Informative lecture with great analysis. Dr Prasad is such a divergent thinker. He has contributed to increasing the accountability in medical practices and research. Glad that he referenced Dr Welch who also has an ability to think out of the boxes and deconstruct faulty research.
Grounding, for medics and non. More is necessary, let that sink in. Do not know how much is actually desired by the public, as knowledge. This needs to weave as part of everyone's insight in these matters, if possible from early age, but particularly medics', entrusted with healthcare. Appreciations from this commentator.
Awesome lecture! Been listening to your videos since peak COVID pandemic for logical middle ground scientific thoughts. The extremes were frustrating. Currently working in an ICU, this was a nice lecture. Come to Stony Brook on Long Island, NY for a talk!
I just finished a master of statistics, about to start my first job as a biostatistician for a medical school, after years in mathematics education. My thesis project for the MStat was AI related. I really enjoyed your talk and look forward to developing good intuition and critical thinking as a biostatistician. Thank you!
Glad people like you are keeping your mind open and a critical perspective on outcomes. I'm in a totally non-medical field but just a word of advice from some real world AI experience: Don't neglect to scrutinize the foundational data the AI was trained on. The AI logic may be a black box, but the datasets it's trained on shouldn't be. If they are unrepresentative, polluted, diluted, or otherwise biased, which all data is to some degree, don't neglect to consider the effect of those inherent skews on outcomes and confidence levels. I imagine there's tons of beneficial insight just sitting in data where people overlooked it or didn't consider it because it was heterodox.
I find these lectures soothing and relaxing (though intellectually very stimulating.) I also know I'm nearly 50 when most of these diseases involve someone I know (or me.)
Vinay is amazing. I can listen to him late at night when I’m trying to complete notes from patients I saw today and he’s so interesting that I’m not falling asleep sending in crestor refills. 😂
Vinay, your channel is one of my favourites but for some reason it does not appear listed in my "quick" subscription list of 100 top subscriptions (YT left panel), I need to browse your name to find your channel or open the full list of subscriptions. Most of my other subscriptions I don't visit for years but they are above yours in the list. It's like YT is trying to ghost/shadowban you.
In pure layman’s terms, my takeaway from this presentation is that these longitudinal cancer studies’ main point was to claim there was significant value in early screening and interventions - despite having no health benefit. So qui Bono? The only actual benefit is profits for all the parties who engage in the practice of said screenings. . It’s funny how errors and omissions always run in the same direction. It’s almost as if that specific bias is the only true constant.
A-L-W-A-Y-S in the same direction. Like clockwork. No one (besides me, Leonard, VP) finds that odd?! Wake up, my friends! These are NOT genuine errors or accidental miscalculations- these are LIES & OBFUSCATIONS, meant to deceive the masses.
Yup. And the justification is "you have to measure something" - which is of course true. The simplest litmus test is how relevant/potentially distant is the metric being measured from the actual claimed/desired goal. For example saying in vitro neutralizing antibody count increased 10x for an intervention, don't pretend that justifies anything in real life. As someone with absolutely zero medical training, if you were willing to read a full study INCLUDING appendices and notes, it's no wonder there's a reproducibility crisis in science. The definitions and criteria used for a measurement are so often whitewashed or confounded that there's a table or graph in the appendix somewhere nearly disproving the supposedly proven hypothesis. Or for the slicker/trickier ones like the Doc's in this talk, you may need to create your own but it's pretty simple stuff once you're aware of it. There's so much endpoint gaming and assumptive relationships. "We provably went from A to B by means of 1, as measured by the change in X from 8X to 2X" - how many people left point A but never made it to B? Who said X has anything to do with A or B, or even necessarily 1? Is that relationship linear, and at what point after 1 do we arrive at B? Is A->B even desirable if it neglected to include the path is actually traveling from A->C->D,...Z ->B? That's more complicated, but like you it's amazing to me how seemingly so few of these basic things are scrutinized.
@ textbook example of this is ALL v approvals for the childhood schedule. The FDA/CDC will authorize based on “Surrogate Endpoints” or “Correlates of Protection”. These words should send shivers down everyone’s spine. Surrogate endpoints are meaningless in this space. This is why they can’t tell you what # of antibodies you need to be considered “immune” or “protected” against c19. It’s because raw antibodies are not the answer to the immunity puzzle. We must consider T Cells as well as so many other variables in the human immune system. These govt agencies are trying to boil us down to simple numbers… the human body is way more complex for such nonsense.
