Many thanks for posting this info!
Goes to show that the DS feels threatened by HCQ + Azithro + zinc.
greeneyes wrote:
That was my first impression. NOTE they say they reviewed SARS2 patients - presumably COVID-19 equivalent designation and only specify an end date, not a starting date, for the study. There’s the old adage there are lies, damn lies and statistics
*************************************************************************************
Found on Gab - states some deficiencies and calls AP a liar-includes link to a better study which supports the HCQ ++...
Verified Account
@NeonRevolt
Anonfag@Anonfag
There is trillions at stake against Hydroxychloroquine.
You can get practically any results you want depending on how you design a study. And then there is just plain faking data.
I’m a believer in hydroxychloroquine based on the clinical results of Dr. Didier Raoult. That guy is legit.
Mel Buffington posted some good info from his studies.
@NeonRevolt @MelBuffington
Anonfag@Anonfag
I just read the study. No info on how patents were treated. No dosage, time of intervention etc. No data to back anything up. Also found this gem:
“However, hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely
to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease, as assessed by baseline ventilatory status and metabolic and hematologic parameters. Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, both with and without azithromycin.”
This study is no more than a medical hit piece IMO. In fact, this is not a legitimate research paper - there is no data.
@NeonRevolt @MelBuffington
MelBuffington
@MelBuffington
Edited
@Anonfag @NeonRevolt
That AP article is lying, literally (explanation below):
>But with 368 patients, it’s the largest look so far of hydroxychloroquine with or without the antibiotic azithromycin for COVID-19
They did not lie about those parts though:
>The study was posted on an online site for researchers and has not been reviewed by other scientists.
>The nationwide study was not a rigorous experiment.
Why do I say they are LYING?
Well, it so happened, that yesterday, on the 20th, the team of professor Raoult released another draft of their own study on 1061 patients, which is a rigorous one, and with the full body of the article:
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/MS.pdf
So this news article, published on the 21st, is lying: that ‘study’ is not the largest outlook available so far. The day before it was written, a study on a much larger number of patients came out, and it shows HCQ+AZ works.
People knew the team of Raoult was about to publish the main body of their article (they published the summary about a week ago).
So out of nowhere, a crappy ‘study’ comes out on the same day, and the AP only choose to report on that one, and not on the other one?
I said several weeks ago that they had set up the WHO studies to make the HCQ fail, by not applying the recommended regimen, and only applying it to people that are too far advanced for it to work.
It also says author of VA study has already filed for a COVID-19 patent.
People knew the team of Raoult was about to publish the main body of their article (they published the summary about a week ago).
So out of nowhere, a crappy ‘study’ comes out on the same day, and the AP only choose to report on that one, and not on the other one?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is a tactic I’ve seen before. The fake study is inserted in at the time the real study is anticipated, then the MSM works to portray the fake one as the anticipated report. Bait and switch. Often, they use similar titles or catch phrases (e.g., “the largest study”) to mislead the public into trusting the false report.