Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.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”?
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.”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
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.
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.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
“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.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.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,
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).
“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.Group 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?From the study-
“Group C: age ≤60 years, clinically symptomatic and with at least one of the following comorbidities: hypertension, hyperlipidemia, diabetes, obesity (body mass index ≥ 30 kg/m2 ), cardiovascular disease, heart failure, history of stroke, history of deep vein 7 thrombosis or pulmonary embolism, asthma, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), other lung disease, kidney disease, liver disease, autoimmune disease, or history of cancer. Pregnant women, if any, were to be included in this group as well.”“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.”
How do you know they would have lived? That is simply an assumption.
At any point in time, the progression of the disease can turn left or right.
If they had not been given the triple therapy, we do not not not know if they would have lived.
I wrote “But YOU cannot extrapolate for what did not actually yet happen in the study”
Ubi wrote “Of course not.”
But you Ubi said before “they would have lived”.
You do not know that!
This is a farce as stats do not prove a definitive result. Hashem has the definitive result.
I wrote ““How do you know they would have lived? That is simply an assumption.””
Ubi, you wrote “Because Dr Zelenkos study did not show an improvement in mortality, only in hospitalizations.”
But YOU cannot extrapolate for what did not actually yet happen in the study, it is outside the realms of the actual study!
Ubi you aslso wrote
“It is Hashem who decides not a tablet after all, ”-(this line you requted as it is my line)
Then you wrote
“So fartig. Forget hcq”No ubi, I wrote “yet we are told by Hashem we must consult a doctor. ”
So go to the doctor who will prescribe the correct medicine. It is well know that not every doctor can provide healing for every patient and that a patient will on occasion have to find a different doctor for the healing he/she requires if at all.
“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.”
How do you know they would have lived? That is simply an assumption.It is Hashem who decides not a tablet after all, yet we are told by Hashem we must consult a doctor. ‘
The book of cures was hidden so that we should repent.The study showed that people treated with Dr Z’s triple formula recovered to a large extent.
The people who were not treated with the triple formula who were “outside the study” to a greater extent did not survive, bearing in mind some of this second group were “susceptible” and some were not.“HOSPITALIZATIONS AND ALL-CAUSE DEATH In the treatment group 4 of 141 patients were hospitalized, which was significantly less than in the untreated group with 58 of 377 patients (15.4%), (fig 2.), (OR 0.16; [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.5]; p”
from: COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series StudyI recommend that “Our Stupid President Trump” headline be changed to “Our President Trump”
No one on earth is perfect, especially some people who make up headlines.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.‘could have pre or post exposure prophylaxis but not post symptom prophylaxis”
no, not “post exposure prophylaxis ” unless the immune response was triggered.“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.”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.”
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.
“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.”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.
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.
“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 › articleUbiq 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..The data will support the intuition!
Not so fast ubiq!
Dr. Z has a retrospective study coming out soon.
We know intuitively that his results are very good.
It would be completely unbelievable that one area so close to others that had high mortality could escape without the Dr’s good judgment and treatment.
Since all studies have limitation, and in the absence of universal good judgment, the country has had to rely on “body count”, but still refuses to listen to a great extent……
that Dr Z’s results speak volumes!
Do you get it?
Sorry my mistake, I don’t know how I found the incorrect”no limitations”.
Zinc is the essential factor, there are in vitro studies to that effect I believe, that HOQ and zinc work together to kill the virus, correct me if I am mistaken.
Dr. Z has a retrospective study coming out soon.
We know intuitively that his results are very good.
It would be completely unbelievable that one area so close to others that had high mortality could escape without the Dr’s good judgment and treatment.
Since all studies have limitation, and in the absence of universal good judgment, the country has had to rely on “body count”, but still refuses to listen to a great extent.
The Lancet study had no Zinc, but the “Philip Carlucci, Tania Ahuja, Christopher M Petrilli, Harish Rajagopalan, Simon Jones, Joseph Rahimian” study HAD ZINC and they wrote that ZINC MAY play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.
There are no “limitations”, that is what they stated, despite having favorable results with the addition of zinc.
PS President Trump also took Zinc at the same time he took HOQ. he said so at a press conference.
FROM- “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients” by Philip Carlucci, Tania Ahuja, Christopher M Petrilli, Harish Rajagopalan, Simon Jones, Joseph Rahimian is the following-
“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.
