- This topic has 215 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
So now that Yale professors have stated that hundreds of thousands could have been saved by Dr. Zelenkos, may Hashem send him a רפואה שלימה, prescription:
What foolish terutzim do all the “doctors” and ibberchochoms of the coffee room have to justify continuing enjoying the mass deaths bc those deaths shtuch and enable them to feel good about being כפויי טובה to the best President the us has ever seen?
The problem is that politics and biases are a factor, on both sides of the argument.
This should be a scientific and fact-driven discussion.
Even your post has politics in it, you have demonstrated your political bias and even inserted it as part of your argument. You are guilty of the same thing you are accusing others.
“It is a shame that you feel this is a political issue. I guess on some level the great depression was a political issue as well as it gave rise to fdr and Nazi Germany.”
Actually, your proving my point.
This is NOT a political issue, yet both sides are inserting their biases into this discussion.
To rephrase, this is not a political issue, yet it is being used for political reasons with no regard for the science.
The Yale Professor has been proven wrong. Three large randomized studies were stopped early, two because they had progressed to the point where we knew that they could not show that hydroxychloroquine does not help treat COVID-19, the other because they could not get enough people to participate in the study. Furthermore, even the decent observational studies, with only one exception, showed that hydroxychloroquine was not helpful.
The lockdowns have led to a spectacular drop in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in New York. Ending lockdowns in Florida, Texas, and Arizona led to increases in all three.
There really isn’t anything to discuss here.
Why haven’t askonim come to bat for Dr. Zelenko. He clearly had positive results.
“Why haven’t askonim come to bat for Dr. Zelenko. He clearly had positive results.”
He didnt, as I elaborated in the lengthy thread on this topic.
Breifly:
His population was younger than average ( no one was over 70)
his population was healthier than average (for example none had COPD)And finally it did not show a statistically significant benefit in mortality for the group who got HCQ ( although they were younger/healthier than those who didn’t)
see here https://www.theyeshivaworld.com/coffeeroom/topic/hydroxychloroquine/page/8
“The lockdowns have led to a spectacular drop in cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in New York. Ending lockdowns in Florida, Texas, and Arizona led to increases in all three.”
Its amazing how you consider NY results “spectacular.” Which part of over 32,000 deaths is spectacular? You can just as easily attribute the drop in cases and deaths in NY to the fact that the virus ran its course. Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) already got the virus and have immunity and unfortunately, all those who wouldn’t survive already passed away.
Yes, cases are rising in the States you mentioned. They will no matter when a State reopens. The states you mentioned are seeing 1/10 the daily deaths NY and NJ were seeing at their peaks, clearly they are doing something better than Cuomo’s epic disaster.
A lockdown isn’t going to make COVID disappear, remember it was “15 days to slow the spread” not “15 days to cure COVID”“Hundreds of thousands (if not millions) already got the virus and have immunity”
This is laughable. For seven weeks, only 2% of tests in NY have been positive — or less. That isn’t herd immunity. It does show however that after the lockdowns the virus spread was stopped in its tracks.
Currently, Florida has about an 18% positive test rate, Arizona 21%, and Texas 12%. It ended lockdowns and the virus spread.
Try learning some basic epidemiology.
Charlie,
Can you explain as to why once the lockdown has been lifted, the cases remained extremely low?
Also, why is the hospitalization and death rate not matching those of NY/NJ despite the higher positive rate?
With regards. to the studies that were stopped, can you elaborate as to the patients that were included in the study, patients at home with just mild symptoms such as were seen in the early phases of the illness, or those already admitted to a hospital?
“This is laughable”
A simple google search shows 229000 confirmed cases in NYC and 418000 in the state. This ignores all those who were told by their doctors at the height of the pandemic “you probably have covid but we don’t have enough testing so just stay home.” (an idea supported by State and local Gov.) and those who were asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic and didn’t seek care.
See the following study DOI: 10.1126/scitranslmed.abc1126 which estimates that up to 80% of cases through March may have gone undiagnosed.
Or this WAPO article from June 25: “CDC chief says coronavirus cases may be 10 times higher than reported”” It does show however that after the lockdowns the virus spread was stopped in its tracks.”
