You're being unfair very unfair. The history of blogging on DW is replete with hundreds of anonymous commenters as well as some scientists with
multiple pseudonyms. That actual working scientists may have something to say but only in a context you personally dictate indicates a very uneven playing field with movable goalposts. Unfair. I'd say yes. Important. Not really, as the commenter may choose not to comment at all. Yet, that doesn't seem to have satisfied the rule maker at least in the arena of HIV/AIDS discussions.
Existing rules have been abused. New rules have been put in place to try to prevent future abuses. If that's unfair, blame those who abused the original rules.
Personally I don't think it's being 'unfair' at all. If someone wishes to argue from authority, saying that 'what I'm saying is right because of my background and experience, and you should believe me because I've worked on this', the host (Dean) has the privilege of asking for some proof of that person's authenticity. In a field where he's going against the grain of popular thought, and where there is MUCH disinformation, anonymous argument from authority can do much to spread merely inaccurate or maliciously false ideas and concepts.
I think it speaks well of Dean that he is looking out for US, the readers of his comments, by requiring those who would try to make claims from authority at least be personally vetted by him, even if he may disagree with their opinions.
Nice conflation of "abuse of the rules" with "abuse of the individual". That makes it really easy to miss Dean's point.
For the record, to this reader, Dale came off as an ass. The only person who came off as a bigger ass (again, to this reader) was Harvey Bialy. So two asses had a spat, and I mostly ignored them when they started acting like asses.
But Dale's specific offense -- what Dean is specifically criticizing here -- was claiming that Dr. Duesburg's (sp?) data and/or methodology were flawed, and then blowing off requests for details while saying the equivalent of "Trust me, I know what I'm doing"; and then repeatedly refusing Dean's request for proof that he did indeed know what he's doing. That was abusing the anonymity rules, which Dean had already been tightening.
I'll say it again, since you seem to have missed the point: you can't claim the mantle of authority if you can't provide your bona fides. If Dale had cited the specific flaws and supported it, Dean would've said, "Hey, this guy is either a talented layman, or his credentials are as good as he says." If Dale had given Dean proof of his credentials -- even privately -- Dean would've said, "Well, he's in the field, and I'm not, so I should give added weight to his opinion." He would've cut Dale some slack.
But Dale tried to have it both ways: "No, I've got no time to prove what I'm saying it; and no, I'm not going to prove I know what I'm saying. You're just going to have to trust me." But an anonymous claim of authority is worthless.
In a field where he's going against the grain of popular thought, and where there is MUCH disinformation, anonymous argument from authority can do much to spread merely inaccurate or maliciously false ideas and concepts.
Well, to be fair, Dan, Dale was going with the grain of popular thought.
Martin, I was talking about Dean going against the grain of popular thought. I did kinda switch thought in mid-stream, tho, so I certainly understand the confusion.
Dean: By my read that study doesn't show what you think it does. It is comparing HAART-only outcomes in 1998, at which point protease-inhibitors become available, to prior periods, when HAART was less well developed. It stops in 1998 because of treatment selection - after 1998, you can't be sure changes to outcomes are caused by improvements to HAART or by segmented diagnosis and prescription. The result is that, over the HAART era, there has been no significant change in outcomes in the first year of HAART treatment, despite the fact that 'fine-tuning' and more precise dosing has improved anti-viral effects.
It makes no attempt to compare outcomes from HAART to outcomes from AZT, or pre-AZT outcomes. There are no patients in the paper from those eras, since it tracks only cohorts who were completely untreated prior to starting HAART protocols. So it says nothing about AIDS the Virus, or about the overall effectiveness of HAART, only about the effectiveness of incremental improvements in protocol.
Additional: The upshot of the research is that additional reductions in viral load below a certain level don't affect mortality. The risk from the virus isn't linear with viral load - in most forms of risk (poisons, radiation, infection, for example) there is some threshold point at which point risk begins to slope upward more dramatically. This treatment even in its more primitive states was sufficient to reduce loads below threshold. There is no data in the study about patients with viral loads generally found in terminal AIDS patients.
patriotismanalysishockey stickintegrityhand-wavingcredentials?/sarcasm
My assessment is that we don't really know what we're doing with much of anything, but we fake it pretty well most of the time.
unfairvery unfair. The history of blogging on DW is replete with hundreds of anonymous commenters as well as some scientists withmultiple pseudonyms. That actual working scientists may have something to say but only in a context you personally dictate indicates a very uneven playing field with movable goalposts. Unfair. I'd say yes. Important. Not really, as the commenter may choose not to comment at all. Yet, that doesn't seem to have satisfied the rule maker at least in the arena of HIV/AIDS discussions.
Existing rules have been abused. New rules have been put in place to try to prevent future abuses. If that's unfair, blame those who abused the original rules.
I think it speaks well of Dean that he is looking out for US, the readers of his comments, by requiring those who would try to make claims from authority at least be personally vetted by him, even if he may disagree with their opinions.
For the record, to this reader, Dale came off as an ass. The only person who came off as a bigger ass (again, to this reader) was Harvey Bialy. So two asses had a spat, and I mostly ignored them when they started acting like asses.
But Dale's specific offense -- what Dean is specifically criticizing here -- was claiming that Dr. Duesburg's (sp?) data and/or methodology were flawed, and then blowing off requests for details while saying the equivalent of "Trust me, I know what I'm doing"; and then repeatedly refusing Dean's request for proof that he did indeed know what he's doing. That was abusing the anonymity rules, which Dean had already been tightening.
I'll say it again, since you seem to have missed the point: you can't claim the mantle of authority if you can't provide your bona fides. If Dale had cited the specific flaws and supported it, Dean would've said, "Hey, this guy is either a talented layman, or his credentials are as good as he says." If Dale had given Dean proof of his credentials -- even privately -- Dean would've said, "Well, he's in the field, and I'm not, so I should give added weight to his opinion." He would've cut Dale some slack.
But Dale tried to have it both ways: "No, I've got no time to prove what I'm saying it; and no, I'm not going to prove I know what I'm saying. You're just going to have to trust me." But an anonymous claim of authority is worthless.
Well, to be fair, Dan, Dale was going with the grain of popular thought.
It makes no attempt to compare outcomes from HAART to outcomes from AZT, or pre-AZT outcomes. There are no patients in the paper from those eras, since it tracks only cohorts who were completely untreated prior to starting HAART protocols. So it says nothing about AIDS the Virus, or about the overall effectiveness of HAART, only about the effectiveness of incremental improvements in protocol.