Covid-19 News

    Quote from Navid

    All of these is what "saved the world" not vaccines. The data is vast and obvious, go read it.


    Again - Navid you claim to be interested in science and yet you don't give scientific (quantitative) evidence to support your PR.


    You posit various possible reasons why the better health results that have come with vaccines might be due to other things. Fair enough. But that does not prove anything, just means you need to look carefully at the data and do science not PR.


    When I post exactly that - a paper showing that even counting the other effects vaccines still reduce overall mortality - you go all indignant and ask mods to ban me for posting spin.


    Let us (as you say) settle this once and for all:


    (1) Yes - I agree there are all sorts of second-order effects that mean vaccines overall many not be as good for populations as the headline efficacy rates imply

    (2) Vaccines do however generally give herd immunity, if taken by high percentage of population

    (3) Vaccines can induce T-cell response just like infection - those that do are more effective against high mutation rate viruses (and COVID). Modern vaccines do this.

    (4) When fair statistical techniques are used vaccines confer strong whole population benefits

    Are you an anti-vaxer? Take this simple test to find out. Higher score indicates stronger anti-vax tendencies.


    Do you:

    (1) read medical science theories that while qualitatively correct have no evidence that they are quantitatively significant overall?

    (2) take no interest in quantitative work judging significance of such ideas?

    (3) ignore the fact that vaccines get better over time (e.g. new ones, like those for COVID) that are good at engendering T-cell immune response?

    (4) read weird conspiracy theory websites that claim Bill Gates engineers pandemics and Microsoft wants to control the world by implanting chips into everyone? No, you don't believe all of it but you like reading it and darkly suspect there must be some truth there, given how much you hate Gates

    (5) deny (contradicting the heroic work, ever since SARS and MERS, of the Gates foundation and the thinking medical establishment) that respiratory disease pandemics are the most likely short-term threat to our health and livelihoods?

    (6) stir up FUD that makes a significant portion of the US population unlikely to accept vaccines as the (only good) solution to bad new respiratory pandemics, and therefore reduces prospects for medium solution to COVID probelms.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Gates was saying there is a risk of severe side effects, not that severe side effects are common. The disagreement is on how much, if any, benefit you get from taking HCQ. I agree that if it were shown to be effective at prevention - say even as much as Flu vaccine - doctors could dose everyone prophylatically in high COVID areas. That is because unlike the anti-vaxers (RB please note the extra helping of spin here) I accept small risks of serious side effects for overall benefits. I'm not sure most doctors would agree. Primum non nocere (within risk/reward limits).


    At least you admit it is still a debate as to whether or not HCQ has benefits re COVID. Unfortunately, the media, social media, WHO, and many developed nations health agencies, left wing politicians,.. all have concluded the issue is resolved, and the debate over. HCQ is so dangerous to use according to them, that it has either been outright banned, or been so politicized it is as good as banned.


    Pains me to see Gates jumping on that bandwagon. I respect the man, and for him to take sides against common sense, and the truth (HCQ is safe), only makes me curious about his motivations. Something I never questioned before.


    Let me ask you this; was the reaction to HCQ justified? While the facts are being sorted out, should it still be fully available to doctors, and their patients?


    THH -


    "What chance of severe harm from the drug to you accept for:

    (1) a one-off vaccine shown based on extensive testing to have 50% efficacy for your age group?

    (2) a prophylactic drug that might be efficacious - but no-one knows what are the chances of this?"


    This is not a good argument and I cannot understand why some here (on both sides of the argument) seem to insist on exclusivity. ?!


    First, if taken under a doctors oversight and tested first, HCQ has no serious side effects. The serious side effects known from the 70+ year history is well known, understood and avoidable. So that is the first step, to remove the question of serious side effect, which if done, then answers the next question.


    Can the vaccine (which there are NONE currently) be taken along side HCQ safely? Most likely yes, but a doctor's guidance should be used.


