3 ms·

There is still no compelling clinical evidence that it works either as a prophylaxis or "cure". has any double blind study with more than 100 participants actu

There is still no compelling clinical evidence that it works either as a prophylaxis or "cure". has any double blind study with more than 100 participants actually reported yet?

beat 7y ago
Well, there should be plenty of patients for studies soon. The timing actually makes some sense. Getting it into the field in a "can't hurt" way allows us to start studying its effectiveness quickly, before the medical system gets totally overwhelmed and studies become nearly impossible.
mrfusion 7y ago
Thanks for setting out an arbitrary criteria for us ...
- KaiserPro 7y ago
  which bit is arbitrary? the double blind study, or the number of participants?
  - beervirus 7y ago
    Double blind isn't arbitrary. The number of participants sure looks arbitrary though. (Powers of 10 should be treated as presumptively arbitrary.)
- throwanem 7y ago
  That's a much lower bar than most drug trials impose. Given the severity of the situation, trying anything that might work and isn't obviously worse than the disease makes sense right now. But equally, given the side effects of chloroquines and also the postulated mechanism of action for an antiparasitic against a virus being literally just "zinc stuff? idk lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" right now, I think it's no less reasonable to want to see some more rigorous evaluation before regarding it as the panacea it's been claimed in many quarters to be.
- dang 7y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
syshum 7y ago
Yes, lets forbid people from trying to save their life because there has not been a double blind study to prove to you it helps good plan
- dang 7y ago
  "Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

There is still no compelling clinical evidence that it works either as a prophylaxis or "cure". has any double blind study with more than 100 participants actually reported yet?

beat 7y ago

Well, there should be plenty of patients for studies soon. The timing actually makes some sense. Getting it into the field in a "can't hurt" way allows us to start studying its effectiveness quickly, before the medical system gets totally overwhelmed and studies become nearly impossible.

mrfusion 7y ago

Thanks for setting out an arbitrary criteria for us ...

KaiserPro 7y ago
which bit is arbitrary? the double blind study, or the number of participants?
- beervirus 7y ago
  Double blind isn't arbitrary. The number of participants sure looks arbitrary though. (Powers of 10 should be treated as presumptively arbitrary.)
throwanem 7y ago
That's a much lower bar than most drug trials impose. Given the severity of the situation, trying anything that might work and isn't obviously worse than the disease makes sense right now. But equally, given the side effects of chloroquines and also the postulated mechanism of action for an antiparasitic against a virus being literally just "zinc stuff? idk lol ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" right now, I think it's no less reasonable to want to see some more rigorous evaluation before regarding it as the panacea it's been claimed in many quarters to be.
dang 7y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

syshum 7y ago

Yes, lets forbid people from trying to save their life because there has not been a double blind study to prove to you it helps good plan

dang 7y ago
"Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith." "Don't be snarky." https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html