3 ms·
>The narrative was never that the drug was good or bad. Multiple prominent journalists came out saying this like: "if you take HCQ, you will die." Thousands o
by blhack 6y ago
>The narrative was never that the drug was good or bad.
Multiple prominent journalists came out saying this like: "if you take HCQ, you will die."
Thousands of headlines were written saying "Donald Trump pushing dangerous drug" etc.
The narrative from the left was that the drug was bad. The narrative from the right was that it is a miracle cure. NEITHER of them are correct yet.
- belltaco 6y ago>Multiple prominent journalists came out saying this like: "if you take HCQ, you will die." Huh? Can you point to some of those claims?
- blhack 6y agoSure: https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-neil-cavuto-shocked-trump-hyroxychloroquine-announcement-video-2020-5 https://www.businessinsider.com/fox-news-neil-cavuto-shocked...
- alkonaut 6y ago> Multiple prominent journalists came out saying this like: "if you take HCQ, you will die." Any good journalist said "might". A dangerous drug is one that might be bad. Even if the drug has zero positive effect for Covid and only the known side effects of HCQ, it's a bad drug. A non-expert pushing it as a cure or even a potential cure is dangerous because it risks hoarding, shortages. Basically: no one really cares whether the drug works or not. I don't care whether journalists did a bad job, or whether there was a terrible fraudulent article from some scientists or a company. I very much do care whether politicians are doing their job and not acting like experts, however.
- blhack 6y agoI didn't say a good journalist, I said a prominent one. My measure of "good" journalists would be people who only commented on the science behind this stuff, and didn't offer their usually useless take.