Hydroxychloroquine

“Peer-Reviewed” Covid Article Failures | Unfollow the #Science

Published by Papa Giorgio

Wow, some amazing news as of late. I will start out with the bad news for the cult of vaccines, then a good peer-reviewed story. Including this flashback 6-months ago (video to the right).

Here is the video description for it:

As of November 18, 2022 Retraction Watch has documented 270 peer reviewed articles about COVID-19 that have been retracted by their publishers. Articles about the unusually high retraction rate have appeared in the journal Accountability in Research and in the journal Nature. The articles about the high retraction rate suggest that lowered stringency and standards on the part of publishers and the eagerness to publish on the part of researchers may have been driving forces in the unusually high retraction rate (typically only about 4 out of 10,000 research papers are retracted).

The high rate of flawed / junk science published raises questions about the effectiveness of the peer review process which was greatly expedited to get articles published quickly.

That FLASHBACK aside, here is the latest news via DAILY CALLER on the issue:

At least 330 COVID-19-related medical papers have been retracted since the coronavirus pandemic began, oftentimes for scientific errors or ethical shortcomings, according to watchdog Retraction Watch.

Many of the papers were published in smaller, less influential publications, although a number were published in the highly-prestigious Lancet and other influential journals like Science. The topics covered in the papers ranged from alternative proposed COVID-19 treatments like ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to false COVID-19 side effects.

One example of a U-turn from researchers occurred at the University of Manchester, where researchers two years ago asserted that hearing loss could be a result of COVID-19. Now, those researchers admit that was a faulty assumption.

Professor Kevin Munro of the University of Manchester audiology department admitted that many COVID-19 studies had been rushed. “There was an urgent need for this carefully conducted clinical and diagnostic study to investigate the long-term effects of Covid-19 on the auditory system. Many previous studies were published rapidly during the pandemic but lacked good scientific rigour,” he said.

One retracted paper published in Science examined the spread of the Omicron variant of COVID-19 in South Africa. It was withdrawn after social media users pointed out that some of the samples used could have been false positives. A number of the retractions were also social science papers, including one that used an inadequate sample size and imbalanced search terms to try and report on COVID-19 vaccine “misinformation” on social media……

This is why PJ-MEDIA headlines it as “Unfollow the Science.” and HOT AIR has a decent little break down as well:

More than 300 COVID-19-related articles have been retracted — long after they’d done their damage — due to a lack of scientific truthfulness and ethical guidelines, according to Retraction Watch, a website that monitors retractions of science-related articles.

A total of 330 COVID-related papers have been retracted thus far.

According to Gunnveig Grødeland, a senior researcher at the Institute of Immunology at the University of Oslo, many researchers took ethical shortcuts when writing their essays.

[….]

…The Lancet journal (which dubs itself as “The best science for better lives”) was described as having used “fraudulent research” when it concluded that hydroxychloroquine “caused an increased risk of heart arrhythmia and even death” in COVID patients. The World Health Organization used those findings as a justification to shut down their research into what turned out to be a very effective medication for treating COVID and the media lectured us endlessly about the dangers it posed, particularly after Trump endorsed it.

Another paper from the University of Manchester that has since disappeared reported that COVID “was associated with vertigo, hearing loss, and tinnitus.” They later admitted that this is not the case. The author of the paper apparently had no research to draw on, but since viruses such as measles, mumps, and meningitis can cause auditory damage, she said “it was reasonable to assume” that COVID would do so also. I see. So policy was being made based on assumption.

And then there was the whole Ivermectin debacle. (Also endorsed by Trump initially.)

So all of that unpleasantness is simply disappearing from medical journals and research archives. And the media would like us all to pretend that it never happened. But it did happen. And if we don’t learn anything from all of this, it will happen again when the next pandemic inevitably comes along. The need for speed must be moderated by adhering to proven practices from the past. And if you’re trusting the government to deal with you honestly and fairly based on the best available science rather than “The Science,” I’ve got a bridge in Brooklyn you might be interested in purchasing.

HEADLINE USA notes some of the main ideas in the general public that were overturned pre and post pandemic:

  • Studies about the effectiveness of masking and other COVID-related control efforts pushed by government officials are under intense scrutiny. Some second looks even revealed that masking and other measures put people in more danger than was necessary.

And don’t forget that these retractions happened while the general public still went on having their mind warped by previous headlines and what they thought was “honest reporting”

JIMMY DORE SHOW w/Dr. Jay Bhattacharya

LA Times Prints DUMBEST Covid Article In History!

Even as the dominant COVID narrative rapidly unravels more every day, the establishment’s wagons are being circled, and a perfect example is a recent LA Times article by Michael Hiltzik insisting that the authors of The Great Barrington Declaration should have faced professional consequences for “getting COVID wrong.” Except that the horrific consequences of COVID took place following establishment guidelines, NOT The Great Barrington Declaration.

Jimmy and Americans’ Comedian Kurt Metzger talk to The Great Barrington Declaration co-author Jay Bhattacharya about this LA Times hit piece filled with blatant misinformation.

I forgot to add this when I posted this originally… then I was off for a quick turn-around d to Arizona Thurs/Fri. So here is the missed PJ-MEDIA post I wanted to share. The entire post is worth linking over to, but I will emphasize the last sentence in my excerpt:

The pre-print for this study, prior to the peer review process, came out late last year. It showed, in a nutshell, that more COVID-19 shots correlated to a greater risk of contracting COVID-19.

But the COVIDians predictably, in eternal denial as is their nature, pounced on the fact that the initial paper was a pre-print. They dismissed it for not being peer-reviewed, which is often described as the “gold standard” stamp of approval by The ScienceTM.

Mind you, the corporate state media expresses no such criticism of pre-print studies that say what they want them to say about the alleged efficacy of masking, the wonders of Pfizer’s mRNA injections, etc. It’s only when a study counters the narrative that they pump the brakes.

Via McGill, February 2023:

Recently, some people have been spreading the idea that getting additional doses of the COVID vaccine increases the risk of catching the virus. The suggestion was made in an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal and repeated recently by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis. The notion seems to stem from a preprint uploaded last December by researchers from the Cleveland Clinic. Opponents of vaccines have been using it to argue their case, worrying a fair number of people, if the emails I have received on the subject are any indication.

Well, now it is peer-reviewed, and none of the conclusions have changed….

 

India’s “Crushing” of the Curve In States Using IVER and HCQ

Published by Papa Giorgio

(Originally posted September 3rd – Updated Today)

This is really a continuation of a previous post titled, “More Straight Talk About Covid-19 Prophylactics,” coupled with this convo as well: “Trying to Cut Through Bias To Talk Ivermectin (Didn’t Work).” (I will of course add a few comments here-n-there in the [box] parenthesize.)

But the conversation pivoted to studies done on Ivermectin… to the point that I wondered about how the states in India handing out prophylactic’s earlier this year were doing (Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin). I now set out to find out “what happened,” and this is where that curiosity led to update the issue on my site — I think it’s that important. I figured for the fans here that this continuing point[s] will be helpful in conversation regarding “prophylactic measures.”

The conversation has taken place over a cartoon I was tagged in on Facebook, here is the graphic to the right. So let us pick up with and MIKE B. point:

  • there are no reputable studies that show ivermectin – no matter what Fox News tells you – is a good treatment for covid. ivermectin is a horse and cattle worm medicine. a parasite is way different than a virus. could it also have some properties that help against covid – everything is possible, but is doubtful. Caleb Wallace an anti-vaxxer took it early in the onset of covid – he still died. if you want to risk your life on horse wormer medicine if you get covid – go for it.

