Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

medrxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 379 posts

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#181

Post by lalaland1125 »

SlowRobotAhead wrote: post #145
lonelappde wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it's become an arbitrary political football to separate "left" vs "right"

As insane as that is. And how funny is it (at least to me) that this is only because Trump came down on one side initially. If he had come out saying exactly the opposite, that HCQ was bad and we should be skeptical, everyone hoping it doesn’t work now would be looking for the 10 person studies saying it totally works and defending its use. It’s almost beyond reason how hyper partisan this specific issue is.

The fundamental difference is that one side is backed by neutral experts such as Anthony Fauci and the other side has shown nothing but disdain for science in countless issues (global warming, evolution, election fraud, etc).

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#182

Post by magicalist »

thedudeabides5 wrote: post #75
capnrefsmmat wrote: post #49

It's important to interpret these results carefully: "no evidence of efficacy" does not imply evidence of no efficacy, and in fact the uncertainty in this study is quite large. The sample size is small enough that it would be very hard for this study to detect the effect of hydroxychloroquine unless that effect is very, very large. From the abstract: > In the HCQ group, 2.8% of the patients died within 7 days vs 4.6%…

This is a great comment thanks. Title of the paper could (with a tongue firmly in cheek) be called, "Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but our sample was likely too small for it to pass a T-test"

> Title of the paper could (with a tongue firmly in cheek) be called, "Weak evidence for effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine but our sample was likely too small for it to pass a T-test"

It would be irresponsible to choose an experimental design (like significance level) and then use wishy-washy language ("weak evidence") to work around it when the study criteria aren't met.

This would be more akin to the headline from the press release for the study from the university PR office.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#183

Post by ddebernardy »

DangerousPie wrote: post #172
forgingahead wrote: post #148

This whole debate is insane to me -- some people that so-called "experts" don't like mentioned HCQ as a possible treatment for coronavirus, and we've ended up in some bizarro world where everyone is shouting and fingers are being pointed over something that really shouldn't be controversial or perceived as some sinister plot to destroy clever society. 1. HCQ has been used for many decades 2. The side effects are gene…

1. Not for coronaviruses. 2. They are known but they are by no means mild. A trial in Brazil just got aborted due to severe heart problems. 3. So does almost everything. If that's your threshold for taking a drug then I have a lot of homeopathic remedies to sell you! 4. Actually the doses given for COVID are often higher. Not sure what long-term has to do with anything. 5. That assumes that the risk of side effects i…

> Actually the doses given for COVID are often higher.

Not just higher. The original article (the one out of China) that mentioned that there might be some positive effects reportedly suggested using doses that were a whopping 5 times higher than the usually prescribed amounts: 500mg/day vs the usual 100mg/day.

What more, the same article put forward that the drug was considered generally safe and without any potentially troublesome side effects. That raised more than a few eyebrows amongst the medical staff who knew the drug.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#184

Post by Techies4Trump »

Sample size is far too small.

If anything this study shows (albeit with small numbers) that HCQ doesn't make things worse.

But I have a feeling HCQ will be found to be effective. Big pharma have a lot of $$$ to make from their vaccine though.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#185

Post by TomatoTomato »

IAmEveryone wrote: post #10
julioo wrote: post #8

Point is that the study is done at the wrong stage, too late.

Point is far too much time and money has been wasted chasing this particular goose just because your cult leader saw it as the silver bullet that could save his re-election. I hope we don’t waste additional bandwidth in the medical community just to disprove additional no-true-Scotsmen rewritings of history. Just this comment section already features two of them: “too late”, and “only in combination with zinc”.

It's a lot cheaper to test a known drug than to create a new one.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#186

Post by Khelavaster »

This study is basically garbage. It applies to people who're so damaged from Covid they need at least 2 liters of oxygen per minute. It studies treatment with pure hydroxychloroquine--no zinc, no azithromycin/doxycycline/ivermectin. Hydroxychloroquine.

Patients who get their treatment from doctors less fraudulent than the authors of this study almost certainly see better outcomes.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#187

Post by Goronmon »

twomoretime wrote: post #158
nkozyra wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there's a bunch of strawmen here. It's disingenuous to say that people who found [said person]'s comments to be a bad idea want it to fail . Indeed, if that person had come up and said "there's a lot of promising treatments, such as ..." or "the experts are telling us that some studies involving [x, y, z] are showing some positive signs" or something of that ilk, nobody would have cared. Instead, the person m…

> https://youtu.be/oWQjWepaDv0 "Very promising early results". > https://www.google.com/search?q=trump+tweet+chloroquine&prmd... "Have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers" Meanwhile the media response has been universally lamenting that a president would "tell people" [he didn't] to take this drug. How many outlets jumped on the single chloroquine phosphate overdose as proof of the president's respon…

"Have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers"

and

"Hopefully both will be used immediately. PEOPLE ARE DYING, MOVE FAST"

Both seem pretty ridiculous when we don't even know if its effective at all, let alone "one of the biggest game changers".

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#188

Post by tobessebot »

bluGill wrote: post #171
tobessebot wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can personally discount everything he says, that doesn't make it any less legitimate to say that the President of the United States shouldn't hold press conferences in which he over-hypes the proven effectiveness of certain drugs during a pandemic. Otherwise anyone can just claim anything whenever they want without any proof whatsoever.

One must live in the world as it is, not as we wish it would be. Thus we need to consider actions, words and results separately.

Independent of whether that is actually right, where did I consider them to be connected in this discussion? I'm not even inferring a political motive, I'm just stating that it is a dumb thing to say.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#189

Post by renewiltord »

DangerousPie wrote: post #168
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HCQ is an off-patent drug that is produced in every major country in the world. In fact, many countries have stockpiles of it because of its efficacy at preventing malaria. If there’s a risk of a supply run, it would definitely not last very long. For many people there’s alternatives for treating arthritis and lupus. If it’s shown even to improve the patient’s outcome by even just 10% or more (as this study suggests)…

Then why are lupus patients struggling to get HCQ right now? Sure in the long run it may be relatively easy to manufacture enough HCQ. But right now stocks are running extremely low because people are trying to use it for COVID without any scientific basis.

They’re struggling because you have chosen this regulatory regime. Generics factories are pumping it out right now.

Re: Study: No evidence of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients

#190

Post by voxl »

forgingahead wrote: post #148

This whole debate is insane to me -- some people that so-called "experts" don't like mentioned HCQ as a possible treatment for coronavirus, and we've ended up in some bizarro world where everyone is shouting and fingers are being pointed over something that really shouldn't be controversial or perceived as some sinister plot to destroy clever society. 1. HCQ has been used for many decades 2. The side effects are gene…

Why in the world would you quote "experts" and clearly you know nothing about statistics if you look at 181 patients and immediately think "oh well that's just too small!"

You can have significant results with as little as 10 random samples. People are mad because this is getting pushed as a treatment for COVID-19. The only correct response is: "We do not have evidence that this a treatment for COVID-19."

As more research is done we can update our knowledge on this, but instead you talk about the "experts" like they you know more than they do. Typical anti-academic rhetoric.

Post reply on HN