex »Twitter was more like a partner to government « Wissenschaft ist immer stark mit Macht verwoben, wie steht das im Verhältnis zum Erkenntnisgewinn? Aber auch die Medien erfüllen ihre Aufgabe in keiner Weise. Wie gehen wir damit um? Wie kann entschieden werden, was legitime Kritik und was schlicht Unsinn ist? Wie konnte es passieren, dass liberale Nationen wie Kanada, Australien und Neuseeland in autoritäre Strukturen abgeglitten sind? Damit stellt sich die fundamentale Frage: Wie lange darf ein Krisenmoment dauern? »Moralpolitik hat die Sachpolitik abgelöst« Auf der »richtigen« Seite zu sein wird wichtiger als das Richtige zu tun. Und das Richtige wird mit allen Mitteln durchgesetzt, nicht nur mit harten Maßnahmen, sondern auch mit Soft Power wie Nudging. Dabei wird die eigentlich wichtige Frage gerne übersehen: Wer bestimmt, was das Richtige für mich ist? »The dictatorship of the future will be very unlike the dictatorships we experienced in the past. […] If you want to preserve your power indefinitely, you have to get the consent of the ruled. […] Making him actually love his slavery. Being happy under the new regime.«, Aldous Huxley Das Totalitäre ist stärker von klaren Strukturen und nicht von Inhalten bestimmt: »Das Totalitäre ist stärker ein wie als ein was.« Referenzen Andere Episoden Episode 88: Liberalismus und Freiheitsgrade, ein Gespräch mit Prof. Christoph Möllers Episode 85: Naturalismus — was weiß Wissenschaft? Episode 84: (Epistemische) Krisen? Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 83: Robert Merton — Was ist Wissenschaft? Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken Episode 74: Apocalype Always Episode 72: Scheitern an komplexen Problemen? Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft — Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 47: Große Worte Episode 39: Follow the Science? Episode 37: Probleme und Lösungen Episode 25: Entscheiden unter Unsicherheit Jan David Zimmermann Homepage Facebook: Jan D. Zimmermann Instagram:  j._zimmermann Buch: Lethe. Vom Vergessen des Totalitären Stichpunkt Magazin Fachliche Referenzen Sitzungsprotokoll der "Taskforce Corona" über zu wenig Angst in der Bevölkerung, Der Standard (2020) Regierungsprotokoll: Angst vor Infektion offenbar erwünscht, ORF (2020) Internes Papier aus Innenministerium empfahl, den Deutschen Corona-Angst zu machen, Focus (2020) Wie wir COVID-19 unter Kontrolle bekommen. Strategiepapier des Bundesinnenministeriums.  Umstritten. Ein journalistisches Gütesiegel. Fitfty Fifty/ Westend Verlag (2024) Das integrative Empire: Wissensproduktion und kulturelle Praktiken in Habsburg-Zentraleuropa (Global- und Kolonialgeschichte).  transcript Verlag (2023) Jürgen Habermas: Technik und Wissenschaft als Ideologie Suhrkamp (1968) Rob Henderson, Luxury Beliefs John Ioannidis, How the pandemic is changing pandemic norms (2021) Great Barrington Declaration (2020) Heinz Bude im Gespräch 2024 Zero Covid, No Covid, Artikel im Deutschlandfunk (2021) Susanne Gaschke, Interview in der NZZ: »Sie wollten ganze Landkreise abschotten!« – »Ich würde immer noch so vorgehen, wie wir es getan haben!« (2023) Alexander Bogner, Nach Corona (2023) Matt Taibbi, The Censorship Industrial Complex (2023) Telegraph, The Lockdown Files Ein neuer Bericht offenbart Pläne für eine Veränderung von Coronaviren – kurz vor der Pandemie, NZZ (2021) Richard Thaler, Cass Sunstein, Nudge, Yale University Press (2008) WEF Artikel (2021) mit Interview Cass Sunstein Gesundheitspolitik: Nudging: Anstupsen für den guten Zweck (Spektrum 2015) Nudging Task Force unter Obama (2015) Rainer Mausfeld im Gespräch über sein neues Buch, Hybris und Nemesis (2023) Jesse Singal, The Quick Fix: Why Fad Psychology Can't Cure Our Social Ills, Farrar, Straus and Giroux (2021) Margaret Heffernan, Uncharted, Simon & Schuster UK (2020) Shoshana Zuboff, The Age of Surveillance Capitalism: The Fight for a Human Future at the New Frontier of Power, Profile Books (2019) Aldous Huxley über Diktaturen der Zukunft (1958) Martin Kulldorff: Fired by Harvard for getting Covid right, Unherd (2024) Vinay Prasad, Martin Kulldorff was wrongly fired from Harvard Medical School (2024)

Dr. Jonathan Howard takes a solo dive into the rationale behind some medical professionals' controversial endorsement of natural COVID-19 infection over vaccination to achieve herd immunity. Addressing a query from a listener, the podcast episode aims to uncover the motivations behind such a high-risk strategy, beyond the commonly cited reasons of greed and political influence. Throughout the episode, Howard examines the stance of several respected doctors from prestigious institutions who surprisingly supported the notion of purposeful exposure to the virus among the unvaccinated, particularly children and young adults. This approach starkly contrasts with the global push for vaccination and stringent public health measures. Central to the discussion is Dr. John Ioannidis, known for his early pandemic research that suggested COVID-19's infection fatality rate was significantly lower than initially feared, likening it to that of seasonal influenza. Ioannidis's viewpoints, including skepticism towards lockdowns and the emphasis on the severe potential side effects of pandemic containment measures, are dissected to understand the underpinning logic of the pro-infection movement. Howard critically navigates through Ioannidis's and others' assertions, contrasting them with the devastating impact of COVID-19 as it unfolded, highlighting the dangers of underestimating the virus's lethality and overestimating herd immunity's achievability without vaccines. The episode concludes on a reflective note, pondering the lessons learned from this pandemic approach and the importance of humility and adaptability in the face of evolving scientific evidence.   List of Resources: Perspectives on the Pandemic, Dr. John Ioannidis Interview on YouTube. COVID-19 Antibody Seroprevalence in Santa Clara County, California - Study by Dr. John Ioannidis. The Great Barrington Declaration website. Science-Based Medicine blog - Analysis and critique of pandemic responses. CDC COVID-19 Response - Official data and guidelines. WHO COVID-19 Dashboard - Global statistics and research updates. "Coronavirus Disease 2019: The Harms of Exaggerated Information and Non-Evidence Based Measures" - Article by Dr. John Ioannidis. The Washington Post - Articles discussing Dr. Ioannidis's pandemic viewpoints. Stat News - "A Fiasco in the Making? As the Coronavirus Pandemic Takes Hold, We Are Making Decisions Without Reliable Data" by Dr. John Ioannidis. Fareed Zakaria GPS - Interviews discussing the pandemic response. Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals.   By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

The acceleration of research in science, comes with an increasing number of flawed resultsparticularly in the medical sciences, where misapplied statistical measures and the relentless pursuit of publishing create a breeding ground for Type I errors. What is the role of the humanities in medicine, and what other revelations did the COVID-19 pandemic ultimately reveal?John Ioannidis is a professor, writer, physician, and researcher who studies scientific research. John and Greg discuss the current state of scientific research and the challenges researchers face, including uncertainty in statistics, the prevalence of flawed findings, and the need for effective hypothesis testing. John also highlights the need for collaboration, transparency, and accuracy in research. John and Greg also explore the intersection of science, politics, and empathy, advocating for a more humane healthcare system that honors the arts and literature.*unSILOed Podcast is produced by University FM.*Episode Quotes:How incentives drive scientist 22:19: Incentives are a core feature in driving what we want to get out of science. Scientists are very bright people, very smart, and they will do their best to try to fit whatever orders are given to them. So if they're told, "You need to get extreme, extravagant, extraordinary results," they will come up with them because that's what will allow them to continue doing what they enjoy and what they love. I'm not saying that they're criminals in doing it. They just want to do science and continue to do science. So, we need to find ways that our reward and incentive system is aligned with the expectation not being spectacular but flawed results, but accurate results.What can medicine learn from A/B testing?35:34: Medicine could learn a lot from the massive scale that A/B testing is conducted in some other fields, mostly commercial, but pretty effectively. What we have learned from A/B testing is that, first of all, our prior beliefs are not very solid or not very accurate. So if people try to make guesses of what will be effective and what will not, probably they're better than chance, but not much better than chance.Science vs. politics01:01:49: Scientists are not trained to be politicians. They're not trained to be taming beasts, and it's a very different job. And it's very unfortunate when people who are those who tame beasts and are in the political sphere, instead of trying to find ways to bridge divides and close differences, find a way to have a societal response that is more understanding and more empathy, sympathy, and love for each other. It leads to just a split and division and even situations of disruption in a sense of the social fabric.Is science self-contained?01:07:17: Sometimes we tend to think that science is self-contained, but science is about humans, especially medicine; it is about humans who suffer, have emotions, have beliefs, and face big dilemmas in their life and in their deaths. And I don't think that you can answer all of that just with either equations, biological samples, or with very fancy analytical methods. We need something more than that to struggle with our inadequacy. I feel very inadequate all the time, just trying to cover that inadequacy as much as I can.Show Links:Recommended Resources:Ronald FisherP-valueP-hackingReplication crisisDaryl BemBayesian statisticsInfection fatality ratio and case fatality ratioOperation Warp SpeedManhattan ProjectWilliam Carlos WilliamsJohn KeatsGuest Profile:Faculty Profile at Stanford MedicineFaculty Profile at Stanford UniversityWikipedia PageHis Work:Google Scholar Page

Marlies Dekkers in gesprek met wetenschapsfilosoof Maarten Boudry en klinisch psycholoog Mattias Desmet. In coronatijd stonden ze lijnrecht tegenover elkaar. In ronde 1 van dit debat sloegen de heren elkaar met cijfers en onderzoeken om de oren. In deze ronde probeert Marlies de discussie naar een dieper niveau te trekken. Komen ze nader tot elkaar of juist niet? Bronnen en links bij deze uitzending: - De eerste ronde van dit debat vindt u hier: https://youtu.be/-FyVhF8cGE4 - Over de reproductiecris, John Ioannidis, Why Most Published Research Findings Are False: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1182327/ (4:53) - Nature, Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors: https://www.nature.com/articles/530027a (5:37) - Dick Bijl, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-6CAn_39-Io (7:47) - Het onderzoek waar Kennedy zich op baseerde: https://www.globalresearch.ca/high-recorded-mortality-in-countries-categorized-as-covid-19-vaccine-champions-increased-hospitalization/5757173 (9:40) - Vaccinatiegraad Democraten versus Republikeinen: https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/the-red-blue-divide-in-covid-19-vaccination-rates-continues-an-update/ (10:01) - Van Dissel en Van Haga, technische briefing 10 maart 2021: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v3WU06rYK6E (11:40) - The Economist, coronavirus excess deaths tracker: https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/coronavirus-excess-deaths-tracker (12:40) - Marlies Dekkers in gesprek met Herman Steigstra: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TABGTspmqIs (32:28) - Mark Hyman, 'Broken Brain': https://drhyman.com/brokenbrain/ (50:47) - A. K. Shapiro en E. Shapiro, The Powerful Placebo: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/2794/powerful-placebo (54:04)

João e Luís Batalha são criadores do site Fermat's Library, uma plataforma para comentar e discutir artigos académicos, que tem dado que falar internacionalmente. O Luís é físico de formação, pelo I.S. Técnico, e o João estudou Ciência da Computação no MIT, nos EUA. -> Apoie este podcast e faça parte da comunidade de mecenas do 45 Graus em: 45grauspodcast.com ->Inscreva-se aqui nas novas sessões do workshop de Pensamento Crítico, módulo As Causas das Coisas (explicações). _______________ Índice: (5:51) Fermat's Library | Porque os papers tem este formato? Preprint (Arxiv) | Paper de Ian Goodfellow  (20:29) O que explica o crescente interesse das pessoas por Ciência? Huberman Lab (podcast) (26:53) Vantagens de trabalhar em equipa. | Y Combinator e o nº ideal de founders (argumento para preferir dois ou mais; investigação que contraria esta tese) | História da Dropbox (31:31) Paper 1: Enrico Fermi e a explosão Trinity | Estimativas de Fermi | Tweet do Luís sobre a explosão em Beirute (36:27) Paper 2: The Silurian hypothesis | Paradoxo de Fermi | Esferas de Dyson. | Andy Weir (autor) | A descoberta do pai e filho Alvarez sobre a extinção dos dinossauros (56:18) Paper 3: Technological Requirements for Terraforming Mars | Notícia do NYT de 1907 sobre vida inteligente em Marte | Paralelo entre exploração espacial e os Descobrimentos. | Tweet de Elon Musk sobre este paper (1:08:42) Como criar uma Ciência mais aberta? O exemplo da Física | John Ioannidis. Lei de Goodhart.  (1:16:38) Potencial do Machine Learning na Ciência. Post de Terence Tao (matemático) (1:29:01) Ida ao Lex Fridman podcast | Hot Ones show _______________ Certo dia (que na verdade já foi há uns 2 anos), ao percorrer no meu telemóvel o feed de podcasts, apareceu-me um episódio do Lex Fridman -- um dos podcast mais ouvidos nos Estados Unidos -- com um apelido que me chamou a atenção, porque denunciava ADN português: Batalha. Os convidados desse episódio eram os irmãos Luís e João Batalha, co-fundadores do site Fermat's Library, uma plataforma para comentar e discutir artigos académicos que criaram juntamente com outro dois amigos, Micael Oliveira e Tymor Hamamsy. A Fermat's library disponibiliza um enorme manancial de artigos (“papers”, na gíria académica), de áreas como a Física, ciências da computação ou Biologia, e permite aos utilizadores fazerem anotações, consultarem as notas deixadas por outros e discutirem entre o conteúdo (no fundo, é uma espécie de clube de leitura de papers académicos) Na altura, achei o projecto deles ultra interessante, gostei da prestação deles no episódio e fiquei com muita vontade de convidá-los para o 45 Graus. Como eles vivem nos EUA, acabou por demorar algum tempo a conciliarmos agendas, mas como vão ver valeu bem a pena a espera. O Luís é físico de formação, pelo Técnico, e o João estudou Ciência da Computação no MIT, nos EUA. São também, com Micael Oliveira, fundadores da Amplemarket, uma empresa de software de vendas impulsionado por inteligência artificial (e que é na verdade o trabalho principal deles). Em paralelo, vão mantendo a Fermat's Library. Fazem-no sobretudo por gosto, mas também, como vão perceber, com alguns objetivos ambiciosos em termso de impacto na Ciência.  Ao longo da nossa conversa, começámos por falar, claro, deste projecto: desde a origem, ao modo como funciona, as áreas com maior nº de papers e também como estes anos lhes têm mostrado que existe um interesse crescente de muitas pessoas pela ciência. Para além do site, o Luís, o João e o Micael fazem também muita divulgação através do Twitter, onde a conta da Fermat's tem uns impressionantes quase 750 mil seguidores! Para perceber na prática como funciona o processo de anotação e discussão de artigos na Fermat's, pedi aos convidados que trouxessem três papers especialmente interessantes para discutirmos (podem os links para os artigos na Fermat's na descrição do episódio):  Começámos por falar de um artigo do icónico físico Enrico Fermi sobre a Experiência "Trinity", o primeiro teste nuclear da história, em que ele conseguiu estimar de maneira rápida mas incrivelmente precisa a energia da bomba. Artigo sobre a chamada «hipótese Siluriana», a possibilidade de a nossa civilização não ser a primeira civilização avançada a ter existido na Terra. Ou seja, e ter havido outra que o tempo tenha apagado (sei que isto parece ciência alternativa, mas vão ver que está longe de sê-lo).  E um paper que explora os requisitos tecnológicos para a tornar Marte habitável, um tema muito na ordem do dia. Como é fácil de ver, este seria um desafio ultra complexo mas, segundo os autores, não impossível. Mais para o final da conversa, discutimos também algumas vias para criar uma Ciência mais aberta, aprendendo com o que já se faz na Física, e do potencial do Machine Learning para gerar novo conhecimento científico.  ______________ Obrigado aos mecenas do podcast: Francisco Hermenegildo, Ricardo Evangelista, Henrique Pais João Baltazar, Salvador Cunha, Abilio Silva, Tiago Leite, Carlos Martins, Galaró family, Corto Lemos, Miguel Marques, Nuno Costa, Nuno e Ana, João Ribeiro, Helder Miranda, Pedro Lima Ferreira, Cesar Carpinteiro, Luis Fernambuco, Fernando Nunes, Manuel Canelas, Tiago Gonçalves, Carlos Pires, João Domingues, Hélio Bragança da Silva, Sandra Ferreira , Paulo Encarnação , BFDC, António Mexia Santos, Luís Guido, Bruno Heleno Tomás Costa, João Saro, Daniel Correia, Rita Mateus, António Padilha, Tiago Queiroz, Carmen Camacho, João Nelas, Francisco Fonseca, Rafael Santos, Andreia Esteves, Ana Teresa Mota, ARUNE BHURALAL, Mário Lourenço, RB, Maria Pimentel, Luis, Geoffrey Marcelino, Alberto Alcalde, António Rocha Pinto, Ruben de Bragança, João Vieira dos Santos, David Teixeira Alves, Armindo Martins , Carlos Nobre, Bernardo Vidal Pimentel, António Oliveira, Paulo Barros, Nuno Brites, Lígia Violas, Tiago Sequeira, Zé da Radio, João Morais, André Gamito, Diogo Costa, Pedro Ribeiro, Bernardo Cortez Vasco Sá Pinto, David , Tiago Pires, Mafalda Pratas, Joana Margarida Alves Martins, Luis Marques, João Raimundo, Francisco Arantes, Mariana Barosa, Nuno Gonçalves, Pedro Rebelo, Miguel Palhas, Ricardo Duarte, Duarte , Tomás Félix, Vasco Lima, Francisco Vasconcelos, Telmo , José Oliveira Pratas, Jose Pedroso, João Diogo Silva, Joao Diogo, José Proença, João Crispim, João Pinho , Afonso Martins, Robertt Valente, João Barbosa, Renato Mendes, Maria Francisca Couto, Antonio Albuquerque, Ana Sousa Amorim, Francisco Santos, Lara Luís, Manuel Martins, Macaco Quitado, Paulo Ferreira, Diogo Rombo, Francisco Manuel Reis, Bruno Lamas, Daniel Almeida, Patrícia Esquível , Diogo Silva, Luis Gomes, Cesar Correia, Cristiano Tavares, Pedro Gaspar, Gil Batista Marinho, Maria Oliveira, João Pereira, Rui Vilao, João Ferreira, Wedge, José Losa, Hélder Moreira, André Abrantes, Henrique Vieira, João Farinha, Manuel Botelho da Silva, João Diamantino, Ana Rita Laureano, Pedro L, Nuno Malvar, Joel, Rui Antunes7, Tomás Saraiva, Cloé Leal de Magalhães, Joao Barbosa, paulo matos, Fábio Monteiro, Tiago Stock, Beatriz Bagulho, Pedro Bravo, Antonio Loureiro, Hugo Ramos, Inês Inocêncio, Telmo Gomes, Sérgio Nunes, Tiago Pedroso, Teresa Pimentel, Rita Noronha, miguel farracho, José Fangueiro, Zé, Margarida Correia-Neves, Bruno Pinto Vitorino, João Lopes, Joana Pereirinha, Gonçalo Baptista, Dario Rodrigues, tati lima, Pedro On The Road, Catarina Fonseca, JC Pacheco, Sofia Ferreira, Inês Ribeiro, Miguel Jacinto, Tiago Agostinho, Margarida Costa Almeida, Helena Pinheiro, Rui Martins, Fábio Videira Santos, Tomás Lucena, João Freitas, Ricardo Sousa, RJ, Francisco Seabra Guimarães, Carlos Branco, David Palhota, Carlos Castro, Alexandre Alves, Cláudia Gomes Batista, Ana Leal, Ricardo Trindade, Luís Machado, Andrzej Stuart-Thompson, Diego Goulart, Filipa Portela, Paulo Rafael, Paloma Nunes, Marta Mendonca, Teresa Painho, Duarte Cameirão, Rodrigo Silva, José Alberto Gomes, Joao Gama, Cristina Loureiro, Tiago Gama, Tiago Rodrigues, Miguel Duarte, Ana Cantanhede, Artur Castro Freire, Rui Passos Rocha, Pedro Costa Antunes, Sofia Almeida, Ricardo Andrade Guimarães, Daniel Pais, Miguel Bastos, Luís Santos _______________ Esta conversa foi editada por: Hugo Oliveira

Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent take a deep dive into the controversial Great Barrington Declaration, a document that has stirred significant debate in the public health community. This declaration, penned by Dr. Sunita Gupta of Oxford, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff of Harvard, proposes a pandemic response strategy centered on achieving herd immunity through natural infection, particularly among younger, healthier populations. The Underestimation of COVID-19 At the heart of the episode is a critical examination of how the declaration's authors may have underestimated the severity of COVID-19. The hosts reflect on early pandemic opinions, including those from John Ioannidis and Dr. Scott Atlas, that influenced the declaration. They discuss the implications of pursuing herd immunity without a vaccine and the potential risks to public health, especially considering the virus's impact on different age groups. Ethical Concerns and Scientific Debate A significant part of the discussion focuses on the ethical dilemmas posed by the declaration. The idea of intentionally allowing a segment of the population to be infected raises serious moral questions. The hosts challenge the notion that young people have an obligation to contract the virus, likening it to a "war" against COVID-19. The Role of Dr. Scott Atlas Dr. Scott Atlas, a prominent figure in the Trump administration's COVID-19 response, is also discussed. His support for natural infection as a pathway to herd immunity is critically examined, with the hosts highlighting his statements from various interviews and articles. The Impact of Herd Immunity Without Vaccination The episode does not shy away from discussing the historical context of herd immunity and its effectiveness in managing pandemics. The hosts argue that without vaccination, achieving lasting herd immunity may be an unattainable goal, citing examples from the history of diseases like measles and smallpox. Final Words In conclusion, the episode provides a comprehensive critique of the Great Barrington Declaration, emphasizing the need for a nuanced, ethical, and scientifically sound approach to pandemic management. The discussion underscores the complexities of public health decision-making in times of crisis and the importance of basing strategies on robust scientific evidence and ethical considerations.   Resources mentioned The Great Barrington Declaration Interviews and articles by Dr. Sunita Gupta, Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, and Dr. Martin Kulldorff John Ioannidis's Stat News article from March 17, 2020 Dr. Bhattacharya's Wall Street Journal article, "Is the Coronavirus as Deadly as They Say?" Dr. Martin Kulldorff's article, "COVID-19 countermeasures should be age specific" Dr. Scott Atlas's article, "Reentry After the Panic" Tucker Carlson's Fox News interview with Dr. Scott Atlas Twitter account @hypoautomatic Various scientific studies and data on COVID-19 mortality and transmission rates   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Welcome to “The Ben & Marc Show”, featuring a16z co-founders Ben Horowitz and Marc Andreessen.  In this latest episode, Marc and Ben tackle the university system – a hot topic that's been dominating the news over the past few months.As Marc states at the top of the episode, universities matter tremendously to our world, but they're currently in a state of crisis.  In this one-on-one conversation, Ben and Marc take a “structural” look at higher education, delving deep into the twelve functions of the modern university.  They also unpack the numerous challenges that universities face today – the student debt and the replication crisis, among them.  As colleges face an existential dilemma that could have long lasting repercussions, how can we find ways to improve these institutions, while being open to new entrepreneurial opportunities in education? Enjoy! Resources:Marc on X: https://twitter.com/pmarcaMarc's Substack: https://pmarca.substack.com/Ben on X: https://twitter.com/bhorowitz Books mentioned on this podcast:– “The Case Against Education: Why the Education System Is a Waste of Time and Money” by Bryan Kaplan https://amzn.to/47HOSOO– “Public Opinion” by Walter Lippmann amzn.to/48uY3m5 Article mentioned on this podcast:– “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False” by John Ioannidis bit.ly/3RZnqWaStay Updated:  Find us on X: https://twitter.com/a16zFind us on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/company/a16z The views expressed here are those of the individual personnel quoted and are not the views of a16z or its affiliates. This content is provided for informational purposes only, and should not be relied upon as legal, business, investment, or tax advice. Furthermore, this content is not directed at nor intended for use by any investors or prospective investors and may not under any circumstances be relied upon when making a decision to invest in any a16z funds. PLEASE SEE MORE HERE: https://a16z.com/disclosures/

I recently read the book "Climate Uncertainty and risk" written by Dr. Judith Curry, who is  one of the leading US climate scientists but also an important heterodox thinker. I loved her book, not only because of her take on climate change, but also because she covers a lot of essential topics that are applicable in other complex problems as well. Judith Curry is president of Climate Forecast Applications Network (CFAN).  Previously, she was professor and chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology and professor at the University of Colorado-Boulder in the department of aerospace engineering sciences program in the atmospheric and oceanic sciences and environmental studies program. Dr Curry published more than 200 reviewed scientific articles and gave 13 testimonials at US congressional hearings. In our conversation we discuss about the state of climate and climate science. What role does uncertainty play in assessing climate change and climate risk? Why urgency in measures might be a disaster. What role do carbon emissions play and can wind and solar energy help in mitigating climate change? What role does or should nuclear energy play? Do many prominent environmentalists hate nuclear even more than climate change? However, uncertainty cuts both ways, what does this mean in terms of climate, tipping points, systemic attractors, regime shifts?  What role do natural effects play in climate change, like volcanoes (think of the year without summer)? How can we reduce vulnerability and why does deindustrialization and becoming poorer as a society not seem to be a clever way to handle complex risks? At the moment it rather seems that we are crippling our economy without reducing the footprint on the planet while at the same time reducing our resilience. “There are no solutions, only tradeoffs.”, Thomas Sowell What does resilience mean on a societal level and what can we do to achieve it? How is resilience connected to global existential risks? "At that point we are making the environment worse, and doing nothing for the climate and we are messing up our economy over this crazy net zero stuff." Is energy transition on the scale some countries attempt to do it, a risk far greater than risks related to climate change in the 21st century? What are wicked problems (showing complexity, uncertainty and ambiguity)? Why do predict than act approaches (which work for tame problems) not work on wicked problems? "Climate change is the mother of all wicked problems." What is the utility of models in general and climate specifically? “This is exactly what models are for—to serve as working hypotheses for further research.”, Ludwig von Bertalanffy How do climate models work? What is a scenario and how can scenarios be of use in assessing climate change?  Why did we see such a heatwave this summer and autumn? What are likely reasons and what does the hot summer and August of this year tell us about anthropogenic climate change and the next decades? How to deal with extreme risks that are unlikely, like a Carrington Event? What are microgrids and how could the help making a society more resilient? What is the difference and utility of caution, precaution and the precautionary principle? Why is the precautionary principle problematic and how could a proactionary principle helt? What are principles of robust decision making? How do incrementalism and local decision making contribute? Is the seed — select — amplify (Meyer, Davis) idea and antifragility connected? Why do we see deep quality problems and politicisation in science? How is gate keeping of major institutions abused to stop critical discussion, including top journals like Nature and Science? Why did cancel culture blossom in academia and create a toxic intellectual environment? "The whole incentive system has become completely perverse." Careerism, ideology or money? Which is harming science the most? “Big Science may destroy great science, and the publication explosion may kill ideas. Ideas, which are only too rare, may become submerged in the flood.”, Karl Popper Should we separate science and activism or is a scientist ethically required to become an activist under certain conditions?  "Once you became a political activist, it is game over for your credibility as a  scientist." However, being a scientist and activist for a politically popular topic is currently highly rewarded. Can people handle complexity or should we simplify complex topics to easy to understand soundbites? And if so, who does the simplifying? Should we hide the scientific debate or even cancel it, to be able to send a simple message? "In the old days, disagreement was the spice of academic debate and life. Now we are out to cancel our opponents." References Judith Curry Website and Blog of Dr. Judith Curry CV Judith Curry, Climate, Uncertainty and Risk, Anthem Press (2023) Judith Curry, Klima: Unsicherheit und Risiko (2023) Other Episodes Modeling Episode 79: Escape from Model Land, a Conversation with Dr. Erica Thompson Episode 68: Modelle und Realität, ein Gespräch mit Dr. Andreas Windisch Episode 53: Data Science und Machine Learning, Hype und Realität — Teil 1 Existential Threats Episode 76: Existentielle Risiken Episode 74: Apocalype Always Episode 45: Mit »Reboot« oder Rebellion aus der Krise? Episode 42: Gesellschaftliche Verwundbarkeit, ein Blick hinter die Kulissen: Gespräch mit Herbert Saurugg Complex problems Episode 72: Scheitern an komplexen Problemen? Wissenschaft, Sprache und Gesellschaft — Ein Gespräch mit Jan David Zimmermann Episode 69: Complexity in Software Episode 37: Probleme und Lösungen Episode 80: Wissen, Expertise und Prognose, eine Reflexion Episode 27: Wicked Problems Episode 25: Entscheiden unter Unsicherheit Episode 23: Frozen Accidents Science, Quality and Stagnation Episode 67: Wissenschaft, Hype und Realität — ein Gespräch mit Stephan Schleim Episode 65: Getting Nothing Done — Teil 2 Episode 64: Getting Nothing Done — Teil 1 Episode 28: Jochen Hörisch: Für eine (denk)anstössige Universität! Episode 18: Gespräch mit Andreas Windisch: Physik, Fortschritt oder Stagnation Episode 16: Innovation und Fortschritt oder Stagnation? Other Reference Guinevere Glasfurd, The Year Without Summer: 1816 - one event, six lives, a world changed, Two Roads (2020) Thomas Sowell, Intellectuals and Society, Basic Books (2012) Christopher Meyer, Stan Davis, It's Alive: The Coming Convergence of Information, Biology and Business, Texere Publishing (2003) Björn Lomborg, False Alarm: How Climate Change Panic Costs Us Trillions, Hurts the Poor, and Fails to Fix the Planet, Basic Books (2020) Roger Pielke Jr. on Substack Carrington Event: Lloyds, Solar Storm Risk to the North American Electric Grid (2013) John Ioannidis, How the Pandemic Is Changing Scientific Norms (2021) Karl Popper, The Myth of the Framework: In Defence of Science and Rationality, Routledge (2014)

Dr. Jonathan Howard, in the absence of co-host Wendy Orent, explores the misconceptions and risky propositions around achieving herd immunity through natural COVID-19 infection. He references an article by Drs. de Souza and Dowdy from Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, highlighting the true meaning of herd immunity and its relation to vaccination. Howard critiques various early claims and redefinitions of herd immunity during the pandemic, stressing the dangers of using children as 'human shields' in the quest for herd immunity. The episode underscores the importance of vaccination in preventing serious diseases like measles, mumps, polio, and chickenpox, and debunks myths about natural immunity being beneficial for children.   List of Resources Mentioned Article: "What is Herd Immunity and How Can We Achieve It with COVID-19" by Dr. de Souza and Dr. Dowdy, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health (April 16, 2021) Article by John Ioannidis in Stat News (March 17, 2020) CNBC Article: "Sweden resisted a lockdown. And its capital Stockholm is expected to reach herd immunity in weeks." (April 22, 2020) Article by Dr. Vinay Prasad and Alison Crew (February 2022) Article: "COVID-19 And children and university students" by Dr. John Ioannidis Editorial in the BMJ discussing childhood vaccination and herd immunity The Great Barrington Declaration   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com  The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Dr. Jonathan Howard and Wendy Orent discuss various aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the initial underestimation of the death toll by Dr. John Ioannidis. They address misconceptions such as the belief that people were dying with COVID, not of COVID, and the skepticism surrounding COVID-19 death certificates. Dr. Howard counters these claims by highlighting the challenges faced in the early stages of the pandemic, including limited testing availability. The discussion also touches on the impact of lockdowns and the belief that they caused more harm than good.    Furthermore, they challenge the notion that only elderly individuals were affected by COVID-19, emphasizing that the virus had a broader impact, even on younger individuals. The podcast explores the evolving nature of the virus and the long-term consequences that remain uncertain.   Looking for something specific? Here you go! 00:00:49 COVID death toll not inflated. 00:06:10 Lockdowns did not cause excess deaths. 00:12:29 Lockdowns caused harm but not mass death. 00:23:13 COVID-19 has long-lasting consequences. 00:24:42 COVID consequences still largely unknown. 00:31:11 Ventilators not causing high mortality. 00:40:08 COVID deaths may have been undercounted. 00:41:52 Underreporting of COVID-19 deaths 00:48:08 Misinformation can have real consequences.     Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com      The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.    The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information.   The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content.   The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content.   Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer.   Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

In this episode, the hosts critically examine COVID-19 misinformation, focusing on the widespread myths that persisted during the pandemic. They discuss the controversial stance of Dr. John Ioannidis and others who underestimated COVID's impact and compared its dangers to everyday activities like driving. The episode highlights the serious consequences of these misconceptions, including the false notion that COVID only severely affected the elderly with pre-existing conditions, and addresses the damaging claim that doctors contributed to fatalities through premature intubations.    A list of resources mentioned: Stat News Article by Dr. John Ioannidis (March 17, 2020): An article by Dr. Ioannidis which discussed COVID-19, its impact, and the reliability of data surrounding the pandemic. Interview of Dr. Ioannidis with Fox News' Mark Levin (April 2020): A notable interview where Dr. Ioannidis expressed his views on COVID-19 and its relative danger compared to everyday activities. Autopsy Series from 2016-2017 on Elderly People Who Died of Flu: Research cited by Dr. Ioannidis in his argument regarding the cause of death during the pandemic. Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Publication: A publication referenced for discussing COVID-19 deaths in Italy and the challenge of attributing deaths to SARS-CoV-2. CDC Guidelines and Investigations into COVID-19 Deaths: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's approach to recording and verifying COVID-19 deaths, including the analysis of death certificates. Perspectives on the Pandemic 4 (Interview dated April 17, 2020): An interview featuring Dr. Ioannidis, where he discusses the pandemic, particularly focusing on the risk to younger people and the role of underlying health conditions.  Study on COVID-19 Risk Comparison to Driving: A study or analysis conducted by Dr. Ioannidis comparing the risk of dying from COVID-19 to the risk of dying from driving. Data and Reports from Italy and the United States: Various statistical data and reports from Italy and the U.S. were mentioned to highlight the differences in COVID-19 death rates and the presence of comorbidities. Reports on New York City's COVID-19 Death Toll and Management: Specific references were made to the situation in New York City, including the handling of COVID-19 deaths and the challenges faced by the healthcare system Accounts from Frontline Healthcare Workers: Personal experiences and observations from doctors and nurses dealing with COVID-19 patients were discussed, providing firsthand insights into the pandemic's impact.      Looking for something specific? Here you go! 00:00:00 COVID myths and misinformation persist. 00:06:45 Questioning the impact of COVID-19. 00:14:04 Risk of virus is manageable. 00:19:39 COVID-19 deaths can be inaccurately recorded. 00:25:20 Two conflicting views on COVID. 00:31:52 Death certificates accurately reflect COVID-19. 00:37:57 COVID death toll undercounted   Connect with us further on jonathanhowardmd.com     The Fine Print: The content presented in the "We Want Them Infected" Podcast and associated book is intended for informational and educational purposes only.  The views and opinions expressed by the speakers, hosts, and guests on the podcast do not necessarily reflect the views of the creators, producers, or distributors. The information provided in this podcast should not be considered as a substitute for professional medical, scientific, or legal advice. Listeners and readers are encouraged to consult with relevant experts and authorities for specific guidance and information. The creators of the podcast and book have made reasonable efforts to ensure that the information provided is accurate and up to date. However, as the field of medical science and the understanding of the COVID-19 pandemic continue to evolve, there may be new developments and insights that are not covered in this content. The creators are not responsible for any errors or omissions in the content or for any actions taken based on the information provided. They disclaim any liability for any loss, injury, or damage incurred by individuals who rely on the content. Listeners and readers are urged to use their judgment and conduct their own research when interpreting the information presented in the "We Want Them Infected" podcast and book. It is essential to stay informed about the latest updates, guidelines, and recommendations related to COVID-19 and vaccination from reputable sources, such as government health agencies and medical professionals. By accessing and using the content, you acknowledge and accept the terms of this disclaimer. Please consult with appropriate experts and authorities for specific guidance on matters related to health, science, and the COVID-19 pandemic.  

