- This topic has 215 replies, 19 voices, and was last updated 3 years, 7 months ago by .
-
Posts
-
“Every “probability” calculation is hypothetical in relation to the prospective outcome for any individual using the therapy under scrutiny. And deaths do not follow statistics.”
Yes, obviously.
“Ubi wrote-The study DID show a decrease in hospitalizations*,*Though as mentioned, there’s a flaw there too.”?”
Yep, has been explained several times .
In a nutshell the cohort in Dr. Zelnko’s study was healthier and younger than average.
So you are comparing two groups
Group 1 – Younger heathier group who got the therapy in question -> less hospitilizations
Group 2 – Older, sicker group who did not get the therapy -> more hospitilizations.
Do you see why although the experimental group (group 1) had less hospitilizations, we can in no way
conclude that the less hospitalizations was thanks to HCQ/Azithro/Zn ?From a comment in the triple formula study(below the summary)-
“ there is a typo in the current version of the manuscript: the IQR is 40-67 and not 40-60. We will revise this and upload a version 2 as soon as possible.”- Received: 6 July 2020, From Commenter: Martin Scholz
It is not up as far as I can see(no version 2 written at the top)
The untreated group was “unhealthier” because they were not being treated.
We can’t say that age in itself is an influencing factor, it is the other conditions a patient has, at any age that is more likely to be an influencing factor,
but in the end, it is all up to Hashem as He Alone is in control.
Statistics are just a cover.
So the treatment was effective.“The untreated group was “unhealthier” because they were not being treated.”
Maybe.
LEts focus on one arm of the study starting with Group those over 60 years of age.
However how many of the study cohort had COPD?
Have a look (the easiest place to see is Table 2)How many of the control goup had COPD?
This is harder becasue we don’t know. In the general population over 60 its about 10%That is a big difference!
“We can’t say that age in itself is an influencing factor”
Why not?
A lot of data skews that way. And it was one of the assumptions of the entire study. Remember Dr Zelnkos says not to give everybody. Just those older (over 60 group A in the study) shortness of breath (group B) and sicker (group C) . It is odd that Dr,. Zelenko beelives age is a factor but you are trying to defend his study by saying it isnt“but in the end, it is all up to Hashem as He Alone is in control.”
Sure so forget this conversation. ou dont care about studies, you dont need HCQ Hashem is in control. finished.“So the treatment was effective.”
Could be. But Dr. Zelnko’s study doesnt show thatIn the study group, for all participants, 70% had other diseases.
The distribution of each disease may have been different from the untreated group.
But there is an obligation to medicate younger people who have other diseases.
So age in itself is not a determining factor in treatment.And yes,
Hashem as He Alone is in control, this statement holds true, even Ubi agrees in another post. We cannot ignore science, but we have to see that science is not the final word, it is sometimes an indication. Were the people in the study mainly frum Jews? We do not know.
Even if the “knife” is at us, we are not allowed to lose hope.Even the scientists believe and observed the so called “placebo effect”. Which is a sugar pill, I think.
Dr Zelenlkp’s result was according to Hashem’s Will.
Please see and google (as links are not allowed) a new study from Saudi Arabia “Hydroxychloroquine Safety Outcome within Approved Therapeutic Protocol for COVID-19 Outpatients in Saudi Arabia”.
“In the study group, for all participants, 70% had other diseases.”
What other disease?
Surely not all diseases are created equal. do you think a Patient with depression (11% had “psychiatric disorders”) is the same as a patient with COP when it comes to COVIdAnd Icant heklp but notice that you didnt answer the question. The answer is none.
no patients in his age over 60 group had COPD“The distribution of each disease may have been different from the untreated group.”
Well that matters deosnt it?
If I take 100 patients with Depression, and compare them to 100 patients with COPD And treat the first group for COvid If the ydo better does that show HCQ helps?
Saying well they all have “diseases” doesnt just make them similar“But there is an obligation to medicate younger people who have other diseases.
