Why are the stupid allowed on the internet?

On Wednesday 4th April, many of the UK's newspapers ran a story, with headlines along the lines off;

"Diabetes drug may slow progression of Parkinson’s, say researchers"

The Guardian was one of several papers that gave some of the detail behind this;

"In recent years glucagon-like peptide 1 receptor agonists (or GLP-1R agonists) have caused excitement, with one such drug, a type 2 diabetes medication called exenatide, found to help slow the progression of motor symptoms in a small group of people with Parkinson’s". Guardian 4th April.

The good news just kept on coming. The Daily Telegraph reported:

"Data from a study of 156 people with Parkinson’s found that the 78 people taking the drug every day for a year saw no decline in their physical symptoms". 

Which if true is a major step forward. There were however some issues.

The drug needed to be administered by injection. And 1 in 8 involved in the trial vomited after the drug was administered and 50% suffered from nausea.

Strangely the treatment already seems less appealing. However putting my cowardice aside, it seems to have been a robust trial, using an already approved drug for other conditions, meaning any approvals process will be much faster.

So good news you would think?

And it is, or it could well be,but sadly we now live in a world of conspiracy nut jobs and they had their usual ill educated pile in, so from the DT Comment section, this pile of nonsense; 

Paisly Print

"so basically a low carb diet and not overeating but increasing protein and fat would do the same? All diabetes drugs also work because they all work on the carbohydrate digestion - so just cut back on the carbs? Worth a try?"

Clearly his 25m swimming certificate qualifies him to prescribe treatments for complicated neurological conditions.

And now we have the groupie;

REPORT

Reply by Angela Kearney

Exactly.

I don't know why we train scientists and medical professionals when we could rely on the brilliance of Paul halsall

PH

paul halsall

A study suggests, not worth the paperwork it's a typed on

And now the ravings of a conspiracy theorist;

Guardian Pick

Message Actions

I’m sorry but these “studies” are no longer trust worthy. The money trail usually leads back to “Big Pharmas” marketing department.

One does despair for the future of the human race. 

According to some on line experts, a condition that normally takes up to 20 years before it starts exhibiting symptoms, has been triggered by COVID , or at least the vaccination for COVID, these people are never too sure. So that a condition that typically takes years to exhibit symptoms has started showing them within weeks.

Does any of this matter? 

Well yes it does. People are being fed lies, or as a minimum misunderstandings that impact in some cases on their judgement.

So for example if further testing proves this particular drug to be helpful, and it is still to early to be certain, than there is a risk that a number of people will refuse to use it because of on-line misinformation.

And we've seen the impact of this problem historically with the autism scare and the alleged link, now disproved, with the MMR vaccine, which has sadly resulted in the return of measles.

Along with its complications such as pneumonia, encephalitis and death.

So let's hope for two things, that the trials result in an effective treatment and the stupid stay silent.