- This topic has 382 replies, 39 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
Ubiq -“meh”
Is this an English word? What does it mean? I only heard from you.
“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.”
IDK. Maybe he has a different reason.
First listen to the Interview & then come back to here to discuss it.
“But Dr. Zelenko’s “research” doesnt prove it.”
In that interview, he actually discusses the definition of “Proving something”.
He has a different definition!
Come back here to discuss, if you don’t agree with him, after seeing the Interview.“Is this an English word?”
Yes, though it is informal ie slang
“What does it mean? ”
expressing a lack of interest or enthusiasm. – Google is your friend“IDK. Maybe he has a different reason.”
could be or maybe he doesn’t ….
Bottom line the argument you gave “It seems that he only made a small study that would be accepted by the rest of the scientific community” doesnt make sense“He has a different definition!”
Oy . A secret supreme court definition?“Come back here to discuss, if you don’t agree with him, after seeing the Interview.”
meh.I never disagreed with him. If you want to give it go for it.
“Any updates?
Yes, now they’re saying it works.”
that isnt the subject of this thread.
and besides I’m not sure who “they is”
There is an exciting study that finally shows promise, out of the Henry ford Health system. The data is nt as good as some of the studies showing no benefit (for example the HCQ arm was more likely to get steroids which have been shown to help)
But nonetheless still a refreshing change for onceHealth
I watched the interview I stand by my succinct assessment.
“In that interview, he actually discusses the definition of “Proving something”.
He has a different definition!”I’m not sure if I saw the right interview (I saw the one with Del bigtree) He does nto really discuss the defitnion of “proving” He notes the idea that only Randomized controlled trials matter and rejects it saying why wait for those using a mashal of driftwood. I completely agree with Dr. Zelenko on this, there is a classic BMJ article from 2003 “Hazardous Journeys Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomized controlled trials” that criticizes the idea that only RCT matter.
If he thinks it works he should keep giving it. If any doctor thinks it works they should keep giving it. If a patient thinks it helps they should discuss it with their doctor, and if they dotnl iek the doctor’s answers they should get a new one. Thais has been my position since day one, and while the preponderance of data is indicating it does NOT work. The risk is minimal, and the data still inconclusive to say giving it is wrong.The problem wit his study is NOT that it isnt a RCT. (reread my comments )
The problem is that his treatment group is not comparable to the general population
Look at his Group A in whcich he treated all aged > 60.
How many of them were over 70? zero!
In the general population how many of those older than 60 are older than 70?
About half (data from statista)
How many of them have COPd ? Zero!
How many of the general population > 60 has COPD ? About 10%So his treatment group of thsoe > 60 are younger and healthier than the general population
Would it be any surprise that they outlived the general population when it comes to COVid 19?and here is the real kicker….
His Data did not show statistical significance tha his younger healthier group who got HCQ+zn survived HCQ
The P value was no sginificant. the confidence interval crossed one.This is why his study doesnt prove anythign (any way you defien prove) NOT that it wasnt A RCt.
Ubiq -“systematic review of randomized controlled trials” that criticizes the idea that only RCT matter”
“This is why his study doesnt prove anythign”I realize that his study is not a real study.
I think he had to put something in Print – Because he’s one of the few guys that are doing something about Covid19. He made national news.
This created a big Pushback from the Leftists, because Trump was on-board.
Btw, he gave his protocol to many Countries.
And one of them is Brazil.
I looked into Brazil. The President there is a Right-winger.
There also is a big Pushback about HCQ from the Leftists.
The picture that I’m Getting is that Human Life is NOT as important as Politics!Here’s proof that Zinc & HCQ works for Covid19:
From MedXiv – A retrospective study – Author Carlucci….
“Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.”Health
I m sorry I dont know what you are saying“Here’s proof that Zinc & HCQ works for Covid19:”
Great so keep giving it (though Carluccis study doesnt really prove that it proves it is better than HCQ alone
!
But hey, if you are convinced that is fine, I have no interest in talking you out of itThe question posed at the onset of this thread was why if Dr. Zelenko is havign success with the his protocol isnt everybod givign it ? (not a verbatim quote)
The answer was, he does not have evidence that his protocol is helping.
This still holds true today 3 months later.Now is it still true that there is no evidence that HCQ helps? I’m not so sure, I think so but I think reasonable people can disagree
Ubiq -“Great so keep giving it (though Carluccis study doesnt really prove that it proves it is better than HCQ alone!”
Let’s me & you use Some Brain Power!The FDA Removed the EUA of HCQ.
Basically because of the RECOVERY Trial in UK. (The arm on HCQ.)
You find the same/similar Trial From JAMA – May 11, 2020:
Conclusions and Relevance – “Among patients hospitalized in metropolitan New York with COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both, compared with neither treatment, was not significantly associated with differences in in-hospital mortality.”Now if you combine Zinc & HCQ, you have a GOOD Therapy that can Save Many LIVES!
