Jump to content

The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It


Auburnfan91

Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, AUDub said:

No idea why he's so invested in this random antimalarial drug.

s***, how many possibly better options have we delayed or flat out not studied because we decided to direct our resources to tilting at windmills?

Trump and Trump Jr. posting videos on how masks aren't needed and HCQ is a cure might have something to do with it.

I'm generally not against testing a huge variety of drugs to combat a pandemic, so I'm not sure how much resources were actually wasted. It's just maddening to have to have the climate change fight about something that's killing people right now.

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply
6 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

This article is very misleading. Nobody is saying only use hydroxychloroquine. It is like he is taking an argument nobody is making and then debunking it. It is meaningless. The 3 studies he links in the body didn’t even use the medicine regiment that the doctors I have been referring to and that the doctors I personally know have successfully used in real life (not in tests). 

Now I know you haven't been reading the links before dismissing them. Those were addressed. 

No idea why I'm bothering with this argument at this point. Pretty much already written you off as an intellectually mendacious loon with his mind already made up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

Trump and Trump Jr. posting videos on how masks aren't needed and HCQ is a cure might have something to do with it.

Pretty much it. 

Quote

I'm generally not against testing a huge variety of drugs to combat a pandemic, so I'm not sure how much resources were actually wasted. It's just maddening to have to have the climate change fight about something that's killing people right now.

You get to certain point where you can pretty much declare a hypothesis incorrect and move on and dedicate resources to other avenues, though. The debate at this point is tantamount to people arguing whether the earth is flat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Now I know you haven't been reading the links before dismissing them. Those were addressed. 

No idea why I'm bothering with this argument at this point. Pretty much already written you off as an intellectually mendacious loon with his mind already made up. 

The Henry Ford study actually says 

Quote

In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality.

So he's not actually reading any of his own sources either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

This dumb s*** is all over Facebook the last few days.  

Yeah. Damn shame how effective astroturfing is in the information age. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, AUDub said:

Now I know you haven't been reading the links before dismissing them. Those were addressed. 

No idea why I'm bothering with this argument at this point. Pretty much already written you off as an intellectually mendacious loon with his mind already made up. 

I never dismissed them before reading them. Of course it is easier to write someone off as opposed to showing them where they are wrong. The studies he linked  did not address the medicine regiment the doctors I talked to or the doctors in the video are effectively using. All they did was trash the drug Trump mentioned.  Same with his article.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

The Henry Ford study actually says 

He addressed the Ford study too:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/07/09/henry-ford-hospital-hydroxychloroquine-trial-covid-19/

Highlights:

Quote

The evidence was basically as weak as this study from the Henry Ford Hospital System by the Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force, by lead author Samia Arshad and corresponding author Marcus Zervos. Here is the text. Basically, it’s a retrospective observational study. It was not randomized. It was not double blind. 

 

Quote

 

It didn’t take long for Twitter denizens to note that there were some huge potential biases in this study. First:

pic.twitter.com/u5PdjrZk3n

— Lu Chen #H1B (@houndcl) July 2, 2020

Yes, patients in the hydroxychloroquine and the hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin groups were twice as likely to be given a steroid. Why is this relevant? Simple. It was recently reported in a randomized clinical trial that a steroid, dexamethasone, resulted in improved survival in COVID-19 patients requiring oxygen support. At the time I wrote about it, the study hadn’t yet been published, but now it is on medRxiv.

 

 

Quote

 

There were also a number of other potential confounders. An accompanying editorial by Lauren J MacKenzie, Emily G. McDonald, and Steven Y.C. Tong on the Henry Ford Hospital study noted the potential confounding factor of the steroid use and discussed other problems with the trial as well. First, there was “immortal time bias,” which is a bias that can be introduced when some time-dependent variables are not modeled:

First, the precision of the results is impacted by immortal time bias, since several time-dependent covariates were not modelled in this manner. Fortunately, since the average time to receipt of treatment was only 1 day, this bias may be small; nonetheless, it favors treatment and should be taken into consideration.

Then there were a number of other factors not taken into account:

Second, there is an important potential for residual confounding because there are a number of prognostic factors (e.g. frailty, residence in long term care, or “do not resuscitate” orders), potentially important markers of disease severity (e.g. ferritin, C-reactive protein (Zeng et al., 2020), troponins (Vrsalovic and Vrsalovic Presecki, 2020), and D-dimer (Zhang et al., 2020), and co-administration of potentially beneficial therapies (e.g. anticoagulants (Paranjpe et al., 2020) that were not included in the analysis.

