2717
Comments (170)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
getkek 1 point ago +2 / -1

Numerous scientific journals have already cited anti-malarial drugs such as hydroxychloroquine are less effective (that is, more prone to resistance) in communities where they have been over-used.

Not trying to counter-point you in a rude way, it's just that your argument, according to science, should be showing more cases, not less if these drugs have been used as freely as drugs like aspirin.

6
BackChattel 6 points ago +6 / -0

I politely disagree. 'Less effective' does not mean 'makes it worse'.

4
Brucesky420 4 points ago +4 / -0

Exactly. Less effective is still more effective than not taking it at all

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
getkek 1 point ago +1 / -0

To which I agree with you, which is why my comment isn't about its effectiveness or not against COVID19, but it being used regularly pre-pandemic as the commenter suggested, which simply can't be as HQ became parasite resistance in the 1950's and was replaced by SP's in the 80's.

I don't think it's HQ stemming spread of deaths in India, but I am just one dude with an opinion.

1
BackChattel 1 point ago +1 / -0

Everything I hear about regions using it like candy for malaria and not having many cases is anecdotal, in that I've seen nothing I'd link you to as proof of anything. I'm probably going to stick with your opinion, with regard to what's distributed.

1
Konsaki 1 point ago +1 / -0

Numerous scientific journals have already cited...

You got the links/evidence?

1
deleted 1 point ago +1 / -0
1
Imransgarage 1 point ago +1 / -0

Haven’t seen those yet, but just by case frequency that seems unusual.