Today's episode marks the return of another Ask Me Anything episode where listeners ask Ken and Dawn to weigh in on a wide range of topics. In this go-around, listeners certainly had a lot on their mind. At the top of their list were questions about AI and especially the Bing AI chat bot that reportedly wants to be alive so it can steal nuclear secrets. Ken, who is Fellow of the Association for the Advancement of Artificial Intelligence, also answered questions about the future of AI and whether AI might one day be able to do a better job of writing fact-based news stories than humans. Other questions listeners submitted asked Ken and Dawn for their take on: The competing recommendations for the daily intake of protein for healthy aging. The future of therapeutic ketosis. What it means for Chat GPT to “hallucinate.” Whether we'll discover the existence of other life in the universe in the next 20 to 50 years. The potential of kratom to help relieve joint and arthritic pain. And at the end of the show, Ken talks about his high school coach in response to a listener asking Ken about some of his mentors when he was a youth. Show notes: [00:02:20] A listener asks Ken if he has heard the story of a Bing AI chat bot telling a reporter that it wanted to be alive, steal nuclear secrets and create a deadly virus. The listener also asks if Ken thinks that AI possessing human aspirations is on the horizon. [00:03:23] A listener asks Ken to explain how Chat GPT works in detail, but also in a way that a lay person can comprehend. [00:06:01] Ken weights in on what it means for Chat GPT to “hallucinate.” [00:08:14] A listener notes in their question that Donald Layman, in his interview on STEM-Talk, suggested a higher protein intake for healthy aging than what the FDA recommends. The listener goes on to note that Valter Longo, a previous STEM-Talk guest, recommended the opposite. The listener notes that Ken and Marcas, who hosted the Don Layman episode, seem to favor Layman's interpretation over Longo's and asks if Ken could elaborate on his position. [00:11:12] A listener mentions that the benefit of a ketogenic diet for metabolic disorders is well established, and notes that the frontiers of therapeutic ketosis, as mentioned in Dom D'Agostino's appearance on STEM-Talk, is very exciting. The listener asks Ken what he would like to see as the next frontier for therapeutic ketosis research. [00:12:41] A listener asks Ken if people should be paying more attention to their ApoB levels instead of their LDL levels. [00:14:39] A listener asks Ken about a paper published in July in Frontiers in Neuroscience, titled: “Overnight Olfactory Enrichment Using an Odorant Diffuser Improves Memory and Modifies Uncinate Fasciculus in Older Adults.” The paper reports that the use of a diffuser with seven different essential oils, a different one for each day of the week, had a remarkable effect on memory. [00:16:55] In light of the John Ioannidis interview on COVID-19 and the discussion of our national response being based on unreliable data, a listener asks Ken and Dawn for their thoughts about the reliability of the COVID tracking data by Johns Hopkins. [00:19:02] A listener asks Ken about a comment he made during the John Ioannidis interview about the substantial decline in trust in our institutions and the media and how reestablishing trust would require more and better transparency and accountability. The listener asks what that transparency and accountability would look like. [00:20:36] A listener asks Ken about Ed Weiler's interview on STEM-Talk, where Ed said that we will be able to prove the existence of other life in the universe in 20 to 50 years. The listener asks if Ken is as confident in this claim as Ed. [00:26:37] A listener asks Ken about the news regarding technology leaders and researchers issuing a warning that new powerful AI tools in development present a profound danger to...

On this episode of the Utterly Moderate Podcast we are going to be talking about something called the “replication crisis.” Most people will not be familiar with this since it has been happening in academia but we promise it is not only quite intriguing and full of juicy details but it also has some pretty big implications for the larger society. So what is the replication crisis? In the past 15 years or so it has been discovered that many research findings in major academic journals actually don't hold up to scrutiny. When an academic publishes a study they are required to describe their research methodology in detail. If another researcher tries to conduct the same study using the same methodology, this is an attempt at “replication.” If the replication finds the same results, this is further evidence that the original study was on to something. If they don't find the same results, it suggests that the original study may not have found the thing that it had claimed to find. In 2005, John Ioannidis, a professor in the Stanford University School of Medicine, published an article that got a lot of attention titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False.” In it he wrote that: “There is increasing concern that in modern research, false findings may be the majority or even the vast majority of published research claims. . . this should not be surprising. It can be proven that most claimed research findings are false.” Then, in 2011, there was a significant controversy over a paper by social psychologist Daryl Bem that claimed that people can have “precognition,” or ESP, and backed up this claim using the accepted methods of his field of psychology. This led many researchers to question dominant research methods, how the peer review process could fail so miserably, and whether this problem was much bigger than a few papers. In 2015, researchers published an article in the prestigious journal Science in which they detailed their attempts to reproduce 100 psychology studies. Alarmingly, they found that they were only able to successfully replicate 39 of those studies. Other similar efforts since then have also shown that many major published studies that have become accepted facts cannot be replicated and should be called into question. Over the past few years, academic fields have been grappling with the replication crisis and debating ways to strengthen the guardrails in academic research and publishing so that fewer flawed studies become accepted knowledge. On this Utterly Moderate episode we are joined by Rutgers University psychologist and friend of the show Dr. Lee Jussim to discuss all of this. Don't forget to subscribe to our FREE NEWSLETTER! The Connors Forum is an independent entity from the institutions that we partner with. The views expressed in our newsletters and podcasts are those of the individual contributors alone and not of our partner institutions. Episode Audio: “Please Listen Carefully” by Jahzzar (Free Music Archive) “Star Blessed Night” by Ketsa (Free Music Archive) “Draw the Sky” by Paul Keane (licensed through TakeTones) “By Grace” by Podington Bear (Free Music Archive) “Happy Trails (To You)” by the Riders in the Sky (used with artist's permission)    See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Marvin Haberland ist Ingenieur und beschäftigt sich seit Jahren mit wissenschaftlichen Methoden und wissenschaftlicher Heuristik. So ist er im Bereich der Molekularbiologie auf das Virenphänomen gestoßen und war verblüfft, dass innerhalb der Virenforschung keine wissenschaftlichen Methoden angewendet werden, die nach den eigenen Standards der Virologie arbeiten.Die Virentheorie beruht auf einen Konsens, auf Behauptungen und Scheinnachweisen, die en gros in der wissenschaftlichen Virologie einfach übernommen werden und von so gut wie allen Generationen dort als Selbstverständlichkeit gilt.Prüft man jedoch mit exakter wissenschaftlicher Methodik und unternimmt dabei den Versuch, auch nur irgendein Virus nachzuweisen, stößt man dabei auf das, was John Ioannidis, einer der bekanntesten und der gefürchtetsten Wissenschaftler der Welt, nachgewiesen hat: Die meisten klinischen Studien, weltweit, sind falsch.Verfolgt man die Heuristiken der Virologie der letzten 200 Jahren, wird man den Verirrungen der Virenwissenschaft gewahr. Aus einem Gift, das durch die Umwelt Übertragungen schafft, wird in der Mitte des letzten Jahrhunderts auf einen Schlag eine Gensequenz, ein RNA-Agens. Die Virologen selbst waren es, die nachwiesen, dass die Krankheitsübertragungstheorie bei Viren völlig falsch ist. Man war geneigt, die Virologie ganz aufzulösen.Alle Versuche, ein krankmachendes Virus zu übertragen, schlugen fehl! Bis jemand aus einem Umweltgift ein RNA-Agens erschuf und dafür den Nobelpreis für die Rettung einer krankmachenden Virentheorie bekam. Dass es Krankheiten gibt, dürfte klar sein, auch dann, wenn man nicht an Viren glaubt, oder zunächst verstanden hat, dass es für kein krankmachendes Virus einen Nachweis gibt.Dr. Stefan Lanka ist einer der Pioniere auf dem Gebiet. Er selbst ist Virologe und hat Bakteriophagen entdeckt. Auch er war Anhänger der Virentheorie und überzeugt davon, dass es Viren gibt.Bis sein Professor ihn fragte, woher er denn so genau wüsste, dass es das HIV-Virus gibt. "Ja, weil es doch alle sagen", war Lankas Antwort. Daraufhin erwiderte sein Professor, dass er nicht alle gefragt habe, sondern ihn, Stefan Lanka.Was dann für Dr. Stefan Lanka folgte, war eine Odyssee durch die Welt der Viren- und der Krankheitstheorie. Lanka wollte etwas nachweisen und kam dadurch darauf, dass es keinen einzigen exakten Virennachweis, weltweit, gibt.Immer mehr Wissenschaftler, auch namhafte Nobelpreisträger, geben Lanka recht: Beweisen können auch sie kein einziges krankmachendes Virus, bisher. Marvin Haberland hat viele Institute und zahlreiche Virologen um einen Virennachweis nachgefragt.Nicht ein einziger, darunter auch die Ikone der Pandemie-Aufklärung, Sucharit Bhakdi, oder der Nobelpreisträger und angebliche „Entdecker des HIV-Virus“, Luc Montagnier, oder die durch den Corona-Ausschuss bekannte und namhafte Biologin Apl. Prof. Dr. rer. hum. biol. Ulrike Kämmerer, haben bis heute einen Nachweis nach wissenschaftlichen Standards über krankmachende Viren erbracht.Die Tragweite dessen, falls die krankmachende Virentheorie nur heiße Luft sein sollte, wäre immens. Es wäre eine schulmedizinische Superkatastrophe, ein Tsunami weltweiten Ausmaßes und eine Erschütterung ins Vertrauensverhältnis von Milliarden Patienten zu ihren Ärzten, weltweit. Darf auch in diesem Fall nicht sein, was nicht sein darf? Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

The pandemic was a confusing time with public health messages from officials and institutions that were sometimes confused, conflicting, or misrepresented and anti-vaccine misinformation being spread widely. Into this mix, a new phenomenon emerged, that of the covid contrarian. Contrarian doctors usually possessed some relevant qualifications and positioned themselves as independent critical thinkers willing to challenge the dogmas of the mainstream and take a more nuanced perspective on the claims made by anti-vaccine advocates.These contrarian figures are the voices that you would usually hear on 'heterodox' podcasts. Figures like the medical doctor Vinay Prasad, the Stanford professor of Medicine Jay Bhattacharya, or the retired nurse, John Campbell. But did they really offer an alternative critical perspective? Our guest today, Jonathan Howard, a practising doctor and professor of Neurology and Psychiatry, argues no. And he should know, he has spent the pandemic not only treating patients but tirelessly documenting (and refuting) the claims made by the contrarian set. This episode is unfortunately topical due to the recent online fracas surrounding Joe Rogan's credulous promotion of RFK Jnr and the subsequent 'calls for debate' and targeted harassment of Dr Peter Hotez -a public health specialist and advocate for affordable vaccines. In any case, we learnt a lot and enjoyed the discussion with Jonathan and hope you will too. Also covered in this episode: How many pull-ups Matt can do, why Chris is drinking a chalky green potion, the psychology of placebos, and LinksJonathan's New Book- We Want Them InfectedJonathan's articles on the pandemic at Science-Based-MedicineJonathan's Older Book- Cognitive Errors and Diagnostic Mistakes: A Case-Based Guide to Critical Thinking in MedicineWhat the Heck Happened to John Ioannidis?Honestly with Bari Weiss: RFK Jr. Is Striking a Nerve. He Explains Why.Vinay Prasad at The Free Press: What RFK Jr. Gets Right—and What He Gets WrongVinay Prasad at Unherd: We need to talk about the vaccinesVice Article: Joe Rogan, Elon Musk Instigate Harassment Campaign Against Vaccine ScientistUncomfortable Conversations with Josh Szeps: "RFK, Joe Rogan & Vaccines" with Michael ShermerVox Article: Joe Rogan wants a “debate” on vaccine science. Don't give it to him.

