- This topic has 215 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 4 years, 2 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
BY1212, the house select committee on coronavirus asked Dr. Fauci on zinc who said that there was no randomized study to rely on.
I have no idea about the true facts on this story and I am relying on what you, BY1212, post. You seem to be familiar with the facts, I have no idea about them. See quotation below:
<q> In an interview
Link removed
Dr. Zelenko tells of a 29 yr. Old pregnant woman who contracted covid and asked him about hcq etc. which he told her to take. But her local doctor said no. She ended up losing her baby and is now braindead and on a ventilator.
So she was cruelly denied a path that might have saved her and her baby by the fauci’s and ubiqs of the world and condemned to certain death.
She is one example of millions around the world.
Just to massage your
egos. Nice.
<\q>I am very happy to hear she is very much alive, contrary to what you previously reported. Also, braindead is a very specific condition, you did not say comatose or unresponsive. I do not want to raise a completely different and very thorny issue, let me just say that what you wrote did not sound likely.
So the facts are that she did not receive Dr Zelenko’s protocol and is still alive? Was it incorrect to state she has been “condamned to certain death”?
You also did not address my questions. Was the lady willing to take the medications? Was Dr Zelenko willing to prescribe them to her?
RE -“health, would you enumerate the many besides Harvey Frisch of Yale and the woman doctor?”
Do you mean the French woman doc?
If yes, she’s part of a group.So let’s see – there’s Dr. Zelenco & his group.
Dr. Anthony Cardillo from LA.
I’m sure that there are many more.
Why don’t you do some research before you decided that HCQ & Zinc aren’t effective for Covid19 ?!?
Or you just Blindly follow the Lib News & the DemonCrats?“You know I come into this site thinking to hear opinions of Torah yidden who are rachmonim bayshonim and gomlei chasidim and I find ghouls vampires and members of a death cult instead.
כגרוע שבעמים.”
i couldn’t have agreed with you moreGroup C – Get very sick go to hospital and do better
Are you saying that without hcq, there is no group c? Ie NoBODY would survive hospitalization?
Oh, a completely different imaginary study.
but how did you write-
“It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people DID NOT get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.”In reply I wrote-
How do you know they would have lived? That is simply an assumption.
You replied –
Group C – Get very sick GO TO hospital and do better
WHICH STUDY???? WENT to the hospital or DID NOT go to the hospital???So what is an imaginary Group C getting when they arrive in the hospital if they are very sick, just air?
How do they survive, any meds? just antibiotics?
What did Boris Johnson get? Anyone?Ready
“Oh, a completely different imaginary study”
Nope not refering to a study.
Let’s back up.
Dr. Zelenkos study showed a,resuction in hospitalization s not mortality.
Someone asked how is that possible. If less people a r e being hospitalized and the same number of people are dying Are people dying at home?
I explained by pointing out WITHOUT hcq there are several possible outcomes. SoMe get hospitalized and live (they get “supportive care”). I labeled this “group c”
They get concentrated oxygen, pressors if their pressure falls maybe heparin,I’m not sure why you call them “imaginary” are you saying nobody survived hospitalization without hcq?
Other patients go to the hospital and sadly do not make it. I labeled this group group D.With me so far. This is not based on a study (as I made clear) this is just outlining different categories of patients when it comes to covid
With me?
Back to the question how can a treatment decrease hospitalizations but not death?
I explained it can do this if it helps those who would have lived regardless (group c) but doesn’t help those who would,have died (grouo d)
Of course WE don’t know who is in which group (beforhand) and reducing hospitalizations is huge so if the study was otherwise valid, no question it would be signifucantUbiq – Thank you again for your responses.
Since HCQ is only the ‘Zelenko-recommended’ Ionophore for ZINC I’m now thinking the whole HCQ controversy is akin to a slight-of-hand magic trick. It a distraction from the real question. Which is, does ZINC (taken within the first five days acc. to Zelenko) knock down the coronavirus. No one claims HCQ (by itself) is the magic bullet. And yet, so far, seemingly every article including Fauci’s latest video response knocking the treatment ONLY SAYS HCQ doesn’t work. They drop off mention of zinc in their conclusion.
