re: Video: Fouci on Fox and friends gets really triggered about hydroxychloroquine

quote:

---

Really, remove the guy that has been director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases since 1984, in the middle of a world wide pandemic?

---

first, people change. second, this is precisely the time when you see people's agendas surface. dem gov's are a perfect example. money grab.

quote:

---

He's super intentional with his words

---

He normally has been.
But either he's tired, overexposed, or age is starting to creep in.

Fauci issued oddly unclear opinions in the press recently. He understands the TDS MSM modus operandi. His messaging should be geared to counter that. In the past, it has been. Currently it isn't.

As you say, when parsed, material he's putting out is largely correct.
But it is laid out in a manner open to misinterpretation by a MSM bent on misinterpreting.

Hence the Press represents Fauci saying:
(1) Hydroxychloroquine is ineffective.
(2) Masks will protect the wearer from contracting Covid-19
(3) Covid-19 definitively arose from Wuhan wet markets (rather than lab contamination).

As to 1 & 2, that is not what he has said, but it is what he is allowing as misinterpretation.
e.g., Does Hydroxychloroquine work? Answer: We don't know.
But . . .
when media is breathlessly angling for a "Trump is wrong." "Hydroxychloroquine is voodoo." message, Fauci tacitly gives it to them by saying "we don't know if it works." His answer SHOULD be "We don't know that it doesn't work."

Same with masks. Their primary purpose is not to protect you, but rather to protect others from you.

But the real odd-ball is Fauci's matter-of-fact assertion of Covid-19's wet market origin. Fauci has far more information indicating hydroxychloroquine may work than he does for CV19's wet market origin. His wet market assertions are based on no facts at all. I find that very odd.

======

BTW, my suspicion has always been that if Hydroxychloroquine works, its effect is mitigation rather than cure.
Symptoms reduced rather than eliminated.

We are hearing about HC successes in France and Spain.
Folks like Laura Ingraham tout those claims.
Yet the death rate in France and Spain is nearly 10%.
So something is amiss.

But for now, Trump wants to give folks hope.
There is some justification for what he is saying.
Fauci has made clear the science is not in.
Now he should make clear the POTUS was not wrong to give hope.

quote:

---

Actual decent controlled studies are underway. That is what Fauci is waiting on.

---

Understand and agree. I just argue for compassionate use in a rational manner at the level of patient care. We just got our first patient in ICU and we are using it. I think we could have started when we had 10 positive patients on island.

quote:

---

That is what Fauci is waiting on.

---

We quit nebulizations based on an unproven theory. This was based on risk. What are the risks of HCQ when prescribed based on H&P and positive results?

Anecdotal evidence is not illegitimate evidence. Fauci wants an ideal study.....he is not gonnas get one.

quote:

---

What the frick is up with this dude? There are very promising studies and survivor accounts that attribute the drug to saving their life.

---

Academic physicians are all about double blind RCTs. They are basically public health officials that think in terms of populations. Many of them think that medicine doesn’t exist outside of RCTs.

Front line clinical physicians are much more likely to assess the risks and benefits of something and give it a try based on case reports and their knowledge of human physiology. They think in terms of what can I do to help the patient I am taking care of today.

Not that double blind RCTs don’t have their place, but if we waited for them to verify everything nothing would get done.

quote:

---

.....he is not gonnas get one.

---

Yes he will. But until we do, we should use what we have. What we have insinuates therapeutic value at a time when there is no alternative.

quote:

---

80% of patients in India are being prescribed the drug. Can all of these docs be wrong?

---

They could, but that doesn’t mean you don’t try it...don’t give effusive false hope, though.

Fauci’s kickbacks from pharmaceutical companies probably equal 10 years of most salaries here.

quote:

---

I just argue for compassionate use in a rational manner at the level of patient care.

---

This still confuses me. Outside of the 2d period where the Michigan governor put an EO banning the use of the drug off-label (side note- I would like to see how that stands up in court), there's never really been a restriction on this. The only thing really affected by the physician who practices based on political endorsement and the news rather than societal recommendation. I just don't know who these people are. I'm sure some exist. I don't think it's a ton of them.

quote:

---

We quit nebulizations based on an unproven theory.

---

There is a generally safer direct alternative that has been, in many cases, proven superior with some data starting at 2m of age. The point I'm trying to make isn't, "they should use inhalers all the time anyway" but rather, "nebulizers aren't as vastly superior to inhalers as most (of my patients) seem to think"

quote:

---

What are the risks of HCQ when prescribed based on H&P and positive results?

---

The biggest risk is dysrhythmia. It's not a common thing, but it's a real risk. The drug does have a fair number of side effects for chronic use. But short term, not much. Especially in a patient that's being monitored.

The problem is that, as someone who does this day to day and read most of the primary source data out there as of this last weekend, I don't find those results overly impressive. Most of the guys I practice with who broke down the study and read all the data, exclusions, etc aren't either. The anecdotes from the folks I've spoken to aren't the phenomenal "brink of death to better" stories that I see online.

I hope that us cynical bastards are wrong.