izentrop wrote:Not sure Bill had the right intuition this time ...
97% of people recovered without going to hospital.
Yes but for the remaining 3% the risk of death is present
So we come back to a recurring debate: there are those who try and win and there are those who try and die.
Currently IHU is at a death rate of 0.49%
So 2.51% of stuff, things, study objects are missing ... ah shit, these are human beings (sorry), as the other sang, "they were thousands they were twenty and a hundred"
Obviously he does not mention non-contagious patients that the IHU releases into the wild
In pre-deconfinement period it would be a mess
The Estrosi effect ...
"I don't blow my nose anymore, I'm fine"
The journalist: even if WITHOUT A DOUBT it would have been the same with doliprane ...
No doubt or ............ no doubt and the "step" is a bit like the step towards the beyond anyway: a trifle for the chronicler
All scientific studies: oh well there are plethora of scientific studies which have studied the protocol of the IHU ... quickly quickly the bibliography
He quotes Raoult
"Those who criticize me are not real Physicians»
And just after hop semantic shift (it reminds me of the decoding of Raoult's interview) ...... Researchers are not used to
18 clinical trials + a hundred in the world are in progress but WHICH with the SAME protocol as the IHU .... names quickly .... we are still waiting
We put back a layer "no study has been shown to be spectacular or encouraging"
Which one, with the SAME protocol as the IHU .... quick names .... we are still waiting
I refer you to the Mediapart article
Health alerts have been launched on the toxic risks of the IHU protocol
Who, QUIIIIIIIIIIIII tested the IHU protocol ???? names quickly ... we're still waiting
This pressure has long paralyzed health authorities
Are you talking about my eye, the HCQ was prohibited from prescription by decree from the outset on March 25 (I am not talking about its January classification)
Are you talking about paralyzing or AGAINST the IHU protocol ... yes
Fraudulent studies dixit the columnist who would suggest that the studies were bogus
And then hop a new shift in meaning ... in the second that follows, quoting the daily newspaper of the doctor who made an article on the legally borderline character of the treatment of IHU between clinical study and treatment of patients (to summarize).
Nothing therefore fraudulent in the studies.
The brave journalist continues on the call to order of the Council of the Order especially intended for Sabine (finally the poor to her son who published for her) and Moselle who were wrong to say that they had cured patients.
Member of Parliament Larem, who participates in the group of doctors, will no doubt also go there.
In summary, doctors are FORBIDDEN to treat patients with their soul and conscience.
A crazy thing which, by reversing the proposition would be: we knowingly leave 3% of positives with the risk of dying ... cool
But oh magic pirouette .... would the chronicler cover himself?
He suggests that Raoult (and his teams all the same, eh as if Panoramix worked alone, we think we are dreaming) could have had a lonely stroke of genius.
The weather is cloudy, we start to open the umbrellas
