RationalWiki:Articles for deletion/Hydroxychloroquine

Hydroxychloroquine | Result: Deleted

Hydroxychloroquine (edit|talk|history|protect|delete|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Delete

1. this article is strongly pro-hydroxychloroquine, and given the current climate I would say it needs substantial review before we allow it in mainspace Hastur! (talk) 05:09, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
2. Axe it. It does seem highly slanted along the pro-HCQ / medical freedom avenue (Why can't I take morphine/ampheteamine for my bunion? Medical freedom!). Giving Stella Immanuel any credibility, is inappropriate because her wacky ideas. A page on hydroxychloroquine might not be unreasonable, but this is not it. Bongolian (talk) 05:30, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
3. There is not enough scientific consensus to be taking sides in such a controversial topic. The Sqrt-1 ^{talk stalk} 05:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
4. I have utterly no competence to judge the underlying controversy, and I doubt any other editor has a better foot to stand on here. But the burden of the article seems to be that 'the media hates hydroxy-whatever because the media hates Donald Trump'. Moreover, the article seems to have sprung out of nothing in all its 120,000 byte glory in a single day, which makes me suspect copyright violation by cut and paste. Real wiki articles of this length grow more organically. Smerdis of Tlön, wekʷōm teḱsos. 05:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   User:AndyChrist has been working on it in his user space for a little while-Hastur! (talk) 05:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   I have notified AndyChrist on their talkpage. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

5. Oh, for fuck's sake! No! We are not touting any fucking miracle cures for an incurable disease. Far, far into the future, we might be able to write with authority about how media bias and mistrust of anything associated with that fucking arsehole Trump made a bad situation much worse than it had to be. But this is not yet the time. Spud (talk) 06:29, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
6. Putting "scientific" in quotes is already highly dubious. Putting a picture of Rudy Giuliani and captioning him with "more reliable than the chief medical writer of AP" puts a first nail in the coffin. Unironically trying to demonize "the evil MSM"? That's even more dubious. A conspiracy theory about YouTube trying to "censor alternative opinions"? Not looking good. Ending with potshots at Fauci for... no real discernible reason? This thing was written by a crackpot conspiracy theorist. Proposing a delete and a warning for the user to not be an idiot and use us to distribute poorly written conspiracies again. Techpriest ^{(I am Alpharius! / / / )} 09:33, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
7. What my very distant cousin Crow said— Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 09:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
8. 🤨 Complete dangerous garbage. Also that goddamn poop emoji in a thumbnail just looks super cheap. --It's-a me, 🎄LeftyGreenMario!🎄 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
9. Trying to argue that an anti-bacterial is the same as an anti-viral is... Stupid. Also, as of July 2020, this line of research has been abandoned. ☭Comrade GC☭^{Ministry of Praise} 15:21, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   By the way, it hasn't... at least not completely. The study Zelenko was getting the HCQ for was comparing HCQ + azithromycin vs. HCQ + doxycycline. Just throwing that out there. I personally don't believe that it has any effect other than as an antibiotic, but that wasn't how it was presented in the Henry Ford study and I was trying to put the scientific terminology into a more comprehensible form.AndyChrist (talk) 16:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   Points of fact: Hydroxychloroquine is most commonly used to treat malaria, which is caused by a plasmodium infection, not bacteria. However, it has a variety of systemic effects that can counter various viruses. In particular, chloroquine was found to be very effective against SARS CoV-1 back when that was a topic of research. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 17:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 18:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

   That's nice. Is it supposed to have anything to do with the points of fact I raised? 192․168․1․42 (talk) 18:26, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

10. This is a load of barnacles... Chef Moosolini’s Ristorante Italiano^{Make a Reservation} 17:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
11. Delete with extreme prejudice. Helena Bonham Carter (talk) 18:51, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
12. Came here expecting to read something informative and got something like a hybrid pharma brochure and a Trump aide with a chip on their shoulder. 173.73.242.106 (talk) 01:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

    Not sure BoNs get votes but it hardly matters at this point, right?-Hastur! (talk) 01:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Keep

1. Feel free to add counterpoints if you want. I just look at the science and the science is in favor. That is what p-values mean. I honestly can't figure out what the counterargument to hydroxychloroquine is. It is a safe drug... that has been known for years... and it has studies that show that it works. As for the media, the fact that they keep mentioning remdesivir in their articles seams to be a clear indicator of their complicity. The science behind remdesivir is not nearly as convincing and it can't even be used as a preventive or outpatient drug because it has to be used with an IV . And yet somehow remdesivir is always the clear winner. If you want me to move it into a personal page, fine, but I am trying to get the word out and save peoples lives. I am sorry if that is too controversial for you. By the way, I am not a republican... I have voted consistently democratic except Gore vs. Bush where I voted for Ralph Nader, although I suspect I will vote republican this year... I am an independent. I honestly worry about the direction this country is heading. We are losing are freedoms, such as being able to get a prescription filled for HCQ, because of corporate influence. That is a relevant issue. So is the fact that we haven't had a large scale randomized trial for HCQ and the one that was attempted is no longer being pursued. AndyChrist (talk) 15:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)
2. At any rate, the RationalWiki mission statement reads as follows:

   The RationalWiki Mission is:

   1. Analyzing and refuting pseudoscience and the anti-science movement;

   2. Documenting the full range of crank ideas;

   3. Explorations of authoritarianism and fundamentalism;

   4. Analysis and criticism of how these subjects are handled in the media.

Hydroxychloroquine, claims made about it, and treatments in politics and media are obviously on mission. It's obviously a topic of current interest and importance. If the current state of the article is unsatisfactory, it should be improved rather than deleted. 192․168․1․42 (talk) 20:23, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

Dude, at a 124000 bytes this article can't just be "improved." It needs to be deleted until something better can take its place.-Hastur! (talk) 01:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Goat

I have also made a draft on it. I was plannng to contrast the two, but eh. Draft:Hydroxychloroquine — Godless Raven ^talk_stalk^walk_balk 🌹 06:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)