4 ms·

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_Raoul

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.
    - thepasswordis 4y ago
      Look at the guys career history, awards won, research published etc. Yeah, he was wrong about HCQ, but the idea that he is just some fake doctor, or not legitimate in some way is as disinformative as the idea that some mysterious "they" is hiding HCQ from everybody.
    - josephcsible 4y ago
      This is a no true Scotsman fallacy, just like "no true implementation of socialism has ever failed" is.
  - freejazz 4y ago
    My issue was the "might". HCQ wasn't being sold as a 'maybe'. Maybe, that's what that Dr's science said... but we'd be fooling ourselves if we said that HCQ in the public discourse was being sold as a 'maybe'. It was being sold as an alternative to a vaccine. The discourse was 'why are we not exploring HCQ and instead telling everyone to take vaccines. Don't take vaccines, take HCQ' when, at the time, there was no science supporting that hcq would be effective treatment for covid (when someone didn't already have worms...) let alone it was comparable to the vaccines in any way. The poster is trying to downplay this distinction, and it's completely dishonest.
comeonbro 4y ago
Didier Raoult was the original person who received western popular media coverage for it. It had been part of the scientific conversation for over a month before his involvement (an eternity in 2020 time), eg https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0

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.
  - thepasswordis 4y ago
    Look at the guys career history, awards won, research published etc. Yeah, he was wrong about HCQ, but the idea that he is just some fake doctor, or not legitimate in some way is as disinformative as the idea that some mysterious "they" is hiding HCQ from everybody.
  - josephcsible 4y ago
    This is a no true Scotsman fallacy, just like "no true implementation of socialism has ever failed" is.
- freejazz 4y ago
  My issue was the "might". HCQ wasn't being sold as a 'maybe'. Maybe, that's what that Dr's science said... but we'd be fooling ourselves if we said that HCQ in the public discourse was being sold as a 'maybe'. It was being sold as an alternative to a vaccine. The discourse was 'why are we not exploring HCQ and instead telling everyone to take vaccines. Don't take vaccines, take HCQ' when, at the time, there was no science supporting that hcq would be effective treatment for covid (when someone didn't already have worms...) let alone it was comparable to the vaccines in any way. The poster is trying to downplay this distinction, and it's completely dishonest.

comeonbro 4y ago

Didier Raoult was the original person who received western popular media coverage for it. It had been part of the scientific conversation for over a month before his involvement (an eternity in 2020 time), eg https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0