Truth about the virus

Uncategorized 1 Minute

I have been very disappointed by the Associated Press and the Pilot. They’re careful not to mention the important work of Dr. Raoult in France and Dr. Zelenko here.

Basically, Zelenko says that his hydroxy cocktail, if used in the first five days, has an almost perfect record of nullifying the infection.

If a patient goes another week or two and become really ill, the hydroxy medicine is of little use. However, it was precisely this set of patients that was treated and reported on in the newspapers. So, many people have the impression that the hydroxy approach is not an option. It is the best option.

At this point, I’ll sum up my own conclusions by saying that I trust Zelenko 99% and I trust Fauchi 9%. I have always heard that the pharmaceutical companies are brutal in their quest for profit.

Here are two really smart medical people explaining the situation.

Dr. Zelenko has started something called Crowd Protocol. He hopes to enlist the participation of doctors all around the world. They will report their experiences to help reach a consensus on best treatments.

Published by Bruce Deitrick Price

Author, artist, poet, education reformer. Always self-employed in the arts and humanities.

Published

18 thoughts on “Truth about the virus”

  1. The issue isn’t whether HCQ is safe, or not safe, vis-a-vis heart arrhythmia, it is whether, or not, it has any therapeutic value in the event of SARS-COV2 infection or prophylactic value in its prevention, which based on the studies conducted under protocols designed to minimize statistical bias, and false results, it has been shown to have none.

    “But, does Laetrile cure cancer?” No.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. Your link on Dr Zelenko’s difficulties is not relevant to the post.

      The question at hand is whether the HCQ, Zinc and antibiotic cocktail is effective in reducing the severity of an infection WHEN GIVEN EARLY.

      Studies on hospitalized patients in the 2nd week or later of their disease are irrelevant to the question.

      Studies on outpatients who never really get all that sick are very difficult to document, so the observation by doctors is very important to evaluate treatment. If doctors tell us that patients treated early never come back and don’t get hospitalized, that is strong evidence that the treatment was effective.

      Remember that Tamiflu, which is also only effective very early against ordinary flu, would fail the same tests being done on the HCQ combo, even though it has kept tens of thousands of people out of the hospital.

      So, let’s limit the discussion to testing that follows the advocated treatment regimen.

      Like

      Reply

        2. How carefully did you read that?

          1 The study did not include Zinc or an antibiotic

          2 only 14% of the control group became ill, while 11.4% of the HCQ group did. The authors wrote that a 2 1/2% difference was not significant. That is bad math. It is a 19.5% reduction which, even used wrong, is statistically significant

          Like

          Reply

          1. It’s not statistically significant. You cannot simply look at the percentage, you have to determine the likelihood that the difference isn’t just chance.

            Liked by 1 person

          2. Either the difference is statistically significant, or the entire study is not.

            Only 14% of the exposed subjects became infected in the control group.

            11.4% of those taking HCQ alone became infected.

            That is a 19.5% difference, but admittedly, based on a low infection rate in the first place.

            But in any case, the study does not answer the question, which was whether the HCQ, Zinc, and antibiotic combo was effective in the first few days of an infection.

            We have studies of hospitalized patients in the 2nd week of their illness and of prophylactic use of HCQ alone, but no trial of of the combo used as intended for early treatment.

            For that, we have the anecdotal experience of hundreds of doctors, which is a lot better than irrelevant controlled studies.

            Am I certain it is effective? No. But it is likely enough to make a difference between avoiding hospitalization and ICU on a vent to take the very low risk of side effects, especially for high risk patients.

            Like

      3. “Your link on Dr Zelenko’s difficulties is not relevant to the post.”

        I disagree. It calls into question the veracity of his studies.

        “Leaders of the Kiryas Joel community spoke out publicly against Zelenko in an open letter in March.

        “We the undersigned institutions strongly believe that the predictions presented by Dr. Zelenko have been proven false and are not supported by the overall medical establishment, specifically in his wild conclusions as to the spread of the virus in our community,” the village’s office of emergency management, a partnership of several community organizations and government agencies formed to respond to the COVID-19 crisis, wrote in an open letter.”

        Yes, the studies are important. But WHO is conducting the studies is just as important. To ignore his past issues is dangerous. – IMO

        Like

        Reply

          1. Yet you scream regularly about the FDA. It is your blog, so I guess YOU can have it both ways.

            If Dr. Zelenko wants to do a study, then let him follow established protocols to conduct it properly.

            I’m sorry if you believe my comment was an ad hominem attack. But trust IS necessary in those conducting the studies. The no-bid contracts awarded to 48 hour old companies to provide PPE to be purchased by the government comes to mind as well.

            As far as treatment protocols go, we ALL want some sort of treatment that is effective as soon as possible. My concern is we are so desperate for it (as well as the vaccine) that properly vetted studies will be forgone to try and come up with “the miracle”.

            Like

          2. I am more concerned that the research has become politicized.

            HCQ, with Zinc and possibly an antibiotic, isn’t likely to be a miracle. But the experience of hundreds of doctors is that it reduces the risk of a bad outcome.

            Remember that there are 2 stages to COVID-19. 1st, the virus is rapidly multiplying and the immune system has yet to respond effectively. Then the immune system does respond and the response itself is what kills you.

            Antivirals are of little use in the 2nd phase, as the immune system is dealing with the virus. Controlling the immune response is the goal then. HCQ does moderate the immune response, but at that point there are better choices.

            But in that first phase, ANYTHING you can do to slow the multiplication of the virus means less of a 2nd phase. The virus multiplies like compound interest. the earlier you slow it, the better the result.

            You’re not going to give $1000 a does remdesivir to someone who might have nothing more than sniffles, even if there was enough of it. But HCQ and Zinc are cheap and available and if they slow the virus even a little bit, that will be the difference for a subset of those infected.

            Like

  4. …”I trust Fauchi 9%”…

    Why is it you have so little trust in Fauci? And what kind of background does Zelenko have that would give you such high trust in him? His own community lost trust in him and he is leaving it, for parts unknown.

    Like

    Reply

    1. I’ve seen three videos where Zelenko explains his work. He always seems to me very smart and very sincere. I have not trusted the CDC since this thing started, for many reasons.

      Like

      Reply

      1. You are showing your ignorance of facts. Dr. Facui is NOT CDC, he is NIH.

        And even some ducks sound smart and sincere. Sincerity is also found in used car salesmen.

        Like

        Reply

Leave a comment