Doctor Ivette Lozano from Dallas, Texas on treating patients with HCQ Cocktails

_{kairosfocus
May 18, 2020

Defending our Civilization, Medicine, News Highlights, rhetoric, Sci-Tech watch

1}_{Categories
Defending our Civilization
Medicine
News Highlights
rhetoric
Sci-Tech watch}

Share: Facebook; Twitter/X; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

Inimitable:

https://youtu.be/coyfWpwxedQ

Food for thought.

U/D: When it reaches the pharmacy . . .

U/D May 19, another Lozano interview:

And, oh yes, breaking 1: Mr Trump is praising — yes, I am NOT using, “touting” — a promising vaccination. Announcement by the firm, here.

Breaking, no 2, courtesy Daily Mail as usual:

Of course, the now standard, it’s risky is in the subheads.

U/D: Video:

Compare our Texas Doctor’s remarks. And then, there is the latest from Dr Raoult:

Whose report do you believe, why? END

Comments

There is no issue that this treatment has harmful effects. So why do the study? There is plenty of evidence that the treatment has benefits.
Plenty of bad evidence. But the better evidence that I linked to says there's little to no benefit, and there are harmful effects. This is evidence that's accumulating from several studies in several countries. It may be the RCTs will give a different story, but until then what good evidence is there that HCQ has an effect? Where are the case-control studies?
Why don’t you propose a study design?
Because I don't have any expertise in clinical medicine.Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
02:19 PM
2
02
19
PM
PDT}

why the commentary you link to @ 37 repeatedly say high quality case-control studies should be done.
This is becoming a joke. There is no alternative treatment. There is no issue that this treatment has harmful effects. So why do the study? There is plenty of evidence that the treatment has benefits. The question is whether it works on all the patients or just on part of the patients. No one is pushing hard on using it for really sick patients. Only the FDA and some other health agencies are doing that and their reasoning is specious. Why don't you propose a study design? I am sure you will punt.jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
12:42 PM
12
12
42
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 39 -
From article:
In Marseille with the HCQ + AZ protocol and screening, the rate is 30 times lower than in the whole of France
Maybe a statistician could make sense of that to see if it is significant. Sounds to me like a lot less dead people in Marseille. Maybe it is because a doctor cares.
That sort of ecological study is fraught with all sorts of problems. One is that the difference in mortality might be because of the increased testing. or it might be that the HCQ patients differ in other ways from non-HCQ patients (e.g. sicker patients don't get HCQ). Without more information it's difficult to know, which is why the commentary you link to @ 37 repeatedly say high quality case-control studies should be done.Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
12:02 PM
12
12
02
PM
PDT}

Jerry @ 37 -
You should read more. You apparently do not understand what RCTs are for. You have been provided with information in recent posts on your irrational insistence for a RCT. I suggest you read the following about the use of RCT’s. https://bit.ly/3bRxuuo
They don't give the conditions you stated @ 32. So, I'll ask again - where do you get those conditions from?
Since there is no question that the drug has some effectiveness
In the real world, there is a huge question over the effectiveness of HCQ. FWIW, the commentary you linked to argues for high-quality case control studies. These are already being done and publshed, e.g. the VA study, and the French study I linked to @ 38. There's even a review of these studies, which were summarised like this:
But rather than do these retail, here’s a review of everything in the literature on COVID-19 and hydroxychloroquine treatment up to May 13. It summarizes eleven studies (3 controlled trials and 8 observational/retrospective efforts), totaling 2354 patients receiving HCQ (alone or in combination) and 1952 controls. Overall, there was no difference in viral clearance. No difference in symptomatic improvement. No difference in overall mortality. The only clear difference between the two groups was in adverse effects, which were (on again) higher in the HCQ treated population.
Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
11:52 AM
11
11
52
AM
PDT}

BO'H: The results, linked, as at yesterday are in the OP. They are decisive, as are many others. And yes, there is reasonable inductive warrant for effectiveness despite your dismissiveness. As Jerry, the undersigned and others have pointed out, there are ethical questions relevant to placebo based designs. We need to recognise good enough warrant. KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
11:51 AM
11
11
51
AM
PDT}

