[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

I agree with Mikeod. And I have a MD and a degree in microbiology. This is NOT a study, it is an anecdote

Yes and while you are playing golf 1000s of Drs all over the world who actually treat coronavirus patients are using these drugs and conducting more rigorous studies.

We will know for sure under what conditions these drugs work or not fairly soon.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

Yes and while you are playing golf 1000s of Drs all over the world who actually treat coronavirus patients are using these drugs and conducting more rigorous studies.

We will know for sure under what conditions these drugs work or not fairly soon.

Exactly. There are some good studies underway, and we should get early results soon.
As far as playing golf goes, I spent 44 years learning and practicing medicine, I paid my dues and I am retired. I helped/cured thousands along the way. You?

[biker1]

The one thing I did notice about the control group was the average age was less than the treated group (37 for the control group and 51 for the treated group). The sample size was small; treated group was 20 and the control group was 16 and they did have 6 dropouts. The average number of days between the onset of symptoms and the inclusion in the study was essentially the same for the treated group and the control group. They did present the numbers of patients who were asymptomatic, had upper respiratory symptom, and had lower respiratory symptoms for both the treated and control groups. There were more patients with upper respiratory symptoms than lower respiratory symptoms for both groups; about 60% of both groups had upper respiratory symptoms. I suspect that means that most of the patients in both groups were not very sick (yet?). They did do a statistical test for significant of the results. This was clearly a preliminary study and the authors did make suggestions for further studies.

Originally Posted by Mikeod

What stood out to was the selection bias. If you choose only those with mild cases of the virus and don’t include a control group similarly selected, you have no way of knowing if the recovery was due to the treatment or not. You could have treated them with Perrier and touted that as a potential cure. Bad science is worse than no science.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by golfing eagles

Exactly. There are some good studies underway, and we should get early results soon.
As far as playing golf goes, I spent 44 years learning and practicing medicine, I paid my dues and I am retired. I helped/cured thousands along the way. You?

I shot 69 last week, 5 birdies 2 bogies, 32 putts. Had 2 holes in one last year.

There's a reason lots of Drs prescribing these drugs and conducting trials, it's not because they are stupid.

[golfing eagles]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

I shot 69 last week, 5 birdies 2 bogies, 32 putts. Had 2 holes in one last year.

There's a reason lots of Drs prescribing these drugs and conducting trials, it's not because they are stupid.

nice round!!!

The reason they are conducting trials is to find out if this is reasonable treatment. Those that are prescribing it, off label, are probably premature (or visionaries)

[blueash]

Originally Posted by biker1

The one thing I did notice about the control group was the average age was less than the treated group (37 for the control group and 51 for the treated group). The sample size was small; treated group was 20 and the control group was 16 and they did have 6 dropouts. The average number of days between the onset of symptoms and the inclusion in the study was essentially the same for the treated group and the control group. They did present the numbers of patients who were asymptomatic, had upper respiratory symptom, and had lower respiratory symptoms for both the treated and control groups. There were more patients with upper respiratory symptoms than lower respiratory symptoms for both groups; about 60% of both groups had upper respiratory symptoms. I suspect that means that most of the patients in both groups were not very sick (yet?). They did do a statistical test for significant of the results. This was clearly a preliminary study and the authors did make suggestions for further studies.

Bonus points for either reading a study or perhaps a post online. But the information you are presenting here is not the report which is the topic of this thread. Rather the it is the data from an earlier report by the same group. This newer report had no control group and was much larger, without going back I believe it was 80 patients.

[blueash]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

DR Faoult has an MD and PHD and specializes in infectious diseases.

You?

No one is questioning Faoult's qualifications. The question being raised is whether he did a convincing study when he had the opportunity to do one, or if he produced a larger anecdotal study which while interesting does not advance the science.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by blueash

Bonus points for either reading a study or perhaps a post online. But the information you are presenting here is not the report which is the topic of this thread. Rather the it is the data from an earlier report by the same group. This newer report had no control group and was much larger, without going back I believe it was 80 patients.

No one is questioning Faoult's qualifications. The question being raised is whether he did a convincing study when he had the opportunity to do one, or if he produced a larger anecdotal study which while interesting does not advance the science.

Quote from DR Faoult:

Our study concerns 80 patients, without a control group because we offer our protocol to all patients with no contraindication. This is what the Hippocratic Oath that we have taken dictates to us.

This guy is in the trenches fighting a horrific disease. I don't think he gives a damn right now about control groups if he can save some lives. Besides, we have Michigan as a control group since their idiotic governor says she will prosecute Drs who prescribe these medicines for coronavirus.

[Rickg]

Couldn’t post story

[blueash]

Originally Posted by GoodLife

Quote from DR Faoult:

Our study concerns 80 patients, without a control group because we offer our protocol to all patients with no contraindication. This is what the Hippocratic Oath that we have taken dictates to us.

