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.
The World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health now have all the data they need to recommend ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19. And those who want to end this pandemic now, for all countries rich and poor, should welcome that move.
Our investigation of a large national cohort appears to support early administration (within the first 3 to 7 days of COVID-19 diagnosis) of HCQ in mild COVID-19 disease in an outpatient setting for reducing hospitalizations and deaths without any serious adverse HCQ-related effects.
If this finding is confirmed in future clinical trials, HCQ as a cheap and available drug may still play a role in a specific population with respect to reducing COVID-19 burden, particularly in resource-poor countries.
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.
“I am deeply troubled that the WHO made this hasty decision on guidance before reviewing all available data,” said Pierre Kory, MD, MPH, president and chief medical officer of the FLCCC.
“Their recommendation ignores the evidence, creates more controversy, and will only lead to continuing suffering and death from COVID-19. There are now over 24 randomized trials results
that have been reported to the Unitaid/WHO team yet todays guidance was inexcusably based on a faulty analysis of just 16 of the available trials. Further, these erroneous findings directly conflict
with numerous other peer-reviewed expert analyses that have found the data overwhelmingly demonstrates that ivermectin saves lives from COVID-19. There is no reason not to recommend it
for everyone as a safe drug for prevention and treatment.”
The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of oral Ivermectin treatment, which has been associated with iota-carrageenan in repeated doses through the nasal and oral topical route, on the appearance and eventual progression of COVID-19 disease in a healthy population that are exposed to it and have a higher risk of contagion of SARS-COV-2 for being health personnel from
Ivermectin had a significant effect (p=0.003) in achieving medical release. The treatment with ivermectin could significantly prevent the evolution to serious stages since the experimental group did not present any patient with referral to critical hospitalization.
Did the Netherlands work out that early outpatient treatment using hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin & other drugs, hospitalisations can reduce by 80% or more?
It would take just a few weeks to bring down new hospitalizations for COVID-19 to around 40 per day in the country, if general practitioners were authorized to treat the disease early, using a range of early treatment medications, including those now exposing doctors to penalties of up to 150,000 euros!
Source: Rounding the Earth Author: Mathew Crawford The story of why hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has not been used broadly in most Western nations (primarily in the
The group that didn’t take the ivermectin, over 3 months it was fifty-eight percent. Fifty-eight percent of those doctors, nurses and orderlies contracted coronavirus.
In the 788 group, the same doctors, nurses and orderlies across the 4 hospitals, the number of infections that they had, was zero. ZERO, that were treated with ivermectin.
Antiviral therapy is only of interest during the early and intermediate viral phase when the virus is present and replicates, and is of no use during the late inflammatory phase (cytokine storm). Most therapeutic trials, unfortunately, have been carried out in hospitalized patients, which is to say probably often too late, because the patients are in the early inflammatory phase.
Reductions in covid-19 deaths and infections may be possible by using ivermectin. Employing ivermectin early on may reduce the number of people progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin could have an impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.
The Hydroxychloroquine Hypothesis: That there is some appropriate dosage of hydroxychloroquine, alone or in some combination with other medication, that successfully prevents some COVID-19 cases (PrEP/PEP) or treats some COVID-19 sufferers (Early/Late/Critical).
Remaining entirely unblemished after a year of trials and observations, the current evidence in favor of the Primary HCQ Hypothesis fully validates the HCQ Hypothesis. The logic is so simple that it almost feels like your livelihood would have to be on the line to deny it.
In this study, by use of DIC microscopy and NMR spectroscopy, for the first time we have decoded that HCQ specifically binds to both N-terminal domain (NTD) and C-terminal domain (CTD) of SARS-CoV-2 nucleocapsid (N) protein to inhibit their interactions with nucleic acids (NAs), as well as to disrupt its NA-induced liquid-liquid phase separation (LLPS) essential for the viral life cycle including the package of gRNA and N protein into new virions.
This is now one of the most well-studied treatments in the history of medicine, and the evidence is overwhelming. The chance that these results could occur at random is approximately 1 in 208 quadrillion. That is, p = 0.000000000000048. Having read a few thousand research papers, I have never before seen a p-value this low in the testing of medicine.
Source: The Palmer Foundation Men and Women of Australia I feel duty bound to bring the following to your attention. Revelations that two Australians were
The science shows that ivermectin works. Over 40 randomized trials and observational studies from around the world attest to its efficacy against the novel coronavirus. Meta-analyses by four separate research groups, including ours, found an average reduction in mortality of between 68%-75%. And 10 of 13 randomized controlled trials found statistically significant reductions in time to viral clearance, an effect not associated with any other COVID-19 therapeutic. Furthermore, ivermectin has an unparalleled safety record and low cost, which should negate any fears or resistance to immediate adoption.
Why then does the pharmaceutical industry and its promoters insist on conducting RCTs before something is accepted as true? RCTs take substantial amounts of time and significant resources to conduct. This creates a barrier to entry, especially for inexpensive solutions to medical problems. In other words, the myth that RCTs are some necessary “gold standard” is a deception that, along with regulatory agency, prevent any possibility for simpler and less expensive (less profitable) medical solutions to gain traction.
