If doctors could prescribe HCQ, 'we wouldn't need the lockdowns'

Kerosine works well in vitro.

 

Yeah! On nits too!

 

Now if only Under the Radar would douse himself with kerosene this farce would actually end.

 

Or bleach. Or an internal UV light.

 

Now that's just cruel - on the UV lamp .

 

This is one of those painful facts that show that Operation Covid is not in the least concerned with public health.

Operation Covid/Plandemic is about control of the masses and plunder of the treasury, nothing more.

 

What a load of B.S. Firstly the fact that HCL is 'lawful' has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not it is effective in the treatment or prevention of COVID. Suppositories are 'lawful'. Are you going to suggest they should used to treat the virus?

Lets be clear, no-one is stopping Doctors anywhere from proscribing the drug - beyond ensuring there are enough stocks left to treat conditions it is already known to be effective in treating. The reason it is not proscribed by the vast majority ofDoctors is that all the available evidence shows IT DOES NOT WORK either as prophylactic or as a treatment for COVID.

As for tyrannicidal governments? We've largely beaten COVID by following the proscriptions imposed by our Government. Having done so the Government in turn is now is unwinding those very same proscriptions. Life here is almost back to normal.

 

Barely worth responding to Monash. Do you know the difference between proscribe and prescribe? Likely not. I guess you know the difference between suppositories and capsules, but who knows?

Actually HCQ does work. Many doctors have shown that it works, but when they make that statement in public they are maligned and censored. Think America's Frontline Doctors.

I'm betting that as their speaking the truth was censored and they were maligned, you were cheering the censors on.

 

And yet you do.

Thankyou for catching the spell check error. IF I had noticed it earlier I would have corrected it.

To the extent any US Doctors are 'maligned and censored' for prescribing HCL its because the scientific evidence doesn't back up its use. There are a range of effective combination therapies now being used in hospitals around the world to treat severely ill COVID patients that have been proven to significantly reduce the COVID mortality rate. HCL was trialed and failed early on.

Initially, before testing started to bring in concrete evidence Doctors around the world had to deal with the first wave of COVID pretty much by trial and error, using various combinations of drug therapies they thought (based on experience) might help reduce the runaway immune responses that were killing people, then sharing their results with each other around the world. That's how HCL got into the mix in the first place.

However repeated experiments soon showed that HCL didn't help, either by itself or in combo, as a prophylactic or as a treatment. Certainly not nearly enough to outweigh the potential risk of serious adverse side effects (effects that are well established in medical literature). That's the science. End of story.

Really? Why? If it worked I'd be cheering HCL on. I'd use it myself and to the extent my opinion on the topic actually mattered I'd be wholeheartedly recommending it to others. And the only reason I don't do this? It doesn't work.

As for people who still go on blindly insisting it does work? Despite the overwhelming volume of evidence to the contrary? Sorry but their just slowly spiraling ever deeper down the drain hole of 'conspiracy theory land'.

 

And it seems like Ivermectin is even better.....





Clinical Trials and Research News Weekly Roundup | S2 E27 | Ivermectin VS Hydroxychloroquine

 

Honestly, swing and a miss. This is so bad I would say strike three, you’re out.

FACTS??? You quote an opinion piece of an Australian politician and claim it as FACT???

1. I would never take health advice from a politician. They are not telling your things for your own good. They do and say what they want in self-interest.


2. Politicians lie. Oh wait, that should be mislead. They cannot lie straight in bed let alone to people.

3. Politicians are not experts in anything but twisting the truth.

This article is devoid of ANY facts, any profession support or any understanding of the issues.

So, presenting the opinion of one moronic politician as FACT just detracts from your credibility.

 

There you are Garry, there are threads we agree in, just like I said - for whats its worth 100% correct. Slightly curious though why you demand in facts in this thread but won't provide them in another when asked.

 

Maybe I'm wrong, but my bet is that for the last 12 months you have done EXACTLY as politicians and career bureaucrats have 'recommended' to you regarding healthcare practices.

