Conspiracy claims arising from parochial national politics are neither useful or informative with regards to biology and medicine.Doc wrote: ↑Fri Jul 10, 2020 3:32 amThe only problem with your double blind trial study is that everyone that has been done with HCQ has either be canceled because of now retracted studies or seems to have been designed for the drug to fail. Almost as if it had been planned that way.Colonel Sun wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 9:10 pmPublication by press release or, even worse, by CNN is worth less than zero.Doc wrote: ↑Thu Jul 09, 2020 2:34 amDicredited article right here:kmich wrote: ↑Wed Jul 08, 2020 8:12 pm Data show panic and disorganization dominate the study of Covid-19 drugs
The Studies of HCQ were done of late stage patients. HCQ is thought to inhibit the reproduction of the COVID virus inside the cells by promoting cell infusion of Zinc into the cells.The analysis, conducted in partnership with Applied XL, a Newlab Venture Studio company, found that one in every six trials was designed to study the malaria drugs hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, which have been shown to have no benefit in hospitalized patients.
This is an anti-virual drug. It does not fix damage in late stages. Even CNN has a story on HCQ cutting the mortality rate by 50%
https://www.cnn.com/2020/07/02/health/h ... index.html
Note the headline was changed to make it more negative after it was published
Study finds hydroxychloroquine may have boosted survival, but other researchers have doubts
By Maggie Fox, Andrea Kane, and Elizabeth Cohen, CNN
Updated 1:31 PM ET, Fri July 3, 2020
(CNN)A surprising new study found the controversial antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine helped patients better survive in the hospital. But the findings, like the federal government's use of the drug itself, were disputed.
A team at Henry Ford Health System in southeast Michigan said Thursday their study of 2,541 hospitalized patients found that those given hydroxychloroquine were much less likely to die.
. . .
Unless it is a properly designed and properly performed double-blind clinical trial, a non-trivial undertaking, then the reported results are worth nada. To be generous, any observational study should be taken with a large crystal of salt.- Findings of this observational study . . .
There are exceptions, such as the discovery of insulin and penicillin, where the outcomes were invariably binary - survive or die. However, once one starts talking about percentage improvement then the above necessary, but not sufficient, conditions apply.
Please direct them to the "Pandemic" thread.
But the Henry Ford study has been sharply criticized by scientists who said it shouldn’t be used to change policy. It was an observational study, considered much less rigorous than a randomized trial, in which patients are randomly assigned to receive a treatment or not. And its results fly in the face of three major randomized trials that have found hydroxycloroquine is not effective in treating or preventing covid-19.
Critics also noted that twice as many of the Henry Ford patients who received hydroxychloroquine also got a steroid — which has been shown to benefit covid-19 patients — compared to those who didn’t get hydroxychloroquine. That made it hard to know which drug benefited the patients, they said. The authors made statistical adjustments to account for that, but other scientists said the methodology wasn’t clear and that it is very hard to correct studies in that way.
“You want to look at the totality of the data,” said Eric Topol, director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “The totality is overwhelmingly in the opposite direction. You have to conclude with the Henry Ford study is an outlier and there’s some kind of confounder that is skewing the data and not representing the truth.”