Professor Raoult Releases Results of New Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Study on 1061 Patients

I guess I'm missing your objective here... You're waiting for a double-blind, randomized, peer-reviewed, study? It was a hypothetical; take it as it is. Geeze.

 

I have a whole thread on the research which links to the SOLIDARITY trial which is looking at multiple drug treatments, you know the global research run by the organisation Trump wants to defund?

 

And a 94 year old who was not given HCQ survived in Australia

Where is your proof that the HCQ was the factor that assisted their survival?

 

Where is the proof that it didn't? There is no one size fits all medication. Some medication will work for some patients, some medication will work for other patients. As I've said constantly: This should be between patients and doctors and their teams, to find treatments for them.

The politicization of the medication is in poor taste, and as a doctor don't you find it hypocritical to the Hippocrat oath? "Do no harm." For patients that this is effective for, to remove that option from them is doing harm.

We make informed choices, based on the information that we have. We have enough information on the risks that the medical team can evaluate patient Y and decide which treatments to give him or her. That's what it means to be pro-choice.

This virus has revealed the truth of the nature of those governing us, and our society in America: When push came to shove for pro-choice, democracy, etc.: They don't believe it. You say the words,. but now the words have the same effect as "You racist!"

No, enough. The words are hollowed and meaningless. They don't believe it, it's not true.

 

Why do you care? If it helped one person that is a good thing. Now is not the time to be closed minded. One might get the impression you hate this drug just because it has been mentioned by OUR president as a possible help.

 

Did it help them or is it just coincidence that they took the HCQ and got better? Would they have got better without it?

 

Exactly my point

You cannot use anecdotal evidence as “proof” something is working or not working

 

None of that is your business. Just make sure you carry a note with you at all times telling the doctors under no circumstances no matter how dire the situation, you refuse to take the Trump drug.

 

Do you really think the population of Connecticut changed much in 10 days?

 

Well that inspired my confidence. If there is a control group why would you not publish it?

 

You're going to persist with the deception?

Death rate is not number dead against the population; it's the number dead against those infected - at least that's the rate we're discussing.

 

I would publish it; I don't have an agenda. Only those with an agenda would not publish it.

Edit to update: I do have an agenda but it's not political; it's about saving lives... but I have no political agenda on this.

 

Here. Knock yourself out.
Please come back when your finished.
https://data.ct.gov/Health-and-Human-Services/COVID-19-Daily-DPH-Reports-Library/bqve-e8um

But to reiterate:
If there was an order of magnitude improvement in the death rate it would be obvious.

 

No. I’m for using what works now. We don’t have the luxury of all that during a pandemic. We take the best information we have from all sources, not just ones we’ve been conditioned to accept as sole purveyors of knowledge and learning through appeal to authority, and act to save lives now.

 

No, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You made the claim that there was no improvement with hydroxychloroquine in Connecticut. You extract the proof of what you said or you're making it up.

The only way you're not making it up is if you've analyzed data or read someone elses analysis of the data or even someone's opinion of the data or even lying fake news on CNN. Somewhere, somehow, you either saw, analyzed, read, heard, something that made you make that claim, and you should be able to provide a link or analysis - or you made it up... which is it? If you can't provide the links or the analysis then we must assume you made it up.

And, we don't need an order of magnitude improvement. If it saved one life then that's enough. But I'd bet money that, when we get the real data, it will have saved many lives.

 

As they should be, why do you want to fund lying shills for China who arguable made the crisis worse? The money will go to other health care needs and delivery systems, screw the WHO.

 

Okay.. From the link.
Average death rate of those hospitalized in the last 8 days 4.7%
In the prior 8 days 3.2%.

 

Rate. We defined it as percentage of those who contract the disease. That's far more natural or random than hospitalization. Please come back when you've done your homework. Until then, you're grounded.

 

I'm a supporter of both. If I'm laying on my death bed and can't get the plasma, I'd rather have the drugs than nothing. Hell, do both. It's better than being dead.

 

No. We are doing the same test as the good doctor.

 

No we weren't. You changed the story when you said the rate of death should have gone down in Connecticut. But it's typical when the left loses; instead of admitting error they change the question and pretend it was so all along.

 

And that's pretty much what is happening.

So what's the controversy?

 

If you want to see if it lowers the death rate you measure people that might die.
No wonder the righties don't get it.

 

The controversy is people (Paul7) that are against something just because Trump is for it.

 

You're thinking of someone else, that isn't my position.