Posted on 04/21/2020 7:32:16 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
RE: Sorry, I’m with you up to a point. But when I see people doing things that were considered unethical not long ago and actually illegal when I was in Med School (and we ALL knew better back then) I kind of DO feel “justified” in pointing it out. You may not like the way I do it but my criticism of how this was done is VERY valid.
And I am with you as well. However, I find it hard to dismiss the work of REPUTABLE doctors ( some of whose names I listed above ) who have been doing what they are doing for decades.
I also feel “justified” in pointing out that their work should not simply be dismissed out of hand as trash and unproven ( not your words, but the media’s favorite world ).
RE: In an interview with Forward, Zelenko “acknowledged that his regimen was new and untested, and that it was too soon to assess its long-term effectiveness.”
I heard his interview with Hannity and Laura Ingraham. He READ about studies made in China,South Korea and was not unaware of the work of Didier Raoult in Marseille.
RE: As has been noted elsewhere, combining hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin can cause serious problems for people with certain heart conditions
Yes, and most other drugs have side effects as well for other conditions. Which ones do not?
That Dr. Zelenko made this caveat simply shows that he is not a careless doctor.
So why was this sort of thing illegal decades ago? This right here. You end up with treatments that are supported by wild and unsubstantiated claims that lay people can’t really be expected to understand and that makes them vulnerable to charlatans some earnest and some, perhaps not. The rightful place for these discussions is away from the public. Not for nefarious reasons but the public just isn’t informed enough to participate. Not through any fault of their own. if I were in a room full of Infectious Disease Specialists I would listen carefully and probably not utter a word. Even my fund of knowledge can’t put me into competition on their playing field.
Instead, I’m here trying to help you understand things that you probably could have lived a very happy life without ever dealing with at all. I’m happy to do it, don’t get me wrong.
RE: So why was this sort of thing illegal decades ago? This right here
Because we never had a pandemic as bad and widespread as this one that has in effect, shut down the world’s economy.
The fact that there have been studies made in China, South Korea, France and other places that showed promise and the fact that we are not living in normal conditions, tell us that it is worth a try. And if it was tried and found to be quite effective ( again, by doctors who have been practicing for decades ), I would say that there is good evidence that it is not ( to use the words of the media ) UNPROVEN.
If you want 100% proof, I’m sorry, there is not such animal. All we have are sufficient evidence on hundreds of patients that it has worked for them,and the other studies in other countries. That should be at least good enough NOT to tag the words — UNPROVEN to it.
I would not even call your own proposed non-HCQ protocol unproven if it has been shown to work for hundreds of people.
Exactly! If the people who have been given the treatment have better outcomes the game is done! So far nobody has produced that evidence. I do so wish they would.
Part of the problem is now in the last two days there is a big controversy about “What the ‘True CFR’ is.” Is it the 4% or 5% worldometers suggests or something lower. People seemed to think that removing False Positives (I saw an article yesterday that did so by designating subtext “s” for mild to indicate they had removed all positives with no symptoms) but then blew it by assuming that would LOWER the CFR (it wouldn’t) and that article seemed to disappear pretty fast.
I can say with confidence I have never commented on what any retard Rat Governor has done. Although, had it been me in Michigan I think I might have asked people not to go up NOrth where the resources are slim. I’d like to think, if asked, Americans would do the right thing. Mostly.
He seems to have based his treatment on a Petri Dish. (Dr Zelenko). Which is fine. And I am certainly not “against research”. But when a serious researcher does research he discusses his results with his peers. He doesn’t blast it to the world on the internet by email. THAT is how you get all this chaos. That is why what he did was once illegal.
My entire point is it doesn’t have to be “unproven”. The data is there. Somebody has access to it.
If you look at the article critiquing Dr Raoult’s large study you will see the “lack of an RCT” was only one of many criticisms and they even addressed the time sensitive nature of the issue. The lack of a control group was only a minor criticism compared to the rest. Read it again carefully. They point out one thing after the next.
And my point is the work done by physicians who have been in practice for decades should not simply be discarded as if they are nothing. Not Not if these doctors have used it on hundreds of their patients.
Then let them publish the evidence that supports their claims! So far they haven’t done it.
Again, you are talking as if we live in normal times.
If a doctor did his work on nearly a hundred patients and found success and detailed the limitations of his work as he did, and presented his protocol and patient profile for others to replicate, a country based on the first amendment such as ours should not put him in a position where he would be in danger of jail.
We are a country based in FREEDOM. If you think his speech is bad speech, then the remedy is BETTER SPEECH, not incarceration.
