I’m sure our leader will adjust his message accordingly.
Link: https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/05/22/hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-study/
Has anyone studied that? It appears to be just fine.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
In it’s own text of the author’s estimation of the value of the author’s study, it states (and I quote):
“IN THE ABSENCE OF REPORTED RANDOMIZED TRIALS, there is an urgent need to evaluate real world evidence related to outcomes use of hydroxychloroquine”.......and then it goes on to describe how they let a computer sift through disparate studies from around the world that has various related studies.
This is the laziest kind of study, and it usually gets published because of reasons related to social or timely significance, and thus the author’s make the point to let the reviewers know that they realize it, but to accept it anyways because of this other reason for publication.
The study I told you about is exactly what the author’s of this study say is missing and needed. It is exactly the study whose absence caused the author’s to explain why they offered up this stop gap study.
Further, while a small cohort is a strong sign of a study with no power, and large cohort from a computer algorithm doesn’t imply validity.
As I mentioned previously in my last post, the pertinent doses were not yet evaluated........and they still aren’t.
I spent years reviewing these kinds of things. It can’t be taught in a post, and I doubt you ever took Statistics to a degree that you are able to understand, but suffice it to say that these author’s rushed this out because of the social significance of the topic, and they admit that it is in lieu of exactly what I told you is coming out in July.
I do not have a horse I. The hydroxychloroquine race except that I hope for a treatment of COVID. This article does further suggest what I previously posted - that we don’t have evidence that it works.
But it NEEDS TO BE EVALUATED PROPERLYin a prospective, randomized fashion.
The WaPo proves again what a biased rag it is to put this out there as the end to the discussion.
Here is the actual article to look at since the WaPo is NOT a source.
Link: https://www.thelancet.com/lancet/article/s0140673620311806
"We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19."
I wish it worked too Baron, but if it does, the side effects (heart arrhythmias) are worse than any benefit for the majority of people.
and BTW, literature reviews are a very important part of the scientific process. If you've ever done one you would know that it isn't a "lazy" study. They are extremely tedious.
The arrhythmia incidence was linked to a higher dose of the drug but not at the levels that were recommended and now being used (and is a cohort of 96,0000, you could find the same type of dramatic results with Tylenol and hepatic failure).
We need a prospective, randomized controlled study with power.
I am trying not to alienate you guys even more, but man. This is not the end of the story by any means and the authors themselves know it, though it might be true that it doesn’t help. We will see I. July which was my original post.
You should ask yourselves why you want to prove this drug to be a failure (perhaps not you personally). It is purely because Trump takes it.
PS - yes, I have done research. I have also participated in a fair amount of it. I do think that meta analysis is a useful tool in its place, but it seems more & more that it has become the “go to” for lazy researchers. It also never fails to impress the lay public with its’ giant “n”. But it is being presented as meaning more than it does here.
Personally, I am not worried about the side effects of this well known drug at the recommended doses in the properly screened patient. I wouldn’t recommend it this without prospective, randomized data for which I am eagerly awaiting. (And to be clear, I am not in a specialty that would be regularly prescribing for this). On the other hand, if a patient asked me about giving it a try when there were no other options, I think that an off label Rx could reasonably be prescribed by another doctor.
I don’t get why you guys are so focused on Trump and not his doctor.
I agree that it is not the end, and that for some people it might do more good than harm. But the study clearly indicates that for most people it does more harm than good. Therefor, as of now, It shouldn't be taken by anyone for Covid treatment until those further studies you describe are done.
Even then it will likely only be used for a small subset of people that get it (ie people at very low risk for heart conditions). It will never be a widespread treatment/cure.due to the side effects.
study", it needs a prospective randomized study as I said before, and the authors of this meta analysis say as well. The studies reviewed by the metanalysis did not address the question directly and thus the meta can't either.
A meta study of results worldwide.
That’s the one you said you were waiting for. Now you poo poo it.
If the drug had benefits, we’d see them by now.
On to the next one.
