There has been little accountability for the lies of the COVID pandemic. Clearly the disease originated at the
Wuhan Virology Lab. The mRNA vaccines were not nearly as effective as
touted (if they worked at all), and possibly unsafe. Another glaring dishonesty, exposed by doctors like Meryl Nass, relates to the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID.
Whether
or not hydroxychloroquine is effective against COVID, government
authorities thwarted doctors from honestly attempting to find out, and
interfered with doctor-patient relationships to do so. Agencies
conspired to undermine and discredit doctors like Dr. Meryl Nass,
discouraging alternative therapies possessing strong safety records
while hard-selling experimental and relatively untested mRNA vaccines.
In the case of Dr. Nass, a nationwide
pattern of censorship against physicians who supported
hydroxychloroquine was reflected when the State of Maine Board of
Licensure in Medicine suspended her medical license and referred her for a psychiatric evaluation.
The Board slandered the good doctor by claiming her provision of care
constituted “an immediate jeopardy to the health and physical safety of
the public” and even suggested she might be using drugs:..........To Read More....
My Take - It's clear to me someone needs to go to jail over all this. All the things that have happened has to be considered crimes against humanity, or at the very least, depraved indifference, and someone need to be held accountable.
President
Biden can claim that COVID-19 remains a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"
partly because "the CDC has played fast and loose with a lot of studies
and data," Yale School of Public Health epidemiologist Harvey Risch
says. "We have not been careful or objective with our data," he told the
John Solomon Reports podcast Friday. "We don't even know, for example,
the mortality from COVID," which the CDC pegs at more than 800,000.
Risch noted the agency told physicians to put COVID on death
certificates regardless of whether they think the infection played a
role. Hospitalizations have also conflated admissions "with" and "from"
COVID, he said...........While vaccines are a "potential and reasonable component" of COVID
mitigation, those developed are "somewhat ineffective" and their
large-scale deployment has driven an unexpected number of "mutant
strains" extending the pandemic and causing higher mortality, Risch
said.
President Biden's chief medical advisor Anthony Fauci, longtime
director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases,
not only isn't trained in public health but "has interests that do not
align with the public health interests of the United States," Risch
argued.
Fauci's opposition to generic anti-pneumonia drug Bactrim during the
AIDS pandemic "led to the deaths of 17,000 people in New York City,"
Risch alleged. Instead, he recalled, Fauci favored AZT, "a terrible
medication that required a treatment against the treatment" but "made
large amounts of financial profits" for the drugmaker, "and he's done
the same thing ever since."
"He's been canonized" as a public health guru "because of his political abilities, but not because of expertise," Risch claimed............To Read More....
The controversy
around the use of ivermectin and, previously, hydroxychloroquine joins a
long list of things where the left's pursuit of the "Noble Lie" is
judged more important than honest debate. This particular piece of
dishonesty claims that vaccinations, masking, and social distancing
alone will eradicate COVID-19, and all other "side hustles" like these
inexpensive medications are mockable, "snake oil" obfuscations. Whom we
choose to align with in these debates is unjustifiably and
destructively polarizing, especially when facts may not line up with the
pursued plans of those we trust to lead. Why we trust and how we
justify lying come into question.
By now, most of us know that there are
studies, many of them from our own CDC, that show the effectiveness of
ivermectin when given early in the course of COVID-19. There is
real-life proof that countries like Japan have already had success with
the medication. The medicine is cheap and safe when used
properly. Like hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin is nevertheless demonized
by the political left, its mainstream media, and the medical
establishment, the last despite published studies by reputable
investigators.
For some unexplained reason, we can't be allowed to
have alternate treatments, apparently because the narrative of the left
may get undermined in the eyes of the voters, the "Noble Lie" being
more important than our health. Alternatives to any of the Left's
"Noble Lie" agendas are always panned by the media as non-scientific and
undermining our communal good. Healthy skepticism is akin to
flat-Earthism, with no room in between, contradictory facts and
unexpected consequences be damned..........To Read More....
The Gateway Pundit previously reported that
COVID cases are plummeting in India thanks to new rules that promote
Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to its massive population. The 33
districts in Uttar Pradesh, India have now become free from COVID-19 government informed on Friday.
The recovery rate has increased up to 98.7% proving the effectiveness
of IVERMECTIN as part of the “Uttar Pradesh Covid Control Model.” Of
course, the media won’t mention that Ivermectin is being used for the
treatment of COVID-19.
This state has an estimated population of 241 million people
in 2021 and has the highest population in India. This is almost
two-thirds of the United States population in 2021 and yet it is now a
COVID-19 free nation. So what could the United States be doing wrong? Let’s ask Dr. Fauci..........To Read More....
“Follow
the science!” is all we hear, along with how dare we question “the
science.” Well, let’s bring the vigorous boil down to a low simmer for a
minute so we can get to the root of things, shall we? As a layperson, not a scientist or
medical professional, I would never offer medical advice. However, I can
understand simple English and science, and can apply that knowledge to
search for the definition of “science."............Let’s move on to the details about the
“science” of our response to the COVID pandemic because “what we know”
has changed. If we can understand one thing about our sciences and what
we know, it should be that nearly everything we know is subject to
change. As what we know changes, we should be making sufficient changes
to our actions to manage desired outcomes effectively..............We did so chiefly because the
models predicted over 1 million and as many and 2 million American
deaths if we did nothing. We needed to “flatten the curve;” that is,
manage and reduce the numbers of sick patients sure to overwhelm the
hospitals.
