This one is against rationalists because when Scott wrote his review that masks could be effective many of us trusted it.
I don't blame Scott for failing this one because doing review of hundreds of studies is hard and one person can hardly do it. But this clearly shows that rationalist way of thinking has no special formula, they can be easily mistaken and fall by accepting general consensus just like any other person.
I was impressed when Scott did his review about masks. I trusted it because there was no other clear evidence available. Cochrane hadn't done its review yet and NICE guidelines were silent on the issue. We vaguely knew from previous studies that masks are not effective, The WHO had said so. Suddenly everyone flipped and it was not because the evidence had changed. We simply wanted to believe that masks work and we mocked those who said “no evidence that masks help”.
Even with the belief that masks work, I never wanted mask mandates. I preferred recommendations only, so that no one was penalized or prohibited entry, travel etc if one doesn't want to wear mask. Scott unwillingly had been a catalyst for governments to introduce mask mandates and all this heavy handed approach has been for nothing.
Now we are back to square one, the evidence about masks is weak and it does not support their use even in hospital settings. We can all reflect now what happened in between during these 2 or 3 years. When I realized that Scott's review is clearly insufficient as evidence, I asked some doctors if they have any better evidence that masks work. Instead of getting answer I was told not to be silly, parachutes don't need RCTs and accused me of being covid denier for nor reason. Many so-called experts were making the same mistake as Scott by looking at the issue too emotionally. It is time to get back to reality and admit that it was a mistake and we should have judged the issue with more rational mind.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
The likelihood of risk from black bean extract may be lower but not entirely zero. The medicine indicated for psoriasis have high chance of benefit, therefore some potential of harm is usually accepted. But if you don't know if the treatment has any effect, then even small harms are unnecessary.
And it is not a right way to think that black bean extract cannot harm because people have used them in food for so long. The mucosal immunity in the gut works differently from the one on the skin, so we cannot exclude that it is can harm the skin. Yesterday, I got a warning from oculist to not recommend chamomile extract for washing eyes because it can cause allergies in some people. Chamomile tea is fine and people have used chamomile extract to clean eyes for long time as well and yet it probably does nothing and can harm.
Psoriasis patient is not the same as a healthy person. We don't know how he/she would react to untested treatment. The fact that it is plant derived means little because many modern medicines are originally derived from plants. Even antibiotics came from moulds.
Masks can harm, in the UK there was a case when doctors misheard each other due to masks distorting speech and overdosed medicine and patient died. If the benefit of masks is not proven, such harms are unacceptable.
No. Sufficiently small harms don't matter. I ate black beans this week, exposing myself to the same 'small harm' that I would from eating [an appropriate quantity of] black bean extract. Obviously one wouldn't put it in your eyes. I think psoriasis patients still eat black beans.
This is like "bananas can harm. Someone tripped over a banana and had a severe concussion".
No, it is not like bananas at all. Some hospital are ending the policy of requiring masks already.
With the treatment for psoriasis, I meant topical treatment in this case.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link