|
|
Post by dijackson08 on Jul 9, 2020 21:55:59 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by wingtol on Jul 10, 2020 7:30:54 GMT -6
I told you all they had to do was threaten to cancel HS football in Texas and boom...  |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 10, 2020 7:52:15 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by option1 on Jul 10, 2020 9:26:52 GMT -6
Try to post it on social media and see what happens.
|
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 10, 2020 9:51:27 GMT -6
I can't believe this is news. Inhaled corticosteroids have got to be the first thing any doctor would think of for a viral respiratory inflammatory disease. In the serious cases that are the main concern, surely the patients would already have been on such treatment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 9:56:20 GMT -6
Try to post it on social media and see what happens. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” B.O |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 10, 2020 10:22:58 GMT -6
See, this is an example of where you can trust me over this politically-connected practicing physician, even though I didn't finish med school.
The treatment he thinks he's made some newsworthy discovery of is standard for diseases of this type. He imagines that just because there are certain NIH standards for hospitalization, that patients with Covid-19 would not be getting such outpatient treatment before their cases become severe. He's read the literature, and there's been a perfunctory finding that the standard treatment for inflammatory respiratory diseases works for Covid-19 too, and he's found in the few cases he's treated that that is indeed true. This is no surprise.
Well, guess what? The great majority of patients showing some respiratory symptoms and positive for SARS-CoV2 RNA are not the problem. It's a serious illness in only the few, and he's not treating them. He supposes they didn't get anti-inflammatory treatment early enough to abort their course, but there's no evidence that was the case. There's no evidence that early treatment would have aborted their course; some unknown factors made their case severe.
He's got an inflated ego because he served on some governor's task force that was medicine related, plus a little imputation that the powers that be are suppressing effective treatments. He also has the chutzpa to think God is on his side.
N.B.: He's not a charlatan. I'm sure he's quite sincere, just a bit naive and lacking in perspective.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2020 11:07:15 GMT -6
See, this is an example of where you can trust me over this politically-connected practicing physician, even though I didn't finish med school. The treatment he thinks he's made some newsworthy discovery of is standard for diseases of this type. He imagines that just because there are certain NIH standards for hospitalization, that patients with Covid-19 would not be getting such outpatient treatment before their cases become severe. He's read the literature, and there's been a perfunctory finding that the standard treatment for inflammatory respiratory diseases works for Covid-19 too, and he's found in the few cases he's treated that that is indeed true. This is no surprise. Well, guess what? The great majority of patients showing some respiratory symptoms and positive for SARS-CoV2 RNA are not the problem. It's a serious illness in only the few, and he's not treating them. He supposes they didn't get anti-inflammatory treatment early enough to abort their course, but there's no evidence that was the case. There's no evidence that early treatment would have aborted their course; some unknown factors made their case severe. He's got an inflated ego because he served on some governor's task force that was medicine related, plus a little imputation that the powers that be are suppressing effective treatments. He also has the chutzpa to think God is on his side. N.B.: He's not a charlatan. I'm sure he's quite sincere, just a bit naive and lacking in perspective. So we are shutting down society for a fraction of a percentile of the infected population, Most of which is into their 70’s. And of which have life threatening issue anyways. The healthy, and remotely fit individual is not dying at the rate which we live with alarm, And the danger we supposedly live in. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 10, 2020 12:02:28 GMT -6
