By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Coronavirus mortality on 14:56 - Oct 6 by A_Fans_Dad
There is a minor detail being ignored by you and scotia. The crap version of lockdown used by the UK has meant that there is very likely to be a further high number of non COVID related deaths. That has already been quite a few, but it has been estimated that there will be almost as many excess deaths from non COVID as there has been with COVID. You are also ignoring that there is actually an alternative to "Lockdown" and that is focused protection for vulnerable groups. Because of various pressures the preventative benefits of vitamins and minerals is also being largely ignored for both the flu and COVID. Years of previous research is being ignored because supposedely the only answer is a Vaccine.
There is also the issue of freedom of choice. If an old person would prefer to take the chance of catching and dying of COVID from a family member rather than live a totally miserable isolated existence, it should be their's and their family's choice, not the bloody useless governments.
I wonder if these patients count?
This has to change, we can’t let everyone else suffer to save a few
Coronavirus mortality on 14:56 - Oct 6 by A_Fans_Dad
There is a minor detail being ignored by you and scotia. The crap version of lockdown used by the UK has meant that there is very likely to be a further high number of non COVID related deaths. That has already been quite a few, but it has been estimated that there will be almost as many excess deaths from non COVID as there has been with COVID. You are also ignoring that there is actually an alternative to "Lockdown" and that is focused protection for vulnerable groups. Because of various pressures the preventative benefits of vitamins and minerals is also being largely ignored for both the flu and COVID. Years of previous research is being ignored because supposedely the only answer is a Vaccine.
There is also the issue of freedom of choice. If an old person would prefer to take the chance of catching and dying of COVID from a family member rather than live a totally miserable isolated existence, it should be their's and their family's choice, not the bloody useless governments.
There is some truth in that - which is precisely why I think a three month complete lock down is all we can realistically be expected to tolerate within a year. We've been there and now we need to try and move on in as safe way as possible. Nevertheless if Covid runs through the population unabated the NHS and society can't function, so a complete lockdown will be the fall back option until we have a vaccine or treatment.
I don't think the preventative benefits of vitamins and minerals are being ignored, they are unlikely to work in their own right. Although there are clear benefits to having a diet that consists of the full range of vitamins and minerals. Do you really think the government would overlook prescribing a quality A-Z vitamin to everyone in favour of economic ruin?
Now I don't know Molly but we compete in the same sport. A lot of people in crossfit take many supplements but the most common one is Cod Liver Oil, I take it and I bet Molly does, especially at her level. Cod Liver Oil is an excellent source of Vitamin D. She is suffering long covid so it didn't help her.
I'd assume that Trump was advised to take all kinds of preventative available, and could afford the kind of supplements a care assistant could only dream of. We know what happened next - and he was prescribed Remdesivir and Monoclonal antibodies along with Dexamethasone, rather than HCQ and Azithromycin.
If a simple treatment had been found we would be using it not ignoring it.
I'm all for freedom of choice, but it would only work if you are going to isolate yourself from everyone apart from those you want to see and that sounds even more lonely to me.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 17:27 - Oct 6 with 1200 views
There is some truth in that - which is precisely why I think a three month complete lock down is all we can realistically be expected to tolerate within a year. We've been there and now we need to try and move on in as safe way as possible. Nevertheless if Covid runs through the population unabated the NHS and society can't function, so a complete lockdown will be the fall back option until we have a vaccine or treatment.
I don't think the preventative benefits of vitamins and minerals are being ignored, they are unlikely to work in their own right. Although there are clear benefits to having a diet that consists of the full range of vitamins and minerals. Do you really think the government would overlook prescribing a quality A-Z vitamin to everyone in favour of economic ruin?
Now I don't know Molly but we compete in the same sport. A lot of people in crossfit take many supplements but the most common one is Cod Liver Oil, I take it and I bet Molly does, especially at her level. Cod Liver Oil is an excellent source of Vitamin D. She is suffering long covid so it didn't help her.
