Flu & Covid19

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Those who advocate Hydroxy for Covidvirus agree that it is most effective during the early stages of an infection in combination with Zinc.

Show us one actual legitimate properly conducted study that shows that. "Those that advocate" are meaningless without the data to back up the advocacy.

gcomeau wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Those who advocate Hydroxy for Covidvirus agree that it is most effective during the early stages of an infection in combination with Zinc.

Show us one actual legitimate properly conducted study that shows that. "Those that advocate" are meaningless without the data to back up the advocacy.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101 ... 20080036v1


https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 7720306435

I suppose that there is no research that might suggest that Hydroxy plus Zinc might be effective for someone from your home planet.

This is interesting. However, we note that it has not been peer reviewed and so is not recommended for normal clinical practice.

The fundamental scientific principle behind peer review is that different researchers than the original group should be able to replicate the first group's findings. Should that happen, the study should begin to have scientific status. So, as I say, it is interesting. But we will have to wait and see where it goes from here.

Don

-

TFLYTSNBN wrote:Your comments about the Hydro... being ineffective and extremely dangerous are misinformed. This drug has been around for a long time. If I recall correctly, it is now a generic so no pharmecutical company can make windfall profits on it. While Hydro... can have side effects, including cardiac, those risks are deemed acceptable when the drug might be needed. Hydro... as either an early treatment or a propholactic, is not at all controversial anywhere outside of the United States. Germany had been buying it in bulk and using it. Hydro.. is controversial only in America only because President Trump has been citing it as a potential treatment or preventative. One of Trump's staff who is in frequent, close contact with him has recently tested positive for the Coronavirus. It is extremely appropriate for President Trump to be prescribed Hydro...

It's not controversial because no other country has a leader who is actively encouraging people to take medications which have no proof of efficacy against COVID (and is certainly not the miracle drug that Trump has been touting it at, that much has been established). And AFAIK in those cases where doctors are using it, it's done in hospital settings only (for COVID, that is, not for its established uses such as lupus treatment)..

n7axw wrote:This is interesting. However, we note that it has not been peer reviewed and so is not recommended for normal clinical practice.

The fundamental scientific principle behind peer review is that different researchers than the original group should be able to replicate the first group's findings. Should that happen, the study should begin to have scientific status. So, as I say, it is interesting. But we will have to wait and see where it goes from here.

Don

-

You are somewhat mistaken about the peer review process. A study is considered scientifically valid if a review by peers confirms that the methodology is appropriate. Further investigation by other researchers can then either validate the research or invalidate the research. There are going to be a multitude of studies on treating Covidvirus with Hydro... and the results will be inconsistent. Unless there is fraud involved or mistakes I. Methodology, all will be scientifically valid. Only after several studies confirm or disprove that Hydro... is safe and effective will it be deemed an appropriate treatment under normal circumstances. Given the fact that circumstances are not normal, a certain amount of uncertainty will not be adequate cause for rejecting a treatment.

Some of us remember how the TTAPS Nuclear Winter theory was published in Science without peer review but concurrently with a public relations blitzkrieg. That was fraud.

TFLYTSNBN wrote:

n7axw wrote:This is interesting. However, we note that it has not been peer reviewed and so is not recommended for normal clinical practice.

The fundamental scientific principle behind peer review is that different researchers than the original group should be able to replicate the first group's findings. Should that happen, the study should begin to have scientific status. So, as I say, it is interesting. But we will have to wait and see where it goes from here.

Don

-

You are somewhat mistaken about the peer review process. A study is considered scientifically valid if a review by peers confirms that the methodology is appropriate. Further investigation by other researchers can then either validate the research or invalidate the research. There are going to be a multitude of studies on treating Covidvirus with Hydro... and the results will be inconsistent. Unless there is fraud involved or mistakes I. Methodology, all will be scientifically valid. Only after several studies confirm or disprove that Hydro... is safe and effective will it be deemed an appropriate treatment under normal circumstances. Given the fact that circumstances are not normal, a certain amount of uncertainty will not be adequate cause for rejecting a treatment.

Some of us remember how the TTAPS Nuclear Winter theory was published in Science without peer review but concurrently with a public relations blitzkrieg. That was fraud.

