• 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

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
Looking at the data.. I think he lied. That might be a strong term.. but there is nowhere that a figure of 35/100 could have come up. I could not see how he arrived at that figure. whether relative risk or absolute risk.

his explanation that he mixed up the two.. doesn't fly.

Now.. perhaps he didn;t "LIE".. in the terms that he relied on someone else that made up that figure of 35/100.. probably from the administration and he was just repeating what the administration told him. But thats the problem.

I just cant believe that he lied since it is such an obvious thing to check.

The really insane thing is that that 35% RRR was in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup! I mean...no one can rightfully take that seriously.
 

Luce

Weaponized Funk
DP Veteran
Joined
Mar 31, 2020
Messages
26,884
Reaction score
17,420
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
F.D.A. ‘Grossly Misrepresented’ Blood Plasma Data, Scientists Say

24VIRUS-PLASMA1-facebookJumbo.jpg



A placebo control group was not even used in the 'convalescent plasma' Mayo Clinic study.

It seems Trump is pressuring and co-opting officials at the FDA to exaggerate test results and cut safety corners. Trump wants a COVID vaccine approved before the November election no matter what.

This is remarkably similar to how the Putin regime manages COVID. Massage the infection/death numbers, and then approve a vaccine before all phases of clinical trials are complete.

Related: 'Outrageous': Trump Announcement on Convalescent Plasma Blasted by Scientists

This is Luce's absolute lack of surprise.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
You did it.
Yes.
I think you do.

I do understand what was said.
Look at it this way, when you buy the conclusion that HCQ is ineffective when it's tested on hospitalized patients with advanced infections it's sloppy data analysis too. But you did it anyway.

Nope. And no you didn;t understand what was said. If so.. I wouldnt have had to explain it to you.

When a randomized controlled study.. is done on hospitalized patients with advance infections using HCQ. and the statistical analysis shows that there was no statistically significant improvement in the group taking HCQ versus placebo.. well then you can pretty much say that HCQ is ineffective for patients with advanced symptoms.

When studies are done on patients with mild symptoms within days of diagnosis.. and they are given HCQ.. and statistically you see no difference in their outcome versus those with mild symptoms that don;t take HCQ.. well then you can pretty much say that HCQ is ineffective for patients with minor symptoms.

If you have studies that show that HCQ is not statistically significantly effective in early stages of the disease.. is not effective in moderate to late stages of the disease.. you can pretty much say that HCQ is not effective in treating the disease.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
I just cant believe that he lied since it is such an obvious thing to check.

The really insane thing is that that 35% RRR was in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup! I mean...no one can rightfully take that seriously.

Well thats that thing. That 35% is not a calculation of relative risk reduction. That was the percentage of change in a subgroup to another subgroup. but not the relative risk reduction. I think the relative risk reduction would actually come out to 2-4%.

It never ceases to amaze me how this President can manipulate people into outright lying for him. I think they fed Hahn a line of bull.. and I think he knew it was a line of bull but figured no one would be looking that hard at it.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,522
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Nope. And no you didn;t understand what was said. If so.. I wouldnt have had to explain it to you.

When a randomized controlled study.. is done on hospitalized patients with advance infections using HCQ. and the statistical analysis shows that there was no statistically significant improvement in the group taking HCQ versus placebo.. well then you can pretty much say that HCQ is ineffective for patients with advanced symptoms.

When studies are done on patients with mild symptoms within days of diagnosis.. and they are given HCQ.. and statistically you see no difference in their outcome versus those with mild symptoms that don;t take HCQ.. well then you can pretty much say that HCQ is ineffective for patients with minor symptoms.

If you have studies that show that HCQ is not statistically significantly effective in early stages of the disease.. is not effective in moderate to late stages of the disease.. you can pretty much say that HCQ is not effective in treating the disease.

This thread is about blood plasma.
I posted dozens of studies on another thread that show about HCQ what you say you've never seen.
I only mentioned it by way of analogy to using data to show what you want.
 

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
Well thats that thing. That 35% is not a calculation of relative risk reduction. That was the percentage of change in a subgroup to another subgroup. but not the relative risk reduction. I think the relative risk reduction would actually come out to 2-4%.

It never ceases to amaze me how this President can manipulate people into outright lying for him. I think they fed Hahn a line of bull.. and I think he knew it was a line of bull but figured no one would be looking that hard at it.

