5 ms·
It's remarkable how a non-randomized study of Hydroxychloroquine is anathema, yet a non-randomized study of Remdesivir that's paid for by its manufacturer and w
by m0zg 7y ago
It's remarkable how a non-randomized study of Hydroxychloroquine is anathema, yet a non-randomized study of Remdesivir that's paid for by its manufacturer and written up by that manufacturer's employee is not. Hmm, I wonder why that is. To top it off, it might actually have the same QT prolongation issues, because some other antivirals have them.
That said, politics aside, I hope it works far beyond our wildest expectations so fewer people die.
- panpanna 7y agoWhy does this have to be political? One drug has turned out to be mostly ineffective and in some cases dangerous, people have died. Another one seems to work okay-ish in a huge coordinated experiment. I don't see where politics come into this.
- m0zg 7y agoYou can't support either of the assertions with available data. No control arm? You know bupkis. > people have died Citation needed. And no, aquarium cleaner dude is not what I mean by "citation".
- panpanna 7y agoBoth drugs are under trial but we have seen some leaks on HN already. Even without that, an unbiased person would at the very least be equally sceptical to both.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago> Even without that, an unbiased person would at the very least be equally sceptical to both. Unless you know someone who recovered after taking the drug.
- panpanna 7y agoSure, but that's at best anecdotal. At worst, the patient would have recovered anyway and the drug only made it harder. The official reports will be available in 2 weeks.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago> At worst, the patient would have recovered anyway and the drug only made it harder. They had called the family in to say goodbyes because the guy wasn't supposed to make it through the night. I'd say the drug saved his life.
- SideburnsOfDoom 7y ago> I don't see where politics come into this. Short answer, because Politicians publicly pushed Hydroxychloroquine. You should know that.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y agoI'd like to know if there was any evidence or indication of the value of HQNN before a certain president started spouting it. AFAIK the only reason we're talking about it is because he did. If that's so then there's no reason to pick HQNN as being special over any other drug. I suppose there's that very dodgy french study, perhaps that's what started it all off.
- m0zg 7y agoBasically exactly the same kind of "evidence" as what we have now for remdesivir. Some patients got better while on it, but because there was no control arm we don't know whether they'd do worse (or better) without the drug.
- gridlockd 7y agoVirologists generally agree that it is a plausible drug to treat COVID-19, but will quickly point out that efficacy is unproven and we need to wait for better studies. Also, a couple of doctors who are regarded as "cranks" started applying it early in the disease and presumably had success with. Trump picked up on that, so now a lot of people have reason to hate on it. Trump poisoned the well. No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. However, that also means if these drugs work, but only in the early stages, then we won't find out any time soon.
- Fjolsvith 7y ago> No "proper" doctor is going to administer a dangerous drug to a non-critical patient to prevent what might turn out to be a harmless course of the diseases. This "dangerous" drug has been used in medicine for 60 years for probably more than a billion or two people. I'm sure that a "proper" doctor faced with a dying patient that is unresponsive to everything else is going to offer this drug. Its a good thing that congress approved the Right To Try law.
- throwaway_pdp09 7y ago