Coronavirus

[lenarenee]

As a side note, these doctors are seeing equal hospitalization rates for vaxxed and unvaxxed patients.

This doesn't sound right. But where are these doctors? What vaccine did these hospitalized patients have? I have daily access to some of the best and most current information out there, and this is not what was reported in the UK (as of end of July) or the US.

 

[szaza]

This doesn't sound right. But where are these doctors? What vaccine did these hospitalized patients have? I have daily access to some of the best and most current information out there, and this is not what was reported in the UK (as of end of July) or the US.

I'm following the numbers in Belgium and the Netherlands. Both report significantly more unvaccinated than vaccinated people in the hospitals. In Belgium there's a big difference in vaccinations between the capital area and the rest of the country (61% in the capital, 73% in the small German speaking population, 78% in the French speaking population and 89% in the Dutch speaking population). By far the most hospital admissions are in the capital area.

 

[soapysarah]

I’ve just looked at this post, rather late I know.

From my in-medical reading over the past year, I am dismayed to find that anything which does not agree with the ‘official’ narrative is removed or subject to ad hominem attacks; where’s the debate? 1984 anyone?

The FLCCC website has details of the protocol for use in prevention and treatment. I see that this information is a problem for governments because if there is a treatment for the rona the waxxes cannot be approved for emergency use - no money to be made. IVM is off-patent and cheap. The BIRD group also have the results of many studies on IVM. My view on IVM is the same as that for vitamin D; if there are no down-sides but plenty of up-sides why would be not use it? IVM has been approved for use in humans since 1987 and many millions of doses taken around the world without reports of side-effects causing death and lasting disability.

Dr Peter McCullugh stated in a video, sorry no to hand, that the hospitalisations are running at about the same percentage split as vax uptake - no differentiation. He says that the CDC stopped counting back in May so have no idea as to the real number. Factoring in the use of the PCR test which is being run at too many cycles we are very much in the dark With 93-97% false positives. If you’re into statistics then John Dee’s Almanac is a go-to.

I’d have more faith in government measures if they did not control the narrative and get the MSM to take down the comments of Nobel scientists and label alternative views as ‘misinformation’. Open debate would be better.

Dr Robert W Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, was taken off LinkedIn, although he was lucky and had some influential friends who got him reinstated. He does not advise these treatments, not vaccines under the legal definition, to anyone other than the elderly or people with serious co-morbidities.

Having just seen that the UK government is planning on jabbing 12-year-olds with out parental consent, not that consent would make it right, I am surprised that millions are not on the streets objecting and launching legal action under Human Rights legislation and the Nuremberg Code. What have we come to that this is considered acceptable behaviour; the risks far outwiegh the benefits (none).

Apologies for the rant but we are on a slippery slope to a state where people accept apartheid and coercion without batting an eyelid - not good as history has shown.

 

[beckster51]

Sorry, I couldn't find this video earlier; it confirms that HCQ is now an FDA-approved off-label treatment for C19. The only significant contraindication for HCQ treatment is a blood disorder that is most common among African-Americans.

Like the video linked in my prior post, this one also emphasizes the need for pre-hospitalization treatment. The doctor says you should demand monoclonal antibodies before being admitted, because for some unknown reason, you cannot receive them once you are admitted, despite their great effectiveness. Lots more great info about starting early treatment, and treating long-haul symptoms.

And unlike the prior video, there is no political or religious commentary in this one. So if you can't bear watching the other one, this one will be much easier for you. As a side note, these doctors are seeing equal hospitalization rates for vaxxed and unvaxxed patients.

I don't think the assertions in this video are true. This is the physician who is being sued by Baylor for stating far and wide he is affiliated with them when he has not been affiliated with them for some time. They do not wish to be named as his employer because they feel he is an embarrassment. He is also being heavily criticized in general by the medical community for treating Covid 19 patients with HCQ since it is NOT FDA or WHO approved or recommended for the treatment of Covid 19. Here are 2 articles that explain this.

https://www.reuters.com/article/fac...ovid-19-has-not-changed-in-2021-idUSL1N2M70NL
https://www.medpagetoday.com/special-reports/exclusives/93936
If Dr. Zelenko has been nominated for a Nobel Prize, no one can confirm that because the list is secret. Also, the Nobel committee accepts every name that offered by anyone for the nomination list. Anyone can be nominated for a Nobel Prize.

The reason that monoclonal antibodies are not generally used once you are admitted to the hospital is that they are not effective unless they are given very early on, often before symptoms or with minor symptoms. That is why Dr. Fauci, the FDA, and the CDC are encouraging everyone who has a positive test for Covid to seek treatment with monoclonal antibodies before becoming truly ill. They are a very effective treatment during the extremely early stages of disease, but are totally ineffective after the disease progresses.

This is the problem with seeking medical information from platforms like youtube. There is no editorial oversight. Anyone can make a video and place it on the platform for all to see whether it is accurate information or not. Same problem as getting "news" from any social media platform. Some of it may be accurate, but since there is no oversight, who knows what is true and what is not. I cannot stress how important it is to seek medical information from a reputable source. Why do people believe that the medical experts would not recommend a treatment such as HCQ if it works? They would be delighted to use HCQ if it had been proven to work, but it has not. There have been no double blind studies to date that have proven that it is an effective treatment. If you give it to someone and they get better, it is not proof that HCQ was the reason. They may also have eaten eggs for breakfast every day since diagnosis. Did that cure them? This is correlation and not causation. It's so very easy to confuse them. All "cures" to date for the use of HCQ and Ivermectin are anecdotes, not proven treatments or cures. I wish it were true. We could all move on with our old lives if it were. Please don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Susie]

Like the video linked in my prior post, this one also emphasizes the need for pre-hospitalization treatment. The doctor says you should demand monoclonal antibodies before being admitted, because for some unknown reason, you cannot receive them once you are admitted, despite their great effectiveness. Lots more great info about starting early treatment, and treating long-haul symptoms.