I don’t dispute lockdowns played a role in getting control of the situation in NY.
Do you support remaining in lockdown until a vaccine is approved for the use?“Try learning some basic epidemiology.”
I have common senseUbiq -“Why haven’t askonim come to bat for Dr. Zelenko. He clearly had positive results.”
“And finally it did not show a statistically significant benefit in mortality for the group who got HCQ”And posted this on that Topic:
“Then they go on to tell us this -“The NYU Study found a 44% reduction in Mortality, when given before needing ICU Admission.”
So the guy has a GREAT Question!“What foolish terutzim do all the “doctors” and ibberchochoms of the coffee room have to justify continuing enjoying the mass deaths bc those deaths shtuch and enable them to feel good about being כפויי טובה to the best President the us has ever seen?”
sadly the answer is that they knew it all along , but since trump touted the drug they had to make up false studies and all other garbageNo one is enjoying any deaths, let alone mass deaths.
Not sure you can be taken seriously when you make such vile accusations.
Health
“So the guy has a GREAT Question!”
which guy?
The question was about Dr. Zelenko, what does the NYU study have to do with him?
and Noam Chomsky is a professor at M.I.T. Linguistics a Mathematical based subject, but attacks the State of Israel for the religious things it does that are actually correct.
Also anti-semites worldwide go to Yale woopdy doo they aren’t Rav Rashi.
Since March 2020 Dr. Zelenko has said the HCQ just unlocks the cell for the ZINC to fight the virus. Fauci (who admitted lying about masks) did not say one word about zinc. Something feels so OFF about Fauci and the rest of the opposition to HCQ+Zinc. From the retracted lies about the drug being dangerous, to the constant repetition that HCQ isn’t effective when all along it has been the claim of the medical proponents of this treatment that it is actually the zinc that knocks out the virus.
I don’t know who you are, or who you think you are, but nothing gives you the right to berate a doctor sowith such vile accusations because he doesnt hold of a bunch of things you read up on.
I have to say that both charlie and ubiq hate trump so much that i don’t know if i believe rhey can have ahonest view of hqc, but i also know thst there has never been any reason to question their integrity as doctors or their intelligence regarding their area of expertice.
It’s tisha baav, in case you missed it, give it a rest.
BY1212
“When you obstinately ignore the ramifications of 1000’s of people being treated successfully w hcq it is not a scientific opinion anymore.”source please
“When you ignore studies that show vastly reduced rates of morbidity among hcq takers this is not science.”
source please
syag
Thanks
thouh
“I have to say that both charlie and ubiq hate trump so much that i don’t know if i believe rhey can have a honest view of hqc”I’m not opposed to HCQ, I said from the start the risks were rare (though real) and it is worth a shot. Furthermore Even if it is a magic cure, what does it have to do with Trump its not like he thought of it he repeats all sorts of idiotic things he hears (“injecting a disinfectant” I know I know he never actually said that )
“HOSPITALIZATIONS AND ALL-CAUSE DEATH In the treatment group 4 of 141 patients were hospitalized, which was significantly less than in the untreated group with 58 of 377 patients (15.4%), (fig 2.), (OR 0.16; [95% CI, 0.06 to 0.5]; p”
from: COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin: A Retrospective Case Series StudySome good news it seems like a vaccine will be available shortly and initial testing seems that it is safe and effective.
Rep. Louie Gohmert says he’s ‘all in’ on using hydroxychloroquine + zinc. Thank you for allowing us to see how the treatment will play out in your case. If it works (and I hope it does) I wonder if will HCQ+ Zinc will also cure TDS in future patients who suffer both conditions concurrently.
” the risks were rare (though real) and it is worth a shot”
And I agreed with that. And the shot failed. Those who continue to promote it are promoting medicine that is opposed by the science.
The truth is that there never was any real evidence in its favor; anecdotes without comparison populations aren’t evidence and neither are studies so flawed as to be useless. It was the flawed French study that got Donald Trump (no epidemiology training), Peter Navarro (an arrogant epidemiologist who falsely claimed he understood how to read medical journal articles), and Rudy Giuliani (an arrogant lawyer whom I actually use as an example in my classes of someone who misunderstands epidemiology from the time when he falsely claimed that you have a better chance of surviving prostate cancer in the US than in the UK).
