On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 3:19 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:46 PM John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 2:51 PM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> > The scientific consensus is based on scientific studies, is it not? >>> >> >> Yes. >> >> *> Every single study <https://c19study.com/> (dozens of them) that >>> investigated early and prophylactic use of HCQ showed a benefit, without >>> exception.* >>> >> >> A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for >> Covid-19 <https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638> >> >> *> So then, what is the scientific consensus on early/prophylactic use?* >> >> >> *"CONCLUSIONS: After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, >> hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or >> confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days >> after exposure. [...] Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine >> than with placebo"* >> >> > The *CONCLUSIONS* don't align with what the *RESULTS* section said right > above. > > "We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the > participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed > Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did > not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine > (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the > absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, > −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine > than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were > reported." > > So infection rates in the control group were 14.3% and in the group > receiving HCQ were 11.8%. That's an absolute risk reduction of > (14.3-11.8)/14.3 = 17.5%. > > Moreover, the claim is that HCQ reduces severity of the symptoms, leading > to less hospitalization and death, not that it grants immunity from > contracting it. > > The test did not find a negative result, it failed to reach statistical > significance because their sample size was too small. See more information > about that study here: https://c19study.com/boulware.html > > Jason > Using the study's own data, there is a statistically significant strong association with treatment delay and emergence of symptoms: "COVID-19 cases are reduced by [49%, 29%, 16%] respectively when taken within ~[70, 94, 118] hours of exposure (including shipping delay). The treatment delay-response relationship is significant at p=0.002. The data is consistent with earlier treatment being even more effective." 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]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUgsyBM5DOke7kbH7%3DL%2BnikcHTGGAfrAc1G2iSUay%2B9AQg%40mail.gmail.com.
