More evidence hydroxychloroquine works

Discussion in 'Coronavirus (COVID-19) News' started by Josephwalker, Jul 28, 2020.

PF does not allow misinformation. However, please note that posts could occasionally contain content in violation of our policies prior to our staff intervening. We urge you to seek reliable alternate sources to verify information you read in this forum.

  1. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Focus please: Fake Science is Anti-Science

    "The Lancet paper that halted global trials of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 because of fears of increased deaths has been retracted after a Guardian investigation found inconsistencies in the data.

    The lead author, Prof Mandeep Mehra, from the Brigham and Women’s hospital in Boston, decided to ask the Lancet for the retraction because he could no longer vouch for the data’s accuracy.

    Related: How were medical journals and WHO caught out over hydroxychloroquine?

    The journal’s editor, Richard Horton, said he was appalled by developments. “This is a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency,” he told the Guardian."
    THE GUARDIAN, Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials, By Sarah Boseley Health editor, June 5, 2020.
    https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/worl...-halted-hydroxychloroquine-trials/ar-BB152Zo4
     
  2. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fake Scientists are the problem.

    "If the replication crisis is a sign that science isn’t broken, then what does “broken” even mean?
    In the stem-cell case, self-correcting science did appear to work as advertised: Problems in the paper were discovered by attentive colleagues shortly after it appeared in print. But the recent history of science fraud suggests that many more examples come to light not quickly and not via any standard self-corrective mechanism—e.g., peer review or unsuccessful replications—but rather at a long delay and through the more conventional means of whistleblowing. That’s how Diedrik Stapel, a notorious fabulist with 58 retracted papers in social psychology, was discovered in 2011. The fact that Stapel’s brazen fraud had not been caught (or self-corrected) earlier made his case a seminal event in the current replication crisis. Why had no one noticed, in strictly scientific terms, all the false effects that he’d slipped into the literature?"
    SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
    http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html
     
  3. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,208
    Likes Received:
    14,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quacks such as Stella Immanuel hyping her sex-with-demons and hydroxychloroquine-as-cure-for-Covid-19 crackpot notions are still practicing medicine. Lax standards control by her peers. The process is not nearly as responsive as it should be.
     
  4. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly why are calling Dr. Stella Immanuel a quack?
     
  5. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    18,024
    Likes Received:
    23,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Because she says HCQ is a cure for covid. There is no cure for covid. If there were, we would not have +150,000 dead.
     
  6. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    18,024
    Likes Received:
    23,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Another poster showed you statistics about retracted papers, which are a minute fraction of all published scientific papers. You don't want to listen to this, though, because you want to make the point that the existence of A VERY SMALL NUMBER of false published scientific results = NO scientific papers can be believed.

    On the other hand, you want to believe Trump, who has shown multiple times that he has absolutely NO idea about science. Be my guest believing in the snake oil, just don't drag all scientists through the mud for your political agenda.
     
    CenterField likes this.
  7. truth and justice

    truth and justice Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2011
    Messages:
    25,729
    Likes Received:
    8,771
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well if we remove from the test sample those that did not recover and also remove those that we thought were too ill for any help, in the same way that doctor did, and only select those that look like they would recover without any intervention, then the recovery rate is greater than 95%
     
  8. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    In fact, HCQ has been found to be a cure.

    cure[ kyoor ]
    noun
    a means of healing or restoring to health; remedy.
    a method or course of remedial treatment, as for disease.
    SEE MORE
    verb (used with object), cured, cur·ing.
    to restore to health.
    to relieve or rid of something detrimental, as an illness or a bad habit.
    SEE MORE
    verb (used without object), cured, cur·ing.
    to effect a cure.
    to become cured.”
    https://www.dictionary.com/browse/cure

    IOW, you have no evidence that Dr. Immanuel is actually a "quack".
    Dr. Immanuel is clearly the victim of an organized defamation campaign.
    Where did you get the idea that Dr. Immanuel is a "quack"?
     
  9. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That is not responsive to anything from my posts.
    Focus: There is, in fact, a replication crisis in science research.
    Are you actually unaware of that now well documented fact?
     
  10. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Source?
     
  11. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,208
    Likes Received:
    14,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    She insists that gynecological problems come from sex with demons and witches, that alien DNA is used in some medical treatments, that vaccines can prevent people from being religious, that reptilians and other aliens have infiltrated the US government, that hydroxychloroquine works on COVID-19 patients, and that face masks are useless against COVID-19.
     
