- This topic has 382 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
A large blind study was released today on this topic. “The take-home message for the general public is that if you’re exposed to someone with Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine is not an effective post-exposure, preventive therapy,” the lead author of the study, Dr. David R. Boulware, from the University of Minnesota, said in an interview.”The results are being published in The New England Journal of Medicine. I’m sure there will be more studies to come but this is an important one.
If Dr. Zelenko’s patients were tested for anti-bodies to see how many of his patients actually had Covid, would that scientifically impact the significance of his treatment?
Also if his patients were examined for (lasting) side effects caused by HCQ-Zinc treatment would that scientifically tell us anything about the potential harm / safety of the protocol? Especially if it was given to non-ill patients?Are you referring to a self reporting study which has zero verifiable data?
Nah.. not good enough.
Nah.. not good enough.
I’m just speaking in theory. (If this was someone independent/credible doing the testing.
If someone has no anti-bodies (which I understand to mean they did not have the coronavirus) but Dr. Zelenko gave them his protocol (just in case) wouldn’t the percentage of those people who were or weren’t damaged tell us something about the safety of the protocol?
And also wouldn’t those who have the antibodies (meaning they had the virus) who got the treatment early and it didn’t progress, tell us something about the protocol’s efficacy? I’m just asking theory. Not suggesting we should accept Zelenko’s protocol in actuality based on this study.
Ubiq wrote:
“but back to the subject at hand. medical decisions shouldnt (necessarily) be made based on anecdotal reports by one doctor with promise that data will come later. Especially when other doctors report anecdotal reports in the reverse.
Is that really such a crazy thing to say?
note even if you think following one doctor’s anecdotal report is reasonable ( and I don’t disagree as I made clear over 2 months ago and dozens of times since) . You STILL agree with me unless you think aLL doctors should follow the report of one (or a few) doctor’s anecdotal reports”
So you Ubiq, BOTH AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH YOUR OWN SATATEMENT AND HAVE BEEN DOING SO FOR 2 MONTHS!
VERY FUNNY!In the study by Dr. David R. Boulware, from the University of Minnesota, “they enrolled more than 800 adults in the United States and Canada who were exposed to someone with covid-19 because of their jobs as health-care workers or first responders, or because they lived with someone with the disease.”
and had not yet (or maybe had) developed the symptoms.
How is all that random?And only 20% of people in the study were self-medicating with zinc.. and only ½ of them were given HOQ. How much Zinc were they taking? Were they democrats or republicans? (yes, that is relevant).
Only 10% possibly taking zinc, unknown dose.And while everyone was self-distancing, the people in the study were not self-distancing by the definition of the study.
The HOQ doses given were quite high, toxicity may have destroyed any semblance of a balance in the treatment of people, which may have contributed to a higher infection result.
There are a few unanswered questions here..Ready
“So you Ubiq, BOTH AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH YOUR OWN SATATEMENT ”what statement?
“How is all that random?”
From the study: “Within 4 days after exposure, we randomly assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine ”See if you can spot the magic word.
did you catch it? Here it is again: “Within 4 days after exposure, we RANDOMLY assigned participants to receive either placebo or hydroxychloroquine.. ”
“And only 20% of people in the study were self-medicating with zinc”
The study wasn’t looking at Zinc“How much Zinc were they taking?
The study wasn’t looking at Zinc.” Were they democrats or republicans?”
So there you go! Dr. Z’s regimen only works on republicans. Maybe THAT’s why it isnt generalizable to the general population!“And while everyone was self-distancing, the people in the study were not self-distancing by the definition of the study.”
got it so HCQ might help you if you self distance
Please let me know if you have any other questions.
Before that though: “So you Ubiq, BOTH AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH YOUR OWN SATATEMENT ”
What statement are you referring to please ?“I’m just speaking in theory. (If this was someone independent/credible doing the testing.”
Online study with self-reporting data used, anyone quoting this ‘study’ without being transparent about the unverifiable methods being used, is dishonest.
“So there you go! Dr. Z’s regimen only works on republicans.”
LOL, and the democrats have the protests and riots that handled the virus for them..