Our freestanding ERs and hospital based ERs are administering monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab and imdevimab) to anyone who has an oxygen saturation (SpO2) of 90% or less, then sending them home with oxygen. Our hospitals are just that full.

 

[beckster51]

I’ve just looked at this post, rather late I know.

From my in-medical reading over the past year, I am dismayed to find that anything which does not agree with the ‘official’ narrative is removed or subject to ad hominem attacks; where’s the debate? 1984 anyone?

The FLCCC website has details of the protocol for use in prevention and treatment. I see that this information is a problem for governments because if there is a treatment for the rona the waxxes cannot be approved for emergency use - no money to be made. IVM is off-patent and cheap. The BIRD group also have the results of many studies on IVM. My view on IVM is the same as that for vitamin D; if there are no down-sides but plenty of up-sides why would be not use it? IVM has been approved for use in humans since 1987 and many millions of doses taken around the world without reports of side-effects causing death and lasting disability.

Dr Peter McCullugh stated in a video, sorry no to hand, that the hospitalisations are running at about the same percentage split as vax uptake - no differentiation. He says that the CDC stopped counting back in May so have no idea as to the real number. Factoring in the use of the PCR test which is being run at too many cycles we are very much in the dark With 93-97% false positives. If you’re into statistics then John Dee’s Almanac is a go-to.

I’d have more faith in government measures if they did not control the narrative and get the MSM to take down the comments of Nobel scientists and label alternative views as ‘misinformation’. Open debate would be better.

Dr Robert W Malone, inventor of mRNA technology, was taken off LinkedIn, although he was lucky and had some influential friends who got him reinstated. He does not advise these treatments, not vaccines under the legal definition, to anyone other than the elderly or people with serious co-morbidities.

Having just seen that the UK government is planning on jabbing 12-year-olds with out parental consent, not that consent would make it right, I am surprised that millions are not on the streets objecting and launching legal action under Human Rights legislation and the Nuremberg Code. What have we come to that this is considered acceptable behaviour; the risks far outwiegh the benefits (none).

Apologies for the rant but we are on a slippery slope to a state where people accept apartheid and coercion without batting an eyelid - not good as history has shown.

Dr. Robert Malone did not invent the mRNA technology, and he was removed from LinkedIn because he inferred that he did. He did write a paper in 1989 about the potentials for RNA technology. That hardly makes him the inventor of mRNA vaccines. He has admitted since then that he didn't invent them. Dr. Katalin Kariko and Dr. Drew Weissman are credited with laying the groundwork for mRNA vaccines. LinkedIn is not platform that has any authority to certify qualifications of any kind. They are a media platform that allows people to build a professional identity.

See my reply to AliOop about Dr. McCullough. What does your statement "hospitalisations are running at about the same percentage split as vax uptake - no differentiation" mean? I don't understand that statement, but I would like to learn what it means.

There are downsides of Ivermectin. You can look them up. The biggest one is that it has not been proven to provide any benefit in the treatment of Covid 19. I wish someone would explain to me why they believe there is a group of people in the medical community who are suppressing effective treatments for Covid 19. The physicians who treat patients would use whatever has been proven to work, regardless of cost. A lot of people want to believe in the "deep state" of government that suppresses physicians that tout cures, but the facts are that people for reasons of fame, fortune, ego, ignorance, and/or the need for attention pass misinformation along to unsuspecting people. Physicians and scientists who provide true evidence of advances in treatment are not suppressed. They are celebrated, and they don't have to go on youtube or podcasts to get that out to the public.

Open debate in the medical community is alive and well. But the gold standard for deciding on effective treatments is evidence. These physicians have not presented evidence, only anecdotes. It might not hurt you to take Ivermectin, but it probably won't help you either. The real risk in taking unproven treatments is that they take on significance that they do not deserve and overshadow the development of treatments that will actually work based on double blind trials that establish protocols that determine how and when they should be used.

Again, as I have said in earlier posts, I am just stating facts. These are not emotional issues for me, and I don't stand to benefit from giving anyone inaccurate information. To put it simply, other than feeling strongly that people should be given accurate information, I have no dog in this hunt. Please source information from reputable sources that you investigate.

 

[rdc1978]

@AliOop - it appears that the emergency authorization may have been rescinded according to the FDA.

The video you posted is only five days old so perhaps there is updated guidance or it wasn't actually filmed 5 days ago just uploaded 5 days ago.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/pre...s-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and

 

[ScentimentallyYours]

Except for the mistake I made earlier, exactly what misinformation am I repeating? If you would like, I would be more than happy to cite my sources which include the CDC, WHO, FDA, Yale Medicine, and John Hopkins Medicine...just to name a few. And no, I don't just rely on information that supports my 'view', I look for information that counters it.

I welcome all opinions...if folks have information that negates mine, I'm all for it because I know that I am fallible. New information is coming out all the time and that's a good thing. What I don't welcome is the treatment that unvaccinated people are receiving which is where my frustration and anger come from.

