• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * - 1 votes

Corona Virus Early Prevention

coronavirus

  • Please log in to reply
88 replies to this topic

#61 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 513 posts
  • -93

Posted 11 October 2021 - 04:10 PM

Its sad we have all the money but get all our information form 3rd world countries. Its b/c as soon as we had the vax in MAY 2020, the NIH quit.  Sold us out for the Vax dollar$ - Video

Hopefully we fix this.and somehow get the media and journals back on our side.  The bogus Lancet study on HCQ killed how many thousands?

 

However we dont have to think, WE KNOW, doctors here have been using it here very effectively - LINK, LINK2

If there was just an improvement of 20%, maybe something is off, but its an improvement of 85% using high risk patients.  It works.

 

If you are able to get the mono antibodies, thats the way to go, but otherwise HCQ and IVM would be plan B

 

Not sure any of it matters if we attack the virus day 1 with gargle and nasal rinse before it moves to the lungs.

 - 

 

There have been lots of different studies that show HCQ does not work -early, late different doses. For you and others it's become part of your political identity that HCQ must work. That is not how science works. Science is not there the validate your beliefs. It's horrible that there are people who insist that when science does not go their way it's a conspiracy and they are willing to believe all kinds of conspiracy nonsense and quacks.   SCIENCE IS NOT THERE TO VALIDATE YOUR POLITICAL TRIBAL IDENTITY. It's to discover the TRUTH. 


  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 2
  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • Ill informed x 1

#62 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 October 2021 - 08:09 PM

There have been lots of different studies that show HCQ does not work -early, late different doses. For you and others it's become part of your political identity that HCQ must work. That is not how science works. Science is not there the validate your beliefs. It's horrible that there are people who insist that when science does not go their way it's a conspiracy and they are willing to believe all kinds of conspiracy nonsense and quacks.   SCIENCE IS NOT THERE TO VALIDATE YOUR POLITICAL TRIBAL IDENTITY. It's to discover the TRUTH. 

 

I personally could care less if Xi-ping, Obama, or Hitler came up with it.  How do you think people like Dr. Fareed are so successful?

 

"We have now treated over 7,000 patients, and there has not been a single death in patients treated within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms. NOT A SINGLE DEATH. This (series) includes patients with multiple co-morbidities as well as patients in their nineties!"

 

Are we in denial, or you?  Its simply amazing in 2021 that so called doctors arent able to find out who is having the most success and copy them...


  • Good Point x 3
  • Cheerful x 1

#63 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 513 posts
  • -93

Posted 11 October 2021 - 09:06 PM

I personally could care less if Xi-ping, Obama, or Hitler came up with it. How do you think people like Dr. Fareed are so successful?

"We have now treated over 7,000 patients, and there has not been a single death in patients treated within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms. NOT A SINGLE DEATH. This (series) includes patients with multiple co-morbidities as well as patients in their nineties!"

Are we in denial, or you? Its simply amazing in 2021 that so called doctors arent able to find out who is having the most success and copy them...


Throughout the pandemic there have been fringe doctors pushing their points of view. You choose to believe them because they validate your view. I just want to know the truth. I actually am interested in what works because our lives might depend on it. That is why I want to see the science. It’s not enough for some random MD to make unsubstantiated claims.
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • Well Written x 1

#64 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 October 2021 - 10:07 PM

I personally could care less if Xi-ping, Obama, or Hitler came up with it.  How do you think people like Dr. Fareed are so successful?

 

"We have now treated over 7,000 patients, and there has not been a single death in patients treated within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms. NOT A SINGLE DEATH. This (series) includes patients with multiple co-morbidities as well as patients in their nineties!"

 

Are we in denial, or you?  Its simply amazing in 2021 that so called doctors arent able to find out who is having the most success and copy them...

 

Here is a little mathematical exercise you might like to do:

 

The average risk of death unvaccinated people catch COVID is about 1 in 200.

 

If you take the Pfizer vaccine, that reduces your chances of death by 25 times.

 

So, if we take 7000 Pfizer vaccinated people that catch COVID, can you calculate how many would be expected to die of COVID?

