On Thursday, August 6, 2020 at 11:33:37 AM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > > > On 31 Jul 2020, at 22:06, spudboy100 via Everything List < > [email protected] <javascript:>> wrote: > > You really must read up on your history more Bruno, That term comes from > the nazis and not I. Here is a 2015 Scientific American article reviewing a > book by Philip Ball, The Struggle for the Soul of Physics. > > https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/ > > I am accusing the politicization of medical science > > > That has been aggravated by the “marijuana conspiracy”. The book by Jack > Herer remains a chef-d’oeuvre of investigation. He cites all its sources, > and I have verified all of them. > > The problem is that when we do money with medication, there is an > incentive to make people sick, and to avoid efficacious medication. Like > the slogan sum up well: a cured patient is a lost client... > > > > > and the observations of physicians who have claimed that hydro can be > helpful. > > > I am not an expert to really judge this, but I know enough of logic to > find mistakes in some critics against Didier Raoult (in France, a > well-known pro-hydorxychoroquine). Then I learned that in many countries > they are using hydroxychloroquine, with a success which seems better than > with remdesivir. None of them are pananacea, and hydroxyhlorquine has to be > used with a lot of care, at the benign of the infection, according to > Didier Raoult. >
With your personal standards of effectiveness and that of guys like Raoult. Personally, I find that anything that doesn't satisfy the standards of randomized proper placebo controlled trial (even if for ethical reasons, you permit respirators etc. as standard of care for placebo) does not qualify as effective beyond doubt. If such trials properly conducted and controlled were to prove HCQ as effective, I would change my view. Sure, if people want to take it with these nuances in mind, then no problem. What is concerning is the sense of false hope (and cash extracted from patients from drug makers and doctors) in the argumentation that this "really" has significant or sufficient effectiveness, when such trials are not completed as of today to my knowledge and people remain largely unaware of the nuances/degrees of effectiveness. In this kind of uninformed, hysterical environment, the argument can be made that Raoult is acting irresponsibly, as people are largely unable to differentiate on effectiveness and he uses his expert status to advance what is still a personal view until arguably higher standards of trials/effectiveness prove or disprove the claim. PGC -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/79488e75-1598-4a56-a69a-bf2cd269b2a2o%40googlegroups.com.
