3 ms·

> the article does not provide any further information that the Surgisphere study was the source of the WHO decision Genuine question: What else is it assumed

by beaner 6y ago

> the article does not provide any further information that the Surgisphere study was the source of the WHO decision Genuine question: What else is it assumed WHO may have made the decision based on?

seesawtron 6y ago
When such a large study is published in a big Journal, claiming that a drug might have a negative impact on lives of people in the trials, the authorities will be considered stupid not to pay attention to it at all and continue the trials. That is exactly what they did: They paused their trials temporarily to look at the evidence of this study, examined it and found that it was indeed controversial and lacked solid data. Now they have resumed the trials again. The media sells it as a clickbait story "All trials STOPPED because of a flawed study" implying they were stopped PERMANENTLY to excite the general audience. For them it is entirely something that brings them huge revenue from ads when they write such "emotinally driven" stories, they do not care about the effects it has on the public in the long term by reducing faith in world health organizations.
- Fjolsvith 6y ago
  > they do not care about the effects it has on the public in the long term by reducing faith in world health organizations. Or even the direct effects on the public in terms of healthcare.
cycomanic 6y ago
Well quite a few countries had stopped chloroquine use even before this study because they found little to no benifit, but significantly increased risks (not based on studies because they are difficult to do, but based on evidence by the treating doctors) , Sweden stopped IIRC mid april. IMO Germany and France also stopped sometime in May. Several smaller studies have also previously showed that chloroquine has increased risks and very little benefit (a number of them actually interrupted the studies because of the high risks). As much as I was hopeful when I first heard about it, I'm now very sceptical. It also doesn't help that Didier Raoult has a bit of a spotty past with ethical research conduct.

by beaner 6y ago

> the article does not provide any further information that the Surgisphere study was the source of the WHO decision Genuine question: What else is it assumed WHO may have made the decision based on?

seesawtron 6y ago

When such a large study is published in a big Journal, claiming that a drug might have a negative impact on lives of people in the trials, the authorities will be considered stupid not to pay attention to it at all and continue the trials. That is exactly what they did: They paused their trials temporarily to look at the evidence of this study, examined it and found that it was indeed controversial and lacked solid data. Now they have resumed the trials again. The media sells it as a clickbait story "All trials STOPPED because of a flawed study" implying they were stopped PERMANENTLY to excite the general audience. For them it is entirely something that brings them huge revenue from ads when they write such "emotinally driven" stories, they do not care about the effects it has on the public in the long term by reducing faith in world health organizations.

Fjolsvith 6y ago
> they do not care about the effects it has on the public in the long term by reducing faith in world health organizations. Or even the direct effects on the public in terms of healthcare.

cycomanic 6y ago

Well quite a few countries had stopped chloroquine use even before this study because they found little to no benifit, but significantly increased risks (not based on studies because they are difficult to do, but based on evidence by the treating doctors) , Sweden stopped IIRC mid april. IMO Germany and France also stopped sometime in May. Several smaller studies have also previously showed that chloroquine has increased risks and very little benefit (a number of them actually interrupted the studies because of the high risks). As much as I was hopeful when I first heard about it, I'm now very sceptical. It also doesn't help that Didier Raoult has a bit of a spotty past with ethical research conduct.