On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 11:25 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 8:13 PM Bruce Kellett <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 10:49 AM Jason Resch <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:37 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 2:26:40 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 7:20 PM PGC <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On Saturday, August 1, 2020 at 1:12:49 AM UTC+2, Jason wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at >>>>>>> giving it early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was >>>>>>> beneficial. This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/ >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those >>>>>>> where it is given late in the disease progression (when the disease >>>>>>> shifts >>>>>>> from the viral replication phase to an immune system dysregulation >>>>>>> phase >>>>>>> <https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf> >>>>>>> (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness >>>>>>> even >>>>>>> when it is given late. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Given the well-established safety >>>>>>> <https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf> >>>>>>> record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> HCQ works HCQ doesn't work >>>>>>> HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted >>>>>>> per patient >>>>>>> HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 >>>>>>> wasted per patient >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the >>>>>>> decision is clear. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> https://www.who.int/news-room/detail/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19 >>>>>> >>>>>> Why not find out from the WHO or the steering committee itself? Just >>>>>> be prepared to wait as I believe they are somewhat busy. >>>>>> >>>>>> But contact them >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Find out what from the WHO? >>>>> >>>> >>>> Why they discontinued the treatment arm and why you think they should >>>> re-establish it (again btw) to save thousands of lives, with your table and >>>> the website. PGC >>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> It's purely a decision theory problem. They WHO is not infallible (and >>> have demonstrated that recently), the science on HCQs effectiveness is >>> mixed, the science on its safety is clear. >>> >>> Given that there is a clearly optimal decision with a higher expected >>> value. >>> >> >> >> Your table above presents a false dichotomy. >> > > It either works or doesn't. That's two options. Unless you can point out a > third one that I missed. > It is a false dichotomy, because it misses the nuance that it might be useful with early administration, but is not a cure, and does not save lives. > > >> There is no evidence that use of HCQ is effective as a cure for COVID-19. >> > > "No evidence" is a rather poor way to describe "*100% of scientific > studies that have investigated it's early administration*" (see: > https://c19study.com/ ) > Having lots of studies does not prove that something works. They may not present any evidence at all for efficacy as a cure. It was only ever suggested that it might act prophylactically, or in relief >> of some early stage symptoms. Decision theory is only useful if you don't >> misrepresent the facts.... >> > > What is misrepresented by the table? Either it works or it doesn't. > False dichotomy, as explained. Bruce -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAFxXSLQF8zgJS0D-a6BsHjm1j3xWs8voQjpDAcCvgAMpqe8Gvw%40mail.gmail.com.