My choice to be unvaccinated at this time is not done lightly, I have first-hand experience. My youngest daughter had Covid...doesn't matter that she was 30 instead of 13, standing outside her bedroom door listening to her hack up a lung and not being able to do anything to help her in any way...indescribable. My BFF, her daughter got Covid two weeks before mine and went twice to the ER only to be sent back home. A couple of days after she returned to light duty, she told her roommate she was tired and was going to take a nap. She died.

And I have first hand experience of the detriment of trusting 'expert sources'. With my father who died sooner than he should have because we trusted. With my husband who is now permanently disabled and very doubtful we will make it to our 20th anniversary because we trusted. And with myself. To add to myself, I am in the "high risk" category...I have Diabetes. I'm not ready to die yet. I have grandkids that I want to see grow up. Which is why I look at BOTH sides, which is why I am seeking information.

I am now the only one left in my office that is unvaccinated. My boss and co-workers have been very supportive, but he and I know that there will come a point when I will be forced out of the office because of it...simply because we don't have an extra office to 'accommodate' me. And because he doesn't want to have to fire me or single me out, everyone is getting decked out to be able 'work from home'. Within a couple of months, I expect to be working exclusively from home with a specific time to come to the office before anyone else is around to pick up and drop off work. That will make my husband happy, he hates that I commute, but jobs like these don't grow on trees.

I would like to be 'free', but again, not seeing that the grass is so much more greener on the other side of the fence.

Off to work.

I understand your distrust of medical advice. My mother was in there with you! She has a Doctor who incorporates alternative medicines in her practice, and that makes mom comfortable. When the vaccine first became available, her doctor explained to her how delicate her system was and why she should not get the vaccine.

My husband and I have a daughter with autism who lives in a group home, but came home with us when the pandemic started. In January, she became eligible for the vaccine, which would enable her to go back to the group home with her friends. Because she had been home with us, my husband and I were also eligible and got the Moderna vaccine. My husband (who has MS) had no symptoms, I had a very sore arm. With the second shot, my husband had mild flu symptoms for a day, but I had no symptoms at all.

My physical make up is very similar to my mother’s. Two days after my second shot I called her up and told her she did not need to worry about the vaccine. No matter what her doctor had said, my reaction to the vaccine gave her the best possible prediction of how she would react to the vaccine. I told her that once she was vaccinated, I could come visit.

I also pointed out to consider the expensive medical bills from Covid that have pushed survivors into bankruptcy. Death is often mentioned, but the financial burden that the family inherits is not.

Next I pointed out the difference in longevity between an mRNA vaccine and Covid. The mRNA vaccine contains only a small piece of a coronavirus spike. It cannot give anyone Covid. On the other hand, catching the coronavirus means that it will live in your system forever. It may go into hiding, but just like chickenpox, it will still be there. Chickenpox shows up decades later as shingles. We have no way of knowing how the long-term effects of catching the coronavirus will affect us.

All three things — shared genetics, hospital expense, and unknown long-term effects — resonated with my mother because she suffered terribly from shingle two years ago. She discussed vaccination with her husband and was on the phone the next day searching for an appointment. She got vaccinated. Her physical reaction paralleled mine. Her doctor’s advice did not fit for her after all. Mom said her primary emotion was the extreme sense of relief.

I did go out and visit my mother as soon as she was fully vaccinated. For the first time in over a year, she got to go to a store and shop for food that she wanted. She left the house and went for a walk with me. Twice!

Perhaps you will see some similar considerations for yourself in my mother’s story. Hope it help!

 

[AliOop]

This doesn't sound right. But where are these doctors? What vaccine did these hospitalized patients have? I have daily access to some of the best and most current information out there, and this is not what was reported in the UK (as of end of July) or the US.

They are in Dallas, TX.

@rdc1978 That FDA notice you posted is over a year old. No, HCQ is not FDA-approved for this purpose, but it is no longer banned as an off-label use for treating C19.

@beckster51 here is a very small study completed and published by Dr. Z regarding the efficacy of low-dose HCQ + zinc + an antibiotic. Again, as he explained very clearly in the video, he does not tout HCQ as the cure; it is merely the delivery vehicle for zinc. Zinc is well known for blocking many different viruses (including the virus which causes the common cold, as well as C19) from replicating.

Why are there no bigger, longer studies confirming this? Because the media screamed so loud about the dangers of HCQ, based on the faulty "study" where the doctors overdosed critically ill patients with 10x the appropriate amount of HCQ. But the media never reported that the study was withdrawn as being seriously flawed in methodology, and the doctors as having conflicts of interest. Thus, later attempts to recruit people for clinical trials of HCQ have not been successful because no one will volunteer. Source. Of course not - many still believe that HCQ killed those patients and will likely kill them, too.

Many doctors are also unaware of the story behind the story. Per the second video I posted (the two docs in Dallas, TX), many primary care doctors are still telling their c19-positive patients to go home and rest - or they refuse to treat them at all. They are not being proactive with recommending protocols that some doctors are finding very successful - like Dr. Z.

Per Dr. Z's explanation in the video, the appropriate use of HCQ is to administer low does with zinc, for the purpose early intervention (first 4-5 days) to treat those who are infected and showing symptoms. His study, though small, shows great results. Nowhere does he claim it is a "cure."

Why aren't there more studies like this? Maybe because our medical care providers are so overwhelmed that they don't have time to dig up these stories and learn about them. Why are major medical journals not publishing these studies? Maybe because Big Pharma pays their salaries and will cut off the $$$ if anyone suggests use of inexpensive, out-of-patent drugs, and supplements available at the general store. Follow the money.

