Will Gundy get the same reaction Dabo got?

[ChicagoTiger85]

you don’t see how a politician advocating for a medication that has failed to show clinical benefit in the treatment of COVID (one recent study published this week even showed that it actually does nothing) leads to confusion from the general public’s point of view ?

What’s the obsession with HCQ specifically anyway? I don’t get it

I don’t mind Dabo traveling on a private plane. Not a big deal from a public health standpoint.
I also don’t have a problem with a coach setting an optimistic start date - doesn’t matter because ultimately it won’t be up to them. The rest of Gundy’s comments were, for the most part, a bit ignorant.

Here’s a great example of an article that seems politically motivated by opposition to anything Trump says:
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/8303...rug-in-texas-nursing-home-garnering-criticism

This starts out with misconstruing quotes about observational studies as actually being about any use at all of HCQ to treat CV19. It goes on to be a hit piece on the doctor and facility. All because the doctor decided to try HCQ on his infected patients who were relatively likely to die. The writer doesn’t even mention the FDA’s EUA.

It’s unfortunate that this virus was politicized so quickly, and that it’s so hard to look at these issues outside of current political struggles. Too many people are now advocates of HCQ just because Trump has said good things about it, and too many people have now decided it should never be used because Trump advocated an unproven treatment.

Here’s how NPR framed the story:

 

[TigerDentGuy]

He apologized

 

[anon_yqoaxol227dby]

Here’s a great example of an article that seeks politically motivated by opposition to anything Trump says:
https://www.npr.org/2020/04/10/8303...rug-in-texas-nursing-home-garnering-criticism

This starts out with misconstruing quotes about observational studies as being about any use at all of HCQ to treat CV19. It goes on to be a hit piece on the doctor and facility. All because the doctor decided to try to treat HCQ on his infected patients, who were relatively likely to die. The writer doesn’t even mention the FDA’s EUA, which allows

It’s unfortunate that this virus was politicized so quickly, and that it’s so hard to look at these issues outside of current political struggles. Too many people are now advocates of HCQ just because Trump has said good things about it, and too many people have now decided it should never be used because Trump advocated an unproven treatment.

Here’s how NPR framed the story:

View embedded media

preliminary data on a randomized controlled trial has not only shown that HCQ doesn’t help, it actually hurts patients FYI.
We’ll see the full results when they come out

 

[nsp1996]

preliminary data on a randomized controlled trial has not only shown that HCQ doesn’t help, it actually hurts patients FYI.
We’ll see the full results when they come out

Great. Gotta sort thru all the potential treatments. I have complete confidence that we will get this figured out soon. Proving something doesnt work is a step closer to what does.

 

[C-TeamHOF]

The hate is at a all time high LW. There’s always been political opposition but it’s a lil crazy with this guy. Ami Horowitz is a great follow on YouTube. This video says it all. I’d be willing to bet that a large percentage of the media feel this way too. If Ami could guarantee their anonymity you would get the same level of crazy responses.

View embedded media

Seems like there are a lot more cynical people out there then most realize I guess..

 

[nsp1996]

Seems like there are a lot more cynical people out there then most realize I guess..

Like crabs in a bucket. They never get out because as soon as one gets up high enough the others latch on and pull him back down.

 

[C-TeamHOF]

preliminary data on a randomized controlled trial has not only shown that HCQ doesn’t help, it actually hurts patients FYI.
We’ll see the full results when they come out

http://covexit.com/professor-didier...l9e4YS_316mo9HZa7TqXzpw#.XpEZTRHhL98.facebook

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

preliminary data on a randomized controlled trial has not only shown that HCQ doesn’t help, it actually hurts patients FYI.
We’ll see the full results when they come out

