Yeah, fraud. Lancet should have never published it. The confidentiality spin was just as fraudulent as the study. So the authors knowingly used data that cannot analyzed by anyone else. In other words, it couldn't even be peer-reviewed. Hence, it was fraud.
If you have hydroxy and zinc studies... which you think look solid... lets see them. and don't tell me to find them myself... you said study after study... it should be easier for you.. i just did a google search and did not see a good one.
This study found the complete opposite with a statistically significant p value. http://www.ijmr.org.in/preprintarticle.asp?id=285520 Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19 Results : Compared to controls, cases were slightly older (34.7 vs. 33.5 yr) and had more males (58 vs. 50%). In multivariate analyses, HCWs performing endotracheal intubation had higher odds of being SARS-CoV-2 infected [adjusted odds ratio (AOR): 4.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.16-16.07]. Consumption of four or more maintenance doses of HCQ was associated with a significant decline in the odds of getting infected (AOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.88); a dose-response relationship existed between frequency of exposure to HCQ and such reductions (χ2 for trend=48.88; P<0.001). In addition, the use of PPE was independently associated with the reduction in odds of getting infected with SARS-CoV-2.
Yes, I did. It is the biggest bullshit spin I have ever read in science. Only someone that it completely fucking retarded would believe a spin regarding confidentiality wrt to the data. So they the authors submitted a study for peer-review that couldn't be peer-reviewed. That is fucking retarded and clearly fraudulent.
The Lancet. It take years to build reputation and credibility but seconds to lose it. Another TDS victim. I understand the Lancet is somehow controlled or influenced by the CCP, but I am not certain.
try supporting your claims... with a link next time. What a surprise... I just searched on zinc and did not see a single study produced which ruled out hydroxy and zinc. going back to the beginning of May. So were you lying again?
wait .. there is one... and once again GWB was wrong... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1 In univariate analyses, zinc sulfate increased the frequency of patients being discharged home, and decreased the need for ventilation, admission to the ICU, and mortality or transfer to hospice for patients who were never admitted to the ICU. After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53, 95% CI 1.12-2.09) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449, 95% CI 0.271-0.744). Conclusion: This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.
and here is another..... https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.13.20094193v1.full.pdf Results: Ninety-seven moderate COVID-19 patients were managed with hydroxychloroquine (HQ) plus antibiotics (n = 22), lopinavir-ritonavir (Lop/R) plus antibiotics (n = 35), or conservative treatment (n = 40). Time to viral clearance, as signified by negative conversion on PCR, after initiation of treatment was significantly shorter with HQ plus antibiotics compared to Lop/R plus antibiotics (hazard ratio [HR], 0.49; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 0.28 to 0.87) or conservative treatments (HR, 0.44; 95% CI, 0.25 to 0.78). Hospital stay duration after treatment was also shortest for patients treated with HQ plus antibiotics compared to other treatment groups. Subgroup analysis revealed that mean duration to viral clearance was significantly reduced with adjunctive use of antibiotics compared to monotherapy (HR 0.81, 95% CI, 0.70 to 0.93). While both HQ and Lop/R showed side effects including nausea, vomiting, and elevation of liver transaminases, none were serious. Conclusion: This first report on pharmacological management of COVID-19 from South Korea revealed that HQ with antibiotics was associated with better clinical outcomes in terms of viral clearance, hospital stay, and cough symptom resolution compared to Lop/R with antibiotics or conservative treatment. The effect of Lop/R with antibiotics was not superior to conservative management. The adjunct use of the antibiotics may provide additional benefit in COVID-19 management but warrants further evaluation