Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
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.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
n0mesorah
Very well said.
I’d like to add a related point. Learning all day is hard (impossible? ) for children (and most adults). At the heart of Torah umadah is the idea that both Torah and maddah are important in serving Hashem. This isnt limited to “Madah” per se but cultural in general. for example Tradition, perhaps the flagship journal of modern orthodoxy, has a running online column entitled ““The Best” – עידית” about using Western culture for good.
Playing sports is not just a “necessary evil” like it was in my yeshiva as a kid, but a positive attribute in of itselfIs it any wonder then, that kids (who grow in to adults) would rather Serve Hasehm by watching Toy Story then learning Rashi? that they would rather play basketball than go to a Motzei Shabbos learning program. Both are great!
And to be honest, I do agree with them, that both are Great (though obviously not equal) but to kids thuis is confusing, if both are good things why learn? lets do the more fun great thing!(This is the same reason why behavior is an issue at General studies in more charedi yeshivos, the message given over is that general studies “English” is all a waste of time and bitul torah that we have to do because of the government. and this was the message at my more “open-minded” yeshiva that at 3 hours of English. althoug this isnt the topic of the thread I mention it becasue it is the flip side of the same coin)
Ready now
…. and therefore?
“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.
“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.
“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.“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?
Be careful not to test anyone.
Especially if you see some fava beans and a Chianti“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 that“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 ?“Your statement is “hypothetical” .”
which one?
“So how can it be helping them if they didn’t need it to get better.It can’t.”
Lots of possibilities here:
1) Exactly, in other words that may not being helped at all. If I give a person with a cold candy and 2 days later he is better. And I say “hey candy cures colds” you would correctly surmise that it wasnt really the candy.2) “help” does not equal getting better. For example if a medication dropped time being sick from say 2 weeks to 1 week this is hypothetical). Although these are people who would have gotten better It DID help limit their time being sick. that isnt nothing, it certainly is help. Back to Dr. Zelenko, The study DID show a decrease in hospitilizations*, so although the study didnt show any decrease in mortality. Preventing hospitalizations is certainly “help”
“Further, how do you know for sure they may not have needed it- you can’t”
I’m not sure what you mean by know for sure. In the sense that we can know anything for sure, we know it from comparing the experimental group to the control group. In the control goup they DID NOT get HCQ and statisticly there was no difference in mortality.“Also, the stage when clots form, it seems cannot be overcome with the triple therapy”
You keep repeating this statement, I’m not sure the relevance noe the veracity of this statement. (There isnt a set number of stages, some presented with blood clots, some got very sick and died and never had bloood clots)“Hashem is always in charge.”
Certainly true*Though as mentioned, theres a flaw there too.
1
“America is usually a turn for the worse after 8 years of Dem leadership.”
This demonstrably, incorrect
By virtually any benchmark The US was in a better position in 2000 than in 1992. Similarly the US was in a better position in 2016 than in 2008. Both Clinton and Obama left behind stronger economies than when thy arrived
The same cannot be said when you compare 2020 to 2016 and 2008 to 2000.
Turns our that in fact, America takes a turn for the worse after republican leadership“What is “the combination””
Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc+Azithromycin. sometimes reffered to as the Zelnko protocol. (It is uzzling that you didnt know this considering it is the subject of this thread)
“what does “(without hcy)” mean if they are getting “the combination”?”
It means it is helping people get better who would have gotten better without HCQ .
How dod I know that many of them would have gotten better without hCQ?
Again: and this is a key point most people get better even without HCQ . Even most “at risk” (to the best of my knowledge noone reports a fatality rate of over 50% for any demographic . D.r Zelenko’s control group (who did not get HCQ) had a fataility rate of “only” 3.5% MOST people live even without HCQ)A few quick points to clarify the above:
– These are different people by definition. (One person cant both not have any symptoms and have severe sx a person cant bot h be discharged from the hospital and die from covid sure some people may have had mild symptoms that progressed, but when all is said and done a person who had covid can only be in one of those groups)
– We don’t know why some get better and some did not. There are trends younger/healthier tend to have more mild sx bu t these arent absolute . I’m sure you know young / healthy peeople who did not do so well and older/sicker people who did. Ultimately the Ribono she lolam is in charge
– We don’t know beforehand how a person will end up (similar to the above point)These points, in no way change the truth that ultimatly there are different outcomes as outlined in previous reply
“contradiction”
No contradiction
I’ll walk you through it.