Everything is political and biased, on all sides of the spectrum. People that say otherwise are dishonest.
So the allegation that HCQ is dangerous has been debunked. See NY Post. 06/04/2020 5:15 PM. Now let’s get some real tests of the Zelenko Protocol.
“medical decisions SHOULDN’T (necessarily) be made based on anecdotal reports by one doctor with promise that data will come later. ”
compare this “Ubiq” statement to the following “Ubiq” statement-if you think following one doctor’s anecdotal report IS REASONABLE ( and I DON”T DISAGREE as I made clear over 2 months ago and dozens of times since).
“So you Ubiq, BOTH AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH YOUR OWN STATEMENT ”
Okay, it is a bit confusing all in disarray, but GUESS WHAT? Both the recent studies we have debated in the last few posts (except for DR Z’s, have been retracted as there is no verifiable data that can be delivered for peer review) see the last line in my post here below.PS The group in one of the defunct recent studies were a group exposed to coronavirus in intense situations, they were not a cross-section of society. They were THEN “randomized”. I havw written-“And while everyone was self-distancing, the people in the study were not self-distancing by the definition of the study.” so that is why they were not a random group from the inception of the now defunct study.
And this is the point, of course they were not looking at zinc – zinc is the missing link (virtually) of their study, the missing “center-piece”.
In a climate where the opponents of President Trump decry his use of HOQ and zinc, my statement –
“Were they democrats or republicans? (yes, that is relevant).”
again is relevant.
see-
Retraction: “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or …www.thelancet .com › lancet › article““So you Ubiq, BOTH AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH YOUR OWN STATEMENT ””
the two statements are not at all contradictory and are two of my statement Ive ben saying since day 1
““medical decisions SHOULDN’T (necessarily) be made based on anecdotal reports by one doctor with promise that data will come later. ””
Absolutly true . do you disagree? I don’t think anyone does
“if you think following one doctor’s anecdotal report IS REASONABLE ( and I DON”T DISAGREE as I made clear over 2 months ago and dozens of times since).”
Absolutely true. do you disagree? I dont think anyone does.
to sum up:
A. If a doctor thinks a certain treatment will help. He should prescribe that treatment. (second statement above)
B. Just because one doctor claims success doesnt mean all doctors must follow it. (first stament above)Ive been saying this over and over and over and over
what if any of the above are you disagreeing with?
” Both the recent studies we have debated in the last few posts”
I havent debated any study. you must have me confused with someone else. True I pointed out numerous errors and oversights you made but I’m not debating any study., just trying to help you understand them.“they were not a cross-section of society.”
no they are not. so?“They were THEN “randomized”.”
Yes, As I pointed out to you.“so that is why they were not a random group ”
No they were not a random group, I believe they were all healthcare workers.“were not self-distancing by the definition of the study”
If youre self distancing why do you need HCQ to prevent you from getting Covid. Who would you get it from?“In a climate where the opponents of President Trump”
why does the Lancet care about Trump?
and aderaba they retracted! could you imagine Trump retracting anything he’s ever saidanyay this is all a side show
My main point is :to sum up:
A. If a doctor thinks a certain treatment will help. He should prescribe that treatment. (second statement above)
B. Just because one doctor claims success doesn’t mean all doctors must follow it. (first stament abovewhich if any of these do you disagree with ?
OK Ubiq, you win with”not necessarily”, but you have made two very cofounding statements nevertheless.
Also, you made out they were randomized in all respects, they were not. So biased candidates for study., may give a biased result.
Re: self distancing-because, the population was told to self-distance to save their lives, but the study group did not.
Repeating: Retraction: “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or …www.thelancet .com › lancet › articleLet us hope and pray that the coronavirus and all diseases move away from humanity.
Ready now:
Here is a compilation of the many many times I have said the 2 not contradicting statements
A. If a doctor thinks a certain treatment will help. He should prescribe that treatment.
B. Just because one doctor claims success doesn’t mean all doctors must follow(mods, to make your job easier these all or verabtim pulled from previosuly approved comments, spelling mistakes left alone just date added, (lots of free time at hospital bh))
April 6 “That said for a sick pateitn the benefit (possible survivial) outweighs the risk so might as well give it. For healthy patients, the vast majority, the benefit doesnt outweigh the risk. For more moderate patients is questionable, I’d err on the side of giving.”
April 6 As I said in my first post “That said for a sick patient the benefit (possible survivial) outweighs the risk so might as well give it.”
April 6 “Does HCQ help Pts with Covid19? Maybe some anecdotal reports say yes other say no. Lets study it. Whats the harm in giving it? So for some youre right there is no harm as IVe said several times ) “
April 7 “Again, I’m not saying not to give it in all cases. but his “data” proves exactly nothing.”
April 11 “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.””April 13 “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 “
April 13 “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.”
April 13 “Dr Zelenko would agree. It is not proven, his argument is what the harm, and I;m not sure I disagree.”
April 13 “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”April 14 “and thats fine. I’m not trying to dissuade you from following his advice. that is not the topic of this thread.”
April 17 “At any rate this is way of topic.
If you like the study (that was halted early) go ahead and give low dose HCQ.I’m not interested in a discussion as to whether HCQ is efficaicous or not (since there isnt enough data)
The topic of this thread. Is solely why not everyone is following Dr. Zelenko’s reported success.”April 19 “I’m still not clear on what your point is.
for the10th ? 20th? time I never said not to take, it nor that it doesnt help with or without zinc. That isnt the subject of this thread”April 19 “And again, as Ive said from the onset Im not “against it” let alone “so against it” I’m just poitning out to the lack of data.”
April 21 “does this mean the benefit outweigh the risk? – Maybe “
April 23 “Neither his experience nor mine puts the issue to rest.
We need studies.”April 24 “There is not enough data. period Dr Zelenko would probably agree. (though hed add what do we lose, which is a fair point as IVe said from the onset)”
April 30 “Again to remind you we are not discussing whterh HCQ works. We are not discussing whether it is reasonable to give it anyway and hope for the best. So if you are now saying “Ok it might not work, but what is thee to lose. ” Well I said that in my first post in this long repetitive thread”
May 8 “Again, just to be clear since although Imentioned this over a dozen times on variosu threads, it is a while since I have. I am not opposed to giving HCQ nor zinc nor both.”
May 12 “I am saying one thing and one thing only: Dr. Zelenko’s patients report does not prove that HCQ helps. That is all.”
May 14 ““So, okay to treat coronavirus, short-duration medication,” Was this in dispute?”
May 15 “From my very first post I made clear I am not opposed to giving HCQ here is the quote “For more moderate patients is questionable, I’d err on the side of giving.”
I then repeated this point approximatly a dozen times to make sure it wasnt getting lost.”May 19 “And again, becasue you keep forgetting this point. This thread is not about whether HCQ works (yes with zinc ) nor whether it is ok for doctors who think it works to prescribe it (with zinc). Of course all doctors should prescribe medications they think work (with zinc) and as I said I prescribed it (with zinc)”
May 20 “Again, just because a medication has risks is not a reason not to use it “
May 24 ““if the life would hang in the balance with the threat of coronavirus. The risks have to be weighed”no question. I literally said this in my very first post way back on April 6. Go check its still there”
May 25 “Again, as a reminder what this thread is about (it has been running for 250 posts for almost 2 months so easy to lose track) The OP asked “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country”
I am not arguing to use it I am not arguing not to use it (I said this explicitly over a dozen times )”May 27 “Reminder this thread isnt about whether HCQ helps (with zinc) Its whther everyone should prescribe it becasue Dr. Z said so.”
May 27 “Again to reiterate I am not disputing the study, and I am nto saying HCQ doesnt work.”
May 27 “I was never opposed to it, IVe given it before if patient wants it I’d prescribe it”
June 3 “note even if you think following one doctor’s anecdotal report is reasonable ( and I don’t disagree as I made clear over 2 months ago and dozens of times since) “
“but you have made two very cofounding statements nevertheless.”
No I have not
I repeated the same thing in various iterations over and over.
The question was “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country ”I replied that there is no reason for doctors to prescribe a medication just because one guy claimed anecdotal success.
I also said If a doctor thinks his patient will benefit from a medication he absolutely should prescribe it.
I have repeated various iterations of the above now fewer than 29 times in this thread alone (see separate post)
“Also, you made out they were randomized in all respects, they were not”
I don’t think yoou know what randomized means. they were NOT a random sample, they were randomized to treatment or placebo .“So biased candidates for study., may give a biased result.”
Of course! Though not really “bias” what you mean is is this group generalization to the general population? perhaps not.“Re: self distancing-because, the population was told to self-distance to save their lives, but the study group did not.”
Unlcear how that would change the effect of HCQ. They weren’t being compared to “the general population” comapring to similar patients who did not self distance and id not get HCQ“but you have made two very cofounding statements nevertheless.”
No I have not
I repeated the same thing in various iterations over and over.
The question was “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country ”I replied that there is no reason for doctors to prescribe a medication just because one guy claimed anecdotal success.
I also said If a doctor thinks his patient will benefit from a medication he absolutely should prescribe it.
I have repeated various iterations of the above now fewer than 29 times in this thread alone (see separate post)
“Also, you made out they were randomized in all respects, they were not”
I don’t think yoou know what randomized means. they were NOT a random sample, they were randomized to treatment or placebo .“So biased candidates for study., may give a biased result.”
Of course! Though not really “bias” what you mean is is this group generalization to the general population? perhaps not.“Re: self distancing-because, the population was told to self-distance to save their lives, but the study group did not.”
Unlcear how that would change the effect of HCQ. They weren’t being compared to “the general population” comapring to similar patients who did not self distance and id not get HCQHey!
This thread is almost as long as the vaccine thread..!
I wrote-the population was told to self-distance to save their lives, but the study group did not.”
Ubiq wrote- “Unlcear how that would change the effect of HCQ. They weren’t being compared to “the general population” comapring to similar patients who did not self distance and id not get HCQ”
So a greater exposure may affect the course and end result in an illness.
CONCLUSIONS (from the withdrawn study, which had 20% people self-medicating with unknown doses of zinc): (and ½ of those being given placebo, not HOQ)
“After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as post exposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number”After exposure OR after exposure and showing symptoms? If “as postexposure prophylaxis” they probably mean no symptoms had developed, or did they?
The study was withdrawn, so let us ignore it.
“The study was withdrawn, so let us ignore it.”
sure!
but you did ask some questions :
“I wrote-the population was told to self-distance to save their lives, but the study group did not.””
Yes but the study group was NOT compared to the general population. the Study group (those who got HCQ) and did not self isolate where compared to a control group (those who got placebo) and did not self isolate.
(which group a person entered was completely random)“After exposure OR after exposure and showing symptoms?
After exposure before symptoms. that is what “prophylaxis” means“After exposure before symptoms. that is what “prophylaxis” means ”
This line is unclear.
prophylaxis means before disease develops, ie before develop symptoms. could have pre or post exposre prophylaxis but not post symptom prophylaxis At that point it is a treatment not prophylaxis.
“prophylaxis” is a “loaded” word, as I wrote:
“After exposure OR after exposure and showing symptoms? If “as postexposure prophylaxis” they probably mean no symptoms had developed, or did they?”
But,
is it a loaded word?
It “prophylaxis” should possibly mean “before any exposure at all and as a preventative measure it is given, even before antibodies are produced by the patient.”reayd now
words have meanings. prophylaxis means a measure taken to prevent disease.
It can be pre or post exposure. After symptoms develop it is no longer prophylaxis it is treatment.I don’t know where you got your definition it doesn’t make sense. How can a patient possibly produce antibodies if they were never exposed in the first place. Biologically this makes no sense
It, “prophylaxis” should possibly mean “before any exposure at all and as a preventative measure it is given, even before antibodies are produced by the patient.”
That is right, antibodies cannot be produced if the patient has never been exposed to the disease. So prophylaxis can be given and called what it is: prophylaxis.Post-exposure it MAY or MAY NOT be prophylaxis depending on whether the patient’s immune system was at all triggered. If it was triggered then the “prophylaxis” is not really “prophylaxis.
OK, show of hands: How many of you folks who have posted 4 or more comments on this thread have a medical degree or a bachelor’s degree (or higher) in a physical science (biology, chemistry, physics, geology)?
“OK, show of hands: How many of you folks who have posted 4 or more comments on this thread have a medical degree or a bachelor’s degree (or higher) in a physical science (biology, chemistry, physics, geology)?”
I prefer to argue and discuss stuff on the merits and context of their post and dismiss the argument of authority.
Does playing doctor in the coffee room count?
So far, not so good.
“I prefer to argue and discuss stuff on the merits and context of their post and dismiss the argument of authority.”
+1
I happen to have a medical degree, but I don’t think I ever (intentionally) used it as a way to validate my opinion . I dont think I even let on to that fact until recently, though it may have been apparent from some of the debates IVe gotten more animated about.Just like I’m entitled to an opinion on any myriad of issues unrelated to medicine, (s a quick perusal of topics I have commented on would indicate) anyone can comment on medical issues.
OF course it goes without saying nobody should take medical, legal or halachic advice based solely on some anonymous poster’s claim to be a doctor/lawyer/Rabbi
Ready
as you know I would love to continue any and all conversation and continue to answer nay questions that still linger .
But I have absolutly no clue what you are trying to say in your last post.I do have a question for you. Any idea when Dr. Zelenko is releasing his study? He said “2 weeks” about 2 months ago
I am not a doctor or a Rabbi but have many opinions. No idea how often I’m correct but I always feel correct. Facts don’t impress me as they may be fake. Judging from this thread I have a lot of company.
To History Buff: If the facts are fake, they are not facts. Does tautology impress you?
As for the show of hands re bits of medical or scientific expertise, the count is up to one.
“I happen to have a medical degree, but I don’t think I ever (intentionally) used it as a way to validate my opinion . I dont think I even let on to that fact until recently, though it may have been apparent from some of the debates IVe gotten more animated about.”
i have noticed this, and have a lot of respect for you. this is not real life, this is an anonymous online discussion and we should never take into consideration peoples claims of authority in any matter.
in real life, authorities in certain areas matters a lot.
Ubiq wrote”prophylaxis means before disease develops, ie before develop symptoms. could have pre or post exposure prophylaxis but not post symptom prophylaxis At that point it is a treatment not prophylaxis.”
I wrote “That is right, antibodies cannot be produced if the patient has never been exposed to the disease. So prophylaxis can be given and called what it is: prophylaxis. Post-exposure it MAY or MAY NOT be prophylaxis depending on whether the patient’s immune system was at all triggered. If it was triggered then the “prophylaxis” is not really “prophylaxis.”
Ubiq then wrote: “But I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say in your last post.”
ready
“Ubiq then wrote: “But I have absolutely no clue what you are trying to say in your last post.””
Still holds true. repeating it verbatim doesnt help .
Are you arguing? agreeing ? asking? repeating what I said in a different way?2scents
thanks for your kind words.“this is not real life”
totally agree with your sentiment.
Plus in real life I dont really repeat the same thing over and over for 2 months 🙂To 2scents: This website is not real life? I never understood it that way, but now that you mention it, that makes a lot of sense. I am surprised the moderators let you reveal their secret. So, how about Torah – real life or not?
Repaired
“but not post symptom prophylaxis ”
Post-exposure it MAY or MAY NOT be prophylaxis depending on whether the patient’s immune system was at all triggered.
If it was triggered then the “prophylaxis” is not really “prophylaxis.”“Post-exposure it MAY or MAY NOT be prophylaxis”
Yes obviously.
Of course not every medication taken before or after exposure is always prophylaxis We are in full agreement there.‘could have pre or post exposure prophylaxis but not post symptom prophylaxis”
no, not “post exposure prophylaxis ” unless the immune response was triggered.sorry you lost me
I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.
A prophylaxis is “action taken to prevent disease, especially by specified means or against a specified disease” It has nothing to do with the presence or absence of an immune response. If a person has a disease, then by definition (see definition above) it is no longer a prophylaxis but a treatment.
