3 ms·

There is more and more evidence that the only proper trial where it worked was a "nothingburger" https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-did

by yread 7y ago

There is more and more evidence that the only proper trial where it worked was a "nothingburger" https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-didier-raoult-to-save-the-world-from-covid-19/ https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-d... https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/29/more-on-cloroquine-azithromycin-and-on-dr-raoult https://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2020/03/29/mo... EDIT: Hmm I haven't seen this one before, that actually looks better https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v...

twomoretime 7y ago
There were other reports before this weird doctor. Including out of China.
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
These articles both seem to summarize the same set of evidence, and it primarily consists not of studies where it doesn't work but evidence that Mr. Raoult is untrustworthy. Which he does seem to be, don't get me wrong, but that's very different than affirmative evidence it's ineffective.
- timr 7y ago
  "affirmative evidence it's ineffective." There's no such thing as affirmative evidence of ineffectiveness. You can't prove a negative. Drug trials are designed to prove effectiveness, because the null hypothesis is always that your therapy is ineffective.
  - SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Sure, yes, but evidence that the guy's untrustworthy isn't a failure to refute the null hypothesis either.
  - s1artibartfast 7y ago
    In terms of clinical trials, you can run a non-superiority trial. They aren’t run as part of the drug approval process but can be and are run by clinicians and health services.
blhack 7y ago
From that first article: >national authorities including French government decided to deploy chloroquine as the medicine to treat COVID19. All based on Trump’s tweets which in turn was based on Fox News promotion of this study by Raoult. This is absurd, and is insulting to every health official in any of the countries using this treatment. The idea that the French government is taking medical advice from Trumps twitter, or from Fox News is ridiculous. Moreso when the doctor and researcher they are talking about is a French citizen and infectious disease expert.
- wyxuan 7y ago
  I think they the article is implying that because of all the attention that Trump gave the article, they decided to put it on the fore front of their approach. And also raoult is a major liar. If you look at the study he omits a lot of information and refuses to release 14 day endpoint data. Plus he's been a co-author to several papers which have had their results manipulated [1] https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-didier-raoult-to-save-the-world-from-covid-19/ https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-d...
  - blhack 7y ago
    Do you think this implication is realistic: A French infectious disease expert publishes a paper which outlines the results of a small clinical trial and which is in agreement with anecdotal experiences in China, and with evidence gathered in vitro. The French authorities ignore their expert until Donald Trump posts about it on twitter, which they take as medical advice. That seems insulting to France, and also like complete fantasy. In fact I would go so far as to say it sounds like something somebody with an obvious agenda would say.
hprotagonist 7y ago
re your edit/medrxiv link: note that the control group and experimental group were also both receiving standard-care, which includes a pile of antiviral and antibacterial drugs. So it's still an interesting signal, but there's a confounder with potential drug-drug interactions.

by yread 7y ago

twomoretime 7y ago

There were other reports before this weird doctor. Including out of China.

SpicyLemonZest 7y ago

These articles both seem to summarize the same set of evidence, and it primarily consists not of studies where it doesn't work but evidence that Mr. Raoult is untrustworthy. Which he does seem to be, don't get me wrong, but that's very different than affirmative evidence it's ineffective.

timr 7y ago
"affirmative evidence it's ineffective." There's no such thing as affirmative evidence of ineffectiveness. You can't prove a negative. Drug trials are designed to prove effectiveness, because the null hypothesis is always that your therapy is ineffective.
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  Sure, yes, but evidence that the guy's untrustworthy isn't a failure to refute the null hypothesis either.
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  In terms of clinical trials, you can run a non-superiority trial. They aren’t run as part of the drug approval process but can be and are run by clinicians and health services.

blhack 7y ago

From that first article: >national authorities including French government decided to deploy chloroquine as the medicine to treat COVID19. All based on Trump’s tweets which in turn was based on Fox News promotion of this study by Raoult. This is absurd, and is insulting to every health official in any of the countries using this treatment. The idea that the French government is taking medical advice from Trumps twitter, or from Fox News is ridiculous. Moreso when the doctor and researcher they are talking about is a French citizen and infectious disease expert.

wyxuan 7y ago
I think they the article is implying that because of all the attention that Trump gave the article, they decided to put it on the fore front of their approach. And also raoult is a major liar. If you look at the study he omits a lot of information and refuses to release 14 day endpoint data. Plus he's been a co-author to several papers which have had their results manipulated [1] https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-didier-raoult-to-save-the-world-from-covid-19/ https://forbetterscience.com/2020/03/26/chloroquine-genius-d...
- blhack 7y ago
  Do you think this implication is realistic: A French infectious disease expert publishes a paper which outlines the results of a small clinical trial and which is in agreement with anecdotal experiences in China, and with evidence gathered in vitro. The French authorities ignore their expert until Donald Trump posts about it on twitter, which they take as medical advice. That seems insulting to France, and also like complete fantasy. In fact I would go so far as to say it sounds like something somebody with an obvious agenda would say.

hprotagonist 7y ago

re your edit/medrxiv link: note that the control group and experimental group were also both receiving standard-care, which includes a pile of antiviral and antibacterial drugs. So it's still an interesting signal, but there's a confounder with potential drug-drug interactions.