A Study Finds that Combination of Zinc, Hydroxychloroquine, and Azithromycin Is Associated with Less Hospitalizations and Death in COVID-19 Patients

By Dr. Vladimir (Zev) Zelenko - July 14, 2020

New York, NY July 2, 2020 – Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a New York based primary care physician, announced today that a retrospective study analyzing his patient data is available to read online at www.TheZelenkoProtocol.com. The study, which has been submitted for peer review, found that early intervention and treatment of risk stratified COVID-19 patients in an outpatient setting resulted in five times less hospitalizations and deaths. The treatment consisted of zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin.

Prior studies of COVID-19 treatments have largely been based on severely ill patients in a hospital setting, including those in intensive care with mechanical ventilation. Conversely, this study examines outcomes resulting from the early treatment of patients after their first visit to the doctor’s office. Using simple risk stratification criteria, Zelenko identified which patients required prescriptions for the triple drug therapy, and prescribed these medications for five days.

The main results show that of 141 patients who were treated with the triple therapy, only 2.8% (4/141) were hospitalized compared to 15.4% of an untreated control group (58/377) (odds ratio 0.16, 95% CI 0.06-0.5; p<0.001). Only 0.71% (1/141) patients died in the treatment group, versus 3.5% (13/377) in the untreated group (odds ratio 0.2, 95% CI 0.03-1.5; p=0.16).

To produce this retrospective analysis and study, Zelenko collaborated with Dr. Roland Derwand, a German medical doctor and life science industry expert, and Professor Martin Scholz, an independent consultant and adjunct professor for experimental medicine at Heinrich Heine University, Düsseldorf, Germany. Derwand and Scholz were the first to mention the Zelenko Protocol in a scientific paper, with their recently published hypothesis paper about the possible importance of combining zinc with low dose hydroxychloroquine as a method of treating COVID-19. Derwand and Scholz also performed the data analysis and led the writing of this study while Zelenko handled all in-person treatments.

“What differentiates this study is that patients were diagnosed very early with COVID-19 in an outpatient setting and treated early on,” said Derwand. “Unfortunately, we seem to have forgotten common medical knowledge - that we want to treat any patient with an infectious disease as soon as possible. Zelenko treated his risk stratified patients immediately with the three drugs to ensure sufficient efficacy and didn’t wait for the disease to further develop.”

“It’s unfortunate that much of the media coverage surrounding hydroxychloroquine has been negative,” Zelenko continued. “These three medications are affordable, available in pill form, and work in synergy against COVID-19. This regimen works, and it happens to be the only available pre-hospital treatment to show promise.”

“Hydroxychloroquine’s main function is to allow zinc to enter the cell, while zinc is a virus killer,” Zelenko added. “Azithromycin prevents secondary bacterial infection in the lungs, and reduces the risk of pulmonary complications. So zinc is the bullet, hydroxychloroquine is the gun, and azithromycin is the protective vest.”

“This is the first study with COVID-19 outpatients that shows how a simple-to-perform outpatient risk stratification allows for rapid treatment decisions shortly after onset of symptoms,” said Professor Scholz. “The well-tolerated 5-day triple therapy resulted in a significantly lower hospitalization rate and less fatalities with no reported cardiac side effects compared with relevant public reference data of untreated patients. The magnitude of the results can substantially elevate the relevance of early use, low dose hydroxychloroquine, especially in combination with zinc. This data can be used to inform ongoing pandemic response policies as well as future clinical trials.”

https://internetprotocol.co/hype-news/2020/07/14/dr-zelenko-newly-published-outpatient-study-english/

If you would like more information, please visit www.thezelenkoprotocol.com.

For media requests, please email countermediarelations@gmail.com

Flynn Case: Sullivan Petition Rehearing

By shipwreckedcrew July 19, 2020

On Thursday of last week, Judge Emmet Sullivan filed with the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit a Petition for Rehearing En Banc of the matter involving the Petition for Writ of Mandamus filed by General Michael Flynn.

Judge Sullivan is asking the entire appeals court – 11 judges – to vote on whether to rehear and decide anew the Petition filed by General Flynn seeking a “writ of mandamus”, ordering Judge Sullivan to grant the government’s motion to dismiss the case against General Flynn without further proceedings.

The government has moved to dismiss the Flynn case under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 48(a), which states that any such dismissal by the government can only be done with “leave of court.” A three-judge panel of the DC Circuit Court of Appeals granted the Petition last month and ordered Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case without further proceedings.

What is Judge Sullivan’s Argument?

The Petition by Judge Sullivan makes three inter-related claims. First, it claims that the decision by the Panel is contrary to the Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Rinaldi, where the Court considered a similar matter. In this case, the lower court had conducted a hearing into the motives of the government for seeking to dismiss a case after a defendant had been convicted at trial. Judge Sullivan claims it is contrary to Rinaldi for the Panel to order that he cannot conduct a similar inquiry in the hearing he had scheduled.

He further argues, that there is no court decision which says he is not allowed to conduct a hearing in the normal course on a motion filed by the government pursuant to Rule 48(a). He claims that the cases relied upon by the Panel to block him from conducting a hearing all involve circumstances where just such a hearing was held in the lower court, the lower court was allowed to rule on the motion, and then the ruling was examined by the appeals courts in the normal course. Judge Sullivan claims the same “ordinary process” should be allowed to take place with respect to the Government’s motion to dismiss, and the Appellate Court can take up his decision after he has made it.

I will return to the specifics of Judge Sullivan’s petition further down below, but I want to take first what I see as a fundamental misconception, and it is the premise upon which much of Judge Sullivan’s argument is based. I see this misconception as a matter of judicial conceit and hubris; that because some matter is required by Rule to run through his chambers for purposes of the orderly administration of justice, it is somehow reserved only to him to decide if the dismissal is “in the interests of justice” or “manifestly contrary to the public interest” as described by some courts.

This is where the use of imprecise legal “idioms” works to the disadvantage of finding clarity in the law. The phrase used in the rule is that case can be dismissed “with leave of court.” That is not a phrase in modern English which provides clear guidance on what is expected of the court. Because there was no guidance included in the Commentary to the Rule when it was inserted, it can be construed to mean any of the following:

With permission of the court.

With the approval of the court.

With notice to the court.

Upon agreement by the court.

Upon decision of the court with regard thereto.

With the court’s concurrence.

Judge Sullivan’s argument rests on the presumption that the “leave of court” language vests in the Court a decision as to the propriety of the motion. It presumes that if a district court judge disagrees, then the view of the district court judge prevails, the government cannot drop the case, and the government must continue with a criminal prosecution of a case under penalty of ..??.. what exactly if they refuse?

(continued w/link)

https://uncoverdc.com/2020/07/19/flynn-case-sullivan-petition-rehearing/

(a great legal analyst following flynn case)

https://twitter.com/shipwreckedcrew