https://www.city-journal.org/hydroxychloroquine-and-authoritarian-science?skip=1

This is a weak argument. Multiple drugs, including HCQ and Ivermectin, were seriously analyzed by multiple groups of scientists and medical professionals when they were informed of in vitro success. The problem for this "David and Goliath" bull**** narrative is that the scientific method showed they don't work. The plural of anecdote is not data, and you should always be suspicious of someone who profits off of results that make no sense in relation to the studied and published results made by multiple groups studying thousands of other patients.

Quote:

---

The Los Angeles Times article reveals a fundamentally authoritarian worldview: medical claims are "unproven," and dangerous for the public to discuss, until some official body endorses theman approach that threatens public health and science alike.

---

Quote:

---

In short, the actual scientific evidence used to dismiss HCQ is far from an absolute proof that it doesn't work. Many of the studies commonly cited to dismiss the drug are irrelevant, too weak to bear much weight, or actually suggest some benefits.

---

Quote:

---

Critical thinking about medicine or any topic requires weighing multiple sources against one another and distinguishing between degrees of certainty, not ruling out all sources of evidence but one and equating "unproven" with "false." The approach to health information increasingly taken by public officials, reporters, and social mediaunder which any statement is "unproven" and must be assumed harmful, barring some definitive pronouncement by public health authorities to the contraryis thus not only authoritarian but also damaging to public health and science as a whole.

---

It seems like a pretty reasonable article. It doesn't claim HCQ to be a miracle - and the variables at play render almost any comparison flawed - but I'm reminded of the story of chemotherapy and how the entire medical profession can remain wrong about something until they're forced to recon with undeniable results.

Even if it's no better than a placebo - pretty much nobody is saying it's worse. And there are studies that say anxious patients have worse outcomes, so what's the downside of saying "hey, maybe this'll help a little bit" and sending patients home with some hope?

The fight to make it unavailable has been weird, though. Like self-proclaimed atheists who are obsessed with their hate for God rather than just laughing at those who believe in 'silliness.' It just doesn't make sense to expend energy fighting against people taking something that you believe to have zero appreciable effect.

Quote:

---

The fight to make it unavailable has been weird, though.

---

Because it's an extremely valuable tool for people with longstanding autoimmune disorders, and their ability to stay healthy was seriously hampered by people rushing out to buy every last pill regardless of the efficacy.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Quote:

---

The fight to make it unavailable has been weird, though.

---

Because it's an extremely valuable tool for people with longstanding autoimmune disorders, and their ability to stay healthy was seriously hampered by people rushing out to buy every last pill regardless of the efficacy.

---

But that has not been the narrative. And the drug is widely available now. The most common narrative is that it hasn't been shown to work.

I have no idea whether the pro- or anti-hcq folks are right. I don't have enough knowledge of medicine or statistics to have a valid opinion. But I am amazed at the immediate and vitriolic opposition to it (and other drugs/treatments). And that opposition arose before any evidence was in.

Quote:

---

The plural of anecdote is not data

---

That may sound clever, but why is it not data, and who says it's not?

It is data, it just may not be reliable data. But even then, if there's enough anecdotal data, could it be reliable? For example, if 1,000,000 doctors gave HCQ to 1000 patients each, isn't that enough "data" to start reaching some conclusions?

And the supposed "gold standard" of medical data is RCTs, and a rank higher than those are the meta-studies. But every single RCT study I've seen so far has flaws, many with serious flaws, and meta-studies are only so good as the studies they choose to include. They don't seem to be that much more reliable than widespread anecdotal data.

It seems that many are simply repeating mantras without actually thinking about what the mantras mean and their implications.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The plural of anecdote is not data

---

That may sound clever, but why is it not data, and who says it's not?

It is data, it just may not be reliable data. But even then, if there's enough anecdotal data, could it be reliable? For example, if 1,000,000 doctors gave HCQ to 1000 patients each, isn't that enough "data" to start reaching some conclusions?

And the supposed "gold standard" of medical data is RCTs, and a rank higher than those are the meta-studies. But every single RCT study I've seen so far has flaws, many with serious flaws, and meta-studies are only so good as the studies they choose to include. They don't seem to be that much more reliable than widespread anecdotal data.

It seems that many are simply repeating mantras without actually thinking about what the mantras mean and their implications.

---

Anyone with a statistics degree

Well, I don't have a statistics degree so would you care to elucidate just a tiny bit further?

Also, isn't "big data" based on the idea that if you have enough anecdotal evidence, you can draw statistically significant conclusions from it? At one time, I assisted an internet marketing company and they made hundreds of millions of dollars from analyzing anecdotal data en masse.

Sapper Redux said:

---

This is a weak argument. Multiple drugs, including HCQ and Ivermectin, were seriously analyzed by multiple groups of scientists and medical professionals when they were informed of in vitro success. The problem for this "David and Goliath" bull**** narrative is that the scientific method showed they don't work. The plural of anecdote is not data, and you should always be suspicious of someone who profits off of results that make no sense in relation to the studied and published results made by multiple groups studying thousands of other patients.

---

Lol the OP posts a thread about authoritarian science, and the first post literally validates the thread title.

This is priceless.

Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

From mask mandates, to social distancing, to vaccine efficacy...the science has been corrupted by nonsense.

Dr. Peter McCullough - May 7, 2021

Jabin said:

---

Well, I don't have a statistics degree so would you care to elucidate just a tiny bit further?

Also, isn't "big data" based on the idea that if you have enough anecdotal evidence, you can draw statistically significant conclusions from it? At one time, I assisted an internet marketing company and they made hundreds of millions of dollars from analyzing anecdotal data en masse.

---

Anecdotes are narratives divorced from circumstance and investigation. They're essentially non-falsifiable and their source has often created a conclusion and then filled in the story to support it. Useless as a statistical point.

Year of the Germaphobe said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This is a weak argument. Multiple drugs, including HCQ and Ivermectin, were seriously analyzed by multiple groups of scientists and medical professionals when they were informed of in vitro success. The problem for this "David and Goliath" bull**** narrative is that the scientific method showed they don't work. The plural of anecdote is not data, and you should always be suspicious of someone who profits off of results that make no sense in relation to the studied and published results made by multiple groups studying thousands of other patients.

---

Lol the OP posts a thread about authoritarian science, and the first post literally validates the thread title.

This is priceless.

Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

From mask mandates, to social distancing, to vaccine efficacy...the science has been corrupted by nonsense.

---

It's funny that in your argument about "authoritarian science," you provide no science and appeal to purely political beliefs. I'm shocked you've come to this conclusion. Shocked.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Year of the Germaphobe said:

---

Sapper Redux said:

---

This is a weak argument. Multiple drugs, including HCQ and Ivermectin, were seriously analyzed by multiple groups of scientists and medical professionals when they were informed of in vitro success. The problem for this "David and Goliath" bull**** narrative is that the scientific method showed they don't work. The plural of anecdote is not data, and you should always be suspicious of someone who profits off of results that make no sense in relation to the studied and published results made by multiple groups studying thousands of other patients.

---

Lol the OP posts a thread about authoritarian science, and the first post literally validates the thread title.

This is priceless.

Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

From mask mandates, to social distancing, to vaccine efficacy...the science has been corrupted by nonsense.

---

It's funny that in your argument about "authoritarian science," you provide no science and appeal to purely political beliefs. I'm shocked you've come to this conclusion. Shocked.

---

1) an appeal to political beliefs can be found nowhere in my statement.

2) If I hear a sound inside of a person's car that indicates a serious issue, do I have to diagnose it with the precision of a mechanic, in order to communicate the problem? Or can I simply just state "Hey Bud, You Have A Problem."

3) You are not shocked, that feeling of frustration, and the ensuing desire to engage me with sarcasm for the purpose of minimizing my highly credible opinion is what an authoritarian feels when...surprise! They have a tightly held belief challenged. They (you) seek not to understand an individual, but silence them.

ETA: I have shut down more people than I can count in 2020 over mask mandates, social distancing, and lockdowns... if there is one thing that I wish they could understand it is that being right is so overrated. It really, really is.

Sapper Redux said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Anecdotes are narratives divorced from circumstance and investigation. They're essentially non-falsifiable and their source has often created a conclusion and then filled in the story to support it. Useless as a statistical point.

---

---

I am quite open to the argument that the anecdotal evidence from doctors is wrong. However, your conclusory and condescending posts provide little in the way of persuasion.

Your post above is extraordinarily conclusory:

• In what way are "Anecdotes . . . narratives divorced from circumstance and investigation"? Both descriptors that you use would seem to be inherently and obviously false.
• Why do you say that anecdotes are "essentially non-falsifiable"? Of course they can be falsified, just as any other personal testimony can.
• You say "their source has often created a conclusion and then filled in the story to support it." What the heck does that mean? Any evidence or data to support that conclusion?
• You say "Useless as a statistical point." We know that's your opinion. But that's what we're discussing. Simply repeating your conclusion ad nauseum doesn't add anything to the discussion.

If you want to add to the discussion and be persuasive then address at least some of the questions I've posted above. For example, I still don't understand why the records of hundreds if not thousands of doctors are not relevant to the issue, even if they're not RCTs. We use "big data" for all kinds of things and, with enough data, can use statistical analysis to separate the wheat from the chaff. Why not in this case?

