I never understand all this “controversy” over Hydroxychloroquine.
Like Dr. Fauci said it doesn’t work, and that they haven’t done the clinical trials and all that process needed to certify that a certain medication works for a certain illness or disease.
But then many doctors have “anecdotal” evidence that it has worked for some patients. So they have prescribed the use of HCQ for their patients.
Just because there hasn’t been the official clinical trial of a medication, doesn’t mean that it doesn’t work for some medical conditions.
And it seems to be the liberals who attack the use of HCQ. perhaps because Trump had said we should use it.
Since when is anything in the field of medical science political????
It’s now “The Trump Drug” and if it works, they are afraid Trump will get the credit. So it can’t be admitted that it works - even if it does.
Since the middle ages. See for example Giordano Bruno.
Science has been corrupted for a long time.
Pure science is respected for its willingness the challenge preconceptions. Political and financial interests (maintaining grants, etc.) have been bending pure science for a long time.
Fauci is talk in the nonsense as usual.
Professor Harvey Risch:
RISCH: No. In fact, the FDA has a huge history of drugs going into widespread use in the medical community for decades that have not been established on the basis of randomized, controlled trials. Half of the chemotherapy drugs used in cancer were used without randomized, controlled trials. The antibiotics, amoxicillin, for example, that parents use with their children all the time, day in, day out, was never established with a randomized, controlled trial before it was used.
“I never understand all this “controversy” over Hydroxychloroquine.”
Fauci never said the Ford study didn’t show success. He said the way the study was done, could effect the outcome. The main issue with the study, Fauci said, is that the study was not a randomized, double-blind study — which is considered “the gold standard” in science. In other words, doctors carefully selected who received the treatment, which could skew the results.
“ anecdotal” evidence that it has worked for some patients.”
“anecdotal” evidence is evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony. They are looking for a vaccine, not a crap shoot. And the drug has a history of side effects. And whose to say the people got well and the drug had nothing to do with it. A vast majority do.
“...perhaps because Trump had said we should use it.”
Trump never said to use it. He said the tests have shown promise. But not confirmed yet for C-19 with the correct tests being accomplished.
Hydroxychloroquine is in a class of medications that was first used to prevent and treat malaria. Today, it is used to treat rheumatoid arthritis, some symptoms of lupus, childhood arthritis (or juvenile idiopathic arthritis) and other autoimmune diseases.
If a doctor wishes to prescribe it for C-19, he could be putting his shingle in the wind. The FDA did revoke the emergency use of it in mid June this year. They have not cleared the drug for C-19 use and it has a history of creating heart rhythm problems and other safety issues, including blood and lymph system disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure according to the FDA.
Until they can prove it works, and with the baggage it harbors, I wouldn’t want it unless I was dying, period. But it is a cleared drug to use for other illnesses, so if a doctor wishes to proscribe it, it’s his and the patient’s gamble. Law suites to follow if it goes wrong.
rwood
See my post 22 and follow the money.
When the Left is involved, EVERYTHING is political.