3 ms·

I didn't know "hydroxychloroquine truther" was a thing. I do find the 142 positive studies to be compelling argument. The science does indeed seem to be in favo

I didn't know "hydroxychloroquine truther" was a thing. I do find the 142 positive studies to be compelling argument. The science does indeed seem to be in favor of the drug. But I'm not a doctor or researcher so my opinion is worthless. https://c19study.com https://c19study.com

orwin 6y ago
I can try to find you the French sources if you want, but Raoult did affirm around early june i think that the IFR for covid19 was 5 time inferior with HCQ and his protocol, with .7% IFR! The ARSGE later published a study that predicted .5% to .9% IFR in eastern France, and i think the CDC predicted .5% for the US.
- cycrutchfield 6y ago
  To clarify, you are saying that Raoult's study is bogus right? Because I don't think he at any point ever did a real randomized controlled trial.
tom_mellior 6y ago
Last time I looked at that site, the first HCQ study I looked at was counted as positive although the study authors were clear that their results were negative: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730995 Interestingly, the site also seems to list Remdesivir as possibly useful, somewhat weakening your not-a-conspiracy-theory-just-pointing-out-"interesting"-observations. Also, the site made the country data at https://c19study.com/countries.html https://c19study.com/countries.html more respectable-looking since the last time I saw it, but the data quality still seems to be crap. In Central Europe the Czech Republic sticks out as dark green "widely used", but none of the sources linked allow this conclusion.
cycrutchfield 6y ago
Wow, I had no idea that HCQ truthers still existed. Got any real randomized controlled trials to share?
- tboyd47 6y ago
  There are 4 on the website. But FYI, other types of studies besides RCTs are valuable in drawing conclusions, too. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/vaccine-randomized-clinical-trials https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/vaccine-rando...

orwin 6y ago

I can try to find you the French sources if you want, but Raoult did affirm around early june i think that the IFR for covid19 was 5 time inferior with HCQ and his protocol, with .7% IFR! The ARSGE later published a study that predicted .5% to .9% IFR in eastern France, and i think the CDC predicted .5% for the US.

cycrutchfield 6y ago
To clarify, you are saying that Raoult's study is bogus right? Because I don't think he at any point ever did a real randomized controlled trial.

tom_mellior 6y ago

Last time I looked at that site, the first HCQ study I looked at was counted as positive although the study authors were clear that their results were negative: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730995 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23730995 Interestingly, the site also seems to list Remdesivir as possibly useful, somewhat weakening your not-a-conspiracy-theory-just-pointing-out-"interesting"-observations. Also, the site made the country data at https://c19study.com/countries.html https://c19study.com/countries.html more respectable-looking since the last time I saw it, but the data quality still seems to be crap. In Central Europe the Czech Republic sticks out as dark green "widely used", but none of the sources linked allow this conclusion.

cycrutchfield 6y ago

Wow, I had no idea that HCQ truthers still existed. Got any real randomized controlled trials to share?

tboyd47 6y ago
There are 4 on the website. But FYI, other types of studies besides RCTs are valuable in drawing conclusions, too. https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/vaccine-randomized-clinical-trials https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/vaccine-rando...