I fear we have fallen into a world where twitter posts have taken on the authority of a well thought presentation. The reason Dr. Raoult took to twitter to defend himself is that he certainly has been hearing the same criticism of the lack of a control group from his peers. Every single proper study that is done is started with the hope that the treatment group will do better than the placebo group. And yet, hoping the treatment will help, a proper medical researcher includes a placebo group. Drug companies spend millions after basic research suggests an anti-cancer compound will help. And once it is ready for human testing, they don't give it to every cancer patient hoping it will save their lives. They do a placebo controlled study. And sadly even after the basic science and the early studies suggested they had a life saving medication, they often find that it doesn't work in the real world. The placebo controlled study provides the proof.

Dr Raoult surely knows this. And he knows that the overwhelming number of patients in his study were only mildly ill, not facing death. He had time to do it the way that his work would not be questioned.

I don't understand why you are so vigorously defending him. Is he a relative of yours? And the Hippocratic Oath says nothing about how to do a controlled study nor that a physician should give untested medications to everyone in the hope there will be a benefit. It does say you shall not operate on kidney stones.

Actually the dictum "First do no harm" suggests that before doing anything the doctor must weigh the possibility that the treatment is not more dangerous than allowing the natural course of the disease to occur. That has not yet been established in regards to these medications because he didn't do a proper study.

[biker1]

Yes, my comments were about the first paper and I did read the paper. I made my comments because while the 80 patient test did not have a control group, they did do the earlier study with a control group (as would typically be done in a scientific study with a statistical analysis). As they explained for the second paper, they were trying to save as many people as possible.

Originally Posted by blueash

Bonus points for either reading a study or perhaps a post online. But the information you are presenting here is not the report which is the topic of this thread. Rather the it is the data from an earlier report by the same group. This newer report had no control group and was much larger, without going back I believe it was 80 patients.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by blueash

I fear we have fallen into a world where twitter posts have taken on the authority of a well thought presentation. The reason Dr. Raoult took to twitter to defend himself is that he certainly has been hearing the same criticism of the lack of a control group from his peers. Every single proper study that is done is started with the hope that the treatment group will do better than the placebo group. And yet, hoping the treatment will help, a proper medical researcher includes a placebo group. Drug companies spend millions after basic research suggests an anti-cancer compound will help. And once it is ready for human testing, they don't give it to every cancer patient hoping it will save their lives. They do a placebo controlled study. And sadly even after the basic science and the early studies suggested they had a life saving medication, they often find that it doesn't work in the real world. The placebo controlled study provides the proof.

Dr Raoult surely knows this. And he knows that the overwhelming number of patients in his study were only mildly ill, not facing death. He had time to do it the way that his work would not be questioned.

I don't understand why you are so vigorously defending him. Is he a relative of yours? And the Hippocratic Oath says nothing about how to do a controlled study nor that a physician should give untested medications to everyone in the hope there will be a benefit. It does say you shall not operate on kidney stones.

Actually the dictum "First do no harm" suggests that before doing anything the doctor must weigh the possibility that the treatment is not more dangerous than allowing the natural course of the disease to occur. That has not yet been established in regards to these medications because he didn't do a proper study.

Oh please, both drugs are in wide circulation taken by millions. Only bad side effect seems to possible arrhythmia complications. Can you post some cites where patients have died from a short course of these drugs?

It's easy to pontificate from your couch. DR Faoult is risking his life every day treating coronavirus patients, doing what he thinks best based on considerable experience and expertise. That's admirable.

[blueash]

Oh please, both drugs are in wide circulation taken by millions. Only bad side effect seems to possible arrhythmia complications. Can you post some cites where patients have died from a short course of these drugs?

It's easy to pontificate from your couch. DR Faoult is risking his life every day treating coronavirus patients, doing what he thinks best based on considerable experience and expertise. That's admirable.

Let's start by getting his name right. It is Raoult not Faoult. And I have not criticized anything about his being in the trenches. Although I am not really sure he is in the trenches or not. I suspect he is in his office while those he employs are in the trenches. Do you want to know that he has been found to have submitted false data for publication? Do you know that he was banned from publishing for a period because of his sloppy work?

Chloroquine genius Didier Raoult to save the world from COVID-19 – For Better Science
I don't know how true all these allegations are, but there sure is a lot of smoke.

On the other hand he is one of the most recognized and honored persons in his field in Europe. He or his institution has published 2300 papers.
Didier Raoult - Wikipedia
He is a man who knows how to do a proper study for the advancement of medicine. He is not some local GP who is seeing his patients at the bedside and just trying something as a last resort.

