Comments

You must log in or register to comment.

FeistyAgency9994 t1_j3fg3n8 wrote

The people that need this information are not going to be interested in a subreddit named r/science

149

BlishBlash t1_j3fpmwd wrote

You'd be surprised how many anti-vax idiots post here. This sub has 29.3m members so you get all kinds.

48

L-Train45 t1_j3ild0w wrote

Yes. Also Unfortunately not every study i posted in here is as of the quality of the one posted above.

6

Kagahami t1_j3lm08a wrote

Yeah, I've seen my fair share of active anti vaxxers on this subreddit doing their best to justify how a literal 1 in a million chance of getting myocarditis means the vaccine isn't safe and we were misled when it was produced. Absolutely insane.

3

bookon t1_j3m2zw7 wrote

>The people that need this information are not going to be interested in a subreddit named r/science

​

"The people that need this information are not going to be interested changing any of their views simply because they are in a subreddit named r/science."

Opinions not formed using reason can't be changed by it.

1

AcidicGreyMatter t1_j3gbfvz wrote

Well if you do some digging to figure out where they got their funding, you will find they don't fully list that. But there are 2 investors backing Pharmaaz India Pvt. Ltd and the biggest one is the NIH which through the duration of this specific study, Anthony Fauci, who was the director of NIAID/NIH.

So that right there is a conflict of interest in the study because if NIH/Fauci was funding it, you can't trust it to be 100% transparent or trustworthy when you consider his stance on hydroxychloroquine and covid.

−74

bobbi21 t1_j3gfml1 wrote

Funding is required to be listed by law... it takes no digging... no conflicts of interest and no further funding source listed means its funded internally by the university... your claims are totally made up from the fact that the author once did a study on a trial drug for that pharm company at some point in the past. You are aware trial funding gives zero money ti the researcher and its all to fund the trial costs as well. And that data is incredibly well documented to be for that specific trial alone. The only worry is if that trial is bias because the funders decide what studies are being done to some degree and can look at specific things which are more favourable to them (although thats harder to do in medicine with more restrictions in place).

Also if you think the director of the niaid directly decides who receives noh grants you also have no idea how these insittutions run.

You obviously have no clue on how medical research is conducted

43

AcidicGreyMatter t1_j3gg0o2 wrote

Okay so if I am wrong, correct me with the source of funding, because your comment doesn't correct me, it makes a baseless claim that I made it up, which my claim is not made up, you can look up the investors behind pharmazz yourself.

I have read through it and have not seen any mention of a specific university that provided the funding for this.

−55

elhabito t1_j3h5j61 wrote

They gave you the source of the funding in the first two sentences.

Is this because you heard Donald Trump say hydroxy chloroquine 1,000 times during the pandemic? You should know he is not a doctor, a research candidate, or even a good businessman.

16

RatMannen t1_j3h8kgf wrote

They directly answered exactly those points. Try again. x

11

Jacko411 t1_j3hxu7g wrote

Just admit you don't kno what "conflict of interest" means.

3

DrProfDoommuffinsPhD t1_j3hr0zr wrote

This is the dumbest thing I've read all day. Having the ability to speak doesn't mean that you should. Keep this in mind, moving forward, and you'll be fine.

2

PatReady t1_j3hjc4c wrote

As opposed to the people in their mom's basement, you do trust.

0

[deleted] t1_j3d9mra wrote

[removed]

61

[deleted] t1_j3dgcfq wrote

[removed]

18

5nilbog t1_j3dl3qa wrote

Exactly “the incidence of COVID-19 was similar in both the HCQ group and control.”

43

ibkld63 t1_j3gtyoy wrote

And those of us that use hydroxychloroquine had to go without for about 9 months due to "shortages" caused by this crap

40

cookiecutter666 t1_j3hba3c wrote

So frustrating! This is the only thing that works for my autoimmune disease without horrific side effects. There were a couple months of misery for me. I also don’t like the judgement I get from the pharmacy now when I pick it up.

19

BobDawg3294 t1_j3eufrg wrote

Unfortunately, many people no longer trust scientists give accurate directions, not to mention advice about COVID

32

Better-Win-4113 t1_j3fwas4 wrote

any idea why that might be?

10

Krasmaniandevil t1_j3g0pbf wrote

People assume that the indeterminate nature of the scientific method is a license to ignore evidence. Anti-science people looooove cherry picking scientists who were mocked at the time who were later vindicated, even though the same people don't appreciate how we know those theorists were ultimately correct (e.g., heliocentrism, germ theory, etc.).

27

newishdm t1_j3guvw4 wrote

I think it also has a lot to do with politicians constantly saying “the science on this is settled” as a way to brow beat their political opponents. The scientific method dictates that “the science” is never settled. The scientific method is literally predicated on the idea that you should always question everything. Anyone who tells you to “not question the science” is obviously trying to deceive you.

26

jayv9779 t1_j3gy42v wrote

At a certain point people need to realize we evolved for instance. They need to be able to accept certain findings and not waste time. Evolution is settled in that we know for a fact allele changes happen. Some just can’t accept basic things that are now facts.

8

lobojones6six6 t1_j3h70vw wrote

Any idea on how or why those changes happened to cause said evolution?? Can you comment on the role diseases and viruses play? Evolution is just adaptation to your environment. Survival of the fittest , not survival of the over inoculated. Like nature has evolved to keep populations in check , we've side stepped that and look where that got us.

−4

jayv9779 t1_j3h7h54 wrote

Environmental pressures according to the Theory of Natural Selection. Which is well documented if you care to read up on it. Survival of the fittest means the most fit to the environment which vaccines help with. Notice the distinct lack of small pox for instance.

2

lobojones6six6 t1_j3h8bo2 wrote

Environmental pressure like surviving disease? Pre vaccine. Some bodies can handle some can't. May not even come down to physical fitness but genetic makeup. Yes , lack of small pox... but at same time over population. Over population is bad , if you care to read up on it. You kinda side stepped the issue of human species sidestepping nature's checks and balances on species. Where does our evolution go from here once we've eliminated all environmental pressures? Do we then stagnate and become unable to survive?

−4

jayv9779 t1_j3hd0vv wrote

No. We still face pressures. There are a lot of them. Evolution still moves along. To be clear, evolving in the context of science doesn’t mean that it is always a good thing. There isn’t some overall cosmic goal. It just happens when we breed. The earth can sustain our population. It is overtaxed in many areas because of concentrations. If we get on a good plan of comprehensive sex ed and freely available contraception then the numbers will fall. They have already started in many advanced nations.

3

lobojones6six6 t1_j3hhxys wrote

Yes like I said not physical fitness but instead genetics , like as you said what happens when we breed. And yes sometimes as you said it's not always a good thing , which is where the adaptation becomes an advantage or disadvantage. Some were cut out to survive , some were not. All depends on the situation , like skin color and sun exposure. Some skin pigmentation works in some climates some better in others. You bring up concentrations of people overtaking areas and say the earth can sustain and to some part I agree but we can't spread out and inhabit every corner of land , not all of it is habitable. You must admit humans have made it through a lot and more than we even understand at this date , but they did it without all the fancy modern tech. Were all an example of what nature can provide over time and I'll take that over what we as humans can conjure. All in all humans have become arrogant as a species and that's not a trait that is desirable for future sustainability.

0

jayv9779 t1_j3hizzq wrote

So do you think medical advances are a bad thing? We live longer lives now and are generally in a much better position as far as healthcare options now compared to ancient times.

We can also spread out more than we do and the internet could help that through delivery and remote work.

2

EB123456789101112 t1_j3lmcqb wrote

If I might offer my bit, this convo reads like you two are talking past each other. Neither of you seem to be truly seeking to understand the other and simply seem to be looking to advance your own argument (despite asking very very pointed questions).

1

jayv9779 t1_j3lmfm9 wrote

I answered his questions. He just didn’t grasp it. They are basically anti modern medicine. It isn’t a very logical position based on evidence.

2

EB123456789101112 t1_j3lmpbi wrote

Nothing like that good ol spirit of humility to start the day, amiright?

1

jayv9779 t1_j3ln1ed wrote

Feel free to point out where and I will be glad to clarify. Your attempt to help is not currently effective as we do not have any examples.

1

EB123456789101112 t1_j3lnzgh wrote

I was just attempting to have fun w you. I don’t have a dog in the fight. I saw both sides to the argument.

He was essentially arguing something similar to a modern Malthusian argument (the planet can only support so many people before famine, nature, whatever begins to cull them unavoidably). And you countered w but modem meds, tech advances, and natural reproduction patterns show that’s maybe not the case.

Am I understanding both right?

I can see points to both arguments and don’t think either is entirely right or entirely wrong. We just can’t tell yet. The problem is the developing nations are countering the trends of the developed ones. That’s where the real crux lies. Does the overpopulation of India outnumber the under population of Japan, South Korea and Europe? Same with vaxxes, starvation, etc. it’s just too early to tell. But I’d like to be hopeful.

2

jayv9779 t1_j3lohfm wrote

They were suggesting that humans would stop evolving because of a lack of pressures. That humans were better off before modern tech. There is a myth out there that the old world was better but it ignores massive health advances. It is the old everything modern is evil. I could be strawmaning a bit but I think I am close.

2

shohin_branches t1_j3h1vjf wrote

Because they made it through high school and stopped learning so they sit on a Dunning Kruger peak thinking they know everything. Everytime someone says there are only two biological sexes because there are only XX and XY chromosome in women and men, but didn't get to advanced genetics in collage where you learn about trisomies, tetrasomies, pentasomies, and turner's syndrome.

They can't even comprehend how complex the world really is and if it's not simplified to the point they can understand then they pretend it doesn't exist. Makes it easier to act like you know everything when you have no comprehension about what you don't know.

9

old_man_mcgillicuddy t1_j3h37rn wrote

The smartest thing I've ever heard a person say is 'I don't have enough information on this subject to have a valid opinion'. That's tough for a lot of people to admit, and it's tougher in a post-truth world to base actions on it. But the simple fact of the matter is, you're probably not an expert in this field, other people are, and unless you've got hard evidence of the global conspiracy to distribute gay 5G wifi DNA in the vaccine, you should probably roll with the odds.

OTOH, people go to casinos, so assuming people understand odds is prolly a stretch.

8

rebelolemiss t1_j3h813z wrote

Agree in the broad strokes, but you have to make some decisions for yourself based on the time you can commit and the evidence available. It’s OK to have an opinion as long as it’s able to be backed up. You can’t be an expert in everything but is what the anti-science crowd expects.

6

postorm t1_j3hx2x0 wrote

Industry in shot themselves in the foot by having men in white coats claiming to be scientists spouting whatever suited corporate profits as science. The tobacco industry was the most obvious offender, but they are not the only one. Then they bribed regulators and interfered with science research and publications, bought politicians and funded pseudoscience. They screwed their long term ability to use science in the interests of short term profits.

2

BobDawg3294 t1_j3iftiz wrote

Lying in public by scientists in positions of trust

1

MortalGlitter t1_j3fyh8u wrote

When medical messaging is co-opted for political purposes, go figure that people now suspect it. Nor is this the first time it's happened. Once trust has been broken it's not easily repaired and takes a long time.

I can't fathom how much damage has been done to the overall trust that people had of the sciences in general by the horrifically botched messaging during the pandemic.

−6

[deleted] t1_j3dpokm wrote

[removed]

29

[deleted] t1_j3e74r0 wrote

[removed]

−73

RphAnonymous t1_j3g5qw7 wrote

I don't think logic penetrates aluminum. I literally yesterday had a prescription come in for 13 3mg tablets (39mg?!?) of ivermectin per day for 5 days come through. That's a lot. I asked the patient what it was for and she said COVID so I denied it. She wasn't happy but if I see the words "CDC recommends against"... That's gonna be a nope from me, dawg.

19

redditischurch t1_j3giwta wrote

For clarity, you are a pharmacist? If yes, I didn't realize there was a second checkpoint other than interactions, multiple prescriptions for same substance, etc. You are free to say no when there is good rationale? Thanks for any detail you're willing to share.

15

pumog t1_j3gl3es wrote

There are pharmacists who deny birth control pills because of their religion. So yes they can do it.

10

redditischurch t1_j3glj9r wrote

Interesting. This must vary state to state, country to country. My understanding is in Canada pharmacists can only deny if they think it will bring harm to the patient (interactions, mistaken dosage, etc.) but not because of personal values.

5

Lillianroux19 t1_j3gn1h2 wrote

I say they do if they care about your health. I know mine has done it before just the other day as a matter of fact. So I told my doctor about it so she changed the prescription to a different maker.

5

RphAnonymous t1_j3hpc3n wrote

Yes, A doctor and pharmacist share liability 50/50 on a prescription. Any pharmacist can refuse to fill any prescription if in their professional judgement the prescription is not appropriate for therapy, or as someone else said for religious reasons, although in states that allow that, there has to be another pharmacy that the patient can potentially fill at (does not mean that the pharmacist there has to fill it either, so if all pharmacists are refusing to fill, then that's that). Pharmacists know less about diagnosis and non-medication therapy, but way more about medication than doctors. Making these decisions is the entire point of our license.

