• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

F.D.A. ‘Grossly Misrepresented’ Blood Plasma Data, Scientists Say

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That means what? That the RCT's were run by idiots and you know better? I classify that as extremely unlikely.

You haven't shown any RCT's whose participants were strictly recently exposed/infected patients.
Those are the patient characteristics on which HCQ is said to be effective.
If you have those particular RCTs let's look at them.
If you don't have them your wasting our time.

If you still don't understand, I can't make it any clearer
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
64,168
Reaction score
25,392
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
You haven't shown any RCT's whose participants were strictly recently exposed/infected patients.
Those are the patient characteristics on which HCQ is said to be effective.
If you have those particular RCTs let's look at them.
If you don't have them your wasting our time.

If you still don't understand, I can't make it any clearer

You don't understand that if it shows no benefit that means it does not show any benefit. Either it kills the virus or it does not. All the RCT studies found that it does not kill any virus. 95% of all "recently exposed/infected" patients recover with no treatment. You cannot use that fact to make HCQ appear 95% effective on those patients. That is quackery.
 
Last edited:

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
You don't understand that if it shows no benefit that means it does not show any benefit. Either it kills the virus or it does not. All the RCT studies found that it does not kill any virus. 95% of all "recently exposed/infected" patients recover with no treatment. You cannot use that fact to make HCQ appear 95% effective on those patients. That is quackery.

Show me those RCT studies.
The effect is therapeutic.
It doesn't have to kill the virus.
It allows you to kill the virus.
The Science of Treating Covid-19 with Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) << Think.HansMast.com.
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
64,168
Reaction score
25,392
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Last edited:

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
What about "shows no benefit" is too difficult for you to grasp? Not one patient who recovered from Covid19 has been because of HCQ. That is not hard to understand is it?

What about "Show me those RCT studies." is too difficult for you to grasp?
 

iguanaman

DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 16, 2011
Messages
64,168
Reaction score
25,392
Location
Florida
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
What about "Show me those RCT studies." is too difficult for you to grasp?

Now it is too difficult for you to find the HCQ studies? No wonder you are making such ridiculous assertions about HCQ . I think you know what they say and you don't care. You would rather say that 95% of covid 19 patients recovered when given HCQ. That is a meaningless statistic since 95% also recover with no HCQ too.
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,861
Reaction score
24,897
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Now it is too difficult for you to find the HCQ studies? No wonder you are making such ridiculous assertions about HCQ . I think you know what they say and you don't care. You would rather say that 95% of covid 19 patients recovered when given HCQ. That is a meaningless statistic since 95% also recover with no HCQ too.

I linked to dozens of studies to show what I'm talking about.
You did nothing similar.
 

Slavister

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 8, 2018
Messages
8,633
Reaction score
5,576
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That's the Boulware study and it's listed in the collection of studies included in the link in #31.
If you look at the NOTE at that entry it offers the explanation ...

Post Exposure Prophylaxis study Source Study Page
Boulware et al., NEJM, June 3 2020, doi:10.1056/NEJMoa2016638 (Peer Reviewed)
A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19
COVID-19 cases are reduced by [49%, 29%, 16%] respectively when taken within ~[70, 94, 118] hours of exposure (including shipping delay). The treatment delay-response relationship is significant at p=0.002. PEP delayed treatment RCT.
Currently this is the only study where we have evaluated the result as positive while the authors indicate it is negative. We provide a detailed explanation of why the results presented here are positive [1]. Note that author comments also differ from the published conclusion.
Also see: [2, 3]


[1] c19study.com/boulware.html
[2] drive.google.com/file/d/1NZOJ57fM0RTaHD1t_9w2iua7lUJhOgWT/view
[3] arxiv.org/abs/2007.09477​

1. Ok, so authors own conclusions are ignored? Even if criticisms are valid, they are arguing only about first 3 days after the HCQ. After that, whether you took HCQ or not, there is NO difference (but MORE side effects) as both authors and critics agree.

So, no, your site saying it's positive for HCQ is a lie.

2. Next, here is another RCT for you that Threegoofs told you about. You care to try to explain this one away as well?

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease | medRxiv

3. I am still waiting for YOU to provide a reference to SINGLE RCT where authors show positive outcomes.
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,861
Reaction score
24,897
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1. Ok, so authors own conclusions are ignored? Even if criticisms are valid, they are arguing only about first 3 days after the HCQ. After that, whether you took HCQ or not, there is NO difference (but MORE side effects) as both authors and critics agree.

So, no, your site saying it's positive for HCQ is a lie.

2. Next, here is another RCT for you that Threegoofs told you about. You care to try to explain this one away as well?

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease | medRxiv

3. I am still waiting for YOU to provide a reference to SINGLE RCT where authors show positive outcomes.

He doesn’t know it was me.

You shouldn’t of mentioned that.

Now he’s going to curl up in a ball and cry.
 

