3 ms·

The initial "hcq works" was also independent of any actual scientific research or result. If someone says "Take this magical cure, maybe it could work... but I

The initial "hcq works" was also independent of any actual scientific research or result. If someone says "Take this magical cure, maybe it could work... but I don't have any evidence of it yet", it's not so terrible to start from a position of skepticism. Could hcq work? Maybe, although with every randomized trial it seems less likely. But the people who initially pushed it did so from a position of wishful thinking, not actual science. This might have been a hoax of ignorance not evil, but in the end, I say it's still a hoax.

esyir 6y ago
The issue here isn't that one side was correct, or one side was wrong. The issue here is that both sides talking points were barely even touched the actual results. You're right, "hcq works" was independent of the scientific work done then. However, "HCQ doesn't work" was the same. The reason we had those studies in the first place is because preliminary work showed some promise, and researchers decided to dig in to confirm this. What many people don't know is that the biomedical scientific process is fraught with false starts and failures to replicate. The results are subsequently slow. At that time, the only responsible answer, and the answer that any biomedical scientist with integrity would give is: "Early results show X, though further follow up studies would be needed to replicate these results to confirm their validity" But that's not what we got. What we got was a binary split between miracle cure and worse than homeopathy, depending on which side of the political divide you were on.
- lucd 6y ago
  Both-sidism: in evidence-based medecine, a treatment is ineffective until it is proven effective. Now that some monthes have passed, at least five peer-reviewed RCTs were conducted. In each of them hydroxychloroquine is ineffective.
- IvyMike 6y ago
  > or one side was wrong I argue that when someone declares, without evidence, that "X works", that is a hoax and should be criticized. Even if later evidence shows it works! Because it's easy to make a random guess, and it's hard to fight the collateral damage that wrong guess can cause. There are a million things that might be the covid miracle cure (colloidal silver? high protein diet? grapeseed extract? etc, etc, etc). If I pick one of these on a hunch and start pushing it as a cure, I would rightly deserve to be called out.
nl 6y ago
There was a (very bad!) study done in France that showed some initial promise which is what kicked off the whole thing.
giardini 6y ago
IvyMike says>The initial "hcq works" was also independent of any actual scientific research or result.< No, there were Chinese, French and other reports and observational studies during the pandemic that supported use of HCQ: >"Wuhan was the epicenter, and the Chinese physicians at the People’s Hospital of Wuhan University told their Western counterparts that they got the idea of using HCQ because none of the 178 patients they had admitted for COVID-19 had lupus—a surprise, since lupus is an immune disease, and some thought it might have made these patients especially vulnerable. They wondered why this might be, and whether HCQ, which these patients had been taking for this preexisting condition, might in some way be protecting them against COVID-19."< taken from "Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale": https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxychloroquine-morality-tale https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxyc...
- IvyMike 6y ago
  That's a potential reason to investigate, not a conclusion.
  - smichael 6y ago
    That's one of the points made in the fine article. Recommended, thanks for linking it.

esyir 6y ago

The issue here isn't that one side was correct, or one side was wrong. The issue here is that both sides talking points were barely even touched the actual results. You're right, "hcq works" was independent of the scientific work done then. However, "HCQ doesn't work" was the same. The reason we had those studies in the first place is because preliminary work showed some promise, and researchers decided to dig in to confirm this. What many people don't know is that the biomedical scientific process is fraught with false starts and failures to replicate. The results are subsequently slow. At that time, the only responsible answer, and the answer that any biomedical scientist with integrity would give is: "Early results show X, though further follow up studies would be needed to replicate these results to confirm their validity" But that's not what we got. What we got was a binary split between miracle cure and worse than homeopathy, depending on which side of the political divide you were on.

lucd 6y ago
Both-sidism: in evidence-based medecine, a treatment is ineffective until it is proven effective. Now that some monthes have passed, at least five peer-reviewed RCTs were conducted. In each of them hydroxychloroquine is ineffective.
IvyMike 6y ago
> or one side was wrong I argue that when someone declares, without evidence, that "X works", that is a hoax and should be criticized. Even if later evidence shows it works! Because it's easy to make a random guess, and it's hard to fight the collateral damage that wrong guess can cause. There are a million things that might be the covid miracle cure (colloidal silver? high protein diet? grapeseed extract? etc, etc, etc). If I pick one of these on a hunch and start pushing it as a cure, I would rightly deserve to be called out.

nl 6y ago

There was a (very bad!) study done in France that showed some initial promise which is what kicked off the whole thing.

giardini 6y ago

IvyMike says>The initial "hcq works" was also independent of any actual scientific research or result.< No, there were Chinese, French and other reports and observational studies during the pandemic that supported use of HCQ: >"Wuhan was the epicenter, and the Chinese physicians at the People’s Hospital of Wuhan University told their Western counterparts that they got the idea of using HCQ because none of the 178 patients they had admitted for COVID-19 had lupus—a surprise, since lupus is an immune disease, and some thought it might have made these patients especially vulnerable. They wondered why this might be, and whether HCQ, which these patients had been taking for this preexisting condition, might in some way be protecting them against COVID-19."< taken from "Hydroxychloroquine: A Morality Tale": https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxychloroquine-morality-tale https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/science/articles/hydroxyc...

IvyMike 6y ago
That's a potential reason to investigate, not a conclusion.
- smichael 6y ago
  That's one of the points made in the fine article. Recommended, thanks for linking it.