4 ms·

> See, if you can skewer HCQ, that means you get to take a shot at a certain politician too. For clarity, and I'm sure you agree: Trump's boosting of this drug

> See, if you can skewer HCQ, that means you get to take a shot at a certain politician too. For clarity, and I'm sure you agree: Trump's boosting of this drug as a "miracle" and "greatest breakthrough" was absolutely irresponsible even if the drug actually works, for the simple reason that we didn't know if it did (frankly we still don't), and that it is known to have significant risks (it still does, even usingly only baseline data and ignoring this study). This was a bad study. It's possible that the editors at the Lancet hate Trump. But... you're simply reading too much here. Bad science gets published all the time. In particular, bad science gets published in circumstances like we have now where there is desperate need for "fast science". Not everything has to be an "agenda" by global elites to damage your favorite politician. But even granting your framing: why are you so concerned about the Lancet boosting bad data as an "agenda" but not with Trump doing exactly the same thing, with even less evidence? Why is it an "agenda" only when your enemies do it?

eric_b 6y ago
Where did I defend Trump's tweets? Where did I say it was OK for him to give false and misleading medical advice? Obviously he should NOT. HAVE. DONE. THOSE. THINGS. I think you're wearing your bias on your sleeve a bit too much. I get it, you hate him too. That's fine. But it's blinding you just like it did whoever let this garbage pass muster. Just because Trump does a thing that is despicable doesn't mean we give everyone else a pass too.
- newacct583 6y ago
  Where did I defend the Lancet? Where did I say it was OK for them to publish that paper? Obviously they should NOT. HAVE. DONE. THAT. I could go on, but I think you get the idea -- literally everything you wrote can be flipped right around, which is why you need to consider whether or not your own sleeve is maybe a little decorated. Seriously: I agree with you. I'm pointing out, however, that you're jumping in to claim "bias" by the "media" in a context where the "other side" very clearly already had blood on its hands over the same issue. And treating one side and not the other is helping no one.
  - eric_b 6y ago
    "Where did I defend the Lancet" Umm.... right here... "It's possible that the editors at the Lancet hate Trump. But... you're simply reading too much here. Bad science gets published all the time. In particular, bad science gets published in circumstances like we have now where there is desperate need for 'fast science'"
pessimizer 6y ago
> Not everything has to be an "agenda" by global elites to damage your favorite politician. Not everyone who objects to frauds being used to bring down Trump likes Trump. Some people are very, very upset about how things like this hand him easy, unambiguous wins, and make it seem as if he can be trusted to the same degree as nominally legitimate sources of information. Also, whatever extent that those institutions compromised their own processes in the name of these attacks, for what other interests are their processes compromised? Should we just trust these institutions because they've been labeled "trustworthy" or instead turn our trust to institutions whose processes are more transparent, responsive, and formally isolated from outside interests? edit: It's important to note that this means that a majority of Americans will never believe that this drug is not a legitimate treatment for the virus, no matter what further studies say. That's an abject failure for the scientific establishment, and a victory for the anti-vaxxers of the world.
- newacct583 6y ago
  > a majority of Americans will never believe that this drug is not a legitimate treatment I don't think that's true at all, and I'll be the first to say it: I don't think there's any good evidence for HCQ at all, I think it's junk science, I don't believe a word about it that comes from this administration or anywhere in the right wing media. It's all pure spin to cover for some outrageously irresponsible rhetoric. But show me a real, controlled study with significant results, and I'll recommend this drug to everyone who needs it. But you have to show the data. And that means, yes, sometimes you discover you've published bad data and have to correct it. THAT is what science is about, not proving the absence of political bias.
bluGill 6y ago
Trump is not a scientist. He was presenting in terms of an exagerator. Irresponsible, but we already knew he was an exagerator so there was little harm. When scientists present something in terms of science we expect a greater standard. We should hold science to a higher standard. Politicians lie all the time, and exaggerate all the time.
aksss 6y ago
Where did he call it the "greatest breakthrough"? I mean, it's of the greatest convenience if there's a chance that a cheap ubiquitous drug can damage COVID's operation in a host, and I think I can forgive him for talking it up in that context (and btw, always with disclaimers), but I don't recall him calling it the greatest breakthrough. Could be wrong but would expect a source. Also would take issue with "significant risks". HCQ, especially in the temporary loading dose being used in COVID cases, is largely, largely, largely benign except for edge case patients. I do remember Trump saying multiple times in the briefings that people shouldn't take the drug without their doctor's prescription. Presumably prescriptions being given out to people in the edge case risk category would have their doctors to blame, not Trump. I'm all for calling out shaky medical advice, but the dangers of HCQ being published in the media were overblown, especially considering the context of a pandemic. To pretend otherwise is just rhetoric. Like with autoimmune diseases, the doctors say that while there's risk from long term use of HCQ over a certain daily dosage, considering it may prevent you from dying via organ failure, the narrow and reducible risk is worth the payoff. If you're dying of COVID and a doctor decides it's your best chance, you're not going to give a shit about long-term usage risks, and let's presume your doctor will weigh short term risks accordingly.