That you didn’t expect that patient to die is an anecdotal instance of (what I think we already know). Her outcome is NOT the experience most people will have. And that’s what we need to understand. How rare is her outcome? I take vaccines such as the annual flu shot (and post my support of them) because the legit science says the chances of injury are remote. I drive even though that assumes risk. What we really need to know (even without testing everyone) is how many out of 330 million have had this lady’s outcome. Especially if this coronavirus (like the common cold) is here to stay. Neither political party’s desire to control the White House nor any drug company’s profit, or media conglomerates agenda amounts to a hill of beans in relation to the truth of what we’re facing.
I hate going down this road, but I’m really getting the feeling that the mainstream media is acting like the propaganda arm of the needlessly hysterical ‘anti-vaxxer’ movement in regard to the coronavirus. I go to the grocery store every week or so. The employees have pretty much been working straight-thru since March and yet I’ve been made to be afraid of going in there for 20 minutes.
About 25 professors from Yale signed a letter strongly refuting the opinion of Dr..Frisch referred to in the OP
Someone sent me a video that was also on the front news page featuring a doctor in florida stating that hcq WITH zinc has been found effective but the news is avoiding it. I do not remember the doctors name but he did not appear to be jewish.
DY -“About 25 professors from Yale signed a letter strongly refuting the opinion of Dr..Frisch referred to in the OP”
I don’t believe you! Prove it!
I looked online and all I found was a letter to President Trump.
Nothing to do with Dr. Frisch.
Here it is:
“Epidemiology professor Gregg Gonsalves co-authored an open letter calling on President Trump to heed experts’ advice when crafting the nation’s pandemic response. The letter defends Anthony Fauci — Director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases — and his evidence-based approach to combating COVID-19.”“if it helps those who would have lived regardless”
BUT if they would have lived regardless then you are assuming the triple formula of Dr Zelenko in your own imaginary example study did not help them and you cannot assume that.
Under “strengths and weaknesses of the study” is the following-
STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES OF THE STUDY
“Treatment with the triple therapy resulted in a numerically lower rate of all-cause deaths. In the absence of clinical details about the untreated patient group, the lower rate of all-cause death in the treated group was not statistically significant. However, the patients in the treated group were all positively risk-stratified while the risk of the untreated group was obviously lower as this group included highand low-risk patients.”
So, IN THE ABSENCE OF CLINICAL DETAILS ABOUT THE UNTREATED PATIENT GROUP, the lower rate of all-cause death in the treated group was not statistically significant.
That is the only thing, no comparison. Plus all white people in the triple formula treated group.
The triple therapy is a better choice than nothing.Old crown heights
Regarding zinc
You are partially right, as the two treatments hcq+zn vs just hcq shkukd not be bundled together. I think most dont give much importance to zinc as most Americans are not zinc defficent, so its hard to imagine giving zinc makes much difference. That said hard to imagine doesn’t equal impossible. And it should be studied.
“That is the only thing, no comparison”
Absolutely , that’s why I only brought it up when asked too. My experience with hcq and zinc was not great pretty much everyone I saw had been on them and sadly died. That said that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, I get called for the sickest people. That’s why studies are needed. For months Dr Zelenko was running around talks how to talk show peddling his treatment. I was skeptical but hopeful. I’m very disappointed that after months it turns out he doesn’t have data to back up his claimsThe bottom line is its a pity this became politicized. From both sides the media played up the dangers while supporters played them down (it has a slight risk, not no risk and calling it deadly is exaggerating) similarly supporters played up the benefit
“in your own imaginary example study”
Again, I’m not offering an imaginary example study. I am Explaining how it could be possible that less people get hospitalized but the same number of people die (which is all you can take out if the study assuming it had no other problems)
“did not help them and you cannot assume that.”
I am not assuming that.
Dr zelenkoxs study did not show a statistical significant benefit with regard to mortality (as the study acknowledges) period. This is not in dispute. No assumption needed.I’m not sure why you are having a hard time with this. You quoted the line twice in your response
YWN doesn’t normally allow outside links but I saw it.