 

 

In case you are struggling, let me tell you the answer: about 1 person would be expected to die out of 7000.

 

Once you are vaccinated with a good vaccine like the Pfizer vaccine, you chances of death once you catch COVID are 1 in 5000. That the population average, but obviously the exact figure depends on age.

 

So you can see that if Fareed is treating mostly vaccinated people, you would not expect more than around 1 death in 7000 COVID patients.


  • Needs references x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#65 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 October 2021 - 10:19 PM

Throughout the pandemic there have been fringe doctors pushing their points of view. You choose to believe them because they validate your view. I just want to know the truth. I actually am interested in what works because our lives might depend on it. That is why I want to see the science. It’s not enough for some random MD to make unsubstantiated claims.

 

I dont care if these "fringe"(b/c he doesnt treat like you believe?) doctors use magic pixie dust, there should be an effort by states and feds to see who is winning and copy them...

 

There are many examples, you just dont want to believe some physicians actually know what they are doing instead of relying on  "do as your told".  Yes, some people can think for themselves...

 

This guy presented at the covid summit b/c he has treated so many patients successfully,  watch and learn.

 

 

 

His partner(Dr. Tyson) giving a rundown, you can skip to 3:24 and see what their "fringe" reason for using it was. 

 

Give the reporter a cookie for asking the million dollar question at 4:20

 

https://www.youtube....h?v=5vLuEook3VM

 

Another doctor

https://www.youtube....h?v=eVs_EWVCVPc


Edited by Gal220, 11 October 2021 - 10:27 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • like x 1

#66 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 11 October 2021 - 10:35 PM

So you can see that if Fareed is treating mostly vaccinated people, you would not expect more than around 1 death in 7000 COVID patients.

 

Just watch the Dr. Tyson video above, they been treating from the very beginning and were able to see the difference when using HCQ

If the Mono antibodies are available, that is the way to go, but if not, IVM and HCQ are good options.

 

And it wont drop you dead from a blood clot, Steve Kirsch and Jessica Rose have done the most research on vaccine injury - Link , Link2

 

 

Personally, I think most people will never need to do anything if we can get everyone using povidone iodine or whatever to address nasal and oral hygiene.

Kill the virus day 1 in the mouth and nose before it moves to the lungs.


Edited by Gal220, 11 October 2021 - 10:38 PM.

  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#67 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 11 October 2021 - 10:52 PM

Just watch the Dr. Tyson video above, they been treating from the very beginning and were able to see the difference when using HCQ

 

Lots of hospitals in the US were using hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin right from the beginning. Why are these hospitals not now claiming high success rates? Why only Fareed?

 

 

 

And it wont drop you dead from a blood clot,


Imagine a car salesman, talking to a customer in a car showroom:

 

"You may think it is a good idea to buy this beautiful new car, sir, and you may be thinking about nice outings with the family in this car on weekends. But the reality, sir, is that cars cause fatal car crashes. In fact, there are thousands of fatalities on the road every year in the US. So think really carefully before you buy this car, because you or your family could be involved in one of those rare but fatal car crashes."

That basically sums up how anti-vaxers think.

 

 

 

 


  • Agree x 2
  • Unfriendly x 2
  • Needs references x 1

#68 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 513 posts
  • -93

Posted 12 October 2021 - 12:00 AM

Lots of hospitals in the US were using hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin right from the beginning. Why are these hospitals not now claiming high success rates? Why only Fareed?

 

 

 

Because most doctors and hospitals know it doesn't work. I've mentioned my brother here before. He is a brilliant Cornell/NYE educated pulmonologist. He also is Republican. I mention that because some HCQ advocates imply "liberal scientists" somehow are conspiring to show HCQ and IVM does not work. FWIW, my brother has extensively tried HCQ on his many patients, thinking it might work. But his conclusion is that it doesn't work. The Fareed story? I just don't buy it. He will eventually be revealed to be a charlatan.  


  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#69 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 October 2021 - 03:41 AM

Lots of hospitals in the US were using hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin right from the beginning. Why are these hospitals not now claiming high success rates? Why only Fareed?