I still say we give Bob the disease in its most virulent form and see how he acts then. Nothing like the real world consequences of their ideas to their personal lives to humble those who live up in ivory towers high above those smelly Walmart shoppers. :)bornagain77_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
11:43 AM
11
11
43
AM
PDT}

awstar - I don't understand. Test what both ways?Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
11:30 AM
11
11
30
AM
PDT}

kf @ 34 -
BO’H: The issue is not persuasion but reasonable inductive warrant.
So you don't mind if an effective drug isn't used, as long as there is a "reasonable inductive warrant"? What a strange idea.
Accordingly, I contend that the problem of imposing an ethically questionable gold standard and rejection of reasonable warrant reflects the gross errors of our age in devaluing life and in substituting the intellectual vice of selective hyperskepticism for the virtue of prudence.
You can, of course, contend that. But it doesn't help persuade people now that HCQ is an effective treatment for COVID-19.Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
11:09 AM
11
11
09
AM
PDT}

No effect on survival, and 10% of those treated with HCQ had to dis-continue because of side effects.
Why don't you comment on the link above in #3 about recent results in France. Apparently there are big differences between areas of France and PACA leads the list and Marseille is the best. If you do not speak French, Google will translate it for you. From article:
In Marseille with the HCQ + AZ protocol and screening, the rate is 30 times lower than in the whole of France
Maybe a statistician could make sense of that to see if it is significant. Sounds to me like a lot less dead people in Marseille. Maybe it is because a doctor cares.jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
11:01 AM
11
11
01
AM
PDT}

kf @ 24 -
PS: Kindly notice the onward results in France.
Do you mean this paper? No effect on survival, and 10% of those treated with HCQ had to dis-continue because of side effects. It's another retrospective study, so certainly isn't definitive.Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
10:56 AM
10
10
56
AM
PDT}

where do you get those conditions from? I’ve never seen them as conditions for clinical trials, or anything close to them.
You should read more. You apparently do not understand what RCTs are for. You have been provided with information in recent posts on your irrational insistence for a RCT. I suggest you read the following about the use of RCT's. https://bit.ly/3bRxuuo Here is a quote from it.
RCTs, which randomly assign patients to a treatment or a control group, are only ethically acceptable when the safety and performance of a treatment is unknown. When ample data exists, as now, that criterion is not met.

You may think that it’s meaningless if a drug is effective against COVID-19, but I’d beg to differ.
Since there is no question that the drug has some effectiveness and probably a lot in this situation are you saying that people dying should not be a concern?jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
10:52 AM
10
10
52
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 32 - where do you get those conditions from? I've never seen them as conditions for clinical trials, or anything close to them. Jerry @34 -
Maybe Raoult doesn’t want people to die to prove a meaningless point.
You may think that it's meaningless if a drug is effective against COVID-19, but I'd beg to differ.Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
10:34 AM
10
10
34
AM
PDT}

BO'H @ 23
If HCQ works, then more live could be saved by showing that it does work. If he ran a proper trial which showed it was effective, a lot more doctors would use it as a treatment.
Why not test it both ways. What do you have to lose?awstar_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
10:20 AM
10
10
20
AM
PDT}

BO'H: The issue is not persuasion but reasonable inductive warrant. The steady progress of results for Dr Raoult alone, from was it 24 to now just under 3300 is enough to show that by comparison with near-Flu + Complications etc, there is a reduction in death rates that may be in a range 80 - 90+% once treatment with the HCQ cocktail is prompt. This is consistent with other clinical reports from around the world and the various levels of approvals. In addition, ALL drugs are inherently dangerous (even sugar, salt, Carrot juice and water) -- pharmacology is the study of poisons in small doses -- but despite much headlining and emphasis on potential risks, there is strong report from professionals and authorities that relevant components are reasonably manageable. Moreover, proof is not in the gift of inductive methods, only reasonable warrant i/l/o prudence. Accordingly, I contend that the problem of imposing an ethically questionable gold standard and rejection of reasonable warrant reflects the gross errors of our age in devaluing life and in substituting the intellectual vice of selective hyperskepticism for the virtue of prudence. These last are far broader than this subject . . . consider the ongoing holocaust of living posterity in the womb at a bit under a million further victims per week . . . but they also manifest themselves on this subject. Accordingly, serious reform is indicated. KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
10:08 AM
10
10
08
AM
PDT}

Raoult doing the work to try to convince them? He knows what the established standards are, and what to do.
Maybe Raoult doesn’t want people to die to prove a meaningless point. A very admirable position that seems to be lacking in many others.jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
09:48 AM
9
09
48
AM
PDT}

You didn’t read carefully. Try it again, slowly.
Oh, I read very carefully. But you unwittingly made the case for HCQ immediate use. Ask yourself the question how many lives could have been saved if it was prescribed 2 months ago when they first knew about it and these studies were started. My guess way over 200,000. The case for a RCT only makes sense if there are two conditions met. First, there is already a known effective treatment and you want to improve on it. In this case there is no known alternative treatment. So no need for a RCT. Second, if the proposed treatment has potential harmful effects that would offset the benefits of the treatment. In this case no harmful effects exist. So no need for a RCT. Now you can see how you made the case for HCQ+. Read carefully! Thank you!!!jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
09:38 AM
9
09
38
AM
PDT}

kf @ 24 & Jerry @ 26 - yes, yes, you are convinced by the evidence on HCQ, but many others aren't. So why isn't Raoult doing the work to try to convince them? He knows what the established standards are, and what to do. And he's already seen enough patients to have a reasonable sample size. So why hasn't he tried to give the medical community the evidence it wants?Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
09:10 AM
9
09
10
AM
PDT}

You didn’t read carefully. Try it again, slowly.rhampton7_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
08:56 AM
8
08
56
AM
PDT}

RHampton has just provided great evidence on why we should move forward immediately with HCQ, azithromycin and zinc. He links to two studies and essentially is justifying using these drugs for C19. These studies take months to complete and meanwhile over 90.000 are dead in the US since these studies first started. But we have reports of nearly 0% death with HCQ in conjunction with some other drugs when used early in infection. Probably could have saved 300,000 dead in world if these treatments started two months ago. Thank you RHampton for making the case for HCQ+. We could have solved the problem with food supply too. Wow!!!jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
08:48 AM
8
08
48
AM
PDT}

Henry Ford Health System in Detroit issued a press release defending its major clinical study of the drug with hospital employees, first responders, including police and firefighters, and bus drivers. The ages range from 18-75. "We are not involved in politics; we are scientists,” said Dr. William O’Neill, a prominent cardiologist at Ford who heads the clincal study. “There are no proven ways to keep people safe from Covid-19." "This is a drug that has been used safely for more than 70 years to prevent malaria and treat other issues like lupus, with the potential to have active effect on Covid-19. We owe it to people – particularly front-line workers – to scientifically determine if it works.” The Ford study, announced at a Detroit press conference in early April, involves giving people different doses while giving others a placebo. Henry Ford Health System participates in Covid clinical trials around the world. More than 25 studies are underway or being reviewed at the Detroit-based network to treat or prevent COVID-19. https://www.deadlinedetroit.com/articles/25291/detroit_s_ford_hospital_defends_hydroxychloroquine_study_after_trump_s_disclosurerhampton7_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
08:30 AM
8
08
30
AM
PDT}

