Covid-19 News

New video on ivermectin --

From Whiteboard Doctor

Ivermectin And COVID-19: Ivermectin Efficacy, Blood Clotting, The CD147 Receptor, And More

Quote from RobertBryant

Let's play Connect the bullet points..

in the global playground

https://www.globalresearch.ca/…narrative-created/5717275

Following up on Robert Bryant's excellent post above, here is an even more depressing list

which includes RB's list and then even more political connivances against HCQ --

How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more - Meryl Nass, MD

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspo…hloroquine-narrative.html

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

Meryl Nass, MD

Just publicising (jumping on) Dr Nass.

She seems quite well-informed and armed against ad hominems inter alia...

Here is her recent submission re: vaccines mandate

time mark 6.42 "undesirable results are massaged until they look acceptable" .."and I have given you three examples"

The dean ( the big honcho) of the School of Pharmacy at Sydney University told me in 2006

" You've got to massage and massage your data... to make it more effective"

I always remember that.advice . I was always an amateur..

but BigPharma are professional masseurs...

Drbeen Medical Lectures: Recovery Trial Results (Preprint)

- debunks the "Recovery Trial" gleefully touted by The"News"Media as

proof that HCQ had no merit as an anti-Covid treatment

I guess Dr Been is not 100% convinced about Remdesivir "for political or other reasons" despite its RCT..

I am not 100% convinced by his advice about Zinc plus 500-1000 mg Quercetin

but I did buy some for $30 ...today 60 tablets enough to last 6x 5days..

I figure $30 is not such a high cost versus the possiblity of death..

I looked hard but could not find any RCTS.... perhaps Gilead will do one soon? Q+Zn head on head with Remdesivir..

The efficacy of HCQ may be assessed by the graph in the following --

Hydroxychloroquine: The One Chart You Need To See

https://www.zerohedge.com/poli…ne-one-chart-you-need-see

Quote from Lou Pagnucco

The efficacy of HCQ may be assessed..

Maybe... the 14% CFR looks OK from raw data for the UK

but NZ which never used HCQ AFAIK has a CFR of only 1.4%

similar to Costa Rica/Senegal

and should be in the red portion..

it makes a big difference when the national health system is overworked by a high number of cases..

as in the UK... and there are other confounding variables

Senegal appears to be going up slowly... now 1.8%.... but they don't have as much facilities as CR which now has a CFR down to 0.4%

as gummi bear said

"

It's not perfect as HCQ was also used in Belgium and Spain and later in Italy,

but the idea is that Western Europe as a whole never embraced the 'treat early and often' strategy. Mostly they tried it with sick patients,

didn't work..moved on. They mainly followed the WHO position

Quote from RobertBryant

Maybe... the 14% CFR looks OK from raw data for the UK

but NZ which never used HCQ AFAIK has a CFR of only 1.4%

similar to Costa Rica/Senegal

and should be in the red portion..

it makes a big difference when the national health system is overworked by a high number of cases..

as in the UK... and there are other confounding variables

Senegal appears to be going up slowly... now 1.8%.... but they don't have as much facilities as CR which now has a CFR down to 0.4%

Display More

CFR is not comparable between different countries, so why compare it?

CFR is dominated by how much testing you do, relative to the amount of virus. Countries that do enough testing to catch all of their infections end up with CFR ~ IFR in range 0.5 - 1% - or bit higher because some infections are still not caught.

Countries that do not do enough testing - and no-one has been able to do enough when the infection rate is very high at peak - have a much higher CFR. It does not mean that more infected people die, just that

In addition, countries with younger populations (most of the HCQ countries) have lower IFR just from each. 6 years younger median age => 50% lower IFR, roughly.

I am very surprised that anyone on this thread would bother to compare CFR rates without these two big caveats. In the UK still we know that the infection rate is much higher than the case rate (because we do sample-testing of the population). This is a factor of 10X difference between different countries and dwarfs different treatments.

The variation due to population age is less than due to testing. However betwen UK and South Africa it is 12.5 years => other things being equal we have 1/4 the mortality in SA that we have in UK. The rest of the difference is that during the weeks of peak infection the UK gave up even trying to test, and told people to stay at home when they got COVID till they were at death's door. We just did not have enough testing.

These comparisons need to be made properly to have any evidence for HCQ.

This thread is spreading dangerous disinformation with biased "HCQ is a miracle cure" which would be the case if that CFR graph correlation with HCQ was not confounded by other factors not mentioned (except by me).

Why dangerous? Well, HCQ is pretty well tolerated, but its widespread use (for no gain) use against COVID will mean lack of supplies for malaria prevention in 3rd world countries - malaria does not go away just because COVID exists. AZT - also widely used with HCQ as prophylaxis - when there is no evidence this is helpful - will lead to more antibiotic resistance. You keep your strongest antibiotics locked up tight so they remain useful worst case against nasty infections. resistance in countries that misuse antibiotics will spread even to countries that use them carefully.

The arguments (recycled) for early HCQ/Zn being helpful are pretty convincing, till you look at them carefully.

