Covid-19 News

    Maybe its the removal of oil that has the global warming kicking off . seems none have put money into that study..

    is our wobbling pole couching global weather change..

    a lot of missing science or is this all the same people at work as this virus.

    Zev Zelenko's letters to the 5000 .. "


    "“The only difference between my approach and other people’s approach

    (deciding not to promote the drugs without trials) is 100,000 dead people ”

    These drugs are old, safe and used for generations now…

    the FDA has more serious warnings about Tylenol and Ibuprofen than it ever

    did about hydroxychloroquine and they are still on the shelves.

    They are SAFE.”

    "

    My name is Dr. Zev Zelenko. I am a physician who practices medicine in Orange county. NY.

    I have been serving as the chief physician for my community. Kiryas Yoel. for 16 years.

    It is a Satmar community of 35.000 people all living within one square mile.

    When I was notified that this horrible virus will begin to make its way to the United States.

    I immediately began to prepare a plan of action.

    This was necessary as there was no recommended treatment for this virus

    I reviewed the studies that were done from some of the earliest hit couitries. namely South Korea. China and France.

    I studied the most effective treatments and decided to combine the results of two separate but similar approaches from South Korea and France.

    This led me to use the combinations of three very safe and well known drugs

    that have been used for decades. Hydroxychloroquine. Zinc and Azithromycin

    .All three of them easily administered orally in pill form.


    https://crownheights.info/chab…-shluchim-in-6-languages/

    Shades of Romans 1.16

    Sophisticated statistical analysis of an NEJM published " no HCQ benefit "Randomised trial by Boulware

    https://c19study.com/boulware.html


    shows there WERE signs of benefit..in the EARLY treatment

    except the trial was underpowered..

    "the probability that the results follow the observed trend of earlier treatment being better, >10% absolute benefit change between days, and >15% average benefit, is 0.2%.

    Since we have performed 2 tests, conservative Bonferroni adjustment gives us p = 0.004.


    "The authors conclude "[treatment] did not prevent illness compatible with COVID-19..",

    but as above this does not appear to match the data. In the context of their chosen statistics

    , they could say: "the data suggests a benefit for treatment, but when including the additional delay added mid-study,

    not analyzing the expected trend for earlier intervention being more effective, and with only 107 cases, we have not yet reached >95% statistical significance."


    "

    Comments on: Boulware et al., NEJM, June 3, 2020, A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19

    Quote from Shane D.

    Thanks for clearing that up. I believe we are basically on the same page. IMO, roughly half the studies coming in say HCQ works, and half not.


    Shane you are completely wrong. All studies that did use the correct HCQ protocol did show strong positive effects. Calling the other "studies" is euphemism pure. Some doctors simply killed their patients with a HCQ over dose. Next step would be to call XXXXXXXX camp medicine trials legal studies too. I hope you understand this!


    Quote from JedRothwell

    How clever of you! How erudite.


    Sorry Jed my fault. American focus is not Swiss focus. I should know it! Classically Slaves have only lost their basic freedom and rights. In modern history they were treated like prisoners and forced to work. Worst in Germany during WW II and Russia. Today worst in China and some few places in Italy.


    Edit: Time to give our German friends a break from being reminded of their past. Plenty of other cultures to pick on. Shane


    Where did the Covid analysis reviewer get the data from the chart from? I didnt see the data broken down by date in the original paper.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I think that any politician giving unwarranted (and strong) medical advice contrary to medical opinion would lead to the type of counter-reation we have seen.


    Maybe I missed it, but can you show me where Trump gave medical advice...Or for that matter, any US politician? Are you referring to his comment that "this could be a game changer"?


    And if so, what was the "medical opinion" on HCQ when he said that? Not trying to nit pick, but your post seems more emotional than factual, but I could be wrong.

    Quote from Alan Smith

    Here's the test end of Britain's world beating test track and trace' system hard at work back in May. It has now closed.