So age in itself is not a determining factor in treatment.”I dont know what this means.
Dr. Zelnko’s Group A is “age >60 years; with or without clinical symptoms” He gave them HCQ and comapred them to the general population. Now we dont know any demographics of his control group. We do know that his “age > 60” group is much younger than the general population. Fro the general population half of those over 60 are over 70. In Dr. Zelenko’s Group none were! (the oldest patient enrolled was 69)“Even if the “knife” is at us, we are not allowed to lose hope.”
I dont understand the connection to this topic“Dr Zelenlko’s result was according to Hashem’s Will.”
Why do you think Hashem didnt want his study to show a benefit in mortality?And more to the point, why do you think so many people have trouble accepting that the study is flawed?
Please see and google (as links are not allowed) a new study from Saudi Arabia “Hydroxychloroquine Safety Outcome within Approved Therapeutic Protocol for COVID-19 Outpatients in Saudi Arabia”.
No comment on this?I do not understand that you appear not to think that person’s mental state can be left on the shelf when considering holistic health in any disease situation.
COPD may be more intuitively a risk, but you cannot overlook the fact that perfectly healthy people have had COVID and have perished has v sholom.Age may not be a factor alone, it is the increased chance of developing “conditions” the longer one lives(as is seen in real life) but it is not necessarily a consequence of aging alone.
So did Dr. Zelenko actually have no patients 70 and over. If not why not?
Do you suggest a conspiracy?(no!)“Even if the “knife” is at us, we are not allowed to lose hope.”
I don’t understand the connection to this topic(says Ubi)It means regardless of statistics we are told by Torah to never give up as Hashem is still listening!
Dr Z treated patients” as they came”, he did not refuse treatment, it was not rigged, and he had “fewer” deaths, so even stats cannot hide a glimmer of hope.
The point is to go to a doctor and listen to him, if the cure is not forthcoming, go to another doctor and keep praying and so forth, just as is written in Torah.Ubi, would you yourself take the triple formula?
“No comment on this?”
no becasue We are still on Dr Zelenko’s study. And I’m not sure how it changes his outcome.
“I do not understand that you appear not to think that person’s mental state can be left on the shelf when considering holistic health in any disease situation.”
It can depression does not lead to worse outcomes among Covid patients. AND even if it did it certainly isnt equivalent to COPD
“COPD may be more intuitively a risk,”
No not intuitvley there is data for that.“but you cannot overlook the fact that perfectly healthy people have had COVID and have perished has v sholom.”
Absolutely true.“Age may not be a factor alone, it is the increased chance of developing “conditions” the longer one lives(as is seen in real life) but it is not necessarily a consequence of aging alone.”
Again. Look at Dr. Zelenko’s study Group A was those over 60 period. Regardless of conditions (true many had conditions, but that is not WHY they were given HCQ)
“So did Dr. Zelenko actually have no patients 70 and over.”
No reported.” If not why not? Do you suggest a conspiracy?(no!)”
I dont know could be he treats a younger clientele than average (This was pointed out on te first thread way before he released his data) could be he chose (intentionaly or not) to ignore some bad outcomes which were more prevalent among the elderly.
I don’t know . anything is possible. It could just be bad luck.
The bottom line, s by saying it helped younger (on average) people than the population is not really useful information. Of course younger people with HCQ did better! younger people without HCQ do better too!“It means regardless of statistics we are told by Torah to never give up”
while true, what is the shaychus here. Did I say to give up?” and he had “fewer” deaths,”
Again, his study couldnt show that sadly (even among his younger and healthier than average cohort)“The point is to go to a doctor and listen to him”
Lol. No that was my point! from the beginning back in April
your point was to find a doctor who would give you HCQ“Ubi, would you yourself take the triple formula?”
