Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
lol syag.
Long megilla little substance.
Did you get a chance to look for clearer images?
Do you still think it was a wire?(“will they entertain the idea that maybe it was a wire? ” while not geared to me, to satisfy your curiosity I did think it was a wire so looked for clearer images since it didn’t seem likely )
Syag
‘I asked her because all i wanted was a thoughtful answer, not a megilla on related political topics, no offense”No mt offended at all.
This is a new tactic (over past months) of yours you ask a loaded question and when people point out the premise is incorrect you get annoyed thst they aren’t answering your question.
I’m not cutting and pasting from Google. Im directing you to a clearer image thst shows what you (and I) thought was a wire is more likely a crease.
This isn’t a long megillah, nor hock of the day. It is a direct and concise answer to your question. Namely that your premise is likely mistaken . I pointed you to clearer pictures, from your comments it doesn’t sound like you looked (hence ”
. I don’t know if you decided i am not flexible because you witnessed me not convinced by unconvincing arguments)“but i will always seek more opinions on something”
Did you seek out clearer images of the “wire”?Syag
”
Ubiq- now you know why i didn’t ask you but rather asked her.”No I don’t.
And at any rate I know you dont like googling, and you don’t like changing your mind once it’s made up.
But as a yom tov treat, can you make this exception?Could you look for cleanrer images (or video where you can see the “wire” dissolve into his shirt, though i guess that just means he switched to a wireless transmitter )
There are some available in site i mentioned.
I’m curious if after looking at clearer images you still think was wireSyag
“I thought i saw something pretty clearly and asked a sincere question.”And I give you a sincere reply. Here is is again: That what you “though you saw pretty clearly” (and I did as well) was more likely a crease.
Now obviously why would you believe me? SO I directed you to a clearer image, hence google (I cant post the link to image here)“Why google when you can look at something and just give me your assessment?”
Because eyes can be deceived. It DID look like a wire no argument there.
We can’t always give an assessment just based on how things seem. Eyes can be deceived . Still images can appear to move, creases can look like wires. Just looking at one (blurry) image doesnt always give a full picture)So I looked for more images. and it looks pretty clearly like a crease and not a wire.
I’m not sure why this isnt satisfying.
Im directing you to a clearer picture where it looks like a crease and not a wire“When i asked you covid questions you answered from your heart and brain.”
Only if I new the answer. IF I didn’t, Of course I googled, if I wasn’t sure. And sorted through the responses“And your end with a request to google trump, as if that has any shaichus to my question,”
It does it shows that pictures can be deceiving.
syag
Its usually a cigarWhile I too was sure I saw a wire, sometimes we see wrong. I Am certain the image in my kids optical illusion book is moving, but it isn’t even though I saw it move.
Google “Fact check: False ‘evidence’ of Biden being wired or using earpiece ”
where they have clearer images where it does in fact look like a crease .If you really want to go down the rabbit hole , search for images of Donald Trump’s neural stimulator nutty conspiracy theories aren’t limited to one side.
“Why are massive protests okay, but davening in a minyan is not?”
simple. they aren’t ok. That’s it end of discussion
someone in Monsey
you are not the first to say that. since its inception, Nasser, Arafat, Kohmeini all vowed that the State will “disappear”.
It is still here it outlasted them all it will outlast you too” Read Perfidy by Ben Hecht.”
Ben Hecht was a Zionist
“he explained properly why
yes he did”Replied already
“and the death rate is high”
Replied already
“and
that’s right
‘“Interesting that it helped hospitalized patients’”Not sure what you are adding
But ill bet I Replied alreadyIf you have any lingering questions, I. Happy to answer. No need to repeat the sane incorrect debunked statements over and over
“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.”
No he didn’t. As I explained several times.
Stick to the mashal with fruits its easier to understand“Ubi writing about hydroxychloroquine-”
I was writing about the Belgium study.“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.”
Usually I hear the opposite from your crowd. That anyone who dies they just write covid
(sorry “Compared to these other fruits that I sprayed and 2 days later a few were spoiled.”
should be “compared to these other fruits I DIDN’T spray…” )
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)
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!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.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.Ready
I’m glad you agree
As I said “of course every life lost is a world lost”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 mortalityAgain, 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.
