Sci/Tech Anti-malarial Drugs unsafe for use to treat COVID

Welcome to our Community
Wanting to join the rest of our members? Feel free to Sign Up today.
Sign up

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
Only a simpleton (possibly an autistic simpleton) would think assessing coronavirus response effectiveness comes down to a simple equation of per capita deaths. I could go into that, but I fear that you won't understand. Here's something even you might be able to get your around around though.

You want to know why the US is failing? Not just because of the death toll as it stands now, but because of the failure to bring the infection rate down (which will mean more deaths later). I personally don't trust the US death numbers any more than the Chinese numbers, as there have been some odd discrepancies with the data, but we will leave that aside for now.

Italy active coronavirus case increase in the last two weeks = 12,427

France = 26,950

Spain = 15,350

US = 319,192

You see the problem, sweetheart? It's not just about the deaths that have already been (massively under-) counted, it's the ones that are still to come.
It's okay, bro. I wouldn't expect someone who feels their opinions to understand.
 

Dr. Prosper Meniere

Do you want to bet against me?
Dec 1, 2015
5,448
9,474
It's okay, bro. I wouldn't expect someone who feels their opinions to understand.
An expectedly effeminate response. That's what one has to resort to when it turns out the statistics he's been claiming support his argument actually show that he is full of shit.

You just ignore the data when it doesn't suit your narrative - exactly what you were chastising others for earlier.

As a your hero would say: Sad!
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
An expectedly effeminate response. That's what one has to resort to when it turns out the statistics he's been claiming support his argument actually show that he is full of shit.

You just ignore the data when it doesn't suit your narrative - exactly what you were chastising others for earlier.

As a your hero would say: Sad!
Except that you cherry picked your stats, so, yeah.
 

Vagabond

it's what it is...
Oct 21, 2015
7,831
10,764
I'm asking you what in your own words the peer review process means to you. I'm not trying to be facetious or leading. I genuinely want to know what meaning that gives to you in this case. I'm a Communication scholar, so I'm interested in how people make sense of information. Sorry if my comment sounded cutie piey.
My understanding is that it’s like having someone who’s an expert on the subject to proof-read, make sure all angles (questions) are covered.

Like if it’s about the virus, I’m assuming experts from all the fields, (not just doctors) related to the study would have to OK it before going out to the public
 

Dr. Prosper Meniere

Do you want to bet against me?
Dec 1, 2015
5,448
9,474
Except that you cherry picked your stats, so, yeah.
It seems that you don't understand what cherry picking means.

I presented stats from the last two weeks (which happens to be the standard coronavirus incubation period) which shows that the US has had 30x the net increase in active cases compared to the country with the second most deaths and far more per capita than any hard hit European nation. I then argued that this showed that the US was currently doing very badly in its containment efforts, and argued that we need to take that into account when judging how well the US is doing, not just on currently recorded deaths. That's not cherry picking at all. That's a perfect alignment between argument and evidence and it is not misleading in the slightest.

Your insistence that you care about stats while claiming Canada is doing worse than the US, that China is suppressing its deaths (more than the factors that apply to all countries) despite having no data to back that up and not understanding what cherry picking means is both adorable and sad.
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
It seems that you don't understand what cherry picking means.

I presented stats from the last two weeks (which happens to be the standard coronavirus incubation period) which shows that the US has had 30x the net increase in active cases compared to the country with the second most deaths and far more per capita than any hard hit European nation. I then argued that this showed that the US was currently doing very badly in its containment efforts, and argued that we need to take that into account when judging how well the US is doing, not just on currently recorded deaths. That's not cherry picking at all. That's a perfect alignment between argument and evidence and it is not misleading in the slightest.
So are Spain, Italy, France and the U.S. all in the same places in the pandemic, or is one closer to their peak than the others so using an immediate chronological snapshot is grossly inaccurate?

I get that you spend a lot of your free time obsessing over the Big Orange Buffoon, but people pretending he handled this any worse than any other world leader are doing an incredible amount of mental gymnastics just to slander someone they don't like. Except for Xi, he deserves any criticism people want to throw his way.
 

Dr. Prosper Meniere

Do you want to bet against me?
Dec 1, 2015
5,448
9,474
So are Spain, Italy, France and the U.S. all in the same places in the pandemic, or is one closer to their peak than the others so using an immediate chronological snapshot is grossly inaccurate?

I get that you spend a lot of your free time obsessing over the Big Orange Buffoon, but people pretending he handled this any worse than any other world leader are doing an incredible amount of mental gymnastics just to slander someone they don't like. Except for Xi, he deserves any criticism people want to throw his way.
It's not inaccurate at all, sweetheart. That we should consider the full implications of the chronology is literally my argument against your retardation. You're the one trying to put a temporal constraint on the data by only looking at per capita deaths that have been recorded so far and ignoring the badly needed context surrounding the totality of the data. Remember, I said that I wasn't going to go all the way into why a simplistic per capita comparison at this point is stupid, because I felt you were too dumb to understand or accept it, so I focused on just one important indicator. And of course, I was right.