Depends on the circumstance. Probably not, though If I felt desperate I would I’m not opposed to it.Please see and google (as links are not allowed) a new study from Saudi Arabia “Hydroxychloroquine Safety Outcome within Approved Therapeutic Protocol for COVID-19 Outpatients in Saudi Arabia”.
No comment on this?
“no because We are still on Dr Zelenko’s study. And I’m not sure how it changes his outcome.”Patients treated with three drug regimen by Dr Zelenko:
1- hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
2- azithromycin 500mg once a day for five days
3- zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for five daysCONCLUSION – TREAT AS EARLY AND AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE IN THE OUTPATIENT SETTING
But in the above-mentioned study from Saudi Arabia (excerpt from the study):
:A standardised prescription form was written and distributed within the written treatment protocol. The prescription list hydroxychloroquine for five days duration, 400mg twice for day one, followed by 200mg twice daily for the remaining duration. The prescription also includes zinc sulphate 60mg orally once daily for five days, paracetamol and antihistamine. The prescription did not include azithromycin into it.”So they received 2 times the dose on the first day only, a dose of zinc that was approximately 1/3 of Dr Zelenko’s dose and no antibiotic. No deaths, bigger sample size.
So now:
“Ubi, would you yourself take the triple formula?”
Depends on the circumstance. Probably not, though If I felt desperate I would I’m not opposed to it.
Don’t leave it too late, the clots are waiting to set in and nothing seems to help then, has v sholom.Regardless of conditions (true many had conditions, but that is not WHY they were given HCQ but you cannot overlook the fact that perfectly healthy people have had COVID and have perished has v sholom.”
Absolutely true“your point was to find a doctor who would give you HCQ
”
but if it didn’t work, then find another doctoe and continue praying“Please see and google…”
I did and I repliedI’m not sure what you are saying . Have of the post is you quoting me (sometimes you quoting me quoting you) .
“Don’t leave it too late, the clots are waiting to set in and nothing seems to help then, has v sholom.”
Still not correct. I know patients who died and never had clots, patients who had clots and survived. and more to the point many many who never had HCQ and did fine .That doesnt mean everyone did fine obviously. but Dr. Zelenko’s study sadly doesn’t change much.
COVID is an emergency situation, because we cannot predict the future or the outcome at any given moment.
It may result in blood clots or not, but in either case, it can be fatal.The Saudi Arabia study (google these words): “Hydroxychloroquine Safety Outcome within Approved Therapeutic Protocol for COVID-19 Outpatients in Saudi Arabia”, shows a very favorable outcome, no fatalities, a larger number of people in the study than Dr Zelenko’s study, though it did not match exactly the dosage with hydroxychloroquine and zinc (plus there was no antibitoic) that Dr. Zelenko”‘s study prescribed.
“The Saudi Arabia study (google these words)…”
Again? I googled it 3 times already.
I dont know wht your point is. The study has nothing to do wit h Dr . Zelnko’s Dr. Zelenko looked to see if HCQ+Zinc+Azithromycin reduced hospitilizations or death. He showed it reduces hospitalizations among younger healthier patients than average (He could not show a mortality reduction)
The Sauda Arabia study (google it) Looked as at side effects as a result of HCQ+zinc. They showed it was “highly tolerable and with minimum side effects” Almost half of their patients didnt have Covid, This has nothing to do with Dr. Zelnko’s study. I’m not sure why you keep bringing it up.
The Saudi Arabia study, in the end, had 1,555 suspected COVID infected participants with clinical symptoms. They all survived.
Ready now
…. and therefore?
therefore, repeating-
The Saudi Arabia study, in the end, had 1,555 suspected COVID infected participants with clinical symptoms. They all survived.
Dr. Zelenko’s formula with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and antibiotic, in the doses he prescribed, are good and safe for most people and may save more lives than doing nothing.
