2 ms·
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 resu
by 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 agoBoth-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.