Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Other options.

Remdisavir.

Experimental antibody.

Zinc

Interferon.

---

Quote:

---

Detection:
Pulse Oximeter

Temperature Checks.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Other options.

Remdisavir.

Experimental antibody.

Zinc

Interferon.

---

Prone positioning

Use of nasal cannula O2, mask O2, CPAP or BiPAP, in that order, as opposed to ventilators

Dexamethasone

Famotidine(?)

Quote:

---

Detection:
Pulse Oximeter

Temperature Checks.

---

RNA test

Antigen test

IgM antibody test (early-infection indicator)

----------------------------
I hope this is what you had in mind!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
This is a thread about HCQ, plus other potential or promising cures

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
CQ and HCQ both have well-known side effects, since they're medications that've been used for a long time for a number of conditions. Heart arrhythmias is just one of the known side effects. BTW, if you're Black, a study conducted by the US army found you have a 10% chance of having genetics that will make your red blood cells explode when you take these drugs (it's called a G6PD deficiency).

Even quinine - that slightly bitter natural version of the drugs found in tonic water as flavoring - is limited because it can have side effects. But if you want to, you can always get around the low concentration by drinking more tonic water.

---

Quote:

---

I don't think I have seen specifics as to which races, or how they are targeted.
But this info about blacks seems specific. Do you agree this is racist, or would you argue this is not racist?

---

Quote:

---

Shall we assume exploding red blood cells is fatal?

---

Quote:

---

Or is there a mitigation available for blacks who have this G6PD deficiency?

---

Quote:

---

Is this deficiency only in Blacks? Meaning it relates to their pigmentation?

---

Quote:

---

Or due to genealogical factors, such as ancestry in Africa, or India, or Australia, or Central America?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext

Quote:

---

Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

Highlights

• As of May27, 2020 there are over 1,678,843 confirmed cases of COVID-19 claiming more than 100,000 lives in the Unites States. Currently there is no known effective therapy or vaccine.
• According to a protocol-based treatment algorithm, among hospitalized patients, use of hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with a significant reduction in-hospital mortality compared to not receiving hydroxychloroquine.
• Findings of this observational study provide crucial data on experience with hydroxychloroquine therapy, providing necessary interim guidance for COVID-19 therapeutic practice.

Conclusions and Relevance
In this multi-hospital assessment, when controlling for COVID-19 risk factors, treatment with hydroxychloroquine alone and in combination with azithromycin was associated with reduction in COVID-19 associated mortality. Prospective trials are needed to examine this impact.

---

However:

Quote:

---

The combination of hydroxychloroquine?+?azithromycin was reserved for selected patients with severe COVID-19 and with minimal cardiac risk factors. An electrocardiogram (ECK) based algorithm was utilized for hydroxychloroquine use. QTc>500?ms was considered an elevated cardiac risk and consequently hydroxychloroquine was reserved for patients with severe disease with telemetry monitoring and serial QTc checks.

---

Unscrambling the medical jargon what it means is this: One of the known side effects of HCQ (CQ, and quinine) is serious heart arrhythmias (there are several types). A cardiac arrhythmia is like having the pistons of your car each firing at all different times, or firing far too early, or far too late. Obviously your car won't run that way, and neither will your heart, and neither will you. And the main risk factor for death using HCQ in previous studies was cardiac arrhythmias. The SIGNIFICANT doubling of mortality using HCQ (double the death rate, or more) is what caused previous trials to be halted. All those extra deaths couldn't be ignored.

So THIS retrospective study addressed the very real issue of death-dealing arrhythmias, and selected data for patients that were both screened-for and monitored-for adverse cardiac effects.

By preventing all those deaths due to cardiac arrhythmias, the benefits were allowed to prevail.

I'm still left wondering why they don't run a trial with zinc added.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

I don't think I have seen specifics as to which races, or how they are targeted.
But this info about blacks seems specific. Do you agree this is racist, or would you argue this is not racist?

---

It's a medical genetic condition. Anyone can have that gene variation, its next most common population are people of white Mediterranean descent. So, it's not restricted to one 'race', it's just a gene variant that can occur in anyone.

Quote:

---

Shall we assume exploding red blood cells is fatal?

---

It can be. Free hemoglobin floating around in the bloodstream can gum up many organs, including the kidneys.

Quote:

---

Or is there a mitigation available for blacks who have this G6PD deficiency?

---

Once the red cells have exploded the only treatment is to take out the blood and replace the free-hemoglobin clogged plasma with saline. Otherwise, the treatment is to avoid substances that will trigger the problem.

Quote:

---

Is this deficiency only in Blacks? Meaning it relates to their pigmentation?

---

No, and no.

Quote:

---

Or due to genealogical factors, such as ancestry in Africa, or India, or Australia, or Central America?

---

... due to genetic characteristics of various populations. The gene variant exist in all peoples, but its percentage is higher in some and lower in others.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Thanks for all this info, I'm not familiar with it all.

Do many folk who have this G6PD deficiency know they do?

---

Quote:

---

Does this mean they cannot drink tonic water, gin and tonic?

---

Quote:

---

Is the test for this simple, can be completed quickly? Is this test normally conducted prior to prescribing these medications?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Thanks for all this info, I'm not familiar with it all.

Do many folk who have this G6PD deficiency know they do?

---

There's no US routine neonatal screening for G6PD deficiency as part of a panel of tests the various states do run. Though a Children's Hospital where I once worked did screen neonates as part of its panel of routine neonatal testing, so there may be institutions that do this testing on their own.

Quote:

---

Does this mean they cannot drink tonic water, gin and tonic?

---

The amount of quinine in tonic water is deliberately kept to low ppm levels specifically to avoid any medical misadventures. Fava beans are a more concerning trigger.

Quote:

---

Is the test for this simple, can be completed quickly? Is this test normally conducted prior to prescribing these medications?

---

There are a number of different kinds of tests that use different techniques, are differently sensitive, and cost different amounts. For example, there are screening tests that are quick and cheap but not at all sensitive (they'll only detect a sample that has 10% of less of normal G6PD activity). I've read some indication the military does check before administering drugs that might cause a problem.

---

Quote:

---

Triggers

Carriers of the underlying mutation do not show any symptoms unless their red blood cells are exposed to certain triggers, which can be of four main types:

Foods (fava beans is the hallmark trigger for G6PD mutation carriers),
Certain medicines including aspirin, quinine and other antimalarials derived from quinine.
Moth balls (naphthalene)[6]
Stress from a bacterial or viral infection.[7]

To avoid the hemolytic anemia, G6PD carriers have to avoid some drugs and foods.[7]

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
The first Covid 19 case diagnosed in New Jersey
www.nytimes.com/2020/04/05/magazine/first-coronavirus-patient-new-jers
ey.html

Commentary on the above article: Remdesivir III

Robert Waldmann | April 5, 2020 8:20 pm

https://angrybearblog.com/2020/04/remdesivir-iii.html

The first Covid 19 case diagnosed in New Jersey

Around 3 a.m. on March 10, Balani arrived at the hospital. The medicine had come in, and she did not want to wait until the morning to administer it. With Balani in the room, a nurse woke Cai up so that he could sign the legal papers. Soon after, he was hooked up, intravenously, to the drug.

The next day Cai’s fever, which he’d had for at least nine days, finally broke. Even before he received the remdesivir, his oxygen levels started to stabilize. Now they indicated he was on the mend. He was still so weak in the following days that he could barely speak without exhaustion; every time he tried, he was racked by coughs. But the progress was steady

Chloroquine also ran, It was used for a day while the Remdesivir was in the mail,

Cai’s boss, Dr. George Hall, also made a call, not long after Huang spoke to the infectious-disease doctor on call. He spoke with another doctor on Cai’s caregiving team, a hospitalist named Danit Arad.

[skip]

Hall explained …that the Chinese National Health Commission had just published the seventh edition of guidelines on how to treat coronavirus. It was true that they were based more on clinical experience than on published studies, but he urged Arad to follow some of its protocols, which included prescribing two drugs that were commonly given to patients in China soon after they showed symptoms like shortness of breath: chloroquine, an antiviral drug once used to treat malaria, and Kaletra, another antiviral that had once been used to treat H.I.V.

[skip]

at the time that neither drug had been through extensive clinical trials or had F.D.A. approval. She listened patiently to Hall and expressed her concern that his suggestions did not conform to standard medical procedure or C.D.C. guidelines.

Hall understood the need for evidence-based medicine as well as she did, he told her. But this was life and death.