If the argument rests on “RCTs as the gold standard”, there is little doubt that the evidence dramatically favors using HCQ as a standard early stage therapeutic! But it is reasonable to assess the quality of all the evidence to reach beyond gold for the ultimate and supreme standards of scientific evidence. That too we plan to present in future articles.
On face, it certainly appears that complete silence in the public sphere about hydroxychloroquine’s potential was coordinated by powerful media forces.
A famous infectious diseases specialist from France, Dr. Didier Raoult, devised treatments for the bacterial infections that cause Q fever and Whipple’s disease. If all that weren’t enough, hydroxychloroquine has anti-thrombotic properties, meaning it reduces blood clotting for patients suffering excessive clotting. It even inhibits autophagy (cellular self-destruction) setting up hydroxychloroquine for research as a unique cancer medication. No other medicine discovered, isolated, or engineered does all of these things. Most importantly during the recent pandemic, hydroxychloroquine, like quinine, also demonstrates antiviral activity. In short, hydroxychloroquine is a gift from nature—one of the most broadly effective and repurposed drugs in the history of medicine. Billions of doses of hydroxychloroquine are distributed annually, and the WHO includes it in its list of essential medicines.
Nobody knows what’s going to happen in the future. Do we have new mutations with more variability? Perhaps the vaccine will be less effective? I think to have an antiviral agent is highly important in so severe a disease. We hope we will not need it in the future. But for now, I think we urgently need and to continue to work on ivermectin.
More than 30 trials across the world found that ivermectin causes ‘repeated, consistent, large magnitude improvements in clinical outcomes’ at all stages of the disease. The peer-reviewed study, to be published in the US journal Frontiers of Pharmacology, says the evidence is so strong that the drug – used to treat head lice and scabies – should become a standard therapy everywhere, so hastening the global recovery.
In short, Newsweek and the other “fact-checkers” are attempting to arbitrate scientific truth based on their hatred for Donald Trump. These are journalists, not scientists. They have no business misleading the public on the scientific debate over hydroxychloroquine being a preventative treatment for COVID-19.
Ivermectin is an effective treatment for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 42 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 4 trillion (p = 0.00000000000023).
The UK has had the ignominious triumph of having one of the world’s highest death rates. Some see the solution in continuing lockdowns, more testing and ultimately the vaccine. We argue that the solution lies in medical treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin rather than in vaccination. But hydroxychloroquine was ruled out as a potential treatment for covid19 quite early on. This is despite the fact that, when used correctly, it is a highly efficacious treatment. Had it been readily available as a prophylactic or early stage treatment we would need neither lockdowns nor vaccinations and dramatically fewer people would have died. However this didn’t happen. Here we intend to explore why.
This is the story of how the best allopathic therapy for COVID-19 was CRUSHED by Bill Gates and the WHO using DEADLY DOSES in order to keep the vaccine narrative and make BILLIONS of dollars.
“The effect of censoring debate on these early treatments could have possibly been responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of people.
So, where we should have been having more open debate and more free debate, shutting down debate is likely to have killed people. Not just one or two people, but probably hundreds of thousands. This is why throughout the last 250 years people have said free speech is so important. This is why people have said, ‘I may not agree with what you say but I’ll fight to my death your right to say it.’”
We conclude that two-dose ivermectin prophylaxis at a dose of 300 μg/kg body weight with a gap of 72 hours was associated with a 73% reduction of SARS-CoV-2 infection among HCWs in the following one month. Chemoprophylaxis has relevance in the containment of pandemic. This is an intervention worth replicating at other centers until a vaccine is widely available.
The Recovery study therefore has no interest and does not allow us to deduce anything concerning the effect of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19. This study most certainly killed patients.
Ivermectin: There is a technique of discrediting which is all the rage, always to manipulate: to criticize the form, to make forget the main one: the result. Virtually all of the studies cited by the paper are 95% criticized on form and not on substance, leading to the conclusion, despite results that even a 5-year-old would find obvious, that there is insufficient evidence. If, one day, public domain Ivermectin becomes THE drug against Sars-Cov-2, that will result in billions of losses for the global pharmaceutical industry.
The British Recovery study testing HCQ in patients with COVID-19 used very high doses of hydroxychloroquine, doses that we can qualify as dangerously toxic.
•TNR4 is a multidrug therapy (Ivermectin, Azithromycin, Montelukast and ASA) for COVID-19 cases.
•TNR4 increased the likelihood of recovery 3.4 times in ambulatory COVID-19 cases.
•The multidrug therapy TNR4 reduced the risk of hospitalization by 75%.
•The multidrug therapy TNR4 reduced the risk of death by 81%.
The dose used in the RECOVERY trial, arouses concern because it may have been a disease-aggravating factor negating the therapeutic effect.
The Marseille professor explained himself in an interview with Figaro Magazine on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, conflicts of interest in the scientific community, and the decision taken by Emmanuel Macron not to reconfine.
Source: ABC Radio In an interview with the ABC’s ‘On Drive with Paul Turton’, Professor Clancy explains his conclusions from the many studies available. Robert
Source: 6PR Mornings Australian medical bioscientist and clinical immunologist Robert Clancy, an expert in the relationship between infection and the airways, declares “the data is
We tested the hypothesis that aerosolized HCQ sulfate (aHCQ) tolerably, safely, and rapidly achieves high respiratory tissue concentrations, while minimizing systemic toxicity.
