4 Hydroxychloroquine Open Letters & Petitions !!!
These 5 topics are huge and I hope you take action on them.
Topic #1: Burying the Open Letter on Surgisphere
This Open letter from 174 Researchers about the Surgisphere fraud got denied publication (July 3). Today James Watson Ph.D. Pushes back as the retracted paper keeps getting cited. He’s publicly asking James Horton why do they refuse to publish the large open letter?
Topic #2: Open Letter – Baylor (Chief of Cardiology, Chief Medical Officer) and Texas A&M (Professor)
This letter needs more viewership, please promote it!
A notable quote:
The current “NIH-FDA doctrine” is for COVID-infected patients to wait in home quarantine until they develop a shortness of breath and are hospitalized before they can receive hydroxychloroquine treatment. This doctrine is a failure. It has resulted in significant, unnecessary mortality and the overwhelming of hospital Intensive Care Units.
Topic #3: Petition – Baylor (Chief of Cardiology, Chief Medical Officer) and Texas A&M (Professor)
This petition needs signatures. Please promote it!
Topic #4:Open Letter on Misinterpretation of statistical hypothesis testing in clinical trials
Professors from Brazil, Spain, India, Switzerland and more have already signed this letter.
It calls into question 3 clinical trials. It needs more signatures. Please promote it!
Topic #5 – This nonsense kills legitimate studies!
Topic 4 is quite interesting, especially given the cited studies, such as Boulware.
Null hypothesis is no difference between treated (e.g., HCQ) and untreated groups.
The smaller studies cited failed to show a statistically significant difference at 95% confidence level. That’s different from the claim that no difference exists.
Claim #1. Had there been a statistical difference in these studies, there’s would have been a 5% probability that the difference was due to chance alone. That is what you could claim definitively with the group sizes. This is the alpha error (5% probability of a difference due to chance.)
Claim #2. If you want to claim that no difference exists between treated and untreated groups, the relevant error is the beta error, i.e., the probability that if you conclude there is no difference (of a certain magnitude) when in fact there is one. This happens when the study has insufficient power (not enough subjects tested).
To make claim # 2 takes many more test subjects than to make claim #1. Usually when statisticians estimate group sizes during the study design phase, they look at the magnitude of the expected difference (for the sake of argument let’s say a 30% decrease in mortality) and they determine the number of subjects per group that would allow one to detect this difference with 95% confidence. Once the study is run, if you fail to see statistically significant difference, you cannot claim that no difference exists, only that if a difference exists, it is likely to be lower than 30% (say perhaps 25%) and could not be detected with the sample sizes used.
This smells so bad.
I’m not a stats person, the class wasn’t in my major.
If you are, could you look at the appendix in the Boulware study, and see if, by grouping days differently, you can arrive at statistical significance?
Smarter people than I have suggested doing this.
We conclude their randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial presents statistical evidence, at 99% confidence level, that the treatment of Covid-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine is effective in reducing the appearance of symptoms if used before or right after exposure to the virus. For 0 to 2 days after exposure to virus, the estimated relative reduction in symptomatic outcomes is 72% after 0 days, 48.9% after 1 day and 29.3% after 2 days. For 3 days after exposure, the estimated relative reduction is 15.7% but results are not statistically conclusive and for 4 or more days after exposure there is no statistical evidence that hydroxychloroquine is effective in reducing the appearance of symptoms.
Our results show that the time elapsed between infection and the beginning of treatment is crucial for the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine as a treatment to Covid-19.
Would you say this is a good description of what’s being described in the open letter? Trying to think of the best resource to break this down to the average man.
Thanks in advance,
The petition, if legit, needs more attention. I hope Chris Martensen promotes it otherwise the research will die. Life saving drugs should not be sabotaged like this.