WASHINGTON — President Trump can’t seem to stop talking about hydroxychloroquine.
There is currently no proven treatment for the coronavirus and Covid-19, the respiratory disease it causes, leading political figures to grasp for potentially effective stopgap measures as the global death toll nears 100,000. Hydroxychloroquine, used for decades as a medication to treat malaria and lupus, has generated by far the most excitement — within the Trump administration in particular — despite a lack of scientific evidence that it’s effective against Covid-19. -snip
Lets hope it actually works and works without severe side-effects.
Originally posted by Robtard
Fact-checking Trump’s claims about hydroxychloroquine, the antimalarial drug he’s touting as a coronavirus treatmentWASHINGTON — President Trump can’t seem to stop talking about hydroxychloroquine.
There is currently no proven treatment for the coronavirus and Covid-19, the respiratory disease it causes, leading political figures to grasp for potentially effective stopgap measures as the global death toll nears 100,000. Hydroxychloroquine, used for decades as a medication to treat malaria and lupus, has generated by far the most excitement — within the Trump administration in particular — despite a lack of scientific evidence that it’s effective against Covid-19. -snip
Lets hope it actually works and works without severe side-effects.
Was this article written before February 25th?
Originally posted by Surtur
No
Then how can they seriously lead with "There is currently no proven treatment for the coronavirus and Covid-19..." when we have the first known credible public research ending on February 25th and multiple other studies since then?
This is publicly accessible information - it is not hidden behind a paywall.
Originally posted by Robtard
IIRC something still in the "testing" phase, even with some positive results isn't considered "proven".
You prove H1, H2, and/or reject H0. If they set out to prove their H1, yeah, it's proven. For that study.
What you're looking for is, "A meta-analysis was done and over 100 studies were reviewed. All studies using poor sampling methods that do not meet .d.adslfkjadf;lk ljkadsk ;ljk;ljkadfkj;l which lends itself to the notion that xyz can do 123."
And, yeah, looking at the number of studies already finished, and with the absurdly large numbers of "human trials" being done, we should be at that point. We could probably do a meta-analysis by this point. The problem is dosing protocols and contraindications with other drugs: you have to control for that and it can be very hard.
Originally posted by Robtard
I just did above, surt. Odd you dodged.Also, you've been on here since at least 4:38am. and it's 8:38pm your time Log off and take a break.
He has nothing better to do just like all of us.
I can only look at excel sheets, slide decks, budgets, etc. for so long before we do the daily or twice daily bang. She's taking a nap and I don't want to play Borderlands 3 at the moment. So here we are, talking about science stuff (which is nice, I guess).
Originally posted by dadudemon
You prove H1, H2, and/or reject H0. If they set out to prove their H1, yeah, it's proven. For that study.What you're looking for is, "A meta-analysis was done and over 100 studies were reviewed. All studies using poor sampling methods that do not meet .d.adslfkjadf;lk ljkadsk ;ljk;ljkadfkj;l which lends itself to the notion that xyz can do 123."
And, yeah, looking at the number of studies already finished, and with the absurdly large numbers of "human trials" being done, we should be at that point. We could probably do a meta-analysis by this point. The problem is dosing protocols and contraindications with other drugs: you have to control for that and it can be very hard.
IIRC, well the science community disagrees with you. When whichever drug is fully tested and labeled a "cure", then it will have been "proven". As of right now it's still in the "testing" phase, with some positive results.