View Single Post
Old 11th December 2020, 12:30 PM   #3
Delphic Oracle
Delphic Oracle's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 5,414
Originally Posted by Skeptic Ginger View Post
You ignored my point. First off, we know the principle. Second the tests claiming the drugs don't work ignored the manufacturers' directions in how to use the drug.

You can't claim the two drugs don't work if you didn't properly test the drugs.

You can claim the evidence is insufficient to decide if the drugs work or not. But you can't claim they don't work!!!!! Which was my ******* point.

Honestly, the knee jerk oversimplified crap posts when, OMG, the word anecdote is used suggests some people aren't reading past that single word. Failure to understand the importance of anecdotal evidence, especially in medicine, is a bit of Dunning Kruger. There is valid and invalid anecdotal evidence. It helps to understand the difference.
I don't think anyone is ignoring the drug manufacturer's guidance. I think their guidance makes it impractical to test "properly" in the field, in real-time, as the pandemic unfolds. Nobody gets into a clinical setting until they are in serious condition already. So there's a narrow (moving) window of people who recently tested positive, are just barely becoming symptomatic (if at all), who need to be found out in the world (hopefully at home alone!) and get this drug cocktail in them.

Now account for lifestyle differences, diet, activity, stress, etc.

Other than that, I was merely focusing on how "no effect" plays out in terms of how statutory law works around professional (regulated) trades and beauracratic bodies. In the context of health care, a physician reads that as "you need a really good reason that stands up to a lot of scrutiny if you mean to do this and have your butt covered."

In that sense, it is the exact right phrasing for a treatment option with very little utility in a clinical setting. As noted, clinical basically means already serious. No need to even muddy the waters talking about it outside of any institution doing a trial specifically about that. Why confuse anyone when they're pulling doubles for weeks at a time?

I'm okay with more studying in principle. My curiosity drive would sure like to know what's going on with that, absolutely.

But there's only so many doctors and scientists and I go back to the problem of the limited window of opportunity. Trying to hit a moving target of finding people who tested positive less than 48 hours ago.

Even if it is a miraculous shield, what then? Are we going to have couriers rush the drugs to the home of every positive patient?

For uninsured folks going drive-through testing with 3-5 day waits for results, he'll, there's no opportunity to even reach them in the drug's purported usefulness window.

It's not so much suppressed as it is just that it's such a long shot in terms of both possibility and pragmatic utility for this particular challenge that it falls away into the noise.
Delphic Oracle is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top