Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, yes I have. The ONLY reason we are even doing clinical trials right now is because the NIH, CDC, and FDA insisted on it. We saw their heads contradict Trump, on camera, and insist that careful studies would be done, and that it was too early to recommend widespread use, and that the information Trump cited as proof of efficacy, was merely anecdotal. Right wing sources have assailed all of these men for those words.
The clinical trials are underway, Trump has not said we need to stop them. Geez, just give it up already. I'm seriously done responding to you.
Please, just read the study. A medium-sized useless study is no more helpful than the small useless studies done before it. If you understand the difference between a retrospective study and a randomized controlled study, you would understand why this is useless.
I will quickly go over the difference between the two.
In a randomized, controlled study, the patients receiving the drugs and the patients receiving placebo are random. If it is double blind, where neither the person giving the drug nor the person receiving it, know if they are getting the actual drug or not, the study is stronger. The reason we do studies this way is to remove bias. A sicker person may not get the drug, and a patient with milder symptoms might get the drug.
In a retrospective study, like the VA study, they take data that is already there, and they analyze it. Hence, the name, “retrospective”. Only, as with all retrospective studies, there is inherent bias built into it. It is called selection bias. Since the doctors giving the drug, did not know they were going to be part of a study at a later time, they did what they thought was right at the time. Meaning, they gave the sickest patients the drugs, and the healthiest patients did not get the drugs.
They even admit this in the study, and the analysis of the study confirms that.
All this study proved is that people with severe COVID-19 die at a higher rate than people with milder COVID-19. I could have told you that without a study.
I am not saying the drug works. I am not saying it doesn’t work. Perhaps it works for a certain population of patients, and not others. Hopefully the randomized, controlled trials from NY and the NIH will give us information that is actually useful.
Please, just read the study. A medium-sized useless study is no more helpful than the small useless studies done before it. If you understand the difference between a retrospective study and a randomized controlled study, you would understand why this is useless.
I will quickly go over the difference between the two.
In a randomized, controlled study, the patients receiving the drugs and the patients receiving placebo are random. If it is double blind, it is even better. The reason we do studies this way is to remove bias. A sicker person may not get the drug, and a patient with milder symptoms might get the drug.
In a retrospective study, like the VA study, they take data that is already there, and they analyze it. Hence, the name, “retrospective”. Only, as with all retrospective studies, there is inherent bias built into it. It is called selection bias. Since the doctors giving the drug, did not know they were going to be part of a study at a later time, they did what they thought was right at the time. Meaning, they gave the sickest patients the drugs, and the healthiest patients did not get the drugs.
They even admit this in the study, and the analysis of the study confirms that.
All this study proved is that people with severe COVID-19 die at a higher rate than people with milder COVID-19. I could have told you that without a study.
I am not saying the drug works. I am not saying it doesn’t work. Perhaps it works for a certain population of patients, and not others. Hopefully the randomized, controlled trials from NY and the NIH will give us information that is actually useful.
Actually, I do understand, and you didn't need to explain any of that to me. While it's not conclusive, it's not necessarily "useless", and it's actually larger, as I already said, than the studies cited by Trump as proof of safety and efficacy.
I do agree, that larger, randomized, double-blind, placebo-containing studies, will be much more conclusive. And I wish we'd just do those and wait, and not push doctors rhetorically to use these drugs which are untested for this indication.
At least you're in honorable disagreement and not relying just on ad hominem attacks and spin.
Actually, I do understand, and you didn't need to explain any of that to me. While it's not conclusive, it's not necessarily "useless", and it's actually larger, as I already said, than the studies cited by Trump as proof of safety and efficacy.
I do agree, that larger, randomized, double-blind, placebo-containing studies, will be much more conclusive. And I wish we'd just do those and wait, and not push doctors rhetorically to use these drugs which are untested for this indication.
The size of a study doesn’t make it any more useful if the methodology is flawed.
Because we have a President, with zero medical knowledge, (the same guy who was just proposing we start* testing the use of the methods normally reserved for hardened surface microbiocide, in the human body!) also using the bully pulpit to push hard for indiscriminant use of a drug** for an unapproved indication, against the advice of medical experts.
* now, he made a fool of himself TODAY with his "sarcastic" bull ****, but he never "proposed we start"
** he never said indiscriminate use. He talked about hospital use.
there's PLENTY of "anti-Trump" material without bending the facts. If you'e smart enough and disciplined enough to do it.
The size of a study doesn’t make it any more useful if the methodology is flawed.
That's so, but of course, it [study size] does lend added statistical power to resolve effects, and I also said "randomized, double-blind, placebo-containing studies". Would you not agree that this would constitute a significant change in methodology?
University of Minnesota is doing a controlled study, until that is completed no one should assume that this drug is useful in curing the virus. The FDA issued a warning, it should be respected.
University of Minnesota is doing a controlled study, until that is completed no one should assume that this drug is useful in curing the virus. The FDA issued a warning, it should be respected.
Yes, imagine that! We should do careful studies, and defer widespread deployment of an unproven drug until we review their outcome! imagine that! That's all I have been saying, and it's all that the heads of the CDC, FDA, and NIH have been saying and it's quite different from what the President and his most rabid supporters have been saying.
That's so, but of course, it [study size] does lend added statistical power to resolve effects, and I also said "randomized, double-blind, placebo-containing studies". Would you not agree that this would constitute a significant change in methodology?
Yes, of course. That is when size does matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
