The data collection is reasonable in a month I'd say. I haven't been able to find any publications for Zinc and HCQ for my hospital to permit right to try. The problem is that now that this is out, there is proof of harm outweighing benefit so ethically I don't feel comfortable prescribing it anymore unless proven otherwise.
Do as you like, people can find another doctor and you can watch your patient suffer as they go through a weeks long recovery from Covid-19.
Answer me these,
Why did the medical industry allow this class of medications to be used for over 50 years.
Why haven’t Africans been dropping dead of heart disease after taking these kinds of drugs for malaria?
Why did medical researchers from Harvard tell us that animal fats were the worse thing for the heart (sugar was ignored) for 40 years? Why did we think that research paid for by a sugar industry group was valid.
Is it possible that a treatment regimen that ignores natural immune system boosters like zinc, Vitamins C & D is a stupid treatment regimen?
Is it possible that Covid-19 is affecting not just lungs but the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood and therefore causing cardiovascular issues and killing patients who aren’t receiving the zinc that allows HCQ to do its job?
If you ignore these questions, we can all safely assume you are a bot or a shill and not a real doctor.
Hcq given under supervision of arrythmia is a long standing practice for rheumatoid disease, lupus, and malaria
They don't drop like flies when monitored under supervision. There is a risk with all drugs but it is worth taking if benefit is proven.
This... Doesnt have much to do with covid. Animal fat, carbs, protein are fine under moderation. The studies then are prone to correction and have been corrected for with newer studies like I'm hoping this one will be.
There are multiple studies with mixed results of vitamin c d and zinc showing benefit of boosting immunity. D is most promising in recent fad studies. I agree this study ignored it but try to remain focused on disproving the statement of HCQ has more harm than benefit please.
I think anything is possible but you'll need a study to prove its benefit. No one is stopping others but now that this is out it will limit it to clinical trials more so than right to try
Several so-called "anecdotal" clinical observational studies have been done around the world using a HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotics regimen. A majority of the doctors running these clinical studies report great success on patients with non-end-stage symptoms.
We have also seen that ventilators benefit very few of the severely sick, which is why why some doctors suspect that Covid-19 interferes with the oxygen carrying capacity of blood.
However, when a clinical study is designed, they decide to skip the zinc part of the successful clinical protocol. Why? At daily recommended nutritional dosage levels, zinc has no harmful effects. Very suspicious. WHY IGNORE ALL THE CLINICAL RESULTS??? Why not compare three groups; HCQ only group, Vitamin C,D, Zinc only vs. the third group taking HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotics.
My point about including the history of corrupted Harvard Sugar-Fat research is that sometimes even long term studies done by respected Universities can be completely corrupt when the wrong people are paying for the research.
Companies, Industry Groups and Individuals who stand to benefit from world-wide mandatory vaccines sales should not be involved in studies looking at alternative lower cost treatments, especially when no realistically safe vaccine exists today.
Here is how you can discredit HCQ in 7 easy steps.
Hide the fact that end stage Cover-19 actually causes blood disease that makes the blood unable to carry sufficient oxygen. We know this because ventilators save very few people. Pushing O2 does not work if your blood is garbage.
Pretend something is wrong with the lungs of patients.
Give them HCQ without Zinc at end-stage illness, so the HCQ fails.
Watch them die from low oxygen due to the blood problems.
Blame HCQ for "cardio-vascular" side effects.
Ban HCQ, and end further use and research.
A few months later sell a shit-ton of unproven experimental vaccines.
FDA says you can, so if the patient wants it and isn't in a high risk group for antimalarials, why not?
Doctors routinely prescribe highly dangerous substances such as anti depressants and other shit, often to people that don't have any need for it. Stuff you have to consult a doctor before you stop taking.
Ya I know FDA says you can but you can imagine it will change unless we can prove bias in this or prove efficacy in an alternative study
but once in hospital now the primary doctor has to make a decision with patient and family to use or not now that naysayers in consulting groups will counter with this study.
Why they would use multinational data is beyond me. Patterns are more likely to get lost in the mud that way due to different climates, healthcare standards, etc. It would probably be better to focus entirely on New York or Italy, for example. With a study like this, they could potentially cherry pick cases to get the results they're after. For instance, the control group vastly outnumbered the chloroquine groups, by factors of 13x or more. With such small chloroquine groups it is interesting that all four chloroquine groups had much higher mortality rates, especially given their very small numbers of subjects. I would expect the control group to have reasonable statistics given over 81,000 subjects, but with the chloroquine groups being so small, I'd expect their variances to be a lot higher. The fact that mortality counts look so orderly given extremely different numbers of samples is unusual because in statistics, the more samples you take the more you expect to get a true representation of a population. With so few in chloroquine groups, those statistics should not be as reliable, so their orderliness is interesting.
