Audi TT Forum banner
1141 - 1160 of 1203 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
Wife and I contracted covid in Jan 2021 and treated as soon as symptoms appeared, 3 days in bed and about 3 weeks to fully recover, our ages are 78 and 81, we used the ZelenKo protocol. We are not not jabbed but we did take daily VitD3 4000iu`s and zinc sulphate 100mg for the past two years.
Wow, that’s an amazing piece of scientific data. How many people were in your trial in total? What happened to the control group? Are you publishing a paper in one of the major journals, or sticking to posting about it on the TT Forum?

All you’ve really proved is that the ‘Zelenko protocol’ didn’t kill you. That’s it. You don’t know if you’d have been better or worse off without it (but of course you’ll just assume). You might as well claim it was your lucky underpants that saved you, for all the evidence you have.

Seriously, the meta analyses for trials of HCQ show no benefit. You can sit there and think you know better because you ‘did the research’, but the people who are actually qualified to do that research say you’re wrong.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
"Seriously, the meta analyses for trials of HCQ show no benefit. You can sit there and think you know better because you ‘did the research’, but the people who are actually qualified to do that research say you’re wrong."
The Zelenko protocol is HCQ 200mg twice daily for 7 days, that`s 2.8 grams. Oxfords deadly recovery trial used HCQ on extremely ill elderly with an accumulated lethal dosage of 9.2 grams. They also used the medication late in the illness when it was known to have little effect.





Coronavirus Epidemic Update 34: US Cases Surge, Chloroquine & Zinc Treatment Combo, Italy Lockdown - YouTube
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
I didn’t mention any individual trial. I’m talking about meta analyses of all trials.

And by the way (because you‘re of a demographic that probably doesn’t understand this) if your ‘research’ involves, in any way at all, looking on YouTube, you’re in trouble and, if I’m being completely honest, you will look like a fool. I feel a little sorry for you and I’m glad you accidentally managed to beat covid, but posting this sort of rubbish on a public forum is misleading, dangerous and irresponsible. You don’t have the qualifications or ability to form a reliable opinion on this stuff, let alone recommend courses of action to others that may affect their health.

The fact that you have written almost nothing in your own words and are relying on posting link after link is a clear sign that you don’t really understand anything you‘re posting and you’re just parroting stuff you’ve read elsewhere. I’m sure this is a possibility you’ve not even considered, but what if you’re wrong? What if you’re spreading information that may end up affecting someones health? Are you so absolutely convinced of this stuff, despite not understanding a single bit of it, that you’re willing to bet other peoples health on it?

I don’t think that’s a very good position to put yourself in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
"I didn’t mention any individual trial. I’m talking about meta analyses of all trials".
Spandex, HCQ has little benefit when given LATE in the illness, it`s action against covid is as an antiviral, it stops viral replication, this is not rocket science. Tamiflu is an antiviral and is effective only when taken within two days after symptoms appear, see NHS.


"Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 63% [53‑70%] improvement for the 38 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. The 11 RCTs show 39% [8‑59%] improvement, and the 15 mortality results shows 72% [57‑81%] lower mortality.
•21 early treatment studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation (15 for the most serious outcome).
•Late treatment is less successful, with only 67% of the 231 studies reporting a positive effect. Very late stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when using excessive dosages."

Oxford`s Recovery trial.

Look at Haiti, Uganda, Nigeria, UAE, all used HCQ early.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
The meta analysis I’ve seen covered both in-patient and out-patent trials, so was not limited to late use in hospitalised patients. It was published in Nature, unlike the analysis you posted which was published on a website called, suspiciously, hcqmeta.com.

So, if a cheap and widely available drug is so effective against Covid, why do you think so many first world countries, with advanced medical and scientific capabilities, decided not to use it and instead to damage their own economies whilst waiting for a vaccine? Genuinely curious where we’re going with this…
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
So rather than buying the cheap and widely available HCQ, governments all around the world decided to instead wait for, then buy at great expense, a completely unnecessary vaccine. And you think the logical explanation for this is that these governments all independently chose to do this because they wanted the vaccine developers to make lots of money out of them? That’s your plausible theory?

You see the problem here? In order to believe that nonsense, you then need to believe the governments are all in on it. THEN you have to believe they’re all working together. THEN you have to believe there’s a shadowy group controlling them all. Conspiracy theories are like an arms race - each theory you sign up to requires you to believe an increasingly more far-fetched theory in order to paste over the logical cracks in the first one…

I agree though, that early intervention is desirable for all diseases. And vaccination is surely the earliest form of intervention possible, no?

Out of curiosity, how long do you think you lot can keep saying the vaccine has no ‘long term safety data’ for? It’s been in use for well over a year and has been administered, multiple times, to billions of people. At this point, there is probably more data for the covid vaccines than any other prescription drug in existence.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
It was published in Nature, unlike the analysis you posted which was published on a website called, suspiciously, hcqmeta.com.
Thing is Spandex the analysis I provided linked to ALL study`s referred too, the Oxford metanalysis was designed to show HCQ had no benefit, this is obvious by the inclusion of the Oxford Recovery trial and WHO`s Solidarity trial both gave similar lethal doses late in the illness, HCQ has little efficacy late in the disease, it`s an antiviral which stops viral replication, it can`t do that after it has occurred, India warned the WHO their dosing regime was dangerous, this was understood with regard to quinine as early as 1870, early treatment was the key then and is today.
Neither the Oxford Recovery trial or the WHO solidarity trial used the combination therapy of HCQ + zinc, the majority of the trials sited in the Nature piece were late, especially the U.S study`s.

"So, if a cheap and widely available drug is so effective against Covid, why do you think so many first world countries, with advanced medical and scientific capabilities, decided not to use it"

Why indeed, even if HCQ was only 10% effective 10% is better than zero especially pre vaccine rollout on Dec 9th 2020, that`s 9 months from the WHO pandemic declaration on March 11th 2020 with NO treatment. From that date to the vaccine rollout on the 9th Dec 64,525 mainly elderly died of covid and our NHS stopped all doctors from treating anyone with flu like symptoms.

No profit in off patent drugs for big pharma, scare world populations into accepting a new type of vaccine and the cash just rolls in.

Efficacy and safety of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine in moderate type of COVID-19: a prospective open-label randomized controlled study (from your Nature piece)

Email to me from a consultant, title ( Sam
Rectangle Font Screenshot Parallel Number

)

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
Sweet baby jesus... That email!! :D

"... help me suspect there is a massive global campaign by MegaPharma and globalist elite billionaires to push a compulsory universal "vaccine" agenda (coupled with identity implants for every human)"

Identity implants!! Where did you find this guy?? I can see why you're not posting his full name now.... :D

On a more serious note, do you think this email (written back when there was virtually no clinical trial data on the effectiveness of HCQ on covid) is in any way compelling? If I found another doctor that said the opposite (and I think you know that wouldn't be hard) would that persuade you? If not, why do you believe your 'consultant' IS persuasive?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Time will tell Spandex, it took 9 years before thalidomide was finally found to be causing severe abnormality`s.
This guy as you call him is an NHS consultant his wife is an NHS medical Doctor, they rented one of my houses, his name was redacted for reasons most would understand.
You would do well to read and digest the contents of the article below (never have blind faith in your leaders).
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
The side effects of thalidomide were visible within months. The connection was missed due to poor medical practises and the less than perfect information sharing of the time.

The ‘guy’ may be a consultant, but he’s not an epidemiologist (medial doctors actually receive woefully inadequate education in statistics and data analysis) his bizarre beliefs are genuinely worrying for someone in his position. So yes, I imagine most people would understand why his name is redacted - who would want that nut job as their doctor?

I don’t have the tiniest bit of faith in our leaders, blind or otherwise. I do have trust in the people doing the science though, and I’m willing to trust the majority view of those scientists because trusting a minority view on a subject I’m not an expert in is the very definition of blind faith.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
QUOTE
I don’t have the tiniest bit of faith in our leaders, blind or otherwise. I do have trust in the people doing the science though, and I’m willing to trust the majority view of those scientists because trusting a minority view on a subject I’m not an expert in is the very definition of blind faith.
QUOTE
So you will only consider the consensus view,

Nobel prize winners Dr Barry Marshall and Dr Warren.

"What seemed so obvious to Warren and Marshall met with enormous resistance. After all, the acid causation theory had been in place for almost a century. The treatment of peptic ulcer disease had spawned an industry. From Maalox to Mylanta to Tums, sodium bicarbonate and even to Coca Cola and dairy products, soothing patient’s gastric symptoms had become a cause celebré for Western medicine. Ulcer surgery in the form of the vagotomy and pyloroplasties (V&P), Bilroth1 and Bilroth2, even gastrectomies, had come to constitute the most widely practiced surgical procedures in the United States. Gastric ulcers were good for business and no one from the pharmaceutical industry, to the hospitals, or the operating surgeons, were very interested in changing that".

Of Helicobacter, Cancer and the Medical Establishment

"Doctor Borody is most famous for his ground-breaking work developing the triple therapy cure for peptic ulcers in 1981, which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives, and the Australian health system more than $10 billion in medical care and operations".

Interview with Prof Borody, watch part 1 first " Covid is easier to cure than Flu".

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
So you will only consider the consensus view,
It's not about 'considering' it. There's no point me 'considering' a medical treatment because I have no personal ability to analyse that treatment. All I can do is let expert's 'consider' it and form a conclusion. So yes, in an area where I have no personal expertise, it is entirely rational and sensible to follow the current consensus view of the actual experts in that field. To claim otherwise is idiotic.

I'm well aware of the 'ulcer argument', and it's logically flawed. If if tells you anything, it's simply that scientific consensus can and does change. I don't follow the scientific consensus because I think it can't change, I follow it because I trust that it will if needed. Demonstrating that experts aren't always right isn't evidence that you shouldn't always trust them either. It just tells us that in trusting them, we are still taking a risk - we're just taking a smaller risk than if we didn't trust them.

You can sit there congratulating yourself for not following the consensus, but all that really means is that you've cherry picked a fringe theory to subscribe to, based on ideological and political beliefs (because you're not, clearly, in possession of any actual scientific expertise, so it's definitely not based on that).

Now can you see the difference between us? I don't actually care what the consensus is, and if the consensus changes to be that HCQ is the panacea, then I'll be perfectly fine with that. You, on the other hand, have picked a side and closed your mind.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
"You, on the other hand, have picked a side and closed your mind".

Did you take note of the date of that email, there was no side to pick at that time, it was a matter of finding some sort of treatment as the NHS EXPERTS offered NOTHING. French Prof Didier Raoult was trialling HCQ and my Doctor contact made me aware of this, I obtained the med, everywhere I looked there were positives, I followed the positives and discarded the negatives, my choice and it appears to have paid off for me.

HCQ was over the counter in France for over 40 years, that stopped in early Jan 2020 the decision to change the status of the med was made in Dec 2019 before covid , why?.
Doctors in the UK were instructed not to use HCQ for the treatment of covid in early Jan 2020, why?.

I ask questions you obviousely don`t.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
"You, on the other hand, have picked a side and closed your mind".

Did you take note of the date of that email, there was no side to pick at that time, it was a matter of finding some sort of treatment as the NHS EXPERTS offered NOTHING. French Prof Didier Raoult was trialling HCQ and my Doctor contact made me aware of this, I obtained the med, everywhere I looked there were positives, I followed the positives and discarded the negatives, my choice and it appears to have paid off for me.
I did take note of the date - it shows that doctor had absolutely zero information about the efficacy of HCQ. at the time. And your little experiment doesn’t ‘appear to have paid off’ at all. The fact that you think your individual experience is somehow significant enough to demonstrate the effectiveness of a drug shows a woeful lack of understanding. You and your wifes cases prove absolutely nothing. I’m not just being dismissive here, I mean you are genuinely statistically irrelevant. As am I, and every other individual on the planet. Proving a drug works takes numbers, and the numbers show HCQ is ineffective. Which means you and your wife were lucky. Nothing more.
HCQ was over the counter in France for over 40 years, that stopped in early Jan 2020 the decision to change the status of the med was made in Dec 2019 before covid , why?.
Who knows.
Doctors in the UK were instructed not to use HCQ for the treatment of covid in early Jan 2020, why?.
Why were doctors instructed not to use a drug with serious potential side effects and whose efficacy was completely unknown? Gosh mate, that’s certainly a puzzler…
I ask questions you obviousely don`t.
A five year old asks questions I obviously don’t, so don’t get too excited.

Have you ever spent any time talking to someone with paranoid schizophrenia? They do exactly what you’re doing - they sit there looking for ‘connections’ that they can use to prove whatever delusion they happen to have formed. Nothing is a coincidence. Everything is meaningful. If there’s a question that peopl don’t know the answer to, that means they can fill in the blank with whatever they want.

That‘s you right now. You have no idea why the French changed the status of a drug, but you don’t need to ‘know‘, do you? You‘ve found a connection and filled in the blanks.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
"Why were doctors instructed not to use a drug with serious potential side effects and whose efficacy was completely unknown? Gosh mate, that’s certainly a puzzler…

Err, what serious side effects would they be?."

