health

Health experts clash over use of certain drugs for COVID-19

8 Comments
By MARILYNN MARCHIONE

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Copyright 2020 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2024 GPlusMedia Inc.

8 Comments
Login to comment

The W.H.O. has different considerations than each country does, hence the different recommendations.

6 ( +6 / -0 )

Hmmm, no mention of hydroxychloroquine, a relatively effective and very safe medicine.

-9 ( +1 / -10 )

Hmmm, no mention of hydroxychloroquine, a relatively effective and very safe medicine.

Because there is no clash at all about it, it has already been demonstrated as useless by studies, so no expert is still trying to claim efficacy, only laymen that don't understand the difference between studies of high and low quality and that think that not giving it is unethical, whatever it takes to defend their obviously false imaginary conspiracies.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

No mention of lasting side effects of Remdevisir which affects kidneys for life...that is the issue.

It is only saving money in fact.

4 ( +5 / -1 )

so no expert is still trying to claim efficacy

Not surprised that many think that, considering that posts mentioning the opinions of highly respected experts of infectious diseases get deleted!!!

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

Many experts from all over the world have expressed themselves (in blogs, interview, and specially in scientific studies) with their full name and credentials to be checked and examined, and they have made clear that the illusion of action from HCQ depended completely on biased selection of the patients. Dexametasone is exactly the opposite, even being a dirt cheap drug there is discussion about its efficacy, because not only low quality studies indicate its efficacy, also the best quality studies that can be done do the same, and its effect are much stronger than even the worst evidence indicated for HCQ.

Then again, if someone can think that only the studies that proved HCQ as useless dividend the patients in groups with and without it, then there will be much more basic things this kind of person needs to learn before trying to understand the concept of differences of quality in a study.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

There are many highly respected experts that recommend HCQ. Perhaps I'll bring more of them up another day, today is not a got day, it seems...

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

There are many highly respected experts that recommend HCQ. Perhaps I'll bring more of them up another day, today is not a got day, it seems

If you think is easy to find recognized experts to support something but you end up having difficulties to do it, it may be time to reconsider what you believe. The data is clear, HCQ only seemed to work because of studies systematically selecting patients at higher risk towards the no-treatment, once that bias was corrected there was no longer any advantage.

In this article the drugs do not depend on that obvious flaw to show any effect, they have at least that huge advantage over HCQ, but still some people are not convinced about their efficacy, specially when considering their cost. For other drugs like dexametasone the case is the opposite, it is cheap and it is effective as a treatment without any kind of doubt.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites