On Sunday, August 9, 2020 at 1:23:17 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote: > > I know that arguing with you is generally a waste of time, but since lives > are at stake I felt it necessary to correct some of what you say below. > > On Sat, Aug 8, 2020 at 7:04 AM John Clark <[email protected] > <javascript:>> wrote: > >> On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch <[email protected] >> <javascript:>> wrote: >> >> *> 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%.* >> >> >> And that is a rate that is not statistically significant, that is to say >> it was most likely a random artifact produced by the small sample size. And >> that is why every scientist who knows something about statistics was not >> hailing this is a major milestone in the fight against COVID-19 but instead >> was telling people to stop wasting their time talking about >> hydroxychloroquine and use that time to look for something that might >> actually work. >> > > I think you understand the difference between significant and > statistically significant. When the drug was administered within 3 days > after exposure, it reduced by half the number of people who developed > symptoms. That is very significant, if indeed that reflects the true rate > of reduction. > > However, the test size and methodology for this study left a lot to be > desired. That is why, despite showing significant results, it was unable to > attain statistical significance. That means a large study is needed, not > that we can conclude it does or doesn't work. > > > >> Of course there are still plenty of people screaming about the wonders of >> hydroxychloroquine, but none of them are scientists who know something >> about the subtleties of statistics; they are instead Internet pundits with >> 20 minutes of study of the science of epidemiology under their belt, >> fascist politicians desperate to win reelection, and quack doctors who >> babble about demon sperm and vaccines made from space alien DNA. >> > > You are falling back into doing politics, not science. Look at the > studies. I read the abstracts of all 65 of the studies that have been done. > Ignore the politicians completely when it comes to this question. > > >> >> Yes some early small scale tests hinted that hydroxychloroquine might be >> useful but the most important of them was retracted, to the great >> embarrassment of the journal involved, because the data used in it was >> suspect: >> >> Retraction—Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide >> for treatment of COVID-19: >> <https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext> >> > > That study was retracted because they demonstrably made up data. When they > were called out on it, refused to show the data they used. > > >> >> >> And later much larger and much better conducted trials indicated >> hydroxychloroquine conferred no benefit in the treatment of COVID-19 and if >> anything was harmful: >> >> Three big studies dim hopes that hydroxychloroquine can treat or prevent >> COVID-19 >> <https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19> >> >> >> > Let's look behind the headline at each of those three studies. > > *1. The Recovery Trial: https://c19study.com/recovery.html > <https://c19study.com/recovery.html>* > This was study gave the drug at a very late stage, when people were on > ventilators and close to death. If you study the disease progression, it > occurs in two phases. By the time the person is low on oxygen the virus is > already being cleared by the immune system, it is when the disease becomes > an immune disorder that is deadly. Anti-viral drugs are too late at that > time, but some anti-inflammatory sterorids have shown promise at this > stage: > https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/cheap-steroid-first-drug-shown-reduce-death-covid-19-patients > > *2. This is the Minessota study we discussed above: * > https://c19study.com/boulwarepep.html > It cut the disease rate in half when given at 72 hours after exposure, but > the test was not statistically powerful enough, as in addition to being > small, they combined the results with people who received the drug well > after they were exposed. > > *3. The Barcelona study: * https://c19study.com/mitjapep.html > The article claims it showed HCQ is ineffective. Did it? No it showed > death rates were reduced from 0.6% to 0.4%. A reduction by 33%. But again, > their sample size was too small, this is based on 8 control cases and 5 > treatment cases. > > > We have studies where the drug is given to people at death's door, which > show it is not effective, and we have statistically weak studies (owing to > the fact that a small number of people ever get the disease) where it is > used prohplatically or after exposure. In every case where it is given > early or prophylactically, studies have shown a benefit. Perhaps if you > combine all of these together you can get statistical significance. If I > were exposed, I would paythe $20 for a 30% to 50% chance of stopping the > disease cold. >
Those websites (hcqtrial and c19study) assume novel and creative approaches to randomization, which they themselves admit: *"As for "country-randomized controlled trial", we note that the term is new, without an existing definition, so we do not know why this is problematic." * Playing ignorant, they pretend as if they did not know that laypersons and social media would make them go viral as they attempt to mimic the language, styles, jargon of medical publications while citing cherry picked real journals and data. This is done to confer unjustified legitimacy/authority to the claim: "The treatment group has a 79.1% lower death rate" based on "large trial with 2.0 billion people treatment group and 663 million in the control group"; wherein the language is designed to imply the completion of a large international clinical trial, which is fictitious, even if data cited appears valid and discussion/questions raised are not without merit. This, while the standard data pertaining to detailed population description remains absent and the authors perform a bullet list "account of biases", as if it had bearing on the population description they did not provide. Different countries used differing treatment and standard of care protocols, so claims connected to a "2.0 billion people treatment group" are what they are. Why they used the word "trial" when everything is purely observational, and therefore meant to mimic legitimacy to laypersons and peddlers of ideology... also is what it is. Indeed, those 2 websites are interesting and yours truly will pass them on to more competent folks. But not because I believe them, but because everybody here assuming themselves so sophisticated in parsing studies because of their backgrounds and MDs across Twitter seem eager to swallow this hook, line, and sinker. Talk about engineering credibility: all it takes for you guys is an anonymous, slick website with some linguistic moves, couple of graphs, and references... and you'll spam it infinitely. So keep up the spamming: THAT is the interesting data for yours truly. PGC -- 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/2c9656bc-6696-4dad-b043-ec0a67d122aao%40googlegroups.com.