Here it is, if they make an exception.
Sorry. But they can google this and find it
gregggonsalves
Statement from Yale Faculty on Hydroxychloroquine and its Use in COVID-19
One of the authors is a frum doc I know.
ready
I reread your comment and realized it sounds like you don’t know how studies are designed or interpreted.Here is a quick crash course.
Say you want to investigate something like does candy cure cancer or does HCQ+zinc cure (or prevent) Covid19. You take two SIMILAR groups give one the treatment you are investigating (candy or HCQ) and the other standard care (this one is the control group) and you see if there is a difference in outcome between the two.
Ideally you randomize who gets what and blind the pateint and person looking for outcome, but this isnt always possible, and that is fine.With me so far?
now you start with a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position, ie that there is no difference that candy doesnt cure cancer or that HCQ doesnt treat or prevent Covid 19.
If you find a statistically significant difference between the two groups (ie more candy recipients survived or more HCQ recipients survived or for that matter, fewer were hospitalized) You REJECT the null hypothesis, ie you reject the premise that there is no difference and accept the alternative Hypothesis that Candy DOES cure cancer or that HCQ DOES treat/prevent covid19.
Still with me?
Now how do we define what is statistically significant? Obviously it is THEORETICALLY possible that in any 2 groups of cancer patients one will do better than the other, or in any 2 groups of Covid19 patients one group will randomly do better than the other (even if they ARE similar groups) .?So to estimate the odds that chance alone led to the difference between the two groups we calculate a p value. The p value is the probability that chance alone led to the perceived difference. A p value of < 0.05 is viewed as significant. This means that there is only a 5% chance that the perceived difference was due to chance and not due to the experimental entity. (candy or HCQ). If the p value is less than 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis (that candy doesn’t cure cancer, that HCQ doesnt cure/prevent covid19) and accept the alternative hypothesis (that it does)
Ok. got it?
Now to Dr. Zelenko’s study
the null hypothesis is that HCQ does not prevent hospitlizations, nor reduce mortality. Ie if you took two similar groups gave one HCQ and the other you dint , the two groups would have similar outcomes vis a vis death and hospitlizations.
what was the outcome?
With regard to hospitalizations they found fewer hospitilizations in the HCQ groups. Was this statisctly significant? the P value was <0.001 so yes! We reject the null hypothesis (that HCQ does not lower hospitalizations) and accept the alternative hypothesi ) HCQ DOES lower hospitalizations. *With regard to mortality they found fewer deaths in the HCQ groups. Was this statistically significant? the P value was 0.16 so NO, Therefore We cannot reject the null hypothesis (that HCQ does not lower mortality) . (To be clear the study did NOT show that HCQ DOES NOT lower mortality, it just did NOT show that it DOES). Any attempted explanation as to WHY they didnt achieve statistical significance is mumbo jumbo trying to make their insignificant finding more meaningful.
As explained before the fact that we dont know anything about the control group doesnt make the study BETTER, the opposite it raises serious questions about their Significant finding (regarding hospitalizations)
Hope this helps
*Of course if the two groups are dissimilar for another reason aside from the presence or absence of HCQ then the difference may not be due to HCQ but due to the other differences eg younger healthier etc As I explained above )
Ubiq -“And it should be studied”
It was studied with an Observational study from NYU.
They found HCQ & Zinc are Effective for Tx. of Covid19.
STOP With being Against this Tx.Oh Charlie, -“YWN doesn’t normally allow outside links but I saw it.”
Ok, I found it.Here is part of the Letter:
“However, the evidence thus far has been unambiguous in refuting the premise that HCQ is a potentially effective early therapy for COVID-19.
HCQ is used for the treatment of rheumatological diseases, such as lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. However, this does not ensure that the drug will be safe in patients with COVID-19 or in widespread use to treat early illness. Furthermore, HCQ, alone or together with the antibiotic, azithromycin, has not been shown to be effective in improving the clinical status of patients with COVID-19. Moreover, clinical trials have found that treatment with HCQ may be associated with increased risk of adverse reactions. Taken together, the scientific evidence does not support the widespread use of this drug, alone or in combination with an antibiotic, as advocated by Dr. Risch and others, unless rigorous evidence from clinical trials demonstrates otherwise.”They write that for a Cancer specialist he shouldn’t give his opinion.
But, I guess, they are Just Being PC.
He actually was basing his opinion from an article from an Infectious Disease Magazine.
There was published a Study from a South Michigan Hospital that found HCQ was effective for Covid19, when given Early. As a matter of fact, that study found even MORE Effectiveness when combined with Azithromycin!From the study itself on the triple formula-
“IN THE ABSENCE OF CLINICAL DETAILS ABOUT THE UNTREATED PATIENT GROUP, the lower rate of all-cause death in the treated group was not statistically significant.”From Ubi:
(To be clear the study did NOT show that HCQ DOES NOT lower mortality, it just did NOT show that it DOES).From me –
The triple therapy is a better choice than nothing.When we take medicine, we daven for refuach from Hashem, that the “esek” will be effective with Hashem’s help.
Ubi, I saw that you wrote that Group C was getting better with Hydroxycholoquine and that they would never have never died, But I see that they did not get Hydroxychloroquine (with zinc, he triple formula) (in your imaginary study).
“Dr. Fauci said that he cannot rely on it because it was not a randomized study.”
Who cares what he says?!?”
He happens to be right and the fact that you don’t understand the difference between a randomized study and an uncontrolled study shows that you have no business commenting on this issue. You are like a new baal tshuvah questioning a gedol b’torah.
“an Observational study from NYU”
I read the paper describing that study. It was a non-randomized study, one that did not even attempt to properly address the differences in the people who took one treatment regimen vs. a different one. And the senior author himself publicly stated that a randomized study was needed. Oh, and the study has still not actually been published in a peer-reviewed journal, even though it was released to the public three months ago.
“There was published a Study from a South Michigan Hospital ”
That was a non-randomized study. The randomized study found that it was ineffective. When you have a conclusive well designed randomized clinical trial all the observational studies are ignored.
“they are Just Being PC”
It isn’t about being PC it is about understanding scientific evidence. And it is clear that you do not. Promoting hydroxychloroquine now, when multiple randomized clinical trials have shown that it does not help either prevention or treatment, is promoting medical quackery. Period.
Ready
“Ubi, I saw that you wrote that Group C was getting better with Hydroxycholoquine and that they would never have never died, But I see that they did not get Hydroxychloroquine (with zinc, he triple formula) (in your imaginary study).”I’m sorry I’m not sure what imaginary study you are referring to
Oh Charlie, -“He happens to be right and the fact that you don’t understand the difference between a randomized study and an uncontrolled study shows that you have no business commenting on this issue.”
I understand it, but until there is a randomized Study – you’ll willing to let people Die, because you don’t know for sure that it works? Many Docs believe it works – whether there is a randomized Study or Not!
Oh Charlie, – “It was a non-randomized study,”
So What?“one that did not even attempt to properly address the differences in the people who took one treatment regimen vs. a different one.”
That’s Not True!
A quote from that Study:
“Patients in the study were excluded if they were treated with other investigational medications. Results: The addition of zinc sulfate did not impact the length of hospitalization, duration of ventilation, or ICU duration. In univariate analyses, zinc sulfate increased the frequency of patients being discharged home, and decreased the need for ventilation, admission to the ICU, and mortality or transfer to hospice for patients who were never admitted to the ICU. After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449, 95% CI 0.271-0.744). 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.”I’m sorry I’m not sure what imaginary study you are referring to
Your A B C D study on t0p of page 2,
Ready
“Your A B C D study on top of page 2 ”
Please (re?)read it, the only study mentioned there is Dr Zelenkos’s
Ubi wrote-
“Group C – Get very sick go to hospital and do better
Group D – Get very sick go to the hospital and sadly die.
