HCQ and Profit

Twitter and Facebook are still waging a war on hydroxychloroquine. It’s understandable given that they profit from the belief that there’s no preventative and no cure so we should all sit at home and use their products.

What’s funny is how easy it was to convince millions to dismantle their lives and forfeit their capacity to make a living to be able to take the side of Facebook and Co.

HCQ is cheap and doesn’t bring much profit so what’s being monetized is its artificially manufactured absence.

4 thoughts on “HCQ and Profit”

  1. Didn’t the WHO discontinue the tests on account of HCQ’s performance being worse than nothing? Or are you talking about how social media still hasn’t moved to another subject even one month later?
    Also, last time I checked remdesivir was still getting good results, and anticoagulants (another cheap, non-marketable class of medicine) were doing a good job on preventing mild cases from turning into serious ones. Vaccine research is also proceeding quite well.


    1. Yesterday there was a video posted on FB by some doctors who extolled HCQ. The video got 6 million views within a couple of hours. Facebook banned it immediately. Then Twitter banned everybody who linked to it.

      Remdesivir costs $3,100 per patient while HCQ costs $0,89 per patient in the US.

      Forget that, though. Why is FB banning a video by licensed doctors? Who at FB is qualified to evaluate their statements as false?

      This is, of course, one of dozens of videos filmed by practicing physicians that have been banned by Twitter, FB and YouTube.


      1. Fair, I guess I’m just resigned to social media speech not being free – I’ve complained about it when they first started introducing content moderation, but the majority of the users seemed to want it, so I just guess they’re getting what they asked for and who am I to stand in their way šŸ™‚


    2. “…worse than nothing”

      The demonization of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as the result of hyper-partisanship could never have been defended on medical grounds. What kind of monsters would cheer against a potentially effective treatment that was both readily available and cheap? What kind of monsters would deny its use to sick individuals when there was early evidence from studies in both China and France that it could help them?



Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.