Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
rightwriter
“our neighbor warned you of something that is existent already. How do you compare that to a bunch of “elitists” warning you word for word of what will happen especially a month before it happens!”
Pandemics existed already. They have happened before. And here is the real kicker, it will happen again. I guess you heard it here first. does that mean when (not if) it happens, whether in 5 years, 10, 50 ,100 I was behind it?
As to “word for word” this is literally their job. an engineer can tell you how a building will collapse. a fire inspector can tell you how fire spreads. Epidemiologists and infectious disease experts can tell you how disease will spread. I cannot fathom how you find this befuddling
n0mesora
“My point is, since brain death will never be declared on a breathing patient, (Because if they can breath on their own that proves a functioning brain.) the question became inapplicable.”
Again I’m not sure what you mean. Your first sentence is correct. but not the seocnd People are declared dead via brain dead standard daily. It is not at all inapplicable. As part of the determination, the vent which is ventilating the non-breathing patient s shut off (after pre-oxygenating the patient) and they wait a bit to see if the patient breathes. If he does he is not declared dead. If he doesn’t breathe he is dead. At thsi point the vent is reconnected to potentially allow for organ donation
“That because of brain trauma one can be declared dead even though there is a possibility of the lungs still working on their own”
The lungs don’t “work on their own” each and every breath is directly controlled by the brain (technically brain stem). In the absence of a brain the patient doesnt breathe. Again, NOT becasue there is anything wrong with his lungs (this may have been what you meant) his lungs are perfectly fine (in fact these lungs can potentially be used for someone else by transplanting them). But he is not breathing because the brain isnt “telling” him to.
As a reminder the heart may still be beating, since unlike the lungs, the heart is not controlled by the brain.So the question becomes what is the halachic status of a person with no brain function, who cannot breathe on his own, but whose heart is still beating .
Most poskim say since his heart is beating he is alive period.
R’ Moshe seems to say in his teshuvas (and his son R’ Dovid explicitly said he held this way) says this patient is not alive because he isnt breathing. R’ Ovadiah Yosef held this way as well
(other poskim held he is dead because it is considered as if he is decapitated which mishna in Ohelos says is dead but whtehr this accurately describes a brain dead patient is questionable)righwriter
I was skating on thin ice. A neighbor warned me that the ice was to thin and it would crack, I’d fall in and get wet and really cold.
Now this will blow your mind. But I fell got wet aaaaand was cold! all EXACTLY like he said would happen. This is PROOF that he pushed me in.
I can’t think of any other explanation.
Can you?“Now why do I have to back up my claim?”
you don’t its a free country and a free platform.
however you do often (very often) advertise yourself as some sort of expert, as if your pronouncements carry weight. To be taken seriously you meed to be able to backup your pronouncements. when you say “HCQ is a recommended Tx. for Covid19.” You should be able to (calmly) reply to a simple question as to who recommends it. It is strange that it took you several posts to come up with a relatively obscure group that advised a Governor not to ban the use of HCQ, and to spin that as a “recommendation”
In short you don’t HAVE to back up your claim. but if you want people to listen to you, you should.
Millhouse
Thank you. Though I still don;t fully get it.
Webster dictionary has an entry “stop by ” they give an example “Feel free to stop by anytime.”
Cambridge has a similar entry with example “He stopped by the office to drop off a copy of the contract.”Why would “He stopped by the office…” be acceptable but “He stayed by the office to do some work.” not be.
You wrote “you can certainly stop by at your cousin’s home, ”
so I cannot “Stop by his home” ?
ThanksAnd it isnt just yiddish and German’s I work among Italians and they all say it (though i suppose it is possible they got it from Jews they say schlep, kvetch etc )
Health
thanks for the source. not exactly a recommendation for its use, rather opposing its ban. but for these purposes it’ll suffice. thank you
“Free of Charge:”
unclear why you would charge, for providing a source that sort of backs up your claim.
“I’m Not your instructor. Ask s/o in your facility that is in ID.”
I did they are skeptical that for patients who are not Zinc deficient, zinc was necessary. But say Hey “wjhy not” when you said “Had to be given”
The USC health piece you cite concludes “In short, if coronavirus is like an SUV, zinc lozenges may well be something like an oil change, though we’ll need many more miles to really know for sure.”
This is a far far far cry from ““Zinc has to be given for Covid19…”
I naively assumed (hoped?) you had an actual source and weren’t making stuff up again
I was wrong
again.
It is ok to give your own suggestions, after all your expertise in health is renowned . but please don;t try to pass off your own thoughts and recommendations as established guidelines as inevitably you get caught and it makes you look foolish .
“Another Lie. That’s why I’m antagonistic to you!”
you were antagonistic before that was written“BTW, my post was based on the American Thoracic Society Guideline.”
Fantastic! thank you that was my question. thank you for answering. I’m not sure why you dint say that earlier.Although worth noting they also say “For patients with COVID‐19 who are well‐enough to be managed as outpatients, we make no suggestion either for or against hydroxychloroquine (or chloroquine). ” This thread wasn’t really about hospitalized patients , we are discussing Dr. Z who treated outpatients. Thus far as far as I’m aware there is no guideline or suggestion supporting the use of HCQ for those well enough to be managed as outpt.
“Ya’know you should stick to Nephro & Don’t worry about ID.”
I’m not sure why you are being antagonistic. Its a legitimate question
Obviously Health is Not a Medical Professional!
But then again we all knew that. A medical professional would know the whole body is intertwned, plus for dialysi patients I tend to function as their PMD.anyway. didnt answer my question Iasked “Who recommends using HCQ”
If the answer is a secret guidelines committee or you just say so Please don;t provide links that answer another question.furthermore the second source YOU cite says the opposite.
Here is a quote from the reference.
“However, there are some long-known clinical side-effects and interactions with other medications. It is still premature to conclude the role of chloroquine…”As for the second example I asked for a source to justify your statment ““Zinc has to be given for Covid19 even when they aren’t deficient.”
you provided
“, the consumption of up to 50 mg zinc per day may provide a protective role against the COVID-19 pandemic”Again the opposite of what you are saying. (sure it “may help” I never doubted that. And Its been given out like candy so I’m not opposed to it. I was surprised when you were so sure that it “Has to ” be given)
Please stick to driving ambuletes and stop dispensing medical advice
Kids did teleconference before Pesach. They are so happy with the switch to zoom and without question are doing much better and gaining much more .
The askonim are right
huju
Ive frequently heard that criticism and theory (though IVe heard many non yiddish speakers say “by” in similar sentences though it often can mean near which is of course correct.)
. But is it true?If you look up “by” in online version of Webster’s You will find a l ot of defintions of “by” the second group is “by” as an adverb
Under the 2nd definition of “By” as an adverb you find:
2a “at or to another’s home”with an example “stop by”
So if a definition of “by” is “at another’s home” what is wrong with “I am staying by my cousin..” ?
thanks
Health
“HCQ is a recommended Tx. for Covid19.”
Recommended by whom?
“Zinc has to be given for Covid19 even when they aren’t deficient.”
source please” His inheritance, whatever it was, wouldn’t on its own magically grow hundred-fold, as it has.”
No not by magic see ” Donald Trump Would Be Richer If He’d Have Invested in Index Funds BY CLAIRE GRODEN ”
“The facts are simple: What he said was perfectly sensible and logical,”
Amazing Stuff!
Even Trump says he was being “sarcastic” but his blind followers still bend realityTrump said it best ” I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose voters.” (perhaps his one truthful statement )
“because unless your a genius you cant become a billionaire business man , especially if you dont have an education!!!”
Sure you can Here are a few ways:
1) all you have to do is inherit your money from your father. Make a series of bad deals to turn what should have been 100’s of billions into a “mere” billions.2) Keep your tax records super private breaking with tradition. go to court if you have to to keep them super secret . Hype yourself up so nobody knows what you are actually worth and act like a cartoon hobo’s version of a rich guy would
Ready
Are you opposed to using HCQ now? Half of the sources youve been citing say not to. Fro example the latest source not 15 seconds into the video “Anything that I said is not meant to recommend you take this drug”
and for what its worth. OVer the past weeks hospital where I work started checking Zinc levels on patients almost none have been Zinc deficient. Your statements “The more susceptible patients are deficient in many nutrients, ” and “loss of sense of taste and sense of smell. This indicates a zinc deficiency, as all the zinc in the body has been utilized in fighting coronavirus, ” Do not seem to be based on any evidence (and anecdotally are contradicted) do you have a source for those statements?
“but you are allowed to give a discount for early payment”
I don’t believe this is accurate. My notes aren’t in front of me but I’m pretty sure “early bird discount s” are generally ribbis albeit drabanan.
I once asked Rabbi Reisman about gift cards and iirc he said it wasn’t ribbis because it isn’t a loan. You are buying a coupon that is worth more than you paid.
“There have been talks about this being lab made from day one”
But I first heard it from you.
There have been talks of the risk of pandemic for decades, but becasue YOU never heard it, you suspect that the recent event you heard about it behind it. “while before then we never heard of such a word as pandemic. ” Because YOU never “heard of such a word” made you suspect.
Using your “logic” becasue I never heard anyone say it was from a lab before you, means you run the lab“I think your tin foil hat is blocking your already thick skull from information”
The opposite. To understand your “thought” process better a tin foil hat is criticalDY
lol.
huju
“Maybe it has faded in the last few decades. As I said, there are numerous exceptions”
That’s exactly it. a lot of “rules” aren’t really rules, some that were go into disuse. Words change enough people use “anyways” that arguably it is a word.
DY referenced the “rule” not to start a sentence with the word “but. But of course there is no such rule.
you mention the “rule” “possessive case for things was well-established when I was a high schooler. ” of course there is no such rule as you acknowledge
Today’s rule “Remember to never split infinitives” again not a “rule” as you acknowledged (and earlier you violated as pointed out by Dovidbt)Though
Make no mistake. I agree with DY. I realize my comment sounded like was hooting you down. I definitely find language interesting so keep up with these “rules” discussing them is fun.Though sadly I’ve long given up on improving my writing.
rightwriter
I’m safer in my bubble it prevents to government from using microwaves to steal my thoughts. and yes the world is quite dark for example would you believe a poster on this thread is responsible for releasing covid. and I can prove it: He said it was from a lab before anyone else did. According to my source someone saying something before it happens is proof that they did it.
“and you will see that zinc is indispensable for treating coronavirus.”
Oh wel if Dr. Z says so….
Anyway, as I said “ok so take zinc”
I don’t have time or patience for 22 minutes of him Iv’e heard him before. Anything new in this one? can you summarize?
“Yes, I used “ain’t” as a provocation.”
Maybe people use “anyways” as a provocation ?
rightwriter
We’ve already conclusively proven that you released Covid. you distracting from what we already know only further confirms your guilt
“therefore I take the last few igrus moshe with a grain of salt”
Absolutely no question.
I’d say more than a grain. Though I wouldn’t say “complelty irrelevent”
in this case though we also have earlier teshuvos eg YD 3:176 written in 5736 (1976) published in chelek 6 which I dont think ANYONE has questioned the veracity of. wcich seems to support brain death
Plus R’ Dovid Y”blch supports this understanding of his father’s positionJoseph
“A large percentage of readers will simply not do so and thus disregard the comment and whatever point was trying to be made.”
Oh I agree completely
And I agree completly if you want to persuade people or reach a wider audience the n certainly sloppy grammar and poor syntax is a hinderance.
But in most cases so what Yes my posts are riddled with typos, bad autocorrect and plain errors. Is the world really lacking much if “A large percentage of readers” disregard my comments.
nu nu its their loss. I don;t get the big deal.
Are you saddened that my words of wisdom aren’t reaching as wide an audience as they would with better prrofreading ? 🙂
syag
Well said, though wrong apostrophe use does get me a little antsy (other than for contractions) the other one that gets me especially in advertisements is strange quotation marks.huju
“ain’t, not aint.”I assume this too was a joke?
rational
“I respectfully disagree with ubiquitin. Poor use of any language fails to accurately convey the message”Most of the time it doesn’t, and when it does, I’d be more than happy to rephrase
“their-they’re and others force cause English speakers to pause and spend time “figuring it out”.”
how much time does it take to decipher which is meant , is it really that confusing?
Incidentally what does “…force cause…” mean ? don’t worry it took me less than an instant to realize what you mean
Ubiquitin’s law of the internet strikes yet again.I’m not arguing for ignoring all grammar. and certainly in a halachic pesak or any persuasive writing where clarity is important. But in the coffee room, meh Most of the time the point is clear enough in spite of typos or “non-standard” English. If it isnt clear,ask for clarification if you still can’t make sense of it, its usually no big loss.
Common saychel
It isn’t totally irrelevant, as his grandson was the compiler of the Igeros Moshe so his explanation of an ambiguos teshuva certainyl carries soem weight, and his son in law was the one with whom he discussed medical halacha.
Also I said “His sons (R Dovid can be seen on YouTube supporting this) and son in law…” I can’t help but notice that you left off “Sons” Was that deliberate? why?
Are you saying That R’ Dovid testifying what his father held is “completely irrelevant”?As an aside, I have no problem with you saying R’ Dovid testifying what his father held has no bearing either(though it does sounds strange to me) and all that matters is written teshuva beseder so read the teshuva. Skip that line of mine . I think it matters, but if you don’t, I can live with that. BUT you can’t say talmid x said R” Moshe held qrs. Thats inconsistent
“do you quote R Aurbachs son in law opinion as his? ”
No not as his, but if his son said That R’ shlomo Zalamn held xyz, then of course I ‘d say his son held so. Particularly if R’ Shlomo Zalman Wrote several teshuvos that strongly sounded like xyzhow about Rav JB Soliviackis son in law. ”
Of course! all the time“Do you quote Bar Ilan opinion as the Nitzivs opinion because he was his son?”
Again if he said his father said xyz then I think so. why not?Dovitbt
Lol Ubiquitin’s law of the internet strikes again.
Incidently I don’t get people’s hangup with “proper grammer” especially in an informal setting like the coffee room.
for example “There is no English word “anyways,” ”
Says who? Plenty of people use it, and nobody has any trouble understanding it So why isn’t it a word. All online dictionaries have it as a word (albeit they lable it “informal” or “slang” ) so relax the coffee room isn’t so formal.“If so, how will they protect their vulnerable family members”
I don’t follow the premise of this question. Anti-vaxers never care about their vulnerable family members, why would they suddenly start caring?
” I understood that the heart could be functioning mechanically – not reflexively.”
I have a longer post pending. but if by “mechanically” you mean artificially ie with some mechanical device or machine, but it can’t function on its own. Then no that isn’t correct. In the absence of any brain function, the heart will keep beating and its normal steady rate as before
N0mesorah
The second half of your post sounds right, the first half is confusing.“I understood that the heart could be functioning mechanically – not reflexively”
I am not sure what you mean by either of those terms. The heart can beat independently of the brain. In fact they have done studies where a heart placed in proper solution of glucose, potassium, with oxygen being pumped etc can keep on beating in the absence of any brain activitiy. This is becasue the signal for he heart to beat does not come from the brain, but rather from specialized cells in the heart itself, that “tell” the heart to beat. This is known as the pacemaker cells or the SA node. Of course the brain (and spinal cord) do send signals to the heart to speed up or slow down as needed but in the absence of these signals ie even with complete severance of the brain and spinal cord from the body the heart will keep beating.
The lungs on the other hand are different. EACH breath is DIRECTLY controlled by the brain steam giving a steady signal: Breathe, Breathe, Breathe, etc. In the absence of the brain steam (or if the nerve that conducts this signal is damaged) the patient will stop breathing.
Again: His heart will still keep beating (assuming you provide a steady supply of oxygen obviously) becasue the heart’s signal to Beat, Beat, Beat…. does NOT come from the brain, it comes from the heart itself“Assuming I didn’t, my point was that zero function of brain stem reflexes by itself could never be an actual way to determine death,”
Again, I’m not sure what you mean by “never be an actual way to determine death,” do you mean halachaicly? Most poskim do say that (for varied reasons), however some disagree. If you mean legally ALL states disagree with you.“because if the major (heart or lungs) organs are working, that is proof of some brain activity.”
Again, no the heart can (and has) functioned completely perfectly in the absence of a brain.“The possibility of having life without the major organs is zero, even with a functioning brain stem.”
I’m nost sure what you mean with this sentence. Patients are put on Heart bypasss machines daily for surgery etc. I believe all would consider them alive even though for a period their “major organs:” werent functioning (after R” Yechezkal Roth underwent cardiac surgery there was a rumpr that he was mekadesh his wife again but even if true, this is far from the standard view)“Since the patient is not breathing, the only question is how to view the mechanical heart.”
