Who do you tip to win the US presidential election

[Kidlicious]

And we debunked you already. Obtuse? What the f**k ever, you're clearly not listening and just continuing on your fixed trajectory in these arguments. You've made up your mind according to whatever predefined political agenda you have (which I would describe as Trump fanboyism) and with no scientific basis whatsoever...again, like Trump.

The study you refer to does not say what you claim it does sir. The patients were given HCQ *in the hospital*

[Kidlicious]

"As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use."

[Kidlicious]

You have to take it very early. Why aren't people listening to this professor of epidemiology at Yale?

[Kidlicious]

Some more...
"Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak."

[Kidlicious]

"
OPINION
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion
HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD , PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
ON 7/23/20 AT 7:00 AM EDTHarvey A. Risch, MD, PhD
03:46
OPINION
CORONAVIRUS
HEALTH AND MEDICINE
MEDICINE
FDA
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.

I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.

On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.

Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.

My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.

READ MORE
'I Ran 22 Miles In A Mask To Show They Are Safe'
'I've Been A Teacher For 23 Years—I Wrote My Will Because Of COVID-19'
Instead of Attacking the Coronavirus, Trump Attacks Americans.
Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.


Hydroxychloroquine tablets
Hydroxychloroquine tablets
GEORGE FREY/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.

Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?

First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.

Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.

In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.

Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.

But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.

In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately.

Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.

The views expressd in this article are the writer's own."

[ZEE]

^^ This evidence cannot be argued against. It is literally flawless.

[Ming]

Him let's start here...

Dr. Vladimir “Zev” Zelenko, family practitioner and major proponent of the use of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin to treat COVID -19. Among his claims is that he treated anywhere from 300 to 1450 COVID-19 patients. Of 405 high risk patients treated early in the course of their illnesses, there were “2 deaths, four on respirators. The rest recovered fully.” Those are mighty impressive numbers, but no one else has seen the data. It should come as no surprise that the fact checking website Snopes was unable to substantiate his claims.

After community leaders in the town where he practiced criticized him for spreading misinformation, Zelenko decided to leave his practice—destination unknown.

I wonder if all the other studies he mentioned actually produced any data...

[pchang]

That seems like a lot of cases for 1 family practitioner to have treated for Covid-19.......

[Kidlicious]

You have nothing Ming.

[Ming]

It seems like neither did he...

[Ming]

And here is some more on your "specialist hero doctor"

Published in Science Based Medicine - July 27th

I’m generally a big fan of epidemiology and epidemiologists. After all, epidemiology is how we know that tobacco smoking causes cancer and that vaccines do not cause autism, sudden infant death syndrome, autoimmune diseases, diabetes, or the other conditions and diseases attributed to vaccines by antivaxxers. Epidemiology is also how we will ultimately figure out who is at most risk for serious disease, complications, and death from COVID-19 and then use that information to fine-tune the public health response to the pandemic and to develop additional interventions. So I scratched my head mightily yesterday when I saw an op-ed in Newsweek by Harvey Risch, MD, PhD, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health entitled “The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It“. What is this “key” that Risch is talking about? Hydroxychloroquine. No, seriously, I kid you not. He’s talking about what I’ve started calling the “acupuncture of the COVID-19 pandemic”
This far into the pandemic, with double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials starting to be published and showing, each and every one of them so far, that hydroxychloroquine shows no benefit versus COVID-19 (I’ll discuss them shortly), let’s just say that I am flummoxed to find, in the midst of a crisis, that a seemingly respected epidemiologist is fighting for a drug that almost certainly doesn’t work based on low quality and anecdotal evidence when far higher quality evidence is becoming available and even the bulk of the observational evidence has been negative, with one notable outlier. I am even more flummoxed to find that Newsweek provided this epidemiologist a platform to promote this argument, particularly given how he based it primarily on a commentary and review that he wrote in May, which is basically ancient history as far as the evidence base for hydroxychloroquine goes.
At this point, I would also like to point out that Prof. Risch is on the editorial board of AJE, a fact conveniently not mentioned in his Newsweek op-ed that is highly relevant, given that editorial board members can exercise a lot of influence on what gets published in a journal.
Reading the article, I was struck at how weak the arguments were. Prof. Risch basically tries to compare hydroxychloroquine to remdesivir, which I discussed nearly three months ago, when the results of the first randomized clinical trial (RCT) was announced, in essence, by press release. And, guess what? I’m not that impressed with the evidence for remdesivir’s efficacy against COVID-19, either!
Funny, though, until recently, hydroxychloroquine cultists were claiming that the drug would be effective against COVID-19 in seriously-ill hospitalized patients and then, as evidence accumulated that it isn’t, pivoted to the argument that it has to be given as early as possible in order to work.
Clearly, there is a double standard at work here that Prof. Risch is not acknowledging. (We wouldn’t want to suggest that goalposts are being moved, would we?) Moreover, his argument is bull****, plain and simple. If a drug strongly inhibits coronavirus replication, there’s no reason that it couldn’t be effective both in advanced disease and in early disease—or even as a prophylactic treatment to prevent infection. It’s true that it might not work as well (or at all) in all those situations, and it’s even true that one treatment is unlikely to work as well (or at all) in all those clinical situations, but there’s no a priori scientific reason to make the blanket declaration that one treatment can’t possibly be useful in both situations.

[Kidlicious]

You misspelled "professor of epidemiology at Yale."

[Ming]

That's the best you can do


At least this time, you aren't supporting somebody that believes that demons in your dreams cause diseases...
Only somebody that uses his position on the editorial board of a Medical Journal to publish his anecdotal evidence

[Uncle Sparky]

So, did anyone notice Trump is campaigning Texas. Red, red, red, red, Texas? Yellow dog Republican Texas? And with less than 100 days, Trumps team thinks he needs to campaign in Texas. Maybe, with enough effort, Trump can hold BOTH Dakotas!

[Ming]

True dat... you know he's getting desperate if he thinks he needs to spend time in Texas.
While the chances of Texas turning are probably slim... it's good to see that Trump has to waste his resources on it, instead of spending time and money in other battleground states

[Ming]

It's a good thing that NOTHING gives him the authority to do so...
Congress can, but not him. Not even an emergency powers argument or executive order.

[Jon Miller]

And even if the election is delayed or cancelled, Trump has to step down (constitutionally) on January 20.

I like the Atlantic's article, as it points out that the problems with the election originate with Trump so delaying will not improve the election.

If the election were cancelled, then it is probably whichever party that holds the Senate will define the person who becomes president (The senior senator from the majority party). I hadn't realized that the House selecting the president actually requires an election as the House selects (by state) the president from among the top 3 candidates (where top 3 is from electors). Since the majority is defined by the number of electors of the election, I don't see this happening due to a cancelled or semi-cancelled election. Either there will be electors and the House won't be needed or there won't be electors and the Senate will decide and not the House.

Since there are 23 R senators and 13 D senators up for election, cancelled elections probably mean that a Democrat will be senior senator and so president.

In any case, it would be chaos and possibly a greater threat to the US even than the Civil War.

JM
(If there were an election but there was severe chaos due to Russian interference, for example, then it could go to the House.)

[ZEE]

Jon Miller is way out of line right now.

[Kidlicious]

There is going to be unrest. This is a very dangerous time. Mail in voting is reckless.