I also do not understand why that type of anecdotal evidence is inferior to RCTs which frequently get shredded for being biased, fraudulent, limited and so forth.

And I'm not advocating any position - I am asking genuine questions that I have. I've followed the science pretty carefully, and rather than becoming more convinced of anything am rather becoming more confused. I've come away from the experience much less confident of medical "science" than I was before.

Sapper Redux said:

---

This is a weak argument. Multiple drugs, including HCQ and Ivermectin, were seriously analyzed by multiple groups of scientists and medical professionals when they were informed of in vitro success. The problem for this "David and Goliath" bull**** narrative is that the scientific method showed they don't work. The plural of anecdote is not data, and you should always be suspicious of someone who profits off of results that make no sense in relation to the studied and published results made by multiple groups studying thousands of other patients.

---

" The plural of anecdote is not data, and you should always be suspicious of someone who profits off of results that make no sense in relation to the studied and published results made by multiple groups studying thousands of other patients."

Pfizer and Moderna fully agree.

Maybe you dedicated anti-HCQ anecdotal-hating truthers should go get the data from UMMC Houston where Pence visited 20 months ago for the HCQ cocktail they used exclusively in the Covid ICU.

They did not lose a single patient.

Remdesivir came out to kill patients shortly after.



.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}

Quote:

---

Remdesivir came out to kill patients shortly after.



.tb_button {padding:1px;cursor:pointer;border-right: 1px solid #8b8b8b;border-left: 1px solid #FFF;border-bottom: 1px solid #fff;}.tb_button.hover {borer:2px outset #def; background-color: #f8f8f8 !important;}.ws_toolbar {z-index:100000} .ws_toolbar .ws_tb_btn {cursor:pointer;border:1px solid #555;padding:3px} .tb_highlight{background-color:yellow} .tb_hide {visibility:hidden} .ws_toolbar img {padding:2px;margin:0px}

---

Quote:

---

1) an appeal to political beliefs can be found nowhere in my statement.

---

Didn't you say the below just prior? Seems king of political to me.

Quote:

---

Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

---

Quote:

---

2) If I hear a sound inside of a person's car that indicates a serious issue, do I have to diagnose it with the precision of a mechanic, in order to communicate the problem? Or can I simply just state "Hey Bud, You Have A Problem."

---

But this is not the crux of the discussion. A better analogy is that you have no knowledge of automobile mechanics or engine parts. Your friend's car starts making a noise and he takes it to the mechanic who diagnoses the problem and advises a fix. You go to your friend and tell him to ignore the mechanic and use this other thing because you read about it on the internet.

Your friend goes and talks to the mechanic who patiently explains why that doesn't work and how multiple engine experts have looked into this and concluded it doesn't work. You tell your friend to ignore all that research and insight because of . . . . . . . . .

something.

I'd have to know who the mechanic voted for to know whether to trust him or not.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

1) an appeal to political beliefs can be found nowhere in my statement.

---

Didn't you say the below just prior? Seems king of political to me.

Quote:

---

Authoritarian: favoring or enforcing strict obedience to authority, especially that of the government, at the expense of personal freedom.

---

Quote:

---

2) If I hear a sound inside of a person's car that indicates a serious issue, do I have to diagnose it with the precision of a mechanic, in order to communicate the problem? Or can I simply just state "Hey Bud, You Have A Problem."

---

But this is not the crux of the discussion. A better analogy is that you have no knowledge of automobile mechanics or engine parts. Your friend's car starts making a noise and he takes it to the mechanic who diagnoses the problem and advises a fix. You go to your friend and tell him to ignore the mechanic and use this other thing because you read about it on the internet.

Your friend goes and talks to the mechanic who patiently explains why that doesn't work and how multiple engine experts have looked into this and concluded it doesn't work. You tell your friend to ignore all that research and insight because of . . . . . . . . .

something.

---

Say the mechanic has lied to you repeatedly in the past and is known to be incredibly greedy and self centered. Say they've repeatedly demonstrated that their primary interest is control of you and your vehicle and that they are willing to sacrifice your well being for that purpose. In that, incredible hypothetical, situation might you believe a friend who knows a little about cars over the expert mechanic?

Hope that helps spell it out.

Quote:

---

Say the mechanic has lied to you repeatedly in the past and is known to be incredibly greedy and self centered. Say they've repeatedly demonstrated that their primary interest is control of you and your vehicle and that they are willing to sacrifice your well being for that purpose. In that, incredible hypothetical, situation might you believe a friend who knows a little about cars over the expert mechanic?

Hope that helps spell it out.

---

Not nice stuff to say about the average ER doctor.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Say the mechanic has lied to you repeatedly in the past and is known to be incredibly greedy and self centered. Say they've repeatedly demonstrated that their primary interest is control of you and your vehicle and that they are willing to sacrifice your well being for that purpose. In that, incredible hypothetical, situation might you believe a friend who knows a little about cars over the expert mechanic?