What ultimately happens to those with covid if they don’t get HCQ?
some don’t have any symptoms
Some have mild symptoms that don;t need hospital
some need hospitalization and end up getting better
some need hospitalization and dieAgree with above ?
So far so good?(If you want to know how we know these things, you can look at the control group in Dr. Zelnko’s study or just look at general population statistics)
but how did you write-
“It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people DID NOT get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.”Sure, happy to explain.
First 2 facts:
1. Dr Zelenkos study showed a decrease in hospitalization s among those who get the triple therapy compared to those who did not
2. Dr Zelenkos study did not show a decrease in death among those who get the triple therapy compared to this who did not.
Ok…Now normally all those who died from covid were in the hospital first. Patients who die typically
I get sick -> ii go to the hospital -> iii die. So the question was asked if those who go to the hospital (ii) decrease with the tripe therapy, doesnt it follow that those who die (iii) decrease as well? Are those in grioup iii skipping the hospital and dieing at home?So I explained it is quite possible that the combination is helping those who go to the hospital and end up getting hetter (without hcq) e it is not having an effect on those who died without hcq, (iii) they are all still dying
This is a possibility as to hoe a medication can help hospitalization but not death (which is what the study showed)
Now as made clear this is a possibility I’m not saying this is what happened. Its possible that the medication DOES help mortality but the study didn’t have enough power to show it“The stage when clots form in the lungs was not prevented…”
I’m sorry, I dont know what you are trying to convey with this line, is it a question? Answer? Rayah? Memrah?
“No, as, some, not most are brown, so
some NOT most MIGHT survive.”Ok, let’s accept that. You are willing to entertain the possibility that even without hcq SOME people MIGHT survive (which of course leaves me confused as to how most people have been serving. Did they not have covid? Did they all (most?)get hcq? If so then seems doctors aren’t too bad are giving it anyway,but I digress)
At any rate, if some might survive without hcq. How do we know if those who got hcq and lived did so thanks to hcq?some might survive without it?ready
““imaginary study”-see your top answer on page 2”
no, you see the answer please. The only study mentioned t here is Dr. Zelenko’s.
That post describes how it is possible for fewer people to be hospitilized but the same number of people die.
If the above question doesnt nother you skip it, it doesnt convey any new information.
If you want the question or answer explained I’d be happy to explain either, or both. Please let me know .“No, but SOME may die, has v sholom.
Not : “they would have lived anyway”
We do not know”you said that already. The equivalent of “SOME may die” is that most will live. Those are logical equivelents.
If I say Some cows are brown. That means other cows are not brown. right?So if “some may die” then that means others “would have lived” even without HCQ.
correct?( ““No, but SOME may died, has v sholom.” Excellent!”
Just to be clear, It goes without saying that it isnt “excellent” that anybody died, obviously.
It is excellent that aMost lived, and b. more to the point, that you were able to recognize that crucial fact.
sorry for the poor wording)““imginary” or “theorethical”, either word wiil do.”
Again I’m not sure what “study” you are referring to. I was outlining a Psossible (theoretical/imaginary?) explanation as to how a drug can lower hospitalizations but not mortality.
“No, but SOME may died, has v sholom.”
Excellent!
Lets keep going. “some may died” means most would have lived. Right?
Ie even without HCQ most patients live.
with me?
So when most patients with HCQ live, how do we know that it is due to HCQ, when, again, even WITHOUT HCQ most patients live.
As you correctly conclude. did the HCQ help?
“We do not know.”So how can we we show that the people got HCQ benefited FROM the HCQ ? and dint just live because even most who do not get HCQ live?
BY1212
“Screaming otherwise like a madman using decietful pilpulei srak doesn’t change that fact.”
You must have me confused with someone, No screaming, just patient explaining“shown that his protocol reduces mortality from 10% to 0.07%.”
You clearly didnt read his study
1) I’m not sure where your 10% came from. From the study “One patient (0.7%) died in the treatment group versus 13 patients (3.5%) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16).”2) sadly even that was not statistically significant as the study admits ” the lower rate of all-cause death in the treated group was not statistically significant” This is a verbatim quote from the study.
