Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

web.archive.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 41 posts

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#31

Post by jstewartmobile »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #27
jstewartmobile wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If his methodology is not on point, his hypothesis should be waaaay off point, and very easy to debunk. If that is the case, why are you attacking his lack of credentials and politics instead of his hypothesis? edit: here is an actual paper saying the same thing the medium post is https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965

Why not get your information from someone who cites their sources correctly instead of a crank who doesn't and mixes conspiracy theories in for good measure?

linked an academic paper... 33 citations... every actual MD I've shared it with has responded with something along the lines of "very interesting" or "compelling" or "explains what some of the nurses are seeing"

if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it?

strong pedants aren't necessarily strong thinkers

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#32

Post by [deleted] »

Darwin1999 wrote: post #28
TonRoly wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for your argument... Seems we are losing our freedom of speech and expression...

If the President had initially said "this drug sucks" the people currently objecting to this piece would be celebrating it. The politicization of a life-saving drug by those that hate the president is quite stupid.

[deleted]

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#33

Post by brentonator »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #31
lern_too_spel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not get your information from someone who cites their sources correctly instead of a crank who doesn't and mixes conspiracy theories in for good measure?

linked an academic paper... 33 citations... every actual MD I've shared it with has responded with something along the lines of " very interesting " or " compelling " or " explains what some of the nurses are seeing " if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? strong pedants aren't necessarily strong thinkers

This is more hearsay to lend support to a crank conspiracy theorist.

Yes, we can not have a discussion spawned from a crank conspiracy theorist about general relativity even if his ideas are sound.

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#34

Post by brentonator »

Darwin1999 wrote: post #29
daedalus311 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top OP has zero sources and then says "fuck all those citation [sic]." OP above you is merely revealing this non-reliability. Top OP might be correct but zero sources makes me immediately question every single argument. Dude can't be bothered to name ONE SOURCE! One! A paper. A Person. An organization....anything. Nope! Nada. Zilch.

It seems that your problem is with the content of the article, not the lack of sources. Would you be objecting to the article if it said the drug was ineffective? Doubtful.

Yes, we would be doubting everything the article said when it was an argument cast by a lunatic spouting numerous other conspiracy theories like Covid-19 is a bioengineered virus that escaped a bioresearch lab.

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#35

Post by brentonator »

TonRoly wrote: post #19

I am not a doctor... I am just a regular person who doesn’t understand why articles and posts similar to this including videos on YouTube, Facebook and other places are being removed. I found this to be an interesting article and true or false Doesn’t it fall under the Freedom of Speech... I sent this link to several people I know that are in the medical industry one of which is a brilliant doctor on the front lines…

This was removed because it was half-conspiracy and half-maybe-useful. In any case you can't encourage people to "share and debate" half-biased articles.

Share the actual studies! Debate those. Don't encourage the very armchair scientists the author derides in his article.... The author of the article is one too!

You don't go to your friend and open a debate about how you should treat your cancer, you go to your doctor and start the conversation there.

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#36

Post by brentonator »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #3
newsbinator wrote: post #2

I read this the other day (before it got blocked on Medium) and to my layman eyes it sounded plausible. But I'm not a medical researcher and this is not medical research- it's more of a guess. I'm looking forward to some expert comments here on whether this theory has any basis in reality.

This modern tendency to purge instead of rebut is very disturbing. If the man is talking nonsense, it should be easy to refute him. It would also serve as a great " teaching moment " to help everyone sharpen their BS detectors.

It's not easy to refute when there are 10000x as many uneducated people as there are actual scientists who could be trusted to refute it.

This is how online communities work. Small number of moderators fighting off an endless stream of BS.

We can't encourage discussion on life or death matters when they are shared without even citing a single source! There is no debate, just emotional pandering.

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#37

Post by lern_too_spel »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #31
lern_too_spel wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not get your information from someone who cites their sources correctly instead of a crank who doesn't and mixes conspiracy theories in for good measure?

linked an academic paper... 33 citations... every actual MD I've shared it with has responded with something along the lines of " very interesting " or " compelling " or " explains what some of the nurses are seeing " if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? strong pedants aren't necessarily strong thinkers

> if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it?

