Jump to content

Menu

So any comments on the Stella Immanuel Video?


Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, KidsHappen said:

This is one of my main issues. If instead of removing information if was simply rebutted with factual scientific information, that would be so much more effective. Censoring just drives conspiracy theories and is counterproductive. 

How do you factually rebut someone who provides no evidence? A doctor who believes that disease is caused by witches and demons and claims to have conversations with "reptilian spirits" also claims to have treated 350 patients with HCQ, all of whom were cured within 24 hours. Where is her proof of that? Where did she treat these patients? The address she lists as her primary medical practice address is a church. Did she treat them at the strip mall clinic she lists as her secondary address? What symptoms did they have? Were they confirmed with Covid? What kind of followup did she do to know they were all cured in 24 hours if she is not their primary care doc and she has no hospital privileges in the state of Texas? 

The fact that people even think this kind of nonsense deserves "refutation" scares the hell out of me. Why would even the most ardent proponent of HCQ cite the claims of a random nutcase who believes demon sperm causes disease and alien DNA is being injected into humans via vaccines??? There are dozens and dozens of studies, even the flawed studies are 1000% more believable than that crazy person.

  • Like 17
  • Thanks 10
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 425
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Clearly she's being silenced by the Deep State. It's as if no one wants to know the truth about alien DNA being used in medicine and how demon sperm is responsible for so many gynecological issues!

Honestly, at this point, I am not listening to any claims made by single doctors. At minimum, their test groups are often too small. At worst, some have been shown to be outright lies. There are plent

How do you factually rebut someone who provides no evidence? A doctor who believes that disease is caused by witches and demons and claims to have conversations with "reptilian spirits" also claims to

Posted Images

2 minutes ago, square_25 said:

There are so many HCQ studies, I'm really losing track. Was there not a study out of Minnesota with zinc? Or is that one comparing only with the antibiotic? 

The U of MN study did look at HCQ + zinc and found that it did not have any ore benefit than HCQ alone (which also had no benefit).

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Also apparently there is a veteran group in Aus trying to get compensation because they were given HCQ among other antimalarials and they believe it triggered the sleeping issues, anxiety and depression.  There’s no trial done showing that for sure but there are documented cases of it causing mental health issues in a small number of people.  Again not a big deal when handing out a small number of doses and monitoring carefully but it can become a problem if you are giving it right across the population as a preventative.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:

People are trying it. There are quite a few studies being done on it. People are also trying a plethora of other drugs, some of which currently have better support. I think remdesivir was showing better results, as were some steroids I can't spell. 

It's not an extremely safe medication, that's the problem. At some doses, it really does cause heart issues, it looks like. Also, you can't just pump a patient full of every single possible medication and hope for the best. You have to choose the medication, and right now, some other medications are looking better. 

Furthermore, there are people who use these drugs to treat conditions we KNOW it treats, and they are experiencing medication shortages. So it's not like there are no trade-offs.

As for several doctors saying it works, I've heard doctors say all sorts of stuff. There are many, many doctors in the world, and you can't use everything every single one of them has suggested works. People will use their own judgment. 

But the drs that are encouraging it are doing so at a low dose (200mg 1x/week + zinc 25 mg). And Remdesivir is extremely expensive and can only shorten symptoms by a very few days? (Maybe I am mis-remembering the exact studies I read.)

She's not the only one using this as a prophylactic who has NOT gotten sick even while treating patients. I'm SO interested.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, square_25 said:

You're only saying that because the Deep State and the elites and the globalists and possibly the aliens got to you. 

Once you go Demon, you never go back...

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 11
Link to post
Share on other sites

Is this the trial we're discussing? HCQ used post-exposure & shows no heart problems at all. Is there a study anywhere on people using it prophylactically? What dose is causing the heart complications? (Yes, I can Google, but you guys are faster & smarter! Aaahhh!) 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/randomized-trial-finds-hydroxychloroquine-did-not-prevent-covid-19

(But this study did not have a positive test on all participants, and used "symptoms" as part of their definitions?)

"As a result, only 20 of the 107 patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms had a lab-confirmed diagnosis."