Correcct.“That is not a question of brain function, as the brain can function (albeit in a meaningless manner) without the heart or lungs.”
I’m not sure what you mean by “meaningless manner” I would think its very meaningfull that a person with an artificial heart and who is ventilated still has his own brain function. In fact according to those who reject brain death, I’m not clear on what basis he is alive There is also the problem of the sheep experiment.
Though IIf I understand your point correctly, I believe R’ Dovid Feinstein made this point when explaining his father’s postition According to R’ Moshe: The brain, in of itself, has no bearing on whether a person is alive or not. If he is breathing independently he is alive, if not not. (note: If a vent is helping him breathe he’d still be alive, if the vent is completely breathing for him then he isn’t) A brain dead patient BY DEFINITION is not breathing on his own your last statment is correct ” If there is medical brain death without apnea, than I am completely wrong.” There is no brain death without apnea, by defintiion. thus according to his teshuvos and family, R’ Moshe held a brain dead person is dead (becasue he isnt breathing not becasue of lack of brain activity per se)Ready now
now you are just making up things. So all those infected with coronovirus should take Zinc? interesting even dr. Z hasn’t claimed that
but ok so take zinc As I said, all the people IVe seen not helped by HCQ took zinc
Nomesora
Your understanding is not at all accurate.
Brain death is accepted as death in all 50 states (though a few allow for a religious exception) and is routinely used in declaring death.Brain death refers to the lack of function of the brain stem. The brain stem controls certain biological functions including breathing . The heart functions independently of the brain, It has its own pacemaker. Thus a brain dead patient, by definition cannot breathe on his own. However he will have a normal heart beat.
Most poskim reject brain death as a definition of death, they hold as long as there is a heartbeat the patient is alive. A few accept brain death either because they view the brain as decapitated, or because if a person can’t breathe then they are dead (even if the heart is still beating).There is some question as to what R’Moshe held. He wrote a few teshuvoas on the subject which sound like he supported brain death. There is one yeshiva that is more explicit, but some have scheduled the authenticity of this teshuva
His sons (R Dovid can be seen on YouTube supporting this) and son in law and grandchildren all say he held brain death is halachic death, but others disagree.n0mesora
your understanding of the issue is incorrect.
Not one of your follow up sentences is correct.ready now
“People are giving HOQ without zinc and that defeats the purpose, it is the zinc that completes the cure in combination with the HOQ”You keep saying that but:
a. Everyone I know is givign it with zinc
b. Most people are not zinc defficnet so even without giving zinc, you already have plenty of zinc on boardAJ
that has way to many stepsMaybe someone can event some sort of electronic system where you can directly send money?
Like from a bank say chase to allow you to quickly pay someone? Or some system where you can pay your pal?
Hopefully some such system will be invented soon
Dr. who? this is amazing!
How isn’t this getting more press?
I can’t believe there aren’t any topics on this already
” the “control group” is the total of people who were in high risk categories and presented with symptoms of Wuhan Disease, and were not treated with this mixture.”
Ok, I’m with you that is a control group.
On to the next parthere is the problem is his experimental group comparable to the control group ie are the 405 outpatients he treated, comparable to the “total of people who were in high risk categories and presented with symptoms of Wuhan Disease, and were not treated with this mixture”
or is there something different about them?As yo usay “So considered as scientific research this would be a bad study and would not prove anything.”
” However he is not conducting research, and doesn’t purport to be. For his purposes it’s sufficient, and the only conclusion one can draw is that it seems likely that his treatment is helping.”
and thats fine . He SHOULD do what he thinks is best for his patients. That is not the point I am discussing. The discussion started over why others don’t follow suit.
Again to sum up, at no point did I criticize Dr. Z, and no point did I say not to take HCQ (in fact I said the opposite at first “can’t hurt” , but I’m even less convinced now)
My involvment here was solely in response to “Does anyone understand why doctors don’t want to give hydroxychloroquine even though it is working throughout the country” (asked on the first thread on this topic)
And the answer is 1) many haven’t found it to be working. 2) the data that suggests it IS working is a ” bad study and would not prove anything.”“There was no control group at all.”
I don’t think you know what a control group is .