Hydroxychloroquine cures seriously ill UK patient, that was before it didn`t.
I suggest you listen carefully to this early ITV news item 2.0. Modest is better than nothing, that was my choice, I chose modest and had mild covid symptoms.

.

"That‘s you right now. You have no idea why the French changed the status of a drug, but you don’t need to ‘know‘, do you? You‘ve found a connection and filled in the blanks".

The timing Spandex, its the timing.

Why France is hiding a cheap, tested virus cure.

"it shows that doctor had absolutely zero information about the efficacy of HCQ. at the time".


.................................................................................................................................................


April 2020

UAE, 2,302 deaths associated with covid, population 10.1 million.
Early treatment with HCQ.


Font Screenshot Parallel Number Document
Font Material property Parallel Screenshot Rectangle
Font Parallel Screenshot Document Number
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
I give up. You’re a walking demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.

You are a perfect demonstration of why old people shouldn’t be allowed on the internet. You’re not equipped to handle it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
I give up. You’re a walking demonstration of the Dunning Kruger effect.

You are a perfect demonstration of why old people shouldn’t be allowed on the internet. You’re not equipped to handle it.
Spandex, facts appear to be irrelevant if they are contrary to your beliefs.
Always the same in the woke world, if they can`t support their position they attack the messenger.

Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials (What happened to peer review).

Lets look at Switzerland in relation to the Lancet fraud, it`s the timing Spandex.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12,093 Posts
Spandex, facts appear to be irrelevant if they are contrary to your beliefs.
Always the same in the woke world, if they can`t support their position they attack the messenger.

Covid-19: Lancet retracts paper that halted hydroxychloroquine trials (What happened to peer review).

Lets look at Switzerland in relation to the Lancet fraud, it`s the timing Spandex.

Your issue is that you think you can find one ‘fact’ that agrees with you and then ignore all the facts that don’t. Medical trials rarely give conclusive, binary answers which is why meta reviews exist. But you cherry pick the results you like and ignore the important fact that those results are in the minority.

And I’m not attacking the messenger because you’re not a messenger. You’re just a gullible old fool who has been tricked into believing a fringe scientific theory.

That guardian article actually clearly shows that peer review works. The lancet paper was retracted because issues were found with data provided by a company. It’s also over a year old and it state that the trials that stopped because of the lancet paper were restarted when it was retracted.

It shows that the scientific method works. That’s what I trust in, not the results of this or that trial.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
60 Posts
Your issue is that you think you can find one ‘fact’ that agrees with you and then ignore all the facts that don’t. Medical trials rarely give conclusive, binary answers which is why meta reviews exist. But you cherry pick the results you like and ignore the important fact that those results are in the minority.

And I’m not attacking the messenger because you’re not a messenger. You’re just a gullible old fool who has been tricked into believing a fringe scientific theory.

That guardian article actually clearly shows that peer review works. The lancet paper was retracted because issues were found with data provided by a company. It’s also over a year old and it state that the trials that stopped because of the lancet paper were restarted when it was retracted.

It shows that the scientific method works. That’s what I trust in, not the results of this or that trial.
Spandex, the the AEU early covid protocol is fact.

The Swiss bump in covid deaths caused by the removal and reinstatement of HCQ caused by the fraudulent Lancet study that had supposedly been peer reviewed before it was published is fact.

It took independent researches to uncover that fraudulent study not the Lancet reviewers.

It is irrelevant how old the Guardian piece is, the lancet study caused immense damage to HCQ as a treatment which was it`s sole intention, this action has probably caused the death of tens of thousands.

Never in the long history of the Lancet has a retraction occurred so swiftly, as an example, it took 12 years for the lancet to retract Dr Wakefield`s MMR study which has now been shown to be correct, that`s discussion for another day.

The UK had NO covid early treatment and banned the use of HCQ, ( self isolate for 14 days ).

UK as of the 29th May 2022 178,465 covid linked deaths, population 68.5 million.

Sudan as of the 29th May 2022. HCQ was still effective even in the later stages of the disease as can be shown in their protocol and by the numbers.

4,941 covid linked deaths, population 45.9 million, HCQ.

Then there is India.

Facts Spandex, just Facts, nothing to do with age.
Font Parallel Rectangle Screenshot Event

fact.
Font Screenshot Parallel Number Document
 

Attachments

1141 - 1160 of 1203 Posts
Top