4 ms·

That's some great news!

by mniak 6y ago

panny 6y ago
There's more great news. Most of the HCQ studies show it has positive benefits, https://c19study.com/ https://c19study.com/ The only studies where results are mixed are where HCQ is administered too late to do any good. PrEP, PEP, and Early treatment studies are all positive or inconclusive at worst.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  Most of these studies show that HCQ alone doesn't have much, if any, impact. However, what needs more investigation is HCQ+zinc with HCQ acting as an ionophore, as a prophylactic measure for at-risk groups. Those studies that "disprove" that HCQ works never included any zinc.
- ageitgey 6y ago
  That page is very poor. It uses every trick in the book to try to make poor science look scientific: 1. Cherry picking: It says HCQ-using countries always have lower death rates than non-HCQ countries, but omits countries like Brazil where HCQ is widely used but the results are poor. 2. Junk sources: To explain why countries are or aren't included in the HCQ using or non-HCQ using groups, they say it is based on how widespread HCQ usage is in that country. For example, it says Brazil isn't included because HCQ usage is mixed. To prove this, it cities sources - which if you are refer to the references - are "high quality sources" such as literally a guy's Medium posted entitled "Hydroxychloroquine: the narrative that it doesn’t work is the biggest hoax in recent human history" (since removed by Medium) and "@CovidCrusher on Twitter". It's just junk built on top of junk. This is not science. 3. Totally ignoring relative study quality: Every scientist knows that gold-standard randomized control trials provide more evidence than any number of weak observational studies. However, this site lists tons weak retrospective studies with tiny sample sizes and minimal effect on outcomes as "Positive" in cheerful bold green while dismissing high-quality randomized control studies with large sample sizes as testing the wrong thing or testing at the wrong time ("Late") or whatever. 4. Ignoring or changing results: If a study disagrees with their preordained conclusions, they either mark it as "inconclusive" or literally just mark it as positive when the authors said it was negative and then add an explanation about how the study authors "were wrong" in their conclusions. Can't disrupt the 100% green "Positive" rating! Science doesn't progress by summing up bad evidence and calling it good evidence. If you want to show that HCQ works, show a single randomized control study with a large sample size that shows it does anything.
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    > However, this site lists tons weak retrospective studies with tiny sample sizes and minimal effect on outcomes as "Positive" in cheerful bold green while dismissing high-quality randomized control studies with large sample sizes as testing the wrong thing or testing at the wrong time ("Late") or whatever. That's the problem though, there is no good evidence against HCQ prophylaxis. All the good data is from studies where HCQ was administered in patients where the disease already progressed. That's a completely different situation. Also, if the HCQ itself doesn't really do anything but act as an ionophore for zinc, then testing without supplemental zinc isn't "the right thing" either. > If you want to show that HCQ works, show a single randomized control study with a large sample size that shows it does anything. Of course, but the dominant narrative is "HCQ has already been proven not to work, everyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist". Good luck with getting that trial approved, good luck with keeping your career intact for even speaking out about it. The well has been thoroughly poisoned. Personally, I hope there can at least be trial with zinc plus some other ionophore that Donald Trump happens to not have talked about yet.
    - ageitgey 6y ago
      That's the thing though, HCQ has been trialed and is still being trialed WAY more than any other COVID treatment. There is no conspiracy. If HCQ actually does anything, we will certainly find out because people are testing it from nearly every angle. There are nearly 60 on-going studies right now specifically looking at HCQ as a preventative across every corner of the globe: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Prophylaxis+hcq&cond=Covid19&Search=Apply&recrs=b&recrs=a&recrs=f&recrs=d&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt= https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Prophylaxis+hcq&...
      - gridlockd 6y ago
        > That's the thing though, HCQ has been trialed... Yes, but as I said, the results we have right now are "late stage" and/or not in combination with zinc. > ...is still being trialed WAY more than any other COVID treatment. Ask yourself then, why is the dominant narrative "HCQ does not work" as opposed to "we are still trying to figure out if HCQ works"? > There is no conspiracy. I didn't say there's a conspiracy. I'm saying anyone questioning the "HCQ does not work"-narrative risks being labeled a conspiracy theorist, kind of like you just implicitly did. > There are nearly 60 on-going studies right now specifically looking at HCQ as a preventative across every corner of the globe Sure, but these were either started before the "HCQ does not work"-narrative became dominant, or they are from countries where that narrative does not dominate. Again, I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. There is a perfectly irrational reasons for why very smart people are jumping to the conclusion that HCQ does not work: Donald Trump said that it works.
Bombthecat 6y ago
8 hours and barely any upvotes. What is the reason?
- gridlockd 6y ago
  The story has neither a hero nor a villain.
  - 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
    Would C-19 not be the villain?
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      A mindlessly self-replicating pathogenic molecule just doesn't make for a good character arc.

That's some great news!

by mniak 6y ago

That's some great news!

