bluecoconuts
Legend
- Joined
- May 28, 2011
- Messages
- 13,073
Wow, that's a whole lotta dissembling to try to avoid facing what you wrote earlier:
So I go find an article that directly references a peer-reviewed study, and instead of saying "ok, well, there is a peer-reviewed study, maybe there is something to this HCQ thing", you end up more or less running away from your own words and trying to rationalize while my providing information that is explicitly what you asked for doesn't count. All to maintain the "HCQ ... BAD!!!" narrative.
And what does the information in the link you posted say?
Here's one thing, right in the highlights"
" According to a protocol-based treatment algorithm, among hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine. " (My emphasis).
That was the second item in the highlights section.
You seize on the line regarding trials, yet the conclusion still states:
"In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality." (Again, my emphasis).
The study also says this:
"Kaplan–Meier survival curves showed significantly improved survival among patients in the hydroxychloroquine alone and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin group compared with groups not receiving hydroxychloroquine and those receiving azithromycin alone (Figure 1). The survival curves suggest that the enhanced survival in the hydroxychloroquine alone group persists all the way out to 28 days from admission." (emphasis mine, again).
... and this:
"The results of this study demonstrate that in a strictly monitored protocol-driven in-hospital setting, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in mortality among patients hospitalized with COVID-19."
That's quite a number of strong statements that they were able to reduce the mortality rate using HCQ, based on a statistically significant sample in a controlled study, peer reviewed. Didn't say it was a magic bullet, didn't say it was a cure, didn't say it worked on all people in all conditions. But the study strongly concludes that they had a high success rate under the conditions under which it was conducted (and surprisingly, that included hospitalization, which means the virus had made significant advances ... which means it performed even better than I had believed it would based on other stuff I'd read, which usually meant administering the drug early and prior to hospitalization).
So getting back to what you said:
... are you going to be honest, or are you going to shift the goalposts now? Because I provided exactly what you said would convince you, and the conclusions of the study are strongly in favor that when applied under certain conditions, HCQ can be an effective treatment for Covid.
As for the remark about India and being an HCQ producer, I have to laugh given that it's an old, inexpensive,out-of-patent drug (unlike the Fauci-touted Remisdivir), so it's not like they are making bank. But you know what skin they do have in the game? Their own people:
This Indian slum contained a possible COVID-19 disaster with hydroxychloroquine - LifeSite
On July 9, 2020, Asia's biggest and densest slum shocked the world by announcing just one new positive COVID-19 case despite being a cluster and hotspot.www.lifesitenews.com
This was pre-hospitalization, in a densely-packed slum that would be an absolute playground for the virus absent some sort of pharmaceutical intervention.
"Indian doctors used hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for prophylaxis (preventive) treatment — the same drug the American media have politicized.
Dharavi's COVID-19 infection rate dropped drastically from April through June. In July, new infections were very low, almost reaching zero on July 9.
Officials have credited this turnaround to "[a] combination of hydroxychloroquine, vitamin D, and zinc tablets along with homeopathic medicines.""
Okay, clearly this “discussion” isn’t going to work out. For someone who went out of their way to mention you were happy about how I was going after the content and not the poster, or at least that’s how it seemed, you’ve completely gone against that. You’re not even attempting to understand my central point let alone refute it.
That being said, I’m not moving goalposts dude, I already said that the peer reviewed study that the article was referencing was fine, I had already referenced it before.
So, in essence, you’re claiming that I’m rejecting a study that I reference before you.
What really tickles me pink about all this is I would have been happy to send you a list of other positive trials and discuss the potential impact in the future, but you’ve thoroughly demonstrated that you can’t correctly organize and evaluate these studies that I just don’t have the appetite for that anymore. Bummer, because it probably would have given you a lot of ammo for future discussions, had you wanted to actually talk, and allowed you to attempt to bully yourself into a position of strength against people who I wouldn’t have the knowledge.
My point regarding that study is that the study, is not conclusive. The authors of the paper even said it’s not conclusive, so if one was here, would you be trying the same shit on them?
I understand the desire for scientifically illiterate people to jump to a conclusion based on a research paper, but that is not how science works. You can’t just do a single limited study and make a blanket statement about cures and treatments, that is bad science and frankly dangerous. The writers of that paper themselves say that more testing and trials need to be done. For one, we don’t actually know conclusively that hydroxychloroquine was the reason that they had a reduced death rate. That is in the paper, did you catch it? Cause I did. The authors understood the potential flaw as 77% of patients treated with hydroxychloroquine also got steroids, and studies have shown that steroids may help fight Covid for certain patients. If you haven’t heard about those studies and are wondering why you’re hearing about them by me (hey look, I’m handing out free full STANAG’s here!)
Will it work out? Maybe. Is it likely? Who knows, but the science doesn’t show that, yet. There are major risks that come with using hydroxychloroquine, which is why they need to be constantly monitored in a hospital. Also let’s just not act like India cares so much about the wellbeing of their lowest class of people. If that was true, there would be so many other things they would be doing.
I hate to be the rain cloud on the parade here, but there’s just simply not enough evidence, especially when there are so many studies out there that showed no difference. That’s is why you need peer reviewed, repeatable, and testable results. That’s why you need multiple studies and trials ran. That is how science works, it’s not fast and sexy, this isn’t TV, this is real life. I feel like I’m shouting into the void here, I do this for a living guys, you wouldn’t try to bullshit McVay about NFL offenses, and while I’m certainly not the McVay of astrophysics, it’s not hard for me to read and understand scientific papers and scientific jargon, because I’m surrounded by it all day every day.
So when I’m saying I need peer reviewed shit, I’m not moving goal posts. I’m saying that you’re going to need to prove your claims. When you are making claims that go against the experts, you need to have something that gives you credibility. Yes, that study is a good start, which is why I was referencing it before you, and have never said it was bad. Explaining what it actually says is not saying it’s bad. It’s saying what it is. If you don’t like that, then take issue with the paper. I didn’t write it.
The reason why I constantly hammer about my work and education in this thread is not to attempt to position myself as someone better or even smarter, but rather to point out that I understand how science works, the steps, the process. I understand how research works, how to read journals and charts, etc. Science is a different language, just like football guys can seemingly speak another language, or military guys, or inside jokes, being able to read and understand raw science is a skill that must be learned.
It does not say that. This study showed some promise, but there are far more studies out there that show no benefit that makes the risks unnecessary. A few small studies showing some benefit is great, and that’s why trials and testing are being done surrounding them. Science is not a fast process, and it can’t be sped up like that. Making sweeping conclusions so quickly just doesn’t work, I’m sorry. I honestly don’t know how else I can really say it.
I guess in football terms, we can look at the concept like a single drive or game. Drew Brees throwing a pick in OT, bad play, does it erase all his good plays? Mahomes won the Super Bowl last year, does that erase his MNF loss to the Rams in 2018? Does the MNF loss mean that you can count on Mahomes to produce 5 turnovers a game? Cause there’s a lot of data in other games that point to a different story.