 

McCullough thinks HCQ is the better drug as of just recently.  As they mention in the video, if you watched it, they had success using the drug early(not hospitalization), replication is mostly over by day 8.

 

But Im sure you knew that..


Edited by Gal220, 12 October 2021 - 03:42 AM.

  • Cheerful x 3
  • like x 1

#70 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 513 posts
  • -93

Posted 12 October 2021 - 03:44 PM

McCullough thinks HCQ is the better drug as of just recently.  As they mention in the video, if you watched it, they had success using the drug early(not hospitalization), replication is mostly over by day 8.

 

But Im sure you knew that..

 

I am not a follower of people. I don't worship politicians, political hacks or snake oil salesmen like Mercola. People here like to think they are being independent thinkers BUT are you? When you just worship and regurgitate nonsense spewed by people like Mercola and McCullough? When you get medical advice from Tucker Carlson are you being cutting edge? Or just a sheep?

 

Let's take a look at McCullough's statements from his Wikipedia page

 

"Some of McCullough's public statements contributed to the spread of COVID-19 misinformation.[9][42]
 
McCullough testified before a committee of the Texas Senate in March 2021, posted to YouTube by the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, in which he made false claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines, including that people under 50 years of age and survivors do not need the vaccine and that there is no evidence of asymptomatic spread of COVID-19.[23]
 
Posted on the Canadian online video sharing platform Rumble, McCullough gave an interview in April 2021 to The New American, the magazine of the conservative John Birch Society, in which he advanced anti-vaccination messaging, including falsely claiming tens of thousands of fatalities attributed to the COVID-19 vaccines.[43] In May 2021 McCullough gave an interview in which he made claims about COVID-19 and COVID-19 vaccines which were "inaccurate, misleading and/or unsupported by evidence," including that survivors cannot be re-infected and so do not require vaccination and that the vaccine is dangerous.[24]
 
In an interview on the Fox News program Tucker Carlson Tonight in May 2021, McCullough claimed that hydroxychloroquine is effective for treating COVID-19 despite there being no supporting evidence.[24] McCullough later made appearances on The Ingraham Angle. During television appearances, McCullough contradicted public health recommendations, including when asked about the aggressive spread of COVID-19 among children, by suggesting that healthy persons under 30 had no need for a vaccine,[25][44] and when asked about the relative merits of vaccination-induced immunity versus "natural" (survivor) immunity, by disputing the necessity of vaccinations to achieve herd immunity.[20][45]"[46][42]"
 
You can choose to follow McCullough. I don't believe word the man says. 

  • Unfriendly x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#71 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,725 posts
  • 693
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 12 October 2021 - 04:12 PM

There are no Gods of medicine, but Dr McCullough is closer to an angel than Fauci, who dances with the devils of Big Pharma at midnight when the moon is full. 

 

There is more wisdom in Dr McCullough's words here...

 

 

... than you'll find in the NIH, FDA & CDC combined.  


  • Informative x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Agree x 1

#72 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 October 2021 - 04:38 PM

McCullough thinks HCQ is the better drug as of just recently.  As they mention in the video, if you watched it, they had success using the drug early(not hospitalization), replication is mostly over by day 8.

 

Doctor's opinions are the lowest standard of medical evidence. There are many reasons why doctors' anecdotal observations can be biased or inaccurate. Many doctors are running their own business, so they often exaggerate the success of their treatments, just for advertising purposes. 

 

 

What you need is a properly run clinical trial. This is considered a higher and more reliable level of scientific evidence than a doctor's opinion.

 

This trial of early use hydroxychloroquine found no benefit in reducing hospitalization or death. 

 

If you can find me a clinical trial which found benefit for early use hydroxychloroquine, then that might offer some credence to your assertions. But otherwise, all quality evidence indicates hydroxychloroquine does not work.


Edited by Hip, 12 October 2021 - 04:41 PM.

  • Agree x 1

#73 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 October 2021 - 04:45 PM

You can choose to follow McCullough. I don't believe word the man says. 

 

For the most part I do think he is solid gold, however I would have a problem if it was just him claiming these protocols work.

