> It's sad to see scientific method destroyed by politics and social networks.
If there were such a thing as phase 5 trials with at least a million participants, it would be completely insane to use anything that had only undergone phase 3 clinical trials. People should make rational decisions based on the best evidence that's available at the time. Whether or not it's rational to take HCQ, there's nothing magical about phase 3 studies.
Antiviral drugs only really work in the first couple days of the illness, and with this disease you usually don't get symptoms until at least day 5. And in the current environment, no one is getting put on prescription antivirals until at least day 10, and usually even later. To me this raises the question of whether clinical trials are really even possible right now in the first place, or whether making decisions based off in vitro data is the best we can do for right now.
>To me this raises the question of whether clinical trials are really even possible right now in the first place, or whether making decisions based off in vitro data is the best we can do for right now.
I don't think I understand this. We have a clinical trial with in vivo data right here though, right?
> We have a clinical trial with in vivo data right here though, right?
AFAIK there's no clinical trial data, but there is in vivo data. My point though is that these are drugs that block viral replication, and we're mostly only administering them after the virus has already finished replicating. So in that scenario of course it's going to look ineffective regardless of whether it actually works or not. I don't believe the data showing it works, but I also don't believe the data showing it doesn't work.
When you say clinical trial, what are you meaning? I think the usual definition would include this paper as a clinical trial. Do you mean the FDA hasn't overseen any clinical trials?
Also, why don't you believe the data? or is it the conclusions that the researchers draw from the data that you don't believe? The statistics and trial design in this paper seem to be sound.
If there were such a thing as phase 5 trials with at least a million participants, it would be completely insane to use anything that had only undergone phase 3 clinical trials. People should make rational decisions based on the best evidence that's available at the time. Whether or not it's rational to take HCQ, there's nothing magical about phase 3 studies.
Antiviral drugs only really work in the first couple days of the illness, and with this disease you usually don't get symptoms until at least day 5. And in the current environment, no one is getting put on prescription antivirals until at least day 10, and usually even later. To me this raises the question of whether clinical trials are really even possible right now in the first place, or whether making decisions based off in vitro data is the best we can do for right now.