Yale hydroxy

Ready
“high mortality overall for covid
But there was a high mortality overall for covid, that is the point”

Yes that is what you said but
a. It isn’t true. The case fatality rate in the US is 3% in Saudi Arabia where the study was done is 1.3% (John hopkins,data) if you include mortality based on the entire population it is even lower obviously.
B. It isnt relevant to the study at hand that didn’t even look at mortality

Again, of course every life lost is a world lost. But that isn’t shat you had saud. You said “the overall mortality” was high. This is simply a lie. You then told another lie when you said you had been talking about individuals. And now another lie though I think you are just repeating the same irrelevant falsehood, so it may not be a new lie.

Whats strange about your lies is even if I believed them, you’d still be misunderstanding the study and still be wrong.

Ready

I’m glad you agree
As I said “of course every life lost is a world lost”

ready

“The Zelenko study was unfavourably skewered against his proposition, as the other participants outside his study were both low and high risk, but his were all high risk,”

You said that already. Here was my reply Wiseman is wrong. We don’t know ANYTHING about the other participants. not their age, not their comorbidies, nothing. Maybe they are all younger maybe all older maybe a mix. We don’t know.
I have said this several times. It is confusing that now that you find it on youtube you suddenly accept it.

2scents

“I have not really been following this thread”
good . don’t.

Thanks for sharing
Interesting that it helped hospitalized patients where common refrain had been that it is too late, and no mention of Zinc.

2sents

Yeah they lost me with “We used multivariable Cox proportional-hazards regression models with inverse probability for treatment weighting by propensity scores, with the addition of subgroup analyses.”
and that was in the abstract!

ready

“ubi said ‘We don’t know ANYTHING about the other participants. not their age, not their comorbidities, nothing. Maybe they are all younger maybe all older maybe a mix. We don’t know.’”

Yes this is an objective fact. Acknowledged by Dr. Zelenko “Only outcome data of the untreated control group of the same community based on public reference was available but no other patient characteristics, clinical symptoms, etc”

Ready

“me -I think that patients are “random” according to their staus, just people with heads attached to bodies., sufficiently valid for comparison.”

i’m sorry I don’t know what this means. Which study are you referring to? and which patients are random? Random means random it isnt just a magic word you can say about a study to make it “sufficiently valid for comparison”

though worth noting, while randomized studies are better, not all non-random studies are worthless. It introduces bias, something to be wary of but if patients are otheriwse similar conclusions can still be valid.
The problem with Dr. Zelenko’s study isnt that it isnt random (which it isnt obviously people chose to go to him) the problem is we don’t know how they compare to the untreated (control) group.

I gave an example of detergent. Lets try another.
I have a magic spray that keeps fruit fresh outside of a fridge. Look I spray 500 apples keep them out of fridge and 2 days later all are still fresh Compared to these other fruits that I sprayed and 2 days later a few were spoiled.

Would you buy my spray?

The first thing you should ask is what other fruits were they? how ripe were they?
If I compared to to 500 very ripe strawberries. you would be a lot less impressed with my spray. If they were SIMILAR fruits in SIMILAR condition THAT would be meaningful.

SURE it would be MORE impressive if we randomly assigned fruit to receive the spray or not . But even if not random, if they were similar enough that would still be meaningful but if the fruit are different OR if we don’t know anything about the unsprayed fruit, the study is worthless

The group Dr. Zelenko is comparing to how do they compare to his treatment group A (which are younger and healthier than average > 60 year old)? We simply don’t know They may be the same,
they may be Healthier or sicker.

“ALco the point is if you agree that hydroxychloroquine did help as you have admitted,”

I never agreed to that, though I never disagreed either. There is conflicting data I’m not convinced one way or the other. I would err on the side of giving since the risk is so small (though not zero)

Ubi writing about hydroxychloroquine-
“Interesting that it helped hospitalized patients where common refrain had been that it is too late, and no mention of Zinc.”

me -I think that patients are “random” according to their status, just people with heads attached to bodies., sufficiently valid for comparison.

I can understand that.

The expert I referred to above in a youtube video explained properly why Dr. Zelenko’s stats have been unfairly diminished, as his patients were all in the high-risk groups.

Further, the death rates have been much higher than reported as the way deaths are attributed to the different diseases on death certificates obscures the fact that if not for COVID, those people would still be alive.

Zinc.

he explained properly why
yes he did

and the death rate is high

and
that’s right

‘“Interesting that it helped hospitalized patients’