This is the Beginning of the End of the Pandemic

So when will the 2 state governors that banned their use, the many MSM pundits, democratic witches and other critics of Trump's cure apologize to the American people for being way wrong?

 

As much as I want to believe that hydroxychloroquine - azithromycin is a useful therapy, what Dr Smith reported in this video was actually not very encouraging.

Here is the math.

About 5% of confirmed cases of Covid19 need ICU so that means 95% never need ICU or intubation (every intubated patient goes to ICU),

Dr Smith says that his study group included 72 patients. While he says that everyone who received 5 days of therapy, 100% did not need intubation. That is great but if you listen carefully, he also says that 20 patients did need intubation but they all had fewer than 5 days of treatment. So 28% of his patient group needed intubation while 72% did not. It does sound like he has a sicker cohort than the average population with 47% diabetic. He was trying to say that some only had 2 days of therapy before needing intubation, suggesting that their disease was already too advanced by the time hydroxychloroquine - azithromycin was started.

Anyway, I would say this still does not really tell me if there is any real effect yet or whether those patients that avoided intubation were going to avoid intubation if they had no treatment at all. This is why we need the randomized control trials.

It is also concerning to me that I have seen many hospitals with hydroxychloroquine already in their covid 19 protocols and not much improvement. I did hear a podcast from an infectious disease doctor at the Mayo clinic who said we will be getting some preliminary results likely next week from a proper study with multiple arms in the study including remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine.

Mayo Clinic Q&A: How Does SARS-CoV-2 Make People Sick?

 

Actually, the French, of all people, approved it before our FDA lawyers did--imagine that!

 

https://forward.com/news/national/442285/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-trump-doctor/%3Fgamp

In this interview, he admits he does not actually test his patients for Covid 19 and treats them based on symptoms. So he could just be treating colds with this. He also does not actually see his patients as he is currently in isolation in a different state, NJ. He also seems to be spending a lot of his time making YouTube videos, promoting his online presence and annoying the other Hasidic doctors in his community with his videos.

Look maybe there is some effect with his cocktail but I would not base any clinical decision on this doctor’s “evidence”.

 

I think what happened is, you took a strong position early, and now, no matter how much evidence comes in, you can't abandon it. I see this with people all the time.

 

You know our resident Communists on here were going to attack it because Trump was for it.

 

Dr. Oz cited a Chinese controlled study last night on Hannity. I'll try to find the clip, but the findings were significant. It cut down Corona fever from 3 days to 2, and the coughing from 3 days to 2. Ito also improved pneumonia recovery significantly.

 

We all realize the controlled studies are not in yet, but there are other statistical findings you can look at in the meantime. The FDA did this and approved this drug due to the emergency we're dealing with. I realize if you were in charge you would not have done this. That's why we're thankful you're not in charge.

Apart form the virus, we also need to be concerned about Trump derangement syndrome which is also very infectious.

 

Actually it is the opposite.

My very first position on this regimen before Trump said a world about it was one of cautious optimism because of the French trial. I even used the words game changer to describe what it could be. However I said right away that the study had a lot of flaws and we need to do trials to get a better answer. I posted about it here.

CORONAVIRUS Cure?

Whether Trump liked it or not had/has nothing to do with my opinion on it.

But as more anecdotal evidence starts coming out and I can see that the only positive ones are coming from clearly politically motivated ones like the two on this thread with flawed results, my enthusiasm wanes.

I’m still holding out hope because well designed studies may still show an effect in certain situations like prevention or minimizing disease progression (which is what the original flawed French study was trying to show). We should get some good data very soon to consider so there is still hope.

 

I think this is case and point right here. Until Trump supported it, you (and most others) were fine with it. Then the derangement set in.

And this is another thing people do. When they end up wrong they pivot and claim they were onboard all along. You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. "Oh, well I supported it before Trump!"

My suggestion is, listen to some of these infectious disease experts. They don't have controlled studies to look at yet, but they do have keen eyes for other evidence. There are clues and other studies that can look to. And stop saying their research is flawed. They're working with what they have during an emergency in a time crunch.

 

Wrong again.

I agreed with giving hydroxychloroquine emergency approval and using it off label. Because while we have little strong evidence of actual effect, the anecdotal evidence we have is enough to warrant use in the situation where we have no other options in an emergency like this pandemic.

I wrote this when I first heard about Dr Zelenko’s findings and thought he could be an honest broker.

CORONAVIRUS Cure?

Now I’m not so sure as I dig into his methods more. This is the benefits of formal scientific reports. We can look at the flaws in their methodology and try to reproduce their results to make sure they are not trying to sell us snake oil, intentionally or unintentionally. Often it is not about deception but just over enthusiasm to find a positive result.

 

So now you're using the term "little strong evidence." Interesting. That's an admission we have some strong evidence.

And we'll all expect an apology from you if he's vindicated. Fair?

 

I will say research and data is flawed when it is flawed. And when we have good positive data from a RCT I will be more than happy to encourage its use even if Trump says the same thing.

I have no problems agreeing with Trump when his statements are based on good science and the truth, like his current coronavirus plan.

I also have no problem with Trump being overly optimistic about hydroxychloroquine before stronger evidence came out. I held the same opinion.

However where he went too far was to make a medical recommendation on its use. That was premature given the evidence and his lack of expertise in the area. Allow it to be used by doctors based on their medical experience and case by case judgement, sure that is warranted.