

and yet it is the reverse that matters. It's like considering that pumping the water that enters the house in the event of a flood is more important than having planned protection systems against these floods.But we don't care about the cause since we can easily remedy the effect!!!!![]()
Christophe wrote:Well that's enough...9 days, 9 weeks or 9 months?
First you have to get out of the general framework of a single study, it's not limited to that as far as I'm concerned.izentrop wrote:Is it the dietary intake that creates the deficiency and not the disease?Obamot wrote:There are almost no serious cases with sufficient and balanced food intake (Vit D, magnesium, selenium, zinc, etc.)![]()
First, when in a study you have 94% of subjects who react favorably (which is the case here), you have no need to reduce the standard deviation. It is the overwhelming number that rules, and therefore it is you who is not convincing with these “10 serious cases”. Then the researchers refer to pre-existing studies that the last one had to (or not) validate (must read everything). Finally, the trace elements are salts, and in a salt there is no longer any intrinsic biochemical activity (except in response to metabolic needs which will borrow elements), it is therefore necessary to have further analyzes on the state of the other deficits to be categorical. Did you know? No. So you couldn't make a deduction like you did. On the other hand, you missed an essential and contradictory element: a cancer patient who is not malnourished does not exist and AT THE MINIMUM he was MANDATORY ALREADY SICK BEFORE he caught covid and necessarily in deficiency since a cancer patient has need more intake than a healthy individual (and it was the lack of sufficient intake that made him sick), but even if it's good they were there, they wouldn't have to figure in the CQFD cohort.izentrop wrote:I say that because the conclusions of the study you highlighted are not convincing...
The claims in the study and article are taken against a small cohort of 138 patients.
Only 10 severe cases: 7 had Zn deficiency and were cancerous.
The other 3 diedIt cannot be concluded that these patients were malnourished.these non-survivors also had profound simultaneous deficits of Se and Zn, and thus exhibited a kind of universal trace element deficiency.![]()
Already given. You are sophistry again, and this time you didn't even have the "si"izentrop wrote:Conclusions:
like what, knowing how to read is not enough, you still have to understand, but to understand you still have to know.izentrop wrote: Try to read a minimum of the extraordinary publications you post guys![]()
Back to "Health and Prevention. Pollution, causes and effects of environmental risks "
Users browsing this forum : gegyx and 106 guests