It’s been six months since Kuwaid-19 first appeared in China. More than 700,000 people have been infected with the Cyrus Cove II virus and 400,000 have died – and this number is growing.
However, there was a belief among all that scientific research is the golden thread that will lead mankind away from their dreams.
However, this trust is increasingly being misplaced. Researchers have been forced to withdraw claims of a once promising drug that was published in two leading medical journals, and the World Health Organization has lifted important advice on how to fight the spread of the virus.
Does it directly reflect the flight status of scientific knowledge or is it a sign of a deep defect?
Surprise medicine that didn’t exist
In the frenzy of finding a cure for Covid-19, no drug was more controversial than hydroxychloroquine.
Evidence of the effectiveness of these antimalarial drugs was found in a laboratory test by Chinese scientists in February. French researchers then claimed that it was useful in examining 19 patients.
Until late March, US President Trump welcomed the drug as a “game changer,” and the US Food and Drug Administration had allowed some Covid-19 patients to use it.
By then, the drug had become part of the WHO’s global program for appropriate treatment testing.
But from the beginning there were strong reasons to doubt the evidence. The test tube study failed to find out what was happening to real patients, while the French study avoided the main shortcomings.
The gold standard for determining whether a drug works is the so-called double-blind randomized controlled trial (RCT).
This includes random selection of patients to take either a new drug or a “control” in the case of a harmless placebo or an existing treatment.
In addition, neither the patient nor their doctors are told who has it.
This “blinding” and randomness helps avoid prejudice against the results that are unwittingly or involuntarily introduced.
The French study was neither blind nor properly randomized and included only 42 patients. The results have also been reported in a bizarre manner, excluding dying patients – which exaggerated the apparent effectiveness of the drug.
Despite this, research for publication was accepted by an academic journal and received worldwide coverage.
In the meantime, the WHO put pressure on its RCT program to see if hydroxychloroquine worked.
To uncover the truth, some researchers began examining existing data from hospitals about the effects of hydroxychlorine on patients with Covid 19.
At the end of last month, the prestigious journal The Lancet published an extensive study comparing the assets of approximately 15,000 patients who were not “under control” of 81,000 patients.
The results showed that the drug was worse than useless and increased the risk of death in patients who received it.
The study raised worldwide concern and led to the suspension of all drug trials pending an immediate WHO investigation.
However, the scientists were immediately skeptical of the study – especially the source and analysis of the evidence.
It turned out that the raw data came from SergeSphere, a company led by one of the authors of the paper, and that requests for access to it had been rejected by other scientists. Statisticians were also concerned about the information provided on the basis of statistics.
The Lancet withdrew the article last weekend after three of the authors admitted that they no longer trusted it. Shortly afterwards, another leading medical journal withdrew a study of Covid 19 based on data from the same company.
It is said that about 20 other studies based on the surveyor’s data are being reviewed.
So can hydroxychloroquine be safe and effective? Ironically, the day after the retreat, the fundamental end of the Lancet study was supported by a standard gold RCT involving more than 4,600 patients.
According to researchers at Oxford University, the administration of hydroxyrochloroquine to patients with Covid 19 “definitely negates any significant benefit in death”.
As the French study of Sergei Sphere’s data shows that it is full of noise and chaos, there is no guarantee of publication