  12. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    IOW, you reject her cultural biases and do not have any examples revealing that she is not a competent practicing physician.
    Dr. Fauci and the CDC have shared Dr. Immanuel's views on the effectiveness of face masks.
    Calling a practicing physician a "quack" is usually a bad idea unless you have examples of actual medical errors.
     
  13. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Of course they are different. I’ve never claimed otherwise. But we don’t intentionally exclude components of in vitro research when we move to in vivo. Especially when we know they are essential to the effects observed in vitro and as safe as zinc. Never mind we know zinc deficiency is common in the most at risk demographics to C19.
    So we are on the same page, please provide the studies you are referring to. I’m looking for a formal trial of hydroxychloroquine and zinc (including AZ if you can control for the side effects you’ve already mentioned) used in the early period of infection. Then we can discuss without confusion since there are so many studies out there.
    Being offensive is not my intent. My profession is often discussed in a less than complementary fashion on PF. Sometimes with good reason. But the idea that scientists and healthcare professionals are not human and can’t make mistakes and be criticized for them should offend everyone. Scientists and H/C professionals most of all.
    I believe this issue was mishandled. That in no way means I’m casting dispersions on everyone for all time. Perhaps I should have been more clear my criticism is specific to certain issues, not to be applied broadly.
    When I’ve ruffled feathers of healthcare workers before I’ve reiterated my respect for scientists and healthcare professionals. As you are new here I’ll do so again and explain where I’m coming from.

    First, I respect those willing to put themselves at risk in healthcare just like I respect military personnel. They are both necessary professions I chose not to pursue and both require great dedication and some acceptance of risk to life and limb. I absolutely respect that and have numerous friends and old classmates that are pursuing careers in both healthcare and the military.

    I chose a different path. I can’t work indoors, don’t particularly like people much, and didn’t have much interest in a military career as a young man so I am doing what I love—Caring for animals and plants so that you all have something to eat when you get off work or have a break. Yeh, I’m a farmer. That’s the answer to the question of what have I done for the C19 effort. I’m working as hard or harder than normal and losing vast sums of money so you can eat. No sitting home on unemployment for me. And no time and a half overtime. :)

    And that means I’m responsible for the healthcare and safety of (it varies) about 20 species of animals totaling up to 1500 individuals depending on the season. And that means you are preaching to the choir if you want to talk about long hours and dedication. While ya’ll are saving lives (and again I’m appreciative of that) I might be dealing with a midnight case of bovine dystocia. When that’s taken care of the cow may lie down in a half frozen puddle and commence having a complete uterine prolapse. I’ll call my wife to bring syringes, needles, umbilical tape, water, and disinfectant. She’ll draw up a block and thread needles and then take off with the calf while I put in a block to lessen contractions and wrestle 60 lbs. of uterus back into the metaphorical tooth paste tube of pelvis. When that’s done and the stitching is complete I may be able to go to the house to clean up—but the calf will be in the bathtub recovering from hypothermia because my wife helped me too long and the calf was chilled before she got it home.

    And guess what? Sometimes I screw up. Maybe my stitch wasn’t deep enough in one spot and when the block wears off she blows it all back out. Then she’s probably done for and instead of telling someone to make her comfortable and leaving her with her family I get to put a bullet between her eyes. But up just a little because it’s quicker that way and there’s less blood if you completely miss the nasal cavity. And then every time I feed that calf a bottle, twice a day, I get to remember I effed up.

    Oh yes. And don’t get me started on danger. Healthcare workers will die at a higher rate this year than my profession. But normally healthcare workers die at a rate of something like 1.5 to 2 per 100,000 annually. For my profession it’s around 24 deaths per 100,000 annually. Never mind severe injury. No comparison there either.

    I’m sharing this because I’m not ignorant of what healthcare folks are going through. I’ll admit, in many respects I’m at an advantage. I control the diet of my patients. And even though patients may try and kill me, their families don’t curse at me. Also, animal ***t is much less likely to harm you than people ***t, and zoonotic diseases are rare.

    To wrap it up, I know a bit about the immune system and vaccines because I choose them, administer them, and deal with the consequences of errors. I know a bit about surgical procedures, nutrition, respiratory illness, etc. because I live it every day, just in different species.

    My criticism doesn’t come from ignorance or because I disrespect healthcare and science. It comes from a place of understanding. I turned down a sideline of involvement in formal research (through the University I attended) on ruminant nutrition, specifically micronutrients. I did so because I saw it was research aimed at marketing products not just finding answers to the right questions. To be clear, I’m a huge fan of research. But I’m also critical of errors I see in research pertaining to my occupation as well as human health.

    Now, you stated in our first correspondence you were a big boy and could deal with criticism. I’ve not criticized you personally and I’ve not intended to disparage healthcare or scientific communities categorically. Yet I seem to have triggered you a bit. I may again because I’m pretty adamant about drilling down to truth no matter who it offends. And I don't believe one has to be a member of a certain class to question another occupation. I mean PF is all about criticizing politicians and none of us are politicians. I hope my explanations can help you see past that because you are a breath of fresh air to discuss things with—a voice of reason in a world of science denial.

    But I do think it’s important we stick to the issue at hand. My opinion is that the scientific/medical community mishandled this HCQ issue. Of course it would have been easier without media and political involvement, but we all have to deal with that. Perhaps you can supply the studies I’ve described above, but regardless of whether such ones exist or not, the vast majority were never designed to answer the question of whether the protocols of the original claims were effective. Nor were they designed to test knowns of in vitro results in an in vivo scenario. That disturbs me.

    Oh, I’ll give you a free shot at farmers as a sign of goodwill. Maybe something along the lines of obesity and high fructose corn syrup. :)
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  14. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, some of the dosages were insane. I guess if some is good more is better!
     
    Ddyad likes this.
  15. PJO34

    PJO34 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2004
    Messages:
    5,963
    Likes Received:
    1,296
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I would never get the vaccine. Qanon told me that Bill Gates is putting a microchip the in the vaccine so he, the illuminati, the lizard people, and the demon aliens can track us. :blankstare:
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  16. Diablo

    Diablo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2016
    Messages:
    2,772
    Likes Received:
    2,310
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My bold. Please, please let this be true!
     
  17. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,208
    Likes Received:
    14,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I regard any physician who holds and expresses the notion that gynecological problems come from sex with demons and witches as a quack. I know of no reputable medical authority that would espouse such a crackpot notion.

    Unlike the quack, Dr. Anthony Fauci, the nation’s top infectious disease expert, recommends the sensible precaution of wearing a mask in public, as well as distancing at least six feet from others, avoiding crowds, closing bars in some areas, and frequently washing hands.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020
  18. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Fine. Thank you for an interesting read. First, let me tell you: I *am* a big boy as far as people may try to personally attack me, but yes, it will piss me off if people will issue blanket statements against my professional class, calling us INEPT, when so much outstanding hard work and so much courageous and compassionate care has been going on everywhere. I'm defending the class, not the individual who posts here under the nickname CenterField.

    Second, thank you for doing your best so I can eat. I have great respect for farmers, including because out of my father's four siblings, two were farmers, so I have two farmer uncles and I've always heard stories from them like the ones you've just told me.

    But see, *I'm* not calling farmers INEPT!!! Anyway, your perspective is appreciated and understood, and I no longer feel irritated at what you said. Thank you for your kind words too, and let's re-focus and restart the topical discussion.

    -------

    So, you asked me to provide the study I was talking about, with HCQ + AZ + Zinc. Here it is:

    https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1

    Click on PDF preview to get to the full study.

    Again, unfortunately we don't have in this retrospective observational analysis, any insight on what Zinc alone would have done.

    I have nothing against this study. It obviously means well and is done with no conflict of interest or spurious funding. It comes from a reputable group in one of our best medical schools, NYU. I understand that treating with zinc alone was not part of their protocol so it is what it is. Not a randomized clinical trial with sufficient arms to sort it out, which is what I said is still needed. But interesting, of course; look at this:

    So, it suggests that earlier use might be more successful. I do suspect that HCQ as ionophore for Zinc is what might deliver some results, if used early. Unfortunately like I had already mentioned and you know as well, this hasn't been verified. This study from May 2nd, 2020, seems to be the first one looking at Zinc as an add-on, but it is in severe and critical patients so it doesn't answer the question of early use.

    The conclusions are sober and well-written (unlike some bombastic ones we've seen):

    I'm not upset at this one being non-peer reviewed. If I were the reviewer for this one, I'd have approved it.

