Current Events > The origin of the hype behind hydroxychrloquine in the US is fascinating

(+) Yeah! (+)

https://www.theguardian.com/news/audio/2020/apr/16/hydroxychloroquine-how-did-an-unproven-drug-become-trumps-miracle-cure

I jumped in on this story long after it broke and becme obvious that the initial study was suspect. But the fact that it hype started because techbros circulated a google doc that Elon Musk retweeted, which is what Fox ran with, is ridiculous.

---

So it is a stupid idea?

---

The more I think about it, the more it makes me angry. Like, why does anyone value what Elon Musk has to say about medicine or biology? Why do techbros think that they can "logic" their way into expertise they don't have? Why does society even entertain it?

---

COVxy posted...

The more I think about it, the more it makes me angry. Like, why does anyone value what Elon Musk has to say about medicine or biology? Why do techbros think that they can "logic" their way into expertise they don't have? Why does society even entertain it?

Bill Gates inspired them

---

Don't understand the recent obsession with Bill Gates.

---

Bump. Is this common knowledge?

---

So basically there was a suspect study, techbros got it from the study, Elon got it from techbros, Fox got it from Elon, The president got it from Fox?

---

lmao i remember seeing elons tweet on this

i was like....the fuck is this

but you hear way too many anecdotes one way or another

however

if i'm on my way to dying...and im told i could take it if i want

you best believe im going to take it

does anyone have an opposite opinion on that scenario? Curious

There's some validity to it based on how quinine-derived drugs interact with viruses with similar biology, but it's something that still needs robust study before it could be said to be ready for prescribed purposes.

---

If I remember correctly, the hate for dietary fats in our culture had a similar origin. There was a single suspect study that gained some popularity, and then it became a chain of parroting. Several articles links that study. More articles link that articles. And it keeps going until it becomes widespread enough to be "common knowledge."

I think it speaks to how people in general like to take a nugget of information and run with it.

---

It's not about techbros. It's about how this country is overvaluing what the government and leaders of corporations are saying. No one is listening to the experts. Trump has brainwashed half the country into thinking that corporations should dictate everything we do.

---

COVxy posted...

why does anyone value what Elon Musk has to say

Fixed

---

it always mystifies me that famous people's opinions seem to hold such value. remember when that moron jennifer mccarthy had an opinion about vaccines and started a movement against them?

---

SquantoZ posted...

It's not about techbros. It's about how this country is overvaluing what the government and leaders of corporations are saying. No one is listening to the experts. Trump has brainwashed half the country into thinking that corporations should dictate everything we do.

The EXACT SAME THING can be said about experts. Why do you think Japan accused WHO of being the "Chinese Health Organization"?

https://twitter.com/thejcoop/status/1245463265712496642
https://twitter.com/WHO/status/1217043229427761152?s=20
https://twitter.com/brithume/status/1246156119938080776

Experts are still human. Humans are not infallible. You should be taking things with a bag of salt as long as people have money to lose or something to gain.

---

Sad_Face posted...

Experts are still human.

Yes, and what segregates them from you is knowledge and experience on the subject being discussed.

---

COVxy posted...

Yes, and what segregates them from you is knowledge and experience on the subject being discussed.

And what brings them right back to the boat are their own biases.

Case in point, enter Vitalik Buterin. This guy is one of the leading crytographic scientists of the industry and founder of the Ethereum blockchain, the premiere blockchain for smart contracts, contracts that are automated and trustless to force people into committing to their word.
https://twitter.com/DocuSign/status/1249762777406701568

^Above is a product revolving around smart contracts about to be rolled out soon but it will be applied to EVERYTHING in the future.

Now the big problem that has prevent Ethereum previously from being a household name was the fact that while the blockchain is secure, getting data to the blockchain, that method wasn't secure. This problem is called the oracle problem that Buterin wrote about extensively as an issue from back in 2014 I believe. A lot of oracle solutions were out there but since they were centralized (controlled by a single company) they hampered the security of blockchains that were inherently decentralized.

Enter Chainlink; the first decentralized oracle network that has proven its worth in solving the issue that industry is collectively acknowledging and adopting. This is what Ethereum has been waiting for. Buterin's response? "Oh it's not a big deal". Hand wave after hand wave after hand wave. I've watched an interview just recently where he lied through his teeth talking about how oracle problem has not been solved. The thing is, he's the darling child of the industry as he proposed Ethereum when he was 19. And here comes Chainlink stealing his spotlight. To make matters worse, he's a big proponent of fighting "the man", like most of us in crypto, yet Chainlink is an institutionally backed project. All the big banks are backing their tech. Obviously he's not going to admit to this, but actions speak louder than words.

This isn't the only story I have. I've seen this numerous times where a leading expert is slow to catch on or knows but is hiding more than they let on. And this is why I always advocate for people to get into investing. You don't have to spend money (though it'd help immensely) but once you're in the environment and you witness someone getting bent over and ****ed royally, then you'll start trusting official figures' words less and their actions more.

---

Industry leaders are typically not what people mean when they say experts...

---

COVxy posted...

Industry leaders are typically not what people mean when they say experts...

This. Like people have some serious Ayn Rand shit going on when they talk about "experts" and mean industry people.

---

COVxy posted...

Industry leaders are typically not what people mean when they say experts...

And in my example, we have an industry leader who is also one of the leading scientists of the industry. He cofounded and invented Ethereum. Don't try to deflect.

---

Sad_Face posted...

And in my example, we have an industry leader who is also one of the leading scientists of the industry. He cofounded and invented Ethereum. Don't try to deflect.

I include industry scientists in my comment.

---

Pogo_Marimo posted...

There's some validity to it based on how quinine-derived drugs interact with viruses with similar biology, but it's something that still needs robust study before it could be said to be ready for prescribed purposes.

Plus, hydroxychloroquine has some pretty severe side effects, so it's not the sort of thing you want to be trying just for the hell of it.

I only trust the experts that confirm my priors

Would anyone deny the drug if they were in critical condition?

What does cryptocurrency have to do with hydroxychloroquine?

Romes187 posted...

I only trust the experts that confirm my priors

More like, I trust experts whose job is to be an expert, rather than develop and sell products.

---

Would you turn down my hot steamy piss if you were in critical condition? Really makes you think

---

Romes187 posted...

Would anyone deny the drug if they were in critical condition?

seeing that one of the more common side effects is heart arrhythmia, yeah i'd be hesitant to give it to people in critical condition.

---

monkmith posted...

seeing that one of the more common side effects is heart arrhythmia, yeah i'd be hesitant to give it to people in critical condition.

Not asking if you'd give it

I'm asking if you were dying...and they offered it

would you take it

Romes187 posted...

Not asking if you'd give it

I'm asking if you were dying...and they offered it

would you take it

This is kind of disingenuous to use his answer as an endorsement of the drug. If I was dying of cancer and a doctor told me there was an experimental drug I could try with anecdotal success, sure I'd take it. But I wouldn't unless I was actually dying.

It is not an endorsement of the drug

Considering what we've seen with the studies, I don't necessarily think giving the drug to everyone that has covid is the right decision. I believe we need more studies and it doesn't seem like it is very effective with many people.

That being said, my ass is taking it in a heartbeat given a dying circumstance

Romes187 posted...

Not asking if you'd give it

I'm asking if you were dying...and they offered it

would you take it

if you're dying from covid, you're on a ventilator. if you're on a ventilator, you're very likely unconscious; they keep you unconscious because its not comfortable to have a tube down your throat, and most will try to pull it out. if you're unconscious, you cant consent.

in this case they'd ask whoever had power of attorney. if my family member was dying, i'd consider it but i'd also ask if they were offering nitric oxide first. seems like a much safer experimental drug treatment.

---

Romes187 posted...

Not asking if you'd give it

I'm asking if you were dying...and they offered it

would you take it

Nah I'd rather take one of the other experimental drugs instead

OpenShut posted...

What does cryptocurrency have to do with hydroxychloroquine?

To show that being an expert doesn't remove you from having biases that could conflict with your work.

---

you guys...its just a hypothetical...you don't need to give reasons why it doesn't work

its more of a fun question to ask because im fairly certain we'd all try anything if we're dying...

so maybe the bigger point is, do we have a right to stop others? again this isn't an endorsement, and because CE fails at any nuance, I do not think we should be using the drug en masse currently due to unknown risks and lack of studies

im talking on a personal level. not hard to just give an answer. you can be fully consistent in saying "I would totally take the drug on my deathbed if I had the chance to do so, however I feel it should not be used for treatment on non-lethal cases due to lack of studies"

not hard

ToPoPO posted...

Nah I'd rather take one of the other experimental drugs instead

oh nice, do they have others? only one ive heard is this one

Romes187 posted...

you guys...its just a hypothetical...you don't need to give reasons why it doesn't work

its more of a fun question to ask because im fairly certain we'd all try anything if we're dying...

so maybe the bigger point is, do we have a right to stop others? again this isn't an endorsement, and because CE fails at any nuance, I do not think we should be using the drug en masse currently due to unknown risks and lack of studies

im talking on a personal level. not hard to just give an answer. you can be fully consistent in saying "I would totally take the drug on my deathbed if I had the chance to do so, however I feel it should not be used for treatment on non-lethal cases due to lack of studies"

not hard

Yeah and I'd rather take another drug instead, why are you having a meltdown lmao

i am not having a meltdown...:-/

was clarifying my hypothetical...

to repeat my response to your other post

Romes187 posted...

oh nice, do they have others? only one ive heard is this one

The deathbed decision is a bit deceptive. Pretty much it means you weight the possible positives without having to worry about any negatives. Meaning expected value is bounded positive and you should always say yes unless there's zero probability of any positives.

---

I'm so glad that people who are cautious about vaccines want the government to pass out Plaquenil like candy just because Trump talked about it. You can really see how sensible their concerns are

---

Romes187 posted...

you guys...its just a hypothetical...you don't need to give reasons why it doesn't work

its more of a fun question to ask because im fairly certain we'd all try anything if we're dying...

so maybe the bigger point is, do we have a right to stop others? again this isn't an endorsement, and because CE fails at any nuance, I do not think we should be using the drug en masse currently due to unknown risks and lack of studies

im talking on a personal level. not hard to just give an answer. you can be fully consistent in saying "I would totally take the drug on my deathbed if I had the chance to do so, however I feel it should not be used for treatment on non-lethal cases due to lack of studies"

not hard

That's literally unethical and disgusting. Should we sell cyanide as a food if some people want to eat it?

My feelings on my deathbed are irrelevant and only serve to make this an emotional debate

---

COVxy posted...

The deathbed decision is a bit deceptive. Pretty much it means you weight the possible positives without having to worry about any negatives. Meaning expected value is bounded positive and you should always say yes unless there's zero probability of any positives.

All I am curious about is whether or not there are people who wouldn't take it if they were offered it, after hearing the anecdotes

Seems everyone thinks I'm trying to trap them. I have no dog in this fight. I do not think the drug should be used currently ....like I said twice ITT. I do think I would take it given the option if I were in severe condition.

hockeybub89 posted...

That's literally unethical and disgusting. Should we sell cyanide as a food if some people want to eat it?

I'm sorry I don't follow.

Romes187 posted...

All I am curious about is whether or not there are people who wouldn't take it if they were offered it, after hearing the anecdotes

Seems everyone thinks I'm trying to trap them. I have no dog in this fight. I do not think the drug should be used currently ....like I said twice ITT. I do think I would take it given the option if I were in severe condition.

And I'm saying that the answer pretty much has to be yes, which makes it an uninteresting question.

---

But what makes it interesting are the people that say "no"...which is what I initially asked for

did you not read my original post?

Romes187 posted...

if i'm on my way to dying...and im told i could take it if i want

you best believe im going to take it

does anyone have an opposite opinion on that scenario? Curious

Did you read this post? Up above ITT?

People are only saying no because they recognize it as a deliberately deceptive question and want to one up you, I'm guessing.

---

what am i gonna do with you covxy ole boy...what am i gonna do with you

I was just saying the hypothetical doesn't really matter because in no scenario should I be allowed to just take whatever I want. Medical ethics should stop me from even being offered the choice. Even experimental treatments shouldn't be mad science.

---

Romes187 posted...

what am i gonna do with you covxy ole boy...what am i gonna do with you

Your question is irrespective of the drug. It pretty much doesn't matter what the drug is. Most people approve of compassionate use of pretty much anything. And the reason is that there's nothing to lose, no negative if you are dying.

---

COVxy posted...

Your question is irrespective of the drug. It pretty much doesn't matter what the drug is. Most people approve of compassionate use of pretty much anything. And the reason is that there's nothing to lose, no negative if you are dying.

Not the post above you. But please, let others answer the question. You might not find it intersting but I do. So stop responding

NinjaBreakfast posted...

Really makes you think

---