MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:12 am
RedFromMI wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:06 am
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sun Jun 07, 2020 9:02 am
wgdsr wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 5:33 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 06, 2020 9:06 am
So if I claim that God saved me from COVID-19 did he?
After all, I'm still alive...
Actually, I could make THAT argument easier than with HCQ.
Seriously, individuals and even their doctors have ZERO idea what actually made the difference between one patient's outcome and another's.
You need actual scientific controlled studies.
But perhaps you think that you know better?
mdlax, in one breath you point out you need actual scientific controlled studies.
in another, you say "the drug doesn't work", "it doesn't help at all", and doctors themselves have zero idea what made a difference in patients (but you seem to know?).
your point of reference is yet another study that looks at hospital, critical care.
for the umpteenth time... advocates of the drug have offered that it may have its most effectiveness early in treatment, with zinc, to prevent replication at that stage.
minnesota's study had their share of issues, but i and maybe anyone would've been surprised that it would actually prevent people from getting it at all.
you also ponder that the data from a withdrawn study might end up being good or representative. i suggest you do a deeper dive on that one. it was completely fraudulent, as i postured some time ago. and lends more to the fact that published and peer reviewed data is broken than anything else.
minny is also doing an early treatment trial, including with a zinc cohort. we'll see.
Am I misreading this wgdsr?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/hyd ... tudy-says/
You seem willing to dig into these studies, so how am I misreading it?
New England Journal of Medicine, double blind, controlled...no prevention benefit.
Not hospital, critical care.
I think you were referring to the other studies, which indeed looked at whether HCQ helped with seriously sick patients (no).
I'm reading reports on the withdrawn study, and I'm not so sure it is fraudulent as you suggest, though I'm certainly open to that possibility. What I've read is that there may have been some errors, yet the bottomline may well come out the same. But, hey, you and I both believe in this process of scientific, peer review to sift through facts versus ideology.
I think the studies wgdsr is referring to involve treatment at the very earliest stages of the disease to lessen its course. The really early uses were more like Hail Marys for really sick patients in the ICU.
Yes, but isn't this study above about prophylactic usage?
Double blind, prophylactic, placebo...unfortunately doesn't work.
Does it work some other way? I'd be happy to see it, but so far, it hasn't worked to any benefit in any particular set of cases, validated by sound scientific studies.
generally i like to look at both sides of an argument in any matter. if it's a matter like this that is grounded in stats, it can be a different opinion generator than one bound by ideology. especially if you take more time to understand the issue, beyond headlines. honestly by your posts here recently you don't seem to look beyond headlines and your own personal opinion. but that is just MY opinion.
you had linked also a study on late critical care. go back and look.
between that and the statnews link, you have now barbelled what most advocates of the hcq drug have offered as its best possible effectiveness. as red mentions. this is not new info. simply read the comments in your statnews article as another example (i did not just say those random people are experts).
the minny study:
- didn't have a lot of $, so did a low budget trial. that's ok, at least it's providing some info. but it is not a high control blue chip randomized trial and you shouldn't confuse it as such
- without belaboring all of the problems in that trial, they didn't even confirm all who contracted the virus. just symptoms with some and i'm not sure even how many of those until i look for it. they also had 20% not even take the full protocol of treatment.
- the design also had people already exposed trial the drug. so they could've had it before treatment. so all the trial showed was with those and other shortcomings, that of people already exposed to the virus.. only 18% fewer taking hcq showed symptoms later in the trial. other than showing there were not increased cardiac issues with the group (are we happy about that?).
- and from that, your argument is "it doesn't work, there's no benefit, other studies have shown there is no benefit". you do understand there are multiple ways any drug might be effective, including potentially an optimal efficacy, yes?
- here is what people who know something about have advocated for: in order to slow replication of the virus and give body chance to fight infection thru immune response: early treatment, with zinc. might help keep the virus from causing big damage, putting people in hospitals and getting critically ill.
- most all studies to date have involved late care patients. most haven't included zinc (which is actually blocking the replication, the hcq helps get it into the cells to do that. in theory.).
- this minny study, underfunded and with some other flaws, provides some info. if there is anyone out there that thought hcq acted as a vanquishing vaccine that would never allow you to have a symptom ever after exposure, this might put that idea to rest.
it is exhausting debating with you, as often you do not seem to do your homework, make proclamations that make no sense for someone that seems as educated as you are, and then you inevitably move the goalposts.
ftr, had you not stated "it doesn't work", and "No one has died from not using HCQ for COVID-19. It doesn't help at all." i wouldn't have replied at all.
i have no idea if that's the case and i'm 1000% times more certain that you don't. i think you wrote it bc you didn't like 6ft saying the opposite.
please link anyone/story that still believes the lancet/surgisphere study may still be good. i am looking for laughs today. too much bad news in the world.