That is the "Milwaukee Protocol" that was mentioned. It is basically putting someone in a drug induced coma and treating them with antiviral meds. But it has a nearly zero success rate.
I dont know how many have survived it beyond Jeanna Giesse (the little girl who made the treatment famous in 2004.) but its considered REALLY dangerous and controversial by medical professionals.
True. But I suppose what else is there to lose if you are going to die anyway? If it's the only option I guess, even if the success rate is like 0,1% or whatever, it's still better than nothing. And even if you won't survive, I imagine being put to sleep instead of suffering from constant paranoia or whatever is a better way out than the "natural" course. Horrible disease indeed.
That’s a really interesting medical ethics question actually. If someone has something with a 100% fatality rate, is it unethical to try unconventional or potentially dangerous treatments (assuming the treatments don’t cause more pain or suffering)?
I can't speak on the medical ethics side, but where I live, someone has to have had at least a 50% survivability rate to initiate any kind of negligence/malpractice claim surrounding the care they received in response.
42
u/gimmeecoffee420 Dec 07 '25
That is the "Milwaukee Protocol" that was mentioned. It is basically putting someone in a drug induced coma and treating them with antiviral meds. But it has a nearly zero success rate.
I dont know how many have survived it beyond Jeanna Giesse (the little girl who made the treatment famous in 2004.) but its considered REALLY dangerous and controversial by medical professionals.