Professor Raoult Releases Results of New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients

Here's how this works - now, I am not a medical professional so I'm not sure of any different steps that may apply but the basic predictive analytics process would go like this:

1. I get a set of data and may, or may not, get a problem to solve.
2. I manually examine a small sample of the data and think I see some interesting stuff related to age.
3. I get a bigger sample (still likely in the single-digit percentage size) and look for my interesting age thing and let's assume I still see it and it's still interesting.
4. I create a model - I write some queries that look at and validate my theory in the sample. So far, so good.
5. Here's where I might replicate some data or cherry-pick some data. I want to run my model against another sample and see if my theory holds up. Since my theory is age-based, I might cherry-pick or manipulate the data to be similar in the age data but I want it to be, if not fully random, at least different in the other fields. This lets me see things I might have missed or are unexpected interactions between other fields and the age data.
6. Then I get another sample, specifically looking to exclude my age assumptions. Does my model still hold up or does it break? If it holds, then perhaps age isn't the connection. If changing the age breaks the model then I'm still on track - not yet proven, but on track

Each of the steps above might happen a few times, each time I get more confident in my model and better able to justify it to my peers. Eventually, I may get confident enough that I run it on the entire set of data. If it still holds water, even in my shop, I'll have another analyst look at it before providing results to stakeholders.

We have tools that will automate most of that. It looks at the data, identifies relations in the data that we generally knew anyway but also might identify some patterns in the data we hadn't expected. The tools will apply some standardized groupings and associations and give us a calculated probability that the view of the data is reliable. Oftentimes, though, even when the high-end analytics tools are doing the analysis, especially in high-dollar decisions, we'll spend a lot of time reviewing and validating the data. For low-value, low-risk analytics, we might just publish the analysis from the tools.

 

Really? A 20% survival rate and no double-blind study? You accept that for the ventilator and still question hydroxychloroquine?

 

In my last response to @Bowerbird I brought up the modified intention to treat metric. It’s becoming more commonly accepted, but it’s always a negative in my opinion. I agree it’s best to leave the data intact.

I wonder what the median age is in the French study? If it matches up with the median we are pretty confident in globally (assuming nobody is lying or incompetent) this whole average age business is meaningless. Is that how you see it?

 

My own view on this treatment based on the evidence I have seen so far is as follows:

1- In general, and for now, I have no problems with doctors being allowed to administer the drug to their patients, as long as they obtain the 'informed consent' of these patients. As such, I also don't support a ban on doctors giving this treatment to their patients, as long as they have their patient's informed consent.

2- I don't believe the efficacy of this drug to treat patients suffering from "full blown Covid-19" patients is established -- or even highly suggested by the evidence available so far. And that would be the treatment that I believe will ultimately make real medical news. Which means I don't expect this drug to be as significant medically, as it seems to be politically. In any case, for this to be established reliably enough, we need clinical tests and their results. The same for #3 below.

3- The efficacy of this drug, in potentially leading to fewer deaths and near death experience for what I would call "run-of-the-mill' 'SARS/CoV-2" positive people, is somewhat suggested by the data. This data needs additional work and scrutiny to draw the best conclusions from it. But while good news to some extent, most of this group are already comforted by statistics that tell them that the large majority of those infected by the virus are able to ride it out with minor symptoms and such. It is not clear how many of them would like to slightly improve their prognosis taking a drug that has its own potential side effects and risks?

 

Ok. You seemed to be agreeing with @truth and justice on the French study being flawed on age metrics alone. Metrics we don’t even have data to back up on the general positive population side. It’s disingenuous to me to criticize the study on age but not even acknowledge the importance of underlying conditions. My position is that if you opine the study must mirror the general positive population in one respect, it’s only logical to demand it mirror in all substantive respects. If you aren’t cherry picking which metrics matter and which don’t we are in agreement.

 

I agreed with @truth and justice that any significant difference in age between the tested group and the target population is relevant. I would agree with you that if there is a significant statistical difference in underlying conditions between the tested group and the general population testing positive for the Coronavirus in France, that is also relevant. The more statistically significant distinctions exist between the tested population and the target population, the less reliable the tests to establish any conclusions from it.

p.s.
For now, we are reading 'tea leaves' -- and I have given you my reading of those tea leaves above.

 

Then we are in agreement on that point.

To be clear, you are ok with taking the median age (if we had the raw data) of the French study and drawing conclusions based on comparison to the median positive testing general population in France or globally? Or would you demand starting over with a new pool picked to match the general population median?

 

That is not a published paper. it is meaningless.

We don't just post stuff on the internet then say, OMG if it's on the internet it must be true!

 

First, let me be clear: My real approach is informed by the fact that any of us, including my family members (and myself, but I am not as focused on myself), may end up catching this virus. I hope that won't be the case, but this is not merely a theoretical or political issue to me. Hence, I actually really want to understand which treatments are going to work best.

Second, ordinarily, there are clinical trials and tests to get us to know what treatments are or are not effective. Until the results from those clinical trials, we have what we have now. I like to make sure what we have now is interpreted in as logical, rational, and scientific manner as possible.

Finally, as for your specific question, I believe the median age of the test sample would be best cross-referenced against the median age of the French target population, as that would reduce other potential variables (better isolating what we want to test) that could pop up and further complicate reading the data between different population groups. In this regard, there are 2 different set of issues: one is what would be the way to conduct a reliable enough clinical trial. We don't need to invent the wheel and the medical professionals and scientists know that answer and are conducing such trials right now. The other is how to best take the data we have already, including from this 'study' and see if we can draw any suggestions or tentative conclusions from it. And that is what I have been addressing for the most part in my comments.