Edited by Lucy the Valiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, square_25 said:

And they did have a control group with a placebo? Was their dosage reasonable? I've seen people criticize the overly high doses of HCQ in some studies. 

Yes there was a good placebo group (I think they got folic acid instead?). However, AFAIK the zinc part of the study was not controlled, I believe they tracked any additional supplements that the subjects were taking and then analyzed the data to see if any of those added benefit, and they found that the people who had been taking zinc with their HCQ had the same outcomes as those taking HCQ alone. So although it was a randomized, placebo-conotrlled study, I believe that the zinc part was self-selected and not randomized.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm VERY interested in ANY trials that use hcq + zinc (useless without the zinc!), prophylactically in a large population group of any kind, in any country. Still googling, and . . . THANK YOU, Square and others for sharing research & ideas. I have learned a lot since April but am still very hungry for info that a non-scientist can understand. And yes, I'll look up words in a hard-to-read study. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Is this the trial we're discussing? HCQ used post-exposure & shows no heart problems at all. Is there a study anywhere on people using it prophylactically? What dose is causing the heart complications? (Yes, I can Google, but you guys are faster & smarter! Aaahhh!) 

One of the problems with many of the nonrandomized studies that claim to show a positive benefit is that patients with heart problems were automatically put in the nontreatment group, so there was an inherent bias in that patients with conditions that made them more likely to have a severe outcome from Covid were being compared to patients who had lower risk factors to begin with.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

But the drs that are encouraging it are doing so at a low dose (200mg 1x/week + zinc 25 mg). And Remdesivir is extremely expensive and can only shorten symptoms by a very few days? (Maybe I am mis-remembering the exact studies I read.)

She's not the only one using this as a prophylactic who has NOT gotten sick even while treating patients. I'm SO interested.

Well if we’re talking anecdotes what about the Brazilian president who was using it and did get covid?

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

There is mounting evidence that even just using a surgical mask will keep you safe from getting sick. I personally feel safer with an N95 or a PAPR because of the evidence that the virus can be airborne, but a hospital in Boston reduced their transmission rates to staff by 50% by having all patients and staff wear a surgical mask. So that might well be enough in an urgent care setting.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Well, it's become politicized. Our president promotes it, and the scientific community on average is not a huge fan of the president, to put it mildly. 

We've seen that play out with that stupid Lancet (?) paper with basically entirely nonsense data. I'm not surprised that people are now feeling suspicious about the state of HCQ research, although I would imagine that most people are not bad actors. Anyway, enough places are running these studies that I'd expect to get more answers soon enough. 

Are other countries not able to try it?  Are they not studying this?  If this is all political here...we surely cannot be the only country with a team of doctors and scientist and wouldn't they/aren't they then showing results?  The results we are supposedly hiding or saying are false.  I admit I am not very educated on this topic and am truly trying to understand.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/articles/2020/03/27/14/00/ventricular-arrhythmia-risk-due-to-hydroxychloroquine-azithromycin-treatment-for-covid-19
 

https://www.acc.org/latest-in-cardiology/journal-scans/2020/07/27/11/32/should-clinicians-use-chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine

 

Here’s two overview type articles from the American college of cardiology.  The top one is from March but gives a clearer summary of the issues and the bottom is more recent so takes into account more recent studies.  Basically it causes a change in the heart rhythm that can be an indicator of more serious heart problems.  We don’t have evidence that it actually causes those problems to occur but the countries where it’s widely used don’t have good protocols for monitoring safety and reporting adverse events.  They aren’t saying we shouldn’t use it ever but they are saying if it’s being used it would be best to try to set up a trial so we can actually get evidence that it works rather than just guessing.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The thing is here unfortunately good science takes time.  Studies are being done and trickling in but they’re not going to come through as fast as anecdotal claims from people on the internet.

 

also here’s a statement from Europe in case that feels more trustworthy to people due to politicisation in the US

https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-reminder-risk-serious-side-effects-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KidsHappen said:

I am well aware of her other crazy ideas. It is the only thing I have seen anybody address. I have yet to see a single person address if the protocol actually works. I have seen several other doctors say basically the same thing only to also be censored without anyone addressing if this has been tested, if it works, if not why not, etc. 