McCullough is following the evidence and in the interviews I have seen, pushed mono antibodies as the best treatment when possible.

 

He was the first person I have seen talk about oral hygiene and the FLCCC has also added this to their early prevention protocol

Where is Fauci and the CDC on this important early prevention?  Why hand washing but lets not attack the virus where the infection actually begins in the nose and mouth?

 

The NIH total disregard for early treatment and dropping all drug research in MAY 2020 should tell you something.

 

There is some blatant dishonesty going on, not sure what is going to take for people to snap out of the spell.  I thought the CDC putting mask mandates back in place would do it.

 

Its interesting you dont think this virus is treatable in 2021, perhaps medical science is a misnomer.


  • Good Point x 1

#74 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 October 2021 - 04:56 PM

For the most part I do think he is solid gold,

 
McCullough's speech is odd: he speaks more like a salesman than a scientist. Too much emotion in his speech. That may appeal to the non-scientific masses, and may appeal to the many non-scientific readers of Longecity, but it comes across badly if you are a scientific type. Science is meant to be a dispassionate activity, not an emotional sales talk. 

 

Where is Fauci and the CDC on this important early prevention?


You do not appear to understand the role of government scientists. 

 

Government scientists like Fauci often perform regulatory or quality-control roles, rather than investigative or creative roles. It is up to scientists in universities, private research institutes and industry to be creative, and to come up with the great inventions and ideas. That is their role, to be creative and inventive. 

 

Then it is the government scientists who will examine the evidence of efficacy of all these ideas and inventions, and check whether they really are effective, or whether they are snake oil. The government scientists will then advise government on their findings.

 

 

Hydroxychloroquine has been pronounced as snake oil by government scientists, because all the high quality evidence indicates it does not work for COVID. 

 


Edited by Hip, 12 October 2021 - 05:02 PM.

  • Needs references x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • dislike x 1

#75 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,725 posts
  • 693
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 12 October 2021 - 05:07 PM

Doctor's opinions are the lowest standard of medical evidence. There are many reasons why doctors' anecdotal observations can be biased or inaccurate. Many doctors are running their own business, so they often exaggerate the success of their treatments, just for advertising purposes. 

 

 

What you need is a properly run clinical trial. This is considered a higher and more reliable level of scientific evidence than a doctor's opinion.

 

This trial of early use hydroxychloroquine found no benefit in reducing hospitalization or death. 

 

If you can find me a clinical trial which found benefit for early use hydroxychloroquine, then that might offer some credence to your assertions. But otherwise, all quality evidence indicates hydroxychloroquine does not work.

 

Early use?  Really? 

 

"This trial included participants if they were 18 years or older; reported less than 8 days since onset of flulike symptoms or chest computerized tomography scan consistent with COVID-19."

 

The eighth day of symptomatic COVID is often quoted as the turning point between recovery & decline into critical illness.  Tamiflu, for reference must be given "early" which in this case is defined as within 48 hour of symptom onset.  

 

Jeeze, some of these patients already had ground glass opacities on CT?   Sorry, but not an "early treatment" study.  These patients were well into mid-stage disease.  


  • Good Point x 1

#76 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 October 2021 - 05:15 PM

Early use?  Really? 

 

"This trial included participants if they were 18 years or older; reported less than 8 days since onset of flulike symptoms or chest computerized tomography scan consistent with COVID-19."

 

The eighth day of symptomatic COVID is often quoted as the turning point between recovery & decline into critical illness.  Tamiflu, for reference must be given "early" which in this case is defined as within 48 hour of symptom onset.  

 

Jeeze, some of these patients already had ground glass opacities on CT?   Sorry, but not an "early treatment" study.  These patients were well into mid-stage disease.  

 

It says less than 8 days since onset of symptoms. So that could be patients who have had symptoms just for 1 day, 2 days, etc.

 

 

In any case, if you want to assert that early use hydroxychloroquine leads to reduced hospitalization, you need to provide a study which demonstrates it. Doctor's opinions do not cut the mustard.