We already know that elite athletes have a higher incidence of various cancers. Then why is it hard to believe that there is a threshold for exercise benefits in pancreatic cancer ?
The same critical thinking you utilized at beginning of pandemic and with your buddy zdogg. Not sure why people don’t remember your early analysis. Truly embarrassing.
I think you're being too humble to say this review just takes "common sense" and doesn't require any skill. Seems to me this sort of imagination of counterfactuals is a skill that you've developed better than a lot of journal editors and peer reviewers, let alone the average doctor reading the articles
Hard disagree, we all have a limited scope of introspection or general thinking. Getting exposed to idea outside of your bubble is the sole way to expand your thinking bubble
Ugh, logic and rhetoric may be taught. I am better at it than in the past. But, you know all and we must obey your opinion because you know more than all others. Not.
If you think you are a critical thinker because you don't allow anyone to explain anything to you... You are not a critical thinker. Literally everything you know was taught to you at some point. But it's a good sign of how much didn't stick that you're making moronic generalizations like that.
@@SkyForgeVideos "Literally everything you know was taught to you at some point." Only if you include all of the natural world and natural inheritance as the teacher.
What I like about the doctor is the way he engages not only med students, but
everyone who listens to his lectures.
As a physician it is wonderful to see a glimpse of actual science making inroads into the sea of voodoo in current medicine- Thank you!
Fantastic. This might be my favourite VP lecture to date. Sending this to at least 10 colleagues who need to watch it.
Informative lecture with great analysis. Dr Prasad is such a divergent thinker. He has contributed to increasing the accountability in medical practices and research. Glad that he referenced Dr Welch who also has an ability to think out of the boxes and deconstruct faulty research.
Great lecture, thanks for putting it online.
Grounding, for medics and non. More is necessary, let that sink in. Do not know how much is actually desired by the public, as knowledge. This needs to weave as part of everyone's insight in these matters, if possible from early age, but particularly medics', entrusted with healthcare. Appreciations from this commentator.
Dr.VP can you please get into the NHS with the new admin. And then help us in Canada! The US and Canada needs you!!
Awesome lecture! Been listening to your videos since peak COVID pandemic for logical middle ground scientific thoughts. The extremes were frustrating.
Currently working in an ICU, this was a nice lecture.
Come to Stony Brook on Long Island, NY for a talk!
I just finished a master of statistics, about to start my first job as a biostatistician for a medical school, after years in mathematics education. My thesis project for the MStat was AI related. I really enjoyed your talk and look forward to developing good intuition and critical thinking as a biostatistician. Thank you!
Glad people like you are keeping your mind open and a critical perspective on outcomes. I'm in a totally non-medical field but just a word of advice from some real world AI experience:
Don't neglect to scrutinize the foundational data the AI was trained on. The AI logic may be a black box, but the datasets it's trained on shouldn't be. If they are unrepresentative, polluted, diluted, or otherwise biased, which all data is to some degree, don't neglect to consider the effect of those inherent skews on outcomes and confidence levels.
I imagine there's tons of beneficial insight just sitting in data where people overlooked it or didn't consider it because it was heterodox.
I find these lectures soothing and relaxing (though intellectually very stimulating.) I also know I'm nearly 50 when most of these diseases involve someone I know (or me.)
Great work. Thank you.
Very interesting! We all need to ask more questions and always remain curious
Vinay is amazing. I can listen to him late at night when I’m trying to complete notes from patients I saw today and he’s so interesting that I’m not falling asleep sending in crestor refills. 😂
Fantastic lecture. I wanna get Dr. Prasad out to my med school for a talk!
Yeessssss I have been meditating on how to become a critical thinker! Thank you 🙏🏼
Absolutely fantastic! Wish all of my fellow classmates in med school listened to him!
Hey, I was wondering if you would ever consider doing a lecture at your alma mater, Michigan State. Would love to meet you in person.
Congratulations for great relevance measured by far the most ads per hour
Vinay for NIAID director!
Entertaining and informative,thanks!
Vinay, your channel is one of my favourites but for some reason it does not appear listed in my "quick" subscription list of 100 top subscriptions (YT left panel), I need to browse your name to find your channel or open the full list of subscriptions. Most of my other subscriptions I don't visit for years but they are above yours in the list. It's like YT is trying to ghost/shadowban you.
I didn’t know you were at Wash U! I would have loved to see you! I work at BJC hospital in St Louis.
The man.
Is there a recording of Dr. Piccirillo's talk?
