Scores by kind of claim
Each kind of claim is scored on its own, out of 100: the share that held up, with the range it likely falls in. Fewer resolved claims give a wider range.
-
Factual claims
Statements about the present or the past, checked against the record: did they hold up?
72 64 80 -
Predictions
Statements about events outside the person's control, checked once they fell due: did they come true?
58 40 75
All types combined: 70 (likely 62 to 77, high confidence), from 52 claims: 43 factual claims, 9 predictions. It mixes kinds of claim in different proportions for different people, so compare people kind by kind.
Vinod Khosla's claims
“It also suggests 10-plus potential treatments, many of which are already FDA approved.”
Vinod Khosla, on X 4 September 2020 Post by @vkhosla on X, 2020-09-04 (X)
The bradykinin hypothesis for Covid-19 suggests 10-plus potential treatments, many of which are already FDA approved.
Mostly true True in substance, wrong in a detail.
The second judge would not resolve this claim; the verdict shown is the first judge's.
What would count as true or false
Judge as of September 2020 against the bradykinin hypothesis literature (Garvin et al., eLife 2020) and the coverage of it at the time. True: these sources set out about ten or more candidate treatments, and many of them (several, not just one or two) were drugs already approved by the FDA, for any indication. Mostly true: the count was slightly under ten (about 7–9), or only a few of the candidates were FDA approved. Mixed: the hypothesis named only a handful of treatments, with some approved. Mostly false: it named only a few candidates and at most one approved drug. False: it proposed no specific treatments, or none of the named ones was FDA approved.
Evidence
- A mechanistic model and therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 involving a RAS-mediated bradykinin storm eLife (via PubMed Central) · 7 July 2020
“Several interventional points (most of them already FDA-approved pharmaceuticals) could be explored with the goal of increasing ACE, decreasing BK, or blocking BK2 receptors (Table 1).”
- A mechanistic model and therapeutic interventions for COVID-19 involving a RAS-mediated bradykinin storm eLife (via PubMed Central) · 7 July 2020
“Hymecromone (4-methylumbelliferone) is approved for use in Asia and Europe for the treatment of biliary spasm.”
- Bradykinin Hypothesis: Potential Explanation for COVID-19 Pharmaceutical Intelligence (Aviva Lev-Ari) · 8 September 2020
“repurpose existing FDA approved drugs such as Danazol, Stanasolol, Icatibant, Ecallantide, Berinert, Cynryze, Haegarda, etc..”
Reasoning
The Garvin et al. eLife paper proposes several intervention points, "most of them already FDA-approved pharmaceuticals" (E1). It also names hymecromone, which it describes as approved for use in Asia and Europe, without saying whether it is FDA approved (E2). Coverage from September 2020 lists seven named drugs it calls FDA approved, followed by "etc." (E3). Together these show at least eight named candidates, many of them FDA approved. The quoted evidence does not confirm ten or more, because the paper's Table 1 is not in the fetched text, so the count is only shown in the 7–9 range.
Cite this claim
Vinod Khosla, “The bradykinin hypothesis for Covid-19 suggests 10-plus potential treatments, many of which are already FDA approved.” (said 4 September 2020). Verdict: mostly true. Reliability API, claim c_95e1d691387f, method 0.1.0+c876030c. https://epistacklabs.com/claims/c_95e1d691387f
Claims without a verdict
Is a verdict here wrong, or do you speak for Vinod Khosla? Reply on the claim's own page, with the form at its foot (how replies work). Verdicts are made automatically; how verdicts and scores are made.