Patients treated with three-drug regimen by Dr. Zelenko:
1- hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days
2- azithromycin 500mg once a day for five days
3- zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for five daysCONCLUSION – TREAT AS EARLY AND AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE IN THE OUTPATIENT SETTING
Ready
“The Saudi Arabia study, in the end, had 1,555 suspected COVID infected participants with clinical symptoms. They all survived.”
Ok so no.
The study did not look at the eficacy (whther it helps) the study showed ” In our study, results show that the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in mild to moderate cases in an outpatient setting, within the protocol recommendation and inclusion/exclusion criteria, is safe, highly tolerable, and with minimum side effects.”
They looked at safety. not at all the topic of this threaddid you read the study? at least just the abstract? You can google it.
“and may save more lives than doing nothing.”
Lots of things “may save more lives”
Lets have all patients stand on their head for a half hour. It May help?And again. IF you think it MAY help and want to try it (whether HCQ or standing on your head) by all means go for it. That desn not mean that 1) it does work and 2) someone is wrong for not trying it
repeating-
The Saudi Arabia study, in the end, had 1,555 suspected COVID infected participants with clinical symptoms. They all survived.
It “may save more lives” because as I have written, each case is an individual and not a statistic, and Hashem only, not statistics, (which Hashem also controls) determines the fate of each individual.
Dear Ubiquitin,
I came across two studies that included a group of patients, as being ‘hospitalized for several weeks, never placed on ventilators, or given any treatment’. it seems like most of them were discharged and eventually recovered. It is unclear to me for what care they may have needed to be hospitalized. Can you give me some context? (Possible condition of these patients.)
ready
“repeating-”
IF all you ar doing is repeating. you can stop I addressed all your points.
I am happy to elaborate/ clarify as needed but if you are just repeating, there is no need for that“…It “may save more lives” because as I have written, each case is an individual and not a statistic,… ”
So forget studies. Treat with whatever you think might work HCQ, standing on their head, try schmearing sour cream on their feet. It “may save lives” go for it. I said this in April and repeated it 10’s of times since.
Just dont misinterpret studies, and at the same time claim studies arent needed. That’s a bit confusing
In fact. don’t bother replying to this thread anymore Only Hashem determines if your response will come across. If He wants it to appear here IT will even if you don’t type it.
n0m
“or given any treatment’”
I dont know what that means. Obviosuly they were given SOMETHING Oxygen? fluids? antihypertensives if they had hypertension? Probably means they weren’t given some specific treatment like didnt get HCQ or whatever the paper was looking at.Dear Ubiquitin,
These are studies of how the immune system itself reacts to the virus. As such, they could not have received any medication etc. Being that they were not ventilated, I am curious as to how the disease manifested itself.
n0m
“As such, they could not have received any medication etc…”
anything is possible. you said originally “no treatment” that could mean a lot of things. “no medications” is a bit narrower.
As for ventilation, the vast majority of those hospitilized where no ventilated
“The Saudi Arabia study, in the end, had 1,555 suspected COVID infected participants with clinical symptoms. They all survived.”
It supports Dr Zelenko’s protocol.
Yes, despite you ubi, Hashem is still in control.Ready
The Saudi Arabia study did not look at survival.The seal of Hashem is emes. You pretend to care about Hashem, stop lying and misrepresenting studies
“The Saudi Arabia study, in the end, had 1,555 suspected COVID infected participants with clinical symptoms. They all survived.”
It supports Dr. Zelenko’s protocol.OK , they did not die.
ready
that isn’t what the study looked at.
We dont even know if they ad covid .with clinical symptoms
Ready now,
againPlease google the study. IT doesnt seem like you did
Here is the goal of the study “This study aimed to assess the safety outcome and reported adverse events from hydroxychloroquine use among suspected COVID-19 patients”
They did not look at whether there was benefit from HCQ. That is NOT what the study was looking at. You are confused.
Here is the conclusion
” Conclusion: In our study, results show that the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients in mild to moderate cases in an outpatient setting, within the protocol recommendation and inclusion/exclusion criteria, is safe, highly tolerable, and with minimum side effects”verbatim.
Again, It did not look as to whether they benefited from HCQ. The study looked at whether it was tolerated. And it showed that it was. Please keep the studies straight.
This has little to do with Dr. Zelnko’s study whre he looked if theire was benefit from HCq/Zinc/Z\azithro And showed there was benefit with hospitalization, but could not show mortality benefit.
tHe Saudi Arabia study looked at whether the treatment was safe/tolerable.
You dont have to read thw whole thing, just read the abstract (sort of a summary)It is Ellul, so I forgive you, even if you don’t want to ask for forgiveness, I forgive, because there could be unknown reasons for you writing in this way, and also for accusing me of lying in one of your previous posts, I have forgiven.
Yes, I did read the whole Saudi Arabia study.
“The study looked at whether it was tolerated. And it showed that it was. Please keep the studies straight.”
Can you just look below the surface? They did not die.
What stops you from seeing that, when a certain percentage of them, statistically, would have been expected to die.
Death is not an insignificant block to safety.
Do you not think the aim of the study was not written with that in the back of the study’s
methodologist’s minds?
That was the whole point, but it was framed ane worded in an understated way.Dear Ready,
China had about forty thousand confirmed cases, before the Zelenko protocol was introduced. This number is regarded to mean hospitalizations. (Asymptomatic spread was mostly discovered by South Korea.) Over 90% of these patients survived. That means thrty six thousand plus patients were ill and recovered without HCQ. And if I recall correctly, the first large study of HCQ was done in China. And they found it was no better than standard care.
Millions of patients have survived Coronavirus worldwide, without HCQ. The mere fact that people survived it with HCQ, could only prove that HCQ is not fatal for Coronavirus patients.
Ready
I am not asking for forgiveness. I’ve explained this over and over, it is hard to imagine your misunderstanding isnt deliberate at this point.“Can you just look below the surface? They did not die.”
Again. Most people who got covid did not die. And when I say most it isnt like 51%. It is over 95%. The vast majority of those did not get hcq.
Thats why any study needs to be carefully conducted.I had covid and bh did fine, without hcq, so fod my neighbors. Does that prove hcq isnt helpful? If course not. Not in the slightest. Another neighbor had covid and hcq and did fine. Foes that prove it us helpful? Again of course not.
Just looking at people and seeing how they do doesnt tell us anything.
The only way to get meaningful information is to take 2 SIMILAR groups, whered you expect a similar outcome, one gets (or got) the investigational therapy the other dorsnt, and see if they have a different outcome. Just looking at individuals (even thousands) who got hcq and lived doesn’t tell us anythimg. Millions (literally) did not get hcq and did fine.“Do you not think the aim of the study was not written with that in the back of the study’s
methodologist’s minds?”No o dont think. I’m certain. That’s not what the study looked at. I read it. The study is not about how effective the treatment is. Not at all.
If it was what’s the control group? Granted none died. Compared to whom?The idea is to put patients on Dr. Zelenko’s protocol to reduce the death rate. This is a considerable number, saving a human is likened to saving a whole world.
I can’t say I would rely on some states to properly report, many from that state were excluded for various reasons.
Also, some very high doses of hydroxychloroquine were given, also without zinc.10% is a very huge number. Agreed?
“10% is a very huge number. Agreed?”
sure! Even less than that is very significant.
“The idea is to put patients on Dr. Zelenko’s protocol to reduce the death rate.”
That would be great!
However Dr. Zelnko’s study did not show a statisticly significant reduction in the death rate.
and The Saudi Arabia study didnt even look at death rate.That isnt to say there are no studies that showed a reduction in death rate. but reports studies accuratly dont claim they show things that they didnt (and that they dont even claim to)
You:The Saudi Arabia study didnt even look at death rate.
BUT, No negative outcomes were found. NO, NONE, ZERO deaths.
