Posted on 03/29/2020 11:38:34 AM PDT by FreedomPoster
PRESENTATION OF PROFESSOR RAOULT Joined Sunday, this infectious disease specialist says he is convinced he has found a cure for the coronavirus. Professor Raoult deems it "immoral" to wait to administer it and says that he does not "care" that a clinical trial has been launched.
Didier Raoult is convinced of this: he has found "the" most effective remedy for treating patients with Covid-19.
Director of the Mediterranean Infection Marseille University Hospital Institute (Bouches-du-Rhône), this infectiologist, specialist in emerging tropical infectious diseases, says that chloroquine, an antimalarial used for decades and well known to travelers as Nivaquine, has dramatic effects on the ongoing epidemic.
Six days after giving it to patients with Covid-19, he said, only 25% of them were still infected with the virus, while 90% of those who had not received it were still positive.
If some of his colleagues do not take him seriously, questioning his methods and the results of his therapeutic trials, the Minister of Health, Olivier Véran, announced Saturday March 21 that this treatment would be tested "on a larger scale "
"I asked that Professor Raoult's study be reproduced [...] in other hospitals, by other independent teams, said the minister. I am that of extremely close. "
The government remains cautious, however, because Pr Raoult's results were obtained on 24 patients only, without placebo. "No country in the world has ever granted a treatment authorization on the basis of a study like this," underlines Olivier Véran.
(Excerpt) Read more at translate.googleusercontent.com ...
RE: I read it, he didn’t define his selection criteria.
You said that you suspect that he probably selected mostly asymptomatic patients in order to later to “advertise”that his protocol worked.
I wonder whether we are reading the same paper.
From the paper whose PDF link I sent you.... COPY AND PASTE from the section: Clinical classification and clinical follow-up
[START OF THE EXCERPT]
Upon admission, patients were grouped into two categories:
i) those with an upper respiratory
tract infection (URTI) presenting with rhinitis and/or pharyngitis, and/or isolated low-grade
fever and myalgia, and
ii) those with lower respiratory tract infections (LRTI) presenting with symptoms of pneumonia or bronchitis.
The time between the onset of symptoms and
admission, and the time between the onset of symptoms and treatment was documented.
Risk factors for severe COVID-19, including older age, cancer, cardiovascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes (4), as well as chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, obesity and any immunosuppressive treatments were documented.
The national early warning score (NEWS) for COVID-19 patients, was collected upon ward admission and during follow up. The NEWS score was calculated based on the following parameters:
Age, respiratory rate, oxygen saturation, temperature, systolic blood pressure, pulse rate and level of consciousness (19). We defined three risk categories for clinical deterioration: low score (NEWS 0-4), medium score (NEWS 5-6), and high score (NEWS) for COVID patients.
The need for oxygen therapy, transfer to the intensive care unit (ICU), death, and length of stay in the ID ward were documented.
Chest computed tomography
Patients systematically underwent an unenhanced chest low-dose computed tomography (LDCT) upon admission or soon after, using a single CT machine (Revolution EVO - GE Healthcare, WI, USA). All images were analysed by experienced chest radiologists, then
classified as compatible or not compatible with pneumonia.
Images were considered to be compatible in the presence of peripheral multifocal ground-glass opacities with or without reticulations, or in the presence of alveolar consolidation or crazy paving pattern.
[END OF THE EXCERPT]
What ever he did, Dr. Raoult did not rig his study to only select asymptomatic Covid-19 positive patients. as you alleged.
RE: I want to actually save lives.
As do we all. But your skepticism isn’t healthy IMHO.
Here is what one of the primary Chicken Littles wrote a few days ago. They constantly predict catastrophe. Then a day will come when they blame Trump for a horrific economy that was shut down for too long.
Here is just one fear monger prediction from a chicken little
( below )
>>>>It crosses my mind that when we have some 2,000 deaths in one day next weekend (this weekend) people may lose their appetite to return to work.<<<
posted on 3/23/2020, 11:35:51 AM
by >> wastoute <<
26 posted on 3/29/2020, 4:42:15 PM by Calif Conservative (A)
So you changed your screen name. It’s still trash.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You will have to be more specific.
Effective treatment of such a high-risk population is very significant.>>>>
I concluded the same. But the therapy has to be administered early, before the lungs fill with mucus.
RE: “Promising results” is not the same as saving lives.
Sure, but “Promising results” also means that IT ACTUALLY WORKED for small number of people.
It also means we don’t abandon the protocol and OUGHT TO TRY IT.
If Kobe Bryant ( who wasn’t that good in his first few years in the NBA ) showed “promise”, what do you do?
Do you simply leave him benched, or do you try him out?
I just looked at my gmail. I don’t see anything from you. I clicked a link to the article in the thread for Dr Raoul. “Cleared the virus” is not an endpoint I care about. Mortality. Decreased mortality. I don’t care about drugs that give you three days less of runny nose. Decreased mortality.
You don’t understand. My skepticism kept me from harming patients. 40 years and not one lawsuit. I’d say I didn’t do too badly.
So it saved lives? Decreased mortality? What study is that? I’d love to see it.
That was a week ago. I have already posted I was off a day or two.
So I know what to look for, could you provide a 4 sentence list of what the thresholds for such a paper would be? Things like sample size, p value thresholds, measure of success, etc.
RE: You don’t understand. My skepticism kept me from harming patients. 40 years and not one lawsuit. I’d say I didn’t do too badly.
You sir, are talking about NORMAL TIMES. We are not living in normal times ( an understatement ).
RE: I just looked at my gmail. I don’t see anything from you.
I sent you a link to the PDF study. You never gave me your email,why should you expect an email via gmail?
I typed bmail. I got AutoKKKorected.
RE:So it saved lives? Decreased mortality? What study is that? I’d love to see it.
Again, here is the paper:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-IHU-2-1.pdf
Please read the paper and tell us which part of the study you find questionable and how you would change the study to make it acceptable to you (given the exceptional situation we find ourselves in ).
Ah so you’re moving the goal posts. Excellent
You were “off” by a day or two
aka wrong
By the way, I posted to you Dr. Raoult’s selection criteria in his study, I’m still waiting for you to tell me whether you still believe he only chose asymptomatic patients or not, or can we dispense with that canard?
My est. was based on a doubling time of 2 days. Better data shows the doubling time is about 2.6. That is the source of error in my estimate.
Quick! Hide this and require two year double-blind tests ( or at least till after the 2020 elections) so maybe “we” can take President Trump out with a closed down economy, high unemployment and “we” Dems promising the world.
Tell me I’m wrong.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally an “actual paper”. The link I was was an interview with the guy and based on that I didn’t see it. Finally, an article that takes me longer than a few seconds to throw in the trash. I promise I will read it carefully in the morning. My wife is tapping her foot right now. I did glance at the conclusions. I agree there is potential to show viral clearing to decrease progression of the disease to a more sever form. Let me spend some time reading this carefully. As I have pointed out before, to have an effect on a “blue patient” a drug has to have a stunning effect. In my experience shows promise can still be a coin toss or worse in the ICU. Drugs like gentamicin which are highly effective frequently fail in the ICU.
As I have said all along, there were people taking these drugs prior. How did they do?
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.