Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
“The data will support the intuition!”
I certainly hope so!
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
Zinc
“The data will support the intuition!”
I certainly hope so.
Thwe question was “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country”
My answer was because there is no data to back it up. you say that there is a fellow’s intuition and he will evemtually release data to support his intuition (unclear what he is waiting for)
Do you understand why not all physicians would follow one guy;s anecdotal report with the promise for data to follow later?
.
“Do you get it?”
Yep!
I got it over 2 months ago.“that Dr Z’s results speak volumes!”
Hopefully! So far he hasn’t released anything
“Dr. Z has a retrospective study coming out soon.”
Super excited! (Don’t hold your breath he’s been saying that for weeks)
“We know intuitively that his results are very good.”
No you know it intuitively. I want to see data
Health
Health
“Btw, do you Know – Who is the State Prosecutor?!?”Yes
“The preliminary Report told the Whole Story.”
why becasue thats what you want to believe?
Do you always accept preliminary results over final ones especially when they seem far fetched?So just so I have this straight. you believe that Floyd just happened to have a “heart attack” while poor chauvin had his knee there. and that there was no reason for Chauvin to remove his knee even after Floyd was unconscious. and the final ME’s autopsy and the private autopsy are all lying, but you can sense the real truth is that right?
Millhouse
The 2 autopsy reports I am aware of listed the cause of death as
1) “a cardiopulmonary arrest while being restrained by law enforcement officers, who had subjected Floyd to subdual and “neck compression” (Hennepin County medical examiner )
2) “mechanical asphyxia” (private medical examiner)” He died of a heart attack brought on by his health condition and his drug use, perhaps exacerbated by the stress of being arrested and restrained. ”
Is this from some other autopsy report?
Millhouse
“Again, the cops’ conversation shows that they were considering him to be in excited delirium, ”
Again, at best that lowers the charge to manslaughter. Cops can’t just assume things therby abdolve themselves.
“for which they are supposed to keep him restrained so he doesn’t flail around and hurt himself. ”
Hard to hurt yourself when your unconscious.
“And the knee hold was a CONSCIOUS hold.”
Yep read the guidelines posted above.
“He did not pass out because of the knee hold”
Well that’s just chauvins bad luck isn’t it.
And of course i assume you have your own autopsy report to back this up?” His shortness of breath had nothing to do with the knee hold, because he was complaining of it (truly or falsely) before it was applied. ”
Certainly didn’t help.
“He died of a heart attack brought on by his health condition and his drug use, perhaps exacerbated by the stress of being arrested and restrained”Neither autopsy report said that.
. The exact same thing would..
So you’re a Navi now?
Maybe that’s how you made up your own autopsy report?“And he was not some good upstanding citizen ”
Immaterial.
“entitled to a presumption of innocence and good faith ”No presumption watch the video.
r”. So he had lost his chezkas kashrus”
So have you.
Stop making things up
The video is there.
The police code of conduct is there.
The autopsy reports are thereHealth
““Resisting” can be as simple as going limp, holding onto a pole or just saying “no” to being handcuffed — or as violent as flailing, punching or kicking an officer in an attempt to escape.””
got it!
so lying face down on the ground with three officers on your back saying I will getting the car, is NOT resisting
And chauvin was in the wrong whe he contiued to use the technique on a subdued suspect.Boy you are really going to get mad at chuavin when you find out that NOT ONLY did he continue to use it after he was subdued, he continued to use it after Floyd was unconcious.
He eve continued for a fulll minute after the EMS arrived.Tell me was Floyd still resisting under NJ definition or any defintion ?
I guess he was “limp” is that what you mean?
Glad we agree.syag
“I heard it in every CPR/first aid class I’ve taken”
to clarify It IS true. It is taught to provide a sense of comfort, IE Don’t panic if your choking patient is coughing/talking they are still breathing , you can process the situation, call for help if in over your head etc. . but it isnt meant to teach that they arent in danger.
applying it to a case where a person’s throat is being constricted and he says “I cant breathe” as being “proof” that he is breathing is not what the first aid teachers meant ,
And again , this isnt geared to you, wev’e exhausted that point, I’m not saying thats what you meant.syag
“Thanks. Of course i put it out there as advice to follow in an emergency”Wasn’t just you. (thats why I separated it from my response to you)
Ive heard it in real life and several posters here posted it. on several different threads.