“ignore studies that show vastly reduced rates of morbidity among hcq takers this is not science”
There are no such studies, at least any such studies without flaws. Well, correct that. There might be one — the Henry Ford Health System study. But all other studies that are of good enough quality to matter show otherwise. More importantly, now that we have data from clinical trials, the observational studies don’t matter.
What YOU claim is not science.
” i don’t know if i believe rhey can have ahonest view of hqc, but i also know thst there has never been any reason to question their integrity as doctors or their intelligence regarding their area of expertice.”
You just attacked my integrity on Tisah B’Av. I am one of the few folks here who posts under my real name. I have a professional reputation.
The doctors such as Dr. Zelenko who have been promoting HCQ do NOT have expertise in epidemiologic research and have refused to subject their protocols to the rigors of a clinical trial. Promoting unproven treatment is pure medical quackery, especially when the treatments have been shown NOT to be effective in the most rigorous research.
Is there anyone else in this chat room who actually does epidemiologic research for a living?
Ready
a few things
first Read what you quoted: HOSPITALIZATIONS were significantly less. Unfortunately DEATHS were NOT
quote from the study: “was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and 5 times less all-cause deaths.”Note the change, while they WERE able to show that hospitalizations were significantly less (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5). they WERE NOT able to show statistical significance (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16)
This is important. Say you have 1000 Covid patients divide them in two groups group A and Group B. You dont do anything different to the groups. You’d expect similar outcomes in both right? Is it IMPOSSIBLE that in 1 group all 500 live and the other group half die? of course not. It is very very unlikely but not impossible. Would you dream in that unlikely scenario that merely label a covid pt as “Group A” would lead o a better outcome? Of course not. you would correctly conclude that this was a fluke (assuming the 2 groups were in fact similar) .
with me so far?
So with any study. If the POSSIBILTY of “flukes” exist, how do you know that Group A who got the treatment did better in a statistically significant way? maybe it was a fluke?
S othats where P values come in. A p value calculates the odds that the findings are due to chance alone. A P value of < 0.05 is taken to be “statisticly significant”.
so with regard to hospitalizations the treated group had less hospitalizations thatn the untreated group. The p value was <0.001 this means that there is a less than 0.1% chance that thsi was due to chance alone. It is statistically significant (Though we will next have to examine if in fact it is just the HCQ that differentiates the groups).However., with regard to DEATH. The P value was 0.16. this is greater than 0.05 that means the study does NOT show that anything other than chance alone casues any difference between the 2 groups.
Or to quote the studies discussion “Treatment with the triple therapy resulted in a numerically lower
rate of all-cause deaths. In the absence of clinical details about the untreated patient
group, THE LOWER RATE OF ALL-CAUSE- MORTALITY IN THE TREATED GROUP WAS NOT STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT” (emphasis added, I mean caps for emphasis not yelling)Let me know if you are with me so far
I want to keep this in manageable chunks. The next step would be to look at the 2 groups, but first its important to understand the conclusion, the study did NOT show reduction in death among the treated group.Trump buddy Herman Cain, (aka Mr. 999) was niftar today from Covid he likely contracted at an unmasked and socially undistanced Trump campaign event. He was also a big HCQ supporter. Sad to lose anyone to this affliction but perhaps this might get the attention of at least a few of the skeptics.
Ubiq -““So the guy has a GREAT Question!”
which guy?”#1 -“Why haven’t askonim come to bat for Dr. Zelenko”
Health
you said “And posted this on that Topic: “Then they go on to tell us this -“The NYU Study found a 44% reduction in Mortality, when given before needing ICU Admission.””could you please explain what this has to do with Dr. Zelenko?
Ubiq -“could you please explain what this has to do with Dr. Zelenko?”
Well he gave the same Drugs for Covid19, just in the Outpatient Setting!
From that Topic:
“This is from that NYU Study:”
“We performed a retrospective observational study to compare hospital outcomes among patients who received hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc versus hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone.”“Well he gave the same Drugs for Covid19, just in the Outpatient Setting!”
yep he sure did.
The study showed that people treated with Dr Z’s triple formula recovered to a large extent.