    It did the job. You should be thankful they had no patients that day. In the UK there are now 640 cases a day and 70 deaths (7-day moving average). That is too many, but it is manageable with a small number of test sites and around 2,000 case trackers in the entire country. The U.S. needs 120 times more than that. Today there are ~78,000 new daily cases. In the U.S., testing has broken down in many states. It is taking days or weeks, which means it serves no purpose at all. CNN medical reporter and brain surgeon Sanjay Gupta is in Atlanta. He reports that masks are again in short supply, and tests are so hard to get, and take so long, they had to perform brain surgery on a patient without a test, so all the doctors and nurses had to wear PPE, which is in short supply. Compared to that, the UK is in great shape. See:


    https://www.cnn.com/videos/hea…erve-n95-mask-crn-vpx.cnn


    UK tracking was criticized for missing many cases. That is missing the point. It reduced the infection rate below 1, so it did the job. Of course the higher the percent of cases found, the better, but the only reason to do any of this is to control the pandemic. That mission was accomplished, so even if it could have been done better, that does not matter now. The goal of testing and tracking is not get a beautiful set of accurate statistics. The goal is to stamp out the disease.


    UK data:


    https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/uk/

    Quote from Shane D.

    Maybe I missed it, but can you show me where Trump gave medical advice...


    Here are well known examples of Trump's medical advice:

    1. He repeatedly advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine. He said that he himself is using it.
    2. He said that masks have marginal effect, or no effect, that he himself would not use one, and that people in his rallies do not need them.
    3. He has downplayed the need for social distancing. Before the Tulsa rally, his campaign workers were ordered to remove social distancing stickers from the chairs. He moved the GOP convention from Charlotte when he was told that masks and social distancing would be enforced by local officials.
    4. He advocated ignoring public health experts, and quickly opening states against the public health policies of his own administration, with tweets such as "LIBERATE MICHIGAN."
    5. He advocated ingesting and injecting disinfectants. That was not a joke.
    6. He has repeatedly said he wants to reduce the number of tests and slow down testing because he thinks tests cause large number of cases. It is the de facto policy of the Federal government to slow down, defund, and prevent tests, so this has had an effect.

    His advice has had an effect. His supporters have got the message. A smaller percent of GOP voters wear masks, and many of them say masks do no good. His goal was to politicize masks and other public health measures, and to demonize Fauci and other experts. He succeeded in that. Fauci now faces death threats.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Here are well known examples of Trump's medical advice:

    1. He repeatedly advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine. He said that he himself is using it.
    2. He said that masks have marginal effect, or no effect, that he himself would not use one, and that people in his rallies do not need them.
    3. He has downplayed the need for social distancing. Before the Tulsa rally, his campaign workers were ordered to remove social distancing stickers from the chairs. He moved the GOP convention from Charlotte when he was told that masks and social distancing would be enforced by local officials.
    4. He advocated ignoring public health experts, and quickly opening states against the public health policies of his own administration, with tweets such as "LIBERATE MICHIGAN."
    5. He advocated ingesting and injecting disinfectants. That was not a joke.
    6. He has repeatedly said he wants to reduce the number of tests and slow down testing because he thinks tests cause large number of cases. It is the de facto policy of the Federal government to slow down, defund, and prevent tests, so this has had an effect.

    His advice has had an effect. His supporters have got the message. A smaller percent of GOP voters wear masks, and many of them say masks do no good. His goal was to politicize masks and other public health measures, and to demonize Fauci and other experts. He succeeded in that. Fauci now faces death threats.


    Other than treatments nothing much matters. The reason people are not adhering to some sensible measures (like not having a Covid party) is because at some level many people know on top of the virus there is a deep state powerplay. The same people who are shilling for the coronavirus deep staters will soon be telling us how the new danger are alien craft and that Trump is a fool to ignore the threat, etc etc. Control and manipulation, focus your concern there - or on why certain governors sent very sick people back into nursing homes

    • Official Post
    Quote from JedRothwell

    Here are well known examples of Trump's medical advice:

