“medical decisions SHOULDN’T (necessarily) be made based on anecdotal reports by one doctor with promise that data will come later. ”
compare this “Ubiq” statement to the following “Ubiq” statement-
if you think following one doctor’s anecdotal report IS REASONABLE ( and I DON”T DISAGREE as I made clear over 2 months ago and dozens of times since).
“So you Ubiq, BOTH AGREE AND DISAGREE WITH YOUR OWN STATEMENT ”
Okay, it is a bit confusing all in disarray, but GUESS WHAT? Both the recent studies we have debated in the last few posts (except for DR Z’s, have been retracted as there is no verifiable data that can be delivered for peer review) see the last line in my post here below.
PS The group in one of the defunct recent studies were a group exposed to coronavirus in intense situations, they were not a cross-section of society. They were THEN “randomized”. I havw written-“And while everyone was self-distancing, the people in the study were not self-distancing by the definition of the study.” so that is why they were not a random group from the inception of the now defunct study.
And this is the point, of course they were not looking at zinc – zinc is the missing link (virtually) of their study, the missing “center-piece”.
In a climate where the opponents of President Trump decry his use of HOQ and zinc, my statement –
“Were they democrats or republicans? (yes, that is relevant).”
again is relevant.
see-
Retraction: “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or …www.thelancet .com › lancet › article