Replies

These are very clever arguments but not on point. I was speaking as to HCQ snd Ivermectin being ineffective. It’s particularly clever for people to say they are safe drugs that have been around for years. True. But they don’t work with CoVId. And as for your friends who survived would the outcome have been different without HCQ?

There is no question this is a complex systems question. But I think we are oversimplifying on both sides.

In my medical judgment I am not violating my oath on going no harm by advocating for vaccines. I can clearly observe that the amount of vaccinated patients in critical condition continues to be scant. You are attempting to enforce a presumed future analysis that does not exist to apply to a judgment today. I can only know what we know today. And today the vaccines appear to be working. Monoclonals work. Given this it would be doing harm to recommend a lesser treatment for the disease m

The treatment that is clinically superior is regeneron and monoclonals.

True. But they don’t work with CoVId. And as for your friends who survived would the outcome have been different without HCQ?

I can tell you they were too exhausted to get out of their bed, fever, weak, etc.

One dose of HCQ and both were up, energy, etc. It took less than 12 hours. One is my son-in-law, the other a business connection locally.

But, I guess you could say that is anecdotal... and I would gently point out that seeing what happens in your ICU is anecdotal also.

I believe the word anecdotal is maligned to only allow big pharma to introduce treatments. Anecdotal evidence, witnesses, and other types are all evidence. Particularly when there is little in the way of a long-term study and the future is unknown.

I can clearly observe that the amount of vaccinated patients in critical condition continues to be scant.

I pointed out that this is also an anecdotal observation - and from news stories in other places and the hospital my ICU nurse son-in-law works in, their ICU is filled mainly with the vaxxed. Another anecdotal observation. Which is correct??

You are attempting to enforce a presumed future analysis that does not exist to apply to a judgment today.

I gently point out that I am referring to the vaxx trials being rushed and shortened and then released to the control groups being ended so that no one can know - what will happen as a result. I also gently point out that judgment today *should* include the risk of what we do not know because of the corrupt process that led to emergency usage. Also, if you have no idea of the consequences of what you are advocating be injected, you are can't fully inform patients of a true potential risk.

Even the ferrets are dead, or we could ask them.

And today the vaccines appear to be working.

But this of course depends entirely on dumbing down what it means for a vaccine to work. It involves changing the definition, and assuming this will continue. It certainly won't, or you wouldn't be trying to choose what booster shot you might choose. This may be part of a 5-6 month cycle of trying to prop them up, since the vaxx doesn't cover the whole strike zone.

I hasten to add I don't envy people in your position, who witness adverse selection all day and are often helpless to stem the tide of death. I know an emergency room doctor - known him since 1973. As of last year, he is still (!) in that stressful emergency room environment week after week. Most people burn out in a decade.