zbhargrove
Well-known member
Yes... I'm just as uncertain and negative about remdesivir... because this isn't about politics... but blindly accepting something as a game changer that obviously isn't is simply stupid.
The Coronavirus, not the beer
- Thread starter Runnin
- Start date
Yes... I'm just as uncertain and negative about remdesivir... because this isn't about politics... but blindly accepting something as a game changer that obviously isn't is simply stupid.
There are much more positive studies than negative studies(about 3 to 1 ratio) and the negative studies seem to have one thing in common. That would be late usage of the drug. Btw, how's the Bountygate story going, bud? The gall you have of calling thethe out for conspiracy theories and you were saying that the intel agencies were lying/covering up for Trump with zero proof.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
This is simply not true.
And yes, thethe lives in world of conspiracy. The rest of your comment has zero to do with the topic... typical tactic.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
No the reason the combo work is because it gets additional zinc which can trigger a positive immune response. It's not set in stone that this thing works. It's not. But it can work. And there's no evidence that it works for everyone. Which is why what experts said ages ago is still true. Talk to your doctor about it. Because it's not worth it for everyone.
zitothebrave
Connoisseur of Minors
Source
It is true. I posted the complete list(at the time) here a few weeks back. Go look at it. I know the media you watch doesn't tell you that. The rest of my comment shows the hypocrite that you are. You've bought into every anti-Trump conspiracy and have looked like a fool. Bountygate was the last one and I'm sure it won't be the last one.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Not true... I never believed the Steele Dossier crap... I still do believe there was Russian Collusion and Trump was not exonerated in anyway no mater what you hear in the crap news you watch. Bountygate very well could have happened and Trump very well could have been briefed on it. The intelligence community is still split on this... and the only ones on Trump's side are the people he appointed. These aren't conspiracies... they are just lies from the most corrupt administration we've ever seen.
If you still believe in the Russian collusion nonsense after what we've seen from the FBI then I can't help you. There is a split in the intel agency that believe that Russia did it but the Pentagon can't confirm it. However, Trump was never briefed. Bountygate was bull****.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
And if that's true, it's likely because Trump's already been pretty clear that he doesn't listen to his briefings. If you don't listen to your briefing, it doesn't mean you're not briefed.
Disgruntled people and MSM reports don't make this true.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
Yes, I am aware there is no piece of evidence out there that could ever convince you of anything negative about Trump. You're a good little lapdog.
Awesome reply, bro. If you actually come up with facts instead of BS speculation then I'll listen.
zbhargrove
Well-known member
same
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
There has been a bit of a back and forth between Dr. Harvey Risch and a French doctor named Vincent Fleury about HDQ.
Anyhow, I will link and cut and paste a couple paragraphs from the exchange:
From Dr. Fleury
A major error is found in the article : Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High_Risk Covid-19
Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, by Harvey Risch,
which highlights how the work by Prof. Raoult should be read and considered.
Dr. Harvey Risch (1) advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the outpatient
treatment of patients with coronavirus 19 (COVID-19). To support his case, he cited the mortality
calculations from 2 cohorts, one presumably treated by Dr. Zelenko (2) in New York, and the other
treated by Million et al.(3) in France. In his article, Dr. Risch made an error in the calculation of the
estimated mortality among at-risk patients who were treated with a combination of
hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (and possibly also zinc). Indeed, in order to prove the
supposed superiority of this bitherapy over standard care, Risch posited that based on the observed
number of fatalities among at-risk patients in other studies, one would expect 20% of the 1,466
patients in these 2 cohorts to have died (i.e., approximately 293 patients rather than 7), and
therefore the bitherapy of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin is 41 times more efficacious than
standard of care.
After the initial online publication of Dr. Risch’s article, it came to light that 405 of these 1,466
patients were the at-risk patients in Dr Zelenko’s cohort; the remaining 1,061 comprised the whole
sample in the study by Million et al. (3). However, as shown in their Table 2, not all of the 1,061
patients had at least 1 comorbid condition that was a risk factor. Adding the numbers of patients
with each chronic condition reveals that less than 45% of the total treated sample had such a
condition. In addition, because patients often have more than 1 comorbid condition (e.g., obesity
and diabetes or obesity and hypertension), the number of patients who were really at risk is
presumably far lower. 56 patients are even mere asymptomatic contacts of documented cases.
Furthermore, the cohort has a striking demographic distribution: The mean age was 43.6 (standard
deviation, 15.6) years, and the group included teenagers as young as 14 years of age. All of this is to
say that the cohort in the study by Million et al. is in no way comparable to a typical cohort of
hospital patients, who are generally older and in worse health. Moreover, a mean age of 44 years in a
group with no children younger than 14 years of age indicates a very young cohort, much younger
than average. When comparing the cohorts, even patients with similar comorbid conditions do not
have a similar magnitude of the risk. To be really at risk, you must be older.
Risch then multiplied 1,466 by 20% to get the expected number of deaths: 293. Here is where the
error is manifest. It is indeed true that the fatality rate in hospitalized patients may be somewhere
between 10% and 20%, as cited by Risch (1); however, there is no reason to expect a similar fatality
rate in a cohort such as the one in the study by Million et al., even if it does contain elderly people
and patients at risk. That cohort comprised patients who came on foot to queue up at the hospital,Fr
whereas in other hospitals, patients are generally admitted to the emergency department.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/k...docsO7WbhS5FejViossN-eLLGNmKwjIQa0qwUoc4QnXXQ
And Dr. Harvey Risch's response:
I thank Dr. Fleury (1) for clarifying various details of one of the studies that I discussed in my
review of efficacy and safety of outpatient medication treatment for COVID-19 patients (2). Dr.
Raoult, the senior investigator of that study (3), has been carrying out a medically aggressive
COVID-19 testing and treatment program in Marseille, France. From this distance, it can be
difficult to glean all of the relevant details of the program and I appreciate Dr. Fleury’s more
local information and extended discussion.
In my analysis, I assumed that the patients described by Dr. Raoult as hospital patients were
high-risk. In fact, it seems that Dr. Raoult’s hospital base was used more as a clinic facility
where outpatient testing and treatment were done, and for a fraction of the patients, full hospital
admission occurred. Thus, Dr. Fleury is indeed correct that the 1,061 patients I discussed were
not all high-risk.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/k...dfrrPdnc6dlx39QQ74kMjIXiJ5Yy1xCxoSyyNZtpwcmwg
Anyhow, I will link and cut and paste a couple paragraphs from the exchange:
From Dr. Fleury
A major error is found in the article : Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High_Risk Covid-19
Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, by Harvey Risch,
which highlights how the work by Prof. Raoult should be read and considered.
Dr. Harvey Risch (1) advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for the outpatient
treatment of patients with coronavirus 19 (COVID-19). To support his case, he cited the mortality
calculations from 2 cohorts, one presumably treated by Dr. Zelenko (2) in New York, and the other
treated by Million et al.(3) in France. In his article, Dr. Risch made an error in the calculation of the
estimated mortality among at-risk patients who were treated with a combination of
hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin (and possibly also zinc). Indeed, in order to prove the
supposed superiority of this bitherapy over standard care, Risch posited that based on the observed
number of fatalities among at-risk patients in other studies, one would expect 20% of the 1,466
patients in these 2 cohorts to have died (i.e., approximately 293 patients rather than 7), and
therefore the bitherapy of hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin is 41 times more efficacious than
standard of care.
After the initial online publication of Dr. Risch’s article, it came to light that 405 of these 1,466
patients were the at-risk patients in Dr Zelenko’s cohort; the remaining 1,061 comprised the whole
sample in the study by Million et al. (3). However, as shown in their Table 2, not all of the 1,061
patients had at least 1 comorbid condition that was a risk factor. Adding the numbers of patients
with each chronic condition reveals that less than 45% of the total treated sample had such a
condition. In addition, because patients often have more than 1 comorbid condition (e.g., obesity
and diabetes or obesity and hypertension), the number of patients who were really at risk is
presumably far lower. 56 patients are even mere asymptomatic contacts of documented cases.
Furthermore, the cohort has a striking demographic distribution: The mean age was 43.6 (standard
deviation, 15.6) years, and the group included teenagers as young as 14 years of age. All of this is to
say that the cohort in the study by Million et al. is in no way comparable to a typical cohort of
hospital patients, who are generally older and in worse health. Moreover, a mean age of 44 years in a
group with no children younger than 14 years of age indicates a very young cohort, much younger
than average. When comparing the cohorts, even patients with similar comorbid conditions do not
have a similar magnitude of the risk. To be really at risk, you must be older.
Risch then multiplied 1,466 by 20% to get the expected number of deaths: 293. Here is where the
error is manifest. It is indeed true that the fatality rate in hospitalized patients may be somewhere
between 10% and 20%, as cited by Risch (1); however, there is no reason to expect a similar fatality
rate in a cohort such as the one in the study by Million et al., even if it does contain elderly people
and patients at risk. That cohort comprised patients who came on foot to queue up at the hospital,Fr
whereas in other hospitals, patients are generally admitted to the emergency department.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/k...docsO7WbhS5FejViossN-eLLGNmKwjIQa0qwUoc4QnXXQ
And Dr. Harvey Risch's response:
I thank Dr. Fleury (1) for clarifying various details of one of the studies that I discussed in my
review of efficacy and safety of outpatient medication treatment for COVID-19 patients (2). Dr.
Raoult, the senior investigator of that study (3), has been carrying out a medically aggressive
COVID-19 testing and treatment program in Marseille, France. From this distance, it can be
difficult to glean all of the relevant details of the program and I appreciate Dr. Fleury’s more
local information and extended discussion.
In my analysis, I assumed that the patients described by Dr. Raoult as hospital patients were
high-risk. In fact, it seems that Dr. Raoult’s hospital base was used more as a clinic facility
where outpatient testing and treatment were done, and for a fraction of the patients, full hospital
admission occurred. Thus, Dr. Fleury is indeed correct that the 1,061 patients I discussed were
not all high-risk.
https://watermark.silverchair.com/k...dfrrPdnc6dlx39QQ74kMjIXiJ5Yy1xCxoSyyNZtpwcmwg
Last edited:
nsacpi
Expects Yuge Games
As I said in an earlier post, a lot of doctors have been using HDQ. And some of the studies have shown a positive effect. But they do not support the extravagant claims being made by some people (including Dr. Harvey Risch) that HDQ is some sort of game changer that would save a hundred thousand lives. Risch has impeccable academic credentials. But his paper mainly consists of reviewing other studies and trying to estimate from those other studies what the effect of using HDQ might be. In the absence of a control group there is no good way to do this. And as Dr. Fleury points out he made at least one major error.
I think similar questions can be raised about the other sample group, Dr. Zelenko's patients. Zelenko is a self-described "country doctor" whose patients mainly come from the Hasidic community in Monsey, New York. Some of them may be old and at high risk. But I suspect a good many of them are not. To apply a 20% expected mortality rate to that group also seems dubious.
I think similar questions can be raised about the other sample group, Dr. Zelenko's patients. Zelenko is a self-described "country doctor" whose patients mainly come from the Hasidic community in Monsey, New York. Some of them may be old and at high risk. But I suspect a good many of them are not. To apply a 20% expected mortality rate to that group also seems dubious.
Last edited:
Runnin
Well-known member
From my hometown MS paper --Pepcid as a virus remedy? Trump admin's $21M gamble fizzled
As the coronavirus began its deadly march through the world, two well-respected American doctors identified a possible but seemingly unlikely remedy: Pepcid, the heartburn medication found on drugstore shelves everywhere.
There were no published data or studies to suggest that famotidine, the active ingredient in Pepcid, would be effective against the novel coronavirus.
And in early April, when government scientists learned of a proposal to spend millions in federal research funding to study Pepcid, they found it laughable, according to interviews, a whistleblower complaint and internal government records obtained by The Associated Press.
But that didn’t stop the Trump administration from granting a $21 million emergency contract to researchers trying it out on ailing patients.
As the coronavirus began its deadly march through the world, two well-respected American doctors identified a possible but seemingly unlikely remedy: Pepcid, the heartburn medication found on drugstore shelves everywhere.
There were no published data or studies to suggest that famotidine, the active ingredient in Pepcid, would be effective against the novel coronavirus.
And in early April, when government scientists learned of a proposal to spend millions in federal research funding to study Pepcid, they found it laughable, according to interviews, a whistleblower complaint and internal government records obtained by The Associated Press.
But that didn’t stop the Trump administration from granting a $21 million emergency contract to researchers trying it out on ailing patients.
Runnin
Well-known member
Beside his harmful inability to say anything negative, the problem with this is the same as back in March, you can't play Whack-A-Mole with the virus and leave states to their own random policies. You need a national strategy.
Why did Trump buy up the world's supply of Ridemisvir if HDQ is such a miracle drug?
There's a difference between rooting against and justifying your position that HDQ isn't proven to actually help at all. It would be outstanding if it actually did work. Aren't you the one talking about science all the time?
Thethe on the other hand wants to blindly push a drug with sketchy data on its effectiveness for no reason other than Trump suggested it.
Last edited: