Christians Should Reject the Latest Pro-Hydroxychloroquine Video

My attitude toward the hydroxystuff is more agnostic. I’m willing to say “we don’t have have solid evidence that it works.” I’m not ready to say “we have irrefutable evidence that it doesn’t.”

It does appear, at the moment, that the scales tip toward “it doesn’t help,” but there are apparently some studies that point the other way. Maybe one or more are well randomized, blinded, and controlled.

This from Jim Geraghty yesterday.…

If you want to make the argument for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, you can point to the Henry Ford Health System study. You can point to the assessments of Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health. You can point to the statements from the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons encouraging its use.

You can point to the fact that a widely-cited study declaring hydroxychloroquine dangerous, published in The Lancet, was retracted after questions about its accuracy and the expertise of those conducting the study.

If you want to make the argument for the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, you would probably want to avoid using a term like “cure,” because that’s more or less the terminology of every snake-oil salesman. Hydroxychloroquine is a treatment.

I don’t have time to copy all of his links over, but you can go check them out.

About ad hominem

An argument “to the man,” is only a fallacy when the criticism of the man isn’t relevant to the claim being countered. So, if I argue, “I’m a Bible expert, so you should believe what I say about Romans 7,” the counter that “Aaron is a rank amateur” is not an ad hominem fallacy. It’s a valid counter.

Likewise, if the argument is “you should believe hydroxystuff is a cure because X says so and X is a medical expert,” arguing that X doesn’t appear to be entirely sane is not an ad hominem fallacy. The argument is a “credibility of the source” argument, and so the counterargument is valid if it’s a “non-credibility of the source” counterargument.

Just wanted to clarify that. Ad hominem has its place, and is not automatically a fallacy. In this case, if a supposed medical expert actively teaches that diseases come from demon and alien sex, it’s entirely valid to say “you really need a better source,” … which is Geraghty’s claim. I agree with him on this one, though I’m not sure his hydroxy studies are very strong evidence either.

So far, that I’m aware of (and I’ve looked) all of the studies that present a positive case for hydroxychloroquine are observational studies, including the Henry Ford one, not randomized double blind studies. Some of the earlier, more famous pro-HCQ studies have been retracted. If there are randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled studies that demonstrate HCQ’s effectiveness, I would love to see them because it would behoove us all for a legitimate therapeutic to be discovered. Until then, considering we’re discussing the efficacy of a drug, the epistemic weight of the randomized double blind studies that have been released far outweigh the observational studies (and there are observational studies that present a nil case for HCQ).

Also, I don’t believe that the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons is a reputable organization. In the past, for example, they’ve promoted the conspiracy theory that vaccines cause autism.

As far as Dr. Risch, I could share links of other epidemiologists and virologists taking him to task for his op-eds. The core of the criticisms is that he is giving far more weight to observational studies (some of which have been retracted) than to the randomized double blind, placebo-controlled studies.

What I’ve found, and why I wrote this article, is that research methodology is often ignored in favor of confirmation bias for many people.

If someone claims to have proven HCQ does not work, what you know is that they either don’t understand how statistics are used in these studies, or they’re intentionally deceiving you. The trick is that you do not prove the null hypothesis—that HCQ does not improve outcomes—but you rather “retain” it because there is not sufficient evidence for the alternative hypothesis, that HCQ helped people.

There is also a reality that some researchers tend to design experiments specifically so that there is not a sufficient sample or test to prove an alternative hypothesis, and yes, dishonest people use those to “prove” things that are just not true. This was very common, IMO, when federal and state governments were investigating the efficacy of “abstinence only” sex ed. One study I looked at did not even try to put together a reasonable control, and performed no statistical tests—but concluded that abstinence based sex ed did not work based on some spectral evidence nonetheless.

Given political passions about COVID, I wouldn’t be surprised to see a few such examples of chicanery in HCQ tests. Haven’t really looked through the data, but if history is a guide.

Another reality; given that there is a week or so incubation period before someone is sick enough to seek help, and then another bit of time before it’s time for the hospital/ICU, there are a number of ways the drug could be prescribed, and hence a study saying “it did not generate better outcomes in this regimen” does not necessarily contradict another with different usage.

Put gently; what we would expect in a politically charged epidemic that’s only been going on half a year or so.

Again, this is my concern: None of the studies that I linked to nor none of the others that I’m aware of make claims of epistemic certainty. In my article I made sure to use language like “studies demonstrated that HCQ is not an effective treatment” and “HCQ is not a miracle drug.” The problem is that many conservatives (Christian and otherwise) are very quick to latch on to suspect claims and lesser research while dismissing the most robust clinical studies as contaminated by political ideology. To be honest, from my vantage point, the pro-HCQ crowd is far more driven by political ideology than the scores of virologists and researchers doing the hard and apparently thankless task of examining the claims of the observational studies. I’m not saying that’s you, Bert, or that you disagree with me. It seems to me, though, that the concerns you expressed in your comment are far more valid for the pro-HCQ crowd than those who are currently skeptical of the drug’s effectiveness. From what I’ve seen, the only ones expressing epistemic certainty about the drug’s effectiveness are all pro-HCQ.

John, I’d argue it’s on both sides—hard to tell who’s worse. Keep in mind that the biggest study to date, out of Lancet, was retracted because the authors didn’t submit their data for third party peer review. And perhaps I’m reading other journals than you, but I’ve heard plenty of anti-HCQ triumphalism.

