Fantastic analysis! If the best evidence has 100s of confounders, we should be very very skeptical. I remember asking one of the co-authors of a HCQ pre exposure prophylaxis studies in India whether considered adherence to protocol as a confounder? They said, they did and that's why they continued to push that masks must be worn for HCQ to work.
I suggested that we can't know that, because we don't know if people's adherence to PPE or their adherence to HCQ or their tolerance for SARS-COV-2 was driving the results (since people were lost to follow up, died etc.).
Anyway, it's just impossible to push these results as conclusive for anything and the way to actually test these things will never be funded.
Ty the Fisch feels the same way :-) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YzSgXonr0X0&t=29s
Fantastic analysis! If the best evidence has 100s of confounders, we should be very very skeptical. I remember asking one of the co-authors of a HCQ pre exposure prophylaxis studies in India whether considered adherence to protocol as a confounder? They said, they did and that's why they continued to push that masks must be worn for HCQ to work.
I suggested that we can't know that, because we don't know if people's adherence to PPE or their adherence to HCQ or their tolerance for SARS-COV-2 was driving the results (since people were lost to follow up, died etc.).
Anyway, it's just impossible to push these results as conclusive for anything and the way to actually test these things will never be funded.