Because of the false claims that a multi-identity is making, I will repost most of a previous post I made. The liar is claiming falsely that there is no evidence that Dr. Stephen Smith, who is making fantastic claims of efficacy for the treatment, dosed people with the drug for fewer than 5 days.
Even the dimmest person should understand why, when someone brags about people "who were on the drug 5 days or longer," that means that SOME people were on the drug for fewer than 5 days -- by definition. If there weren't people on the drug for fewer than 5 days, then you wouldn't refer to people who WERE on the drug for 5 days or longer. Unless, of course, you are someone who is fond, under various identities, of trying to twist words to make false claims.
It is a TOS violation to lie, or to try to foment a food fight. Continued lies will be deleted.
Here is part my previous post, to refresh the memory of the liar.
Smith's Quote
Okay, if NONE of his patients had to be intubated, he'd say so, 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.
Even the dimmest person should understand why, when someone brags about people "who were on the drug 5 days or longer," that means that SOME people were on the drug for fewer than 5 days -- by definition. If there weren't people on the drug for fewer than 5 days, then you wouldn't refer to people who WERE on the drug for 5 days or longer. Unless, of course, you are someone who is fond, under various identities, of trying to twist words to make false claims.
It is a TOS violation to lie, or to try to foment a food fight. Continued lies will be deleted.
Here is part my previous post, to refresh the memory of the liar.
Smith's Quote
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'd say so, 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.
1