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
41,723
Reaction score
17,283
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: F.D.A. ‘Grossly Misrepresented’ Blood Plasma Data, Scientists Say

In the absence of that kind of time consuming study, anecdotal/observational studies are typical and are useful because of the urgency.

No, they're potentially very dangerous and cannot be relied on-like the stupid recklessness of recommending HCL-a drug never properly tested for anything other than malaria and arthritis.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,531
Reaction score
27,494
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I wonder how long it's been a practice, to just find one person who can side with your own agenda and then you can take their comment. Then use it to invalidate basically anything, that anyone says, ever.

Because this little song and dance is getting rather annoying. You can say "it seems" and allege all you want. But you have no power to actually determine anything of the sort and neither does someone like Dr. Topal.

This idiotic rat race of politicizing anything and everything, for every wrong reason imaginable. Is started to get old.

Yes, it's inconvenient when people point out the Trump administration treats truth like a cancer, and lies for no reason or any reason, good reasons, bad reasons. What's consistent is the lies. If a Trump lackey makes a claim, assume it's untrue until proved otherwise.

Here there is an objective truth, and that is that Hahn misrepresented - i.e. lied about - the effectiveness of the treatment. If you want to pull up the study and find support for the administration's claims, do it. Serious people, many people, looked at the study and pointed out that the claims are not supported by the evidence, and FDA through Hahn lied about what that study showed.

Hahn was sufficiently embarrassed to issue a half-assed correction within a day. And the MAGAs tell us his 'correction' is proof, I guess, that his original comments were accurate.
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,531
Reaction score
27,494
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
They may have said "shown" or "indicate" but did they say "proven"? You'll have to produce the entire transcript so we cane see.

Choose what word you want - nothing in the study 'showed' or 'indicated' much less proved the claims made. The claim was dishonest, Hahn recognized it within a day, and corrected himself, although that correction was deliberately vague and would mean nothing to regular people who don't know the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction.
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,861
Reaction score
24,897
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Choose what word you want - nothing in the study 'showed' or 'indicated' much less proved the claims made. The claim was dishonest, Hahn recognized it within a day, and corrected himself, although that correction was deliberately vague and would mean nothing to regular people who don't know the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction.

That was bad- and for those people who literally deal with this every day- physicians and researchers- REALLY bad to do on a national stage, but it’s even more important to realize what that ‘35%’ was referring to.

It was a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup- a specific age and without vent support. And that data was from an observational trial!

This is incredibly weak evidence to begin with, and then touting a specific mortality number (wrongly!)is really horrible.

The FDA head is not going to be trusted after this. It’s not just some slip up- it’s deliberate misinformation.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
1. Ok, so authors own conclusions are ignored? Even if criticisms are valid, they are arguing only about first 3 days after the HCQ. After that, whether you took HCQ or not, there is NO difference (but MORE side effects) as both authors and critics agree.

So, no, your site saying it's positive for HCQ is a lie.

2. Next, here is another RCT for you that Threegoofs told you about. You care to try to explain this one away as well?

A Cluster-Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Prevention of Covid-19 Transmission and Disease | medRxiv

3. I am still waiting for YOU to provide a reference to SINGLE RCT where authors show positive outcomes.

1. No not's not a lie. They said the data for the patients that HCQ is prescribed for show positive results.
And there's this among the NOTES you were supposed to review but didn't ...

"The authors conclude "[treatment] did not prevent illness compatible with COVID-19..", but as above this does not appear to match the data. In the context of their chosen statistics, they could say: "the data suggests a benefit for treatment, but when including the additional delay added mid-study, not analyzing the expected trend for earlier intervention being more effective, and with only 107 cases, we have not yet reached >95% statistical significance."
and
"Note that author's comments also differ from the published conclusion, for example Dr. Lewis notes: "I personally spoke to Boulware about this study. He points out its many flaws. He also points out that day 1-3 use had statistical significance and he’s gearing his other studies accordingly. He intends to investigate this significance further." (https://twitter.com/lewistlc/status/1280293210858946567), and in the OFID podcast Dr. Boulware has said: "There’s probably two reasons – one is either it just doesn’t work, or the other option is we just didn’t get it to them quick enough. So if you read the tea leaves and look at the subgroup analyses, the people that got enrolled within one or two days of exposure did better than the people that did three or four days later." "​

2. Someone who has persisted in making the point that non-peer reviewed studies should be ignored and then posts something that prominently says "This article ... has not been peer-reviewed" should tell you that that person should not be taken seriously. I learned that long ago. That person declaring studies to be the death knell of HCQ, like the Lancet study that had to be withdrawn shortly afterwards, and then later denying they had made that declaration merely reinforced the deeply flawed character of the person.

3. There were 82 studies that the link and 47 were peer reviewed.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: F.D.A. ‘Grossly Misrepresented’ Blood Plasma Data, Scientists Say

No, they're potentially very dangerous and cannot be relied on-like the stupid recklessness of recommending HCL-a drug never properly tested for anything other than malaria and arthritis.