The trial marks a highly visible departure from the double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials that have ruled medical science for most of the last four decades. Often called RCTs, they’ve allowed researchers to assess the safety and effectiveness of drugs before they reach American patients. To identify the most effective COVID-19 drugs at top speed, the National Institutes of Health have embraced an approach called the adaptive clinical trial. The Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial, better known to medical researchers as ACTT, has been hailed as a fast, flexible and relatively cheap way to sort through an array of drugs and provide doctors with standard treatment protocols for their patients. Sometimes called “learn as you go” trials, they accelerate the testing process by allowing early results to dictate changes in a trial’s objectives, its participant pool and even the standards of comparison it uses. By slashing through regulatory strictures built up over decades, it has given Fauci a rare bit of common ground with President Donald Trump. ACTT enrolled its first subject on Feb. 25 at the University of Nebraska. The trial, sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, now has 800 participants in 39 sites across the country, and several sites abroad. It was originally designed to test hydroxychloroquine, but after early studies cast doubt on the malaria drug’s safety and effectiveness, researchers switched to remdesivir. http://tribunecontentagency.com/rhampton7_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT}

If he ran a proper trial which showed it was effective, a lot more doctors would use it as a treatment.
Apparently the good doctor in Marseille knows statistics. He can compare 0.5% with 8.6% and see the difference (actually believe rate for all of France is higher). He is most likely using probability to estimate the dead that would exist if no action was taken till the proper trial was done. Maybe he cares more about human life than most to know that doing a study before acting is insanity or essentially inhuman or heartless. Actually a lot of trials are going on but all the press reports on is the irrelevant hospital surveys of critically ill patients. That is part of the real crisis, not whether some doctor wants to save lives and has an effective treatment to do so. And then. there is Google censoring information about zinc. If there ever should be an outrage, that is where one should be focused. See comment above about RCT. On cuejerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
08:18 AM
8
08
18
AM
PDT}

AWS, you have a point. KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
07:50 AM
7
07
50
AM
PDT}

BO'H, gold standard fallacy in the teeth of adequate inductive, empirical warrant that shows efficacy over and above the de facto standard treatments. In fact, placebo control double blind tests etc are known to face ethical challenges which make them inappropriate in many cases. One of those is, risk of harm in the face of a fast moving fatal pandemic disease that can kill in days. Such issues have already been discussed here at UD. The implication of your phrasing is that in fact epistemologically and inductively adequate warrant is improperly dismissed as it does not meet a demanded gold standard; one which is ethically challenged. KF PS: Kindly notice the onward results in France.kairosfocus_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
07:48 AM
7
07
48
AM
PDT}

Why won’t the French doctors do the same clinical trial? There is no good reason not to.
How about saving lives as a reason not to?
If HCQ works, then more live could be saved by showing that it does work. If he ran a proper trial which showed it was effective, a lot more doctors would use it as a treatment.Bob O'H_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
07:34 AM
7
07
34
AM
PDT}

Jerry @ 19

Why won’t the French doctors do the same clinical trial? There is no good reason not to.
How about saving lives as a reason not to? When you are interested in saving lives and you are having almost 100% success, one knows that a control test will kill innocent people. But if you don’t really care about people’s lives, you do a control test which takes months.
I think Jerry just gave us a working definition of an MD (Doctor of Medicine) and a PHD (Doctor of Philosophy)awstar_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
07:30 AM
7
07
30
AM
PDT}

Truth to power . . . ?kairosfocus_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
04:41 AM
4
04
41
AM
PDT}

Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.
MedCram did an analysis of this study on Sunday. Google took down the YouTube video by Monday. They have taken down most of the Zelenko videos. Interesting that in all the searching of the internet to find gloomy news, people can not find positive information or the censorship going on. It is so easy to find.jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
04:27 AM
4
04
27
AM
PDT}

Why won’t the French doctors do the same clinical trial? There is no good reason not to.
How about saving lives as a reason not to? When you are interested in saving lives and you are having almost 100% success, one knows that a control test will kill innocent people. But if you don’t really care about people’s lives, you do a control test which takes months. As I commented above, wait for the RCT objection to pop up and on cue.jerry_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
04:14 AM
4
04
14
AM
PDT}

F/N: Meanwhile, there are indications that the 135 bed TX Nursing Home case has worked out well, despite early alarmism and after the fact persistent fears. KFkairosfocus_{May 19, 2020
May
05
May
19
19
2020
03:32 AM
3
03
32
AM
PDT}

Prev 1 … 7 8 9 10 Next