The people who were not treated with the triple formula who were “outside the study” to a greater extent did not survive, bearing in mind some of this second group were “susceptible” and some were not.reayd now
“The study showed that people treated with Dr Z’s triple formula recovered to a large extent.”
No it did not. Nor did it even claim to. The study showed a decrease in hospitilizations. The study TRIED to show a decrease in mortality, but was unable to do so .
but do not take my word for it, from the study: “The lower rate of all-cause- mortality in the treated group was not statistically significant”
At this point, not more can be said about the broad applications of HCQ. The vast majority of refereed journals and medical experts reject its efficacy as a treatment or for prophylactic use. Any physician can still prescribe to their patients if they so decide. There is plenty available, most of which will probably sit in government warehouses and go out of date, courtesty of Peter Navaro. We wish Dr. Zelenko a refuah shelamah and lets move on.
How does that add up?
Less hospitalizations, but similar mortality level?
Are these people dying at home, or do they have a greater mortality rate once hospitalized?
@charliehall
I am no MD but I have background in scienceI am fascinated by the debate about HCQ, yet the media hardly mention, say, remdesivir which has evidences. Can you explain? Thank you a lot
Dear Ubiquitin,
Thank you so much for your posts on these threads! You have a way to teach intelligently, even in such a non formal setting. I find your explanations on how to properly read a study very informative.Neither Ttrump, R’ Zelenko etc. have cited a single randomized, placebo controlled trial has shown efficacy in Covid treatment by HCQ (with or w/o zinc). Indeed, the few such studies of HCQ have shown the opposite. The authors of the Ford Health system study that is repeatedly cited in relation to HCQ efficacy have acknowledged that their study was not a randomized, placebo controlled trial but also that a relatively large percentage of trial participants were being treated with steroidal medications.
edited
GH -“The vast majority of refereed journals and medical experts reject its efficacy as a treatment…”
That’s because those studies didn’t combine it with Zinc.
I posted a study that when you combine with Zinc – it’s very effective!
Why are you so against HCQ? Is it because Trump promoted it & you Suffer from TDS?!?“a decrease in hospitilizations. The study TRIED to show a decrease in mortality, but was unable to do so.”
– This I don’t get. The study showed a decrease in hospitalizations: I take this to mean that among those who took the Zelenko Protocol (HCQ+Zinc+) fewer patients got sick enough to require hospitalization. This sounds like a win. A major win certanily worth trying since the alleged danger from taking HCQ was false.
“Unable to show a decrease in death.” Certainly the opponents to HCQ aren’t claiming that Zelenko’s patients stayed home and died. So what do they mean?
The total death rate from COVID is low. People (especially if they don’t check all the risk-boxes, old, sick etc.) can get very sick, but then not die (even without HCQ+zinc). Zelenko didn’t claim that taking HCQ+zinc is the ONLY way people won’t die. What Zelenko claimed and the evidence that his patients required less hospitalization SHOWED (as I understand it with no medical knowledge) is that patents who take HCQ+Zinc+ early have a greater likelihood of beating COVID without the prolonged nasty battle which can require hospital, respiration etc. etc. If the protocol doesn’t decrease OVERALL DEATH, but helps (the people who might not DIE even without the protocol) prevent the need from hospitalization and the long crazy battle to beat the virus is that not reason enough to take the protocol?It came up in the congessional commitee using zinc as a supplement to hydroxy and Dr. Fauci said that he cannot rely on it because it was not a randomized study.
There are dozens of medications being tested for covid. Anybody has a good reason why only one is a public debate? Does anyone think that the (majority of) public supporters of a certain medicine that I cannot spell correctly, are being scientific about it?
PS I put in the parenthesis because it seems like one of our own posters [Health] discusses mostly the scientific angle. Additionally please consider, it is possible for one doctor to have done good work with a medication that cannot be replicated by others. Because it was more about the doctor than the treatment.
RE -“It came up in the congessional commitee using zinc as a supplement to hydroxy and Dr. Fauci said that he cannot rely on it because it was not a randomized study.”
Who cares what he says?!?
These Government Health agencies survive – when there is Disease & No Easy Treatment!
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.