Source: FLCCC Alliance Community Author: Joyce Kamen Since January, 2020, Dr. Paul Marik, a tenured professor of medicine, has worked non-stop to try to understand
This article is about a watershed moment in COVID-19 management. It is brought into focus by the TGA closing down the legal use of IVM for COVID-19, while Merck promotes an inadequately documented, potentially dangerous and less effective (but patented and very expensive) “lethal-mutant” anti-viral.
In nations around the world tension mounts between physicians and caregivers seeking to prescribe what they professionally deem as safe doses of ivermectin, as an off-label treatment for COVID-19 and national health authorities, which for the most part have all taken a hostile and oppositional position against the use of the drug.
The data here comes from five nations, and my spreadsheet included a national comparison where the 0.09% case fatality rate (CFR) among patients receiving hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc was 98% lower than the case-weighted CFR of those five nations.
Be clear about the science explaining why IVM and HCQ have worked. They both (along with zinc) interfere at the earliest stage of COVID infection with viral replication. Stops infection in its tracks. They work as prophylactics for the same reason. If you keep a modest amount of IVM and HCQ in your body (and take zinc, vitamins C and D, and quercetin) any virus that enters your body can be stopped before major viral replication. The new prescription medicines coming from Merck and other Big Pharma are designed to serve the same function as the cheap generics.
The government had already taken steps to stockpile hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in large quantity in February upon learning of China’s decision to treat with chloroquine. By March 21, Turkey made the decision to treat patients broadly with HCQ. From March 24 to April 6, Turkey saw incidences of pneumonia among COVID-19 patients plummet from just over 60% to just under 20%, indicating that HCQ likely had a strong antiviral effect in patients.
Buried in the note is the real reason for making ivermectin inaccessible – the fear that persons taking it ‘may elect not to be vaccinated as part of the national Covid-19 vaccination program’. This is outrageous. When someone is infected with Covid, it is too late to bother with vaccination. They need early treatment. To deny it to coerce them into accepting a vaccine, one of whose side-effects is death, is immoral.
It is irresponsible to exclude IVM as a drug to control high numbers of infections that will be encountered as Australia moves out of its “bubble”, irrespective of the level of vaccination.
Five months after receiving the Pfizer vaccine, protection in Israel against mild-to-moderate disease was only 15 per cent. The unpredictable nature of new variants leads to an increasing realisation that a COVID-free community in Australia will not happen without draconian and continued lockdowns. There is an immediate need for early drug therapy to complement the vaccine program.
TUBS, CC BY-SA 3.0 <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0>, via Wikimedia Commons Source: Rounding the Earth Author: Mathew Crawford “One worm may damage the whole cooking soup.” -Vietnamese Proverb
Just as Galileo proved with his telescope that the earth was NOT the center of the Universe in 1616; today, the data from India shows that Ivermectin is effective, much more so than the vaccines. It not only prevents death, but it also prevents COVID infections, and it also is effective against the Delta Variant.
This is a far reaching interview with Nick Hudson, who is the leader of PANDA, which stands for Pandemics Data & Analytics
This interview with Steve Kirsch features early treatment, vaccination, government responses to pandemics, tech companies & freedom of expression.
It’s all so cruel and unnecessary. With or without Professor Skerritt, if doctors prescribed ivermectin therapy for every person who tests positive, and wants it, and for their close contacts, the Delta wave would wash away. Offer it to the vaccine-hesitant and anyone seeking protection until they were vaccinated, and we could reopen our borders. How apposite that the escape route out of our pandemic prison could be as Aussie as Vegemite.
We believe that the Medical Products Agency should follow the example of the Czech Republic, Slovakia and several other countries and approve ivermectin as treatment for covid-19
On October 8, 2019, the French Minister of Health began the process of putting HCQ on a list of poisonous substances after it was available OTC for decades without a problem. She is married to the former CEO of INSERM, which arranged the building of the first level 4 biosafety lab in mainland China, known as the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The pressure was building to bury the news of medical agents that successfully treat COVID-19 infection from a very early moment. We needed to organize early to stop that genocide.
The data from the vaccine trials must be recalculated under the lens that some of the serious adverse events (SAEs) should be treated as COVID-19 cases.
There may not be any vaccine efficacy in the data at all if some of the post-vaccination deaths are due to vaccine-induced COVID-19. It could even be the case that the mortality efficacy goes negative. My implied lives saved calculations put this easily in the realm of possibility. The only way to know is for authorities to organize and compile the data. And while a risk analysis is certainly due after more than six months of hundreds of millions of doses delivered, there is little indication authorities have bothered with the process. That’s more than a bit unsettling.
The Roman/Hernandez meta-analysis comes at a politically contentious moment. Their language and behavior appear political. Their work is error-laden, takes research out of its true context, uses numbers that don’t seem to come from the actual studies, chooses papers testing ivermectin under the least favorable circumstances, gives unexplained and inappropriate weights to the small amount of data that stands as outliers to the bigger picture, and still drives a conclusion of “don’t use this” from a massive average mortality reduction that did not quite reach statistical significance. At the same time the authors consistently complain about the “low quality of evidence” represented by the studies they do and do not include, nearly all of which I would describe as produced by higher quality scientists who can at least tally numbers correctly.
The SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY protocols look prima facie like staged sabotage.I drew a picture to make the point: The WHO could not have plausibly chosen a less optimal treatment protocol.
During the first wave, the primary antiviral used was HCQ, and during the second wave (after Facebook censored his account where he was communicating with others in a large nation) they shifted to ivermectin due to HCQ controversies. Similarly to the way Dr. Brian Tyson attacked COVID-19 with an early multi-drug regimen, numerous other medicines, including aspirin, were used. Of Dr. Shah’s 8,000 or so patients, only 5 succumbed to COVID-19. This is notably similar to the results of Dr. Didier Raoult.
This is pulled straight from the same playbook as the propaganda against HCQ. Even if you’re not sure that one or both of these medicines is effective despite uniformly positive results when applied as early treatment, you should at least recognize the pattern, scratch your head, and question whether there is…maybe…just possibly some perverse incentive like power or profit from vaccines driving this absurdity.
There are so many ways to attack this virus, so we’ll move forward with an argument that SARS-CoV-2 is far easier to handle than its public image suggests.
Bret, Pierre, Heather, and a large number of internet pundits make a great case that suppression of ivermectin is a large, gross, and inhumane crime. However, this is not the “crime of the century”. The crime of the century is far larger, or rather more systemic.
Doctors have found safe, effective and inexpensive treatments that work well in preventing and treating patients with COVID-19 like Ivermectin that’s been used safely for more than 30 years.
But the government has not supported the use of this effective drug. In fact, there are other therapies like hydroxychloroquine, vitamins D and C and zinc that physicians have found to be safe and effective in preventing and treating COVID.
Dr. Pierre Kory explain both the case that ivermectin (IVM) effectively prevents or treats COVID-19, and also how and why that information is withheld by public health officials.
But while political psychology did its thing, making HCQ a no go zone for many physicians, Tyson and his staff simply treated patients according to whatever seemed to work, using HCQ as a primary option. And work it did.
Today, the health experts tasked at the political levels of the United States (and by chance those nations closest to its sphere of influence) are failing us by dismissing an avalanche of evidence of effective empiric COVID-19 treatments, primarily at the early stages of disease.
So, what’s different between Maharashtra and Delhi with respect to the rest of India and South Asia? Instead of relying on HCQ and IVM, many doctors and health officials in Maharashtra and Delhi pushed the expensive and profitable remdesivir drug. Due to its cost and recommended time of usage, remdesivir is not used either as a prophylaxis or for early outpatient treatment. And unlike the cheap and easy-to-produce HCQ and IVM, remdesivir is difficult to replace when it runs out.
It is high time to open our eyes, to hold our governments to account, and to fundamentally reform a system that has been misled by the interests of the all-powerful pharmaceutical industry. ”
Every viral illness starts that way. The more it’s allowed to progress, the more it takes over the cells and replicates itself. That’s why this virus absolutely had to be treated early to prevent those damages. Primarily what has killed people with COVID is a delay to treatment, and allowing the exaggerating inflammatory response and blood clotting response to take hold in the body.
Source: The New American Author: Annalisa Pesek Calls are increasing for investigations into Dr. Anthony Fauci’s intentional suppression of inexpensive and easily accessible, life-saving treatments for COVID-19.
It would be a historically amazing feat of maneuvering bureaucracy, worthy of its own epic book, movie, or perhaps a campfire song, to have wrangled that much data out of those hospitals with highly variable regulations and procedures, nearly all of which are in the U.S. healthcare system.
It was in these very moments in late May when public health officials lost all credibility—a credibility that cannot be restored without major changes taking place. Despite most evidence pointing to a likelihood of HCQ efficacy, they made their call on the back of data supposedly tucked away in a database that nobody had verified, declared it definitive, then swiftly pushed for policy changes around the world.
Immediately following HCQ’s Trump moment, the media went on an all-out blitz to associate the topic of HCQ with a sense of fear. Fear of Trump, fear of death, fear of incompetence, fear of opposing scientific authorities, fear of using medicine needed by somebody else, and fear of the unknown. And the campaign of fear didn’t stop there.
The primary effect of the article was likely to further ingrain a partisan association with the subject matter, along with the subtext, “Whatever good SCIENCE exists, it can only be on our side [so you won’t need to think any more about it].”
An Internist, cardiologist and professor of medicine, Dr McCollough treats covid patients and was involved in two major studies indicating that treatment is the key to getting covid under control.
One of the most disturbing aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic is the strange singularity of the ultimate solution, or at least the one preferred by the world’s most powerful people and their media: vaccines.
We discussed the Surgisphere debacle and other stories of “engineered research” during the pandemic, most of which I am currently preparing articles about.
Suppose that we want to rig a medical study despite the participation of mostly or entirely caring doctors and researchers with unimpeachable character and credentials.
While HCQ looks very safe overall for COVID-19 patients, it looks safest when used as a prophylactic or therapeutic for early stage COVID-19 patients, once again affirming the Primary HCQ Hypothesis as the strongest version of the HCQ Hypothesis.
