all 11 comments

[–]Canbot 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (10 children)

People need to understand that the media is the mouthpiece of the elite. They are never unbiased. They are not to be blindly trusted. This article claims to be unbiased but is clearly in bed with everyone who is standing in the way of reasonable use of this drug to save lives.

The elite want as many people to die as possible because they want to exploit the fear and uncertainty to get more bailout money. The longer the quarantines are in place the more leverage the elite have over the working class and over the government.

This particular article insinuates that the scientific evidence showing the efficacy of this drug is only coming from supporters in order to discredit them, when logically when the results show it works the scientists would support using it. Their criticism is not logical.

Then they go on to amplify and exaggerate the risks when in reality this drug has been used for decades and has proven to be safe. The claim that it is not safe because it requires a prescription is not true, it is propaganda.

Then they claim that proper studies can't be done because they would require a control group. They are parroting the propaganda of the obstructionist elite who say we can't do testing for moral reasons and then say we can't use it because it hasn't been tested. So somehow it is moral to deny people this treatment so long as it is not part of a trial.

This is not journalism, it is propaganda. DON'T TRUST THE MEDIA.

[–]GenesisStryker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

I disagree. The article is speaking the truth. There is not much evidence for hydroxichlorquine BUT there is no evidence against it.

[–]Canbot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

When people are dying and there is no treatment trying anything is better than trying nothing. There is absolutely no valid argument for not giving this to every hospitalized case.

[–]GenesisStryker 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Yeah they don't argue against that.

[–]Canbot 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

They pretend not to, and I guess you fell for it. I pointed out three ways in which they dishonestly misrepresented the situation in order to make the argument for not using HQC.

[–]GenesisStryker 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

The vibe I got from it was that yeah there is no reason not to use HQC if you are ill.

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

When they only give time to arguments from one side like this:

It's very easy to come up on television and say 'I used it and nothing happened', but how could you guarantee that not everybody would benefit or not everybody could be harmed with the approach you have taken?"

and this

I can't believe any good journal would accept a clinical trial that would publish a study without that quality criteria met. But with this condition, this pandemic, everything is so important that these quality benchmarks are not being met,

And don't give any time to pro use arguments I don't see where you are getting that vibe. Maybe you can point out the parts that balance this anti HQC rhetoric with pro HQC rhetoric. And "it might be safe" is not a balance for "no good journal would accept these studies" and "even positive results mean nothing"

When they strongly insinuate that the studies that show it works are biased and untrustworthy with this:

Now, if you look at the literature, you can see two groups. One group is supporting the use of Hydroxychloroquine and the other group is opposing the use of Hydroxychloroquine. If you look at the results of the trials, you will see some very good results supporting the use of Hydroxychloroquine and this is coming out from a particular group,"

Which is pretty much slander against anyone conducting trials, how can you pretend they are giving both sides equal time?

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

Because using HQC is the default position. Maybe not for other people though. I see what you're saying.

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

How can you say that when the vast majority of people don't get it?

[–]Isidend 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

This article is fishy and ambiguous, they want us to assume their side of the story. They also didn't send links to what they think was better/good.

Personally, I wouldn't use Hydroxychloroquine and prefer to use tested and tried (natural) methods that withstand the test of time yet I still don't think their article was fair for both sides...

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

MSM telling you it is bad so must be good