Thanks for the reasonable reply, as opposed to the ones painting me out to be a mass murderer for sharing an opinion. Major, too. I find it very hard to believe that he didn't worry he had ebola, but it's true that we'll never really know, especially given widespread confusion in west Africa among the general populace. For the record, I'm a big-time utilitarian. And if by curing him, it helps the greater good, then great. Maybe if he recovers (here's hoping he does, OF ****ING COURSE), then he could help care for the sick, assuming he has some sort of immunity.
Sorry, I thought you were the one saying this will be scientifically viable. Have you abandoned that?
Nope. It is scientifically useful information. Real world clinical data. It doesn't count as a test subject for FDA clinical trials, though.
If it is "scientifically useful", why is it "scientifically impossible to say whether the drugs played a role in their recovery".
Because it's too small a sample size. Larger sample size is ultimately needed to determine results - but every individual piece of evidence contributes to that, and thus is scientifically useful.
Are you just making this stuff up? I would be with you if one patient was a part of a trial, but these were donated for different reasons.
Think of it this way. This strain of ebola has something like a 50-70% lethality rate. If you give the drug to 2 people and they survive, you can't really determine if it was the drug or random luck. If you give the drug to 500 people and 250 people survive, you can probably say the drug is having no effect. If you give the drug to 500 people and 480 survive, you can probably say the drug is having a positive effect. The more data you have, the more you can conclude from it. FDA clinical trial data is the best because it accounts for the most variables, but that doesn't mean real world results have no scientific value at all. This isn't terribly complicated stuff. The drugs are specifically being allowed by the FDA under an Emergency *Investigational* process. The FDA will be looking at the results of these drugs - if there were no scientific value, that would not be the case.
So we just disagree and that is fine. Medical trials are incredibly complicated and not nearly as simplistic as you present.
Too many people are looking at whether this man is worth saving by giving him this drug. Whether he is worth saving is an ethical question but there is also a public health issue. Given that ebola is still contagious the question is how long are we prepared to have the patient linger and possibly infect others. Since it would be completely unethical to just kill the guy and cremate his body so he can't infect people then the faster he might be healed the less chance he could infect others. As other posters have noted the standard treatment to cure him don't seem to be working so why not risk giving him an experimental drug and hoping that he is cured and is no longer a threat to public health. The other option is to wait it out until he dies but until then he continues to be a health risk.
Except we're not discussing medical trials - we're discussing whether something has scientific value. Lots of things have scientific value even if they are not perfect trials. As I mentioned earlier, the world has a long history of developing scientifically sound drugs long before the FDA or clinical trials ever existed. Clinical trials are the most reliable and safest way to do it, but they are not remotely the only way.
Sorry, but this is wrong. You cannot make a claim about the drug's effect based on an experiment with no control group, no matter how much data you have. The best you can say is that there is a strong correlation between the two variables (in this case, being treated with the drug and survival). The FDA seems to be allowing these treatments based on the "try or die" philosophy. There's little downside for the patient receiving the treatment. There is, however, a downside to humanity if we don't properly test these drugs before declaring them effective. It is even possible that the drugs will make us more susceptible to the same disease they're trying to treat. There's no way of knowing without a control group.
Thomas Duncan has passed away. "It is with profound sadness and heartfelt disappointment that we must inform you of the death of Thomas Eric Duncan this morning at 7:51 am. Mr. Duncan succumbed to an insidious disease, Ebola. He fought courageously in this battle. Our professionals, the doctors and nurses in the unit, as well as the entire Texas Health Presbyterian Hospital Dallas community, are also grieving his passing. We have offered the family our support and condolences at this difficult time."
This is quite sad...but now the goal of the hospital is to isolate the body and prevent anyone else coming into contact with this fatal disease...May God grant rest for his soul and peace for his family...
US will begin This weekend or next week to take temps of passengers from flights originating In west africa
and to be clear, he was given Brincidofovir on sat, it just wasn't reported until Monday when I posted the link. This isn't the only problem with what he posted. You also need the people in the trial to fit in a group of statistically relevant factors.
It will probably be a cremation. Rest in peace, Mr. Duncan. Whatever the truth of your case and decisions, nobody should have to die like that, especially separated from friends and family by walls and panes of glass.
even with top-tier USA medical care (i assume) he still passes away. Not a good omen if this thing gets out of control...
