cone said:
wonder if they're going to tear these findings a new ******* like do they every HCQ finding
anecdotal evidence! No control group! No peer reviewed research! Wait two weeks! 12-18 months until a vaccine! Shelter in place!cone said:
wonder if they're going to tear these findings a new ******* like do they every HCQ finding
no need to be an ass.Quote:
anecdotal evidence! No control group! No peer reviewed research! Wait two weeks! 12-18 months until a vaccine! Shelter in place!
am i doing this right?
cone said:
you're doing it right
the whole if you don't have a RCT then there's no proof it works is pretty annoying
it's early stage pandemic. repeated frontline anecdotes are good enough to throw money at production capacity. you pick a half dozen things that look promising and stand them up now.
NawlinsAg01 said:no need to be an ass.Quote:
anecdotal evidence! No control group! No peer reviewed research! Wait two weeks! 12-18 months until a vaccine! Shelter in place!
am i doing this right?
Gilead is conducting good science...I'm excited about positive trends here, but yes we still have to see what the data shows.
Infection_Ag11 said:
The responses in this thread are a sad indictment of the science education in our country.
The Gilead data sounds promising
Diyala Nick said:Infection_Ag11 said:
The responses in this thread are a sad indictment of the science education in our country.
The Gilead data sounds promising
I think the critique (at least mine) is that there are A LOT of academics who deem any data worthless if it lacks a control group. That sort of thinking (dealing only in absolutes) seems very dogmatic.
I get the biases that RCTs mitigate, and I'm all for it. But there is also value in incomplete and inconclusive data as well, especially in the absence of additional evidence.
BadMoonRisin said:anecdotal evidence! No control group! No peer reviewed research! Wait two weeks! 12-18 months until a vaccine! Shelter in place!cone said:
wonder if they're going to tear these findings a new ******* like do they every HCQ finding
am i doing this right?
I'll take this as good news. Small piece, but good news. Wish everyone else could at least try to be a little optimistic.
cone said:
wonder if they're going to tear these findings a new ******* like do they every HCQ finding
cone said:
wonder if they're going to tear these findings a new ******* like do they every HCQ finding
Infection_Ag11 said:Diyala Nick said:Infection_Ag11 said:
The responses in this thread are a sad indictment of the science education in our country.
The Gilead data sounds promising
I think the critique (at least mine) is that there are A LOT of academics who deem any data worthless if it lacks a control group. That sort of thinking (dealing only in absolutes) seems very dogmatic.
I get the biases that RCTs mitigate, and I'm all for it. But there is also value in incomplete and inconclusive data as well, especially in the absence of additional evidence.
In a disease with such a low overall mortality, data isnt clinically meaningful without a control group because you have no idea who would have gotten better regardless of what you did (because most will). Anecdotal "evidence" is even worse because it's rife with bias in addition to the previously mentioned issue.
You're going to see this play out with HCQ it appears. Despite all the anecdotes and poorly designed studies (the French study effectively amounted to academic fraud) the controlled trials awaiting peer review that have leaked appear to show no benefit.
Medicine is different than the business world. It's more nuanced and less predictable and there is no such thing as proof.
I laughed at this comment. I remember sitting through my grad schools stats classes where the professor took us through most Nobel prize winning research on international trade flow, currency pricing, efficient markets, etc. and highlighted the abysmal statistical underpinning for most every piece of work. He concluded that "you don't really have to prove anything to get the praise!"Quote:
Medicine is different than the business world. It's more nuanced and less predictable and there is no such thing as proof.
Quote:
One of the testing sites in the United States, the University of Chicago, has recruited 125 people with COVID-19, 113 with severe disease, treating them with daily infusions of remdesivir. Kathleen Mullane, DO, PharmD, a professor of medicine and the chief of clinical trials in the Section of Infectious Diseases at University of Chicago Medicine, who is leading the remdesivir trials there, recently led a video discussion with colleagues about the trial results, according to a report in Stat.
During the discussion, Dr. Mullane shared some positive findings but refrained from drawing definitive conclusions from the early data, particularly with respect to the information from the study in severely affected patients, which does not have a control group. She did note that they have seen high fevers fall "quite quickly" in remdesivir-treated patients and patients weaning "off ventilators a day after starting therapy."
Katherine K. Perez, PharmD, an infectious diseases pharmacist at Houston Methodist Hospital, another trial site, noted that "early results are promising" there, too. In a press release from the hospital, she explained that "courses have been well tolerated, and a number of COVID-19 patients who have undergone treatment with remdesivir are showing signs of recovery and have been released from the hospital to go home." Acknowledging that it is too early to tell, Dr. Perez noted that there are "indications that treatment with remdesivir can possibly stave off" intubation.
