el oh fucking el
I guess that's what you get when you buy snake oil from the snake oil salesman thinking the snake oil will cure you. Natural selection at work: Those too stupid to see a wolf in sheep's clothing will get fucking ate by the wolf. Only this time the wolf is wearing a bloody sheep carcass and suffers from brain damage
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/heal ... reddit.com
Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
Re: Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
EHHHHHHH the independent isn't the best and most objective "news" organization but I'll bite. I assume the study in question is https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/a ... 3X2030505X
If you read the study they are doing a meta analysis of 17 studies, only 3 of those studies were randomized studies. If one of those studies was the study done with the veterans hospital, that one was already debunked. They're also throwing in published and unpublished studies into the data mix.
This concerns me.
Study quality
Risk of bias was assessed with ROBIN-I for non-randomised studies (n=26) and Rob2 for RCT (n=3) (Figures S1-S2). Three RCT had some concerns [39,40,51] and one interventional non-randomized study had critical risk of bias [24]. Among the observational studies, fifteen articles had a moderate or serious risk of bias [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,41,42,44,46, 47, 48,56,58] and ten studies had a critical risk of bias [23,43,49,50,52, 53, 54,59,60,65]. Eleven observational studies did not report adjusted effect sizes to control confusion and selection bias [23,24,43,44,49,53,54,57,59,60,65]. Quality of studies was lowered by the lack of information about the assignment of treatment, the time between start of follow-up and start of intervention), some unbalanced co-intervention with other antiviral and antibiotic drugs and imbalance between groups for confounders such as comorbidities and age.
So going back to the first thing i said, out of those 17 studies they used, only 3 weren't at risk of serious bias. Not shocked, that's what happens when you don't randomize your n.
This is telling, the hypothesis of the study at the very beginning was 26/27%
Hydroxychloroquine and mortality
After excluding studies with critical bias, the pooled RR for COVID-19 mortality was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.65-1.06, n=17 studies) indicating no significant association between HCQ and COVID-19 mortality (Figure 2). Under the hypothesis of having a baseline mortality risk of 26% (based on ISARIC WHO CCP-UK cohort [29]), these pooled relative risk values would correspond to a non-significant risk difference of -4.4% [29] (Table 1). There was a significant subgroup difference between RCT and non-randomized studies (Pheterogeneity between = 0.03) with respectively RRRCT=1.09 (95%CI: 0.97-1.24) and RRnon-randomized= 0.79 (95%CI: 0.60-1.04) (Figure 2). Among observational studies with a moderate risk of bias, we found no association between HCQ and mortality RRmoderate bias=1.03 (95%CI: 0.91-1.17, I2=0%, n=7 studies) with no subgroup heterogeneity (Table S4, Figure S3). Results remained nonsignificant with influence analysis (Figure S4). The Bayesian meta-analysis led to similar results with a pooled RR for mortality of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.72-1.14, n=17 studies) (Table S5, Figure S5). In sensitivity analysis, after inclusion of studies with critical risk of bias, the global RR was marginally not significant 0.80 (95%CI: 0.65-1.00) (Table S6).
Conclusion
Hydroxychloroquine alone was not associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients but the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin significantly increased mortality.
If you read the study they are doing a meta analysis of 17 studies, only 3 of those studies were randomized studies. If one of those studies was the study done with the veterans hospital, that one was already debunked. They're also throwing in published and unpublished studies into the data mix.
This concerns me.
Study quality
Risk of bias was assessed with ROBIN-I for non-randomised studies (n=26) and Rob2 for RCT (n=3) (Figures S1-S2). Three RCT had some concerns [39,40,51] and one interventional non-randomized study had critical risk of bias [24]. Among the observational studies, fifteen articles had a moderate or serious risk of bias [13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18,41,42,44,46, 47, 48,56,58] and ten studies had a critical risk of bias [23,43,49,50,52, 53, 54,59,60,65]. Eleven observational studies did not report adjusted effect sizes to control confusion and selection bias [23,24,43,44,49,53,54,57,59,60,65]. Quality of studies was lowered by the lack of information about the assignment of treatment, the time between start of follow-up and start of intervention), some unbalanced co-intervention with other antiviral and antibiotic drugs and imbalance between groups for confounders such as comorbidities and age.
So going back to the first thing i said, out of those 17 studies they used, only 3 weren't at risk of serious bias. Not shocked, that's what happens when you don't randomize your n.
This is telling, the hypothesis of the study at the very beginning was 26/27%
Hydroxychloroquine and mortality
After excluding studies with critical bias, the pooled RR for COVID-19 mortality was 0.83 (95%CI: 0.65-1.06, n=17 studies) indicating no significant association between HCQ and COVID-19 mortality (Figure 2). Under the hypothesis of having a baseline mortality risk of 26% (based on ISARIC WHO CCP-UK cohort [29]), these pooled relative risk values would correspond to a non-significant risk difference of -4.4% [29] (Table 1). There was a significant subgroup difference between RCT and non-randomized studies (Pheterogeneity between = 0.03) with respectively RRRCT=1.09 (95%CI: 0.97-1.24) and RRnon-randomized= 0.79 (95%CI: 0.60-1.04) (Figure 2). Among observational studies with a moderate risk of bias, we found no association between HCQ and mortality RRmoderate bias=1.03 (95%CI: 0.91-1.17, I2=0%, n=7 studies) with no subgroup heterogeneity (Table S4, Figure S3). Results remained nonsignificant with influence analysis (Figure S4). The Bayesian meta-analysis led to similar results with a pooled RR for mortality of 0.93 (95%CI: 0.72-1.14, n=17 studies) (Table S5, Figure S5). In sensitivity analysis, after inclusion of studies with critical risk of bias, the global RR was marginally not significant 0.80 (95%CI: 0.65-1.00) (Table S6).
Conclusion
Hydroxychloroquine alone was not associated with reduced mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients but the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin significantly increased mortality.
Re: Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
Excellent analysis, Das Troll. I applaud your ability to do research rather than spout "hurr durr Trump bad lawl".
Fact: Trump isn't a doctor.
Fact: Anyone who takes medical advice from not a doctor is retarded.
Fact: Trump isn't a doctor.
Fact: Anyone who takes medical advice from not a doctor is retarded.
[IP: logged]
Re: Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
Well my view is people are talking about HCC like it's supposed to be some sort of panacea. Most pharma has a big chance of killing you as much as helping you. Hell the oxy epidemic in the USA is staggering and doctors keep prescribing these drugs even though they are killing people. I think you should be able to sit down with your doctor and have a talk. You can take these 2 drugs that have a good chance of helping you or you can take your chances with Covid. Nothing is perfect, it's all gradations of success.Helladamnleet wrote: ↑Thu Aug 27, 2020 6:43 pmExcellent analysis, Das Troll. I applaud your ability to do research rather than spout "hurr durr Trump bad lawl".
Fact: Trump isn't a doctor.
Fact: Anyone who takes medical advice from not a doctor is retarded.
Re: Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
I find it funny that people are so willing to take random drugs to fight off an illness that, once you take into account infection rate, has about a %0.001 chance of killing you.
It's early for me, so I'm not going to really do the math, but I've done the math and it's a comically low amount.
It's early for me, so I'm not going to really do the math, but I've done the math and it's a comically low amount.
[IP: logged]
Re: Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
Oh shit, exactly, what the scientists said, that Hydroxy alone does nothing and the combination increases your chance of dying. Wild. I guess the scientists were all wrong, and it - wait, no, that's the same thing. Case closed!
Re: Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
Well my point was the flawed data. Sure it will come out like that if your hypothesis before even going in was a 26 to 27% mortality rate and you use bad data to come to that conclusion. Bad surveying, possible p hacking, simple bias. You can make a survey say anything you want if you massage the data.
Re: Drug cocktail touted by Trump to treat coronavirus increases chance of death by 27%, study shows
I think the bigger point here is Trump isn't a doctor and nobody should have taken medical advice from him in the first place.
Trump 2020
Trump 2020
[IP: logged]