No- it was definitely a RRR in a subset of patients (non elderly, if I recall) and not ventilated. The ARR was single digits.

But it’s a *post hoc* subgroup of a subgroup. There’s ALWAYS a subgroup of a subgroup that will look fantastic.

Hahn must not have looked at it, which is unbelievable. Firing the comms person right after is shifting responsibility.
 

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
This thread is about blood plasma.
I posted dozens of studies on another thread that show about HCQ what you say you've never seen.
I only mentioned it by way of analogy to using data to show what you want.

Bubba wouldn’t know blood plasma from HCQ from his own bunghole, but will say whatever Rush tells him to.
 

Hamish Howl

Horrible Bastard
DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 16, 2019
Messages
28,237
Reaction score
23,547
Location
Tucson
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Other
This thread is about blood plasma.
I posted dozens of studies on another thread that show about HCQ what you say you've never seen.
I only mentioned it by way of analogy to using data to show what you want.

You guys are still flogging that poor dead horse?
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This thread is about blood plasma.
I posted dozens of studies on another thread that show about HCQ what you say you've never seen.
I only mentioned it by way of analogy to using data to show what you want.

Right.. and I showed where you were wrong on your assumptions about what Hahn said on blood plasma.

then you brought up HCQ.. and I showed how you were wrong about that. Yes you posted studies. I am well aware of all the studies on HCQ. Not just the ones that you think support your premise. HCQ showed early promise based on anecdotal evidence and then on some observational studies. It now has been studied pretty extensively with randomized controlled trials... and the evidence shows that its simply not effective treatment in any stage of the disease.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
No- it was definitely a RRR in a subset of patients (non elderly, if I recall) and not ventilated. The ARR was single digits.

But it’s a *post hoc* subgroup of a subgroup. There’s ALWAYS a subgroup of a subgroup that will look fantastic.

Hahn must not have looked at it, which is unbelievable. Firing the comms person right after is shifting responsibility.

Hmm.. well beyond that it was not an RCT..and it was a subgroup of a subgroup.. I think we are basically speculating where he got that number.

To me it looked like he took the absolute risk of the subgroup of the HCQ folks.. and subtracted it from the absolute risk of the non HCQ subgroup and arrived at 35%.

Which is not RRR.. because to arrive at RRR.. you would have to divide that number by the absolute risk of the non HCQ subgroup..
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,522
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Right.. and I showed where you were wrong on your assumptions about what Hahn said on blood plasma.

then you brought up HCQ.. and I showed how you were wrong about that. Yes you posted studies. I am well aware of all the studies on HCQ. Not just the ones that you think support your premise. HCQ showed early promise based on anecdotal evidence and then on some observational studies. It now has been studied pretty extensively with randomized controlled trials... and the evidence shows that its simply not effective treatment in any stage of the disease.
This is the blood plasma thread.
I said I brought up HCQ as an analogy to the way data can be used to say what you want.
If you want to talk about HCQ studies I'll see you on the thread that lists dozens that suggest its positive effectiveness on early non-hospitalized cases and you can tell me there how those are wrong and others are right because of your confirmation bias.

See you there?
 

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
Hmm.. well beyond that it was not an RCT..and it was a subgroup of a subgroup.. I think we are basically speculating where he got that number.

To me it looked like he took the absolute risk of the subgroup of the HCQ folks.. and subtracted it from the absolute risk of the non HCQ subgroup and arrived at 35%.

Which is not RRR.. because to arrive at RRR.. you would have to divide that number by the absolute risk of the non HCQ subgroup..

No- I saw it. I’ll dig it up.

Edit:

Here it is. From this paper: Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Mortality among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Initial Three-Month Experience | medRxiv

conv plasma.jpg

Its a RRR of 37% and an absolute risk reduction of about 5%. But again, in an observational trial in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup.

Bubba doesn't know what that means, but you do.

I really dont think it was a lie though. I think he just screwed up somehow.

Other FDA commissioners might resign over this, rather than issuing half ass apologies on twitter tho.
 
Last edited:

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
This is the blood plasma thread.
I said I brought up HCQ as an analogy to the way data can be used to say what you want.
If you want to talk about HCQ studies I'll see you on the thread that lists dozens that suggest its positive effectiveness on early non-hospitalized cases and you can tell me there how those are wrong and others are right because of your confirmation bias.