This third confounder, however, is most likely the main bias that could well have produced a false positive result:

Third, confounding by severity or indication (Kyriacou and Lewis, 2016) is likely. While there was a hospital treatment protocol in place, unmeasured clinical factors likely influenced the decision not to treat 16.1% of patients, in a center where 78% received treatment. These factors are often difficult to capture in an observational study. Were the decision to withhold treatment related to poor prognosis (e.g. palliative intent), it stands to reason that patients receiving neither hydroxychloroquine nor azithromycin would have the highest mortality. Indeed, the non-treated group had an overall mortality that was higher than the rate of admission to the ICU (26.4% vs. 15.2%), suggesting that many patients were not considered appropriate for critical care. Such being the case, their care may have differed in other substantive ways that was also associated with death (e.g. terminal illness or advanced directives limiting invasive care). In the hydroxychloroquine treatment groups, the inverse was true with mortality lower than the rate of admission to the ICU (16.1% vs. 26.9%). While a propensity score analysis might further account for some differences between treatment groups, this approach is still limited to the information available in the dataset.

In this unrandomized study, confounding by severity or indication almost certainly at least significantly contributed to the observed result. Particularly telling is the observation that the mortality was higher than the rate of admission to the ICU; that almost certainly meant that there were a lot of patients who were considered so unlikely to survive that they weren’t admitted to the ICU and instead underwent only palliative care.

Finally:

Fourth, the chronological time point during the course of the pandemic whereby patients were managed was not included in the study. As the Henry Ford Health System became more experienced in treating patients with COVID-19, survival may have improved, regardless of the use of specific therapies. Hospital-specific guidelines regarding COVID-19 screening eligibility, as well as the availability of COVID-19 testing may have also changed over time, introducing additional chronological bias.

In other words, this study has a lot of issues, the sorts of issues that can plague retrospective studies of this sort, particularly retrospective studies in the fast-changing treatment milieu of a pandemic, where treatment protocols are evolving at a record pace, sometimes based on solid evidence but more often based on anecdote and clinical experience as more objective data are pending.

 

 

Sorry, I had you two mixed up at first.  No, he's not reading his sources.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, savorytiger said:

The Henry Ford study actually says 

So he's not actually reading any of his own sources either.

Yes, I am. The article responding never addressed the medicine regiment the doctors in the video are effectively using.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He addressed the Ford study too:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/07/09/henry-ford-hospital-hydroxychloroquine-trial-covid-19/

Highlights:

 

 

 

You aren't apparently reading anything.

By "he" I meant Social and his claim that no one is espousing HCQ on its own.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, savorytiger said:

By "he" I meant Social and his claim that no one is espousing HCQ on its own.

I corrected my post when I realized I was responding to someone different than originally thought.

You need an avatar or something.  :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

He addressed the Ford study too:

https://respectfulinsolence.com/2020/07/09/henry-ford-hospital-hydroxychloroquine-trial-covid-19/

Highlights:

 

 

 

You aren't apparently reading anything.

The 3 links to studies never address the medicine regiment and his mention of it never says it doesn't work.  He only says the on drug by itself doesn't work as did the studies he linked. Did what you just posted indicate at all that the emdicine regiment doesn't work? NO. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, TitanTiger said:

I corrected my post when I realized I was responding to someone different than originally thought.

You need an avatar or something.  :)

Oh. Oh no...I'll get right on that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, SocialCircle said:

The 3 links to studies never address the medicine regiment and his mention of it never says it doesn't work.  He only says the on drug by itself doesn't work as did the studies he linked. Did what you just posted indicate at all that the emdicine regiment doesn't work? NO. 

You're shifting the burden of proof.  He doesn't have to prove it doesn't work.  You (or your quacks rather) have to prove that it does - with scientifically sound, properly constructed clinical trials using universally accepted procedures.  They aren't doing that.  And there are multiple problems even with the studies they have done that he points out.  Until such studies can be produced, you're still making the same logical errors:  appealing to authority, treating anecdotes as data, etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

The 3 links to studies never address the medicine regiment and his mention of it never says it doesn't work.  He only says the on drug by itself doesn't work as did the studies he linked.

He laid out pretty effectively why the results are likely to be bunk. It's a very poorly controlled study and the results are highly likely to be erroneous.

It feels like the concept of correlation not equaling causation is a foreign concept to you.

Quote

Did what you just posted indicate at all that the emdicine regiment doesn't work? NO. 

The kicker is that the result is highly unlikely to mean the regiment does work.

And you're essentially shifting it to an argument from ignorance (i.e. prove the negative) here, a fallacy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

You're shifting the burden of proof.  He doesn't have to prove it doesn't work.  You (or your quacks rather) have to prove that it does - with scientifically sound, properly constructed clinical trials using universally accepted procedures.  They aren't doing that.  And there are multiple problems even with the studies they have done that he points out.  Until such studies can be produced, you're still making the same logical errors:  appealing to authority, treating anecdotes as data, etc.

He is one who wrote an article attacking it, so he does have to prove it if he wants do show that.  Instead he linked 3 studies that didn't even use the same medicine regiment and concluded it doesn't work.  

The proof is in the results of actual doctors treating real patients.  I have talked to some of them myself and there is a video of many others who have indeed effectively used this regiment.  You even have a representative in Detroit who is a Democrat claiming this regiment saved her life.  Meanwhile, the bogus study that said the regiment caused heart issues had to be withdrawn because it was fake science.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

51 minutes ago, AUDub said:

He laid out pretty effectively why the results are likely to be bunk. It's a very poorly controlled study and the results are highly likely to be erroneous.

