Quote:
Originally Posted by Lzen
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUD_...ature=youtu.be
This doctor takes apart the recent study published in The Lancet. Now I know some people will just say this is one person, blah, blah. But that's not what I'm looking for here. I want the arrogant people who are so sure that Hydroxychloriquine will not work against COVID 19 to explain to me where he is wrong, where all of the people that signed a letter questioning the study got it wrong, etc. Now I admit that I am not educated in this area but this person sounds to me as though he is very educated with these things. This doctor says he no longer has faith in The Lancet due to this being published. Is he wrong? Why? Let's hear it.
And for those of you who say that you only trust science and want to learn and educate yourselves, will you watch this and learn some things? Or will you just ignore this and continue to be led by people who may not have your best interests in mind?
|
He starts by asking for something that is in the works--an RCT. The WHO, your boogeyman, is conducting a five-armed RCT right now called the SOLIDARITY Trial. The very trial that he's asking for just stopped recruitment in the hydroxychloroquine arm due to concerns over safety and efficacy--that is--they are stopping early because the results are so bad that it is likely not worth continuing.
With that said, observational trials are not "bad science" as he claims. That shows a complete misunderstanding of what science is. Observational trials have limitations, and those limitations are greater than one finds in an RCT. That's why we strive for RCTs. But in cases where we don't yet have the time, funding, or ability to initiate and compile the data for said RCTs, observational trials still have value, and several of them together, have greater value.
The errors in the Lancet study that were caught are an indication of the value of peer review. While it would be nice to have a perfect study, those of us that look at these often will tell you that there is no such thing, which is why they are looked over in such exacting detail given the consequences. Those errors are also comparatively minor and did not affect the underlying conclusions or hazard ratios in any meaningful fashion.
If you don't believe the Lancet study, then you are more than welcome to look at studies published in the New England Journal and JAMA, each of which had thousands of patients enrolled and found no benefit to hydroxychloroquine use.
Or, you can use Raoult's study with 22 people with mysterious attrition in six and no control group or Peak Prosperity.
By the way, here is your "source" talking about bad science:
https://www.peakprosperity.com/bombs...uci-connected/
A conspiracy theorist website claiming that Fauci could be connected to the creation of SARS-CoV-2 in a lab, urging its visitors to invest in gold. Taco John would be proud.
But yeah, we're the arrogant ones, not the guy who has no ****ing clue what he's talking about, tutting-tutting this bullshit.