3 ms·

>> Any clinical intervention is going to have advocates. > Honestly I don't really get this at all. Not even a little bit. It's ok for scientists to think som

by ColanR 6y ago

>> Any clinical intervention is going to have advocates. > Honestly I don't really get this at all. Not even a little bit. It's ok for scientists to think something's true before they have all the evidence lined up - especially in a predominantly empirical field like medicine. That's how new ideas happen. Have you ever encountered someone who is motivated by altruism? Someone who is motivated by getting the truth out there?

hindsightbias 6y ago
Lots of QAnon advocates see themselves as altruistic truth seekers. Doctors and scientists need to be objective. Advocating a treatment before the data is there, or cherry picking results is not science.
landryraccoon 6y ago
I think that it's important to distinguish between thinking "X is true" is probably true and being "pro-X". Especially when we are talking about medical treatments that can affect the decisions someone will make with respect to their health and possibly even risk their lives. Certainly a scientist can say "I very much hope that HCQ is an effective cure for Coronavirus" but that is very, very different from being "Pro-HCQ". When I hear "Pro-HCQ" that implies to me a very strong suggestion of treatment, i.e. - "You should take HCQ as a treatment for Coronavirus infection", which is extremely different from, "I hope that the research shows that HCQ will be an effective treatment for Coronavirus, and I am doing a study with the goal of showing that this is the case". Does that make sense?
- ColanR 6y ago
  I think you're leaving out a middle option, which is what I see when I read 'pro-HCQ' - a scientist who thinks we should further investigate HCQ (etc.) as a treatment option. Not someone who thinks it should be used as treatment, not someone who hopes the particular treatment turns out to be effective. I think that middle option is actually how a scientist would interpret the phrase. I can see why a layman would read it otherwise, though.

by ColanR 6y ago

hindsightbias 6y ago

Lots of QAnon advocates see themselves as altruistic truth seekers. Doctors and scientists need to be objective. Advocating a treatment before the data is there, or cherry picking results is not science.

landryraccoon 6y ago

I think that it's important to distinguish between thinking "X is true" is probably true and being "pro-X". Especially when we are talking about medical treatments that can affect the decisions someone will make with respect to their health and possibly even risk their lives. Certainly a scientist can say "I very much hope that HCQ is an effective cure for Coronavirus" but that is very, very different from being "Pro-HCQ". When I hear "Pro-HCQ" that implies to me a very strong suggestion of treatment, i.e. - "You should take HCQ as a treatment for Coronavirus infection", which is extremely different from, "I hope that the research shows that HCQ will be an effective treatment for Coronavirus, and I am doing a study with the goal of showing that this is the case". Does that make sense?

ColanR 6y ago
I think you're leaving out a middle option, which is what I see when I read 'pro-HCQ' - a scientist who thinks we should further investigate HCQ (etc.) as a treatment option. Not someone who thinks it should be used as treatment, not someone who hopes the particular treatment turns out to be effective. I think that middle option is actually how a scientist would interpret the phrase. I can see why a layman would read it otherwise, though.