There are mixed results, is what I've heard. I was on one of the CDC's COCA calls where they were talking about treatment of COVID, and more than a few doctors said they were trying plaquenil. But one who was doing a clinical trial didn't seem all that optimistic about it. The point isn't that it's a panacea or even that we know that it works, but that there's been a weird energy around it, both in a positive and negative way, since Trump touted it. Pieces like the one I linked to certainly aren't good.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

http://covexit.com/professor-didier...l9e4YS_316mo9HZa7TqXzpw#.XpEZTRHhL98.facebook

That's a website with a clear agenda, and Didier is the same one who did the original French "study" that led Trump to tout plaquenil/azithromycin and that was so sloppy. Didier is now being attacked by people who seem to have it out for hydroxychloroquine/Trump, and it's hard to tell how fair their criticisms of him are. He does seem rather flamboyant, but he's also on the French Coronavirus Task Force.

 

[anon_yqoaxol227dby]

There are mixed results, is what I've heard. I was on one of the CDC's COCA calls where they were talking about treatment of COVID, and more than a few doctors said they were trying plaquenil. But one who was doing a clinical trial didn't seem all that optimistic about it. The point isn't that it's a panacea or even that we know that it works, but that there's been a weird energy around it, both in a positive and negative way, since Trump touted it. Pieces like the one I linked to certainly aren't good.

there aren’t mixed results. Either the studies haven’t shown to help or preliminary data of others have shown that it hurts. So basically, at best, it hasn’t been shown to help. I really don’t know why you keep debating me on this

 

[C-TeamHOF]

there aren’t mixed results. Either the studies haven’t shown to help or preliminary data of others have shown that it hurts. So basically, at best, it hasn’t been shown to help. I really don’t know why you keep debating me on this

people disagree all the time. Not sure what you don't get. If taken early it looks like it could help. Not sure why you want it to fail so badly.

 

[anon_yqoaxol227dby]

http://covexit.com/professor-didier...l9e4YS_316mo9HZa7TqXzpw#.XpEZTRHhL98.facebook

Lol you sent me an ABSTRACT.... did you read the MANUSCRIPT??

 

[anon_yqoaxol227dby]

people disagree all the time. Not sure what you don't get. If taken early it looks like it could help. Not sure why you want it to fail so badly.

Don’t know why you’re so eager to put words in my mouth. It’s almost like you have an agenda. You prefer to believe in make belief. I prefer to believe in facts. Suit yourself

it’s hilarious, though, to see people who have never read a medical paper before try to prop a paper with so many flaws I’d have to write an entire separate post on its many issues. And a paper that has been trashed by the American and international medical community. But if you’d rather support the French doctors who did this this study over the American doctors who have trashed that paper, go to that French hospital and get treated by those doctors via their medical approach. Let me know how it works out for you

 

[C-TeamHOF]

Don’t know why you’re so eager to put words in my mouth. It’s almost like you have an agenda. You prefer to believe in make belief. I prefer to believe in facts. Suit yourself

it’s hilarious, though, to see people who have never read a medical paper before try to prop a paper with so many flaws I’d have to write an entire separate post on its many issues. And a paper that has been trashed by the American and international medical community. But if you’d rather support the French doctors who did this this study over the American doctors who have trashed that paper, go to that French hospital and get treated by those doctors via their medical approach. Let me know how it works out for you

Man lets just agree to disagree... I am so ready for football. I am tired of reading posts from people stating "all i do is state facts" No offense but damn I've just read that a lot on a subject it seems that no one really knows jack shit about to be honest. Hey man have a good day.