“The NYU Study found a 44% reduction in Mortality, when given before needing ICU Admission.”““The NYU Study found a 44% reduction in Mortality, when given before needing ICU Admission.””
whenever a study makes a claim like that the key question to ask is “reduction in mortality” compared to what? to doing nothing/placebo? to some standard treatment? compared to throwing them of a building roof?
So the NYU study showed a reduction in mortality compared to ….
“compared to throwing them of a building roof?”
What’s the rationale behind this, or is this just a wild assumption your making?
Dear Two,
I would not call a 45% mortality rate from being thrown off a roof, a wild assumption. Being thrown is far more violent than jumping or falling. Admittedly, I am assuming this is a roof of a regular house. Falling from 48 feet, survival is estimated at fifty-fifty.“What’s the rationale behind this, or is this just a wild assumption your making?”
I’m not making any assumption.
whenever you talk about a reduction in mortality. By definition you need to determine reduction compared to what?
If I try to sell you a new detergent “guaranteed to clean your clothing 50% better! ”
Better than what? your current detergent? to no detergent ? 50% better than rubbing it in mud? Compared to what?So in Zelenkos study he showed that patients who got his protocol were hospitalized less than those who did not. (He was not able to show that the survived compared to those who did not )
so my question to Health was. the NYU study showed a reduction in mortality by using HCQ+Zinc. compared to what?
(to be clear I know what they compared it to, I think Health does too, I am trying to make a point)
I haven’t read the study and have no idea what it proves.
But, the fact that when during a supposedly dangerous pandemic a certified doctor comes up with a recipe that he claims will effectively treat the disease and the response is … Meh! And no govt institution state or federal seek to verify or disprove his claim leaving him to write his own study w no outside help and no serious studied were done besides his own is a disgrace.
And it seems that those who are disparaging Dr. Zelenko as not having proved anything are just naysayers. If you really have a hoot, since you are a ‘doctor’ and understand this stuff – go prove definitively one way or the other if it works.
When a bit of hope is offered – rational response – let’s look into it.
The jerk’s response:. You haven’t proven anything so wake me up again when you have.
By acting like Ceasar giving the proverbial thumbs down shows you are not serious people. Just interested in showing off your ability to engage in sophistry.
Dear By,
There were 350 medications that were discussed as possibly being useful against coronavirus. (NYT had an article linking to 70 of them.) These thing are studied in labs among advanced researchers. Only one medication was publicly debated. If your only ‘bit of hope’ is in the concoction of the local doctor, you could reconsider your take on the societal structure.Ubiq -“So the NYU study showed a reduction in mortality compared to ….”
This is a good question for a Layman.
You claim to be a Medical Professional!
So why didn’t you look it UP ?!?
Esp. since you practice Hospital Care.This is from that NYU Study:
“We performed a retrospective observational study to compare hospital outcomes among patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc versus hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone.”
It also says they excluded in this study anyone who was administered Other Trial Drugs.
I assume that they got regular Standard of Care.By
You could not be more wrong
Nobody’s response was “meh”All doctors I know (presen company included) prescribed it in the hope that it May work. Most of them (present company included ) did not see the amazing results that some were hyping and looked forward to saying documentation of said results.
Others did studies of their ownnobody said “meh” Everybody either tried it looked into it or both
“So why didn’t you look it UP ?!?”
I did, and I assumed you did to.
““We performed a retrospective observational study to compare hospital outcomes among patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc versus hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone.”
correct
“I assume that they got regular Standard of Care.”
No! they got HCQ without zinc. AS you wrote in the previous sentenceThe yfound that those who got HCQ + Zinc did better than those who got HCQ alone
But who says HCQ alone is a good treatment? some studies show those who got HCQ alone did WORSE than those who didnt ?
So which is better HCQ +Zinc or “regular standard of care”?
Carlucci doesn’t tell usToo lazy to read through 365 posts but the answer is obvious. Donald Trump said it was good so the media poo pooed it because “orange man badd” philosophy. Once the media poo pooed it the doctors, who are susceptible to public opinion as everyone else it didn’t give it out.
Ubiq -“No! they got HCQ without zinc. AS you wrote in the previous sentence”
What I meant was besides HCQ & Zpack, they got Standard of Care.
I thought that was obvious.“But who says HCQ alone is a good treatment? some studies show those who got HCQ alone did WORSE than those who didnt ?”
Which studies?
The Study I quoted above says they technically are the same.
So No Real difference to treat with HCQ or Zpack or both or neither.
Here it is again:
From JAMA – May 11, 2020:
“Conclusions and Relevance: – Among patients hospitalized in metropolitan New York with COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both, compared with neither treatment, was not significantly associated with differences in in-hospital mortality. However, the interpretation of these findings may be limited by the observational design.”“So which is better HCQ +Zinc or “regular standard of care”?
Carlucci doesn’t tell us”Right Now it’s Obvious!
Combine the 2 studies.
The JAMA Study tells us there basically is No difference between to treat with HCQ or Zpack or both or neither.
The NYU Study tells us -“We performed a retrospective observational study to compare hospital outcomes among patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc versus hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone.”
Then they go on to tell us this -“The NYU Study found a 44% reduction in Mortality, when given before needing ICU Admission.”So me & Zelenco & anybody else, that says give Zinc & HCQ or another Zn ionophore instead of HCQ, are correct in using this Tx. for Covid19.
Acc. to Zelenco, it really doesn’t work on day 6 and beyond – after onset of symptoms.
For the Umteenth Time, I don’t recommend Z-pack, unless there is documented Bacterial infection.Dear Resident,
In the real world there are scientists who study these things for years and years. They do not care about presidents, media, or public opinion.Ubiquitin
Maybe you had no success bc you’re an incompetent Doctor. You know that there are quite a few quacks out there.
All you seem able to do is impugn zelenko based on zero evidence. Sounds to me u r just jealous of his recent notoriety.
In the meantime, unless you are calling him a liar and if you are please come straight out and say it, he has treated 2000 patients w his prescription and only 2 deaths . He says when and how it should be used.
OTOH, we have you the armchair party pooper who tried to squash discussion based on your being a doctor. You are seeing patients early on like zelenko? You claim to be a nephrologist. Who goes to a nephrologist within a few days of catching a flu? You go to a nephrologist when your primary thinks you’re having kidney issues. Not within a few days of catching the flu. You sound very suspicious.
“Right Now it’s Obvious!
Combine the 2 studies.”Thats fair. The main study that showed harm had since been retracted. So my bringing it up was wrong.
“Maybe you had no success bc you’re an incompetent Doctor. You know that there are quite a few quacks out there.”
Not only is this a rude statement, but also ridiculous by calling someone with a doctor’s degree in medicine a quack, assuming ubiquitin is a doctor.
if one is confident about their position, they do not need to resort to shaming and name-calling, they can focus on the discussion at hand. There will always be people that are otherwise smart and knowledgeable that will disagree.
BY1212
“Maybe you had no success bc you’re an incompetent Doctor. You know that there are quite a few quacks out there.”Maybe, thats why I checked with others .
“All you seem able to do is impugn zelenko based on zero evidence.”
nope I pointed out flaws in his study
AND that his study did not show the results he claimed” Sounds to me u r just jealous of his recent notoriety.”
Jealous of getting run out of town? I don’t follow.
Though I think the attacks on him were wrong. (I also think his running around from talk show to talk show before he had any real data was wrong)“In the meantime, unless you are calling him a liar and if you are please come straight out and say it,”
Liar seems strong. Yes he stretched the truth a bit. His published data shows NO benefit in mortality , though it does show decrease hospitalizations. This is not at all clear from his statements on this.“he has treated 2000 patients w his prescription and only 2 deaths .”
wow the number keeps growing. The most Ive heard him claim was 1000, his study reported on 127.“OTOH, we have you the armchair party pooper who tried to squash discussion based on your being a doctor”
squash discussion? There are 351 posts in this thread (and this is the third thread on this though the others arent nearly as long) . It has lasted over 3 months now. You have a very funny definition of “sguashi[ing] discussion“Who goes to a nephrologist within a few days of catching a flu?”
dialysis patients…Thanks 2scentes
Ubiq -“So my bringing it up was wrong.”
I appreciate your honesty.
You’re improving, not like your denial of my lawsuit that went up to SCOTUS.In the real world the same scientists and doctors were advocating protesting because of racial injustice during a pandemic. they don’t get effected public opinion or what the media says.
Link removed
Dear Resident,
In the real world there are many more intellectuals. Most of them do not appear in public discourse.I read in my local Jewish newspaper (The Jewish Home) that the Mayo Clinic has approved Hydroxychloroquine to treat certain patients with Covid
In the end Health (and Zelenko) was right
forget about it
i did my own research on it now
sorry about that.
Coffee ☕️ withdrawal after Yom Kippur causing sudden gullibility syndrome?
No need to be sorry
Can you ask the paper where they source their stories. Let’s find out how disinformation travels.
“Can you ask the paper where they source their stories. Let’s find out how disinformation travels.“
It’s in a section with quotes (like a noted and quoted) that it was in the Mayo Clinic website and people quoted on it (the Mayo Clinic has removed it since due to it not being updated)
Dear coffee addict,
Mayo Clinic was the only major health provider that took HCQ as a serious treatment for COVID. However, unlike what some (many unfortunately frum) people would have you believe, they never treated it as a magic bullet that is a cure. For a period of time (probably between six months to a year) they used it as part of a regime under strict supervision of medical professionals. They stopped using it when better options became available, and when its effectiveness was questionable, at best. Last week some blogger noticed that it was still listed on their website, a holdover from 2020, and made a big fuss about it. So they removed it from their website.
That is all. This is all public knowledge reported in multiple sources that can easily be checked with archived websites. Do the research.
Coffee, this ain’t that simple. Multiple sources are quoting the same April 2020 article as if it were new. Unlikely that many people made same mistake at the same time. So, your local paper editor copied this from somewhere
It is either someone did an innocent mistake and others quoted it or someone maliciously spread the information around. Second option is more likely: such wide propagation is usually based on original mass mailing. In either case, a simple lesson is to not trust anything online.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.