Dr. Risch does a great job explaining why the trials showing HCQ/zinc/azithromycin to be ineffective are flawed, and why it does actually work. I'm gonna trust the guy that has actually researched this far more than anyone at the CDC or FDA - and especially the Great Fauchino.
• Every one of the now 8 studies of high-risk outpatient hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) use has shown significant 2-fold or better risk reduction for hospitalization or mortality.
• The numerous systematic case-series studies have shown exceedingly good treatment benefit vs mortality. They have already saved thousands of lives.
• The “natural experiment” studies of population medication responses provide compelling evidence of temporal relations between medication use and mortality reduction.
• The RCT studies proclaimed supposedly as definitively showing no benefit of HCQ use in outpatients have all involved almost entirely low-risk subjects with virtually no hospitalization or mortality events and are uninformative and irrelevant for bearing upon these risks according to HCQ use in high-risk outpatients.
• Dr. Lawrence Kacmar, in Aurora IL, has treated 68 high-risk outpatients with HCQ+azithromycin and observed zero deaths (Risch, 2020a). Dr. Brian Procter, in McKinney, TX, has treated 50 high-risk outpatients with HCQ+ azithromycin+zinc sulfate+losartan+aspirin and observed zero deaths in his first series, and another 143 with one death in his second series (Risch, 2020a; Procter B, McKinney Family Medicine, McKinney TX, personal communication, 2020). Dr. Steven Crawford, in a Festus, MO nursing home, has treated 52 high-risk outpatients with HCQ+rehydration and observed zero deaths (Risch, 2020a). Dr. Brian Tyson, in El Centro CA, has treated 450 high-risk outpatients with HCQ+azithromycin and observed zero deaths (Risch, 2020a; Tyson B, personal communication, 2020). In total, these physicians have reported in the literature or to me, treatment of 1,568
high-risk outpatients with HCQ+azithromycin etc. and observed among them 3 COVID-19-related deaths, for mortality of 0.19%. This low mortality can only be described as stupendous and a tribute to the clinical engagement of these physicians, and completely distinguishable from the CT 12.8% mortality or similar risks of untreated high-risk outpatients in other US states.
• It is readily apparent that every one of the studies of high-risk outpatient HCQ use have shown 2-fold or better risk reduction for hospitalization or mortality, and that the numerous systematic case-series studies have shown exceedingly good treatment benefit vs mortality. The “natural experiment” studies of population responses provide compelling evidence of temporal relations between medication use and mortality. The RCT studies proclaimed as definitively showing no benefit of HCQ use in outpatients have all involved almost entirely lowrisk subjects with virtually no information about risks of hospitalization and mortality and are irrelevant for bearing upon HCQ use in high-risk patients.
this board has more than a few posters who abhor science and make for a "target rich" demographic, but at the same time, there are enough others who can search out such claims and see through a scam...to wit, the attached video and the following critiques that I promised to post whenever you launch another marketing campaign...
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19-evidence-cant-seem-to-kill-it/
https://scienceintegritydigest.com/2020/03/24/thoughts-on-the-gautret-et-al-paper-about-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-treatment-of-covid-19-infections/
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sF0Eai_Vc8M
"Funny, though, until recently, hydroxychloroquine cultists were claiming that the drug would be effective against COVID-19 in seriously-ill hospitalized patients and then, as evidence accumulated that it isn’t, pivoted to the argument that it has to be given as early as possible in order to work. Clearly, there is a double standard at work here that Prof. Risch is not acknowledging. (We wouldn’t want to suggest that goalposts are being moved, would we?) Moreover, his argument is bullshit, plain and simple. If a drug strongly inhibits coronavirus replication, there’s no reason that it couldn’t be effective both in advanced disease and in early disease"
And yet this is EXACTLY how the new Pfizer drug HAS to be taken - early as possible. Is Gorski now saying the Pfizer drug is a sham, too? I highly doubt it. He's just another educated idiot with no ability to use reason or logic.
