Interbane wrote:

The only thing I can link this incoherent rambling to is my mention of over 50 trial studies on the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine earlier in this thread.

The only incoherence here is your initial unsubstantiated claim "there are over 50 studies" regarding zero efficacy of HydrocyC as a treatment (at any particular stage) for COVID19 and your claim soon after that a two month old study is too old in the in the world of C19. That essentially invalidates your 50 studies that are likely backdated more than two months.
Unless of course you'd like to provide dates when all those studies were published.
You'd rather pawn off a more recent publication that I more than likely can counter with a google search.
You went from 50 to 1 faster than a speeding bullet.

The pace of science right now covering Covid is insane. A study that's 2 months old is outdated.

Hence, rushed science is not very good or reliable science.
That is why I debunked one study that THE WHO and likely you hung your hats on.
This is not hard to understand.

I don't care. It's like you TRY to find inane things to argue about. This is all meta and I'll ignore more of the same.

This is weak of you to say.

It is not "inane" that I pointed out a very prominent yet dishonest, totally bogus publication in a reputable scientific journal that was used by entities like the WHO and laymen like you as a truth be told cudgel. It is also not inane to ask for sources for a person's bloviating rhetoric.

Have some coffee with that humble pie.

ant wrote:The only incoherence here is your initial unsubstantiated claim "there are over 50 studies" regarding zero efficacy of HydrocyC as a treatment (at any particular stage) for COVID19 and your claim soon after that a two month old study is too old in the in the world of C19. That essentially invalidates your 50 studies that are likely backdated more than two months.
Unless of course you'd like to provide dates when all those studies were published.
You'd rather pawn off a more recent publication that I more than likely can counter with a google search.
You went from 50 to 1 faster than a speeding bullet.

Look up the last 50 studies on your own, all the most recent ones. Find the ones that are randomized and placebo controlled. Compare them to the cherry-picked article you posted from 2 months ago. You'll find I'm right.

Hence, rushed science is not very good or reliable science.

The rate at which the fog of war regarding coronavirus is receding is incredible. It isn't due to rushed studies, but the sheer quantity of them. You're mincing words to prove a failed point.

Just to be clear, if there are randomized, placebo controlled studies that show hydroxychloroquine to be effective, then I will change my tune. I don't care either way. Right now, the studies don't show hydroxychloroquine as being effective.

Not going to play burden tennis with you here.

you made the claim.


list the 50 or be silent

ant wrote:. . .
Hence, rushed science is not very good or reliable science.

My takeaway as well. But I don't see anyone actually ideologically opposed to hydroxychloriquine as treatment for COVID, only those who are praising it as a treatment before it has been shown to be safe and effective. Trump draws a lot of criticism precisely because he is clearly scientifically illiterate and yet too stupid to know that.

ant wrote:Your comment to my reply had an obnoxious condescending tone to it.
That is why I spoon fed you sarcasm, Robert. Learn to be self aware of the pompous tone you carry with certain people. Other than that, please share your "oblique" interpretation of The Plague when you've finished reading it. If you need help, let me know. Thanks

This reply is pure pompous projection on your part ant, mixed with stupidity. You started off with the obnoxious condescension, in line with your usual aggressive manner of conversation, by claiming that an entirely metaphorical and unstated speculative interpretation is the main theme of The Plague. Of course it has echoes of the Nazi occupation of France since it was such a major part of Camus' historical context when the book was published, but your claim that the Nazi metaphor is "the only interpretation" is just stupid, and serves to deflect readers who would benefit from discussing the main theme of the book, the existential psychology of plague.

Yours is the "oblique" interpretation, as I said in my first reply. My interpretation is clear and direct and simple, that the book is about dealing with an epidemic. And no, I do not need "help" from you. I already have enough stupid irritation in my life.

geo wrote:

ant wrote:. . .
Hence, rushed science is not very good or reliable science.

My takeaway as well. But I don't see anyone actually ideologically opposed to hydroxychloriquine as treatment for COVID, only those who are praising it as a treatment before it has been shown to be safe and effective. Trump draws a lot of criticism precisely because he is clearly scientifically illiterate and yet too stupid to know that.

Trump could cure cancer and solve global famine and there would be people who would criticize him for doing it.

There is something inherently wrong with bandwagons and Trump Derangement Syndrome is by far the biggest bandwagon in modern day history.

Group-think does not allow for objectivity.
I am not wired for bandwagon riding.
I am the most objective person on BT within the context of the current political climate.

I think Chris is also closer to objectivity than any of you, but he has chosen to steer clear of the subject.

Robert wrote:

Yours is the "oblique" interpretation, as I said in my first reply.

I have interpreted nothing. As i clearly stated, the philosopher Robert Solomon shared thoughts on the comparison.
And since the novel was written within the context of Nazism it is indeed an interesting take, but one that you are obviously too self involved to investigate.


So your accusation the obliqueness of said interpretation is mine is a bald-faced lie for all to see.


Shame on you for resorting to such ghetto rhetoric.

Good evening to you, sir.

ant wrote:I have interpreted nothing.

Once again, you show yourself incapable of reading the plain meaning of your own words, let alone what anyone else might say. You said the Nazi metaphor is "the only interpretation" of The Plague. That is plainly an interpretation on your part.

ant wrote:[The Nazi metaphor] is indeed an interesting take

I agree, but far from "the only interpretation". In the context of a thread on the Coronavirus, the Nazi metaphor is not relevant, and is in fact a derail by you. My interest in how Camus' ideas are relevant to the Coronavirus is entirely on topic.

ant wrote:, but one that you are obviously too self involved to investigate.

More ignorant garbage from ant. I am perfectly happy to investigate the Nazi metaphor in context, as shown by my inclusion of the link to the introduction by Tony Judt which explores exactly that question. But the more important question here, derailed by this Nazi sideshow introduced by ant, is how this great novel about an epidemic is relevant to our situation today.

ant wrote: So your accusation the obliqueness of said interpretation is mine is a bald-faced lie for all to see.

The obliqueness of the Nazi metaphor that you introduced to the thread is seen in the fact that nowhere in the whole book does Camus mention Nazis or even the Second World War. Furthermore, main themes of the book such as the popular denial of the epidemic and the difficulties faced by the doctor in treating highly infectious patients bear little relation to the Nazi occupation. The book is about an epidemic. Yes it is set in the 1940s in Algeria, but the war does not figure at all. So you bringing the war into the discussion is oblique, which in case you didn't know means indirect. Far from a lie by me, this is stupidity by you.

ant wrote:Shame on you for resorting to such ghetto rhetoric. Good evening to you, sir.

Not sure how a discussion of metaphor in a 1940s French novel that won its author the Nobel Prize for Literature qualifies as shameful "ghetto rhetoric", but whatever you say. Epic Godwin Fail.

When I said " only" it was meant as sarcasm, Robert.

And you took that sarcasm and made it a strawman.

See how silly you look now?

ant wrote:When I said " only" it was meant as sarcasm, Robert.

And you took that sarcasm and made it a strawman.

See how silly you look now?

Well done Mr Trump

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/ ... -sarcastic