[So M.B. is still stuck on Ivermectin being used for horses… still influenced by Rachel Maddow as noted previously.]

I respond:

RPT:

  • (Lol) MIKE B. says: “there are no reputable studies that show ivermectin” –113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups.

I posted this as well:

  • Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain statistically significant after exclusions. 44 studies show statistically significant improvements in isolation (35 primary outcome, 32 most serious outcome).
  • Meta analysis using the most serious outcome reported shows 67% [53‑76%] and 85% [75‑91%] improvement for early treatment and prophylaxis, with similar results after exclusion based sensitivity analysis (which excludes all of the GMK/BBC team studies), with primary outcomes, and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies or Randomized Controlled Trials.
  • Results are very robust — in worst case exclusion sensitivity analysis 55 of 66 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.
  • While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 24% of ivermectin studies show zero events in the treatment arm.
  • Multiple treatments are typically used in combination, which may be significantly more effective.

Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used, including treatments, as supported by Pfizer [Pfizer, TrialSiteNews]. Denying the efficacy of treatments increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage

[I want the reader to be aware that the 77 Ivermectin trial groups were human trials… [total of] 147 studies, 96 peer reviewed, again, 77 with results comparing treatment and [human] control groups. If you go to the source and click on EARLY, LATE, or PROPHYLAXIS, the “bovine Study” that is in the “all” category are not in those human categories. So M.B. isn’t just randomly choosing” a study. He is selectively doing what the left does all the time. Obfuscate… which is why I said of M.B. in the previous convo, “Obfuscation is thy moniker.”]

Here is MIKE B.’s next post:

  • Sean G. thanks for the link. I checked it out. these are a load of third world country studies in not name brand medical articles. I read one – picked randomly as the source sounds legit. This is the article: “Ivermectin also inhibits the replication of bovine respiratory viruses (BRSV, BPIV-3, BoHV-1, BCoV and BVDV) in vitro,” it talks about how ivermectin appears to have a positive effect against respiratory viruses that effect sheep and cows – by studying the virus in a test tube. no mention of trial on an animal, on a human or specifically COVID-19. Again – if someone gets COVID-19 and they want to take Ivermectin or Hydroxychloroquine – go for it. Maybe they are miracle cures that science just hasn’t seen the light yet.

See the switch here? So my “right” that is to follow is commenting mainly on this portion of M.B.’s statement: “these are a load of third world country studies in not name brand medical articles.” This statement jogged my memory of me wanting to see whats-what in India:

Right.

Many countries without a preconceived bias and/or large pharmaceutical lobbying power were able to actually give HUMAN patients Ivermectin, wit h great results. This is part of the reason Japan’s head medical dude is again calling for it to be used. It is based on real world use (which many of those studies document.

Another example, since April 28, India medical officials started providing Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin to its massive population. As India is the major pharmaceutical manufacture in the world, they were ready for this massive drug distribution. Miraculously, COVID cases have plummeted quickly since then thanks to the new rules.

….The Times of India published this statement on July 29. Kerala has continued to have the majority of new daily cases and almost 25% of India’s daily deaths despite a population of 34 million, less than 3% of India’s total population.

On August 15, Kerala accounted for 18,582 of India’s 32,937 new cases and 102 of India’s 417 new deaths. By contrast, the Ivermectin-using state of Delhi, with nearly the same population size, recorded only 53 new cases and ZERO deaths. In comparison, Uttar Pradesh, with almost eight times as many inhabitants, had only 30 new cases and ONE death.

Kerala had 619 times as many new cases as Uttar Pradesh and over 100 times as many deaths.

So what could Kerala be doing wrong?

Hint: Over-reliance on vaccines and under-reliance on Ivermectin…..

(DESERT REVIEW)

The use of these prophylactics that have proven safe for humans for decades in Africa, France, and the like.

SIDE-NOTE: when Trump mentioned Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a possible prophylactic — because NO ONE was or still is in America treating the disease early, they only wait to you are sick enough to be admitted to the E.R. — France changed HCQ from an over the counter drug to prescription only.

COORECTION: I had mentioned that AFTER Trump mentioned HCQ France banned it. This is not the case, France banned it a couple months earlier: “President Trump mentioned HCQ as a potential “game changer” on Mar 21. But the war against HCQ was already on. Until Jan 15, 2020, HCQ was available over the counter in France. After that it became available by prescription only, days before the first Western reports on the epidemic, which had been circulating in Wuhan, China, at least since October 2019. This was part of a multinational effort to restrict HCQ.”

Australian MP Craig Kelly noted in July that Uttar Pradesh, with a population of 230 million, “smashed the scary Delta variant” with Ivermectin.

This kept India at 96th in death count. Uttar Pradesh was the first state in India to implement it (INDIAN EXPRESS).

In a study in Brazil, 1,200 healthcare workers were part of the study. 800 were given real Ivermectin and the rest [400] got the fake “sugar” pill. The profolaxed 800 healthcare workers? Not one got sick. The 400 that were not given the real deal? 58% got sick. 237 of those 400 got sick.

AGAIN, after the Olympics Japan is dealing with record cases, and AGAIN Dr. Ozaki, The chairman of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association, is recommending Japan take his advice on Ivermectin.

Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19

  • CONCLUSIONS: Meta-analyses based on 18 randomized controlled treatment trials of ivermectin in COVID-19 have found large, statistically significant reductions in mortality, time to clinical recovery, and time to viral clearance. Furthermore, results from numerous controlled prophylaxis trials report significantly reduced risks of contracting COVID-19 with the regular use of ivermectin. Finally, the many examples of ivermectin distribution campaigns leading to rapid population-wide decreases in morbidity and mortality indicate that an oral agent effective in all phases of COVID-19 has been identified.

M.B. responds:

  • Sean G. the india data on Kerela vs. Delhi is not accurate. Delhi is in far worse shape than Kerela

My response, and I assume the silence after posting this is because he didn’t realize he was not taking into account “when” Ivermectin/HCQ were introduced. It “sounded good” until more info was introduced. So I worked on grabbing some graphs (better than what the articles provided) and combined them all for affect. You can see that HERE, but below they are separated for ease of viewing. And again, it is similar to what I noted above — finding a “bovine test” and applying that to the whole, or calling Ivermectin a horse “dewormer” as if there is no application of it for humans:

(I did some coloring and connecting of these 4-graphs to make it clear) Kerala reports 188 deaths in last 24 hours. Kerala accounts for 70 percent new Covid cases in the country.

No death due to COVID-19 was recorded in Delhi for the fourth consecutive day on Sunday. (No death due to COVID-19 was recorded on July 18, July 24, July 29, August 2, August 4, August 8, August 11, August 12, August 13, August 16, August 20, August 21, August 22, August 23, August 24, August 26 and August 27, August 28 too, according to official data.)

CASES

(KEY: Kerala rejected prophylactic and relied just on vaccines)

(KEY: HCQ & IVER Were Introduced 4-20-2021)

DEATHS

It just so happened that this conversation happened just after some excellent article appeared, one of the best ones is by a favored columnist of mine, Daniel Horowitz. The article is titled, “The Unmistakable Ivermectin Miracle In The Indian State of Uttar Pradesh.” Another “multi-part” set of posts I highly recommend are as follows — BTW, I use Delhi in my example above because M.B. mentioned it, however, the articles deal more with Uttar Pradesh.

THE DESERT REVIEW

So again, the effectiveness of the vaccines have dropped to under 40%, which is lower than Fauci’s “scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win.” But we KNOW that HCQ and IVER have a 64% and 84% effective rate. But these not patented, cheap, safe drugs do not have a multi-national corporation[s] behind highly paid lobbyists  to ensure their product is taken. For instance, “fully vaccinated” in Israel use to mean both shots of the mRNA vaccines. Now, to be fully vaccinated means to have three shots [the booster].

What The Hell?

UPDATE On Uttar Pradesh

Keep in mind this state has an estimated population of 241 million people in 2021 and has the highest population in India.  This is almost two-thirds of the United States population in 2021 and yet it is now a COVID-19 free nation. Here is the story via HINDUSATAN TIMES (hat-tip to GATEWAY PUNDIT):

33 Districts In Uttar Pradesh Are Now Covid-Free: State Govt | Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent.

There are no active cases of the coronavirus disease (Covid-19) in 33 districts of Uttar Pradesh, the state government informed on Friday. About 67 districts have not reported a single new case of the viral infection in the last 24 hours, the government said, noting the steady improvement of the Covid-19 situation in the state.

The 33 Covid free districts include Aligarh, Amroha, Ayodhya, Baghpat, Ballia, Balrampur, Banda, Basti, Bahraich, Bijnor, Bhadohi, Chitrakoot, Chandauli, Etah, Deoria, Fatehpur, Ghazipur, Gonda, Hamirpur, Hapur, Hardoi, Hathras, Kasganj, Lalitpur and Mahoba. The list also includes Moradabad, Muzaffarnagar, Pilibhit, Rampur, Saharanpur, Shamli, Siddharth Nagar, and Sonbhadra, according to the state government data.

Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7 per cent. As per the state’s health bulletin, Uttar Pradesh reported only 11 new Covid-19 cases and zero deaths in the last 24 hours. The fresh cases came out of 2.26 lakh samples that were tested in the last 24 hours. As of Friday, the state government has conducted 7.42 crore tests, according to the data published by Uttar Pradesh’s health department.

On the vaccination front, around 7 crore people in the state have received their first dose of the jab. The vaccination coverage in the state has exceeded 8.47 crores, out of which, 12 lakh people have been inoculated in the last 2 hours.

Meanwhile, the overall nationwide tally climbed to 33,174,954 after recording 34,973 cases in the last 24 hours. This was around 19% lower than Thursday when the country had logged 43,263 fresh infections. The death toll stands at 442,009.

Back to GATEWAY PUNDIT:

Uttar Pradesh is the leading state in India to use Ivermectin as early and preventatively in all family contacts. And this state is one of the five lowest COVID cases of all states in India despite having only a low vaccination rate of 5.8% fully vaccinated compared to the USA that has 54% fully vaccinated. 

The USA has 179,289,983 fully vaccinated as of September 14 while Uttar Pradesh has 15,236,150 who got their second dose. 

Here’s a little background on the use of Ivermectin in UP, The Indian Express reported:

Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of Ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra, led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered Ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. It was observed that none of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus,” Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal said.

He added that based on the findings from Agra, the state government sanctioned the use of Ivermectin as a prophylactic for all the contacts of Covid patients and later cleared the administration of therapeutic doses for the treatment of such patients.

Claiming that timely introduction of Ivermectin since the first wave has helped the state maintain a relatively low positivity rate despite its high population density, he said, “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population”.

He said that apart from aggressive contact tracing and surveillance, the lower positivity and fatality rates may be attributed to the large-scale use of Ivermectin use in the state, adding that the drug has recently been introduced in the National Protocol for Covid treatment and management. “Once the second wave subsides, we would conduct our own study as there has been an emerging body of evidence to substantiate our timely use of Ivermectin from the first wave itself,” Vikasendu told The Indian Express.”

[….]

Dr. Peter McCullough Lecture On The State Of COVID Treatment

Published by Papa Giorgio

Rumble — Dr McCullough is a world renowned authority on COVID and editor-in-chief of two major medical journals. He discusses how most deaths are due to CDC refusing to permit pre-hospital treatment, which would keep most people out of the hospital. He also discusses how the “vaccines” don’t prevent infection but do cause major problems. Recorded at the Andrews University Village Church, Berrien Springs, MI, August 20, 2021. (One resource – if in L.A. – can be found here: Emergency Medical Services-MAb)

More Straight Talk About Covid-19 Prophylactics

Published by Papa Giorgio

Just another response to a topic regarding Ivermectin:

R.T. [Ross T.] SAID:

  • It’s an anti-parasitic used in humans to kill roundworms in the intestines. Cows and livestock get bigger doses. Not an anti-viral. Does nothing fighting Covid. Got the crazy anti-vaxxers excited, though. Just like Hydrochloroquine, it’s anti-parasitic. Panama Canal could never have been built without it. Anti-malarial. Killed so many Frenchman they gave up and went home. The U S. went in with the anti-mesquito bite drug. It worked.

TO WHICH I RESPOND:

Z.L., Ross T. has no idea what they are talking about. Nor does he actually step outside the boobtube to find out. Some African countries have handed out Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as well as Ivermectin yearly to it population. You can see these countries doing very well. This is part of the reason Tokyo’s Medical Association Chairman (Haruo Ozaki) recommends Ivermectin has again recommended it. He first recommended it in February, but just recently said Japan has not heeded his warning.

While Delta IS way less deadly than its parent (the UK is about 3-weeks ahead of us, see their total numbers), you would think that India would be way up on the death list per million…. they fall at the 96th country in deaths. (I say Delta is less deadly because India’s first round was with Delta; not only that, but many provinces with lower numbers handed out Ivermectin.)

Israel dropped Pfizer’s effectiveness from the 90s to 64% effectiveness, to just recently 39% effectiveness. How do we know they are failing and are creating what Stephanie Seneff, a senior researcher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory says is looking to be reminiscent of the ADE (antibody dependent enhancement) phenomenon that has been seen for other vaccine and that has been expressed as a point of concern among many scientists for the COVID vaccines. (And if the healthier younger population were “allowed to” or be able to chose to get infected naturally, studies have shown that natural anti-bodies are stronger a year later than people who received the vaccine 3-months ago.

In all studies of Ivermectin where it was used in control groups as either a prophylactic or early onset combined, we see a 72% IMPROVEMENT over non-Ivermectin patients in fatality. (64% with HCQ)

Almost the entirety of hospitalizations in almost fully vaccinated countries (like Israel and Iceland) are by vaccinated people. Some 96 per cent of all Icelandic women over 16 have received at least one vaccine dose. The figure for men is about 90 per cent. In total, 86 per cent of the population has been fully vaccinated. Yes the vaccines reduce serious illness, but so do other, cheaper, prophylactics.

In other words, medication that has been used for so long there are no patents, and they are dirt cheap — which is why BIG-PHARMA through lobbying has caused doubt in the West from using these — and are safe enough that they are over-the-counter in a majority of countries…. THESE have a better effective rate than the “vaccines.”

I look at all the above as being prophylactics… not “vaccines.”

Which is why leaders in medicine recommend them (as already noted). Another example to support my generality: Dr. Harvey Risch (MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health).

BOTTOM LINE? Even Fauci said, scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win. It is worse than that… but using his logic, the Vaccines, Ivermectin, and Hydroxychloroquine are considered a win. The vaccines are just a “win” for Big-Pharma. Which is why they are lobbying for companies and governments to mandate their profit margins.

POST-SCRIPT: the rejection of cheaper and proven to be safe prophylactics and “vaccinating” our healthy young population IS making the death and seriousness illness rise dramatically. Blood is on the hands of the AMA and others who push unfounded rejection of these products.

See some of RPT’S posts for more media and links:

RPT POSTS

Trying to Cut Through Bias To Talk Ivermectin (Didn’t Work)

The Effectiveness of Ivermectin via The Wall Street Journal

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin Saves Lives (The Left Kills)

Hydroxychloroquine Effective and Safe (Mark Levin UPDATED)

Dr. Harvey Risch | Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the MSM

Big-Pharma Pressured Journals Regharding HCQ: Philippe Douste-Blazy

Some Hydroxychloroquine Straight Talk

Lives Saved With Early Treatment of Hydroxychloroquine

Hospitals Overwhelmed (Bonus: Florida Follies)

 

 

Trying to Cut Through Bias To Talk Ivermectin (Didn’t Work)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a recent “Ivermectin Facebook conversation” I had.

M.B.

  • [taking Ivermectin to treat Covid in the early stages] personal choice – agree. just like a company’s business choice not to employ you if you are not vaccinated. but there is that horse worming medicine that cures it. I saw a clip of Tucker promoting it. must be true

CONTEXTUAL DETOUR…
…A regular tactic by Lefties…

For context, this shows you where he gets his news from. Rachell “left of Mao” Maddow. She said Tucker pushed a “Horse Dewormer” – see here. Of course he did no such thing.

The picture to the lower right is my HUMAN prescription…. next to the “Народный куб.” (BTW, to deal with Covid you do not take 6 a day, you take 1 on the first day and 1 on the third day.)

But this is classic M.B. who once told me that Trump told people to take fish tank cleaner, saying Trump told people to take chloroquine phosphate when he was talking about hydroxychloroquine. Which has been used for many decades; and is handed out for free in many malaria ridden countries.

Similar changes can be seen how the Left [not just Twitter in these next examples] change what someone is thinking/saying:

…CONTEXTUAL DETOUR OVER

ME – RPT

M.B.

  • hopefully you never have to use it

ME – RPT

  • hopefully.

M.B.

  • PS – WSJ was an opinion piece not an article with research behind it. I just read what I could w/o being a subscriber. It really isn’t an endorsement

ME – RPT

  • Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 113 studies, 73 peer reviewed, 63 with results comparing treatment and control groups. [To wit]
  • You do realize, first, I wouldn’t make a choice on “a” opinion piece. Right? I look at quite a few factors, probably way more than you. I weigh them, and make a decision. And both Iver and Hydroxy are safe for proper use. In fact, they are over the counter medications in most places and have many decades of use to prove it. NOT TO MENTION that in the mix of all sources are also people like this: [AUTHOR’S BIO]

M.B.

  • That’s a choice – just like getting vaccinated. And just a data point on Trump – when caught he didn’t get either of those treatments. He recovered pretty quickly

ME – RPT

  • right, he could afford a crazy expensive treatment. But you act as if that sways the data points of evidences.

M.B.

  • Henderson is a professor of economics. Likely a smart guy, but no medical credentials

ME – RPT

(Don’t miss the question) Sigh… this is the problem with ppl like yourself, you do not read well. Ross has the same malady. To repeat:

[Already stated above]

I look at QUITE A FEW FACTORS, probably way more than you. I WEIGH THEM and [THEN] make a decision. And both Iver and Hydroxy are safe for proper use. In fact, they are over the counter medications in most places and have many decades of use to prove it. Not to mention THAT IN THE MIXOF ALL SOURCES ARE PEOPLE LIKE THIS [AUTHOR’S BIO]

A question[s]. Considering the graphic I added, would a person feel good that Tokyo’s Medical Association Chairman (Haruo Ozaki) recommends Ivermectin?* Or Dr. Harvey Risch is Professor of Epidemiology in the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health at the Yale School of Public Health and Yale School of Medicine recommends Hydroxychloroquine? (See RPT, here and here)

* Japanese medical chairman doubles down on ivermectin support after early calls went ignored

IF NOT, why not? Can you explain why other than you dislike Trump? How do you weigh cost benefit issues? No input from well-known and trusted economists?

I always ask:

1) compared to what?
2) at what cost?
3) what hard-evidence do you have?
Do you?

SOME… Some of the Panoply of Evidence I use

  • I have been following African nations for a year that to fight various illnesses they hand out Ivermectin and or Hydroxychloroquine to the population. Those countries have a provably lower death rate.
  • The studies (by specialists and medical professionals) again prove an aspect of trusting it. (see pic)
  • (an example) One retirement home that had 83 people contracted [alpha] Covid used Hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment… and all lived that chose to take it versus the others.
  • Medical Professionals, scientists.
  • Decades of use.
  • COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS.

Etc., Etc.

M.B.

  • does Trump support it. I thought this was just a Fox News thing. And I’m not anti something just because trump wanted something. I am 100% for his call to get us out of Afghanistan. I was 100% against him felating Putin and the North Korea guy

ME – RPT

  • Obfuscation is thy moniker

POSTSCRIPT

Just as a follow up trump was tougher than Obama and previous presidents on Putin. Just one of my MANY examples:

…“There’s never been a president as tough on Russia as I have been,” Trump told reporters on Wednesday.

That might sound like hyperbole, but in this case, there’s actually some basis for the president’s boast.

“When you actually look at the substance of what this administration has done, not the rhetoric but the substance, this administration has been much tougher on Russia than any in the post-Cold War era,” said Daniel Vajdich, senior fellow at the Atlantic Council….

(NPR | see more at real clear politics: Meet the Heretics: Not Every Liberal Has Trump Derangement Syndrome)

The only ppl “felating” Putin is the Democratic Party,

[….]

— in other words, our energy policy, under Trump, is anti-Putin. By contrast, ALL of the Democratic 2020 candidates’ energy policies will enrich Putin.)

In fact, President Joe Biden continues to be the best thing that ever happened to Vladimir Putin.

The Effectiveness of Ivermectin via The Wall Street Journal

Published by Papa Giorgio

If Ivermectin is effective against Covid and all indications suggest that it is, why aren’t we making it more accessible? Why does the medical establishment dismiss it and even suggest that it’s harmful? Dennis Prager discusses two articles in his monologue. One from The Wall Street Journal, the other from Slate:

  • Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug? (WSJ)
  • The Noble Lies of COVID-19 (SLATE)

The Slate article deals more with masks.

Via THE WALL STREET JOURNAL’s article, “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” (via The Burning Platform)

Ivermectin is a promising Covid treatment and prophylaxis, but the agency is denigrating it.

The Food and Drug Administration claims to follow the science. So why is it attacking ivermectin, a medication it certified in 1996?

Earlier this year the agency put out a special warning that “you should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.” The FDA’s statement included words and phrases such as “serious harm,” “hospitalized,” “dangerous,” “very dangerous,” “seizures,” “coma and even death” and “highly toxic.” Any reader would think the FDA was warning against poison pills. In fact, the drug is FDA-approved as a safe and effective antiparasitic.

Ivermectin was developed and marketed by Merck & Co. while one of us (Mr. Hooper) worked there years ago. William C. Campbell and Satoshi Omura won the 2015 Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine for discovering and developing avermectin, which Mr. Campbell and associates modified to create ivermectin.

Ivermectin is on the World Health Organization’s List of Essential Medicines. Merck has donated four billion doses to prevent river blindness and other diseases in Africa and other places where parasites are common. A group of 10 doctors who call themselves the Front Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance have said ivermectin is “one of the safest, low-cost, and widely available drugs in the history of medicine.”

Ivermectin fights 21 viruses, including SARS-CoV-2, the cause of Covid-19. A single dose reduced the viral load of SARS-CoV-2 in cells by 99.8% in 24 hours and 99.98% in 48 hours, according to a June 2020 study published in the journal Antiviral Research.

