Evaluating a drug in a ridiculous amount of time.
To write a book, to take care of an orchid garden or to decorate a living room, amateurs are often better than professionals.
What happens is that amateurs usually have a passion that you don’t find in those who do things as a way of life.
Because what you do for money and routine becomes mechanical, lacking creativity, without soul.
That’s why for many things I don’t believe in professionals, because it seems to me that sometimes professionals are like prostitutes to love; I hope f I’m making myself clear.
I see this with medical publications.
The “professionals” of the publications, that is, those who only dedicate themselves to doing studies, do not usually publish things that change clinical practice.
I’m not saying that what they research isn’t interesting, but often, it has little impact.
While clinicians, in addition to seeing patients, publish about what they see and, of course, they do have an impact.
At Savana we had a department dedicated to talking to clinicians.
And we closed it.
We removed it because departments are not necessary when something comes out on its own.
We are good at talking to doctors because we speak their real language.
That of having little time and a lot of desire to do things.
That is why our obsession, our obstinate obsession, is on how to shorten the time of the studies more and more.
How to have the data clean, refined,… as ready as possible so that when someone thinks of launching a question, we only have to execute it.
This is what happened with the article “Use of N-Acetylcysteine at high doses as an oral treatment for patients hospitalized with COVID-19”, done by pulmonologists in ridiculously short times, thanks to the fact that they had the data in Savana ready for the time of their question.