I'd assume that Trump was advised to take all kinds of preventative available, and could afford the kind of supplements a care assistant could only dream of. We know what happened next - and he was prescribed Remdesivir and Monoclonal antibodies along with Dexamethasone, rather than HCQ and Azithromycin.
If a simple treatment had been found we would be using it not ignoring it.
I'm all for freedom of choice, but it would only work if you are going to isolate yourself from everyone apart from those you want to see and that sounds even more lonely to me.
The science as people love to quote says you are wrong about Vitamin D. The original 2006 study was carried out on the flu virus and on COVID since then. It won't stop everyone getting it, but it does reduce the symptoms, hospitalisation and time to recovery. Precisely what the NHS needs to protect it from what happened between March and July. It is especially required for BAME and obese patients who are very Vitamin D deficient. Matt Hancock has quoted the discredited UK study to say Vitamin D does not work to negate it's use, instead of all the studies that say it does.
Do you think the government in general is really that worried about the economy, the only one remotely interested is Rishi Sunak because it is his job, but even he can't make Johnson see sense.
The President had what is supposed to be the best treatment, but Remdesivir is not that due to too many nasty side effects, his course however is very short, so shouldn't be a problem. The rest of the USA won't be getting Policlonal Antibodies any time soon.
But thousands of Americans have had their lives saved by HCQ, Azithromycin & Zinc plus Methylprednisolone . But I suppose like the prof you don't believe all those lying yankee front line doctors who don't work for the CDC/NIH or Gilead.
Have a read of the EMVS COVID Treatment protocol and compare it to what Matt Hancock talks about for the UK patients.
Coronavirus mortality on 18:35 - Oct 6 by A_Fans_Dad
The science as people love to quote says you are wrong about Vitamin D. The original 2006 study was carried out on the flu virus and on COVID since then. It won't stop everyone getting it, but it does reduce the symptoms, hospitalisation and time to recovery. Precisely what the NHS needs to protect it from what happened between March and July. It is especially required for BAME and obese patients who are very Vitamin D deficient. Matt Hancock has quoted the discredited UK study to say Vitamin D does not work to negate it's use, instead of all the studies that say it does.
Do you think the government in general is really that worried about the economy, the only one remotely interested is Rishi Sunak because it is his job, but even he can't make Johnson see sense.
The President had what is supposed to be the best treatment, but Remdesivir is not that due to too many nasty side effects, his course however is very short, so shouldn't be a problem. The rest of the USA won't be getting Policlonal Antibodies any time soon.
But thousands of Americans have had their lives saved by HCQ, Azithromycin & Zinc plus Methylprednisolone . But I suppose like the prof you don't believe all those lying yankee front line doctors who don't work for the CDC/NIH or Gilead.
Have a read of the EMVS COVID Treatment protocol and compare it to what Matt Hancock talks about for the UK patients.
The first line is "whilst there is extremely limited data" and slightly further on it explicitly states it does not recommend HCQ because it is dangerous.
The last two links you have posted state that HCQ does not work or is dangerous, but your post actually says it has saved thousands of American lives.
I'm sure people on the forums you get this stuff from are winding you up. Stop falling for it, they are probably laughing at you in another thread.
[Post edited 6 Oct 2020 20:59]
1
Coronavirus mortality on 22:48 - Oct 6 with 1116 views
The first line is "whilst there is extremely limited data" and slightly further on it explicitly states it does not recommend HCQ because it is dangerous.
The last two links you have posted state that HCQ does not work or is dangerous, but your post actually says it has saved thousands of American lives.
I'm sure people on the forums you get this stuff from are winding you up. Stop falling for it, they are probably laughing at you in another thread.
[Post edited 6 Oct 2020 20:59]
The last link says there is only conclusive evidence that corticosteroids ( like dexamethasone) and anti-coagulants work. Both are known as last line defences to reduce cytokine storms/inflammation and microvascular coagulation in the alveoli which is a consequence of a massive pro inflammatory response. Not that different to sepsis. The rest seems very opinion-based or questionable efficacy by the author themselves. Some things like quercertin, a flavonoid with some antimicrobial effect against bacteria and anti-oxidant activity look a bit ‘hit and hope’.