When “these doctors” are doing things that have long been held by other doctors as unethical for the very reasons we are now embroiled in, yes, their work should be reviewed with a “little skepticism”. It would seem their ACTUAL peers are a little concerned as well, I don’t see a one of these people rushing to support Dr Raoult.
https://academic.oup.com/jid/pages/Editorial_Board
But what I DO see is Dr Raoult’s work was first listed as “submitted for review by the IJAA” and then subsequently after getting a Rejection Notice he, it seems, has now gone on to publish in some “Travel Advisory” Journal. Resubmitting the same work to a lesser Journal is not a sign of “great work”. Correcting the Deficinecies and resubmitting it to the original Journal are the “usual” and by not going public no one notices.
RE: When “these doctors” are doing things that have long been held by other doctors as unethical for the very reasons we are now embroiled in, yes, their work should be reviewed with a “little skepticism”. It would seem their ACTUAL peers are a little concerned as well, I don’t see a one of these people rushing to support Dr Raoult.
Sure, you can be skeptical. But again, I need to emphasize, the sort of study that you want IS BEING DONE already even as we speak, but while we are waiting for those results, do we simply sit around and not try a protocol that has SOME EVIDENCE of promise? And if someone like Zelenko, who DID the work and DID give limitations of his work and DID present the protocol that he used published it, should we threaten him with jail?
You seem to favor that. I don’t, so this is where we part ways.
If you think his work is shoddy, by all means publish your concerns on the internet the same way he did his. There’s no one stopping you.
RE: But what I DO see is Dr Raoult’s work was first listed as “submitted for review by the IJAA” and then subsequently after getting a Rejection Notice he, it seems, has now gone on to publish in some “Travel Advisory” Journal. Resubmitting the same work to a lesser Journal is not a sign of “great work”.
Ok, you believe it is not great work. But do you not believe that some of his results do have some merit,enough for others, in conjunction with work done by Chinese and Korean researchers, to at least give it a try?
After all, you did say you have your own preferred protocol. Well and good. Let’s give both a try to see which one gives better results.
6,000 doctors who have used the HCQ combo and are comnfortable with it, should not be simply accorded the label — UNPROVEN.
Regarding the French hospital site, can you translate and interpret the following:
“1. The heading for the 91k tests: Is it total tests the hospital has given?”
Yes - IHU Méditerranée Infection/AP-HM total tests performed
“2. The heading for the 36k tests: Is that total patients tested?”
Yes - IHU Méditerranée Infection/AP-HM patients tested
“3. The heading for the 4.5k tests: Is that total patients with Covid-19?”
Yes - IHU Méditerranée Infection/AP-HM patients tested positive for Covid-19
“And then, do you know if the 3000 treated with HCQ/zithro and the 12 deaths are included in the total hospital numbers? If so, that would mean they’re treating 65.5% of their Covid patients with HCQ and getting only 12% of the deaths. And it would also mean that only 12/2999 = 0.4% are dying of the treated patients whereas 88/(4579-2999) = 88/1580 = 5.6% of the untreated are dying. But I don’t know if the 4,579 includes the 2,999?”
The 2999 are a unique population treated with HCQ+AZ. Not totally sure how the fit into the larger group of 4579. Either way you interpret this, the untreated group mortality is an order magnitude higher than the group treated with HCQ+AZ
“Comparing the two numbers isn’t quite fair though, because some patients are probably in such bad shape on arrival that they can’t get 3 days of the drug combo into them. And then you also don’t know the final outcome of the 2,999 patients yet. They need to start posting some recovery numbers too for this to have much meaning.”
This data has been updated daily since late February. The majority is considered mature for at least the last 10 days.
Compare this same/similar population of 3000 people to any other region/hospital system with the only difference being the standard WHO treatment protocol without HCQ+AZ. The mortality rate will be similar to the 4579 group - an order magnitude higher.
Dr. Didier Raoult results are very difficult to refute - HCQ+AZ significantly reduces the viral shedding duration, averts intubation in the majority of cases, and saves lives.
Similar results are being reported in pockets of the US where adequate participation of patients exists for similar clinical data collection. However, where used, only a portion of these doctors are administering the treatment prior to the beginnings of ARDS. At this point, doctors then have to deal with organ failure which is beyond the capability of this drug cocktail.
The treatment appears to be massively politicized. South Korea has since made it standard and has significantly dropped their mortality rate since doing so. The misinformation about this treatment is very unfortunate.
Not sure it would ever be a uniform standard treatment in the US, but we can absolutely do better than the current mortality rate, especially in NYC where it was limited to only 4000 patients.
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.