- This topic has 61 replies, 17 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 11 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
GH’ DMB, and others:
Medical decisions need to be made by those possessing the expertise. The treatment of an individual patient is the person’s physician. Those involving the public reside with the medical authorities designated by the government (fed, state, local). If my personal physician chooses a specific treatment for me, even if that is something off label or experimental, that is his/her responsibility. An outsider has no business interfering in my doctor-patient relationship. Those dealing with the public have a different responsibility. They are beholden to the scientific approach that sets standards and requirements to approve treatments.
Yes, there is a political agenda in the background. That is as relevant to Trump pumping things that have not yet passed the rigors of scientific study, as it is to the brain dead Squad and other Dems yelling at every single step the POTUS takes. Yes, the sheer amount of lies, coverups, and misrepresentation of these Dems is astounding. But the final words need to come from the experts, and these do not include politicians.
All the collections of anecdotal data may be interesting and promising. But without controlled study, we don’t have something that can be recommended. Do the studies.
ubiquitin,
““Here’s a question to ask yourself, if we gave anyone who asked for it hydroxychloroquine, and then the amount of deaths fell by 50% would you say that it works or would you say that there’s still no evidence that it works because there was no control group etc. ?”“anyone” is a lot of people. And there WOULD be a control group. you said “deaths fell by 50%” compared to what? whatever the answer to that question is THAT is the control.”
There was no control group at all.
Anyone = every single Homo Sapiens that’s interested in popping one of those HCQ pills. in my case about half the country.
It fell by 50% compared to the day before.“There was no control group at all.”
I don’t think you know what a control group is .
I took the first definition I found ” the standard to which comparisons are made in an experiment” Whenever you do an experiment, without a control group -you can’t compare anything. If I want to experiment: does bleach clean clothes? The first question would be compared to what? you can compare bleach to water, to doing nothing , to another brand of bleach or to dipping it in mud. but just asking “Does bleach clean clothes, not compared to anything else” is meaningless from an experimental standpoint.
with me so far?
You asked “if we gave anyone who asked for it hydroxychloroquine, and then the amount of deaths fell by 50% ”
When you say “deaths fell by 100%” compared to what? That is meaningless without comparing it to anything.Now what you mean (I assume) is compared to before they took the HCQ. So THERE is your control. You have “every single Homo Sapiens” serving as BOTH your experiment (once they take HCQ) AND your control (before they took it) Sure there are limitations in this study (and for argument’s sake I’ll assuem there is some sort of biological plauisibility to taking it one day and death rate droppign the next) . and I defer any calculations regarding the p value, to statisticians. but at first glance that seems compelling .
Dr.. Z has 405 patients who took HCQ and did well . compared to what? did they do better than they did bthe day before? (I don’t think thats what hes claiming) did they do better than another 405 people who didnt get HCQ? which ones There are tens of thousands who got didn’t get HCQ and did just as well. So Who are we comparing Dr. Z’ experimental group to
(the next question will be seeing if they are comparable, but first WHO are they being compared to?
when I say bleach cleans clothes, compared to what?Ubiquitin, if you want to look at it like that, the “control group” is the total of people who were in high risk categories and presented with symptoms of Wuhan Disease, and were not treated with this mixture. Of that population, what percentage ended up needing intubation, and what percentage ended up dying? The answer is, a significant percentage. He’s asserting that 5%-10% of that “control group” progressed and eventually died. Thus, of his ~400, he expects that without his treatment 20-40 would probably have done the same.
But of course that is not a proper control group because all sorts of confounding factors have not been ruled out. So considered as scientific research this would be a bad study and would not prove anything. However he is not conducting research, and doesn’t purport to be. For his purposes it’s sufficient, and the only conclusion one can draw is that it seems likely that his treatment is helping.
When there is time to study this properly we will get a better idea, and may find out that it doesn’t help, and that his apparent success was illusory. He readily acknowledges that. It’s just not the most likely outcome.