Regarding Dr. McCullough, his explanation was that he failed to update his LinkedIn profile, and did so when that was pointed out to him. How many of you have outdated profiles on some social media account? I personally haven't logged in to LinkedIn for years so mine is probably outdated, too. That doesn't make me a liar - just a busy professional.

As far as anything Dr. Fauci says... the man lied to Congress, and got caught with his pants down when his emails regarding the source of the virus were exposed. You may not like the senators who questioned him, or the way they went about questioning them. But as an attorney, I can assure you that the evidence against Dr. Fauci is very damning. He'd be convicted in a heartbeat in front a jury. Yet he still denies it. He actually said at the hearings, "Anyone challenging Dr. Fauci is challenging science."

That is insane arrogance. EVERYONE is subject to being challenged, no matter how smart, powerful, or popular that person may be. I could have respect for Dr. F if he would man up and admit he blew it. But since he won't, I have zero trust in anything that man says, and it is his own fault.

ETA: I find it very ironic that some people find it easy to overlook Dr. F's documented falsehoods under oath, and damning emails showing that he knew the source of the virus... but they want to pick apart Dr. M for having an outdated LinkedIn profile. Let's get a sense of proportion here as to what demonstrates a more serious lack of integrity, and a more egregious effect on the healthcare of sick people in this country.

PS - in no way do I intend to shoot the messenger for those of you who disagree. I'm sharing what I've learned in my research because I believe you'd want to know this in the event it can save one of your lives, or the lives of one of your loved ones. You don't have to believe it or accept it, but I do hope you will remember it in the event you find yourself in a situation where someone's life or long-term health depends on it.

Our freestanding ERs and hospital based ERs are administering monoclonal antibodies (casirivimab and imdevimab) to anyone who has an oxygen saturation (SpO2) of 90% or less, then sending them home with oxygen. Our hospitals are just that full.

Sorry, missed this one... our hospitals are not doing this unless patients demand or their doctors call in an RX ahead of time.

 

[beckster51]

They are in Dallas, TX.

@rdc1978 That FDA notice you posted is over a year old. No, HCQ is not FDA-approved for this purpose, but it is no longer banned as an off-label use for treating C19.

@beckster51 here is a very small study completed and published by Dr. Z regarding the efficacy of low-dose HCQ + zinc + an antibiotic. Again, as he explained very clearly in the video, he does not tout HCQ as the cure; it is merely the delivery vehicle for zinc. Zinc is well known for blocking many different viruses (including the virus which causes the common cold, as well as C19) from replicating.

Why are there no bigger, longer studies confirming this? Because the media screamed so loud about the dangers of HCQ, based on the faulty "study" where the doctors overdosed critically ill patients with 10x the appropriate amount of HCQ. But the media never reported that the study was withdrawn as being seriously flawed in methodology, and the doctors as having conflicts of interest. Thus, later attempts to recruit people for clinical trials of HCQ have not been successful because no one will volunteer. Source. Of course not - many still believe that HCQ killed those patients and will likely kill them, too.

Many doctors are also unaware of the story behind the story. Per the second video I posted (the two docs in Dallas, TX), many primary care doctors are still telling their c19-positive patients to go home and rest - or they refuse to treat them at all. They are not being proactive with recommending protocols that some doctors are finding very successful - like Dr. Z.

Per Dr. Z's explanation in the video, the appropriate use of HCQ is to administer low does with zinc, for the purpose early intervention (first 4-5 days) to treat those who are infected and showing symptoms. His study, though small, shows great results. Nowhere does he claim it is a "cure."

Why aren't there more studies like this? Maybe because our medical care providers are so overwhelmed that they don't have time to dig up these stories and learn about them. Why are major medical journals not publishing these studies? Maybe because Big Pharma pays their salaries and will cut off the $$$ if anyone suggests use of inexpensive drugs out of patent and supplements available at the general store. Follow the money.

Regarding Dr. McCullough, his explanation was that he failed to update his LinkedIn profile, and did so when that was pointed out to him. How many of you have outdated profiles on some social media account? I personally haven't logged in to LinkedIn for years so mine is probably outdated, too. That doesn't make me a liar - just a busy professional.

As far as anything Dr. Fauci says... the man lied to Congress, and got caught with his pants down when his emails regarding the source of the virus were exposed. You may not like the senators who questioned him, or the way they went about questioning them. But as an attorney, I can assure you that the evidence against Dr. Fauci is very damning. He'd be convicted in a heartbeat in front a jury. Yet he still denies it. I could have respect for him if he would man up and admit he blew it. But since he won't, I have zero trust in anything that man says, and it is his own fault.

PS - in no way do I intend to shoot the messenger for those of you who disagree. I'm sharing what I've learned in my research because I believe you'd want to know this in the event it can save one of your lives, or the lives of one of your loved ones. You don't have to believe it or accept it, but I do hope you will remember it in the event you find yourself in a situation where someone's life or long-term health depends on it.

Yes, that is a very small study, but more importantly, it is not a double blind study, with no control group, so it means nothing. If you have no control group that did not receive the treatment, you don't know if these people would have gotten better with or without his protocol. Am I explaining this so you understand the difference? Again, correlation, no causation. There have been random double blind studies about this, and there was no difference in outcome in the treated and untreated groups. I'm sure I can find you more, but here is an example:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044
Yes, zinc can lessen the symptomatic course of a mild viral illness. It has been shown to be effective in lessening the duration of the common cold, and it does not require a delivery vehicle. You can buy OTC zinc and suck on it (it tastes terrible!), or you can buy lozenges that contain it. The lozenges are much more pleasant tasting. I have used zinc for a cold to lessen the course. I don't know if it truly helped or not, but it didn't hurt. Using zinc to fight Covid 19 is like using a cap gun to kill someone. Also, giving azithromycin, which is an antibiotic, for a virus is ridiculous. A virus is not a bacterial infection, and a virus cannot be treated with an antibiotic. So I end my assessment of Dr. Z's protocol. If only it would work, but there is no proof that it does.

