5 ms·

I think this drug has become too politicized to be able to have a factual scientific debate.

by mrfusion 7y ago

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
abnry 7y ago
Which is really, really a shame.
jkachmar 7y ago
You are commenting on an article that is nearly as apolitical as I can imagine one being to say that politicization of this topic makes it impossible to have a debate rooted in science. Isn’t this precisely an injection of politicization into a summary of scientific work?
shripadk 7y ago
Exactly! On one hand some scientists swear by these drugs and on the other hand other scientists are opposing it. It is science after all. It either works or it doesn't. There is no "probably isn't the answer" in this. It is almost like Big Pharma is fighting out their battles through these scientists.
- gpm 7y ago
  > It either works or it doesn't. No, not really. What the criteria for starting/stopping treatment are (e.g. is it being given to early or late stage patients), what other treatments/drugs are also used, what dosage is used, etc can all effect this.
brmgb 7y ago
It's really a shame the whole world stops at the border of the USA so there is no other place this debate could happen.
- justin66 7y ago
  I'm grimly curious, are the Rupert Murdoch media outlets overseas pushing these drugs as enthusiastically as they're doing here in the US?
- makomk 7y ago
  Unfortunately, while the whole world doesn't stop at the borders of the USA, neither does the political bullshit eminating from it. All the claims about what's effective or ineffective as a solution to Covid-19 that politicians and journalists latch onto for political reasons leech out into the rest of the world and cause trouble there too.
jacquesm 7y ago
"If there was any effect of this drug on COVID-19, it was minimal. Hydroxychloroquine, whose toxicity is far lower, may be safer than chloroquine. But that doesn't matter if the drugs are ineffective." What's political about that? The whole idea that if there were a simple and cheap cure that it would be politicized to the point where it won't see widespread application is ridiculous.
- shripadk 7y ago
  > What's political about that? Then why does the title say that Hydroxychloroquine "probably" isn't the answer? It either works or it doesn't. If the drugs are ineffective just say so. Why beat around the bush with a "probably"?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - jacquesm 7y ago
    Probably as in 'not yet 100% sure'. As a measure of probability based on available evidence.
    - Natsu 7y ago
      To me, the headline reads like it's saying "this probably won't work" rather than "we don't yet have enough evidence to say that this works." If I had to headline this article, I probably would have written something like "Hydroxychloroquine data still inconclusive, don't get your hopes up yet" to better convey the meaning. From reading it, what the article actually supports is that we have seen two trials that are inconclusive. This is the meat of it in my view - == A French study of HCQ suggested that it had was effective in decreasing the viral load from nasal secretions. When azithromycin was added the magnitude of the effect was larger. [...] And a Chinese study of 30 patients doesn't prove that HCQ worked. Or that it doesn't. But the two groups, control and treated, showed no difference in the amount of virus in the throat on day seven, the length of time for the fever to go away. There was an apparent difference in the progression of the infection (determined by x-ray), in the two groups but this means little since 5/15 treated patients got worse vs. 7/15 in the control group. This effect could easily be by chance and nothing to do to the drug. Furthermore, this trial did not include azithromycin, so it cannot be compared to the French trial.
justin66 7y ago
Someone went really nuts with flagging and downvoting these comments.
- mrfusion 7y ago
  Yeah this was up to +6 for a while. Pretty bizarre.

I think this drug has become too politicized to be able to have a factual scientific debate.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

abnry 7y ago

Which is really, really a shame.

jkachmar 7y ago

You are commenting on an article that is nearly as apolitical as I can imagine one being to say that politicization of this topic makes it impossible to have a debate rooted in science. Isn’t this precisely an injection of politicization into a summary of scientific work?

shripadk 7y ago

Exactly! On one hand some scientists swear by these drugs and on the other hand other scientists are opposing it. It is science after all. It either works or it doesn't. There is no "probably isn't the answer" in this. It is almost like Big Pharma is fighting out their battles through these scientists.

gpm 7y ago
> It either works or it doesn't. No, not really. What the criteria for starting/stopping treatment are (e.g. is it being given to early or late stage patients), what other treatments/drugs are also used, what dosage is used, etc can all effect this.

brmgb 7y ago

It's really a shame the whole world stops at the border of the USA so there is no other place this debate could happen.

justin66 7y ago
I'm grimly curious, are the Rupert Murdoch media outlets overseas pushing these drugs as enthusiastically as they're doing here in the US?
makomk 7y ago
Unfortunately, while the whole world doesn't stop at the borders of the USA, neither does the political bullshit eminating from it. All the claims about what's effective or ineffective as a solution to Covid-19 that politicians and journalists latch onto for political reasons leech out into the rest of the world and cause trouble there too.

jacquesm 7y ago

"If there was any effect of this drug on COVID-19, it was minimal. Hydroxychloroquine, whose toxicity is far lower, may be safer than chloroquine. But that doesn't matter if the drugs are ineffective." What's political about that? The whole idea that if there were a simple and cheap cure that it would be politicized to the point where it won't see widespread application is ridiculous.

shripadk 7y ago
> What's political about that? Then why does the title say that Hydroxychloroquine "probably" isn't the answer? It either works or it doesn't. If the drugs are ineffective just say so. Why beat around the bush with a "probably"?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- jacquesm 7y ago
  Probably as in 'not yet 100% sure'. As a measure of probability based on available evidence.
  - Natsu 7y ago
    To me, the headline reads like it's saying "this probably won't work" rather than "we don't yet have enough evidence to say that this works." If I had to headline this article, I probably would have written something like "Hydroxychloroquine data still inconclusive, don't get your hopes up yet" to better convey the meaning. From reading it, what the article actually supports is that we have seen two trials that are inconclusive. This is the meat of it in my view - == A French study of HCQ suggested that it had was effective in decreasing the viral load from nasal secretions. When azithromycin was added the magnitude of the effect was larger. [...] And a Chinese study of 30 patients doesn't prove that HCQ worked. Or that it doesn't. But the two groups, control and treated, showed no difference in the amount of virus in the throat on day seven, the length of time for the fever to go away. There was an apparent difference in the progression of the infection (determined by x-ray), in the two groups but this means little since 5/15 treated patients got worse vs. 7/15 in the control group. This effect could easily be by chance and nothing to do to the drug. Furthermore, this trial did not include azithromycin, so it cannot be compared to the French trial.

justin66 7y ago

Someone went really nuts with flagging and downvoting these comments.

mrfusion 7y ago
Yeah this was up to +6 for a while. Pretty bizarre.