Because the Recovery trial said it worked. Here's some of the stuff that pops up if you google search "steroids covid" (between March 1 and June 1) on the 1st page.If there was a consensus not to use steroids, how come so many doctors worldwide quckly turned to them? He might argue there was a consensus in his hospital against, or that it was risky. I'm sure there were a lot of physicians not as on the ball as him who were clueless. But he does clearly seem to me to be posturing in that video to inflate his own competence.
(And if Western doctors didn't take note of Chinese experience treating the disease and instead make it up themselves... why?)
You mean like the same experts that misread the SARS and MERS studies and concluded that steroids are bad when they weren't? The same experts that recommended remdesivir? He definitely seems more on point than all these experts you keep referencing.What makes you think the people who designed the RECOVERY trial didn't have or seek opinion from top pulmonary medicine experts who likewise had been treating this sort of thing for years?
This is the sort of thing I don't get. How do you get to the point that a random clinician pitches up on YouTube blowing his own trumpet and claiming he has The Answer is assumed to be a top expert, and yet not stop to consider that the physicians, scientists people who design massive, major national trials are almost certainly top experts in their field?
Also, this is literally what science is about: collecting empirical evidence to demonstrate a point. Anecdotally pointing out you did it a different way means what, exactly? What's better? Are either better? I can tell you my experience of science is that when my experiments are in progress, I sometimes think they show things and other times not, and then go away and analyse them in proper detail and find what I thought I was seeing at the time doesn't exist. We impose our cognitive biases, hopes and wishes on our work, even scientists and doctors. That's why analysis and scrutiny matters so much. You have no idea whether a doctor thinks he's achieving great things off four patients really has achieved, or whether he's fooled himself because he wants things to work. Not least in a pandemic where they so badly want something to work, because they feel so frustratingly impotent due to the lack of treatments.
From Kory's interview, there isn't even very concrete data on treating organized pneumonia to begin with, he said info is mainly from case studies and not large scale trials. The reason Kory said he knew what it was 4 patients in was because of all the patients with organized pneumonia he treated pre-covid and it was the same thing.
I have nothing against doing really thorough trials and everything. But you don't have that luxury when there's a new virus. We don't even have really thorough trials on stuff we've seen before like aforementioned organized pneumonia. We have plenty of holes or incomplete info with many known things still let alone a new virus. And why are you gonna slap doctors' hands over drugs that are already proven extremely safe when you don't know if they don't work? And you're gonna approve something that doesn't have the results (safety and effectiveness) or even a theory in past science for why it could even work (remdesivir)? How does that make any sense?
Ivermectin is far from reckless and dangerous (decades of data). I forget which South American country(s) that was trying to do trials for ivermectin and they couldn't because too many people in the population were taking it already. It's known to be very very safe and you have millions that have probably already taken it just for covid already. How much more data do you need for safety purposes? It's like all the variant fear mongering, we already have real-world data that the vaccines work on them, it's not guesswork anymore.No, but as a responsible professional, you should be expected to recognise that they do and control for it. Going in front of the top political body in your country and making wild, unsubstantiated claims, especially in a major health panic, as he did was reckless and potentially dangerous.