4 ms·

Please provide peer-reviewed evidence for this claim. It's pretty extraordinary, and you are essentially saying that the medical profession are engaged in a va

Please provide peer-reviewed evidence for this claim. It's pretty extraordinary, and you are essentially saying that the medical profession are engaged in a vast conspiracy to prevent lives being saved, which does not pass the sniff test (for me, at least).

mlthoughts2018 6y ago
It’s better to do one of these: (a) downvote and move on, the parent comment has a lot of hallmarks of not engaging in good faith discussion. (b) steelman their argument, improve it for them and see what conclusions are or further predictions it would indicate (c) look for evidence that confirms it first. Saying something like, “I tried to research your claim but I only found FOO, which does not include any reputable or credible sources. Meanwhile, reputable sources like BAR have said <whatever>,” is much gentler and diplomatic as well as adding new information for other participants. Other people will see the comment and realize it has no supporting argument. Any rebutting comment that only says “citation needed, your claims are extreme” isn’t helpful no matter how obviously poor quality the original comment was.
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  My prior on this is that it's probably incorrect. However, it's possible that I am wrong, and the OP may provide sources that change my mind. The most likely outcome is no reply, but that suits me fine as reasonable observers will conclude that there isn't any evidence.
BlueTemplar 6y ago
Are these good enough for you ? https://hcqmeta.com/ https://hcqmeta.com/ https://hcqtrial.com/ https://hcqtrial.com/ (Note that their claim is even stronger than mine.)
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  OK, so I didn't look at every trial (as I do have a job), but I examined two of the studies for pre-exposure (for which most of the studies appear to be about). The first one I looked at Arleo, hasn't been published, which is pretty concerning given that any CV paper with any kind of insight is getting published right now. The second (chosen by sample(1:31, 1) from the 31 papers) was this one: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1571/5929230 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... which shows no significant effect of HCQ in a really large trial. Note that this trial actually seems pretty well run as it's an RCT with a large sample size. I find it difficult to believe that if there's a non-significant result here then NCQ is effective in pre-exposure terms. Additionally, there are standards for meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and the hcqmeta.com link doesn't mention them, which is very concerning (and lowers my prior that these results are correct). Like actually, given that there's no search strategy for papers (making it impossible for anyone to check if they are actually including all papers, or just a biased sampling), I am gonna again reduce my prior on HCQ being correct. Just as a final note, the likelihood of doctors not using the best available treatment during a global pandemic is incredibly low, and you do a disservice to medical professionals by suggesting that this is the case.
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Are there any meta-analyses that we know for sure followed those standards ? What about my second link ? Some doctors do want to use these treatments in those countries that "banned" HCQ : https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-group-demands-biden-promise-to-make-hydroxychloroquine-standard-covid-treatment https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-group-demands-biden... https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/11/02/hydroxychloroquine-doctor-launches-legal-fight-accuses-french-health-body-of-endangering-lives/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/11/02/hydroxych...
  - BlueTemplar 6y ago
    Hmm, finally managed to find some criticism of the 2nd link : https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hcqtrial-com-astroturf-and-disinformation-about-hydroxychloroquine-and-covid-19-on-steroids/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hcqtrial-com-astroturf-and-... Ok, that doesn't look good… (Still, I would have preferred that doctors would be free to decide by themselves which drug to prescribe for a new disease. After all, they have skin in the game !)

mlthoughts2018 6y ago

It’s better to do one of these: (a) downvote and move on, the parent comment has a lot of hallmarks of not engaging in good faith discussion. (b) steelman their argument, improve it for them and see what conclusions are or further predictions it would indicate (c) look for evidence that confirms it first. Saying something like, “I tried to research your claim but I only found FOO, which does not include any reputable or credible sources. Meanwhile, reputable sources like BAR have said <whatever>,” is much gentler and diplomatic as well as adding new information for other participants. Other people will see the comment and realize it has no supporting argument. Any rebutting comment that only says “citation needed, your claims are extreme” isn’t helpful no matter how obviously poor quality the original comment was.

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
My prior on this is that it's probably incorrect. However, it's possible that I am wrong, and the OP may provide sources that change my mind. The most likely outcome is no reply, but that suits me fine as reasonable observers will conclude that there isn't any evidence.

BlueTemplar 6y ago

Are these good enough for you ? https://hcqmeta.com/ https://hcqmeta.com/ https://hcqtrial.com/ https://hcqtrial.com/ (Note that their claim is even stronger than mine.)

disgruntledphd2 6y ago
OK, so I didn't look at every trial (as I do have a job), but I examined two of the studies for pre-exposure (for which most of the studies appear to be about). The first one I looked at Arleo, hasn't been published, which is pretty concerning given that any CV paper with any kind of insight is getting published right now. The second (chosen by sample(1:31, 1) from the 31 papers) was this one: https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid/ciaa1571/5929230 https://academic.oup.com/cid/advance-article/doi/10.1093/cid... which shows no significant effect of HCQ in a really large trial. Note that this trial actually seems pretty well run as it's an RCT with a large sample size. I find it difficult to believe that if there's a non-significant result here then NCQ is effective in pre-exposure terms. Additionally, there are standards for meta-analyses and systematic reviews, and the hcqmeta.com link doesn't mention them, which is very concerning (and lowers my prior that these results are correct). Like actually, given that there's no search strategy for papers (making it impossible for anyone to check if they are actually including all papers, or just a biased sampling), I am gonna again reduce my prior on HCQ being correct. Just as a final note, the likelihood of doctors not using the best available treatment during a global pandemic is incredibly low, and you do a disservice to medical professionals by suggesting that this is the case.
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Are there any meta-analyses that we know for sure followed those standards ? What about my second link ? Some doctors do want to use these treatments in those countries that "banned" HCQ : https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-group-demands-biden-promise-to-make-hydroxychloroquine-standard-covid-treatment https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/doctor-group-demands-biden... https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/11/02/hydroxychloroquine-doctor-launches-legal-fight-accuses-french-health-body-of-endangering-lives/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/11/02/hydroxych...
- BlueTemplar 6y ago
  Hmm, finally managed to find some criticism of the 2nd link : https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hcqtrial-com-astroturf-and-disinformation-about-hydroxychloroquine-and-covid-19-on-steroids/ https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hcqtrial-com-astroturf-and-... Ok, that doesn't look good… (Still, I would have preferred that doctors would be free to decide by themselves which drug to prescribe for a new disease. After all, they have skin in the game !)