A for Effort! Very pertinent topic. A transcript would be nice, but of course the passion and “bias” of each speaker might be missed. Volume between speakers was variable (just a slight technical issue). Recommend 3-5 speakers and limit to 30-45 min. Vinay, please work on slowing down your speech; you are an outstanding moderator, nonetheless.
I've never heard Zubin so quiet - ergo, maybe too many people on this panel. I really liked his suggestion for AI-controlled studies with the caveat that those could not replace human thought about biases and trial interpretation. I worry that delegating the task of trial design could DECREASE human ability to think through trial data - the exact opposite of what we need.
Having people outside of a specialty area sign off on a trial design is another good suggestion.
Beyond trial design, more teaching about critical thinking in general should be pushed. I suspect I am so drawn to Vinay's thinking because he has studied philosophy (ie: how to think and argue). More of that, including logic & symbolic logic in K-12 would be good.
1- loved the different views and facts and opinions
2-too many people, I would suggest bringing forth only the people who are most passionate about the topic you are presenting
3-if the subject is going to cause people to hold back on speaking their minds due to backlash, job termination etc. maybe another subject would be better for them
4-This arena should be freedom of speech without consequences (so to speak)
5-If everyone agrees on x/y/z then there is polarity and no version of another side
6-A good debate on seeing all sides of the same apple
Once again, I am sure this is wonderful. Once again, I am hoping that someone will run this through an autotranscriber so the rest of us can gain from the content.
I like the dialogue and varying input. I’m a registered nurse practicing Since 1985 and worked in my many in-patient and outpatient areas; one of which was a rtc for an prospective HIV related drug treatment.
My only suggestion is that some of the concepts be introduced/explained in a bit more depth before sharing viewpoints.
A for Effort! Very pertinent topic. A transcript would be nice, but of course the passion and “bias” of each speaker might be missed. Volume between speakers was variable (just a slight technical issue). Recommend 3-5 speakers and limit to 30-45 min. Vinay, please work on slowing down your speech; you are an outstanding moderator, nonetheless.
Thank you for explaining why Dr. Topol blocked some of my favorite twitter follows. Egos are a huge thing to crack, it hurts.
Really great and funny discussion on very important topics.
Best panel would be 3-4 people. 1h max.
Fantastic discussion! Very helpful to hear the clarifications each of you bring to a topic.
Vinay, you need to let Tracy finish her sentences!
I've never heard Zubin so quiet - ergo, maybe too many people on this panel. I really liked his suggestion for AI-controlled studies with the caveat that those could not replace human thought about biases and trial interpretation. I worry that delegating the task of trial design could DECREASE human ability to think through trial data - the exact opposite of what we need.
Having people outside of a specialty area sign off on a trial design is another good suggestion.
Beyond trial design, more teaching about critical thinking in general should be pushed. I suspect I am so drawn to Vinay's thinking because he has studied philosophy (ie: how to think and argue). More of that, including logic & symbolic logic in K-12 would be good.
1- loved the different views and facts and opinions
2-too many people, I would suggest bringing forth only the people who are most passionate about the topic you are presenting
3-if the subject is going to cause people to hold back on speaking their minds due to backlash, job termination etc. maybe another subject would be better for them
4-This arena should be freedom of speech without consequences (so to speak)
5-If everyone agrees on x/y/z then there is polarity and no version of another side
6-A good debate on seeing all sides of the same apple
7-Discussions that cause people to stop and think
Beth Hoeg MD great point that other countries’ findings about masking was no benefit. Global pandemic means global equipoise.
Once again, I am sure this is wonderful. Once again, I am hoping that someone will run this through an autotranscriber so the rest of us can gain from the content.
Thank you everybody on the panel for your time.
I like the dialogue and varying input. I’m a registered nurse practicing Since 1985 and worked in my many in-patient and outpatient areas; one of which was a rtc for an prospective HIV related drug treatment.
My only suggestion is that some of the concepts be introduced/explained in a bit more depth before sharing viewpoints.
(Ie confounded, equipoise, observational...)