• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

New study on Hydroxychloroquine shows significant reduction in COVID-19 mortality

jmotivator said:
Funny that that didn't seem to bother you when you were declaring an end to the debate based on the exact same kind of observational study. :roll:



"Most definitive types of studies"... and what would those be? Pardon me for laughing at your continued delusion that anyone would trust your ability to spot valid studies. :lamo



So what you are now arguing is that a study that found the survival rate of those taking either hydroxychloroquine alone or a concomitant treatment that includes hydroxychloroquine were TWICE that of the group not taking hydroxychloroquine should be thrown out because you don't like the outcome and the debate is over even thought the study you declared ended the debate was absolute bull****? So sciencey. :roll:



But observational drug studies can prove hydroxychloroquine doesn't work and allow you to declare the debate is over? Uh huh....
Click to expand...

It’s the bulk of data (which has shown HCQ was not useful after the initial bad study) with that study providing a strong indicator that its massive observational database showed harm- meaning that the chances of benefit would be small.

Data always needs to be compared in context of everything else we have. And at the time of the Lancet trial, we had no big RCTs.
 
humbolt said:
Why check? Even though the number of claimed participants is unlikely at the outset...
Click to expand...

Unlikely?

Why?

You don’t think studies relying on EMRs generate those kinds of numbers?

I just led a journal club on one with 600,000 patients.

It’s pretty commonly have observational data like that, and it’s flawed data but often can give us a good clue as to what RCTs might show, or what is futile to study.
 
Threegoofs said:
It’s the bulk of data (which has shown HCQ was not useful after the initial bad study) with that study providing a strong indicator that its massive observational database showed harm- meaning that the chances of benefit would be small.

Data always needs to be compared in context of everything else we have. And at the time of the Lancet trial, we had no big RCTs.
Click to expand...

HAHAHAHA!! YOU declared the debate was over with the Lancet study. That is what YOU did. Trying to whitewash your stupidity after the fact isn't fixing your image, it makes you look worse.

There’s a paper out in Lancet today that will probably kill the whole idea of HCQ or chloroquine utility in COVID. It’s observational, but do suggestive of harm that it needs to be taken seriously.
Click to expand...

That's you.

But observational studies that suggest a benefit shouldn't be taken seriously because... they are observational? You hypocrite, you.
 
Threegoofs said:
Unlikely?

Why?

You don’t think studies relying on EMRs generate those kinds of numbers?

I just led a journal club on one with 600,000 patients.

It’s pretty commonly have observational data like that, and it’s flawed data but often can give us a good clue as to what RCTs might show, or what is futile to study.
Click to expand...

Because anyone who has spent significant time in Africa knows better. They aren't German.
 
jmotivator said:
HAHAHAHA!! YOU declared the debate was over with the Lancet study. That is what YOU did. Trying to whitewash your stupidity after the fact isn't fixing your image, it makes you look worse.



That's you.

But observational studies that suggest a benefit shouldn't be taken seriously because... they are observational? You hypocrite, you.
Click to expand...

A funny thing about that Lancet "study" is that it had Neil Cavuto actually say several times on the air that HCQ will kill you.
Then Lancet took a pounding as fraudulent.
Today Cavuto tried to say he meant that HCQ could be risky depending on the patient.
Moonwalking on HCQ ineffectiveness is pretty common.
 
bubbabgone said:
A funny thing about that Lancet "study" is that it had Neil Cavuto actually say several times on the air that HCQ will kill you.
Then Lancet took a pounding as fraudulent.
Today Cavuto tried to say he meant that HCQ could be risky depending on the patient.
Moonwalking on HCQ ineffectiveness is pretty common.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's sad and funny at the same time. I got roped into the Lancet study as well, and I kick myself because in hindsight it had all the earmarks of bad science. Rule #1 in Study evaluation: If the study authors refuse to release their data, the study should be rejected.
 
bubbabgone said:
Do you find yourself challenged when you argue with yourself like that?
Click to expand...

No, I am aware enough that adding to comment is better than editing later since someone could be in the middle of quoting the previous comment. Was it too hard for you to follow?
 
