Misiu143, You may be correct. I find it dangero
Post# of 154867
(Total Views: 511)
Posted On: 08/23/2020 11:48:03 AM
Misiu143,
You may be correct. I find it dangerous to presume to know why someone does something. Objectively all we know is what is done.
Yes the media have been very negative about HCQ, but I believe that is in large part due to having the cart ahead of the empirical horse. In vitro proves that it works in vitro. Anything beyond that is merely suggestive and indicative for clinical trials.
We could just as easily spent months talking about invermectin.
I strongly believe, as most here do, that remdesevir was pushed due to Gilead and the money involved. This is similar, IMO to the American Heart Association throwing out lidocaine in cardiac arrests in favor of amiodarone, which was essentially only known to intensivists and just about to go off patent ($200 at the time vs $2 for lidocaine). The only trial at the time was amiodarone vs placebo, rather than the standard of care, lidocaine.
I wholly agree that HCQ, ivermectin and a number of similar drugs should be evaluated for early/prophylactic use. Remdesevir has absolutely been a drug desperately searching for an application (failed hepatitis, failed ebola).
In a perfect world, we would have scientists and physicians talking about medicine and therapeutics. IMO as well
You may be correct. I find it dangerous to presume to know why someone does something. Objectively all we know is what is done.
Yes the media have been very negative about HCQ, but I believe that is in large part due to having the cart ahead of the empirical horse. In vitro proves that it works in vitro. Anything beyond that is merely suggestive and indicative for clinical trials.
We could just as easily spent months talking about invermectin.
I strongly believe, as most here do, that remdesevir was pushed due to Gilead and the money involved. This is similar, IMO to the American Heart Association throwing out lidocaine in cardiac arrests in favor of amiodarone, which was essentially only known to intensivists and just about to go off patent ($200 at the time vs $2 for lidocaine). The only trial at the time was amiodarone vs placebo, rather than the standard of care, lidocaine.
I wholly agree that HCQ, ivermectin and a number of similar drugs should be evaluated for early/prophylactic use. Remdesevir has absolutely been a drug desperately searching for an application (failed hepatitis, failed ebola).
In a perfect world, we would have scientists and physicians talking about medicine and therapeutics. IMO as well
(2)
(0)