Quote:
Originally Posted by Adder
This is not how science works. Anecdotes are not data. The "studies" you're referring to are not studies. They offer at best a hypothesis that needs to be tested.
Logic does not dictate wide-spread use of drugs that haven't been proven safe and effective, especially as there are serious side effects and such off-label use risks depriving people who actually need those drugs from getting them.
What we know if that it should be tested as quickly as we can test it. Anything more is simply wrong. You sound very, very stupid here.
|
No. As usual, you sound mildly autistic. And lacking any capacity for logical thinking beyond the limited training you've received.
You're an idiot on this point. A fucking idiot.
You've completely ignored the fact that the side effects from this drug impact a tiny sliver of people receiving it (it's handed out like candy in Africa). You also ignored the science of z pak's impact on inflammation. And the last dipshit thing you'll offer is the placebo effect argument.
I know you're a lawyer, and you've never run anything and never received anything but a W-2, and are probably the kind of lawyer who only knows how to tell people, "No you can't." That's very obvious from your history of dull responses. But here's a thing a person who's run a business and had to make decisions without "studies" in hand might understand which you do not: Cost/Benefit Analysis. (No, not abstract risk of litigation you'd assess, sweet little Adder - real risk, where you don't have all the facts.) The cost/benefit here is a no brainer. Keep doling out the malaria drug and z pak and allow the real time experiment to continue. If in a month, the larger data set shows it doesn't work, drop it. If it continues to show promise, examine why in greater detail. And during this time, keep exploring all other options. You don't have a single credible logical rebuttal to that. None.
