Quote:

---

The hospitalization rate for confirmed cases is 20%. I wouldn't call that ust getting better no matter what you do.

---

Again, OUTPATIENT management. The majority of hospitalized cases are initially testing positive in the hospital, not testing positive as an outpatient then later being admitted. This is largely because those at higher risk are both being admitted more readily for observation and getting sicker earlier in the disease course.

Quote:

---

If these anecdotal docs all over the internet are being completely honest, some claim to have treated 100+ patients with zero or one ending up in a hospital. That is not within the margin of error for a placebo

---

Depends on who the patients are. If I treat 100 patients under age 50 who tested positive as an outpatient, it's perfectly reasonable that none would end up in the hospital. The overall hospitalization rate is not applicable to those who initially test positive on an outpatient basis as opposed to an ER or already admitted.

fig96 said:

---

Quote:

---

Depends on who the patients are. If I treat 100 patients under age 50 who tested positive as an outpatient, it's perfectly reasonable that none would end up in the hospital. The overall hospitalization rate is not applicable to those who initially test positive on an outpatient basis as opposed to an ER or already admitted.

---

Is it fair that comments like the "treated 250 people and they're all fine" from the interesting female doctor from the video also plants a lot of doubt?

Like, you're telling me you're in a low income strip center office and EVERY patient that came to see you was treated with a drug that's at best shown some promise is now totally fine.

---

Does it cast doubt? Absolutely, as someone who also provides outpatient infectious diseases care I can confidently say the ability to follow up on all those patients reliably is...difficult, I'll leave it at that. If your patient gets hospitalized, the way you generally find out about it is the patient contacts you, the inpatient provider caring for them contacts you or you find out at their next appointment. And that's only patients that are yours, not even factoring in walk ins and those you saw one time and never again.

I'm not in the habit of calling other doctors liars unless I can prove it though.

Shocking that a treatment that, no matter what your personal opinion isn't proven, is totally successful on every single patient that these docs saw?

Why yes it is actually.

Also, my assertion has nothing to do with quality of care, it has to do with the demographics we've seen that COVID is hitting lower income minority areas much harder than others. And people in those areas tend to have less health care coverage, work in higher risk jobs, etc.

Philip J Fry said:

---

Yeah, shocking isn't it? Especially when you add up the other doctors giving the same protocol who are experiencing similar trends.

More shocking is your assertion that inner city strip mall doctors can't possibly give good care to their patients.

---

My doubt comes from the claim that they know all 250+ never got admitted. That's a level of follow up that frankly isn't achievable at most practices and for most providers.

The other thing is, there aren't many doctors in the world who've seen that many Covid patients. The ones who have are going to be largely ID, pulm/crit and ER docs in large population centers. The idea that there are all these outpatient family med and IM docs seeing that people with Covid is definitely hard to believe.

itsyourboypookie said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

Philip J Fry said:

---

Yeah, shocking isn't it? Especially when you add up the other doctors giving the same protocol who are experiencing similar trends.

More shocking is your assertion that inner city strip mall doctors can't possibly give good care to their patients.

---

My doubt comes from the claim that they know all 250+ never got admitted. That's a level of follow up that frankly isn't achievable at most practices and for most providers.

The other thing is, there aren't many doctors in the world who've seen that many Covid patients. The ones who have are going to be largely ID, pulm/crit and ER docs in large population centers. The idea that there are all these outpatient family med and IM docs seeing that people with Covid is definitely hard to believe.

---

90% of these appointments happen over zoom. People go to these Drs to get the script they want so they will have the best chance of beating this virus.

---

But follow up for these patients would be nearly non-existent, and a positive test wouldn't even be available in many instances. TeleMed is largely empiric treatment based on symptoms.

In other words, I don't consider such an appointment "seeing a covid patient". You're generally talking to a symptomatic patient who might have covid, or less commonly a patient who had a positive outpatient test.

Clearly this gentleman has a liberal agenda.

Picadillo said:

---

---

Daily dose of horse*****

40 days old
omits the ****ty HCQ countries
Uses countries with suspect data
Uses countries with borderline 3-world health care systems
Uses countries that went anti-HCQ after 90% of their deaths
Uses a meaningless stat that is more dependent on number of tests a country did and at what point of the curve they are currently on.

Also, aren't the shills going to be mad at you for talking about HCQ by itself, I thought it had to be the "cocktail" to be effective.

Beware of Doug said:

---

Picadillo said:

---

---

Daily dose of horse*****

40 days old
omits the ****ty HCQ countries
Uses countries with suspect data
Uses countries with borderline 3-world health care systems
Uses countries that went anti-HCQ after 90% of their deaths
Uses a meaningless stat that is more dependent on number of tests a country did and at what point of the curve they are currently on.

Also, aren't the shills going to be mad at you for talking about HCQ by itself, I thought it had to be the "cocktail" to be effective.

---

Yes, the science is "settled," but I can just about guaran-damn-tee you that if your loved one is in the hospital, you'll be asking for it.

I am a PhD chemist. Just one minor stroke of fate and I'd be making molecules for a pharmaceutical company and not a petrochemical company. I'd like to believe that the scientists working in pharma are trying their best, and I think they are. But stuff gets "lost" when it goes up the chain. Messages that don't make money don't get passed along. Very few people on the technical ladder ever get the ear of the CEO.

I had the misfortune of spending a lot of time at Texas Children's and MD Anderson the past few years. Amazing doctors. Amazing scientists. Oncologists, surgeons...you name it. I sincerely believe that they want the best for their patients, but when I walk outside and see the towering edifices on all sides, I realize that they NEED their patients. Just like Kyle Field needs fans and the West Campus needs students, the capital invested requires a constant stream of the sick. As much as I believe in the good intentions of caregivers, there is a conflict of interest. Why use a 50 year old drug? Why stop eating food filled with sugar and preservatives? The list goes on.

So, not being a frontline caregiver, and not being a pharma exec or a politician or a reviewer of the HCQ, literature, it's frustrating to hear people repeatedly, on both "sides," tell me they have the answers.

But I will say this. If doctors who post on this forum say it works, I'm gonna go with them when it hits the fan.

94chem said:

---

Beware of Doug said:

---

Picadillo said:

---

---

Daily dose of horse*****

40 days old
omits the ****ty HCQ countries
Uses countries with suspect data
Uses countries with borderline 3-world health care systems
Uses countries that went anti-HCQ after 90% of their deaths
Uses a meaningless stat that is more dependent on number of tests a country did and at what point of the curve they are currently on.

Also, aren't the shills going to be mad at you for talking about HCQ by itself, I thought it had to be the "cocktail" to be effective.

---

Yes, the science is "settled," but I can just about guaran-damn-tee you that if your loved one is in the hospital, you'll be asking for it.

I am a PhD chemist. Just one minor stroke of fate and I'd be making molecules for a pharmaceutical company and not a petrochemical company. I'd like to believe that the scientists working in pharma are trying their best, and I think they are. But stuff gets "lost" when it goes up the chain. Messages that don't make money don't get passed along. Very few people on the technical ladder ever get the ear of the CEO.

I had the misfortune of spending a lot of time at Texas Children's and MD Anderson the past few years. Amazing doctors. Amazing scientists. Oncologists, surgeons...you name it. I sincerely believe that they want the best for their patients, but when I walk outside and see the towering edifices on all sides, I realize that they NEED their patients. Just like Kyle Field needs fans and the West Campus needs students, the capital invested requires a constant stream of the sick. As much as I believe in the good intentions of caregivers, there is a conflict of interest. Why use a 50 year old drug? Why stop eating food filled with sugar and preservatives? The list goes on.

So, not being a frontline caregiver, and not being a pharma exec or a politician or a reviewer of the HCQ, literature, it's frustrating to hear people repeatedly, on both "sides," tell me they have the answers.

But I will say this. If doctors who post on this forum say it works, I'm gonna go with them when it hits the fan.

---

I've got an aunt and a grandparent with it and I have no desire for either of them to get HCQ, nor am I giving it to my patients. What I am giving many of them (dexamethasone, also a cheap drug) seems to be reasonably effective and has far more evidentiary support than HCQ.

John J 01 said:

---

Clearly this gentleman has a liberal agenda.

---

Has anyone but me noticed that those who are fighting the hardest to get access to HCQ for patients have the absolute least to gain personally from their efforts....

yet those who are fighting the hardest to discredit it have the most to gain financially and politically from its banishment????

EyeBalz said:

---

John J 01 said:

---

Clearly this gentleman has a liberal agenda.

---

Has anyone but me noticed that those who are fighting the hardest to get access to HCQ for patients have the absolute least to gain personally from their efforts....

yet those who are fighting the hardest to discredit it have the most to gain financially and politically from its banishment????

---

So what you're saying is that people in positions of power, who have the expertise to comment, and have a direct responsibility for public health are recommending against it, but random Joe Schmoe MD are recommending for it?...You don't say. We also have doctors fighting against vaccines who have nothing to gain, I guess that makes their comments more legitimate.

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

EyeBalz said:

---

John J 01 said:

---

Clearly this gentleman has a liberal agenda.

---

Has anyone but me noticed that those who are fighting the hardest to get access to HCQ for patients have the absolute least to gain personally from their efforts....

yet those who are fighting the hardest to discredit it have the most to gain financially and politically from its banishment????

