My podcast guest this week is a lung doctor and a medical research scientist whom I’ve known since we were both little kids. Katie Hisert, MD, PhD, has an even wider scope than most experts on how microbes like SARS-CoV-2 virus operate, having observed them both from the hospital bedside and in the laboratory.
I've reached the point where anyone who sounds confident in answering these kinds of questions loses credibility for me. While Dr. Hisert appropriately hedges on some issues, she came across as overly dismissive of some credible points and overly confident in some establishment narratives. I just want the CDC and WHO to come out and say something like:
"We have no freaking idea what we're doing. We're completely winging it. While we may know more than the general public about diseases, we know nothing about the adverse social, psychological, economic, and political impacts of our recommended policies, none of which are formulated through anything resembling a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. And our agencies are generally populated by conformist bureaucrats rather than the best and the brightest of the science community, so take everything we say with a grain of salt. Take in information from a wide range of credible sources and use your best judgment to make the best decisions for you and your family. It is pretty clear that, while we still recommend vaccines, they are far less safe and effective than we led and continue to lead you to believe. Other repurposed drugs may be highly effective and safe, but we don't really know 19 months into the pandemic because good trials cost lots of money and there're no profits to be made on these. The best thing you can do is eat a healthy diet and exercise. We have no business forcing any policies upon you because, again, we're generally clueless. I mean, it took us like over a year before we even figured out the importance of aerosol transmission, which should have been obvious from the very beginning. Nature is cruel. Everyone dies. Some die prematurely. We just have to learn to accept that unfortunate reality and get on with our lives. Best of luck!"
then did Katie say (20min) for masks observational data is acceptable but not for ivermectin (india, mexico, comparison of African nations use vs non use, french long term care facilities which experienced a scabies outbreak in spring of 2020 used IVM and saw far lower deaths)?
Also, yes citizens in SE Asia wear masks due to density of living and prevention of infectious disease, but also because of pollution = simply making the point their mask use is not exclusively about Sars 1, Sars 2...infectious diseases, but other reasons.
To say that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is "just like the MMR vaccine" and is as safe as all other vaccines we've been accustomed to taking is shockingly incorrect. It still uses new gene editing techniques to replace part of the virus' genetic material. Not at all like all other common vaccines and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been widely used in the global population before.
Overall I appreciated this conversation and learned from it. But I just want to point out something that is endemic (pun intended) to defenders of the mainstream medical community like Hisert. There is a bait and switch. When presented with the argument that major medical organizations like the CDC haven't been consistent, Hisert falls back on the claim that science is a messy process, and early on in the pandemic especially we were stabbing in the dark since so little was known. She also often emphasizes rudimentary points, like that anecdotes are not data.
However, the serious critics of the medical community (regarding Ivermectin and other things) understand how science works. The problem isn't that the CDC was/is inconsistent per se, it's that the reasons for that inconsistency are often based on considerations that have nothing to do with science. So it's not that critics are failing to appreciate the messiness of science, rather they are criticizing what they take to be extraneous, usually political, motivations. Woodhouse mentions the tailoring of info by the CDC, treating the public as children. Obviously the lab leak theory is another example, that was probably dismissed almost entirely because Trump and then other republicans said it. Another example is the initial prioritizing of essential workers over older Americans based on considerations of social justice, when the CDC's own data said the approach would cause more people to die. Or, we could go back to the greenlighting of the summer protests since it was a cause supported by many in the medical community, while just weeks before that others had been shamed for going to beaches by that same community. I could go on...
To say "hey we're just working through the science, obviously we're going to get some things wrong sometimes" while also making decisions that are clearly political/partisan, is not a good look for credibility.
Just ask yourself, what if Ivermectin had been first proposed by, say, some giant of the left like Noam Chomsky? Then let's say the story had been picked up and Ivermectin was promoted by the usual players in left wing media and politics, from Seth Meyers to AOC. Would the response from the medical community have been the same?
By the way, I am vaccinated and would never have asked a question like this before, but after the lab leak thing, like many others, I am unfortunately becoming more and more skeptical.
I thought this was an excellent and informative episode, I'm really happy to have subscribed. Not a question for Katie, but one reason I'm here is because I think I had a similar journey to Leighton regarding Dark Horse -- I've enjoyed their content, found them reliable and interesting voices, and have since been caught in a bit of a crisis from their ivermectin/vaxx stuff. I'm happily vaxxed and based on everything I know think it's miraculously effective against covid and only causes harm at rates so small you would have more reason to be afraid of blood clots from birth control. However, I've also grown to trust Bret and Heather, and the past few months have been the most visceral cognitive dissonance I think I've experienced in recent memory. It felt like I was torn between two options: either the entire world is insane and pharma is committing a genocidal cover-up, or Bret and Heather, two people I deeply trust, are frauds.
What tipped me over the edge, however, has been Bret and Heather's refusal to host or engage with outside voices. No debates with anyone outside their ideological bubble, except for some twitter spats that don't resolve anything. Their inability to leave the shelter of their bubble has given me cause to doubt them, enough to think that it's more likely ivermectin isn't the wonder drug they think and pharma isn't engaged in the biggest crime against humanity in history.
This brings me to my current quandary...I'm a huge believer in free speech and I hate tech censorship. I think Shant Mesrobian's coverage of Joe Rogan sums up my views on these issues the best. However, and obviously I'm biased, but suppose Bret and Heather are completely, utterly wrong about ivermectin. And suppose this isn't a harmless conjecture, maybe it's actually resulting in preventable deaths in the form of people not getting the vaccine or poisoning themselves with ivermectin. What are the limits of free speech and ideological capture in this case? I've always laughed at the complaint that 'Joe Rogan provides a platform', but now I have friends and family comparing ivermectin to poison and saying Rogan promoted it to millions, and for the first time I don't have a cheeky response for them.
What about natural immunity for those that had Covid either symptomatic or a-symptomatic? Why would folks that have had Covid need the vaccine? How is masking the general population with non N95 masks and without PPE training effective? What studies show masks are effective for general everyday use?
Since she's a cardiologist I was really hoping to hear more about why the vaccines seem to negatively affect the heart in some people. My friend's (otherwise healthy, 30yr old female) fiance had to have open heart surgery after getting the vaccine due to myocarditis.
I've reached the point where anyone who sounds confident in answering these kinds of questions loses credibility for me. While Dr. Hisert appropriately hedges on some issues, she came across as overly dismissive of some credible points and overly confident in some establishment narratives. I just want the CDC and WHO to come out and say something like:
"We have no freaking idea what we're doing. We're completely winging it. While we may know more than the general public about diseases, we know nothing about the adverse social, psychological, economic, and political impacts of our recommended policies, none of which are formulated through anything resembling a rigorous cost-benefit analysis. And our agencies are generally populated by conformist bureaucrats rather than the best and the brightest of the science community, so take everything we say with a grain of salt. Take in information from a wide range of credible sources and use your best judgment to make the best decisions for you and your family. It is pretty clear that, while we still recommend vaccines, they are far less safe and effective than we led and continue to lead you to believe. Other repurposed drugs may be highly effective and safe, but we don't really know 19 months into the pandemic because good trials cost lots of money and there're no profits to be made on these. The best thing you can do is eat a healthy diet and exercise. We have no business forcing any policies upon you because, again, we're generally clueless. I mean, it took us like over a year before we even figured out the importance of aerosol transmission, which should have been obvious from the very beginning. Nature is cruel. Everyone dies. Some die prematurely. We just have to learn to accept that unfortunate reality and get on with our lives. Best of luck!"
Is this the HCQ study Katie Hisert is referring to - the one rushed out by the Lancet which they had to RETRACT? - https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2820%2931180-6/fulltext
then did Katie say (20min) for masks observational data is acceptable but not for ivermectin (india, mexico, comparison of African nations use vs non use, french long term care facilities which experienced a scabies outbreak in spring of 2020 used IVM and saw far lower deaths)?
Also, yes citizens in SE Asia wear masks due to density of living and prevention of infectious disease, but also because of pollution = simply making the point their mask use is not exclusively about Sars 1, Sars 2...infectious diseases, but other reasons.
To say that the Johnson & Johnson vaccine is "just like the MMR vaccine" and is as safe as all other vaccines we've been accustomed to taking is shockingly incorrect. It still uses new gene editing techniques to replace part of the virus' genetic material. Not at all like all other common vaccines and, to the best of my knowledge, has not been widely used in the global population before.
