The Leading Business Education Network for Doctors, Financial Advisors and Health Industry Consultants

COVID-19 and Pre-Existing Conditions

3 Responses

1. Conrad, on April 18, 2020 at 6:35 PM said:

   INTERESTING

   Some physicians, like Ram Yogendra, MD, MPH strongly believe that COVID-D is not really a “respiratory-lung” disease, but rather a disease
   of hemoglobin pathology. He presents convincing evidence of the hemoglobin failure, because like malaria itself, the virus attacks the hemoglobin molecule directly.

   Other physicians, like Dr. Jaime Lucio Pascual Ballesteros, point to direct evidence of hemoglobinopathy:

   So, has led this some to come to the conclusion that treating this condition like a pulmonary infection is incorrect. And, this has been
   borne out by the failure of ventilation therapy?

   Any thoughts?

   Conrad

   LikeLiked by 1 person
2. Nigel, on April 24, 2020 at 11:50 AM said:

   The WHO

   A document posted on the World Health Organization’s website yesterday delivered some disappointing news: Remdesivir, a potential COVID-19 treatment developed by biopharma company Gilead Sciences, did not improve patient outcomes in a randomized clinical trial.

   According to the summary, 13.9% of the patients who received the drug died after one month, versus 12.8% in a control group, the FT and health news site Stat report.

   The twist: The summary was quickly removed from the website. A WHO spokesperson said it was posted by mistake.

   The study, a first-of-its-kind clinical trial in China, was stopped early because it didn’t have enough patients, so Gilead argued its results are inconclusive. Although Gilead did say “trends in the data suggest a potential benefit” for the drug.
   
   So … what does it all mean?
   Not much—no definitive thumbs up or down for remdesivir yet.
   Several other ongoing studies will hopefully offer more conclusion.

   Nigel

   LikeLike
3. Anonymous, on April 29, 2020 at 7:17 PM said:

   Money Quote:

   Dr. Zhang said, “I would suggest three consecutive negative RT-PCR results to safely discharge, due to high false-negative rate. . .”

   Dr. Jack Lipton, (Department Chair at MSU). . . commented. . ., “The study demonstrates that repeated testing is absolutely necessary. In our clinical trial of university personnel at MSU, we have a young healthy subject with mild symptoms who has tested positive five times over four weeks. People need to realize that a 14-day isolation is appropriate for seeing whether one will develop symptoms after a known exposure to an infected person. Fourteen days is not a sufficient amount of time to be infected, recover and then be virus free.”

   Anonymous

   LikeLiked by 1 person