3

starsick1962 t1_j3elakh wrote

Of course. This is one of numerous studies showing that hydrochloroquine has no effect.

The only affect it has is placebo in the minds of those wishing for greatness in a viral world.

17

jaiagreen t1_j3etscv wrote

Why are they still doing these studies? HCQ doesn't work. Can we move on?

12

matt7810 t1_j3h1uf7 wrote

Because if covid is going to be around for a long time, it would be incredibly helpful to have a generic drug help avoid deaths. HCQ is a promising candidate (as stated in the article) and not every country has 5.3 billion dollars to get free paxlovid for their population.

Unfortunately, they don't seem to work but devoting a relatively small amount of funding to check seems fair to me.

2

jaiagreen t1_j3ibake wrote

Yes, it would, and there already are some, but at this point there are so many negative results that this seems like a waste of resources. A randomly chosen drug would be more promising -- at least it wouldn't have a bunch of evidence against it.

1

j4r8h t1_j3fcd3v wrote

I thought the whole point was to take it after you have gotten covid? Not before getting covid.

10

hamchan_ t1_j3ffdbw wrote

There were people calling for it as prevention and as a healing medicine.

As someone who takes HCQ for rheumatoid arthritis there’s no way it could prevent infection because the medication actually suppresses the immune system and makes me immunosuppressed.

15

ellecee777 t1_j3fgas5 wrote

Just a head’s up - hcq modulates the immune system. It doesn’t suppress it. It’s a great drug for some people with autoimmune disease.

2

hamchan_ t1_j3fobf6 wrote

Yes, I have an overactive immune system because of Rheumatoid Arthritis. My immune system gets bored and likes to attack my joints for fun.

My doctor did mention the medication would make me more susceptible. I’ll have to look more into it, thank you!

11

nonsensestuff t1_j3g1gzr wrote

To be fair, I've gotten mixed messages about it from doctors too.

I've had 2-3 doctors tell me it's immunosuppressive, while some other doctors don't mention anything like that about it at all.

2

[deleted] t1_j3h62wm wrote

Have you had the coronavirus?

1

hamchan_ t1_j3i4zxb wrote

Yes. I was doubled vaccinated and boosted. I was also pregnant though. (HCQ is fine to take during pregnancy). I was close to going to the hospital but recovered at home luckily.

I was being very careful too but got it from a family member during a small family Easter dinner.

1

L-Train45 t1_j3iq7ws wrote

This study showed that taking it after being exposed doesn't decrease the chances of getting Covid at all. It was not known if it helped in that specific instance. I personally wouldnt recommend it at all.

0

Undisolving t1_j3gxkcy wrote

The point was to fuel the antivaxx movement.

−3

[deleted] t1_j3h6mou wrote

Wasn’t HCQ being put down as a 19th century snake oil-like substance (in regards to corona) months before any of the vaccines became available?

4

Undisolving t1_j3h83hh wrote

wasn’t HCQ being peddled as an alternative to getting vaccinated by the antivaxx community?

−1

Acceptable_Banana_13 t1_j3ipbi8 wrote

Yeah they’ll take whatever new drug that comes on to the market after they get infected and are suffering consequences. But no prophylactic for them, thanks.

1

Ituzzip t1_j3fhc5w wrote

Even if hydroxychloroquine had some marginal tiny benefit with the original strain (slowing reproduction by 10 or 15% or whatever—idk that is a hypothetical figure), I wouldn’t expect it to work with the hyper-efficient new strains that build up viral loads so quickly even the pre-existing immune memory can’t stop it.

Obviously evidence supersedes logic. But based on that I really would not expect HCQ to do anything at all.

4

KittenKoder t1_j3et4f2 wrote

I'm not surprised, like at all, not even a tiny bit shocked at this finding.

3

ChadleyXXX t1_j3gac3h wrote

It was a reasonable hypothesis/RQ but the people who clung to it when it was more or less disproved are… well… a certain kind of person who… let’s just say the scientific process and corroborated truth don’t appeal to these folks

3

rock_accord t1_j3hbruy wrote

If there's anyone well versed in comparing studies, I'd be curious if similar methods were used vs this study, which says: Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

I realize they are chloroquine vs hydroxychloroquine, but it's curious that hydroxychloroquine was so quickly dismissed (seemingly without evidence at the time) for Sars Cov 2 vs chloroquine being found effective for Sars Cov 1.