It is a very silly comment, I can only assume some right wing pundit said it and it spread from there. It is hard to assume several people came to the same bizzare realization independetly.
Regardless it is wrong, misleading and potentially dangerous please be sure to tell people you hear repeating itMillhouse
please stop lying.
“The fact that Chauvin chose this method, which is standard and approved by the Minneapolis Police Department, was not a factor”It was in violation of Minneapolis Police code
5-311
“The Conscious Neck Restraint may be used against a subject who is actively resisting.”He was no longer actively resisitng. chauivin kept him in the restraint for several minutes after he passed out
“And the protocol for excited delirium, which the cops’ conversation shows they thought was happening”
cops don;t get to think someone is delirious and use that to justify murder. We all so the videos .
chauvin said get in the car. Floyd replies “I will” and instead of letting him get in chauvin keeps his knee there
PSA:
There seems to be some confusion going around. I’m not sure where it started, I heard it from a few pwople. Namely that if someone says they can’t breathe the ycan still breathe.
Please Please Please do not take this silly advice to heart. If someone says they can’t breathe call an ambulance, take your knee of their throat, get ready to perform the Heimlich They are probably in deep trouble and even if technically breathing at that moment in time, there is no telling if they will still be breathing 5 seconds later., nor how effective their breath is
See Sean Hannit’yas (!!!) interview with Dr. Bander who performed the autopsy
Syag
“Nor mine”
Lol!Shucks just when I though I understood (You did explcitly say ” I am NOT discussing motives, I am commenting on the words YOU, a physician, used as INDICATORS that strangulation was obvious. period.”
I replied The exact method of how he died wasn’t my point.” I e the point I made that you are responding to was not my point. so he didnt die of strangulation that in no iota changes the thrust of my comment.You said you were replying to my saying “used as INDICATORS that strangulation was obvious” *
Nor yours? What t That is literally what you said
I dont think you are reading your posts.“I define “work” in this context as successfully and productively exchanging ideas or messages to another who then understands and responds and is understood in return”
You can define it any way you want. If it doesnt work for you all the best.
* ps I f you get bored I’d love to see where I said that ““Without a single extra word or letter” 🙂
Syag
” I usually just bow out”
Thats fine. It is a free country.
You asked where ““Point being “Without a single extra word or letter, please quote my words where i said that.” Is not a reasonable request.”” I replied. Its a bit funny to now say “I was assuming that not responding would be most productive” but you certainly can.
” I DO believe he was killed – but it did not look like he was being strangled.”
THAK YOU!
I was wrong
you did not say “that it is safe to constrict a person’s airway as long as he is still gasping for air,”” And I was wrong in misinterpreting .You were arguing on a technicality
I said “That cop pretty much deliberately murdered him. He held his knee there as Floyd gasped for air said he cant breathe, as even a partner asked him to get off. ”
you meant ““ …he didn’t gasp for air and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can, but you are right “I DO believe he was killed ” however not via strangulation. –“Do you get it now?”
Yes! thanksThat said
” I know that pressure on the neck cuts off bloodflow to brain and I assumed that that was why he passed out”Breathing isnt a yes/no situation. when people are having a cOPD exacerbation they often say “I cant breathe” it is obviously silly tio say “yes you can youre talking” Now that is true, they are still breathingm, but with difficulty and not getting enough O2 nor expelling CO2 . when you check their O2 levels they are dwon. yes they are breathing but not very well. One autopsy report said “asphyxiation from sustained pressure” I ( the other didnt) I don’t know which is correct but a. It is POSSIBLE that he died via asphyxiation although at some point he said “I cant breathe” menaing he was breathing at the time
B. The exact method of how he died wasnt my point.Millhouse
“The charging documents show that there is very little chance of convicting him”Then the looters are right. If we live in that unjust a society. Forget rule of law. Les din veles dayan. If a person can be videoed murdering someone and people watch and say meh. why not riot? what hope is there for all those who face police without cameras present where we are forced to acc accept the cop’s word over a video tape that we all see.