Absolutely not. Reread my comment. There are experts who describe the theory of relativity and link to papers supporting it. It is far better to link to articles from those experts than to articles from cranks who happen to get relativity correct but intersperse their articles with conspiracy theories.

A Flat Earther might write an article about geometry where the geometry is valid and then mix in unsubstantiated claims about the shape of the Earth. Would you say that is a good article about geometry? No. You would link to an article about geometry that sticks to just the facts.

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#38

Post by jstewartmobile »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #37
jstewartmobile wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

linked an academic paper... 33 citations... every actual MD I've shared it with has responded with something along the lines of " very interesting " or " compelling " or " explains what some of the nurses are seeing " if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? strong pedants aren't necessarily strong thinkers

> if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? Absolutely not. Reread my comment. There are experts who describe the theory of relativity and link to papers supporting it. It is far better to link to articles from those experts than to articles from cranks who happen to get relativity correct but intersperse their articles with conspiracy theories. A Flat Earther might write an article…

"Why not get YOUR information from..."

I got my information from the academic article (https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965). Then I saw this submission on HN that I felt was an OK summary of it. Then I saw your ilk flag it.

An interesting hypothesis is an interesting hypothesis--even when it does not come from our pill-pushing, astroturfing, tell-us-more-about-harry-and-meghan-while-the-bombs-are-falling mainstream media.

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#39

Post by lern_too_spel »

jstewartmobile wrote: post #38
lern_too_spel wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if a crank takes the theory of relativity to heart, does that invalidate it? Absolutely not. Reread my comment. There are experts who describe the theory of relativity and link to papers supporting it. It is far better to link to articles from those experts than to articles from cranks who happen to get relativity correct but intersperse their articles with conspiracy theories. A Flat Earther might write an article…

" Why not get YOUR information from... " I got my information from the academic article ( https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965 ). Then I saw this submission on HN that I felt was an OK summary of it. Then I saw your ilk flag it. An interesting hypothesis is an interesting hypothesis--even when it does not come from our pill-pushing, astroturfing, tell-us-more-about-harry-and-meghan-while-the-bombs-are-fall…

Nobody here is advocating upvoting articles about Harry and Meghan. Your error in reasoning is almost as bad as saying we shouldn't upvote Medium articles at all because a lot of articles on Medium are about frivolous hobbies.

You are advocating upvoting articles from blithering conspiracy theorists just because part of the article has something that is based in science. You should have just submitted the actual science article instead.

Re: Covid-19 had us all fooled, but now we might have finally found its secret

#40

Post by jstewartmobile »

lern_too_spel wrote: post #39
jstewartmobile wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Why not get YOUR information from... " I got my information from the academic article ( https://chemrxiv.org/ndownloader/files/22129965 ). Then I saw this submission on HN that I felt was an OK summary of it. Then I saw your ilk flag it. An interesting hypothesis is an interesting hypothesis--even when it does not come from our pill-pushing, astroturfing, tell-us-more-about-harry-and-meghan-while-the-bombs-are-fall…

Nobody here is advocating upvoting articles about Harry and Meghan. Your error in reasoning is almost as bad as saying we shouldn't upvote Medium articles at all because a lot of articles on Medium are about frivolous hobbies. You are advocating upvoting articles from blithering conspiracy theorists just because part of the article has something that is based in science. You should have just submitted the actual scie…

How about responding to the words I wrote instead of the ones you imagined? I did not advocate "upvoting articles from blithering conspiracy theorists."

I have advocated two things:

1. Not flagging/censoring/de-platforming people for their screwy opinions. Most people aren't stupid, and can assess statements well enough without your assistance. If you downvoted him because you disagree, great! That's what votes are for. However, flagging this is an abuse. His synopsis was mostly consistent with the research, and there was nothing uncivil in his "blithering."

2. If an idea is incorrect, attack the idea, not the person. Going after the guy's politics and his (lack of) credentials is just a lazy, thinly-veiled, ad hominem when the idea is of an objective nature.

And if you are going to ding him on credentials (not that you should), what exactly are yours?

Post reply on HN