The scientific
community has studiously and conscientiously reviewed the science behind
the government-mandated shutdowns, their restrictions to preventative
and therapeutic medicines, the masks—all of it. The best we can conclude
after 18 months of the pandemic is that none of it made a significant
impact. For all the very real pain and loss from the government
mandates, we didn’t change the outcome.
Our reliance on promised
vaccines, in my average, everyday layperson’s opinion, has been a
self-imposed vulnerability and a self-inflicted wound. Despite reliable,
peer-reviewed studies that indicated positive results from early
intervention with both Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin (IVM),
the powers-that-be in the U.S. government’s medical bureaucracies have
restricted their use, and they actively continue to suppress the supply
of HCQ and IVM in spite of positive results worldwide. In addition, the
federal government is now restricting the distribution of effective
monoclonal antibody preventative and treatment to coerce Americans to
get vaccinated.
Where is the science that supports this? Contrary
to the restrictions in the United States, the preponderance of the
evidence for the use of these medicines supports their safety and
effectiveness against the COVID-19 disease. Even further, what we know
from science and objective data should lead us to conclude that
neglecting to prescribe preventative medicine and waiting to
aggressively treat the disease until hospitalization and intubation are
required puts patients at higher risk of death. Macon County is one of
the rare governments working to keep citizens out of the hospital:..........To Read More...
How Many People Have Died Because of These Soulless Hacks?
Dec 15, 2020
RUSH: I’m old enough to remember when hydroxychloroquine was a
kook theory from a kook president. Now all of a sudden it is amazing the
things that are happening after an election where this kook, this
so-called kook, Donald Trump, has lost, allegedly lost. Now all of a
sudden the AMA — although very quietly — that hydroxychloroquine is
okay. It’s perfectly fine. Go ahead and use it if you want. It can be
helpful.
How many people do you think — we’ll never know — how people do you
think died needlessly because they were sent home to ride it out or were
afraid to go to the doctor or were afraid to take hydroxychloroquine
because of what they were hearing about it in the Drive-By Media?.........To Read More...
Back in April, we reported on a few early analyses of the situation, including the astonishing findings
of Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel of Tel Aviv University who plotted the rates of
new coronavirus infections of the U.S., U.K., Sweden, Italy, Israel,
Switzerland, France, Germany, and Spain. As it happens, irrespective of
whether the country quarantined like Israel, or went about business as usual
like Sweden, coronavirus peaked and subsided in exactly the same way.
Somewhat later
in the game, the drug hydroxychloroquine, which had been touted since virtually
the beginning of the pandemic by a variety of doctors—along with President
Trump—was then mercilessly attacked. In a blatant political move, the FDA
revoked its
Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).
While some critics blamed Big Pharma for attempting to suppress the use of an
inexpensive generic drug, in the hopes of hitting the jackpot with the
antiviral Remdesivir or a vaccine, an alternative explanation can be
proffered. I leave it to you to judge which one is more sinister.
There are five phases of
clinical trials, which apply to the FDA drug approval process. In
most cases, four of these phases—Phases 0 through III—are required before a
drug is released to be used by the general public. HCQ was approved
decades ago, albeit for indications other than treating COVID-19. But,
there had been reasons to believe that it might prove effective against
COVID-19, so it was employed by doctors “off-label.”
And, the FDA revocation will not affect such use.
The trials
described are always randomized double-blind experiments, whereby neither the
researcher nor the subjects know which patient received the active drug or the
placebo. And, this has long been considered the gold standard.
However, given a moment’s thought, this “gold standard” does not always exist
in real life. Consider that if a patient suffers either side effects or
notices a targeted therapeutic effect, he will often conclude that he is on the
drug.
One suspects
that Anthony Fauci’s insistence of a randomized clinical trial on HCQ for
COVID-19 stems back to his early career, and the disastrous saga of
supposed AIDS drug AZT, in which the trials were rushed and even unblinded,
thus releasing a toxic and likely ineffectual drug on the public. Not that AZT and HCQ are even remotely comparable.
Bear in mind
that there is a long and sordid history of drugs being taken off the market
after going through allegedly rigorous clinical trials. Ref 1Ref 2 It is most
perplexing that the establishment still stubbornly insists on promoting this
system as the be-all and end-all, when it most assuredly is not.
Meanwhile,
eminent Yale epidemiologist Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD has argued passionately
in favor of HCQ, only to be rebuked by critics who attack his sources, and prop
up questionable studies of their own. Such actions of establishment
fanboys against a maverick are nothing new. Just ask Ignaz Semmelweis.
Finally, take a
look at this new study from the
National Bureau Of Economic Research. The paper’s major conclusion is
that nonpharmaceutical interventions (NPI)-–such as lockdowns, closures, travel
restrictions, stay-home orders, event bans, quarantines, curfews, and mask
mandates—do not seem to affect virus transmission rates overall. A big
argument in favor of this is that such policies have varied in their timing and
implementation across countries and states, but the trends in outcomes do not.
As you see,
this runs contrary to the revealed wisdom foisted on Americans—and the rest of
the world. The existing literature has concluded that NPI policy and
social distancing have been essential to reducing the spread of COVID-19 and
the number of deaths due to this deadly pandemic. The authors make a
strong case proving otherwise.
By George C. Fareed, MD
Brawley, California
Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH
Pensacola, Florida
Donald C. Pompan, MD
Salinas, California
Updated
August 12, 2020
Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dr. Fauci:
You
were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s
response to the coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your
medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment,
returning to school, and of course medical treatment.