Compare that to the “Lancet” published study shown here and you must see they are 2 different studies.-
“Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis” by Prof Mandeep R Mehra, MD , Sapan S Desai, MD, Prof Frank Ruschitzka, MD, Amit N Patel, MD
Also , President Trump also took Zinc at the same time he took HOQ. he said so at a press conference.Ubiq, I read only the summary, I did not read the body of the Lancet study(sic).
BUT, I can tell you that THEIR DOSES WERE FAR TOO HIGH.
When coupled with no Zinc, gevalt!Dr. Zelenko uses these doses in his video “My response to Dr Rubin”:
“Here is my outcome data since 3/18/20 – 3/26/20669 patients seen in my Monroe, NY practice with either test proven or clinically diagnosed corona infection
0 deaths
0 intubations
4 hospitalizations for pneumonia – patients are on iv antibiotics and improving
As of 3/27/20 6am. As per WHO, CDC, ECDC, NHC
World statistics – 531,860 cases / 24,057 deaths = 4.5% death rate
US statistics – 85,653 cases / 1290 deaths = 1.5 % death rateDr Zelenko statistics – 699 cases / 0 deaths = 0% death rate
patients treated with three drug regimen
1- hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
2- azithromycin 500mg once a day for five days
3- zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for five daysCONCLUSION – TREAT AS EARLY AND AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE IN THE OUTPATIENT SETTING
Respectfully,
Dr. Vladimir (Zev) Zelenko”
They wrote “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.” from the NYU study of Philip Carlucci et ali-
The use of the word “may” is an unwarranted understatement.
That was a different study! Not the Lancet study.
The recent Lancet study says –
“After controlling for multiple confounding factors (age, sex, race or ethnicity, body-mass index, underlying cardiovascular disease and its risk factors, diabetes, underlying lung disease, smoking, immunosuppressed condition, and baseline disease severity), when compared with mortality in the control group (9·3%),”
-that they cannot tell at all if HOQ is beneficial or not!
Because, they said-
“We were unable to confirm a benefit of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine, when used alone or with a macrolide, on in-hospital outcomes for COVID-19. ”
Certainly, chloroquine is more toxic than hydroxychloroquine, but the antibiotics are also toxic.
The study does not even give doses that were administered, very. very significant omission!
Of course, also no zinc was used in the study!
The study is not valid.
Dr Z made a valid study which is apparently going to be published in about 2 weeks, it is a retrospective study, completely valid.
Dr Z did invent the regimen, he said so and said it was only with Hashem’s help, and he takes no credit for it himself.
In the NYU study of Philip Carlucci et ali-:
“Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients”It was also a retrospective observational study.
They wrote “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.”
The use of the word “may” is an unwarranted understatement.
ubiq wrote “perhaps there is some bias coloring Dr. Z’s anecdotal reports.
oR Maybe not.
zinc”
You are a joker who is capable of harming has v sholom!
You mention “zinc” floating it in the air, which De Z uses in conjunction with HOQ, simply so you cannot be accused of ignoring it! Very funny, but not the rest of your written inconsistencies.The proof that Dr Z is correct is that Dr Z’s turf had nearly no deaths compared to other areas. This is study beyond reproach.
The study recently featured in Lancet did not use Zinc!
Dr Zelenko said that there was “only” 1 death, has v sholom, in his district from covid19, but MULTIPLE deaths in the surrounding districts. There is your study, there are the results.
Huju, please cure hemorrhoids if you can, many people suffer from them, no joke, but it is still very important to take a stand for truth and for life, l’chaim.
So the Doctor is good, very good, he said Hashem gave him the idea for the Hydroxychloroquine, z pack and zinc sulfate, that he takes no credit himself.
ubiq wrote-nobody has ever seen complications from HCQ?
I wrote-He says the negative side effects are “theoretical in HIS experience.” So he is treating patients before they get desperately sick who do not need necessarily hospitalization immediately but look as though they might need hospitalization if he doesn’t treat them immediately.
JOHNS HOPKINS RHEUMATOLOGY does not mention heart disturbances at all, and says that retinal damage can occur only in 1 out of 5,000 people who take the drug for five years or more, and they recommend an eye check at start of medication with hydroxychloroquine and six monthly thereafter.
