All things Chinese CoronaVirus

[MDlaxfan76]

So if I claim that God saved me from COVID-19 did he?
After all, I'm still alive...

Actually, I could make THAT argument easier than with HCQ.

Seriously, individuals and even their doctors have ZERO idea what actually made the difference between one patient's outcome and another's.

You need actual scientific controlled studies.

But perhaps you think that you know better?

mdlax, in one breath you point out you need actual scientific controlled studies.
in another, you say "the drug doesn't work", "it doesn't help at all", and doctors themselves have zero idea what made a difference in patients (but you seem to know?).

your point of reference is yet another study that looks at hospital, critical care.

for the umpteenth time... advocates of the drug have offered that it may have its most effectiveness early in treatment, with zinc, to prevent replication at that stage.

minnesota's study had their share of issues, but i and maybe anyone would've been surprised that it would actually prevent people from getting it at all.

you also ponder that the data from a withdrawn study might end up being good or representative. i suggest you do a deeper dive on that one. it was completely fraudulent, as i postured some time ago. and lends more to the fact that published and peer reviewed data is broken than anything else.

minny is also doing an early treatment trial, including with a zinc cohort. we'll see.

Am I misreading this wgdsr?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/hyd ... tudy-says/

You seem willing to dig into these studies, so how am I misreading it?
New England Journal of Medicine, double blind, controlled...no prevention benefit.

Not hospital, critical care.
I think you were referring to the other studies, which indeed looked at whether HCQ helped with seriously sick patients (no).

I'm reading reports on the withdrawn study, and I'm not so sure it is fraudulent as you suggest, though I'm certainly open to that possibility. What I've read is that there may have been some errors, yet the bottomline may well come out the same. But, hey, you and I both believe in this process of scientific, peer review to sift through facts versus ideology.

[RedFromMI]

So if I claim that God saved me from COVID-19 did he?
After all, I'm still alive...

Actually, I could make THAT argument easier than with HCQ.

Seriously, individuals and even their doctors have ZERO idea what actually made the difference between one patient's outcome and another's.

You need actual scientific controlled studies.

But perhaps you think that you know better?

mdlax, in one breath you point out you need actual scientific controlled studies.
in another, you say "the drug doesn't work", "it doesn't help at all", and doctors themselves have zero idea what made a difference in patients (but you seem to know?).

your point of reference is yet another study that looks at hospital, critical care.

for the umpteenth time... advocates of the drug have offered that it may have its most effectiveness early in treatment, with zinc, to prevent replication at that stage.

minnesota's study had their share of issues, but i and maybe anyone would've been surprised that it would actually prevent people from getting it at all.

you also ponder that the data from a withdrawn study might end up being good or representative. i suggest you do a deeper dive on that one. it was completely fraudulent, as i postured some time ago. and lends more to the fact that published and peer reviewed data is broken than anything else.

minny is also doing an early treatment trial, including with a zinc cohort. we'll see.

Am I misreading this wgdsr?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/hyd ... tudy-says/

You seem willing to dig into these studies, so how am I misreading it?
New England Journal of Medicine, double blind, controlled...no prevention benefit.

Not hospital, critical care.
I think you were referring to the other studies, which indeed looked at whether HCQ helped with seriously sick patients (no).

I'm reading reports on the withdrawn study, and I'm not so sure it is fraudulent as you suggest, though I'm certainly open to that possibility. What I've read is that there may have been some errors, yet the bottomline may well come out the same. But, hey, you and I both believe in this process of scientific, peer review to sift through facts versus ideology.

I think the studies wgdsr is referring to involve treatment at the very earliest stages of the disease to lessen its course. The really early uses were more like Hail Marys for really sick patients in the ICU.

[MDlaxfan76]

America is now "all in" on the notion that Covid is just no big deal.

Fingers crossed.

Only thing I'm not seeing much of in either protest videos or indoor restaurants/casinos? Grey hair. Let's hope that's enough.