Any attempt to paint Raoult as some Albert Schweitzer ministering to his critically ill patients simply fails. Saying he couldn't have his team of 200 do a placebo controlled study ignores his history of publishing huge numbers of papers and his being well aware of what kind of data was needed for his work to be accepted.

Here is a quote from Dr Raoult that may give some insight into his character.

"In my field, I am a star, worldwide," Raoult told the La Provence newspaper in France. "I don't give a damn what others think. I am not an outsider. I'm streaks ahead of the others."

As to your request I produce evidence of harm, if you read the papers you will see that Raoult excluded patients with cardiac risk factors. Why? Because he knows that both of these drugs but especially hydroxychloroquine can induce fatal events.

Here is a citation for you, the package insert for Plaquenil wherein it warns of sudden cardiac death.

And here is one for you on the risk of the same cardiac fatal events with azithromycin

Of course when you combine two meds both of which have known risks of cardiac events the potential to kill patients increases. And if the drug is useless, then any risk is unacceptable. Yes, I saw you knew that cardiac events could happen. I don't understand why you minimize that risk. And of course patients have died from this fatal rhythm disturbance. Otherwise that wouldn't be a known risk of the meds Sudden death

A small Chinese randomized study showed no benefit to using HCQ in 30 patients. The burden on Raoult is to prove the benefit outweighs the risk. I expect we will have good studies available within two weeks. I hope he is right.

[GoodLife]

Originally Posted by blueash

Let's start by getting his name right. It is Raoult not Faoult. And I have not criticized anything about his being in the trenches. Although I am not really sure he is in the trenches or not. I suspect he is in his office while those he employs are in the trenches. Do you want to know that he has been found to have submitted false data for publication? Do you know that he was banned from publishing for a period because of his sloppy work?

Chloroquine genius Didier Raoult to save the world from COVID-19 – For Better Science
I don't know how true all these allegations are, but there sure is a lot of smoke.

On the other hand he is one of the most recognized and honored persons in his field in Europe. He or his institution has published 2300 papers.
Didier Raoult - Wikipedia
He is a man who knows how to do a proper study for the advancement of medicine. He is not some local GP who is seeing his patients at the bedside and just trying something as a last resort.

Any attempt to paint Raoult as some Albert Schweitzer ministering to his critically ill patients simply fails. Saying he couldn't have his team of 200 do a placebo controlled study ignores his history of publishing huge numbers of papers and his being well aware of what kind of data was needed for his work to be accepted.

Here is a quote from Dr Raoult that may give some insight into his character.

"In my field, I am a star, worldwide," Raoult told the La Provence newspaper in France. "I don't give a damn what others think. I am not an outsider. I'm streaks ahead of the others."

As to your request I produce evidence of harm, if you read the papers you will see that Raoult excluded patients with cardiac risk factors. Why? Because he knows that both of these drugs but especially hydroxychloroquine can induce fatal events.

Here is a citation for you, the package insert for Plaquenil wherein it warns of sudden cardiac death.

And here is one for you on the risk of the same cardiac fatal events with azithromycin

Of course when you combine two meds both of which have known risks of cardiac events the potential to kill patients increases. And if the drug is useless, then any risk is unacceptable. Yes, I saw you knew that cardiac events could happen. I don't understand why you minimize that risk. And of course patients have died from this fatal rhythm disturbance. Otherwise that wouldn't be a known risk of the meds Sudden death

A small Chinese randomized study showed no benefit to using HCQ in 30 patients. The burden on Raoult is to prove the benefit outweighs the risk. I expect we will have good studies available within two weeks. I hope he is right.

Your google fu is not quite up to the task.

Plaquenil and Arrhythmias - from FDA reports

Summary:
Arrhythmias is found among people who take Plaquenil, especially for people who are female, 60+ old , have been taking the drug for 6-12 months , also take medication Methotrexate, and have Osteoporosis. This study is created by eHealthMe based on reports of 48,911 people who have side effects when taking Plaquenil from Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

See that part about taking it for 6-12 months? They are prescribing these drugs for 6 days.

Leonid Schnieder, who writes For Better Science blog, is a hack who is being sued by several doctors and hospitals. Sure is a lotta smoke there. Calls DR Raoult a climate change denier among other things.

You "suspect" he is in his office while his employees treat the patients?. Allrighty then

You cite one Chinese study with no results, there are others that state good results. Personally I don't believe anything coming out of china, it appears they are selling bad covid tests and defective N95 masks all over the world.

Again, DRs in USA and all over the world are currently prescribing the 2 drugs for their coronavirus patients, they aren't stupid. Clinical trials all over the place. Dummies! Billion dollar drug companies are ramping up production of the drugs, I guess they are dummies too.

[tsmall22204]

Why would you post this? There are people that will create their own cocktail and take it. This has already happened. These deaths are on your hands. Idiot