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.
Tag: Censorship
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.
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!
Why is Ivermectin not approved?
Because it does not leave revenue to anyone, it does not generate returns, you cannot make partisan discretion with it, and no one can win an election by applying it, or buy a yacht with its dividends.
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.
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.
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.
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.
“I have great concerns about censorship—community standards should not stop us from listening to opinions of highly experienced medical professionals.”
“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.’”
No matter what opinions there are, the public ought to be treated like adults, allowed to to see it and decide for themselves.
Source: AAPS Online Author: Lionel Lee “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…” The Constitution plainly and clearly states the importance of allowing every American, including physicians, to speak freely without concern for censorship. By now, […]
Facebook’s recent decision to restrict, aka ban, all information about hydroxychloroquine from its platform represents a clear case of digital imperialism.
Like all medicines, treatment options for coronavirus should be debated and spoken about, not censored and silenced.
Prescribing hydroxychloroquine should not be a political battle, which, unhappily, is what it has become. It should be between doctor and patient.