 

[anon_yqoaxol227dby]

Man lets just agree to disagree... I am so ready for football. I am tired of reading posts from people stating "all i do is state facts" No offense but damn I've just read that a lot on a subject it seems that no one really knows jack shit about to be honest. Hey man have a good day.

nah I’m not letting this one go. I’m going to tell you why this study is trash because I’m tired of hearing about it from people who didn’t even take time to critically think about what they read. Since you’ve read so much about it , I’m sure you’ll be able to contribute smart and well thought out points refuting what I write


— No description provided of how many patients were treated over the time period and how many were excluded (and why) from this analysis
-What if decompensated before 3 days
-What if not evaluable on day 6?
-“Excluding” inconvenient patients was an issue in their previous analysis
—No control patients included. Given mild illness present in study population, a control is critical for interpretation
— Population of study had mild illness. Why were they admitted other than being PCR positive?
— Inconsistent PCR testing (not all patients tested daily). How were untested patients accounted for in eradication outcome?
— Liberal definition for “contagiousness” which is not currently supported elsewhere in the literature
— Length of stay outcome of unclear relevance. In addition to no control group for comparison, the criteria for discharge also changed over time. At the beginning of the study, 2 negative PCRs were necessary for discharge. At some point that was modified to 1 negative PCR at a different viral load threshold. Later, it was changed to “a good clinical outcome and adherence to treatment course.” Given that all patients had mild illness it is very difficult to interpret this value.
->Data set are uninformative and unhelpful.
-> Remains unpublished. Such a great study right? Even someone like yourself supports it. Yet NO major journal published it? Interesting. Maybe everyone who took time to read this thing came to the same conclusions and had even more questions about how shady this whole thing was


But people like you and @camcgee just want me to ignore all of this and pretend like everything is all good and this is merely a philosophical disagreement. And anything suggesting otherwise is pulling for the virus or simply giving politicians a hard time.
Again, some people like facts. Others don’t.

but I welcome your turn to refute, explain, or answer the concerns I wrote above

 

[C-TeamHOF]

nah I’m not letting this one go. I’m going to tell you why this study is trash because I’m tired of hearing about it from people who didn’t even take time to critically think about what they read. Since you’ve read so much about it , I’m sure you’ll be able to contribute smart and well thought out points refuting what I write


— No description provided of how many patients were treated over the time period and how many were excluded (and why) from this analysis
-What if decompensated before 3 days
-What if not evaluable on day 6?
-“Excluding” inconvenient patients was an issue in their previous analysis
—No control patients included. Given mild illness present in study population, a control is critical for interpretation
— Population of study had mild illness. Why were they admitted other than being PCR positive?
— Inconsistent PCR testing (not all patients tested daily). How were untested patients accounted for in eradication outcome?
— Liberal definition for “contagiousness” which is not currently supported elsewhere in the literature
— Length of stay outcome of unclear relevance. In addition to no control group for comparison, the criteria for discharge also changed over time. At the beginning of the study, 2 negative PCRs were necessary for discharge. At some point that was modified to 1 negative PCR at a different viral load threshold. Later, it was changed to “a good clinical outcome and adherence to treatment course.” Given that all patients had mild illness it is very difficult to interpret this value.
->Data set are uninformative and unhelpful.
-> Remains unpublished. Such a great study right? Even someone like yourself supports it. Yet NO major journal published it? Interesting. Maybe everyone who took time to read this thing came to the same conclusions and had even more questions about how shady this whole thing was


But people like you and @camcgee just want me to ignore all of this and pretend like everything is all good and this is merely a philosophical disagreement. And anything suggesting otherwise is pulling for the virus or simply giving politicians a hard time.
Again, some people like facts. Others don’t.

but I welcome your turn to refute, explain, or answer the concerns I wrote above

So in your opinion it is fact that this drug absolutely unequivocally does NOT work?

I never said you were pulling for the virus.
I do however think that some are not pulling for the drug to work. AGAIN I am not saying that is you.
Not sure your political leanings and do not care.
I did not like no control patients for sure.


I am not an expert in infectious diseases as maybe you are..I really do not know you at all.. Your resume may be better than the DR who did the study.. This is from wikipedia which is not a good source of course but I assume that he does in fact specialize in infectious diseases.




Didier Raoult (born March 13, 1952 in Dakar, Senegal in French West Africa)[1] is a French physician and microbiologist. He holds M.D. and Ph.D. degrees and specializes in infectious diseases.



