哥倫比亞大學醫學博士詹姆斯·托達羅醫生解析NIH支持的明尼蘇達大學羥氯喹隨機對照試驗 – 針針見血!

圖片來源:https://twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD

有著著名的哥倫比亞大學醫學博士學位的詹姆斯·托達羅醫生(Dr. James Todaro),於8月1日發系列推文,以明尼蘇達大學發表的一項最新羥氯喹研究為例,詳細解析了被國家醫學研究院的福奇博士常常掛在嘴邊的「隨機對照試驗」的可能的缺陷和由此帶來誤導和欺騙性。這項所謂的「隨機對照試驗」漏洞百出,誤導沒有醫學和流行病學常識的普通美國民眾,使一個自3月份以來,被廣大戰鬥在抗疫第一線的美國醫生,用他們大量臨床治療經驗證明了的,目前最有效的藥物-羥氯喹無法讓美國民眾使用。美國越來越多的民眾開始認識到科研和醫藥領域可能存在的腐敗和看到所謂的「專家」和「科學家」的假冒偽善。

推文(中英文對照)

1/ Dr. Fauci is misleading the American people when he says that randomized controlled trials have shown hydroxychloroquine to be ineffective. Here’s why.

福奇博士在談到隨機對照試驗顯示羥氯喹無效,是在誤導美國人民。

下面就是原因:

2/ There’s only one double-blind RCT on HCQ in early treatment of COVID-19.All of the other RCTs (SOLIDARITY, RECOVERY, etc) were in very sick patients and are borderline worthless because they just support what we’ve been saying since March—HCQ is for early disease, not late.

目前僅有一個關於新冠病毒早期治療的雙盲臨床試驗。所有其它臨床試驗(例如SOLIDARITY https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments ,RECOVERY https://www.recoverytrial.net 等 [注:大寫英文為臨床試驗簡稱])都招募了重症參與者而且是近乎無用的,這也恰恰支持我們早在3月份的宣傳:羥氯喹需要用於疾病的早期,而不是晚期治療。

3/ The “randomized controlled trial” for EARLY treatment of COVID-19 that Dr. Fauci is too embarrassed to even mention by name is the one done by the University of Minnesota, 「Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19」 (Jul 2020) 

令福奇博士羞於提及試驗名字的新冠病毒早期治療的隨機對照臨床試驗,是由明尼蘇達大學完成的《羥氯喹用於非住院成年人的新冠病毒早期治療」(2020年7月)》

4/ The Minnesota study is honestly an embarrassment to the term 「randomized controlled trial」 and should actually be called an 「anonymous online survey」 instead.

老實說,明尼蘇達的研究是對「隨機對照試驗」的侮辱,充其量只能被稱為「匿名線上調查」。

5/ Only 34% of participants had a positive PCR test. The remaining 66% either did not have a PCR test or actually tested negative. This means that a positive diagnosis was made based on only SYMPTOMS for the vast majority of participants. This isn’t great, but it gets worse.

參與者中僅有34%PCR檢測陽性。其餘66%的參與者要麼沒有進行PCR檢測要麼檢測陰性。這就意味著對大多數參與者的陽性診斷是基於症狀。

這還不是最糟糕的,後面還有更多。

6/ The participants were evaluated via a static online survey and not actually seen by physicians or medical personnel. So the quality of the diagnosis was essentially equivalent to someone typing symptoms into WebMD.

參與者是由一個靜態線上問卷調查,而不是醫生或醫療工作者評估的。所以診斷的質量基本上等同於一個人自己在網絡醫生網站(WebMD)上輸入症狀。

7/ What happens if a large percent of the participants didn’t actually have COVID-19? It would diminish the observed therapeutic effect of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ probably isn’t going to help allergies or the common cold).

如果試驗參與者中大多數人實際沒有感染新冠病毒,會怎樣?這會使羥氯喹治療效果消失,沒法被觀測到(羥氯喹估計不會對過敏和普通感冒有幫助)。

8/ Next point. If the researchers had kept their original end point (hospitalization/death), the study would’ve actually shown a strong trend toward benefit for HCQ. Instead, the researchers changed the end point mid-study from hospitalizations/death to symptoms at 14 days.

下一點。如果研究人員能保持原始臨床終點(入院/死亡)不變,這項研究應該能顯示很強的羥氯喹有效的趨勢。相反,研究人員在研究中間把臨床終點從入院/死亡改成第14天(有無)症狀。

9/ The conclusion of the study is actually a ~40% reduction in hospitalizations/deaths in patients treated with HCQ vs placebo (2.5% vs 4.1%). This did not reach significance, but would have been strong encouragement to proceed with additional higher powered RCTs.

這項研究的結論是服用羥氯喹的參與者比對照組的入院/死亡率降低了40% (2.5% 比 4.1%)。試驗結論並未達到統計顯著,但這為以後開展一個高功效、隨機對照臨床試驗是一個強有力的鼓舞。

10/ The good news is that Dr. Fauci & the NIH started a trial in May doing just this. The bad news is they cancelled the trial after enrolling only 20 subjects in order to focus on a new trial evaluating remdesivir plus baricitinib (another 「novel」 patented drug).

一個好消息是福奇和美國國家醫學研究院在5月份啓動了一個檢驗這個(羥氯喹)的臨床試驗。壞消息是他們在招募20個參與者後就取消了臨床試驗,因為他們要專注於一個新的研究瑞德西韋加巴立替尼(另一個「新」註冊藥)療效的臨床試驗。

11/ In conclusion, it’s been >4 mos since HCQ was proposed for early stage COVID-19. Yet, with their vast resources, neither the WHO nor NIH conducted a trial on this. Instead Dr. Fauci’s evidence for the inefficacy of HCQ comes from an online survey under the guise of an RCT.

總之,在羥氯喹被建議用於新冠病毒早期治療四個月後,儘管世界衛生組織和美國國家醫學研究院有海量的資源但卻並未開展一個臨床試驗。反過來福奇博士關於羥氯喹無效的證據是來自一個披著隨機對照試驗外衣的線上調查。

“You look at the scientific data & the evidence. And the scientific data…on trials that are valid that were randomized & controlled in the proper way, all of those trials show consistently that HCQ is not effective in the treatment of coronavirus” – Fauci

「你來看科學數據和證據。而且這些科學數據 … 是來自有效的而合適的隨機對照試驗,所以這些臨床試驗都一致地顯示羥氯喹對於治療新冠病毒是無效的。」 – 福奇

閱讀明尼蘇達大學論文全文

翻譯:【John】校對:【Michelle】編輯整理:【Michelle】

戰友之家玫瑰園小隊出品

3+
0 則留言
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

熱門文章

Isaiah4031

“but those who hope in the Lord will renew their strength. They will soar on wings like eagles; they will run and not grow weary, they will walk and not be faint” 【Isaiah 40:31】 8月 08日, 2020