Quote from Toffoli

absolute tyranny covid agenda

Two years of "absolute tyranny"....at most.

The Covid Act will be repealed at whichever date is sooner..

and Jacinda Ardern will be elected Prime Minister again this September..in a landslide

the NZ population a a whole supports " go early.. go hard"

(a) the date that is 2 years after the date of its commencement; and

(b) a date appointed by the Governor-General by Order in Council.

Hopefully Covid will be history by then

"Tyranny" is relative... if you looked Samoan or Tongan or even slighlty brown the police could

arrest you on the street on suspicion of overstaying your visa.. dawn raids on homes were common..

Most of the overstayers were from the UK but they were invisibly white.

The Polynesian threat was worse than Covid in the 1970's under Piggy Muldoon..

Quote from RobertBryant

Scientists pour doubt on hydroxychloroquine study that pushed WHO to ban its use for Covid-19

The peer review after the peer review can be savage..

The Lancet editor is now crafting an excuse.. it might take some time.. more than the initial peer review.

https://www.theguardian.com/wo…witter#Echobox=1590732855

http://www.rfi.fr/en/science-a…irus-lancet-mandeep-mehra

Display More

A letter is not a peer review.

In this case I am sure the criticisms of this study is correct. It was rushed to print, and such studies if done with heterogeneous data as here provide very little information.

All of the HCQ evidence to date is similarly flawed, or inconclusive because of study size or study parameters.

If your conclusion from this is that there is currently no reliable evidence, that is fair. And it would not change the current advice, don't give it except as part of a controlled study.

If your conclusion from this is that there is a conspiracy to rubbish HCQ from those with interests in expensive drugs: that is unevidenced and unlikely. Those promoting expensive drugs might publish a flawed study with positive information about the drug.

Just as we have no good evidence HCQ is harmful, we have no good evidence it is jot harmful. It has complex somatic effects throughout the body and particularly on the heart, how that interacts with severe COVID is unknown until determined by RCT.

Quote from Toffoli

"The Covid-19 pandemic has brought out many disturbing features of our society. Misinformation, or perhaps more accurately, disinformation, abounds in the service of agendas ranging from those who interpret the virus as a useful ploy for the construction of a police state, to Big Pharma and its allies who are moving us toward mass vaccinations, to the narcissistic views of those who would sacrifice the elderly and ill rather than to be inconvenienced by being denied access to bars and beaches."

https://www.globalresearch.ca/campaign-against-hcq/5714152

This is a profoundly political statement long on rhetoric and short on analysis.

I have some sympathy with the idea that remdesivir (lots of side effects) is promoted on not much testing evidence. But, the RCT evidence it has, is positive for doctors in that it seems to reduce hospital ICU usage. That is probably also positive for patients, though its affect on mortality is still unknown.

Certainly not a wonder drug, but could be invaluable in helping health services with insufficient ICU capacity during high COVID infection rates.

Whereas HCQ - where is the RCT evidence that HCQ is helpful?

I think any drug that shows good evidence of helping and not harming gets the green light. Good evidence = positive properly run RCTs. (That 31+31 study stopped early and quoting different outputs from those originally advertised cannot be viewed as properly run).

My contention: approval is based on RCT evidence. Anyone want to challenge this?

I agree HCQ is politicised in the US but not elsewhere - UK, France (Macron weighed in behind HCQ mildly) etc have all been hoping it would help.

Quote from THHuxleynew

I have some sympathy with the idea that remdesivir (lots of side effects) is promoted on not much testing evidence. But, the RCT evidence it has, is positive for doctors in that it seems to reduce hospital ICU usage. That is probably also positive for patients, though its affect on mortality is still unknown.

There are far better drugs that also do save lives and are much cheaper than the Gillead rubbish. Further we do not have a capacity problem. We have a mafia that prevents the use of Ivermectin/Heparin as a live saving and much much speadier solution to the full beds problem.

So far only Germany officially orderd the use of blood thinners! (As do free doctors in UK since a long time...)

Quote from THHuxleynew

If your conclusion from this is that there is a conspiracy to rubbish HCQ from those with interests in expensive drugs: that is unevidenced and unlikely. Those promoting expensive drugs might publish a flawed study with positive information about the drug.

It is obvious that the Free Masons/Rotary/J mafia runs a world wide press campaign (they own 99% of all western daily news papers & news channels) against the most cheap and realiabe medication because HCQ + zinc + macrolid AB avoids costly $$ hospital stays. Even worse this also avoids long time damage they need to balance the loss in their most profitable patients stock. It is obvious that the mafia no longer takes care of your live and handles you as a simple asset - like a stock traded share.

