M
Michaelangelo
Guest
It is not my business what physicians prescribe to their patents. What I reacted on was the silliness in obtaining efficacy data from a poll. Stop building your strawmen.
Hydroxychloroquine rated ‘most effective therapy’ by doctors for coronavirus:
- Status
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
So, it appears you are trying to bait Michaelangelo into taking the position you say you are opposing. As you can see from the post just above this one, the bait was not taken.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Where did I build “efficacy data” from a poll?HarryStotle:
It is not my business what physicians prescribe to their patents. What I reacted on was the silliness in obtaining efficacy data from a poll. Stop building your strawmen.
I was advocating for an informal sense of efficacy from the poll of physicians given that I had read peer reviewed articles on why HCQ could be effective. No where was I arguing that the poll ought to replace hard research, just that it provided evidence for why physicians ought to be permitted to use it in these dire circumstances.
It appears straw men are popping up all over.
So to confirm @LeafByNiggle’s point…
This is what I was suggesting…
Are you, given your “years in pharmacology,” “opposed” to what I suggested above?
As a point of reference, I don’t think anyone who cited the polls was advocating anything other than what I wrote.
So much of this thread was much ado about nothing.
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is one of the truest things I have read today.
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
This is what I wrote in my first post:
An international poll of more than 6,000 doctors found that hydroxychloroquine was the most highly rated treatment for the novel coronavirus and the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options.
Again, it is not my business what physicians prescribe. My business is to deveop as effective drugs as possible.
Yes you are indeed fond of those.
Oh the scientific entire community thank you for your thoughtful contribution. Because compassionate use and related protocols aren’t a thing, apparently.This is what I was suggesting…
HarryStotle:
Are you, given your “years in pharmacology,” “opposed” to what I suggested above?
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That doesn’t answer the question, does it?
It does disparage me for not seeing the issue through exactly the same lens as you do, but you completely fail to point out where, exactly, you differ from me on the crucial issue — what to do regarding the treatments at this moment.
Your “business” RE: “to deveop as effective drugs as possible” isn’t really the germane question being asked in this thread, so to represent my position as contrary to your “business” is a misrepresentation.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
That is hard for anybody to say since you have not specifically defined what you think treatments should be - at this moment. Everyone agrees that in the most dire of situations, these potential drugs should be tried. What you have not defined is exactly how dire the case should be. I don’t think you should recommend HCQ or any of the other unproven drugs as normal treatment for the vast majority of cases that present at the hospitals. Do you?
M
Michaelangelo
Guest
Someone with your knowledge has to be aware of compassionate use and similar protocols, right?Michaelangelo:
That doesn’t answer the question, does it?
It is not my business to have an opinion at all about how physicians treat their patents. How many times do I have to say that? My job is to provide them with the best tools possible, period! I usually avoid having an opinion in matters I have not studied well enough to have a fundamental understanding thereof. And pracising medicine is one such area where I keep quiet.
But I honestly fail to see any reson for us to continue this argument. We both want the patients to receive the best treatment possible. Let’s leave it at that shall we?
Last edited:
P
pnewton
Guest
I have a news flash. Not everyone is fooled by the propaganda waged against centralist, mainstream journalism. Of course it is flawed and subject to human interjections. But it is far less “yellow” than most of the news articles that are used here, which by their own design have a deliberate and pervasive bias.
I am flabbergasted to think it seems reasonable that a group of a few people, all who are active politically, can label their blog sites as “news” and then deem more credible than a multinational corporation. I am sorry, but I can never agree with you on this. But more to the point, here at CAF, the accusation that posting the normal media is somehow overused is ridiculous. All one need to is to go to the world new thread and start counting the news media used in the OP’s there.
This sounds so awful, but consider if this was not so biased in its wording. “Cold” is detatched, unaffected by emotion. One would think this would be a good thing. Yes, I want my doctor to base his decision on scientific information unaffected by political feelings.
This is another extreme. Ignoring the unique nature of this pandemic ( or of a pandemic in general) is no better than exaggerating claims. History has shown some of the greatest medical breakthroughs have occurred by methods that would never pass FDA muster. One must weigh the risks of reckless conduct against the risks of reckless rigidity. On this, I agree with President Trump. (No one faint, please)
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
That would be a summary point to this thread: It should be left to the specialists to decide, based upon their expertise — and not ours — as to whether or not using such treatments is advisable.HarryStotle:
That is hard for anybody to say since you have not specifically defined what you think treatments should be - at this moment. Everyone agrees that in the most dire of situations, these potential drugs should be tried. What you have not defined is exactly how dire the case should be. I don’t think you should recommend HCQ or any of the other unproven drugs as normal treatment for the vast majority of cases that present at the hospitals. Do you?
The poll cited earlier was merely giving an impression about just that ‘dire case’ usage through a survey of THOSE doctors using it in dire cases. That the rest of us think we ought to determine when and where such treatments ought to be implemented is a silly notion.
Which gets us right back to here. The poll was merely providing information about where those specialist doctors stood relative to THEIR use of such treatments.
I don’t believe there was even a tacit claim that the poll is meant to take the place of peer reviewed trials, but merely that a significant number of specialist doctors are currently trying it and seeing success.
I think there was way too much made of what the poll represented from the beginning.
P
PetraG
Guest
Yes, and it is not just efficacy that is the issue (as you well know).
Some pushing for these treatments don’t seem to realize that some of the treatments being proposed have known serious side-effects. People who are positive can go from the appearance of one of the 85% or more of cases that resolve on their own and over into a respiratory emergency very quickly, as well. It isn’t a “what can it hurt, they’re going to die, anyway” kind of infection at all.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
Here is a fairly comprehensive article on why hydroxychloroquine is being found to be effective. It does involve a complete rethinking of the way in which COVID-19 impacts the body in the most serious cases.
The doctor detailing the treatment, Cameron Kyle-Sidell is a physician treating COVID patients in New York CIty.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Here is what is at the very top of the web page:
And who in the heck is “libertymavenstock”? Really, people. We need to be more careful about what we count as information.
Also, it is very suspicious that this article is cited through the WayBack archive. Why couldn’t it be cited in its original location? Was it pulled for being false?
This article seems to be cited only in fringe media. It is highly doubtful that it is truthful.
I have done more research on libertymavenstock. Definitely conspiracy theory guy. Just look at his Facebook page with postings warning about the Deep State, etc. So much disinformation!
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
You are correct, there is reason to be suspicious of the article. However, there are also good reasons to think about the content of the article and whether the claims made in it are true — which is the more salient question.
The problem with merely relying on the provenance of the article is that you are “justified” in a very weak sense of the word to bypass whatever truth might be there.
The New York physician, Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell, is a legitimate physician (who is not the author of the article) but is making claims about how the virus impacts the body that are somewhat different than the way it is being assumed to impact the body. He makes a strong case for why he is seeing what he is seeing.
The article explains in greater detail why that might be the case.
It may be incorrect but it may be correct. No one (least of all me) is saying it is true, just that it needs to be considered — especially given that the impacts of COVID-19 on the body are not completely known. This is an alternative perspective that needs to be thought about.
Then there is you who are ready to dismiss what might be an insight into treatment merely because the source is questionable.
The source might be questionable, but the science detailed in the article isn’t necessarily questionable until someone with expertise properly considers and answers what is being suggested as a possibility.
At one time, that is the way science — concerning what is not well understood — was done. Legitimate and thoughtful possibilities were in the realm of consideration until they were properly considered and ruled out.
Yet, here you are attempting to rule out legitimate possibilities based purely on source, not science. That would be fallacious thinking on your part, a la the genetic fallacy.
No one, least of all me, is saying this article is necessarily the proper way to look at it. I am saying that there is a doctor (and apparently a number of others at the same hospital who are concurring with him) who strongly believes he is on to something. He might be right, he might be wrong.
That question, however, is not determined with prejudice by ruling out the possibility of it being true by completely ignoring the science and shooting the messenger.
Your problem is that you are assuming the capacity to decide the truth of a possibility despite that you admit no expertise to do so — therefore, you have to depend on the “authority” of the proposer. That gets you into trouble because your warrant for belief (authority) makes you deny — i.e., declare as untrue — anything that isn’t bolstered by the authority you trust.
Unfortunately, it isn’t the “authority” that determines the validity of a true proposition, it is the truth itself.
Continued…
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
So your conclusion: “It is highly doubtful that it is truthful…” might be correct, but it also might be incorrect. You don’t know that answer with any degree of certainty, but you haven’t even begun to ask the proper question: Is it true based on the medical science?
A legitimate physician (Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell who works in the Maimonides Medical Center in New York as an emergency specialist) has raised the possibility, yet you don’t address the question of his expertise or legitimacy, your go-to is to ignore that and jump on whatever possible illegitimacy you might uncover to dismiss the possibility.
Why do you do that?