“Can you just look below the surface? They did not die.”
ready
Again. Most people who had covid did not die .
That includes people who did not get HCQ.How do you know they’re having taken HCQ had anything to do with it
The morning in The Yeshiva World Coffee Room officially begins when Ubiquitin’s comments are posted.😊
“Most people who had covid did not die .
That includes people who did not get HCQ.”NO, ALL PEOPLE WHO HAD HYDROXYCHLOROQINE DID NOT DIE.
ready
There have been over 25 million Covid cases world wide There have been less than a million deaths.
24 million people survived Covid.Even if we assume that half of them got HCQ (a very generous assumption not at all grounded in reality) then 12 million people survived Covid without HCQ
With me so far?
So As I said “Most people who had Covid did not die” out of 24 million people who had it 850,000 is not most.
“That includes people who did not get HCQ.”
Even if you assume NONE of the 850,000 people received HCQ that is still not most of the (at least) 12 million people who didnt get it.Anyway you slice it the vast majority of people survived COVID without HCQ.
So how do you know that these 1200 or so people survived thanks to HCQ.And ask yourself this, if the study in any way showed what you mistakenly concluded, why did nt the authors write that? why bury the more remarkable conclusion “between the lines” ?
ALL PEOPLE WHO HAD HYDROXYCHLOROQINE DID NOT DIE, not just ‘most’
in the study, they were given the med
so that you would askReady
I am more than happy to explain this to you as long as it takesBut You have to read my posts , not just repeat the same mistaken nonsense over and over
This statement “ALL PEOPLE WHO HAD HYDROXYCHLOROQINE DID NOT DIE,” is simply a bald faced lie. I know of literally dozens of patients who died in spite of hcq. Many had taken it as soon as symptoms started.
Please don’t repeat lies over and over.Why no one is mentioning that AVOIDING covid-19 is a very real possibility, has no side effects, and works?
If people suggested it’s fine to catch malaria since HCQ is a reliable cure (which it is), we would be treating them as the madpeople they’d be. But somehow with the novel coronavirus it seems alright to discount suffering, which is very real, even if it were not to result in exitus. Sadly, often it does.daniela,
“Why no one is mentioning that AVOIDING covid-19 is a very real possibility, has no side effects, and works?”
Because we are not really sure what works and what does not work.
ALL PEOPLE WHO HAD HYDROXYCHLOROQINE DID NOT DIE, not just ‘most’, IN THE STUDY, TRUE,
in the study, they were given the med.
read it, ALL PEOPLE WHO HAD HYDROXYCHLOROQINE DID NOT DIE, not just ‘most’Ready
We have been over this again and again
Compared to whom?
There are millions (literally) of people who did not get hcq and did helpful? So how do yiu know the people in the study benefited from hcq.
Sure they didn’t die but neither did millions of others without hcqFurtgermore, I saw 100s of patients who got hcq and died anyway. Does that in any way show hcq is not helpful??
“read it”
I did. You didn’t (if you did you completely misunderstood it)
The study is not looking at whether they benefited from hcq. You are misunderstanding the studyReady
From your repeated calls to “read the study” its clear you don’t understand it. I gave this marshal before I think it may help.Imagine I want to seel you my knew detergent. I show you how I take water mix it with detergent, wash 1200 pieces of clothing and they are all clean. Would that get you to buy it?
Certainly not if millions of clothing got cleaned with water alone. Even if there are clothes that don’t get cleaned with water alone. How would you know that my detergent helped? Sure ALL 1200 clothes cleaned with ubiquitins detergent + water got clean. But millions of clothes got clean with just water!
What the experiment WOULD show is that ubiquitins detergent is not damaging to clothing (at least similar clothing) but without a comparable control group it in no way shows it helped.
The most striking thing is the Saudi study doesn’t even claim to show that
(oy those spelling mistakes are painful worse than usual, i was on my phone)
Just to flush out the mashal (not marshal) a bit more.
