Trump follows and endorses crazy Doctor

[Whateverman]

I just don't see how death is a better option than a cure.

Considering that HCQ provides more risk than benefit, the "cure" option means not taking HCQ.

[mikewhitney]

Considering that HCQ provides more risk than benefit, the "cure" option means not taking HCQ.

But most people do not prefer the cure of death -- which ends all other diseases. The goal of science is to help you. But you can deny science and just take the natural consequence of an early death. And you can let those around you die because you want to scare them away from HCQ. It would be nice to know you are also so persistent for some good goals.

I think it was the other thread where we listed the C19study.com. I was waiting to hear what was wrong with the list of studies there. The studies included positive results and negative ones from studies done. Was there a specific study you like to highlight?

[NorrinRadd]

AFAIK, HCQ has been rejected specifically because the risks outweigh the rewards. If maximizing its efficacy entails administering it before tests come back - that'd seem to be the exact opposite of what should be being done.

The FDA gave "emergency authorization" only for hospital settings, then revoked the authorization because of the poor risk/benefit ratio. They basically authorized its use *only* in the settings in which most advocates said it was least likely to work and most likely to have harmful side-effects, then stopped it when that proved true.

[NorrinRadd]

Who cares "when" you can take it. The point is that according to the scientific and medical communities, the risks outweigh the benefits.

That is overly broad.

It would be more precise to say something like, "With some notable exceptions, 'orthodoxy' among medical academecians and to a lesser extent clinicians holds that the risks of HCQ outweigh its benefits."

On this site, the focus has been on the notably colorful Dr. Immanuel. Little attention has been paid to Drs. Harvey Risch, Stephen Smith, and Ramin Oskoui, the former being an academic, the latter practicing clinicians (in my understanding).

[shunyadragon]

But most people do not prefer the cure of death -- which ends all other diseases. The goal of science is to help you. But you can deny science and just take the natural consequence of an early death. And you can let those around you die because you want to scare them away from HCQ. It would be nice to know you are also so persistent for some good goals.

I think it was the other thread where we listed the C19study.com. I was waiting to hear what was wrong with the list of studies there. The studies included positive results and negative ones from studies done. Was there a specific study you like to highlight?

The problem is you are denying science and accepting Trump's and the Witch Doctor's beliefs. The research shows some but limited success for HCQ, which does not support your claims.

[Whateverman]

On this site, the focus has been on the notably colorful Dr. Immanuel. Little attention has been paid to Drs. Harvey Risch, Stephen Smith, and Ramin Oskoui, the former being an academic, the latter practicing clinicians (in my understanding).

Risch is being interviewed on CNN now as I type. This is the first time I've seen or heard from him...

[shunyadragon]

Risch is being interviewed on CNN now as I type. This is the first time I've seen or heard from him...

Risch is a competent scientis, and yes there have been some positive results of using HCQ in combination with azithromycin.The article goes over different research, and the limited positive results. It empasises that the previous reasearch is without control and good randomized studies. One with a good research design showed decidedly negative results,

Name droping without the details is not an adegaute response,

Source: https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/87844

In the Newsweek editorial and in the later journal submission, both of which were published following three highly publicized randomized trials that reported no benefit from HCQ, Risch did not address or even acknowledge them.

In a statement posted on Yale's website, Sten Vermund, MD, PhD, dean of the Yale School of Public Health, distanced himself from Risch's papers.

"My role as Dean is not to suppress the work of the faculty, but rather, to support the academic freedom of our faculty, whether it is in the mainstream of thinking or is contrarian," Vermund wrote.

"Yale-affiliated physicians used HCQ early in the response to COVID-19, but it is only used rarely at present due to evidence that it is ineffective and potentially risky."

© Copyright Original Source

[Bill the Cat]

... when the average test takes up to two weeks to get the results back from...

I'm sorry, what?

[Stoic]

The FDA gave "emergency authorization" only for hospital settings, then revoked the authorization because of the poor risk/benefit ratio. They basically authorized its use *only* in the settings in which most advocates said it was least likely to work and most likely to have harmful side-effects, then stopped it when that proved true.

No. HCQ can still be used in scientific trials. Problem is, the randomized trials that have tested its efficacy for post-exposure prophylaxis have given negative results.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

[mikewhitney]

No. HCQ can still be used in scientific trials. Problem is, the randomized trials that have tested its efficacy for post-exposure prophylaxis have given negative results.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

The study has many shortcomings, beyond the ones the study itself mentions.

