Dr. Fauci’s argument critique

4/14/2020: Dr. Fauci’s argument discrediting the malaria drug for coronavirus patients is somewhat misleading. It is true that the randomized double blinded studies are the gold standard in medical science research. It is also true the hydroxychloroquine has been used for more than 50 years in other conditions with minimal complications. There are published studies in peer reviewed journals from France of the successful use in COVID-19 patients.

However, Fauci knows better, but ignores the fact that historical controls are a valid means of producing valid reliable data. For example, if it is known that a given condition results in 100% mortality in 6 weeks even with the present treatments. This forms a historical control. The result is that everyone dies.

With his historical control, a known medicine is given according to law where the doctor patient relationship allows a licensed doctor to prescribe an “off label” drug. An “off label” drug is one approved for another condition. In the best judgement of the doctor and the informed consent of the patient the medicine is given. This is legal and medically ethical. That is what is being done with hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

Back to my example. When a series of medically well-defined patients have been followed for 6 weeks with the “off label” drug and 50% live it is accepted as valid research based upon the historical control. Only bureaucratic doctors who do not or perhaps never went face to face with a patient would withhold a potential safe reasonable treatment waiting for FDA approval.

What is being done in practice and benefiting patients with “off label” drug is legal, ethical and scientifically sound.

Comments

comments