Your conclusion is not at all backed up by the data. There's plenty of evidence to support the claim that America has done a shit job. And the emotional attachment to Trump and Xi is your issue, not mine - the only time I mentioned Trump in this thread was in an unrelated point about his hyping of an unproven drug, because I actually understand that the US is a federal system where success and failure will depend on state interventions and the permanent bureaucracy as much as Trump. You keep doing the things you're accusing me and others of doing, which again is both adorable and sad.
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
It's not inaccurate at all, sweetheart. That we should consider the full implications of the chronology is literally my argument against your retardation. You're the one trying to put a temporal constraint on the data by only looking at per capita deaths that have been recorded so far and ignoring the badly needed context surrounding the totality of the data. Remember, I said that I wasn't going to go all the way into why a simplistic per capita comparison at this point is stupid, because I felt you were too dumb to understand or accept it, so I focused on just one important indicator. And of course, I was right.

Your conclusion is not at all backed up by the data. There's plenty of evidence to support the claim that America has done a shit job. And the emotional attachment to Trump and Xi is your issue, not mine - the only time I mentioned Trump in this thread was in an unrelated point about his hyping of an unproven drug, because I actually understand that the US is a federal system where success and failure will depend on state interventions and the permanent bureaucracy as much as Trump. You keep doing the things you're accusing me and others of doing, which again is both adorable and sad.
You know what? You're absolutely right. Skewed data is the most accurate form of data. Thank you for your insight.

p.s. Don't think I haven't noticed and that I am not sincerely flattered.
 

kneeblock

Read Achille Mbembe
Apr 18, 2015
9,938
18,492
My understanding is that it’s like having someone who’s an expert on the subject to proof-read, make sure all angles (questions) are covered.

Like if it’s about the virus, I’m assuming experts from all the fields, (not just doctors) related to the study would have to OK it before going out to the public
That's a good intuition. Generally peer review is a little simpler than that. It just means 3 people read it and agree that it should be recommended for publication because it's interesting and seems to make sense either logically or mathematically, depending on the type of study. There's also typically an editor involved if there's a journal it's being published in (e.g. The Lancet, Nature, Science) and they have the ability to desk reject or override a rejection. The 3 readers are more or less selected from a pool of whoever is available to the journal that's published in it before and seems to have written on similar topics.

It's a hard process to get through and is where many papers go to die or to be revised and resubmitted until they satisfy Reviewer #2's questions/problems. In a situation like the one we're in, there are institutional studies being conducted alongside academic studies for publication. Institutions such as research centers often put out reports. The VA is one such institution that would release an institutional report and then the individual study authors could submit their findings to a journal for peer review, which takes anywhere from 1-6 months depending on the journal. Faster now likely for COVID related stuff, but there's a glut of it so institutional reports can come out on a much faster timeline. Institutions also typically have their own internal peer review process so they don't just fire off anything, but it's always going to be a bit more susceptible to blind spots.

What there definitely are not are a variety of different people from multiple fields reviewing papers in any case. Fields are much too siloed for that. It's usually specialists only. In terms of how they make studies public, that usually has to do with a combination of institutional or Journal PR folks and their translations of the findings to press and the study authors own ability to effectively communicate what their work suggests. In a time like this, studies are open to a lot of public scrutiny and can fall into disfavor quickly, even while just being on preprint servers (places where any scholar can upload stuff before it's reviewed). In preprint, theoretically anyone can come and trash your study, which is actually useful because a chemist or statistician may have insights an epidemiologist isn't so great at.

There is a lot of arbitrariness to the peer review process, but your inclination to find it generally rigorous is on point. It tends to reward precaution and making only very limited claims about anything because of the belief that something is definitely false unless it stands up to multiple trials and studies demonstrating that there might probably under these set circumstances be an effect.

That's why the first burden of proof isn't on the anti-malarial drugs effectiveness, but on whether they can do harm, whom they might effect differently and how they might do harm in a way that is measurable and able to be generalized across populations. That's generally what we need to address any medical problem, though the exigencies of the moment definitely incentivize haste. The peer review process isn't meant to accommodate this haste which is why researchers have often used alternate publishing methods. It's not unusual. And it's also generally more acceptable when identifying risks as opposed to positive effects.
 

Vagabond

it's what it is...
Oct 21, 2015
7,831
10,764
That's a good intuition. Generally peer review is a little simpler than that. It just means 3 people read it and agree that it should be recommended for publication because it's interesting and seems to make sense either logically or mathematically, depending on the type of study. There's also typically an editor involved if there's a journal it's being published in (e.g. The Lancet, Nature, Science) and they have the ability to desk reject or override a rejection. The 3 readers are more or less selected from a pool of whoever is available to the journal that's published in it before and seems to have written on similar topics.

