But the converse is also extremely problematic - HCQ we justified based on similar arguments and it appears to cause modest increases in death rates from covid. If the end result is a treatment that does cause harm, what is the moral culpability?
-
-
We cant allow "but HCQ..." to be the harbinger of therapeutic nihilism.
3 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @EdoajoEric @GidMK and
On the other hand there's "but methylprednisolone/dexamethasone." Based on the numbers needed to treat re: in hospital mortality, how many died awaiting physicians to accumulate a gigantic trial to spoonfeed them a conclusion their pathophys/pharm reasoning should have told them.
1 reply 0 retweets 6 likes -
You could say that this is just an argument for better/quicker trials tho - we could've had trial results from large research projects months earlier during covid if we'd had our shit together. How many lives would it have saved if we'd gotten the fluvox results in May 2020?
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @GidMK @EdoajoEric and
Like, obviously in absence of all evidence it's reasonable to try whatever you think is best, but the absence of evidence at a certain point is an active choice because often people would rather use treatments than trial them (Gilead/remdesivir is a good example)
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Remdesivir is a perfect example of a big problem in pharma. Small subgroups who disproportionately benefit from a drug are of no interest to you if you are selling a drug. They'd prefer a modest effect size just big enough to keep being used for as big a customer base.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @EdoajoEric @GidMK and
It's clear the mortality benefit exists in early, low flow o2 requirement state
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @EdoajoEric @GidMK and
Yet theyd rather see it used widely and watered down to a modest benefit for allcomers
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Well, yes, but they supported the use and widespread application by using the argument that low quality evidence was good enough
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Thats not low quality evidence, it's low benefit derived from high quality evidence.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes
That's what we've got now to rely on, but the initial evidence was very low quality and that was the justification for use. Their first trial had more authors than patients!
-
-
Lol true. Same w Regeneron. If i remember correctly, an EUA from an interim analysis of N=241
0 replies 0 retweets 3 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.