Some 70 clinical trials are evaluating the use of ivermectin for treating Covid-19. The statistically significant evidence suggests that it is safe and works for both treating and preventing the disease.

In 115 patients with Covid-19 who received a single dose of ivermectin, none developed pneumonia or cardiovascular complications, while 11.4% of those in the control group did. Fewer ivermectin patients developed respiratory distress (2.6% vs. 15.8%); fewer required oxygen (9.6% vs. 45.9%); fewer required antibiotics (15.7% vs. 60.2%); and fewer entered intensive care (0.1% vs. 8.3%). Ivermectin-treated patients tested negative faster, in four days instead of 15, and stayed in the hospital nine days on average instead of 15. Ivermectin patients experienced 13.3% mortality compared with 24.5% in the control group.

Moreover, the drug can help prevent Covid-19. One 2020 article in Biochemical and Biophysical Research Communications looked at what happened after the drug was given to family members of confirmed Covid-19 patients. Less than 8% became infected, versus 58.4% of those untreated. Among 200 healthcare workers and others at high risk of exposure, only 2% of those given ivermectin developed Covid-19. But 10% of the control group did.

Despite the FDA’s claims, ivermectin is safe at approved doses. Out of four billion doses administered since 1998, there have been only 28 cases of serious neurological adverse events, according to an article published this year in the American Journal of Therapeutics. The same study found that ivermectin has been used safely in pregnant women, children and infants.

If the FDA were driven by science and evidence, it would give an emergency-use authorization for ivermectin for Covid-19. Instead, the FDA asserts without evidence that ivermectin is dangerous.

At the bottom of the FDA’s warning against ivermectin is this statement: “Meanwhile, effective ways to limit the spread of COVID-19 continue to be to wear your mask, stay at least 6 feet from others who don’t live with you, wash hands frequently, and avoid crowds.” Is this based on the kinds of double-blind studies that the FDA requires for drug approvals? No.

Mr. Henderson, a research fellow with the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, was senior health economist with President Reagan’s Council of Economic Advisers. Mr. Hooper is president of Objective Insights, a firm that consults with pharmaceutical clients.

Most important in this post is this, WHERE CAN I GET Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS has a consultation sign up HERE! See also FLCCC ALLIANCE (Click Pic)

(Click to Enlarge)

Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin Saves Lives (The Left Kills)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Most important in this post is this, WHERE CAN I GET Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin? AMERICA’S FRONTLINE DOCTORS has a consultation sign up HERE! See also FLCCC ALLIANCE (Click Pic)

UPDATED BULLET POINTS via RED STATE

[….]

  • Ivermectin (an anti-parasitic given to horses and dogs) is an effective prevention and treatment therapy
  • Although an anti-parasitic, Ivermectin also is a phenomenal anti-viral prophylaxis and can be used for early treatment, immune modifier treatment during hospitalization, and post-COVID “long hauler” treatment
  • Ivermectin is safe, effective, and INEXPENSIVE, having been taken by 4 billion people since the 1980s (it is on the world’s most essential drugs list!)
  • In Petri dish studies conducted, in August 2020, Ivermectin was found to have killed 99% of the virus, but the NIH recommended against its use
  • Ivermectin has been given in the past to humans at 30-40 times the recommended dosage with no adverse effect (only two humans have ever been determined to have died after using the drug, and they had a rare immunodeficiency disease)
  • A few Ivermectin studies are finally being conducted independently in the US in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin hospitals (results: they have decreased their COVID death rates by 70-90%!)
  • In Houston, one hospital was using it; now, all hospitals in Houston administer the drug
  • It is an approved medicine, but it is off-label (approved for other uses) because the FDA has not approved its use to treat the virus because studies haven’t been completed on Americans – the FDA doesn’t use foreign studies to approve drugs)
  • However, Pfizer received FDA approval for its experimental vaccine based on tests on foreign subjects, not Americans (!)
  • In meta-analysis of 15,000 patients, Ivermectin – if added to the treatment plan, no matter what that plan is – reduces the death rate by at least 75% (up to 86% if given early)
  • Translation: of the half-million deaths attributed to COVID in the US, fully 375,000 almost certainly could have been prevented if Ivermectin had been administered as part of the treatment plan
  • A full course of Ivermectin treat costs under $30
  • Fully 100% of the world’s Ivermectin trials have shown benefits (details provided in the video presentation):
    • Decreases disease acquisition by 88-100%
    • Decreases viral replication and shedding time by half
    • Decreases disease course and severity by 80-90%
    • Decreases disease death rate by 75% and up to 86% if administered early in treatment
  • Ivermectin is the only medicine that has shown benefit in 100% of world trials conducted
  • The Ivermectin molecule can treat ALL of the virus variants
  • Anecdotally, in the 42 patients to whom I (Dr. Cole) have prescribed Ivermectin over the past two months, all have shown improvements within 12-48 hours
  • As of February 2020, the official NIH position on Ivermectin is neutral: “Neither for nor against” its use (that means that US doctors can prescribe Ivermectin in their treatment of COVID-infected cases)

Ivermectin provides proven anti-viral prophylaxis and treatment of the COVID virus – for prevention, early treatment, immune modifier treatment during hospitalization, and after-treatment to avoid reinfection. In world clinical trials, it has been shown to decrease death rates of virus-infected people by a minimum of 75% (up to 86% if treated early). It is also inexpensive. These facts have been known and suppressed by US public health authorities in government….

(RED STATE – PART 2)

VIDEO

(RED STATE – PART 1)

Almost 1.4 millions deaths related to countries that do not use Hydroxychloroquine as an early remedy vs telling people to go home and quarantine and come back if it is worse. HCQ and Ivermectin work well as prophylactic’s. In fact, “in Argentina, in which 800 health care workers were given Ivermectin as a preventative medication and none of them were infected by the coronavirus during the experiment. Kory continued by saying among the 400 health care workers that were not prophylaxed with Ivermectin, 237 individuals or 58% of the group contracted the virus” (HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL).

Why is this an important stat? This is why…

…Ninety-five people in the study developed Covid-19 with symptoms; of those, 90 had received a placebo and only five Moderna’s vaccine. The findings, from a 30,000-subject trial that is still under way, move the vaccine closer to wide use, because they indicate it is effective at preventing disease that causes symptoms, including severe cases…. (WALL STREET JOURNAL)

The only way you could reeaally say 95% effective rate is to have [for example] 200 people, 100 of them got the real vaccine, the other 100 the placebo. All 200 were exposed equally to “The Vid” and then a result is tabulated from that. 

(RPT)

THE NEW YORK POST also discusses the issue:

…“The chances of it being 98 percent effective is not great,” Fauci, a member of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, said at a Q&A with the Brown University School of Public Health in Rhode Island, according to CNBC.

Instead, Fauci said, scientists are hoping for a vaccine that is 75 percent effective — but even a 50 or 60 percent success rate would be considered a win.

“Which means you must never abandon the public health approach,” explained Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases.

Meanwhile, a Gallup poll released on Friday found that more than a third of Americans wouldn’t take a vaccine if it were available today….

Continuing with the HIGH PLAINS JOURNAL,

“If you take it, you will not get sick,” Kory said. “It has immense and potent anti-viral activity.”

Kory said four large, randomized controlled trials with over 1,500 patients are in progress and information is being gathered on Ivermectin as a prophylaxis and the evidence collected so far has overwhelmingly shown it is immensely affective. He went on to say there are three randomized control outpatient trials underway that have shown while taking Ivermectin, the need for hospitalization or death decreases. To further bolster its claims, the FLCCC Alliance indicated a meta-analysis of the data compiled from their studies was recently completed by an independent research group and it determined the chances Ivermectin is ineffective in treating COVID-19 are 1 in 67 million.

“The most profound evidence we have is in the hospitalized patients,” Kory said. “We have four randomized control trials there, all showing the same thing: you will not die or you will die at much, much lower rates. These are statistically significant, large magnitude results if you take Ivermectin. It is proving to be a wonder drug and it is critical for its use in this disease.”

In addition, Marik said studies of pre- and post-exposure prophylaxis, show a dramatic effect in reducing the risk of infection when exposed.

“If one person in your household contracts the virus you have about a 50% chance of getting COVID-19,” Marik explained. “Based on the randomized trails, if you take Ivermectin, you can reduce the risk from about 50% to about 6%.”

Marik and Kory both emphasized the need for prevention of COVID-19, rather than treatment….

Why does corporate media and health not want covid treated?

$$ Money $$

BIG-PHARMA cannot make money on anything but “vaccines.” [That have a much lower % of helping a person than cheap long tested drugs that are over the counter in most countries]

But here is the “BLOOD ON THEIR HANDS” moment, which is why I ask, WHERE IS CODE PINK?

Over 1.3-million estimated lives have been lost by not instituting early treatment protocols using Hydroxychloroquine (continuing counter found here). Not only that, but Ivermectin seems to be more effective used early. Where is Code Pink standing up in Congress showing bloody hands to Democrat Congressmen?

Here is an article by Senator Ron Johnson found in the WALL STREET JOURNAL… also found at REPLY TO NEWS in full:

Google’s YouTube has ratcheted up censorship to a new level by removing two videos from a U.S. Senate committee. They were from a Dec. 8 Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs hearing on early treatment of Covid-19. One was a 30-minute summary; the other was the opening statement of critical-care specialist Pierre Kory.

Dr. Kory is part of a world-renowned group of physicians who developed a groundbreaking use of corticosteroids to treat hospitalized Covid patients. His testimony at a May Senate hearing helped doctors rethink treatment protocols and saved lives.

At the December hearing, he presented evidence regarding the use of ivermectin, a cheap and widely available drug that treats tropical diseases caused by parasites, for prevention and early treatment of Covid-19. He described a just-published study from Argentina in which about 800 health-care workers received ivermectin and 400 didn’t. Not one of the 800 contracted Covid-19; 58% of the 400 did.

Dr. Kory asked the National Institutes of Health to review his group’s manuscript outlining dozens of successful trials and to consider updating its Aug. 27 guidance in which it recommended “against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19, except in a clinical trial.” On Dec. 10, Sen. Rand Paul and I sent a letter to the NIH requesting that it review Dr. Kory’s evidence.

On Jan. 14, NIH changed its guidance to neutral by acknowledging the successful trials but determined “that currently there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of Covid-19.” On Jan. 22 I sent an oversight letter asking what actions the NIH had taken to explore the use of repurposed drugs for treating Covid-19.

Before being removed from YouTube and other websites, Dr. Kory’s opening statement had been viewed by more than eight million people. Unfortunately, government health agencies don’t share that interest in early treatment. A year into the pandemic, NIH treatment guidelines for Covid patients are to go home, isolate yourself and do nothing other than monitor your illness.

Fortunately, some doctors have the courage to ignore these compassionless guidelines and are using their expertise to develop protocols utilizing a variety of cheap, available and safe FDA-approved drugs to treat patients early and avoid hospitalization. Instead of being rewarded, they are being censored, ostracized, vilified in the press, even fired. This closed-minded approach represents a dark chapter in the history of medicine and journalism.

The censors at YouTube have decided for all of us that the American public shouldn’t be able to hear what senators heard. Apparently they are smarter than medical doctors who have devoted their lives to science and use their skills to save lives. They have decided there is only one medical viewpoint allowed, and it is the viewpoint dictated by government agencies. Government-sanctioned censorship of ideas and speech should frighten us all.

(See more at EPOCH TIMES)

Ivermectin

Hydroxychloroquine

THE AMA’s REVERSAL, BTW:

CHICAGO, IL – The American Medical Association (AMA), in a surprising move, has officially rescinded a previous statement against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in the treatment of COVID-19 patients, giving physicians the okay to return to utilizing the medication at their discretion.

Previously, the AMA had issued a statement in March that was highly critical of HCQ in regards to its use as a proposed treatment by some physicians in the early stages of COVID-19. In addition to discouraging doctors from ordering the medication in bulk for “off-label” use – HCQ is typically used to treat diseases such as malaria – they also claimed that there was no proof that it was effective in treating COVID, and that its use could be harmful in some instances.

However, on page 18 of a recent AMA memo, issued on October 30, (resolution 509, page 3) the organization officially reversed their stance on HCQ, stating that its potential for good currently may supersede the threat of any potential harmful side effects.

So, there we have it. HCQ could not be approved before the election, because President Trump had recommended it. Meanwhile, with an 8o +% reduced risk of having to be admitted to the hospital if administered with Azithromycin and Zinc as soon as testing positive or symptoms occurred, many (70000+) lives could have been saved.

It has come to my attention that the resolution, while adopted got stopped before a new and valid recommendation was issued. There are powerful interests in the AMA that want to keep things as they are rather than advance real medical science based on real results, and never admit a mistake. Meanwhile, people are dying because of lack of solid, but inexpensive medical solutions.

The recommendation is still up on their website, but should it disappear, here it is , the important part part.

[….]

RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further

RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 18 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further….

(NOQ REPORT and LEN BILEN’S BLOG)

Hydroxychloroquine Effective and Safe (Mark Levin UPDATED)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Dennis Prager reads from Harvey A. Risch’s (MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health) article entitled, “The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It” (NEWSWEEK)

In the article, not only does Dr. Risch discuss Hydroxychloroquine as safe and effective to use, but he notes the attack on doctors who use it:

  • Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

One such high profile doctor is Senator and “Doctor of the Year,” Scott Jensen, MD. I have two videos about that on my site: “Enforced Group Think – Covid 1984”. Later in the Prager commentary he reads some Tweets by ALEX BERENSON, of which the strain can be found at the link. If you are Tweet savvy, follow the discussion throughout the branches.

In a separate video a friend sent me, the video talk show “America Can We Talk?” interviews Dr. Richard Bartlett who goes through some of the countries with very low death numbers and helps explain their use of steroid inhalers. Interesting indeed:

UPDATED STUFF

This updated and graphics are all with thanks to REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE. What a great post!

…This paper from the censored group of doctors provides pretty strong arguments  that HCQ is both safe and effective.

White Paper on HCQ 2020.2

And another.

COVID-19 Treatment – Analysis of 126 global studies showing high effectiveness for early treatment

Also, a friend linked this to me on FB (hat-tip, Joshua P.)

 

Dr. Harvey Risch | Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and the MSM

Published by Papa Giorgio

Do not let what Dr. Risch said get lost in the below. He said 70-to-100-thousand people could be alive today is we had treated our patients with the Hydroxychloroquine protocols other countries have followed. 70,000 to 100,000!

Dennis Prager has Dr. Harvey Risch (MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health) on his program to discuss the issue of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), its use, and the seemingly political fallout from the media and the Left (Democrats in Congress and Democrat governors). There is also discussion of how or why there is pressure or push-back against it’s use. I would say partly because of “TDS” (Trump Derangement Syndrome), but also BIG-PHARMA. Otherwise known as “Crony-Corporatism”. Previously Dennis discussed his earlier NEWSWEEK article.

