Quote:
Originally Posted by kgrund
Do not have a side on the HQ debate, but one thing that does not help end the debate is the "point-in-time" that the drug is given and tested. The largest supporters of using the drug indicates it must be given early at a fairly large dose. However when tested, it seems the overwhelming amount of tests are done once the virus has significantly progressed. It seems like the possibility could still exist that both sides are correct due primarily to the point in time in which the therapy starts. It seems like a bit of apples and oranges is going on IMO.
|
If the drug had no risks that would be fine but giving a potentially dangerous drug that has benefit to someone who might recover without is borderline malpractice.