It feels like the concept of correlation not equaling causation is a foreign concept to you.

The kicker is that the result is highly unlikely to mean the regiment does work.

And you're essentially shifting it to an argument from ignorance (i.e. prove the negative) here, a fallacy. 

He ignores the fact that several doctors are currently using this treatment effectively to treat Covid-19 patients.  You know actual doctors in real life environments outside of a test. Instead he links 3 studies that aren't even using the same medicine regiment and says it doesn't work.  I've talked to actual doctors who have effectively treated patients with this same regiment and I know them very well.  I trust them.  I trust people who have actually used this treatment on real patients.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

He is one who wrote an article attacking it, so he does have to prove it if he wants do show that.

No, he does not.  You need to take a remedial course on basic debate and argumentation.  

The only party making a positive assertion is the one claiming this drug regimen is effective for COVID-19.  The only thing he's doing is pointing out the multiple and glaring problems with that assertion - from the fact that it's not a real clinical study, to the multiple bias-inducing factors in the study that was conducted, and other issues.  

No one has to prove a negative.  Please get this straight in your head.

 

Quote

  Instead he linked 3 studies that didn't even use the same medicine regiment and concluded it doesn't work.  

The proof is in the results of actual doctors treating real patients.  I have talked to some of them myself and there is a video of many others who have indeed effectively used this regiment.  You even have a representative in Detroit who is a Democrat claiming this regiment saved her life.  Meanwhile, the bogus study that said the regiment caused heart issues had to be withdrawn because it was fake science.  

No, the proof is not in some anecdotes.  Anecdotes are not the same as data.  There is a reason for rigorous, controlled, double blind clinical studies to evaluate the effectiveness of drugs and treatments for disease.  I could line up any number of "health experts" that will tell you all sorts of crazy things treat this or that health problem or ailment.  Their claims either crater in the fact of rigorous examination and testing or they refuse to actually go through such testing because they know better.

You're arguing something you don't understand.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

He ignores the fact that several doctors are currently using this treatment effectively to treat Covid-19 patients.  You know actual doctors in real life environments outside of a test.

What exactly do you think a test in this arena is?  Clinical trials and controlled studies on drugs aren't just something they just sketch out and theorize on paper or kick around in a room full of academics.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

Interesting

https://respectfulinsolence.com/who-is-orac/

Also note that, although he has distinct political opinions of his own, Orac is nonpartisan. He is more than willing to criticize the statements of anyone, regardless of of political leanings, if that anyone advocates pseudoscience or quackery. Finally, medical commentary is not to be construed in any way as medical

Rush Limbaugh alluded to the OP story this afternoon as proof that all the other epidemiologists and scientists are lying about the efficacy of this drug because "it would make Trump look good".  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Rush Limbaugh alluded to the OP story this afternoon as proof that other epidemiologists and scientists are lying about the efficacy of this drug because "it would make Trump look good";)

And ultimately that's what this boils down to.  Regardless of political views, 99% of doctors out there treating COVID patients would be dancing in the hallways of hospitals across the country if this drug regimen were as effective as its biggest champions claim.  They couldn't care less if it happens to benefit Trump.  But on the other side of it, you've got quacks and folks trumpeting them primarily because Trump said it,  the media called him on it, and they desperately want him to be right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

What exactly do you think a test in this arena is?  Clinical trials and controlled studies on drugs aren't just something they just sketch out and theorize on paper or kick around in a room full of academics.

 

The 3 studies that were linked in the article didn't use the same medical regiment, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.  So what studies used the same regiment and used it early in the treatment of Covid-19 patients?  Meanwhile, many doctors including a couple of my friends are using the treatment correctly and effectively to treat Covid-19 patients. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

And ultimately that's what this boils down to.  Regardless of political views, 99% of doctors out there treating COVID patients would be dancing in the hallways of hospitals across the country if this drug regimen were as effective as its biggest champions claim.  They couldn't care less if it happens to benefit Trump.  But on the other side of it, you've got quacks and folks trumpeting them primarily because Trump said it,  the media called him on it, and they desperately want him to be right.

Except for the fact a Democrat rep. out of Detroit took the regiment and says it saved her life.  And many doctors including some I am friends with have effectively used this treatment on Covid-19 patients.  I could care less about the politics of it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, SocialCircle said:

The 3 studies that were linked in the article didn't use the same medical regiment, so they are irrelevant to the discussion.  So what studies used the same regiment and used it early in the treatment of Covid-19 patients?  Meanwhile, many doctors including a couple of my friends are using the treatment correctly and effectively to treat Covid-19 patients. 

These three studies you seem so hung up on were gravy, which is why - as you should note - I didn't even cite them.  The glaring problems with the anecdotal accounts touted as "studies" were enough to send it back to the drawing board marked as "unproven."  

Also, adding "many" to the doctors you claim are seeing results doesn't make it stronger.  Unless they can produce controlled studies that deal with the biases and errors that this guy is already knee deep in, its just another logical fallacy added to the pile for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...