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2

#77 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 October 2021 - 05:22 PM

 
McCullough's speech is odd: he speaks more like a salesman than a scientist. Too much emotion in his speech. That may appeal to the non-scientific masses, and may appeal to the many non-scientific readers of Longecity, but it comes across badly if you are a scientific type. Science is meant to be a dispassionate activity, not an emotional sales talk. 

 

You do not appear to understand the role of government scientists. 

 

Hydroxychloroquine has been pronounced as snake oil by government scientists, because all the high quality evidence indicates it does not work for COVID. 

 

McCullough is an emotional person, it doesnt appeal to me either, but so what?  I want a doctor who cares if I live or die, something we dont get from Fauci..

 

They pushed hand washing without a bunch of studies...should be common sense to do the same for oral and nasal hygiene.  Dentist in fact do, as recommended by the ADA, since 2020. 

Wheres Fauci and the CDC? Collecting their Vax dollar$

 

It is curious some so called doctors cant make the HCQ + zinc work, like that sabotaged study the Lancet published that they retracted from a fly by night company that somehow passed peer review...

I rather have Mon antibodies myself, but if they werent available, HCQ and IVM would be swallowed.


Edited by Gal220, 12 October 2021 - 05:24 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Agree x 1

#78 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 12 October 2021 - 05:34 PM

I want a doctor who cares if I live or die, something we dont get from Fauci..


If you want someone who cares, try homeopathy. 

 

Homeopathy in general does not work, it's just water. However, you will find that homeopaths are some of the nicest, warmest, sensitive and caring people you will ever come across. If you are a sick patient, then it can be very soothing to be treated by a homeopath. 

 

Unfortunately homeopathic treatment is usually completely ineffective. But they are very caring people. 

 

Similarly, there may be very caring doctors out there, offering various speculative and untested treatments for COVID because they care. But that does not mean their treatments work. Don't confuse a caring disposition for proof of efficacy.

 

We see from the world of homeopathy that the more caring you are, the less your treatments actually work.

 

 

Do you remember the medical TV series "House", with actor Hugh Laurie? Dr House had the worse ever bedside manner, and would often insult or irritate patients. But he was smarter than all the other more caring doctors, and was the one who always managed to pinpoint the cause of the patient's health problems. 

 

 

 


Edited by Hip, 12 October 2021 - 05:37 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • Ill informed x 1

#79 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 12 October 2021 - 06:37 PM

If you want someone who cares, try homeopathy.   

 

I dont know where you going, as I said, if it was McCullough on an island, I wouldnt buy it. If you actually listened to him speak, you know he refers to studies constantly. 

Hes even done some himself , he doesnt think the protocol works, he knows...

 

But you dont seem to care the CDC and NIH have failed to push basic hygiene that attacks the virus where the initial infection occurs.  This is a huge oversight, and we both know they are aware.  

 

They have simply chosen not to tell people so they can push their vax narrative.  Its dishonest, heartless, and sickening.  Hopefully they find themselves before a court in the not to distant future.


Edited by Gal220, 12 October 2021 - 06:57 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Dangerous, Irresponsible x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#80 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,725 posts
  • 693
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 12 October 2021 - 08:51 PM

It says less than 8 days since onset of symptoms. So that could be patients who have had symptoms just for 1 day, 2 days, etc.

 

 

In any case, if you want to assert that early use hydroxychloroquine leads to reduced hospitalization, you need to provide a study which demonstrates it. Doctor's opinions do not cut the mustard.

 

Time for some honesty now.  Do you really believe a substantial percentage of the cohort became symptomatic, got diagnosed, got enrolled, received and started on their HCQ on day 1 or 2 (or 3)?   I don't have access to the raw data, but I'd put money the bulk of the patients didn't take their first tab till days 4-8.  I guess it's also possible the patients "enrolled" on day 8 didn't actually start their med until  day 9 or 10.   

 

A study that is not properly risk stratified, accepting patients as young as 18, would also need to be extremely large to produce a valid signal.  From the study, it appears the HCQ cohort actually did slightly better than the controls, though not statistically significant due to sample size and lack of proper risk stratification. Patients under 50 rarely need treatment, and including this cohort in your study does nothing but water down the signal.  

