Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : The Trump Presidency -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (161156)	4/23/2020 12:19:06 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 363409

>> So, an "anecdotal study" is a thing now? Who knew? Yes, of course, most fields have anecdotal studies and they are key in medicine. While not being determinative, they can be a start. It is simply less formal and relies on anecdotal evidence. This may be just data collected from patient charts and informally summarized according to relaxed observational guidelines. Don't knock it. It is how something like off-label use, which results in many treatments, can be established as a field for further study. An example would be HCQ. Many drugs that become substantive treatments do so because of early anecdotal studies. This anecdotal study at VA is important but like others, not determinative. But there were numerous limitations, such as age (median=65), gender (all male), race (primarily black), smallish sample size, result data extracted from database after-the-fact rather than in real time, and importantly, NO RANDOMIZATION. For me, the most astonishing parameter was that the determination of whether they received HCG or other drugs was based solely on whether a bar code was struck for the drug or not. So, the study doesn't consider factors like how long the patient took the drug, dosages, etc. Anecdotal does not mean worthless. Whether it is a positive or negative outcome, it can have value. Many treatments have been discarded or undertaken solely on the basis of anecdotal evidence. This is not Viagra, where the anecdotal finding was turned into a major study then one of the biggest moneymakers of the last few decades, almost from the first study. It is shameful the way the liberal media have played this story up and just speaks to the politicized willful ignorance of the Left, who are willing to get onboard with any finding that smacks Trump. The greatest disappointment of the Left would be if this drug Trump pushed actually saved lives. This thread would love nothing more than a series of studies finding HCQ killed people. So, yes, it is an anecdotal study, not prepared at all, but taken entirely after-the-fact in non-random fashion. Still a study, still meaningful, but anecdotal in nature.