eric_b 6y ago

Where did I defend Trump's tweets? Where did I say it was OK for him to give false and misleading medical advice? Obviously he should NOT. HAVE. DONE. THOSE. THINGS. I think you're wearing your bias on your sleeve a bit too much. I get it, you hate him too. That's fine. But it's blinding you just like it did whoever let this garbage pass muster. Just because Trump does a thing that is despicable doesn't mean we give everyone else a pass too.

newacct583 6y ago
Where did I defend the Lancet? Where did I say it was OK for them to publish that paper? Obviously they should NOT. HAVE. DONE. THAT. I could go on, but I think you get the idea -- literally everything you wrote can be flipped right around, which is why you need to consider whether or not your own sleeve is maybe a little decorated. Seriously: I agree with you. I'm pointing out, however, that you're jumping in to claim "bias" by the "media" in a context where the "other side" very clearly already had blood on its hands over the same issue. And treating one side and not the other is helping no one.
- eric_b 6y ago
  "Where did I defend the Lancet" Umm.... right here... "It's possible that the editors at the Lancet hate Trump. But... you're simply reading too much here. Bad science gets published all the time. In particular, bad science gets published in circumstances like we have now where there is desperate need for 'fast science'"

pessimizer 6y ago

> Not everything has to be an "agenda" by global elites to damage your favorite politician. Not everyone who objects to frauds being used to bring down Trump likes Trump. Some people are very, very upset about how things like this hand him easy, unambiguous wins, and make it seem as if he can be trusted to the same degree as nominally legitimate sources of information. Also, whatever extent that those institutions compromised their own processes in the name of these attacks, for what other interests are their processes compromised? Should we just trust these institutions because they've been labeled "trustworthy" or instead turn our trust to institutions whose processes are more transparent, responsive, and formally isolated from outside interests? edit: It's important to note that this means that a majority of Americans will never believe that this drug is not a legitimate treatment for the virus, no matter what further studies say. That's an abject failure for the scientific establishment, and a victory for the anti-vaxxers of the world.

newacct583 6y ago
> a majority of Americans will never believe that this drug is not a legitimate treatment I don't think that's true at all, and I'll be the first to say it: I don't think there's any good evidence for HCQ at all, I think it's junk science, I don't believe a word about it that comes from this administration or anywhere in the right wing media. It's all pure spin to cover for some outrageously irresponsible rhetoric. But show me a real, controlled study with significant results, and I'll recommend this drug to everyone who needs it. But you have to show the data. And that means, yes, sometimes you discover you've published bad data and have to correct it. THAT is what science is about, not proving the absence of political bias.

bluGill 6y ago

Trump is not a scientist. He was presenting in terms of an exagerator. Irresponsible, but we already knew he was an exagerator so there was little harm. When scientists present something in terms of science we expect a greater standard. We should hold science to a higher standard. Politicians lie all the time, and exaggerate all the time.

aksss 6y ago

Where did he call it the "greatest breakthrough"? I mean, it's of the greatest convenience if there's a chance that a cheap ubiquitous drug can damage COVID's operation in a host, and I think I can forgive him for talking it up in that context (and btw, always with disclaimers), but I don't recall him calling it the greatest breakthrough. Could be wrong but would expect a source. Also would take issue with "significant risks". HCQ, especially in the temporary loading dose being used in COVID cases, is largely, largely, largely benign except for edge case patients. I do remember Trump saying multiple times in the briefings that people shouldn't take the drug without their doctor's prescription. Presumably prescriptions being given out to people in the edge case risk category would have their doctors to blame, not Trump. I'm all for calling out shaky medical advice, but the dangers of HCQ being published in the media were overblown, especially considering the context of a pandemic. To pretend otherwise is just rhetoric. Like with autoimmune diseases, the doctors say that while there's risk from long term use of HCQ over a certain daily dosage, considering it may prevent you from dying via organ failure, the narrow and reducible risk is worth the payoff. If you're dying of COVID and a doctor decides it's your best chance, you're not going to give a shit about long-term usage risks, and let's presume your doctor will weigh short term risks accordingly.