It's also unusual that 23.8% of hydroxychloroquine with macrolide died. If it were really ~1/4 then why would it take this long to recognize? Perhaps they overrelied on cases where the drugs were administered later on. Also odd that hydroxychloroquine showed more deaths than chloroquine, when it is supposedly safer?
There's also no mention of peer reviewers in the acknowledgements, just a thank you to someone for reviewing their statistics, which sounds more like a shout out to a collaborator.
This is the most useful counter arguement so far, so thanks. I agree the treatment arm is severely underpowered by comparison. Was hoping someone else would notice. 👍
👆yes, this. I work in research, if that means anything. I briefly scanned the article, but what jumped out at me right away that the study was done on hospitalized patients with co-morbidities. A good lot of these patients we’re going to die anyway. It’s like testing efficacy on stage IV cancer patients. They’re already too far gone for anything to work. You could see a remission, but you have a better chance of being struck by lightning.
The study was done to check benefit while hospitalized, yes. So you're right it doesn't check benefit as prophylaxis. But according to this, there is more harm than benefit once hospitalized.
Which is pointless and only done to attack the protocol, it's a political study not a scientific one.
“Non-survivors were older, more obese, more men, more likely to be black or Hispanic, and to have diabetes, hyperlipidaemia, coronary artery disease, congestive heart failure, a history of arrhythmias, COPD , smoking.”
More harm for people who come into hospital with greater morbidities, well no fucking shit
It's never been promoted as a drug to give in hospital, the efficacy is from giving it early to prevent hospitalization. That's why all these studies ignore the protocol, because they fucking know it only works when given early (like tamiflu)
It has been promoted in the hospital because a lot of physicians always feel like trying something rather than do nothing. Up until now it has been "what have we got to lose"
So if this is true, it's one less weapon we can use I hospitals.
The bias is as big as a barn door. Search the study for 'zinc'. Study of patients where ZINC not given as part of the documented treatment
Then perhaps maybe hospital cases were cherry-picked around the world as individuals or in groups with full knowledge that ZINC was not given, to assemble a HCQ 'killer study'. I am especially jaded in this regard and have started to see too many patterns to rule out any reasonable ignorance.
I think any early anecdotes of HCQ's effectiveness were patients who (for some reason or another) had a significant amount of zinc in their blood. Perhaps zinc given by the doctor was not mentioned... or the patient took a lot of supplement before treatment... and (as always) there are the "would've gotten better anyways"
It is possible that
HCQ was never effective for COVID by itself without supplementing zinc
And yet, HCQ+ZINC is effective and is the best treatment we have
Doctors, even those who gave HCQ+ZINC have this bias against mentioning the 'extras' especially if they fall into the category "vitamins and minerals"
why do you think they're fighting against HCQ so hard? it's a decades long safe drug, frequently given to healthy people that aren't even sick.
you see headlines about "promising research" and they get excited at fringe experimental results, while absolutely shitting on case after case of anecdotal evidence in favor of HCQ.
the contradicting positions need explaining, and none of the words coming out of their mouths does that.
imo it's on them to explain why they oppose the use of HCQ when it's FDA approved and in use for so long. i'm sure they aren't opposing the use of acetaminophen to treat symptoms of wuhan? i mean, no in depth studies have been done for it's efficacy right? that's what novel means.
That's what I'm saying. This article is their proof of harm outweighing benefit.
The benefit of HCQ is proven effective for lupus, rheumatoid disease, and malaria over it's overt possible risk of arrhythmia (type of heart disease), so that's why it is worth giving in that sense but not for covid19.
And the drug is safe with physician supervision to make sure you don't develop arrhythmia. It is because of that risk it is one of the main reasons it is not over the counter.
Here is how you can discredit HCQ in 7 easy steps.
Hide the fact that end stage Cover-19 actually causes blood disease that makes the blood unable to carry sufficient oxygen. We know this because ventilators save very few people.
Pretend something is wrong with the lungs of patients.
Give them HCQ without Zinc at end-stage illness, so the HCQ fails.
Watch them die from low oxygen due to blood problems.
Blame HCQ for "cardio-vascular" side effects.
Ban HCQ, and end further use and research.
A few months later sell a shit-ton of unproven experimental vaccines.
I think it's helpful to stratify this as early treatment in hospital which is what most of us have been doing. I only work in the hospital so this study just hurts our chances of having one less thing to try to help people once hospitalized. 😞
I do eagerly await prophylactic outpatient studies.