Watching DC local 11 o'clock news. After 3 mos lock down, lots of energy being released. Only about 50% wearing masks.
Young crowd on the prowl. With bars & night clubs closed, this is the new hookup haven.

Well, you were predicting all sorts of violence, I guess you need to pivot to this...

I don't see "50%...I'm seeing closer to 80% than 50%...which isn't good enough, I agree, but way, way more than what we are seeing in some other venues, eg the Ozarks...

Did the National Guards all have masks? Did those unbadged federal officers up from Texas wear masks... (none of those federals did).

[MDlaxfan76]

So if I claim that God saved me from COVID-19 did he?
After all, I'm still alive...

Actually, I could make THAT argument easier than with HCQ.

Seriously, individuals and even their doctors have ZERO idea what actually made the difference between one patient's outcome and another's.

You need actual scientific controlled studies.

But perhaps you think that you know better?

mdlax, in one breath you point out you need actual scientific controlled studies.
in another, you say "the drug doesn't work", "it doesn't help at all", and doctors themselves have zero idea what made a difference in patients (but you seem to know?).

your point of reference is yet another study that looks at hospital, critical care.

for the umpteenth time... advocates of the drug have offered that it may have its most effectiveness early in treatment, with zinc, to prevent replication at that stage.

minnesota's study had their share of issues, but i and maybe anyone would've been surprised that it would actually prevent people from getting it at all.

you also ponder that the data from a withdrawn study might end up being good or representative. i suggest you do a deeper dive on that one. it was completely fraudulent, as i postured some time ago. and lends more to the fact that published and peer reviewed data is broken than anything else.

minny is also doing an early treatment trial, including with a zinc cohort. we'll see.

Am I misreading this wgdsr?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/hyd ... tudy-says/

You seem willing to dig into these studies, so how am I misreading it?
New England Journal of Medicine, double blind, controlled...no prevention benefit.

Not hospital, critical care.
I think you were referring to the other studies, which indeed looked at whether HCQ helped with seriously sick patients (no).

I'm reading reports on the withdrawn study, and I'm not so sure it is fraudulent as you suggest, though I'm certainly open to that possibility. What I've read is that there may have been some errors, yet the bottomline may well come out the same. But, hey, you and I both believe in this process of scientific, peer review to sift through facts versus ideology.

I think the studies wgdsr is referring to involve treatment at the very earliest stages of the disease to lessen its course. The really early uses were more like Hail Marys for really sick patients in the ICU.

Yes, but isn't this study above about prophylactic usage?
Double blind, prophylactic, placebo...unfortunately doesn't work.

Does it work some other way? I'd be happy to see it, but so far, it hasn't worked to any benefit in any particular set of cases, validated by sound scientific studies.

[runrussellrun]

These protests are turning into the world's largest super spreader block party.

This should squelch any further quacking about West Point holding a graduation/commissioning ceremony with Trump addressing.

Too bad USNA didn't postpone a few weeks.

Are all other illness' and medical conditions on lockdown too?

testing positive for V19 is the same thing as dying. got it

[runrussellrun]

So if I claim that God saved me from COVID-19 did he?
After all, I'm still alive...

Actually, I could make THAT argument easier than with HCQ.

Seriously, individuals and even their doctors have ZERO idea what actually made the difference between one patient's outcome and another's.

You need actual scientific controlled studies.

But perhaps you think that you know better?

mdlax, in one breath you point out you need actual scientific controlled studies.
in another, you say "the drug doesn't work", "it doesn't help at all", and doctors themselves have zero idea what made a difference in patients (but you seem to know?).

your point of reference is yet another study that looks at hospital, critical care.

for the umpteenth time... advocates of the drug have offered that it may have its most effectiveness early in treatment, with zinc, to prevent replication at that stage.

minnesota's study had their share of issues, but i and maybe anyone would've been surprised that it would actually prevent people from getting it at all.

you also ponder that the data from a withdrawn study might end up being good or representative. i suggest you do a deeper dive on that one. it was completely fraudulent, as i postured some time ago. and lends more to the fact that published and peer reviewed data is broken than anything else.

minny is also doing an early treatment trial, including with a zinc cohort. we'll see.