Perhaps your next step is to delegitimize the doctor to uphold what you want to be true?
Why would you do that?
Why not let’s just skip all that and focus on whether or not the science supports or does not support the possibility?
Take a deep breath.
A legitimate physician (Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell who works in the Maimonides Medical Center in New York as an emergency specialist) has raised the possibility, yet you don’t address the question of his expertise or legitimacy, your go-to is to ignore that and jump on whatever possible illegitimacy you might uncover to dismiss the possibility.
Why do you do that?
Perhaps your next step is to delegitimize the doctor to uphold what you want to be true?
Why would you do that?
Why not let’s just skip all that and focus on whether or not the science supports or does not support the possibility?
Take a deep breath.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
No, it is a good reason to ignore the contents of the article entirely. There is so much trash on the Internet that a person cannot read it all. One has to portion out what time one has, and wasting it by slumming around on the dark web is not an efficient use of one’s time. If there is some important truth in that article, it will likely surface via some more respectable source.LeafByNiggle:
You are correct, there is reason to be suspicious of the article. However, there are also good reasons to think about the content of the article and whether the claims made in it are true — which is the more salient question.
Then cite from a respectable source what Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell says.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
A couple of thoughts:
- Two thousand years ago, a “fringe rabbi” said things about God that the “proper authorities” — the high priests and Sanhedrin — thought were blasphemous. The “fringe rabbi” was crucified as a result. Are we to trust “authorities” merely because they are in authority? Where does the truth come into this? How are we, as ordinary individuals, to determine the truth about anything independently of the authorities? Should we?
- Science, medicine, ethics and theology all require expertise in their various fields. None of us can attain the requisite expertise in any or all of those fields that might be required to really apprehend the “field of knowledge” contained in them, with certainty.
- Are we, then, to merely abdicate the requirement to understand the truth by turning over our individual responsibility for knowing the truth to the “experts?” That would seem an easy approach in that it alleviates a heavy burden from our shoulders, but is that what we ought to do.
- Isn’t there a fine balance between trusting the experts and validating the content of what the experts claim? I think the way that balance has been expressed is: Trust but verify.
- You appear to be endorsing quite a different procedure: Distrust so you have no need to verify, just trust the experts.
- What if I want to know with certainty whether the experts really have a handle on the truth? Is it illegitimate to question the experts, while at the same time acknowledging a paucity of understanding?
- In that case, raising questions to “put to” the experts is a legitimate strategy, no?
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Really? Is this how you justify slumming around on the dark web?LeafByNiggle:
A couple of thoughts:
- Two thousand years ago, a “fringe rabbi” said things about God that the “proper authorities” — the high priests and Sanhedrin — thought were blasphemous.
Sounds like you are arguing for my side instead of yours.
What is our individual responsibility to know the truth in the medical field? You just admitted in 2) above that no one of us can attain the requisite expertise in all those fields.
I don’t think reading libertymavenstock is of any use in performing the “Trust but verify” operation. There are better ways, such as getting a second or third opinion - from doctors, not from libertymavenstock.
Of course, but not by surfing the dark web.
See above.
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The video I provided is him speaking in person. Did you miss that in your exuberance to debunk the article?
There isn’t a need to “cite” if it is actually Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell expressing in person the claim he is making, is there?
Do you want to verify that it is actually Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell speaking on that video?
That would be a legitimate avenue of questioning to verify his credentials.
Legitimate skepticism would require that.
Here is a “sponsored” result on
https://doctor.webmd.com/doctor/cam...90cc-dec5-11e7-9f4c-005056a225bf-appointments
It was sponsored by
Here is an article citing Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell on just this issue:
Another article with a more technical explanation:
RealClearPolitics has picked up the story.
He seems to be legitimate.
Have you found evidence to the contrary?
So, his perspective ought to be given due consideration, no?
We’ll see what the experts do with this over the next weeks and months.
Last edited:
H
HarryStotle
Guest
The only “side” that matters is the truth, so polarizing the truth into “sides” is a deflection.
The ONLY legitimate question is: Is Dr. Cameron Kyle-Sidell onto something and does his perspective merit further consideration?
“Sides” are inconsequential to the question, and only muddy the issue by bringing into it ideological pre-suppositions.
But what of the doctor who first made the case?
Libertymavenstock merely explained the case in some detail (perhaps even with some errors), they didn’t first propose it.
You are deflecting from having to look at whether what the doctor says is true by pointing at what you don’t approve.
Red herring.
- Status