(We already did link the 20+ people names - CDC WHO - that Gielead did pay to support their busiuness case.)

The lancet fake study is the culmination point of the mafia's ruthless and total inhuman behavior. Millions of people did take HCQ + zinc as a preventention for CoV-19 as an early medication. None of these people were include in the Lancet study.

I would propose that instead legal experts do look who did order doctors to prescribe HCQ (without zinc and AB) to severly sick patients. This obviously is a criminal act. Here lancet could help to repair the damage they did provoke by their intentially distorted communication.

HCQ is absoluertly safe as dozends of other studies do show. It has been given to 2'000'000'000+ people world wide without direct medical control. Only if patients already have a progresive illness, then more strict control is needed.

Quote from Wyttenbach

There are far better drugs that also do save lives and are much cheaper than the Gillead rubbish.

Maybe, can you quote me RCT evidence? nothing else will do, for the reasons we all know...

Quote from Wyttenbach

Further we do not have a capacity problem.

The UK was close to a capacity problem, made Herculean efforts to increase capacity and avoided it. Given a 2nd wave peak, if we do not fully lock down, we may go close to capacity again. For the economy (and politically arguable whether for people's lives overall) running high infection rates close to capacity may be what many countries choose to do, or may end up doing through mistake. You don't have to like it. It will happen.

Quote from Wyttenbach

HCQ is absoluertly safe as dozends of other studies do show. It has been given to 2'000'000'000+ people world wide without direct medical control.

The issue here is not HCT safety. It is HCT + COVID safety. They are different. HCQ acts on heart and immune system, severe COVID affects all somatic systems via immune system disturbance, therefore nothing, for good or bad, can be assumed. We have thus far not much evidence, and no reliable evidence.

Quote from THHuxleynew

The UK was close to a capacity problem, made Herculean efforts to increase capacity and avoided it. Given a 2nd wave peak, if we do not fully lock down, we may go close to capacity again.

Longest stay with Ivermectin 7 days. In total not ICU!

Gillead rubish has been used since day one (all over teh world) and all have measured about 20% effect and no live safing effect just some $$ in the doctors pockets starting from 1st of June.

The US prefers to first do studies (u.a. Gates foundation ..) with Ivermectin, what is completely unethical. Ivermectin studies to fight virus have been done a long time ago for other virus that work the same way as CoV-19 and the strong in vivo effect has been described. There is no need to prove an in vivo effect!! as there is one needed for some other substances.

I hope you understand this small detail (no more tests/studies needed) that also holds for Doxycyline and its anti viral use! The only thing we want to know is: Efficacy - 90% or more ? What needs to be added besides Heparin?

In a war situation you never ask the bureaucrates to run the fight - what they now try to do.. for friends income optimization.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Longest stay with Ivermectin 7 days. In total not ICU!

I think you perhaps did not read the words RCT in my post.

We could have an interesting discussion why those words matter - but I think everyone knows.

Quote from THHuxleynew

RCT in my post.

Why if they (Ivermectin/Heparin case) did test positive?

Quote from Alan Smith

The 'Russian Flu' pandemic of 1889-1881 has been 'tracked down' (not in this paper) to a cattle coronavirus that gradually morphed into a much less severe form and is still in circulation. It is interesting to note that the second wave - 1890 - was more deadly than the first. This paper is a more anecdotal account of the progress of the disease gathered from newspapers. It might particularly interest anyone located in or near central Europe.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3867475/

We should be glad that whereas cattle/human transmission is likely, bat/human transmission is less likely. So we are not likely to get CV no 2 from animal reservoir again. Its genomic change is being minutely studied by people so at least if it does become more deadly we will get some early warning and have strain-specific tests.

Mystery solved.

The Oxford ChAdOx vaccine is one of the front runners for possible early adoption. They have got mass production sorted out as early as September through promises to make it before they know it works. They have distribution to many countries all lined up - at cost.

The people doing it are respected and say 80% chance it will work.

There was then a safety test of Rhesus monkeys all given a very high dose of CV after vaccination, that showed they were all infected. But, it seems, the vaccine people say this is expected because of high dose of virus given in multiple places, so this does not mean low efficacy. On the other hand I guess it might still be mildly negative news.

We are all waiting on the phase II tests - early indications mid-June.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gl…d-19-coronavirus-vaccine/

Quote from Shane D.

That said, tracing in Alaska may "do great" as you say, where they do not even need it. A total of 436 cases...LOLs.

