What better or more humane way to continue proving these drugs safe and effective than helping hundreds of thousands of people that are currently sick?
You are now simply flailing and embarrassingly so just quit
āOur study has some limitations including a small sample size, limited long-term outcome follow-up, and dropout of six patients from the study, however in the current context, we believe that our results should be shared with the scientific community.ā
They acknowledge the limitations of the study but they are pushing it out there due to the current crisis. Thatās why I likened it to New York graduating doctors early. In normal circumstances, you would not consider such limited trials sufficient.
Whatever, buddy. Iām sure you read the study from cover to cover an hour after it was releasedā¦foolish me for not pretending to have read it before.
Iām still waiting on the link to the 80 person trial you talked about earlier?
you missed the conclusion
"Conclusion
4
Despite its small sample size our survey shows that hydroxychloroquine treatment is
significantly associated with viral load reduction/disappearance in COVID-19 patients and its
effect is reinforced by azithromycin."
Wait, are you seriously telling us these are not normal circumstances?
Whodathunkit?
What on Earth would we do without you here to tell us such things??
So please tell meā¦why would you typically want to do more testing before giving a drug to the entire population?
Course I would, these are not normal times.
We just blew up the whole damn worldās economy over this outbreak.!!!
It wasnāt my argument that these drugs donāt workā¦my argument was that itās risky to hail a drug that has only gone through limited testing as a miracle cure for the same reasons we donāt do so in non crisis scenarios.
Either extensive testing is necessary to determine a drug is safe and effective when applied to large populations or it isnāt.
In case you havenāt noticed we are now in the midst of the largest combination global pandemic / economic crisis in over a century
This not time for caution, this is a time for bold and decisive action before it gets any worse
2 Likes
In both the Chinese and French study, the researchers point to the need for more tests. In meta-analysis journals about those studies, they point for the need for more tests. Iām simply saying what the researchers themselves are saying.
You know there have been drugs that werenāt extensively tested that we later found out caused major issues or were less effective than early tests revealed?
I mean, at least with these two drugs they donāt appear to be overly dangerous in regards to toxicityā¦ but there is a chance that in larger, randomized control trials, the results might be more mixed.
First: āTrumpās overreacting and moving too fast closing down airports to incoming passengers from China!ā
Next: āTrumpās not moving fast enough to get test kits out!ā
Next: āTrump is moving too fast to get promising potential extant cures into circulation!ā
Trump did itā¦It must be wrong and denounced on every msm outlet.
1 Like
These drugs have been used for 70 years. How much testing do you need to gauge safety?
These drugs have been extensive use worldwide for 70 years. Paragraph yes by all means letās just tiptoe around, keep doing studies while this pandemic continues to consume the Globe.
By all means letās do next to nothing while we continue destroying the worldās economy while Millions upon Millions suffer hundreds of thousands or more died.
My God this is exactly the kind of thinking that is kept cures from coming to market for years even decades at a time while people suffered and died.
Once again this is a global pandemic it is the worst combination pandemic and economic crisis and more than a century. Now is not the time precaution, it is the time for bold decisive action.
1 Like
I said that the good thing about those two drugs is that they donāt appear to be overly dangerousā¦ but in regards to their efficacy, thereās a possibility that in larger, randomized control trials the results might be more mixed.
If they work, give them to everybodyā¦ but donāt rush them out tomorrow because some ā ā ā ā ā ā ā is worried about stock prices.
As we used to laughingly say, Trump could cure cancer tomorrow theyād find something wrong with it.
Iāll give them this, Trump is an extremely poor speaker. As Iāve said since he took office he needs to learn to shut up a lot and let Mike Pence do the talkin.
His actions however have been correct for the most part at least.
1 Like
I agree that we should speed up the normal processā¦ but these decisions should be based on the medical community deeming it a safe and effective treatment for the general population, not conservatives going crazy because they may be inconvenienced for a month or two.
No, the problem is that you want to give Trump credit for things going good, but then act like no one should blame him for anything that goes wrong or his obvious blunders. Itās clearly partisan.
1 Like
This scientist says exactly what Iām thinking right now.
āI have never seen anything like this, anything anywhere near like this. Iām not talking about the pandemic, because Iāve seen 30 of them, one every year. It is called influenza. And other respiratory illness viruses, we donāt always know what they are. But Iāve never seen this reaction, and Iām trying to understand why.ā
2 Likes
Mind you, if you read his full statement, he says that in the worse case scenarioā¦if 40 million people die like they did with the Spanish fluā¦at least it would be mostly old people and not the young.
Hey, everybody over 50 years old or with pre-existing conditions. When they are talking about letting more people die because social distancing is inconvenientā¦ they are not talking about hypothetical peopleā¦they are talking about you. Letās let you dieā¦because stock market or because of people having to watch Netflix at home for a month. Your life is not worth that.
