Do you have the links for " Multiple trials, thousands of patients", so that we can analyze them? Are these the same trials that had to be retracted? Did they start the drug when it was too late, since it is well know to work much better early on? Did any of them use zinc with it? Did they use a toxic dose, or did they use the typical dose that has been given to patients for Lupus or malaria for 50 years?
Happy reading. As they say in Spanish, gay gezundt.https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2019014?fbclid=iwar3gnu4zf9_2yz8uujz8nh2jdhlgzkdxjbzfpeaplohg_36rk-gdwvu5bf0https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.15.20151852v1.full.pdf?fbclid=iwar3x2mofvnnvrz4zfjnl2oihznaqoiwd4w_xt0gxj3xebu5hlwtibpppgpchttps://www.youcanknowthings.com/post/that-newsweek-article-review-of-yale-epidemiologist-s-key-to-defeating-covid?fbclid=iwar3yrgaqpmwadfff0-chh9s2zxskshumxamm0btq09o9aii5qedfbrittrc
Thanks, I will try to find time to wade through these.
I have already skimmed thru these ( don't have the energy to be thorough) and it at least looks bad for the old HCQ, Henry Ford, India and Switzerland be danged. However, in article number 3, I see this:
"What is an 'adequate' control group and why is it important? A study must have a control group (a similar group of patients who did not get the treatment) to know if any benefit you see is actually from the drug(s) and not from something else about
the population you are studying. ................All of these can impact clinical outcomes, thus an adequate control group is essential to make any meaningful conclusions about
whether or not a drug really works. So what do I mean by 'adequate control group?' I mean that we can be reasonably convinced that the patients in the control group are similar enough to the patients in the treatment group that we can think of them as roughly equal groups of people (at least, equal in terms of factors that impact how sick they become / their risk of dying)...".
So, seems to me, the Henry Ford Study had an adequate control group. That is, if we trust the Henry Ford researchers to make sure that all groups were about
equally sick and had equal co-morbidities. And, looking over the details in the study, it looks like they are certainly in the ball park. For example, for the co-morbity of race, I see that in the neither med group(who had the twice as high death rate) there were 45% blacks and 60% in the HCQ alone, and in the HCQ+Zith group(middle death rate) there were 54% black. Since blacks have been dying at a much higher rate than whites, tese line up favors the "Neither drug" group. Same for BMI, slightly favors the "neither drug" group, 29% vs 33%. In fact, BMI > 30 was 39% for the neither drug group and 52% for the HCQ group. Going down through the table, I see some are a little worse comorbidity with the "neither drug group" and a little more sometime with the "HCQ alone group"- for instance about
50% more chronic lung disease in the HCQ group(that seems like a big one) and more hypertension and about
30% more diabetes. So, some of these(but not all) very important comorbidities were stacked slightly against the HCQ alone group or against the HCQ + AZM.
But over all, it looks like these groups were pretty closely matched. So, it appears there is indeed what she calls "an adequate control group". So, therefore, the Henry Ford Study is a controlled study. And it conflicts with the studies in the links you have provided. Hmmmmm. So, which to go by? I'm not sure. And the Henry Ford trial had NO heart related SEs, some of the studies you linked to did.
But here is a big one that some one brought up earlier: did some of those who got HCQ also get steroids? Yes. But guess what? Some in ALL groups got steroid, 36% in the "no HCL or AZM" group, and 78% in the hydroxychloroquine(HCQ) only group, and 74% in the "both drug" group. So on the one hand, more steroid in the HCQ alone group may have favored them and accounted for some of their fewer deaths. OTOH, the "both drug" group got steroid at almost an identical rate to the "HCQ" group, but had a 30% higher death rates than that group. So, that variable probably accounted for at least some of the results in favor of the HCQ alone group, but was it significant? We need a study on steroid alone to see how much that drops death rate, if any.https://www.ijidonline.com/action/showfulltablehtml?ishtml=true&tableid=tbl0005&pii=s1201-9712%2820%2930534-8
Post Edited (BillyBob@388) : 8/8/2020 3:40:26 PM (GMT-6)