2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic (Vaccination 2021 Edition)

[Phoenixmgs]

Snip

Have you even looked at any of the studies to see which ones seem most reliable and which don't? Here's an summary of one of the negative studies:
"Retrospective study of HCQ use in 9 hospitals in the Netherlands, showing no significant difference in mortality with HCQ/CQ or dexamethasone. Late stage (admitted to hospital with positive test or CT scan abnormalities). 4 of 7 hospitals started treatment only after further deterioration. Short cutoff (21 days) - other studies have shown treated patient cases resolved faster and more control patients remaining in hospital at this time.

Significant differences between hospitals - HCQ hospitals had significantly older patients with significantly more comorbidities. Non-HCQ hospitals were "tertiary academic centres" whereas HCQ hospitals were "secondary care hospitals". Residual confounding likely. This study compares overcrowded regular hospitals with undercrowded academic hospitals."

I didn't just see higher numbers of positive studies and jump to hydroxy must be good. I looked at several of the studies and also heard 4+ doctors explain why they fully believe hydroxy works to some extent.

You literally just told me Surgisphere has been cooking up bullshit for 3 years. So why would any professional organization take something of theirs seriously? It would be akin to believing Peter Molyneux or Sean Murray in the gaming world.

Exactly, you're downplaying Trump's conflicts of interest. You're still doing it by insisting that there is some inherent quantity of conflict of interest and that we have agreed to an acceptable amount of conflict of interest. This isn't a question of who can accuse the other harder, bro. It's not a measuring contest.

I fully acknowledged Trump's conflicts of interest. I don't really see what this back and forth is really about honestly. For me, it has nothing to do with whether Trump is for/against it but what the data and doctors say.

Snip

Why do you keep bringing up my educational background? I'm listening to what people with LOTS OF EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND in the medical field are saying along with doctors that are literally treating people for Covid. The vast majority of the world is using hydroxy for treatment (and not just poor countries where that's the only thing they can afford but countries with better health systems than the US). I'm not saying IN MY OPINION hydroxy is beneficial, I'm saying all these DOCTORS' OPINIONS are that. Who cares how I type hydroxychloroquine, it's faster for me to type hydroxy than HCQ or the full word and we both know what I'm referring to so what's the point? It's like criticizing someone for using their instead of they're in an argument. If there's money to be gained (and lots of it), you best believe it's going to influence things. Look at what scientists had to go through to get fucking lead out of gasoline or the fact that we're still using gasoline.

Hydroxy doesn't have near the side effects or seriousness of cymbalta. Doctors prescribe hydroxy to pregnant women even and that's a no-no for cymbalta.

 

[lil devils x]

snip

I keep bringing it up because you, personally, do not know what you are promoting here and this isn't like picking a football team to back by looking at stats. Why are you promoting an experimental medication in the first place when people, with, in your words: "LOTS OF EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND" are not? You do not even understand WHY they do our pharmaceutical trials in third world nations before bringing them in to the western nations or the history behind this, and tbh, it isn't always good. You do not seem to understand that widely used in 2nd and third world nations does not mean it works in any way shape or form, and this is not the only medication that pharmaceutical companies have done this with in the past. The PRIMARY reason they are using this is because it is cheap. Western nations very well likely sold many of these nations their stockpiles when they stopped using it because it was deemed ineffective. Asking you to be accurate when talking about HCQ is because Hydroxy means something ELSE entirely and it is not an abbreviation and changes the meaning of what you are actually stating here. It is like me stating " horse" instead of horseshoe and saying something stupid like " don't let your horse tip over or you lose all your luck" It DOESN'T MAKE ANY SENSE. It changes the meaning of what you are stating here to anyone coming across it because hydroxy ALREADY has it's own meaning and it isn't hydroxychloroquine so it does not make any sense to anyone who understands what that means.

Hydroxy group - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hydroxychloroquine Pregnancy Warnings
"Animal studies have revealed evidence of fetal harm; embryonic deaths and malformations of anophthalmia and microphthalmia have been observed in the offspring of pregnant rats who were administered large doses of chloroquine. This drug crosses the placenta. There are no controlled data in human pregnancy; however, a moderate amount of data on pregnant women (between 300 and 1000 pregnancy outcomes), including prospective studies in long-term use with large exposure, have not shown a significant increase in risk of congenital malformations or poor pregnancy outcomes.

Therapeutic doses of 4-aminoquinolines have been associated with central nervous system damage, including ototoxicity (auditory and vestibular toxicity, congenital deafness), retinal hemorrhages, and abnormal retinal pigmentation."

"AU TGA pregnancy category D: Drugs which have caused, are suspected to have caused or may be expected to cause, an increased incidence of human fetal malformations or irreversible damage. These drugs may also have adverse pharmacological effects. Accompanying texts should be consulted for further details.

This drug should not be used during pregnancy unless the benefit outweighs the risk to the fetus.
AU TGA pregnancy category: D
US FDA pregnancy category: Not formally assigned to a pregnancy category.

Hydroxychloroquine Use During Pregnancy | Drugs.com

Advice and warnings for the use of Hydroxychloroquine during pregnancy. FDA Pregnancy Category N - Not classified

www.drugs.com

We really just need more information on this. Once that data is adequately peer reviewed, this will be updated.

Most physicians and scientists currently are not jumping on any bandwagon until we have more conclusive evidence because we still need more information, however, the trials in the west did not show HCQ to be effective at either preventing or treating COVID-19 thus why they ceased their current trials and likely sold their stockpile to these nations you are showing us on that map...

The US sent Brazil millions of hydroxychloroquine doses. Months later, they're still in storage

It was the kind of gift that should have come with a return slip.

www.cnn.com

 

[Agema]

Have you even looked at any of the studies to see which ones seem most reliable and which don't?

A handful, but mostly not because my life commitments like my job preclude me from putting that much time in. I would rather outsource the effort to organisations and individuals whose professional job it is to make that sort of assessment. And overwhelmingly, they are saying that there is no particular rationale for hydroxychloroquine except for clinical trials to establish its effectiveness.

Nevertheless, there are some really major and well-run studies in there (such as RECOVERY) reporting hydroxychloroquine does not lead to significant improvement in outcomes, or that it is inferior to alternatives. And remember: it's not just the negatives, it's the inconclusives, too: because inconclusive means no benefit observed.

You literally just told me Surgisphere has been cooking up bullshit for 3 years. So why would any professional organization take something of theirs seriously? It would be akin to believing Peter Molyneux or Sean Murray in the gaming world.

Because they had got away with it for three years: the papers looked credible. It wasn't until that major hydroxychloroquine paper that enough people really scrutinised them and found them wanting. It's clear that all their previous publications are fraudulent too because Surgisphere don't have the patient records those papers claim to be based on. They'd formed associations with reputable scientists and doctors who lent their credibility. (One of the co-authors of that ill-fated Lancet paper, Prof. Mehra, is an apparently honest academic at Harvard, who simply didn't do sufficient due diligence on the company and the information he was given). Most academics don't expect fraud, and peer review isn't designed to expose fraud.

Some of the most prolific scientific frauds (e.g. Diederik Stapel, Yoshitaka Fujii) publish dozens, even hundreds of fraudulent papers - they can do so because the papers are otherwise well written and look like plausible results. Usually they are found when someone finally spots a problem or the results cannot be reproduced, and then it's a case of going through their previous work and putting that to additional scrutiny, too. Stapel, for instance, was eventually exposed by junior members of his own research group, who reported their suspicions that he was doing something improper to the university.

 

[Baffle]

.... apparently we've been tracking cases using columns in an Excel spreadsheet. That's the backbone of the UK's track and trace system. An Excel spreadsheet. Columns. Columns. Columns.

 

[Thaluikhain]

.... apparently we've been tracking cases using columns in an Excel spreadsheet. That's the backbone of the UK's track and trace system. An Excel spreadsheet. Columns. Columns. Columns.

And paying 100 million pounds to Serco. Who they've just fined 1 million for breaching another contract.

 

[Baffle]

And paying 100 million pounds to Serco. Who they've just fined 1 million for breaching another contract.

I think we're paying them by the fuck up. It's only about a quid per fuck up too.

 

[Buyetyen]

I fully acknowledged Trump's conflicts of interest.

Meaningless, because you then deflected to other people's alleged conflicts of interest as if that made the point moot. And you know damn well what this is about. Trump, the My Pillow asshole, and anyone else with a financial stake in Hydroxy has a conflict of interest. Your apathy toward it is irrelevant. Your Dunning-Kruegger ideas of medicine are beside the point. There is a conflict of interest here. Why are you okay with the president whoring a drug he profits off of?

 

[lil devils x]

Meaningless, because you then deflected to other people's alleged conflicts of interest as if that made the point moot. And you know damn well what this is about. Trump, the My Pillow asshole, and anyone else with a financial stake in Hydroxy has a conflict of interest. Your apathy toward it is irrelevant. Your Dunning-Kruegger ideas of medicine are beside the point. There is a conflict of interest here. Why are you okay with the president whoring a drug he profits off of?

At this point though, the fact that Trump isn't taking hydroxychloroquine when he is actually sick really should counteract any prior endorsement he may have previously had.

 

[SupahEwok]

You have no educational background that would make you an expert in this area.

He got his PhD at Youtube Youniversity.

 

[Agema]

.... apparently we've been tracking cases using columns in an Excel spreadsheet. That's the backbone of the UK's track and trace system. An Excel spreadsheet. Columns. Columns. Columns.

Well, shit. I'm a dab hand at Excel, I'd have done it for much less than umpteen million if I'd known that was all it took.

 

[tstorm823]

Well, shit. I'm a dab hand at Excel, I'd have done it for much less than umpteen million if I'd known that was all it took.

There are so few of us, competent at Excel. You should value your talents more highly.

 

[Agema]

There are so few of us, competent at Excel. You should value your talents more highly.

It's an odd beast. Stupidly easy to do easy stuff, and then requires a lot of investment to do complex stuff.

And never use it for any graphs you want to present professionally <shudder>.

 

[Phoenixmgs]

Snip

There's more doctors for it than against it. You choose to not actually look at the data. Where is the "more conclusive evidence" that says it's bad? Can you even find a non-biased study that states it's bad? I don't think you can because it doesn't exist.

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic…

www.sciencedirect.com

Meta analysis of 43 studies: "HCQ was found consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early, in the outpatient setting. It was found overall effective also including inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse event was found.

Funny how the Brazil article literally says it's safe for pregnant women.

A handful, but mostly not because my life commitments like my job preclude me from putting that much time in. I would rather outsource the effort to organisations and individuals whose professional job it is to make that sort of assessment. And overwhelmingly, they are saying that there is no particular rationale for hydroxychloroquine except for clinical trials to establish its effectiveness.

Nevertheless, there are some really major and well-run studies in there (such as RECOVERY) reporting hydroxychloroquine does not lead to significant improvement in outcomes, or that it is inferior to alternatives. And remember: it's not just the negatives, it's the inconclusives, too: because inconclusive means no benefit observed.

Because they had got away with it for three years: the papers looked credible. It wasn't until that major hydroxychloroquine paper that enough people really scrutinised them and found them wanting. It's clear that all their previous publications are fraudulent too because Surgisphere don't have the patient records those papers claim to be based on. They'd formed associations with reputable scientists and doctors who lent their credibility. (One of the co-authors of that ill-fated Lancet paper, Prof. Mehra, is an apparently honest academic at Harvard, who simply didn't do sufficient due diligence on the company and the information he was given). Most academics don't expect fraud, and peer review isn't designed to expose fraud.

Some of the most prolific scientific frauds (e.g. Diederik Stapel, Yoshitaka Fujii) publish dozens, even hundreds of fraudulent papers - they can do so because the papers are otherwise well written and look like plausible results. Usually they are found when someone finally spots a problem or the results cannot be reproduced, and then it's a case of going through their previous work and putting that to additional scrutiny, too. Stapel, for instance, was eventually exposed by junior members of his own research group, who reported their suspicions that he was doing something improper to the university.

The Recovery study had to do with hospitalized patients. Nobody is saying to give hydroxy for treatment of Covid once the disease gets bad enough for the patient to be hospitalized. Here's a meta analysis of 43 different studies.

HCQ was found consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early, in the outpatient setting. It was found overall effective also including inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse event was found.

Oh, I thought you meant they were known to be bullshitting prior to. I didn't realize the hydroxy article made people realize.

Meaningless, because you then deflected to other people's alleged conflicts of interest as if that made the point moot. And you know damn well what this is about. Trump, the My Pillow asshole, and anyone else with a financial stake in Hydroxy has a conflict of interest. Your apathy toward it is irrelevant. Your Dunning-Kruegger ideas of medicine are beside the point. There is a conflict of interest here. Why are you okay with the president whoring a drug he profits off of?