(lol at “dispel information”, one of my more embarrassing typos)
Ready
“Not low, if you are a victim,”
no certainly not, However that istn what you said . This is what you said “But there was a high mortality overall for covid,” This is not true, please stop lying.
AND as pointed out even if it was true does not change your miisunderstaning of the Saudi Arabia study at all.“Some studies that have also used zinc, and hydroxychloroquine in the correct, not dangerous over the top doses, are available”
Yes I said that earlier. You aren’t reading my posts I see.
“You are not a politician, are you?”
nope
Just A guy trying to help dispel information. IF you have any lingering questions I’d be happy to answer. But please, read my replies., and try to lie less.“In any case, shanah tova u mesuka!”
Amen, and to all of klal yisorel“But there was a high mortality overall for covid, that is the point..”
No there wasn’t baruch Hashem the mortality rate is quite low. Though even if it WAS high that would not change the fact that million upon million of people did fine without HCQ.
“Without any comparisons being needed to be made, it is a simple statistic.”
This sentence is absurd. As I explained at length over and over. Your repeating it again, does not make it less absurd.
“New topic:
The Zelenko study was unfavorably skewered against his proposition…”not a new topic. The doctor is wrong. We don;t know ANYTHING about the other participants. not their age, not their comorbitdites, 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 a doctor from youtube says it, that know you suddenly accept it.A bit puzzling why te fact that he is Lubavitch is at all relevant
(oy those spelling mistakes are painful worse than usual, i was on my phone)
Just to flush out the mashal (not marshal) a bit more.
The only way to show you my detergent is any good. Would be to take two SIMILARLY dirty piles of clothing. Group A we wash with detergent+water, group B we wah with just water.
Then we compare the results. If they are similarly dirty then my detergent doesn’t do anything, IF group A is cleaner that would show my detergent works better than water alone.But just showing that my detergent on its own cleans clothing. Proves nothing! zero nada zilch bupkis * Millions of clothes get cleaned with water, how would you know my detergent changed the outcome.
Please let me know if you dont understand any of this.
Please dont repeat the same mistake again, You’ve said it several times it is irrelevant as explained above(*It could show that it doesn’t ruin clothing which is all the Sauda Arabia study claimed)
Ready
From your repeated calls to “read the study” its clear you don’t understand it. I gave this marshal before I think it may help.Imagine I want to seel you my knew detergent. I show you how I take water mix it with detergent, wash 1200 pieces of clothing and they are all clean. Would that get you to buy it?
Certainly not if millions of clothing got cleaned with water alone. Even if there are clothes that don’t get cleaned with water alone. How would you know that my detergent helped? Sure ALL 1200 clothes cleaned with ubiquitins detergent + water got clean. But millions of clothes got clean with just water!
What the experiment WOULD show is that ubiquitins detergent is not damaging to clothing (at least similar clothing) but without a comparable control group it in no way shows it helped.
The most striking thing is the Saudi study doesn’t even claim to show that
Ready
We have been over this again and again
Compared to whom?
There are millions (literally) of people who did not get hcq and did helpful? So how do yiu know the people in the study benefited from hcq.
Sure they didn’t die but neither did millions of others without hcqFurtgermore, I saw 100s of patients who got hcq and died anyway. Does that in any way show hcq is not helpful??
“read it”
I did. You didn’t (if you did you completely misunderstood it)
The study is not looking at whether they benefited from hcq. You are misunderstanding the studyTravelers bring animal products all the time, wool sweaters, leather shoes.
Ready
I am more than happy to explain this to you as long as it takesBut You have to read my posts , not just repeat the same mistaken nonsense over and over
This statement “ALL PEOPLE WHO HAD HYDROXYCHLOROQINE DID NOT DIE,” is simply a bald faced lie. I know of literally dozens of patients who died in spite of hcq. Many had taken it as soon as symptoms started.
Please don’t repeat lies over and over.I couldn’t agree more
Though this isnt new to 2020 this brain addled character who cant handle questions has been in office for almost 4 years!
and this will really blow your mind but people still support him!ready
There have been over 25 million Covid cases world wide There have been less than a million deaths.
24 million people survived Covid.Even if we assume that half of them got HCQ (a very generous assumption not at all grounded in reality) then 12 million people survived Covid without HCQ
With me so far?
So As I said “Most people who had Covid did not die” out of 24 million people who had it 850,000 is not most.
“That includes people who did not get HCQ.”
Even if you assume NONE of the 850,000 people received HCQ that is still not most of the (at least) 12 million people who didnt get it.Anyway you slice it the vast majority of people survived COVID without HCQ.
So how do you know that these 1200 or so people survived thanks to HCQ.And ask yourself this, if the study in any way showed what you mistakenly concluded, why did nt the authors write that? why bury the more remarkable conclusion “between the lines” ?
ready
Again. Most people who had covid did not die .
That includes people who did not get HCQ.How do you know they’re having taken HCQ had anything to do with it
“10% is a very huge number. Agreed?”
sure! Even less than that is very significant.
“The idea is to put patients on Dr. Zelenko’s protocol to reduce the death rate.”
That would be great!
However Dr. Zelnko’s study did not show a statisticly significant reduction in the death rate.
and The Saudi Arabia study didnt even look at death rate.That isnt to say there are no studies that showed a reduction in death rate. but reports studies accuratly dont claim they show things that they didnt (and that they dont even claim to)
Ready
I am not asking for forgiveness. I’ve explained this over and over, it is hard to imagine your misunderstanding isnt deliberate at this point.“Can you just look below the surface? They did not die.”
Again. Most people who got covid did not die. And when I say most it isnt like 51%. It is over 95%. The vast majority of those did not get hcq.
Thats why any study needs to be carefully conducted.I had covid and bh did fine, without hcq, so fod my neighbors. Does that prove hcq isnt helpful? If course not. Not in the slightest. Another neighbor had covid and hcq and did fine. Foes that prove it us helpful? Again of course not.
Just looking at people and seeing how they do doesnt tell us anything.
The only way to get meaningful information is to take 2 SIMILAR groups, whered you expect a similar outcome, one gets (or got) the investigational therapy the other dorsnt, and see if they have a different outcome. Just looking at individuals (even thousands) who got hcq and lived doesn’t tell us anythimg. Millions (literally) did not get hcq and did fine.“Do you not think the aim of the study was not written with that in the back of the study’s
methodologist’s minds?”No o dont think. I’m certain. That’s not what the study looked at. I read it. The study is not about how effective the treatment is. Not at all.
If it was what’s the control group? Granted none died. Compared to whom?Ready now,
againPlease google the study. IT doesnt seem like you did
Here is the goal of the study “This study aimed to assess the safety outcome and reported adverse events from hydroxychloroquine use among suspected COVID-19 patients”
They did not look at whether there was benefit from HCQ. That is NOT what the study was looking at. You are confused.
Here is the conclusion
” Conclusion: In our study, results show that the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in mild to moderate cases in an outpatient setting, within the protocol recommendation and inclusion/exclusion criteria, is safe, highly tolerable, and with minimum side effects”verbatim.
Again, It did not look as to whether they benefited from HCQ. The study looked at whether it was tolerated. And it showed that it was. Please keep the studies straight.
This has little to do with Dr. Zelnko’s study whre he looked if theire was benefit from HCq/Zinc/Z\azithro And showed there was benefit with hospitalization, but could not show mortality benefit.
tHe Saudi Arabia study looked at whether the treatment was safe/tolerable.
You dont have to read thw whole thing, just read the abstract (sort of a summary)ready
that isn’t what the study looked at.
We dont even know if they ad covid .Ready
The Saudi Arabia study did not look at survival.The seal of Hashem is emes. You pretend to care about Hashem, stop lying and misrepresenting studies
n0m
“As such, they could not have received any medication etc…”
anything is possible. you said originally “no treatment” that could mean a lot of things. “no medications” is a bit narrower.
As for ventilation, the vast majority of those hospitilized where no ventilated
ready
“repeating-”
IF all you ar doing is repeating. you can stop I addressed all your points.
I am happy to elaborate/ clarify as needed but if you are just repeating, there is no need for that“…It “may save more lives” because as I have written, each case is an individual and not a statistic,… ”
So forget studies. Treat with whatever you think might work HCQ, standing on their head, try schmearing sour cream on their feet. It “may save lives” go for it. I said this in April and repeated it 10’s of times since.