“I was trying to isolate one instance of what i call ‘distortion of my words’ so that I could clarify it as a starting point”
and I replied how I understood you that way. But you didn’t accept that because I added an “extra word”
If I misunderstood, again I’m sorry.
Though I’m hoping you can find it in you to explain what you meant.
Here is the context:
Ubiquitin: “That cop pretty much deliberately murdered him. He held his knee there as Floyd gasped for air said he cant breathe, as even a partner asked him to get off. ”
Syag: ““ …he didn’t gasp for air and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can. ””and therefore what? … what did you mean by that sentence? could you please spell it out It seems I misunderstood your intent.
Syag
2 more points
“Without a single extra word or letter, please quote my words where i said that.”
As mentioned, understanding is always in context.
In your first post you said “it is wrong to claim that posters unwilling to make floyd guilt free are not sympathetic, are supporting brutality or are “siding” with the policeman.” Can you “Without a single extra word or letter, please quote my words where i said that.”?
Of course you can’t, as I didn’t. You misunderstood my post because you read it out of context. At no point did I say what you attributed t me, and you cannot “Without a single extra word or letter, please quote my words where i said that.”
I may have misunderstood your quote becasue I read it in context.Again, its ok that you didn’t realize I was assuming the posters I referenced were replying to the OP’s question. I get how you made your mistake, my point is that To interpret a comment, you often need to add context.
If I ask “Syag Are you hungry” And you reply “Yes”
It is fair to say “sYag said she was hungry”Can I show “Without a single extra word or letter, please quote my words where” you said you were hungry? No I have to provide context. Sure it is possible that you were excited to Listen to a Moshe Yess album that you dug up and just announced his name and I misunderstood, so clarify. ” Oh I wasnt replying to your question about hunger, I was referring to the musician”
In whcih case I’d say “sorry I misunderstood”
Point being “Without a single extra word or letter, please quote my words where i said that.” Is not a reasonable request.
what did you mean when you said ““Also, he didn’t gasp for air, and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can…””
And therefore what….?
“Dr. Z has a retrospective study coming out soon.”
super excited!
“Since all studies have limitation”
YES! Finally now do you understand the answer to Doing My best’s question posed 2 months ago “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine”
?I think you do! Glad to have helped
If “Its safe” was an exaggeration or misunderstanding I’m genuinely sorry.
If you viewed the cop’s actions (holding a knee to his neck while he said “I cant breathe”) as dangerous I’m a bit puzzled what you meant to add with “Also, he didn’t gasp for air, and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can.”
I think you are again same mistake ALWAYS in context. It is impossible to explain a sentence “Without a single extra word or letter,”
It was said in context the context was:Ubiquitin: “That cop pretty much deliberately murdered him. He held his knee there as Floyd gasped for air said he cant breathe, as even a partner asked him to get off. ”
Syag: ““ …he didn’t gasp for air and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can. ””You were (seemingly) disagreeing with what I said. I had said the cop is guilty of murder for constricting his airway in spite of him saying I cant breathe. To which you said “No Floyd was breathing fine” (not a verbatim quote but I don’t understand how else to interpret your sentence )
If that isnt what you meant, I’m sorry but I have no idea what you were trying to say. Were you replying to something else? were you not referring to Floyd?
again of course I believe you and if you didnt mean it the way I understood it (or if I exaggerated) I was compleity wrong and completely apologize.
what did you mean? can you elaborate please.
I don’t want to put words in your mouth.
If I misunderstood that is on me. Feel free to correct the recordPekak
“Do I feel sympathy for the criminal? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?”
Just so that I have your position straight. Say a person was convicted of bank fraud (and he agrees he did it), and was sentenced to a completely unjust lengthy prison sentence. Would you not feel sympathy for his unjust sentence?
you know what bugs me most about this conversation.
A refrain I’ve been hearing and had accepted is that the looters ruined a chance for change. Finally the cop was on tape clearly guilty, all condemned the killing including the President all the right wing pundits, police nationwide. Maybe there was chance for change. We all saw police brutality first hand. Then it was squandered evil looters hijacked the narrative destroying any chance for meaningful change .