PROSPECTIVE, RANDOMIZED trial with sufficient power (a specific statistical term) to know for sure whether hydroxychloroquine works in the effective in doses being recommended.
I know that you have expertise in other areas, but you clearly have a complete lack of understanding of journal review and statistics.
96,000 is a typical number that is achieved by these meta analysis review studies, and it impresses the lay public, but it doesn’t mean very much when the multiple things that are being reviewed have different - including even the dosage. In out field, these meta analysis have become a bane - they are easy for an algorithm to spit out, but they cannot specifically address the question that you are asking.
What I take from this article is the following:
1)The authors didn’t find significant benefit in a study format that is not well suited to detect it. I am saddened that they didn’t find a positive result because it would help everyone (except those whose TDS would be inflamed), but I still hold out a fair amount of hope. On the other hand, had it found a positive finding on the drug, I still would also want more proof because again, this was a retrospective meta analysis and does not meet the rigor of good scientific evidence.
2) The authors of your study agree with me about needing the study that is soon to come out that I linked.
3) The WaPo is trash for misleading you (or trash because they don’t understand the science they claim to present).
This is a study of studies, a “meta study.”
There is no reason to believe this drug has any therepeuric value. Maybe it could be prophylactic. But it does not work as a treatment, and it appears to be actively harmful.
On to the next drug.
As you just said, this meta analysis is a study of studies.
1)The studies that this meta analysis evaluated did not evaluate the drug in the dose/duration in question. Th average doses were about twice the recommended dose for corona tox. This is particularly important wrt evaluating side effects.
2)Many studies are complete trash. A study that studies studies is thus, by its very nature much more subject to incorporating trash into its own findings. It takes a great deal of time and effort to do a meta analysis properly to filter out all of the bad studies, and it has to be done in person, study by study. A good meta analysis usually takes a long time.
This study was, by its own admission, rushed out because of the “hotness” of the topic. Any professional reviewer would be very skeptical of this study based on this fact alone. Still, I trust the Lancet, so I will take the at their word on this - though the Lancet never presented this study in the light that the WaPo did.
3)Meta studies also compare a lot of apples and oranges by their very nature. Thus, they are best used when evaluating studies that are similar (example indomethicin as a treatment for gout). In this case, there has never even been a direct prospective study because the infection is brand new. Thus, by its design, the study is not ideal type of study to evaluate the question, and is potentially inaccurate.
Go back and reread my posts on this, and my original thread down the board. You may have misunderstood me.
You don't think that, if the drug had ANY benefits, a metastudy would have found them?
Once again, you used to be a man of science.
you say it’s common sense that it needs more study. You’re talking out of both sides of,your mouth to save face. You didn’t understand. You realize you’re wrong, so you claim the position I initially made which is this study only reaffirms my,position that we need a prospective randomized study.
All I did was link a study that is upcoming that will give us an answer, and your TDS flared like a hemorrhoid.
I will ask this above, but why are you not directing your ire at the doctor rather than the patient?
And what happebned to my body, my choice?
(no message)
(no message)
Trump said something positive about this drug. That was the end of any benefit it may carry for the Liberals. They hate anything he stands for and will jump to the other side of what he says.
(no message)
Yeah, I'm sure that is fair and balanced.
Findings of the study: "We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19."
Link: http://thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
But I really do appreciate your concern and hope your daily test for the Chinese Virus is negative. Remember don't go outside and wash your hands. Also, keep you surfaces wiped down.
such as you and trump still exist in this once great land.
We the lowly grovel in your shadow
(no message)
I am enjoying going outside and eating at restaurants though. Nice to see local businesses reopening instead of being crushed.
You an Chris are drama queens. Me not wearing a mask has nothing to do with "toughness". They have not been proven to prevent anything. I'm sure the the 60-70 year old right wing militia groups I have in my are plenty tough though.
(no message)
I follow what my doctor would prescribe. If he gave it to me, I would take it. As far as the mask, still waiting on the scientific facts behind wearing one. I see more people wearing them and not covering their nose than anything. So, spare me your bullshit about them and me killing people because I don't wear one.