My criticism of Dr. McCullough had nothing to do with his LinkedIn profile. I was trying to make the OP understand that what a LinkedIn profiles says about someone is totally irrelevant. I am sure there are many falsehoods on LinkedIn, just as there are on many resumes and digital platforms. Dr. M. was stating publicly and in his written credentials that he was affiliated with Baylor in order to look like he had greater credibility than he had. That is like me saying I am on the faculty at Baylor. That is lying and unethical, and that is why he is being sued by Baylor to cease and desist. He obviously did not think his credentials without being on the faculty at Baylor were influential enough, so he lied. Not a capital offense, but Baylor was embarrassed by it since his medical claims are not true.

If you are referring to the accusation that Dr. Fauci lied to Congress about funding the Wuhan lab for gain of function viral studies, the grants from NIH are never for gain of function research since gain of function research can result in bioweapons. NIH does fund labs all over the world for viral research. The more scientists that work on these emerging viruses in legitimate labs, the better. The lab in Wuhan has been a respected lab for virology research. I have no fact based opinion and no information about where the virus came from, and neither does anyone else. It could have jumped species as HIV did, it could have come from the wet market in Wuhan, or it could have been a lab accident. We will never know conclusively. If you are saying he lied about something else, I am not sure what you are referring to. What I do know is that we have no one else in this country that has the breadth and depth of knowledge that he does about these issues, and we would be foolish to discount what he says without real scientific proof that he is wrong. He has made educated guesses that turned out to be inaccurate. Everyone did. The situation continues to evolve and suppositions will be proved or disproved or discarded as the virus mutates and more facts come to light. It is truly a moving target. As to something he said in an email that he didn't intend to become public, I would ask you this: Do you remember everything you have said in emails? Have situations changed since you sent some emails? My answers to these questions would be NO and YES. This was, as many political things are these days, a tempest in a teapot for political reasons. I make it a rule never to put too much emphasis on what gets said in Congress when the objective of questioning is just to make someone look bad. I know that your outlook may be different than mine since you are an attorney. I find the process of congressmen and congresswomen grilling anyone to make them look bad, no matter what it is about, appalling and a waste of taxpayer money. I am only interested in the science. Dr. Fauci knows his science, and he has been a dedicated public servant for a very long time.

I have said I don't intend to argue with anyone about this, and I am not. I am presenting the objective medical facts as I know them as a medical professional. Your references and information sources are very weak and not evidence based. If HCQ could treat people that have Covid 19, do you really think any medical professional would deny it? They are in the profession of treating and curing disease. All valid treatments are welcome! Do you think medical professionals are guided or that research funding is influenced by what the media says? I never attended a research committee that ever discussed what the media or public opinion thought as a subject to be considered prior to funding research or evaluating the validity of research. I assure you they are not, but you are free to believe what you like. I, too, want people to receive accurate information about how to make the best choices for how to deal with this pandemic. It is my considered professional opinion based on my extensive reading that HQC is not a helpful suggestion for anyone seeking treatment advice for Covid 19. Using worthless treatments only delays people from getting effective treatments. My definition of accurate information is what is revealed by evidence based protocols that result from double blind studies that are based on causation, not correlation.

 

[rdc1978]

@AliOop - I'm aware of the publication date. Once a drug gains initial approval from the FDA for any condition it does not need to get further approval for "off label" use.

So I don't think the fact that off label use is expressly prohibited by the FDA means anything one way or the other.

Though the fact that they rescinded emergency authorization may say something.

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-...rstanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label
The article below, from Reuters lays it out. The FDA says that they haven't changed their position on HCQ since June 2020.

The AMA, it sounds like urged doctors to be very cautious when using HCQ off label.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-hydroxychloroquine-covid-guida-idUSL1N2M70NL

 

[AliOop]

My definition of accurate information is what is revealed by evidence based protocols that result from double blind studies that are based on causation, not correlation.

Of course we want double-blind, randomized control trials! But saying that any evidence outside of those is inaccurate, or to be dismissed, suppresses potentially vital treatments in times of fast-spreading disease where all hands are on deck, and people are dying. But let's say you are right - where are the double-blind, randomized long-term trials for the C-19 vaccine? Why the double-standard to get emergency approval for that, but not emergency approval for some of these other treatments?

As for the study from Brazil that you linked, you are comparing apples and oranges. The study uses a different protocol than what Dr. Z recommends. They included people up to 8 days after symptom onset, and if I recall correctly, he cut it off at 5 (I could be wrong, so fact-check me on that). More importantly, the Brazil study only administered HCQ, not HCQ + zinc + the antibiotic. I don't know why Dr. Z includes the antibiotic for treating this viral disease, but as you know, sometimes drugs have secondary purposes for which they are administered. You can contact him on his website to ask about that.

Based on your opinion that the Brazil study proves Dr. Z wrong, I'm not sure you really listened to what Dr. Z actually said. He made it very clear that HCQ must be combined with zinc, not administered by itself; that his protocol is only appropriate for people in the early stage with mild symptoms; and that it most benefits those who are high risk for severe complications of C19. His population was small, but the percentage of those who would be expected to have severe symptoms, vs. those who actually did, was compelling. He also stated during the interview that he has successfully treated close to 6,000 such patients - a much larger group than what is covered by the study.

Another point he made is that for C19 (unlike for other viruses), zinc does require a delivery vehicle, because it needs help crossing the blood-brain barrier. Not that it won't get there, but it won't get there in the amounts needed to do what it needs to do. HCQ serves that purpose, or quercetin can be an alternative (he quotes a third, but I don't recall what it was). So those who keep saying HCQ doesn't work, are missing the point of combining HCQ with zinc to combat the virus.

I don't have a problem if you want to dispute the fact, but I am puzzled as to your determination to ignore and dismiss what he is saying. Maybe it wasn't this way back in the say when you were practicing, but today's medical field is highly influenced by money and Big Pharma. Do some research into the bonuses that family physicians are paid for getting 80% of their patients vaccinated with FDA-approved vaccinations: often these bonuses are $40k, $80k and more. You cannot tell me that doctors, who are ordinary people, are not influenced by that kind of money.

 

[AliOop]

@AliOop - I'm aware of the publication date. Once a drug gains initial approval from the FDA for any condition it does not need to get further approval for "off label" use.

So I don't think the fact that off label use is expressly prohibited by the FDA means anything one way or the other.

Though the fact that they rescinded emergency authorization may say something.

https://www.fda.gov/patients/learn-...rstanding-unapproved-use-approved-drugs-label
The article below, from Reuters lays it out. The FDA says that they haven't changed their position on HCQ since June 2020.

The AMA, it sounds like urged doctors to be very cautious when using HCQ off label.

https://www.reuters.com/article/factcheck-hydroxychloroquine-covid-guida-idUSL1N2M70NL

Yes, and that withdrawal of emergency approval of HCQ for C19 was based on the "study" where severely ill patients were overdosed with HCQ, and subsequently died. The negative cardiac affects observed, and about which the FDA warns, are exactly what is expected from overdosing with HCQ.

That study has been withdrawn, yet the FDA has not changed its position that was based on that study. Why does the FDA feel the need to warn anyone about HCQ being administered in doses which are tolerated well by millions around the world for malaria and other illnesses, and have been for decades?

 

[beckster51]

Of course we want double-blind, randomized control trials! But saying that any evidence outside of those is inaccurate, or to be dismissed, suppresses potentially vital treatments in times of fast-spreading disease where all hands are on deck, and people are dying. But let's say you are right - where are the double-blind, randomized long-term trials for the C-19 vaccine? Why the double-standard to get emergency approval for that, but not emergency approval for some of these other treatments?

As for the study from Brazil that you linked, you are comparing apples and oranges. The study uses a different protocol than what Dr. Z recommends. They included people up to 8 days after symptom onset, and if I recall correctly, he cut it off at 5 (I could be wrong, so fact-check me on that). More importantly, the Brazil study only administered HCQ, not HCQ + zinc + the antibiotic. I don't know why Dr. Z includes the antibiotic for treating this viral disease, but as you know, sometimes drugs have secondary purposes for which they are administered. You can contact him on his website to ask about that.

Based on your opinion that the Brazil study proves Dr. Z wrong, I'm not sure you really listened to what Dr. Z actually said. He made it very clear that his protocol is only appropriate for people in the early stage with mild symptoms, and that it most benefits those who are high risk for severe complications of C19. His population was small, but the percentage of those who would be expected to have severe symptoms, vs. those who actually did, was compelling. He also stated during the interview that he has successfully treated close to 6,000 such patients - a much larger group than what is covered by the study.

Another point he made is that for C19 (unlike for other viruses), zinc does require a delivery vehicle, because it needs help crossing the blood-brain barrier. Not that it won't get there, but it won't get there in the amounts needed to do what it needs to do. HCQ serves that purpose, or quercetin can be an alternative (he quotes a third, but I don't recall what it was). So those who keep saying HCQ doesn't work, are missing the point of combining HCQ with zinc to combat the virus.

I don't have a problem if you want to dispute the fact, but I am puzzled as to your determination to ignore and dismiss what he is saying. Maybe it wasn't this way back in the say when you were practicing, but today's medical field is highly influenced by money and Big Pharma. Do some research into the bonuses that family physicians are paid for getting 80% of their patients vaccinated with FDA-approved vaccinations: often these bonuses are $40k, $80k and more. You cannot tell me that doctors, who are ordinary people, are not influenced by that kind of money.

UNCLE. Now that I have tried to provide you with facts, I am going to tell you how I actually feel. I am STUNNED and find the arrogance of people who are not medically trained arguing with someone who is just breath-taking. I would never be arrogant enough to tell you how to practice law. But you obviously think you know more about medical research than the NIH, the FDA, the CDC, and someone who spent her entire career in the medical profession in advanced practice, who is married to a physician who did research as part of his medical practice. BTW, I know a lot about the pharmaceutical industry as my father worked for one. I know more about incentives in the pharmaceutical industry than you ever will. You say you are open to other opinions, but you are not as shown above. As Forest Gump said so well, "and that is all I am going to say about that." I retire from the coronavirus thread. I have given you accurate information, but you obviously don't want it.

 

[rdc1978]

Yes, and that withdrawal of emergency approval of HCQ for C19 was based on the "study" where severely ill patients were overdosed with HCQ, and subsequently died. The negative cardiac affects observed, and about which the FDA warns, are exactly what is expected from overdosing with HCQ.

That study has been withdrawn, yet the FDA has not changed its position that was based on that study. Why does the FDA feel the need to warn anyone about HCQ being administered in doses which are tolerated well by millions around the world for malaria and other illnesses, and have been for decades?

Perhaps because the risk isn't worth the reward. Has the protocol at normal doses been well studied?

The FDA considers a number of factors in approving a drug for a particular condition. And some of it is weighing the pros and cons.

Malaria and arthritis and lupus may be worth the possible cons. .

Even the AMA cautioned care for doctors using HCQ off label for COVID patients.

Doctors are free to use HCQ off label for covid but that has nothing to do with the FDA giving express or implicit approval or prohibition of its use for COVID.

If it's working I'm sure doctors will write it off label.

Wait, are you assuming that the patients were overdosed because of their symptoms or is there some sort of admission or proof of overdosing?

 

[AliOop]

UNCLE. Now that I have tried to provide you with facts, I am going to tell you how I actually feel. I am STUNNED and find the arrogance of people who are not medically trained arguing with someone who is just breath-taking. I would never be arrogant enough to tell you how to practice law. But you obviously think you know more about medical research than the NIH, the FDA, the CDC, and someone who spent her entire career in the medical profession in advanced practice, who is married to a physician who did research as part of his medical practice. BTW, I know a lot about the pharmaceutical industry as my father worked for one. I know more about incentives in the pharmaceutical industry than you ever will. You say you are open to other opinions, but you are not as shown above. As Forest Gump said so well, "and that is all I am going to say about that." I retire from the coronavirus thread. I have given you accurate information, but you obviously don't want it.

I am sorry you feel that way. I would never suggest that you could not analyze legal situations simply because you do not have a degree in law.

While I am not medically trained myself, close family members are. One of my best friends is a pharmacist. I have taken my questions to them, and asked for explanations of what I'm reading. I believe I am intelligent enough to understand what they are saying to me, despite my lack of medical training - just like I believe you have the ability to understand legal situations despite your lack of legal training.

I am very open to other opinions, and have been very appreciative of the fact that you cited real studies. But I am puzzled by the fact that when I point out differences between the studies you cite, and the study I cited, you aren't willing to acknowledge those or tell me where I am wrong. Instead, I'm called arrogant for questioning your position, based on the fact that you have more training. That is absolutely true, and I wouldn't presume to diagnose or treat someone with a medical problem. That doesn't mean I can't read and analyze reports and facts, and come to reasoned conclusions that are different than yours.

If I did so in a way that came across as offensive, you have my apologies. I truly thought we were having a civilized debate, but apparently, I was wrong.

 

[AliOop]

@rdc1978 my responses are in red.
Perhaps because the risk isn't worth the reward. Has the protocol at normal doses been well studied? which protocol; the one for malaria or C19? As far as I know, there have only been a few small scale, non-randomized studies for the C19 protocol. Surprising, given the results of the studies that are available and showing promise.

The FDA considers a number of factors in approving a drug for a particular condition. And some of it is weighing the pros and cons. agreed

Malaria and arthritis and lupus may be worth the possible cons. . agreed, and the cons of HCQ are generally very minimal at low doses - unless there are other drug interactions or specific health conditions. The study by Dr. Z discusses some of the side effects.

Even the AMA cautioned care for doctors using HCQ off label for COVID patients. Yes, based on the withdrawn study that "proved" it was harmful.

Doctors are free to use HCQ off label for covid but that has nothing to do with the FDA giving express or implicit approval or prohibition of its use for COVID. Agreed as to the approval issue. My very point was that use of HCQ for treating C19 was outright banned for a time, - check out the ban in NY by Gov Cuomo. That is troubling from a governor who, as far as I know, has no medical training and per the logic espoused by medical folks here, should not be allowed to make these decisions. From all appearances, it was a political move simply because he despised the high profile national leader who was touting it as something helpful.

If it's working I'm sure doctors will write it off label. Yes, IF they are aware that the prior negative study was withdrawn, and IF positive studies are publicized, showing its efficacy when combined with zinc. Those are big IFs. There's also the issue of it being banned in some places (see prior response), and per my pharmacist friend, government putting pressure on the manufacturers to make it less available to pharmacies who order it. She says that's how it is done when they want to discourage use of a particular medication - just say, "Sorry, not in stock right now. Try again later."

Wait, are you assuming that the patients were overdosed because of their symptoms or is there some sort of admission or proof of overdosing? I am not assuming anything - I was reporting what I read. I am not currently finding the original stories that I read, which went deeper into the reasons for withdrawal. I fear that they have probably been "scrubbed" - which is a disturbing trend whenever someone in charge decides that something is "misinformation." The best I can find at this moment is this link confirming that the study was withdrawn.

 

[rdc1978]

@rdc1978 my responses are in red.
Perhaps because the risk isn't worth the reward. Has the protocol at normal doses been well studied? which protocol; the one for malaria or C19? As far as I know, there have only been a few small scale, non-randomized studies for the C19 protocol. Surprising, given the results of the studies that are available and showing promise.

Yeah, I wouldn't expect the FDA to go back to emergency authorization with small non randomized studies.

Especially in this environment where people have suggested that the vaccine was too quickly authorized and then approved after larger studies.

The FDA considers a number of factors in approving a drug for a particular condition. And some of it is weighing the pros and cons. agreed

Malaria and arthritis and lupus may be worth the possible cons. . agreed, and the cons of HCQ are generally very minimal at low doses - unless there are other drug interactions or specific health conditions. The study by Dr. Z discusses some of the side effects.

