Positive Results From Hydroxychloroquine Study

Oh, I think I remember your response to me yesterday as you pose this question…

Most complete overview of HCQ studies here:

Negative studies are included with the positive ones. The overall point made is that early usage is significantly better than late usage. Late usage comes with mixed results including the negative studies that the naysayers here have been so quick to jump on. Every negative study featured late usage. Everyone knows by now that cherry picking late usage is the way to say this doesn’t work. So future studies and trials that feature late usage are simply not going to be credible going forward.

If someone has a better overview of all HCQ studies, let’s have it. If someone thinks this link is underplaying the negative results, let’s have that too. If someone thinks this link left out negative results, send it to them, they provide a form at the bottom of the page.

I find it interesting that although lupus and rheumatoid arthritis are both autoimmune diseases, neither are considered risk factors for Covid-19 despite the listing of autoimmune diseases in general. The CDC has the data. No way they don’t have it. But we’re not going to hear about it. Because it doesn’t say what they want it to say.

This is how the path is being cleared for Remdesivir and soon, vaccines. Push the cheap options off the stage.

Thbolt’s reply . . .

Oh, I think I remember your response to me yesterday as you pose this question…

Well that is amazing. Especially since I did not discuss the pathophysiology of corona virus infections yesterday.

But that’s great you recall it.

Now please expound it.

1 Like

Lost me after “Wuhan Corona Virus” which, in my opinion, is to little more than an attempt to advance xenophobia and deny science…the virus is “Covid 19”, not “Wuhan Corona VIrus” or even worse “Kung-flu”.

What did you say in the response to me yesterday?

It originated in Wuhan so I don’t see how this is objectively speaking un-factual.

You may object but I think you go a little too far by saying it denies science.

1 Like

There are many kinds of studies. Retrospective vs. Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial, and Double-blind. Of all these, many consider the Randomized Controlled Trial the most important feature - more important even than the double-blind aspect.

Double blind means that neither the doctor nor the patient knows if he has received a placebo. This is important in treatments where the placebo effect might be relevant, such as treatment of headaches or pain in general. It also avoids the potential that if the doctor knows who is receiving the real treatment, he might affect the outcome with that very knowledge.

The problem with double blind studies is they are more difficult and time-consuming to manage - especially in a crisis situation such as we have now. I don’t think the placebo effect is likely to be a major factor in HCQ treatment, and I think doctors in these trying times are all trying their best to give everyone the best treatment they can. I doubt that with the stakes as high as they are, any ethical doctor would bias the outcome of treatment based only on his knowledge of who is receiving the real treatment.

So here is my suggestion: Skip the double-blind and placebo step for now. But do utilize randomized assignment of who gets HCQ and who doesn’t. That would remove what I think is the biggest source of bias in the results - the decision on who to treat with HCQ and who not to to treat. If that one decision is made in a truly random manner (subject to some reasonable and objective guidelines) then we can be fairly sure that any difference in outcome is truly due to the use of HCQ (or HCQ in some combination).

I think they call that RCT (randomized controlled trial).

1 Like

dscath . . .

Lost me after “Wuhan Corona Virus” which, in my opinion, is to little more than an attempt to advance xenophobia and deny science . . .

Oh baloney.

Quit accusing me of xenophobia/advancing xenophobia.

There are scientific articles that discuss the Wuhan Corona Virus.

You mal-attributing bad motives to me is out of line.

3 Likes
1 Like

LeafByNiggle . . .

many consider the Randomized Controlled Trial the most important feature - more important even than the double-blind aspect.

If they are not double-blinded, when you present your paper at a conference you will be criticized for intoducing an unecessary bias into your study.

I have no problem with the randomized and controlled.

none of which refer to it as “Wuhan Corona Virus” or “Klung Flu” except for that one guy in DC

118 days…Tick Tock!

That is true. It is not quite the gold standard. But it is better than an uncontrolled retrospective study.

dscath on scientific articles . . . .

none of which refer to it as “Wuhan Corona Virus”

This is just false.

And if someone was going to have this invented degree of ridiculous political correctness, they may fail to search for such scientific articles.

To the readers here.

This is a prime example of how political correctness can hinder research.

A researcher who had such an attitude, wouldnot search for Wuhan Corona Virus out of their FEAR.

Fear of being politically incorrect.

Them miss a potential important science study in his review and bibliography.

Political correctness run amok. In this case at the expense of science.

Yeah, I’m okay with his supporters revealing themselves by using “Wuhan Flu” and such. It saves me a lot of time as I immediately realize they aren’t worth listening to.

It certainly is, but I’m sure many already realize how political it has been made…118 days…Tick Tock!

dscath . . .

none of which refer to it as “Wuhan Corona Virus” or “Klung Flu” except for that one guy in DC . . .

Thbolt . . .

Yeah, I’m okay with his supporters revealing themselves by using “Wuhan Flu”

To the readers here.

Please note the ONLY people here using terms such as “Kung flu” and “Wuhan flu” are dscath and Thbolt.

Then they implicitly complain about this stuff to you readers. (This is projection.)

Don’t be taken in by this.

Also . . .

The “Wuhan Corona Virus” is an appropriate term.

There are scientific papers just matter of factly discussing it.

Go back and re-read dscath and Thbolt.

Then re-read my posts.

Then draw your own conclusions.

1 Like

Post 34…

Not an appropriate term.

Yes, Wuhan corona virus not Wuhan flu or Kung flu, which is appropriately named because it is where it originated from.

1 Like

A distinction without a difference.

No, because there is nothing incorrect in refering it to the Wuhan Corona virus.

I understand if you do not wish to use it though.

2 Likes
DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.