I'm going to do that if anyone wants. Or, if no-one wants and just reckons this thread should be PR for HCQ in the form of youtube videos I'll leave off repeated comment and let groupthink predominate. Also, before I trawl through the literature which combination is needed for efficacy? the things which have been proposed as necessary (and on plausible grounds) are :

+Zn

treatment within 5 days of infection

AZT (much less plausible than the other two).

low HCQ dosage

< +5 days and low HCQ dosage don't make much sense since HCQ concentrations in vivo build up gradually.

The problem is that the studies cited as positive evidence mostly do not include all of these. So let us decide which combo we are promoting, then look and positives and negatives for that combo only. You can choose any set of conditions - tighter or looser - but we must then stick to it and count only those studies that meet the conditions.

At the moment:

positive HCQ only +7 days => yeay - HCQ works

negative HCQ only +7 days => discount it because HCQ does not work without Zn and unless given early.

I hope everyone here can see the bias in that. So, let us filter evidence by the precise protocol needed, then see how much positive and negative we have.

Over to those who promote HCQ as a clearly efficacious therapy to provide a treatment protocol.

Oh - and let me point out that out patients will naturally have very low mortality compared to hospital patients (who are in hospital because they already have severe COVID). So an outpatient doctor saying their treatment is good because they have very low CFR compared with country CFR, or hospital CFR, is not understanding the statistic.

In the interests of transparency, let me point out that Zelencko's Zinc ionophore hypothesis sounds good but has problems (for the HCQ studies):

• The in vitro studies look at what happens when you vary levels of Zn in isolated cells.
• The in vivo situation is that the body creates a homestasis equilibrium for Zn in cells which makes it difficult for external addition of Zinc to have any effect. HCQ might change that homeostasis - but altering the external (ingested) zinc levels is much less likely to be a factor. Else Zn deficiency would be strongly recognised as a factor in viral diseases, and it is not. Sure, Zinc deficiency is good for viruses, and needs to be dealt with independently of HCQ. Since in developed countries at least most people have good diet and are not zinc deficient you would expect HCQ without zinc to show a positive effect unless the natural body zinc homeostasis was pushed severely to one side by high zinc dosage.
• The support for Zn as helpful comes from in vitro studies. Interesting but no way persuasive.

Here is a good perspective article on the hypothesised benefits of ensuring that everyone is not Zinc deficient (Zinc supplements for all):

https://www.frontiersin.org/ar…389/fimmu.2020.01712/full

It suggests a strong correlation between mortality from COVID infection and Zinc deficiency. I doubt it, but studies looking at Zn supplementation would be very interesting, and it would be surprising if there were no correlation given what we know about zinc and viruses. The 4 referenced in the above perspective were registered but have not reported results - some have been abandoned.

Quote from Shane D.

In fact there has been some effort in the past 2 weeks to try and make it OTC here in the US.

Do you have more information about this?

Quote from THHuxleynew

This thread is spreading dangerous disinformation with biased "HCQ is a miracle cure"

Classic THH rhetoric..

I like the d d alliteration but deadly dangerous disinformation would be more effective

with miracle madness cure

Caveat It is"Not based on an RCT and THH is 100% convinced   " for political or other reasons"

Quote from Shane D.

If you want to be the oddball out,

I need to know which of the many HCQ treatments people here think is effective. Or, if more than one, what are they.

If I select one, then every negative result not identical will be viewed as discountable because wrong, every positive result not identical will be viewed as evidence.

You can probably see that is a recipe for cheating.

So: what should we expect negative, and what positive?

Note that it doe snot have to be the best treatment - just something that works with say a typical 30% or better reduction in mortality. (Or smaller if you want to discount all of the smaller studies).

Quote from THHuxleynew

You can probably see that is a recipe for cheating.

THH -rhetoric is a "recipe for cheating"

Quote from RobertBryant

Classic THH rhetoric..

I like the d d alliteration but deadly dangerous disinformation would be more effective

with miracle madness cure

Caveat It is"Not based on an RCT and THH is 100% convinced   " for political or other reasons"

Display More

RB - the thing is I don't misdirect, whereas you do. For example in your reply here you do not accept that the CFR comparison does not work, for the reasons I stated. Were you more interested in the argument you could try and find estimates of IFR, adjusted for population demographics. There must be some studies trying to do this, though it is pretty difficult.

THH

Quote from THHuxleynew

Were you more interested in the argument

I am not interested in rhetorical argument which has a "recipe for cheating"

However if you are interested.. gummi bear has quite an interesting thread following his (not my) June CFR graph..

there might be some IFR there.. but country by country and state by state comparisons are flawed.. which is common knowledge.

What is needed is treatment for tge age group that gets paleantive care. So please focus on that group regarding hcq. currently (In sweden) if you are younger or old in good shape 19 out of 20 survives icu care with no hcq treatment. And hence the death rate have gone down conciderble with a factor of ten.

Quote from THHuxleynew

For example in your reply here you do not accept that the CFR comparison does not work

THH ... I cannot follow your contorted and inaccurate logic... which reply.. to who ... and where

where did I state "I do not accept the CFR comparison does not work?"

A double negative???? I said maybe.. and you contort into a double negative?

i

I feel a few of your replies are more about attention-seeking argumentation than the substance of Covid.. and in fact are misdirection and distraction.