3 ms·

These are not political opinions. Spreading discredited information during a pandemic is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Advocating the use of a medicat

These are not political opinions. Spreading discredited information during a pandemic is like yelling fire in a crowded theater. Advocating the use of a medication shown by numerous studies not to work against CoVID-19 is not an unpopular opinion. It is factually incorrect and wantonly dangerous.

throwawaysea 6y ago
There are numerous conflicting studies and opinions on HCQ. A major study that claimed HCQ harmed patients was ultimately retracted (https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine-study-is-retracted-by-its-authors/ https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine...). CNN ran an article on one of the pro HCQ studies not too long ago (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-cor...). Their tweet about this study is still up and has no Twitter imposed warnings or censorship (https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240 https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240). My point is - when something like HCQ’s effectiveness/safety is undecided, why aren’t people allowed to talk about it? Why aren’t doctors allowed to share their experiences with it? And when do things ever get fully decided to the point that they cannot be challenged at all? And why does censorship apply to some but not all sources?
- ghthor 6y ago
  We think the censorship of the HCQ treating covid is because the government needs to stockpile HCQ because it's good for treating radiation damage to DNA. Damage that could be caused by cell towers and other radio frequencies. We found a patent[1] for this. The truth of the matter is being hidden from us in a huge psyop. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en
- t0mbstone 6y ago
  The problem isn't just that "America's Front Line Doctors" were claiming HCQ was a cure. That could be forgiven... Depending on which studies you favor, and what your definition of a "cure" is. For example, can you really claim that a 5% improvement is a "cure"? But these "doctors" were ALSO telling people they don't need to wear masks anymore, which is provably false. All you have to do is look at how infection rates drop every time masks are mandated to know this fact. It's a big problem when a right wing group (Breitbart) stages a bunch of anti-science "doctors" and exploits their medical licenses to essentially mass murder people by spreading false hope and absolutely, provably false information like the advice not to wear masks. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/facebook-youtube-coronavirus/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/facebook-youtube-coronav... In my humble opinion, every single one of those "doctors" should be stripped of their license to practice medicine, and should face criminal charges.
- Hnrobert42 6y ago
  Why is it important for you that we keep looking at HCQ? As more and more studies are released show its ineffectiveness, will you look for more and more obscure justifications? Why? Why not accept that HCQ is not an effective treatment? What is it about HCQ that gets you so fired up? These are genuine, non-rhetorical questions. I presume you are a reasonably intelligent, rational person acting in good faith. I accept that you don’t see yourself as foolish or a nutball, and if I met you in person, we’d probably get along fine. So I am trying to bridge the digital divide and figure out what motivates you.
  - throwawaysea 6y ago
    It’s not about HCQ for me, although I’m sure many are driven by the politicization if it. It’s more about freedom of speech/thought/inquiry. Shutting down all research or exploration or discussion seems like an argument to blindly trust in the status quo and in agencies that can be wrong and have been wrong. I remember seeing the same thing in earlier days of COVID, where Medium would block articles from amateurs performing their own analysis of the data and research. Many of those articles were proven over time to be more correct than what the prevailing consensus was back then. It is important to allow speculative or early stage discussion to happen and I simply do not agree with large technology platforms exercising this degree of control over societal discourse, especially when things aren’t “settled” or fully understood.

throwawaysea 6y ago

There are numerous conflicting studies and opinions on HCQ. A major study that claimed HCQ harmed patients was ultimately retracted (https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine-study-is-retracted-by-its-authors/ https://reason.com/2020/06/04/the-lancets-hydroxychloroquine...). CNN ran an article on one of the pro HCQ studies not too long ago (https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-detroit-study/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/hydroxychloroquine-cor...). Their tweet about this study is still up and has no Twitter imposed warnings or censorship (https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240 https://mobile.twitter.com/cnn/status/1278964201789194240). My point is - when something like HCQ’s effectiveness/safety is undecided, why aren’t people allowed to talk about it? Why aren’t doctors allowed to share their experiences with it? And when do things ever get fully decided to the point that they cannot be challenged at all? And why does censorship apply to some but not all sources?

ghthor 6y ago
We think the censorship of the HCQ treating covid is because the government needs to stockpile HCQ because it's good for treating radiation damage to DNA. Damage that could be caused by cell towers and other radio frequencies. We found a patent[1] for this. The truth of the matter is being hidden from us in a huge psyop. [1] https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en https://patents.google.com/patent/US20050014785A1/en
t0mbstone 6y ago
The problem isn't just that "America's Front Line Doctors" were claiming HCQ was a cure. That could be forgiven... Depending on which studies you favor, and what your definition of a "cure" is. For example, can you really claim that a 5% improvement is a "cure"? But these "doctors" were ALSO telling people they don't need to wear masks anymore, which is provably false. All you have to do is look at how infection rates drop every time masks are mandated to know this fact. It's a big problem when a right wing group (Breitbart) stages a bunch of anti-science "doctors" and exploits their medical licenses to essentially mass murder people by spreading false hope and absolutely, provably false information like the advice not to wear masks. https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/facebook-youtube-coronavirus/index.html https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/28/tech/facebook-youtube-coronav... In my humble opinion, every single one of those "doctors" should be stripped of their license to practice medicine, and should face criminal charges.
Hnrobert42 6y ago
Why is it important for you that we keep looking at HCQ? As more and more studies are released show its ineffectiveness, will you look for more and more obscure justifications? Why? Why not accept that HCQ is not an effective treatment? What is it about HCQ that gets you so fired up? These are genuine, non-rhetorical questions. I presume you are a reasonably intelligent, rational person acting in good faith. I accept that you don’t see yourself as foolish or a nutball, and if I met you in person, we’d probably get along fine. So I am trying to bridge the digital divide and figure out what motivates you.
- throwawaysea 6y ago
  It’s not about HCQ for me, although I’m sure many are driven by the politicization if it. It’s more about freedom of speech/thought/inquiry. Shutting down all research or exploration or discussion seems like an argument to blindly trust in the status quo and in agencies that can be wrong and have been wrong. I remember seeing the same thing in earlier days of COVID, where Medium would block articles from amateurs performing their own analysis of the data and research. Many of those articles were proven over time to be more correct than what the prevailing consensus was back then. It is important to allow speculative or early stage discussion to happen and I simply do not agree with large technology platforms exercising this degree of control over societal discourse, especially when things aren’t “settled” or fully understood.