Answering Ty about Dr. Risch and HCQ+
Sorry to re-litigate...again...but Ty made some false or misleading claims about Dr. Risch's research on hydroxychloroquine. When I pointed out he was wrong, he said he'd be open as to why. So here goes:
"Dr. Risch's own superiors and peers...with expertise in virology and Infectious Diseases, that Dr. R didn't have... wrote a letter, publicly refuting everything he said." Answer - They wrote the letter well before he published his extensive research paper on the topic, in which he directly and successfully rebutted their claims. To date, none of these people have responded or reacted to Risch's paper.
"My own family Infectious Disease and Pulmonary/Critical Care ('ICU') Docs advised me that HCQ was considered 'A Joke.'" Answer - Because he is relying on faulty trials for his information. I guarantee this vaunted ID doctor has no clue about all the trials Risch mentions in his paper.
"Dr. Risch did not perform any studies involving HCQ...he simply wrote an Opinion Piece...and the studies that were done were proven faulty and inconsequential, meaning that Dr. R used poor judgement in picking them." Answer - There was only ONE faulty study Risch used as evidence HCQ+ worked... initially. In his research paper, Risch acknowledged this and subsequently did not use it as a source.
Ty, you make it a habit to ask people to read your links. Well, here is the link - again - to Dr. Risch's paper. Put your ego aside and read it. And I guarantee it has information your vaunted ID doctor has zero clue about.
Link: https://earlycovidcare.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Evidence-Brief-Risch-v6.pdf
Replies to: Answering Ty about Dr. Risch and HCQ+
Sorry for the delay, but there are other things to attend to beside discussions of a drug that
no one prescribes for treating COVID-19...now, to your points...
>Dr. Risch's superiors and peers at YSPH...and his publication's fellow Editorial Board Members, did publicly chastise him for shoddy work and erroneous conclusions regarding the efficacy of HCQ+ against COVID-19...no doubt they saw all of his work, and since they continue to work alongside him at Yale and the publication it seems reasonable that they have seen his revisions you speak of...yet they have not retracted their original judgements...i.e. they are not swayed...IMO, it's because of the extremely poor "foundation" of work he provided at the outset...additional information regarding why HCQ doesn't work and will never work..(do a search on this board for "TMPRSS2")...and the arrival of a demonstrably effective drug combination for treating recently infected, but not hospitalized patients...i.e. "PAXLOVID"...without the risks inherent with HCQ.
>My family ID/ICU Docs have been on the true "Front Line" dealing with COVID-19...and are very well connected with Physicians across the nation in the field, so when they reduce HCQ+ to the level of a "Joke", you can trust in that assessment.
>At least you own up to the fact that Dr. Risch did faulty work in not vetting his sources...it got worse from there ;-)
>It's been four years now since the world's health organizations put HCQ+ in the dumpster as a COVID-19 treatment, yet, the "SAGA of HCQ" lives on in your mind...wish I could help you move on with reality, but that's totally up to you.
Link: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/190/4/491/5898696
None of what you wrote addressed what I wrote
Dr. Risch's peers were answered, and trounced, in his research paper which came out after they initially criticized him.
I guarantee.. GUARANTEE...your ID doctor has never read Dr. Risch's research paper, nor is he familiar with the studies Risch refers to in making his case.
The fact that HCQ+ is not considered a first line of defense is an indictment of the entire medical community. It was immediately politicized because Trump suggested it might be effective.
Ask yourself this. Proponents who were SUCCESSFUL in treating patients with HCQ+ (and yes, there were many) were VERY CLEAR it had to be used within 5-7 days of symptoms onset. Yet, trials were conducted using hydroxychloroquine only (without zinc and azithromycin) or HCQ+ on already-hospitalized patients. Why were these trials DELIBERATELY conducted incorrectly? Why? Have you or your vaunted ID doctor ever asked yourselves these questions? And why was EVERY credible observational trial dismissed by the Great Fauchino? Because he has a PERSONAL medical philosophy of never accepting observational data, that's why, despite the fact this PERSONAL philosophy is not in the mainstream...since you're so big in believing the mainstream.
