5 ms·

That article mentions "the senseless attacks on hydroxycloroquine" as an example of scientific failure. I disagree. Small initial studies with low sample sizes

by strken 5y ago

That article mentions "the senseless attacks on hydroxycloroquine" as an example of scientific failure. I disagree. Small initial studies with low sample sizes often find effects that fail to replicate in larger studies, and to the best of my knowledge, that's what happened here. Can you elaborate on why you think it's an effective treatment?

dnautics 5y ago
Not the article author, but until such time as the larger study is done, the attacks could be construed as senseless. There were lots of "attacks" on hcq in the beginning when at best the response should have been, "we're skeptical but looking into it".
- aaomidi 5y ago
  I mean, that is effectively what happens. It's dangerous to give validity to a potential solution when the impacts and side effects of it are unknown.
  - 650 5y ago
    Like the vaccine? (Joking here, but you get my point)
  - dnautics 5y ago
    I don't know if you have selective memory, but the discourse was not at all like how I suggested it could have been.
argvargc 5y ago
HCQ can be effective when used early and in correct dosages, as shown in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. One widely-publicised, large Lancet study claiming it was "unsafe" was later retracted as it turned out to be made up BS. [0] Living meta-study of 300+ likely non-pretend control studies on 400k+ patients: https://c19hcq.com/ https://c19hcq.com/ (Edit to add: And this was apparent early-on. Nothing much has changed with HCQ's profile since it was first identified as an effective, safe therapeutic in early 2020.) [0] https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-monumental-fraud-not-a-huge-scandal/ https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-m...
- strken 5y ago
  Don't really have the time to go through these right now, but I'll look through them later. Thanks! Initial impression is that taking the average of every published paper across different metrics makes you vulnerable to publication bias (and probably other stuff), but I'd need to make a funnel plot and check out the opinions of actual trained scientists to know whether that's true here. I'm guessing that some studies on each side are probably going to have suspicious or outright false data, too (like the one you mention).
- inter_netuser 5y ago
  can you link to the retraction of that study?
  - dazilcher 5y ago
    https://tinyurl.com/55rext65 https://tinyurl.com/55rext65

by strken 5y ago

dnautics 5y ago

Not the article author, but until such time as the larger study is done, the attacks could be construed as senseless. There were lots of "attacks" on hcq in the beginning when at best the response should have been, "we're skeptical but looking into it".

aaomidi 5y ago
I mean, that is effectively what happens. It's dangerous to give validity to a potential solution when the impacts and side effects of it are unknown.
- 650 5y ago
  Like the vaccine? (Joking here, but you get my point)
- dnautics 5y ago
  I don't know if you have selective memory, but the discourse was not at all like how I suggested it could have been.

argvargc 5y ago

HCQ can be effective when used early and in correct dosages, as shown in hundreds of peer-reviewed studies. One widely-publicised, large Lancet study claiming it was "unsafe" was later retracted as it turned out to be made up BS. [0] Living meta-study of 300+ likely non-pretend control studies on 400k+ patients: https://c19hcq.com/ https://c19hcq.com/ (Edit to add: And this was apparent early-on. Nothing much has changed with HCQ's profile since it was first identified as an effective, safe therapeutic in early 2020.) [0] https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-monumental-fraud-not-a-huge-scandal/ https://dissidentvoice.org/2020/08/lancetgate-why-was-this-m...

strken 5y ago
Don't really have the time to go through these right now, but I'll look through them later. Thanks! Initial impression is that taking the average of every published paper across different metrics makes you vulnerable to publication bias (and probably other stuff), but I'd need to make a funnel plot and check out the opinions of actual trained scientists to know whether that's true here. I'm guessing that some studies on each side are probably going to have suspicious or outright false data, too (like the one you mention).
inter_netuser 5y ago
can you link to the retraction of that study?
- dazilcher 5y ago
  https://tinyurl.com/55rext65 https://tinyurl.com/55rext65