THE STILL REPORT -- Dr. Oz: Get Us The Pills!!

Chinese are having great success with it.

They have Trump the data but haven’t reported it in scientific journals.

[link to mp.weixin.qq.com (secure)]

Trump KNOWS this works. Kind of like Biff in the second Back to the Future.

Watch everything through the lens of - the media is TERRIFIED these drugs will work.

Hydroxychloroquine doesn't do that until you've taken it more than 5 years or a cumulative does of 1kg.

Up to 400mg per day is not associated with eye damage.

Invite Dr. Oz to the White House. Victory Lap!

From the French doctor

Patients with COVID-19 infection are treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin.

Plaquenil 200mg x3/day (10 days), and azithromycine 250mg for five days, twice the first day, then once for the next four days.

In order to avoid cardiac problems, an ECG is done before starting treatment, and in order to assess lung damage, a low-dose CT scan is performed.



[link to www.doctoroz.com (secure)]

Did this thread title remind anyone else besides me of --

"Get PILLS against my orders! Get moving!"

This will be a short term crisis.

This is from a Dr client of mine (I am from the AEC industry). This Doc wrote this narrative that was on Fox-Dr Oz segment.

I agree that if it is my last attempt i will ask for these drugs.



Shortly after Fox carried the results of Dr Raoult’s study in France using hydroxyquinolone and azithromycin in Coronavirus patients(I sent you a video of the Fox report previously), the Surgeon General decided to warn people from trying these drugs and instead, to focus on stopping the spread May I offer the following comments to my fellow Americans from my perspective as a career drug researcher and successful pharmaceutical drug developer:

1. Novel, first in class drugs have the highest regulatory bar to surmount. Unlike many of today’s drugs wherein developers leverage off of prior successful drug development programs to yield a higher probability of success, novel therapies do not
There are many examples of this. Angiotensin converting inhibitors (ACEI’s), Alpha2 blockers for treatment of urinary retention (BPH), biological interleukin inhibitors for treatment of rheumatic disease or chronic inflammatory diseases (Humira), and more. Before the first in class drug was developed there was no science. No data. Nothing. What there often was, however, were anecdotal reports of an interruption in a disease process discovered serendipitously by a casual observation. One wherein an unexpected substance had a mitigating effect on human disease. In short were it not for these de novo observations many new therapies would never be discovered.

2. Drug development in the US is highly regulated. It is costly and time consuming. The burden is on the developer to show that a new treatment is safe and effective. There are long standing, standard research techniques that are employed to do this. So some could say that once data were developed by a pharmaceutical firm, a decision could be rendered by the drug regulators as to a new drug’s safety and efficacy. Binary, right. Yes or no. Well that is not the usual case. Often the answer is “maybe, but we need more data”. Maybe. That is the operative word, because that is the reason why drug development takes so long and costs so much. More data are requested. New studies. Unfortunately when new data are submitted it results in moreregulatory maybes. This is especially true for completely novel therapies. You could consider the use of hydroxyquinolone plus azithromycin in the treatment of corona virus novel despite the fact that these drugs are on the market albeit for different indications. Dr Raoult’s study should not be ignored. Dr Oz is correct in supporting this treatment modality.

3. I respect Dr Fauci very much. I also respect Dr Adams. They are very successful men in health care. That being said, they come from the perspective of treating patients with therapies invented by others. That is to say that they, as most other practicing physicians, wait for the emergence of new drugs before using them. The public sees these people as drug experts. They are not. They are experts in “applying” new therapy discovered and developed by others, not the discovery of same. Consider this, in my profession as a drug developer I never practiced medicine. I conducted clinical trials designed to meet FDA’s requirements. Some of the patients in my trials received placebo treatment. Rarely would you do this in medical practice. Drug development is not the practice of medicine and never will be. It is the study of new drugs. In short, neither Dr Fauci nor Dr Adams ever developed a new drug themselves. Their role is to review and criticize the scientific data collected by others. Only when they are satisfied that the data collected meet their personal opinion of the definition of safe and effective will they concede that the drug should be approved and used Knowing this, how can we expect a Fauci or Adams to face the American people and declare that this new drug combination be used for Coronavirus? Drug development is not the practice of medicine and never will be.

3. “Lack of proof of efficacy does not mean proof of lack of efficacy.” Never disregard a new treatment because it has not passed regulatory scrutiny.

Reflect on Dr Raoult’s findings. Did he study these drugs according to good clinical practices? No. Was the study blinded? No. Were the groups matched according to various clinical criteria? No. So what is our take away? My take away is simple. Given the seriousness of the pandemic we are facing, the treatment should be used reserving it for the most sick among us without delay. If I were so affected I would take the drugs. In parallel, I would encourage other centers to try to emulate Raoult’s work according to more rigorous standards. More elaborate studies can come later. FDA should permit the off label use of these drugs. Our President reacted to the French study from a pragmatic standpoint. In my opinion he was justified in suggesting that this drug combination may work. All Fauci and Adams could do is take the only position that they could have based on their experience, ie, “No data. No opinion”. For conventional drugs and diseases that works. Not today. This is no time for therapeutic sissies.

4. This is a time when we should be grateful for researchers like Dr Raoult who are true pioneers.

5. Many of the active principal ingredients in our drugs come from China, India and elsewhere. Some medicines we use are becoming scarce. Do we not want to control our own destiny and bring their manufacture home? How can we answer any other way than to demand our liberation from nations who do not necessarily wish us well. Make your voice heard in Congress.

The above is only my point of view. I will always respect that of others, but reserve my right to disagree.

Hope this helps.

RAV

We need summer temps soon!