    Now, here you have another one, but this one, even though it is done for early cases like you wanted, is methodologically much less sound, given that not only it is also not an RCT but much worse, it does not disclose the mean age of the control group and other characteristics, a huge turn-off because you don't know if the decrease in OR is due to the therapy or to the characteristics of the two groups. This one is also non-peer-reviewed, and in my opinion it would fare a lot worse in a peer review process. Small N, too (number of subjects). Again, no look at Zinc alone. I'm not highly impressed with this one. Anyway, here it is:

    https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202007.0025/v1

    What follows is an opinion piece; the two authors are linked to the pharmaceutical industry. It is not a study, but rather, the statement of a hypothesis. The reason I'm quoting this one is that it delivers the rationale for using zinc, with detailed explanations of the mechanisms of action involved, and I suppose you already know all of this, but it may benefit other readers.

    https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987720306435

    Cheers.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020
    Cosmo, Quantum Nerd and 557 like this.
  19. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Fair enough. I’ll do my best to be more clear about the targets of my criticism.
    -------
    Thanks. I am familiar with this study. In fact I looked it over a bit this morning to refresh my memory. I’ve kind of just left this subject alone for a while out of frustration. I believe we are in agreement. HCQ as a zinc ionophore for early treatment has always been what intrigued me about this. That’s why I’m concerned the vast majority of studies have been designed either to exclude zinc, or to try and bring people back from the brink of death after already being ravaged by the virus.

    Going back to something you said earlier we may not see eye to eye on.
    The human body “possessing zinc” seems a bit myopic to base that opinion on. Especially as we have information now that up to 40% of elderly humans may be zinc deficient and in animal trials zinc transport is deficient in aged animals. Abnormal inflammatory response is observed in the aged animals even when dietary intake is sufficient. Over supplementation is required to reverse the abnormal inflammation. Here’s a link.
    https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/10/121001141003.htm
    I just can’t understand why this information paired with known comorbitities and ages affected doesn’t seem to interest anybody enough to really look into metal ionosphores in relation to C19. Especially in light of what we are learning about differing inflammatory responses in select infected individuals. If this was veterinary medicine we would be drawing blood, doing full lab work ups and doing liver and other tissue biopsies to see what’s really going on with zinc blood concentrations, zinc intakes, zinc absorption, zinc transport mechanisms and ionophore and supplementation in infected (symptomatic/asymptomatic as well as age demographics) and control groups.

    Again I’ve no argument with your analysis. I had not read this study (at least I don’t remember it) but I was shocked to see co-mingling of PCR diagnosed individuals and IgG antibody diagnosed after treatment in the study. I would not have done that. Overall, I’m not a fan of studies using data from the past. I prefer designed trials.
    Yes I’m familiar with this piece as well. My opinions are similar to theirs. I just wish someone would take testing the hypothesis seriously.

    So, it seems we agree that there is no definitive answer to the ionophore question. Correct?

    My beef is “why don’t we have an answer”? And why is information like I’ve presented on zinc transport mechanisms and deficiencies ignored? We don’t even have a really reliable test for zinc deficiency but we assume deficiency is irrelevant to C19. Perhaps you can enlighten us because from a veterinary science perspective it’s a head scratcher.
     
    Last edited: Aug 2, 2020
    Ddyad and Quantum Nerd like this.
  20. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, I really would like to hear their explanation for their dosage decisions - under oath.
     
  21. Ddyad

    Ddyad Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2015
    Messages:
    53,247
    Likes Received:
    25,255
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So for you have not provided one example of Dr. Immanuel violating any professional standard of care for her patients.

    Dr. Fauci initially assured us that masks were useless and unnecessary. Was that a lie?
     
  22. CenterField

    CenterField Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2020
    Messages:
    9,738
    Likes Received:
    8,378
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Yes, isn't it incredible that they mixed up RT-PCR with IgG AB tests? I noticed that too when I first read it, but forgot to comment on it, today. Like I said, not an impressive study at all, and it probably will be rejected at least if the authors try to get it into a main journal (although after the Lancet and NEJM fiascos, LOL, one never knows...).

    Yes, we agree on the basics. But my earlier "myopic" position is still justified, I think, because there *was* a fairly well-done true double-blind RCT on early use of HCQ for mild outpatients (not without a couple of methodological issues, though; I can tell you more if you're interested; published by the Annals of Internal Medicine, and there was also an editorial explaining the methodological issues as inevitable in the pandemic which is why they still accepted it and praised it), and one on prophylactic use, and neither one showed any superiority to placebo. These subjects were not the people who are zinc-deficient elderly humans. So what I said is that I'd have expected to see some result, at least in those patients non-zinc deficient. Sure, we don't know the status of zinc deficiency or lack thereof in these subjects, but just saying, given that those were younger and healthier patients (or not yet "patients" in the case of the prophylaxis study which looked at healthcare workers among others), maybe a good chunk of them (more than half?) did have normal levels of zinc and so should have shown some benefit from HCQ if that's the key, wouldn't you agree?

    But then, yes, given the ionophore aspect, a treatment protocol I've been quoting because I find it to be excellent, the EVMS one, *does* recommend zinc... (with "optional" HCQ, only in the prophylaxis and mild phases; they specifically do not recommend HCQ for later phases and they are right about it, you and I agree, I think) and I don't know if I've mentioned it to you but *I'm* taking 50mg of zinc picolinate daily, and so is my wife, and under our advice, our adult children and siblings. Not HCQ, though. LOL.

    Yes, we agree that we don't have a definitive answer, which is why I said it's a poorly explored niche. OK, maybe calling it a niche is a bit demeaning because, hey, if we can find a way to prevent and to treat early, it's great, but I guess I said niche as opposed to the HUGE hype that HCQ got for all phases of the disease, ahead of scientific results, from pundits and politicians.

    Now, your question, why wasn't it better explored? I don't know how research is done in animals; maybe it's the same thing, but in humans, there are the matters of IRBs and DSMBs. You know, it was a rapid evolving pandemic. Professor Raoult proposed HCQ + AZ... people jumped on it and designed the protocols. Now, what happens is, it takes a while to do all that, to submit to the IRB, get approval, get funding, start recruitment... and while it is not unheard of that people modify the design in the middle of a study, it would involve re-submitting to the IRB, catching up with what's been done already or discarding and starting anew, and then, DSMBs usually frown upon it too (remember, they don't only monitor safety but also data integrity). Remember how Gilead was criticized because they modified one of their end-points in the middle of their remdesivir study? If anything, it gives an appearance of impropriety. In such a charged political climate, I think the thing researchers wanted the least is to face accusations of bias and hidden agendas. Once an RCT gets going, it is all fairly rigid and unchangeable... and it takes months to run. Also, I'd say that researchers didn't want to delay and delay (modifying a design would set back a study by several weeks or months) because the pandemic was raging, and because there were so many groups trying, that if you delay too much your data may be obsolete by the time it's all done. I remember reading a proposal for an HCQ prophylaxis RCT from Columbia University, and looking at their estimated timeline for conclusion and publication, 18 months, and I was thinking, "oh wow, if they take this long, by the time they conclude this, we'll hopefully have a vaccine already and prophylaxis will be a thing of the past." About things getting to be obsolete, I remember an Italian study with a female lead investigator concluding "large RCTs are needed to sort this out" and they went so slowly about it that by the time they got to print, the huge RECOVERY RCT study out of Oxford was already out... so, my take was to say "sorry, lady, this ship has sailed, RCTs have *already* been done; you missed the boat."

    So, I guess, with less pressure, people could have said "OK, let's take a deep breath and do this right. Let's avoid a plethora of small observational retrospective studies. Let's pull resources together and do larger multi-center prospective randomized controlled ones. Let's think carefully of the design and get a number of arms going, which will be easier if we have larger Ns in multi-centered coordinated studies... so, we'll do HCQ alone, AZ alone, Zinc alone, HCQ+ Zinc, AZ+Zinc, HCQ+AZ, HCQ+AZ+Zinc, placebo.. then we'll actually have all the answers. OK, but see, easier said than done. Too many arms gets to be too complex for randomization and matching. And coordinating multi-center studies is a lot more difficult... not to forget the ego of all involved... LOL...who leads it? You get to have too many Indian Chiefs and too few Indians... Even if you just do HCQ+Zinc, HCQ, Zinc, and placebo, it's still four arms.

    Look at studies that ARE designed like that to respond to complex questions involving multiple treatments, such as, for example, the large multicenter CATIE study done to compare five different medications in the treatment of schizophrenia, with several different arms in various combinations and placebo. OK, it *can* be done, except that... not even counting planning, recruiting started in 2001... and it was completed and published in 2005. Four years, not counting planning and getting ready to start recruiting.

