On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:43 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett <bhkellet...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC <multiplecit...@gmail.com> 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 <multipl...@gmail.com> 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/ >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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 >>>>>>> >>>>>>> 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/ ) >> > > 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". Or if you want to redefine works as minimizing symptoms, then you can make another table that shows tens of thousands of people who would experience reduced symptoms. The conclusion is the same. Jason > > Bruce > > -- > 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQF8zgJS0D-a6BsHjm1j3xWs8voQjpDAcCvgAMpqe8Gvw%40mail.gmail.com > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQF8zgJS0D-a6BsHjm1j3xWs8voQjpDAcCvgAMpqe8Gvw%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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhbLq-Q%3DXcX1GqUqQUpwccP4dNSKQbV%3DEUfXDqu%2BRB1yQ%40mail.gmail.com.
