7 ms·

I'm with "Be aware that the author has low trust factor and may have put the piece together from other sources without having a clue what he was writing about."

by mtmail 7y ago

I'm with "Be aware that the author has low trust factor and may have put the piece together from other sources without having a clue what he was writing about." until I see credentials. http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/04/05/wuhan-flu-21/#comment-1304127 http://www.smalldeadanimals.com/index.php/2020/04/05/wuhan-f... "All that hilariously misguided and counterproductive criticism the media piled on chloroquine (purely for political reasons) as a viable treatment will now go down as the biggest Fake News blunder to rule them all. The media actively engaged their activism to fight ‘bad orange man’ at the cost of thousands of lives. Shame on them." The media critique part reads more like a political rant than scientific discourse.

wool_gather 7y ago
Never mind the author's credentials, there isn't even any citation for the statements of fact, particularly the premise of the essay, that the mechanism causing death has been misidentified. > [The evidence is] not only piling up but now leading to a general field-level consensus backed up by a few previously little-known studies that we’ve had it all wrong the whole time. Pardon my French, but name the studies or GTFO.
jstewartmobile 7y ago
If his methodology is not on point, his hypothesis should be waaaay off point, and very easy to debunk. If that is the case, why are you attacking his lack of credentials and politics instead of his hypothesis? edit: here is an actual paper saying the same thing the medium post is https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965 https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965
- TonRoly 7y ago
  Thank you for your argument... Seems we are losing our freedom of speech and expression...
  - Darwin1999 7y ago
    If the President had initially said "this drug sucks" the people currently objecting to this piece would be celebrating it. The politicization of a life-saving drug by those that hate the president is quite stupid.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
- lern_too_spel 7y ago
  Why not get your information from someone who cites their sources correctly instead of a crank who doesn't and mixes conspiracy theories in for good measure?
  - jstewartmobile 7y ago
    linked an academic paper... 33 citations... every actual MD I've shared it with has responded with something along the lines of "very interesting" or "compelling" or "explains what some of the nurses are seeing" if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? strong pedants aren't necessarily strong thinkers
    - brentonator 7y ago
      This is more hearsay to lend support to a crank conspiracy theorist. Yes, we can not have a discussion spawned from a crank conspiracy theorist about general relativity even if his ideas are sound.
    - lern_too_spel 7y ago
      > if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? Absolutely not. Reread my comment. There are experts who describe the theory of relativity and link to papers supporting it. It is far better to link to articles from those experts than to articles from cranks who happen to get relativity correct but intersperse their articles with conspiracy theories. A Flat Earther might write an article about geometry where the geometry is valid and then mix in unsubstantiated claims about the shape of the Earth. Would you say that is a good article about geometry? No. You would link to an article about geometry that sticks to just the facts.
      - jstewartmobile 7y ago
        "Why not get YOUR information from..." I got my information from the academic article (https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965 https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965). Then I saw this submission on HN that I felt was an OK summary of it. Then I saw your ilk flag it. An interesting hypothesis is an interesting hypothesis--even when it does not come from our pill-pushing, astroturfing, tell-us-more-about-harry-and-meghan-while-the-bombs-are-falling mainstream media.

by mtmail 7y ago

wool_gather 7y ago

Never mind the author's credentials, there isn't even any citation for the statements of fact, particularly the premise of the essay, that the mechanism causing death has been misidentified. > [The evidence is] not only piling up but now leading to a general field-level consensus backed up by a few previously little-known studies that we’ve had it all wrong the whole time. Pardon my French, but name the studies or GTFO.

jstewartmobile 7y ago

If his methodology is not on point, his hypothesis should be waaaay off point, and very easy to debunk. If that is the case, why are you attacking his lack of credentials and politics instead of his hypothesis? edit: here is an actual paper saying the same thing the medium post is https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965 https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965

TonRoly 7y ago
Thank you for your argument... Seems we are losing our freedom of speech and expression...
- Darwin1999 7y ago
  If the President had initially said "this drug sucks" the people currently objecting to this piece would be celebrating it. The politicization of a life-saving drug by those that hate the president is quite stupid.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
lern_too_spel 7y ago
Why not get your information from someone who cites their sources correctly instead of a crank who doesn't and mixes conspiracy theories in for good measure?
- jstewartmobile 7y ago
  linked an academic paper... 33 citations... every actual MD I've shared it with has responded with something along the lines of "very interesting" or "compelling" or "explains what some of the nurses are seeing" if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? strong pedants aren't necessarily strong thinkers
  - brentonator 7y ago
    This is more hearsay to lend support to a crank conspiracy theorist. Yes, we can not have a discussion spawned from a crank conspiracy theorist about general relativity even if his ideas are sound.
  - lern_too_spel 7y ago
    > if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? Absolutely not. Reread my comment. There are experts who describe the theory of relativity and link to papers supporting it. It is far better to link to articles from those experts than to articles from cranks who happen to get relativity correct but intersperse their articles with conspiracy theories. A Flat Earther might write an article about geometry where the geometry is valid and then mix in unsubstantiated claims about the shape of the Earth. Would you say that is a good article about geometry? No. You would link to an article about geometry that sticks to just the facts.
    - jstewartmobile 7y ago
      "Why not get YOUR information from..." I got my information from the academic article (https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965 https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965). Then I saw this submission on HN that I felt was an OK summary of it. Then I saw your ilk flag it. An interesting hypothesis is an interesting hypothesis--even when it does not come from our pill-pushing, astroturfing, tell-us-more-about-harry-and-meghan-while-the-bombs-are-falling mainstream media.