Wot no coronavirus thread? Thread broken - see new thread

[Ming]

FACT - NO PROVEN CURE
You can point to some EVIDENCE, but the EVIDENCE is flawed and not conclusive.
Which is exactly what most experts are saying.
Again, is your whole point here that doctors shouldn't follow the proven evidence and instead, do something simply based on this guys opinion of flawed evidence?
You keep repeating the same thing... you have added nothing new.
And frankly, neither have I since there is no proven scientific evidence supporting his claims. Again, it's all observational data or Anecdotal evidence that has yet to be backed up by any real scientific proof. And most of the experts agree and won't go ahead and recommend something that hasn't been PROVEN to work.

[Jon Miller]

Honestly, I have no problem with the claim that HCQ may be beneficial and deserves more study. Medical science is complicated.

I have a problem with the claim that it is a game changer and clearly is the solution to covid. Clearly it isn't. If it was, studies would have shown it. Any effect is going to be complicated and likely moderate at best.

JM

[Kidlicious]

I'm not arguing that it's a proven cure. When there isn't a proven cure doctors prescribe medicine that they think will work. There is scientific evidence for HCQ. It kills the virus in a test tube. There is statistical evidence. Countries that use HCQ have a lower cfr.

Now I'm not going to keep this going when you aren't going to argue.

[Kidlicious]

Honestly, I have no problem with the claim that HCQ may be beneficial and deserves more study. Medical science is complicated.

I have a problem with the claim that it is a game changer and clearly is the solution to covid. Clearly it isn't. If it was, studies would have shown it. Any effect is going to be complicated and likely moderate at best.

JM

It's not going to be a cure. It's going to save lives, and a lot of them. It could have saved many lives already.

The issue is that they are preventing people from getting this medicine because they want to make more money on another medication or a vaccine.

[Ming]

It's not going to be a cure. It's going to save lives, and a lot of them. It could have saved many lives already.

You don't know that or can anybody even prove it. So just an opinion supported by no real facts.

[Kidlicious]

You don't know that or can anybody even prove it. So just an opinion supported by no real facts.

It's not AN opinion. It's the opinion of most of the doctors in the world that treat patients with the virus. And it's backed up by evidence.

[pchang]

Perhaps statistics is too much for you.

[Ming]

Yep simply an opinion, not supported by proper scientific research. Your evidence isn't good enough to back your claims

[Kidlicious]

JM, the Henry Ford study found that the death rate was twice as low. That's not accurate, but it's possible. Do you know how many lives that is?

[Jon Miller]

Further studies are not banned. Only the approval as a treatment to Covid in the most straight forward manner. Where HCQ was demonstrated to not be a useful treatment for Covid.

It looks like a clear opportunities for research groups to do the more complicated studies to show that HCQ have some moderate or minimal impact when provided as part of a complicated treatment.

Of course, there are a lot of other treatments which are showing much more promise.

JM

[Jon Miller]

JM, the Henry Ford study found that the death rate was twice as low. That's not accurate, but it's possible. Do you know how many lives that is?

But other studies have shown that not to be the case. So it isn't.

Maybe there is some moderate impact in some complicated treatment regime, but that isn't the one that people were originally proposing and for drugs that have negative side effects you don't just use it for mass treatment if there may or may not be any effect and the original claimed effect was shown to be wrong.

JM

[Jon Miller]

And it's backed up by evidence.

But it isn't. Anything can be backed by one point of evidence. The scientific evidence (which requires all the studies, not just cherry picked studies) are against HCQ having any impact.

There are hints that, as part of some complicated regime, it might have an impact (but what if it is just all the other components of the complicated regime and HCQ adds nothing?). But that hasn't been shown to be the case yet in any study. To my knowledge.

But how many times have there been hints of new physics beyond the standard model? So far, all hints have turned up negative. Could be the case with HCQ.

JM

[Jon Miller]

If you just approved drugs that hinted as treatments, over the past 20 years, you would probably kill 20x as many people as have died from Covid (real deaths, not just reported deaths).

There is a reason we do science the way we do.

JM

[Kidlicious]

But other studies have shown that not to be the case. So it isn't.

Maybe there is some moderate impact in some complicated treatment regime, but that isn't the one that people were originally proposing and for drugs that have negative side effects you don't just use it for mass treatment if there may or may not be any effect and the original claimed effect was shown to be wrong.

JM

The drug has to be given to high risk patients before the second phase of the illness. Those other studies that didn't show efficacy of HCQ test low risk patients and/or patients that were in phase 2. Those studies don't count.

[Kidlicious]

If you just approved drugs that hinted as treatments, over the past 20 years, you would probably kill 20x as many people as have died from Covid (real deaths, not just reported deaths).

There is a reason we do science the way we do.

JM

This drug is used in many countries. Those countries have much lower cfr. This drug doesn't kill patients in proper dosage.

[Jon Miller]

This drug is used in many countries. Those countries have much lower cfr. This drug doesn't kill patients in proper dosage.

But it can, actually. This is a well known drug. Death is one of the side effects.

Additionally, there are a lot of differences between different countries. And the evidence seems to favor it being other differences and not HCQ, that explains the lower CFR.

JM