You are
largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de
facto “COVID-19 Czar." This is unusual in the medical profession in
which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form
of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well
as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged,
without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately
disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served
when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and
science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.
As
experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians
worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully
as an outpatient, within the first five to seven days of the onset of
symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and
azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the
literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based
combination treatment.
Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled
“Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients
that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis." He
further published an article in Newsweek in
July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and
opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study
designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that
there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ
cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be
substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses
without any cardiac effects.
Yet, you continue to reject the use
of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of
clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting
its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and
over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a
well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as
unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your
opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients,
medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and
just about everyone involved in medical decision making.
Indeed,
your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our
day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who
prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe
fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of
lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to
COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow
Americans to get their lives back.
We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.
QUESTIONS REGARDING EARLY OUTPATIENT TREATMENT:
There
are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu
like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory
failure, correct?
When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?
There
are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient
treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?
Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?
There
is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment
for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?
It is
true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk
individuals such as older patients and those with significant
comorbidities, correct?
Individuals with signs of early COVID-19
infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of
breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat
chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?
These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15 percent or higher, correct?
So
just so we are clear — the current standard of care now is to send
clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see”
approach?
Are you aware that physicians are successfully using
Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail”
for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?
Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID-19 as an outpatient?
Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?
Are
you aware that physicians using the medication combination or
“cocktail” recommend use within the first five to seven days of the
onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine
storm evolves?
Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no
pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu-like symptoms in
patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?
Would
you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of
symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was
beneficial?
Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians
in the United States and thousands across the globe who have
had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with
this “cocktail?”
Are you aware that there are at least 10
studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with
the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is
beyond anecdotal, correct?
If one of your loved ones had
diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and
tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they
do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?
Even with
multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety
of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the
medication combination outweigh the benefits?
Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The
Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials
Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”
But
NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done
in the first five to seven days after the onset of symptoms, correct?
All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?
Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?
None
of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full
cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin,
correct?
While the University of Minnesota study is referred to
as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first
five to seven days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death
rates were 3 percent), and no zinc was given, correct?
Again,
for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the
efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to
include Zinc and Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered
treatment within the first five to seven days of symptoms, nor focused
on the high-risk group, correct?
Therefore, you have no basis to
conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the
outpatient setting, within the first five to seven days of symptoms, in
high risk patients, is not effective, correct?
It is thus false
and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of
hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct?
How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that
contradicts its use?
Should it not be an absolute priority for
the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic
COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?
The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?
Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?
Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?
Are
you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing
established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail”
exert anti-viral effects?
So, the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline), and zinc — the “HCQ cocktail” — is based on science, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING SAFETY:
The
FDA writes the following: “In light of on-going serious cardiac adverse
events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits
of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for
authorized use.” So not only is the FDA saying that hydroxychloroquine
doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug.
Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for
over 65 years?
Isn’t it true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?
Do
you know of even a single study prior to COVID-19 that has provided
definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety
concerns?
Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine
has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including
steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis
(1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012
study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis
(2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study), just to name a
few? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?
Risch
estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be
9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a
high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with
co-morbidities can be 15 percent or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to
be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient
with co-morbidities?
To put this in perspective, the drug is
used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic
retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert
on June 15, that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical
sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”?
Moreover, consider
that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for five to seven
days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is
being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years — does it make
any sense to you logically that a five to seven day dose of
hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered
dangerous?
You are also aware that articles published in the New
England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University,
regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on
the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?
If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?
After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?
In
the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and
the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to
hydroxychloroquine, correct?
According to Dr. Risch, there is
no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a
dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr.
Risch’s findings?
Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with
your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict
the use of hydroxychloroquine?
Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions?
Are
you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for
prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s?
Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?
And
yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of
10,000 patients a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an
inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?
So,
people who want to be treated in that critical five- to seven-day period
and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view,
correct?
So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence
that the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses
currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have
made it very difficult, if not impossible in some cases, to get this
treatment, correct?
QUESTIONS REGARDING METHODOLOGY:
In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: “The
Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical
Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine.” Is that correct?
In
Dr. Risch’s article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he
disputes your opinion. He scientifically evaluated the data from the
studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to
support your opinions?
You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?
The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?
Are
you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote
an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called
“Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials
(RCT)?” Have you read that article?
In it Dr. Frieden states
that “many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and
public health action, including analysis of aggregate clinical or
epidemiological data.” Do you disagree with that?
Frieden
discusses “practiced-based evidence” as being essential in many
discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). Do you disagree
with that?
Frieden writes the following: “Current
evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials,
which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data.” Dr. Fauci,
have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?
Risch,
who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical
data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early
treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin.
He cites five or six studies, and in an updated article there are five
or six more, a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally
collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have
you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk
patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?
Is
there any document that you can produce for the American people of your
analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch’s analysis?
Yet,
despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of
the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting
on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?
Would
you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control
group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies
demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the
hydroxychloroquine “cocktail?”
Are you aware that the FDA
approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized
control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence? The trials came
later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?
You are well
aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of
penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this
in the best interest of our soldiers?
You would agree that many
lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were
used before any randomized clinical trials, correct?
You have
referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as “anecdotal,” which is
defined as “evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and
relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony,” correct?
But
there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in
which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has
there not been?
So, it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?
COMPARISON BETWEEN U.S. AND OTHER COUNTRIES REGARDING CASE FATALITY RATE: (IT WOULD BE VERY HELPFUL TO HAVE THE GRAPHS COMPARING OUR CASE FATALITY RATES TO OTHER COUNTRIES.)
Are
you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use
hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United
States?
Have you pondered the relationship between the use of
hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and
why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the
reduction of the case mortality rate.?
Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?
Why shouldn’t our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?
We
should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery
systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case
fatality rate from near 5 percent, to 2.5 percent, in line with many
countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in
half, correct?
Why not consult with countries who have lower
case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir
and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?
GIVING AMERICANS THE OPTION TO USE HCQ FOR COVID-19:
Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.” Did you read the article?
Are you aware that the cost of the hydroxychloroquine “cocktail” including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?
You are aware the cost of remdesivir is about $3,200?
So that’s about 60 doses of HCQ “cocktail,” correct?
In
fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of
hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors
who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?
Those
are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to
treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color
that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more
frequently of COVID-19, do they not?
But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?
Would
you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict
their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold
indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?
So,
160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school,
suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglected and dying
from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak
with another lockdown — is it not time to re-think your strategy that is
fully dependent on an effective vaccine?
Why not consider a
strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to
living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never
come?
Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors
around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the
literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for
typically one week with HCQ + zinc + azithromycin?
You don’t see
a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in
some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a
choice between the doctor and the patient?
While some doctors
may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is
indicated be able to offer it to their patients?
Are you aware
that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the
early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content
on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?
You
are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court
steps advocating for the early use of the hydroxychloroquine cocktail.
In fact, you said these were “a bunch of people spouting out something that isn’t true.” Dr. Fauci, these are not just “people,” these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?
Do
you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in
just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?
Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?
Did
you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel,
was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a “witch
doctor?”
Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the
group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the
following day?
Are you aware that physicians advocating for this
treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the
globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and
medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?
Don’t you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?
Are
you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off
the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as
“misinformation?”
Is it not misinformation to characterize
hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of
COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?
Is it not misleading
for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized
clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm the
efficacy of a treatment?
Was it not misinformation when on CNN
you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as
evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?
Is it
not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your
comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a
drug approval?
Don’t you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?
How
is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the
American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that
there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?
Fauci, if
you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like
symptoms, and you knew as you do now, that there is a safe and effective
cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility
of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the
medication?
Why not give our healthcare workers and first
responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at
a three to four times greater rate than the general public, the right
to choose along with their doctor if they want to use the medicine
prophylactically?
Why is the government inserting itself in a
way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication
and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?
Why
not give the American people the right to decide along with their
physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first
five to seven days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs
around $50?
FINAL QUESTIONS:
Fauci, please
explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make
reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine,
azithromycin, and zinc) administered within five to seven days of the
onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers
in so many states?
For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?
Please
explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first
five to seven days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19
infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?
Please
explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes
using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin + zinc
given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk
patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?
In fact, how
is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of
non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes
with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?
What is your
recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with
fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency
Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of
US physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this
case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.
If you were
in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of
penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on five
patients in England, or would you have stated that a randomized clinical
trial was needed?
Why would any physician put their medical
license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the
HCQ cocktail — that does not make them any money — unless they knew the
treatment could significantly help their patient?
Why would a
physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family
members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that
the medication was beneficial?
How is it informed and ethical
medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early
stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and
dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the
science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?
How
is your approach to “wait and see” in the early stages of COVID-19
infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science?
While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.
As
you recall, you stated on March 8, just a few weeks before the
devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren’t needed. You later said
that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would
disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a
recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect
themselves, as we are doing now?
Rather, you issued no such
warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives
in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is
that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you
made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently
now.
CONCLUSION:
Since the start of the pandemic,
physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19
infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as
indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize
risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best
when coupled with azithromycin. In fact, it was the president of the
United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the
pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with
hydroxychloroquine and a “Z-Pack.” Additional studies showed that
patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated
with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a
hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even
in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a “cocktail”
with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first five to seven days
after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.
As
clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described
by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on
the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun”
and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral
effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is
supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the “science” behind
the disease. Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first five to seven
days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ
cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that
early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at
high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization
for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure,
and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in
bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries
that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early
stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the
American Public.
Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas
from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues
to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to
be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested
what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc),
in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the
onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the
disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same,
unequivocally positive results.
Dr.
Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article
regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in
which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to
scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic
that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country.
Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is
simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist,
analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ
cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early
in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.
Curiously, despite a 65+
years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a
dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch
analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a
significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low,
especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with
high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years
rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long
periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are
suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at
similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding
hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly
misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health
professionals. The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to
prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection
far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication
for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state
from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government’s obstruction of the
early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with
hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so
long, is unprecedented.
It
is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding
the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The
government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered
physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their
patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as
cytokine storm.
Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily.
Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking
down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more
damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that
thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk
individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and
azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch’s
Newsweek article declares, “The key to defeating COVID-19 already
exists. We need to start using it.”
Very Respectfully,
George C. Fareed, MD
Brawley, California
Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH
Pensacola, Florida
Donald C. Pompan, MD
Salinas, California
Dr. Anthony Fauci, between magazine photo shoots and throwing the first pitch at baseball games, seems to have forgotten the cardinal rule of medicine – first, do no harm. By downplaying the effectiveness and highlighting the alleged dangers of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), it can be argued he has cost American lives, and will cost more, coming as he has between real doctors and real patients and real world experience with a drug that has been safely used to treat conditions like lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for six decades without any serious side effects.
Fauci is in love with clinical studies, which are fine to determine effectiveness and risk of vaccines, but pale in comparison to the results of actual use.
One can understand the opposition of Big Pharma and Democrats in Congress to HCQ use against the Wuhan Chinese virus. There’s no money in a commonly available drug that costs something like 50 cents a pill. And if its widespread use were as effective here as it has been worldwide, it destroys a key rationale for the lockdowns which give liberals unconstitutional power to control every aspect of our lives Worse yet, for some people, it might indeed save a great many American lives and that would improve public perception of President Donald J. Trump’s handling of the crisis and boost Trump’s reelection chances. Can’t have that, even if it costs American lives.
Dr. Fauci, who has not wasted this crisis and parlayed it into a media career, recently opined on one of the main HCQ opponents, telling the doctors at MSNBC:.................
Hydroxychloroquine
can save lives -- lots of lives. The question then is how many lives
have been lost and will be lost due the words and actions of Dr. Anthony
Fauci..........To Read More....
This coronavirus scare is insanity! I've been storing articles to support that statement for some weeks, and it's time to organize the information I've gathered, and share it with you.
In the past I made this observation:
This article will be another
expansion on my regular coronavirus updates, which I've posted regularly
in recent weeks. I would think there would be, at the very least, a
modicum of outrage over the truth versus the hyperbole being promoted by
a corrupt media. Shockingly, there isn't! In spite of the fact the
vast majority of people I talk to, many of them wearing masks because
they have to for their jobs, believe this is all nonsense. Oh,
there are those who are panicked, make no mistake about that, but almost
every one of the people I talked to agreed infectious diseases are a
part of life, that people get sick, and people die, and it happens every
year, and will happen every year hereafter. But no one shut down the
economy over it.
So that bodes well these two questions:
Are we to shut down the economy and destroy people's lives every
year from now on for every new infectious disease that strikes?
Are the rantings of a corrupt and hysterical media to be the criteria for deciding public health issues from now on?
I've posted much (322 posts) on P&D about this corrupt coronavirus issue, and from a great many sources to
show this "pandemic" is mostly politically motivated media driven hysteria. And in spite of
all the evidence to the contrary, we're accepting insanity versus
reality. Here are the actual numbers.
Confirmed infections in the United States,
4,564,973. Infection rate, 1.3%
United States deaths, 153,378. Mortality rate, 0.04%.
Again, and again, and again I emphasize the substantial difference between the infection and mortality rates of coronavirus and past virus attacks.
In 1968 the Hong Kong flu killed over 1,000,000 people worldwide.
Worldwide population in 1968 was 3,534,000,000. The mortality rate was
0.3%! America lost 100,000 that year, and
morality rate was 0.05%.
In 1957/58 the Asian flu, which originated in Guizhou, China killed
up to 2,000,000 people in a worldwide population of 2,900,000,000 had a
mortality rate 0.068%. America lost 116,000 people. The mortality rate
was 0.07%.
No one sought to shut down the nation then when the infection and mortality rates were higher. Why are we now?
Worse yet, the rate has clearly been inflated by fraudulent reporting by as much as 25%. We know they'recooking the books here, and misrepresenting them here, here, and it continues. The "Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention Director Dr. Robert Redfield, acknowledged the number of COVID-19 deaths could be inflated where someone who
had the virus actually died from something else, but it was recorded as a
COVID death."
No doubt, you’ve heard about the astronomical infection rates being seen
in Florida. But when many labs were reporting 100 percent positives, a TV station decided to look into this. In the case of Orlando Health, their reported 98% positives were really 9.4%. The Orlando VA Medical Center
showed 76% positives, but this was really 6%. The discrepancies were
explained as failure of certain labs to include both positive and
negative results in their reports to the state. If you think that sounds
a bit fishy, you’re not alone.
We still see the infection rate numbers going up substantially, while the mortality rate, the number that really counts, is remaining low, and is dropping. Why? Because they're testing large segments of the population for this virus now. That was not done to this degree in the past, and that makes things look far worse than they are. Mortality rates are what count, and even with all the false reporting to make the number far scarier than they actually are, they're still not comparable to the Hong Kong or Asian flu.
To give balance to all this Mike Shaw comes to the nation's rescue in his article, COVID-19 Panic Porn explaining how all this testing is misleading.
He notes:
An oft-repeated figure suggests that there are 1031 virus particles on Earth, and that at least one of them infects every living cell on the planet. Need more? Considering that the size of a virus ranges from 20 - 300 nanometers, if you could lay them end-to-end, the column would extend almost 200 light years into space. And, speaking of space, there are over ten million times more viruses on Earth than there are stars in the entire universe.
Before you freak out too much about how many people are testing positive for SARS-CoV-2), note that Human Herpesvirus 6 is found in almost 100% of humans, and is associated with many diseases far more serious than COVID-19. HHV-6’s little brother HHV-4 (aka Epstein-Barr) is “only” present in 90-95% of us, and while well-known as the cause of infectious mononucleosis, it is also associated with certain cancers and chronic fatigue syndrome. And, Herpesviruses come with a bonus. Once you’re infected, the virus remains in your body forever.
Varicella-zoster virus, commonly known as the cause of chickenpox, hangs around and can manifest later in life as the very nasty disease of shingles.
