Quote from Toffoli

German leaked docs and Coronavirus

External Content youtu.be

Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.

Display all external content

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.

Don't you think that while true this is a bit premature?

24 months of flu kills quite a few people. True

We have only so far had 2 months of COVID.... Handled well be Germany, with a low infection rate.

It is also true that if COVID death rate were 1/12th (24 months vs 2 months) what it actually is the reaction would have been completely different.

THH

Toffoli,

Most people think Bill Gates telling the world to prepare for another pandemic ever since SARS makes him one of the good guys.

What are you suggesting? That he bioengineered COVID in a plan for world domination by injecting mind-altering nanobots into us all?

A report of HCQ+Azithromycin success in Lebanon --

Viral Dynamics Matter in COVID-19 Pneumonia:

the success of early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in Lebanon

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.05.28.20114835v1

A report that some ginko biloba flavonoids strongly inhibit the Covid-19 main viral protease --

Virtual Screening of Naturally Occurring Antiviral Molecules for SARS-CoV-2

Mitigation Using Docking Tool on Multiple Molecular Targets

https://chemrxiv.org/articles/…olecular_Targets/12403940

Peak Prosperity notes that Turkey has excelled at controlling Covid and uses HCQ --

Is Covid-19 Over?

Quote from Toffoli

"The world needs a vaccine delivered at mass scale to go back to normal"

Bill Gates never completed any university. In fact he just left college at 18 and his first and last opus was micro basic. This is the intellectual level of a study beginner (freshman) in IT science. Thus be relenting with his restricted and under educated mind. But I just remind you that Hitler was about the same personality...So the idea of mass vaccination is certainly something we know from the third Reich.

It looks like corona very efficiently kills weak individuals if they do not react in time. It's far more dangerous than a flue if not treated but less harmful than a flue when treated.

Corona will be over as soon as the weak all got it and were treated (or dead..). Sweden will show it and it is obvious that the vast majority of all people are immune to corona due to the very similar cold virus.

What corona has shown is the deep corruption that entangles our western states and the cricket brain level of the state employees and the acting personal. Here I include most doctors that no longer work/act for you or your health and instead execute the sermon dictated by the health mafia.

Thus the ultimate law of any individual: Only you can heal yourself. In very rare cases you need a drug or physical aid. Doctors are here for these rare cases only. A doctor possibly knows far than less you know about CoV-19 because he never was taught to know it. You had time to inform you and thus you are responsible in such an emergency case.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Bill Gates never completed any university.

On the other hand, he did get into Harvard, which was not easy.

Quote from Wyttenbach

In fact he just left college at 18 and his first and last opus was micro basic. This is the intellectual level of a study beginner (freshman) in IT science.

He left after 3 years, so I doubt he was 18. He said he had a wonderful time.

He programmed the BASIC interpreter for a computer he had never seen. It worked, supposedly the first time they loaded the paper tape. That is extraordinary. He wrote many other programs himself, including ones that I used. He is a brilliant programmer. He knows a terrific amount about computers. He was not a nice person in his salad days, but he has mellowed. I think he is nice now. He is doing a lot of good through his foundation.

The conspiracy theories about his role in the pandemic are disgusting garbage.

The numbers from Massachusetts look good. There were only 358 new cases today so far, although there were 58 deaths. That is much less than there were weeks ago. I hope their new tracking program is the reason why. I hope it is working.

If you look at the Massachusetts page in Worldmeters, it looks dreadful.

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/usa/massachusetts/

There is a huge spike yesterday of 3,840 new cases. However, read the small print and you will see this is an adjustment made by the health dept. to account for previous cases. See their memo:

https://www.mass.gov/doc/covid…oard-june-1-2020/download

With this crossover batvirus ... Timing is crucial

something that the Lancet study ovelooked either accidentally or intentionally

"An early control of replication may be crucial in averting complications.

Early administration of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin potentially explains our 94.7% success rate in treating a fairly complex cohort of COVID-19 pneumonia.

Thanks Toffoli for still surveying over Medrxiv...

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.05.28.20114835v1

Quote

With this crossover batvirus ... Timing is crucial something that the Lancet study ovelooked either accidentally or intentionally

Quote

Lancet :

Patients who received one of the treatments of interest within 48 h of diagnosis were included in one of four treatment groups (chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide), and patients who received none of these treatments formed the control group. Patients for whom one of the treatments of interest was initiated more than 48 h after diagnosis or while they were on mechanical ventilation, as well as patients who received remdesivir, were excluded.

one Lancet ...lost in Surgisphere..

" mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling"

"But just as quickly, the Lancet results have begun to unravel—and Surgisphere, which provided patient data for two other high-profile COVID-19 papers, has come under withering online scrutiny from researchers and amateur sleuths.

They have pointed out many red flags in the Lancet paper,

including the astonishing number of patients involved and details about their demographics

and prescribed dosing that seem implausible.

“It began to stretch and stretch and stretch credulity,” says Nicholas White,

a malaria researcher at Mahidol University in Bangkok.

https://www.sciencemag.org/new…ournals-may-be-unraveling

The Lancet's 48 hours.. if true

is a long time in the life of a virus..

enough time to replicate 100x

"Dr Chu Hin of HKU says Sars-CoV-2 can replicate 100 times within 48 hours, while the Sars virus replicated about 10 to 20 times at its peak"

https://www.scmp.com/news/hong…covid-19-can-produce-more

The Scientist magazine piles even more scorn on the "prestigious" Lancet's anti-HCQ hit piece ---

Concerns Build Over Surgisphere’s COVID-19 Dataset

https://www.the-scientist.com/…orporations-dataset-67605

The motives of Fauci/WHO/NIH/CDC/FDA/AMA/The"News"Media are becoming very transparent.

The Lancet's 48 hours.. if true

is a long time in the life of a virus..

enough time to replicate 100x

The problem here is that in an epidemic for very fast ( < 24 hours) early treatment you maybe need self-administered drugs for everyone - including the 95% of cases that would never go to hospital.

That makes benefits / risks more complex, because you are giving drugs to everyone, and they do not have hospital supervision. We can't have everyone with a cough in hospital due to capacity unless COVID and other respiratory disease infection rates are low. HCQ has known risks for some people, and we don't know who without doing an ECG. How is this managed for whole population? AZT, given to everyone, is not good for antibiotic resistance although maybe that is a trade-off worth suffering if this is a proven good prevention.

in addition, how effective is it?

As I understand it, the main evidence quoted here is various countries, giving early (? - is it < 48 hours, can we check?) treatment, and showing good results.

Can we check how good, and whether the demographics and other factors (not yet properly understood) would give those good results anyway? It seems that COVID rates of severe infection vary quite a bit, obviously with age, but with other things as well.

Do we have a serious analysis of all this stuff, from the "positive" results quoted here?

If not, can I suggest that all the warm words and feelings here are just that.

I'm happy to disregard the more extreme negative write-ups. My problem is that I've not yet seen any convincing positive write-up.

THH

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

The Scientist magazine piles even more scorn on the "prestigious" Lancet's anti-HCQ hit piece ---

Concerns Build Over Surgisphere’s COVID-19 Dataset

https://www.the-scientist.com/…orporations-dataset-67605

The motives of Fauci/WHO/NIH/CDC/FDA/AMA/The"News"Media are becoming very transparent.

Display More

Only if you make unwarranted assumptions about each of these entities and its relationship to Surgisphere.

In any case, as above, if you delete Surgisphere data what do you get?

Till that question is answered this argument is worth following, but has not actually got anywhere.

Quote from RobertBryant

With this crossover batvirus ... Timing is crucial

something that the Lancet study ovelooked either accidentally or intentionally

"An early control of replication may be crucial in averting complications.

Early administration of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin potentially explains our 94.7% success rate in treating a fairly complex cohort of COVID-19 pneumonia.

