3 ms·

Your article is dated June 9th, it's irrelevant since the comments I linked to were made on May 20, 3 weeks earlier. Yes, the drug has been politicized. That st

Your article is dated June 9th, it's irrelevant since the comments I linked to were made on May 20, 3 weeks earlier. Yes, the drug has been politicized. That still doesn't mean it doesn't or cannot work, and this Ford study states that it does in fact show promise in reducing death rates. All I'm saying is that the media planted its flag well before any conclusions could be made. Some politicians did as well (Trump, mostly), sure, but they never claim to be "objective."

rumanator 6y ago
> Your article is dated June 9th, it's irrelevant since the comments I linked to were made on May 20, 3 weeks earlier. Your comment makes no sense at all. The politization of hydrochloriquine has been ongoing for months, and these studies you're trying to ignore were triggered by the politization of hydrochloriquine as they are aimed to gather information to confirm or reject the baseless assertion made by a particular political group. And the baseless assertion has been rejected. > Yes, the drug has been politicized. You're downplaying the whole political shitstorm that was created around this drug. It was sold by a political group as a magic bullet against covid19, intending to downplay the natural consequences of having denied that the epidemic was something to be taken seriously. After a few months ridiculing the disease and ridiculing other governments for taking action to contain its spread, when covid19 started to spread out of control within the US then hydrochloriquine was presented as a silver bullet that turned the disease into a non-issue, in spite of the total absence of any evidence supporting the outlandish political statement. > All I'm saying is that the media planted its flag There is no flag to plant. A political group which is militantly anti-intellectual decided to make a totally baseless assertion regarding the effectiveness of a particular drug to treat and cure an epidemic. Consequently that political group was called out for their bullshit. This sort of bullshit claim is not the only instance of this mind-numbingly propensity to sell snake oil treatments as national policies. We're talking about the people who felt it was a good idea to suggest injecting disinfectant to treat a viral infection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKCe8Pq_RUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKCe8Pq_RUA
jjeaff 6y ago
I think you are thinking about medical treatment in a totally wrong way. The medical establishment is conservative for good reason. You don't just pick a drug and start touting it as a cure all. And you certainly don't publicly propose it with little to no evidence. From what I have seen in the media, they have correctly reported that the drug was being recommended by non-doctors and with little evidence. They may have gone too on the other side but given a lack of evidence the default assumption should always be that a drug is harmful until proven otherwise.

rumanator 6y ago

> Your article is dated June 9th, it's irrelevant since the comments I linked to were made on May 20, 3 weeks earlier. Your comment makes no sense at all. The politization of hydrochloriquine has been ongoing for months, and these studies you're trying to ignore were triggered by the politization of hydrochloriquine as they are aimed to gather information to confirm or reject the baseless assertion made by a particular political group. And the baseless assertion has been rejected. > Yes, the drug has been politicized. You're downplaying the whole political shitstorm that was created around this drug. It was sold by a political group as a magic bullet against covid19, intending to downplay the natural consequences of having denied that the epidemic was something to be taken seriously. After a few months ridiculing the disease and ridiculing other governments for taking action to contain its spread, when covid19 started to spread out of control within the US then hydrochloriquine was presented as a silver bullet that turned the disease into a non-issue, in spite of the total absence of any evidence supporting the outlandish political statement. > All I'm saying is that the media planted its flag There is no flag to plant. A political group which is militantly anti-intellectual decided to make a totally baseless assertion regarding the effectiveness of a particular drug to treat and cure an epidemic. Consequently that political group was called out for their bullshit. This sort of bullshit claim is not the only instance of this mind-numbingly propensity to sell snake oil treatments as national policies. We're talking about the people who felt it was a good idea to suggest injecting disinfectant to treat a viral infection. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKCe8Pq_RUA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKCe8Pq_RUA

jjeaff 6y ago

I think you are thinking about medical treatment in a totally wrong way. The medical establishment is conservative for good reason. You don't just pick a drug and start touting it as a cure all. And you certainly don't publicly propose it with little to no evidence. From what I have seen in the media, they have correctly reported that the drug was being recommended by non-doctors and with little evidence. They may have gone too on the other side but given a lack of evidence the default assumption should always be that a drug is harmful until proven otherwise.