Wille och Jacob gästas denna vecka av Gustav Nilsonne, docent i neurovetenskap på KI. Ämnet för dagen är framför allt meta-vetenskap vilket i princip är forskning på forskning. De senaste 15 åren har det skett en form av revolution kring det fältet då det har uppdagats att hur man utför forskning har stor potential till förbättring så att resultat blir mer tillförlitliga och att mer av den viktiga informationen blir tillgänglig för alla. I dagens avsnitt får du bland annat höra om bristerna i hur det fungerar med de vetenskapliga tidskrifterna idag där det i princip är stora företag som tjänar massa pengar på universitet och forskare. Det blir också en hel del diskussion kring hur de friheter som forskar har när de ska analysera data påverkar deras resultat. Det är visat i flera studier att olika forskargrupper kan komma fram till olika resultat med precis samma data eftersom de väljer olika sätt att analysera den. Till sist blir det också en kort diskussion kring hur fenomenet regression to the mean kan leda till att man hittar ”falska” korrelationer i vissa observationsstudier. I just det fallet som vi diskuterar i avsnittet så handlar det om sambandet mellan amning och IQ. På Tyngre Träningssnacks instagram kan du hitta bilder relaterat till detta och tidigare avsnitt. Hålltider (00:00:00) Gudiol har tappat rösten (00:03:40) Wille sprang 10 km på Kungsholmen runt (00:07:09) Veckans gäst, Gustav Nilsonne (00:08:20) John Ioannidis som en av de som öppnade upp fältet kring meta-vetenskap (00:10:24) Hur man blir neurovetenskapare och Gustavs väg till forskningen (00:14:57) Byte av fält direkt efter doktorandstudierna gav mycket extra jobb (00:19:15) Försök att studera emotionell reglering hos människor (00:24:35) Hur Gustav kom in på att forska om forskning (00:25:48) Ett av de första stora projekten där man försökte replikera tidigare kända/välciterade studier (00:30:47) Hur blir mottagandet när man är forskare som granskar andra forskare? (00:36:25) Betydelsen av förhandsregistrering och ännu bättre, registered reports (00:42:38) Problemet som är vetenskapliga tidskrifter och hur det fungerar i dag (00:53:51) Peer Review fångar sällan upp rent fusk (00:58:38) Vad är förslagen som alternativ till vetenskapliga tidskrifter (01:02:45) Olika forskargrupper kan få fram olika resultat med exakt samma data (01:11:22) Pandemin blev ett bra exempel på att samma data kan analyseras olika av olika personer (01:17:14) Alla möjliga analyser som kan göras inom nutritionsepidemiologi (01:23:18) Studier som bör vara utförda men inte publicerade (01:29:07) Regression to the mean och en analys som tittar bakåt i tiden (01:33:15) Observationsstudier som visar att amning ger smartare barn påverkas av regression to the mean

Back in early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. John Ioannidis wrote an article in March of 2020 questioning government statistics about the fatality rate associated with COVID-19. The backlash was swift and brutal and John's reputation as one of the most influential scientists in the world took a beating. Today, John makes his second appearance on STEM-Talk to discuss his extensive research into the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the public shaming he received in 2020 for questioning the World Health Organization's prediction of a 3.4 percent fatality rate associated with COVID-19. John also talks about his most recent peer-reviewed paper that looked at the age-stratified infection fatality rate of COVID-19 in the non-elderly population.  The study found that the pre-vaccination fatality rate for those infected may have been as low as 0.03 percent for people under 60 years old, and 0.07 percent for people under 70, far below the World Health Organization's prediction of a 3.4 percent fatality rate. In today's episode, John walks us through this paper, which was published in January, as well as what he describes as the U.S. government's bungled response to COVID-19. He also discusses the importance of collecting reliable data in the future to guide disease modelers and governments before they make decisions of monumental significance like lockdowns. He goes on to share how he underestimated the power that politics and the media, or powers outside of science, can have on science. Over the past two decades, John's research has earned him a global reputation as a consummate physician and researcher, which contributed to The Atlantic describing John in 2010 as one of the most influential scientists alive. He is a professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health as well as a statistician and professor of biomedical data science at Stanford University. Back in 2018 when we interviewed John on episode 77 of STEM-Talk, we talked to him about his 2005 paper questioning the reliability of most medical research. The paper, titled, “Why Most Published Research Findings Are False,” found that much of the medical science reported in peer-reviewed journals is flawed and cannot be replicated. The paper is the most citied article in the history of the journal PLoS Medicine and has been viewed more than 3 million times. Show notes: [00:03:16] Dawn opens the interview welcoming John back to STEM-Talk. his last appearance being in 2018. Dawn explains that when John last appeared on STEM-Talk in 2018, he was described by Atlantic Magazine as “one of the most influential scientists alive.” But in the intervening years, John became public enemy number one in 2020 after a paper he published questioning government statistics about COVID 19's fatality rate. Dawn asks John if it's fair to say that he has been on a rather rocky ride for the past few years. [00:03:54] Dawn explains that John was trained at Harvard and Tufts universities in internal medicine and infectious disease, and asks John what led him to study infectious disease. [00:04:54] Ken asks John about his initial thoughts in 2019 when he first heard the reports coming out of China about COVID-19. [00:05:52] Ken explains that in March of 2020, John fell into some hot water for writing a piece questioning the 3.4 percent fatality rate associated with COVID-19. John found this number to be inflated and wrote that while COVID-19 was indeed a threat, it did not behave like the Spanish Flu or a pandemic that would lead to a 3.4 percent fatality rate. Ken asks John how he came to this conclusion. [00:08:37] The article that John wrote in 2020 was titled “A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.” John argued in his article that the data collected in the first three months of the pandemic was “utterly unreliable.” He went on to write that no one had a good way of knowing how many people ...

I will never vote for a Republican who doesn't co-sponsor and vote for the Bill in the Senate to stop Biden from handing the W.H.O. power over us (note to the W.H.O. - I will never follow a single directive from you). The people who run Joe Biden are determined to put the Satanic W.H.O. in charge of “pandemic” responses in America. Satanic, really? Yes. They have pushed the sexual mutilation of children in western “democracies” . . . but, not in China. The W.H.O. along with the CDC sponsors pornographic sexual content in the schools in western “democracies”, but not in China. The W.H.O. demands abortion on an even larger scale, they want global euthanasia. They want--and are about to get--control over 194 countries in a “legally binding document.” If the people who run Joe Biden cause him to sign this Accord--which is actually a treaty and an unconstitutional one--the W.H.O. can grab power whenever they like. They can simply declare a “pandemic” because in their liar's definition pandemics need-not involve a single death. Then, the W.H.O. will declare which treatments doctors can provide, which they must refuse; they will run medical supply chains and decide who gets treatment and who doesn't; they will even have control over . . . wait for it . . . “misinformation" and "fake news." Republican Senators: if you refuse to co-sponsor and vote for the Bill to stop this, I will never vote for you again, even if that means a Democrat wins. If the W.H.O. gets these powers and you don't fight with everything you have, you will have proven you are traitors. What does God say? God reminds us we are in a spiritual battle. That may have never been more true than at this moment.Ephesians 6:1212 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the powers of this dark world and against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms.He also reminds us that days like what's about to come were always going to occur:Read Isaiah 5:20–21; Romans 1:18–23; Genesis 1:26–28The Lord stands in victory and, when we are in submission to Him, we are also in victory. Colossians 2:1515 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.Republican Senators Push Back Against Accord Giving WHO Power Over US Pandemic Response; Legal experts question whether Senate approval is necessaryNYT's @MaraGay: "Extremely dangerous" for Fox News to be granted access to unaired 1/6 footageThis woman made it onto jury and may have been able to subpoena President Trump - Emily Koehrs was the CHAIRWOMAN on the Grand Jury against Trump.Study from John Ioannidis, the world's most-cited physician, suggests a much lower pre-vaccine IFR than previously believed. “At a global level, pre-vaccination IFR may have been as low as 0.03% and 0.07% for 0-59 and 0-69 year old people, respectively.”Employee from @MethodistHosp reports COVID vaccine required for lung transplant patients. “Our physicians are adamant about it.” @RandPaulBREAKING! Dr. John Littell KICKED OUT of Sarasota Memorial Hospital Board Meeting after testifying to the effectiveness of Ivermectin to treat Covid-19!ONS Data: 25% Excess Mortality Among the “Boosted:” is Obscured by Undercounting of the Un-”vaccinated”; Oops, the “unvaxed” were 50% undercountedWhy Republicans are suddenly in a rush to regulate every trans kid's puberty; Proposals in eight states would ban puberty blockers and hormones for trans minors.Sen. Kennedy on how ridiculous it is to pretend to flight against the weather--sorry, I mean the climate--when China and India refuse to play-act along with us. Show AdvertisersAlan's Soaps https://alanssoaps.com/TODD Use coupon code ‘TODD' to save an additional 10% off the bundle price. Bonefrog Coffee https://bonefrog.us Enter promo code TODD at checkout to receive 5% off your subscription. Bulwark Capital https://knowyourriskradio.comGet your free copy of “Common Cents Investing” Call 866-779-RISK or visit the website. Healthycell https://healthycell.com/todd Journey to better health and save 20% off your first order with promo code TODD.My Pillowhttps://mypillow.com Sleep cool with the new MyPillow 2.0 now Buy One Get One Free with code TODD.RuffGreens https://ruffgreens.com/todd Get your FREE Jumpstart Trial Bag of Ruff Greens, simply cover shipping. SOTA Weight Loss https://sotaweightloss.com SOTA Weight Loss is, say it with me now, STATE OF THE ART!Texas Superfoods https://texassuperfoods.com Texas Super Foods is whole food nutrition at its best.GreenHaven Interactivehttps://greenhaveninteractive.comGet more customer online with a world class website and Google

In science, we often hear about new discoveries or theories that could change our way of thinking. In the business world, a start-up might promise a revolution in a specific industry, if it can get the right investments. So, when is it worth believing or betting on one of these new theories, and when is it a waste of time? In this episode of All Else Equal, Jules and Jonathan discuss how we can all use the principle of Occam's Razor (the idea that the simplest theory is often the correct one) in many different areas of our life.Helping them explain the real world practice of this is John Ioannidis, a professor of Medicine and Epidemiology at Stanford University. John was the first academic to question the practices of Theranos, the company co-founded by Elizabeth Holmes that claimed it would change medicine with its new method of testing blood. He criticized the lack of peer reviewed research of the company's methods, while at the same time investors were making it a billion dollar company. John tells Jules and Jonathan about this experience, as well as how Occam's Razor comes into play with a lot of scientific research. See Privacy Policy at https://art19.com/privacy and California Privacy Notice at https://art19.com/privacy#do-not-sell-my-info.

Chris and Jonathan welcome back Dr. Jonathan Howard to talk about the doctors who repeatedly said the pandemic was ending and who became anti-vaccine in the process. When doctors become brands, narcissism can easily lead them and their fans astray, as these media figures chase an ever elusive limelight. Dr. Howard has been tracking their claims and predictions and brings the receipts.   (2:38) Dr. Vinay Prasad, pre-pandemic (8:41) ZDoggMD, Marty Makary, and Vinay Prasad on vaccine boosters (12:01) Paediatric COVID vaccines (15:00) An appeal to civility on the one hand, mockery on the other (16:56) Dr. John Ioannidis and basic math (27:22) “You have to accept it” (32:27) Classic anti-vaccine talking points (36:10) “Where's the RCT?” (39:37) Jonathan Howard's connection to the anti-vaccine movement (41:53) Audience capture (44:49) Charisma and credibility (49:33) New York City denialism (51:36) Ron DeSantis' Vaccine Accountability Roundtable (55:41) Self-reflection   A quick note on sound quality: the clicking sound on Dr. Howard's end very quickly disappears. The rest of the audio is not up to our usual standards, and for this we apologize. Audio engineering is closer to magic than science, it seems.   * Theme music: “Fall of the Ocean Queen“ by Joseph Hackl.   To contribute to The Body of Evidence, go to our Patreon page at: http://www.patreon.com/thebodyofevidence/.   Patrons get a bonus show on Patreon called “Digressions”! Check it out!     Links: 1) The ZDoggMD Show episode you hear at the beginning: https://youtu.be/cNcVCFLhbAs?t=42 2) Dr. Jonathan Howard's articles on Science-Based Medicine: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/author/jonathanhoward/ 3) Dr. Jonathan Howard on Twitter: https://twitter.com/19joho  

Matt Kibbe is joined by Stanford University epidemiologists Jay Bhattacharya and John Ioannidis to discuss the interaction between science and health policy. The COVID-19 response was one-sided and dictated from the top down, which not only led to many disastrous policies, but also undermined the public trust in science and medicine as institutions. In the future, what is needed is a more humble approach to policymaking that admits its own ignorance and allows the public more opportunities to participate in the decision-making process.

For more information, contact us at 859-721-1414 or myhealth@prevmedheartrisk.com. Also, check out the following resources:  ·Jubilee website·PrevMed's website·PrevMed's YouTube channel·PrevMed's Facebook page·PrevMed's Instagram·PrevMed's LinkedIn·PrevMed's Twitter ·PrevMed's Pinterest

A brilliant talk by one of the most brilliant scientists alive; JPAI lectures VKPrasad lab on all things COVID19; When does the pandemic end? What are the lessons?

