After mocking Trump for promoting hydroxychloroquine, journalists acknowledge it might treat coronav

Just as well try everything. We call it shotgun therapy...

 

No, it hasn't been tested in the case of the Wuhan Virus. Who knows what differences exist. Just the fact that people on ventilators for Wuhan are on them for significantly longer than norms proving that the Wuhan Virus requires more testing before we should put anyone on a ventilator.

 

Lots of bovine stuff in here; that's for sure.

If you can find any FDA approved use of bovine dander that indicates it is safe then let's try it. But you're making it up again.

 

Wrong again. It is given for the Chinese virus. It has been given thousands of times and thousands of doctors are giving it - that means thousands of people who know more than you.

People who know better than you are giving hydroxychloroquine than are giving ivermectin. Why do you think that is? So Trump can make $1.95 out of his $1000 worth of shares in one company that makes it?

 

That's a very good question, one you would have to ask the thousands of doctors who are writing those prescriptions. My guess is they know something you don't....Please quit pretending you know something they don't or that they should meet YOUR standards before making medical decisions.

 

There are currently about twenty candidates undergoing clinical trials. Those that show promise will receive more scrutiny and evaluation from medical professionals. Those that do not demonstrate encouraging results will be abandoned, and the focus shifted to those that evidence a greater potential for success.

Casino operators and reality-tv entertainers will not have a role in determining which are which.

That is the purview of pharmacological researchers.

 

Let me get you a recipe for apple pie to prove that you're wrong... Because a recipe for apple pie would be as pertinent to the argument as is your post.

Here's what the actual article you linked says, and it supports my argument and does not say what you said it says:

It doesn't at all say the censorship was about the flu; they had banned wartime news.

 

A study led by China. And there's no mention of what any of those therapies are. And, if they're effective, they should publish the names and their results and, if they accept the findings, the medical community that is actually treating Wuhan Virus will, I'm sure, start using those.

If they're effective, why do you think it is that the medical community isn't using them? I'm not challenging their efficacy; I'm just curious why you're supporting anything BUT hydroxychloroquine.

 

Really? You take medical advice from random, Internet-connected, computers with zero actual testing or actual experience?

No time or money is being wasted on one very successful (not at all dubious) solution. A doctor prescribing a medication for a very sick, possibly dying, patient takes nothing at all away from any other testing.

What sites are looking at what is working and what is not? How many of these other guesses have been tried in the real world? If they want to look at what's working and what is not, they'd certainly have to look quite deeply at hydroxychloroquine. That's what is working.

 

So, we know that Wuhan virus doesn't act exactly like Kansas virus.

I don't see that as being surprising. We've had a lot of experience with Kansas virus and not that much with Wuhan virus.

And, I see NO reason to suggest that doctors aren't doing the very best they can in figuring out how to oxygenate COVID patients.

 

This is NOT a new way for finding candidate solutions to medical problems.

Such programs take into account huge amouts of information concerning known drugs and the documentation of human response in testing and use.

Humans aren't good at that.

 

And that is not a true statement. When Trump first mentioned Hydroxychloroquine, it was the first big break-through. Now he has talked about plenty of others and talks about that there are many trials going on. The real question is why are you so obsessed against it.

 

Shotgun therapy has to do with applying therapy.

AI is being used to identify possible candidates.

 

That's good. I see no reason to suggest that doctors aren't doing the best they can in how to treat the Chinese Virus. They know far more about it than do I.

 

Trump needs to be focused on marshalling desperately needed supplies and equipment to where they are needed most.

He is NOT doing that. In fact, FEMA is competing against hospitals. And, new materials are being pipelined to sales corporations that have preexisting contracts to fill and who cancel contracts when more money is bid.

That process has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with need. And, the result is not just that we're losing patients - we also have healthcare personell who are risking their very lives, with a growing number dying.

 

I'm fully aware of the capabilities of connected computers in distributed computation. I have a distributed Raspberry PI system at home even. This is not a thing I first heard of today, like so many of you all will have done.

Having a distributed computational system doesn't say a thing about how, using data only - no in vitro testing and no vivo testing - identified 77 candidate therapies. But I'll tell you what; should you get the virus, have your doctor pick #1 from that list and prescribe it to you. Please don't do that to your family, though.

 

The poster seemed to indicate that we somehow have less need for vents because doctors are not properly treating Wuhan virus - that instead they are using methods that work on Kansas virus.

 

I strongly doubt that as YOU scoffed at using AI.

And, your lack of understanding of how the results are used is just more confirmation.

 

Ummm. Yeh. That was my point.

Don’t hold your breath. It sounds cool but it’s pretty hard to machine learn without any data which we are very short on with C19.

 

Where did I scoff at AI?

 

Progress in finding possible solutions was described in a previous post.

You scoffed.

No previous post was discussing "shotgun therapy", which has to do with giving a single patient multiple possible therapies without being sure which is sufficient.

 

Post #384 for one.

 

Medical science and doctors are learning a lot about COVID.

We had the genome back in Janurary, for example. Since then people have been studying and treating this disease all over the world.

 

It was not at any time a “break through” it was mentioned in among a group of possible treatments and touted over all the others by non medical staff

 

One of the things the team I lead does is manage our enterprise data quality process for our data analytics work. Predictive analytics and artificial intelligence are only as good as the data that feeds them.

You posted that there's a distributed computation system (though you didn't know that's what it is called) that has found 77 remedies for the Chinese virus. You offered no link; no information on the source of data, the algorithms being used, the distributed network system, who the researchers were and what are their qualifications, or even any anecdotal information about any medical doctor who has accepted the work as even interesting, let alone usable.

No, I didn't scoff at AI; I scoffed at you.

You said post #384 was one, implying there is more... proceed with the implied #2 next.