Thanks Toffoli for still surveying over Medrxiv...

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten…101/2020.05.28.20114835v1

Display More

To continue my quest for positive evidence. Does anyone claim this study is positive evidence for HCQ/AZT effectiveness enough to outweigh lack of any strong evidence elsewhere? If so I will comment on it.

Quote from THHuxleynew

Does anyone claim this study is positive evidence for HCQ/AZT effectiveness

Dr K K (Gill)describes it as "the straight goods"

"RT @PamelaVelos: @dockaurG gives you the straight goods on early treatment of COVID-19 with #Hydroxychloroquine #Azithromycin"

Perhaps Dr THH can consult with Dr K. K. on his quest..

Ok, I'll take that as a claim.

RB - on this (you agree) very political issue, do you really think the informally presented opinion of one Canadian physician who has founded and advocacy group on this issue is helpful?

I'll accept, there are many clinicians who genuinely believe HCQ is helpful. If you accept there are many who genuinely believe that a cautious "wait and see, do clinical trials but no harm" approach is the only responsible action given current info.

Given this uncertainty, politicians on both sides of this debate can claim medical support. You are not, I hope, a politician.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

do you really think the informally presented opinion of one Canadian physician who has founded and advocacy group on this issue is helpful?

Dr THH should consult with Dr KK..(Gill)

on his quest hopes and uncertainty around her claim...of straight goods..

Retraction watch..

"

NEJM, Lancet place expressions of concern on controversial studies of drugs for COVID-19

"As controversy swirls around two papers that used data from Surgisphere, the New England Journal of Medicine and The Lancet have placed expression of concerns on the relevant papers.

I think one +ve ivermectin study is involved as well

https://www.medrxiv.org/conten….20114835v1.full.pdf+html

This describes 18 patients with pneumonia seeking treatment seen over 5 weeks in a single medical centre in Lebanon. So this place has very little experience with COVID, and this is a very small study.

How many other centres are there with similar statistics? Over the world? I'd guess 1000s.

The results, 95% (17) discharged, 5% (1) in ICU fate as yet uncertain. Possibly better than expected. Possibly, because it depends on the demographics, younger patients with COVID pneumonia are more likely to recover (no link, but pretty sure).

Let us ignore that, as we probably should, and reckon looking at this study (the first I found) that shows about 12% of those with pneumonia die (from a sample of 179 patients).

(0.88)^17 * 0.12 * 18 = 24%

So there is an 24% chance we get this with no HCQ correlation. Way larger than the commonly accepted 5%, above which you don't bother to claim significance.

Now think about those 1000s of centres. Which ones will publish a preprint (this is a very easy short one) describing results?

• those who get noteworthy positive results
• those who reckon (excess of enthusiasm) that despite small sample the results might be helpful

Given such a large number of potential separate small sample samples you would expect much better results just by chance. even 5% probability would be likely to be observed at least once if 50 centres bothered to look and publish.

So these results are stunningly uninformative.

More relevant is the information of how COVID viral load related to recovery. But that has been investigated in many other places with larger samples - I think - so this is maybe not the best reference for that.

No unbiassed and competent clinician would view this study as "the straight goods" in the context of showing HCQ/AZT to be effective.

Please comment if you think I've been unfair or biassed in this analysis in any way?

Quote from RobertBryant

Dr THH should consult with Dr KK..(Gill)

on his quest hopes and uncertainty around her claim...of straight goods..

RB - see above, this one is on you. Not Dr. KK who has not published any claim that study is significant as far as I know.

I'm still waiting for the positive HCQ evidence that no doubt exists and informs your non-political view that this drug should be given to all and sundry (e.g before serious disease develops, while patients are at home) on grounds that benefits outweigh risks?

I'm not saying it might not help in the right circumstances (early administration etc) just I have no evidence of this. nor how early is early. Etc.

in case of no evidence why prioritise HCQ?

Or, if you are neutral on that and arguing physicians should be free to prescribe off-label then surely that is already the case?