If you don’t know what “statistically significant” means I explain it above (reply #1890037) , and am happy to explain it further. Of course if you don’t trust me (and why should you trust a screaming madman) you can google it (wikipedia has a entry , though an easier to read one is “WHAT DOES STATISTICALLY SIGNIFICANT MEAN?” at measuringu dot com)
Then again if you arent interested in the truth and your mind is made up, thats fine too just make that clear, you are here to troll, and dont care about truth or facts
ready
“We cannot know.”
I realize my last response was unclear.
Lets say I tried to show you candy cures cancer. I take 100 cancer patients give them all candy and , i don’t know 90 of them are alive a year later.
Pretty impressive right?
Well it depends. what would have happened to those patients if they DID NOT get candy?
How could we know you might ask?
Well we take similar patients DO NOT give them candy and see how they do. If 90 of them are alive a year later WITHOUT candy. Then it wasnt the candy that helped them.Make sense?
furthermore, that response was addressing a side question namely How could you have ““Less hospitalizations, but similar mortality level?”
I was outlining a POSSIBLE explanation of how a medication can lead to less hospitlizations, but not have an effect on mortality. NOT that that IS What HCQ is doing. We dont know from the study maybe it is decreasing mortality, maybe it is causing more people to die at home (so less hospitalizations but same mortality)ready
ok, so no imaginary study.
Moving on
“From your last line-
Q How do you know they “would have lived anyway” ?
We cannot know”Of course we can! We can compare to the general population who did not get HCQ. This is know as the “control group”
Are you suggesting that without HCQ all people who get covid die?Ready
“Your A B C D study on top of page 2 ”
Please (re?)read it, the only study mentioned there is Dr Zelenkos’s
Ready
“Ubi, I saw that you wrote that Group C was getting better with Hydroxycholoquine and that they would never have never died, But I see that they did not get Hydroxychloroquine (with zinc, he triple formula) (in your imaginary study).”I’m sorry I’m not sure what imaginary study you are referring to
ready
I reread your comment and realized it sounds like you don’t know how studies are designed or interpreted.Here is a quick crash course.
Say you want to investigate something like does candy cure cancer or does HCQ+zinc cure (or prevent) Covid19. You take two SIMILAR groups give one the treatment you are investigating (candy or HCQ) and the other standard care (this one is the control group) and you see if there is a difference in outcome between the two.
Ideally you randomize who gets what and blind the pateint and person looking for outcome, but this isnt always possible, and that is fine.With me so far?
now you start with a null hypothesis. The null hypothesis is the default position, ie that there is no difference that candy doesnt cure cancer or that HCQ doesnt treat or prevent Covid 19.
If you find a statistically significant difference between the two groups (ie more candy recipients survived or more HCQ recipients survived or for that matter, fewer were hospitalized) You REJECT the null hypothesis, ie you reject the premise that there is no difference and accept the alternative Hypothesis that Candy DOES cure cancer or that HCQ DOES treat/prevent covid19.
Still with me?
Now how do we define what is statistically significant? Obviously it is THEORETICALLY possible that in any 2 groups of cancer patients one will do better than the other, or in any 2 groups of Covid19 patients one group will randomly do better than the other (even if they ARE similar groups) .?So to estimate the odds that chance alone led to the difference between the two groups we calculate a p value. The p value is the probability that chance alone led to the perceived difference. A p value of < 0.05 is viewed as significant. This means that there is only a 5% chance that the perceived difference was due to chance and not due to the experimental entity. (candy or HCQ). If the p value is less than 0.05 we reject the null hypothesis (that candy doesn’t cure cancer, that HCQ doesnt cure/prevent covid19) and accept the alternative hypothesis (that it does)
Ok. got it?
Now to Dr. Zelenko’s study
the null hypothesis is that HCQ does not prevent hospitlizations, nor reduce mortality. Ie if you took two similar groups gave one HCQ and the other you dint , the two groups would have similar outcomes vis a vis death and hospitlizations.
what was the outcome?