Still, it is important to realize that the vast majority of viruses do not cause disease in humans. Typically, when a virus jumps to humans from another species, there can be problems, as our immune systems must now confront this new invader, and will sometimes overreact—this overreaction causing disease. A virus will self-defeat if too many hosts die. Usually, new viral outbreaks tend to become less harmful with time; and potential hosts develop better immunity.
1. In June, we tested over 2,231 patients (data through [23 June]). Positive rate is now close to 20% (was 4-6% in May). Vast majority of the cases are mild to very mild symptoms. Average age of the people getting tested in mid-30s.
2. Very different patient (in terms of age) than we’ve seen before June. Most of these patients would not have met criteria that we previously had (and all the health facilities had) for COVID testing. Now with more testing kits we are able to test a broader group of patients.
3. Clinically, we’ve had very few hospital transfers because of COVID. Vast majority of the patients are better within 2-3 days of the visit and most would be described as having a cold (a mild one at that) or the symptoms related to allergies.
4. In terms of what is driving them to the ER—Roughly half have been told by their employers to get a test. They have a sneeze or a cough and their employer tells them to go get tested. The other half just want to know.
5. Heard several stories of how discharge planners are being pressured to put COVID as primary diagnosis— as that pays significantly better.
6. Overall, based on what we are seeing at our facilities, the above information is really a positive story. You have more people testing positive with really minimal symptoms. This means that the fatality rate is less than commonly reported.
Let's try and get
this right once and for all. Epidemiology isn't science! It's
statistics, speculation, guess work. All of which are components of
science, but in themselves, none of them are science. Science must be
observable and repeatable. Epidemiological projections are incapable of
demonstrating either. Only time, observation and the actual
documentation of events represent science.
There are seven reasons why epidemiology isn't science listed in Steve Bigler's article, " A retired physician's take on epidemiologists."
And what it all comes down to is this: Epidemiologists
are academically anointed well paid crystal ball gazers, only their
crystal balls are computer models, and just as unreliable. But they're
always going to make it worse than it is because if they make the
numbers large, and they turn out small, no one blames them. If they
make them small, and the reverse occurs, everyone blames them. Their
goal is to be well paid while having "no personal accountability for the
outcome. Nice work if you can get it!"
One important aspect of this is just how infectious is this coronavirus, of which there are 40 of them. Mike Shaw once again:
"Hendrik
Streeck, MD PhD, Head of the Institute of Virology and Institute for
HIV Research, University Hospital Bonn, Germany"............
“There is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping.
Severe outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer
together over a longer period of time.........“There
is no significant risk of catching the disease when you go shopping. Severe
outbreaks of the infection were always a result of people being closer together
over a longer period of time....
As to spreading via surface contamination, Streeck noted that “When we took
samples from door handles, phones, or toilets it has not been possible to
cultivate the virus in the laboratory on the basis of these swabs. To actually
[catch] the virus it would be necessary that someone coughs into their hand,
immediately touches a doorknob and then straight after that another person
grasps the handle and goes on to touch their face.”
There is also the recently confirmed finding that COVID-19 is a droplet
infection and cannot be transmitted through the air. According to virologist Christian Drosten, coronavirus is extremely sensitive to drying out, so the only
way of contracting it is if you were to inhale the droplets. There have been various reports touting long viability for the
virus on surfaces, but caution should be exercised in comparing ideal
laboratory conditions to real life.............
Which brings us to the stunning findings of Professor Yitzhak Ben Israel
of Tel Aviv University who plotted the rates of new coronavirus infections of
the U.S., U.K., Sweden, Italy, Israel, Switzerland, France, Germany, and Spain.
As it happens, irrespective of whether the country quarantined like Israel, or
went about business as usual like Sweden, coronavirus peaked and subsided in
exactly the same way.
The claim was this virus was highly infectious. In fact, claims were made this was the worst of the worst! We now know that's blatantly false, but it was the excuse needed to force America into wearing masks, shutting down businesses, controlling the population.
Let me say this as clearly as I can. Masks
Are Neither Effective Nor Safe: A Summary Of The Science. Please read
this entire piece as it takes apart every false argument for masks we've been inundated
with, using real science, not computer models, not epidemiological guesswork,
not speculation: Factual science.
And no matter how unpopular that science may be with the fomenters of this
hysteria, the authors conclude with this.
In the summer of 2020 the United States is experiencing a surge of popular
mask use, which is frequently promoted by the media, political leaders
and celebrities. Homemade and store-bought cloth masks and surgical
masks or N95 masks are being used by the public especially when entering
stores and other publicly accessible buildings. Sometimes bandanas or
scarves are used. The use of face masks, whether cloth, surgical or
N95, creates a poor obstacle to aerosolized pathogens as we can see from
the meta-analyses and other studies in this paper, allowing both
transmission of aerosolized pathogens to others in various directions,
as well as self-contamination.
It must also be
considered that masks impede the necessary volume of air intake required
for adequate oxygen exchange, which results in observed physiological
effects that may be undesirable. Even 6- minute walks, let alone more
strenuous activity, resulted in dyspnea. The volume of unobstructed
oxygen in a typical breath is about 100 ml, used for normal
physiological processes. 100 ml O2 greatly exceeds the volume of a
pathogen required for transmission.
The foregoing
data show that masks serve more as instruments of obstruction of normal
breathing, rather than as effective barriers to pathogens. Therefore,
masks should not be used by the general public, either by adults or
children, and their limitations as prophylaxis against pathogens should
also be considered in medical settings.
