toomuchtime_
Gold Member
- Dec 29, 2008
- 20,001
- 4,933
- 280
lol Such bullshit. There were no confounding factors that couldn't be accounted for. The scientists who did the peer review found the results credible and the results were quite dramatic. The death rate for people on the drug had half the death rate of the people who had not been treated with the drug.The methodology was as good as it could be, but inherently limited by the design. The reviewers made sure the limitations were noted, which they were.Yes, and they are undertaking new studies right now, but the scientists who did peer review on the study found the methodology sound and the results credible. Again, you have no rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did the peer review of this study.First you have no rational basis for calling these three studies the strongest or the the best, nor do you have any rational basis for dismissing the assessments of the scientists who did peer reviews of the many studies that found the drug valuable.Not at all. I quoted the three strongest, best studies that were all negative. Of course there were numerous other studies which were likewise negative. As for those studies you are quoting, if those 31 studies are poorly controlled, small, not well designed or all the above, their strength of evidence remains quite weak. A lot of weak evidence is still pretty weak. A couple very strong studies will outweigh them.Now you're just being silly. 31 peer reviewed studies that found Hydroxychloroquine was valuable in fighting the virus but three failed studie that disagreed are the gold standard. If President Trump had no recommended this drug, you would not be making such ridiculous arguments.Actually, it does since there are only a few stuidies that found it has no value and none of those were peer reviewed. However, if you want moe proof of the value of hydroxychloroquine, here are 53 more studies, 31 of which have been peer reviewed, that show Hydroxychloroquine is of value.Retrospective studies are commonplace today and well respected within the medical community. This study was peer reviewed and published in a prestigious medical journal, it is being taken seriously by the medical profession even if it is not by CNN. Since there is no established dosage for the drug, studies can't be easily compared. They state that the dosage they used was different from studies that showed no improvement, and a retrospective study that has been carefully peer reviewed that used the right dosage is clearly more valuable than a randomized controlled study that used too low a dosage.Going off one study is not how it’s done. This story is fine, but limited. It’s observational and retrospective, meaning it’s not well controlled. Not like a randomized placebo controlled prospective trial. Those trials are far less prone to error by confounding factors which probably existed in the Henry Ford study (the treatment arm received far more steroids than the controlled arm for example). The randomized controlled trials demonstrated no efficacy.This was probably the study that caused Walz to reverse his position but it is far from the only study that has shown hydroxychloroquine to be an effective therapy for covid 19 when administered early.
Retrospective studies are commonplace and they can be helpful, but they're always going to be inferior quality to prospective studies. Retrospective studies are quick and easy. Prospective trials are far more difficult. I'm not saying the International Journal of Infectious Diseases is a bad journal by any means, but i'd hardly call it prestigious.
Their dosing was identical to the ORCHID study which was a negative prospective trial, the one that was ended early due to lack of benefit and which the FDA used as it's primary evidence to revoke the emergency authorization for hydroxychloroquine.
Sorry, but that one paper does not outweigh the rest of the evidence against hydroxychloroquine.
48 studies (28 peer reviewed) showing "very positive" results using HCQ as pre & post exposure prophylaxis & early treatment.
A live and ongoing index of study data from around the world documenting the use of hydroxychloroquine in treatment at various stages of SARS-CoV-2 infection including pre-exposure prophylaxis and post-exposure prophylaxis is available at https://c19study.com/ Overwhelmingly, PrEP, PEP, and...www.palmerfoundation.com.au
It is sad that Democrats insane hatred of the President has led them to prefer to see people die of the disease rather than recover with the help of this drug.
No, no it doesn't. The strongest, best evidence is consistent that hydroxychloroquine has no effect. If the best designed and controlled trials don't show a benefit, it's just not going to be accepted by the medical community. Strength of evidence isn't just determined by volume but mostly by design.
And it's not just one prospective trial, it's numerous. It was ORCHID in the US. It was RECOVERY in the UK and it was SOLIDARITY in international trials. They all failed.
Furthermore, I question your website at least a little bit. A lot of this is unpublished data. A lot of it comes from random journals such as "Hosp. Pharm. and Clinician" (that study was purely observational, stated they gave the drug to 68 people and 7 died, that's somehow listed as a positive study even though they made zero attempts to do anything like case matching). Another study printed in NEJM August 6th I just read. It was about post exposure prophylaxis and was a negative study, the authors showed no benefit. Somehow this website reinterpreted the results to show there is a benefit.
This has nothing to do with politics. These decisions aren't being made by the Democratic Party, but by large physician groups, everywhere from the FDA to the individual medical societies.
This isn't silly, this is exactly how medicine works.
I don't care what Trump says about hydroxychloroquine. That has zero effect on the strength of the evidence.
Why do you think the FDA pulled their approval? Is it just because they hate Trump? Is that really what you want me to believe?
Sure, there’s rational basis. A prospective placebo controlled trial eliminates many confounding factors that aren’t controlled for in retrospective observational studies such as the Henry Ford study.
Everyone in medicine knows this.
I’m not dismissing anyone’s assessment but a retrospective observational study is inherently limited and authors of these studies acknowledge that fact too. Read the discussion of the Henry Ford study you referred to:
“Our results also require further confirmation in prospective, randomized controlled trials that rigorously evaluate the safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine therapy for COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”
You don’t get it. This isn’t about the study being “bad”, it’s about the study being limited.
Ive already posted the rational basis for “dismissing” the assessment but I’ll post it again. It’s because the study could not eliminate confounding factors that could affect its outcome.