**PLEASE NOTE** - I use no other social media and my comments are closed due to persistent harassment and impersonation by one individual - sorry :(

Sunday, August 2, 2020

PS - DR - As I Promised You :)

(Fixed link) 

Just to make sure I made good on my promise (below) and I didn't miss anything you'd written since Thursday, DR, I have just now read your comments since Thursday evening.  Well, not all of them, just the last 3 were enough :)

Because also as promised, I said I would vet/investigate/research your sources, but for you to be forewarned, because I would always wear my critical thinking cap when it came to the efficacy and safety of treatment and care of patients.

Thus - erm -  you may want to hold on any further high-five-ing of each other, it may be a bit premature, because ... 

Link 1. --  Regarding your quotes from "James Todaro, MD" - please note that Dr. James Todaro is a former ophthalmologist (eye doctor) in Dearborn, Michigan (greater Detroit).   According to his own Linked-In page - he has not practiced medicine since 2018, because he co-founded a hedge-fund company at that time called "Blocktown Capital." :)

You're welcome to verify it's the same person by comparing his pic and "MD from Columbia" profile with the one you shared from Twitter.
How did THAT little detail escape you - did you really not see it? ;) 

Well, considering he hasn't practiced medicine (as an eye doctor - *snicker*) since 2018, after starting a hedge-fund company,  protecting his own share holdings in hydroxychloroquine certainly would explain his aggressively pushing it down our throats, now wouldn't it? ;)

Just goes to show you,  just because someone has an MD degree, doesn't mean they actually practice, or even have a license. 
Also - just because someone stands in a white lab coat on a video, like James Todaro did as part of America's Frontline Doctors - the same video that Trump Jr. was suspended from Twitter for due to spreading dysinformation - doesn't mean they actually practice medicine.
Even if they do, but practice in an unrelated discipline (like being an eye doctor?), instead of appropriate, related medical disciplines for COVID like infectious disease, epidemiology, pulmonology/respirology, emergency medicine,  or virology clinical research -  then they won't know much more than the basics of infectious disease, which is not much more than we know. 

Link 2. --   As for the 2nd link to the "article" entitled "Twenty-One Billion Reasons to Discredit Hydroxychloroquine" - you'll note that it isn't an article, and "Omni Journal" isn't a medical journal  - it's a social-media website - it's a personal blog post :) 

In fact, "omni journal" is more of a term - "omni" meaning people who do it all, on social media - blog, vlog, Instagram, FB, Twitter.

You'll also note that this personal blog post -  disguised as an "article" -  was written by none other than?

"Dr. James Todaro" (see above).

Despite not practicing medicine anymore, you will also note - again -  that he is also a part of the small handful of aforementioned quacks called "America's Frontline Doctors" - the spokesperson for whom believes in astral sex with witches and demon sperm - that was featured on the video that Trump Jr. was suspended from Twitter for due to spreading dysinformation. 

Also note he gives zero links to any actual studies, either in support of hydroxychloroquine or disproving the efficacy of remdesivir.

In fact, his blog post reads more like a marketing ad than an article - the entire blog post seems to be desperately attempting discredit remdesivir, without the data to back it up - neither providing any actual data or evidence whatsoever as to why we shouldn't use remdesivir and  should use hydroxychloroquine instead?

If you're interested, here is the NIH's latest published study on Remdesivir.  

Note that the study does not claim remdesivir is an actual cure - and it readily admits it's preliminary.  However, it has moved on to fast-track peer review based on the promising preliminary results of the shortened time of recovery, if you catch the virus early enough - much like oseltamivir (Tamiflu) can do.

However, neither remdesivir or oseltamivir - or any other drug besides Hep C medicines - claims to actually cure any virus. 
In fact, both remdesivir and oseltamivir openly admit they are are ineffective when you don't catch the virus within its first two days, and at most, they potentially shorten the recovery time, if you catch the virus that quickly.
Additionally, I could just as easily write a blog post at Omni Journal, and come up with 21-billion reasons to promote hydroxychloroquine based on dysinformation and hedge-fund shares, and call it an article, too, if I wanted to.
Thus, I would say to Dr. Todaro, "Physician, heal thyself" of his own hypocrisy -  because his accusation of "conflict of interest" and "vested personal interest for the shareholders" seems to be a more accurate description of himself/his own behavior - written while looking at himself in a mirror, and being unable to handle what he sees, projects his own guilt and unethical motivations onto us again, like most Trumpers do :)
Regardless, I'm certainly glad he decided that he couldn't live up to his sworn oath of ethics, to put patient care above money, and instead, left practicing medicine altogether in favor of a money gig - because think of the lives we've said by his doing so :)

Link 3 --  As for your third link, the AAPS (American Association of Physicians and Surgeons) is NOT an accredited medical organization. In fact, it's not even a true medical organization - it's a conservative PAC. -

In fact, you don't even have to be a physician to join it - you just have to donate to their political lobbying PAC ;) 

Also note that this is not the first time that they've made claims about certain drugs that have been debunked, to include vaccines - in fact, there have been hundreds.
They're welcome to sue the FDA all they want to - they've never won a case.  They'll be laughed out of court - again. 
Just like 'America's Frontline Doctors," not a single member of the AAPS have ever conducted a clinical trial themselves, nor were ever even chosen as KOL (key opinion leader) or peer reviewer - and in fact, I doubt more than a handful of them are, or ever were, actual licensed physicians and surgeons.

Speaking of which,  there is a reason there is an entire clinical study team on clinical study trials, as well as a reason that even after the clinical trial, the drug trial moves on to peer review. 
That reason is so that no one person's interests can be responsible for verifying the outcome of a drug trial without the consent and approval of the other authors. 
Same reason there's a peer review - which is a jury of their peers in the field, unrelated to the study team or to each other -  whose job is to deliberately and intentionally try to find flaws in the efficacy and safety of the drug before its approval. 
The original clinical team will then take the feedback provided by their peer reviewers, weigh it, and determine whether the primary and secondary endpoints (hypotheses) were met, whether they might need slight adjustment, or it failed its endpoints so significantly they have to scrap it and start over, because they know it will never pass FDA approval as is. 
The study is then sent to the FDA to approval, after final tweaks are made after peer review, and if the drug IS approved, it is very specific to certain indications, called a "label" - which are specifically based on whether the drug met its hypotheses, it's primary and secondary endpoints, during phases 1, 2, and 3 of clinical trials. 
When a doctor prescribes it for one of these FDA-approved indications, this is called "on-label usage" of the drug, which means, in theory, insurance companies should pay for it based on the doctor attesting to the patient meeting certain criteria and lab values.
You can still use a drug off-label - many drugs are used in this way - but because it's "off-label," insurance companies likely will not approve it, so you will have to pay for it out of pocket and take it at your own risk. 
That is, IF your doctor is will agree to prescribe it for you.  They are obligated by law to warn you of the risks, and if you still demand it, he or she might prescribe it, but you will likely have to sign an informed consent form, that you were counseled on the risks, and still chose to electively take the drug AMA (against medical advice), which will be placed in your medical/pharmaceutical records -  in order to legally protect themselves from risk.
Such is the case of hydroxychloroquine -  it's FDA approval "labeled" indications are only for RA, lupus, other connective-tissue disease disorders, malaria, as well as in conjunction with immunotherapy for cancer - because it did not meet either its primary or secondary endpoints in the COVID trials performed thus far.   

Otherwise, I saw another one, a fourth one, but frankly, I'd wasted enough time - I'm sure it's just as legitimate as the other three (cough, cough).

Thus, at this point, "Distant Relative?"

I sincerely was trying to give you a fair shake/benefit of the doubt, that perhaps you were just misled and didn't know better - because you often seem to struggle with being unable to separate the difference between opinion from fact.

However, at this point, I know you're not this stupid.  

In fact, it almost seems like you're going to even greater lengths to find links that sound/appear even more official, but in reality - aren't - much like a cheater who just got caught doesn't stop cheating, just tries to become a better cheater lol 

So at this point, I can say with 100% certainty - Yes - I think you're being intentionally misleading, deceitful, and dishonest - about a global public health pandemic - for the sake of political power/control.

I also think the blog owner continues to encourage and "high five" your dysinformation, because he peddles it himself, consciously knowing it's dysinformation and false information, and at times, is even ridiculous.

Thus, I'm sorry I wasted my time trying to come to some understanding with you today, reading through your bogus links to see if I'd misunderstood/misjudged you - because I clearly haven't.

(Actually, I take that back - I'm not sorry for the time spent trying to come to understanding with you, because the one thing I like about myself is the fact that I give people the benefit of the doubt/keep looking for the good in people until I just can't make excuses for them anymore - plus the results were sooooo worth it :)

I'm not sure who you think you're dealing with - or with what kind of feeble-minded, gullible, idiots you're used to selling this BS propaganda to - but this is my jam.

I could do this all day - in fact, I literally do it all day already, for a living - researching the most up-to-date, accurate medical information has been my actual job/what I get paid to do, for the last 24 years. 

(I'm not the best in my field, by far - but I would hope I'm fairly good at it, after 24 years of practice? :)

What I DO know that if I'd ever tried to justify what I'd typed on legal healthcare documentation with those weak-ass links you provided, I would've been fired a long time ago lol. 

Speaking of the gullible, I DO feel sorry for the poor newer commenter, Andy - I'm sorry that he's so gullible, poor man. 

 I hope he doesn't really try to use your "sources" as "proof" to his friends, like he said would. That will not end well for the poor man, if his friends happen to vet these sources and find out they're not what and who they appear :(

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.