Coronavirus

Here, the pharmaceutical manufacturers warn about the risks of using hydroxychloroquine (and chloroquine) to treat COVID-19.
As this warning has also been issued by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and the (German) Federal Institute for Drugs and Medical Devices (BfArM), it could only be obtained illegally from quacks.

yeah we can trust the pharmaceutical manufacturers now eh?!
Of course there is no money involved, eh?!

Of course, there is money involved: the pharmaceutical companies do not want to get millions of damages claims on their necks. (And maybe they are showing some responsibility.)

Where's the study/studies that were done on covid patients who were given the hydroxychloroquine cocktail early? By that I mean given to patients not hospitalized?

Good to see you here. Perhaps you will answer the first set of questions that Fauci has yet to.
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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 ofsymptoms, 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?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Start with the first one.

well, they are immune from dmage claims by vaccines!

Hydroxychloroquine is used as vaccine? Where? And how does it work?

No. The hydroxychloroquine cocktail is used to effectively treat covid patients in the early stage. It's been used for 65 years. It's FDA approved . . . until Fauci made a declaration.

NOW, 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?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

So go ahead and answer?

I didn't wrote that,

Apparently some recent observational studies (not double blind) on 1000 Belgians with covid and hospitalized have determined thata regimen of low dose HQC (200 mg/24 hrs v 2000 mg/12 hours) can actually help lower the death rate of those hospitalized. This is a first actual non politicized result of the use of hcq with an idea that questined what was the lowest effective dose that would NOT trigger cardiac disrhythmia .

The earlier English studies have apparently been using 2000 mg /12 hrs. So any effective rsults that may have been accrued by HCQ were perhaps wiped away by its toxicity in highdoses

using multi-variable comorbidity risk tables, thy found that a possible decrease of death by covid had been reduced by 30%.
IT IS NOOT A VACCINE, Its a possible treatment medicine.
The apparent variables are the fact that this low dose was actually effective , whereas the high dose therapy led to the cardiac .

Now Ill bet the conspiracists will say that feeding high doses of HCQ during the early studies was being done by the "One World Government" crowd to reduce the surplus population.

A similar study using azythromycin an zinc had a similar result.

The main reason that there were these conflicting results, I suspect, involved a simple human trait to NOT work well in interdisciplinary sciences. The studies that showed success recently are those where dose levels were kept low. (A study in brazil using "open label" v "double blind") found exactly the opposite .
Despite the silly political climate (where politicians make believe they know what theyre talking about), Im sorta glad that scientists out there with the actual disciplinary knowledge , by not getting the shits of how politic has gotten involved, futzed around with "the dosage balance" where the efficacy could be negatively affected by higher doses.
SO GLENN, I will yield about this. Im glad to stick and read the literature and finding out something that applies, at least for covid, "Less is more"

‘Viruses cannot be grown (purified, isolated) in pure culture
and pass the Koch Postulate test’ to prove their existence and effect
– UK Department of Health Freedom of Information on response

Aaah, the Babylonian Brotherhood is working again.

The hydroxychloroquine cocktail is used to effectively treat covid patients in the early stage. It's been used for 65 years. It's FDA approved . . . until Fauci made a declaration.

NOW!

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?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

So go ahead and answer?

I didn't say it was.

And it is not a possible treatment; it was being used to great effect when given early on. Regarding Fauci's condemnation of the hydroxychloroquine, he has yet to answer those doctors' who want to know:
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________

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?
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Start with the first one.

Meanwhile..



In the first half of 2020, the number of deaths in Sweden was "about 10% higher than the average .. over the last five years". In April "the number of deaths was almost 40% higher than average".

They say that the hardest thing to convince people of, is the obvious.

If you think that's hard, try getting Fauci to answer questions in an open letter from doctors who want to know why he condemned the hydroxychloroquine cocktail when it was being used effectively. In fact, ask anyone, and watch them ignore the question.

no it wasnt. The Brussels study, was not made available because it only was finished in JULY, and all the other studies, somehow used high doses which actually caused the often fatal cardiac dysrhythmia. The french study also used high dose but did not statistically separate the cases.
Science is not a bunch of fortune tellers, it builds on the successes AND MISTAKES of what went on previously.
I can see how this all occurred and if the market reassures AND the politicians would have acted more responsibly because , afer all, they dont understand anything of which they preach. Trump and Bori had no fuckin idea about what they say when it comes to medicines and its obvious neither of them follow advice(Same with Brazil's president an the dumass results that weere found in Sweden)
The last real scientist to take the US presidency was Jimmy Carter. And he got blindsided in several ways by dumass lawyer politician

Lets focus on what the new data says. Thats what the Scientiic method would diictate..
If this is reproducible in

Are you trying to say that all of the doctors who claim success in treating covid with the hydroxychloroquine cocktail are fortune tellers? Or, are you trying to say that they weren't successful?

Secret Service copes with coronavirus cases
in aftermath of Trump appearances

When President Trump gave a speech to a group of sheriffs in Tampa late last month,
his decision to travel forced a large contingent of Secret Service agents to head to a
state that was then battling one of the worst coronavirus surges in the nation.

Even before Air Force One touched down on July 31, the fallout was apparent: Five
Secret Service agents already on the ground had to be replaced after one tested
positive for the coronavirus and the others working in proximity were presumed
to be infected...

US coronavirus rates are rising fast among children

As some schools begin in-person classes, data compiled by the American Academy
of Pediatrics from the summer show that cases, hospitalizations and deaths from
the coronavirus have increased at a faster rate in children and teenagers than
among the general public.

Young children seem to catch and transmit the virus less than adults, and children of
all ages tend not to experience severe complications from it. But Dr. Sean O’Leary,
vice chairman of the American Academy of Pediatrics’ committee on infectious diseases,
said that substantial community spread in many parts of the United States corresponded
with more infections among children...