Are you arguing? are you making a new definition of “prophylaxis” that you are trying to sell?
do you have a question?BTW the authors of the NEJM study (Boulware et al) have submitted a A Randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled trial on early outpatient treatment w/ HCQ.
Any idea whats taking Dr. Z so long?
Ubiq wrote”could have pre or post exposure prophylaxis but not post symptom prophylaxis At that point it is a treatment not prophylaxis.”
I don’t think that is exactly so as “post exposure prophylaxis” may be really treatemnt if the antibodies have been triggered.
Of course, it depends on what sort of exposure too.
It appears that Dr Zelenko is waiting on supporting letters from other authorities. His data is being compared to a similarly matched group of people from the same area as his patients, but who unfortunatelywere not given his regimen.
It seems another couple of weeks wait from the video I saw.“It seems another couple of weeks wait from the video I saw.”
super excited!
will check in thenready now
Any updates?
Ive been waiting with bated breath (ldon’t worry y IVe been taking HCQ so I’m fine)zinc
Dear Ubiquitin,
I am sure you are aware that the Recovery trial came out with their study.That study is specific for in-hospital patients, the consensus more or less is that there is no benefit for in-hospital patients.
The claim, but those who still claim that it is beneficial is mainly if started early, prior to symptoms that require hospitalization.
Published yesterday in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases.
Conclusions and Relevance
In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.Thanks 2scents very interesting hadn’t seen it
I did not have a chance to actually read it, just glanced at it.
Dr Zelenko’s study was published online today
“COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series Study”I didnt read the whole thing (yet) but at first glance it suffers from the flaw I have been saying all along. what ar they beign compared to? His control group was ” public reference data of patients in the same
community who were not treated with this therapy.” . Unfortunately as the authors note ” no other patient characteristics, clinical symptoms” We dont know much about them.And what we know about his patients does not seem to be generalizable to the population at large.
For example of his Group A (those > age 60 regardless of symptoms) seem generally healthier than the average >60 year old. 36% of them had no medical problems at all (Even when you include unrelated conditions like the 7 with psychiatric disorders) For example none had COPD. in the general population there’s a about 10% prevalence of COPD those over 60 and even higher for those > 70. How many of his control had COPD? We don’t know
The oldest person in his study was 69. How old is the control group? We dont knowSo all this study tells us is that a relatively young relatively healthy group did better than the general population. Thanks to his cocktail? We don’t know
(as an aside the treated number (n) is far less than he has been advertising (Ive heard him use 1000, 600, 400 though sometimes he was referring to all patients he saw many of whom he did not treat). the study includes 127 treated patients )
Ok read the study
Aside from the above point .His study did NOT show a statistically significant decrease in death in the treated group
” One patient (0.7%) died in the treatment group versus 13 patients (3.5%) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2,
95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16).”To be clear none of this indicates that HCQ doesn’t work Just that sadly his study does not show that it helps. After months of hype and waiting eagerly I’m a bit underwhelmed and disjointed.
Ubiq -“Just that sadly his study does not show that it helps.”
You must listen to his interview with Del Bigtree.
I saw it on the Lakewood Scoop.
It seems that he only made a small study that would be accepted by the rest of the scientific community. He only treated pts. in his practice with either old age or other serious medical issues. Other pts., even with Covid 19, were Not treated.
I think he had treated a total of 700 pts. Only 2 of those pts. died.
Very significant RESULTS.
He also claimed that there are 4 reasons the US Won’t accept this Tx.
His protocol is being used in Many Countries.
P.S. – I don’t like Bigtree on his theories about Vaxxing.
I don’t agree that pts. with Covid19 should take the Z-pack.
But I agree with the other two Drugs!“It seems that he only made a small study that would be accepted by the rest of the scientific community. ”
meh its not published in a journal it isnt peer reviewed.
those aren’t criticisms per se, just the notion that he limited it to get accepted when in reality he has more data that he is suppressing doesn’t hold water.“But I agree with the other two Drugs!”
and thats fine You can believe whatever you want. But Dr. Zelenko’s “research” doesnt prove it.
Any updates?
Yes, now they’re saying it works.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.