you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]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...