It's still an observation study meaning there's a possibility for confounding factors or bias, but I can't find anything strong. There are several big pharma funding but the burden of proof is in us to show that this analysis doesn't hold water.
☝️
The avoided zinc on purpose. Also, them overcoming a monumental data collection task so quickly is just too amazing.
I smell fictional research.
The data collection is reasonable in a month I'd say. I haven't been able to find any publications for Zinc and HCQ for my hospital to permit right to try. The problem is that now that this is out, there is proof of harm outweighing benefit so ethically I don't feel comfortable prescribing it anymore unless proven otherwise.
Do as you like, people can find another doctor and you can watch your patient suffer as they go through a weeks long recovery from Covid-19.
Answer me these,
Why did the medical industry allow this class of medications to be used for over 50 years.
Why haven’t Africans been dropping dead of heart disease after taking these kinds of drugs for malaria?
Why did medical researchers from Harvard tell us that animal fats were the worse thing for the heart (sugar was ignored) for 40 years? Why did we think that research paid for by a sugar industry group was valid.
Is it possible that a treatment regimen that ignores natural immune system boosters like zinc, Vitamins C & D is a stupid treatment regimen?
Is it possible that Covid-19 is affecting not just lungs but the oxygen carrying capacity of the blood and therefore causing cardiovascular issues and killing patients who aren’t receiving the zinc that allows HCQ to do its job?
If you ignore these questions, we can all safely assume you are a bot or a shill and not a real doctor.
Several so-called "anecdotal" clinical observational studies have been done around the world using a HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotics regimen. A majority of the doctors running these clinical studies report great success on patients with non-end-stage symptoms.
We have also seen that ventilators benefit very few of the severely sick, which is why why some doctors suspect that Covid-19 interferes with the oxygen carrying capacity of blood.
However, when a clinical study is designed, they decide to skip the zinc part of the successful clinical protocol. Why? At daily recommended nutritional dosage levels, zinc has no harmful effects. Very suspicious. WHY IGNORE ALL THE CLINICAL RESULTS??? Why not compare three groups; HCQ only group, Vitamin C,D, Zinc only vs. the third group taking HCQ+Zinc+Antibiotics.
My point about including the history of corrupted Harvard Sugar-Fat research is that sometimes even long term studies done by respected Universities can be completely corrupt when the wrong people are paying for the research.
Companies, Industry Groups and Individuals who stand to benefit from world-wide mandatory vaccines sales should not be involved in studies looking at alternative lower cost treatments, especially when no realistically safe vaccine exists today.
Just in case you did not see this above:
Here is how you can discredit HCQ in 7 easy steps.
FDA says you can, so if the patient wants it and isn't in a high risk group for antimalarials, why not?
Doctors routinely prescribe highly dangerous substances such as anti depressants and other shit, often to people that don't have any need for it. Stuff you have to consult a doctor before you stop taking.
Ya I know FDA says you can but you can imagine it will change unless we can prove bias in this or prove efficacy in an alternative study
but once in hospital now the primary doctor has to make a decision with patient and family to use or not now that naysayers in consulting groups will counter with this study.
Why they would use multinational data is beyond me. Patterns are more likely to get lost in the mud that way due to different climates, healthcare standards, etc. It would probably be better to focus entirely on New York or Italy, for example. With a study like this, they could potentially cherry pick cases to get the results they're after. For instance, the control group vastly outnumbered the chloroquine groups, by factors of 13x or more. With such small chloroquine groups it is interesting that all four chloroquine groups had much higher mortality rates, especially given their very small numbers of subjects. I would expect the control group to have reasonable statistics given over 81,000 subjects, but with the chloroquine groups being so small, I'd expect their variances to be a lot higher. The fact that mortality counts look so orderly given extremely different numbers of samples is unusual because in statistics, the more samples you take the more you expect to get a true representation of a population. With so few in chloroquine groups, those statistics should not be as reliable, so their orderliness is interesting.
It's also unusual that 23.8% of hydroxychloroquine with macrolide died. If it were really ~1/4 then why would it take this long to recognize? Perhaps they overrelied on cases where the drugs were administered later on. Also odd that hydroxychloroquine showed more deaths than chloroquine, when it is supposedly safer?
There's also no mention of peer reviewers in the acknowledgements, just a thank you to someone for reviewing their statistics, which sounds more like a shout out to a collaborator.
This is the most useful counter arguement so far, so thanks. I agree the treatment arm is severely underpowered by comparison. Was hoping someone else would notice. 👍
Another fraudulent study, no mention of zinc and given to people on their death beds which has never been suggested as a treatment protocol.
The treatment protocol is to give it as early as possible to prevent deterioration to the point of being in hospital on your death bed.