The protocol doesn't work. There have been multiple studies that show hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin does not work. There was no benefit, it didn't speed recovery and may have some risks.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, square_25 said:

I would guess prophylactic use isn't going to be easy, because first of all, it would need to be a giant population to have any statistical power at all -- most people don't get COVID in a given time frame, so then you'd have to give it to LOTS of people to even get COVID patients in there. Furthermore, I would guess that the side effects are frequent enough that they may very well wind up overpowering the COVID effects. 

Like, think about it. About 1% of COVID patients die, fewer in the groups who'd be willing to prophylactically take a drug. Say that 5% of your population gets infected in a given month (that's already a lot!) So then to catch a SINGLE Covid death, you're going to need to have 2000 people in your study. And a single death isn't going to be enough to study anything at all. You want, like, a good number of deaths. So multiply this number by the number of deaths you'd like to see, so you can compare the death rate. You see the issue. 

 

I don't mean for deaths, I mean for preventing the need for hospitalization at all (which is what these drs - Stella Immanuel + others are claiming). 

Like . . . if teachers were willing do a [5x / week frontload + 1x/week follow-up] . . . could schools open safely? Could elderly people (ones I know, who are significantly afraid of the virus but also wilting & shriveling from isolation) volunteer? 

I'm pondering the moral differential of [don't take this medication because of the very small chance it could hurt you] vs. [stay in your home indefinitely for 90-yr old grandma] . . . when faced with a virus that is highly fatal in those higher age ranges? 

(And I will go away if / when I get annoying. I've obviously been socially distanced too long / too far for my own good, but - I don't have anyone IRL I can ask these questions of without starting a political World War III. I really want to know, but really DON'T want to be offensive with questions.)

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Truth said:

Are other countries not able to try it?  Are they not studying this?  If this is all political here...we surely cannot be the only country with a team of doctors and scientist and wouldn't they/aren't they then showing results?  The results we are supposedly hiding or saying are false.  I admit I am not very educated on this topic and am truly trying to understand.  

There is a huge study in the UK (called RECOVERY) that is trialing several different treatment protocols. They gave HCQ to more than 1500 patients, with a control group of 3000 patients, and they found that HCQ had no benefit. That is a scientific, unbiased, nonpoliticized, randomized clinical trial.

  • Like 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, Seasider too said:

Someone remind me why there’s an issue with HCQ? As in, for what reason would anyone be holding back a medicine that actually worked?

Also HCQ has been around for a very long time and is cheap (and maybe no longer under a patent?).  New medical protocols would bring more money to big pharma.   At least that's one of the reasons I've heard. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There is a huge study in the UK (called RECOVERY) that is trialing several different treatment protocols. They gave HCQ to more than 1500 patients, with a control group of 3000 patients, and they found that HCQ had no benefit. That is a scientific, unbiased, nonpoliticized, randomized clinical trial.

And if Hcq which been repeatedly found to have no benefit is taken prophylactically so that teachers (or anyone else) can just get back to work and those people a)  don't wear masks  b) don't properly social distance  c) think that they are immune from the worse effects of COVID19 so that they don't stay home when sick and don't go to get tested right away and don't get on treatment that has actually been proven to work, then  Hcq is harmful not just to those who might have side effects including heart problems but also to society in general. 

(Just adding on to what you said since I agree with it.)

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

There is a huge study in the UK (called RECOVERY) that is trialing several different treatment protocols. They gave HCQ to more than 1500 patients, with a control group of 3000 patients, and they found that HCQ had no benefit. That is a scientific, unbiased, nonpoliticized, randomized clinical trial.

Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but - they used hcq in the hospital setting, right? Not as a prophylaxis or even early treatment? And I only read the abstract, but - did they use zinc?

 

Same for the Brazil study? Patients were already in hospital, and no mention of zinc in the abstract?

(I'm off to read the full reports.)

Edited by Lucy the Valiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Maybe I am looking at it wrong, but - they used hcq in the hospital setting, right? Not as a prophylaxis or even early treatment? And I only read the abstract, but - did they use zinc?

Yes, the UK trial used it in a hospital setting. The U of MN study used it prophylactically in subjects who had potentially been exposed, and it did not prevent people from getting sick. Some of the patients in the U of MN study did take HCQ with zinc, and their results were no better. 

 

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 

I don't mean for deaths, I mean for preventing the need for hospitalization at all (which is what these drs - Stella Immanuel + others are claiming). 

Like . . . if teachers were willing do a [5x / week frontload + 1x/week follow-up] . . . could schools open safely? Could elderly people (ones I know, who are significantly afraid of the virus but also wilting & shriveling from isolation) volunteer? 

I'm pondering the moral differential of [don't take this medication because of the very small chance it could hurt you] vs. [stay in your home indefinitely for 90-yr old grandma] . . . when faced with a virus that is highly fatal in those higher age ranges? 

(And I will go away if / when I get annoying. I've obviously been socially distanced too long / too far for my own good, but - I don't have anyone IRL I can ask these questions of without starting a political World War III. I really want to know, but really DON'T want to be offensive with questions.)

 

I think those are all good questions! I don’t think we have the full answer to all of them yet. I don’t think asking these questions is the problem at all. The thing that is difficult is that there are a number of people who claim, with very little if any evidence, that HCQ is a cure and that there is a big conspiracy going on. It fuels the whole conspiracy theory thing and I think could be detrimental to getting the word out about what can really help. I have a number of friends IRL who are absolutely jumping on any of these things and it’s adding fuel to the fire of their conspiracy theories. I can’t tell you how many of them have posted it on FB this afternoon with hysterical comments about it getting taken down. You can’t then have a rational discussion with them because they are so paranoid they can’t think. I’m pretty sure, in normal circumstances, at least a few of them would be skeptical of information from someone who believes in the other things that Dr believes, but right now they aren’t giving it one critical thought!

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

Also HCQ has been around for a very long time and is cheap (and maybe no longer under a patent?).  New medical protocols would bring more money to big pharma.   At least that's one of the reasons I've heard. 

And yet there are no objections to dexamethasone, which is also a relatively cheap generic drug that no one is going to make huge profits from. The difference is that dexamethasone has been shown to be highly effective in preventing deaths among patients on oxygen support in a large, high quality, randomized clinical trial, while the same study showed no benefit to HCQ.

 

  • Like 12
  • Thanks 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Did you see what I wrote about using it prophylactically and how MANY people you'd have to use to get a reasonable study? 

I did, and this is what I mean about feeling dumb. (And also about being grateful for your patience explaining it.) 

It kills a LOT of elderly people, right? And people exposed to high viral load / drs and nurses? So - could thousands of them take it? Thousands and thousands? In nursing homes? 

And my question about school is this: The teachers are hesitant to just open "school as usual" because they're afraid the kids are going to share the virus, not get sick themselves, but pass it along to the teachers & grandparents, right? So - we're worried about keeping teachers & grandparents safe so much that we're seriously considering not opening schools. So - could THOSE people take it? (the teachers & grandparents & kids?) Is there not enough of THOSE people that *IF* they suddenly did NOT get sick, we could understand better? *ONLY GIVING IT TO THOSE WHO WANT IT, NOT FORCING IT ON ANYONE*

3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Yes, the UK trial used it in a hospital setting. The U of MN study used it prophylactically in subjects who had potentially been exposed, and it did not prevent people from getting sick. Some of the patients in the U of MN study did take HCQ with zinc, and their results were no better. 

 

But no zinc in MN? And the vast majority of MN study participants were unable to get a test, so - their Covid-19 diagnosis was based only on symptoms?

 

 

__________________________

It's bedtime here, and I'll quit pestering (because I can tell I'm sounding like my 3rd grader with the WHYYYY). 

I'm so very interested in this, and if anyone knows of ANY clinical trial groups in the USA where willing patients can enroll prophylactically or in the first 5 days after exposure (for hcq + ZINC), would you please message me? 

Thank you to ALL of you who are so patient. I mean that sincerely, and I'm asking because I truly want to know.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, square_25 said:

I'm not sure I'm following here. Double blind studies show the average effect, not much else. What do you mean about being unable to make equal groups? You can't clone people, so no, no two groups are equal. 

