Hydroxychloroquine

Your statistics are very scientific you just forgot one thing with all your degrees didnt figure out . Lakewood is 2/3 Jewish we comparing only that segment of the population so is just about Double KJ

Ubiq -“Sure in secret graduade school where they teach secret supreme court cases they may have taghut it but not in most schools”

So what your saying is – just like you couldn’t find my court case – you won’t be able to find my cure for Covid! That’s good news for me – because less competition.

Ubiq: I am really not picking on you!
You said, “Yes, the vast vast majority of people with symptoms do well without HCQ.”

But the POINT IS: you do NOT know which ones!
You do not know which ones will do well without HCQ if they have symptoms.

THAT is the POINT!

FYI, update from a hospital in France that they stopped the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combo due to adverse cardiac effects.

Don’t know enough about the specifics there but if this combo is not good for the 1% with high-risk of cardiac effects, then it is not effective on the population that might be the highest risk of dying from this. Just another point to keep in mind when evaluating outcomes with this treatment and how this is a bias in the people selected for the treatment.

hi, the posts -the latest ones, are not showing up.

mattisyahu -“FYI, update from a hospital in France that they stopped the hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin combo due to adverse cardiac effects.”

Now you know why I posted this on page 1:
“2nd, I recommend HCQ + zinc, not Azithromycin.”

Really? what med school did you attend? residency?

there actually was a randomized controlled study with 80 patients in china and it did work.

Link removed 

CS -“Really? what med school did you attend? residency?”

I’m not revealing anymore about myself.

Ubiq -“No I’m saying they dont exist.”

I know – You’ve been saying that for years. But for 2 million, I’ll give you the court case.

“And I can prove it: no Jew would withold revealing a treatment due to fears of “competition.” So you are lying about something.”

I haven’t withheld anything!
From page one:
“First of all, I have a possible tx. for very sick pts., but I’m still trying to get a pharm. corp. involved.
2nd, I recommend HCQ + zinc, not Azithromycin.
It should be given early on. If given early enough, just take Zinc.”

You see?!?
For very sick pts., I’d give you the formula, but I don’t make drugs or chemicals, I need to partner with the Pharm. corps.

Everyone who can’t get Hydroxychloriquine should buy Quercetin which is also a zinc Ionophore so may work the same. It’s safe and good to take with a zinc supplement. Montreal researchers are studying it now to treat coronavirus.

“I know – You’ve been saying that for years. But for 2 million, I’ll give you the court case.”

So this might surprise you, but the market for fake supreme court cases has crashed and I’m sorry you wont be getting much.

“And all the other doctors experiencing lower hospitalization rates. Unless they are all lying???”

At no point did I say or imply that anybody, let alone everybody is lying

“then you should please stop professing to know for sure that Hydroxychloroquine isn’t helping any early stage COVID-19 patients.”

I’d love to explain anything you have trouble with but you have to read what i wrote. At No point did I claim to know, let alone to “know for sure”, that Hydroxychloroquine wasnt helping.
In fact In my first post on this thread I explicitly said the opposite “For more moderate patients is questionable, I’d err on the side of giving.”

Ubiq -“So this might surprise you, but the market for fake supreme court cases has crashed and I’m sorry you wont be getting much.”

I never met S/O like you before; you admitted that you’re a Nefro, not a Lawyer, but you insist (for years) that I never had a court case that went to the US Supreme Court. I hope that you don’t ever practice in Jersey – so I won’t have to ever deal with you!

Ubiq:
You made you “walking well”! You say “well”, everyone else says ” I am running from this”!
The people he treated had coronavirus symptoms which are different from the flu.
Of all people who have symptoms 7 to 13% die, see the stats everywhere from many countries, that is the pandemic you appear to dismiss as not requiring serious measures.

Ubiq -“So, I guess you dont know this but information about ALL supreme court cases are publicly available to lawyers and non-lawyers alike.
Now just in case secret supreme court cases are not available, this too may surprise you but I have some friends who are lawyers , and they assured me (as I expected) that there where no secret supreme court cases. Of course it is possble that there is a super secret supreme court that only you know about , but bad news if only you know about it I’m not interested.”

Ha-Ha. I guess your friends didn’t tell you the whole truth. They separate the cases from the oral arguments to the other ones. I was from the other ones.

“7% is the percentage of AT-RISK patients who die”

source please

“Apparently you don’t realize that every hospitalized patient started off as a so called “walking ill”.”
sometimes yes, sometimes no.

“Just to go over it again, that means if you take a random sample of 500 at-risk people who have symptoms, about 30 should end up dying. Agreed?”

key owrds: “random sample”

“So if a Dr. Like Dr. Zelnko treats 500 random at-risk patients, ”
Yes! If he did that.

but……. he didnt do that. As IVe been saying over and over HE SELECTED the walking well. He is limited to Kiryas Joel (maybe they have extra fluoride in the water that helps? maybe they have a better hospital system, it isnt random”

“Agreed? Great!”
It is great!
You finally get it. To have meaning, he would need to take a “random sample” (your words)
He didnt, thus his data s not necessarily generalizable.
Again and toeb crystal clear: He may be right (as Ive said in the first comment and about every other comment since then). but his data does not show that As YOU acknowedge by the fact that you stuck in the word ” random” which is not what happened

secondly, ready now

“Further 737 people die taking total to 10,612 as cases rise by 5,288 to 84,279″
10,612 divided by 84,279 = That makes 12.59% death rate.”