We're back! In this episode we talk: dumb COVID policies, mask shaming on both sides, Kyrie Irving vaccine controversy, worshipping Lord Zero COVID (Hong Kong and elsewhere), press coverage biases, a FOURTH booster shot, ethical considerations around pharma not providing meds to Russia, dumber college COVID policies, the deal with early treatments, Ash Jha and John Ioannidis, and the James Webb telescope and STEM inspiration. Dr. Prasad's "Plenary Session" podcast: vinayakkprasad.com/plenarysession Dr. Damania's "ZDoggMD Show" podcast: zdoggmd.com/z-blogg More info for Vinay and Zubin at https://lnk.bio/zdoggmd and vinayakkprasad.com/bio

Adam Creighton, the Washington correspondent for The Australian and contributor to Sky News, discusses Australia's strict lockdowns and the long term policy implications, as well as the political climate in the US and his thoughts on the public opinion of COVID interventions. Follow Adam on Twitter here and check out his work at The Australian here.Listen to the Unmasked podcast on Apple Podcasts and Spotify. The book “Unmasked: The Global Failure of COVID Mask Mandates” is available for purchase through Amazon and many other outlets.Full transcript of the interview is below:Ian Miller: Hello everyone, welcome to another episode of The Unmasked Podcast. We've got a special guest today. Adam Creighton, who's the Washington correspondent for the Australian and also contributor to Sky News Australia, which is very exciting, Adam, thank you so much for doing this. Adam Creighton: Thanks very much for having me. Ian Miller: Yeah, first of all, I wanted to say thank you for your wonderful review of my book. It's it's been really, really great to see all the positive response to it. It helped dramatically help to get the get it into Australia and kind of awareness of it down there, which I hugely appreciate. Yeah so thank you for that.Adam Creighton: No, I hope lots of people read it. It was excellent. Ian Miller: I appreciate it. So my first question for you was when when COVID first started you know this was back March 2020. What were your kind of initial thoughts and reactions to it? Were you skeptical of the policies we were putting in? Were you supportive of them and has there been any kind of adjustments or changes in your thinking overtime?Adam Creighton: You know, certainly at the start I was actually very scared about the whole thing going back to March 2020 because I knew a bit of history. I knew about the Spanish flu. I knew how bad these things could be, and so I was kind of expecting the worst. I mean, I was so scared. I actually shifted my money out of a one of the smaller financial institutions that I was in and put it in a larger bank, but I was just worried about. You know what was gonna happen to the global economy? Uhm, of course, as it turned out, those those fears were, you know, were kind of ill founded at least as fast. As far as the virus went, and I guess because I was so concerned, I was checking everyday the publicly available statistics on worldometer and the various U.S. government websites, and it became pretty clear to me by the end of March at least, that we were massively overreacting to this thing, that there was a climate of hysteria. And I felt as though it was my responsibility as a journalist to point that out, but that was quite a risky move. But as I say, there was a climate of hysteria and it wasn't until the middle of April the 13th or 14th of April that I wrote in my weekly column in the Australian that we were over reacting to an unremarkable virus. And you can imagine how that went over. So because it really was that was kind of peak hysteria and I pointed out things like the number of deaths every year. You know, know, million odd every year that the numbers that the infection fatality ratios were likely very very low. Drawing on some of the work of John Ioannidis, very eminent professor in this field, and he made a lot of sense to me. So I you know, I quoted him. So yeah, so I, so I guess I changed my view pretty quickly and then I you know, I became a champion of that view really up until now and. In terms of how I changed my view at all, well, I mean I'm shocked how long this whole thing has gone on for I would never have, you know, never have thought that almost two years on would be talking about this. I think that's just extraordinary and I was wrong about the vaccines and how quickly that arrived. I guess I was skeptical based on history and based on. The conventional view that these vaccines would take many years to develop, but but as it as it turned out, they arrived much sooner and they appear to have had some effectiveness. Certainly in reducing illness. So I was wrong about that. But really, I haven't changed my view on anything else.Ian Miller: Yeah, that's a great point. I remember thinking to myself that what's going to happen here. If it takes five years to develop these things, can't we can't keep doing this for five years, can we? But I think a lot of politicians kind of got bailed out by how quickly. They arrived and were able to kind of say, OK well thatAdam Creighton: Yes, exactly that's the shift could justify what they've done by that too. They could say, well, you know the lockdowns make sense because we were just waiting for the vaccines and you know there is some internal logic to that. Even though I still think the lockdowns were very wrong and a grievous assault on human rights which would never have happened. And of course you know barely effective anyway as you know, but right? But even if they were effective, you know, even if they did work, so to speak, I still think there'd be a good case that they're wrong, and I'd probably still argue that case. I mean, the fact is that they haven't worked and it's extremely embarrassing for for proponents of them to try to make a coherent empirical argument that they have.Ian Miller: Yeah, absolutely. So I wanted to get your thoughts on the early on in the United States. I mean, you're Australian, but you live here in the US. You're Washington correspondent. So how much do you think the political climate of the US played into the kind of early on the policies of COVID during the first year or so? Kind of specifically, would masks and and kind of these symbols of taking COVID seriously have maintained the same level of level of importance if there had been a different president? Adam Creighton: Yeah, look, it's a good question and I think the fact that Trump was president polarized the issue more because early on he expressed doubt about the effectiveness of lockdowns and masks. I know that I was actually living in Australia at the very start of it, but certainly the US is followed very closely in Australia. And we say back home, this thing called Trump Derangement syndrome. I assume it's a phrase here as well. But Oh yeah, it's kind of a joke that, you know, uh, lefties, vulnerable to this to this disease. And whenever Trump says something is good, they must say it's bad. And I think that was part of this extraordinary polarization that we have to. Champion these things that Trump. Didn't want and look it was in the UK as well and I know that's that's less of a focus in the US, but the Johnson government was in power too and. And Boris Johnson very early said similar things to Trump that look we should just not. You know, we should not overreact. These think must don't work. You know, lockdowns don't work. We don't want to do that. And of course, as you know, the British Government changed its tune in a few weeks. But but I think there was a similar phenomenon there as well, and so yes, to answer your question, yes, I think the US does play a huge role in how the Western world responds and also how they politically perceive the response as being a left or a right wing issue. Ian Miller: It's very interesting, and so one question that I I just kind of comes. It came up to me a second ago. We asked a lot of people. I've asked a lot of people I've been asked myself, why do you think the shift happened so much with with Boris Johnson and and Trump and all these governments kind of going back on what they were saying about masks and lockdowns early on. What do you think were the underlying reasons behind it? Adam Creighton: Yeah look, it's a really good question and we don't really know the answer. I mean, of course it was the Italian Government that was the 1st Western government to follow China down the lockdown path and as. As you will know, every pandemic plan that was written by a western country either explicitly ruled out lockdowns as insane or or did not mention them at all. Something happened in the middle of March 2020, second half of March when all Western governments did this, and I think it was. I think it's just basic political economy that. It's pretty cost less politically to introduce these lockdowns because. If you do it, you can't be blamed for not doing anything, and if everyone else is doing it, you can't be blamed for doing it so. It's just basic political calculus. I mean, of course that's kind of horrifying calculus for the general public, because it means they get subjected to the most awful rules just just for the political benefit of the leaders. But look, I think that's a lot to it. And also, there's of course the modeling that. That was produced by Imperial College. Neil Ferguson, famously predicting extraordinary numbers of death, millions of deaths within six months or so, which never never happened. It was the most ridiculous modeling, but that scared the world. I mean, it freaked the world out and and also it sent the media into paroxysms of hysteria and. And you know, basically scared the daylights out of the Western world. And I think I think if anyone is culpable for for all of the horrible things that have happened on the COVID front, I think you know you have to point to the media which I'm a member of. But the bulk of it was very hysterical and I think it scared people and then governments responded to that fear. Not many politicians in private completely agree with you and me on these issues. I mean, I've spoken to them, but they're incapable of saying saying that in public because, well, they can now more. But certainly a year or two ago they could not, because it could be held down. Ian Miller: Yeah, Speaking of lockdowns and tough COVID policies, I obviously you you write for an Australian news outlet, you're Australian so I wanted to get your sense of what the public opinion in Australia has been like. Maybe over time with regards to you know what many see is a very draconian COVID policy in Australia. So has there been, has there been, you know, a lot of universal support near universal. Has there been any significant kind of pushback or or response to the policies there? Adam Creighton: Well, at the first point to make is it's been very popular. He's very strict policies, kind of the whole time, really. I mean there's there's been some decline in popularity. I'd say over the past, you know, three to six months, as people just get sick of this, and I think more and more people realize that many of the measures are dubiously effective. But Australia's experience is really in two phases. I mean 2020. We pretty much missed COVID entirely, so there was the first six week lockdown that that are pretty much all Western cities had around the world. And we had those in Sydney, Melbourne, etc. But COVID never took off. There was a blip in the second half of in Victoria. Our second biggest state. Uhm where supposedly security guards slept with someone in quarantine that had COVID and then it escaped and got into the community and about 5:00 or people subsequently died over the next three or four months from COVID in Melbourne. And look, I don't know whether it was a security guard. Certainly that's what the media said, and that's what most people would say was the reason. But I mean, who really knows how the virus evolved there? But certainly that's what prompted the beginning of seven lockdowns in Vic. 7, right? It's kind of remarkable to even say so. They had viciously strict lockdowns, brutal, they even had curfews. I think. 9:00 PM at night you couldn't be outside. Or maybe it was. 10:00 PM I can't remember, but just unbelievable rules that really hadn't been seen. Anywhere else in the world. I don't think I then I'm gonna go in France and Spain had very strict lockdowns too, but there's certainly extremely strict following very few cases and the virus eventually fizzle out there, and then it wasn't until the middle of last year that it really took off pretty much everywhere in Australia, and that's when the rest of the world started taking notice of the, you know, the teargas, the massive protests which were occurring, the police, the helicopters screaming at people on the beach, the quarantine centers. Uh, you know it was. It was pretty extraordinary, and by that time I was living in the US and and I was just shocked by the whole thing. I mean, I was ashamed to actually. I was really ashamed as an Australian and how? Just crazy in hysterical response walls and just how stupid if you ask me. I mean, that's obviously my view, but just embarrassingly stupid when there was a wealth of data out there as you and I know that shows that these measures basically do very little at at best. Well look it was. Yeah, it's and they're still popular. That's that's the depressing thing. And and one of the lessons over the past two years is the extraordinary faith that people have in their governments. Not so much here. Maybe in the US, but certainly in Australia the obedience of people is just remarkable. And I think maybe partly explaining that buy in Australian history of governments have never really. Being seen as the enemy of the people like they have been in the US and other countries so so we don't have that, but nevertheless, just the extraordinary faith in what the government says and that the motives of the government are as pure as the snow. It's just. It's shocked me. Ian Miller: So that's that was related to kind of my next question for you, and it sounds like you might have answered it, but I was going to ask. Have you been surprised by what the people in Australia have been willing to put up with in terms of this? Strict lockdowns interventions and not being able to travel between states, for example, but it sounds like you might not be surprised because it it might be kind of built into their to the psyche. Adam Creighton: There is that accurate coming up, we've justified it now. Kind of after the fact by kind of referring to Australia's history as a former penal colony and always having very strict governments, some of our state governments were or except for a few exceptions, prisons. And you know, early on in the early 1800s had very strict rules about alcohol consumption and being outside because at that point they were, you know, largely dealing with prisoners or former prisoners. So that's that's in the psyche, I guess. As I said, there's a there's a general faith in the benevolence of government, because you know, Australia is a wealthy country. You know it's never had any revolutions or civil wars or anything like that. But nevertheless, yeah, look, I. I was surprised by the fact people were OK, for instance, with the Victorian police actually going inside a woman's out invading a woman's house. And arresting her for simply posting on a Facebook site that she was against lockdowns. Now that actually happened actually happened. That was like the second half of 2020. And it was a reminder of me at least, although as I've as I've probably indicated, not many Australians seem to care, but that there are no human rights in Australia whatsoever. I mean absolutely none. I mean, if the government decides just you know the state government decides that there's a so called emergency it can really do anything it wants, including invading peoples houses without warrants and. Arresting them for merely for typing something on a website? I mean, that's that's the extent of the power of Australia state governments. And that's been a real shock to me because our states are just like the US. In a sense, they were independent countries, more or less, with their own governors. And they answered to the British Crown, and they never had constitutions. And when Australia united as a country in the Commonwealth government, the federal government does have a constitution with some limitation on its powers. But the states that make it up do not. And I think that's that's been the real wakeup call for Australians who care about these things is that the state governments can do whatever they want. Ian Miller: Interesting, so you mentioned a minute ago that that there's been a kind of a a big surge of infections and hospitalizations as well over the past few months. Have people there started to question the wisdom of the policy at all you know. Obviously Australians had extraordinary success rolling out the vaccines early on. It was slow, but now it's taking up where it's huge uptake there. It seemed like that was kind of their policy was was wait until the vaccination rates to try to prevent these increases, and unfortunately. Somehow the population still has these huge increases, so has there been any surprise about that there or any questioning of of the wisdom of the policy? Adam Creighton: Look, not really a great deal of questioning the wisdom of the policy, and I think this is because throughout COVID, the restrictions have been so punishing on so many people that there's a real desire to think that they were the right thing to do, regardless of what the data says. And yes, it is. It is extraordinary look around the world, not just Australia. You look at countries like Israel and other highly vaccinated countries have had huge outbreaks in COVID. And even significant numbers of deaths. I mean Australia had most of its deaths. After like 90% of people vaccinated, I mean, it's that's not what you would have expected from first principles and but those facts really get an airing in the press, certainly not by the government. There's an extraordinary reluctance to criticize vaccines at all. You know, they're kind of considered almost like some sort of religious requirement, and you must kind of venerate them at all times, regardless of what the data says about them. And anyone who, even you know, dares to criticize it is going to be called an anti-vaxxer. So that so that creates a great deal of reluctance in the public space, at least to criticize the vaccines. And so yeah look. I mean, I think people know that there's been a wave of hospitalizations, but they still support these policies. By and large, you know, I guess you could say it's a level sort of national cognitive dissonance, but I don't think Australia is unique in that regard. I think a lot of countries have it to a greater or lesser extent. I mean certainly not parts of the United States where I think. That's it's been wonderful to see such a skepticism here. In some states, at least of these measures. But but yeah, I think cognitive dissonance nationally explains explains that in Australia. Ian Miller: Yeah, so we gonna mention how the government doesn't necessarily provide all the information is, or at least part of the perspective. But one thing they have done and that I was kind of stunned to see, was at least in the Northern Territory in Australia. They made some very extraordinary statements about locking down unvaccinated people and all of the the language and rhetoric he used seemed seemed really kind of extreme. And so I was wondering, was there any pushback against him for saying that? And maintaining this, you know, lock down for the unvaccinated as a policy and from the outside at least it seems kind of upsetting that that this demonization of others, and we've done. We've done it here too. But this demonization of others has been tolerated or even encouraged. Adam Creighton: Yes, look, it's a it's a sad insight into. Human nature, I think this kind of pile on to minorities which. In this case manifested itself. In the direction of the cycle unvaccinated, you know whatever that means given they wear out in four months. And so I mean, I don't really know what that means. But but yeah, it's it's depressing and you know, just specifically answer. No, there wasn't much of a pushback. I mean, you know mostly. That leader Michael Gunner, the leader of NT. You know he was just seen as as you know, making the tough decisions, so to speak. You know. And and at the end of the day, Australian politicians are extremely sensitive to public opinion because we have compulsory voting in Australia, everyone has to vote. So what the average person thinks or what the median person thinks. It's very important and they do all their their focus groups and their polling. So pretty much Australia's political leaders just say what they think everyone thinks. So the sad thing is that. Yeah, Michael Gunner said that because he thought that that would be popular in the NT and it was. And if you look at if you look down at Victoria where the premier Dan Andrews I mean he overall presided over the strictest and in my view. Most disastrous regime in Australia throughout you know, throughout the pandemic I mean I, I would say, is the greatest peacetime disaster in Australian history of Victoria. He is now, you know, his popularity is like 60% and his approval rating 60%. And there's going to be an election later this year and he's expected to easily win. So that gives you an idea of how popular these measures. You know has been and. And it's depressing that people cheer for for these sorts of measures. You know, like I say, it isn't insight into human nature and how fragile human rights and and classical liberalism are. I mean, people don't really care much for it. And I think it's been a wake up call that many people on the right of politics who have liked in the past. To imagine that they are the people's champion that they're, you know that they're kind of up against the elites, and they're arguing the case for the ordinary man. Well, the ordinary man for the past two years has cheered for massive restrictions, and the suspension of basic human rights. And and for cracking down on free speech, all of these things are the ordinary man has wanted. And that's quite sad. I mean, for me, it's a very. It's a very sad outcome of this whole thing. Ian Miller: It absolutely is. It's a lot of great insights there. I think that you hit the nail on the head and it's very upsetting to see. And I think we've learned a lot. We've all learned a lot about this over the last couple of years. Maybe kind of changed some preconceived notions about who people actually are and how they think. So I wanted to get your thoughts on on what the end game is. For a lot of these policies in Australia, I mean you know a lot of the United States has has gone back to normal, at least temporarily. Are they going to kind of permanently reorganize their society around COVID policy, or will things really go back to you know, 2019 normal there? Adam Creighton: Well look, I think 2019 is going to be some way off. And when I say that. Probably at least a year. And it's been heartening. Looking at the success of U.S. states that have dumped all of their mandates. I think that's that's an inspiration and an example to Australians that we don't have to have all these restrictions. And also probably even more so because the UK resonates more in Australian culture than the US of obvious historical reasons. And the fact that the UK has pretty much dumped every single regulation as far as I know, I mean the whole lot, vaccine passports, all of it. I think that is very kind of that's inspiring, or that's. That offers me some hope that that Australian states will do the same but but right now you know there there are still vaccine mandates effectively in Australia. I mean, I like how the various government websites they typically say at the top that are vaccination is optional in Australia and you don't have to get a vaccine. But then they say except if you work in these following industries which is about 40% of the population. So it's not really. It's not really optional at all. So look the end game, I hope. Is that people get sick of it and look just on the current war between Russia and Ukraine, which is obviously a shocking tragedy. But I think it's making people realize that. Look, you know, here's a group of people in Ukraine suffering enormous hardship. You know, real hardship, and you know why on Earth are we still worried about this ridiculous in virus with a, you know, with the fatality rate of nought point nought or whatever it is percent. Uhm, you know. So I so I think maybe the fact the news has shifted so much to another issue are people will forget about COVID and won't pay as much attention to the you know the various COVID dashboards and counters and all that sort of rubbish that we've been subjected to for two years, right? Ian Miller: It puts it all in perspective a bit Adam Creighton: Exactly. That's what I was trying to say. Yeah, yeah, it absolutely does. At least hopefully does. Ian Miller: Speaking of of kind of ridiculous perspective, lack of perspective, what was your sense of what people there thought about the Novak Djokovic situation? I mean, the news cycle moves so quickly. I think people have already forgotten that it even happened, but. He was, he was literally kicked out of the country after it seemed like he followed all the rules. So were people there supportive of it? Or did they see it for being kind of a political stunt? What? What was the response there? Adam Creighton: Well look, I think I think more more informed observers realized it was a political stunt that worked in the government's favor. But you know, by and large it was extremely popular to kick him out. I mean, I think there were polls showing 70 or 80% support for kicking him out, which is which by any poll is a lot. That's a huge majority. Or when any political question is asked, as you know. And it was. The interesting thing for me is most people realize the rules were ridiculous because COVID was rife in Australia at the time. So, so the argument that we couldn't let him in, in case he had COVID was just obviously stupid, so people tended to say that, well, look, they're our rules, and they might be stupid, but he's gotta follow the rules like everyone else. Uh, yeah, I don't know others who said well he did follow the rules, but it was a disagreement between the Victorian government and the federal government in Canberra. The Victorian government, somewhat ironically, said that he could come and then after he arrived, the federal government realized that there's actually some box or something that he didn't take properly from their point of view, and so then they. They kicked him out using this arbitrary kind of immigration power that that that the minister has in emergencies to basically kick out whoever he wants. I mean, it's a it's a completely arbitrary power, and it goes back to a point I made earlier about the power of Australian governments. I mean, there is no human rights bill or act in Australia, so a lot of these laws that have been on the books for decades. In many cases they have little tiny clauses that no one ever paid any attention to. You know, kind of part 25, part 4, BCD etc. Which say that in an emergency you know the Minister can do whatever he wants, you know, and I think we've seen a lot of those powers used. In Australia, and that was one of them. Yeah, I hope that that's a lesson we all learn to that if we need to kind of curtail these emergency powers because it it really can get out of hand incredibly quickly with politicians. Ian Miller: Absolutely, yeah, so moving back to the US, we've seen recently a lot of these jurisdictions and in counties, cities, states lifting mask, mandates, other kind of COVID policies seemingly out of nowhere all at once. And there's been a lot of conversation on the Internet about, you know, there's a polling data showing it's unpopular. Memos going out so you're in Washington and and from what you've heard, do you think political concerns are the main reason for all these dramatic changes? Adam Creighton: Yeah, well, look. I think you know, I think political concerns were the reason for them being introduced in the 1st place. I mean, I was talking to someone reasonably senior at the DC government. Actually about four, maybe four or five months ago, and even they said, and I was surprised that they said it. Actually, that that mask mandates were purely performative. I mean like that wasn't the official view, he was just an employee, but nevertheless a fairly and senior employee. And so I thought, oh, that's really interesting that someone sent you in the DC government thinks that this whole thing is performative, but look to answer more specifically. It was a great coincidence, wasn't it? That they all ended by the state of the Union speech on Tuesday? It did happen very, very quickly. My sense is there was there was a lot of you know that that there was political polling involved in this decision because. I mean, if you look at the DC, for instance, they introduced a mandate for vaccines honestly five weeks ago or so and they went to the great trouble of rolling it out, you know, and there is significant at administrative effort. I mean, someone who's once worked in government. I know these things, you know, take a lot of effort to roll out these new policies and then it was gone. Just five weeks later, which which could not have been the intention when it was introduced. So therefore I do think that the polls have changed quite dramatically across the US, and you're seeing all these governors. And mayors and so forth. Dump these policies quite regardless of the fact that there's still 1500 people dying a day in the United States, which is, you know, almost near the peak, right? I mean, it's you know it's high. It's a high level and that could be used to justify keeping the restrictions in place, but it's not. So I think people are moving on, you know, the great test, of course is gonna be if there's a 7th wave between now and November. That's going to be very, very interesting to watch. Ian Miller: Yeah, and that's something I wanted to ask you about as well. You know, do you think that in areas like DC, California, New York, I mean, obviously somewhere like Florida, they’re done, but, uh, in in DC and all these other areas, will we see a return to to the vaccine passports in the widespread mask mandates? If there's a new variant, or like you say it's 7th wave in the next couple of months, Adam Creighton: Yeah, look, I mean, I just. It's hard to know. I mean, I don't think you'll ever see lockdowns in that sort of thing again, you might see mass come back, but even then. A lot of people are just so sick of it, I don't. It will depend on the polling, of course, because the midterms are approaching, and that's a particularly important time to be popular. So if people are over it, then I don't think they will come back in and then what's gonna be interesting is trying to see the justification on the democratic side of politics as to why they're not back in. Of course they're gonna have to say, oh, it's different science or whatever, but the cold hard reality is that it will be pure politics. And if that happens, if that occurs I mean it will be. Well, it'll be good for our side of the argument if you like. I mean not that that's you know, much of a savior of a society, but it will show you. It will illustrate very clearly that this whole thing, all the restrictions were really political, were really about politics, not about so-called science at all. But look, we don't know yet. You know, maybe they will come back in. Who knows? I mean, I certainly hope they don't. But yeah, we just have to wait and see. And it's a it's a crystal ball on that one. I don't know. Ian Miller: Yeah, so so much of this is so performative. You kind of mentioned that a minute ago where you see the policy is you get on an airplane, you put a mask on, you land in Florida literally never wear a mask for a week that you're there on vacation. People that live in New York and New Jersey and DC. But then you put the mask back on for that. That two hour flight. Adam Creighton: You know it's become like a virtue signaling someone called it a MAGA mask for sorry, MAGA hat for liberals. Yeah, I mean it's yeah, it's it's a bit like that and you know what's just just on the mask to dwell. I mean, what's extraordinary is even the doyens of public health like Leana Wen have said that their performative cloth masks are performative, but overwhelmingly, that's what people still wear. It just it's extraordinary, like why, anyway? Yeah I go on. Yeah, it's now. I've appreciate that it's it is crazy when he when he really sit down and think about it.Ian Miller: I wanted to get your thoughts obviously right for a major media outlet in the Australian. That's that's significant paper and so have you felt any pressure writing for them to cover COVID in a particular way? Or have you been able to kind of say what you think or write about what you want? Adam Creighton: Well, actually no, and this is a good opportunity for me to to kind of give a shout out to my employer a News Corp, which has been extremely supportive of. We actually throughout the whole thing. They've never said to write about this or or don't write about that. You know so. So no, I haven't. I mean, I, I haven't I come under pressure from from any editors on COVID. The only pressure is is probably from other journalists. Not not not just at News Corp, but throughout the Australian media industry. They've been very pro restriction, and so there's been a lot of vicious. You know vicious attacks on me. You know mainly from from outspoken members of the general public, but also from other journalists, which I found very, very depressing because I never liked to attack other journalists, even if I vehemently disagree with them. Personally I mean. Because, you know, there's a. There's a. There's a shrinking bunch of us. It's a hard job and you know I don't think that we should be attacking each other personally, but. So the pressure has come from, you know, from other journalists to conform and. And what's worried me is how so many journalists are? You know, basically became cheerleaders for the government through through this. And I I thought that that was very unusual given what the role of the fourth estate should be, and certainly not to to cheer on extraordinary restrictions on human rights, right? So that's so, yeah, so so the pressure has come from the groupthink, not from my employer, which has been very supportive. Ian Miller: Yeah, that's that's great to hear, and I've I've literally have made that exact point many times about that. Journalism is as I understood it was supposed to be kind of speaking truth to power and and questioning authority. And it seems like a lot of people have not held up to that standard in the last couple years. So you wrote a piece back in December, basically saying that you caught COVID and it was no big deal. And if you're on Twitter, many of us have seen you know these these 20 plus long tweet threads from from Twitter doctors or. You know people with a blue check mark describing how they you know their their experience with COVID, and if they coughed 2 more times today than they before, or something equally absurd. So so why did they talk about COVID like that? Do you think is it? Is it just for the the likes and the retweets and the attention?Adam Creighton: In the column I just kind of, you know, made a lot of it and just stressed the fact that. This is the experience for 99% of people at least who have COVID and. And you know, I was attacked by including by lots of other journalists for that column. You know, quite viciously. And you know, I, I really don't understand why. I guess it was the blue checks look. I think I think amongst the blue checks. You know who are largely journalists and there's. A disproportionate number of authoritarians and virtue, signallers and moralizers, and intellectuals. And you know, if you read Hayek, or any of those other serious thinkers, you know, that's what that's what. He argues, that those sorts of people. The authoritarians are hugely overrepresented in the intellectual class. And I think that's that's what you've seen. In the COVID experience, and I think it explains largely why so many journalists have barracked for more government control and have screamed and abused people who don't line up with what the mob want or think. And you know, it's it's extremely sad. Ian Miller: So another column you recently wrote was about the state of the Union, which just happened here a few days ago, and so I had a few questions about it. First of all, and we kind of touched on this, but how convenient was the timing that all the masks in Congress were removed right before his speech? And also, what did you think of it and what did he get wrong? What was kind of what we're hoping to to express in that column? And more importantly, how well are the Iranian people holding up against Vladimir Putin? Adam Creighton: That was. That was very funny. I must say the fact that Biden instead of Ukrainian and he said it quite clearly too like it wasn't like it was a you know it could have been one or the other. It it was definitely Iranian and but look I mean that was that was just a reflection of the bumbling and fumbling nature of the delivery. And you know, people say that that doesn't matter, but look I think it does. I mean he's the leader of the free world. He's been a politician for a senior politician for more than 40 years and he must have rehearsed that multiple times. And, uh. And he still you know it. It it you know he he gave it. Very poorly, I would argue and but but of course it's not just that it's the content too. I mean, it was, you know, it was a real opportunity. I thought for the Democrats to, you know, shift their political direction. And let's face it, their political direction has delivered him the lowest approval rating. Almost of any president in history. So clearly the political direction is not a success. You know whether you think it's right or wrong. It's not a success and I was just shocked by the fact that it was all the same talking points from last year. You know about build back. Better about infrastructure. There were no new announcements in the speech to, you know, to kind of take the media by surprise. The only new announcement was in the foreign policy part, which was which was actually quite a small part of the speech. I was surprised about that too where he banned Russian flights in and out of the US, but that's that's a tokenistic negligible policy. There was really nothing new on the foreign policy front or the domestic front and on COVID, which of course is what we're talking about here. I was particularly surprised because here was an opportunity to just say, look, let's say. We've we've beaten it. We've done it. It's over, you know. And and all our wonderful measures have worked. I mean, that's what I would have done. I would have said look, the measures have worked. We've done it. Rah rah, let's move on. But no, we talked about new variants. I mean, I couldn't believe it. He talked about new variants. He talked about masking. In fact, masking got more mention than China, which I thought was extraordinary and and testing. I thought, Oh my God, do people want to hear about that? I mean, I certainly don't. But as we discussed earlier, the polls suggest a lot of Americans don't want to hear that either. So I I thought that was very weird, so look. I mean, I gave it a five out of 10 at best. Uhm, I don't think it's gonna help him in a way I thought it might have helped him in the polls. Ian Miller: Yeah. And Speaking of that, and it was kind of my last question I had for you. You know the conversation is definitely shifted over time in the United States, but a lot of other countries are still very much still in the throes of of mandates and and vaccine, passports and international travels is not the same as it was. You can't just hop on a plane and land in Paris without jumping through hoops and filling out paperwork and all this other stuff. So where do we think we go from here is that is that going to become a permanent feature now is that the new taking your shoes off at the airport? Or is that gonna Adam Creighton: Hopefully not. In Paris I. I'm kind of itching to get over to Europe actually, and I I kind of have I keep putting it off because of just all of the administrative drama with going the testing on this side. The testing on that side, you know I'd be forced to get a booster, which I don't really want to get. I mean, I'll probably be compelled to because it'll be the rule. But you know, I've had COVID, so I figure I don't need the booster, at least for quite awhile. But I understand the French Government I think requires it. So yeah, so that's that's kind of. I've been on my mind but just just in general with all the lockdowns and interventions look, I mean again, you know we kind of discussed this earlier I. I hope people just get sick of it and kind of move on to the next issue, which may or may not be this tragedy in Ukraine which is dominating the media right now. I mean, I think I think one of the funny things is that a lot of the public health cheer squad. A public health cheer squad are feeling very lonely or ignored right now because the media is moved on to something else and so I hope that we do. Just move on and they don't come back. I mean lockdowns in particular I think, have been such a disaster that I expect the next two or three years there'll be more and more academic research coming out showing just what a disaster they were, and so I don't suspect that they'll be coming back. But As for vaccines in masks and that sort of thing because they're. So called relatively low cost restrictions. Supposedly, I think they're more likely to come back than the lockdowns so but look, you know, we've just had two years, which has been an extraordinary learning experience about ourselves, about our friends and colleagues and about governments. And you know it'll take years and years to to kind of assess what was good and bad out of it. And you know, frankly, from my point of view, most of it was bad, but there's certainly lots of assessing to do. Ian MIller: Yeah, well I that was great. Thank you so much for all your answers. Thank you so much for your time. Yeah please everybody go follow Adam on Twitter. It's Adam under score, Creighton and and check out his work at the Australian. It's it's fantastic and he's always posting new interesting stories. So please go read those. And yeah thank you again for doing this. Adam Creighton: No worries in and I hope the book is a bestseller. Ian Miller: Appreciate it. This is a public episode. If you’d like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit ianmsc.substack.com/subscribe