The only way to show you my detergent is any good. Would be to take two SIMILARLY dirty piles of clothing. Group A we wash with detergent+water, group B we wah with just water.
Then we compare the results. If they are similarly dirty then my detergent doesn’t do anything, IF group A is cleaner that would show my detergent works better than water alone.But just showing that my detergent on its own cleans clothing. Proves nothing! zero nada zilch bupkis * Millions of clothes get cleaned with water, how would you know my detergent changed the outcome.
Please let me know if you dont understand any of this.
Please dont repeat the same mistake again, You’ve said it several times it is irrelevant as explained above(*It could show that it doesn’t ruin clothing which is all the Sauda Arabia study claimed)
“So how do you know the people in the study benefited from hcq.
Sure they didn’t die but neither did millions of others without hcq”But there was a high mortality overall for covid, that is the point..
A group not given the triple formula has a number which shows the significance of that mortality. Without any comparisons being needed to be made, it is a simple statistic.New topic:
The Zelenko study was unfavourably skewered against his proposition, as the other participants outside his study were both low and high risk, but his were all high risk, according to a doctor on youtube.
In a study: “Of 8075 patients with complete discharge data on 24th of May-
”A Belgian study with hydroxychloroquine and without zinc showed a 18% mortality, compared to 27% mortality without hydroxychloroquine and zinc.
Take the zinc too, save lives.(BTW, Dr Z is Lubavitsch, not I, for ideological reasons, I oppose it)
“But there was a high mortality overall for covid, that is the point..”
No there wasn’t baruch Hashem the mortality rate is quite low. Though even if it WAS high that would not change the fact that million upon million of people did fine without HCQ.
“Without any comparisons being needed to be made, it is a simple statistic.”
This sentence is absurd. As I explained at length over and over. Your repeating it again, does not make it less absurd.
“New topic:
The Zelenko study was unfavorably skewered against his proposition…”not a new topic. The doctor is wrong. We don;t know ANYTHING about the other participants. not their age, not their comorbitdites, nothing. Maybe they are all younger maybe all older maybe a mix. We don’t know.
I have said this several times. It is confusing that a doctor from youtube says it, that know you suddenly accept it.A bit puzzling why te fact that he is Lubavitch is at all relevant
you -“No there wasn’t baruch Hashem the mortality rate is quite low.”
Not low, if you are a victim, where is your heart. Those are the facts. Thousands dying!
Some studies that have also used zinc, and hydroxychloroquine in the correct, not dangerous over the top doses, are available.
Others were deleted as they had flaws.
You are not a politician, are you?
In any case, shanah tova u mesuka!
Ready
“Not low, if you are a victim,”
no certainly not, However that istn what you said . This is what you said “But there was a high mortality overall for covid,” This is not true, please stop lying.
AND as pointed out even if it was true does not change your miisunderstaning of the Saudi Arabia study at all.“Some studies that have also used zinc, and hydroxychloroquine in the correct, not dangerous over the top doses, are available”
Yes I said that earlier. You aren’t reading my posts I see.
“You are not a politician, are you?”
nope
Just A guy trying to help dispel information. IF you have any lingering questions I’d be happy to answer. But please, read my replies., and try to lie less.“In any case, shanah tova u mesuka!”
Amen, and to all of klal yisorel(lol at “dispel information”, one of my more embarrassing typos)
me-
high mortality overall for covid
But there was a high mortality overall for covid, that is the point
not low if you are the victimyou-
low rate
try to lie less.-(try to take your own medicine)me- so thousands died
this should not be minimized by stats, rates, because it is BIG-Even in In USA from CDC, today-
‘Based on death certificate data, the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza, or COVID-19 (PIC) for week 35 is 6.6%. This is currently lower than the percentage during week 34 (10.7%); however, the percentage remains above the epidemic threshold and will likely increase as more death certificates are processed.’
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.