Still don’t know if it works, but the science is a mess. Part of it’s understandable, but my goodness…

We could go back and forth on which “side” expresses the most triumphalism or not. My concern (my reason for writing the article) is the methodological malfeasance being done by many conservatives to justify what increasingly seems to be a political issue for their “side.” Simply put, I want conservative Christians to be aware of our epistemic blindspots and be careful before making dogmatic truth claims based on shoddy and, at times (like Dr. Immanuel), downright faulty research methodology. I think it’s fair to say that I haven’t expressed any opinions about the efficacy (or lack thereof) of HCQ apart from what legitimate research currently reveals. And I’m more than willing to discover/interact with research that suggests otherwise. That being said, I’m also not going to lay aside what I know about the differences/values between observational studies and randomized double blind studies. To that end, I do have a question: Are you aware of any randomized double blind studies that offer evidence pointing in a different direction from the studies I linked to in my article (and the 5 others I didn’t link to)? If they exist, I want to know. That’s a conversation worth having. And, again, I would LOVE for it to be demonstrated that HCQ is an effective treatment. That would greatly ease my concerns about my kids going back into the classroom in two weeks.

Here is an interesting journal article from 2005 about chloroquine and SARS: Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread

I am a pastor, not a doctor, scientist, or statistician. Therefore I am not qualified to give opinions about the validity of scientific studies because I don’t know. I can only give references to various studies so people can have more information. This virus seems very complex and varied in its symptoms and health consequences. The body chemistry of people also varies. Perhaps certain medicines help some people but not others. If someone wants to take a certain legal medicine to see if it helps, then why not let them?

What is the thesis of my article? I’ll give you a hint: it’s in the title and the final sentence of my opening paragraph. And it is the sole reason why I wrote the article. Who said anything about banning people from taking legal medicines to see if it helps them? I know I didn’t.

Wally, google “Thalilomide” for reasons we’d want to do some experiments to demonstrate that the side effects of a drug do not in fact exceed the likely benefits of the drug. Or “Vioxx”, which earned my grandmother a triple bypass. Thankfully she’s still doing great at 100—they found out in time—but many were not that lucky. We have drug approvals for a very important reason.

One other thought; a good example of excessive confidence in the null hypothesis came from the World Health Organization, which stated flat out that a number of approaches “did not help” instead of saying “insufficient evidence exists”. Put gently, given the expertise of WHO, I can excuse the guys at Fox News and Breitbart for their errors far more than I can WHO. Not that it’s commendable in either case, but we ought to hold WHO to a higher standard.

(also of interest are statements of “masks do not work” early in the epidemic, when the real issue was “please save masks for first responders”)

John, the best thing I’ve seen for kids going back to school came from my daughter’s father in law, a pathologist at Mayo—and the upshot of what he showed us is that until age 24 or so, odds of significant problems are minimal. Not a big consolation to the families of kids who were those rare cases of having problems, but it places the odds in perspective for parents of kids who are basically healthy. Big risk factor outside of age is metabolic syndrome.

Bert, I’ve read similar studies but more studies are coming out. I haven’t read it yet, but a study just released apparently concludes that kids under 5 carry a larger viral load than anyone else, hence young kids are big vectors for the spread even if they never develop symptoms (again, this is the study’s conclusion - a study that I haven’t read and don’t have an opinion on). There are also studies here in Florida about post-COVID morbidities in children who had mild and asymptomatic cases that are not encouraging. I don’t worry about mortality regarding my kids if they get it; I worry about reduced lung capacity and greater risk for organ failure later in life. I also worry about them giving it to me and my wife.

Our kids are going to a private school this year and my wife and I are mostly happy with the measures the school is putting in place to help mitigate the potential for spread. Thankfully, the school’s cafeteria is outside (perk of Central Florida, and it was outside before all this) - the one place students can’t wear a mask for obvious reasons.

John: Never said anything about banning anything, just letting people take legal medicines.

Bert: My wife has taken HCQ for many years for another problem and hasn’t had any side effects.

Does not anyone realize that the sole purpose of these “pushes” for hydroxy is to appease Trump’s ego? All doctors can read the peer reviewed studies on hydroxy today and have access to the same medical literature and studies that everyone who is touting this has access to. All doctors can prescribe hydroxy. So what is the push? Consumers can’t prescribe themselves hydroxy? The FDA can’t change the labeling on the drugs into the drugs go through clinical trials. There are billions of dollars on the line here that pharma companies would love to get a hold of by running a study and proving that the drug works. Which at this point in time they have been reluctant to do, because they can’t prove it. I don’t know what the conversation around hydroxy is for? There is no deep state here. This is purely a private industry play, which they would love to make the money hand over fist if it was there. We are fighting over the benefits or non-benefits, but Trump slamming his fist down, doctors touting its benefits, FDA putting it on an emergency list…. None of that changes anything from what is happening today. It is showmanship to the consumer (who doesn’t have studies or who can’t prescribe) and trying to make Trump look right. If there was really something here, everyone would be going full steam, there is too much money at stake not to.

Not to be rude, but I’m not sure you read my comment any better than you read my article (if you even read it). You concluded your comment by asking a question. My comment was questioning the validity of your question as it relates to my argument. I mean, this is a comment thread under an article with a very clear thesis, right?