If you don't like stupid double blind studies, then you should campaign again stupid double blind studies. Frankly, there are MANY more stupid observational studies, because those have confounders built in. Frankly, a lot of medical research is flawed... I think anyone at all stats-minded knows this. 

However, randomizing is a good way to deal with confirmation bias. It's not the answer to everything. 

There are many stupid observational studies-  I completely agree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, square_25 said:

Yeah 😕. Drugs sometimes have negative effects. 

Also, it looks like the right of heart issues is surprisingly high with COVID, right? So a drug that's causing heart issues doesn't seem like a great idea, unless well-supported. 

No, completely wrong.  I have been taking it since 1997 and have seen many, many doctors who knew I took it and had many pharmacists prescribe it to me.  I have been in very large yahoo groups and now facebook groups with people taking the drug.  The only reasons I and rheumatologists who have been interviewed by media since this time have ever seen anyone need to stop taking the drugs is stuff like they can't tolerate the gastro side effects, headaches and the only serious side effect is potential retinal damage, which is why I get a special test every year.  What researchers now believe is that COVID causes heart issues.  

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
56 minutes ago, PrincessMommy said:

Also HCQ has been around for a very long time and is cheap (and maybe no longer under a patent?).  New medical protocols would bring more money to big pharma.   At least that's one of the reasons I've heard. 

Yes, but I am not quite so cynical as to believe a proven, working drug would be buried because they simply cannot make a lot of money on it. My anecdotal evidence-of-one reason for believing this is: I am on Tamoxifen for reducing the likelihood bre@st cancer comes back. It is an old drug, no longer under patent and costs practically pennies. It’s something like $25 for a 3-month supply, and most of that is covered by my insurance. 

Globally speaking, aaaaaallllllll the other countries who, unlike the US, have partial or total assistance with medical costs from their governments would, I’m sure, much rather use a cheap, out-of-patent drug than a new-fangled, expensive, patented one. So if countries with a NHS are not finding a use for HCQ, I don’t see the money motive as a likely one. 

  • Like 16
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

Is this the trial we're discussing? HCQ used post-exposure & shows no heart problems at all. Is there a study anywhere on people using it prophylactically? What dose is causing the heart complications? (Yes, I can Google, but you guys are faster & smarter! Aaahhh!) 

https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/06/randomized-trial-finds-hydroxychloroquine-did-not-prevent-covid-19

(But this study did not have a positive test on all participants, and used "symptoms" as part of their definitions?)

"As a result, only 20 of the 107 patients reporting COVID-19 symptoms had a lab-confirmed diagnosis."

And I have no idea if the doses used in this study were the same doses used in the studies that found heart damage.  Those are much higher doses than we are prescribed as theumatological patients.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Sorry, yeah, that's what I meant -- COVID causes heart issues, except my spelling or grammar let me down.

It's possible the heart issues were just due to the huge dose of HCQ some of the doctors were using. But I think these really were reported in RCTs. 

Yes, because I just saw that the MN study was giving 800mg at first, followed by 600mg.  We normally get 400mg or 200 mg.  Most of my 23 years of taking it have been at 400mg and that is what I currently take.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

I did, and this is what I mean about feeling dumb. (And also about being grateful for your patience explaining it.) 

It kills a LOT of elderly people, right? And people exposed to high viral load / drs and nurses? So - could thousands of them take it? Thousands and thousands? In nursing homes? 

And my question about school is this: The teachers are hesitant to just open "school as usual" because they're afraid the kids are going to share the virus, not get sick themselves, but pass it along to the teachers & grandparents, right? So - we're worried about keeping teachers & grandparents safe so much that we're seriously considering not opening schools. So - could THOSE people take it? (the teachers & grandparents & kids?) Is there not enough of THOSE people that *IF* they suddenly did NOT get sick, we could understand better? *ONLY GIVING IT TO THOSE WHO WANT IT, NOT FORCING IT ON ANYONE*

 

You can't just give it to everyone in a nursing home, because then you have nothing to measure the effect against. There was a doctor in TX who gave it to everyone in a certain nursing home (without informed consent, which IMO is malpractice) and claimed that since only 2 of them died his treatment was a success because more people "probably" would have died without the treatment. The problem is that there is no way to know whether more would have died — or whether the 2 who did die might have lived without the treatment — because there is no control group.