Physicians worldwide have their patients using it. Maybe they know more about it and have more experience than you, bruv.
 

snakestretcher

DP Veteran
Joined
Feb 25, 2019
Messages
41,723
Reaction score
17,283
Location
Devonshire, England
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
Re: F.D.A. ‘Grossly Misrepresented’ Blood Plasma Data, Scientists Say

Physicians worldwide have their patients using it. Maybe they know more about it and have more experience than you, bruv.

Which physicians; the one's who have presented nothing but ANECDOTAL retrospective 'evidence' without revealing how their 'trials' were carried out, if at all?
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Choose what word you want - nothing in the study 'showed' or 'indicated' much less proved the claims made. The claim was dishonest, Hahn recognized it within a day, and corrected himself, although that correction was deliberately vague and would mean nothing to regular people who don't know the difference between relative and absolute risk reduction.

I'll stick with the words that were used.
- "if the data continue to pan out" ...
- "suggest" and "promising"...
- "safe and shows promising efficacy, thereby meeting the criteria for an emergency use authorization"
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,523
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Re: F.D.A. ‘Grossly Misrepresented’ Blood Plasma Data, Scientists Say

Which physicians; the one's who have presented nothing but ANECDOTAL retrospective 'evidence' without revealing how their 'trials' were carried out, if at all?

These physicians ... you didn't know the rest of the world was widely ignoring your warnings?
earth.svg
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,531
Reaction score
27,494
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
That was bad- and for those people who literally deal with this every day- physicians and researchers- REALLY bad to do on a national stage, but it’s even more important to realize what that ‘35%’ was referring to.

It was a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup- a specific age and without vent support. And that data was from an observational trial!

This is incredibly weak evidence to begin with, and then touting a specific mortality number (wrongly!)is really horrible.

The FDA head is not going to be trusted after this. It’s not just some slip up- it’s deliberate misinformation.

Right, because he knew exactly what he was saying, and did it anyway. He shredded his integrity in real time on TV. It's one thing if this is a person who doesn't understand the science or the terminology and misspoke out of ignorance, quite another for someone well versed in the terms and what they mean.
 

Threegoofs

In mourning for Turtledude
Supporting Member
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2013
Messages
59,861
Reaction score
24,897
Location
We had a bad fire in 1871
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Right, because he knew exactly what he was saying, and did it anyway. He shredded his integrity in real time on TV. It's one thing if this is a person who doesn't understand the science or the terminology and misspoke out of ignorance, quite another for someone well versed in the terms and what they mean.

The RR and AR is a common screwup- I’ve seen it done on platform presentations in large meetings from very competent researchers.

But NEVER have I heard it in what were basically prepared remarks, and to tout a mortality difference in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup??

Nuts.

This doesn’t bode well for any vaccine data rollout, especially under this administration.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The randomized trials didn't isolate participants by their characteristics for which the HCQ is effective.
I shouldn't have to keep repeating that.

A randomized trial wouldn't have to.

Thats kind of the point of a randomized trial.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
The RR and AR is a common screwup- I’ve seen it done on platform presentations in large meetings from very competent researchers.

But NEVER have I heard it in what were basically prepared remarks, and to tout a mortality difference in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup??

Nuts.

This doesn’t bode well for any vaccine data rollout, especially under this administration.

Oh yeah. Why why why.. did they bend over to do this?

And why why why.. did the CDC bend over and give conflicting information on testing..

Don;t these guys realize everything Trump touches dies?

Crap.. now I am going to get flooded with anti vaxxer.. this is a hoax.. "but even the CDC and FDA can;t be trusted".. posts on our facebook page. (sorry.. just ranting)
 

JasperL

DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 27, 2014
Messages
58,531
Reaction score
27,494
Location
Tennessee
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
I'll stick with the words that were used.
- "if the data continue to pan out" ...
- "suggest" and "promising"...
- "safe and shows promising efficacy, thereby meeting the criteria for an emergency use authorization"

Your gaslighting is actually pretty pathetic and sad. You're defending an agency that is telling you in several official ways they screwed up. Hahn released his own 'correction' and today the FDA spokesbabe was fired, for misrepresenting the claims.

FDA fires brand new spokesperson after Trump exaggerates plasma as coronavirus '''breakthrough''' at RNC

The Food and Drug Administration's top spokesperson is out after precisely one Scaramucci at the helm.

FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn fired Emily Miller as the agency's assistant commissioner for media affairs and top spokesperson, according to emails he sent to senior leaders Friday. Miller just joined the department 10 days ago, and one of her first press releases contained an exaggeration regarding a coronavirus treatment that made it to President Trump's Republican National Convention speech, The New York Times reports.

You'd think you guys would learn not to defend these morons. It never ends well for you. Now you're digging your hole deeper, even after the FDA just threw you and others defending them under the bus, backed up, and ran over you again. SAD!!
 

Luce

Weaponized Funk
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
26,884
Reaction score
17,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
Trump has compromised the CDC. Everything they say now must be viewed as an extension of Trump's blathering.
 
Top Bottom