That was so stupid to say about anecdotes. I bet he thought that sounded all smart and real sciency. Except not only is the efficacy of HCQ not anecdotal but doctors care for single cases at a time using their best judgement based on years of medical knowledge to draw conclusions for treatment. If this guy doesn't understand this then he is the subject of "What do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of their class in Medical school?"
Yes, some treatments come in straightforward ways, and legal accountability surrounds everything they do.
Still, many off-label uses lack sufficient studies. Here, people know HCQ works without too many safety concerns, presumably amid viral infections like this. They also know how strongly the antiviral affects this virus, the likelihood of damage vs damage from the disease and the safety and efficacy known of alternative antivirals. Not a research paper titled, "HCQ Gud for strain M-1A-C derivative k of SARS-2 coronaviruses, and all studies disagreeing R LIES."
The arrhythmia hype is so overblown. At one point before I've taken TWO medications at the same time either of which alone can allegedly lead to arrhythmias, yet I was perfectly fine. Most people have no issues with such medications, otherwise they wouldn't be on the market in the first place. If everybody was going into sudden cardiac arrest for taking these meds, then we would've known about it long ago.
The problem is that there are now studies that show it's not effective and even harms patients in addition to the studies that show it does work (but not perfectly). The goal of relegating HCQ to a non-starter has been achieved. Doctors who prescribe HCQ are opening themselves up to lawsuits and professional review as well as termination.
We can confine ourselves to american, uk, australian, german, italian and spanish studies but yes, like that. Not all of them are, unfortunately, that clownishly absurd.
There aren't legitimate studies that show it's not effective and harms patients. The most recent one was in fact retracted because it was a total farce.
I don't want to argue with you because I actually do agree with you. But there are studies. We can debate their legitimacy all day but they're out there now and they have to be dealt with. Whoever thought up this smearjob on hcq should get some kind of marketing of the year award.
That was so stupid to say about anecdotes. I bet he thought that sounded all smart and real sciency. Except not only is the efficacy of HCQ not anecdotal but doctors care for single cases at a time using their best judgement based on years of medical knowledge to draw conclusions for treatment. If this guy doesn't understand this then he is the subject of "What do you call someone who graduates at the bottom of their class in Medical school?"
Yes, some treatments come in straightforward ways, and legal accountability surrounds everything they do.
Still, many off-label uses lack sufficient studies. Here, people know HCQ works without too many safety concerns, presumably amid viral infections like this. They also know how strongly the antiviral affects this virus, the likelihood of damage vs damage from the disease and the safety and efficacy known of alternative antivirals. Not a research paper titled, "HCQ Gud for strain M-1A-C derivative k of SARS-2 coronaviruses, and all studies disagreeing R LIES."
The arrhythmia hype is so overblown. At one point before I've taken TWO medications at the same time either of which alone can allegedly lead to arrhythmias, yet I was perfectly fine. Most people have no issues with such medications, otherwise they wouldn't be on the market in the first place. If everybody was going into sudden cardiac arrest for taking these meds, then we would've known about it long ago.
The problem is that there are now studies that show it's not effective and even harms patients in addition to the studies that show it does work (but not perfectly). The goal of relegating HCQ to a non-starter has been achieved. Doctors who prescribe HCQ are opening themselves up to lawsuits and professional review as well as termination.
Like that study in Brazil? What a fraud that one was. They used 600 patients from 50 hospitals 'randomly' selected.
We can confine ourselves to american, uk, australian, german, italian and spanish studies but yes, like that. Not all of them are, unfortunately, that clownishly absurd.
There aren't legitimate studies that show it's not effective and harms patients. The most recent one was in fact retracted because it was a total farce.
I don't want to argue with you because I actually do agree with you. But there are studies. We can debate their legitimacy all day but they're out there now and they have to be dealt with. Whoever thought up this smearjob on hcq should get some kind of marketing of the year award.