Threegoofs said:
Two really well designed, randomized and large studies have shown early use with PEP - which functionally is use early in the course of disease, showed HCQ to be useless.

This is the most solid data we have on HCQ.
Click to expand...

Lol.

No.

We've been over this a dozen times. Stop playing dumb ;)
 
Have they started studies on Lysol yet?
 
Threegoofs said:
You guys think it being fraudulent data is some kinda ‘gotcha!’, but you can’t ever go under the assumption that published, peer reviewed trials are fraudulent data.
Click to expand...

Are you really this naive? "Peer reviewed" trials prevent fraud?

I hear Chelsea Clinton peer reviewed Hillary's claim that she did not intentionally have 33,000 emails deleted from her harddrive
 
Last edited:
Jack Hays said:
In fairness, 3G had a bad day yesterday.:mrgreen:
Click to expand...

Oh? I'll have to look back. I was running fencing. "Run" is a misomer though. The posts, woven wire, and I did no running at all.
 
bubbabgone said:
A funny thing about that Lancet "study" is that it had Neil Cavuto actually say several times on the air that HCQ will kill you.
Then Lancet took a pounding as fraudulent.
Today Cavuto tried to say he meant that HCQ could be risky depending on the patient.
Moonwalking on HCQ ineffectiveness is pretty common.
Click to expand...

Well, I took very high doses of HCQ for two weeks twice in succession, and it kilt me dead.
 
jmotivator said:
HAHAHAHA!! YOU declared the debate was over with the Lancet study. That is what YOU did. Trying to whitewash your stupidity after the fact isn't fixing your image, it makes you look worse.



That's you.

But observational studies that suggest a benefit shouldn't be taken seriously because... they are observational? You hypocrite, you.
Click to expand...

Right. When the snowball of data that doesn’t look good gets bigger, it sure looked like it was over.

And a week or two later, the RECOVERY trial made it really over.

Sure- I suppose there could be some niche use somewhere- but it’s not likely given the data we’ve seen.

Observational studies should be taken seriously in context. When I have good RCT data, observational studies that don’t support it are hypothesis generating at best. And this last observational trial is pretty low quality- the inherent bias of protocols assigning treatments makes it much weaker than a normal EMR trial.
 
Threegoofs said:
Right. When the snowball of data that doesn’t look good gets bigger, it sure looked like it was over.
Click to expand...

You keep claiming that but you have nothing to back it up, nor are you a trustworthy source of determining good versus bad data.

And a week or two later, the RECOVERY trial made it really over.
Click to expand...

Heh, and again, you have zero credibility in determining when a discussion is over. You have already proven yourself to be an easy mark.

Sure- I suppose there could be some niche use somewhere- but it’s not likely given the data we’ve seen.
Click to expand...

"Niche" being 65 and over with COVID-19.

Observational studies should be taken seriously in context. When I have good RCT data, observational studies that don’t support it are hypothesis generating at best. And this last observational trial is pretty low quality- the inherent bias of protocols assigning treatments makes it much weaker than a normal EMR trial.
Click to expand...

And by "context" you mean "when they agree with Threegoof's position", clearly. :roll:
 
jmotivator said:
You keep claiming that but you have nothing to back it up, nor are you a trustworthy source of determining good versus bad data.



Heh, and again, you have zero credibility in determining when a discussion is over. You have already proven yourself to be an easy mark.



"Niche" being 65 and over with COVID-19.



And by "context" you mean "when they agree with Threegoof's position", clearly. :roll:
Click to expand...

I interpret scientific drug trials for a living.

And it’s pretty damn clear to all of us that do this that it’s not an effective therapy and holds substantial risk in many, especially the most critically ill.

You’re interest in this seems to be primarily ‘owning da libs’ and you seem to have little, if any concept of how any of this works.
 
BlueTex said:
No, I am aware enough that adding to comment is better than editing later since someone could be in the middle of quoting the previous comment. Was it too hard for you to follow?
Click to expand...

Easy to follow but the unintended satire was hard to ignore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom