5 ms·

In a democracy majority should decide what to do. But it’s not the majority who decides what _is true_. Marc Twain used to say: “Whenever you find yourself on

In a democracy majority should decide what to do. But it’s not the majority who decides what _is true_. Marc Twain used to say: “Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to pause and reflect.” (Interestingly you’re demanding the same: taking time to step back ;)

ehsankia 6y ago
Your analogy doesn't really apply. These publications are all top of their field reporters. That's like saying 99% of scientist agreeing that vaccines work doesn't mean the majority is right. In a normal population you may be right, but in a field of experts, I'm happy sticking with the majority than with the one random scientist who believes in satanic rituals telling me hydroxychloroquine works.
- blumomo 6y ago
  Mhm, do all these many doctors of https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ look like a single random scientist who believes in satanic rituals?
  - ehsankia 6y ago
    They are still in the clear minority, just like those 3% of climate scientist who refuse to believe in climate change. The fact that the president wasn't given HCQ is all the proof you need to know how effective it is.
    - chrisco255 6y ago
      Science is a method not a popularity contest. But there have been dozens of studies showing HCQs efficacy: https://c19study.com/ https://c19study.com/
      - hhw 6y ago
        That site appears to be making some obviously false claims in its analysis. For instance, tt makes this claim: "100% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.002." Note that the only RCT with positive results is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v... Which was late, not early. Meanwhile, quickly searching through all the RCT's listed, there's 5 that are negative and 10 that were inconclusive (i.e. showed no benefit). So there's 15 to 1 against the effectiveness of HCQ using the highest standard of study (RCT's), yet somehow that site attempts to represent that as 100% of 'early' RCT's showing positive results.
        chrisco255 6y ago
        No, here's one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214940v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214940v... But the lede is buried for some reason, perhaps due to the absurd politics around HCQ: "This is another paper where positive effects of HCQ are left out of the conclusions the paper reports. In the Table 2, the line for mortality at 28 days shows a cut by a factor of 0.54 on HCQ. The difference is not at the standard 0.05 significance level, with a p-value of 0.22. However this does not mean the result is false. It could just as well be the sample size is not large enough for the significance to reach the 0.05 level." And some of these studies are having a hard time because the Covid mortality rate has dropped tremendously: Internet survey RCT subject to survey bias. There was no death or ICU admission. Low risk healthcare workers, median age ~40. 494 1x/week dosing, 495 2x/week dosing, 494 control participants (1x and 2x participants received the same overall dosage). They studied 1500 participants with no deaths. One that shows as "Negative" : Early terminated PEP RCT comparing HCQ and vitamin C with 781 patients (83% household contacts), reporting no significant differences. `Therapy started one day after enrollment and study supplies were sent to the participant "either by courier or mail". So the arrival time of the medication is not specified. In Boulware et al., the shipping delay was up to 3.5 days, if the delay is similar here the overall delays may be: time since first exposure - unlimited time to enrollment - up to 4 days time to telehealth meeting - 1 day (3 days if Friday enrollment?) time to receive medication - up to 3.5 days Most results including the primary 28-day PCR+ result has not bee reported yet. The study uses a low and slow dosage regimen, therapeutic levels may only be reached nearer to day 14, if at all, so day 28 results should be more informative when available (although labeled a PEP trial, with the low dosage and continuous exposure for most participants it is more of a PrEP/PEP trial where benefit might be seen later as HCQ levels increase). Endpoints were: Primary outcomes: PCR+ @28 days - NOT REPORTED YET PCR+ @14 days - aHR 0.99 [0.64-1.52]` Right, so this RCT took up to 7 days for medication to arrive. Most people completely heal from Covid before 7 days is up. This is why science is not some popularity contest where you can scan for counts and average the results together. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's difficult to find the correct answers and there's hundreds of confounding variables that are difficult to control for.
    - afiori 6y ago
      All the proof I need is that there is a single human being were that drug was not considered the most effective one.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  So do you believe in second opinions? Have you ever heard of a patient having to go to several different doctors to get the right treatment? Reporters 30 years ago might have had standards. I think those standards have slipped tremendously. The North Koreans trust their journalists. They are the top of their field after all. Democracy doesn't die in darkness. It dies in uniformity and groupthink.
- afiori 6y ago
  As so we got the replication crisis in multiple sciences.

ehsankia 6y ago

Your analogy doesn't really apply. These publications are all top of their field reporters. That's like saying 99% of scientist agreeing that vaccines work doesn't mean the majority is right. In a normal population you may be right, but in a field of experts, I'm happy sticking with the majority than with the one random scientist who believes in satanic rituals telling me hydroxychloroquine works.

blumomo 6y ago
Mhm, do all these many doctors of https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ look like a single random scientist who believes in satanic rituals?
- ehsankia 6y ago
  They are still in the clear minority, just like those 3% of climate scientist who refuse to believe in climate change. The fact that the president wasn't given HCQ is all the proof you need to know how effective it is.
  - chrisco255 6y ago
    Science is a method not a popularity contest. But there have been dozens of studies showing HCQs efficacy: https://c19study.com/ https://c19study.com/
    - hhw 6y ago
      That site appears to be making some obviously false claims in its analysis. For instance, tt makes this claim: "100% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.002." Note that the only RCT with positive results is https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v... Which was late, not early. Meanwhile, quickly searching through all the RCT's listed, there's 5 that are negative and 10 that were inconclusive (i.e. showed no benefit). So there's 15 to 1 against the effectiveness of HCQ using the highest standard of study (RCT's), yet somehow that site attempts to represent that as 100% of 'early' RCT's showing positive results.
      - chrisco255 6y ago
        No, here's one: https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214940v1 https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.19.20214940v... But the lede is buried for some reason, perhaps due to the absurd politics around HCQ: "This is another paper where positive effects of HCQ are left out of the conclusions the paper reports. In the Table 2, the line for mortality at 28 days shows a cut by a factor of 0.54 on HCQ. The difference is not at the standard 0.05 significance level, with a p-value of 0.22. However this does not mean the result is false. It could just as well be the sample size is not large enough for the significance to reach the 0.05 level." And some of these studies are having a hard time because the Covid mortality rate has dropped tremendously: Internet survey RCT subject to survey bias. There was no death or ICU admission. Low risk healthcare workers, median age ~40. 494 1x/week dosing, 495 2x/week dosing, 494 control participants (1x and 2x participants received the same overall dosage). They studied 1500 participants with no deaths. One that shows as "Negative" : Early terminated PEP RCT comparing HCQ and vitamin C with 781 patients (83% household contacts), reporting no significant differences. `Therapy started one day after enrollment and study supplies were sent to the participant "either by courier or mail". So the arrival time of the medication is not specified. In Boulware et al., the shipping delay was up to 3.5 days, if the delay is similar here the overall delays may be: time since first exposure - unlimited time to enrollment - up to 4 days time to telehealth meeting - 1 day (3 days if Friday enrollment?) time to receive medication - up to 3.5 days Most results including the primary 28-day PCR+ result has not bee reported yet. The study uses a low and slow dosage regimen, therapeutic levels may only be reached nearer to day 14, if at all, so day 28 results should be more informative when available (although labeled a PEP trial, with the low dosage and continuous exposure for most participants it is more of a PrEP/PEP trial where benefit might be seen later as HCQ levels increase). Endpoints were: Primary outcomes: PCR+ @28 days - NOT REPORTED YET PCR+ @14 days - aHR 0.99 [0.64-1.52]` Right, so this RCT took up to 7 days for medication to arrive. Most people completely heal from Covid before 7 days is up. This is why science is not some popularity contest where you can scan for counts and average the results together. It's messy, it's nuanced, it's difficult to find the correct answers and there's hundreds of confounding variables that are difficult to control for.
  - afiori 6y ago
    All the proof I need is that there is a single human being were that drug was not considered the most effective one.
chrisco255 6y ago
So do you believe in second opinions? Have you ever heard of a patient having to go to several different doctors to get the right treatment? Reporters 30 years ago might have had standards. I think those standards have slipped tremendously. The North Koreans trust their journalists. They are the top of their field after all. Democracy doesn't die in darkness. It dies in uniformity and groupthink.
afiori 6y ago
As so we got the replication crisis in multiple sciences.