 

I am not demanding anything in this thread. I simply point out the claim of fact is fiction. I as an observer in this discussion have posted MY opinion on what the poster has claimed. As I am not discussing the substance of the thread but the facts as presented in the thread, I do not believe your response to that is nothing more than flame baiting the poster whom you disagree with.

If you agree with me or not is irrelevant to any discussion either here or in other threads. The fact you would again pursue a comment to another just goes further to the assertion presented elsewhere. Again the final point in your comment demonstrates your attempt to attack posters NOT posts.
.

 

You’re wrong... I talk to a doctor and take doctors’ advice on my health. I would rather take the advice from people who spent several years studying how the human body works and how to fix or treat health issues. I would expect you do the same.


Now, I will even question that advice as to the extent it will help me appose to side effects that may come from following that advice.

If politicians and bureaucrats send out the same advice I take that with a grain of salt for a few reason,


A, These people hold self-interest in all decisions they make. Sure, they may good advice if the issue has no interest to them, BUT how are we to know???


B, These people have considerable less interest in making sure their health care advice will save your life because that is not what they are paid to do and


C, these people are working for the masses not me alone. SO I can be assured that ANY health information they provide is only a guide and advice for me to follow…


Anyway, I am glad you not going to insist that the article presented was statement of fact…

 

I worked in a drug store back in the 60's and 70's, so I take an interest in pharmacy. That experience combined with life experiences regarding human nature has been useful in understanding this HCQ controversy.

A good example is the case of Oxycontin and the other opioids during the last 20 years. The facts are that many doctors happily accepted money to write misleading and inaccurate articles for various journals regarding the safety of the opioids. Many more happily accepted money to write prescriptions for the drugs, as directed by the pharmaceutical manufacturers. Such behavior is typical of the industry. Some doctors DO own stock in pharmaceutical companies.

 

I do understand what you are saying and can accept that there are many unscrupulous medical people, just as politicians and any other area you want to look to. The reason I am not engaging in the overall debate is simply this virus is so new that not much is actually known about it.

 

And I understand your point, but your claim that we know little about the virus is simply not accurate.

We know very much about the virus today, and for the past few months, because we have the luxury of hindsight contributing to the body of knowledge about the virus.

The coronavirus has been with us for at least 50 or 60 years, probably longer.

Around 2003 applications were made with the US Patent Office to secure a patent on the coronavirus. Early ones were rejected, but eventually one was issued.

In 2015 with help from Anthony Fauci and Ralph Baric at UNC Chapel Hill, experiments for Gain Of Function research were conducted with taxpayer dollars. The Wuhan Institute was a partner in those experiments. We know we have an engineered virus amongst us.

We know that the morbidity of the virus is about the same as the flu virus, and we know that the bulk of the victims have been obese and old and in poor nutrition.

We know that Vitamin C, Vitamin D have been useful in treating the infection. We know that HCQ and Ivermectin have been very successful in treating the infection.

We know that America's Frontline Doctors and any other group or individual speaking these facts in public have been maligned and censored. For those of us who are students of human behavior, we know that censorship is fraught with meaning.

 

Well, as for how long corona viruses been around. I believe since the 1900s. But the problem here is that coronaviruses are actually a group of viruses. There has also been conjecture about the name of this virus being incorrect as it is more associated with the Sars virus that belongs in the coronavirus family.

Sars virus still remains the most virulent yet not as communicable as Covid 19. The morbity rate of these corona viruses are much greater than Flu. Don’t confuse yourself, this pandemic virus is actually COVID19 not coronavirus. It belongs in the corona virus family. ALSO while Sars is also a different virus strand it is ALSO a COVID virus which spurs the issue of being named wrong as it is not the SAME virus.

NOW after that, which is little of anything, The important thing you have to remember is that even though you point out how long the virus group has been around we still actually know little about it. In fact, man thinks his intelligence is so great we can change the planet, the universe and himself. YET we cannot cure the common cold. We can treat the symptoms yet we cannot cure anything.

Even here, the thread is discussing how to treat the symptoms of covid 19 and yet we know so little about it. Even with vaccine we believe that man is reducing the chance of infection while still remaining in the ignorance of just how that can occur.

Our medical professionals still cannot definitively state if the vaccine works, just that it should work and even if you do contract it, you will have less serious infection.
Now we can associate that our body’s immunity will combat the virus, as it has before and that by introducing the right immune response with give the body a head start. But if the body has some problem (or unforeseen health issue) you could have allergic reaction to such or the vaccine will be completely ineffectual.

Now we can argue about what drugs do what and how that works, but this thread in itself fails in the fact it states that is for the masses. ANY drug must be considered on a case by case basis no matter what anybody wants. Should we just go about our business in the hope these drugs will work???

Anyway, as for dissenting doctors and censorship, while I do agree there are unscrupulous medical practicians, given the issues debate on how to treat the virus in a time where delay kills, isn’t it best to get hold of the situation before stalling it with argument??? We can look at the flip flopping of the WHO on closing borders that went well into increasing the spread of the virus, as example.

In ideal world, I would agree with the sentiment that there is hidden meaning behind censorship, But we are not in ideal times. The world has presided over a million deaths at least and more to come. The world is far from the end of this viruses effect and possibly not even close to the middle, given the outbreak in Italy during their vaccination period.

Only time will tell…

 

Garry

The very large elephant in the room is that the virus is not nearly as dangerous as it has been portrayed to be. All the data shows that.

So the claim that 'delay kills' is a false claim. The virus is as dangerous as the flu virus, plain and simple.

Many doctors around the world have demonstrated the efficacy of HCQ against the virus. Many have also demonstrated the efficacy of Ivermectin against the virus.

In the end, people are rushing to be injected with an experimental drug, and that makes them test subjects. Many have had to take it as part of their job, and that is literally forced experimentation on humans, and a violation of numerous existing international laws, including the Nuremberg principles.

 

Well, I can agree with the fact the virus is not as dangerous as made out. However, the virus is extremely communicable which makes the virus more dangerous threat than the flu.

As explained to me at the start…


In Australia it was considered 500,000 people would contract the virus. Out of these 10% would need acute care and out of that 10% would need Extreme care (Respirator). Work the numbers down 50,000 down to 5000. Not many considering… Yet at the time there was less than 2000 respirators in the nation. Without intervention that would mean (given the time framing and so on) that you just kiss 2150 people (I believe the forecast was) goodbye because they could not be treated. Now consider that putting people on respirator is not a cure OR guarantee of success, how do you choose who should be treated and who should be kicked to the curb.

Also, that is given the people who are infected are reasonably healthy with no serious repertory issues. That including asthma, heart disease of any form, Motor neurone disease, diabetes the list goes on. Which increases the chance of mortality with this virus, are outside the statistical presumption.

If somebody has the flu, do we need to choose who to treat and who to send home to die??? Now the figures on are pretty much on the mark on outcome with that scenario so I still have no reason to wonder who is correct here.

OK, so keeping that in mind (not evidence) Australia did not meet the numbers because of the serious intervention of government and change in attitude. The fact that less people became infected in Australia was not down to good health care or better hygiene but directly to lockdown. Sure there were many who flaunted the rules and infected more BUT in general the quarantining and lockdowns did what they were designed to do, which was to restrict the spread of the virus. Even the US, the worst nation affected in some ways reacted with intervention measures that reduced the death toll and the infection rate.

Without this intervention, more people would die, no doubt. Such is demonstration that delay would kill…

That was long winded to answer 1 point… LOL

And on we go… as for the drugs and the treatment.
The reason I say the thread fails in premise is due entirely to the fact that when you start to treat people with any drug, they have already spread the virus. Once a person is diagnosed they are quarantined along with anybody who they deem is contact at risk. As the virus is highly communicable before symptoms (opposite of the Sars) no matter how you treat people who have the virus is irrelevant to prevention.

