” I suggested that a better test, one with fewer false positives, should be used the next time this anti-viral is tried. “
The test for ebola is fraught with false negatives, not false positives.
If you look at the structure for this particular drug you will see a very similar structural moiety that’s also present in the favipiravir that’s arrested ebola in lab studies.
What ‘rigorous controls’ would you suggest with patients who have an 80+% mortality rate should they be placed in a ‘control’ group?
Maybe if we wait 6 months or so to set up a proper experiment we could ‘properly’ test this and other experimental drugs. Course, there’ll be a half a million dead by then. But at least we’ll have a properly controlled experiment.
If your loved one was infected with ebola would you stamp your foot and insist on only treatments that had been tested with ‘proper controls’?
I would advise not rejecting the scientific method under these circumstances. The more dire the circumstances the greater the need to operate free of bias and sentimentality.
Simple replication of the findings by another professional would suffice as a first step.
I remember a few years ago when an enthusiastic clinician announced that Vitamin D prevented influenza.
The issue isn’t withholding treatment. No one advocated control groups — the rest of the sick population is the control group. The issue is advancing treatment for this deadly disease based on valid and repeatable findings.
The observation from one of the articles that a theoretical justification is found in the viral similarity to HIV is encouraging.