Just dont misinterpret studies, and at the same time claim studies arent needed. That’s a bit confusing
In fact. don’t bother replying to this thread anymore Only Hashem determines if your response will come across. If He wants it to appear here IT will even if you don’t type it.
n0m
“or given any treatment’”
I dont know what that means. Obviosuly they were given SOMETHING Oxygen? fluids? antihypertensives if they had hypertension? Probably means they weren’t given some specific treatment like didnt get HCQ or whatever the paper was looking at.Ready
“The Saudi Arabia study, in the end, had 1,555 suspected COVID infected participants with clinical symptoms. They all survived.”
Ok so no.
The study did not look at the eficacy (whther it helps) the study showed ” In our study, results show that the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in mild to moderate cases in an outpatient setting, within the protocol recommendation and inclusion/exclusion criteria, is safe, highly tolerable, and with minimum side effects.”
They looked at safety. not at all the topic of this threaddid you read the study? at least just the abstract? You can google it.
“and may save more lives than doing nothing.”
Lots of things “may save more lives”
Lets have all patients stand on their head for a half hour. It May help?And again. IF you think it MAY help and want to try it (whether HCQ or standing on your head) by all means go for it. That desn not mean that 1) it does work and 2) someone is wrong for not trying it
n0mesorah
Very well said.
I’d like to add a related point. Learning all day is hard (impossible? ) for children (and most adults). At the heart of Torah umadah is the idea that both Torah and maddah are important in serving Hashem. This isnt limited to “Madah” per se but cultural in general. for example Tradition, perhaps the flagship journal of modern orthodoxy, has a running online column entitled ““The Best” – עידית” about using Western culture for good.
Playing sports is not just a “necessary evil” like it was in my yeshiva as a kid, but a positive attribute in of itselfIs it any wonder then, that kids (who grow in to adults) would rather Serve Hasehm by watching Toy Story then learning Rashi? that they would rather play basketball than go to a Motzei Shabbos learning program. Both are great!
And to be honest, I do agree with them, that both are Great (though obviously not equal) but to kids thuis is confusing, if both are good things why learn? lets do the more fun great thing!(This is the same reason why behavior is an issue at General studies in more charedi yeshivos, the message given over is that general studies “English” is all a waste of time and bitul torah that we have to do because of the government. and this was the message at my more “open-minded” yeshiva that at 3 hours of English. althoug this isnt the topic of the thread I mention it becasue it is the flip side of the same coin)
Ready now
…. and therefore?
“The Saudi Arabia study (google these words)…”
Again? I googled it 3 times already.
I dont know wht your point is. The study has nothing to do wit h Dr . Zelnko’s Dr. Zelenko looked to see if HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin reduced hospitilizations or death. He showed it reduces hospitalizations among younger healthier patients than average (He could not show a mortality reduction)
The Sauda Arabia study (google it) Looked as at side effects as a result of HCQ+zinc. They showed it was “highly tolerable and with minimum side effects” Almost half of their patients didnt have Covid, This has nothing to do with Dr. Zelnko’s study. I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up.
“Please see and google…”
I did and I repliedI’m not sure what you are saying . Have of the post is you quoting me (sometimes you quoting me quoting you) .
“Don’t leave it too late, the clots are waiting to set in and nothing seems to help then, has v sholom.”
Still not correct. I know patients who died and never had clots, patients who had clots and survived. and more to the point many many who never had HCQ and did fine .That doesnt mean everyone did fine obviously. but Dr. Zelenko’s study sadly doesn’t change much.
“No comment on this?”
no becasue We are still on Dr Zelenko’s study. And I’m not sure how it changes his outcome.
“I do not understand that you appear not to think that person’s mental state can be left on the shelf when considering holistic health in any disease situation.”
It can depression does not lead to worse outcomes among Covid patients. AND even if it did it certainly isnt equivalent to COPD
“COPD may be more intuitively a risk,”
No not intuitvley there is data for that.“but you cannot overlook the fact that perfectly healthy people have had COVID and have perished has v sholom.”
Absolutely true.“Age may not be a factor alone, it is the increased chance of developing “conditions” the longer one lives(as is seen in real life) but it is not necessarily a consequence of aging alone.”
Again. Look at Dr. Zelenko’s study Group A was those over 60 period. Regardless of conditions (true many had conditions, but that is not WHY they were given HCQ)
“So did Dr. Zelenko actually have no patients 70 and over.”
No reported.” If not why not? Do you suggest a conspiracy?(no!)”