 

That’s refreshing. It’s not political to me either. I believe we will all be exposed to this thing eventually so I’m just completely pragmatic about it. I’ll be pleasantly surprised if a vaccine is developed in a timely fashion for those that have their hearts set on that. I think we should focus on all treatment options. Like you I’m not concerned with myself partly because I’m very low on the “risk averse” scale and partly because I’m in the demographic least likely to have severe symptoms. My wife is in the same situation personally as me, but she has a lot of family in the most at risk demographics. I want what’s going to keep the most people from developing severe symptoms. Avoiding mortality but ending up with no lungs isn’t acceptable to me. The science fascinates me. Partly because my formal education was biological science and partly because my livelihood is impacted daily by viral infections and respiratory diseases in my animals.

Couldn’t agree more. We have to innovate now. Not in 3 weeks or 3 months. Now. In three months there won’t be enough cases to do a large scale trial in a first world country. We have a moral obligation to figure this out and save the third world because they can’t save themselves.

Fair enough. I think we are pretty much on the same page. I’m frustrated with people that don’t want to learn from what we have now. The politicalization of science and human life torques me off to be blunt.

 

The drug will not do anything if someone has already reached the serious or critical stage as at that stage pneumonia has already set in.

I would be so happy if this drug or any drug is clinically tested and found to significantly increase the probability of survival without serious side effects.

I have a vested interest in this as my girl friend is a nurse caring for Coronavirus patients in ICU and HCU. I worry about her every day and due to this situation we have to stay apart until it's over. Many nurses and doctors have died in the UK

 

Yes, in Brazil, 11 of 81 patients died from heart arrhythmia.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/health/chloroquine-coronavirus-trump.html

 

But you DID illustrate the hoarding that is going on. Thank you

"I already posted the link to the survey of thousands of doctors. 65% said they'd use it for their family, 67% said they'd use it for themselves... I can't list 65% of all the doctors in the US."

 

Um. They gave people 3x the recommended dosage of an similar quinine derivative NOT the drug being tested elseware. Not surprising the people who got 3x the dosage all at once died. Freaking idiots of you ask me.

 

Well congrats then because it's already happened.

 

The sooner you take it, the more effective it is.

And of course it can't work as a prophylactic if you wait until you're already sick.

 

I still don't see why people are promoting the use of a drug that has possible very serious side effects before one knows if the patients are even sick and/or the drug really even works. Are you at least saying that people should test positive for being infected before the drug is given?

 

The drug is FDA approved and has been around forever. Any side-effects are well known.

 

What are the normal doses prescribed for other diseases for which the side effects are known and what dose is suggested for Cvirus victims. 8 people died of heart failure in a Brazilian study on the use of Chloroquine for treating Cvirus but at a higher dose than that prescribed for malaria.

Going further, someone posted that 300,000 people in the US are on Chloroquine for other diseases. Would be useful to know how many of these have contracted Cvirus and their outcome

 

How are they proven? No one has proven it so you can't back up your story. In fact, many doctors are beginning to wonder if they make it worse.

What if the right thing to do was to give hydroxychloroquine early, before the condition was critical, and never have to go on a respirator? Considering that it's been posted here that a higher percentage of people die on respirators with coronavirus than those on respirators with the flu, it's possibly better to keep coronavirus patients off of respirators... We'll never know because the left has made it so hard to get hydroxychloroquine, politicians telling doctors what they can and cannot do, that we'll just never know. Leftist politicians... counting body bags to hurt Trump.

 

And NY and Nevada have banned it unless you're hospitalized. Politicians making life-and-death medical decisions... And the left wants a medical system in the US fully run by politicians.

 

A person is put on a respirator if no longer able to breathe unaided! They would have been on oxygen pumps previously. Which doctors have wondered if respirators make it worse? There is not much worse than being dead

A ventilator is used to give the body more time to recover! Keeping Cvirus patients off a ventilator if they need one means they die. More patients on respirators with Cvirus die (80%) than with flu (50%) because Cvirus causes much more damage to lungs

Then you bring nonsense about Trump! Is the whole world in on this conspiracy to attack Trump?

 

If your looking for a drug to treat something this serious, that doesn't side effects you won't be taking anything. Now tell us how many go blind vs how many have taken it. Many Drs have said it did help so what's your point, the clinical trial had great results and we're 16 pages in of Dems saying ignore it. You seen the side effects of zinc, it's out per your guidelines. I'm not saying it's a sure thing but it's definitely had some positive results that the left can't help but trash because Trump mentioned it.

 

The only one mentioning cure is you, why?

 

And your point is? Trump has 29 million doses sitting in storage that the politicians are trying to prevent him from using. Roughly 600000 people in the US have the virus. Let's use for example (because Bowerbird, FreshAir, you and I aren't doctors and don't know the dosing required) the normal dose for Lupus. That's two tablets, 400mg, a day. I think we've heard on this site that they're doing 5 or 7 days treatment - though marked improvements happen within 48 hours.

In any case, that's 14 pills per patient. 600000 patients times 14 pills = 8.4MM pills. Trump has 29MM doses and most of those doses came from India, not out of the pharmacy where your grandmother gets her arthritis medicine.

It's not fair that the doctors are hoarding but if it keeps them in the front lines and not worrying about their families, then I'm all for it. Any hoarding that is happening most certainly isn't affecting you or anyone else with coronavirus.