    So my answer is that I would investigate taking both! The vaccine (ONCE one is developed and tested safe) and then HCQ (available NOW and known safe with doctors oversight and 70+ year history and multi-millions of prescriptions) at fist symptoms.


    This is not an either / or question. This is not a contest. This is WHAT WILL KEEP ME FROM DYING question. A vaccine MAY prevent me from getting it.... it MAY NOT. It MAY not even be developed. (Yes, Jed, you state the experts are saying it will...however some are saying not... time will only tell. Hopefully a good vaccine will come, but there is no today and none for at least a few more months, possibly longer.)


    This whole question is ludicrous. I am in danger today. There is NO vaccine TODAY. There is NO "Standard" prophylactic care TODAY! There is no RCT TODAY.


    What is available TODAY? A very large base of observational evidence, a reasonable working theory and support from a wide base of front line doctors from many areas of the world for a SAFE and LOW RISK and possibly effective prophylactic medicine that may even reduce/shorten the impact of Covid if contracted.


    There is NO other OPTION TODAY! Why is this being such a contested issue.


    The risks are simply not there if tested first and taken under doctors care. (A few people would be excluded from use do to EKG tests) There is a possibly HUGE upside with no DOWNSIDE and is available TODAY!


    Wait!,........ :cursing: Due to stupid arguments such as this, it has been banned and I cannot get it TODAY!


    Do not give the argument that HCQ is preventing good care... there IS NO STANDARD vaccine TODAY. Taking HCQ does NOT prevent using the "Standard Care" (fever reduction, hydration, etc. etc) given TODAY.


    They are not exclusive! Why this argument? Are people afraid if the HCQ is proven to work to what ever extent, that all the vaccine research will be stopped?


    This is ludicrous:!:

    Quote from Shane D.

    At least you admit it is still a debate as to whether or not HCQ has benefits re COVID. Unfortunately, the media, social media, WHO, and many developed nations health agencies, left wing politicians,.. all have concluded the issue is resolved, and the debate over. HCQ is so dangerous to use according to them, that it has either been outright banned, or been so politicized it is as good as banned.


    Pains me to see Gates jumping on that bandwagon. I respect the man, and for him to take sides against common sense, and the truth (HCQ is safe), only makes me curious about his motivations. Something I never questioned before.


    Let me ask you this; was the reaction to HCQ justified? While the facts are being sorted out, should it still be fully available to doctors, and their patients?


    I think the medical conclusion at the moment (does not work as treatment) is correct. Should therefore doctors be saved from the demands of politically motivated patients by banning them from prescribing. I'm not sure. You can argue it both ways. Not banning gives doctors a lot of responsibility, and puts them in a tough position. Overall it would mean more people die, but probably not a lot more.


    I'm not sure that anyone is stopping people from doing prophylactic tests - or indeed any sort of tests. I'm all for that but don't see HCQ as the best bet for testing given its lack of success so far.


    One difference between me and others is having looked at a lot of non-RCT evidence, and tried to judge it, I can see that it is almost impossible to get sensible data from it. COVID mortality is just too variable dependent on other factors. The front-line doctors who think a treatment is good will use it, and therefore never have proper comparative data to know whether it is actually good.

    Quote from Bob#2

    First, if taken under a doctors oversight and tested first, HCQ has no serious side effects.


    Bob - I've said this before but it is quite a complex point.


    COVID can (normally) have no serious side effects but still (as the RCT evidence points to, slightly) increase disease severity in COVID patients. Why?


    Because it is both anti-viral and immunomodulatory active. Suppose the anti-viral effect does not help, for example it is given to patients in hospital who have been infected more than 5 days ago. Then in second stage COVID the way it alters the immune system could make things better or worse - but it looks based on data so far as though it makes things worse. In that case having it in your system is a v bad idea. It persists in the body for a long time, so you cannot just stop taking it when you know you have caught COVID.