I see that was not true. there are people who saw the video and justify the cop’s action. who see “both sides”
Syag
“Without a single extra word or letter, please quote my words where i said that.”
sure here it is.
“and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can. ”Breathing is not a yes or no positive or negative. Of course someone who says “I cant breathe” is still breathing, but he is probably having a hard time doing it. And as it gets harder those breaths become less effective until he stops. Please remind any med student that tells you “any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can” that while that may be true at the moment, it probably won’t be true shortly thereafter,. they should get ready to intervene or call for help.
OR of course, remove their knee from the victim’s throat.If I in any way misunderstood your post please explain what you meant. Are you not talking about Floyd. Is it just some generic factoid about breathing. (in that case while technically true, I’d still caution you about relying on it too much)
My sincerest apologies if I in any way misunderstood what you meant .
I said “He held his knee there as Floyd gasped for air said he cant breathe, as even a partner asked him to get off.”
To which you said “he didn’t gasp for air, and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can” which I dont know how to understand in any other way.“Ubiq- according to your post, the op is not what you were responding to.”
i’m sorry I’m not sure what you mean
The OP asked a question “How is it possible that many yidden have almost no sympathetic feelings to George Floyd?…”
Several posters replied to that question.
I replied to Lower, ypou replied to me.
“Also, he didn’t gasp for air, and any med student knows that someone who tells you they can’t breathe, can…”
until they can’t. If a person is, say choking and gasping for ear saying “help I’m choking” You wouldnt say (I hope) No youre not choikng as “any med student knows ” And you certainly wouldn’t constrict his airway further. Yes He still has an open airway , but for how much longer? And even with a constricted airway even if enough O2 is getting in not enough CO2 is expelled which is harmful too (and potentially fatal in of itself)And Once Floyd stopped gasping for air did Chauvin let up?
No , he kept his knee there longer, so even in your mistaken assumption that it is safe to constrict a person’s airway as long as he is still gasping for air, Certainly once he stopped he should have let up .Also Syag you do this a lot you read comments ut of context.
THe question was “How is it possible that many yidden have almost no sympathetic feelings to George Floyd?”
So when a poster replies “Floyd was an ex-con who resisted arrest….”
He is answering the question. Ie he is saying why he has “almost no sympathetic feelings to George floyd”So when you say “wrong to claim that posters unwilling to make floyd guilt free are not sympathetic,” you are mistaken. That is LITERALLY what they are answering they are explaining why (to quote the OP) “have almost no sympathetic feelings to George Floyd” BECAUSE “Floyd was an ex-con who resisted arrest…” or BECASUE “He was a criminal.”
you may have sympathy for both ” putting responsibility everywhere it belongs.” but that is NOT what other posters said. don;t put words in their mouths .
syag
“you made that up”
I made what up?“but it is wrong to claim that posters unwilling to make floyd guilt free are not sympathetic”
I’m not sure If that was directed to me, I did no such thing .Are you sure you meant to direct your comment to me?
mine is the one next to ubiquitin“or are “siding” with the policeman”
here is a verbatim quote from a poster in this thread “How come you have No sympathy for the Cop.”Yes I know its hard to believe, but sadly its true
“and floyd would be alive today if he didn’t resist arrest. Are you gonna deny that?”
A. I’m not so sure. That cop pretty much deliberately murdered him. He held his knee there as Floyd gasped for air said he cant breathe, as even a partner asked him to get off. In a case like Garner’s you can try to convince yourself but no, Floyd was not killed while resisting arrest. you either didnt see the video or are making things up At the point that he killed him he was no longer resisitng he was coughed and on the ground.
I don’t even understand where you are coming from. Say he was in his cell and Chauvin walked into the cell saying “hey remember how you gave us a hard time earlier” and shoots him dead, would Floydd also be to blame?
B. and even if that were true (that had he not resisted he’d be alive) , so what? resisting arrest doesnt deserve death.
Using your logic if not for the cop killing many stores wouldn’t have been burnt down so is Derek Chauvin (or George Floyd partly to claim for ll the looting?Lower
“How did the video of George Floyd’s death not bother you? how do you know it doesnt bother me?”
not you, but look at some of the horrifying answers above.