Thanks for this, will you be doing an ASH 2024 series? Lots of MM activity and longer term FU data planned. Thanks
In pure layman’s terms, my takeaway from this presentation is that these longitudinal cancer studies’ main point was to claim there was significant value in early screening and interventions - despite having no health benefit. So qui Bono? The only actual benefit is profits for all the parties who engage in the practice of said screenings. . It’s funny how errors and omissions always run in the same direction. It’s almost as if that specific bias is the only true constant.
A-L-W-A-Y-S in the same direction. Like clockwork.
No one (besides me, Leonard, VP) finds that odd?!
Wake up, my friends! These are NOT genuine errors or accidental miscalculations- these are LIES & OBFUSCATIONS, meant to deceive the masses.
Yup. And the justification is "you have to measure something" - which is of course true. The simplest litmus test is how relevant/potentially distant is the metric being measured from the actual claimed/desired goal. For example saying in vitro neutralizing antibody count increased 10x for an intervention, don't pretend that justifies anything in real life.
As someone with absolutely zero medical training, if you were willing to read a full study INCLUDING appendices and notes, it's no wonder there's a reproducibility crisis in science. The definitions and criteria used for a measurement are so often whitewashed or confounded that there's a table or graph in the appendix somewhere nearly disproving the supposedly proven hypothesis. Or for the slicker/trickier ones like the Doc's in this talk, you may need to create your own but it's pretty simple stuff once you're aware of it.
There's so much endpoint gaming and assumptive relationships. "We provably went from A to B by means of 1, as measured by the change in X from 8X to 2X" - how many people left point A but never made it to B? Who said X has anything to do with A or B, or even necessarily 1? Is that relationship linear, and at what point after 1 do we arrive at B? Is A->B even desirable if it neglected to include the path is actually traveling from A->C->D,...Z ->B? That's more complicated, but like you it's amazing to me how seemingly so few of these basic things are scrutinized.
@ textbook example of this is ALL v approvals for the childhood schedule. The FDA/CDC will authorize based on “Surrogate Endpoints” or “Correlates of Protection”. These words should send shivers down everyone’s spine.
Surrogate endpoints are meaningless in this space. This is why they can’t tell you what # of antibodies you need to be considered “immune” or “protected” against c19.
It’s because raw antibodies are not the answer to the immunity puzzle. We must consider T Cells as well as so many other variables in the human immune system.
These govt agencies are trying to boil us down to simple numbers… the human body is way more complex for such nonsense.
@ plz let me know if you are able to read my previous comment.
@@MK-ih6wp I don't know who you're @ing but I only see my comment
Good lecture and I am not a medical professional!
great!
Vinay Prasad for CDC director.
I'm very surprised that you did this presentation.
Why do scientifically trained medical experts not understand sampling/statistics?
The older sister is red-faced mad at the younger for deflecting attention and I wonder if you addressed that somehow.
We already know that elite athletes have a higher incidence of various cancers. Then why is it hard to believe that there is a threshold for exercise benefits in pancreatic cancer ?
Houston!
Here’s the kicker. Radiographic appearance does NOT correlate with pain in knee. Not in Whites-or Blacks
When your income taxes are gone, then the sales income tax is not a big deal
You mean: "The Importance of Critical Thinking"
I've lost respect for 90 percent of doctors in this country.
It seems there is no such thing as critical thinking in EDUCATION either especially since Covid!!!
The same critical thinking you utilized at beginning of pandemic and with your buddy zdogg. Not sure why people don’t remember your early analysis. Truly embarrassing.
I think you're being too humble to say this review just takes "common sense" and doesn't require any skill. Seems to me this sort of imagination of counterfactuals is a skill that you've developed better than a lot of journal editors and peer reviewers, let alone the average doctor reading the articles
If you have to be taught critical thinking, you are not a critical thinker.
Hard disagree, we all have a limited scope of introspection or general thinking. Getting exposed to idea outside of your bubble is the sole way to expand your thinking bubble
Absolutely disagree. The fact that you feel you can't grow and learn more, says more about your critical thinking.
Ugh, logic and rhetoric may be taught. I am better at it than in the past.
But, you know all and we must obey your opinion because you know more than all others. Not.
If you think you are a critical thinker because you don't allow anyone to explain anything to you... You are not a critical thinker.
Literally everything you know was taught to you at some point.
But it's a good sign of how much didn't stick that you're making moronic generalizations like that.
@@SkyForgeVideos "Literally everything you know was taught to you at some point."
Only if you include all of the natural world and natural inheritance as the teacher.
Next up: Only Fans? Lmfao
Great lecture!