3 ms·
Yes, i'm not a proponent of HCQ, not without RCT as some of my previous post might tell you, but the "raw" data of the Lancet study seems pretty well harmonized
by orwin 6y ago
Yes, i'm not a proponent of HCQ, not without RCT as some of my previous post might tell you, but the "raw" data of the Lancet study seems pretty well harmonized for raw data, i wouldn't trust this study for my national policies.
I can't take HCQ as i already have extrasystole and a allergies treatment that already can cause arythmia, so i hope this won't be the "best" treatment, but really this paper, while interesting, should not be used to take decisions.
- lbeltrame 6y agoAs I wrote elsewhere (check my post history) I personally think that if the effect is there, it is small. I don't really mind if HCQ doesn't work, but I get mad when people say "follow the science", and the most basic thing to do for science (a RCT) is not done. Let's see if the U of Minnesota trial is published soon. The PI of the study tweeted he had sent revisions to the manuscript, and hoped for a publication this week (and he however added that he thought the same last week).
- tialaramex 6y ago> most basic thing to do for science (a RCT) is not done. Randomised Controlled Trials are the gold standard but not the "most basic thing". They are the ideal we'd like to have but often simply aren't an option. One of the most obvious reasons we often can't do a trial is that we have good reason to believe it would be unreasonably dangerous, which is why these trials stopped. The opposite scenario happens sometimes too. If all patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine magically got better they'd stop the trial and recommend immediately using it on similar patients.