[fanofourforebears]

There are generally fewer flaws in the studies that showed no benefit to hydroxychloroquine, than the ones which showed a benefit, most notably the lack of randomization or placebo control.

No study is perfect, but the studies that failed to show benefit were generally much higher quality.

Hi BC, what if there is a bigger problem than all and with all of the studies? What if Medical research is and has been hamstrung when it comes to being able to isolate and identify viruses? What if it is then hamstrung in being able to study how it spreads and ways to stop it from spreading? What if it is then hamstrung in researching effective treatments and therapies to treat it today and treat and maybe even prevent it in the future?

What if most if not all of the research being done is without the benefit of high powered microscopes? What if the need for these high powered and expensive machines is more profound than the need for other medical equipment such as ventilators is or ever was in the longer term of months or years, rather than the immediate days and weeks? No doubt you have heard of Koch's or River's postulates, but maybe the reason more association based research is being done is because it almost impossible follow and apply these isolation of the virus postulates without the high powered and expensive equipment. This might be why there is the push to gather "associated' genomes, and so forth, but there is a better way, isn't there? We just need to get the high powered equipment into the hands of researchers. Yes, these are in short supply. So don't forget the basics. These need to be the goal I think, what do you think?
 Think about, educational link to make the point

In regards to the studies, they too have their limitations. How do you test for something by association and not by true causation, which requires isolation and identification? Yes, I would say that some of the HCQ studies "overdosed" the patients in them, and that this is bad, and the results from such are not that reliable, but if we want to find the best treatment, find a cure, find a way to prevent and put an end to the pandemic once and for all, might it not be wise to raise the research bar and enable researchers to do the needed isolation and identification work, followed by the biopsies, autopsies and so on to find out all we can? Where is the cry and call for the needed high powered microscopes by the press, media and our public health authorities? Yes, scanning electron microscopes (SEMs), can cost well over a million dollars for the higher-end ones, while transmission electron microscopes (TEMs) can easily go up for tens of millions of dollars, and they cost a bundle to operate, but it these kinds of high powered microscopes that are so much needed early on during any pandemic. It could be argued they are more important than ventilators.

[fanofourforebears]

There are generally fewer flaws in the studies that showed no benefit to hydroxychloroquine, than the ones which showed a benefit, most notably the lack of randomization or placebo control.

No study is perfect, but the studies that failed to show benefit were generally much higher quality.

Hi BC, what if there is a bigger problem than all and with all of the studies? What if Medical research is and has been hamstrung when it comes to being able to isolate and identify viruses? What if it is then hamstrung in being able to study how it spreads and ways to stop it from spreading? What if it is then hamstrung in researching effective treatments and therapies to treat it today and treat and maybe even prevent it in the future?

What if most if not all of the research being done is without the benefit of high powered microscopes? What if the need for these high powered and expensive machines is more profound than the need for other medical equipment such as ventilators is or ever was in the longer term of months or years, rather than the immediate days and weeks? No doubt you have heard of Koch's or River's postulates, but maybe the reason more association based research is being done is because it almost impossible follow and apply these isolation of the virus postulates without the high powered and expensive equipment. This might be why there is the push to gather "associated' genomes, and so forth, but there is a better way, isn't there? We just need to get the high powered equipment into the hands of researchers. Yes, these are in short supply. So don't forget the basics. These need to be the goal I think, what do you think?
 Think about, educational link to make the point

In regards to the studies, they too have their limitations. How do you test for something by association and not by true causation, which requires isolation and identification? Yes, I would say that some of the HCQ studies "overdosed" the patients in them, and that this is bad, and the results from such are not that reliable, but if we want to find the best treatment, find a cure, find a way to prevent and put an end to the pandemic once and for all, might it not be wise to raise the research bar and enable researchers to do the needed isolation and identification work, followed by the biopsies, autopsies and so on to find out all we can? Where is the cry and call for the needed high powered microscopes by the press, media and our public health authorities? Yes, scanning electron microscopes (SEMs), can cost well over a million dollars for the higher-end ones, while transmission electron microscopes (TEMs) can easily go up for tens of millions of dollars, and they cost a bundle to operate, but it these kinds of high powered microscopes that are so much needed early on during any pandemic. It could be argued they are more important than ventilators.