---

So what you're saying is that people in positions of power, who have the expertise to comment, and have a direct responsibility for public health are recommending against it, but random Joe Schmoe MD are recommending for it?...You don't say. We also have doctors fighting against vaccines who have nothing to gain, I guess that makes their comments more legitimate.

---

I sense a lack of grey hair on your head doctor.

Let's stick to the actual debate rather than ad hominems about age which have nothing to do with the available literature and current expert consensus on HCQ.

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

Let's stick to the actual debate rather than ad hominems about age which have nothing to do with the available literature and current expert consensus on HCQ.

---

There is no literature on it in the US, nobody has done a proper study on it.

I want to see a randomized controlled study of HCQ with Zinc and Azithromycin given soon after significant symptoms emerge. The NIH has conveniently neglected to do this. Instead they somehow decided to study it's use in critical hospitalized patients who are way past the point where proponents claim the cocktail works. They then state it has no benefit.

The grey hair on my head tells me something doesn't add up. The grey hair on my head tells me people like Fauci are not always who they appear to be.

The grey hair on my head tells me only an egomaniac consumed with his newfound celebrity would accept an invitation to throw out the first pitch of a MLB game when he must know he's incapable of successfully tossing a tennis ball 50 feet to his eager Labrador Retriever. And, then be oblivious to what a fool he just made of himself.

There is way too much at stake for the backers of a vaccine to let some ancient malarial mineral tonic save the day.

EyeBalz said:

---

Dr. Not Yet Dr. Ag said:

---

Let's stick to the actual debate rather than ad hominems about age which have nothing to do with the available literature and current expert consensus on HCQ.

---

There is no literature on it in the US, nobody has done a proper study on it.

I want to see a randomized controlled study of HCQ with Zinc and Azithromycin given soon after significant symptoms emerge. The NIH has conveniently neglected to do this. Instead they somehow decided to study it's use in critical hospitalized patients who are way past the point where proponents claim the cocktail works. They then state it has no benefit.

The grey hair on my head tells me something doesn't add up. The grey hair on my head tells me people like Fauci are not always who they appear to be.

The grey hair on my head tells me only an egomaniac consumed with his newfound celebrity would accept an invitation to throw out the first pitch of a MLB game when he must know he's incapable of successfully tossing a tennis ball 50 feet to his eager Labrador Retriever. And, then be oblivious to what a fool he just made of himself.

There is way too much at stake for the backers of a vaccine to let some ancient malarial mineral tonic save the day.

---

Picadillo said:

---

Randomized, controlled double blind studies. Taking a group of patients sick with a potentially deadly virus and giving half of them a placebo.

Geesh maybe my mom will be one of the lucky ones.

Do medical schools still teach medical ethics? Only a Fauci type would do this.

---

This is incorrect. They are given the standard of care.

During the informed consent, individuals are told that they have the option of getting involved in the study where they will either recieve the standard of care, or potentially receive something else that may be more beneficial than the standard of care. The alternative is not being enrolled in the study and for sure getting the standard of care.

In a double blind placebo controlled trial you can't just give standard of care, however, as people will know that they are getting one less IV bag than everyone else, or one less pill. So you give the placebo arm an extra bag of saline labelled "medicine."

Sometimes the experimental drugs do more harm than good.

I'm actually curious as to whether or not medical schools use to teach how to critically appraise evidence back in the day as much as they do now. After the past 6 months I can definitely understand the emphasis on biostats and evidence analysis in the medical student curriculum.

DadHammer said:

---

Most experts say it helps

---

This is false by any reasonable definition of "most"

Quote:

---

There is no literature on it in the US, nobody has done a proper study on it.

---

This is incorrect

Quote:

---

I want to see a randomized controlled study of HCQ with Zinc and Azithromycin given soon after significant symptoms emerge.

---

I'd like to see a randomized controlled trial of essential oils in combination with colonic cleanses vs placebo for treatment of celiac disease. Millions of people, including some medical doctors, endorse these treatments after all.

I say this as politely as possible, but you really should know better than this. Yours is an incredibly absurd request, that simply because a proposed treatment with a poor mechanistic basis is endorsed by a given number of people it MUST be falsified before you'll believe it doesn't work. That thinking is the antithesis of medication and science as a whole.

Moreover, such a study would take YEARS worth of data and ultimately large meta-analysis to reveal any benefit even if it were feasible that such a benefit exists. This is always the case with assessing the efficacy of treatments for low mortality illnesses on an outpatient basis.

Quote:

---

There is way too much at stake for the backers of a vaccine to let some ancient malarial mineral tonic save the day.

---

Vaccines are generally not big money makers for the pharmaceutical industry, accounting for less than 3% of worldwide revenues annually.