I dont know could be he treats a younger clientele than average (This was pointed out on te first thread way before he released his data) could be he chose (intentionaly or not) to ignore some bad outcomes which were more prevalent among the elderly.
I don’t know . anything is possible. It could just be bad luck.
The bottom line, s by saying it helped younger (on average) people than the population is not really useful information. Of course younger people with HCQ did better! younger people without HCQ do better too!“It means regardless of statistics we are told by Torah to never give up”
while true, what is the shaychus here. Did I say to give up?” and he had “fewer” deaths,”
Again, his study couldnt show that sadly (even among his younger and healthier than average cohort)“The point is to go to a doctor and listen to him”
Lol. No that was my point! from the beginning back in April
your point was to find a doctor who would give you HCQ“Ubi, would you yourself take the triple formula?”
Depends on the circumstance. Probably not, though If I felt desperate I would I’m not opposed to it.“In the study group, for all participants, 70% had other diseases.”
What other disease?
Surely not all diseases are created equal. do you think a Patient with depression (11% had “psychiatric disorders”) is the same as a patient with COP when it comes to COVIdAnd Icant heklp but notice that you didnt answer the question. The answer is none.
no patients in his age over 60 group had COPD“The distribution of each disease may have been different from the untreated group.”
Well that matters deosnt it?
If I take 100 patients with Depression, and compare them to 100 patients with COPD And treat the first group for COvid If the ydo better does that show HCQ helps?
Saying well they all have “diseases” doesnt just make them similar“But there is an obligation to medicate younger people who have other diseases.
So age in itself is not a determining factor in treatment.”I dont know what this means.
Dr. Zelnko’s Group A is “age >60 years; with or without clinical symptoms” He gave them HCQ and comapred them to the general population. Now we dont know any demographics of his control group. We do know that his “age > 60” group is much younger than the general population. Fro the general population half of those over 60 are over 70. In Dr. Zelenko’s Group none were! (the oldest patient enrolled was 69)“Even if the “knife” is at us, we are not allowed to lose hope.”
I dont understand the connection to this topic“Dr Zelenlko’s result was according to Hashem’s Will.”
Why do you think Hashem didnt want his study to show a benefit in mortality?And more to the point, why do you think so many people have trouble accepting that the study is flawed?
Be careful not to test anyone.
Especially if you see some fava beans and a Chianti“The untreated group was “unhealthier” because they were not being treated.”
Maybe.
LEts focus on one arm of the study starting with Group those over 60 years of age.
However how many of the study cohort had COPD?
Have a look (the easiest place to see is Table 2)How many of the control goup had COPD?
This is harder becasue we don’t know. In the general population over 60 its about 10%That is a big difference!
“We can’t say that age in itself is an influencing factor”
Why not?
A lot of data skews that way. And it was one of the assumptions of the entire study. Remember Dr Zelnkos says not to give everybody. Just those older (over 60 group A in the study) shortness of breath (group B) and sicker (group C) . It is odd that Dr,. Zelenko beelives age is a factor but you are trying to defend his study by saying it isnt“but in the end, it is all up to Hashem as He Alone is in control.”
Sure so forget this conversation. ou dont care about studies, you dont need HCQ Hashem is in control. finished.“So the treatment was effective.”
Could be. But Dr. Zelnko’s study doesnt show that“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.”
Yes, obviously.
“Ubi wrote-The study DID show a decrease in hospitalizations*,*Though as mentioned, there’s a flaw there too.”?”
Yep, has been explained several times .
In a nutshell the cohort in Dr. Zelnko’s study was healthier and younger than average.
So you are comparing two groups
Group 1 – Younger heathier group who got the therapy in question -> less hospitilizations
Group 2 – Older, sicker group who did not get the therapy -> more hospitilizations.
Do you see why although the experimental group (group 1) had less hospitilizations, we can in no way
conclude that the less hospitalizations was thanks to HCQ/Azithro/Zn ?“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.
1
“America is usually a turn for the worse after 8 years of Dem leadership.”
This demonstrably, incorrect
By virtually any benchmark The US was in a better position in 2000 than in 1992. Similarly the US was in a better position in 2016 than in 2008. Both Clinton and Obama left behind stronger economies than when thy arrived
The same cannot be said when you compare 2020 to 2016 and 2008 to 2000.
Turns our that in fact, America takes a turn for the worse after republican leadership“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)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
“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)