Perfect indication of why science has to tread slowly

The Orange buffoon may not like it, but in order to have value, science has to tread very carefully and that very often means very slowly with lots of repetition.


Because unless you do a lot of repeating of studies to see if original conclusions are correct, you won’t ever really know if what you’re touting from an observational study is effective.

Or even safe.

Hydroxychloroquine, Regeneron, etc etc etc.

And a recent story in Medscape is a perfect illustration of why it generally takes several studies, especially if the originals are observational studies, to determine the connection between a particular product and the risks or benefits from that product.

Thus, according to this report, “2 observational studies have yielded opposite findings regarding the effect of routine statin use by people with diabetes who are hospitalized with COVID-19.”

One study found that in people with Type 2 diabetes (T2DM) statin use was associated with a lower risk of dying in hospital from COVID-19, while a second study , published at the same time as the former, found that routine statin treatment was “significantly associated with increased mortality” in T2DM patients hospitalized for COVID-19, that is, people with T2DM taking statins died in greater numbers that those not taking statins.

So which is it?

No surprise: This needs much more research.

As always.