See you there?

That thread is dead, because only dead enders are pretending HCQ has any role in treatment of this disease.

I mean... how embarrassing that you have to use an anonymous website to 'prove' your point in starting that thread.

Most people would just slink away in shame.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
This is the blood plasma thread.
I said I brought up HCQ as an analogy to the way data can be used to say what you want.
If you want to talk about HCQ studies I'll see you on the thread that lists dozens that suggest its positive effectiveness on early non-hospitalized cases and you can tell me there how those are wrong and others are right because of your confirmation bias.

See you there?

Yes... your premise has been refuted on the blood plasma issue.

And your premise has already been refuted multiple times on the HCQ thread.

but here:

he first randomized clinical trial testing hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment for mild covid-19 found the drug was no better than a placebo in patients who were not hospitalized.

The trial results were published Thursday in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine. The study, conducted by researchers at the University of Minnesota Medical School, involved 491 adults and showed that the medication did not work better than a placebo at reducing the severity of symptoms over 14 days. Results from a similar trial conducted in Spain were published shortly afterward.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/16/hydroxychloroquine-studies-show-drug-is-not-effective-early-treatment-mild-covid-19/

Man up and accept that you are wrong.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
No- I saw it. I’ll dig it up.

Edit:

Here it is. From this paper: Effect of Convalescent Plasma on Mortality among Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Initial Three-Month Experience | medRxiv

View attachment 67294782

Its a RRR of 37% and an absolute risk reduction of about 5%. But again, in an observational trial in a post hoc subgroup of a subgroup.

Bubba doesn't know what that means, but you do.

I really dont think it was a lie though. I think he just screwed up somehow.

Other FDA commissioners might resign over this, rather than issuing half ass apologies on twitter tho.

Yeah.. I get thats what the FDA calculated.. thats where you get the page..but thats not what the data from the study showed. To calculate it.. you would have to compare the absolute risk in the group that got the HCQ.. versus the absolute risk in the non treated group.
then divide that result by the absolute risk in the nontreated group.

In other words.. the number of events in the control group /n in the control group..minus the number of events in the treatment group/n in treatment group..

and that result then divided by the number of events in the control group/n in the control group.
 

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
Yeah.. I get thats what the FDA calculated.. thats where you get the page..but thats not what the data from the study showed. To calculate it.. you would have to compare the absolute risk in the group that got the HCQ.. versus the absolute risk in the non treated group.
then divide that result by the absolute risk in the nontreated group.

In other words.. the number of events in the control group /n in the control group..minus the number of events in the treatment group/n in treatment group..

and that result then divided by the number of events in the control group/n in the control group.

There was no control group.

Everybody got plasma.
 

bubbabgone

DP Veteran
Joined
Jan 25, 2013
Messages
34,522
Reaction score
17,039
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Yes... your premise has been refuted on the blood plasma issue.

And your premise has already been refuted multiple times on the HCQ thread.

but here:



https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/07/16/hydroxychloroquine-studies-show-drug-is-not-effective-early-treatment-mild-covid-19/

Man up and accept that you are wrong.

Why don't you go to the thread and tell everyone why each of those studies that found positive efficacy of HCQ is wrong ... but do it on that thread, not here.
A person like you who obviously feels his reputation is at stake should be eager to do that.
While you're there take a look at the study you just linked to through the WAPO ... yes, it's in the list of studies ... and it analyzes the study and conclusions.
This is why I strongly suggested you actually look at what you're talking about before talking about it but you simply refused to ... on that thread.
 

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
Well then it really can;t be calculated without a control.

Yes- they used the low potency group as the comparator.

They do have a good point though... that the bias of no control group was sorta preserved because no one knew what high or low titer plasma was at the time of infusion.

But still..post hoc subgroup of a subgroup. I could find a cure for all cancers doing that.
 

jaeger19

DP Veteran
Joined
Jun 18, 2013
Messages
40,615
Reaction score
12,454
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Conservative
Why don't you go to the thread and tell everyone why each of those studies that found positive efficacy of HCQ is wrong ... but do it on that thread, not here.
.

Actually its already been done. The reason those studies are "wrong" is because they used observational data and were not randomized nor controlled.
 
Top Bottom