There's more great news. Most of the HCQ studies show it has positive benefits, https://c19study.com/ https://c19study.com/ The only studies where results are mixed are where HCQ is administered too late to do any good. PrEP, PEP, and Early treatment studies are all positive or inconclusive at worst.

gridlockd 6y ago
Most of these studies show that HCQ alone doesn't have much, if any, impact. However, what needs more investigation is HCQ+zinc with HCQ acting as an ionophore, as a prophylactic measure for at-risk groups. Those studies that "disprove" that HCQ works never included any zinc.
ageitgey 6y ago
That page is very poor. It uses every trick in the book to try to make poor science look scientific: 1. Cherry picking: It says HCQ-using countries always have lower death rates than non-HCQ countries, but omits countries like Brazil where HCQ is widely used but the results are poor. 2. Junk sources: To explain why countries are or aren't included in the HCQ using or non-HCQ using groups, they say it is based on how widespread HCQ usage is in that country. For example, it says Brazil isn't included because HCQ usage is mixed. To prove this, it cities sources - which if you are refer to the references - are "high quality sources" such as literally a guy's Medium posted entitled "Hydroxychloroquine: the narrative that it doesn’t work is the biggest hoax in recent human history" (since removed by Medium) and "@CovidCrusher on Twitter". It's just junk built on top of junk. This is not science. 3. Totally ignoring relative study quality: Every scientist knows that gold-standard randomized control trials provide more evidence than any number of weak observational studies. However, this site lists tons weak retrospective studies with tiny sample sizes and minimal effect on outcomes as "Positive" in cheerful bold green while dismissing high-quality randomized control studies with large sample sizes as testing the wrong thing or testing at the wrong time ("Late") or whatever. 4. Ignoring or changing results: If a study disagrees with their preordained conclusions, they either mark it as "inconclusive" or literally just mark it as positive when the authors said it was negative and then add an explanation about how the study authors "were wrong" in their conclusions. Can't disrupt the 100% green "Positive" rating! Science doesn't progress by summing up bad evidence and calling it good evidence. If you want to show that HCQ works, show a single randomized control study with a large sample size that shows it does anything.
- gridlockd 6y ago
  > However, this site lists tons weak retrospective studies with tiny sample sizes and minimal effect on outcomes as "Positive" in cheerful bold green while dismissing high-quality randomized control studies with large sample sizes as testing the wrong thing or testing at the wrong time ("Late") or whatever. That's the problem though, there is no good evidence against HCQ prophylaxis. All the good data is from studies where HCQ was administered in patients where the disease already progressed. That's a completely different situation. Also, if the HCQ itself doesn't really do anything but act as an ionophore for zinc, then testing without supplemental zinc isn't "the right thing" either. > If you want to show that HCQ works, show a single randomized control study with a large sample size that shows it does anything. Of course, but the dominant narrative is "HCQ has already been proven not to work, everyone who disagrees is a conspiracy theorist". Good luck with getting that trial approved, good luck with keeping your career intact for even speaking out about it. The well has been thoroughly poisoned. Personally, I hope there can at least be trial with zinc plus some other ionophore that Donald Trump happens to not have talked about yet.
  - ageitgey 6y ago
    That's the thing though, HCQ has been trialed and is still being trialed WAY more than any other COVID treatment. There is no conspiracy. If HCQ actually does anything, we will certainly find out because people are testing it from nearly every angle. There are nearly 60 on-going studies right now specifically looking at HCQ as a preventative across every corner of the globe: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Prophylaxis+hcq&cond=Covid19&Search=Apply&recrs=b&recrs=a&recrs=f&recrs=d&age_v=&gndr=&type=&rslt= https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?term=Prophylaxis+hcq&...
    - gridlockd 6y ago
      > That's the thing though, HCQ has been trialed... Yes, but as I said, the results we have right now are "late stage" and/or not in combination with zinc. > ...is still being trialed WAY more than any other COVID treatment. Ask yourself then, why is the dominant narrative "HCQ does not work" as opposed to "we are still trying to figure out if HCQ works"? > There is no conspiracy. I didn't say there's a conspiracy. I'm saying anyone questioning the "HCQ does not work"-narrative risks being labeled a conspiracy theorist, kind of like you just implicitly did. > There are nearly 60 on-going studies right now specifically looking at HCQ as a preventative across every corner of the globe Sure, but these were either started before the "HCQ does not work"-narrative became dominant, or they are from countries where that narrative does not dominate. Again, I'm not saying there's a conspiracy. There is a perfectly irrational reasons for why very smart people are jumping to the conclusion that HCQ does not work: Donald Trump said that it works.

Bombthecat 6y ago

8 hours and barely any upvotes. What is the reason?

gridlockd 6y ago
The story has neither a hero nor a villain.
- 0xdeadb00f 6y ago
  Would C-19 not be the villain?
  - gridlockd 6y ago
    A mindlessly self-replicating pathogenic molecule just doesn't make for a good character arc.