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 <johnkcl...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Aug 7, 2020 at 4:20 PM Jason Resch <jasonre...@gmail.com> 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 useful but the most important of them was retracted, to the great 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. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUg_43mcRFU999EbTAKa1BnQVcp1jATM6iYd880wRvuORw%40mail.gmail.com.