Ok, I can accept this as friendly amendment to what I said. The fundamental to my post was that other researchers had to be able to replicate the study using the same methods before it could be regarded as actionable science.

Don

-

n7axw wrote:

TFLYTSNBN wrote:
You are somewhat mistaken about the peer review process. A study is considered scientifically valid if a review by peers confirms that the methodology is appropriate. Further investigation by other researchers can then either validate the research or invalidate the research. There are going to be a multitude of studies on treating Covidvirus with Hydro... and the results will be inconsistent. Unless there is fraud involved or mistakes I. Methodology, all will be scientifically valid. Only after several studies confirm or disprove that Hydro... is safe and effective will it be deemed an appropriate treatment under normal circumstances. Given the fact that circumstances are not normal, a certain amount of uncertainty will not be adequate cause for rejecting a treatment.

Some of us remember how the TTAPS Nuclear Winter theory was published in Science without peer review but concurrently with a public relations blitzkrieg. That was fraud.

Ok, I can accept this as friendly amendment to what I said. The fundamental to my post was that other researchers had to be able to replicate the study using the same methods before it could be regarded as actionable science.

Don

-

No, it's not a matter of replicating the study as nothing was actually performed, it's a matter of actually *doing* a real study.

This is what is referred to as an "observational study", or in other words there were no controls, no methodology, no double blinds, they just scoured hospital records after the fact and ran some analysis. The only thing observational studies are good for is giving potential indications that a follow up *actual clinical study* might be something to look at to figure out if anything is really there.

Which is exactly what the authors of this paper say if you read past the abstract... which TFLY likely neglected to do.

"This study has several limitations. First, this was an observational retrospective analysis that could be impacted by confounding variables. This is well demonstrated by the analyses adjusting for the difference in timing between the patients who did not receive zinc and those who did. In addition, we only looked at patients taking hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. We do not know whether the observed added
benefit of zinc sulfate to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on mortality would have been seen in patients who took zinc sulfate alone or in combination with just one of those medications. We also do not have data on the time at which the patients included in the study initiated therapy with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc. Those drugs would have been started at the same time as a combination therapy, but the point in clinical disease at which patients received those medications could have differed between our two groups. Finally, the cohorts were identified based on medications
ordered rather than confirmed administration, which may bias findings towards favoring equipoise between the two groups. In light of these limitations, this study should not be
used to guide clinical practice. Rather, our observations support the initiation of future randomized clinical trials investigating zinc sulfate against COVID-19. "

Thank you for the explanation, gcomeau. My familiarity with scientific method doesn't go all that deep. I had a college course about 40 years ago.. This past winter I had my cataracts removed in the course of which I was part of a clinical study testing out new lenses. It turned out that I was in the experimental group rather than the control group and ended up with 20/20 vision...

Don

-

n7axw wrote:Thank you for the explanation, gcomeau. My familiarity with scientific method doesn't go all that deep. I had a college course about 40 years ago.. This past winter I had my cataracts removed in the course of which I was part of a clinical study testing out new lenses. It turned out that I was in the experimental group rather than the control group and ended up with 20/20 vision...

Don

-

Are those fancy artificial lenses? A write up a few years ago sounded like they'd be pretty sweet.

noblehunter wrote:

n7axw wrote:Thank you for the explanation, gcomeau. My familiarity with scientific method doesn't go all that deep. I had a college course about 40 years ago.. This past winter I had my cataracts removed in the course of which I was part of a clinical study testing out new lenses. It turned out that I was in the experimental group rather than the control group and ended up with 20/20 vision...

Don

-

Are those fancy artificial lenses? A write up a few years ago sounded like they'd be pretty sweet.

All I really know is that after surgery, they replace the lens with new ones. With the old style they are fixed for a standard setting and people usually need glasses afterward to correct their vision. The ones I got are supposed to be a bit more like trifocals adjusted for near, immediate and distant. The way it worked out I am 20/20 with both eyes together. The right eye helps out the left a bit for intermediate and near. They offered laser surgery to correct the right eye a bit for distance. But the doc said that if we did that, I would lose some with the near and intermediate. He said that in my position, he wouldn't do it. So that was where we left it.

Don

-