Doing my best -“405 were treated (with 3 drugs, HCQ, Zinc), 2 patients passed away, 4 are off respirators. 5-6 were admitted with pneumonia”
Doing Your Best for Whom?!?
Are you Doc Zelensky? Are you his relative?
His protocol makes No sense!
There is NO Reason to add Z-pack.I posted this on the other HCQ Topic:
“2nd, I recommend HCQ + zinc, not Azithromycin.”Health, azythromycin is to help for pneumonia which is often caused by and worsens the symptoms of coronavirus.
Milhouse , thank you for explaining. If it seems Very likely that HCQ helps, and none of those 405 people had heart attacks (dr z said in the beginning that about 10% experienced nausea) then it would probably be a very good idea to try this until we have something better.
If remdesvir is working then we should do that, but why the automatic complete dismissal of a drug which seems To be working Just because it wasn’t scientifically proven yet?
I think it’s even scientific to say, correct me if I’m wrong, that if HCQ didn’t kill any of Zelenkos patients then it probably won’t kill everybody else if taken at the same dose.Health, I am not dr. Zelenko, I’ve never seen the man.
I don’t have any agenda, I’m just practicing common sense. It’s not even because of trump. I don’t believe in shooting uv-rays at people. I don’t even believe we should be pouring bleach on anyone.” the “control group” is the total of people who were in high risk categories and presented with symptoms of Wuhan Disease, and were not treated with this mixture.”
Ok, I’m with you that is a control group.
On to the next parthere is the problem is his experimental group comparable to the control group ie are the 405 outpatients he treated, comparable to the “total of people who were in high risk categories and presented with symptoms of Wuhan Disease, and were not treated with this mixture”
or is there something different about them?As yo usay “So considered as scientific research this would be a bad study and would not prove anything.”
” However he is not conducting research, and doesn’t purport to be. For his purposes it’s sufficient, and the only conclusion one can draw is that it seems likely that his treatment is helping.”
and thats fine . He SHOULD do what he thinks is best for his patients. That is not the point I am discussing. The discussion started over why others don’t follow suit.
Again to sum up, at no point did I criticize Dr. Z, and no point did I say not to take HCQ (in fact I said the opposite at first “can’t hurt” , but I’m even less convinced now)
My involvment here was solely in response to “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country” (asked on the first thread on this topic)
And the answer is 1) many haven’t found it to be working. 2) the data that suggests it IS working is a ” bad study and would not prove anything.”Does anyone here recall the event that led to the discovery of penicillin? From an elementary school science class, a bit of mold landed on a petri dish with bacteria, and the bacteria died. This anecdote prompted the scientific research, and launched antibiotics.
I am fine with anecdotal data. I do not need to deny its existence. But the stretch from that to a general recommendation is huge. No scientist would get away with that. It might work on social media, but any responsible scientist would never take such a leap. Anecdote provides basis to ask questions. But these questions do not become answers just like that. The power of social media is that it gets a public to buy almost anything. I don’t question Dr. Z’s practice of medicine. When he gets to public health, and recommending his miracle to the world, we have sunk to the sewer of social media.
Doing my best -“Health, azythromycin is to help for pneumonia which is often caused by and worsens the symptoms of coronavirus.”
It’s obvious that you don’t know Medicine, so why are you defending this doctor?
If Zelenco wants to call me – I’ll give him the Medical reason.“I don’t have any agenda, I’m just practicing common sense.”
Are you Sure?
What I posted on the other HCQ Topic: “2nd, I recommend HCQ + zinc, not Azithromycin.”
That is Common Sense, NOT Zelenco’s Protocol!Health,
You wanted to know why Dr. Zelenko prescribed zythromycin. I told you why he does it. What was wrong with that?Doing my best -“You wanted to know why Dr. Zelenko prescribed zythromycin. I told you why he does it. What was wrong with that?”
Because I NEVER Wrote that I wanted to know!
This is what I wrote:
“There is NO Reason to add Z-pack.”
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.