I personally don't care about conflicts of interest or agendas, I care about the evidence and data. I acknowledged the interests on both sides and pointed out one side does have the bigger conflict, that is all. I don't personally like Trump at all but I'm not going to assume what he says isn't true just because he said it or the intentions behind it (the whole "a broken clock is right twice a day" saying). Is Dunning-Kruegger the new thing people use improperly like Strawman from the v1 forums? It is not my opinion that hydroxy is good or bad. I listen to the experts, it's their knowledge and opinions, not what I think I know or not know. Like how I posted back in March or April that a SARS vaccine probably would've worked if we had one because that's what the guy that makes vaccines for a living said and it ended up being true. That wasn't my hypothesis or opinion or overestimation of my knowledge, it was the opinion of an expert in the field that I listened to because of his credentials.

 

[lil devils x]

There's more doctors for it than against it. You choose to not actually look at the data. Where is the "more conclusive evidence" that says it's bad? Can you even find a non-biased study that states it's bad? I don't think you can because it doesn't exist.

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so when provided early, for COVID-19: a systematic review

Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that a systematic…

www.sciencedirect.com

Meta analysis of 43 studies: "HCQ was found consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early, in the outpatient setting. It was found overall effective also including inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse event was found.

Funny how the Brazil article literally says it's safe for pregnant women.


The Recovery study had to do with hospitalized patients. Nobody is saying to give hydroxy for treatment of Covid once the disease gets bad enough for the patient to be hospitalized. Here's a meta analysis of 43 different studies.

HCQ was found consistently effective against COVID-19 when used early, in the outpatient setting. It was found overall effective also including inpatient studies. No unbiased study found worse outcomes with HCQ use. No mortality or serious safety adverse event was found.

Oh, I thought you meant they were known to be bullshitting prior to. I didn't realize the hydroxy article made people realize.


I personally don't care about conflicts of interest or agendas, I care about the evidence and data. I acknowledged the interests on both sides and pointed out one side does have the bigger conflict, that is all. I don't personally like Trump at all but I'm not going to assume what he says isn't true just because he said it or the intentions behind it (the whole "a broken clock is right twice a day" saying). Is Dunning-Kruegger the new thing people use improperly like Strawman from the v1 forums? It is not my opinion that hydroxy is good or bad. I listen to the experts, it's their knowledge and opinions, not what I think I know or not know. Like how I posted back in March or April that a SARS vaccine probably would've worked if we had one because that's what the guy that makes vaccines for a living said and it ended up being true. That wasn't my hypothesis or opinion or overestimation of my knowledge, it was the opinion of an expert in the field that I listened to because of his credentials.

You do realize that when Doctors and nurses actually used HCQ in an attempt to prevent COVID-19, it didn't work don't you?

Hydroxychloroquine didn't prevent Covid-19 among health care workers in new study | CNN

The malaria drug hydroxychloroquine -- which President Trump said he took in the hope of warding off Covid-19 -- was found not to prevent infections among volunteers in a study released on Wednesday.

www.cnn.com

2nd and 3rd world studies do not hold as much weight because they are often known to lie for profit. You may want to brush up on your history of pharmaceuticals bribing physicians to write good things about them, even when they are not true. The history of pharmaceuticals doing their trials in 2nd and 3rd world nations is pretty bad when you actually look into it. Who does the study, when and where matter here. Often studies are done just to make a profit, and India pharmaceuticals have been making a killing off this. Bribes are cheaper in 2nd and 3rd world nations. They still do bribe western doctors, just the reality is they have to pay them a hell of a lot more.

Years back I actually went into detail about pharma bribing physicians and adding it to the price of the medications, it is really sick tbh when you look at what is really happening here.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[lil devils x]

So Phoenixmgs posts a meta-analysis that shows 25 studies out of 43 showed positive results from use of HCQ (15 with no effect and 3 with adverse effects) on patients with Covid-19. Your rebuttal is to post a newspaper link saying one study showed no effect and go on a spiel about bribes in Africa and Asia? Might I suggest maybe finding a meta study of your own or talking about the particular studies in the meta-analysis instead of just accusing 25 studies of being corrupt, bribe money fueled bad science?