[skip]

That day, Cai was given chloroquine and Kaletra

Comment: I do not understand the need for “evidence-based medicine” or rather I do not understand how the phrase is used by doctors. There is no evidence that Covid 19 patients (without heart disease) do better without Chloroquine. I learn that “evidence based medicine” does not imply choosing the therapy that a fair balance of evidence suggests is best for the patient. Pharmaceuticals are presumed guilty until proven safe and effective. The evidence is treated as evidence in a criminal trial with the burden of proof on the pharmaceutical.

I have no idea what “standard medical procedure” might mean in the context of Covid 19. it appears that as soon as a new disease is discovered, there is a standard procedure for treating it, which can’t be based on data or evidence.

The story has a happy ending, but it is not reassuring. It also doesn’t surprise me.

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by second:
Here’s a Lifesaving COVID-19 Test That Costs Almost Nothing

Well, almost nothing after you buy the $40 pulse/oxygen meter from Walgreens. It is next to blood pressure monitors and blood glucose monitors.

www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/04/heres-a-lifesaving-covid-19-tes
t-that-costs-almost-nothing/

The New York Times ran a fascinating op-ed on Monday, and I’m surprised that it hasn’t gotten more attention. Here’s the nickel summary: a hotshot ER doctor volunteered to spend time at Bellevue Hospital in Manhattan and discovered something odd. Practically everyone he saw had pneumonia caused by COVID-19:

Even patients without respiratory complaints had Covid pneumonia. The patient stabbed in the shoulder, whom we X-rayed because we worried he had a collapsed lung, actually had Covid pneumonia. In patients on whom we did CT scans because they were injured in falls, we coincidentally found Covid pneumonia. Elderly patients who had passed out for unknown reasons and a number of diabetic patients were found to have it.

And here is what really surprised us: These patients did not report any sensation of breathing problems, even though their chest X-rays showed diffuse pneumonia and their oxygen was below normal. How could this be?

www.nytimes.com/2020/04/20/opinion/coronavirus-testing-pneumonia.html

You can—and should!—click the link to read the details, but the short answer turns out to be that COVID-19 attacks the lungs in an unusual way: it causes the air sacs to collapse and oxygen levels to fall, but the lungs still expel carbon dioxide normally. Since it’s carbon dioxide buildup that causes you to feel short of breath, patients had never even noticed anything was wrong:

A vast majority of Covid pneumonia patients I met had remarkably low oxygen saturations at triage — seemingly incompatible with life — but they were using their cellphones as we put them on monitors….Patients compensate for the low oxygen in their blood by breathing faster and deeper — and this happens without their realizing it….By the time patients have noticeable trouble breathing and present to the hospital with dangerously low oxygen levels, many will ultimately require a ventilator.

As you know, about 80 percent of people with COVID-19 have either mild symptoms or no symptoms. But the other 20 percent develop pneumonia and many end up on ventilators and eventually die. The problem is that they don’t feel anything for the first week, and by the time they do it’s too late. So how can we catch these cases earlier? With this:

This is a pulse oximeter, and it measures the level of oxygenation in your blood. You probably get a quick oxygenation test every time you see a doctor. So the answer is: test your blood oxygenation every day. If it falls below normal levels, get to an ER and get tested for COVID-19. Your chances of survival are way higher if you can get to it early.

Yes, I Bought a Pulse Oximeter Today
by Kevin Drum

Just to follow up on this morning’s post, I did indeed go out to Walgreens and buy a pulse oximeter today.
www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2020/04/yes-i-bought-a-pulse-oximeter-t
oday/

---

Quote:

---

The Joss Whedon script for Serenity, where Wash lives, is Serenity-190pages.pdf at www.mediafire.com/folder/1uwh75oa407q8/Firefly

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
And FINALLY!!!

Blue shop towels filter small particles better than cotton!

Quote:

---

Using blue shop towels in homemade face masks can filter particles 2x to 3x better than cotton, 3 clothing designers discover after testing dozens of fabrics

..."We spent a few days researching and brainstorming any material that could filter: coffee filters, batting, window shades, Swiffer, interfacing, etc., all the way to more technical materials that are available to specialized industrial sectors like aviation, oil refinery, medical fields," Schempf said.

They bought a $1,400 particulate-counter device from Grainger that measures filtration ability down to 0.3 microns and spent another 10 sleepless days testing all the fabrics they could find.