Here is a some of the rebuttal to the study's conclusion

Source: https://c19study.com/boulware.html

The authors conclude "[treatment] did not prevent illness compatible with COVID-19..", but as above this does not appear to match the data. In the context of their chosen statistics, they could say: "the data suggests a benefit for treatment, but when including the additional delay added mid-study, not analyzing the expected trend for earlier intervention being more effective, and with only 107 cases, we have not yet reached >95% statistical significance."
Authors say that they halted the study due to conditional power analysis, but if additional people have the same or even slightly worse results, >95% statistical significance in their metric will be reached, even when including their added 5+ days case. Further, the data is consistent with the possibility that 0 and 1 day delayed treatment is even more effective.
A note about power: it may seem that with 821 participants the study should have relatively high power. The problem is that only 107 had COVID-19, so the sample size is too small. Since relatively few get COVID-19, the number that need to be treated to prevent a case increases, and looks relatively high compared to other studies. But this is a treatment for preventing death in a global pandemic with a current death toll of
693,6978, and the treatment being studied is very inexpensive with very good and highly studied safety in controlled conditions.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

The study has many shortcomings, beyond the ones the study itself mentions.

Here is a some of the rebuttal to the study's conclusion

Source: https://c19study.com/boulware.html

The authors conclude "[treatment] did not prevent illness compatible with COVID-19..", but as above this does not appear to match the data. In the context of their chosen statistics, they could say: "the data suggests a benefit for treatment, but when including the additional delay added mid-study, not analyzing the expected trend for earlier intervention being more effective, and with only 107 cases, we have not yet reached >95% statistical significance."
Authors say that they halted the study due to conditional power analysis, but if additional people have the same or even slightly worse results, >95% statistical significance in their metric will be reached, even when including their added 5+ days case. Further, the data is consistent with the possibility that 0 and 1 day delayed treatment is even more effective.
A note about power: it may seem that with 821 participants the study should have relatively high power. The problem is that only 107 had COVID-19, so the sample size is too small. Since relatively few get COVID-19, the number that need to be treated to prevent a case increases, and looks relatively high compared to other studies. But this is a treatment for preventing death in a global pandemic with a current death toll of
693,6978, and the treatment being studied is very inexpensive with very good and highly studied safety in controlled conditions.

© Copyright Original Source

As before, and it has not changed, this research is considered flawed by almost everybody except Trump, the Wacky Witch Doctor. and you.

[mikewhitney]

As before, and it has not changed, this research is considered flawed by almost everybody except Trump, the Wacky Witch Doctor. and you.

You fail to convince anyone of anything when you speak under the influence of Trump-Derangement Syndrome and you make the issue about personalities instead of research.

You seem only able to do such mockery rather than actually responding to the studies themselves. Please show us what you understand about the studies, rather than just mocking people.

[shunyadragon]

You fail to convince anyone of anything when you speak under the influence of Trump-Derangement Syndrome and you make the issue about personalities instead of research.

You seem only able to do such mockery rather than actually responding to the studies themselves. Please show us what you understand about the studies, rather than just mocking people.

I do have to convince anyone virtuallu by far most of scientific community, NIH, and CDC have the medical research on their side. and of course the facts of the fatalities and fatality rate world wide for CIVID-19.

[mikewhitney]

I do have to convince anyone virtuallu by far most of scientific community, NIH, and CDC have the medical research on their side. and of course the facts of the fatalities and fatality rate world wide for CIVID-19.

The deaths are happening largely because people are not aware of the benefits of HCQ. Your reasoning is cyclic and it relies on a blind trust of the CDC and NIH rather than on science itself. You have been unable to examine and discuss the science thus far.

[shunyadragon]

The deaths are happening largely because people are not aware of the benefits of HCQ. Your reasoning is cyclic and it relies on a blind trust of the CDC and NIH rather than on science itself. You have been unable to examine and discuss the science thus far.

This is not true. HCQ is actually known worldwide, and actually used worldwide with limited success. I acknowledge limited success by HCQ in coordination with other drugs and treatments.The most recent peer reviewed research based on complete research procedures, double Blind studies, and controled conditions found HCQ ineffective. There never has any study determined that it is preventive.