Sunday, December 20, 2020

Social media deals with "medical misinformation" and cannot disconnect it from politics (and from genuine medicine)

 

US Army Museum (new)

Today, I saw Facebook posts from a friend (female, in a western state) about plans to carpool to DC for a ruckus for Trump on January 6.  She also made another large sign post claiming that the vaccines were experimental and that all we needed is hydroxychloroquine, as a prophylactic.

As for a balanced essay (Sept. 2020) on the science, look at David Adam’s contribution to Issues, “Who Believes in Hydroxychloroquine?”  The fact seems to be that really, no adequate trials have really been attempted correctly in the US, but in Europe (especially Italy) some doctors are claiming some success. There are theoretical reasons (having to do with acidity) why it might hinder replication of the virus, as it has in some test tubes.

Chris Martenson, who runs the Peak Prosperity website, has gotten two videos taken down from YouTube over advocacy of Ivermectin, but in fact he has quoted credible studies.  Yet Youtube considers it “medical misinformation”.  It is not, as it is simply trying to argue that the medical establishment needs to test it properly,.  (See Dec. 3 on the Issue blog).

There are various other proteins that have been found to stop SARS_CoV2 in a lab, and some of them could be the basis of designing prophylactic drugs.  Gay men claim Truvada is protecting them;  it probably isn’t – it’s living a lone and working from home that is.  But the same drug companies that make the HIV PrEP drug or protease inhibitors probably should be able to design biochemically related drugs that do interfere with the replication of the coronavirus.

No comments: