Randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trial 

2 and 3 boggles my mind, specially this part ""Clinical Criteria for Reporting1 In outpatient or telehealth settings at least two of the following symptoms:fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and/or taste disorder(s)ORat least one of the following symptoms:cough,shortness of breath, ordifficulty breathingORSevere respiratory illness with at least one of the following:Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, orAcute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS)."" Basically their false postiive and negative diagnosis for covid-19 is all over the place. They can mis-categorize muscle pain and self-measured fever for covid.

Isthis I agree with you totally this is junk science and John is not prepared to call it out??? We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

Do the staff of WHO have the ability for their assignments?

Funny how much shit the 'never-trumpers' were talking about Hydroxychloroquine with no scientific basis to back it up.... They aren't talking now.

Whilst attempting to RETROSPECTIVELY peer-review the article, it turns out Surgisphere have "lost" the data to support the article. The Lancet - a great journal like this have been caught publishing non-peer-reviewed junk designed to discredit Trump.

Will Dr. John give a retraction????? Well John?????

@@Curling12341 Um. An unfair troll. Out of bounds. Unacceptable misrepresentation. This helpful man is summarizing novel work for you. To help you. He doesn't do the work. He curates it (..look it up..) so you don't have to. He is hard-working,scrupulous and transparent and generous. Your comment is an undeserved slur. If the rouge country who birthed this mess were led by men of Dr. John's caliber, we wouldn't be in this mess. (I'm sure 10 million troubled souls in Hong Kong agree...)

I predict this one will also be retracted. Or called out for it’s utter uselessness.

He forgets to tell you only 2% got tested for covid.

The underlying data in this study seems to be available; it was not in the study published in the Lancet. That makes all the difference.

Michelle Glo if you’re such a great expert on experimental design, go run your own study?

@@CivicPetunia Could you please provide a link for the underlying data?

Surgisphere will either very rapidly produce rock solid proof that their data is both real and has been obtained and reproduced correctly, or they will find themselves at the business end of Legal action likely involving Law enforcement officials. Considering what has been revealed about the company so far, I think the latter is looking inevitable.

I am totally with you, but can you please give me a source on that: "hundreds of researchers have now signed open letters" - I'd like to show it to my community.

@Henrik Wallin I'll give you a small tip here. Any little known company or individual spraying buzzwords like "A.I"., "machine learning" and "Big Data" around their every action should be regarded with the same skepticism as BitCoin get rich quick schemes until rock solid evidence is forthcoming that they aren't full of s**t. Those terms have been overused so much they have ceased to have much meaning. They rank alongside "Blue Sky Thinking" and "Synergy" as 'tells' that someone may well be the type of individual that would start a website Indiegogo promoting a wearable “next generation human augmentation device that can help you achieve what you never thought was possible”. Exactly like the Surgisphere CEO did. The device, curiously, never materialised. We can only speculate on what it may have been, an invisible hat perhaps. Or a nifty shoulder bag containing magic beans.

Wow. Is your comment up to date. To me this is more implications of the war in research for profit. Truly sad. I miss the days when universities and governments funded instead of corporations. Very sad.

Cant be to reliable if these "Scientists" are saying Protests & Riots are ok. AFTER PREVIOUSLY Stating 50% of black & brown people DIE when they catch it???? Oh wait, that was last week!!! Small Business owners were sited, Fined & Arrested for wanting to go bk to work in N.Y.??? Alterior MOTIVES =YES COMMUNIST SYMPATHIZERS ARE OUR POLITICIANS

Done purposely I'm afraid

@Steve Sheldon 16:30

Are we watching the same video? The one I watched said 20% of the patients used HCQ + Zinc.

Nicole double-blind or not the study can be manipulated. We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

Surrey scientists have said vitamin D could cause death.

