The magic of cheap HCQ

submitted by zyxzevn from i.redd.it

all 7 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–][deleted] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (5 children)

How many Americans died because of the response to the "opiate crisis?" I think it's pretty obvious people's health and wellbeing has not been the top priority of medicine for a while.

Although tbh, I don't really know much about covid and hcq, there's so much conflicting information out there I'd have to consider myself agnostic at best here.

[–]zyxzevn[S] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (4 children)

Info at:
http://c19study.com
(with Zinc a lot better)
http://aflds.com
(doctors ewho saved lives with it)

[–][deleted] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

Yeah but how would I know those sources are any good without reviewing every single one of them myself? It's already been politicized, everything is suspect at this point.

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

how would you know any source is any good without reviewing them yourself? You can not, sources are a way for you to validate the info a person, who otherwise would be acting as an authority in and of themselves, is saying. There is not a single institution that is not politicized, no person with power or supposed authority that is not beholding to someone who will "politicize" what they say, even to the point where sentences are inserted into publised studies that talking about vaccines even when the study is not about the vaccine-- so the media can then point to the non sequitur as if it was supported by the study.

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

how would you know any source is any good without reviewing them yourself? You can not

Exactly, and I'm just saying I'm not putting my time into reading that since it would require significant effort. Pretty sure hardly anyone who'd actually understand what they're reading would. A website full of links is only going to convince people who treat scientific issues as fodder for political sport.

[–]FlippyKing 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

It is significant effort, but such effort is better than trusting people who interpret scientific findings or statements made by authorities regarding scientific matters. As bad as we all see journalism is right now, it was always worst in the pages of the science sections (of papers that had such sections) because the people writing the articles about studies, or the editors, would never express any of the caution or reservation about conclusions, any of the narrowing of the scope in the study, and would always paint with broad brushes a most overly simplified version of what the study really says, distorting it till it defies the study. It was something all the students in my major would do on a weekly basis, look at the science section and see how wrong it was compared to the actual studies involved.

A website full of links at least is that, and I would like to think that it is an invitation to anyone to go and draw their own conclusions. It does take work, but the work is rewarding and helps train our minds to draw better conclusions and assess claims and data better.

[–]Node 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

Non-prescription source for HCQ, like the horse paste on amazon for ivermectin?

And is one better than the other at knocking the flu back if the coof comes for you? I have the horse paste as backup, but haven't had the flu in years, and don't plan to start now.