They weren't randomly chucking drugs at patients, they were using drugs that worked against similar diseases. Really? You're going to say shoving HCQ down people's throats (when you have no proof it doesn't do anything or at least there's no evidence that it's more harmful) is so bad and the system working poorly? While OVER A YEAR into this disease we are still giving people remdesivir that has no chance of working, has more side effects, and is super expensive is an example of the system working?Yes, that would be the article that points out that physicians randomly chucking drugs at patients with risk of anecdotal bias meant people had HCQ shoved down their throats for no reason for months, and slowed down the ability of many to properly find out what worked. As it so neatly contained:
Should Kory and his colleagues have been administering steroids when they did? Were they right? Kory thinks so. But Eric Rubin, the editor of The New England Journal of Medicine, thinks it’s not so clear-cut. “You could also say he was lucky,” Rubin said.
But it's funny how you took precisely zero of that away from it, eh?
BTW, Kory and his group are at least 3 for 3 because they said use steroids, use anti-coagulants (WHO recommendation now), and said the virus is airborne. It stops being luck at some point, right?
When there's no clinical trial for something, you use your experience and past science to figure it out. A new disease means no clinical trials, are you supposed to do nothing as a doctor then? A pharmacist denying a prescription because they don't agree with drug being prescribed and them denying it because there was a possible typo with the dosage or missed drug interaction are two different things. This is getting pretty ridiculous that people need to go to court to get treatments. Outside of medical center or institution like a private practice doctor, the doctor has final say. Do you have some data showing private practice doctors are killing people?Okay, so why bother with clinical trials, if doctors should just be able to decide at whim? If a pharmacist checks a prescription and notices it is the wrong dose or wrong drug for the patient, should the pharmacist be compelled to just hand it over anyway? Why even train pharmacists - let's just replace them with vending machines, because they're obviously useless. Why should we bother to oversee junior doctors with consultants, and consultants with heads of medicine? What's the point in a multidisciplinary meeting or clinic, if the doctor should have absolute power to do as they please?
Everyone knew HCQ doesn't work and is harmful for ICU patients over a year back now, that's old news. Giving HCQ at any other time at worst does nothing. It's literally handed out like candy in many countries, it's prescribed to pregnant women even. Same thing with ivermectin, we've given out over 3 billion doses of the drug in the last 30 years.Right, and later meta-analyses after trials demonstrate that HCQ increased all-cause mortality from covid-19. You are literally advocating killing more people with improper drugs, and calling them "safe". Because you really are that clueless about what you are talking about.
What's wrong with disagreements? Do you just stop doing anything until every single doctor is in agreement? There's a disagreement with how to vaccine people right now, get people first dose vaccinated as fast as possible or get people fully vaccinated as fast as possible. Top experts have different opinions on that. Should we just completely stop vaccinations until we have complete consensus? No, because that is asinine. With 2 countries each doing one of those strats, we'll then have data for the next time to see which of these strats worked better. That's how you do science and figure out what is best, you kinda have to do what isn't best to show it isn't best. More than 1 recommendation can be right at the time with the knowledge available at the time.And if 20 other doctors recommend against that doctor...?
What ivermectin analysis shows no difference or worse outcomes? I can only find 2 studies total that showed worse outcomes and one only had 32 patients and the other had only 69 patients. Also, over 20 countries have approved ivermectin for covid and you can look at all their graphs where infections and deaths go down after approval.What about everyone else's ivermectin meta-analyses? It's very interesting you can only name the people who wrote supportive ones. Is this what you call "just want to know about the truth", that you don't bother properly researching evidence?
He's 3 for 3.'“You could also say he was lucky,” Rubin said.'
Given he looks likely to be wrong on plenty else like vitamin C and ivermectin, Rubin may well have a point.
The why is remdesivir still used as treatment?Actually, all of the expert "panels" I think are important to listen to say remdesivir has minimal or no efficacy, and is not worth using.
This is your hypocrisy, even if you do not understand the fact: you want doctors to be able to doctor with the drugs according to their best wisdom, and then you complain when the FDA attempts to enable them to do so.[