    1. He repeatedly advocated the use of hydroxychloroquine. He said that he himself is using it.
    2. He said that masks have marginal effect, or no effect, that he himself would not use one, and that people in his rallies do not need them.
    3. He has downplayed the need for social distancing. Before the Tulsa rally, his campaign workers were ordered to remove social distancing stickers from the chairs. He moved the GOP convention from Charlotte when he was told that masks and social distancing would be enforced by local officials.
    4. He advocated ignoring public health experts, and quickly opening states against the public health policies of his own administration, with tweets such as "LIBERATE MICHIGAN."
    5. He advocated ingesting and injecting disinfectants. That was not a joke.
    6. He has repeatedly said he wants to reduce the number of tests and slow down testing because he thinks tests cause large number of cases. It is the de facto policy of the Federal government to slow down, defund, and prevent tests, so this has had an effect.

    His advice has had an effect. His supporters have got the message. A smaller percent of GOP voters wear masks, and many of them say masks do no good. His goal was to politicize masks and other public health measures, and to demonize Fauci and other experts. He succeeded in that. Fauci now faces death threats.


    1. Show where he "advocated" HCQ's use. And what is wrong with a patient saying what medication he is on?
    2. Most masks are being used inappropriately, or are not the quality needed, so they do have a "marginal effect". That is a well known fact. Because of that, Sweden recommended against their use. And how many on the left have been exposed as hypocrites on this mask issue? Cuomo yesterday, his brother many times, and Fauci yesterday at a ball game, are just a very few of the many examples. Want more?

    3. I dispute that about his rally. They actually took great pains to ensure attendees safety. Hand sanitizers everywhere. Announcements to stay a safe distance. And tell me; how much has the left been concerned about these riots, and the lack of social distancing being practiced at them? Let me save the trouble...they have actually endorsed it, for the "better social good".

    4. That tweet was about the Michigan Governor's over the top, politically motivated, lock down. Well after the facts showed being outside was beneficial, she decided to outlaw being outside...unless participating in a riot. Then it was OK.

    5. That is taken out of context.

    6. Well, that one I am not sure about. He did reconfirm the next day that he meant what he said. No matter, because he never took action. We all say things we never do. Not good for a POTUS though.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    He has repeatedly said he wants to reduce the number of tests and slow down testing because he thinks tests cause large number of cases. It is the de facto policy of the Federal government to slow down, defund, and prevent tests, so this has had an effect.


    You keep saying this, but I've never heard Trump say he wants to slow down testing. I have heard Trump boast in the amount of testing the US does. I have heard Trump say that the increase in cases is due to the increase in testing.


    Contrast what you say above about preventing tests, with this, from HHS:


    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
    July 10, 2020
    Contact: HHS Press Office

    Today, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) made May and June COVID-19 Testing Plans from all states, territories, and localities publicly available on HHS.gov. The State Testing Plans serve as a roadmap for each state's 2019 testing strategy for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. The plans include details on response to surge cases and how to reach vulnerable populations including minorities, immunocompromised individuals and older adults.

    "Overall, the plans submitted by the states were very good to excellent; and all will be improved by the ongoing collaboration of states with federal experts. Testing is not just about numbers – it is about targeting testing to the right people at the right time, and incorporation of testing into a comprehensive state plan for COVID-19," said Assistant Secretary for Health ADM Brett P. Giroir, M.D. "We are pleased at what nearly every state has achieved to date, and look forward to continuing to expand SARS-CoV-2 testing capacity in the U.S."

    Great to see Kennedy unleashing on Island-fun-Dershowitz wrt vaccines.

    Watch from 27min-44min - rapid deconstruction for those (mostly all) ignorant on the subject


    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.


    This is an interesting analysis, flawed and partisan, but nevertheless thought-provoking.


    I agree with Dr. Boulware (as do the comments here) that getting treatment to people very close to exposure could increase effectiveness, and that there is some (underpowered) evidence here that that might be true. So we look at this area with interest for further data.


    I disagree with many of the other comments made (which are unwarranted) and will not bother people here by arguing. It is not germane to what matters.


    Here is what does matter. Suppose we can show that HCQ, at this dosage, is an effective prophylactic if administered within 48 hours of exposure.