They wanted a material they could buy as easily as cotton but that balanced filtration with breathability — they discovered that HEPA vacuum-cleaner bags, for instance, had great filtration but were too suffocating to wear.

The ideal material turned out to be stretchy blue shop towels made from a polyester hydro knit.

Inserting two of these towels into an ordinary cotton mask brought filtration up to 93% of particles as small as 0.3 microns, the smallest their machine could test. Meanwhile, the cotton masks filtered 60% of particles at best in their tests, Schempf said.

Polyester hydro knit towels are readily available at hardware and automotive stores. The two brands they tested were ToolBox's shop towel and ZEP's industrial blue towel. Interestingly, Scott's pro shop towels, which are also made with a hydro knit fabric, didn't work as well, Schempf said.

---

https://www.businessinsider.com/homemade-mask-using-hydro-knit-shop-to
wel-filters-better-2020-4?op=1

Thanks to hubby for finding this!

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#STAYTHEFUCKHOME

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
... having heard very similar things about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) ...

---

One of the problems with chloroquine (related to HCQ) is that it causes significant - and sometimes fatal - heart arrhythmias. Both these drugs have been used for a long time to treat other conditions besides malaria, such as lupus, As such, their side effects are well known. After a debate about the relative safety of both drugs, a small study in Brazil was launched to test chloroquine, as it was deemed the safer drug. The study was halted after only 10 days due to a large number of deaths (~17% of patients) on the higher dose. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.07.20056424v2

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I've noticed a lack of clarity among internet sources about dosage.

---

Quote:

---

Many of the Fake Trials are intentionally failing the Trial by forcing HIGH DOSES which has already been known, for many decades, to cause problems, like with the heart.

---

Quote:

---

I see that the approved dosage is only for a max or 6.5mg per kg of body weight per day. For 100lbs person, this is about 290mg, or less than 150mg if taking twice per day. For 150lbs, this is about 440mg per day, or max dosage of 220mg twice per day. For 200lbs, this is about 580mg per day maximum, or 290mg twice per day.

---

Quote:

---

The tablets seem to only come in 200mg size.

---

Quote:

---

Successful treatment practices

---

Quote:

---

have indicated starting with 400mg twice on the first day, 12 hours apart, and then 200mg twice per day for 4 days. This all exceeds the approved maximum dosages as specified in the approval for use guidelines. This would certainly seem to fit the description of HIGH DOSES.

---

Quote:

---

However, WHO has been trying to force Doctors to use 800mg x2 6 hours apart on the first day, followed by 400mg x2 per day for 10 days.
That certainly seems to be exceeding the maximum allowed dosage by a factor up to 11.

---

Quote:

---

Many of these Fake Trials keep using the excuse of High Dose results to prematurely end their Trials and declare this inexpensive drug as dangerous.

The interwebs continue to be burying whatever information is useful bout the dosage. Perhaps more or better info is forthcoming.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/05/02/pseudo-science-behind-the-assau
lt-on-hydroxychloroquine/ Anthony Watts (Anthony Watts) is a blogger, weathercaster and non-scientist, paid AGW denier who runs the website wattsupwiththat.com. He does not have a university qualification and has no climate credentials other than being a radio weather announcer. His website is parodied and debunked at the website wattsupwiththat.com Watts is on the payroll of the Heartland Institute, which itself is funded by polluting industries.[1]

Quote:

---

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331898127_Hydroxychloroquine_
usage_in_US_patients_their_experiences_of_tolerability_and_adherence_and_implications_for_treatment_Survey_results_from_3127_patients_with_SLE_conducted_by_the_Lupus_Foundation_of_A is about Lupus.

Quote:

---

https://vivelifecenter.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/White-Paper-on-H
CQ-07-22-2020.pdf by a guy from "America's Frontline Doctors," a sham funded by reichwing dark money. No credibility.
https://www.snopes.com/news/2020/07/30/americas-frontline-doctors/


I think you probably know how to use credible sources. You just don't.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
I've noticed a lack of clarity among internet sources about dosage.


The interwebs continue to be burying whatever information is useful bout the dosage. Perhaps more or better info is forthcoming.

---

I know you have an agenda to make Trump right.
But posting lies (and trying to get away with it by failing to post links) isn't the way to do it.

