Positive Results From Hydroxychloroquine Study

  • Thread starter Thread starter josie_L
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It originated in Wuhan so I don’t see how this is objectively speaking un-factual.

You may object but I think you go a little too far by saying it denies science.
 
There are many kinds of studies. Retrospective vs. Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial, and Double-blind. Of all these, many consider the Randomized Controlled Trial the most important feature - more important even than the double-blind aspect.

Double blind means that neither the doctor nor the patient knows if he has received a placebo. This is important in treatments where the placebo effect might be relevant, such as treatment of headaches or pain in general. It also avoids the potential that if the doctor knows who is receiving the real treatment, he might affect the outcome with that very knowledge.

The problem with double blind studies is they are more difficult and time-consuming to manage - especially in a crisis situation such as we have now. I don’t think the placebo effect is likely to be a major factor in HCQ treatment, and I think doctors in these trying times are all trying their best to give everyone the best treatment they can. I doubt that with the stakes as high as they are, any ethical doctor would bias the outcome of treatment based only on his knowledge of who is receiving the real treatment.

So here is my suggestion: Skip the double-blind and placebo step for now. But do utilize randomized assignment of who gets HCQ and who doesn’t. That would remove what I think is the biggest source of bias in the results - the decision on who to treat with HCQ and who not to to treat. If that one decision is made in a truly random manner (subject to some reasonable and objective guidelines) then we can be fairly sure that any difference in outcome is truly due to the use of HCQ (or HCQ in some combination).

I think they call that RCT (randomized controlled trial).
 
dscath . . .
Lost me after “Wuhan Corona Virus” which, in my opinion, is to little more than an attempt to advance xenophobia and deny science . . .
Click to expand...
Oh baloney.

Quit accusing me of xenophobia/advancing xenophobia.

There are scientific articles that discuss the Wuhan Corona Virus.

You mal-attributing bad motives to me is out of line.
 
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle . . .
many consider the Randomized Controlled Trial the most important feature - more important even than the double-blind aspect.
Click to expand...
If they are not double-blinded, when you present your paper at a conference you will be criticized for intoducing an unecessary bias into your study.

I have no problem with the randomized and controlled.
 
Last edited:
dscath on scientific articles . . . .
none of which refer to it as “Wuhan Corona Virus”
Click to expand...
This is just false.

And if someone was going to have this invented degree of ridiculous political correctness, they may fail to search for such scientific articles.

To the readers here.

This is a prime example of how political correctness can hinder research.

A researcher who had such an attitude, wouldnot search for Wuhan Corona Virus out of their FEAR.

Fear of being politically incorrect.

Them miss a potential important science study in his review and bibliography.

Political correctness run amok. In this case at the expense of science.
 
Last edited:
dscath . . .
none of which refer to it as “Wuhan Corona Virus” or “Klung Flu” except for that one guy in DC . . .
Click to expand...
Thbolt . . .
Yeah, I’m okay with his supporters revealing themselves by using “Wuhan Flu”
Click to expand...
To the readers here.

Please note the ONLY people here using terms such as “Kung flu” and “Wuhan flu” are dscath and Thbolt.

Then they implicitly complain about this stuff to you readers. (This is projection.)

Don’t be taken in by this.

Also . . .

The “Wuhan Corona Virus” is an appropriate term.

There are scientific papers just matter of factly discussing it.

Go back and re-read dscath and Thbolt.

Then re-read my posts.

Then draw your own conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Yes, Wuhan corona virus not Wuhan flu or Kung flu, which is appropriately named because it is where it originated from.
 
Last edited:
No, because there is nothing incorrect in refering it to the Wuhan Corona virus.

I understand if you do not wish to use it though.
 
Cathoholic (again) . . .
The “Wuhan Corona Virus” is an appropriate term.

There are scientific papers just matter of factly discussing it.
Click to expand...
Thbolt. I think you need to go back and re-read the thread.

Then you can explain the pathophysiology of corona virus infections and WHY at least on paper, HCQ is an effective agent in preventing respiratory transmission of corona virus.

This is the type of thing that is focused on the thread and I want to invite you to participate in the thread subject matter.
 
Thbolt . . .
A distinction without a difference.
Click to expand...
There is a big difference Thbolt.

One is mentioned in scientific papers.

The other (at least as far as this thread is concerned) term you imported into this discussion.
 
Thbolt . . .
What did you say to me yesterday?
Click to expand...
It is irrelevant.

What I did not say is an explanation of the pathophysiology of corona virus. At least yesterday.

I think you should go back and re-read the thread.
 
Thbolt . . .
What did you say to me yesterday?
Click to expand...
I asked you to explain the pathophysiology of corona virus.

Here it is again.
Thbolt. Please explain to me the three purposed physiologic mechanisms of the theoretical advantage of HCQ in the presence of Corona Virus?
Click to expand...
The same thing I asked in essence today (focusing on the thread - because the pathophysiology gives light into the pharmacology.).

But I did not explain it yesterday.

And you didn’t answer it yesterday either.

Just like today.

Instead you are bringing up name-calling that nobody has said here instead of discussing the thread topic.

And I want to invite you to comment on the thread topic.

We are almost seventy posts here, you have a substantial amount of them, and I still have not seen you address the actual issues of the thread.
 
Last edited:
dscath said:
making this story truly is much to do about nothing…thanks for the clarification.
Click to expand...
You must be utterly ignorant about medicine. It is EXTREMELY expensive to do double-blinded prospective studies, therefore they are very rare. And even then they often conflict with other literature, or with other blinded prospective studies.

Much of medicine is done with worse quality evidence than this.

If I am critically ill with COVID-19, I want dex, remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin if I don’t have prolonged QT, proned out on high flow O2, and only intubated as a last resort.
 
Last edited:
Boatswain2PA said:
You must be utterly ignorant about medicine. It is EXTREMELY expensive to do double-blinded prospective studies, therefore they are very rare. And even then they often conflict with other literature, or with other blinded prospective studies.
Click to expand...
No more EXTREMELY ignorant than you must be about FDA approval process from Phase I through approval and the rational behind clinical trials for safety and efficacy before use.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top