Don’t. Notice he has yet to say just which patients they studied. On vents? Asymptomatic? Seriously ill? If they only studied “asymptomatic” people and half on average had had the illness for several days I would expect half of those studied to have cleared the virus in a week if they received nothing. Tucker was probably right to be skeptical.
When people are vague on the details, ignore them.
........... save it.
__________________
Everyone is right to be "skeptical" at times such as this.
Personally, I saw no "skepticism" last night from Tucker. He actually seemed properly enthusiastic.
The way I read it, the trial is for the actual health workers to take the drug themselves and see if that prevents acquiring the virus in a statistically significant manner. If that works it keeps for providers online. Also we could see people both asymptomatic and virus clear, taking it to prevent new cases. Other folks are looking at it as treatment for active cases.
These are already drugs on the market. This is just an ‘off-label’ prescription. No need for phase I, safety and side effects already known. Will be interesting to see.
Yes, but there is a ton of background research on this as a possible approach.
There are decades of history from Americans, and others using this drug.
There is the maps (global) showing an almost perfect match between Coronavirus infections, vs. the use of this for Malaria treatment. Virtually a perfect match, except reversed...
Where there is strong use of this drug as an anti-malarial drug, there is NOT currently an outbreak of Coronavirus. Where there is not a history of using this drug, there is significant current infection.
Virtually a perfect match.
And (apparently) China is about to report a good match, in their research, with actually apparently, solving cases successfully. If I understood that portion of the news, correctly?
I am very intrigued by this news.