Really, really wanting Ty to answer this question, which he's repeatedly dodged in the past. If any of you other HCQ+ doubters want to take a stab at answering the question, be my guest.
Link: Dr. Fareed book
So the question is, was it actually efficacious. To test this you'd have to be willing to give it to people who were actually at risk from CoVid and that would have ethical concerns.
But it was certainly better than the ventilators, that was a fuck up for sure.
Maybe Dr. Fareed was just lucky, and those esteemed ID docs accept an alternate scientific reality that includes a belief that Dr. Fareed risked the lives of his patients with a treatment that was nothing more than the flip of a coin. They can’t, or refuse to, see that his success was more than just a coin flip. Actually, a success rate of 100% might be better than calling for a coin to land head-up on consecutive occasions. That seems more like correctly calling for a coin to land on its edge.
Whatever the success rate of Paxlovid, or any other alternate treatment, it is highly unlikely that that alternate treatment had a success rate better than 100%.
Nevertheless, their seems to be those—including ID doctors—who cling to their view that COVID patients did not benefit from HCQ+, and those same people still believe they have the science on their side.
We must also remember the reality that HCQ+ does not yield much profit.
inexpensive it was...you have a very jaundiced perspective on how medicine is practiced all over the world...not sure if there's a cure for that, but there's treatment available, in the form of active investigation into the rigor and depth of research that yields remarkable results that keep people healthier and living longer.
I've got two physicians in our extended family who work extremely hard on behalf of their patients without prescribing unnecessary and costly treatments/medications. It's all "Evidence Based Medicine" in their parlance...and in their fields (ID and P/CC) it includes an assessment of HCQ+.
The most expensive treatments in the most advanced nation yielded the worst results as the Covid cases and death counts were amplified—which kept the jabs going—by those partnering with treatment providers…nothing to see here.
Or, what might be even worse, in an alternate scenario maybe our treatments really were the most effective which means our methodology for calculating cases was purposefully flawed also to keep the jabs going—as some contend—for profit, monetarily or politically.
I believe that most medical professionals are wonderful people—and many of them wanted to refuse the mandated treatments—and most of them have the capacity to confront both scenarios and realize that neither is optimal and questions should be asked.
problem was having too many conservative citizens who were easily duped by misinformation into not getting vaccinated or taking easy, reasoned mitigation advice, like Masking and Social Distancing. Countries like Japan, Norway, Finland...did and had superior results. It's all in the record books if you care to verify.
Wow, you dismiss interventions sans rct, but now you denigrate conservatives who were not duped into risking side effects that even the great Fauci suffered from yet he failed to inform the public about, and then you champion masking and social distancing when the initial guidance informed the public not to wear masks, and there hasn’t been a rct of social distancing. You accept these protocols based on what you call “reasoned mitigation advice” but seem to dismiss the possibility that a 100% success rate intervention might have a reasoned benefit of mitigating the effects of the virus.
Again, maybe Fareed was just lucky, let’s just be grateful he chose the right patients to benefit from his placebo.
To address the specific question, you have 2 possibilities: Either the drug regimen was effective (which the agenda won't allow as an answer). Or they all survived because the disease wasn't statistically deadly for the vast majority of the population (which the agenda won't allow, because they still need to defend the school closures, lockdowns, and economic chaos they created).
So you will get the answer you got below and a deflection.
save thousands of lives during COVID...HCQ+ never conducted an RCT...simple as that.
Don't forget that the FDA gave an emergency use authorization for HCQ+ in the early days of COVID...they were desperate for Anything that might work...so, there was never a grand conspiracy to gain "Power" by anyone. The promoters of HCQ+ had their chance, but never delivered.
Don't just make stuff up...you just lose more of your declining reputation.
not one person died from Covid who received this drug regimen within five days of symptom onset, including the older demographic who was dying at a known rate.
Ty keeps saying this treatment is a joke, but both he and his vaunted ID doctor friend/relative are coming at this from total ignorance. He never likes to be proven wrong about anything, so when actual facts become inconvenient to his inaccurate narrative, he just dummies up. I have zero issue admitting I was wrong if you prove me wrong because intellectual honesty is more important to me than my ego.
Co-Editors, IDSA, UK Health Service, Japan's HC Services, China's HC Services, Russia's HC Services....I could go on, but you still would stand by Dr's Risch and Fareed.
The odds of you gaining any converts are not good...time to stop and get a grip on reality.
estimation, was he able to treat thousands of vulnerable-aged patients within five days of Covid symptom onset with HCQ+ resulting in zero deaths?
I would truly love to have your ID doc's opinion on this, too.
I'm gonna say this again. You and your vaunted ID doc are so ignorant on this issue you really need to keep your mouth shut. Really. You cannot see that this was a total failure on the medical community's part SOLELY because your hero, the Great Fauchino, falsely and wrongly said there was no evidence HCQ+ worked because of his flawed PERSONAL medical philosophy - again, a philosophy that is completely at odds with the medical research community's - of not accepting observational data as valid.
- Dr. Risch went through EVERY study on HCQ+ while your hero didn't.
- Dr. Fareed treated thousands of vulnerable-aged patients within five days of symptom onset without a single death. (If you read his book you'd know this).
Dr. Zev Zekenko treated hundreds of patients with HCQ+ with no deaths.
Use your brain for once.
Hundreds…if not thousands. ;-)
Feasible or even Logical?…something doesn’t pass the smell test.
Dr. Zev Zekenko had zero deaths out of several hundred vulnerable-aged patients until the state of New York prohibited him and all doctors from prescribing HCQ+. He then saw patients starting to die in numbers similar to other untreated people.
Dr. Stella Immanuel might have been somewhat whacko, admittedly, but she, too, treated hundreds of patients with zero deaths.
Dr. Stephen Herman here in Savannah treated patients with this to great success (I don't know his numbers).
Look. I realize no amount of evidence short of Jesus Christ making a personal appearance to tell you it worked will resonate with you. You seem totally unwilling to even admit there was any success with HCQ+ to the point of calling Dr. Fareed a liar. As did Dr. Risch, I explained why every RCT on it was not conducted properly to your deaf ears. I explained that every doctor supposedly refuting Dr. Risch cited these flawed trials...as Risch pointed out in his paper you still stubbornly refuse to read. You are so enamored with your hero the Great Fauchino to the point that you won't accept any evidence at all he was wrong because he refused to accept observational trials as valid, even though the mainstream medical research community says with proper record keeping, observational trials are often more valid than RCTs. And that's on his own NIH website!
Anyway, in closing, you're just wrong about HCQ+, so is your ID doc (I'd still love to talk to him) and so is your hero the Great Fauchino.
Oh, and please answer the question that virtually all authors of medical papers do..."Do you have, or ever had, a financial interest in the use of HCQ+ for COVID-19 treatments?"...I know I've asked it a few times already, but thought I'd try again...since it's relevant.
Look. Just because your hero the Great Fauchino says observational data isn't good enough doesn't mean he's right. In fact, if you'd bother to do even a minimum of research, you'd see his opinion on this isn't accepted by the mainstream medical research community.