Dennis also mentions in passing the French United Nations official, who has served as Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, Special Adviser on Innovative Financing for Development in the UN and chairman of UNITAID — PHILIPPE DOUSTE-BLAZY. But shortly after discussing the issue Dennis asks the $64,000 question, “has the ban on HCQ led to deaths?” [adapted]… that shorter response is isolated here:

(WOW!)

While Dr. Risch did not want to impugn motives, Robert Kennedy Jr. was not so coy:

The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine.  He owns half the patent.  He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that.

So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail.  And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money.  They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability.  Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal.  They have zero liability.  And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.

(Alan Dershowitz’ And Jfk Jr.’s Debate)

Before moving on, I recommend the BANNON WAR ROOM video that discusses Dr. Risch’s appearance on CNN (fuller CNN video HERE):

THE WASHINGTON TIMES notes the percentages of lives saved worldwide in their story entitled

….On July 23, 2020, the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) provided the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services and the Food and Drug Administration copious amounts of data showing, among other things, that countries using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are attaining far lower mortality rates than the United States. “The mortality rate from COVID-19 in countries that allow access to HCQ,” said the AAPS, “is only one-tenth the mortality rate of countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States.”

Did you catch that? One-tenth the mortality rate means that our country’s current death count of about 160,000 could be and perhaps should be, as low as 16,000.

Oh, but I assume you’ve been told that the AAPS is a “fringe group” of “conservative” doctors who should be discredited? 

Well, aside from the fact that such a claim is a textbook example of the Socratic fallacy of an ad hominem attack, i.e., “shooting the messenger rather than attending to the message,” there’s more, lots more.

First, there’s the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan, which recently published a study involving thousands of patients where HCQ proved to be both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19. This study reports reducing mortality by 50%. Did you catch that? Fifty percent. 

Then, there’s the Palmer Foundation report published last week highlighting the Indian slum of Dharavi. This is Asia’s biggest and densest slum, housing more than a million people. In the early days of the pandemic, Dharavi suffered a cluster outbreak. Doctors report containing it by using proactive measures, “including the use of hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis (preventive) treatment.” As a result, Dharavi’s COVID-19 infection rate dropped drastically from April through June, and in July, new infections were very low, almost reaching zero on July 9.”  

Yes, you read that correctly. “Almost reaching zero.” 

Still the stuff of right-wing nut jobs, you smirk? 

Well, there is Harvey, A. Risch, MD, Ph.D., professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health (generally not known as a bastion of conservative political thought), who recently wrote in Newsweek magazine: “I am … flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily.” …..

(WT goes on to note some of the studies)

AGAIN, besides the studies Dr. Risch mentions (12), the total worldwide that shows benefite to using Plaquinel are 68 studies (41 peer reviewed). One of the better posts on this topic comes from REAL CLIMATE SCIENCE — of which some of these graphs are from or updated from the MAIN SITE tallying all this:

Death Becomes the MSM

Okay, I just want to say that we have heard many media types and Democrat Lefties say that by the President touting Hydroxychloroquine he is killing people. My first example comes from Neil Cavuto:

Fox News host Neil Cavuto warned viewers that hydroxychloroquine “will kill you” after Donald Trump’s surprise announcement that he was taking the unproven drug to prevent Covid-19 infection.

Mr Cavuto, who appeared stunned at the US president’s decision, said he was not making a “political point, but a life-and-death point”.

“If you are in a risky population here, and you are taking this as a preventative treatment … it will kill you. I cannot stress enough. This will kill you,” said the Fox News host…..

(INDEPENDENT – May 19th)

But all this is based on a Lancent study published May 22nd (that media heads caught wind of a couple days early)… the only problem? The entire study was faked — here is a fair dealing with it via MEDCRAM. (A previous post where the known issues with “peer review” is noted: Peer-Review Issues | Sharyl Attkinsson). Here is the indomitable Press Secretary tearing shit up:

So the above and below “concern” about a drug many-many millions of people have taken for decades, safely, ALL OF A SUDDEN is a health emergency. I wonder why? (I refer you to the already posted Washington Times article title above.) The “blood on the hands” argument is really more apt in the 70-100-thousand lives that very possibly could have been saved had our country done what other countries had… save the MSM Derangement with Trump.

Here is some more examples of what I am saying:

Brianna Keilar spars with Trump campaign spokesman, says hydroxychloroquine ‘kills people’. Laura Ingraham gets reaction from Dr. Harvey Risch, professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, regarding CNN’s anchor who is accused of ‘ludicrous’ claim about hydroxychloroquine.

(Decent montage) The discredited and subsequently retracted hydroxychloroquine study had hardly appeared in Lancet magazine before CNN pounced on it with great eagerness to try to prove President Donald Trump wrong. This is yet another of their horribly WRONG reports on this treatment which on July 3 was contradicted by a Henry Ford Health System study which showed that hydroxychloroquine significantly reduced mortality among COVID-19 patients. Once again, CNN WRONG and Trump RIGHT!

CNN’s John Harwood went after President Donald Trump for “extending false hope” and “recklessly” touting unproven coronavirus treatment hydroxychloroquine, after a study published Friday revealed the drug is linked to “increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues.”

Medical journal The Lancet’s study found that there was a 34 percent increase in death and a 137 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias in those who received hydroxychloroquine alone. There was also a 45 percent increased risk of death and a 411 percent increased risk of heart arrhythmias for those given the drug with and an additional antibiotic.

CNN medical correspondent Elizabeth Cohen explained that although other studies exposed the potential dangers linked to the drug, the Lancet’s is much larger.

“This new one looks at 671 hospitals over six continents. The one before was looking at 25 hospitals,” Cohen said. “This is a very, very large study. And what they found was increased risk of death and increased risk of heart issues. Now, these were hospitalized patients, some quite ill.”

She reiterated Trump’s claim that these studies look at sick people taking the drug, while he is healthy and taking it as a preventative measure, but questioned that if hydroxychloroquine has any positive effect at all if does not help the infected.

They then played a clip of the president’s “reckless” promotion of the drug, during which he calls hydroxychloroquine “a gift from heaven” but admits he is not a doctor.

“Increasingly, this study gives the impression that this president was extending false hope to people and he has gotten negative judgment from the American people for his handling of coronavirus, this is not going to make that any better,” CNN White House correspondent John Harwood added after the clip aired…..

(MEDIA’ITE – May 22nd)

This comes by way of THE TENNESSEE STAR:

Metro Nashville At-Large Council Member Sharon Hurt said Wednesday during a virtual meeting of the Joint Public Safety and Health Committee that there should be stronger legislation for those not wearing masks and suggested they be charged with murder or attempted murder.

Hurt said that she works for an organization that, “If they pass the virus, then they are tried for murder or attempted murder.”

Hurt thinks the same standard should apply to the general public.

“This person who may very well pass this virus that’s out in the air because they’re not wearing a mask is basically doing the same thing to someone who contracts it and dies from it,” she said.

“Maybe there needs to be stronger legislation to say that if you do not wear a mask, and you subject exposure of this virus to someone else then there will be some stronger penalty as it is in other viruses that are exposed,” the council member added…..

(read it all)

Big-Pharma Pressured Journals Regharding HCQ: Philippe Douste-Blazy

Published by Papa Giorgio

Just so you know this is an excellent example of “CONY-CAPITALISM.”