Ese Callum yeah， potentially everything could casue death

@@garyfumeaux9226 To be fair, John has already, and rather cap in hand, withdrawn his support for the Lancet study in a previous video. Thanks for the points that you made though. I'll add that p=0.35 simply answers this question: do we have enough data to be certain of the difference? No, we need more data.

Ese Callum what Surrey scientists?

its a question of money....

Hopefully the researchers have continued the study more important questions.

ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-WZq-K1wpur8.html

Dragana P Thank you.

The WHO trial has restarted and other studies may be forthcoming with severity of illness as an endpoint. This study is still valuable in ruling out one possible use for HCQ. while Vitamin D still has excellent evidence in preventing respiratory tract infections. For other prophylactics MedCram 59 is superb. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-NM2A2xNLWR4.html

It's taking over half a century to get a definitive conclusion on climate change and still waiting. Hope that's not the case with HCQ and Zinc. Remember, it's the reduction of severity of symptoms and reduction of death rate that should be evaluated not whether HCQ prevents you getting a positive diagnosis.

@@briank10101 The biosphere is perhaps the most difficult to model of all earth's systems, as it includes everything else on earth as subsets. A single virus in a single bat in a single cave in a remote canyon in China can impact climate change... and it is!

@@briank10101, the conclusion on climate change was known since the 1980s. But it did take decades because the data gathering and climate science were still being pioneered. HCQ and zinc will be resolved very quickly.

Brian K it is difficult to do experiments on the whole atmosphere to test a model. We have to make models first and see if what humans do pumping various gases into the air outside of the study conforms to the model. It is no where near as easy as just testing a drug.

Hear you. But in my mind, science us effected by money and pride, , , ,, so we get crap science from time to time. Soviets and Fascists loved science....that served their purposes.

That is why this video is garbage

It was Postexposure Prophylaxis

emacro65 because we have no reason to believe it will do anything, just think, why are these studies even happening? It’s all based on an anecdote from a french doctor and trump’s escalation. Giant waste of money, we can do a couple more of your suggestions but don’t get shitty about them not all getting done. Not every chemical gets this special treatment you know.

@@inquaanate2393 stop making everything about Trump.

Its a shame they didn't record severity and duration of symptoms while they were at it. Surely that's the main point? I wonder if this one makes the headlines.

Are you surprised that the establishment will not push a vitamin? I mean come on really.

I think why he was careful as the paper only deals with people already infected, if it works prior to infection, still no studies.

This shows we do not understand well enough the mechanisms involved Neither those of the immune system, nor those of the virus We (the scientists among us) have a working hypothesis of the mechanisms This changed time after time, not sure we are at the end of our journey of knowledge If history is an indication, we know not much Imagine a caveman with a cone of ice and a running computer By accident the caveman fumbles the ice cone and shorts the computer Now the caveman knows that, at least once, an ice cone switched the computer off. Not knowing that there is an on-off switch or even a command, screen button that does almost the same (just not damaging the computer)

There was zinc in the study. Watch the last half of the video

There is a trial that compares HCQ vs HCQ+zinc and the zinc group fared better. This study says the opposite...

Exactly right. The point to using HCQ was that it allowed Zinc to get into the infected cell and disrupt the virus replication process. I don't recall anyone saying that if you take HCQ you won't get the disease. So, this study dispels something that was never at issue as far as I'm aware. What we're hoping for is that HCQ or HCQ + Zinc (if you are deficient) and/or + Z pack will be effective at disrupting virial replication. If it does that, you'll have an easier, perhaps shorter course of the disease.

@@mikemclaurin2889 Right - no mention of zinc.

@@mikemclaurin2889 It's not a complex argument, is it? Every debunk of HCQ I have seen does not contain relevant data and it's always outside of the capabilities suggested of the drug. They give it as a hail mary to people in late-stage and/or on ventilators as though that may magically heal the full system damage. Here, they focus on base infection statistics as though anyone with half an interest in this is saying it can 100% prevent infection. How long did it take them to admit masks work? Why did it take months to listen to virologists explain the concept of viral load at and beyond the point of infection? Damn right I have trust issues, that's for sure.