See, this is an example of where you can trust me over this politically-connected practicing physician, even though I didn't finish med school. The treatment he thinks he's made some newsworthy discovery of is standard for diseases of this type. He imagines that just because there are certain NIH standards for hospitalization, that patients with Covid-19 would not be getting such outpatient treatment before their cases become severe. He's read the literature, and there's been a perfunctory finding that the standard treatment for inflammatory respiratory diseases works for Covid-19 too, and he's found in the few cases he's treated that that is indeed true. This is no surprise. Well, guess what? The great majority of patients showing some respiratory symptoms and positive for SARS-CoV2 RNA are not the problem. It's a serious illness in only the few, and he's not treating them. He supposes they didn't get anti-inflammatory treatment early enough to abort their course, but there's no evidence that was the case. There's no evidence that early treatment would have aborted their course; some unknown factors made their case severe. He's got an inflated ego because he served on some governor's task force that was medicine related, plus a little imputation that the powers that be are suppressing effective treatments. He also has the chutzpa to think God is on his side. N.B.: He's not a charlatan. I'm sure he's quite sincere, just a bit naive and lacking in perspective. . Bob. I don’ disagree at all. That is different than opinions on what epidemiologists and virologist suggest. Well done |
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 10, 2020 12:18:48 GMT -6
See, this is an example of where you can trust me over this politically-connected practicing physician, even though I didn't finish med school. But yet you say something about his ego? Great point and I agree. Absolutely agree. True on that he supposes. But there is also no evidence that was NOT the case!! As a matter of fact, there is tons of evidence that the usual case does not receive this treatment. None of the people that I personally know that have had COVID, have received any treatment like this. There is zero doubt that the prevailing medical wisdom is to NOT treat until the symptoms get severe. People have been sent home without this treatment. THAT IS HIS FREAKING POINT!!!! Is there really a debate that early treatment is not better? This is just your personal opinion of a man you don't even know. And has nothing to do whether or not this treatment is effective. But his real point isn't just this treatment, but that we should treat EARLY!!! |
|
|
|
Post by larrymoe on Jul 10, 2020 13:01:17 GMT -6
Try to post it on social media and see what happens. “You never want a serious crisis to go to waste.” B.O That was actually said by his Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 10, 2020 13:21:57 GMT -6
See, this is an example of where you can trust me over this politically-connected practicing physician, even though I didn't finish med school. The treatment he thinks he's made some newsworthy discovery of is standard for diseases of this type. He imagines that just because there are certain NIH standards for hospitalization, that patients with Covid-19 would not be getting such outpatient treatment before their cases become severe. He's read the literature, and there's been a perfunctory finding that the standard treatment for inflammatory respiratory diseases works for Covid-19 too, and he's found in the few cases he's treated that that is indeed true. This is no surprise. Well, guess what? The great majority of patients showing some respiratory symptoms and positive for SARS-CoV2 RNA are not the problem. It's a serious illness in only the few, and he's not treating them. He supposes they didn't get anti-inflammatory treatment early enough to abort their course, but there's no evidence that was the case. There's no evidence that early treatment would have aborted their course; some unknown factors made their case severe. He's got an inflated ego because he served on some governor's task force that was medicine related, plus a little imputation that the powers that be are suppressing effective treatments. He also has the chutzpa to think God is on his side. N.B.: He's not a charlatan. I'm sure he's quite sincere, just a bit naive and lacking in perspective. . Bob. I don’ disagree at all. That is different than opinions on what epidemiologists and virologist suggest. Well done But someone could raise the same objection as before: that his experience trumps my inexperience. Unfortunately in this case, his experience has in effect made him dumber. It's given him a distorted impression that he wouldn't have if he'd just been observing from afar. |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 10, 2020 13:49:15 GMT -6
True on that he supposes. But there is also no evidence that was NOT the case!! As a matter of fact, there is tons of evidence that the usual case does not receive this treatment. None of the people that I personally know that have had COVID, have received any treatment like this. There is zero doubt that the prevailing medical wisdom is to NOT treat until the symptoms get severe. People have been sent home without this treatment. THAT IS HIS FREAKING POINT!!!! Is there really a debate that early treatment is not better? This is just your personal opinion of a man you don't even know. And has nothing to do whether or not this treatment is effective. But his real point isn't just this treatment, but that we should treat EARLY!!! Everything is in the details of how patients present. In my experience, people who go to an emergency room with several days of wheezing and who have no contraindications will take home bronchodilators and steroids. In fact many doctors are too free with systemic steroids, but this is just a matter of a difference of medical opinion and doctors' attitudes toward patients they expect never to see again; some act irresponsibly and others very conservatively. Although inhaled steroids are pretty safe, when it comes to the early presentations there's always the fear of doing someone harm rather than good. In particular, what if someone turns out to have, not a viral pneumonia, but a bacterial one? (Or both?) Anti-inflammatories have been known to make such cases worse. In an ER situation, where you're not admitting the patient, this is always a serious possibility. It's different if you're seeing your regular patient, and it's different with an inpatient. 2 years ago I had a respiratory infection, waited several days thinking it was just my usual cold -- I get bad ones, I'm asthmatic, sometimes develop sinusitis or bronchitis -- then went to the emergency room, got outpatient treatment. Took drugs for a day, second day after went back and was admitted for a few days. Turned out to be something weird, but as with Covid-19, viral and with no specific treatment. The combination of inpatient and then outpatient steroid treatment did me both good and harm, and I should have used my own judgment sooner toward the end rather than the physician's plan, so had to go back for an emergency. Had I not had my own medical knowledge, I might have died from the treatment. Repeat scenarios like this many times with Covid-19 and I could see doctors killing more with "early treatment" than the disease itself would kill. Early treatment is good if your diagnosis is right and you don't go overboard. In the case of the type of drug Dr. Bartlett's referring to, it's unlikely to do harm once bacterial pneumonia's been ruled out. So the bit about "early treatment" is vapid. |
|
|
|
Post by coachd5085 on Jul 10, 2020 16:35:57 GMT -6
|
|
|
|
Post by silkyice on Jul 10, 2020 16:44:49 GMT -6
True on that he supposes. But there is also no evidence that was NOT the case!! As a matter of fact, there is tons of evidence that the usual case does not receive this treatment. None of the people that I personally know that have had COVID, have received any treatment like this. There is zero doubt that the prevailing medical wisdom is to NOT treat until the symptoms get severe. People have been sent home without this treatment. THAT IS HIS FREAKING POINT!!!! Is there really a debate that early treatment is not better? This is just your personal opinion of a man you don't even know. And has nothing to do whether or not this treatment is effective. But his real point isn't just this treatment, but that we should treat EARLY!!! Everything is in the details of how patients present. In my experience, people who go to an emergency room with several days of wheezing and who have no contraindications will take home bronchodilators and steroids. In fact many doctors are too free with systemic steroids, but this is just a matter of a difference of medical opinion and doctors' attitudes toward patients they expect never to see again; some act irresponsibly and others very conservatively. Although inhaled steroids are pretty safe, when it comes to the early presentations there's always the fear of doing someone harm rather than good. In particular, what if someone turns out to have, not a viral pneumonia, but a bacterial one? (Or both?) Anti-inflammatories have been known to make such cases worse. In an ER situation, where you're not admitting the patient, this is always a serious possibility. It's different if you're seeing your regular patient, and it's different with an inpatient. 2 years ago I had a respiratory infection, waited several days thinking it was just my usual cold -- I get bad ones, I'm asthmatic, sometimes develop sinusitis or bronchitis -- then went to the emergency room, got outpatient treatment. Took drugs for a day, second day after went back and was admitted for a few days. Turned out to be something weird, but as with Covid-19, viral and with no specific treatment. The combination of inpatient and then outpatient steroid treatment did me both good and harm, and I should have used my own judgment sooner toward the end rather than the physician's plan, so had to go back for an emergency. Had I not had my own medical knowledge, I might have died from the treatment. Repeat scenarios like this many times with Covid-19 and I could see doctors killing more with "early treatment" than the disease itself would kill. Early treatment is good if your diagnosis is right and you don't go overboard. In the case of the type of drug Dr. Bartlett's referring to, it's unlikely to do harm once bacterial pneumonia's been ruled out. So the bit about "early treatment" is vapid. Agreed. But aren't we discussing giving this treatment when someone has a confirmed case of COVID? |
|
|
|
Post by bobgoodman on Jul 10, 2020 19:51:24 GMT -6
|
|
