5 ms·

This is such a depressing comment to read. Yes, there was political furor over it. The original people who were supporting the possibility that this drug MIGH

This is such a depressing comment to read. Yes, there was political furor over it. The original people who were supporting the possibility that this drug MIGHT be useful against covid were legitimate doctors and researchers. Some politicians got overly excited about that, some politicians got overly upset about that. All of the legitimate discussion happening around it got lost in the crossfire of annoying politicians.

polishTar 4y ago
This seems a bit revisionist. Nobody got upset at people getting excited, everyone was excited about its potential initially. The annoyance came specifically about certain politicians endorsing its use, without any disclaimers, without evidential support, and even after the evidence showed it didn't work.
- AustinDev 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - ummonk 4y ago
    There is nothing in that article to indicate those studies may have been biased.
    - AustinDev 4y ago
      SBF is a good actor. I got it. `Fraus Omnia Vitiat`
- remote_phone 4y ago
  [flagged]
freejazz 4y ago
[flagged]
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  The original person who suggest HCQ, and pushed for its use was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    Are you saying he's a legitimate doctor and researcher? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult#Controversies has him being censured for falsifying diagrams, being credibly accused of "ethical, procedural, and methodological problems" in his HCQ trial, and conducting illegal clinical trials on people who could not legally consent. I mean, sure, he might be credible but his track record suggests otherwise.
  - littlestymaar 4y ago
    Who has been well-known in France for his hot takes in media about how sun rays don't cause skin cancer or how alcohol is more beneficial than harmful. He was also involved in an long list of academic malpractices (including faking data in research papers, but that's mostly related to the fact that he has put his name way too many papers from people in his lab to review them all). He's basically a former good scientist with excellent political skills which helped him climb to the top and has been slowly been corrupted by his own hubris.
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      You're moving the goalposts here. The fact is that the original claims about HCQ weren't coming from politicians, they were coming from doctors. You might not like the doctors, those doctors might have heterodox ideas, but that is okay.
      - ummonk 4y ago
        The claim was that they were "legitimate doctors and researchers". He clearly was not considered a legitimate researcher anymore.
x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago
None of the legitimacy ascribed to HCQ compares to the legitimacy of the vaccine. The only reason HCQ rose to prominence was because of COVID denialism, not because of actual scientific or therapeutic concerns as a reasonable alternative to the vaccine.
- remote_phone 4y ago
  False. We didn’t have a vaccine available until early 2021. People were scrambling to find a therapeutic way to treat Covid and there was anecdotal evidence that hcq and ivermectin might work. They wanted large scale trials but they were unscientifically denied which made people very suspicious about the reasons why. Yes, they turned out to be ineffective but the reaction against them was mindblowingly biased and filled with propaganda.
  - 312c 4y ago
    > They wanted large scale trials but they were unscientifically denied which made people very suspicious about the reasons why. False. There was an large scale international trial and it showed that HCQ did little to nothing to treat covid. https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hy...
api 4y ago
It went like this: 1. Some legitimate research suggests that it might be useful against COVID. 2. Quacks announce that it definitely is the miracle drug against COVID that “THEY” don’t want you to know about. 3. Legitimate doctors counter the quacks and explain that its utility against COVID is not proven. 4. Trumpist Populists back the quacks because if the establishment is against it it must be good. It must be something “THEY” don’t want you to know about. 5. Democrats and other anti-Trumpists react hard in the other direction and conclude that it must be quack nonsense. There is no chance it could be legitimate because quacks and populists said it was legitimate. 6. Legitimate researchers from (1) are utterly forgotten because now it’s politicized and rational discourse is impossible. In the end all we have is evidence-free screaming and conspiracy theories. Same exact sequence of events happened with Ivermectin, the debate over whether vaccine mandates were needed, debates over the utility of the vaccines themselves, the question of whether having had COVID is equivalent to having been vaccinated (or better?), and many other topics. People need to learn that statements without evidence are like the “null” value. They mean precisely nothing, especially if they are from people without expertise. Meaning “precisely nothing” means that they are neither a positive indicator nor a contrarian indicator. They are meaningless noise that should be completely ignored.
- thepasswordis 4y ago
  2-6 could also be described as 'political furor'.
  - ummonk 4y ago
    I'd argue only 4-6 is 'political furor'.
- ars 4y ago
  This should be higher, that's exactly how it went. The FDA even said: "both hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine phosphate “have shown activity in laboratory studies against coronaviruses,”", but they stressed it was not proven yet. i.e. your step 1 was based on current evidence. Then everything went insane exactly as you describe.
tptacek 4y ago
It didn't work. It was, in fact, COVID snake oil. Meanwhile: exactly zero people campaigned that HCQ was an evil substance that should be taken off the market. Opponents of COVID snake oil weren't Lupus deniers. This entire thread is completely off topic; it's the kind of thing we get ourselves mired in when we don't have the expertise to engage with the actual story, which is whether or not HCQ is protective against Alzheimers.

polishTar 4y ago

This seems a bit revisionist. Nobody got upset at people getting excited, everyone was excited about its potential initially. The annoyance came specifically about certain politicians endorsing its use, without any disclaimers, without evidential support, and even after the evidence showed it didn't work.

AustinDev 4y ago
[flagged]
- ummonk 4y ago
  There is nothing in that article to indicate those studies may have been biased.
  - AustinDev 4y ago
    SBF is a good actor. I got it. `Fraus Omnia Vitiat`
remote_phone 4y ago
[flagged]

freejazz 4y ago

[flagged]

thepasswordis 4y ago
The original person who suggest HCQ, and pushed for its use was this guy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  Are you saying he's a legitimate doctor and researcher? Because https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult#Controversies https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Didier_Raoult#Controversies has him being censured for falsifying diagrams, being credibly accused of "ethical, procedural, and methodological problems" in his HCQ trial, and conducting illegal clinical trials on people who could not legally consent. I mean, sure, he might be credible but his track record suggests otherwise.
- littlestymaar 4y ago
  Who has been well-known in France for his hot takes in media about how sun rays don't cause skin cancer or how alcohol is more beneficial than harmful. He was also involved in an long list of academic malpractices (including faking data in research papers, but that's mostly related to the fact that he has put his name way too many papers from people in his lab to review them all). He's basically a former good scientist with excellent political skills which helped him climb to the top and has been slowly been corrupted by his own hubris.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    You're moving the goalposts here. The fact is that the original claims about HCQ weren't coming from politicians, they were coming from doctors. You might not like the doctors, those doctors might have heterodox ideas, but that is okay.
    - ummonk 4y ago
      The claim was that they were "legitimate doctors and researchers". He clearly was not considered a legitimate researcher anymore.

x86_64Ubuntu 4y ago

None of the legitimacy ascribed to HCQ compares to the legitimacy of the vaccine. The only reason HCQ rose to prominence was because of COVID denialism, not because of actual scientific or therapeutic concerns as a reasonable alternative to the vaccine.

remote_phone 4y ago
False. We didn’t have a vaccine available until early 2021. People were scrambling to find a therapeutic way to treat Covid and there was anecdotal evidence that hcq and ivermectin might work. They wanted large scale trials but they were unscientifically denied which made people very suspicious about the reasons why. Yes, they turned out to be ineffective but the reaction against them was mindblowingly biased and filled with propaganda.
- 312c 4y ago
  > They wanted large scale trials but they were unscientifically denied which made people very suspicious about the reasons why. False. There was an large scale international trial and it showed that HCQ did little to nothing to treat covid. https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hy...

api 4y ago

It went like this: 1. Some legitimate research suggests that it might be useful against COVID. 2. Quacks announce that it definitely is the miracle drug against COVID that “THEY” don’t want you to know about. 3. Legitimate doctors counter the quacks and explain that its utility against COVID is not proven. 4. Trumpist Populists back the quacks because if the establishment is against it it must be good. It must be something “THEY” don’t want you to know about. 5. Democrats and other anti-Trumpists react hard in the other direction and conclude that it must be quack nonsense. There is no chance it could be legitimate because quacks and populists said it was legitimate. 6. Legitimate researchers from (1) are utterly forgotten because now it’s politicized and rational discourse is impossible. In the end all we have is evidence-free screaming and conspiracy theories. Same exact sequence of events happened with Ivermectin, the debate over whether vaccine mandates were needed, debates over the utility of the vaccines themselves, the question of whether having had COVID is equivalent to having been vaccinated (or better?), and many other topics. People need to learn that statements without evidence are like the “null” value. They mean precisely nothing, especially if they are from people without expertise. Meaning “precisely nothing” means that they are neither a positive indicator nor a contrarian indicator. They are meaningless noise that should be completely ignored.

thepasswordis 4y ago
2-6 could also be described as 'political furor'.
- ummonk 4y ago
  I'd argue only 4-6 is 'political furor'.
ars 4y ago
This should be higher, that's exactly how it went. The FDA even said: "both hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine phosphate “have shown activity in laboratory studies against coronaviruses,”", but they stressed it was not proven yet. i.e. your step 1 was based on current evidence. Then everything went insane exactly as you describe.

tptacek 4y ago

It didn't work. It was, in fact, COVID snake oil. Meanwhile: exactly zero people campaigned that HCQ was an evil substance that should be taken off the market. Opponents of COVID snake oil weren't Lupus deniers. This entire thread is completely off topic; it's the kind of thing we get ourselves mired in when we don't have the expertise to engage with the actual story, which is whether or not HCQ is protective against Alzheimers.