4 ms·

Next we'll find that the cheap and well-understood hydroxychloroquine is actually relatively effective Covid-19 treatment! It's disturbing how much the suppres

by ppf 5y ago

Next we'll find that the cheap and well-understood hydroxychloroquine is actually relatively effective Covid-19 treatment! It's disturbing how much the suppression of Covid "wrong-think" over the last year has resulted in useful results and information only very slowly coming out (and generally, in the process, giving a feeling of vindication to the conspiracy theorists). I have always been, and continue to be, against the idea that "this is such a novel emergency we just need to ignore all the processes that we know and trust". If anything, in those times, when we don't know what is going on, those principles are exactly the type of things we should stick to. I strongly believe it would have done us better over the past year.

jiofih 5y ago
> against the idea that this is such a novel emergency we just need to ignore all the processes that we know and trust There is a pretty well trodden path for new medicine to prove their effectiveness, which all Covid measures have gone through. If ivermectin, hydroxichloroquine or any other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted. The reason discussions have been censored is precisely because people have been rallying around a drug like a football club before they’ve had their effectiveness scientifically proven, and demanding to skip the traditional due diligence. And for some context: this paper was submitted to a mainstream journal in March and rejected for lack of evidence. This publisher who picked it up is not exactly a reputable one (and will benefit immensely from citations of this study).
- Nursie 5y ago
  > rallying round a drug like a football club That’s what gets to me too, and this is the major issue I had with Trump saying anything about anything. He was floundering to look like he had a plan and the moment he mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. It was massively irresponsible. It should be left to medical science, which is doing pretty damn well with vaccinations and treatments like dexamethasone. If Ivermectin can be helpful that’s great, and if it’s not then never mind, let’s evaluate other things. But it seems like people need to latch onto something, and then their ego and tribal allegiances won’t let it go.
  - iammisc 5y ago
    > mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. Trump first mentioned it as a possibility and investigation and that he was taking it after consulting with his doctor. That's it. The media made you think otherwise. Telling the public what drugs he's on is fine.. shouldn't we know what drugs POTUS is taking? And the people who politicized it were medical journals who published fake studies with no data or vetting. Otherwise the comments would have passed on like every other trivial statement made by politicians. I mean Trump's statements may have been unwise or not backed by a double blind studies that doesn't make them untrue, not does it make them inherently political. The immediate condemnation that HCQ was not only ineffective but harmful was based on data that does not exist. It was fake. The only ones politicizing are the ones telling lies. If you have genuine disagreements with trump, one ought to make them by issuing truths not made up fake studies.
    - XorNot 5y ago
      All the times Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-the-times-trump-promoted-hydroxychloroquine/?sh=79e50c5e4643 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-t... Trump ongoingly and repeatedly pushed hydroxychloroquine, criticized published research showing it was ineffective, and most likely lied about taking hydroxychloroquine seeing as how no evidence or independent confirmation that he was on the drug ever surfaced. It was not a one off thing, and it was not "mentioned as a possibility".
      - iammisc 5y ago
        > likely lied about taking hydroxychloroquine seeing as how no evidence or independent confirmation that he was on the drug ever surfaced. White house physician said he was on it. Also studies are mixed on it's efficacy. The ones showing it was supposedly harmful were fake.
        jiofih 5y ago
        This comment above is fake.
- effie 5y ago
  > other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted. That is quite naive, the "due course" here would mean very costly trials that usually big pharma pays for. I'm not holding my breath for them to pay for that.

by ppf 5y ago

jiofih 5y ago

> against the idea that this is such a novel emergency we just need to ignore all the processes that we know and trust There is a pretty well trodden path for new medicine to prove their effectiveness, which all Covid measures have gone through. If ivermectin, hydroxichloroquine or any other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted. The reason discussions have been censored is precisely because people have been rallying around a drug like a football club before they’ve had their effectiveness scientifically proven, and demanding to skip the traditional due diligence. And for some context: this paper was submitted to a mainstream journal in March and rejected for lack of evidence. This publisher who picked it up is not exactly a reputable one (and will benefit immensely from citations of this study).

Nursie 5y ago
> rallying round a drug like a football club That’s what gets to me too, and this is the major issue I had with Trump saying anything about anything. He was floundering to look like he had a plan and the moment he mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. It was massively irresponsible. It should be left to medical science, which is doing pretty damn well with vaccinations and treatments like dexamethasone. If Ivermectin can be helpful that’s great, and if it’s not then never mind, let’s evaluate other things. But it seems like people need to latch onto something, and then their ego and tribal allegiances won’t let it go.
- iammisc 5y ago
  > mentioned HCQ he turned the whole thing political. Trump first mentioned it as a possibility and investigation and that he was taking it after consulting with his doctor. That's it. The media made you think otherwise. Telling the public what drugs he's on is fine.. shouldn't we know what drugs POTUS is taking? And the people who politicized it were medical journals who published fake studies with no data or vetting. Otherwise the comments would have passed on like every other trivial statement made by politicians. I mean Trump's statements may have been unwise or not backed by a double blind studies that doesn't make them untrue, not does it make them inherently political. The immediate condemnation that HCQ was not only ineffective but harmful was based on data that does not exist. It was fake. The only ones politicizing are the ones telling lies. If you have genuine disagreements with trump, one ought to make them by issuing truths not made up fake studies.
  - XorNot 5y ago
    All the times Trump promoted hydroxychloroquine: https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-the-times-trump-promoted-hydroxychloroquine/?sh=79e50c5e4643 https://www.forbes.com/sites/andrewsolender/2020/05/22/all-t... Trump ongoingly and repeatedly pushed hydroxychloroquine, criticized published research showing it was ineffective, and most likely lied about taking hydroxychloroquine seeing as how no evidence or independent confirmation that he was on the drug ever surfaced. It was not a one off thing, and it was not "mentioned as a possibility".
    - iammisc 5y ago
      > likely lied about taking hydroxychloroquine seeing as how no evidence or independent confirmation that he was on the drug ever surfaced. White house physician said he was on it. Also studies are mixed on it's efficacy. The ones showing it was supposedly harmful were fake.
      - jiofih 5y ago
        This comment above is fake.
effie 5y ago
> other alternative drug goes through due course they would have no difficult being accepted. That is quite naive, the "due course" here would mean very costly trials that usually big pharma pays for. I'm not holding my breath for them to pay for that.