Wow!! Quite a response. I’ll just walk passed the condescension and chuckle a thank-you for your time!
If I said “that Dr. Collins is unfairly or disingenuously holding back on something that he knows will help,” that was not my intent. Rather, it was my intent to ask about what appear to be different and/or inconsistent principles that are no doubt sincerely held.
Your own statement, “not yet been shown to be” reflects a standard for showing that you share with Dr. Collins – a standard that is valid even if it is not the only valid standard available. Your way of seeing is valid, but there may be other valid ways of seeing. I understand – we all get caught up in our profession’s way of seeing, and often discount other ways because of that.
The statement “you don’t want millions in the public to become your guinea pigs” is telling. A few days ago, there were reportedly some 41,000 hospitalizations, growing a few thousand daily. Not quite “millions.” As for doctors in those hospitals treating their patients as “guinea pigs” if they supervise the use off-label drugs – well, that’s not something I worry about. The doctors who have taken care of me over the years aren’t perfect, but they’re capable and caring. I don’t need to disparage them to feel good about what I do.
Your belief that the news media only reports successes is … charming.
I’m glad that you recognize healthcare has financial costs and constraints. As I recall, Dr. Collins said in the interview that this should not be the case in the US, perhaps just for coronavirus. As for shutting one’s “eyes to evidence and obligatory medical policy,” again, this presumes principles and standards for what one considers evidence and obligation. And no doubt you and he are sincere and resolutely believe you see things just as they are. Like everyone believes!
This assumption underlies your comments on auto design. You may be surprised that there was a time when we (or perhaps your parents) did drive around in “virtually armored ‘tanks’ .” Whether it’s right or wrong to find the expense unworthy – you seem to assume it’s universally right – the reason for redesign was not to save money; it was to reduce gas consumption and to improve air quality – things valued more by decision-makers than “a few lives from traffic fatality.”
I’m glad that you count yourselves among “at least a few good competent individuals still left in our present federal government…” But more likely there are a lot of good competent individuals in the present federal government (and in hospitals, going back to your earlier comment) – it’s just that they don’t fit into your tribe. Pity.