Hacker News Reader

Comment by nicoburns | Hacker News Reader

That's not really contradictory. Lots of covid treatments have been discovered in hospital settings by doctors trying desperately to find something to help their patients.

View on HN

And those were later validated by evidence from clinical trials. Until clinical trials involving significant numbers of patients are available, there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science. That's the contradiction.

> there is not evidence according to the standards of medical science.

What the hell are you trying to say? That doctors treating patients observations can be dismissed because they don't talk the academic language or their results don't follow academic guidelines?

There is more to medicine than just clinical trials.

Many different things can count as evidence, even if they are not up to your academic standard. Doctors observations, population-level improvements, and studies of different cohorts.

There are levels of evidence, there is strong evidence based on reports of observable ivermectin benefit to profylaxis and some benefit in treatmeant of early infections.

Please don't cross into flamewar, especially on divisive topics.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

OK I could have worded that better, but I certainly did not want to get into a flamewar. I think there is a well visible point there still.

It would be nice to make a list of things that appeared to work in hospitals and then failed randomized trials.

Hydroxychloroquine is a good example. Lots of doctors were trying it and thought it seemed to help. Due to the interest in the drug several RCTs of it were performed and it was shown to have no effect on patient recovery or prophylaxis of covid.

This is just partially true. The studies you mention are on late treatment (and often on very high dosages). The data points to good efficacy for early treatment though. It seems clear that the only use for HCQ is during the viral multiplication phase which is not what the large studies have been looking into (they never look into early treatment for some reason).

This isn't true. A recent study showed significant results in using HCQ: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/health/throat-spray-a...

Are there any specific “trench innovations” that come to mind?

The thing that most immediately comes to mind is Cameron Kyle-Sidell, who recognized that the standard treatment protocols were over-intubating people for hypoxemia, and that overly high pressures of ventilators were causing damage. He faced a great deal of resistance within his institution at the time, and was quite controversial in taking his case to Twitter and Youtube. Since then, he's been vindicated, and protocols have been changed.

I post this because I think it's the exception that proves the rule. Dr. Kyle-Sidell is a physician of great perception and insight. For every one of him, there are no doubt hundreds of "hydroxychloroquine doctors" who peddle bullshit without scientific basis to the harm of their patients. But the existence of doctors like him does boost the "maverick doctor bucking the institution" narrative.

[1]: https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928156

[2]: https://elemental.medium.com/how-one-covid-19-doctor-became-...

These days youtube would ban him.

How do you know that?

Have you read the headline ?

They banned an interview with the inventor of mRNA vaccine tech for saying it might be dangerous and needs more caution and study.

> "hydroxychloroquine doctors" who peddle bullshit without scientific basis

as of today, the mechanism that made HCQ work has been explained scientifically, right? What is your bias regarding this?

Now, that the mechanism is better understood, the doctor who recommended HCQ has now moved on to a better suggestion utilizating the same mechanism.

MitoQ

Couple of them are described here..

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2021/01/27/does-lockdown-work-...

Under the heading "The damage inflicted by medical ideas"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com