Those posters are not alone. Vast swaths of people agree with them, hence the riots There are many many people who just dont care (some even say the quiet part out loud )One poster even wants sympathy for a murderer! A guy who was caught on tape snuffing out the life of another human. Oy think about the cop’s poor knee It must’ve been bruised having been held there for 8 minutes
Been saying that for years!
and a vote for GOP is a vote for fascists
gut gezugt!
Welcome to the good guys, glad to have you
“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.”
EVERY study has limitations. Which is PRECISELY my point . Just becasue Dr. Z claims he had success does not mean Everybody has to follow him. The NYU study which actually provides real data unlike Dr. Z who said 6 weeks ago he’s release his “study” in 2 weeks, also has limitations as the authors acknowledge. They dont claim that “ok everybody has to use zinc” They say look it “may play a role” Its confusing to me that you are more excited by their results than they are
I provided them from the NYU study above Paragraph beginning “This study has several limitations. First, this was an observational retrospective analysis that could be impacted by confounding variables…” . posted om 5/27 at 10:07 AM
zinc
“Reb Chaim absolutely did NOT call those who violate the heath ministry’s rules rodfim”
he did.
In point #2
“A person who claims that he trusts in Hashem that he won’t become ill and therefore he makes light of the health ministry’s instructions (keeping a distance from others, not leaving the home unless it’s urgent, etc.) can he be defined as a “rodeif” because he’s liable to endanger others?”
I cant be bothered to retype the hebrew but the above is a fair translation of point #2
(you are right about the informing part which was regarding a person violating quarantine)
The Novominsker Rebbe didnt take over R’ Moshe Sherer’s role.
He took over his titile.
Zwiebel took over R’ sherer’s roleBochur
” why you lookin at me!?”
Becaaue you arent being truthful
ready
“Compare that to the “Lancet” published study shown here and you must see they are 2 different studies.-”?
Of course they are two different studies.
Why are you having trouble with this, did you read either?“You guys can argue until tomorrow…”
At this point will be well past tomorrow.
I’m not even sure what it is we are arguigng about
Avi
Leave The Rema out of it, “Legitimate poskim” only please
“Ubiq, I read only the summary, I did not read the body of the Lancet study(sic).”
Lol before dismiss ing a study as “The study is not valid.” It’s good to read it. Keep in mind they aren’t doing it as a response to you or DrZ. HCQ, as you know , has fmgotten a lot of press. Trump claimed he took it, I don’t think he mentioned zinc.
Studying HCQ even without zinc makes sense.“The use of the word “may” is an unwarranted understatement.
That was a different study! Not the Lancet study”
Nope, those were limitations acknowledged by nyu
Does bohush ban people who inform the authorities regarding people chocking ? What about if they call to report car accident s? Fires?
Such mosrim should never be tolerated if a house burns with people in it, what kind of evil moser would report it? Is there a legitimate Rav that allows such a thing?
Why is it your business, stay in your house if there is no risk to you why report it?
“Funny or not”
Oh cmon it’s funny. Be a sport.
“Will you give Zinc + HCQ for Covid19?”
meh
I was never opposed to it, IVe given it before if patient wants it I’d prescribe it
“I was talking about your line of – “so derisively as if its useless”.”
Perhaps I exaggerated a bit,
but the word “only” is clearly derisive in context that it isnt as valuable as something else (whcih of course is true, if you had supplied say a RCT)
but to say “Btw, the conclusion that you brought down from the Lancet, is only an Observational Study” … “Here’s a new observational Study: From the NYU study:…” Is a bit funny.zinc
ready now
“The study does not even give doses that were administered, very. very significant omission!”
Lol! By saying that you indicate that you didnt read the study, and likely have never read any study ever, doeses are ALWAYS given..
“The mean daily dose and duration of the various drug regimens were as follows: chloroquine alone, 765 mg (SD 308) and 6·6 days (2·4); hydroxychloroquine alone, 596 mg (126) and 4·2 days (1·9); chloroquine with a macrolide, 790 mg (320) and 6·8 days (2·5); and hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide, 597 mg (128) and 4·3 days (2·0). ”
“Of course, also no zinc was used in the study! The study is not valid.”
Unclear to me , why that would make the study not valid. If you argue that it has no bearign on the use of HCQ + zinc, I could understand, but why doesnt it tell us that HCQ alone is not beneficial for covid19, and may even be harmful?
“The use of the word “may” is an unwarranted understatement.”
as the authors acknowledge “This study has several limitations. First, this was an observational retrospective analysis that could be impacted by confounding variables. This is well demonstrated by the
analyses adjusting for the difference in timing between the patients who did not receive zinc and those who did. In addition, we only looked at patients taking hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin. We do not know whether the observed added benefit of zinc sulfate to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin on mortality would have been seen in patients who took zinc sulfate alone or in combination with just one of
those medications. We also do not have data on the time at which the patients included in the study initiated therapy with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc. Those
drugs would have been started at the same time as a combination therapy, but the point
in clinical disease at which patients received those medications could have differed
between our two groups. Finally, the cohorts were identified based on medications
ordered rather than confirmed administration, which may bias findings towards favoring
equipoise between the two groups. In light of these limitations, this study should not be
used to guide clinical practice. Rather, our observations support the initiation of future
randomized clinical trials investigating zinc sulfate against COVID-19.”Its a bit strange that the authors ackowledge limitatiosn o the study but you (who clearly havent read it or the lancet study) say “The use of the word “may” is an unwarranted understatement.”
Dr. Z hasnt shown any study and has very limited anecdotal reports that don’t even tell us anything , and you jump on board.
Again to reiterate I am not disputing the study, and I am nto saying HCQ doesnt work.
“Don’t PUT Words in my Mouth! I never meant or said that.”
This is a verbatim quote from you: ““Btw, the conclusion that you brought down from the Lancet, is only an Obserational Study.””
“Don’t ask questions”
questions are always encouraged. Ask away, any question you have. thats what I love about this forum. f someone feels like answering the will (for free! no charge!) Of course if they don’t thats fine too. bu questions are always ok.
” – go look at the NYU study yourself!”
I didready now
“Dr Z made a valid study which is apparently going to be published in about 2 weeks, it is a retrospective study, completely valid.”
He said that over 2 weeks ago. Looking forward.“The use of the word “may” is an unwarranted understatement.”
I’m not sure if you read the study. The reason they put “may” is because the results are not so clear.
“In univariate analysis, the addition of zinc sulfate to hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was not associated with a decrease in length of hospital stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, maximum oxygen flow rate, average oxygen flow rate, average fraction of inspired oxygen, or maximum fraction of inspired oxygen during hospitalization” It was only when they performed a bivariate logistic regression analysis, that they found a link. They also noted “after excluding all non-critically ill patients admitted to the intensive care unit, zinc sulfate no longer was found to be associated with a decrease in mortality” Whcih confirms the anecdotal data I’ve been mentioning.None of this invalidates the study of course. IT very well MAY change prctice.
But Dr. Z’ so far has produced nothing. Which is the subject of the thread.
Reminder this thread isnt about whether HCQ helps (with zinc) Its whther everyone should prescribe it becasue Dr. Z said so.
Health
“because of the Lancet’s Observational Study. Maybe you should send them a copy of this stud…”
You say “observational” so derisively as if its useless “Btw, the conclusion that you brought down from the Lancet, is only an Obserational Study.” Yet you cite another observational study
Which showed that HCQ + zinc was better than HCQ alone. The Lancet study showed HCQ was worse than no HCQ. but what is better HCQ + zinc or no HCQ no Zinc ?” simply so you cannot be accused of ignoring it! Very funny,”
you are hard to please. You get upset If I don’t mention zinc
you get upset if I do .“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.”
Its not
As has been pointed out over and over. There are many many many people who have had no deaths. there are many many “high risk” patients who have had no deaths.“I don’t care about Doc Z. And I don’t care whether he’s got proof.”
That’s fine.
But that is the subject of the thread, and that is what I am addressingHealth
“is only an Obserational Study.”
I wouldnt say “only” as it looks at 10’s of thousdands thats a lot of observation, and even if “only” observational, thats better that Dr. Z. so far I have seen no study produced by him.“Don’t imply that’s the final word. I know that’s what you’re trying to Do!”
nope. not what I’m trying to do. I don’t think there ever will be a final word .
Again, as a reminder what this thread is about (it has been running for 250 posts for almost 2 months so easy to lose track) The OP asked “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country”
I am not arguing to use it I am not arguing not to use it (I said this explicitly over a dozen times )I am just pointing out why some “doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country” which is becasue Dr. Z just doesnt have a convincing argument. A observational study while clearly not the last word, does show that perhaps there is some bias coloring Dr. Z’s anecdotal reports.
oR Maybe not.
zinc
“are there still people getting sick with corona to the point that they need hospitalization/oxygen etc.”
Yes
(Though I am a doctor so not sure you want to hear from me, particularly as it doesn’t fir your predetermined conclusion. The title of your thread says “in the frum world” but the text of the question does not. I have not seen frum pts with corona requiring hospitalization recently)
n)mesora
If your doctor thinks its a good idea
(If you were my patient I’d say yes zinc has noting to do with malaria as far as I’m aware but this isnt really my turf so check with infectious disease)
“There is your study,”
that isn’t a study.
and that is a bit vague he had one death out of some 600 people. If in surronding districts they had multiple (2?) deaths out of 1200 then HCQ is no better than nothing. If it was multiple deaths out of 1500 then HCQ was worse than nothing….He said he’s release the data “soon”
when?
e’s been talking about it for months.
Tell him to skip his next interview and publish the dataOtherwise all we have is currently published data like the study in the lancet “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis”
conclusion:
“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. Each of these drug regimens was associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias when used for treatment of COVID-19.“How about discussing the Salk vaccine for curing hemorrhoids.”
Sure go for it. you can discus anything you want
with zinc
(I I don’t include zinc in every post ready now gets angry)
“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.”
and did it help?
🙂
“Maybe the hospitals are less crowded so the patients are actually getting the attention they need.”
Yes I meat to include that. that is certainly true to. Is challenging managing ICU patients outside of the ICU. In our ICU the doors are see through vitals displayed at the nursing station. aside from the nurse limited to 2-3 patients tops there is someone else monitoring all the vitals.
during the height of corona with these patients being managed on a regular floor in a closed room, Unless the nurse physicly enters the room (After donning proper PPE) nobody knew how the patient was doing , and he/she was caring for more patients than is ideal.Lack of nutrition I havent seen. I’m skeptical it was as big an issue as reported. Patients and familes often become focused on nutrition /feeding even when patient is say already getting tube feeds or if electrolytes are being monitored. I obviously can’t speak for all hospitals, but more than once Ive met familes accusing hospitals of starving patients who were being getting tube feeds which in their view “isnt really food” .
“The hospitals certainly became very busy but in New York they never ran out of space”
true thanks to social distancing
“I am sure doctors are aware if a patient has a pre-existing heart condition”
It has nothing to do with preexisting heart conditions. HCQ is well known to extend the QTC (part of the heart rhythm, if it becomes to long the heart can descend into a potential fatal rhythm called torsades)
Certainly if a patient already has a long QTC they are at risk , this can be ascertained by a simple EKG.The bigger concern is then if more QTC prolonging mediations are added, like if the patient takes a z pack for say penumonia.
“if the life would hang in the balance with the threat of coronavirus. The risks have to be weighed”
no question.
I literally said this in my very first post way back on April 6. Go check its still there“Also, the longer someone waits to get sick, the more the medical establishment knows how to treat it”
A great point. I can’t put my finger as to what it is, and look forward to data that wil eventually emerge. but without question the covid pats Iv’e seen over the past month did a lot better than those a month before. Again this is purely anecdotal , and I can’t tell you what it is that seems to be helping (remedesvir ? convalescent plasma? stopped giving axithromycin? heparin?) But without question patients who a months ago I’d have thought were doomed (based on then current experience) are doing better when they arrive now
“If you were overwhelmed why didn’t you send patients to the Javits or the Comfort? ”
1. We did send some to comfort
2. As health pointed out They weren’t accepting Covid patients at first so the bulk of patients that were overwhelming the hospital couldn’t even be off loaded
3. By the time the comfort allowed Covid pts the worst was over. While waiting pts had been transferred upstate to ease the pressure (unfortunately without always notifying the family)