With regard to hospitalizations they found fewer hospitilizations in the HCQ groups. Was this statisctly significant? the P value was <0.001 so yes! We reject the null hypothesis (that HCQ does not lower hospitalizations) and accept the alternative hypothesi ) HCQ DOES lower hospitalizations. *With regard to mortality they found fewer deaths in the HCQ groups. Was this statistically significant? the P value was 0.16 so NO, Therefore We cannot reject the null hypothesis (that HCQ does not lower mortality) . (To be clear the study did NOT show that HCQ DOES NOT lower mortality, it just did NOT show that it DOES). Any attempted explanation as to WHY they didnt achieve statistical significance is mumbo jumbo trying to make their insignificant finding more meaningful.
As explained before the fact that we dont know anything about the control group doesnt make the study BETTER, the opposite it raises serious questions about their Significant finding (regarding hospitalizations)
Hope this helps
*Of course if the two groups are dissimilar for another reason aside from the presence or absence of HCQ then the difference may not be due to HCQ but due to the other differences eg younger healthier etc As I explained above )
“in your own imaginary example study”
Again, I’m not offering an imaginary example study. I am Explaining how it could be possible that less people get hospitalized but the same number of people die (which is all you can take out if the study assuming it had no other problems)
“did not help them and you cannot assume that.”
I am not assuming that.
Dr zelenkoxs study did not show a statistical significant benefit with regard to mortality (as the study acknowledges) period. This is not in dispute. No assumption needed.I’m not sure why you are having a hard time with this. You quoted the line twice in your response
Old crown heights
Regarding zinc
You are partially right, as the two treatments hcq+zn vs just hcq shkukd not be bundled together. I think most dont give much importance to zinc as most Americans are not zinc defficent, so its hard to imagine giving zinc makes much difference. That said hard to imagine doesn’t equal impossible. And it should be studied.
“That is the only thing, no comparison”
Absolutely , that’s why I only brought it up when asked too. My experience with hcq and zinc was not great pretty much everyone I saw had been on them and sadly died. That said that doesn’t mean it doesn’t work, I get called for the sickest people. That’s why studies are needed. For months Dr Zelenko was running around talks how to talk show peddling his treatment. I was skeptical but hopeful. I’m very disappointed that after months it turns out he doesn’t have data to back up his claimsThe bottom line is its a pity this became politicized. From both sides the media played up the dangers while supporters played them down (it has a slight risk, not no risk and calling it deadly is exaggerating) similarly supporters played up the benefit
Ready
“Oh, a completely different imaginary study”
Nope not refering to a study.
Let’s back up.
Dr. Zelenkos study showed a,resuction in hospitalization s not mortality.
Someone asked how is that possible. If less people a r e being hospitalized and the same number of people are dying Are people dying at home?
I explained by pointing out WITHOUT hcq there are several possible outcomes. SoMe get hospitalized and live (they get “supportive care”). I labeled this “group c”
They get concentrated oxygen, pressors if their pressure falls maybe heparin,I’m not sure why you call them “imaginary” are you saying nobody survived hospitalization without hcq?
Other patients go to the hospital and sadly do not make it. I labeled this group group D.With me so far. This is not based on a study (as I made clear) this is just outlining different categories of patients when it comes to covid
With me?
Back to the question how can a treatment decrease hospitalizations but not death?
I explained it can do this if it helps those who would have lived regardless (group c) but doesn’t help those who would,have died (grouo d)
Of course WE don’t know who is in which group (beforhand) and reducing hospitalizations is huge so if the study was otherwise valid, no question it would be signifucantBy1212
“Dr. Zelenkos study showed a reduction in death rate from 10% to 0.07 % in high risk patients.”
No it didn’t. See quote from study below.
“Every study ubiq quotes is fraudulent”
The only study I quoted in this thread. was Dr zelenkos’s. Here is the quote again ““The lower rate of all-cause- mortality in the treated group was not statistically significant” (this is a verbatim quote from his study)Now while the study is certainly flawed, I dont know that I’d call it fraudulent
Ready
“It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people”
I was not referring to group c of the study. I was referring to group c as outlined in my response #1888466;
“For example lets say with out HCQ there are different groups
Group A – Have coronoa don’t even know it
Group B- Have mild symptoms, or not severe enough to warrant hospitalization
Group C – Get very sick go to hospital and do better
Group D – Get very sick go to the hospital and sadly die.”Are you saying that without hcq, there is no group c? Ie NoBODY would survive hospitalization?
