The debate about amantadine, the "miracle cure" for covid-19, continues. Dr. Pakulski responds to the accusations of adultery and explains why scientists should always keep their eyes wide open, rather than mock amantadine and design his research.
Amantadine, a cure for flu and parkinson's disease, is being talked about loudly because of the statements of a pediatrician and pulmonologist from przemysl, dr. wlodzimierz bodnar. He claims that effectively treats patients with the coronavirus that has long been known drug. All this is due to the deterioration of the economy, among other things. In connection with the quarantine, the question of work is acute,and many move to the online sphere, knowing that you can earn additional income, as deltamarket broker does many professions in connection with the pandemic were called into question.
The medical community has responded to Dr. Bodnar and his treatment in a largely negative way.
Voting on amantadine in the eye.Caesar Pakulski, an anesthesiologist and resuscitator from Szczecin, took the press. he accused infectious disease specialists and virologists of"giving the impression that the very name of the drug causes them a strong allergic reaction. "the doctor also believes that the medical community applies double standards to dr. bodnar – they themselves recommend unproven treatments as a" cry of despair " due to the lack of a cure for covid-19.
Dr. Pakulski called for clinical trials of the effectiveness of COVID-19 therapy with amantadine, suggesting that its therapeutic effect may be due to a mechanism of blocking NMDA receptors in the glutaminergic system, which other experts have not yet taken into account.
With his text, he polemicized in the eyes.Philipp Meiza of the Medical College of the Jagiellonian University. he wrote: "the voice of scientific authority, which is professor pakulsky, expressed in an opinion-forming environment, will encourage many doctors and patients to use amantadine. Isn't that what the author meant? i hope not."
I'll start at the end of the debate. I have no conflict of interest with any of the companies that produce or distribute amantadine. I didn't give paid lectures to any of these companies, they didn't sponsor my research trips, nothing. I specialize in anesthesiology, intensive care and emergency medicine. This means that as part of my medical practice, I do not have my own private medical office where I would receive"amantadine patients". I also don't have a contract with the National Institutes of Health to write prescriptions. I can only prescribe medication to myself and my loved ones.
This is an important statement, because to suggest that the hidden intent of seeking research is to increase public interest in a drug, perhaps for a nefarious financial purpose, is unfair and far from professional ethics. All my actions, including the number of prescriptions written for a particular drug, are easy to identify.
Combining me and Dr. Vladimir Bodnar into a united "amantadine group holding power" is also, to say the least, flawed. In my text, I define Dr. Bodnar's entry "you can cure COVID-19 in 48 hours" and subsequent entries as a scientifically unsubstantiated conclusion.
Commenting on the potential mechanisms of action of the drug honored by Dr. Bodnar, I wrote: "I also believe that the already known mechanisms of action of amantadine on influenza viruses will not cope with the coronavirus." All quotes from Dr. Bodnar, as well as infectious disease doctors and virologists, I took from interviews given by both parties. i am not responsible for dr. bodnar's notes, which i have not quoted in the text, and i simply do not have time to follow his website.
No comments:
Post a Comment