Seattle, WA
A rather one-sided article. I suppose I should be grateful that you included
comments from Dr. Hoffman, but everything from the title to the inherent
commentary in the article is slanted in favor of cerebrovascular thrombolysis
(""clot-busting drugs"").
Why not give the actual arguments for and against and discuss their scientific
validity?
You mentioned Dr. Hofmann's analysis that the stroke severity in the... Show more
Seattle, WA
A rather one-sided article. I suppose I should be grateful that you included
comments from Dr. Hoffman, but everything from the title to the inherent
commentary in the article is slanted in favor of cerebrovascular thrombolysis
(""clot-busting drugs"").
Why not give the actual arguments for and against and discuss their scientific
validity?
You mentioned Dr. Hofmann's analysis that the stroke severity in the treatment
group was milder than in the placebo group, then you say that ""experts
disagree"". Dr. Hoffman is an expert, and many other experts agree with him.
Actually, in a very unusual move, this treatment was actually subject to a
post-publication review by a group of experts (including Hoffman). That group
actually AGREED that there were statistically significant differences between
the stroke severity in the treatment and control groups, but decided, without
giving a justification, that it didn't matter, which is odd, to say the least.
Another issue: the initial study actually showed no difference in outcome: it
was designed to slow a difference at 24 hours, and none was detected. so the
investigators, rather than publishing their study, decided mid-stream to
change the outcome: would there be a difference in outcome at 90 days? The
relatively small improvement detected at 90 days (4 points on the NIH stroke
scale), if real, is modest at best, and is an average: some get worse, some
get better, and some do not change. tPA is by no means a magic bullet to cure
strokes.
------
Video: https://moxox.com
Music: https://muxiv.com
AV: http://yofuk.com