Am I misreading this wgdsr?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/hyd ... tudy-says/

You seem willing to dig into these studies, so how am I misreading it?
New England Journal of Medicine, double blind, controlled...no prevention benefit.

Not hospital, critical care.
I think you were referring to the other studies, which indeed looked at whether HCQ helped with seriously sick patients (no).

I'm reading reports on the withdrawn study, and I'm not so sure it is fraudulent as you suggest, though I'm certainly open to that possibility. What I've read is that there may have been some errors, yet the bottomline may well come out the same. But, hey, you and I both believe in this process of scientific, peer review to sift through facts versus ideology.

I will need a bath after replying to this guy.....

my take is "where are the deaths" ? I understood that hydroqueen stopped you for DYING, not actually getting infected . Wasn't that TV show reality clown boys ORIGINAL claim?

From the "study" This is the link to the actual study

https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NE ... Tools=true

RESULTS
We enrolled 821 asymptomatic participants. Overall, 87.6% of the participants (719 of 821) reported a high-risk exposure to a confirmed Covid-19 contact. The incidence of new illness compatible with Covid-19 did not differ significantly between participants receiving hydroxychloroquine (49 of 414 [11.8%]) and those receiving placebo (58 of 407 [14.3%]); the absolute difference was −2.4 percentage points (95% confidence interval, −7.0 to 2.2; P=0.35). Side effects were more common with hydroxychloroquine than with placebo (40.1% vs. 16.8%), but no serious adverse reactions were reported.

[kramerica.inc]

When you tell a lie, you have to keep lying to make it true.

Americans have stopped social distancing. If it’s as deadly as we were all led to believe, we’ll see a spike in deaths any day now.

[MDlaxfan76]

When you tell a lie, you have to keep lying to make it true.

Americans have stopped social distancing. If it’s as deadly as we were all led to believe, we’ll see a spike in deaths any day now.

A few weeks from now, as we've already discussed. The spread needs to get to the vulnerable. Most of these folks are the young who are more likely to be asymptomatic.

We were already seeing spikes in cases (from sloppy economic opening) pre protests, but don't expect the spike in those related deaths until mid-late June.

These will be coming end of June, early July.

The good news is that of those intubated, death rate has dropped from 80% to 30%, so we're keeping more of the seriously sick alive. That should be sustainable as long as hospitals don't get overwhelmed.

But Arizona is already on the edge...

[runrussellrun]

America is now "all in" on the notion that Covid is just no big deal.

Fingers crossed.

Only thing I'm not seeing much of in either protest videos or indoor restaurants/casinos? Grey hair. Let's hope that's enough.

You make many claims, without any backup. So, why is this one any different.

It was enough to keep the vulnerable demographic (grey hairs), 3 months ago, in lockdown. The rest of us? 99.99 percent of us.......

.......were fine. Are fine. Testing positive for v-19 equals death? PLEASE test everyone......than the death rate will be.......circles upon circles . but, keep on focusing on the "increasing spikes of infected" . So what. ?

But, back to your claim. Does that include yourself, an American, as being "all in"? Certainly, most of the pretends on these threads aren't "all in" in reopening. So, what makes you make this claim? What does your Sen. and former POTUSA hopeful have to say? Is Bennett "all in".

[6ftstick]

When you tell a lie, you have to keep lying to make it true.

Americans have stopped social distancing. If it’s as deadly as we were all led to believe, we’ll see a spike in deaths any day now.

A few weeks from now, as we've already discussed. The spread needs to get to the vulnerable. Most of these folks are the young who are more likely to be asymptomatic.

We were already seeing spikes in cases (from sloppy economic opening) pre protests, but don't expect the spike in those related deaths until mid-late June.

These will be coming end of June, early July.

The good news is that of those intubated, death rate has dropped from 80% to 30%, so we're keeping more of the seriously sick alive. That should be sustainable as long as hospitals don't get overwhelmed.

But Arizona is already on the edge...

But you must do as instructed by the NYC councilman..

Mark Levine, Democrat, chairman of NYC council's health committee, on Wednesday instructed those worried that mass gatherings would lead to an uptick in COVID-19 cases to "blame racism" instead of a lack of social distancing.

"Let's be clear about something: if there is a spike in coronavirus cases in the next two weeks, don't blame the protesters," Levine tweeted. "Blame racism."

[wgdsr]

So if I claim that God saved me from COVID-19 did he?
After all, I'm still alive...

Actually, I could make THAT argument easier than with HCQ.

Seriously, individuals and even their doctors have ZERO idea what actually made the difference between one patient's outcome and another's.

You need actual scientific controlled studies.

But perhaps you think that you know better?

mdlax, in one breath you point out you need actual scientific controlled studies.
in another, you say "the drug doesn't work", "it doesn't help at all", and doctors themselves have zero idea what made a difference in patients (but you seem to know?).

your point of reference is yet another study that looks at hospital, critical care.

for the umpteenth time... advocates of the drug have offered that it may have its most effectiveness early in treatment, with zinc, to prevent replication at that stage.

minnesota's study had their share of issues, but i and maybe anyone would've been surprised that it would actually prevent people from getting it at all.

you also ponder that the data from a withdrawn study might end up being good or representative. i suggest you do a deeper dive on that one. it was completely fraudulent, as i postured some time ago. and lends more to the fact that published and peer reviewed data is broken than anything else.

minny is also doing an early treatment trial, including with a zinc cohort. we'll see.

Am I misreading this wgdsr?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/hyd ... tudy-says/

You seem willing to dig into these studies, so how am I misreading it?
New England Journal of Medicine, double blind, controlled...no prevention benefit.

Not hospital, critical care.
I think you were referring to the other studies, which indeed looked at whether HCQ helped with seriously sick patients (no).

I'm reading reports on the withdrawn study, and I'm not so sure it is fraudulent as you suggest, though I'm certainly open to that possibility. What I've read is that there may have been some errors, yet the bottomline may well come out the same. But, hey, you and I both believe in this process of scientific, peer review to sift through facts versus ideology.

I think the studies wgdsr is referring to involve treatment at the very earliest stages of the disease to lessen its course. The really early uses were more like Hail Marys for really sick patients in the ICU.

Yes, but isn't this study above about prophylactic usage?
Double blind, prophylactic, placebo...unfortunately doesn't work.

Does it work some other way? I'd be happy to see it, but so far, it hasn't worked to any benefit in any particular set of cases, validated by sound scientific studies.

generally i like to look at both sides of an argument in any matter. if it's a matter like this that is grounded in stats, it can be a different opinion generator than one bound by ideology. especially if you take more time to understand the issue, beyond headlines. honestly by your posts here recently you don't seem to look beyond headlines and your own personal opinion. but that is just MY opinion.
you had linked also a study on late critical care. go back and look.
between that and the statnews link, you have now barbelled what most advocates of the hcq drug have offered as its best possible effectiveness. as red mentions. this is not new info. simply read the comments in your statnews article as another example (i did not just say those random people are experts).

the minny study:
- didn't have a lot of $, so did a low budget trial. that's ok, at least it's providing some info. but it is not a high control blue chip randomized trial and you shouldn't confuse it as such
- without belaboring all of the problems in that trial, they didn't even confirm all who contracted the virus. just symptoms with some and i'm not sure even how many of those until i look for it. they also had 20% not even take the full protocol of treatment.
- the design also had people already exposed trial the drug. so they could've had it before treatment. so all the trial showed was with those and other shortcomings, that of people already exposed to the virus.. only 18% fewer taking hcq showed symptoms later in the trial. other than showing there were not increased cardiac issues with the group (are we happy about that?).
- and from that, your argument is "it doesn't work, there's no benefit, other studies have shown there is no benefit". you do understand there are multiple ways any drug might be effective, including potentially an optimal efficacy, yes?
- here is what people who know something about have advocated for: in order to slow replication of the virus and give body chance to fight infection thru immune response: early treatment, with zinc. might help keep the virus from causing big damage, putting people in hospitals and getting critically ill.
- most all studies to date have involved late care patients. most haven't included zinc (which is actually blocking the replication, the hcq helps get it into the cells to do that. in theory.).
- this minny study, underfunded and with some other flaws, provides some info. if there is anyone out there that thought hcq acted as a vanquishing vaccine that would never allow you to have a symptom ever after exposure, this might put that idea to rest.

it is exhausting debating with you, as often you do not seem to do your homework, make proclamations that make no sense for someone that seems as educated as you are, and then you inevitably move the goalposts.

ftr, had you not stated "it doesn't work", and "No one has died from not using HCQ for COVID-19. It doesn't help at all." i wouldn't have replied at all.
i have no idea if that's the case and i'm 1000% times more certain that you don't. i think you wrote it bc you didn't like 6ft saying the opposite.

please link anyone/story that still believes the lancet/surgisphere study may still be good. i am looking for laughs today. too much bad news in the world.

[Bart]

So if I claim that God saved me from COVID-19 did he?
After all, I'm still alive...

Actually, I could make THAT argument easier than with HCQ.

Seriously, individuals and even their doctors have ZERO idea what actually made the difference between one patient's outcome and another's.

You need actual scientific controlled studies.

But perhaps you think that you know better?

mdlax, in one breath you point out you need actual scientific controlled studies.
in another, you say "the drug doesn't work", "it doesn't help at all", and doctors themselves have zero idea what made a difference in patients (but you seem to know?).

your point of reference is yet another study that looks at hospital, critical care.

for the umpteenth time... advocates of the drug have offered that it may have its most effectiveness early in treatment, with zinc, to prevent replication at that stage.

minnesota's study had their share of issues, but i and maybe anyone would've been surprised that it would actually prevent people from getting it at all.

you also ponder that the data from a withdrawn study might end up being good or representative. i suggest you do a deeper dive on that one. it was completely fraudulent, as i postured some time ago. and lends more to the fact that published and peer reviewed data is broken than anything else.

minny is also doing an early treatment trial, including with a zinc cohort. we'll see.

Am I misreading this wgdsr?
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/03/hyd ... tudy-says/

You seem willing to dig into these studies, so how am I misreading it?
New England Journal of Medicine, double blind, controlled...no prevention benefit.

Not hospital, critical care.
I think you were referring to the other studies, which indeed looked at whether HCQ helped with seriously sick patients (no).

I'm reading reports on the withdrawn study, and I'm not so sure it is fraudulent as you suggest, though I'm certainly open to that possibility. What I've read is that there may have been some errors, yet the bottomline may well come out the same. But, hey, you and I both believe in this process of scientific, peer review to sift through facts versus ideology.

I think the studies wgdsr is referring to involve treatment at the very earliest stages of the disease to lessen its course. The really early uses were more like Hail Marys for really sick patients in the ICU.

Yes, but isn't this study above about prophylactic usage?
Double blind, prophylactic, placebo...unfortunately doesn't work.

Does it work some other way? I'd be happy to see it, but so far, it hasn't worked to any benefit in any particular set of cases, validated by sound scientific studies.

generally i like to look at both sides of an argument in any matter. if it's a matter like this that is grounded in stats, it can be a different opinion generator than one bound by ideology. especially if you take more time to understand the issue, beyond headlines. honestly by your posts here recently you don't seem to look beyond headlines and your own personal opinion. but that is just MY opinion.
you had linked also a study on late critical care. go back and look.
between that and the statnews link, you have now barbelled what most advocates of the hcq drug have offered as its best possible effectiveness. as red mentions. this is not new info. simply read the comments in your statnews article as another example (i did not just say those random people are experts).

the minny study:
- didn't have a lot of $, so did a low budget trial. that's ok, at least it's providing some info. but it is not a high control blue chip randomized trial and you shouldn't confuse it as such
- without belaboring all of the problems in that trial, they didn't even confirm all who contracted the virus. just symptoms with some and i'm not sure even how many of those until i look for it. they also had 20% not even take the full protocol of treatment.
- the design also had people already exposed trial the drug. so they could've had it before treatment. so all the trial showed was with those and other shortcomings, that of people already exposed to the virus.. only 18% fewer taking hcq showed symptoms later in the trial. other than showing there were not increased cardiac issues with the group (are we happy about that?).
- and from that, your argument is "it doesn't work, there's no benefit, other studies have shown there is no benefit". you do understand there are multiple ways any drug might be effective, including potentially an optimal efficacy, yes?
- here is what people who know something about have advocated for: in order to slow replication of the virus and give body chance to fight infection thru immune response: early treatment, with zinc. might help keep the virus from causing big damage, putting people in hospitals and getting critically ill.
- most all studies to date have involved late care patients. most haven't included zinc (which is actually blocking the replication, the hcq helps get it into the cells to do that. in theory.).
- this minny study, underfunded and with some other flaws, provides some info. if there is anyone out there that thought hcq acted as a vanquishing vaccine that would never allow you to have a symptom ever after exposure, this might put that idea to rest.

it is exhausting debating with you, as often you do not seem to do your homework, make proclamations that make no sense for someone that seems as educated as you are, and then you inevitably move the goalposts.

ftr, had you not stated "it doesn't work", and "No one has died from not using HCQ for COVID-19. It doesn't help at all." i wouldn't have replied at all.
i have no idea if that's the case and i'm 1000% times more certain that you don't. i think you wrote it bc you didn't like 6ft saying the opposite.

please link anyone/story that still believes the lancet/surgisphere study may still be good. i am looking for laughs today. too much bad news in the world.

so the million dollar question or at least 5.99 at Walmart, will there be double blind study comparing HQ + zinc and zinc alone? Should we be doing a double blind of HQ and Zycam? After all, that is all we are talking about correct? (although there is some evidence it does modulate certain cytokine pathways )

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/05 ... 589374701/

There is also a study in Tunisia that will conclude next month, I believe.

[old salt]

America is now "all in" on the notion that Covid is just no big deal.

Fingers crossed.

Only thing I'm not seeing much of in either protest videos or indoor restaurants/casinos? Grey hair. Let's hope that's enough.

Watching DC local 11 o'clock news. After 3 mos lock down, lots of energy being released. Only about 50% wearing masks.
Young crowd on the prowl. With bars & night clubs closed, this is the new hookup haven.

Well, you were predicting all sorts of violence, I guess you need to pivot to this...

I don't see "50%...I'm seeing closer to 80% than 50%...which isn't good enough, I agree, but way, way more than what we are seeing in some other venues, eg the Ozarks...

Did the National Guards all have masks? Did those unbadged federal officers up from Texas wear masks... (none of those federals did).

I recorded & watched 3 hours of local DC channels late night news. I was referring to the late night party protesters, not those marching during the day. Most of the late night partiers were unmasked.

I'm celebrating the good news. Deploying all those unarmed NG troops & Fed agents to guard buildings & monuments freed up enough Police to control the streets & do effective crowd control, unlike last weekend when extensive rioting & looting took place & numerous USPP & Secret Service were injured.

[a fan]

The rest of us? 99.99 percent of us.......

.......were fine. Are fine. Testing positive for v-19 equals death?

This what I mean by "all in". Without solid scientific evidence, you're ASSUMING that Covid is no bid deal, based on Covid statistics that I think we can all agree are far from perfect. "We're fine", as you put it.

What I mean is: the thousands who are clearly violating social distancing to protest, as well as the people in busy casinos agree with you...they think that COVID is no big deal.

I hope you're all right about this. Nothing would make me happier.

[wgdsr]

so the million dollar question or at least 5.99 at Walmart, will there be double blind study comparing HQ + zinc and zinc alone? Should we be doing a double blind of HQ and Zycam? After all, that is all we are talking about correct? (although there is some evidence it does modulate certain cytokine pathways )

going on memory from a couple months ago...
hcq was tried in vitro largely as a result of being just semi-effective against sars or mers or both.
found, in vitro, to be much more successful than in those cases vs covid and moreso than chloroquine. that kicked it off. china was using it, south korea as public policy, and may have done some of the same in vitro to preface that.

also read in science-like journals that it can inhibit certain viruses from entering cells by "coating" those cells with something. also read that hcq has properties that can enhance and utilize zinc from within the body without supplement. some people have more zinc than others, of course. so what i'm not saying is zinc treatment is necessary.

several studies (not on hcq but on covid) have noted that zinc deficiency has been a precursor to greater severe illness. same with vitamin d.

as far as zycam, if you can't tell i'm no expert and learn as you go. besides a brother that has been in this line of work for decades and conversations around discoveries and trials i'm learning to ride a bike. i have to say it looks like a sh*t show from an outsider's novice perspective, though i'll concede that may be largely as a result of pandemic/timeline. but for zycam... nih lists a lot of trials and studies, has a search box, maybe they are in there?

the studies to date, to this idiot, look like garbage. for many reasons. maybe that's just bc there has been no clear effective treatment yet, but structure and calculations in look back studies seem all severely flawed and useless data. baselines are a mess in those. the trial from minny... would it have been so difficult to gather info on hospitalizations/intubation/death? or did i miss that maybe?

[Bart]

so the million dollar question or at least 5.99 at Walmart, will there be double blind study comparing HQ + zinc and zinc alone? Should we be doing a double blind of HQ and Zycam? After all, that is all we are talking about correct? (although there is some evidence it does modulate certain cytokine pathways )

going on memory from a couple months ago...
hcq was tried in vitro largely as a result of being just semi-effective against sars or mers or both.
found, in vitro, to be much more successful than in those cases vs covid and moreso than chloroquine. that kicked it off. china was using it, south korea as public policy, and may have done some of the same in vitro to preface that.
I have read a bunch of those studies. Interesting stuff. Much of the in vitro stuff I find interesting and wonder what of it will be deemed artifact and which will not.
also read in science-like journals that it can inhibit certain viruses from entering cells by "coating" those cells with something. also read that hcq has properties that can enhance and utilize zinc from within the body without supplement. some people have more zinc than others, of course. so what i'm not saying is zinc treatment is necessary.
I have not found much on the coating you speak of. I did find some stuff on how it may interfere with the clatherine coated pits needed for the endocyctosis of the viral particle into a cell. I do not know if this is what you might be remembering. I have not spent a ton of time looking into this however.
several studies (not on hcq but on covid) have noted that zinc deficiency has been a precursor to greater severe illness. same with vitamin d.

as far as zycam, if you can't tell i'm no expert and learn as you go. besides a brother that has been in this line of work for decades and conversations around discoveries and trials i'm learning to ride a bike. i have to say it looks like a sh*t show from an outsider's novice perspective, though i'll concede that may be largely as a result of pandemic/timeline. but for zycam... nih lists a lot of trials and studies, has a search box, maybe they are in there?
IDK. just threw zycam out there cause it supposidly works through the action of zinc
the studies to date, to this idiot, look like garbage. for many reasons. maybe that's just bc there has been no clear effective treatment yet, but structure and calculations in look back studies seem all severely flawed and useless data. baselines are a mess in those. the trial from minny... would it have been so difficult to gather info on hospitalizations/intubation/death? or did i miss that maybe?

Certainly looks like a szchit show but in a constricted time like this I guess I am not surprised. When preprints rule the day and speed is of the essence the appearance looks muddled. From a basic research side of things it is seems very rushed (never been involved on the clinical side of the house----actually have not been involved in either side for years).
What usually takes months or years, is wanted in months to days it seems.

[Typical Lax Dad]

so the million dollar question or at least 5.99 at Walmart, will there be double blind study comparing HQ + zinc and zinc alone? Should we be doing a double blind of HQ and Zycam? After all, that is all we are talking about correct? (although there is some evidence it does modulate certain cytokine pathways )

going on memory from a couple months ago...
hcq was tried in vitro largely as a result of being just semi-effective against sars or mers or both.
found, in vitro, to be much more successful than in those cases vs covid and moreso than chloroquine. that kicked it off. china was using it, south korea as public policy, and may have done some of the same in vitro to preface that.
I have read a bunch of those studies. Interesting stuff. Much of the in vitro stuff I find interesting and wonder what of it will be deemed artifact and which will not.
also read in science-like journals that it can inhibit certain viruses from entering cells by "coating" those cells with something. also read that hcq has properties that can enhance and utilize zinc from within the body without supplement. some people have more zinc than others, of course. so what i'm not saying is zinc treatment is necessary.
I have not found much on the coating you speak of. I did find some stuff on how it may interfere with the clatherine coated pits needed for the endocyctosis of the viral particle into a cell. I do not know if this is what you might be remembering. I have not spent a ton of time looking into this however.
several studies (not on hcq but on covid) have noted that zinc deficiency has been a precursor to greater severe illness. same with vitamin d.

as far as zycam, if you can't tell i'm no expert and learn as you go. besides a brother that has been in this line of work for decades and conversations around discoveries and trials i'm learning to ride a bike. i have to say it looks like a sh*t show from an outsider's novice perspective, though i'll concede that may be largely as a result of pandemic/timeline. but for zycam... nih lists a lot of trials and studies, has a search box, maybe they are in there?
IDK. just threw zycam out there cause it supposidly works through the action of zinc
the studies to date, to this idiot, look like garbage. for many reasons. maybe that's just bc there has been no clear effective treatment yet, but structure and calculations in look back studies seem all severely flawed and useless data. baselines are a mess in those. the trial from minny... would it have been so difficult to gather info on hospitalizations/intubation/death? or did i miss that maybe?

Certainly looks like a szchit show but in a constricted time like this I guess I am not surprised. When preprints rule the day and speed is of the essence the appearance looks muddled. From a basic research side of things it is seems very rushed (never been involved on the clinical side of the house----actually have not been involved in either side for years).
What usually takes months or years, is wanted in months to days it seems.

Yes. This is what you get when you rush. People have been developing drugs and vaccines for decades, all of a sudden we realize they have been lazy and lackadaisical getting things to market. After all this time, I thought they were being rigorous.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://twitter.com/closedprayer/status ... 32129?s=21

[wgdsr]

https://www.upi.com/Health_News/2020/05 ... 589374701/

There is also a study in Tunisia that will conclude next month, I believe.

thanks, tld. didn't know or remember zinc could be an immune system booster.

after 2 days of 400 mg hcq, then 1 weekly dose of it. way lighter than courses of 600 mg per day (5 or 10 day stretches) or more in many cases. which seems high. treatment amounts are all over the place. you would think with 600 people, they could try several amounts. the goal is to look at prevention. which again.... i have not heard any expert anywhere, including proponents, say is an expected outcome.
but go tunisia.