Posted on 08/04/2020 8:53:04 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
The persisting political climate has made any objective discussion about hydroxychloroquine "impossible," two Henry Ford Health System executives wrote in an open letter dated Aug. 3.
Adnan Munkarah, MD, executive vice president and chief clinical officer at the Detroit-based system, along with Steven Kalkanis, MD, senior vice president and chief academic officer for Henry Ford, penned the letter in response to comments by Anthony Fauci, MD, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, that their study on hydroxychloroquine was "flawed."
The situation is a bellwether for the kind of tension other systems may face when their clinical research overlaps with commentary from the White House.
Four things to know:
1. Addressing friends and colleagues around the world, Dr. Munkarah and Dr. Kalkanis said the most accepted and definitive way to determine treatment efficacy is a double-blind, randomized clinical trial. But this type of study takes a long time to design, execute and analyze, so observational research is used to get as best an answer as soon as possible.
2. Observational research can never completely account for biases inherent in how physicians make different decisions to treat different patients, the leaders said. It's not unusual that results vary in different studies, and no one study should be considered on its own.
3. The Henry Ford treatment study should be considered as another important contribution to hydroxychloroquine research, Drs. Munkarah and Kalkanis wrote in a letter to the editor published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases July 31. Based on their findings, the authors believe the drug can have a role in reducing mortality for COVID-19.
4. Scientific debate is common, and can, in part, fuel the advancement of knowledge, the leaders write. They said their only goal was to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations. In light of the recent events, Drs. Munkarah and Kalkanis said they have decided to no longer comment about the topic outside of the medical community and will stay focused on their patients, community and commitment to clinical and academic integrity.
This is a medicine widely used for the past 65 years, available OTC in many countries. No medicine, of course, is safe for everyone at all times or in association with taking certain medicines or certain pre existing conditions. But then, no medicine is banned because of adverse effects on certain classes of people...especially when the US Military hands them out like Chiclets. Except, it seems, for HCL...
Look, think what you want. I recognize intellectual dishonesty I see it. YMMV.
Freegards Rwood!
Guess?
You speak as if you are ignorant of the mechanism of effectiveness. I do not blame doctors for being ignorant. They need to be with patients while others need to be doing the research.
“No medicine, of course, is safe for everyone at all times or in association with taking certain medicines or certain pre existing conditions.”
That’s what I said. It can be dangerous.
“...especially when the US Military hands them out like Chiclets..”
Yeah, and here’s what happened:
Many products have been invented and later learned to be dangerous and they were slowly taken off the market. An example is DDT. It was first synthesized in 1874 by the Austrian chemist Othmar Zeidler. DDT’s insecticidal action was discovered by the Swiss chemist Paul Hermann Müller in 1939. Müller was even awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine in 1948 “for his discovery of the high efficiency of DDT as a contact poison against several arthropods.” Notice it isn’t around any more. And it took many decades for them to realize the dangers.
Another, since you brought up the military, was a guarana and ephedrine mix that was causing accelerated heart rates to the point of arythmia. It was also sold over the counter at BX, PX, and AAFES stores and was banned by the FDA in 2003. It was taken off the counters.
The idea of a cure is not to create other illness or death. The whole idea of medicine is to do no harm. If, as a physician, you aren’t given enough tools not to realize the possible harm to a patient, should you?
“I recognize intellectual dishonesty I see it.”
And I recognize a person making a call with lack of information also. My way is safe to use for most if a little information is passed down. Your way can get people killed. I gave you the information with sites and historical data. The only other thing I can give you is the MSDS material and you look that up yourself. I think people call people overeactionaries with little knowledge. Might apply here. Don’t believe everything you are told. Find it out. You’ll impress more people.
rwood
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.