(10-11-2021, 12:27 AM)luka_skywalker_77 Wrote: Sim, adding for your reference (basically a collection of natural immunity studies):
Your Natural Immunity Cheat Sheet
https://rationalground.com/your-natural-...eat-sheet/
"I’ve been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong, and that’s because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine."
And one other, regarding trials and process: https://earlycovidcare.org/text/
In sum: "In short, while any individual observational study may be better or worse conducted, it is highly misleading to portray observational studies generally as merely “anecdotal.” Again, many of today’s commonly used treatments were discovered or validated through careful observational trials and only later, if ever, subject to RCTs. It should also be emphasized that this practice continues. A review of cardiac drug approvals and treatment recommendations from 2008-2018, covering 51 current guidelines, noted “the proportion supported by evidence from RCTs remains small,” including just 8.5% of American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines and 14.3% of European Society of Cardiology (ESC) guidelines. On that note, another review of observational studies and RCTs argues: “We do not believe that dependable clinical evidence only comes from RCTs….If RCTs were required for proof of efficacy of a given treatment, the practice of clinical medicine would indeed be reduced to a relatively few verified treatments.”
It’s particularly unrealistic to demand RCTs confirming efficacy against COVID-19 before using a drug like hydroxychloroquine for that purpose for several reasons. RCTs face logistical challenges. High-quality randomized studies require intensive preparation, controls and oversight. These expenses are often beyond the limited resources available in many healthcare settings. And poorly designed and executed RCTs can just as easily produce results that are meaningless or misleading – as has been the case with a number of COVID-19 treatments. In fact, some authors have argued that “in the end, an observational study with credible corrections and a more relevant and much larger study sample…may provide a better estimate [than small or flawed RCTs].” Indeed this is precisely the case with the small group of poorly designed and executed RCTs cited by critics seeking to discredit hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19."
It further goes into detail regarding how this played out in control trials for HXQ.
Pretty interesting to say the least.
If you need longtime observation to see if there is any effect other than the known side effects, the positive effect you will find will be marginal.
Why even invest in something like that.
And I would love to have a cure.