Hacker News Reader

Comment by kevin_b_er | Hacker News Reader

"potentially" is the key word here

I could argue it was politicized the moment that politician claimed it was the be-all and end-all and his frenzied supporters declared it to work. All lack of success in science by the drug has already been dismissed as a political attack. Heck, the pandemic itself has been dismissed as a political attack too. The bodies are dismissed as a political attack.

And yet we still can't show the drug works.

I worry excess attention on this drug due to politic pressure is distracting from exploring life-saving treatments that aren't this drug.

There's an enormous pressure on science to deliver, and it has to actually prove it unlike the politicians.

View on HN

> And yet we still can't show the drug works.

There has been just one trial done properly to my knowledge, and that was published yesterday. And even that is just applied in a narrow case (post-exposure prophylaxis, modulo some important study limitations).

That one's being attacked as we speak for certain poor controls on testing. This could lead to a compromised dataset and invalidating the whole thing.

Yes, I've read the limitations of the paper (after the Lancet debacle, I too learned my lesson and read a little more thoroughly).

I believe it was done the best they could, given that UMN had to use very little money for it (~100K USD, as far as I understand). That's why IMO the limitations need to be fully read and understood.

But I think it was done in good faith (unlike the Lancet study): the PI tried to his best to avoid spilling the beans until it was published to avoid sensationalism, and at the same time, he signed the open letter against the Lancet paper (after he sent the paper for review, so he knew the results already).

Larger studies will likely be needed. It's clear that the effect size (if any exists) is quite small, like with remedisivir.

Five studies. Key difference: Used with zinc and used with outpatients.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje...

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

One of these "studies" is a 2-page Google Doc with no real data. Another is the discredited Raoult study, which is under investigation by the journal [1]. Another study cited is also by Raoult's team. The Brazil study (ref. 29) doesn't seem to have passed peer review (yet?) and has severe methodological flaws. Like the Raoult studies, the Brazil study was not randomized, but makes no attempt to control for confounding by indication or self-selection, such as with propensity score matching or similar methods commonly used in observational studies. The last study cited isn't a study, but an article from a local news station.

Actually we can, but timing and combination matters.

It should be taken early (either as preventative or early onset of symptoms) and with zinc. If so, then there is proof of success, see these five studies confirming its effectiveness in outpatients.

https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje...

Since this is being repeated multiple times, quoting benmaraschino:

Reply on news.ycombinator.com