And ask yourself, why was a completely false "research" paper printed in The Lancet, which incorrectly said hydroxychloroquine was associated with cardiac events, a paper which later had to be retracted in shame? Yet, that paper successfully shut down all further research on HCQ+, which was why Dr. Risch was unable to conduct these studies himself (to answer one of your main criticisms).
Face it. Dr. Risch has more than made the case HCQ+ was extremely effective in preventing hospitalizations and deaths in the 84% range (which, not ironically happens to coincide precisely with the percentage Paxlovid is effective). Since for weird and bizarre reasons you refuse to read his paper, you (and your vaunted ID doctor) are completely ignorant on this subject.
Mark, it's been 4 yrs now...more than enough time for Dr. Risch and friends to conduct RCTs that
back up their claims...if they were as committed to HCQ+ as you appear to be, they should have done so...but they haven't...the ball is in their court, so to speak.
Fortunately, we have PAXLOVID, which has demonstrated beyond doubt it's effectiveness.
Time to move on.
Fauchino is responsible for 100s of thousands of deaths and it's time to "move on"? Okay...I guess
(no message)
Totally wrong…btw, Tony Fauci isn’t the one who purposely downplayed COVID, nor
did he advocate for using Disinfectants to treat the disease.
Save your ire for the real offenders.
Mark, his "ICU Dr relative" is no more real than his Babe Caddy stories. And...
his imaginary expert was also dead wrong about the COVID vaccine preventing spread which was used by Dems as rationalization to force the vaccine on unwilling patients, the necessity of useless gen pop mask wearing, and joke that was 6 ft social distancing which we finally turned out was a number created by Fauci out of thin air - per Fauci....if his riveting dinner convo's were ever to find their way to reality.that is.
Hey there, 'Poster Behind the Curtain'...No One Ever claimed perfection with any vaccine for COVID..
...so that's falsehood #1...but with an efficacy of 95% against the "Wild Type" SARS-CoV-2 virus spread, had everyone gotten vaccinated quickly, the pandemic would have been brought under control with less chance of new variants...it was that good. Sadly that didn't happen, and variants that were more transmissible emerged. Nonetheless the efficacy against hospitalization and death remained strong...again, not perfect, but effective enough that in ICU's the deaths occurred mostly among those who were not vaccinated...often 90+%.
The government mandated vaccinations only for those in "Front Line" positions...e.g. Medical Staff, Police, Military, etc....Private Institutions/Companies made their own decisions (e.g. Cruise Liners) unless they were involved in government funded work...Falsehood #2
Falsehood #3...Masking has been shown to Mitigate...i.e. reduce transmission...by studies at MIT...and in the NEJM...both of which Baron failed to comprehend...kind of weird since he wouldn't think of not wearing a mask during a surgery...if only to keep his job.
Falsehood #4...the "6' Rule" came from the CDC...Dr. Fauci ran the NIAID organization...not at all the same...and only an idiot would waste precious time during a pandemic running a study to assess the 'optimal' social distancing distance...sadly, we had a surplus of such people, and Baron appears to be one of them...one lesson from all of this is to keep people like Baron away from you with a "10 Foot Pole" ;-)
This is getting to be very entertaining...
And funny how Paxlovid works exactly like HCQ+, albeit with different chemical composition
But the formula was already there. Paxlovid was modeled after HCQ+.
You have no idea what you're talking about, Mark...again, do a search on "TMPRSS2" and you'll
understand the critical difference...do it with GOOGLE as well as on this Forum.
There are chemical differences but the method of delivery is identical.
One drug is used to open the cells to allow the other drug to enter the cells and mitigate the damage.
Let me ask you this. Dr. Zelenko kept meticulous records and found HCQ+ reduced his patient deaths and hospitalizations to near zero. Were his records wrong?
Dr. George Fareed (UCLA, Harvard) kept meticulous records and found HCQ+ reduced his patient deaths and hospitalizations to near zero. Were his records wrong?
Those 'chemical differences' make all the "Difference" in results, Mark...and they need to be
validated through RCTs for a disease as serious as COVID-19.
Ty will die on his sword with this.
(no message)
Just trying to help Mark and any others who are having trouble understanding how to deal with
COVID-19...seems like the right thing to do.
Until he reads Dr. Risch's paper he is unfit to comment negatively about HCQ+
(no message)
..or at least the 59 golf clubs that he said The Babe carried in his bag.
(no message)