Tangent Don’t confuse us with the facts mate! In the words of my future President...”We chose truth over facts” (Joe Biden). We just keep moving the goalposts to make sure that expensive hospitalization is the only acceptable therapy, not a cheap and widely available pill. Get with the program.

We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

Different study, different research question, but yes. spinstrangenesscharm.wordpress.com/2020/06/03/covid19-update-june-3-2020-serological-study-in-israel-surgisphere-data-scandal/

Yeah, but wasn’t that a different trial? This trial was only published yesterday.

Yes. Right now I don't trust anything that comes from the US badmouthing hydroxychloroquine.

Probably funded by WHO Which can't even do there job they were set up to do ! To busy jet setting it and living it up in 5 star hotels, and.....

It was a retrospective survey of clinicians.

The Wall Street Journal had an article today about about an HCL study in the Lancet. In summary the Lancet HCL was based on questionable data. the Lancet had also published anti-Trump editorials questioning the bias in their research reporting. Also reported anti American bias. Frankly Dr. Cambell, I am disappointed in your reporting on HCL, and refusal to report on where HCL works with ZInc. Yes, there are many situations where HCL doesn't work, but why waste our time with those, unless you are biased, why not report on where it IS USEFUL? I'm really disappointed in you doc, and I stopped watching your videos after I saw how biased they are, but just came back to report that the Lancet politically motivated fraud is out of the bag now.

I felt the same

Campbell turning Walter White lol

Harry Roger Dr Campbell talk about zinc in the video. Why are you so biased all the time?

No zinc in the original set up proves it is biased from the start.

You have to ask why there isn't a clinical study of severity of symptoms and death rate being conducted when HCQ and zinc are used prophylactically. Every widely reported study so far is architected to make HCQ predestined to fail. No prophylaxis, no zinc, administration too late, administration to those intubated, etc. This is incredibly suspect. Waiting on official results of Dr.Zelenko's study being prepared by top German researchers.

I do feel that hydroxychloroquine may have efficacy against covid19, but only when combined with zinc, as an ionophore. The ionophore makes the cell membrane porous to the Zinc ion ZN+2. The RNA of the virus needs to be converted into proteins for the virus to replicate. The Zinc is the hero of the story as it inhibits this process. The viral RNA is inhibited from creating a new copy of the viral body. The virus data is transcribed in multiple runs over the viral rna. I am praying the authors of the study/clinical trial, OR someone else, will offer this combined protocol as a treatment , to stop unnecessary deaths and infections. Also to look at quercetin as a zinc ionophore instead of hydroxychloroquine, or combined with lower doses of hcq.

@@Mulinaster What's the medical or "scientific" (translate: "theory-based") reason for including placebos? There isn't one. Placebos are included because it is known that belief affects perception. How is this known? Not from any scientific theory, but from experimental observation. This is why when a claim is made, e.g. "Chemical X + Chemical Y improves symptoms", you can't test this claim by saying "Well, my theory says that Chemical Y is irrelevant, so I'll just test Chemical X and when it fails I'll conclude that your treatment is bunkum". Experimental science relies on experimentation, not just theory. Otherwise we're back to making up stories to explain the world without ever confirming them.

They did look at many of the subjects taking zinc with the HCQ/placebo. again, the zinc alone offers no protection, and the zinc with HCQ offers no protection either. Pay attention.

@@planesandbikes7353 It means those doctors that are recommending HCQ with Zinc, so passionately, have some ulterior motive. But the testimonials from their patients look very convincing. Something is amiss.

Words! You are 100% right.

They tested his drug and it is found wanting.

@@CharlesvanDijk-ir6bl - no the study doesn't show anything

There was a massive scale observational study that showed outcomes, it was something like 12-25% more likely to die if taking it. If I can find it I’ll post it here. Not that it will matter, Donnie Doofus fans have never cared about facts and aren’t going to start now.

That is why published and peer reviewed papers exist. There are wacked out doctors because there are wacked out people. If you take the word of one wacko over the entire community something is wrong with you.

Dr John Campbell is working for Big Pharma. The ‘protests’ seem to have cured the disease. Oh wait, neo Marxist politics was the disease. The covid scam deconstructed: edwardjblack.com/2020/04/24/the-invisible-war/

@@fasteddiejs get profession help 🤦

@@fasteddiejs stupid BOT. Ignore.

@Fran Simms A classic case of projection. That’s all you people have: mocking and attacking those who expose the emperor’s nakedness.

Please at least question the science... We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

Because he's no good at reviewing trials. He should stick to what he knows.

@@klondike444 Please share with us how one should present the results of a trial

Peak Prosperity, watch him and learn.

@@dMoniker First you learn how to read and understand a trial. John has shown that he can't do that well enough to report on one.

@Seine O'More No need to be a professor to you know you're hearing bad science. Pity you're not even at that level.

Yes, one of the latest Medcram video talks about it, as the disease gets more severe, HCQ is less effective in saving lives. Given early in the course, it decreases viral shedding.

Rosemary Spurll Why is that interesting? The study had a narrow focus, as it should have. Other studies will answer other questions concerning hydroxychloraquine.

Diane Taylor maybe what I should have said is “we should keep this in mind, and not dismiss its value based on this one study”.

Rosemary Spurll Yes, the data is not complete. It’s one narrow study.

I find it interesting who funded the study.

Links or it didn't happen.

@Big Deeper hahah well said

May be true, but it needs evidence. If you have a quote, you should have a link.

If you search Minnesota university and corruption, you’ll have your pick of scandals. From basketball to research. Unfortunately, could do that for too many universities.

I'm fed up with cronyism. It's ubiquitous.

Pretty worthless study... :-( The trial did not demonstrate a significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19 BECAUSE THE SUBJECTS DID NOT GET A TEST TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD THE VIRUS!!! A quote from the study, "We acknowledge that this trial has limitations. Because of the lack of availability of diagnostic testing in the United States, the vast majority of the participants, including health care workers, were unable to access testing."

And population reduction.

There is great news about the mortality rate We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

The most important question is how well Diethylcarbamazine combined with copper works. Nobody is looking into that, there must be some sort of agenda behind it

They followed only for 14 days. One hospitalization in each group. No deaths. Most deaths and hospitalizations would happen after 14 days of exposure, though. The study wasn’t designed to look at those things.

Gary Fumeaux thank you for your comment.

Jack M. Can you provide a link to this clinical data so that I can update my opinion based on scientific fact. Statements without a link to the a peer reviewed publication is the reason we are here. So please send it on. The data I have seen to date for Remdesivir shows no impact on mortality only 4 days less hospital stay.

It showed no difference with or without it. Granted it would be nice to learn if those who took it also suffered from the drugs side effects. It has some serious side effects.

Exactly, HCQ is not meant to prevent the disease but to reduce severity and viral shedding which has not been talked about in this study.

@@hizzlemobizzle Certainly it would be good to know the number of people getting side effects to get the fear of it out of your head. HCQ has side effects because it has been researched upon extensively, remdesevir is a new drug and vaccine which hasn't been even developed might be more dangerous which we probably might come to know about in future.

@@hizzlemobizzle It can take up to a year, but most will show cytotoxic effects to other biologic systems within six months of administration. Some don't have the initial adverse reaction, but will suffer later effects. They need to follow them to see. Most times it is ignored and attributed to auto immune disease rather than the quinolone exposure because of the late onset.

@@hizzlemobizzle They did, if you read the study. The study said no one experience serious side effects but the treatment group did experience side effects at a higher rate than the placebo group.

Morning from France

Hiya regards from ne england

Science paper on antibodies of mild COVID19 infection www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.19.20101832v2

Except the way he explains is incredibly deceptive.

Chuck Schumer are you qualified to say that or do you have an agenda. Just asking

@@chuckschumer7783 You are, of course , a doctor?

@@chuckschumer7783 Not deceptive, just wrong.

The human body has thrown spanners in the works before.

There is zinc in the study- he talks about it about 3/4 way in

no money in it. Why is everyone obsessed with hcq? Its not over the counter. First you need to carted to hospital then you need qualified staff to give it plus 2 other drugs. You people are very stupid. Just take 10000 to 20000 d3 plus cofactors and be immune. ...

well, I wouldn't say that, but I get your point.

It didn't prominently show the numbers for severity and deaths. Which makes me suspect it doesn't match the narrative and people actually lived.

They already have studies to show the side effects of the drug. Nasty side effects. No idea how many in the trial had side effects, but we know they exist.

Exactly. Was the mortality reported in this study? That's what everyone really wants to know.

hizzle mobizzle your ignorance and repetition of things you don’t understand is not helping.

@@hizzlemobizzle I wouldn't call a headache or a tummy ache a "nasty" side effect. This drug has been around for decades and doctors already know who shouldn't be taking it.

@@glynnec2008 Hydroxychloroquine side effects. Serious side effects Call your doctor right away if you have serious side effects. Call 911 if your symptoms feel life threatening or if you think you’re having a medical emergency. Serious side effects and their symptoms can include the following: blurred vision or other vision changes, which may be permanent in some cases heart disease, including heart failure and issues with your heart rhythm; some cases have been fatal ringing in your ears or hearing loss angioedema (rapid swelling of your skin) hives mild or severe bronchospasm sore throat severe hypoglycemia unusual bleeding or bruising blue-black skin color muscle weakness hair loss or changes in hair color abnormal mood changes mental health effects, including suicidal thoughts

Let's hope so - and Medcram, and Chris Martenson and their ilk. They've all been saying this now for months. It's only the experts who are lagging behind.

@@elainemagson213 This latest study indicates that taking Vitamin C is very dangerous!

@@endintiers let's ban it.

@Stephen Morris ban all vitamins. they can cause death if taken wrongly.

endintiers and where is the proof, do you have a link?

Oh, I see these are two different studies.

Data, I went and checked the study. People just stop talking about zinc working with HCQ

I downloaded and checked the appendix. They asked participants whether they were taking zinc or vitamin C. But it was just yes or no. They didn't ask specifics about the formulation, or the dosage or duration for either supplement, and therefore stated that the results were not conclusive. This is certainly NOT a test of the Zelenko Protocol.

@@hilarymcclure4138 Where in the appendix did you find the mention of zinc and vitamin C? Under Appendix all I can see is list of the authors' names and a bibliographical list of references. Would really like to see the zinc and vit c references myself! Can't find it anywhere it either the online or downloaded version... I pored through the whole study too. Could you give me a page number???

@@hilarymcclure4138 Oops never mind! I found it - it's in the "supplemental appendix", page 14.

He’s working for big pharma. The ‘protests’ seem to have cured the virus. Oh wait, neo Marxist politics WAS the virus. The covid scam deconstructed: edwardjblack.com/2020/04/24/the-invisible-war/

I'm afraid by helping to spread these "studies" John is unintentionally spreading disinformation. He is STILL NAIVE.

Seine O'More what evidence? what’s the evidence?

This has all become political but not for the reasons you think. Don't accept this junk science and do more of your own analytical thinking. This is not a good study. We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

SherriSLC Political leader? Trump is garbage, like this study.

He didn't just reccomend the drug he is taking it himself. This guy on here is just a paid liar for Bill Gates. Will Gates be taking one of his Vaccines. Of course not, and how come his three kids don't get vaccinated either.

No. I didn't vote for that man. Contain your TDS. This study is statistically meaningless, and the hypothesis is irrelevant in any case. Might as well test to see if HCQ cures acne. Who cares?

J Anders Your wrong! Its HCQ with Zinc! A life can be saved! Or do you want to wait for the vaccin?

It's in the complete report, not in the article. There is a link to the data at the end. www.nejm.org/doi/suppl/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638/suppl_file/nejmoa2016638_appendix.pdf

@Andrew Ongais The Lancet are supposed to publish material from recognised sources - not a science fiction writer and an adult model who wrote the paper this video is based on.

Indeed. Follow the money

Yes. As soon as possible. 4 days is too long.

I understood that Hydroxychloroquine with Zinc and Oxygen therapy, reduces the severity of the symptoms, which sounds like a God send. I know it wont stop people getting the virus but reducing the severity is fantastic as that can save lives.

MW: Lots of medical teams have started using it and then rapidly abandoned doing so because of alarming side effects from Covid-19.

@@crusindc5282 Really? Where?

Branch 4 how gas been used for decades with many millions of doses given, it was studied and promoted by the who with absolute minimums of side effects, it’s only since covid hit the US and big pharma sees $$$ that these ‘studies’ came out Chris Martin son from peak prosperity gives a great run down of this

Connie the study is not good We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

@@garyfumeaux9226 Speaking of data manipulation, you left out part of the table. The difference between Death after Intubation between HCQ and non-HCQ group is due to patients still being intubated and hospitalized in the HCQ group (89) without death outcome or discharge yet. This is much less in the non-HCQ group (only 6 still intubated after experiment) tl;dr: your conclusions are entirely invalid

Nobody not even a doctor know’s the length of time somebody is going to have a fever for.

​@@garyfumeaux9226 These are research hacks to promote the use of ICU and ventilators because they create more income to the hospital. Our medical system in the U.S. is in itself a pre-existing condition to us all. I've posted a separate reply to Dr. Campbell's video from a research done early on and published on Nature journal on cell research section. And another article at BBC, reviewing case in Turkey which has significantly managed Covid-19 by administering HCQ at early stage. Here they are: Research done and published on Nature journal (Feb, 4, 2020): www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0 "Our findings reveal that remdesivir and chloroquine are highly effective in the control of 2019-nCoV infection in vitro. Since these compounds have been used in human patients with a safety track record and shown to be effective against various ailments, we suggest that they should be assessed in human patients suffering from the novel coronavirus disease. " "Coronavirus: How Turkey took control of Covid-19 emergency" www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-52831017 "Chief doctor Nurettin Yiyit ... says it's key to use hydroxychloroquine early. "Other countries are using this drug too late," he says, "especially the United States. We only use it at the beginning. We have no hesitation about this drug. We believe it's effective because we get the results." " To look at the economy: It is less than 50 cents in the U.S. per pill for Hydroxychloroquine, but they can charge as much as up to $100,000 per day if you lay in the ICU with ventilators. No wonder.

This was discussing Hydroxychloroqine as a prophylactic. It doesn't appear to work and gives side effects in around 20% of users.

@@allangibson8494 it was not discussing a prophylactic, they were giving it up to 4 days after exposure

The claim is that it will prevent the disease. Already know it will not help when you have the disease.

@@hizzlemobizzle They are changing it now. It has to be given with Zinc and Strawberry jam. Without the strawberry jam it won't work. Obvious.

M Ball you clearly don’t understand the difference between exposure and infection

The placebo in this study was folate.

@@mballer Folate...? It's a B-vitamin (B9) mostly needed to help pregnant women to protect their child! It's not an inert drug!!

Not yet, but this is definitely interesting. A cohort study to evaluate the effect of combination Vitamin D, Magnesium and Vitamin B12 (DMB) on progression to severe outcome in older COVID-19 patients. www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.01.20112334v1 It's not without problems, not least the small size and not enough attention paid to keeping the control and trial groups equivalent in comorbities and age, but, more RCTs and studies are coming it seems.

“Critical thinking”. Please. The CDC says this has a death rate of 0.26% of those infected: www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/planning-scenarios.html?fbclid=IwAR0qTy4FlcgV3xarcw-2tyY2jHchaaOBNJEB1VNMMXWj1PtkVOhDLwRH7Es When you remember that half of all deaths are in care homes, that means the death rate is under 0.1% of non care home infections. That’s why the ‘protests’ have cured the disease. The disease was the neo Marxist politics all along, destabilising and designed to destroy the economy, and Dr John Campbell’s role is to be a shill for Big Pharma and the politics of “the new normal”. The covid scam laid bare: edwardjblack.com/2020/04/24/the-invisible-war/

fasteddie ok boomer

Ruzhki That could be true.

I think the same. But in the end it wasn't significant data so it could also just be by chance. After a quick read of this paper I was thinking about getting some zinc supplement www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3724376/

No. He's very bad at this. He should stick to what he knows.

@@klondike444 You should stick to what you want to hear, elsewhere.

Based on the NYU study, it increases treatment effectiveness by 150% compared to HCQ alone. Full study in lnk posted above

Carol Rosini exactly, my arthritis dr at a VERY large clinic, in Shreveport La said everyone of his partients who had lupus and rheumatoid are on It and the people who had covid had a VERY mild case, it didn’t prevent it. . I overheard my ENT doctor prescribing to a positive patient also with the antibiotic, no drug is perfect .. but if it will help prevent a serious case of getting in the lungs,, that’s what we want.

Carol you are absolutely right this is junk science We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

Just Judy you clearly have no idea of medicine if you’re spouting this...what are your qualifications?

George Buchanan mine are none,, this is what my doctors said, .. I said this is what I was told,,, why did you say that to me.. when I was relaying what I was told by my doctors.. and others are clearly giving the same message, I never once said I had any qualifications to treat anyone. But truth is many doctors are treating patients in the USA with this.. i was told by 2 of my doctors.

I respect dr Campbell a LOT. I wanted to put out there what I was told in person by my medical doctors.

Read the study

Watch the video, he said 4 days, why are you commenting without watching?

It wasn't given during infection, it was given to people who had a high risk contact, within 4 days of their contact to see if HCQ could prevent infection, which it didn't.

Day 4. Too late for an anti-viral to be of benefit... predictably.

@@ivermec-tin666 so it's useless then, we need a critical care drug since most people go to the hospital already in bad shape.

@@ucouco78 So far the only thing that has been shown to be effective against people in bad shape is plasma with neutralizing antibodies. We also need something that helps against the cytokine storm as that is the biggest killer...

Alex this is more junk science. Look a little deeper yourself We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

vitamindwiki.com/99+percent+of+the+380+Indonesians+who+died+of+COVID-19+had+low+vitamin+D+-+May+2020

Don't be sucked into this junk science We should be shouting from the rooftops about this study for 2 reasons (1) Only 4 people were hospitalised and none died which highlights the non-lethal nature of this illness. (2) Secondly, only 13% of people who were put in a high-risk environment contracted the disease which means this disease spreads less rapidly than first thought. With this new data, we should all sleep easy and John needs to rethink all the data and percentages he has been feeding you. Other than the great news about it's a pretty useless study. John just because it's Double-Blind Placebo-Controlled doesn't make it a good study. Just a few things to consider. 1. This is not a high-risk age group so why do the study? 2. Many people are asymptomatic so without antibody testing, you have no idea as to how many people actually contacted the disease which makes the data quite useless. 3. Talking about Zn when it wasn’t part of the protocol highlights the poor science 4. All participants self-assessed which again is very poor science. To do a study like this with a product that is so politically charged is ridiculous. John you need to do a better analysis of junk science. Just like your analysis of the NIH study www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410 Instead of jumping from the rooftops because the study showed that patients on HCQ died 31% of the time compared to 65% of non HCQ patients. That alone makes this a miracle drug but instead, you preferred to praise the junk science. Come on you can do better. here is the analysis of this study if you want it Here are just 7 reasons why this study was designed to fail. (1) First, the study is funded by the NIH. This is a “Fauci study” who has a vested interest in it not working. (2) The Study is using a “multivariable Cox model” with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score, which allows for massive data manipulation. (3) it took up to “48 hours for 85.9% of patients to be treated. Why would you delay treatment? The next point helps to explain why. (4) "Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine" Yes this is written in the study. (5) No Zn was given with the HCQ. It is well established by many Drs treating patients that the HCQ allows for the movement of Zn into the cell which then stops the viral replication. (6) Death or Intubation endpoints are considered the same outcome, so even if they recovered after intubation they were still considered a negative outcome. (7) All patients in the HCQ group had more older, male and comorbidity patients. Note In-fact if you look at the most important result hidden in the appendix Table S1 you would see that of all patients put on a ventilator only 32% of the HCQ and 65% of non HCQ died. Therefore HCQ halved the death rate of ventilated patients. This is an incredible result and yet it is not mentioned because the study is manipulated to fail Table S1 HCQ / No HCQ Primary Outcome 262 / 84 Death 157 / 75 Intubated 154/ 26 Intubated then Death 49 / 17 Death after Intubation%. 31/ 65 
This study is a joke and doctor who references it should have their medical licence revoked. How was this allowed to be published?

The study doesn't show anything because the results aren't statistically significant

@@chuckschumer7783 For you, clearly. The rest of us will continue to monitor the science and simply not care about political agendas. If an RCT of a similar size shows HCQ has efficacy in preventing onset of severe COVID19 I will be delighted. If it doesn't I will still regard the data as valuable. Same with Zinc or any other treatment.

@Stephen Morris I suspect you 2 are liars as well.

PLUS ZZZZZIIINK Zink is an essential for HCQ's workings as an anti-viral treatment. And they didn't study it. Absurd. These are our brains !?

Pretty worthless study... :-( The trial did not demonstrate a significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine as postexposure prophylaxis for Covid-19 BECAUSE THE SUBJECTS DID NOT GET A TEST TO CONFIRM WHETHER OR NOT THEY HAD THE VIRUS!!! A quote from the study, "We acknowledge that this trial has limitations. Because of the lack of availability of diagnostic testing in the United States, the vast majority of the participants, including health care workers, were unable to access testing." Read it for yourself here: www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638?mod=article_inline

@@particleconfig.8935 About a third of patients in the study took either zinc or vitamin c along with HCQ and they didn't find any statistical difference.

Frank, the lancet study that you’re worried about has no connection with the WHO. Only the dodgy organisation that supposedly gathered the data claims a WHO link...the WHO themselves deny it. Those guys clearly weren’t honest about Australian data...why trust them on the WHO?

Absolutely!! I try to eat a well balanced meal i exercise 30 min a day and limit my stress by not watching media all day and i have a hobby that occupies my mind and I also take vit D3 and i get my sun daily and i take a melatonin at evening to make sure i get a full nights sleep and im well rested the next day. That's what im doing to build up my immunity. Goodluck to all..remember facts over fears ppl!! Wear mask in public keep your distance and wash your hands often!! Go out and enjoy your life and dont get caught up in the media!! Go live life

This wasn't a serious study

This is not the first or last study. They have determined it was not effective earlier, but so much heat is generated by Trump's claim it does they have to do more studies to prove what they already know. A malaria drug will not stop this.

@@chuckschumer7783 because it does not tell you what you want to hear?

This may have been first attempt to a serious study. All previous studies have been seriously flawed.

As always. How embarrassing.

Yes, it's like a political debate. Data and facts mean nothing. Hope and guesswork, everything...

M Ball 🤪🤫🤐🤦🏻‍♂️

correlation is not proof of causation -- big pharma.