It's shocking that the "party of science" thinks the ONLY useful way to do anything is controlled studies. They love to think they are smart discounting "anecdotal evidence" or "appeals to authority". Sometimes there's no time to waste and anecdotal evidence and experts is all we have to go off
Probably going to get downvoted for this. I'm HOPING AND PRAYING that Hydrochlorine is going to be the silver bullet. I STRONGLY believe that patients should have the right to take it if they desire.
All that to say, the evidence base is weak. We have a small non-randomized trial in France (very promising) and a letter from a Hassidic doctor in NYC. The invitro study basically said that injecting this drug directly into cells slowed the replication of the virus. In-vitro studies establish logical pluasible causal mechanisms. In vivo studies establish human subject trials that establish whether or not it works in the real world.
Like I said, I am HOPEFUL about this drug combo. But I don't get why we are all putting all of our eggs in one basket. We have several ongoing trials that will better inform whether or not it works. Like GEOTUS said maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. For some patients, they have nothing to lose. But before we start panic buying this medicine, we should know whether it actually works. It is not settled.
Read the study carefully (use translate). The patients that did not get chloroquine got antivirals for which there is also not a blind study. The Chinese protocol includes some medication always.
It's shocking that the "party of science" thinks the ONLY useful way to do anything is controlled studies. They love to think they are smart discounting "anecdotal evidence" or "appeals to authority". Sometimes there's no time to waste and anecdotal evidence and experts is all we have to go off
One person's anecdotal evidence is unreliable.
Thousands of people's anecdotal evidence is a data set.
If you have two competing data sets of anecdotal evidence, you can then discount them both.
Where is the competing data set that says the drug does not work? It doesn't exist.
Ipso facto, we have a data set that currently PROVES the drug is effective.
Probably going to get downvoted for this. I'm HOPING AND PRAYING that Hydrochlorine is going to be the silver bullet. I STRONGLY believe that patients should have the right to take it if they desire.
That said, there was some disappointing evidence (albeit from a Chinese university) today: http://subject.med.wanfangdata.com.cn/UpLoad/Files/202003/43f8625d4dc74e42bbcf24795de1c77c.pdf
All that to say, the evidence base is weak. We have a small non-randomized trial in France (very promising) and a letter from a Hassidic doctor in NYC. The invitro study basically said that injecting this drug directly into cells slowed the replication of the virus. In-vitro studies establish logical pluasible causal mechanisms. In vivo studies establish human subject trials that establish whether or not it works in the real world.
Like I said, I am HOPEFUL about this drug combo. But I don't get why we are all putting all of our eggs in one basket. We have several ongoing trials that will better inform whether or not it works. Like GEOTUS said maybe it works, maybe it doesn't. For some patients, they have nothing to lose. But before we start panic buying this medicine, we should know whether it actually works. It is not settled.
Read the study carefully (use translate). The patients that did not get chloroquine got antivirals for which there is also not a blind study. The Chinese protocol includes some medication always.