5 ms·

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

• 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.