Professor Raoult Releases Results of New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients

I didn't say you're wrong but I just wonder why you have only right wing sources to support something you seem to think is settled science.

 

Right here, you're saying Doctors should prescribe these drugs, sometimes even for prophylaxis

 

Medical professionals (excluding some physicians) are trained to follow set protocols. There is a good reason for this. We typically don’t want nurses experimenting on us, right? That could get out of hand pretty fast. So we are left with professionals that are very good at carrying out routine duties of the “if A, then do B” type. The downside is resistance to forward thinking, innovation, or improvisation until it is mandated to them from their superiors. Again, this isn’t their fault, it’s how they are trained and it’s usually for the best.

Specialization of physicians has made this behavior more common in that sphere as well. Again, there are trade offs. Specialists allow deeper knowledge on specific conditions etc. at the expense of inclination to innovate solutions at the physician level that involve metrics outside the personal area of expertise. That responsibility has been abdicated to researchers and pharmaceutical industries that are hamstrung by regulation (necessitated by our litigious society). So what we have is a system inherently incapable of dealing with novel pathogens in a timely manner. A system where abundance of caution can result in more death in the long run.

So even though it’s frustrating for people like me who often have to figure things out on the fly and make the judgement call myself to see the resistance to innovation and quick reaction in the modern medical industry, I’m trying to remind myself it’s just how these people are trained.

 

The average age in the daily stat thread covers all ages in the sample and mostly involves people who are already turning up at hospital and tested and most are relatively old. This study chose people with a median age of 46 years old who were not at the stage where they needed hospital treatment.

 

The mean age of the sample of 1061 people was 46 years old. The mean age of those tested positive in the public is much older than 46 years old so would obviously have a higher death rate. This research is flawed

 

Those 1061 people weren't at death door. They were no different to you and I who did not know if we are infected until tested. If you are not showing any symptoms but decided to get tested and found to be positive would you choose to be in the placebo group if given the choice? I would. This research is flawed and deliberately chose relatively young people

 

So has this information been made public? Bit odd if this great news hasn't

 

ABSOLUTELY untrue. I have read nurse accounts, in the ICU, that blanket prescriptions of cloro, are given to the next up, as ALL patients are assumed to require it. NO chart reading, NO VITALS. NO discernment. And NOW, old folks homes, and hospitals, are asking for blanket immunity, in case of mistakes. ThaT, with Trump saying, WHAT HAVE YOU GOT TO LOSE, makes this a nightmare. I am considering a tatoo, that reads, NO CLOROQUINE, heart arrhythmias. Going into the ICU is likely a death sentence.

 

If the president gets on TV and says these drugs will work, people will demand them from their doctors and many of their doctors will give them to them. The FDA relaxed restrictions on it already.

Doctor's are not robots and they don't all work the exact same way. Even now, with some good news coming out of the trials, there will still be doctors who hold back on prescribing. Just like there were doctors who started writing prescriptions the moment the president said something.

 

As it should on a case by case basis. What works for one person, doesn't work for the other. All I ask is for the media and politicians to stay out of these patient/doctor deliberations. This isn't a gotcha on Trump, this is a sad display of interfering in the medical arena, when we should be focusing our energies on fighting COVID-19.

 

At worst assuming those living but remaining hospitalized at abstract publication all die of Covid-19, the trial would have a 2% mortality rate.

We'll see in a few days what the current status of the remaining patients is. We'll also know more about the grouping of patients chosen for the trial.

Cheers

 

So drug that treats symptoms only is effective if someone is at deaths door in your vast educated and wise opinion on the matter?

 

Link please.

This drug has been in the forumulary for 50 years. It's contradictions are known and well documented. So please, link to these "particularly most vulnerable." This implies that hydroxycloroquine is has specific contraindications for a large cohort of "most vulnerable."

Thanks in advance,

Labour

 

What drugs on the market dont have some level of toxicity and side effects?

Wonder what Bower considers "safe"?

 

That’s not what I’m seeing reported. Can you source your mean age claim?

edit: to be clear I’m questioning your mean age claim of positives in the public, not the study. Thanks

 

The recovery rate of a random 1061 people picked off the streets and found to be positive would have produced the same results as in that study. The flaw in that study is that the experimenters selected 1061 people who tested positive but did not need to be hospitalized yet but then compared the outcome to people who were admitted to hospital or had symptoms already so advanced that they needed to be tested. Most people with mild symptoms are not tested yet in this study they would be included in the 1061 sample. The testers also selected people with a mean age of 46 years old which is not representative of those mainly at risk of dying. The majority of people in hospitals are well over 46 years .

 

No countries are testing those who have mild symptoms - they are just told to self isolate at home. The only people being tested are a small fraction of care workers and those who present themselves at hospitals with worsening symptoms and these people are mostly around 60 years old or more. ie those 47 and under are not tested unless they need hospitalization and most of the younger people have mild symptoms and hence are not included in any statistics

 

The president only heard it because the medical community was already buzzing about it.
Physicians do not look to bureaucrats for therapeutic advice

 

Please offer something besides your opinion.

 

Which bit? Do you think that choosing a sample with a mean age of 43.7 years old is a representative sample of those most likely to need hospitalization?

 

Under what parameters would you say the drug was effective......?

 

LOL I bet you would be begging for it if you got the virus.

 

Please back up your claim. You made it.

 

I made several claims. Please point out those that you disagree with

 

Nope. Never said should. I've always said it's between doctor and patient. The only should I said is that politicians should not be banning it and social media medical-expert-wannabees should stop giving comfort and support to politicians trying to up the body count by pretending that these drugs are more dangerous than helpful.