    That will save lives, no doubt, for people who are at high risk due to accidental high exposure.


    It will only save lives in the population generally (in the way the comments here suggest) if every single vulnerable person is continuously on a prophylatic dose of HCQ.


    [3] HCQ has a long half-life (about one month) and takes about half a year to achieve full elimination from the body; this is significant when managing minor side effects such as itching and corneal deposits and major ones such as retinal toxicity and explains continued maculopathy even after discontinuation of the ...4 Jul 2020


    HCQ and Toxicity


    So the issue is that having put everyone on this dose it stays in the body. So any who develop the real but uncommon side effects can't just be taken off it - its effect continues for at least 30 days. In addition from the above links some side effects are cumulative dose dependent:


    The incidence of HCQ retinal toxicity was found to be 0.38% in a 2003 study of 526 patients.[5] A 2010 study of approximately 4000 patients found a higher overall incidence of toxicity of 0.68%. This study also found that the incidence increased sharply after 5 to 7 years of HCQ use from close to 0% to about 1%.[6] Based on this study the American Academy of Ophthalmology recommended new screening guidelines in 2011. The same study revealed that the most important predictor of toxicity was the duration of use (cumulative dose) and that age, the daily dose, and patient weight did not correlate significantly with HCQ toxicity. One reaches a cumulative dose of 1000 grams (1 kilogram) at 7 years when taking the most commonly prescribed dose of 400 mg a day. A new study then focused on those patients that had taken HCQ over 5 years. This study revealed a much higher overall risk of 7.5% retinal toxicity among the 2361 patients studied.[7] A daily dose over 5 mg/kg body weight increased the odds 5.7 times and taking HCQ over 10 years increased the odds by 3.2 times of developing retinopathy. As long as patients received a dose of less than 5 mg/kg for less than 10 years, the incidence was still relatively low at 2%. However, this risk went up to 20% for those patients who had taken HCQ over 20 years. For those patients without retinopathy after 20 years of usage, the risk of developing toxicity in each subsequent year is around 4%. Therefore, this study revealed that dose matters as well. This study found that kidney disease and tamoxifen therapy increased the risk of retinopathy by 2.1 and 4.6 fold, respectively.


    Since the IFR of COVID is around 0.7%, even if the whole population gets COVID the above figures for side effects are higher than the chances of dying from COVID. Though admittedly most people would rather suffer sight loss than die. the point is that prophylatic dosing of the whole population - or say some at higher risk segment - has significant risks (the link here deals only retinopathy).


    It is an interesting question: do we recommend dosing the whole population for two years with something that has very significant but manageable side effects (as well as a small incidence of heart abnormalities and death) in order to prevent a greater mortality from COVID.


    True prophylaxis with almost any drug raises these issues because the numbers dosed are so high, and most of them would never catch COVID so the usage is precautionary not as a treatment.


    Nevertheless, given the numbers here, if prophylactic HCQ gave good protection, for the next 6-9 months until we have a (safer) vaccine, those at high risk of infection and severe COVID could benefit from prophylaxis - not however those who are much younger (like Zelencko's typical patients). They bare at very little risk from COVID anyway.


    Let us hope we get better results on prophylactic usage of HCQ soon. Let us hope even more that we get a good, efficacious, safe vaccine in October (just about possible).

    For the record, it seems to me that most countries harbour people who like to use people as slaves. (other than sex slavery, which appears to be universal). In the UK, it is often a subset of agricultural gangmasters (those who organise teams of often-immigrant field workers in planting and harvest seasons) who are guilty. Sometimes rich people prefer not to pay servants and keep them in slavery. These slaves are poor (obviously!) , illegal immigrants, whose masters and mistresses confiscate any documents they may have There is often physical and sexual abuse in these situations.

    This sort of slavery certainly happens in Britain, although I do not think it's very common. The reports I've seen often involve foreign abusers from places where the practice is more common.. Occasionally. homegrown slavers are found, sometimes in Traveller communities tending to live tangentially to the law, if not outside it altogether.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.