    • Official Post
    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Should therefore doctors be saved from the demands of politically motivated patients by banning them from prescribing. I'm not sure. You can argue it both ways. Not banning gives doctors a lot of responsibility, and puts them in a tough position. Overall it would mean more people die, but probably not a lot more.


    Had to laugh at that one. I would say you have little faith in doctors making the right decision, and having the integrity of saying *no* to a patient demanding a drug they felt did not work.


    We definitely have a difference of philosophy. IMO the decision should be left in the hands of the doctor patient relationship, and you, it seems, prefer higher authorities to make those decisions for them.

    Quote from Shane D.

    IMO the decision should be left in the hands of the doctor patient relationship, and you, it seems, prefer higher authorities to make those decisions for them.


    I'm not saying that. I prefer doctors to be responsible and have power. it is just tough for them in exceptional times like this when in the midst of people dying like flies, and convinced a drug will help, it is difficult not to give this even when your belief is that it will do harm.


    Normally doctors handle this sort of thing. HCQ has got so politicised by Trump and then others that it is a tough one.


    THH


    Please pay the board admins for your vaccine promotion work.


    As for Gates wanting to implant chips - it is one proposal - - thats why he funds the research at MIT.


    http://news.mit.edu/2019/storing-vaccine-history-skin-1218


    I am not saying they will forcibly do this. I am not saying a vaccine implant quantum dot dye, automatically turns us into a society with social credit scores and 24/7 Surveillance. But it gets us one step closer. Any identification cross border identification program for vaccination gets them closer to more control.


    Board admins: you should get a cut. This is as close as you get to direct advertising.

    Quote from Roseland67

    However, I would not put it past him to

    “make dang sure” his investment in vaccine was 1st in political pecking order for trials, approvals, samples, and government funded purchases etc.


    Except that it is not his investment, as I pointed out. It is an investment by his Foundation. He does not own that any more than I do.

    Quote from Shane D.

    Had to laugh at that one. I would say you have little faith in doctors making the right decision, and having the integrity of saying *no* to a patient demanding a drug they felt did not work.


    The problem being that patients can shop around for doctors who are willing to compromise their integrity. c.f. the opioid crisis, or the way that most people get their $50 medical marijuana exemptions for highly dubious (if one is really bothered about such things) reasons.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    Overall it would mean more people die, but probably not a lot more.

    Ok, I have to take you to task again on this....


    You are stating that taking HCQ will kill people. How? No competent doctor would administer HCQ to ICU patients today.

    So how does HCQ kill people who are being administered under physician

    care?


    HCQ does not (to the best of my knowledge) exclude so called "standard care". If so, please explain. So therefore you must be stating that it is the HCQ itself killing people as "standard care" can still be administered. If so, please explain and give the of this.


    This again is why the banning of HCQ is so egregious and possibly criminal! It is not exclusive. You can continue "standard care" HCQ does not kill when administrated properly with 70+ years of knowledge and multi-millions of annual prescriptions for arthritis, lupus and malaria.


    The observational evidence, functional theory and support of many front line entities such as the Ford study all are VOLUMES more positive evidence than ANY negative evidence you have! LACK of a RCT is not evidence of killing people or even of ineffectiveness.


    This argument has become completely political. (Perhaps political is the wrong word, but oppositional to simply ones world view)


    Otherwise, explain why the exclusiveness arguements and posts such as killing people!


    If I contract Covid, can you tell me definitively why I should NOT take HCQ+Zinc and Ivermectin? Remember, the "instead of standard care" is non-argument. Standard care can STILL be administered.


    What will you definitively say is BETTER for me to take other than HCQ, Zinc and Ivermectin? Do nothing? If so, please state WHY this is definitely increases my chance of survival! (And thus definitively agrees with the banishment of HCQ use)


    Thank you.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm not saying that. I prefer doctors to be responsible and have power. it is just tough for them in exceptional times like this when in the midst of people dying like flies, and convinced a drug will help, it is difficult not to give this even when your belief is that it will do harm.


    Normally doctors handle this sort of thing. HCQ has got so politicised by Trump and then others that it is a tough one.


