Quote:
Originally Posted by Lurker
Geno Smith weighs in on this at 28m44s.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUD_wvkNhnk&t=28m44s
These responses are parodies of themselves. I actually thought "At last! People are starting to wake up to Hamas' incredible bias and are mocking him!"
As I read on, I realized it was a serious response. This shit is laughable.
What you idiots don't get is IT'S NOT SCIENCE! It's propaganda. It's politics. This is why DJ's posts were far more relevant than Hamas' posts are. Lawyers are much more aware of politics than pharmacists are of epidemiology. I wish people would just pause and ask themselves some honest questions instead of perpetuating their smug ignorance.
But hey, Hamas is really smart and he's the expert here! Science!!!! |
Science works on a pretty clear dictum in this case: you must reject the null hypothesis.
The null hypothesis for all therapeutics is that hydoxychloroquine has no efficacy for the treatment of COVID-19.
What evidence can you find that rejects the null hypothesis?
I, again, can point to large, observational trials using over 10,000 patients in each case that have been conducted all over the world. They have been published
here,
here, and
here. Every one of them failed to reject the null hyptothesis.
I have spoken at length about the limitations of observational trials, in fact, I seem to remember someone complaining about me bringing it up.
Who was that? Oh yeah:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Lurker
I wish you you and Hamas would knock it off with the stupid shit about RCT. You don't need an RCT for every single ****ing thing, especially when none are available. People take thousands of calculated risks with incomplete information every single day. Just because there's no RCT doesn't mean the information is invalid.
|
Regarding the rest of your post, it's hard to take it very seriously when you conflate therapeutics, which concerns the efficacy of pharmacological interventions, with epidemiology, which is about the spread and control of disease.
I'll say again: what is biased about going off the evidence as presented in these trials?