In this episode, Darsh and Altamash highlight the lessons they learned from 3 guests: Catharine Arnston, MBA Jason Ferruggia Tracy Duhs, PhD Resources mentioned in this episode: John Ioannidis on The Drive: Bad Science Johns Berardi Show: Science Police Tracy Duh Podcast with Molecular Hydrogen Andrew Huberman post about cold exposure tapsafe.org EWG tap water database Studies mentioned in this episode: Molecular Hydrogen as a Novel Protective Agent against Pre-Symptomatic Diseases (PMID: 34281264) Spirulina and Ulcerative Colitis (PMID: 34107141) Spirulina as adjuvant therapy for antioxidant benefit (PMID: 34235823) Steps per day and All-Cause Mortality (PMID: 34477847) Daily Step Count and Postprandial Fat Metabolism (PMID: 33105387)

There's no there's no doubt science has advanced humanity's store of useful, reliable knowledge. Still, sometimes scientists, groups or whole fields get off track. Stanford professor John Ioannidis is famous for diagnosing why medical research had started producing too many unreliable results. Statistical errors, lack of cross checks, and cutting corners were leading to bad science and bad medicine. But when he applied his critical eye to pandemic science, instead of praise, he got attacks. Now, he's diagnosed a new problem – a breakdown of civility and communal spirit. “Follow the Science" is produced, written, and hosted by Faye Flam, with funding by the Society for Professional Journalists. Today's episode was edited by Seth Gliksman with music by Kyle Imperatore. If you'd like to hear more "Follow the Science," please like, follow, and subscribe!

One voice that has been an island of sanity among the propaganda spewing scientists for the last year and a half has been that of John Ioannidis. A physician, scientist, researcher, Ioannidis is one of the most published and influential scientists in the world. Many laymen and scientists alike first discovered him from his influential 2005 paper "Why Most Published Research Findings are False", bringing attention to the fact that a significant amount of published medical research papers...

In this second interview with Dr. David Robert Grimes, author of the indispensably excellent book, The Irrational Ape, I began by asking him about the reductive fallacy, before moving onto a related essentialising bias known as the No True Scotsman fallacy. I then asked my guest about two woefully widespread mental shortcuts, namely the anecdotal fallacy and the post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, which literally means “after this therefore because of this,” but is often stated as correlation does not equal causation. Dr. Grimes also reminded listeners that the plural of anecdote is never data. We spent some time discussing various issues pertaining to statistics, including the difference between relative and absolute risk, the nature of statistical significance, the meaning of a P-value, and the so-called replication crisis in social science and in biomedical research. I then asked Dr. Grimes to explain sensitivity and specificity, two crucially important attributes pertinent to all tests for diseases. Understandably, these concepts have gained even greater relevance during the Covid pandemic. In The Irrational Ape, Dr. Grimes draws from a 2005 paper by John Ioannidis called ‘Why Most Published Research Findings are False' to provide six guidelines to assess the validity of research findings, which we spent some time discussing. I also asked him about some ways to distinguish between science and pseudoscience. At the time we recorded the interview, Dr. Grimes was about to pen a piece for The Observer about the Wuhan Lab Leak theory, averring that the virus was engineered at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, which he argues is a conspiracy theory that violates the principle of Occam's Razor. He helpfully explained what this is for those who might not know and is another handy weapon in one's critical thinking armoury. Near the end of this once again insightful and enjoyable interview, my guest pointed out how liberating it can be to admit you do not know something. As he said, “don't believe anything until the evidence is in,” which is a reminder of the kind of humility and intellectual honesty we should all try to cultivate. Official website: https://www.davidrobertgrimes.com/ Twitter account: http://www.twitter.com/drg1985 Instagram account: https://www.instagram.com/david_robert_grimes/ Buy The Irrational Ape: https://www.amazon.co.uk/Irrational-Ape-Flawed-Critical-Thinking/dp/1471178250 https://www.waterstones.com/books/search/term/the+irrational+ape+david+robert+grimes Dr. Grimes' article about the Wuhan Lab Leak Theory: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/jun/13/newly-respectable-wuhan-lab-theory-remains-fanciful Twitter account for Skeptically Curious: https://twitter.com/SkepticallyCur1 Patreon page for Skeptically Curious: https://www.patreon.com/skepticallycurious

In dieser Folge machen sich die Science Cops unbeliebt: Sie ermitteln sowohl gegen die bekannte Sat.1-Moderatorin Marlene Lufen als auch gegen den renommierten Top-Mediziner John Ioannidis von der Stanford Universität. Beide suggerieren: Corona-Lockdowns seien falsch. Stimmt das? Und was würde ohne Lockdown passieren?

Our Guest, Dr. Steven Novella discusses a recent article in The Atlantic in which researcher John Ioannidis shows that 40% of papers published in top medical journals are either wrong or make exaggerated claims (and those are the top journals!). He also discusses the difference between Science and Evidence based medicine. Also, Zombies: are they epidemiologically possible? Steven Novella is an academic clinical neurologist at the Yale University School of Medicine. He is the host of the Skeptics Guide to the Universe podcast, author of the Neurologica blog, and co-editor of the Science Based Medicine blog. Sped up the speakers by [1.0416666666666667, 1.0]

Series two of The Recommended Dose kicks off with polymath and poet, Dr John Ioannidis. Recognised by The Atlantic as one the most influential scientists alive today, he's a global authority on genetics, medical research and the nature of scientific inquiry itself – among many other things. A professor at Stanford University, John has authored close to 1,000 academic papers and served on the editorial boards of 30 of the world's top journals. He is best known for seriously challenging the status quo. His trailblazing 2005 paper 'Why Most Published Research Findings Are False' has been viewed over 2.5 million times and is the most cited article in the history of PLoS Medicine. In it, he argues that most medical research is biased, overblown or simply wrong. Here, he talks to Ray about the far-reaching implications of these findings for people both inside and outside the world of health. While most closely associated with exploring cutting-edge conundrums across science, genomics and even economics, John is also something of a humanist. He'd be right at home with the philosophers of ancient Greece, seeking as he does to find answers to the big questions of the day in science and medicine, as well as in nature and narratives. A voracious reader himself, John has a lifelong love of ‘swimming in books' and has penned seven literary works of his own in Greek – two of which have been nominated for prestigious literary prizes. And fittingly, he finds inspiration for his myriad of multi-disciplinary pursuits on Antipaxi, one of Greece's most beautiful and secluded islands. He shares some of his distinctive logic, reason - and even a little of his poetry - on this very special episode of The Recommended Dose, produced by Cochrane Australia and co-published with the BMJ. You'll find our show notes and a full transcript of the show at http://australia.cochrane.org/trd