←back to thread

Google bans Podcast Addict app over non-approved Covid-19 content

(reclaimthenet.org)
1525 points garyclarke27 | 1 comments | 18 May 20 07:37 UTC | HN request time: 0.201s | source
Show context
dreamcompiler ◴[18 May 20 09:52 UTC] No.23220377[source]▶
Pretty ironic given that an "official government source" advocated the ineffective and dangerous drug hydroxychloroquine and suggested people inject bleach into their bodies.

Edit: Changed hydroxyquinone to the correct hydroxychloroquine.

replies(1): >>23220426 #
lbeltrame ◴[18 May 20 09:57 UTC] No.23220426[source]▶
Where is the proof of inefficacy? For the record, there's no proof of efficacy either, because all the trials done that prove or disprove efficacy of hydroxychloroquine were flawed in one point or the other (at least the ones I've read).

To give an answer to this endless debate, a proper, randomized clinical trial is needed. And the conditions set correctly, too: lopinavir and ritonavir were, per NEJM, not successful, but a later study in Lancet showed that administration at earlier time points (within 7 days of symptom onset) might be working and needs more investigation.

I know Novartis is running a trial, and so is U of Minnesota[1] which has finally completed enrollment and will release results after peer review.

Oh, and more on topic, it looks like Twitter has blocked a legitimate page of the Canadian part of the same group of trials[2].

[1] https://covidpep.umn.edu/

[2] https://twitter.com/DrToddLee/status/1261442201369939968

replies(4): >>23220536 #>>23220726 #>>23222401 #>>23227151 #
matwood ◴[18 May 20 19:19 UTC] No.23227151[source]▶
Studies are coming in daily showing no benefit from HCQ. As this article [1] points out, any other drug would not be looked at further given the current set of information. But, since HCQ has been seen as a cure, a lot more time and money will be spent showing the same results - no effect.

[1] https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/no-benefit-fro...

replies(1): >>23229412 #
1. lbeltrame ◴[18 May 20 23:05 UTC] No.23229412[source]▶
Most of these are retrospective and observational, and they fail to answer the question posed by the very controversial (and flawed) Raoult paper: that is, that early administration during the course of the disease provides a clinical benefit. Also in many the control is standard of care, which can mean everything and nothing.

The positive studies suffer from the same issues, by the way. Especially controls are pretty bad.

These studies can't give the answers that a proper randomized controlled trial (against placebo), like the U of Minnesota one (but there are a few others) can.

Some studies focus on mortality, but I doubt HCQ helps there: like remedisivir, the measure should be time to symptom clearance / hospital discharge. Time of administration also matters a lot (see again the NEJM paper on lopinavir / ritonavir, a failure, then the Lancet paper that gives more insight at earlier time points). One study I've read gave HCQ at 16 days post symptom onset (median): that time is definitely too late for any antiviral therapy.

I reiterate: I have no personal interest in having HCQ succeed. What I want to see is good science.