Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: Nomad577

Well said. Also, there is at least one double-blind study proving that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in treatment of COVID-19.


18 posted on 07/30/2020 9:04:23 AM PDT by dinodino
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies ]


To: dinodino

With or without zinc?


21 posted on 07/30/2020 9:08:50 AM PDT by kaktuskid
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: dinodino

there is at least one double-blind study proving that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective in treatment of COVID-19.


There are several, actually. The ones that appeared in the Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine were publicly debunked and retracted within days of publication. Those are likely the studies you refer to, since you don’t cite any actual studies by name and where to find it. And you failed to mention the differences of the successful Zelenko protocol used at first symptom or test positive, with over a 1000 recoveries, used by countries reporting single-digit death rate, compared to the banned use and triple-digit death rates in the U.S. Those differences include application in 2nd phase of virus instead of immediate at-home prescriptions, different dosages than the successful model, and missing elements of the HCQ + + (+antibiotic +zinc), particularly the zinc which actually stops the virus from replicating.


29 posted on 07/30/2020 9:39:14 AM PDT by RideForever (We were born to be tested)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

To: dinodino; Nomad577
"I feel like the HCQ situation has gotten out of control."

It seems increasingly illogical for folks to dismiss the growing number of actual practicing docs with real life success stories regarding HCQ+ used to PREVENT illness and hospitalization.

I don't care if they are triple-blind and have a white cane - 'studies' are still quite analogous to polls. They mean absolutely nothing without you digging into the specific params of the study, the funding and the motives. All of which always exist to one extent or another.

Studies are polls. The front line docs are an ID-required election. Which one matters?

Where are other front line docs saying they prescribed it as the successful docs suggest but it did not work for their patients?

I agree with you two that the whole discussion is out of hand. But it is out of hand in the sense that we are tripped up debating efficacy as if this is the Medical Republic web site.

Yet this is the Free Republic. And, yes, of course patients and anybody should be free to choose any dang treatment they want. Especially something so time-proven safe for so many millions. A few millions in America already take it long-term, countless millions around the world have taken it since Before-Fauci and even Before-Internet pre-history times. It's long been OTC in less politically-ill nations.

No problem we all debate whether to believe doctors or studies, Yale scientist or life-long bureaucrat. And it's OK we have silly arguments whether masks are a net benefit or mostly just a mandatory dunce cap for your face.

I would hope, though, that Freedom and access rights should be a no-brainer stance here. Me taking HCQ+ would harm nobody but the vaccine salesmen, the gov't control freaks and the election meddlers.

39 posted on 07/30/2020 11:21:31 AM PDT by BuddhaBrown (Path to enlightenment: Four right turns, then go straight until you see the Light!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson