JB99 said:

---

Fitch said:

---

74Ag1 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

SUag said:

---

---

What's the point of this? Is he saying not to use it until it's definitive? What does this accomplish?

---

He is trying to defend his "wrong" position. He is a typical overly cautious Dr that wants to see all the clinical trials and tests that take a long time. Typical bureaucrat... slow.

All the use is saving lives but he want accept it. FDA has approved it.

---

Sir, this is not correct.

The drug is unproven for COVID-19 in a clinical setting, with or without azithromycin and zinc. There are a myriad of small-patient-count reports and anecdotes that encourage optimism, but nothing defendable right now. The trials and studies in New York and elsewhere are trying to answer whether it's a valid prophylactic, treatment, or otherwise. Timing, age, gender, hyer(hypo)tension, pre-existing conditions, blood type, all have a weight in decision-making for any drug. Doctors on these forums have acknowledged doubts about it working. Everyone involved is still trying to figure it out.

Think about the weight of making this drug an endorsed medical recommendation from the federal government of the United States without substantial evidence it works.

Literally billions of people would hang their hopes on it, on trials of 30 or 40 people at a time right now. Best case - it works and we have massive runs on supply. Worst case - it has minimal to no effect outside of the small study populations circulated to date, or worse, gives false hope.

Can we just pray for and support the people trying to figure out how to help?

---

Your worst case is literally nothing. You realize there is no treatment, none that is defendable. There's absolutely no good reason not to try and use this treatment. So we are going from having nothing and hoping we win the genetic lotterry and don't need a ventilator to having the possibility of some hope. Just consider one of your children or parents or yourself getting this disease. Are you going to discourage a doctor from prescribing this because iy's not definitive? Of course not.

---

Ag_of_08 said:

---

You talk about prayer and giving people false hope in the same sentence.... I'll leave that though there.

Hope is not a bad thing in anyway. If they're wrong, it doesn't work, but people get a little bit of hope and some faith that the medical field is willing to try. They succeed and a pandemic becomes survivable...

---

74Ag1 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

SUag said:

---

---

What's the point of this? Is he saying not to use it until it's definitive? What does this accomplish?

---

He is trying to defend his "wrong" position. He is a typical overly cautious Dr that wants to see all the clinical trials and tests that take a long time. Typical bureaucrat... slow.

All the use is saving lives but he want accept it. FDA has approved it.

---

CardiffGiant said:

---

So does a patient have to be confirmed through testing before a DR can administer these drugs to someone who has all the symptoms of COVID-19?

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

SUag said:

---

---

What's the point of this? Is he saying not to use it until it's definitive? What does this accomplish?

---

The point is many (including some physicians and, sadly, our president) are pronouncing it as a panacea with definitive curative ability and that generates a false sense of security. Many, including many on our site here, are using this as an arguments for discontinuing our current social distancing policies.

Nobody is saying it doesn't work or that it shouldn't be tried in certain patients. It might work, but the data currently is flimsy and we should not make policies on the basis that it has a strong efficacy in this disease.

---

KidDoc said:

---

74Ag1 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

SUag said:

---

---

What's the point of this? Is he saying not to use it until it's definitive? What does this accomplish?

---

He is trying to defend his "wrong" position. He is a typical overly cautious Dr that wants to see all the clinical trials and tests that take a long time. Typical bureaucrat... slow.

All the use is saving lives but he want accept it. FDA has approved it.

---

This is 100% wrong.

Modern western medicine is based on scientific theory. We strive to do things that are PROVEN to work in large double blinded studies. We do not always have that luxury so we try stuff "off the cuff" now and then but any MD that says he knows his combo works is lying or selling your something.

The data is building and we should have good data in the next 4-6 weeks. Dr Fauci is just stating what any MD/DO should state about this-- it is unproven but does show some promise.

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

SUag said:

---

---

What's the point of this? Is he saying not to use it until it's definitive? What does this accomplish?

---

The point is many (including some physicians and, sadly, our president) are pronouncing it as a panacea with definitive curative ability and that generates a false sense of security. Many, including many on our site here, are using this as an arguments for discontinuing our current social distancing policies.

Nobody is saying it doesn't work or that it shouldn't be tried in certain patients. It might work, but the data currently is flimsy and we should not make policies on the basis that it has a strong efficacy in this disease.

---

Bull**** The president never said it was a panacea or anything close to that.

But dont worry, plenty of doctors have pissed on our cheerios enough so we're not sure what to hope for anymore.

It all evens out in the end.

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Infection_Ag11 said:

---

JB99 said:

---

SUag said:

---

---

What's the point of this? Is he saying not to use it until it's definitive? What does this accomplish?

---

The point is many (including some physicians and, sadly, our president) are pronouncing it as a panacea with definitive curative ability and that generates a false sense of security. Many, including many on our site here, are using this as an arguments for discontinuing our current social distancing policies.

Nobody is saying it doesn't work or that it shouldn't be tried in certain patients. It might work, but the data currently is flimsy and we should not make policies on the basis that it has a strong efficacy in this disease.

---

Bull**** The president never said it was a panacea or anything close to that.

But dont worry, plenty of doctors have pissed on our cheerios enough so we're not sure what to hope for anymore.

It all evens out in the end.

---

I voted for the guy and love a lot of the things he's done, but he called it "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine".

He put the drug on a pedestal which, IMO, is irresponsible for someone in his position at this stage of the game.

I'll vote for him again in November, but he really does need to learn when to sit down and let others do all the talking.

---

barnyard1996 said:

---

Thank you Mr President for putting it on a pedestal so the average american will know about the drug and push the conversation. I know it will make many doctors and scientists uncomfortable that you broke their protocols, but they will get over it. Or, maybe they won't.

---