For illustrative purpses lets say 50% of the population is in group A, 30% in group B 10% in Group C and 10% in group D. (I’m making these number up this isnt based on real data)[ this is what I refer to as the “imaginary study”]
Obviously The ultimate goal is to get as many people out of Group D as possible.
Dr. Zelnko’s study sadly did not show any statistically significant reduction in those in group D.
It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people did not get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.
”
From your last line-
Q How do you know they “would have lived anyway” ?
We cannot know.ready
ok, so no imaginary study.
Moving on
“From your last line-
Q How do you know they “would have lived anyway” ?
We cannot know”Of course we can! We can compare to the general population who did not get HCQ. This is know as the “control group”
Are you suggesting that without HCQ all people who get covid die?ready
“We cannot know.”
I realize my last response was unclear.
Lets say I tried to show you candy cures cancer. I take 100 cancer patients give them all candy and , i don’t know 90 of them are alive a year later.
Pretty impressive right?
Well it depends. what would have happened to those patients if they DID NOT get candy?
How could we know you might ask?
Well we take similar patients DO NOT give them candy and see how they do. If 90 of them are alive a year later WITHOUT candy. Then it wasnt the candy that helped them.Make sense?
furthermore, that response was addressing a side question namely How could you have ““Less hospitalizations, but similar mortality level?”
I was outlining a POSSIBLE explanation of how a medication can lead to less hospitlizations, but not have an effect on mortality. NOT that that IS What HCQ is doing. We dont know from the study maybe it is decreasing mortality, maybe it is causing more people to die at home (so less hospitalizations but same mortality)BY1212
“Screaming otherwise like a madman using decietful pilpulei srak doesn’t change that fact.”
You must have me confused with someone, No screaming, just patient explaining“shown that his protocol reduces mortality from 10% to 0.07%.”
You clearly didnt read his study
1) I’m not sure where your 10% came from. From the study “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).”2) sadly even that was not statistically significant as the study admits ” the lower rate of all-cause death in the treated group was not statistically significant” This is a verbatim quote from the study.
If you don’t know what “statistically significant” means I explain it above (reply #1890037) , and am happy to explain it further. Of course if you don’t trust me (and why should you trust a screaming madman) you can google it (wikipedia has a entry , though an easier to read one is “WHAT DOES STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT MEAN?” at measuringu dot com)
Then again if you arent interested in the truth and your mind is made up, thats fine too just make that clear, you are here to troll, and dont care about truth or facts
BY1212 -“Was the lady willing to take the medications?”
“From the interview it seems this is what he did but the רשעים in Montreal assered her from taking the protocol”
If he said that, that is the most ridiculous thing I’ve ever heard!
You know and most people know, that Canada is Socialized Medicine.
If it’s not in protocol, they’ll Never give it.
It’s not even in the US protocol.
I believe in HCQ & Zinc for Covid19. To e/o, If you can’t get HCQ, like you live in NYS, take Quercetin together with Zinc 200mg. It will Work!“imginary” or “theorethical”, either word wiil do.
Ubi -“Are you suggesting that without HCQ all people who get covid die?”
No, but SOME may died, has v sholom.
Not : “they would have lived anyway”
We do not know.““imginary” or “theorethical”, either word wiil do.”
Again I’m not sure what “study” you are referring to. I was outlining a Psossible (theoretical/imaginary?) explanation as to how a drug can lower hospitalizations but not mortality.
“No, but SOME may died, has v sholom.”
Excellent!
Lets keep going. “some may died” means most would have lived. Right?
Ie even without HCQ most patients live.
with me?
So when most patients with HCQ live, how do we know that it is due to HCQ, when, again, even WITHOUT HCQ most patients live.
As you correctly conclude. did the HCQ help?
“We do not know.”So how can we we show that the people got HCQ benefited FROM the HCQ ? and dint just live because even most who do not get HCQ live?
( ““No, but SOME may died, has v sholom.” Excellent!”
Just to be clear, It goes without saying that it isnt “excellent” that anybody died, obviously.
