Link doesn't really give much info on the study's methods. Was this a retrospective study? What was inclusion/exclusion criteria that determined who was in the study, who got what drugs, or lack of drugs? Did one group get a placebo or not? Was it completely randomized, single blinded, double blinded? Was the 84% a relative reduction or an absolute reduction? Why did 2/3 of the study not get the meds? What were the comorbidities in those that died, those that were hospitalized, compared with those that werent.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Link doesn't really give much info on the study's methods. Was this a retrospective study? What was inclusion/exclusion criteria that determined who was in the study, who got what drugs, or lack of drugs? Did one group get a placebo or not? Was it completely randomized, single blinded, double blinded? Was the 84% a relative reduction or an absolute reduction? Why did 2/3 of the study not get the meds? What were the comorbidities in those that died, those that were hospitalized, compared with those that werent.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258?fbclid=IwAR2ThVW8heoWpjCJNALqNZOklRcDarS9csetteKE_jpT8U0l3-SH6IeJDHg

Retrospective, relative reduction.

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Link doesn't really give much info on the study's methods. Was this a retrospective study? What was inclusion/exclusion criteria that determined who was in the study, who got what drugs, or lack of drugs? Did one group get a placebo or not? Was it completely randomized, single blinded, double blinded? Was the 84% a relative reduction or an absolute reduction? Why did 2/3 of the study not get the meds? What were the comorbidities in those that died, those that were hospitalized, compared with those that werent.

---

Whoa. You managed to fit every covid treatment buzzword into one single post. Bravo man.

Pelayo said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Link doesn't really give much info on the study's methods. Was this a retrospective study? What was inclusion/exclusion criteria that determined who was in the study, who got what drugs, or lack of drugs? Did one group get a placebo or not? Was it completely randomized, single blinded, double blinded? Was the 84% a relative reduction or an absolute reduction? Why did 2/3 of the study not get the meds? What were the comorbidities in those that died, those that were hospitalized, compared with those that werent.

---

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258?fbclid=IwAR2ThVW8heoWpjCJNALqNZOklRcDarS9csetteKE_jpT8U0l3-SH6IeJDHg

Retrospective, relative reduction.

---

I figured as much.

It's late, but I glanced through the paper. Unless I missed it, there is no analysis of the untreated group. The only data provided on this group is that they are patients that tested positive from the same community. We don't know if they were rich or poor, if they had comorbidities or not, what their ages were, or anything. Again, I may have missed it, it is late, I'm tired, and I'll take a closer look later.


Also, just for others that might be wondering the difference in absolute vs relative risk reduction. Let's say you give a pill to 1000 people to prevent an hospitalization for COVID, and you give placebo to 1000. In the placebo group you get 2 hospitalizations, in the treatment group you get one. Relatively, that demonstrates a 50% risk reduction, which sounds fairly impressive. However in the abosolute terms it is a 0.1% reduction. Not as impressive.

AggieAuditor said:

---

bigtruckguy3500 said:

---

Link doesn't really give much info on the study's methods. Was this a retrospective study? What was inclusion/exclusion criteria that determined who was in the study, who got what drugs, or lack of drugs? Did one group get a placebo or not? Was it completely randomized, single blinded, double blinded? Was the 84% a relative reduction or an absolute reduction? Why did 2/3 of the study not get the meds? What were the comorbidities in those that died, those that were hospitalized, compared with those that werent.

---

Whoa. You managed to fit every covid treatment buzzword into one single post. Bravo man.

---

Those aren't "buzzwords", that's how you give proper context to a study. Most physicians asks these questions about every study they hear about it, even well before COVID was a thing.

Thx OP. Good info folks need to know. This is a cheap, widely available drug that can also be taken regularly (as my wife with a rheum. issue does). It's a shame it was politicized by the doomers, but the information is now available.

Pointing out methodological flaws != politicization
Promoting a drug because your favorite politician promoted it despite evidence showing no benefit = politicization.

I'm guessing that a lot of people who will never accept any study that shows the effectiveness of HCQ will gladly accept mask mandates because they just make sense.

As a physician I have a hard time getting my mind around how the use of Plaquenil became so emotionally charged.

The question whether it has a role early in disease remains unanswered, this study is good enough to base PRDBS on using their categories for early use, Would love to see it.

It's cheap, relatively innocuous, and readily available so it should be investigated more. No practitioner should be condemned for thoughtfully trying it as a therapeutic in reasonable doses and no practitioner should be faulted for not using it. It's disgusting to me when medical decision making becomes politicized.

Everything is politicized these days and we have a media that constantly lies to us. The same people that tell us that a safe drug is dangerous also tell us that mass crowded protests are safe.

Gumby said:

---

Everything is politicized these days and we have a media that constantly lies to us. The same people that tell us that a safe drug is dangerous also tell us that mass crowded protests are safe.

---

It will be sad if HCQ could have saved thousands of lives and stopped covid early on.

Just for political reasons people may have died needlessly.

Sad.

Politicians have been lying since they were created. Statist propaganda media is a newer phenomenon in the US.