Double blind studies are only one way to eliminate confounding variables, it isn't the only way.
Double blind studies aren't about "confounding variables." They're about making sure the study isn't improperly influenced by doctors, patients, nurses, hospitals, drug makers and so on. That can include picking optimal test subjects (Henry Ford), excluding patients with bad outcomes (Raoult study), nurses unconsciously treating patients better or worse because they are or aren't on the drug....
Another advantage is that it compares the drug or therapy to placebo, which creates a benchmark. It isn't enough to say "HCQ helps 20% of patients!" if it turns out that 30% of placebo patients improved (a common result, btw).
It is absurd for you and others to shoot down entirely valid Observational studies because they aren't the gold standard while two of the 4 most prestigious RCTs have fraught with errors, one having to be retracted, and a second on its way to retraction.
...or, we can note that observational studies often
aren't definitive, are tainted by the use of other medications (like the Henry Ford study mixing steroid use with HCQ), or are otherwise limited.
Nor have I heard of any RCTs being retracted. Cite your sources.
It would seem that RCTs aren't as reliable as you want them to be...
RCTs are not perfect -- and that's why it is best to rely on multiple RCTs, run by different people. However, there is no question that they are the best available option.
and if you want to throw out the Ford Study because it is observational and stand by the findings of the Lancet study because it was an RCT then I don't know what to tell you.
You either don't know the difference between an observational and RCT study, or you are misinformed.
The only HCQ study published in The Lancet and retracted was... wait for it... an
observational study. It was retracted because it relied on data from Surgisphere, which could not be independently verified.
Nobody... has.. argued.. otherwise. Making... it... illegal... to prescribe... inhibits... such... studies.
Lol! No, that's not how it works.
In the US, studies get approval from the FDA. That can include drugs that are not yet approved at all, or drugs that the DEA classifies as Schedule II through V. (AFAIK it's very difficult to test Schedule I drugs, which is why there are so few medicinal studies of marijuana.)
Separately, the FDA can allow emergency use of a medication (which they did for HCQ, between March 28th and June 15th). Without that emergency authorization, though, doctors can STILL prescribe HCQ on an off-label basis. The FDA does advise against further HCQ studies, but has not blocked them.
I see no indication that any nation has actually barred or outlawed any RCT studies of HCQ.
Next time, you really should know what you're talking about before trying to slow-walk a point.
You make it sound like there are a lot of RCTs when there aren't.
There are enough.
- Prophylactic study: fail
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
- NIH halted study early because it showed no benefit
NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine | National Institutes of Health (NIH)
- RCT study found no benefit
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2019014
- RCT study on early treatment found no benefit
Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial | Clinical Infectious Diseases | Oxford Academic
- UK study found no benefit
https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/hcq-recovery-statement-050620-final-002.pdf
- Metastudy of the available RCTs in May found that the evidence was "weak and conflicting"
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-2496
- BMJ: RCT study, mild to moderate disease, no benefit
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1849
I see no indication that any of these studies was retracted.
it's weird that you don't see that your own argument is self defeating.
That's because... it isn't.
Since you seem rather ignorant of drug trials, just because something
should work does not mean it
will work. Lots of hopes are dashed when a promising drug doesn't work out.
On a side note, we should remember that HCQ already has
proven uses for conditions like lupus -- and the Trump-fired frenzy over HCQ has already resulted in a shortage of the drug, which hurts those people.
So, like I said: The initial impulse to test HCQ was a little out of left field, but made enough sense to justify RCTs. However, those RCTs are showing little to no benefit, while other drugs are showing much more promise, and are not likely to cause harmful shortages. That's why it is almost certainly time to move on.
