Read on Twitter
" EXPERTS DISAGREE"...!!
This is related to a genuine questions in a prior thread about "experts" saying our testing is incorrect and has high false positives, or the Ct cutoff for the PCR is wrong, for example.
I think everyone should beware of "lone experts."
Here is why:
1/
This is related to a genuine questions in a prior thread about "experts" saying our testing is incorrect and has high false positives, or the Ct cutoff for the PCR is wrong, for example.
I think everyone should beware of "lone experts."
Here is why:
1/
By that I mean: if someone’s ideas are fringe enough that the whole of public facing active professionals in that and similar areas don’t even acknowledge what they are saying to debate it, they are likely selling you something, or
2/
2/
selling an idea.
Similarly, if a theory is actually in the ballpark, someone else in the field will be willing to toss it around.
Usually any reasonable questions and hypotheses in an area are discussed and reviewed by the experts doing that work...
3/
Similarly, if a theory is actually in the ballpark, someone else in the field will be willing to toss it around.
Usually any reasonable questions and hypotheses in an area are discussed and reviewed by the experts doing that work...
3/
so the consensus scientific opinion is an evolving truth that is questioned from different angles and debated. If something is so wacky it's not even in the discussion - that's important. All "experts" are humans and biomedical experts are not immune from also being wingnuts
4/
4/
...and conspiracy theorists - this is why getting an idea of the consensus areas and controversies among those in active practice is important. And, high qualifications in a field doesn't mean that you are qualified in areas removed from your life's work all of a sudden.
5/
5/
COVID science has been both enriched and traumatized by multidisciplinary takes on key questions - ultimately new perspectives can be really interesting but always need to triangulated with deep understandings from people whose life's work in the area under discussion.
6/
6/
As a comment on “experts”: I did 4 years in microbiology and biochemistry at university then 4 year med school and 5 years of internal medicine and infectious diseases fellowship but would defer to my microbiology trained laboratory colleagues about aspects of testing
7/
7/
because they are the direct specialists. Likewise, although I am trying to be a communicator and interpreter in COVID public education, I ask public health and epidemiology experts to verify my thoughts and understanding all the time.
The "truest" experts are the people...
8/
The "truest" experts are the people...
8/
...actually doing their jobs right now in the pandemic and they are often too busy to respond to weird theories, frankly.
All to say, experts may not all be experts, and the more certain they are, and the more they claim to be holding truth unknown to the majority...
9/
All to say, experts may not all be experts, and the more certain they are, and the more they claim to be holding truth unknown to the majority...
9/
...the more cautious you should be. Real experts are very aware of their limits and of uncertainties. Also, if much is made of a controversy but it is really a controversy between a fringe theory and the evolving consensus, they are creating uncertainty on purpose...
10/
10/
(just like the tobacco industry did in the 1970s)
Always wonder why. Are they selling a test? Selling a theory? Trying to influence an action?
Look for the angle.
And then- look for the experts who say "well, based on current studies, we think..."
@CaulfieldTim -thoughts?
/fin
Always wonder why. Are they selling a test? Selling a theory? Trying to influence an action?
Look for the angle.
And then- look for the experts who say "well, based on current studies, we think..."
@CaulfieldTim -thoughts?
/fin