You have the causality backward. The reason they only have 436 cases is because they are good at case tracking. I believe the reason they are good at case tracking is that the lifestyle in Alaska is prone to promoting epidemics. In winter, everyone is shut in. There is an entire town in Alaska in one building. (https://www.npr.org/2015/01/18…-community-under-one-roof) Anyway, the public health dept. person in charge of case tracking said "we have been doing this for a long time with other diseases and we are good at it."

What you are saying is contradictory in a way similar to the HHS secretary saying the Japanese need more testing because they have not found any cases. They don't need more testing because they have found them all. When you fix a problem, the cure then seems superfluous -- but it isn't. My computer has multiple levels of backup and firewalls, so it has never been hacked. Should I stop paying for ZoneAlarm, because I have never needed it? Alaska does not need more case tracking because they tracked them all already. We wouldn't need 150,000 case trackers in the U.S. as a whole if we had kept the number of cases down to 100 per day (per capita the same as Japan, Korea, New Zealand and Alaska). We could control it with about 1000 case trackers. COVID-19 would be a minor public health problem, like food poisoning. And if that were the case, people would be complaining about the cost of those 1000 case trackers. The way they complain about security in airports, as if hijackings and 9/11 never happened.

Quote from Shane D.

So, I notice you neglected to address how it would work in the inner cities...where the vast majority of fatalities are?

Why would case tracking not work in inner cities? Those people are as cooperative as anyone. They don't want to get sick. They know perfectly well that the disease is concentrated in their neighborhoods, and they are anxious to stop it. More black Americans wear masks and take other steps than the white population.

It works fine in all cities in Japan, include poor neighborhoods.

Quote from Shane D.

And at what % participation would tracing work?

I don't know, but I am sure it is well below 100% because, as I said, many people don't know and cannot inform the case tracker even if they want to. Also, the Japanese population is notably uncooperative and unwilling to participate in things like this. Compared to the U.S. population volunteerism and community action is rare in urban Japan.

Quote from oldguy

exactly. Can you name everyone you were within 6 feet of in a nyc subway, much less everyone gthat miht have touched the same railing?

As long as everyone in the subway wears a mask the problem is greatly reduced. They have subways in Japan. They have been open and crowded the whole time.

Surgical gloves also help.

Quote from JedRothwell

Should I stop paying for ZoneAlarm, because I have never needed it?

Good Israeli spy ware. First given for free. So the Mossad knows everything you do and prevents others to know the same..,.,,.

Quote from THHuxleynew

In this case I am sure the criticisms of this study is correct. It was rushed to print,

The reasons why Richard Horton rushed the Lancet HCQ study to publish are unknown..

but there is circumstantial evidence for a certain political bias..

richard horton

@richardhorton1

16 May

Dear America - Whatever happened to the idea of “checks and balances”? Because right now you have a President who is destroying your great nation by launching a new Cold War, promoting anti-science, and presiding over a human catastrophe.

Of course Richard has got on a high horse about the lack of science in science in scientific literature before..

Pride goeth before a fall..

'More recently, Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, wrote that “The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness” (2).

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4572812/

At what percentage participation would case tracing work?

In UK they are saying expect at most 15% reduction in case transmission due to case tracing. That means R=1.15 without tracing would go down to R=1 with tracing. Not great, bur every little helps.

The UK does not expect to have very good case tracing, it is not mandatory, there will not be strong inducements to have the app like not being admitted to shops without it, the app anyway does not work yet. And the case trackers are not trained, new, and completely separated from local support systems.

Case tracing will have some effect at any level of participation, but greater effect if

• High participation
• High compliance with requests to lockdown for 14 days (this is a big deal, meaning loss of income on the possibility you are infected without symptoms)
• Test results come back quickly.
• Enough tracing and local resources to effectively isolate everyone who needs to be isolated

Remember that stopping R > 1 and exponential case growth depends on lots of things which vary from region to region. With no case tracing full lockdown gives us R < 1. You use case tracing to allow less stringent lockdown. For no lockdown, no existing immunity, and high contact populations like cities, you need very very good track and trace not to get exponential increase.

Some cities now have a bit of immunity (London 20%). Everything here helps a bit, you add the immunity effect to the case tracing effect etc.

White House sends 2 million doses of HCQ to Brazil.

The American and Brazilian people stand in solidarity in the fight against the coronavirus. Today, as a demonstration of that solidarity, we are announcing the United States Government has delivered two million doses of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to the people of Brazil. The United States will also soon be sending 1,000 ventilators to Brazil.

HCQ will be used as a prophylactic to help defend Brazil’s nurses, doctors, and healthcare professionals against the virus. It will also be used as a therapeutic to treat Brazilians who become infected.