(Total Views: 415)
Posted On: 04/02/2020 2:53:21 PM
Post# of 72447
That claim raises some questions. For instance -- he says he's treated 72 patients. Yet instead of saying that all of them got better, he says:
Okay, if NONE of his patients had to be intubated, he's say that, right? But he didn't. He said that none on the regimen for 5 days or more escaped intubation.
• How many patients who were on it for 1-4 days DID have to be intubated?
and what percentage was that? There's a difference between, say, 1 patient being intubated, and 50 being intubated.
• Was the reason that the ones on it for 5 days or more weren't intubated was because they were less sick to start with, so they would not have needed to be intubated and would have gotten better anyway, without the drugs?
• How many people who were normally his patients went directly to an ER instead of to him? In other words, are the patients he saw THE PEOPLE WHO WERE LESS SICK?
I'd love it if an effective treatment is already available.
But when I see this kind of weaseling around, and cherry-picked data, it reminds me again why we need ACTUAL CLINICAL TRIALS, not merely anecdotal evidence.
Right now we have nothing better. People who are really sick OUGHT to get this treatment, in case it works.
But one doctor's claims, in a setting that raises MANY questions about the validity of those claims, can't be used as a substitute for hard data in a clinical trial.
Quote:
[no patient] that has been on the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin regimen for five days or more had had to be intubated
Okay, if NONE of his patients had to be intubated, he's say that, right? But he didn't. He said that none on the regimen for 5 days or more escaped intubation.
• How many patients who were on it for 1-4 days DID have to be intubated?
and what percentage was that? There's a difference between, say, 1 patient being intubated, and 50 being intubated.
• Was the reason that the ones on it for 5 days or more weren't intubated was because they were less sick to start with, so they would not have needed to be intubated and would have gotten better anyway, without the drugs?
• How many people who were normally his patients went directly to an ER instead of to him? In other words, are the patients he saw THE PEOPLE WHO WERE LESS SICK?
I'd love it if an effective treatment is already available.
But when I see this kind of weaseling around, and cherry-picked data, it reminds me again why we need ACTUAL CLINICAL TRIALS, not merely anecdotal evidence.
Right now we have nothing better. People who are really sick OUGHT to get this treatment, in case it works.
But one doctor's claims, in a setting that raises MANY questions about the validity of those claims, can't be used as a substitute for hard data in a clinical trial.
(6)
(0)