    THH


    (This is not pick on THH day! :))


    Again, another complete world view interpretation!)


    Turmp has NOT politicized this. He made a statement that is was a medicine that several doctors were using and that results looked very promising. He NEVER stated it was a cure all nor that an RCT was done!


    He never had a news conference to announce he was using it.


    On the other hand, the leftist liberal media jumped and called for "crimes against humanity", stated the drug was absolute poison and were horrified that something mentioned by Trump might actually work. AND they repeated this ad nauseum.


    Trump on two occasions made reference while the liberal mainstream media beat it do death.


    Now which group actually politicized it? Sincerely!


    Trump puts his foot in his mouth enough on his own, he does not need FAKE news help in doing so! :)\

    However portraying it as "both sides", this removes the atrocity the left is actually doing! No doubt about this, otherwise you would have said, " the liberal left is politicizing HCQ". However, that would not do, so blame has to be spread around and the blame deflected! Do you REALLY think that if Obama had made the same two statements as Trump, that the same negative political attitude towards HCQ would be seen? :/


    Of course not. Trump does not deserve the blame! (at least on this)

    Bob - not sure if it helps. here is a non-politically-biassed (from Italy) recent review of the evidence on HCQ both RCT and observational.


    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7351664/


    Results

    Thirty-two studies were included (6 RCTs, 26 nonrandomized, 29,192 participants). Two RCTs had high risk, two ‘some concerns’ and two low risk of bias (Rob2). Among nonrandomized studies with comparators, nine had high risk and five moderate risk of bias (ROBINS-I). Data synthesis was not possible. Low and moderate risk of bias studies suggest that treatment of hospitalized COVID-19 with CQ/HCQ may not reduce risk of death, compared to standard care. High dose regimens or combination with macrolides may be associated with harm. Postexposure prophylaxis may not reduce the rate of infection but the quality of the evidence is low.

    Conclusions

    Patients with COVID-19 should be treated with CQ/HCQ only if monitored and within the context of high quality RCTs. High quality data about efficacy/safety are urgently needed.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I thank God I'm not doctor so don't have the responsibility of deciding what you should take. If it were me, now, I'd not take HCQ nor Ivermectin unless a doctor told me to do so.


    This is a reasonable position and I can respect it!


    However, my position / option is now BANNED! My doctor cannot advise to use or administer HCQ + ZN or Ivermectin because of the unsubstantiated and POLITICAL fall out from this false news. The often posted positions such as yours is adding to this unsubstantiated false fire.


    Please note that I am not stating that HCQ is a proven silver bullet against Covid! I am NOT 100% sure it will work as I hope.


    However THERE CURRENTLY IS NO ALTERNATIVE and now the HCQ choice has been taken away from my doctor. This verges on being criminal.


    In 6 months, hopefully an effective vaccine will be developed! But is is not here today. STILL, even if a vaccine is developed, it is likely to be only 60% effective at best! I still will look for an effective prophylactic or early onset medicine. HCQ or Ivermectin are still the front runners! Recently some other drugs are being presented as well, but none so far with as wide a support base as these. We will see....


    Still.... HCQ has been banned and this is simply political BS!

    Quote from Bob#2

    Do you REALLY think that if Obama had made the same two statements as Trump, that the same negative political attitude towards HCQ would be seen?


    Yes. Doctors would have been incensed. The "we don't like Obama with racist undertones" thing would have been energised by it. If he had gone on to assert his opinion contrary to medical advice via twitter, re-tweeting those with contrary to medical opinion views (and who also incidentally has eccentric views on other subjects) it would have got bigger and bigger. Maybe it is only the left wing in the US that is inclined to dislike views contradicting medical advice, in which case it would not be so bad? But it would not be good. Politicians should stay out of medical matters.


    Of course any number of politicians might make unguarded comments about treatments. But when faced with medics disagreeing no-one except Trump would persist in maintaining a contrary public view through twitter.

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.