Pudding Mittens wrote:(Sigh). Yes. This is all obvious and I've agreed to it many times. Yes, yes I know. Yes. No, really, I know. Honest. Yes. See above. We've been over all this already.
And here's my reply, repeated again:
The fact remains that a bunch of partial bits of data all collectively strongly hint that it may be effective, and these are exigent circumstances and the stuff is relatively safe for most people when under a doctor's supervision and it's only a 5-day course, and for many patients it's worth the risk to try it off-label and see if it works before the formal study results that we absolutely need eventually but will come too late for lots of people.
To prevent endless further repetitions of this, from now on, whenever anyone starts with this I'm just going to say "See post #384 above". Nice quick shorthand so I don't have to keep typing this same stuff over and over.
.
You're right and wrong.
Or right and selectively blind.
You see the "bunch of partial bits of data ..... hint may be effective" which yes, is why people will test it.
But you seem blind to the prior in vivo studies which saw no effect (or negative impact)
You're right we keep going around. But you bring up additional anecdotal evidence, and think it's adding to the burden of evidence that we should be using this drug.
Danm just provided anecdotal evidence that it does nothing... but that doesn't seem to put any brakes on your enthusiasm....
Just seems odd to me. This is a medicine which is necessary for some people in general... has anecdotal evidence of helping some with coronavirus, has other anecdotal evidence of helping no one with coronavirus... has actual data that in vivo doesn't help... and has some non-zero risk to patients. Maybe we should put the brakes on it a little, and make sure the people who actually need it, who it works for, have it available while a test is done.