Seveda, ni problema.
Kam pa so šli oboleli za neCovidom aprila, ki so že bili v bolnici? Sej niso kar izpuhteli.
Zato naj zdaj švicajo in pljunejo v roke. Isti so kot hrvati, ki delajo tri mesece ostalo jamrajoAprila so bolnisnice funkcionirale po sistemu izrednih razmer. Rednih in prednostnih programov ni bilo, samo nujni in COVID.
Zato naj zdaj švicajo in pljunejo v roke. Isti so kot hrvati, ki delajo tri mesece ostalo jamrajo
Pa zakaj bi 'cvilil'? Saj jaz sem za HCQ.Ti bo ponujen, glej da takrat ne bos cvilil pa YT posnetke gledal. Pri nas nihce ni nikogar izsiljeval da ga ne bi bilo na voljo za uporabo.
Nekdo je rekel da te je treba zatreti z argumenti, pa bomo kar tvoje argumente vzeli. Prvi argument je "Andy ne zna brati studij".
Zato poglejmo kaj je v prvi studiji sploh z tem zdravilom.
COVID-19 treatments Supportive care only 3533/8910 (39.6) 2576/6981 (36.9) 957/1929 (49.6) <0.0001± HCQ 4542/8910 (51.0) 3738/6981 (53.5) 804/1929 (41.7) <0.0001± HCQ + macrolides 761/8910 (8.5) 617/6981 (8.5) 144/1929 (7.5) 0.0561± Lopinavir/ritonavir 12/8910 (0.1) 7/6981 (0.1) 5/1929 (0.3) 0.2358± HCQ + lopinavir/ritonavir 18/8910 (0.2) 10/6981 (0.1) 8 /1929 (0.4) 0.0504± HCQ + tocilizumab 17/8910 (0.2) 12/6981 (0.2) 5/1929 (0.3) 0.4367± HCQ + tocilizumab + macrolides 7/8910 (0.1) 5/6981 (0.1) 2/1929 (0.1) 0.6565± HCQ + remdesivir 4/8910 (0.0) 2/6981 (0.0) 2/1929 (0.1) 0.1685± Others 16/8910 (0.2) 14/6981 (0.2) 2/1929 (0.1) 0.3738±
Torej dragi Andy, pomembne razlike med podpornim zdravljenjem in zdravljenjem z HCQ NI, je pa razlika kot HCQ-ju dodamo TARČNA zdravila, antivirotike in imunomodulatorje. Verjetno to medicinski bratec v videu dodobra pozna, saj je teh zdravil ordiniral precej (v svojih sanjah).
Pomembna razlika tudi:
COVID-19 patients in the HCQ group were younger and male sex was predominant. Several co-morbidities were significantly less frequent in the HCQ group, including cardiovascular diseases, arterial hypertension, chronic renal disease, neurological and cognitive disorders, solid cancer and obesity, as well as the proportion of active smokers.
Our study has several limitations and strengths. It is an observational study of data collected using standardised report forms during the most critical phase of the epidemic in Belgium. The cohort was established within an ongoing surveillance that aims at monitoring the epidemic and identifying risk factors for severe COVID-19 and unfavourable outcome. The evaluation of HCQ efficacy in this population was therefore not the primary objective of the data collection itself. Also, the actual HCQ dosage was not systematically checked, but qualitative surveys pointed out that the ‘low-dose’ recommendation was very well adhered to, since the risk of dose-dependent cardiotoxicity and the necessary precautions for use in patients at risk were particularly stressed in the treatment guidance [8]. Not surprisingly, HCQ has been less administered in several groups of patients with pre-existing conditions or co-medications that correspond to contra-indications of its use (cardiac and renal diseases).
Veselo nabijanje in YT studiranje naprej.
Pa zakaj bi 'cvilil'? Saj jaz sem za HCQ.
Je pa dobro slišati, da ga pri nas niso prepovedovali, kot so ga na Zahodu.
A smo ljudje?Ne se zdaj čudit kam smo prišli.
Vsi smo vedeli kaj nas čaka, smo pa ohranili kakšno življenje, čeprav je jasno, da ne bi smeli vsega nikoli zapret, tudi na račun več smrti.
Zakaj bi pa zdravemu cloveku dajal zdravila?Zdravilo ki predvsem pri zdravih povzroca smrtne motnje srcnega ritma je sigurno prava izbira Andy...
Samo roko na srce.In tole spodaj so malenkosti, niso vredme omembe ne... Praktično kot tik tak bombončki