Hope that helps spell it out.

---

Not nice stuff to say about the average ER doctor.

---

HCQ should be taken long before anyone needs an ER doctor.

Quote:

---

Not sure if serious? You think I am talking about the average ER doctor.

---

Just pointing out that certain individuals tend to indulge in fantastical visions of conspiracy regarding nefarious actors actively working against their personal interests.

The more boring reality is that we rely on is a system of educated medical professionals who work through a code of ethics and have in many cases learned the hard way to do no harm. They have tools to determine efficacy of treatment and if something does not appear to do any good and has remote chances of doing harm, they do not prescribe.

The Double Blind Study process is what plagues the pro-HCQ crowd . . .not the Bilderbergs or the Globalists or Lizard People.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Remdesivir came out to kill patients shortly after.

---

---

I'll correct myself.

The "Remdesivir protocol"

Remdesivir, Intubate, Medical Coma, Die, Check Covid on the Paperwork.

Hospital/Government gets PAID on the death, the intubation, and the medical coma with the elevated Cares Act payout rates of Covid. This is not high finance.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not sure if serious? You think I am talking about the average ER doctor.

---

Just pointing out that certain individuals tend to indulge in fantastical visions of conspiracy regarding nefarious actors actively working against their personal interests.

The more boring reality is that we rely on is a system of educated medical professionals who work through a code of ethics and have in many cases learned the hard way to do no harm. They have tools to determine efficacy of treatment and if something does not appear to do any good and has remote chances of doing harm, they do not prescribe.

The Double Blind Study process is what plagues the pro-HCQ crowd . . .not the Bilderbergs or the Globalists or Lizard People.

---

It never plagued the hospitals using it...how funny.

The research staff, the COVID ICU nurses. Specifically UMMC Houston

The more boring reality is that educated medical professionals have been eschewing a code of ethics of "Do no harm" for risk management security. They find solace in "consensus" to punt that accountability. This is undeniable the last two years.

Quote:

---

Remote chances on doing harm, they do not prescribe.

---

Masks - LMAO
Lockdowns - Cancer alone from missed regular screenings is skyrocketing. Go get checked.
Safe, effective. Well, excuse me. Your adverse events are showing. Next.

We have a large evidence pool now of doctors in leadership positions doing harm for the sake of profits. We have evidence of hospital administration doing harm for the sake of profits. We have evidence of those carrying water for the hospitals.

So... Do no Harm does not invoke much confidence the last two years.

Windy City Ag said:

---

Quote:

---

Not sure if serious? You think I am talking about the average ER doctor.

---

Just pointing out that certain individuals tend to indulge in fantastical visions of conspiracy regarding nefarious actors actively working against their personal interests.

The more boring reality is that we rely on is a system of educated medical professionals who work through a code of ethics and have in many cases learned the hard way to do no harm. They have tools to determine efficacy of treatment and if something does not appear to do any good and has remote chances of doing harm, they do not prescribe.

The Double Blind Study process is what plagues the pro-HCQ crowd . . .not the Bilderbergs or the Globalists or Lizard People.

---

The pro HCQ crowd claimed that it needed to be taken early to be effective. The anti crowd ran high quality studies mostly using very sick patients to pretty conclusively show it doesn't help the very sick.
Then they used that data to say it was worthless as a treatment.

Did you know getting to a warm place when you first get cold is a very good way to avoid death by hypothermia?

Well actually we've done studies on people in late stage hypothermia and simply moving them to a warm space has no effect. If you think warmth helps against hypothermia you are a science denier.

What bothers me the most is the people Telling others they can't use a safe harmless drug, when taken correctly.

It will probably be proven that thousands died unnecessary due to draconian rule by some that actually blocked treatment to people for no reason what so ever except for power.

Quote:

---

It is data, it just may not be reliable data. But even then, if there's enough anecdotal data, could it be reliable? For example, if 1,000,000 doctors gave HCQ to 1000 patients each, isn't that enough "data" to start reaching some conclusions?

---

Anecdotes are meaningful only for rare and unusual events. If I report I have a patient with a 100% fatal prion disease something and they got better, that's something that warrants looking into assuming I can prove that they actually had the disease and actually got better.

They are not meaningful for common occurrences. Giving a patient something for a low mortality illness and saying it made them better means nothing, no matter how many patients are involved, until you design large trials to account for confounding and natural statistical probability.

Quote:

---

The pro HCQ crowd claimed that it needed to be taken early to be effective.

---

They did plenty of studies investigating its efficacy as a preventative and/or an aid to treatment if taking prior to onset of symptoms. That did not change the conclusion.