What have you got to lose? I will tell you, your life.

You answered your own question that I answered before: only the people who were dying were given these drugs hoping it would save them.

Tell me a study where a study says "if the information wasn't provided (since they weren't doing a study and just reviewing some documents) we just assumed it wasn't there".

 

So what if it doesn't meet the guidelines of classifying as a scientific study! Orange man bad!

 

Off topic

 

No read the studies again

 

Scientists have been able to get more zinc into each cell by using what are called zinc ionophores. This is an article discussing the role of a zinc ionophore (from November 6, 2010):

Chloroquine is a Zinc Ionophore

http://drdahlman.com/chloroquine-and-natural-solutions-for-coronavirus/

MUCH MUCH MORE. but that will get you started.

Zinc slows virus replication.

 

I want the government to be in charge of PAYING for Healthcare. I want the Healthcare itself to be done by Doctors. I want to get what is medically required, not financially feasible. That "record use of pharm products" and "record levels of sickness" reflect people getting treatment for things they couldn't afford to pay for before. It makes for a more productive workforce and keeps people out of the much more expensive and completely counterproductive end-of-life services neglect of their health will put people in

Here again is yet another example of how downright silly conservatism often is. You have this basic precept that if you pay for people's health care everyone will run right out and get sick to take advantage of it, and further , that all the doctors will go entirely along with this universal malingering. Tell me that is not a basically silly idea

 

I love how all of a sudden the right knows the definition of a study after years of claiming that they were irrelevant (climate change)

This is also NOT about “orange man bad” although that has become the internet equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and stamping your feet

This is about drug safety

But if you want or take an unsafe medication please be my guest

 

I'm not sure why you keep trying to call it a "study".

Someone pulled information from a bunch of hospitals, many in foreign countries, with no first hand knowledge of patient treatment and assumed if something wasn't in the medical record, it didn't happen.

That's not a study.

Hydroxychloroquine was being given to these patients off label.....it had to have been because a drug can't be known to be effective against a new virus.

This means they were only given to patients as a last ditch attempt to throw something at the wall to save them.

Meaning, of course, that that group of people would already have a higher death rate than the others.

 

You're wrong once again!

"Patients who received treatment with these regimens starting more than 48 h after COVID-19 diagnosis were excluded."

Every hospitalised patient is tested as soon as admitted. And only those given the drugs within 48 hours of being diagnosed are included in the study.

Still waiting for your definition of "study".

And they didn't just assume "it" wasn't there. What is it with you and your fake quotes!

 

I wouldn’t trust that source you quoted, sorry old chap

 

Trump did away with the OFFLABEL designation, so that we could give it out like candy.

 

Your study doesn't know because as they said "if the information wasn't in the medical record, they assumed it wasn't there".

This was not a study of patients in a clinical trial. This was a mish mash of multiple countries with multiple methods of care with incomplete documents thrown in that they tried to draw conclusions from.

I also like how they conveniently left out the death rate of their $1000 remdesivir pill.

 

Yes it is

And the Lancet is a VERY prestigious journal

Although double blinded trials are the holy grail of medical science there are other methodologies and this is one. Retrospective trials are done where we cannot do double blinded studies an example of this are any drugs given to pregnant women - it would be highly, hugely unethical to do double blinded studies on pregnant women so a database is kept in relation to those women who have to take XYor Z medication due to personal health issues, this means that the drug library for pregnant women is limited and does not contain “newer” versions of the drug but the creed “first do no harm” is the overarching rule

 

Yes and if that mish mash is broad enough and has a decent sampling the variables are less impactful

 

LoL they didn't even differentiate between what outcomes in each country were.

 

Still waiting for you to post the definition of "study"?

Perhaps you can point out why the patients medical records don't list these 'ghost' conditions that you think the study should have included. Does your medical records have some missing medical conditions you have? And once again you have posted a fake quote. And once again, the same caveats was used for every one of the 96000 patients

Perhaps you could explain why a study on the effect of Hydroxychloroquine should include remdesivir?

 

Oh I see.

Trump ordered all these hospitals in foreign countries to begin handing out a drug that's been in use since 1955 for off label use.

 

Scientific study anyway.

I can't point them out because the study assumed they weren't there if they didn't see them.

That's the purpose of doing an actual scientific study on actual patients you can actually observe and document the variables.

 

With no mention of the condition of the patients when they presented.

 

Hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc are combined. There is nothing new in that. Doctors globally are using this combination as an effective treatment and prophylactic for COVID

 

You refuse to learn.

 

No, what you mean is that you haven't bothered to look for additional information contained in the report. 63315 out of the 96000 patients were in the US with outcome reported. The outcome of the other 33000 is also reported by continent.
https://www.thelancet.com/cms/10.10...84423d57-4cf8-41d0-99ca-0e921f2c80ce/mmc1.pdf

 

So still no definition.

And in what way is your reply related to my post?

 

Then you should try looking it up and comparing the differences with your incorrect interpretation.

Asks the guy who responds "so?" to the definition of what an actual study does.

 

Every patient required hospitalisation.