Not what we would like to see, but an important data point, and one that the media will quickly politicize.
Are there any actual clinical trials with zinc?
The lancet recently published a piece urging the US to vote out Trump.
This study should be considered biased.
as will most freezers. Like it or not this is not an effective in hospital treatment
According to one of HCQ's earliest proponents, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, HCQ + Zinc is to be used on high-risk patients (older, comorbidities) as early as possible, on the same day as the COVID-19 test or immediately upon the onset of symptoms. The whole idea is to prevent the cascading ARDS events which result in high-risk patients' hospitalization, not to intervene after ARDS and critical hospitalization.
Here's a group of Brazilian scientists and academics who charge that (some) doctors, using e.g. WHO guidelines, are using HCQ in such a way as to practically guarantee mortality:
There is lack of critical disease indicators un-like in almost every other study, that’s why it looks so uniform: no CT scan, no body temp, no resp rate, no paO2/FiO2 ratio. Just above or below 94% sats and qSOFA . Now let me point out that using 94% spO2 as binary cut off will give you very wrong results, thats an example of just ONE misuse of an indicator. There is a very big difference between a patient with 93% O2 sat, and someone who is 80% but they are both under 94% cut off in this study! No other studies use so little and such coarse indicators, low-fidelity indicators of disease. Also pay attention that not only is the mortality almost double, the intubation and ventilator use is also more than double for HCQ group, that has nothing to do with HCQ - HCQ doesn’t affect respiratory function, it has to do with indicator bias, for which the Lancet study failed to control. Here are some links going in depth:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/e/2PACX-1vRJxr01VKOdUDSgXfGks6TMnhOF4csQ1sYhmlVGLpandXrhCi6nNV6Ig7wrBNcdril4izIGmpASAGuD/pub
https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1264251404232855552.html
The evidence of mistakes are right there in the study, if you pay close attention! But neither media or officials, will they just take the Journal word for it.
Except for the ignoring zinc thing, which seems to be common in these treatments (wonder if they were testing for zinc and or not), this seems like it might be a rational study. If they properly controlled for other factors (and I thought it interesting that they specifically excluded treatment if it started after onset of serious conditions), it does seem that the HCQ isn’t helping much on it’s own anyway.
It is too bad that we couldn’t get people to do good studies of HCQ in March, that instead the media had to make it a big political fight.
Macrolide= Z-pack, etc. No mention of zinc. Anyone who has read up on HCQ knows it’s use is to open up the cells for zinc which does the dirty work. The macrolide is used to stave off pneumonia. No zinc means the trial is useless. And I’m betting they know this.
Here’s what is never mentioned. Those risks of taking these drugs are present no matter the disease or ailment being treated. So does that mean these drugs should not be used to treat diseases such as Lupus based on these findings?
For the Lancet to publish this misleading and deceptive study tells you all you need to know about the corruption in the U.S. medical industry. The researchers know full well you need to increase the availability of zinc for HCQ to do its job. They are afraid if they do a study with HCQ and zinc that this cure will become a universal treatment for all RNA viruses and that’s a kick in the head for the vaccine hounds. HCQ plus zinc treats a virus infected human cell, that’s why it’s unlike a vaccine that is geared to a specific virus. The industry wants this specific virus vaccine approach so they can market a new and different vaccine every time a different virus variant comes along.
It’s over. We have lost this battle. We need to move on.
This is the most dishonest study (remember it is not a trial) I've ever seen. Here is the table..
Look at the last four in the table, the treatments. They associate them with higher mortality. But these are treatments. The others were pre-existing, not part of treatment or therapy.
Treatment is not independent but chosen specifically based on severity of the illness. Of course there will be a higher number of deaths in the treated cases because patients closer to death are treated. It is ludicrous to compare to body mass index or pre-existing medication history etc...which were independent of Covid-19 and not begun due to severity of disease.
This next table is doing the same thing. It presents treatment with the drugs as if treatment were a pre-existing condition.
Dishonest to the point of fraud. .
"Our study has several limitations. The association of decreased survival with hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment regimens should be interpreted cautiously. Due to the observational study design, we cannot exclude the possibility of unmeasured confounding factors, although we have reassuringly noted consistency between the primary analysis and the propensity score matched analyses. Nevertheless, a cause-and-effect relationship between drug therapy and survival should not be inferred."
Suspect the study is a failure due to a correlation vs cause effect problem. Whatever the attempts to account for confounding factors were, seems obvious they were overshadowed by real life doctors examining patients and deciding who needed treatmemt and who did not.