Finally, I can see why you keep saying you're "done" with me. If this debate were a football score, it would be Mark 56, Tyrone 3 with Mark having first and goal at the one.
The links you give me are from 2020. If you would BOTHER to read Dr. Risch's entire paper, he already said the French study with 42 participants is not a valid study. And the other link you posted stated, "This far into the pandemic, with double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials starting to be published and showing, each and every one of them so far, that hydroxychloroquine shows no benefit ...:"
Dr. Risch already explained these were done either on hospitalized patients (when it's too late to be effective) or on study participants too young to realize any meaningful statistical conclusions.
Do you know how many RCTs were performed on vulnerable populations within 5 days of symptom onset? ZERO. Yet, tons of observational data abound from many different trials that show it to be completely effective. Now ask yourself, why is it 'accepted" that HCQ+ doesn't work, based on totally flawed logic and non-parallel studies? It's because the Great Fauchino doesn't accept observational data on this...even though he's willing to accept it, flawed as it truly is, on mask-wearing. And in case you're wondering why RCTs weren't conducted on vulnerable patients within 5 days of symptom onset, two reasons: 1) The doctors who found that it works didn't want to do that because they were convinced needless deaths would occur; 2) The medical establishment halted all trials because of the false reports that HCQ caused heart issues.
I'll offer his complete paper yet again, and to anyone else who wants to read it.
role in it...at least those with no skin in the game can judge for themselves...see ya!
From your first link:
"This far into the pandemic, with double-blind, randomized, controlled clinical trials starting to be published and showing, each and every one of them so far, that hydroxychloroquine shows no benefit "
And as Dr. Risch says, these trials were on either hospitalized patients (when it's too late to be effective) or on patients too young to yield statistical differences in hospitalizations/death rates.
"If a drug strongly inhibits coronavirus replication, there’s no reason that it couldn’t be effective both in advanced disease and in early disease"
This is complete nonsense. It's like saying it doesn't matter if you treat cancer early or late if the treatment is effective. HCQ+ prevents the problems that arise later in the progression of the disease. This statement gives tons of credence to my argument that there is a widespread lack of logical thinking ability among medical professional types. The rest of the article contains terrible logic in making a few of the "rebuttals."
Your second link deals EXCLUSIVELY with the 42-patient study in France, which Dr. Risch has already said is not a valid study.
Here's the bottom line: Until you read the entirely of Dr. Risch's paper, anything you say in rebuttal is nonsense.
Probably just an oversight.
(no message)
They weren't on the list!
(no message)
This was just a spot check to see if you're following your own directives on acceptable sources. You failed.
I do however appreciate you posting links, so I know what not to read.
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
(no message)
PGA tour
Dr. Risch explains in detail why they're wrong:
1) Trials on already-hospitalized patients were used to say it won't work if given early.
2) Trials on relatively young populations yielding no statistical differences were used to say it doesn't work on vulnerable patients.
How is it that ZERO RCTs were conducted on vulnerable patients well before potential hospitalization was necessary? And yet Pfizer "miraculously" comes up with a drug with exact same protease inhibitor as HCQ and was smart enough to perform RCTs on vulnerable patients within 5 days of symptom onset.
I read the entire paper. It's indisputable HCQ+ works. And Dr. George Fareed, formerly of Harvard and UCLA medical schools, 100% concurs.
Such as these drugs are horseshit, vaccine is the only way to fight pandemic, to ideas that maybe these drugs and their treatment protocol work; maybe we don't need to vaccine everybody, even not majority, they will try to rationalize the dissonance away. Even they run out of their links, they will not open their minds. Because they have cognitive dissonance disorder.
(no message)
keeping people from getting seriously ill or dying...
Link: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/nov/21/icu-is-full-of-the-unvaccinated-my-patience-with-them-is-wearing-thin
Once I have time.
These 98%, 97%.... 90% ICU are outrageous lies, scandalous lies.
(no message)