Let's try and get this right, there clearly is a cure, or at least a drug that works well enough for critical patients to recover. Hydroxychloroquine. However, anyone, including medical professionals, who promote it are being banned from social media sites for saying this works. It's been used extensively for many years, it's proven safe, no matter what that idiot Neil Cavuto, who has now lost all credibility says, and importantly, it's inexpensive.
Media corruption? You bet! Here's a commentary by Mike Shaw about COVID-19 Censorship demonstrating just how corrupt this has become including attacking those who advocate for children to return to school saying:
Disagreeing
with politically correct opinion is one thing, but brutally censoring
it is a whole different matter. It looks like that Star Chamber has come
back to haunt us. Will it be coming for you next?
Here's what's real and we need to get this!
This coronavirus is with us now forever. Every virus that's attacked humanity is still popping up every year, infecting and killing people every year, and so to will this virus. That's life. It's not going to change, so now do we destroy our economy every year when someone comes down with this virus? How about when a new virus pops up? And they're going to be with us forever, and new ones pop up continually, that's the nature of viruses, and that's not going to change. Here and Here.
What will be the long term negative consequences to society and small businesses? None
of this bodes well for small businesses, the economy as a whole, and
for the continued stability of society, and it shouldn't take a degree
in economics to understand that.
So now what about the children? Do they go back to school? Kids Should Be Going Back To School This Fall In-Person, July 27, 2020 By Michael D. Shaw, who points out it's not only acceptable, it's good for the kids, and ends with this comment:
My
take is that at the very least, we need some sort of defined endpoint,
and not a constant moving of the goalposts.
Recall that we were
initially just trying to “flatten the curve” and not overload the
hospitals. I had noted early on that our COVID-19 policy has pretty much
been: Quarantine the healthy and ignore the vulnerable. Keeping
children out of school continues to quarantine the healthy, while
offering a poor substitute for education.
So, what will be the "defined end point" for a return to normal?
No one tests positive for this virus again? No!
No one dies again from this virus? No!
A vaccine is developed, which will take years. No!
A cure? No
Trump is defeated in November? Yes! Because that's what this is really all about.
COVID-19 can cause a fever, but nothing like the fever of hysteria gripping broadcast and social media over hydroxychloroquine, a potential treatment for the Wuhan flu. Ever since President Trump mentioned hydroxy as a possible therapeutic, the media have castigated it as worse than rat poison. They've criticized any use of it in a constant barrage of fear porn, telling everyone that this 60-year-old drug would kill anyone who dared take it.
When Trump mentioned he was taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative, Fox News crank Neil Cavuto had a seizure, telling his audience, “I cannot stress enough. This will kill you.” Tell that to those Americans taking hydroxy to the tune of five million prescriptions written each year
Hydroxy was FDA-approved in 1955 and is taken for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. FDA approval
means the approved drug is both efficacious and safe. All of a sudden, after 60 years, the FDA decided hydroxy is no longer safe because of, “serious heart rhythm problems and other safety issues, including blood and lymph system disorders, kidney injuries, and liver problems and failure.” If it is so unsafe,
why did the FDA not rescind its 60-year-old approval?...........To Read More...
The Ohio Board of Pharmacy reversed a ban on the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of coronavirus infections after Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine (R) asked for a reversal.
“I agree with the statement from Dr. Steven Hahn, Commissioner of the
Food and Drug Administration, that the decision about prescribing
hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 should be between a doctor and a
patient,” DeWine said in a statement. “Therefore, I am asking the Ohio
Board of Pharmacy to halt their new rule prohibiting the selling or
dispensing of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for the treatment or
prevention of COVID-19.”
“The Board of Pharmacy and the State Medical Board of Ohio should
revisit the issue, listen to the best medical science, and open the
process up for comment and testimony from experts,” DeWine said.
Earlier this week, Breitbart News reported,
“some physicians claim the public is being denied accurate information
about treatment for the coronavirus, including those who held a summit
and press conference in Washington, DC, earlier this week.”.........To Read More...
Finally, we have very encouraging news on the hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) front! SIX positive clinical studies were released at the beginning of July:
three from the United States (one from Michigan at Henry Ford
Hospital, and two from New York state, including the one by Dr.
Vladimir Zelenko),
three from other countries (Portugal, India, and Brazil)
The bottom line from all six: HCQ given early in COVID-19, alone or with zinc and azithromycin, reduces hospitalizations and deaths, with no serious heart or other adverse events in the short 5-7 day course of treatment for COVID-19.
Most media ignored these six positive studies, continuing
to focus on fear-mongering about HCQ “dangers” from now discredited,
poorly designed and seriously flawed reports from use in critically ill
hospitalized patients.
Then in a stunning development, Henry Ford Health System (Detroit MI)
team of physicians, researchers and ethicists in early July filed an
urgent application with FDA Commissioner Dr. Hahn applying for FDA to
issue a new Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and approval of HCQ for COVID-19 early, outpatientuse. The Henry Ford clinical trial of HCQ early in hospitalized COVID patients showed a 50% reduction in deaths. This open letter supports this FDA EUA Request and is signed by clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists...........To Read More....
Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.
Monday, April 27, 2020 Bryan Fischer - Guest Columnist
How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak - caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV - the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.
The Virology Journal - the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health - published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading - get ready for this - “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report...that chloroquine
has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”..........To Read More.....
