Dr. Harvey Risch professor of Epidemiology from Yale School of Public Health is on CNN saying that

[still_one]

hydroxychloroquine works, but the reason those randomized studies didn't demonstrate that is because they were not done on the right people

[dem4decades]

1. Yale should be proud.

[greymattermom]

2. Admitting that he doesn't understand the meaning of the word

randomized. And he's from Yale?

[yardwork]

3. Statement from the dean of the school:

https://publichealth.yale.edu/news-article/26290/

[still_one]

8. Dr. Risch argues that the trials were used on the wrong patient groups, and that it should not have

been used on the most critically ill, patients, but those in the early course of the disease.

Problem is that Risch doesn't have a double blind study to justify his ascertain, and as far as I am aware is not in the process of performing one

Another disturbing thing I see about Risch in the interview is he seems to diminish the merit of double blind studies

As an aside, there was an anecdotal observation from the Henry Ford Hospital in Michigan which showed improvement with those on hydroxychloroquine, but the issue with that was those patients were also given glucocorticoid steroids, which have been shown to improve outcomes, and it also wasn't a randomized trial.

In the randomized studies I am aware of hydroxychloroquine did not show any difference in outcomes, while remdesivir, dexamethasone, and plasma from people who have recovered from the virus did

If Risch wants to push this, then he should setup a double blind study to determine efficacy

[yardwork]

11. It sounds like bad science. He sounds like a nut.

Also, he's a cancer researcher. Doesn't seem to know much about infectious disease.

[still_one]

12. I agree with you, and appreciate your link from Yale. Identifying him as an epidemiologist is

misleading without indicating what you pointed out, and epidemiologist in cancer research, not infections

[LisaL]

14. As far as I can tell, trials for hydroxy have been done

on seriously ill patients and less seriously ill patients. No benefit found for either.
Henry Ford study wasn't actually a clinical trial. So not a good way to do science.

[still_one]

17. .................................

"Another hope for hydroxychloroquine, that it might prevent people exposed to the virus from getting sick, also faded last week when David Boulware of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities, and colleagues published the results of the largest study to date of this strategy, called postexposure prophylaxis (PEP). The researchers sent either hydroxychloroquine or a placebo by mail to 821 people who had been in close contact with a COVID-19 patient for more than 10 minutes without proper protection. They reported in The New England Journal of Medicine that 12% of the people who took the drug went on to develop COVID-19 symptoms, versus 14% in a placebo group, a difference that was not statistically significant."


https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/06/three-big-studies-dim-hopes-hydroxychloroquine-can-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

[Azathoth]

20. He's a true believer

The problem with this kind of research is that there are so many variables, and the sample size is never quite big enough or well-controlled enough, that you will always have wiggle room to dismiss results if they don't fit what you expect to happen.

True belief is also why sincere HCQ acolytes aren't big on the concept of double-blind studies in the first place: since they "know" the drug works to begin with, it's unethical for them to even have a control group.

[NickB79]

42. He has a conclusion, and went in search of a study

Not how the scientific method operates

[JustABozoOnThisBus]

4. Yale: the school that gave us GWB.

Obviously, they produce geniuses. And others.

[Faux pas]

5. I

could hardly listen to the a-hole. Yale? Why don't I believe it?

[Squinch]

6. Why is ANYONE still discussing this? If the conservatives want to take it, let them. They

have all the same information we do, and they SHOULD know it increases the chances of death.

SO let them take it if they want to. It will hasten their deaths and reduce the cost to the system of keeping them alive all those extra weeks.

[Evergreen Emerald]

15. Follow the money

Money is the reason snake oil salesmen are still discussing this.

[dawg day]

34. Trump spent millions cornering the market on the drug

So he's got to peddle it fast!

[Drahthaardogs]

7. It probably does work for the few who have a cytokine storm

But there are safer and better drugs for that.

[Laelth]

9. +1 n/t

-Laelth

[still_one]

10. dexamethasone has been shown to be effective in better outcomes as an example

[LisaL]

13. I don't think so.

[Hortensis]

18. That, or other factors. HCQ is a valuable drug that's been in use

for a long time. I may eventually be put on it chronically for autoimmune rheumatoid arthritis; but given its potentially extremely serious side effects, it's not used casually or before need outweighs the risks.

