Just a test

Originally posted by JB1975: ↑

@stanjupiter - I'm replying here stan because I can't be bothered wrestling with the Hotcopper post button processing on the MSB forum - feel free to cross post my reply to you back there if you wish - this is in reply to your post 69307863.

You in bold - my replies in not bold.

You're saying you know for sure there would have been enough parents willing to forgo the "easier option" and place their child in a clinical trial for "the greater good"?Absolutely is not a word I use loosely - there are few absolutes - but I am very tempted to reply to your question thusly - "ABSO - bloody - LOOTLY". Any parent thinking their child is facing almost certain death would much prefer a chance at saving that childs life than no chance. A fifty fifty chance at the treatment arm is giving every parent of ever child an equal chance at the treatment arm (whatever the treatment arms is).

Parents would have to be given proper informed consent.

@stanjupiter - I like you, sincerely, I see in you a fellow borderline depressed person disillusioned at the stupidity of his fellow man on occasion. But I also think you are ignorant of some basic science and biological realities about viruses and vaccines and cell biology generally so that you attribute to your fellow humans bad judgement when in cases of medicine and science they too are ignorant and doing their best in some cases.

Take a look at the first "successful" randomized trial in GvHD Reach2.

I have NEVER said to you that I considered REACH to be successful. You are bringing up stuff others have suggested in your discussion with me - don't do that please. It will waste both of our precious time.

Were those patients who ended up randomized to two therapies only a moron would have chosen as BAT given proper informed consent? What on earth did this RCT help anyone with reasonable comprehension skills learn that wasn't obvious from Reach1?I don't know enough about the Reach to have an opinion.

I do know this - doctors do not create cancers (for the most part - chemo and radiation might do that as side effects) - they try to cure them. When GvHD arises as a result of a attempt to cure a patient of cancer (kid or adult) that is not the fault of the doctor -that is an unfortunate accident as a result of a lack of human know-how to avoid that at this point in history - a child that says to a doctor - you gave me this, you fix it - is a child talking like a child and blaming an adult, a doctor, that is also a bit like a child, trying to do the best with the tools at his or her disposal. The doctor did not intend to do the child who gets GvHD harm - he or she intended to try to help the child.

I know that you come to this message board with some well formed long held opinions about vaccines and about other treatments and about inconsistencies in approach - I don't know whether those opinions of yours are well founded or not - I simply don't know, they might be prejudices you carry around for all I know - I can't unpack all your baggage - I can sympathise with your distress at the state of the world though.

By doctors aren't the cause of GVHD. And randomised controlled trials whilst not alway necessary (sometime as knowledge gets greater lab tests may more quickly and efficiently zero in on mechanisms of action) they are in my experience never motivated by anything other than a desire to learn how to treat all those with the disease better in future.

Doctors don't create illness and injustice as a generalisation. They generally try to fix it. Some times they absolutely stuff up. For 2 and a half centuries bleeding patients was standard medical procedure - the docs didn't know any better. They had to learn.

Expand

My response and some questions for you:

Assuming the "gold standard" RCT could have been done, where would patients have been recruited from? Would they have come from the centres where Ryoncil has been used in an EAP?

I never said you said Reach2 was "successful". I used the same phrase from the editorial in the NEJM because it clearly showed the challenges of running a trial in a condition without confounding factors. Would MSB's design have been allowed a crossover?

Wouldn't they have to trial Ryoncil against something approved and therefore Ruxolitinib? Do you think parents or an adult patient would be OK with giving informed consent where there was a 50% chance of having severe GI symptoms and being randomized to a tablet in a RCT without a crossover?

You don't appear to know much about acute GvHD and entirely dismiss the perspective of the patient (rightly or wrongly, many of them DO see physicians as having caused their suffering.) You and others on the forum appear determined to force a failing metric, one acknowledged to be failing by one of the most highly respected and cited medical researchers, onto the most heterogeneous condition it's possible to get. Ryoncil targets steroid-refractory aGvHD. There's even differing diagnoses among BMT centres as to what steroid-refractory is.

"But I also think you are ignorant of some basic science and biological realities about viruses and vaccines and cell biology generally so that you attribute to your fellow humans bad judgement when in cases of medicine and science they too are ignorant and doing their best in some cases"

Your comment doesn't even make sense. You say I'm ignorant about much of biology (absolutely true - I don't have a science background - which is why I read and listen to ones I respect such as Jessica Rose, the group that calls itself amidwesterndoctor, Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy who are doing their best to teach and explain in terms laypeople can understand) and because of my ignorance I attribute bad judgement to my fellow humans when they too are ignorant?

I'm not calling bad judgement. My objection is to medical professionals and those who pride themselves on a high level of education not taking the time to even look. That's a choice. I've only researched the mRNA drugs and the problems with the original clinical trials were obvious from the get go. It was very clear (and Pfizer say this themselves) that their vaccine could only ever have benefited the individual. Yet we have witnessed the mass stupidity and cruelty of forcing people to repeatedly enrol in a real-world clinical trial (the TGA makes this clear) to save their jobs.

I know the basics, that T cell response, not antibodies, is more protective and these drugs failed their clinical trials in terms of the objective marker of efficacy (as the FDA made clear). It beggars belief that a product with negative efficacy in all-cause mortality could be forced onto the population, including babies as young as six months, and in light of clear evidence of harms from the original clinical trials.

I put a link to an interview with Emeritus Professor Robert Clancy who explains the problems with the mRNA vaccines if you'd care to refute any of it. I put a link also to the evidence (including an interview with an investigator) to the harms that occurred on the original clinical trials. Surely, at the very least you'd investigate these before rolling out to the population? How is that proper science? How is that ethical?

I don't doubt you have a lot of knowledge about cells and biology but I doubt you know enough to fully understand the complexities of the human body.

https://rumble.com/v25hl0a-science-problems-with-mrna-vaccine.html
https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/what-really-happened-inside-the-covid