It is excellent that aMost lived, and b. more to the point, that you were able to recognize that crucial fact.
sorry for the poor wording)Ubi -“Are you suggesting that without HCQ all people who get covid die?”
No, but SOME may die, has v sholom.
Not : “they would have lived anyway”
We do not know.“imaginary study”-see your top answer on page 2
ready
““imaginary study”-see your top answer on page 2”
no, you see the answer please. The only study mentioned t here is Dr. Zelenko’s.
That post describes how it is possible for fewer people to be hospitilized but the same number of people die.
If the above question doesnt nother you skip it, it doesnt convey any new information.
If you want the question or answer explained I’d be happy to explain either, or both. Please let me know .“No, but SOME may die, has v sholom.
Not : “they would have lived anyway”
We do not know”you said that already. The equivalent of “SOME may die” is that most will live. Those are logical equivelents.
If I say Some cows are brown. That means other cows are not brown. right?So if “some may die” then that means others “would have lived” even without HCQ.
correct?you said that already. The equivalent of “SOME may die” is that most will live. Those are logical equivelents.
If I say Some cows are brown. That means other cows are not brown. right?No, as, some, not most are brown, so
some NOT most MIGHT survive.As for” how it is possible for fewer people to be hospitalized but the same number of people die.”:
The stage when clots form in the lungs was not prevented for various reasons, so naturally, the medication had no beneficial effect.“The stage when clots form in the lungs was not prevented…”
I’m sorry, I dont know what you are trying to convey with this line, is it a question? Answer? Rayah? Memrah?
“No, as, some, not most are brown, so
some NOT most MIGHT survive.”Ok, let’s accept that. You are willing to entertain the possibility that even without hcq SOME people MIGHT survive (which of course leaves me confused as to how most people have been serving. Did they not have covid? Did they all (most?)get hcq? If so then seems doctors aren’t too bad are giving it anyway,but I digress)
At any rate, if some might survive without hcq. How do we know if those who got hcq and lived did so thanks to hcq?some might survive without it?but how did you write-
“It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people DID NOT get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.”Focusing on Ubi saying-
“again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.”
and Repeating from a prior post-
“Ubi -“Are you suggesting that without HCQ all people who get covid die?”No, but SOME may have died, has v sholom.
Not : “they would have lived anyway”
We do not know.”Not “most would have died” not “1 or 2”, but “some”, an indeterminate number “may have died” without Hydroxychloroquine triple formula with zinc.
All depending on the sample size, the virulence, the mutation etc etc many variables.You know the end-stage for deaths in Covid 19, at which point no med can help, and the point at which they arrive at that irreversible condition is not intercepted, by any med at all, when clots form around the body and move to the lungs, then that may be connected to why and ” how it is possible for fewer people to be hospitalized but the same number of people die.”
We have to figure this out, it must be connected to the clot irreversible stage. And destiny.
but how did you write-
“It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people DID NOT get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.”Sure, happy to explain.
First 2 facts:
1. Dr Zelenkos study showed a decrease in hospitalization s among those who get the triple therapy compared to those who did not
2. Dr Zelenkos study did not show a decrease in death among those who get the triple therapy compared to this who did not.
Ok…Now normally all those who died from covid were in the hospital first. Patients who die typically
I get sick -> ii go to the hospital -> iii die. So the question was asked if those who go to the hospital (ii) decrease with the tripe therapy, doesnt it follow that those who die (iii) decrease as well? Are those in grioup iii skipping the hospital and dieing at home?So I explained it is quite possible that the combination is helping those who go to the hospital and end up getting hetter (without hcq) e it is not having an effect on those who died without hcq, (iii) they are all still dying
This is a possibility as to hoe a medication can help hospitalization but not death (which is what the study showed)
Now as made clear this is a possibility I’m not saying this is what happened. Its possible that the medication DOES help mortality but the study didn’t have enough power to show itbut how did you write-
“It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people DID NOT get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.”and you continued=
So I explained it is quite possible that the combination is helping those who go to the hospital and end up getting hetter (without hcq) e it is not having an effect on those who died without hcq, (that the combination is helping AND (without hcq)
contradiction
“contradiction”
No contradiction
I’ll walk you through it.