Given those initial limited studies, though, it's always been reasonable to suspect temporary use might help some patients, but even for them it'd be potentially risky and no panacea. Not to say it shouldn't be used on them if it was the best course for them, though.

[still_one]

21. The other issue is that it creates a shortage for those who need it for RA or Lupus, and that is a

real problem for a drug that in most studies have demonstrated no difference in outcomes for those being treated for SARS Cov2

[Hortensis]

22. Umhm, but it's manufactured here and -- if properly

efficacious -- production could have been ramped up. (I think it was anyway.)

Shortages sometimes occur of any drug for which additional need develops. We couldn't claim people dying from Covid didn't need it as much or more than someone who could be shifted to another immunomodulator or a steroid for a while.

And what a shame that wasn't the situation. If it was a good drug that could have kept thousands of people alive, it would have become a widespread treatment. It was certainly not suppressed for political reasons. How many doses did our government purchase?

[still_one]

24. +++

[dawg day]

35. We're lending Kodak $600 million to start

Making HCQ, supposedly. What was THAT about? With all the pharma companies we have, why did trump single out a camera company to develop drugs?

[Hortensis]

36. Kodak will make chemicals that pharma will turn into drugs.

That's a very good and necessary thing because we're currently dangerously dependent on other nations for many ingredients.

On a planet of over 7 billion people, we're only 330 million and our ability to outcompete other nations for whatever we want is not what it used to be.

This is basic national security; and since it's something that should be done, albeit late, of course it wasn't Trump's idea. I doubt it'd ever crossed his mind that drugs are made of...different stuff.

[dawg day]

39. Why Kodak? Was Jared or Wilbur Ross long on the stock?

>Traders bid up Kodak's shares from a closing price of $2.10 on Friday, July 24, to as high as $60 on Wednesday.>

[DjCourtney]

16. The Actual Clip

Does anyone have the Clip or know of a place to find it? I'm really interested in seeing it.

[Demsrule86]

19. No, and FYI any doctor who says they tested it on the wrong people is just flat out

nuts.

[niyad]

23. Welcome to DU.

[PatSeg]

32. Welcome to DU!

[durablend]

25. Should be hearing from you-know-who soon

"Even leftist CNN is coming around to agreeing with me!"

[gratuitous]

26. Thanks, CNN

Keep nontroversies alive! Next up, will the virus magically disappear now that the warm weather is here? Experts disagree.

[still_one]

27. They aren't keeping it alive, this doctor is. CNN actually pushed back on what this doctor was

saying

[gratuitous]

29. They wouldn't have to push back on anything if they didn't have the doctor on in the first place

The doctor now gets to talk about what an expert he is, why, he was interviewed by CNN, so, credibility! I know it would never happen in a million, billion years, but what if someone carefully edits the doctor's appearance and puts up video that makes him look far more authoritative than he was? I mean, sure, everyone would see through it immediately, and nobody would use the doctored video for their own confirmation bias, but that minuscule possibility should be enough for CNN not to give air time to yet another crank. I should think.

[still_one]

30. It is misinformation. Of course fox is pushing this story, also because of his association with

Yale, CNN would not be doing their job if they didn't report on it.

Yale has come out addressing this because of what Risch is pushing, and it runs counter to what the FDA and CDC have said


https://publichealth.yale.edu/news-article/26290/

It also might inform people which physicians to avoid

[marble falls]

28. How do you identify the "right" people in a blind trial?

[still_one]

31. The one's support his conclusions of course

[GoCubsGo]

33. A good summary of why this is junk science, and shouldn't be trusted:

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19-evidence-cant-seem-to-kill-it/

This guy is on the editorial board of the journal in which he published this nonsense. Just sayin'.

[Happy Hoosier]

37. Why doesn't he do his own study?

I would seem that if he thinks existing studies are not evaluating the correct population, then he should do his own study. It's not on the original study authors to conduct another study. Their studies show exactly what they say they do.

To falsify their claims, it's on HIM to provide data, not them.

[still_one]

38. +++

[fleabiscuit]

40. He's a professor, not a doer. nt

[Happy Hoosier]

44. My wife is a professor...

She does research all the time. A friend is a biology professor.... he does studies all the time. Professors do research and studies.... all the time!

[ismnotwasm]

41. It's still not a "cure"

God I hate this bullshit