Home Society Dangerous: why Twitter banned a doctor who defends chloroquine?


Dangerous: why Twitter banned a doctor who defends chloroquine?

by ace

See if there is a difference between the following statements:

“In the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment largely supported by data that, for reasons completely opposed to the understanding of science, has been scared off. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with Covid-19 are dying needlessly. I am referring, of course, to the hydroxychloroquine medication ”.

“In the past few months, after treating more than 350 patients, we haven’t lost any. Not a diabetic, not someone with high blood pressure, not someone with asthma, not an elderly person. We haven’t lost a patient. Hydroxychloroquine with zitromax and zinc works ”.

Two doctors said that. Both were equally controversial.


The ‘canceled’ on social media Read in this issue: the dangers of the virtual court. What’s more: new poll on the 2022 presidential electionClick and Subscribe

The first is Harvey Rich, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health. His article in Newsweek magazine went almost unnoticed.

Continues after advertising

The second statement was made by Stella Immanuel, a doctor from Cameroon who studied in Nigeria and works in Houston, Texas.

As a pastor of a church she founded, she spoke passionately in defense of the drug.

It was banned from Twitter, Facebook and YouTube after 17 million views, and was retweeted by U.S. President Donald Trump and his son Donald Trump Jr, who was suspended for a short break.

Trump Jr.’s suspension came with a warning about the reason for the punishment: “We determined that this account violates the Twitter Rules. Specifically, for violating the policy related to the disclosure of misleading and potentially dangerous information in relation to Covid-19 ”.

Social media really teems with conspiracy theories that, the more absurd, the more followers they get.

Continues after advertising

But contempt, discredit and ridicule were reserved only for Stella Immanuel.

In the New York Times, she was treated by “a woman who identifies herself as Dr. Stella Immanuel”.

The other doctors, gathered by conservative politicians to speak in front of the Supreme Court, were described as follows: “A group of people who call themselves ‘Doctors on the Frontline of America’ and wearing white coats.”

In addition to disparaging participants, the newspaper also read their minds, saying that they participated in “a video designed specifically to appeal to internet conspirators and conservatives eager to reopen the economy, with scenery and characters to lend credibility”.

The Times was even mild compared to the treatment that the Daily Beast website reserved for Stella Immanuel.

Continues after advertising

“Sex with spirits” and “diabolic sperm” were the expressions used to ridicule the sermons she gives as a pastor, attributing gynecological diseases and sexual dysfunctions to evil spirits that torment unhappy people during sleep – the incubus and succubus of the ancient times of the Catholic Church .

If she had an ideological identity for these vehicles of communication, the doctor could even be seen as a folkloric adherent to the thesis shown by Roman Polanski in the film The Baby of Rosemary. Or an African woman linked to ancestral beliefs.

But would she be treated like crazy if she showed up throwing Molotov cocktails at a Black Lives Matter rally?

Everyone knows the answer.

Doctors also have their political passions, differ on treatments and are well aware of the history of miraculous cures to deceive the desperate.

Continues after advertising

Stella Immanuel made objectionable statements, including about the need to wear masks and the prophylactic use of hydroxychloroquine.

He said that he has known the drug well since the time he treated malaria patients in Africa and that the fear of cardiac complications is disproportionate.

The Yale professor said basically the same thing, including about the inappropriate use in studies on the effectiveness or not of the medicine.

And he got to the heart of the problem:

“The drug has become highly politicized. For many, it is seen as a marker of political identification, on both sides of the political spectrum. No one needs to tell me that this is not how medicine should behave. We need to judge this medically strictly on the basis of science ”.

Continues after advertising

Exactly what seems increasingly difficult.

Hydroxychloroquine has already been condemned in serious or lesser studies – one entirely made with a falsified database.

Others still persist in scientifically analyzing its effects.

There is also the hypothesis that it works for certain patients and not for others, for reasons that have yet to be deciphered.

Get the most important news about the coronavirus pandemic and its consequences early in the morning. Sign up here to receive our newsletter

Registration successfully Complete!

You will receive our newsletters in the morning from Monday to Friday.

The new coronavirus has only six months of life detected among humans. Findings that seem ridiculous are based on real data: it can be more dangerous for people with type A blood and more easily contaminates those over six feet tall.

Continues after advertising

On another level, he can also re-elect or ruin presidents. There is, obviously, the field of contamination of medicine by politics.


Related Articles

This website uses cookies to improve your experience. We'll assume you're ok with this, but you can opt-out if you wish. Accept Read More