It's a hard process to get through and is where many papers go to die or to be revised and resubmitted until they satisfy Reviewer #2's questions/problems. In a situation like the one we're in, there are institutional studies being conducted alongside academic studies for publication. Institutions such as research centers often put out reports. The VA is one such institution that would release an institutional report and then the individual study authors could submit their findings to a journal for peer review, which takes anywhere from 1-6 months depending on the journal. Faster now likely for COVID related stuff, but there's a glut of it so institutional reports can come out on a much faster timeline. Institutions also typically have their own internal peer review process so they don't just fire off anything, but it's always going to be a bit more susceptible to blind spots.

What there definitely are not are a variety of different people from multiple fields reviewing papers in any case. Fields are much too siloed for that. It's usually specialists only. In terms of how they make studies public, that usually has to do with a combination of institutional or Journal PR folks and their translations of the findings to press and the study authors own ability to effectively communicate what their work suggests. In a time like this, studies are open to a lot of public scrutiny and can fall into disfavor quickly, even while just being on preprint servers (places where any scholar can upload stuff before it's reviewed). In preprint, theoretically anyone can come and trash your study, which is actually useful because a chemist or statistician may have insights an epidemiologist isn't so great at.

There is a lot of arbitrariness to the peer review process, but your inclination to find it generally rigorous is on point. It tends to reward precaution and making only very limited claims about anything because of the belief that something is definitely false unless it stands up to multiple trials and studies demonstrating that there might probably under these set circumstances be an effect.

That's why the first burden of proof isn't on the anti-malarial drugs effectiveness, but on whether they can do harm, whom they might effect differently and how they might do harm in a way that is measurable and able to be generalized across populations. That's generally what we need to address any medical problem, though the exigencies of the moment definitely incentivize haste. The peer review process isn't meant to accommodate this haste which is why researchers have often used alternate publishing methods. It's not unusual. And it's also generally more acceptable when identifying risks as opposed to positive effects.
so what do you think about all this? Based on the information that's been reported in articles or the media, HCQ is a no go or is there some hope still?
 

MartyLife

There Is No Spoon
Feb 7, 2020
462
591
Ultraviolet light inside the body is better than HCQ.


This poor woman doesn't recognize comedic genius when she sees it.

Namaste
 

silentsinger

Momofuku
Jun 23, 2015
21,051
14,448

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
Know what? I came round to him with the impeachment, he's just become more and more weird as the days go on.
I 'm not being smug because I didn't hav the right to vote but thank fuck so many people have gone from supporters to whothfucksthisguy.gif. I don't really like Biden either. Earth paging Micelle Obama for president please.
Michelle Obama? What in the fuck is wrong with people. You know that leadership isn't sexually transmitted, right?
 

silentsinger

Momofuku
Jun 23, 2015
21,051
14,448
Yes, he had a career before hand. He was accepted by the public as being a business mogul. Michelle Obama's previous job was fucking her husband.
Oh come on, grump pants.That's harsh. "fucking her husband" isn't very nice.She really seems like a nice woman. The amount of failed bankrupt and proper dodgy businesses with Trump are ridiculous. What has she done wrong? Please don't utter a word wrong, I don't and didn't ever want him to fail because that means the country fails. When he got elected I was behind him.
 

MartyLife

There Is No Spoon
Feb 7, 2020
462
591
Ultraviolet light inside the body is better than HCQ.


This poor woman doesn't recognize comedic genius when she sees it.

Namaste
What a killjoy this guy is:
Don't eat or inject yourself with disinfectant, warns FDA commissioner

One never knows if injecting ones self with disinfectant would work... until it is tried.
Perhaps the president is onto something; and it only takes a few devoted followers to find out.
Could be a miracle cure....... or a comedy show.


Namaste
 

ConorMcGregorsBeard

Stewart Era Liberal
Jul 22, 2015
31,589
30,525
Oh come on, grump pants.That's harsh. "fucking her husband" isn't very nice.She really seems like a nice woman. The amount of failed bankrupt and proper dodgy businesses with Trump are ridiculous. What has she done wrong? Please don't utter a word wrong, I don't and didn't ever want him to fail because that means the country fails. When he got elected I was behind him.
I think she's probably a great lady, but she's super under qualified to be in charge of nuclear weapons, the economy, etc.
 

kneeblock

Read Achille Mbembe
Apr 18, 2015
9,938
18,492
so what do you think about all this? Based on the information that's been reported in articles or the media, HCQ is a no go or is there some hope still?
In my view, we've found it can't be broadly used because it has some safety limitations. Now we have to learn more about the precise nature of those limits and see where it could potentially be helpful as well as where it will be harmful. As of now, the risks need to be centered and it would be a waste to invest in mass production of the drug until we know more. Trials can probably continue until we have more data, but it's likely we need to continue looking elsewhere.

New reports suggest a vaccine may even be insufficient due to how coronaviruses behave so we're really screwed overall for technological interventions and likely should continue to stick to social ones for awhile.