 

We can do better!  Dr Zelenko risk stratified.  Under 50?  Go home & take care.  Over 50 and symptomatic?  Start on the HCQ today (before test results even come back).  Negative tests were excluded once determined.   Result?  Positive benefit!  Way to go Zev!  

 

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33122096/

 

COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study

 

"Of 141 treated patients, 4 (2.8%) were hospitalised, which was significantly fewer (P < 0.001) compared with 58 (15.4%) of 377 untreated patients [odds ratio (OR) = 0.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.06-0.5]. One patient (0.7%) in the treatment group died versus 13 patients (3.4%) in the untreated group (OR = 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; P = 0.12). No cardiac side effects were observed. Risk stratification-based treatment of COVID-19 outpatients as early as possible after symptom onset using triple therapy, including the combination of zinc with low-dose hydroxychloroquine, was associated with significantly fewer hospitalisations."


  • Informative x 3
  • Good Point x 1
  • Agree x 1

#81 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 October 2021 - 01:44 AM

But you dont seem to care the CDC and NIH have failed to push basic hygiene that attacks the virus where the initial infection occurs.  This is a huge oversight, and we both know they are aware.  

 

They have simply chosen not to tell people so they can push their vax narrative.  Its dishonest, heartless, and sickening.  Hopefully they find themselves before a court in the not to distant future.

 

What are you talking about? The CDC and NIH were telling everyone to wear a mask. Whereas many of the dumb and rebellious general public refused to wear them.  

 

The CDC and NIH were telling everyone to get vaccinated, whereas many of the dumb and rebellious general public refused to comply.

 

The CDC and NIH were getting people to social distance and remain in lockdown when the pandemic was more severe, and when vaccines had not yet been rolled out. But many of dumb and rebellious general public refused to adhere to lockdown and social distance rules.

 

If there were not so many dumb and rebellious members of the general public, the pandemic would be easy to control.


Edited by Hip, 13 October 2021 - 01:45 AM.

  • Unfriendly x 2
  • dislike x 1
  • Agree x 1

#82 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 October 2021 - 01:57 AM

https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/33122096/

 

COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study

 

This is a retrospective study, not a double-blind randomized placebo-controlled study.  

 

We don't know how accurately the control group matched the treated group, because this information is not provided in the study. The study says:

Laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 patients from the same community who were not treated with the described triple therapy and their related outcome data represented the untreated control group, which comprised both low-risk and high-risk patients (public reference data).

 

You need to use age, sex and underlying illness matched controls if you want to conduct a good study. There is nothing in the paper to indicate that sich matching took place.

 

 

So this retrospective study is a reasonable starting point, but you really need to go on to do a proper RCT. Why didn't Zelenko do that? If you have a treatment which you believe works, it is your duty to provide the evidence for it.


  • Good Point x 1

#83 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,725 posts
  • 693
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 13 October 2021 - 02:09 AM

Both the NIH remdesivir trial and recent molnupiravir trial were halted early, the reason being it was determined unethical to continue the placebo arm of the trials once benefit was seen. 

 

Dr Zelenko has stated he has the same rationale for not embarking on an RCT of his own, which would be discounted as small and insignificant, and would likely result in placebo arm patients being hospitalized and perhaps dying unnecessarily.  


  • Good Point x 2
  • Informative x 1

#84 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 October 2021 - 02:17 AM

Both the NIH remdesivir trial and recent molnupiravir trial were halted early, the reason being it was determined unethical to continue the placebo arm of the trials once benefit was seen. 

 

Dr Zelenko has stated he has the same rationale for not embarking on an RCT of his own, which would be discounted as small and insignificant, and would likely result in placebo arm patients being hospitalized and perhaps dying unnecessarily.  

 

There are dozens of randomized placebo-controlled trials taking place for COVID. If the treatment is effective, then certainly there will be more deaths in the placebo arm than the treatment arm. That's just a fact of life. You cannot refuse to perform an RCT on the grounds that people in the placebo group might die. It's illogical, and leads to more deaths in the long term if you refuse to do an RCT on a potentially effective treatment.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument that Zelenko's treatment does work. If he ran a proper RCT, thus proving it works, then the scientific community would listen, and likely implement that treatment throughout the world. You would then save countless lives. 

 

So if you believe you have a treatment which works for COVID, and you refuse to conduct an RCT, you are condemning millions to death globally.


Edited by Hip, 13 October 2021 - 02:18 AM.

  • Ill informed x 3
  • Good Point x 1
  • dislike x 1

#85 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,725 posts
  • 693
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 13 October 2021 - 02:24 AM

A proper, multi-center, placebo controlled and double-blinded study often cost's millions (WHO Solidarity/Recovery).  

 

It would be pointless & futile for a humble country doctor to attempt a small scale RCT; not to mention unethical when you are seeing benefit from your current protocol.  

 

Gates-Wellcome and WHO don't treat patients, they do trials.  Dr Zelenko documents what he's learned while treating patients, but would never reduce himself to playing God and deciding some will have to die to promote his research.  


  • Good Point x 3
  • like x 1

#86 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,300 posts
  • -66
  • Location:UK

Posted 13 October 2021 - 02:44 AM

In any trial, you are playing God whether you like it or not. There is no telling in advance whether the treatment will save lives or actually make things worse. Some hydroxychloroquine trials have found this drug tends to kill COVID patients, so then you are better off being in the placebo group.

 

Thus Zelenko should not assume it is unethical not to treat patients with hydroxychloroquine, because it could be that hydroxychloroquine is killing them more quickly. You just don't know until you have completed a high-quality RCT.

 

It's true that large-scale RCTs do cost millions, but you can start with smaller scale RCTs which are cheaper. Zelenko could have conducted such a trial just by randomly selecting some of his patients to get his hydroxychloroquine protocol, and others to receive standard care. Though I appreciate that doctors can have other priorities on their minds, and may not organize themselves to run a proper trial.

 

 

In this particular case, where hydroxychloroquine is co-administered with zinc, it should be possible to do some in vitro testing, to see if this combination has higher antiviral efficacy than just hydroxychloroquine alone. The pharmacokinetic calculations I did elsewhere suggest that hydroxychloroquine on its own would have very little antiviral effect in the body.

 

But if an in vitro test showed hydroxychloroquine + zinc is more potent as an antiviral, those same pharmacokinetic calculations might show that this combo would have some useful antiviral effects in vivo.

 

I have not however seen any in vitro tests of hydroxychloroquine + zinc.

 

 


Edited by Hip, 13 October 2021 - 02:45 AM.

  • Good Point x 1

#87 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,725 posts
  • 693
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 13 October 2021 - 03:10 AM

Playing God comes easier to some that others.  Personally, I would never even participate in an animal trial, even if the potential therapeutic might be earthshaking.  

 

I do eat animals, but do not consider them toys to be tinkered with.  I also sleep incredibly well!  


  • Good Point x 2
  • Cheerful x 2

#88 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 417 posts
  • 164
  • Location:USA

Posted 13 October 2021 - 03:22 PM

Another study of Melatonin and Covid:

 

https://www.scienced...201971221007980

 

"The results of this study demonstrated that oral melatonin, when added to standard of care, was more effective than

standard of care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Improved thrombosis, sepsis, and mortality

rates support the adjuvant melatonin's efficacy in mitigating this infectious disease."


  • Informative x 4

#89 Gal220

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 706 posts
  • 325
  • Location:United States

Posted 13 October 2021 - 07:59 PM

Aspirin showing good results with covid treatment - link , link2

 

"The treatment reduced the risk of reaching mechanical ventilation by 44%. ICU admissions were lower by 43%, and an overall in-hospital mortality saw a 47% decrease."

 

probably acting as a blood thinner

 

"Although affecting the respiratory system, the coronavirus has been associated with small blood vessel clotting, causing tiny blockages in the pulmonary blood system, leading to ARDS - acute respiratory distress syndrome."

 

 

Its been discussed here for a while now and other places(FLCCC I-Mask), nice to see $cience catching up..


Edited by Gal220, 13 October 2021 - 08:03 PM.

  • Informative x 4





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users