Do we have an effective treatment for the coronavirus outside of vaccinations?

G

Gary K

New member
Banned
On this page is a list of 180 HCQ studies. The overwhelming result of these studies is that HCQ is a very efficient treatment. Clicking on the studies in the following link will give you a small abstract of each study.


•HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 180 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 12 quadrillion (p = 0.000000000000000084).

•Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.26-0.45].

•91% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0059.

•There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 88% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 78% of retrospective studies do.

•Studies from North America are 3.8 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.000002.
Click to expand...

As 1 in 12 quadrillion is well within the realm of impossibility in statistical analysis, a person might just as well say outright. It is impossible for HCQ in combination with zinc, vitamin D, and an antibiotic when used early in a coronavirus infection to have it not work. And that goes for any zinc ionofore as well as HCQ. Using naturally occurring zinc ionofores lowers the already very low odds having a reaction to HCQ. Quercetin is a zinc ionophore and is found in food.

c19study.com

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 4,107 studies

COVID-19 early treatment: real-time analysis of 4,107 studies
c19study.com c19study.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top