> On 1 Aug 2020, at 05:37, Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 10:04 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:48 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:43 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote: > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC <[email protected] <>> wrote: > On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote: > There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it > early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. > This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/ <https://c19study.com/> > > The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is > given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral > replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase > <https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf> > (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even > when it is given late. > > Given the well-established safety > <https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf> > record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face: > > HCQ works HCQ doesn't work > HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per > patient > HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per > patient > > Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision > is clear. > > https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 > > <https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19> > > Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just be > prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy. > > But contact them > > Find out what from the WHO? > > Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should > re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and > the website. PGC > > > > It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and have > demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is mixed, the > science on its safety is clear. > > Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected value. > > > Your table above presents a false dichotomy. > > It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point out a > third one that I missed. > > It is a false dichotomy, because it misses the nuance that it might be useful > with early administration, but is not a cure, and does not save lives. > > I see. I would count that as "Doesn't work" for the purposes of the table. > > > There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for COVID-19. > > "No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "100% of scientific studies > that have investigated it's early administration" (see: https://c19study.com/ > <https://c19study.com/> ) > > Having lots of studies does not prove that something works. They may not > present any evidence at all for efficacy as a cure. > > True, but not a single study is on the side that it doesn't work when given > early. So then what should the scientific consensus be? I only say that it > remains uncertain. > > > It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in relief > of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you don't > misrepresent the facts.... > > What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't. > > False dichotomy, as explained. > > Take "works" in my table to mean "saves lives". > > That is the problem with your table -- works can mean a multitude of things > besides "saves lives". There is, of course, another problem that you have not > taken into account. This is that if there is a widespread belief that HCQ > cures COVID-19, then many people might take it in this mistaken belief, and > consequently fail to take reasonable precautions against infection. This > could easily lead to a greatly increased death toll -- many more people get > infected than would otherwise be the case, and for none of these does HCQ > cure their disease. So there will still be the same proportion of deaths but > a greatly increased absolute number. You have no provision in your table for > the possibility that mistaken beliefs might actually cost lives. > > > You can make that argument against any potentially viable treatment. But I > don't think it invalidates the decision on a personal/individual risk > management basis. > > Someone who thinks they got exposed to the virus or has early symptoms, if > given the option to take or not take HCQ, is better off taking it given: A) > The medication is extremely safe and has a proven safety track record, and B) > Every scientific study so far of early use has found it to be beneficial, and > C) It is extremely cheap, so the personal cost of being wrong is low. > > You have a point from a social-engineering perspective, that making people > believe there is a cure could result in increased risk-taking behaviors, and > this isn't taken into account by the table. But I find it alarming that > government bodies, such as Ohio's pharmacy board, are banning pharmacists > from honoring doctor's prescriptions for this medication.
Agreed. That is the main mistake, but we have been trained for this by the prohibition. No government should ever been allowed to decide which medication can be taken or not. The government can enforced medical prescription warnings accompanying the selling of a product, traceability information, etc. but not if something is a medication or not. That is a question for doctor and/or individual people. > It should be the doctor and patient, who make the risk-management decision of > whether to use a certain medication or treatment or not, based on the > specific circumstances of the individual, not a blanket edict made and > enforced by unelected government officials. Even if elected. Science is not democracy, and health is a personal concerned. Like Washington said a long time ago, prohibition of food and drug can only lead to bad medication and bad food, and will make the stomach of people in a disarray similar to the mind of people in a tyranny. (Something like that). The general idea to make something illegal because some of its use can be dangerous is laughable. If true, we can forbid windows, car, matches, and, may be forbid babies to gout of their mother’s womb. Bruno > > Jason > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiKv41KF3365QoAebfWm8SA%2BmnfFGqk7eUbTVHMn1b85A%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUiKv41KF3365QoAebfWm8SA%2BmnfFGqk7eUbTVHMn1b85A%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/DD3F723D-51B3-47F7-ADD3-91AFBA7503BC%40ulb.ac.be.
