Standard treatment = Anything but HCQ
Looks like a good article /in before the Plandemikers...
So let me re-state the three essentials: : PREVENTION, PREVENTION, PREVENTION.
“Based on this, we recommend that clinicians provide evidence-based ARDS treatments to patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and await standardized clinical trials before contemplating novel therapies,” said co–lead author Jehan Alladina, MD, an Instructor in Medicine at Mass General.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
In other words do not employ Hydroxy Chloroquine, Azithromycin along with Zinc vitamin, a treatment that the American Board of Surgeons have indicated is 97% successful.
Jehan Alladina is a public health asshole. Period.What he is saying is inhumane.
This is no time now for the unethical organization of clinical trials which give infected patients placebos instead of the successful therapy.
Doctors who violate there Hippocratic oath are not doctors.
Study finds that most people (5 out of 6) who play Russian Roulette survive.
I mean, they can do both. I have no doubt we have better treatment than China and some european countries.
But it is also helpful to get people out of hospitals quicker, and so if a medication can do that, or if it can prevent people from getting to the point where they need a ventilator, why not?
I am beginning to think that HCQ is not particularly effective when given to people already in critical care. But that a lot of these people get better with treatment, so giving then HCQ, and then focusing on their treatment, makes it look like HCQ might be helping, when it is just the extra care and treatment they are getting, that China didn’t give and other countries didn’t give.
And that doesn’t bother me at all. I don’t own stock in HCQ, Trump never said “HCQ is my cure”, so it is not an attack on Trump if it turns out HCQ is less helpful than it looked.
What is sad is how many people seem happy when we find a treatment isn’t as good as we hoped, and seem to hate when people try to find hope at all.
I’ll try and come back to this as I have a ton of other things to attend to.
But looking at the journal study, I have some perceptions. I’ll leave a snippet of perspective here for now.
From the American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine (AJRCCM), the MassGen and Harvard system clinical treatments occurred between March 11 and March 30, 2020. Their report was published April 29, 2020.
“Five to twenty percent of hospitalized patients with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection are admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU), with mortality reported between 26% and 61.5% (1-3).”
Those are high mortality rates, far too high. It’s accurate to say the standard of care in the settings cited in (1-3) are failures for COVID-19.
The cited references (1-3) are to reports published early on from 1) Lombardy, Italy 2) Wuhan, China 3) Seattle USA.
I would throw out the China Lancet study because the PRC has discredited itself. The others in Lombardy and Seattle were recorded in EHR before the known success therapies of Raoult in France and Zelenko in NY. So these EHR data are indeed baselines of sorts.
What the MassGen clinicians are doing is taking the referenced EHR baseline data and comparing with a baseline established using their own protocols in their own clinics.
Note the MassGen clinicians are used to treating respiratory illnesses in their own way and had not the experience of using Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the timeframe of their study nor were there any published reports of HCQ therapy in house at the time.
So they were just interested in comparing baseline to baseline.
The reason they are doing this is logical but they should be using HCQ by now out of published reports, MD field communications, out of patient compassion and sensitivity.
It’s valuable how they provide baseline data on standard of care that can be used by other treatments to measure against.
More later, maybe.
77,212 patients who received this standard care were UNAVAILABLE for comment.
They are DEAD.
Maybe they are talking about the Islamic Mullahs who claim shoving oil soaked cotton balls up the ass is the cure.
But wait, what's this on Page 14? (edited by me):
| Selected Inpatient Medications: | % patients |
| Hydroxychloroquine | 91% |
| Azithromycin | 97% |
| Remdesevir (or placebo) | 26% |
Step 1: Induce ARDS by use of ventilator
Step 2: Treat ARDS as well as the effects of China Virus
Better idea, print and take copy of attached protocol if you must go to hospital
They never seem to state what the “standard” medicines, or therapeutics that are given to Rona patients. Surely it’s not just “ventilators”. Injections? pills? transfusions? What? We’re raising a whole class of sloppy thinkers.
Outcome of study of 66 patients? Authoritative!
Outcome of thousands of patient recoveries on HCQ? Anecdotal!
Bkmk
I get that we would all like to see some good numbers on people treated early with HCQ,Zpak and zinc. But until someone can duplicate Dr. Z's numbers I think we are stuck. Certainly the recent observational study out of Columbia Presbyterian seems to indicate that starting HCQ at the time of hospitalization doesn't really do much.
We won't have numbers on HCQ for prophylactic use until next year.
There was a Critical Care Doc in Las Vegas that had success with prone positioning before they get to intubation. As patients who don't improve and are borderline on whether they should intubate they are able to turn them around with prone positioning. This saves them from being intubated.
The unfortunate thing is we are watching medical research in real time. Studies usually take a year or more. Frontline Doctors are too busy and you have to rely on major centers to compile data since they have residents and fellows that can assist with data collection. It's hard to be patient when everyone that's not working is getting to the end of their savings.