Science is Data Driven - Not Opinion Drive

“I am starting to understand our differences of opinion. In your last post you stated that you feel that COVID is a droplet and fomite transmitted infection. I feel the evidence suggests it is predominantly airborne, probably predominantly aerosol.”

No, you’re most certainly not. And No, the predominance of the evidence does not suggest that the main route is airborne. I refer to the U of Washington’s conclusion on this months ago.

Actually, if SARS-CoV-2 is transmitted more by aerosol, then surgical masks makes even less sense.

But you keep missing my point. You keep dancing around with various unproven or even rejected theories. None of those theories matter. What matter is one thing – Clinical Trial Data.

You have to stop imagining how surgical masks might affect transmission and show they actually do.

“Regarding inoculum, the papers by Gandi (9) and Gullar (10) have multiple references to clinical severity relating to dose.”

Ok seriously? You just posted that you don’t feel inoculum is related to severity of disease and now you’re backtracking? Why? This point has been settled a long time ago. How many references you want? A thousand, 2 thousand? I am a virologist and Infectious Diseases specialist, who spent a large chunk of his career studying viral pathology. This is my last comment on this topic. It makes no sense, but worse, the data have proved it not to be true. Seriously, a lousy virus replicates to the power of 1,000, meaning with each cycle, the virus increases 1,000 fold. And you think inoculum matters in disease outcome?

“I am for using science.”

No, that’s my point. You aren’t. You are adopting or making up theories that fit your conclusion. That’s the exact opposite of science. You, in fact, refuse to test your belief that surgical masks reduce SARS-CoV-2 transmission.

“We have not demonstrated that wearing a mask is an important part of the program compared to hand washing and distance. In this trial you and everyone else you come in contact with will not be wearing a mask. This may put you and those around you, including your loved ones, at increased risk to spread a significant and deadly disease compared to those in the “usual program” group, whereby you and others will wear a mask when within 6 feet of each other. Good luck with that study! This is very different than setting up a study saying that “There is significant disagreement in the world of surgery regarding site shaving for surgery. If you are randomized to shaving you with a razor vs using electric clippers, you (and only you) may have a greater or lesser chance of getting a wound infection.””

I think you’ve proved my point. You have decided A PRIORI that masks work. You recklessly choose theories to fit your opinion, even when the theories have been proven wrong or, worse, don’t fit your opinion. Surgical masks have absolutely no role in blocking airborne viral disease transmission. Please try to see that you are dancing, not arguing.

You have convinced yourself and no logical argument will bring you back from the brink. I would be happy to enroll people in the study you describe. By “your logic”, we should only study what you consider low-risk trials. By “your logic”, coronary artery bypass surgery should never have been studied. Coronary angioplasty shouldn’t have been either. This is the definition of illogical and it is not how Medicine is or, at least, was practiced and advanced.

By the way, DON’T EVER tell me how deadly or not this disease is. That’s plain disrespectful. I have treated over 300 Covid pts. And you? I haven’t worn an N95 since the second day in mid-March. I was not one of those doctors, and there were many, who didn’t come in, and many others came in and called the pts on the phone from the nursing unit. I went in every room.

Every night, I come home hoping I don’t bring the virus home to my family. Every night, I wipe down my car to reduce that chance. Every night, I leave my shoes in the garage, wipe down my glasses, cellphone, wallet and car keys before going inside. Every night, I go straight to the laundry room, disrobe, put the clothes in the washing machine and start it. Every night, I walk down the hallway naked, hoping I don’t scare one of my children. Every night, I shower and only afterwards, do I interact with my family.

In March, I was very worried that I might infect my wife and kids. Back then, I thought they too get could get very sick from Covid. Although I take these precautions, I don’t worry about any of my kids getting Covid, they’ll get over it fine. But still, they are my kids and I don’t want to ever make them sick. My wife should do well too, but I also, I would hate to make her sick.

Face it, you have gone the way of CNN and the NYT.

There are RCT data confirming the efficacy of HCQ against Covid. At least tell me why then, HCQ trial data is not accepted and RCTs are demanded. I don’t get this enormous inconsistency. Somehow you do.

“Doctors are allowed to go “off label” for medications.”

You misunderstand Off-Label. Off-label doesn’t mean there are not studies. Hardly, it usually means the opposite. Off-label simply means that the FDA has not approved the drug for that indication and so that indication is not on the FDA’s LABEL. So, doctors look at studies, clinical trials, that have been done by academics. That is where most Off-Label use comes from. Many if not the majority of first-line treatments in Infectious Diseases are Off-Label. For instance, what’s the most commonly prescribed abx for Lyme disease? It’s doxycycline. Lots of clinical trial data show doxy works well in treatment and prophylaxis for Lyme disease. Doxy is Off-Label for Lyme disease. On and on, I could go, but the point is Off-Label use of a drug is based upon clinical trial data, like HCQ use for Covid-19.

AGAIN, I ask you –

WHY IS THE HCQ DATA PUT TO A MUCH, MUCH HIGHER STANDARD THAN SURGICAL MASKS?

Why do you and your cronies refuse to study surgical masks, when the data on other resp viral diseases shows they don’t work and DEMAND even more positive efficacy data on HCQ?

It’s one thing to be illogical and be consistently so.

It’s much, much worse to have inconsistent scientific standards based on your political aliances.

Please answer this question or please don’t respond again.