Let me just say — as a bit of a warning — I cannot find any of the below other than on questionable websites. Even the source Prager is reading from is a conspiracy laden sight. And even though Prager mentioned putting this up on his site… it never showed up — making me think his people thought the same as I have. ALSO, since I do not know French, I cannot confirm what Philippe Douste-Blazy is actually saying. ALL THAT BEING SAID, I wanted to share this now, and just know I might update the news as I either confirm or deny it’s validity.

Basically, the study Dr. Fauci used to support his claims regarding Hydroxychloroquine’s dangers has been pulled a while back, HOWEVER, the fall-out continues! But one should also be aware that Hydroxychloroquine has no patent and can be produced for pennies. GATEWAY PUNDIT has a YouTube debate between Alan Dershowitz and Robert Kennedy Jr. about the Covid-19 vaccination. In it Kennedy says:

The problem is Anthony Fauci put $500 million of our dollars into that vaccine.  He owns half the patent.  He and these five guys who are working for him were entitled to collect royalties from that. 

So you have a corrupt system and now they have a vaccine that is too big to fail.  And instead of saying this was a terrible, terrible mistake, they are saying we are going to order 2 billion doses of this and you’ve got to understand Alan with these COVID vaccines these companies are playing with house money.  They’re not spending any dime, they have no liability.  Well if they kill 20 people or 200 people or 2,000 people in their clinical trials, big deal.  They have zero liability.  And guess what, they’ve wasted none of their money because we’re giving them money to play with.

The article Dennis Prager is reading from is from HEALTH IMPACT NEWS — I am not sure the site as a whole is solid, but much of the info surrounding the story Prager is reading from is confirmed.

Here is the older interview (May 24, 2020) with Philippe Douste-Blazy, Cardiology MD, Former France Health Minister and 2017 candidate for Director at WHO, former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations, reveals that in a recent 2020 Chattam House closed door meeting, both the editors of the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine stated their concerns about the criminal pressures of BigPharma on their publications. Things are so bad that it is not science any longer.

Here is the full transcript of the above:

Apolline de Malherbe (French broadcaster):  But it’s hard to understand why scientists would voluntarily give bias to studies

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Exactly! That’s the great question. That the great question we are all asking ourselves, finally, and you know those Chatham House lectures in London.

Apolline de Malherbe:   Remind us what is this all about? This is extremely interesting.

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are meetings that are completely behind closed doors, only with experts. No one can record, no one is taking any pictures. It’s only between experts.

Apolline de Malherbe:  Top secret.

 Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Top secret. But still. there was a meeting the other day, of the directors of scientific journals, like The Lancet, The New England Journal of Medicine…

Apolline de Malherbe: The Lancet, which is that journal which published this study we are talking about…

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: These are extraordinary journals. When it’s written in Lancet, it’s “written in Lancet”. So that’s why… Here, we’re talking about something very important this discussion that happened. And it ended up leaked: The Lancet’s boss, Horton, said: “Now we are not going to be able to, basically, if this continues, publish any more clinical research data, because the pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today and are able to use such methodologies, as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude… This is very, very serious!

Apolline de Malherbe: But what you are telling us is very serious! That would mean that it is the pharmaceutical companies that are putting pressure on, including financial pressure, I guess on the scientific results! But you understand, who can we trust anymore today?

Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy: Indeed, that’s why I allow myself to tell you about it, because it is one of the greatest subjects… never anyone could have believed. I have been doing research for 20 years in my life. I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that and the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too. He even said it was “criminal”, the word was used by them. That is, if you will, when there is an outbreak like the COVID, in reality, there are people… us, we see ‘mortality’, when you are a doctor or yourself, you see ‘suffering’. And there are people who see ‘dollars’, that’s it.

This first article on this I found at NIKI´S OPINION FORUM, I do not know much about this site — I would just be cautious about the rest of the site as I do not much about it:

Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, a cardiologist and former French Health Minister who served as Under-Secretary General of the United Nations; he was a candidate in 2017 for Director of the World Health Organization.

In a videotaped interview on May 24, 2020, Dr. Douste-Blazy provided insight into how a series of negative hydroxychloroquine studies got published in prestigious medical journals.

He revealed that at a recent Chatham House top secret, closed door meeting attended by experts only, the editors of both, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine expressed their exasperation citing the pressures put on them by pharmaceutical companies.

He states that each of the editors used the word “criminal” to describe the erosion of science.

[….]

He quotes Dr. Richard Horton who bemoaned the current state of science:

“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful; they are able to pressure us to accept papers that are apparently methodologically perfect, but their conclusion is what pharmaceutical companies want.”

Dr. Douste-Blazy supports the combination treatment – hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and azithromycin (AZ) for Covid-19 recommended by Dr. Didier Raoult. In April, 2020

Dr. Douste-Blazy started a petition that has been signed by almost 500,000 French doctors and citizens urging French government officials to permit physicians to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to treat coronavirus patients early, before they require intensive care.

The issue has become highly politicized; the left-leaning politicians and public health officials are adamantly against the use of HCQ, whereas those leaning toward the right politically are for the right of doctors to prescribe the drug as they see fit.

The journal SCIENCE described the response to French President Emmanuel Macron trip to Marseille to meet Dr. Raoult who prescribes the combination drug regimen and he has documented their effectiveness.

However, public health officials, academic physicians and the media – all of who are financially indebted to pharmaceutical companies and their high profit marketing objectives – vehemently oppose the use of HCQ, and use every opportunity to disparage the drug by derisively referring to President Trump as its booster.

Dr. Simone Gold fired after Doctors Summit on Capitol Hill

Published by Papa Giorgio

Here is a comment from an  upload of Prager discussing Hydroxychloroquine:

From my reading of the available studies, there is no evidence that azithpmycin adds much to the effectiveness of HCQ, and it is dangerous to prescribe it along with HCQ unless you are monitoring the patient’s EKG. Too high a risk of fatal arrhythmia in those with slow cardiac muscle repolarization.

There is, however, fairly strong evidence that a zinc supplement added to HCQ greatly improves its effectiveness.

The other critical factor is vitamin D3 nutrition. Those who encounter the virus with adequate vitamin D3 nutrition (25-hydroxyvitamin D above  30 ng/mL) are far less likely to have anything but mild covid symptoms. Everyone should be taking vitamin D3 5000 IU daily to prepare your immune system to encounter the virus.

In my opinion as a physician with 40 years of experience and who has studied the evidence as it has accumulated this year (although no single piece is perfect) it is tantamount to malpractice to send a patient who has recent onset of symptoms of Covid home from a clinic or ER without a prescription for HCQ, plus instructions to take zinc 150-200 mg a day, vitamin D3 10,000 IU daily and vitamin C 3000 to 6000 mg three times a day. I have the felling that this is occurring frequently, however. Too many people are bouncing back with low oxygen levels and winding up in ICU.

Principle of medical ethics: When the available evidence is not perfect, you must act on the basis of what evidence you DO have.

Some Hydroxychloroquine Straight Talk

Published by Papa Giorgio

I ended up pausing the first video below and went to FLECCAS TALKS to watch the second video below that BLUE COLLAR LOGIC played. But here are both of them:

This might be the most important episode of Fleccas Talks: This week Kez and I spoke with Dr. Jeff Barke (30 year board certified MD). He blows a hole in the MSM’s fake Corona Virus narrative and explains why it’s so important to get the country open as quickly and safely as possible. Dr. Barke receives a lot of flack for coming out and saying these things. His patriotism is greatly appreciated!

BONUS video:

This Doctor, Ivette. C Lozano, shares her experience with Covid-19 and she is upset at what is happening in our nation. Seek truth, freedom, and justice.