Readit NewsDeleted Comment
Deleted Comment
Deleted Comment
This is definitely not true at the state level, and not exactly true at the federal level either.
Every state to which I regularly travel is now "constitutional carry" - i.e., no permit needed at all. None of them were ten years ago.
Pretty much all gun control in the US is racist in its origins and usually in its modern implementation. "May issue" is a shining example of this.
Location: Arkansas
Remote: Yes
Willing to relocate: No
Technologies: Python(Flask|Django|Pyramid), Ruby, SQL, various ORMs and backend web stacks
CV: https://linkedin.com/in/lyndsysimon
Email: lyndsy@lyndsysimon.comInstead, the FDA publicly retracted it's authorization for the use of HCQ and said it did more harm than good, and so public sentiment solidified behind the idea that it was stupid all along. If the FDA hadn't done that and the treatment continued to prove effective, I think we would all generally be on board with it.
There are a lot of ways in which it turns out anti-Trumpers are exactly the same as Trump supporters, but the anti-science bent isn't one of them.
Why? Are the data that the FDA relied upon for this determination public?
There is a great deal of internal politics at play within the federal government. I see this as the grain of truth behind the "deep state" allegations. Without knowing more about the FDA's justification, it seems completely reasonable to suspect that they may have acted out of their own personal and institutional biases.
I was interested in hydroxychloroquine long before Trump started talking about it. It was being administered both as a treatment and prophylaxis in Italy, and was showing promising results - it didn't look like it was going to be a panacea, but it seemed likely that it would be a good first-line treatment until something better came along. It also had the added benefit of an existing production capability that was already in place and easily scaled further.
Then Trump started talking about it, and it became effectively impossible to sort out reliable information about its use. Papers started coming out either strongly in favor or strongly opposed to its use, where before there was cautious optimism.
> If the FDA hadn't done that and the treatment continued to prove effective, I think we would all generally be on board with it.
That's an interesting statement. I read that as "because the FDA retracted their authorization, the effectiveness of the treatment is not relevant". The only other way I can wrap my head around it is a more charitable reading of "it's unlikely/impossible to be proven effective because the FDA retracted their authorization" - that reasoning is so at odds with my worldview that I'm not confident that others would consider it reasonable.
They have been conservative in their statements. I don’t recall them ever saying “it doesn’t spread person-to-person” - I do recall them saying “there is no conclusive evidence of person-to-person transmission”. At the time, given the evidence they had, that was true. From their perspective saying that it did in fact spread person-to-person and later concluding it didn’t would have been much worse; I assume they take this approach to protect their reputation of being certain before making a public statement.
The problem seems to be that lay people seem to expect WHO to be on the bleeding edge and providing comprehensive information on the latest investigation and data. That’s not what they do. They report the findings, and that’s very different.
If our values speak to you, and you're a security researcher - WE ARE HIRING
https://shapeshift.com/careers
In liberty,
--Michael