It makes one wonder how much else this pulmonologist is wrong about: https://www.mayoclinic.org/johnson-johnson-adenovirus-vaccine-explained/vid-20510091
Overall I appreciated this conversation and learned from it. But I just want to point out something that is endemic (pun intended) to defenders of the mainstream medical community like Hisert. There is a bait and switch. When presented with the argument that major medical organizations like the CDC haven't been consistent, Hisert falls back on the claim that science is a messy process, and early on in the pandemic especially we were stabbing in the dark since so little was known. She also often emphasizes rudimentary points, like that anecdotes are not data.
However, the serious critics of the medical community (regarding Ivermectin and other things) understand how science works. The problem isn't that the CDC was/is inconsistent per se, it's that the reasons for that inconsistency are often based on considerations that have nothing to do with science. So it's not that critics are failing to appreciate the messiness of science, rather they are criticizing what they take to be extraneous, usually political, motivations. Woodhouse mentions the tailoring of info by the CDC, treating the public as children. Obviously the lab leak theory is another example, that was probably dismissed almost entirely because Trump and then other republicans said it. Another example is the initial prioritizing of essential workers over older Americans based on considerations of social justice, when the CDC's own data said the approach would cause more people to die. Or, we could go back to the greenlighting of the summer protests since it was a cause supported by many in the medical community, while just weeks before that others had been shamed for going to beaches by that same community. I could go on...
To say "hey we're just working through the science, obviously we're going to get some things wrong sometimes" while also making decisions that are clearly political/partisan, is not a good look for credibility.
Just ask yourself, what if Ivermectin had been first proposed by, say, some giant of the left like Noam Chomsky? Then let's say the story had been picked up and Ivermectin was promoted by the usual players in left wing media and politics, from Seth Meyers to AOC. Would the response from the medical community have been the same?
By the way, I am vaccinated and would never have asked a question like this before, but after the lab leak thing, like many others, I am unfortunately becoming more and more skeptical.
I thought this was an excellent and informative episode, I'm really happy to have subscribed. Not a question for Katie, but one reason I'm here is because I think I had a similar journey to Leighton regarding Dark Horse -- I've enjoyed their content, found them reliable and interesting voices, and have since been caught in a bit of a crisis from their ivermectin/vaxx stuff. I'm happily vaxxed and based on everything I know think it's miraculously effective against covid and only causes harm at rates so small you would have more reason to be afraid of blood clots from birth control. However, I've also grown to trust Bret and Heather, and the past few months have been the most visceral cognitive dissonance I think I've experienced in recent memory. It felt like I was torn between two options: either the entire world is insane and pharma is committing a genocidal cover-up, or Bret and Heather, two people I deeply trust, are frauds.
What tipped me over the edge, however, has been Bret and Heather's refusal to host or engage with outside voices. No debates with anyone outside their ideological bubble, except for some twitter spats that don't resolve anything. Their inability to leave the shelter of their bubble has given me cause to doubt them, enough to think that it's more likely ivermectin isn't the wonder drug they think and pharma isn't engaged in the biggest crime against humanity in history.
This brings me to my current quandary...I'm a huge believer in free speech and I hate tech censorship. I think Shant Mesrobian's coverage of Joe Rogan sums up my views on these issues the best. However, and obviously I'm biased, but suppose Bret and Heather are completely, utterly wrong about ivermectin. And suppose this isn't a harmless conjecture, maybe it's actually resulting in preventable deaths in the form of people not getting the vaccine or poisoning themselves with ivermectin. What are the limits of free speech and ideological capture in this case? I've always laughed at the complaint that 'Joe Rogan provides a platform', but now I have friends and family comparing ivermectin to poison and saying Rogan promoted it to millions, and for the first time I don't have a cheeky response for them.
What about natural immunity for those that had Covid either symptomatic or a-symptomatic? Why would folks that have had Covid need the vaccine? How is masking the general population with non N95 masks and without PPE training effective? What studies show masks are effective for general everyday use?
Since she's a cardiologist I was really hoping to hear more about why the vaccines seem to negatively affect the heart in some people. My friend's (otherwise healthy, 30yr old female) fiance had to have open heart surgery after getting the vaccine due to myocarditis.