In order for a study in nursing homes to have any validity, you'd have to give it to like half the patients in each nursing home (randomly selected, not just give it to the healthiest patients), and then repeat that in many other nursing homes to smooth over any effect of differences in level of care. 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

So a good study would be one with control group, zinc alone, zinc plus hydroxychloroquine and zinc plus quercetin?  That would look at all the factors?  
 

The other issue I’m seeing mentioned lately is so much research is going into Covid that other research is being put on the back burner.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

So a good study would be one with control group, zinc alone, zinc plus hydroxychloroquine and zinc plus quercetin?  That would look at all the factors?  

And apparently it has to be given in a very short window after infection, and not to hospitalized patients or those who have already had symptoms for several days. The idea that we need to keep throwing more and more money into studies to prove that HCQ really does work, at least a little bit, in some capacity, in some subset of patients, when given with certain cofactors, within a very narrow timeframe, instead of looking at other potentially useful drugs, seems crazy to me. And all because a certain person claimed, based on very little evidence, that HCQ is "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine," now everything possible must be done to validate that opinion, no matter how many studies contradict it. 

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

If people want to take things prophylactically it makes a lot more sense to  take zinc and Quercetin. Quercetin doesn’t require a prescription. Doesn’t cause liver or heart problems. Why the cult love for hcq?  

 (I'm supposed to be going to bed, ha.)

Isn't that what the MedCram doctor takes? And it's a dietary supplement, right, not regulated by any agency? And more expensive than hcq, right? 

I wish that people I love very much who ARE in a nursing home would be given an option like that. (But yes, Corraleno, I fully agree that without informed consent, that absolutely should be classified as medical malpractice.) What I'm hoping for is the exact opposite - people in high-risk groups (but no heart disease) who WANT hcq + zinc to be able to access it through their primary care doctors. That is not the case is much if not most of the USA. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

And apparently it has to be given in a very short window after infection, and not to hospitalized patients or those who have already had symptoms for several days. The idea that we need to keep throwing more and more money into studies to prove that HCQ really does work, at least a little bit, in some capacity, in some subset of patients, when given with certain cofactors, within a very narrow timeframe, instead of looking at other potentially useful drugs, seems crazy to me. And all because a certain person claimed, based on very little evidence, that HCQ is "one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine," now everything possible must be done to validate that opinion, no matter how many studies contradict it. 

But that is what seems backwards to me - (and I confess to watching the entire Dr. Zelenko video that my father in law sent me) - he is suggesting that a very LITTLE bit of money could be expended to save THOUSANDS of dollars AND *lives*.  But it seems that nobody is doing it, or has done it? 

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study   

Edited by Lucy the Valiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

What I'm hoping for is the exact opposite - people in high-risk groups (but no heart disease) who WANT hcq + zinc to be able to access it through their primary care doctors. That is not the case is much if not most of the USA. 

But (a) that will not provide any useful clinical data about efficacy, because the treatment group is self-selected and there is no control group, and (b) there is no proof that it's even effective. Why not give them Vit D + zinc + quercetin, which are OTC supplements with no side effects and a wide variety of health benefits beyond fighting HCQ?

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

But that is what seems backwards to me - (and I confess to watching the entire Dr. Zelenko video that my father in law sent me) - he is suggesting that a very LITTLE bit of money could be expended to save THOUSANDS of dollars AND *lives*.  But it seems that nobody is doing it, or has done it? 

https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study   

The HCQ treatment group in that "study" (which is a retrospective analysis, NOT a controlled clinical trial) were considerably younger than the nonHCQ group, and 77% of the HCQ group also received steroids, which are known to help. One of the biggest predictors of death in that trial was age over 65, and the average age of the HCQ group was 64, vs 71 in the nonHCQ group, which also included patients over 80.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

But (a) that will not provide any useful clinical data about efficacy, because the treatment group is self-selected and there is no control group, and (b) there is no proof that it's even effective. Why not give them Vit D + zinc + quercetin, which are OTC supplements with no side effects and a wide variety of health benefits beyond fighting HCQ?

This is where I'm not a scientist. Isn't the control group "everybody else"? The ones who were exposed / close contact with a known positive case who DIDN'T take any medication / supplements for it? And we sort-of know how many of THOSE people are winding up at the hospital and / or ICU, right? (I sound so dumb, even to my own ears.) 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

The HCQ treatment group in that "study" (which is a retrospective analysis, NOT a controlled clinical trial) were considerably younger than the nonHCQ group, and 77% of the HCQ group also received steroids, which are known to help. One of the biggest predictors of death in that trial was age over 65, and the average age of the HCQ group was 64, vs 71 in the nonHCQ group, which also included patients over 80.

And they didn't use zinc! (I'm laughing at my own self. 

Dr. Zelenko in his video said (and I'm summarizing) - he was in NYC, at the height of the peak there, desperate situation all around, and he started giving this to patients who had had known contacts. (I know that's not a randomized or controlled group.) He wasn't sure it would work, but the horror stories from the NYC ICU's made him willing to try. So - yes, his stories are anecdotal - for sure. But - why isn't anyone (and I was actually complaining about Henry Ford's study, not using them in support) doing a trial on this? 

 

Edited: I'm wrong - someone IS studying it. OK, I will go to sleep now and stay tuned to the study.  ------>   https://newyork.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/14578484/2020/04/General-Investigational-Plan-2020-04-11-AT.pdf

Edited by Lucy the Valiant
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

This is where I'm not a scientist. Isn't the control group "everybody else"? The ones who were exposed / close contact with a known positive case who DIDN'T take any medication / supplements for it? And we sort-of know how many of THOSE people are winding up at the hospital and / or ICU, right? (I sound so dumb, even to my own ears.) 

 

No a control group is not just "everyone else" who didn't take the medication — that is actually one of the biggest flaws in the studies that claim to show benefit. For example, the very small French study that seemed to start the whole HCQ mania, gave HCQ + AZ to a small number of patients in one specific hospital, who had been screened to eliminate those with high risk conditions like heart disease. They then measured the outcomes of this selected group of patients against outcomes of the patients who had more preexisting conditions, many of whom were not even in the same hospital. Many of the patients whose results were included in the "non-HCQ group" were just random Covid patients in different hospitals all over the city, with no control over level of care or what other treatments they were receiving. They also eliminated from the HCQ results any patients who got worse (transferred to ICU or died).

A true control group would consist of randomly selected patients who receive the same level of care under the same conditions, with the only major difference being the specific treatment under study. If the treatment group also happens to be in a much higher quality hospital, and they are getting additional drugs besides the one you are supposedly studying, then you cannot prove that the results are due to the treatment and not due to better care and/or the additional drugs.

  • Like 6
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

please tell us what you know.  

My SIL posted it on FB too and has been dismayed that it was removed from FB and YT... she's (SIL) also been flagged by FB.  She's smart and does deep dives on these types of issues...but rarely posts anything on FB.  Needless to say she's upset and confused.  

 

I saw the video on Facebook.  Search Shekinah Ruth. It was still there an hour ago.

basically, she runs a clinic and treats people with hcq.  No deaths, and very good results.  She’s trying to get the word out about a drug that really does work, and is cheap. Very passionate.

there was also a link to a Newsweek article by a Yale researcher about hcq and it’s successes.  And a link to the success they’ve had in India with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Sorry, yeah, that's what I meant -- COVID causes heart issues, except my spelling or grammar let me down.

It's possible the heart issues were just due to the huge dose of HCQ some of the doctors were using. But I think these really were reported in RCTs. 