This study is the usual bullshit from the usual fuckwits.
A better headline would be: Condom fails to prevent pregnancy after you already had sex
👆yes, this. I work in research, if that means anything. I briefly scanned the article, but what jumped out at me right away that the study was done on hospitalized patients with co-morbidities. A good lot of these patients we’re going to die anyway. It’s like testing efficacy on stage IV cancer patients. They’re already too far gone for anything to work. You could see a remission, but you have a better chance of being struck by lightning.
The study was done to check benefit while hospitalized, yes. So you're right it doesn't check benefit as prophylaxis. But according to this, there is more harm than benefit once hospitalized.
Which is pointless and only done to attack the protocol, it's a political study not a scientific one.
More harm for people who come into hospital with greater morbidities, well no fucking shit
So basically you're saying that once in hospital not to give it?
It's never been promoted as a drug to give in hospital, the efficacy is from giving it early to prevent hospitalization. That's why all these studies ignore the protocol, because they fucking know it only works when given early (like tamiflu)
It has been promoted in the hospital because a lot of physicians always feel like trying something rather than do nothing. Up until now it has been "what have we got to lose"
So if this is true, it's one less weapon we can use I hospitals.
Well if it was, that's pointless and against the protocol that was promoted by doctors like Dr. Raoult.
This study didn't use zinc. Hydroxychloroquine + zinc is required. Zinc takes out the virus. Hydroxychloroquine opens a channel into the cell for the zinc to get in and kill the virus. https://newyork.cbslocal.com/2020/04/30/coronavirus-exclusive-meet-the-doctor-behind-the-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-for-covid-19/
The bias is as big as a barn door. Search the study for 'zinc'. Study of patients where ZINC not given as part of the documented treatment
Then perhaps maybe hospital cases were cherry-picked around the world as individuals or in groups with full knowledge that ZINC was not given, to assemble a HCQ 'killer study'. I am especially jaded in this regard and have started to see too many patterns to rule out any reasonable ignorance.
See my posting The Hydroxychloroquine ZINC-less murders for more.
I think any early anecdotes of HCQ's effectiveness were patients who (for some reason or another) had a significant amount of zinc in their blood. Perhaps zinc given by the doctor was not mentioned... or the patient took a lot of supplement before treatment... and (as always) there are the "would've gotten better anyways"
It is possible that
There are a dozen studies that say the opposite!! This is bullshit.
Of malaria drugs are bad why do U.S. Military personnel get them when they go overseas? Test group or preventive?
Everyone who goes to malaria risky places gets HCQ prophylactically unless there is something weird on their EKG.
why do you think they're fighting against HCQ so hard? it's a decades long safe drug, frequently given to healthy people that aren't even sick.
you see headlines about "promising research" and they get excited at fringe experimental results, while absolutely shitting on case after case of anecdotal evidence in favor of HCQ.
the contradicting positions need explaining, and none of the words coming out of their mouths does that.
It's easy to see why they're fight HCQ so hard, but the difficulty is proving them wrong with the current data.
Anecdotal evidence is nice to start a study but it's a weak counter argument unfortunately without comparative data.
imo it's on them to explain why they oppose the use of HCQ when it's FDA approved and in use for so long. i'm sure they aren't opposing the use of acetaminophen to treat symptoms of wuhan? i mean, no in depth studies have been done for it's efficacy right? that's what novel means.
That's what I'm saying. This article is their proof of harm outweighing benefit.
The benefit of HCQ is proven effective for lupus, rheumatoid disease, and malaria over it's overt possible risk of arrhythmia (type of heart disease), so that's why it is worth giving in that sense but not for covid19.
And the drug is safe with physician supervision to make sure you don't develop arrhythmia. It is because of that risk it is one of the main reasons it is not over the counter.
HCQ was sold over the counter in France for decades until this January for some reason.
Here's one article strongly suggesting that the Lancet paper is a total fraud
Anti-HCQ Paper in The Lancet Uses Fake Data
Thank you!!!
Here is how you can discredit HCQ in 7 easy steps.
And from Dr James Todaro who collects studies on this and destroys the fraudalent ones:
I think it's helpful to stratify this as early treatment in hospital which is what most of us have been doing. I only work in the hospital so this study just hurts our chances of having one less thing to try to help people once hospitalized. 😞
I do eagerly await prophylactic outpatient studies.
It's still an observation study meaning there's a possibility for confounding factors or bias, but I can't find anything strong. There are several big pharma funding but the burden of proof is in us to show that this analysis doesn't hold water.
That's just mean... I'm openly asking for help from our community to help critically think of counter arguments.