What ultimately happens to those with covid if they don’t get HCQ?
some don’t have any symptoms
Some have mild symptoms that don;t need hospital
some need hospitalization and end up getting better
some need hospitalization and dieAgree with above ?
So far so good?(If you want to know how we know these things, you can look at the control group in Dr. Zelnko’s study or just look at general population statistics)
A few quick points to clarify the above:
– These are different people by definition. (One person cant both not have any symptoms and have severe sx a person cant bot h be discharged from the hospital and die from covid sure some people may have had mild symptoms that progressed, but when all is said and done a person who had covid can only be in one of those groups)
– We don’t know why some get better and some did not. There are trends younger/healthier tend to have more mild sx bu t these arent absolute . I’m sure you know young / healthy peeople who did not do so well and older/sicker people who did. Ultimately the Ribono she lolam is in charge
– We don’t know beforehand how a person will end up (similar to the above point)These points, in no way change the truth that ultimatly there are different outcomes as outlined in previous reply
Ubi wrote-
” it is quite possible that the combination is helping those who go to the hospital and end up getting hetter (without hcq)”What is “the combination” and what does “(without hcy)” mean if they are getting “the combination”?
“What is “the combination””
Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc+Azithromycin. sometimes reffered to as the Zelnko protocol. (It is uzzling that you didnt know this considering it is the subject of this thread)
“what does “(without hcy)” mean if they are getting “the combination”?”
It means it is helping people get better who would have gotten better without HCQ .
How dod I know that many of them would have gotten better without hCQ?
Again: and this is a key point most people get better even without HCQ . Even most “at risk” (to the best of my knowledge noone reports a fatality rate of over 50% for any demographic . D.r Zelenko’s control group (who did not get HCQ) had a fataility rate of “only” 3.5% MOST people live even without HCQ)Your statement is “hypothetical” .
Me, “ready now -““what does “(without hcy)” mean if they are getting “the combination”?”
You Ubi-“It means it is helping people get better who would have gotten better without HCQ .”
So how can it be helping them if they didn’t need it to get better.
It can’t.
Further, how do you know for sure they may not have needed it- you can’t, no one, not you, not I, no one can know that. They were assessed as needing it for the sake of saving their lives.Also, the stage when clots form, it seems cannot be overcome with the triple therapy.
In any case, we also have established that stats are not all they are made out to be, and Hashem is always in charge.“Your statement is “hypothetical” .”
which one?
“So how can it be helping them if they didn’t need it to get better.It can’t.”
Lots of possibilities here:
1) Exactly, in other words that may not being helped at all. If I give a person with a cold candy and 2 days later he is better. And I say “hey candy cures colds” you would correctly surmise that it wasnt really the candy.2) “help” does not equal getting better. For example if a medication dropped time being sick from say 2 weeks to 1 week this is hypothetical). Although these are people who would have gotten better It DID help limit their time being sick. that isnt nothing, it certainly is help. Back to Dr. Zelenko, The study DID show a decrease in hospitilizations*, so although the study didnt show any decrease in mortality. Preventing hospitalizations is certainly “help”
“Further, how do you know for sure they may not have needed it- you can’t”
I’m not sure what you mean by know for sure. In the sense that we can know anything for sure, we know it from comparing the experimental group to the control group. In the control goup they DID NOT get HCQ and statisticly there was no difference in mortality.“Also, the stage when clots form, it seems cannot be overcome with the triple therapy”
You keep repeating this statement, I’m not sure the relevance noe the veracity of this statement. (There isnt a set number of stages, some presented with blood clots, some got very sick and died and never had bloood clots)“Hashem is always in charge.”
Certainly true*Though as mentioned, theres a flaw there too.
Every “probability” calculation is hypothetical in relation to the prospective outcome for any individual using the therapy under scrutiny. And deaths do not follow statistics.
Ubi wrote-The study DID show a decrease in hospitalizations*,*Though as mentioned, there’s a flaw there too.”?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.