That’s a deep cut!
8 Likes
came ’ yea ’ /me holding thumb and index finger about an inch apart /end_mechanical close to discovering epigenetics , well , " close in a " zeno’s paradox , or " close " as in a hot or cold fusion sense
1 Like
I’m still open to it being useful. Yet the balance of evidence seems to be against it. It would gall me to see that smug bastard pointing out he was right. But saving lives and avoiding misery could almost, almost, be worth it.
2 Likes
We have all the tools to make that happen right now and we’re not using them.
7 Likes
Best dissection of the Newsweek-covered story is here:
4 Likes
I agree we are not using all the tools we have. Or rather, some tools are not using the tools we have. But we don’t have all the tools. Otherwise why bother with a vaccine? Having more tools that work is better.
What I meant from my comment was that part of science is always being open to being proven wrong. And in this particular case, I would be prefer to be proven wrong about hydroxychloroquine. That some special use case is actually beneficial. But I don’t see that as likely.
1 Like
12 hours without tweeting. At last real consequences for Don Jr’s misbehavior! Other tough disciplinary strategies include standing in the corner for 20 minutes and going to bed without his supper.
3 Likes
Trump and Giuliani and the Trumplings don’t give two tugs on a dead dingo’s dick whether HCQ works. All that matters for them is that it isn’t being used, and it won’t be used (because it’s useless), so they can blame someone else for 150000 US deaths, i.e. the doctors and scientists who suppressed the cure.
This is the Find-a-scapegoat Blame-the-Kulaks stage.
1 Like
It would be great to have both an effective vaccine and an effective treatment. We don’t have those yet (though remdesivir looks promising). But we do have the tools we need to reduce loss of life and suffering; we just don’t have the will to use them.
Hydroxychloroquine will never be a safe treatment for COVID, because it’s not a safe drug to begin with. It’s a least-worst option to treat some autoimmune disorders, at the cost of severe increase in risk of arrhythmias. Unless the plan is to implant a defibrillator at the same time as writing the prescription, I don’t see how it will be useful in managing COVID.
4 Likes
I kid.
But seriously, I too highly doubt the efficacy of HC (tired of writing it out). And the peer reviewed studies keep rolling in to bury it further. But never say never. The heart problems seem to be from long term use, so I’d agree it’s likely to be a shitty prophylactic. And it seems likely to be malpractice to even do any more studies. But I’ll wait for the science to finish before declaring never. Not out of hope, but because, hey, that’s how science works.
OTOH, wearing a damn mask appears to be far more effective and safe. Any dumbass that is using HC and not a mask is, well, a dumbass^2.
And when you square irrationality…
(dude, we’re just arguing over never vs probably never. Sorry)
2 Likes
Agreed.
That said, I’m not even including the (idiotic) idea of using it as a preventative measure, which doesn’t even have a conceptual basis of effectiveness. I’m talking about treating people who already are infected and either in cytokine storm or at risk of it. The arrhythmia risk starts with the very first dose. As anyone who plays D&D knows, you keep rolling D20s and eventually you will roll a critical failure. Except in this case, rolling a 1 puts you in ventricular fibrillation…
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
