Yellow Bullet Forums banner

541 - 546 of 546 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,478 Posts
Discussion Starter #541
See unlike you I hold college degrees, one is in statistical policy analysis and you? A sixth grade drop out so lets clear that up first.
Do you have a PhD?
If so, how many?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,478 Posts
Discussion Starter #542
See unlike you I hold college degrees, one is in statistical policy analysis and you? A sixth grade drop out so lets clear that up first.

He's wrong with his randomized study premise. If only randomized studies were accurate and the gold standard why do research institutions and medical institutes and thousands of other think tanks use all types of statistical studies? Guess what else? Randomized studies can also be biased and manipulated. In his response he is actually doing what he accuses non randomized studies of doing. He talks about a higher incidence of cancer. What type of cancer? How long ago did the control group he is pointing out have cancer and how were they treated? Where they squamish cell carcinomas that were removed 40 years ago or is a patient with stage 4 bronchial cancer who is having radiation and/or chemotherapy now? In any studies there are a multitude of variables and in all studies you try and adjust for them. In any study the study is only as good as the data. His premise is only randomized studies, about 5 of them are the only studies that matter. Nothing is further than the truth. You don't have to have a randomized study to find efficacy. The NIH and Dr. Fauci himself have released plenty of studies of efficacy that weren't randomized.


BTW: this guy works for the NIH so his grants and career depend on what he says.


Hi Jon,

Yeah there is a lot of vitriol in this space.

I think the argument that "not all randomized trials are good" and "you don't need randomized trials for everything" exhibit a logical fallacy. You don't need an RCT to prove that parachutes help people survive jumping out of airplanes - that's true. But if you DID do a randomized trial of that, you'd find they are amazingly effective.

We actually have RCTs on HCQ. In a world where HCQ is a silver bullet, as many of these commenters suggest, what would the results of these RCTs be? I would argue they would demonstrate CLEAR benefit. But they don't. So the crowd has to argue:
-That the RCTs didn't use HCQ the "right" way - this is moving the goalposts - you can always discount a negative study using this argument
-That the RCTs are bad for some reason. No study is perfect, but RCTs are much better than observational, for the reasons I cited
-That the researchers are biased or in the pocket of big pharma or whatever. This is just ad hominem attacks - not much we can do about that except say that most of us in Academia are making significantly less than our colleagues who do clinical medicine, and way less than your typical doc employed by pharma.

As for that website - never saw it before today - seems like they are trying to aggregate data but it looks like they have a ton of retrospective studies there. I think people are really underestimating the effect of selection bias here. 50 bad studies does not = 1 good study.

And again, IF HCQ worked as advertised, these RCTs would show it. It's not that we NEED them, per se. But that we HAVE them. So let's use them.

-fpw

F. Perry Wilson, MD MSCE
Associate Professor of Medicine
Director, Clinical and Translational Research Accelerator
Yale University School of Medicine
New Haven, CT
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts

Since the beginning of 2018, the United States has undertaken unprecedented tariff increases, with one goal of these actions being to boost the manufacturing sector. In this paper, we estimate the effect of the tariffs—including retaliatory tariffs by U.S. trading partners—on manufacturing employment, output, and producer prices. A key feature of our analysis is accounting for the multiple ways that tariffs might affect the manufacturing sector, including providing protection for domestic industries, raising costs for imported inputs, and harming competitiveness in overseas markets due to retaliatory tariffs. We find that U.S. manufacturing industries more exposed to tariff increases experience relative reductions in employment as a positive effect from import protection is offset by larger negative effects from rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs. Higher tariffs are also associated with relative increases in producer prices via rising input costs.
See where it says "we estimate"????

That ain't a double blind study.....lol.....you lose.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
27,478 Posts
Discussion Starter #544
See where it says "we estimate"????

That ain't a double blind study.....lol.....you lose.
Do you understand the value of Double Blind Studies now?
And what they tell us about HCQ?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,166 Posts
It is a misleading scenario where they can change anything they want. You have no idea if zinc or zpack or whatever was administered or at what dose. Have a little common sense. Do you think all these doctors claiming it works are wrong and that their ACTUAL patients actually DIDNT get better?
Can you explain the hype trying to claim hydroxychloroquine is so dangerous?
It isn't, so what's up?
It is a political hit job and nothing else
 
541 - 546 of 546 Posts
Top