Do they have prescription medication commercials on television in Sweden? They do here, so now we have tons of patients coming in demanding medications that will not even help them because they " think" they need it now because they see it on TV, but understand nothing about the medications, the pharmaceutical industry and how they spend thousands catering my clinic every week and tack it on the the price of medication along with the price of the commercials, their "doctor bribes" to write favorable papers and di favorable studies on their medications which are extreme in the US. Before working from home, I had a parade of pharmaceutical reps trying to get me to prescribe their latest medication and plopping down a stack of 2nd and 3rd world studies that amounted to a pile of dung on my desk, because they were not worth the paper they were written on. Yet, I am supposed to somehow treat this as different after he has admitted he doesn't understand any of it. He already stated he doesn't understand the data earlier in the thread. It is pointless to even bother when he already said he doesn't understand it in the first place. You're welcome to if you really want to put forth the effort to give him something he doesn't understand but tbh, I see this as no different than someone walking into the clinic and demanding I prescribe them antibiotics for a viral infection when it is useless. You try to explain that antibiotics do not do anything to viruses and they still do not understand it no matter how many times you explain it.

I was actually still referring to his whole "look at this whole world map of 2nd and 3rd world nations" of people using this like it was some sort of testimonial to it working and thinking about how when my sister worked for pharma she told me of the extent of how screwed up Pharma actually was and to not trust many of those studies so what would be the point? You're welcome to answer him how you please, provide him with more studies he doesn't understand, but please do not chide me on how I should respond. You respond how you please, and so will I. You can put forth the effort only to have him tell you he doesn't understand the difference then come back and tell me how it was worth it to even bother, I grew out of that a LONG time ago after the 500th patient tried to tell me what we should prescribe them without even understanding the material they were discussing. It gets old very quickly. Him being willing to cheerleader for medication he doesn't even know anything about in the first place is why I am not seeing the point here. He is just reiterating what someone else told him and jumping on the bandwagon without even understanding the material he is presenting in the first place. That is no different than someone standing there irresponsibly and recklessly demanding I give them antibiotics when they don't need it as far as I am concerned.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED

 

[lil devils x]

No. My funniest TV memory is still when I was in New York and a commercial about Cymbalta came on, I will never stop laughing about two elderly people enjoying a picknic to uplifting music while the narrator informs you that potential side effects include renal failure and unexplained death.
But this is just a tangent that has nothing to do with the study Phoenixmgs posted, nor is it relevant as you are just delivering anecdotal data about "2nd and 3rd world studies". Anecdotally, my experience is that the desk drawer effect is much more in effect and that when pharmaceutical companies wants to sell new meds they tend to carefully cherry pick the studies made by reputable scientists (hired for this particular study) that have good results.

So less anecdotally: Where's your evidence? Phoenixmgs has shown his.



I just expect that a medical professional who supposedly knows a lot about how this works should be able to find studies to back them up, especially when Phoenixmgs has delivered on the studies front. You can respond however you like obviously, but since I found the discussion interesting I was hoping for a little more then just anecdotes and casual racism as rebuttals to Phoenixmgs study.

" Casual racism"? Actually discussing what pharma has been doing in 2nd and 3rd world countries isn't " casual racism", they exploit people. I said they ALSO bribe western physicians as well, but when they do that, they put them up in lavish resorts and mansions where they pay my brother's father in law put in $130,000 cabinets that they don't even need after having him tear out the $70,000 cabinets that they just paid him to put in there in the first place. It is just that stupid. My supposed " casual racism" has nothing to do with what Pharma has actually been doing here for ages now. Pharma exploits people in other nations because they know they won't be held accountable and can get away with it. That isn't " my racism" , my sister was actually involved with this before she couldn't stomach doing it due to how seriously bad this was and went to work for the university instead. It is easier for Pharmaceuticals to manipulate the data and exploit the people in 2nd and 3rd world nations thus why like 80% of trials were being carried out there.

Big Pharma & Clinical Trials - Funding, Influence & Corruption

Big Pharma pays for the majority of clinical trials, and some experts believe companies may influence trial results by putting profits before people.

www.drugwatch.com

Insight into how pharma manipulates research evidence: a case study

TRANSPARENCY AND MEDICINE – A series examining issues from ethics to the evidence in evidence-based medicine, the influence of medical journals to the role of Big Pharma in our present and future health…

theconversation.com

How drug companies manipulate prescribing behavior : Colombian Journal of Anesthesiology

the most effective marketing tools that companies have. “Thought leaders” or “key opinion leaders” are used to persuade peers to use drugs for unapproved uses, raise awareness of targeted diseases, and to shape perceptions of a drug's benefits and harms, as well as perceptions about competing...

journals.lww.com

Experts Conclude Pfizer Manipulated Studies (Published 2008)

The drug maker manipulated the publication of studies to bolster use of its epilepsy drug Neurontin, according to expert witnesses in a lawsuit against the company.

www.nytimes.com

https://oig.hhs.gov/oei/reports/oei-01-08-00510.pdf

I initially started out trying to discuss the actual data with him, but after he told me how he didn't understand it in the first place pages back and told me that he didn't need to understand the data and started posting youtube videos as rebuttals, I am not wasting my time as he isn't even presenting a legitimate discussion in the first place. You are more than welcome however, to go through with as many pages as I have with him at this point until you eventually reach the same conclusion, Feel free to spend your time however you like, he isn't even reading what you post regardless. Go ahead and give it a try first before you tell me how " wrong" I am for refusing to do so now when he isn't even reading what you give him in the first place. Your time is your time to waste, and mine is mine. Of course you can continue to go about telling others how you think they should appropriately respond, that does not mean they will oblige. When you say " Jump" I sincerely hope don't actually think people are going to jump do you? Feel free to post all the data and studies you like to only have him tell you he doesn't read or understand them then get back with me how I should put more " effort" into it and how I am not addressing his argument here. It is amazing you even see that he isn't even reading or understanding what he is posting, yet tell me I should continue to bother addressing that this many pages in.

 

[Agema]

The Recovery study had to do with hospitalized patients. Nobody is saying to give hydroxy for treatment of Covid once the disease gets bad enough for the patient to be hospitalized. Here's a meta analysis of 43 different studies.

What we're particularly interested in are randomised controlled trials, such as:

ACP Journals

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014?query=featured_home

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638

Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults With Mild Coronavirus Disease 2019: A Randomized, Controlled Trial

Compared with usual care, early treatment with HCQ failed to reduce the viral load in nasopharyngeal swabs after 3 and 7 days of treatment and shorten the

academic.oup.com

https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/hcq-recovery-statement-050620-final-002.pdf

All of which failed. I'm not saying they're perfect because nothing is, but they are major studies from organisations that know what they're doing. Racking up so many failures in well-run trials is extremely problematic for the argument HCQ is useful - that's the most important baseline we have to start from. One thing I find very striking is the huge disparity in apparent results elsewhere, from negative to remarkably positive (say, 50% improvement). This suggests to me at least some of the work is very unreliable, and I cannot help but feel from a cursory overview that the more reliable stuff tends to the no or low effect end. L'il is also right that we need to be extremely cautious about a lot of these studies: there's a high risk some of them are poor quality, even to the point of fraudulent. There are some over-ambitious or politically inclined doctors and scientists out there who may, mm, "exaggerate" or gloss over things, omit, preferentially select outcomes, and so on.

After that, it's perhaps getting slightly outside the realms of experimental science so it's harder to make a definitive statement. A lot of people want to find that HCQ works, for a variety of reasons. When encountering these failures they keep pressing their case, with weaker arguments and retreating to narrower positions. At least some of them are smart people: they know how to find the niches to keep their position alive. However, when I read through these, according to my pharmacological understanding, I find them very unconvincing.

If HCQ impedes covid-19 at all, why is it only useful early on? Either it impedes SARS-CoV-2 infection to some extent or it doesn't. And if it does, it should have a measurable effect at any stage (I say this with plenty of caveats, which I can expand on if anyone wishes). If it's effective at 400mg a day, why is not effective at 800mg a day? There's more drug to cause more inhibition of the virus. Thus whilst I accept there is some evidential gap in terms of studies, the rationale in terms of the underlying science for HCQ is very weak given the existing weakness of the RCT evidence. This why mainstream opinion is to leave it to additonal RCTs and see what data emerges to get a better picture.

Oh, I thought you meant they were known to be bullshitting prior to. I didn't realize the hydroxy article made people realize.

No problem - partly my fault as I didn't make that as clear as I could have done.

 

[Buyetyen]

I personally don't care about conflicts of interest or agendas,

Then we have nothing further to discuss. If you're not willing to engage with the ethics and are only concerned with appearing right, then you're not going to listen to anybody telling you what you don't want to hear.