Approximately 0% of Dr. Zelenko’s patients would be in the denominator of that figure (had we been in the UK) because that is percentage of those TESTED. As Dr. Zelenko readily reports, he did NOT test his patients

ready now

This conversation is going down some strange rabbit hole, and I am no longer sure what your point is.

To remind you we are discussing “why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country (lenox hill, KJ, etc.) and has almost no risk (no heart attacks have been reported even though many doses have been given)?”

THAT is the discussion

You now ask “How on earth was he supposed to use his med regimen on people who in a “random sample” might not even have had coronavirus infection?! ”
I have no idea what you are saying. a. He DID give his regimen to people who might not have it and b. We don’t know what would have happened to any sick people had they not gotten it (the vast vast majority of these patients do fine)
Again to be clear: I am not saying he is wrong. I am not faulting him for not doing a proper RCT. I am solely answering the question, why just because he says he has success others aren’t convinced.

“means that it is random only in the sense that it is “first to need my services will ring my office for an appointment first”, ”

Then it isn’t random. you are selecting one area, you are selecting those with minor symptoms, you are selecting those who are more conscientious as to how they are feeling (“first to need” ) , as others have pointed out the demographics of his patients are not generalizable. AGAIN this isn’t a fault with him. It is just why this may not be generalizable.

Here is a summary of his study:
500 patients who may or may not have had Coronovirus, and who were feeling pretty well with mild symptoms took HCQ and did not die.

Do you disagree with any point of the above synopsis?
Do you really not understand who some would not find that compelling?

Mamale

1. So if not the water maybe its the air. (I dont mean thsi literally I’m just pointing out ONE problem with generalizing his data)

2. “Even his naysayers don’t claim he’s not a good doctor.”
I never implied otherwise. nor am I a naysayer.

“So you’d have to believe he’s clueless if you claim that because most patients weren’t tested they don’t have Corona”
I never claimed that. I said we don’t know

“As a medical professional, do you need a test to show someone’s skin is pale and clammy, their eyes are jaundiced etc?”
Those are symptoms not a diagnosis. It would be pretty impressive if someone could see someone’s skin as pale and clammy and diagnose the organism that was causing sepsis

“Why is Coronavirus different?”
Its not, and you (like many posters here) are missing the point. I’m not faulting him for treatign his patients as if they had corona with no test.
I am saying that (is part of the reason that ) data is therefore not generlizable

3. He (by definition) is treating those wit hsymptoms so mild that they don’t need an ER . would fair just as well had they been sicker? may be maybe not (I’m not slaying they wouldn’t have I’m saying we don’t know )

“I also find this thread a bit comical,”
totally!

I ma not saying anything remotely controversial . I am not sure how this is a debate.
I’m not criticizing the doctor, I am not saying it shouldn’t be prescribed (both of which I’d understand why people would get riled up)
All I am saying is why although one person may have had success, it isnt so cut and dry

I’m honestly confused and slightly amused that this thread is causing so much angst.

Ubiq wrote: “I have no idea what you are saying. a. He DID give his regimen to people who might not have it and b. We don’t know what would have happened to any sick people had they not gotten it (the vast vast majority of these patients do fine)”

a0 No, he gave the regimen to people who showed symptoms.

b) If any sick people would not have been given his regimen, some may have died, has v’sholom.

c) By not giving the regimen to sick people who later do “fine”, he is exposing them to death as he cannot foretell or predict who will become sicker and then die.

d) You are asking for sick people to not be treated, for the sake of a “scientific study”, when it is known that the medication, in a life and death scenario, does on occasion work. That is not good, in the real world.

If we can shorten and simplify this discussion.

No one claims there is clear evidence that Hydroxychloroquine works.

Medicine in general is based on clear data/evidence.

Even Dr. Z. Said that all he has is anecdotal observations.

He agrees that this does not meet the standard for medical treatment protocols, but is making the argument that these are unusual times and his anecdotal observations should be accepted.

Some primary care physicians are prescribing it even out if hospital, some asking that the patients get an ekg before starting the meds, as well as after day 1.

“some may have died, has v’sholom”
yes “MAY” have died.

No not making any assumptions, just taking what the Dr said at face value, that he is sure the ones he treated were coronavirus.

Oh, by the way, have you noticed that the TB vaccine may also be useful?

ready now

“No not making any assumptions, just taking what the Dr said at face value, that he is sure the ones he treated were coronavirus.”

and thats fine. I’m not trying to dissuade you from following his advice. that is not the topic of this thread.

“Oh, by the way, have you noticed that the TB vaccine may also be useful?”
Yes. (“MAY” being the key word)

“They are NOT using an untreated control group.”

The article refrences “Chloroquine diphosphate in two different dosages as adjunctive therapy of hospitalized patients with severe respiratory syndrome in the context of coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) infection: Preliminary safety results of a randomized, double-blinded, phase IIb clinical trial (CloroCovid-19 Study)” They are studying the safety of High dose HCQ.

and here is the kicker…. they found it WAS NOT safe, and they halted the trial early!
Did you read the article??
That’s your proof that everybody should take HCQ??
how baffling

“It is zinc that does the final knockout to the virus! Where is it?”
a. The Zinc wont make the HCQ safer
b. SO dont use HCQ alone, use it with ZINC. I’m not sure what your point is