The LUPUS website does not even mention heart effects.I am sure doctors are aware if a patient has a pre-existing heart condition, but for new patients it is inadvisable to wait for testing before giving the medication, if the life would hang in the balance with the threat of coronavirus. The risks have to be weighed.
The point is, that the SAME medication, Hydroxychloroquine is given a different write up depending on whether it is promoted for lupus or coronavirus. That is the point. And that is the point Dr Z was making.
“for covid19 does it kill people”
So I was correct. He did not say it has no risks but the risks are relatively downplayed in relation to Hydroxychloroquine, HOQ’s use with lupus, compared to the huge outcry when the same medication is used to treat covid19!
“monitored for risks” means “please let us know of any untoward side effects you may experience while taking this medication ”
Even the lupus national website has no mention of heart effects.
Let us finish this now.He did not say it has no risks but the risks are relatively downplayed in relation to Hydroxychloroquine, HOQ’s use with lupus, compared to the huge outcry when the same medication is used to treat covid19!
The patients are always told of possible risks as that is routine, but without the fanatic opposition, the that HOQ has attracted for its use as a medicine used in combination with zinc to fight coronavirus.
Not lying, good doctor.
I wrote previously-
“He is giving it short term, and he has encountered no side effects, he said so”
HE SAID SO, AS SIMPLE AS THAT, no side effects seen!
HE DID NOT LIE, no negative effects were reported.Ubiq, you are very close to bending the truth, and I am understating it.
NYU reported, a few days ago, a study, HOQ alone with antibiotic vs HOQ with antibiotic and zinc, which reported 44% fewer deaths in the “with zinc’ group.
So they let a heap of people die by withholding zinc!
” He is giving it short term, and he has encountered no side effects, he said so”
HE SAID SO, AS SIMPLE AS THAT, no side effects seen!Re zinc you wrote, ” i haven’t forgotten once. I’m not sure why you think I have.”
You never mention it in conjunction with HOQ, that they must be given together and not as an option.Please respect the Dr, he has no motive to lie, to say he is drumming u views is LH, he has no views.
ubiq: He is giving it short term, and he has encountered no side effects, he said so. Why do you keep forgetting the zinc sulphate?
Just in case others do not know, lupus is treated long term with HOC with a much-reduced dose.
I wrote previously “Listen to every word, you will be shocked,”
and you were not shocked when he said what is happening in USA with the no treatment with HOC, antibiotics and zinc is murder and crimes against humanity.So why are you not shocked?
syag, yes we all know lupus is chronic, but it is also safe for coronavirus
Ubiq wrote- “He states its used for lupus with no warnings. What is he talking about?”
then ubiq wrote- ” “So, okay to treat coronavirus, short-duration medication,”
Was this in dispute?”We can all see that you ubiq, change your stance at every turn.
Please take a well deserved short vacation, even within the confines of your abode, have a rest, reset and relax!From Lupus .org, the Lupus Foundation of America-
“Medications used to treat lupus”:
“The two types of antimalarials most often prescribed today for lupus are hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil®) and chloroquine (Aralen®). Unlike the rapid response seen with steroids, it may take months before antimalarial drugs improve your lupus symptoms.Side effects from antimalarials are rare and usually mild. They include upset stomach and changes in skin color. Side effects usually go away after the body adjusts to the medication.
In high doses and over time, certain antimalarial drugs may damage the retina of the eye (retinal toxicity), causing vision problems. If low doses of antimalarials are used in the treatment of lupus, the risk of this complication is low. However, as a precaution, people treated with antimalarials should get an eye exam before or soon after starting the drug. They should also visit an eye doctor (ophthalmologist) annually.
Long term plaquenil users on high doses will need to get check-ups for eye health regularly to prevent retinal toxicity from long-term use.
Pregnant women should continue to take their antimalarial medication as prescribed to avoid a lupus flare. Although this medication can cross the placenta, the possibility of eye and ear toxicity in the infant is very low. In fact, recent studies suggest that the risk of flare for the mother is higher than the risk of harming the fetus. ”
So, okay to treat coronavirus, short-duration medication, with zinc and antibiotics. The antibiotics only if necessary.
PS The Hydroxychloroquine is way better than chloroquine for covid 19.