---

Quote:

---

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
ANALYSIS

By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020

On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”

Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science -- or the politics -- of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe. This claim is nonsense.

Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 -- and the Washington Post is hardly alone -- the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.

Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.

To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.

On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”

Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.

However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.

So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast --- and in error -- the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.

By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.

On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.

In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.

In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.

Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May 27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.



The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.

Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.

Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.

Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?

Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight -- Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I apologize if I'm covering old ground, but I saw an interesting article to repost here

Quote:

---

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
ANALYSIS

---

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_cov
id_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
However, after Trump made mention of HCQ at a presser, the TDSers and the Orange Man Bad club all went batshit and opposed HCQ for no logical reason.

---

Quote:

---

I would hope that, since HCQ has had many decades track record, we could focus on Trials NOT dated 2020, but from one of the other dozens of years that HCQ has been prescribed.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I apologize if I'm covering old ground, but I saw an interesting article to repost here

---

Quote:

---

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
ANALYSIS

By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020

On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”

Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science -- or the politics -- of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe. This claim is nonsense.

Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 -- and the Washington Post is hardly alone -- the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.

Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.

To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.

On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”

Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.

However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.

So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast --- and in error -- the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.

By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.

On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.

In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.

In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.

Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May 27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.

---

Quote:

---

The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.

Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.

Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.

Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?

Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight -- Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.

---

Quote:

---

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1KIKI:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
However, after Trump made mention of HCQ at a presser, the TDSers and the Orange Man Bad club all went batshit and opposed HCQ for no logical reason.

---

ONE logical reason might be that it doesn't work AND carries risks for COVID-19 damaged hearts.

Quote:

---

I would hope that, since HCQ has had many decades track record, we could focus on Trials NOT dated 2020, but from one of the other dozens of years that HCQ has been prescribed.

---

We're supposed to look at HCQ trials BEFORE 2020 even though they DIDN'T look at SAR-CoV-2?

Then how in god's name is anybody supposed to figure out if it works against the SAR-CoV-2 or not?

---

Quote:

---

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made

---

Quote:

---

for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus.

---

Quote:

---

Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

---

Quote:

---

... some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic.

---

Quote:

---

They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects.

---

Quote:

---

In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients.

---

Quote:

---

... some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine ...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

They constantly print misinformation.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
I apologize if I'm covering old ground, but I saw an interesting article to repost here

---

Quote:

---

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
ANALYSIS

By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020

On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”

Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science -- or the politics -- of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe. This claim is nonsense.

Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 -- and the Washington Post is hardly alone -- the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.

Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.

To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.

On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”

Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.

However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.

So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast --- and in error -- the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.

By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.

On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”

In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.

In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.

In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.

Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May 27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.

---

Quote:

---

The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.

Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.

Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.

Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?

Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight -- Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.

---

Quote:

---

-----------
Pity would be no more,
If we did not MAKE men poor - William Blake

#WEARAMASK

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by THG:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:

They constantly print misinformation.


Do Right, Be Right. :)

---

T

Stupid people don't know they're stupid, and they certainly don't realize how obvious it is to others.


If not the media. What other reputable sources of news are there?


10 Journalism Brands Where You Find Real Facts Rather Than Alternative Facts

https://www.forbes.com/sites/berlinschoolofcreativeleadership/2017/02/
01/10-journalism-brands-where-you-will-find-real-facts-rather-than-alternative-facts/#1994f207e9b5

1. The New York Times
2. The Wall Street Journal
3. The Washington Post
4. BBC
5. The Economist
6. The New Yorker
7. The Associated Press, Reuters, Bloomberg News
8. Foreign Affairs
9. The Atlantic
10. Politico



Runners Up:

- National Public Radio

- TIME magazine

-The Christian Science Monitor

- The Los Angeles Times (and many other regional, metropolitan daily newspapers)

- USA Today

- CNN

- NBC News

- CBS News

- ABC News

Business News Sources:

- FORBES magazine

- Bloomberg BusinessWeek magazine

- Fortune magazine

- The Financial Times newspaper

Sources of reporting and opinion from the right of the political spectrum:

- National Review

- The Weekly Standard

Sources of reporting and opinion from the left of the political spectrum:

- The New Republic

- The Nation

Paul Glader is an associate professor of journalism at The King's College in New York City, a media scholar at The Berlin School of Creative Leadership

---