“91.6 percent improved clinically.”
So, the science says it works. Huzzah for science!
1 Like
Context (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons):
The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ( AAPS ) is a politically conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. It is opposed to the Affordable Care Act and other forms of universal health insurance.[1][2] The group was reported to have about 4,000 members in 2005, and 5,000 in 2014.[3][4][5] The executive director is Jane Orient, an internist and a member of the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine. AAPS also publishes the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (formerly known as the Medical Sentinel ).
The association is generally recognized as politically conservative or ultra-conservative, and its publication advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.
The Washington Post summarized their beliefs as “doctors should be autonomous in treating their patients — with far fewer government rules, medical quality standards, insurance coverage limits and legal penalties when they make mistakes”.[9] It opposed the Social Security Act of 1965 which established Medicare and Medicaid and encouraged member physicians to boycott Medicare and Medicaid.[10] The organization requires its members to sign a “declaration of independence” pledging that they will not work with Medicare, Medicaid, or even private insurance companies.[11]
AAPS opposes mandated evidence-based medicine and practice guidelines, opposes abortion and over-the-counter access to emergency contraception and opposes electronic medical records.[11]
Thank you, @zmetzing, for providing some evidence compiled by a small medical association that opposes evidence-based medicine.
15 Likes
Here’s what the American Medical Association, American Pharmacists Association, and American Society of Health-System Pharmacists have to say.
At the same time, we caution hospitals, health systems, other entities, and individual practitioners that no medication has been FDA-approved for use in COVID-19 patients. Definitive evidence for the role of these drugs in treating COVID-19 patients has not been determined through robust clinical trials; decisions to use these medications off-label must be made with extreme caution and careful monitoring.
In other words, no, @moderators please close.
5 Likes
AAPS also went to court to try to block medical records from being obtained from a doctor when the patient was facing charges of misrepresenting his medical history in order to obtain prescription narcotics. The patient? Rush Limbaugh.
Instead of censoring this thread we should turn it into a dogpile of information about the source.
Anti-malpractice penalties
Anti-regulation
Anti-vax
Believes vaccines cause autism
Believes HIV doesn’t cause AIDS
Anti-HIPAA
Doesn’t see gun violence as a public health problem
Discourages member physicians from working with Medicare/Medicaid
Anti-contraception
4 Likes
Seems iffy at best. Use a drug with known cardiac side-effects prophylactically ??
2 Likes
Yes, definitely close any thread that a couple of people disagree with.
Lots of open minded people here.
We’ve been over this: it is regularly prescribed for travel to countries with malaria. Under supervision, the risk/benefit is as acceptable as other drugs.
Azythromyacin can also kill you in the same way. Do you think twice when your doctor prescribes it?
Sorry my mind is closed to pseudoscience. I’ll try to do better. Maybe we can go round up some witches later - you can identify them by their ability to eat tomatoes (which everyone knows are poisonous).
5 Likes
I feel like the guy in the middle.
I believe the term is “Lucky Pierre”.
1 Like
All right. All right, not biscuits, but let’s kill him anyway.
1 Like
AAPS is just conspiracy loons trying to sound legitimate. It’s a giant miasma of paranoid clickbait and fake cures.
5 Likes
spoiler alert
Wow, I am quite proud to say that I had never heard of the AAPS. Unfortunately, now I have heard far too much. Another thread in need of prompt closure.
2 Likes
I see no need to close the discussion in this thread.
I DO see it as a great example of the need to “consider the source”. The AAPS has a legitimate-sounding name, but even a quick Google search illustrates that a name isn’t everything.
Trust, but verify.
5 Likes
How about verify, then possibly trust.
2 Likes
Looking through some of their given references, I’ve noticed non-peer reviewed sources, journals with pathetically low impact factors one would be embarrassed to have one’s name in and publications stating "[This is] new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.(https://www.medrxiv.org/content/what-unrefereed-preprint). There is one reference in a journal at the 2nd to very top of the list with a respectable but by no means groundbreaking impact factor. So, IMO these are not credible sources.
4 Likes