I certainly do not presume that it is "fact" as you say that this medicine is a proven cure or treatment. I guess I just do not hold the presumption that it is a "fact" that it is not..

If IF IF it did work then it seems the drug cannot be taken for longer than 5 or 6 days AND has to be taken in the early stages of the disease. Seems like it is being given to patients with covid so maybe it is at least helping as a placebo.

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

there aren’t mixed results. Either the studies haven’t shown to help or preliminary data of others have shown that it hurts. So basically, at best, it hasn’t been shown to help. I really don’t know why you keep debating me on this

I guess because I’ve heard differently on multiple calls set up by the CDC and AMA discussing clinical management. Here’s an article talking about the mixed results (which repeats the irrelevant point that Trump has some money invested in Sanofi):
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/too-early-to-know-if-hydroxychloroquine-will-work

Others:
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/covid-19-clinical-trials-results/

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...data-on-hydroxychloroquine-in-covid-19-2020-4

 

[clemsonu96]

I don't think he's wrong in his approach. He's making a plan. That plan starts on May 1st. If it moves, fine, but if he can work his plan, it starts May 1. Now his plan could fail, but you have to start somewhere.

TN schools still haven't officially ended school like some other states. We're due back on 4/24 and everyone is skeptical it'll happen, but you gotta have a target.

This is the best response. These guys aren’t public officials. They don’t have the authority that supersedes what the government says these kids do when it comes to attending schools. They’re are f-ing coaches. That’s all. They control what they control. So I guess every coach having spring practice prior to the shutdown was just as wrong. They have to have a plan in place. Otherwise, the entire team and staff come back and have no idea what to do. What else is Dabo supposed to do right now?

 

[anon_yqoaxol227dby]

I guess because I’ve heard differently on multiple calls set up by the CDC and AMA discussing clinical management. Here’s an article talking about the mixed results (which repeats the irrelevant point that Trump has some money invested in Sanofi):
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/too-early-to-know-if-hydroxychloroquine-will-work

Others:
https://www.clinicaltrialsarena.com/comment/covid-19-clinical-trials-results/

https://www.businessinsider.com/cor...data-on-hydroxychloroquine-in-covid-19-2020-4

Read the actual papers yourself - you yourself brought up French study before, and as someone who read it, I detailed why it’s a joke. You should read the actual manuscripts instead of having someone summarize them based on what they think is right. Let me know when you read them and we can discuss. Again, there’s no evidence that it works. Since you have been on calls, which studies are they citing showing that it works? I’d like the pubmed link

 

[anon_yqoaxol227dby]

@camcgee @C-TeamHOF

 

[ChicagoTiger85]

View embedded media

@camcgee @C-TeamHOF

Gorski is a bit problematic himself, if you look through his tweets. And I did note that Didier and his research design had plenty of problems, but despite that, he seems to have a high profile in France. I didn't take detailed notes on the CDC calls I was on, but the gist was the same as Dr. Fauci's quote from a week and a half ago: ""The data are really just, at best, suggestive,” Dr. Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, told CBS’s Face the Nation on April 5. “There have been cases that show there may be an effect, and there are others to show there’s no effect. So I think, in terms of science, I don’t think we could definitively say it works.”" The suggestion that it may work (mostly from anecdotes) is why so many doctors in places like NYC that have been hit hard by the virus are using hydroxychloroquine. Clearly a lot more work needs to be done before it's a good idea for politicians to be talking about it being a cure, but on the other hand I don't think there needs to be a big backlash against it being mentioned.

I certainly don't want to see people being given unsafe dosages, people pressuring doctors to give them hydroxychloroquine, or clinical trials being hampered either because people can just get the drug without change of getting the placebo or because there's not enough focus on other potential treatments like remdesivir (which seems to be showing more promise), favipiravir, and galidesivir. But the seemingly partisan backlash could be at least as harmful.