Well, the immunisation thing is simply the point of how were combat any illness. Because man cannot cure anything, we trick the body into fighting the battle itself with the better tools. Just think, 100 years ago just kicking your toe could spell death for you, if you get an infection. The accidental discovery of penicillin was Huge for mankind. Vaccine is just one of the ways, but on the side, it takes years to create and test many vaccines. Today we see possible the fastest ever drug creation ever. I still wonder on the long term effects, of which has not been tested (as obviously not) Anyway, that is another subject.

 

You're offering hypotheticals. Certainly they can be useful, but reality based analysis is always superior.

Because this has been going on for a year, we do have the luxury of hindsight.

We agree the virus is as morbid as the flu virus. We agree it appears to be more transmissible, but that analysis is complicated because of the use for diagnostic purposes of a test not designed for diagnostic purposes. The PCR test is the foundation of the fraud that is Covid.

 

No, I offer presumption and reality, Sure the presumption is hypothetical but if you campair the two in hindsight we can see that while they differ some aspects are as presumed. Such as the mortality rate and infection rates considering interventions. We are still learning from the reality and in future there may be change in the outcomes BUT at present both are reasonable (considing the timeframe and outcome of the analysis we do have) to help find ways to control and protect people.

True, this has been happening more than a year, but let us face facts, We still don't know all the methods of transmission of this virus considering it was only 3 months ago when it was suddenly found to an airborne virus. Seemed rather obvious considering how cruise ships seem to be a Petri dish. However, there it was not discovered on small enough particles for some time.

Fraud of Covid??? No I think we can consider the virus is not as dangerous as considered but the fact is, without intervention this virus would have seen far more death than we have seen now. Even the US would have seen far more if some efforts were not made to prevent spread. Fact is the ONLY issue with the US is lack of coordinated efforts to address the virus, not that no effort was made. Sitting on the outside, I do consider the issue to be partisan political but I cannot lay blame on any one person or party IMO.

Considering all that has past in the last 12months (not from expert), it is easy to ignore the problem of ignorance at any one time for the decision made at that time. But now while we start getting control (hopefully) we can reflect and consider alternative treatments.

So if we were to consider the use as being effective over quarantine or lock down(as the premise) medication would need to be taken as preventative NOT as reactive. Meaning that majority of people would need to consume enough medication while healthy to prevent infection. If we consider there is underlying concern of misinformation to prevent the use, we can also consider the same for use outside of the already associated use before Covid. In other words, many people and doctors would consider a benefit to have blanket use of the drugs as well, including profiteering and so on…
However, directly to the premise of the thread, HCQ and Ivermectin
HCQ

https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/hydroxychloroquine-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20064216
and Ivermectin

https://www.webmd.com/drugs/2/drug-1122/ivermectin-oral/details

No, Just looking at the side effects you will notice, These drugs have issues with chest pain, Dizziness and light-headedness along with possible breathing difficulty. Now sure these are side effects that may not occur, but they clearly point out that the medication puts heavy strain on heart and blood pressure and respiratory performance. This alone (considering Covid is a respiratory illness) puts doubt in the mind of effective use. One thing is for sure, many people would be at risk should they have contracted the virus as we already know that any pre-existing heart condition or respiratory condition increases the risk of death.

While this is NOT convincing evidence to suggest failure of use of the drugs, it does set that use of drugs without further study and analysis is more or less making the use a trial and error job, rather than sound scientific method.

 

This article proves that we should listen to politicians and not to medics.
I decided to drop my dentist and from today I will look for help from my congressman.

 

In hindsight, your hypotheticals have been shown to be invalid, specious.

HCQ works very well around the world, and there are many health professionals testifying to that fact.

The problem is inside your head--your cognitive dissonance prevents you from dealing with the truth. HCQ was politicized, and you seem proud of that.