Posted on 03/25/2020 9:23:43 AM PDT by kiryandil
But the fact that a drug doesn’t save every person does not really prove it isn’t effective, it just proves it isn’t 100% effective.
THe typical cancer treatment is graded on percent success, and some of them are like 10%, and others 90%, but none of them are 100%.
“Scott says you should look your doctor in the eyes and ask him if he would use the drug if he got symptoms”
Laura Ingraham asked Fauci that in an interview with him yesterday. I think she might have said serious symptoms. He said he would but he’d want to take it in the context of a clinical trial to gain scientific info. Nice little dance he did there.
Not at all. I threw out Thalidomide to demonstrate how long it takes for the public to forget our mistakes. And you knew immediately what drug I was talking about. Hell, since I retired I don’t know what the hell any o f the drugs I see in commercials even do.
You are completely incorrect.
https://malariajournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1475-2875-11-422
“A distinction should be made between formal policy (which is currently sequential deployment virtually everywhere) and the pragmatic realities of different countries and regions. Distribution of designated ACT through the formal health sector is the official policy in most countries.”
There is a whole body of literature attempting to find the best method of prophylaxis for the whole population. As above the official policy is most often sequential deployment to the entire population in an endemic area. The literature examines whether rotating the anti malarials used will hinder development of resistance.
Thanks a million!
The issue in Nevada, if you read the release closely, is that the grubernator is "worried" that lupus and rheumatoid patients who already take the medicine will have difficulty finding a supply if the hoarders get there first.
It's a commonly available drug. As the Cheeze-Its commercial says - "Get your own box. We'll make more".
So you saying there is a proposal. So my statement stands, for now. Fine.
I am 61 and definitely not pregnant. The analogy is not a good one.
I’m pretty sure i have seen “100%” effective fairly regularly here.
You did recognize the drug? I rest my case.
Honestly, unless you have a very long and trusted relationship with your primary care physician... or you’re on the same wealth curve Scott is... this is not the simplest of feats.
If I got hospitalized, and the doctor said “I want to try these meds on you”, I would definitely do it. I’d assume he would track me for bad side effects, and it’s not like he would be forgoing some OTHER treatment.
Frankly, if he told me he wanted to try one of the other meds, I might sign up for a trial, because I want to help.
My plan is to either ALREADY have had the damn thing, or never get it until they have known treatments. I like living.
And I haven’t proposed a randomized prospective study. All i want to know is the answer to my question. Which is a VERY legitimate ad hoc study that would be instantly published in every newspaper headline if true. Where is it?
Yep.
All I have asked is are there these patients among the dead. I would hope the answer is “No”. In that case I would say, “Have at it”. If there is an indication it makes no difference in outcomes we might want to pause for a moment.
I see it as primarily a treatment but don’t expect it to work in 100% of cases.
Gonna be interesting to see how the big trial that launched yesterday in NY goes.
And there we have it.
Note the other Fauci dancer on this thread, hey? 
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.