Even the AMA cautioned care for doctors using HCQ off label for COVID patients. Yes, based on the withdrawn study that "proved" it was harmful.

The AMA has also, to my knowledge, been clear that their guidance hasnt changed.

Doctors are free to use HCQ off label for covid but that has nothing to do with the FDA giving express or implicit approval or prohibition of its use for COVID. Agreed as to the approval issue. My very point was that use of HCQ for treating C19 was outright banned for a time, - check out the ban in NY by Gov Cuomo. That is troubling from a governor who, as far as I know, has no medical training and per the logic espoused by medical folks here, should not be allowed to make these decisions. From all appearances, it was a political move simply because he despised the high profile national leader who was touting it as something helpful.

But this has nothing to do with the FDA. I imagine the governor was advised by medical experts and made that decision.

Perhaps the risk of having additional patients with side effects on an already burdened health care system wasn't worth the uncertain reward.

I wouldnt make the jump to governor Cuomo rejecting life saving treatment because he hated the president. I mean, operation warp speed WAS started under the last administration and I dont remember cuomo telling people not to get vaccinated or making disparaging remarks about the pharma companies who participated.

If it's working I'm sure doctors will write it off label. Yes, IF they are aware that the prior negative study was withdrawn, and IF positive studies are publicized, showing its efficacy when combined with zinc. Those are big IFs. There's also the issue of it being banned in some places (see prior response), and per my pharmacist friend, government putting pressure on the manufacturers to make it less available to pharmacies who order it. She says that's how it is done when they want to discourage use of a particular medication - just say, "Sorry, not in stock right now. Try again later."

Its also entirely possible that it's simply out of stock because people have been stockpiling it and there is no devious motive.

Most doctors I know take their duty to stay up on current treatments pretty seriously and I'd imagine that this is more true than ever for first-line doctors in the covid fight.

If you get into medicine it's probably to help people so you're looking for anything that makes sense.

And I'd bet a shiny bar of soap that doctors are specifically asked about HCQ all the time and are advised of all the best data out there in favor of it by people with access to the same information we have access to

Wait, are you assuming that the patients were overdosed because of their symptoms or is there some sort of admission or proof of overdosing? I am not assuming anything - I was reporting what I read. I am not currently finding the original stories that I read, which went deeper into the reasons for withdrawal. I fear that they have probably been "scrubbed" - which is a disturbing trend whenever someone in charge decides that something is "misinformation." The best I can find at this moment is this link confirming that the study was withdrawn.

well, notably, the link you provided wasn't scrubbed. It seems like the problem was with the underlying data set and not necessarily overdosing.

The internet is big and wide with all sorts if a crazy stuff, so I'm not sure someone is policing the internet to get rid of information like this.

If these articles that you're relying on are being removed it may be by the authors themselves.

I think its why I try to choose better known long standing sources when I can.

 

[AliOop]

All good points @rdc1978 .

I did find this article published in the American Journal of Epidemiology, written by Dr. Harvey A. Risch, Department of Chronic Disease Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health, from May 2020. He makes a very impassioned plea for early outpatient treatment with HCQ + AZ (an antibiotic that also has antiviral properties, or effects - not sure of correct terminology there). He strongly cautions that it is not appropriate for in-patient use, since the presentation and thus treatment of the disease is entirely different at that point.

He is open about the fact that there are no randomized, double-blind trials to support this protocol. He acknowledges that those would be ideal. But he makes the point, so much more eloquently than I could, or did, that we don't have the luxury of waiting for those. Small scale studies in France, the US, and Brazil show a 50x benefit gained from this treatment, when compared to the results for those who are not treated, Any risks from using low-dose HCQ are far outweighed by the number of lives that could be saved.

What is sad is that this article is 18 months old. I have several friends at quarantining at home right now with C19 - all of them with comorbidities, including MS, obesity, 60+years, cardiovascular disease, and arthritis. NONE of them were offered monoclonal antibodies, HCQ+zinc, or any other early treatment. ALL of them were told to go home and isolate. SOME of them were told to take zinc, C, and D. Others didn't even get that. All were told to get oximeters and come to the hospital if their SAT levels dropped.

I don't live in a huge metro area, but it's big enough and modern enough that the doctors here should be aware of the demonstrated benefits of early treatment. It breaks my heart that they are not, and it's part of why I'm clanging the gong. My friends should not be at much greater risk for dying because the medical powers that be are unwilling to acknowledge the difference between effective protocols for inpatient v. outpatient treatment.

 

[szaza]

But let's say you are right - where are the double-blind, randomized long-term trials for the C-19 vaccine? Why the double-standard to get emergency approval for that, but not emergency approval for some of these other treatments?

I'm confused by this statement. The vaccine approval is based on double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled studies with tens of thousands of participants.
For example, here's the phase 3 trial publication of the pfizer vaccine:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33301246/And this is Moderna:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33378609/And Johnson:
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33882225/@TheGecko maybe you find these interesting as well.

Another point he made is that for C19 (unlike for other viruses), zinc does require a delivery vehicle, because it needs help crossing the blood-brain barrier. Not that it won't get there, but it won't get there in the amounts needed to do what it needs to do. HCQ serves that purpose, or quercetin can be an alternative (he quotes a third, but I don't recall what it was). So those who keep saying HCQ doesn't work, are missing the point of combining HCQ with zinc to combat the virus.

Why would it need to cross the blood-brain barrier? I haven't heard much about covid-19 encefalitis (yet).