Old Crown heights
“Was this woman (may she have a lichtige gan eden) fit as an athlete, averagely healthy, averagely unhealthy or (previously) sickly?”
I like those descriptors, probably “averagely unhealthy” She had asthma but it was “intermittednt” menaing without any regular treatment she did not have regular exacerbations (though did have inhaler at home “in case” _ .
” How long after diagnosis did she start HCQ-Zinc+ treatment?”
At the time or prior to diagnossi. She was started in the Er when she presented with mild SOB being ppregnan tshe was nervous her OB sent her in as she was sattig in low 90’s
” Was she careful when she went out or cavalier?”
I’m not sure, though Im not sure how that would chaneg the course of disease. IF you get it you get it, of course its best not to get it, ie to not be cavalier. But if a person got it, im not sure that it matters if the y got it at a “corona party” or that one time she got to close to te uber eats delivery personWhere on the expected spectrum was her outcome? From probable to didn’t see that coming.”
didnt see that coming. She was young (34) young people werent supposed to die from corona. Though by the time i go called to see her she was quite sick
“HCQ+zinc aside, I’m interested in your medical opinion about the extent the feelings people have about covid (especially for those under 80 and generally healthy and even unhealthy) are being engineered by the media. …”
I’m not sure, I often wonder the same. There was a shift that took place. In March and earl April I was MORE afraid than Covid than the media let on. The media played up vent shortages but In the end there was enough vents , There was not enough staff, and other supplies dwindled. dialysis was a big problem .
Orginaly the “social distancing” was to prevent overwhelming the hospital system. In NYC in several hospitals I had privelges in the hospitals came close to breaking. In some ways they did.since then B”h , at least here in NY things got better. At this point I’m not so sure what the point of the social distancing is. Corona is never going away. In 100 years it will STILL be around. Are we distancing until there is a vaccine? What if they dont develop one? The media focuses a lot on the number of cases. I’m not so sure why that matters. (incidently those who want to downplay corona also get excited by the number of cases because that makes the fatality rate less) I’m not sure why number of cases maters. to me it seems deaths, even hospitlizations matter if 150 kids in a Georgia camp get it and are fine, what exatly i s the issue? I dont really get it
Ready
“But you Ubi said before “they would have lived”.You do not know that!”
I do know that because that is the group c i outlined. Reread what I wrote
Are you saying nobody who was hospitalized with corona survived, unless they had received hcq+zn?“But YOU cannot extrapolate for what did not actually yet happen in the study”
Of course not.
The study did not show an improvement on mortality.
It did show an improvement in hospitalization (which would be great too)
The question asked was how can there be fewer hospitalizations but the same number if deaths?
I explained how this us possible. Not that that is what happened.
It is of vourse possible that there WERE deaths, bjt the study couldn’t show itOld crown heights
Thanks for taking the time to read my posts
“That said, to quote Zelenko, ‘If you’re floundering in the ocean and come upon a piece of driftwood, grab it and hang on. Don’t drown waiting for a rigorous double-blind study on the buoyancy of driftwood”Agreed. And I explicitly said that several times in the previous thread on the topic.
But I think people should be upfront Bout things selling it as a place when the evidence just isn’t there doesnt see right to me. I have no problem with a “what do you have to lose approach”
By1212
If it helps you sleep better I know of a pregnant 36 year old who sadly died in spite of hydroxychloroquine and zincReady
“How do you know they would have lived? That is simply an assumption.”Because Dr Zelenkos study did not show an improvement in mortality, only in hospitalizations.
“It is Hashem who decides not a tablet after all, ”
So fartig. Forget hcq
N0M
thanks!
Oldcrownheights
“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”
It is!
however.
there is another problem with the study.
whenever a study is down to show a difference you need to look at the baseline characteristics of the two groups. For example If I did a demonstration to show that my new detergent works better than the one you use, it wouldn’t be very meaningful if I showed you that by using my new detergent to clean mildly dirty laundry compared to your detergent on say, grass and blood stains . Fair?Look at his Group A in which he treated all aged > 60.
How many of these 69 patients were over 70? zero! (easiest to say in table 2 of his study)
In the general population how many of those older than 60 are older than 70?
About half (data from statista)
How many of them have COPD ? Zero!
How many of the general population > 60 has COPD ? About 10%*So his treatment group of those > 60 are younger and healthier than the general population
Of course they had fewer hospitalizations! Who is to say that is due to HCQ?Please don;t take my word for it. Look at his study table 2 . Where this data is outlined
* unfortunately we dont know much about the control group he is comparing it to ” Independent public reference data from 377 confirmed COVID-19 patients of the same community were used as untreated control” We have no idea anything about them . I’m assuming they are representative of the US population in Age/comorbidities. But we dont know they could be much older and sicker or younger . I’m assuming average
“Certainly the opponents to HCQ aren’t claiming that Zelenko’s patients stayed home and died. So what do they mean?”
See my other response directed to 2scents“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?”
I absolutely is! I’m sorry if by saying “only hospitalizations” I downplayed that. That is huge. I think people should quote it accurately though (plus the other big problem as mentioned above that the case and control are not necessarily comparable))2scents
“Less hospitalizations, but similar mortality level?
Are these people dying at home, or do they have a greater mortality rate once hospitalized?”There are many drugs that have this affect (I cant think of any off hand)
It cna mean a lot of things
For example lets say with out HCQ there are different groups
Group A – Have coronoa don’t even know it
Group B- Have mild symptoms, or not severe enough to warrant hospitalization
Group C – Get very sick go to hospital and do better
Group D – Get very sick go to the hospital and sadly die.For illustrative purpses lets say 50% of the population is in group A, 30% in group B 10% in Group C and 10% in group D. (I’m making these number up this isnt based on real data)
Obviously The ultimate goal is to get as many people out of Group D as possible.
Dr. Zelnko’s study sadly did not show any statistically significant reduction in those in group D.
It DID however show a reduction in Group C these people did not get hospitalized, again these are people who without HCQ would have lived anyway.
So for example you could now have 50% in Group A 35% in Group B 5% in Group C and 10% in group D.
Those who died are the same with or without HCQ (10 % in each scenario) but those who were hospitalized (Group C+D) before HCQ was 20% after was 15%
Now this is by no means Nothing. Many of those who survived had brutal hospitalizations with months of recovery . Reduction in Hospitalizations is not nothing.
BUT it isnt reduction in mortalityreayd 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”
“Well he gave the same Drugs for Covid19, just in the Outpatient Setting!”
yep he sure did.
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?
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.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 )
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?
BY1212
I confess I didnt read your whole post. I couldnt make it past your first point which was just to absurd not to reply too“Case in point comparison:
Sweden’s population is ~1.13 times the size of Israels.
Sweden did not impose any ridiculous rules on society.
The results:
Sweden’s infection rate is ~1.2 times (as of yesterday) that if Israel .”NO those were not the results.
Here are the results . what matters is deaths.So lets compare … Sweden 55.99 deaths per 100k ppl
Israel 5.47 !To suggest we should be more like Sweden is beyond astounding.
( I noticed you mention some comments as to why Israel had a low death rate this in no way chanegs the point that comparign to Sweden is beyond absurd)“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
Avi
” there would be a law against stealing but the details might well be different.”They certainly would be (and are) different.
Avi
what exactly is your contention?”
That the OP’s statement that “The reason why stealing is bad is because by stealing you are going against the will of Hashem. Not for any other perceived moral reason. ”
Is not so cut and dryto that end I pointed out several questions. One of them is from The Gemara that even without being commanded we would know not to steal. (sure hilchos geneiva would not look exactly as it does today, but that is completely irrelevant. Though upon further reflection this is the weakest question of the ones Ive posed. Because it would still be wrong becasue it went against the will of Hashem.. Hashem created our moral compass and yes even without being commanded we would know not to stel, but not because of som moraility that exists independent of the borei olam, rather becasue of the sense of morailty that the Borei olam created in us. )
“Are you saying that even without the Torah there would be a law against stealing?”
not a law per se, but that man would know it was wrong (this isnt my contention this is an explicit Gemara)“The question is how stealing would be defined”
Thats your question, it has no bearing on my pointAvi
” Law does not have to based on right and wrong”
Certainly not“People do or refrain from doing many things even though there is no law on the subject. ”
ObviouslyI dont understand, why you are addressing these comments to me. Are you arguing with me? agreeing?