COVID-19 Research, Drug trials and Pathophysiology

There were early suggestions of efficacy based on low COVID rates in areas with high use of anti-malarials.

 

No there was some research showing potential,action in vitro but no research showing an in vivo effect

 

What? The woman who is currently employed by the oil industry?

 

I'm talking about data covering countries and regions.

 

After leaving academia, Curry shifted to running the Climate Forecast Applications Network, a climate-risk consulting company whose clients include federal agencies, insurance companies, and energy companies.

 

Because the “Washington examiner is such a great source for science

 

You can confirm it by going directly to Politifact.

 

Yes, that's a problem. But the follow-up was worth doing to confirm that.

 

Meh!

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry



But beyond that Curry has been caught out time and again

But regardless she is ONE scientist - now how many scientists contributed to the IPCC reports?

 

Not to those that died

 

A number of ultimately fruitless possibilities were explored.

 

That's a remarkably stupid link. And a counter-narrative is readily available.
Roger Pielke Jr. Discovers Big Warming
2021 › 04 › 30 › roger-pielke-jr-discovers-big-warming
There has been a lot of attention paid to the pathological dynamics of the energy-govt-science ecosystem related to fossil fuel interests, I have never seen similar critiques of the role played by non-fossil fuel interests

 

The 'Wuhan Lab Leak' Theory Looks More Credible Than Ever

New York Post

 

I am NOT interested in whether or not there was a “lab leak”

The virus is here and we have to deal with it - we are just sodding lucky it did not have the mortality rate of the Hendra virus Which was one that horses and human get

https://www.health.nsw.gov.au/Infectious/factsheets/Pages/hendra_virus.aspx



Or any of the Lyssaviruses Which seems to hop from animal to human and back again with remarkable ease



https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/european-bat-lyssavirus-1

 

Okay - on your side - possibly 50 maybe if you stretch it 70 contrarian scientists - maybe

Now how many scientists have contributed to the IPCC reports?
https://www.ipcc.ch/authors/

The stats are pretty amazing

 

By Michael Crichton
Caltech Michelin Lecture January 17, 2003

". . . I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.

Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period. . . . "

Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

You still have not answered my question and thanks for the quote from a science fiction author (and a bad one at that )

 

The point is that consensus is irrelevant, and too often hides error.
Crichton was a Harvard MD. That's why CalTech invited him to lecture. Learn first, then post.

 

Collapse of the fake consensus on Covid-19 origins
Posted on May 23, 2021 by curryja | 98 comments
by Judith Curry

The concerning saga of the creation, enforcement and collapse of a ‘consensus’ on Covid-19 origins.



Continue reading →

 

The state of science is determined by consensus. Consensus shows that a claim has been tested and the results duplicated many times by many different scientists. Consensus on a new claim is achieved after due diligence.

I understand that some people prefer internet crackpots and Holiday Inn Experts, as opposed to the scientific consensus, but that is a matter of failed logic and poor critical thinking skills.

 

Simply false.

". . . In addition, let me remind you that the track record of the consensus is nothing to be proud of. Let’s review a few cases.

In past centuries, the greatest killer of women was fever following childbirth . One woman in six died of this fever. In 1795, Alexander Gordon of Aberdeen suggested that the fevers were infectious processes, and he was able to cure them. The consensus said no. In 1843, Oliver Wendell Holmes claimed puerperal fever was contagious, and presented compelling evidence. The consensus said no. In 1849, Semmelweiss demonstrated that sanitary techniques virtually eliminated puerperal fever in hospitals under his management. The consensus said he was a Jew, ignored him, and dismissed him from his post. There was in fact no agreement on puerperal fever until the start of the twentieth century. Thus the consensus took one hundred and twenty five years to arrive at the right conclusion despite the efforts of the prominent “skeptics” around the world, skeptics who were demeaned and ignored. And despite the constant ongoing deaths of women.

There is no shortage of other examples. In the 1920s in America, tens of thousands of people, mostly poor, were dying of a disease called pellagra. The consensus of scientists said it was infectious, and what was necessary was to find the “pellagra germ.” The US government asked a brilliant young investigator, Dr. Joseph Goldberger, to find the cause. Goldberger concluded that diet was the crucial factor. The consensus remained wedded to the germ theory. Goldberger demonstrated that he could induce the disease through diet. He demonstrated that the disease was not infectious by injecting the blood of a pellagra patient into himself, and his assistant. They and other volunteers swabbed their noses with swabs from pellagra patients, and swallowed capsules containing scabs from pellagra rashes in what were called “Goldberger’s filth parties.” Nobody contracted pellagra. The consensus continued to disagree with him. There was, in addition, a social factor — southern States disliked the idea of poor diet as the cause, because it meant that social reform was required. They continued to deny it until the 1920s. Result — despite a twentieth century epidemic, the consensus took years to see the light.

Probably every schoolchild notices that South America and Africa seem to fit together rather snugly, and Alfred Wegener proposed, in 1912, that the continents had in fact drifted apart. The consensus sneered at continental drift for fifty years. The theory was most vigorously denied by the great names of geology — until 1961, when it began to seem as if the sea floors were spreading. The result: it took the consensus fifty years to acknowledge what any schoolchild sees.

And shall we go on? The examples can be multiplied endlessly. Jenner and smallpox, Pasteur and germ theory. Saccharine, margarine, repressed memory, fiber and colon cancer, hormone replacement therapy. The list of consensus errors goes on and on.

Finally, I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough. Nobody says the consensus of scientists agrees that E=mc2 . Nobody says the consensus is that the sun is 93 million miles away. It would never occur to anyone to speak that way. . . . "


Aliens Cause Global Warming
Thursday, January 31st, 2019

 

No consensus is very very relevant

quoting bad science fiction authors does not make thousands of scientists wrong

 

Quotes are not necessary; they are wrong all by themselves.

 

Oh! lord! Is Roy still going?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer_(scientist)