3

witchskeleton t1_j3g6vn2 wrote

This is just a test to prove information we already know r/science. Plaquenil has only been considered advantageous in this situation to patients with specific conditions, like Lupus. The demand for this drug is and was just over sensationalized with lack of understanding and fearmongering.

2

AccountingForlove t1_j3ir8d0 wrote

And yet prophylaxis was never the intended use of HcQ.

2

[deleted] t1_j3mido5 wrote

Left unmentioned in the article is the use of zinc. Like quercetin and EGCG, HCQ is likely to act as an ionophore to assist zinc absorption deep into cells. Quercetin and EGCG also have additional antiviral properties but may not be as effective for zinc transport into cells (especially lung) as compared to HCQ.

2

AutoModerator t1_j3d8znc wrote

Vote for Best of r/science 2022!

Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, personal anecdotes are allowed as responses to this comment. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will be removed and our normal comment rules apply to all other comments.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

dogbutt65 t1_j3j9gwm wrote

Weren’t you supposed to use it in conjunction with zinc?

1

LeeEnteredThebattle t1_j3gskyw wrote

At least science corrects its self, but I'm never gunna get an apology from the face mask cult who still believe a piece of fabric you can breath through will stop tiny organisms passing through

1

LeeHarvey81 t1_j3hqet8 wrote

We knew that a long time ago. The ones who need to be convinced would never believe it

1

EB123456789101112 t1_j3llpzr wrote

Huh. Who would’ve thought the cdc knew what they were talking about….

1

WallStreetKeks t1_j3lydvi wrote

Copium is being drank at record levels by pro vaxxers

1

TerminationClause t1_j3g4l9c wrote

The money spent on this study could have gone to better things, and likely would have, if not for a very ex-president/swindler trying to push someone else's product.

0

AcidicGreyMatter t1_j3gcppb wrote

Its funny you say that because the NIH is the biggest investor backing the company that did this study, meaning Fauci paid for it.

If you were smart

>/swindler trying to push someone else's product.

You would realize how cheap hydroxychloroquine is compared to the mRNA products, which are now increasing to hundreds of dollars per dose now because of Pfizers greed, so who is really doing the swindling?

We could talk about the billions in aide being wasted in Ukraine, which is likely much more than this study could ever cost, but that would require people having a knowledge of history going back to the 90's and the agreements made with NATO when the soviet union split.

−5

skatterbrainz t1_j3gr83g wrote

Eventually AI and machines are going to replace pharmacists. The revenue advantages for pharma shareholders will outweigh any pushback.

0

Equal_Ad9831 t1_j3h1ozy wrote

I trust science I just don't trust the information that the governments tell us is truth/science

0

YaMommasBox t1_j3hhukd wrote

How many people were involved in the trial was the whole report published were all the raw statistics released?

0

mo_tag t1_j3gc3fi wrote

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.. not much point trying to show HCQ doesn't work when the people that believe it does don't care about evidence

−1

[deleted] t1_j3mr08z wrote

You are correct about evidence. It’s a shame that HCQ was dismissed as a red herring so early on during the pandemic. Perhaps if MD’s were able to prescribe it, some lives may have been saved. Not saying that it’s a cure, but there was simply not enough evidence to dismiss it as useless. Let’s keep in mind the nation of Nigeria. Since even viruses like polio are still a threat in that location, it’d make sense to figure Coronavirus would run rampant throughout the country (population @ 260million). The opposite is true. Death and infection rates from corona run pretty low. Malaria being a huge problem there necessitates HCQ to be available OTC. Couple that with a traditional diet high in zinc (yams, shellfish) and you’ve got the fixings for a population with potential strong resistance.

1

michaelh1990 t1_j3hoydd wrote

And the antivax loons will claim big pharma no amount of actual evidence will be good enough for them. Its a waste of resources at this point you cant argue logically with these people, there should be more studies on how these people can be influenced

−3

mattjouff t1_j3fi1kg wrote

That’s a pretty narrow demographic: “prevention in asymptomatic high risk people… “ what about “treatment in symptomatic people at low risk” but I guess it’s valuable to proceed by elimination.

−7

bobbi21 t1_j3ghnhb wrote

Because those other categories have been well studied already and it doesnt work there either.

2

[deleted] t1_j3ejc5p wrote

[removed]

−25

kilranian t1_j3fo5du wrote

There is herd immunity if the herd vaccinates.

13