    I mean, did we have four years for COVID-19? No, so people jumped on it... and things didn't get planned as well. One thing I suppose could have been done, would be to consider Zinc as part of the "treatment as usual" that is added to the therapeutic interventions in RCTs. I guess, if people had done that, we still wouldn't know if what really helped was Zinc especially if all groups improved, LOL... but if both HCQ and Zinc are needed for action (makes sense) then the RCTs might have separated from placebo. Why didn't people think of it? I don't know. It would be less pure, though. I could see some people balking at it.

    Now, should we do it a 4-arm RCT with Zinc? Well, I hope so, but it's becoming less glamorous now; FDAs and their equivalents are shutting the doors on HCQ given the failed RCTs, which then will make IRBs less inclined to approve new studies... funding sources rarer... and all the heat now has been about the various developing vaccines. So, we may never have a high quality RCT with all the arms that would be needed to sort this out. Maybe the boat was missed.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  23. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,208
    Likes Received:
    14,701
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If you are asking if Immanuel is guilty of malpractice, I have no idea and have never addressed that issue. She spreads crackpot information.

    If you are asking if Dr Fauci always knew everything about Covid-19, of course not. His knowledge and understanding increased and became more refined, and his recommendations how to deal with it increased as he and others studied it. To what extent did he discount the usefulness of masks by the public because there was a shortage and medical personnel needed them more? I don't know.

    Adm. Brett Giroir, a physician who oversees the federal government's testing response explained Sunday that. while there are some promising medical interventions, hydroxychloroquine is not one of them, even though some once thought it showed potential.

    Medical science is not fixed and impervious to progress.
     
    Quantum Nerd likes this.
  24. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,371
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well the “hurry up” to remain relevant you describe below is probably affecting everything.
    Yes if you have links handy I’d love to read more on that study.

    It’s a logical assumption if transport problems are known to only exist in older people and not in younger as well. I believe over ten percent of all Americans are deficient or at risk of being deficient. You also have to assume there isn’t an antagonist at play as well. We see a lot of problems with micro mineral antagonists in the animal world. Clinical copper deficiency can result if a sulfur antagonist is present even if copper intake is adequate. I don’t know much about micro minerals in humans, but I wouldn’t assume zinc activity or availability at the cellular level are not influenced by other factors. This is where an ionophore may show benefit even if serum levels of zinc are adequate. This is why I can’t understand why we aren’t gathering more data.
    Interesting. I have missed a lot on the forum the last few days. Yes I agree HCQ in late stages is not supported by logic or data. Supplementation of zinc is wise I believe. It’s something I’ve been considering lately. I’ve always eaten healthfully but I know that’s not always enough. I would sure take Vit D supplementation as well if I was concerned about getting and surviving C19. Topic for another thread but just like zinc it’s more important than we thought.
    Can I smear pundits and politicians as classes? LOL. Yes, what could have been a process of learning about HCQ became a real circus.
    Similar but not nearly as rigorous. Economics probably drive things more than “safety” just because of ethics differences between animal and human harm. Of course in food animals human safety can be another layer.
    Ok that makes sense. I don’t have to like it but it’s logical. I guess it’s like software development. I asked my brother who is a programmer why software craps so often when in theory it shouldn’t. He gave me the answer you did. Everyone is in too big a hurry to do it right all the time. Human nature exacerbated by a pandemic. Bad combination. :)

    Good stuff. Much more enjoyable than “Trump grabs/Biden sniffs and both will kill you with C19”.
     
    CenterField likes this.
  25. Quantum Nerd

    Quantum Nerd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2014
    Messages:
    18,024
    Likes Received:
    23,351
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Certainly, the initial study by Dr. Raoult cannot be replicated, BECAUSE IT DIDN"T HAVE ANY CONTROLS.

    Look, nobody denies that science produces non-reproducible research. With millions of studies published every year, it would be surprising if everything was reproducible. Scientists are human, after all.

    However, science is self-correcting. The bad research is eventually found out, and the truth rises to the top. The same will be the case in this HCQ saga. Eventually, there will be enough studies with controlled conditions that show that it either works, or it doesn't. Whatever the outcome will be, it is clear that HCQ is not the magic bullet, that allows us all to go back to our normal lives. Social distancing, mask wearing, hand washing will still be with us, HCQ or not. I know this is an inconvenient reality for Trump supporters, but it is what it is.
     
    CenterField and Cosmo like this.

Share This Page