The heart issues are at higher does for long periods of time.  The small amount they use for Covid, and the minimal duration, doesn’t correlate.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

No a control group is not just "everyone else" who didn't take the medication — that is actually one of the biggest flaws in the studies that claim to show benefit. For example, the very small French study that seemed to start the whole HCQ mania, gave HCQ + AZ to a small number of patients in one specific hospital, who had been screened to eliminate those with high risk conditions like heart disease. They then measured the outcomes of this selected group of patients against outcomes of the patients who had more preexisting conditions, many of whom were not even in the same hospital. Many of the patients whose results were included in the "non-HCQ group" were just random Covid patients in different hospitals all over the city, with no control over level of care or what other treatments they were receiving. They also eliminated from the HCQ results any patients who got worse (transferred to ICU or died).

A true control group would consist of randomly selected patients who receive the same level of care under the same conditions, with the only major difference being the specific treatment under study. If the treatment group also happens to be in a much higher quality hospital, and they are getting additional drugs besides the one you are supposedly studying, then you cannot prove that the results are due to the treatment and not due to better care and/or the additional drugs.

 (I wish I could buy you a coffee for your patience with me - iced, of course, because - HEAT WAVE.)

So for the trial I'm hoping for (which maybe exists only in my head?), we need to screen EVERYONE who calls the dr with Covid-like symptoms for heart complications, give 1/2 of them hcq + zinc in the first few days, give 1/2 of them nothing at all, and see how many end up at the hospital? And we need hundreds and maybe thousands of people to do that and agree to be in the trial? Am I finally catching on? 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PrincessMommy said:

please tell us what you know.  

My SIL posted it on FB too and has been dismayed that it was removed from FB and YT... she's (SIL) also been flagged by FB.  She's smart and does deep dives on these types of issues...but rarely posts anything on FB.  Needless to say she's upset and confused.  

 

Try this link 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, square_25 said:

Except there's this whole thread of reasons to be skeptical about her results. 

If you're only going to be skeptical of people who disagree with you, and immediately believe everyone who agrees with you, no matter how kooky... well, let's just say that's not scientific. 

I was responding to someone who wanted a summary of the video that was deleted, and I provided what I saw.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, matrips said:

The heart issues are at higher does for long periods of time.  The small amount they use for Covid, and the minimal duration, doesn’t correlate.

Some of the heart issues are that it can prolong your QT interval which can increase your risk of another heart beat occurring during the time your heart is resting between beats and this can cause your heart to go into a very dangerous rhythm. This can occur, the prolongation of the QT interval, after just a short while on the drug. Azithromycin can do the same thing to your QT interval so together they can increase the risk even more.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 (I wish I could buy you a coffee for your patience with me - iced, of course, because - HEAT WAVE.)

So for the trial I'm hoping for (which maybe exists only in my head?), we need to screen EVERYONE who calls the dr with Covid-like symptoms for heart complications, give 1/2 of them hcq + zinc in the first few days, give 1/2 of them nothing at all, and see how many end up at the hospital? And we need hundreds and maybe thousands of people to do that and agree to be in the trial? Am I finally catching on? 

 

You also need to give some just zinc and some zinc plus a different ionosphere for a fair comparison otherwise you won’t know whether it’s the HCQ or the zinc working or the combination 

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Lucy the Valiant said:

 (I wish I could buy you a coffee for your patience with me - iced, of course, because - HEAT WAVE.)

So for the trial I'm hoping for (which maybe exists only in my head?), we need to screen EVERYONE who calls the dr with Covid-like symptoms for heart complications, give 1/2 of them hcq + zinc in the first few days, give 1/2 of them nothing at all, and see how many end up at the hospital? And we need hundreds and maybe thousands of people to do that and agree to be in the trial? Am I finally catching on? 

 

Yes, basically. The patients would need to be randomly assigned to either the HCQ or control group, and ideally the control group would get a placebo (e.g., the U of MN study gave folic acid tablets to the placebo group).

ETA: agreeing with @Ausmumof3 that you would ideally want another group that got zinc + quercetin (or similar) to be sure that it's the HCQ that's having the effect and not just zinc plus any other ionophore.

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I’ve been looking for trials that are being done that we don’t have results for yet

https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04329923

here’s one.  
 

there was a recent German one completed showing that the Blocking effect shown in the rhesus monkey cells doesn’t work in the human lung cells.

a lot of trials were halted after the flawed lancet study and are being restarted so that has contributed to the delay.  WHO has a database of all trials but it’s currently down.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...