3 ms·

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 th

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 !)
  - disgruntledphd2 6y ago
    That's a laudable idea (and to be fair, doctors do make decisions like this all the time), but the trouble is twofold: 1) placebo effects and 2) expectancy effects. Humans are really bad at remembering both successes and failures, we tend to only remember the instances where something worked and forget the times it didn't. Additionally, doctors belief in a treatment will cause them to over-interpret the successes of said treatment, and potentially change their interactions with patients who do and don't get the treatment. Hence we have clinical trials, where the analysis is done by people not involved in the treatment, and neither patients nor practitioners know who got what treatment.

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 !)
- disgruntledphd2 6y ago
  That's a laudable idea (and to be fair, doctors do make decisions like this all the time), but the trouble is twofold: 1) placebo effects and 2) expectancy effects. Humans are really bad at remembering both successes and failures, we tend to only remember the instances where something worked and forget the times it didn't. Additionally, doctors belief in a treatment will cause them to over-interpret the successes of said treatment, and potentially change their interactions with patients who do and don't get the treatment. Hence we have clinical trials, where the analysis is done by people not involved in the treatment, and neither patients nor practitioners know who got what treatment.