 |
|
I had a disagreement with a brother-in-law yesterday over
Posted on: April 13, 2020 at 14:32:31 CT
JeffB MU
Posts:
72409
Member For:
21.47 yrs
Level:
User
M.O.B. Votes:
0
government restrictions on doctors being able to use chloroquine as one of their treatment options if they so desired. It has already been extensively tested for the treatment of malaria, lupus & another malady or two and approved for those uses. They already know the side effects.
Some doctors had reported good success using it in conjunction with zinc &/or another drug. One reported a 96% success rate, with some coming back from the brink of death to being up and walking around within 4 hours.
Putting them on a respirator, the current treatment of choice for those in those situations on the other hand have between an 80% to 90% outcome of death, per some sources.
I said that doctors should be given the discretion to try the treatments that have had great anecdotal success if they feel it is in the best interest of their particular patient, with the patient's informed consent, of course... especially if it might take a year or longer to go through clinical trials to show the effectiveness.
He was adamant, that no, doctors should not have that ability unless and until the FDA or CDC goes through the full trial process and officially approves a drug for that purpose.
Even if not doing so results in a 90% death rate for the patient and doing so results in a 96% recovery rate per anecdotal evidence, I asked. YES! he replied.
Some doctors had reported good success using it in conjunction with zinc &/or another drug. One reported a 96% success rate, with some coming back from the brink of death to being up and walking around within 4 hours.
Putting them on a respirator, the current treatment of choice for those in those situations on the other hand have between an 80% to 90% outcome of death, per some sources.
I said that doctors should be given the discretion to try the treatments that have had great anecdotal success if they feel it is in the best interest of their particular patient, with the patient's informed consent, of course... especially if it might take a year or longer to go through clinical trials to show the effectiveness.
He was adamant, that no, doctors should not have that ability unless and until the FDA or CDC goes through the full trial process and officially approves a drug for that purpose.
Even if not doing so results in a 90% death rate for the patient and doing so results in a 96% recovery rate per anecdotal evidence, I asked. YES! he replied.
Please explain why this message is being reported.
MESSAGE THREAD
I had a disagreement with a brother-in-law yesterday over - JeffB MU - 4/13 14:32:31