Question

The URL below, links to a 2005 study published by the NIH stating that chlorquine was effective against the SARS coronavirus, both as a prophylactic and as a treatment. Facebook doesn’t want to be reminded of it, it seems. There has been some debate about the relevance of this study to our current coronavirus; With their bottomless well of medical expertise, Facebook has deemed any attempt to draw a parallel to be FALSE, relying on those objective scientific authorities, PolitiFact. “Not the same disease,” they claim. “And never tested on humans.”

Both valid points.

But think about it. Let’s say you are a nationally recognized researcher highly placed at the NIH. Let’s say you are confronted with a new coronavirus. Given that your department at the NIH is the National Institute if Allergies and Infectious Diseases, this would be of immediate interest to you. Let’s say you’ve just predicted that this virus will become the Black Plague of our time with the potential to kill millions.

Then, let’s say the you begin hearing anecdotal evidence from doctors in multiple locations around the world that Hydroxychlorquine is an effective treatment. Clearly, you have to know about previous positive results with past coronaviruses. The study came from the NIH, after all. As a scientist who is fond of reciting the mantra, “Follow the data,” what do you do?

Do you say, “This calls for further study,” and fast track efforts to determine if there is merit to the claims (this is a pandemic, after all, and some measure of urgency would seem to be called for?) Or fo you stick your fingers in your ears, chant “Na Na Na Na—I can’t hear you!” And keep it up, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong?

What would a scientist do?

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]

#scientific #evidence #disease #humans #world

Edgework 8

Answer 1

"Do you say, “This calls for further study,” and fast track efforts to determine if there is merit to the claims (this is a pandemic, after all, and some measure of urgency would seem to be called for?) Or fo you stick your fingers in your ears, chant “Na Na Na Na—I can’t hear you!” And keep it up, even in the face of overwhelming evidence that you are wrong?"

Lot's of info in that report. We have some weird and highly questionable doctoring from our wanna be Doctor social media mods and CEO's (clears throat...Zuckerberg) Bottom line is that I'm on the "this calls for further study" side.

I've been thinking a lot about the way social media has been moderating COVID information and studies. I would actually be fine with a certain extent of it. Like, only authorized Doctors (from all over the world) can post studies, speeches, summits, etc. to avoid altered and edited documents. Any information spread (reposted/ linked) must be from authorized Doctor pages.

Where my thinking starts breaking apart is, who is considered an authorized Doctor? FDA, CDC, WHO, local?

Also, I just don't see how dangerous any of these Doctors studies can be. Even if people are interested in alternatives, it's not FB who will be liable. Are they? You shouldn't have to jump through hoops to get alternative treatments or access to alternative studies. Care, even at a world wide level, is between patient and Doctor in the end. Not patient and FB.

Additionally, after seeing how quickly the summit video went viral as well as the amount of views, people are extremely interested in hearing any studies and drugs as well as the progress of the research. Things that could be harmful should be debunked by Doctors, and not pulled down because they "are harmful". American citizens should not be treated as children who must be kept at arms length by social media.

Answer 2

What scientists? How do pharmacutical companies profit with a generic malaria drug? Maybe wait until all the supplies already on the market are used up, then pull a debeers bottleneck for the remainder of the population when the studies are validated.

Answer 3

this one?

[ncbi.nlm.nih.gov]


Author	Author:
Type of abuse	I think this violates the community guidelines. Chat or rant, adult content, spam, insulting other members I think this is illegal. Harm to minors, violence or threats, harassment or privacy invasion, impersonation or misrepresentation, fraud or phishing, etc.
Additional Details If Needed

Chat room is open

Post a comment Author doesn't reply Reply Author doesn't reply Add Photo

Be part of the movement!

3 comments

Recent Visitors 11

Photos 11,806 More

Members 9,404Top

Moderators

Related GroupsMore