Yes, that is what I am saying and it’s according to the captions (which are in French) on those statistics. They have total number of people treated with the combination, irrespective of the amount of time they were on it, and then the number of people who died who were taking the combination but only if they were taking it for more than 3 days. It’s seriously misleading considering a lot of people are looking at their results.
So they’re showing only 1 person who died taking the combination but that’s because that 1 person was only counted because they took it 4 or more days. They’re not counting the people who died who took it less than 4 days.
In fact, it could be that the people taking this combination died at a higher rate than those at the hospital not taking it since there were 16 total deaths at the hospital but those 16 deaths are not broken down except for saying only 1 person taking the combination for 4 or more day died. Since they’re not breaking it down, it’s entirely possible that there were 16 deaths of people taking the combination and 0 deaths from those not taking it.
Yes, common sense could say that but if you want to be taken seriously, you have to report it since coronavirus effects people differently. If you exclude everyone who dies who was treated with your therapy to make yourself look better it’s at best misleading statistics. And it’s clearly not a couple hours away from death because they’re putting the cutoff at 3 days or less. Lots of people go in with coronavirus okay and died a couple days later.
Also important to note is that France doesn’t distribute patients evenly so it’s also not clear that the people sent to this hospital are the worst patients.
I actually think France is doing a good job with coronavirus and hopefully this particular treatment works out, but they have to be transparent if they want to be taken seriously. The statistics on that website are designed to be misleading.
1) Reduce the viral load
2) Reducing the viral load, reduces shedding, reduces transmission
3) Reducing the viral load may shorten the ICU/CCU stay and return the patient to the regular (infectious disease) ward and open up critical care beds
The measure of improvement over time is specifically notable in the first trial report, in that, D4 is the noteworthy first drop-off point in viral load for PQL-only and PQL+Azith, and D6 is the noteworthy hard drop-off point in viral load for PQL+Azith.
Raoult was also adament that IF reducing the viral load also reduces lethality, so be it. But it was not the trial's goal.
Yet to report the 'lack' of deaths is more about the safety of the protocol -- extensively discussed in the second trial report -- than an attempt to 'fool' people like you into thinking Raoult is touting this as a 'cure'. He's not, and he says so.