Fox news, bitcoin..the communities surrounding these two entities are cesspools of misinformation and do pose a risk that I don't believe should be abated by throwing away the idea of abridged trials during times like these.
Look, my brother is infected, and he's positive and under 40 without any underlying disease and weeks of respiratory symptoms. Doctors now think he might suffer permanent lung damage in the form of reduced lung capacity, so on a personal/emotional level, the risk of doing nothing is far greater than any side effects such a dose could bring.
On the other hand, we have people still going out for spring break and crowding the parks in Florida and NYC respectively...and a drug with this effect might close the gap between a proper lockdown and whatever it is we have going on now. With those two risk factors in mind, I think it's fair to let this half-assed study out into the wild. It's not like chloroquine is available without a prescription, and people will be vomiting their guts out from the sugar long before they get a clinical dose of it from tonic water.
But come to think of it...did the author of the original paper go on Tucker Carlson and say that it's 100% effective or was that the random eye doctor? If it's the former, then yea I'm furious, but I can't seem to find the clip. Otherwise, stuff like this is never going to stop from happening. It sounds to me like the real culprits here are the news agencies responsible for diluting down the information responsibly.
> did the author of the original paper go on Tucker Carlson and say that it's 100% effective
He did so, in French but he absolutely offered to go on the French talk shows, with a clear snide to Cauhet, the French equivalent of Tucker Carlson, because people who were not him where scaring people into quarantine while he “has a treatment that cheap, reliable and safe”. So yes, he absolutely did that.
There was no reason to make his presentation public beyond specialists — hell, he quotes studies on the same molecule who have shared temporary results without the same publicity.
Look, my brother is infected, and he's positive and under 40 without any underlying disease and weeks of respiratory symptoms. Doctors now think he might suffer permanent lung damage in the form of reduced lung capacity, so on a personal/emotional level, the risk of doing nothing is far greater than any side effects such a dose could bring.
On the other hand, we have people still going out for spring break and crowding the parks in Florida and NYC respectively...and a drug with this effect might close the gap between a proper lockdown and whatever it is we have going on now. With those two risk factors in mind, I think it's fair to let this half-assed study out into the wild. It's not like chloroquine is available without a prescription, and people will be vomiting their guts out from the sugar long before they get a clinical dose of it from tonic water.
But come to think of it...did the author of the original paper go on Tucker Carlson and say that it's 100% effective or was that the random eye doctor? If it's the former, then yea I'm furious, but I can't seem to find the clip. Otherwise, stuff like this is never going to stop from happening. It sounds to me like the real culprits here are the news agencies responsible for diluting down the information responsibly.