I took the first definition I found ” the standard to which comparisons are made in an experiment” Whenever you do an experiment, without a control group -you can’t compare anything. If I want to experiment: does bleach clean clothes? The first question would be compared to what? you can compare bleach to water, to doing nothing , to another brand of bleach or to dipping it in mud. but just asking “Does bleach clean clothes, not compared to anything else” is meaningless from an experimental standpoint.
with me so far?
You asked “if we gave anyone who asked for it hydroxychloroquine, and then the amount of deaths fell by 50% ”
When you say “deaths fell by 100%” compared to what? That is meaningless without comparing it to anything.Now what you mean (I assume) is compared to before they took the HCQ. So THERE is your control. You have “every single Homo Sapiens” serving as BOTH your experiment (once they take HCQ) AND your control (before they took it) Sure there are limitations in this study (and for argument’s sake I’ll assuem there is some sort of biological plauisibility to taking it one day and death rate droppign the next) . and I defer any calculations regarding the p value, to statisticians. but at first glance that seems compelling .
Dr.. Z has 405 patients who took HCQ and did well . compared to what? did they do better than they did bthe day before? (I don’t think thats what hes claiming) did they do better than another 405 people who didnt get HCQ? which ones There are tens of thousands who got didn’t get HCQ and did just as well. So Who are we comparing Dr. Z’ experimental group to
(the next question will be seeing if they are comparable, but first WHO are they being compared to?
when I say bleach cleans clothes, compared to what?“Was it found to be safe? ”
Safe is relative, it is safer than dying of malaria or winding up on dialysis from lupus. Not as safe as not taking it if you dont need it. Some place in between those two
“They have done this, but without zinc in the HOQ group.”
aaaaannnnd? don’t keep us all in suspense“I don’t think it is ethical to stand around and not intervene when people are getting very sick”
Beseder, if you think it works go for it.
In fact a physician is protected legally if a patient dies as a result of a reatment he/she thought would help against COVId summary from our malpractice insurance” The Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services has declared, pursuant to the Public Health Service Act § 319F-3 (42 U.S.C. § 247d-6d), that a covered person’s activities related to medical countermeasures against COVID-19 will be immune from liability under Federal and State law.” (I’m not a lawyer double check with your lawyer for details)Again to remind you we are not discussing whterh HCQ works. We are not discussing whether it is reasonable to give it anyway and hope for the best. So if you are now saying “Ok it might not work, but what is thee to lose. ” Well I said that in my first post in this long repetitive thread
“Let’s not forget the zinc. People are giving HCQ without zinc and that defeats the purpose, ”
I have not seen it given without Zinc. that said, Zinc deficiency is quite rare, so I’m skeptical that it makes such a difference adding some more. But even less likely to cause harm, so why not?1) fun
2) to flesh out my own ideasThats it.
note: changing other’s mind is not on my list I doubt its on too many other’s here“For some reason many Establishment scientists have a hard time thinking out of the box”
I don;t know what “establishment scientists” And I’m not sure hwat you mean by “thinking outside of the box” Dr. Z didnt come up with this regimen, (he doesnt claim to have).
“Here’s a question to ask yourself, if we gave anyone who asked for it hydroxychloroquine, and then the amount of deaths fell by 50% would you say that it works or would you say that there’s still no evidence that it works because there was no control group etc. ?”
“anyone” is a lot of people. And there WOULD be a control group. you said “deaths fell by 50%” compared to what? whatever the answer to that question is THAT is the control.
In Dr. Z’s patients 405 got it and did well compared to whom? There are literally thousands and thousands of “high risk patients” who did not get HCQ and did just as well .
“I personally think that many ( not all) scientists/ doctors/ media who have decried hydroxychloroquine are now actually hoping that it doesn’t help coronavirus because they’d be embarrassed”
The reverse is true too. Even after there is increasing data that it doesn’t work people are sill insisting that it does . Its kind of strange actually.
“other than perhaps picking AOC as his “female” running mate”
she isn’t old enough.
Dong my best
“All these studies tested it on half dead patients.”
I’m not sure what “half dead” means. The patients IVe seen got it when they arrived int he ER most of them had fever and SOB.“The bottom line is that Dr. Zelenko only had about 2 deaths out of a thousand at-risk patients which is incredible.”
Where did you get a thousand, he says a few hundred? If his results are so impressive why the need to exagerate?“Considering the fact that none of his patients had heart attacks you might be wondering what the downside is”
not wondering , we know the downside. Its an old drug IVe used it for years in lupus nephritis“Says Dr Zelenko, he said that.”
You skipped the second question
What are they?“A control group is comparable to the studied group to see if there is a difference between the two.”
Correct. Key word is COMPARABLE. In your last post you wrote “, and the control group are the ones who have not yet developed any underlying medical conditions as yet” A group that has not yet developed underlying conditions, is NOT COMPARABLE to a group that has.“So you want other people with underlying conditions without corona virus to be given HOQ?”
No that would be to study safety, and has been done.A control in this case would be to take a similar group to the one getting HCQ and NOT giving HCQ.
Again the question we are trying to answer is does HCQ (with zinc) help or not. Just giving it doesnt tell us much. We want to know what would have happened if they didnt get it . Again keep in mind, The vas tvast majority of those who get it do fine without hCQ. Even the vast majority of those at risk do fine without HCQ Do MORE at risk patients do fine with HCQ than without? THAT is te question
To answer that just giving HCQ without a control doesnt tell us much if anything.
“What about the antibiotic and zinc, you want them to take that too?”
who?“Oh and of course the invasive intubation, why not?!”
Wait, what?Millhouse
very well said“The Wuhan Disease casualties are comparable to those of any heavy flu season”
I don’t understand this argument. you realize that that is 50,000 dead in ADDITION to the flu. If there was an out of control driver barreling down a road into a crowd of say 100 people. would you say who cares, thousands get kiled anyway every year
“It’s very doubtful whether that was ever a real problem,”
I don’t understand how that can be doubted. I rounded at several hospitals in the NYC area in all of them critically ill patients were being managed on regular floors by regular nurses.
It is hard to take anythign you say seriously you doubt reality.“What we should have done is isolate only the elderly and the particularly vulnerable”
The UK tried that. It didnt work so they quickly abandoned it, saving lives“or putting lights inside patients (which is absolutely an idea that IS being explored)”
source please“Everything the President has said has been on point”
Lol! thanks youve made my day. I thought you were being serious with your post. I’m not so sure anymore
He said he was being sarcastic. Was that on point too?Thats said , I’m not opposed to lifting any lockdowns per se. I don’t know enough about epidemiology to have an informed opinion. I do think they should make public what benchmark it is they were looking for to “reopen” Though I suspect that they don’t know, which I grant is a problem.
Joseph
“How’s sitting in a doctor’s waiting room with other patients waiting to see a doctor more essential than sitting in shul beseeching the Creator of the world?”you asked supermarket 1) cant live without and 2) don’t hang around there
you also asked parks 1) by defintion can spread out.now you have a new question doctor’s waiting rooms. Mine is closed I see most patients via teleconfrence (outside of hospital) Most of my colleagues have done the same. A few that dont/cant have reduced booking so no one is waiting near anyone else in a waiting room.
Abba
“Did any one stop driving then or now?”Amazing! so in spite of more people driving we REDUCED the number of deaths. I can hear the version of Abbas from 1970s “whats the point of seatbelts, & airbags big deal so 50,000 people died thats life what are we going to stop driving no reason t otry to minimize those deaths”
Joseph
“Someone remind me the logic of why supermarkets and parks (both sometimes packed as evidenced by recent photos) are okay to remain open but shuls are not.”
In addition to the reason already mentioned.
When shopping you (should) get in get your food and get out. The idea is not to sit there for a while next to other people. The odds of catching something from the brief moment passing another shopper is minimal (though not zero)If thats how you daven in shul, well you are doing it wrong.
Ready
“already naturally randomized”
Sorry. That’s not a thing .
“they all have various underlying medical conditions, all types”
says who? what are the conditions they have?” and the control group are the ones who have not yet developed any underlying medical conditions as yet”
thats not a control group.
A control group is comparable to the studied group to see if there is a difference between the two.You don’t seem to understand much about how studies are done, as your past few posts are full of very basic errors. you dont know what a control group is, you don’t understand randomization no0t to mention how studies avoid (Though not eliminate) chance.
I’d be happy to explain it to you. but you’d have to listen as I’m beginning to suspect you aren’t reading my posts since you are repeating lots of pints that have been addressed several times.