Originally Posted by Darian Rachal
I was browsing through the Comments section and came across this woman's post. It may have some relevance. I only copied part of it. There are links further down her post in the part I didn't copy.
Violet McBride
Unfortunately, this study is highly misleading for several reasons, but most notably because it failed to employ zinc - a critical component of proper Hydroxychloriquine treatment. When used in proper combination, hydroxychloroquine is actually one of the most promising treatments there is for COVID-19. Three very important considerations when evaluating the data presented in this study are:
1. The study was done without the use of zinc. One of the most important anti-viral mechanisms of hydroxychloroquine is its activity as a zinc ionophore, which opens the cellular pathway for zinc to enter cells and shut down viral replication via inhibition of the replicase enzyme. Efficacy research on hydroxychloroquine alone versus hydroxychloroquine + zinc + azithromycin is yielding dramatically different results, as noted by many doctors worldwide. I’ve linked three videos of their discussions and accounts below.
2. The study was retroactive and not a proper randomized control study. Thus ventilator and mortality rates may reflect the severity of illness at which doctors chose to use hydroxychloroquine as an experimental compassionate care treatment versus cases in which more drastic measures were deemed unnecessary. Hydroxychloriquine + azithromycin + zinc treatment is most effective when used early in disease progression, however many doctors are reluctant to use it for all but the most serious cases. This study may worsen this problem.
3. V.A. research most likely skews towards more elderly and fragile patients who may show different outcomes than younger patients. Additionally, it is dubious to attribute organ damage to Hydroxychloriquine in a disease process which regularly damages organs via viral invasion and cytokine storms.
More controlled studies accounting for the above considerations need to be conducted before the efficacy or mortality rates of hydroxychloroquine treatments can be properly evaluated.
While I'd agree more rigorous studies need to be and in fact are being done(as compared to the methodology employed in this particular study), we see the added component of zinc as yet another confounding factor to explain, based upon the above antecedent discussions in videos, as a rational for the failure for Hydrox + Z-pak to produce desired results. As we've seen before, there's videos of doctors promoting Hydrox alone or with a Z-pak and claiming great results but that's not what we're realizing here. Zinc has been recommended orally as a preventive measure as have vitamins C and D. These are all confounding factors at play here but to seize upon zinc as the most notable omission, as stated above, and without the same randomized controlled studies to back it up, as decried in the above, strains the credibility of the argument almost to the point of extinction.