Unlike 1776, the
threat to freedom does not come from a faraway British King or his
military force as our ancestors faced. In 2020, we face an invisible
enemy, the COVID-19 virus unleashed by China on the world, and political
enemies within our own borders who are using the medical crisis of
COVID-19 as a political weapon to curtail our freedoms in every sector
of our lives.
As a physician and as an American, it makes me overwhelmingly sad—and
angry—that a treatable medical problem has been so weaponized by the
opponents of our freedom that we have lost our most fundamental
freedoms.
Striving for LIBERTY is literally in my very DNA: my ancestor Thomas
Gray was one of only 50 out of 600 colonists who survived the Starving
Times at Jamestown 1609-1611, which was America’s first failed attempt
at socialism. My other ancestors fought for liberty in the first
American Revolution in 1776. My Quaker ancestors fought to end slavery.
Others fought in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. I have fought for
medical freedom for my entire medical career. Fighting for liberty is
quite literally at the very core of who I am—as an American and as a
physician.
Our Nation was founded by those courageous men and women who chose to
fight for the freedom to live their lives without tyrants controlling
their every move and interfering with their ability to worship God as
they chose. For two hundred and forty-four years following the signing
of the Declaration of Independence and then the defeat of the British at
Yorktown, the American Experiment has carried out the quantum leap idea
in human history: LIBERTY and LIFE are unalienable rights given to us by our Creator. Our freedom is not based on the whim of any human-created government.
Yet 244 years after this momentous July 4, 1776, we are facing the
most devastating and unparalleled assault on EVERY dimension of our
independence and freedom as Americans. Suddenly, under the guise of
“protecting” us from COVID-19, we have abruptly lost:
Freedom to travel and move freely around our communities and country
Freedom of worship – churches
remain closed, while anarchists gather in groups of thousands to wreak
mayhem on our communities
Freedom of speech: at work, on
line, in schools, in print and broadcast media. The media propaganda and
censorship are worse than I witnessed during the Cold War
Freedom to assemble peacefully for
normal activities: exceptions of course granted for the thousands
gathering for riots, looting, burning our cities, businesses, historical
monuments, and terrorizing peaceful citizens
Freedom to work normally
Freedom to play and recreate
Freedom to breathe freely without a mandated facial covering or mask when we leave our homes
Freedom to preserve our life with
medical doctors and treatments of our choosing, such as
hydroxychloroquine that has become a demonized and highly restricted
medicine, previously widely available, cheap, safely used worldwide
since FDA-aproved for safety and effectiveness in 1955. For 65 years,
doctors in every country have been using this medicine for many
different diseases, including viral ones
Our own governors and mayors have become the NEW tyrants,
little dictators over their fiefdoms, micromanaging every aspect of our
lives and work and worship. They are worse in their destruction of our
independence in daily life than British King George’s tyranny imposed on
the early colonists.
Like the British King, the political elite and their families are exempt from the controls placed on you and me............All of these are tactics of totalitarian governments throughout human
history whether carried out by a king or dictator or an elected
official suddenly gone rogue..................To Read More....
Remember Surgisphere? That was the name of the company that allegedly gathered data from hundreds of hospitals around the world
and subsequently published a research paper claiming people treated
with hydroxychloroquine were more likely to die than those who were not.
That paper made international news at the time, but dozens of doctors
questioned the credibility of its data. The paper was eventually
retracted and, as of today, it appears Surgisphere is no more:..............
Indeed, if you click on Surgisphere’s website you just get a message saying “This Site Is Suspended.”
When
doctors initially wrote to Lancet, the journal that published the
study, to question the validity of the research, Surgisphere claimed it
could provide all of the data to back up its claims. But things took a
turn when the Guardian revealed some of the company’s staff had rather unusual resumes.
When doctors initially wrote to Lancet, the journal that published
the study, to question the validity of the research, Surgisphere claimed
it could provide all of the data to back up its claims. But things took
a turn when the Guardian revealed some of the company’s staff had rather unusual resumes.
A
search of publicly available material suggests several of Surgisphere’s
employees have little or no data or scientific background. An employee
listed as a science editor appears to be a science fiction author and
fantasy artist whose professional profile suggests writing is her
fulltime job.Another employee listed as a marketing executive is an
adult model and events hostess, who also acts in videos for
organisations.
Lancet launched an independent peer review of the paper but when it came time for Surgisphere to put its cards on the table, it balked:..........To Read More.....
My Take - Actually, we shouldn't be surprised at this. Scientific fraud is rampant, and these science journals have become so corrupted none of them can be relied on for accuracy, truth or integrity. Whether is global warming, pesticides or health issues, they need to be constantly overseen in the search for truth.
The studies,
published in renowned scientific journals, produced astounding results
and altered the course of research into the coronavirus pandemic.
One
undercut President Trump’s claim that certain antimalarial drugs cure
Covid-19, the illness caused by the virus, concluding that the
medications in fact were dangerous to patients. The other found that
some blood pressure drugs did not increase the risk of Covid-19 and
might even be protective.
Both
studies were led by a professor at Harvard, and both depended on a huge
international database of patient medical records that few experts had
ever heard of.
But on Thursday, the
studies were retracted by the scientific journals in which they had
appeared, The New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet, because
the authors could not verify the data on which the results depended.
The retractions may breathe new life into the antimalarial drugs
hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, relentlessly promoted by Mr. Trump
as a remedy for Covid-19 despite a lack of evidence. On Wednesday, after
the journals noted concerns about the studies, the World Health
Organization announced that it would resume trials of the medications............To Read More...