And Trump did not get polyclonal antibodies. He got a mix Of defined monoclonal. At over 20k per dose really accessible. Vitamin D and zinc were probably needed as McDonald’s and KFC lack all the micronutrients an immune system needs. What they won’t do is stop infection. They help with function and as we discuss over and over, deficiency is a bad thing.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 22:50 - Oct 6 with 1115 views
The first line is "whilst there is extremely limited data" and slightly further on it explicitly states it does not recommend HCQ because it is dangerous.
The last two links you have posted state that HCQ does not work or is dangerous, but your post actually says it has saved thousands of American lives.
I'm sure people on the forums you get this stuff from are winding you up. Stop falling for it, they are probably laughing at you in another thread.
[Post edited 6 Oct 2020 20:59]
And thanks to you and Groo. Both posted some good balanced stuff. Anyway, according to a few on SAGE, it look like the circuit break is coming soon. We are in a poor position especially up here in the NW
Coronavirus mortality on 11:05 - Oct 6 by onehunglow
Agree there Gwyn.Frankly,I dont envy any Govt right now trying to govern our nation of clowns.
If Tories do someting ,Labour will be against it.
[Post edited 6 Oct 2020 11:06]
Exactly,
if Bojo announced tomorrow they had developed a vaccine labour and the leftie scum like "professor" who are doing everything they can to politicise the pandemic would hate it and they are desperate for it to get worse.
His continuous unsubstantiated BS from "someone he knows" tells us everything we need to know about him and the carp(see what I done there KeithðŸ˜) the leftie lowlife is trying to spread.
OUT
AFLI
[Post edited 7 Oct 2020 0:09]
OUT AFLI SUCK IT UP REMOANER LOSERS
🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧 🇬🇧
Coronavirus mortality on 23:27 - Oct 6 by pikeypaul
Exactly,
if Bojo announced tomorrow they had developed a vaccine labour and the leftie scum like "professor" who are doing everything they can to politicise the pandemic would hate it and they are desperate for it to get worse.
His continuous unsubstantiated BS from "someone he knows" tells us everything we need to know about him and the carp(see what I done there KeithðŸ˜) the leftie lowlife is trying to spread.
OUT
AFLI
[Post edited 7 Oct 2020 0:09]
Instead of being a fool read what both Scotia and I have written. Vitamin D is needed for proper immune function. It does not magically prevent infection. If you think John Campbell (not a scientist or medic but a nurse educator) is an expert then you see the problem. In fairness most of what he says is correct and explains clearly BUT he does tend to get his immunology a little over simplified. Taking Vitamin D May help , but won’t prevent infections. Problem is you ignorant people don’t differentiate properly between prophylaxis and treatment. One is always better.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 07:06 - Oct 7 with 1040 views
Coronavirus mortality on 06:20 - Oct 7 by Professor
Instead of being a fool read what both Scotia and I have written. Vitamin D is needed for proper immune function. It does not magically prevent infection. If you think John Campbell (not a scientist or medic but a nurse educator) is an expert then you see the problem. In fairness most of what he says is correct and explains clearly BUT he does tend to get his immunology a little over simplified. Taking Vitamin D May help , but won’t prevent infections. Problem is you ignorant people don’t differentiate properly between prophylaxis and treatment. One is always better.
Us “ignorant” people, as you call us, happen to look at this from both sides of the argument. The problem being that you lot won’t appreciate that there are experts stating an alternative to you and your like!
Isn’t it strange how many medical experts, from many different fields of medicine, state the case for an alternative direction for treating the pandemic, yet they are all shut down!
Why would so many of these experts put their jobs and reputation on the line?
Number 1 team in Wales
-1
Coronavirus mortality on 07:46 - Oct 7 with 1033 views
Coronavirus mortality on 07:06 - Oct 7 by Andy1300
Us “ignorant” people, as you call us, happen to look at this from both sides of the argument. The problem being that you lot won’t appreciate that there are experts stating an alternative to you and your like!
Isn’t it strange how many medical experts, from many different fields of medicine, state the case for an alternative direction for treating the pandemic, yet they are all shut down!
Why would so many of these experts put their jobs and reputation on the line?
That’s not the case. There is a very small but vocal minority who get huge media exposure as it fits a narrative . Most scientists, public health and infectious disease clinicians are very concerned. Check out who the ‘experts’ are and how many are bandwagon jumpers from unrelated fields. When I say most I am talking about 90%. Everyone accepts We cannot afford long and large scale lockdowns, but most were concerned over behaviours and policies adopted through summer when we could have prepared and got to much lower levels. If you get your information from scientists and the science literature the message Is very different.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 10:28 - Oct 7 with 990 views
Coronavirus mortality on 07:06 - Oct 7 by Andy1300
Us “ignorant” people, as you call us, happen to look at this from both sides of the argument. The problem being that you lot won’t appreciate that there are experts stating an alternative to you and your like!
Isn’t it strange how many medical experts, from many different fields of medicine, state the case for an alternative direction for treating the pandemic, yet they are all shut down!
Why would so many of these experts put their jobs and reputation on the line?
I look at this from both sides of the argument and would love your side to be correct. I would love a multi vitamin to stop it in it's tracks or some widely available medicine be able to cure it. For what it's worth I've double checked me and my family are getting 10 mcg of vitamin D a day, not that I think it'll make be invincible I need it anyway, but perhaps now more than ever. I've had enough of this pandemic and want out, but there isn't a way yet.
When you look at a lot of these experts there aren't many who are really "experts" to listen to. Most are extreme right wing people who may have a decent knowledge of science or medicine, they aren't virologists or epidemiologists.
Some on twitter who contribute and share this vociferirously are :- An oncologist, a Prof of Industrial Economics, A lecturer in Crime Science, a Loose Woman, A musician and gamer, A landlord from Essex, A therapeutic drug hunter etc.
There are others I give more credit to who have alternative views who seem to be qualified or experienced such as Prof Carl Heneghan although I don't know enough about him to blindly follow his arguments. He's a Prof of evidence based medicine in Oxford and a GP he seems to take an opposing view to many.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 12:52 - Oct 7 with 948 views
I look at this from both sides of the argument and would love your side to be correct. I would love a multi vitamin to stop it in it's tracks or some widely available medicine be able to cure it. For what it's worth I've double checked me and my family are getting 10 mcg of vitamin D a day, not that I think it'll make be invincible I need it anyway, but perhaps now more than ever. I've had enough of this pandemic and want out, but there isn't a way yet.
When you look at a lot of these experts there aren't many who are really "experts" to listen to. Most are extreme right wing people who may have a decent knowledge of science or medicine, they aren't virologists or epidemiologists.
Some on twitter who contribute and share this vociferirously are :- An oncologist, a Prof of Industrial Economics, A lecturer in Crime Science, a Loose Woman, A musician and gamer, A landlord from Essex, A therapeutic drug hunter etc.
There are others I give more credit to who have alternative views who seem to be qualified or experienced such as Prof Carl Heneghan although I don't know enough about him to blindly follow his arguments. He's a Prof of evidence based medicine in Oxford and a GP he seems to take an opposing view to many.
Heneghan is an interesting one-unlike Sikora (who has blocked nearly every UK scientist on Twitter) his work seems very plausible and very much 'bought' by the media. He is a GP with research speciality in cardiovascular disease in the community epidemiology. He published his findings as a non-peer reviewed preprint (which is increasingly common to stop being scooped) but put out a press release-which is not normal at this stage. The paper has been floating around for a few months now and can't get accepted after peer review. The theory is nice, but the experimental work is poor (shows a lack of understanding of qPCR) and there are a lot of assumptions without evidence and several things which contradict most virology expertise. I have read it and although the idea of false positives at first seems plausible and that the levels and rise are lower than reported, it relies on data from Oxford which is contradictory to the original PHE validation data. Secondly, it goes against the King's College findings which are the opposite! The reason why it is not getting accepted is largely down to the flaws in the experimental work, not a fundamental disagreement of his work-there is a portion of truth in it when you reflect back to summer-but does not account for the huge surge now.
What it does not take into account are false negatives-in theory 5%, but was told by a colleague that A & E and ICU reckon perhaps 30% of tests are false negative. This is a huge issue as lots of asymptomatics will be undetected.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 13:22 - Oct 7 with 945 views
Just how and why is a decent poster like Professor refered to a scum. Left wing he might well be but he deserves a little respect for his views.
I have plenty of disagreements with the Prof but I can think of many others who Id truly refer to as scum,one of which has disappeared from these sites.
The first line is "whilst there is extremely limited data" and slightly further on it explicitly states it does not recommend HCQ because it is dangerous.
The last two links you have posted state that HCQ does not work or is dangerous, but your post actually says it has saved thousands of American lives.
I'm sure people on the forums you get this stuff from are winding you up. Stop falling for it, they are probably laughing at you in another thread.
[Post edited 6 Oct 2020 20:59]
Did you bother to read why it was not recommended? It was based on the same UK Oxford Recovery Study, which gave completely the wrong dangerous dose to the patients in the trial and the Lancet retracted study.
Thank you for you gleefully pointing out yet another link that now refers and defers to the prestigious Oxford Recovery Study (ORS). We now have 2 studies ammended to include the ORS and one Medical protocol. The EVMS protocol was ammended to include the "not recommended" comment in the middle of June, shortly after the ORS announcements by Professor Peter Horby telling the WHO and the rest of the world to stop using HCQ as it didn't work and may be dangerous.
Here is a link to the EVMS protocol from May 25th which shows HCQ as "optional" with caveats based on the Retracted Lancet Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F et al. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19 study. https://web.archive.org/web/20https://www.evms.edu/media/evm
The reason that I am glad that you brought it up yet again is because it gives me the chance to enlighten anyone reading this post what the consequences are for not only bogus studies like the Lancet one but the much worse consequences of the totally inept ORS.
Anybody who read the study was absolutely shocked by the dosage used in the study. HCQ is known to be toxic in high doses due to it's long history of the treatments of other deseases and the recommended dose is a total of 2400mg, they gave an overall does of 9600mg. It also did not include the recommended combination of Zinc and Azithromycin which was developed by front line doctors. So, they gave already seriously ill patients 4 TIMES the recommended maximum dose. They are fortunate the families of the patients who died during this study are not sueing the pants off of them. I wonder how many of the surviving patients ended up with permanent damage due to the overdose.
When asked how they derived the dosage that they had used, this is the quote from Professor Landry. "The doses were chosen on the basis of pharmacokinetic modelling, and these are in line with the sort of doses that you use for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery.....For a new disease such as Covid, there is no approved dosing protocol. But the HCQ dosage used [is] not dissimilar to that used, as I said, in for example amoebic dysentery."
There is one teeny weeny problem with this statement, HCQ is NOT USED to treat amoebic dysentery.
The correct drug for treating amoebic dysentery is Hydroxyquinoline.
So these totally incompetent doctors POISONED their patients based on a "model" and the dosage of the WRONG DRUG.
This lapse is bad enough in itself, but they then compound it by going on to declare to the WHO and the rest of the world that HCQ does not work and should be withdrawn from treatment immediately. The result of this is that many thousands of patients have and are are now being denied a known effective treatment.
But the biggest scandal of all is the fact that the Oxford Recovery Study has not been withdrawn or retracted and is still being referred to by new studies.
To provide some background to this here is the Dr Cambell video of when he finds out the mistake the Oxford Unit made.
Here is the background of the assault on HCQ as a viable treatment including the details of the ORS.
So scotia and prof what do you think of getting a treatment banned worldwide using such a discredited, but not retracted non peer reviewed study? If it was peer reviewed, the reviewers couldn't possibly have done a proper peer review without realising that the wrong dangerous dosage was selected.
-1
Coronavirus mortality on 14:04 - Oct 7 with 934 views
Coronavirus mortality on 07:46 - Oct 7 by Professor
That’s not the case. There is a very small but vocal minority who get huge media exposure as it fits a narrative . Most scientists, public health and infectious disease clinicians are very concerned. Check out who the ‘experts’ are and how many are bandwagon jumpers from unrelated fields. When I say most I am talking about 90%. Everyone accepts We cannot afford long and large scale lockdowns, but most were concerned over behaviours and policies adopted through summer when we could have prepared and got to much lower levels. If you get your information from scientists and the science literature the message Is very different.
That very small minority is now up to 6500.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 14:32 - Oct 7 with 926 views
Coronavirus mortality on 14:01 - Oct 7 by A_Fans_Dad
Did you bother to read why it was not recommended? It was based on the same UK Oxford Recovery Study, which gave completely the wrong dangerous dose to the patients in the trial and the Lancet retracted study.
Thank you for you gleefully pointing out yet another link that now refers and defers to the prestigious Oxford Recovery Study (ORS). We now have 2 studies ammended to include the ORS and one Medical protocol. The EVMS protocol was ammended to include the "not recommended" comment in the middle of June, shortly after the ORS announcements by Professor Peter Horby telling the WHO and the rest of the world to stop using HCQ as it didn't work and may be dangerous.
Here is a link to the EVMS protocol from May 25th which shows HCQ as "optional" with caveats based on the Retracted Lancet Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F et al. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19 study. https://web.archive.org/web/20https://www.evms.edu/media/evm
The reason that I am glad that you brought it up yet again is because it gives me the chance to enlighten anyone reading this post what the consequences are for not only bogus studies like the Lancet one but the much worse consequences of the totally inept ORS.
Anybody who read the study was absolutely shocked by the dosage used in the study. HCQ is known to be toxic in high doses due to it's long history of the treatments of other deseases and the recommended dose is a total of 2400mg, they gave an overall does of 9600mg. It also did not include the recommended combination of Zinc and Azithromycin which was developed by front line doctors. So, they gave already seriously ill patients 4 TIMES the recommended maximum dose. They are fortunate the families of the patients who died during this study are not sueing the pants off of them. I wonder how many of the surviving patients ended up with permanent damage due to the overdose.
When asked how they derived the dosage that they had used, this is the quote from Professor Landry. "The doses were chosen on the basis of pharmacokinetic modelling, and these are in line with the sort of doses that you use for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery.....For a new disease such as Covid, there is no approved dosing protocol. But the HCQ dosage used [is] not dissimilar to that used, as I said, in for example amoebic dysentery."
There is one teeny weeny problem with this statement, HCQ is NOT USED to treat amoebic dysentery.
The correct drug for treating amoebic dysentery is Hydroxyquinoline.
So these totally incompetent doctors POISONED their patients based on a "model" and the dosage of the WRONG DRUG.
This lapse is bad enough in itself, but they then compound it by going on to declare to the WHO and the rest of the world that HCQ does not work and should be withdrawn from treatment immediately. The result of this is that many thousands of patients have and are are now being denied a known effective treatment.
But the biggest scandal of all is the fact that the Oxford Recovery Study has not been withdrawn or retracted and is still being referred to by new studies.
To provide some background to this here is the Dr Cambell video of when he finds out the mistake the Oxford Unit made.
Here is the background of the assault on HCQ as a viable treatment including the details of the ORS.
So scotia and prof what do you think of getting a treatment banned worldwide using such a discredited, but not retracted non peer reviewed study? If it was peer reviewed, the reviewers couldn't possibly have done a proper peer review without realising that the wrong dangerous dosage was selected.
Metronidazole is the treatment for amoebal infections (Flagyl) or similar antimicrobials. So that information is duff. Has been for many years and is reasonably effective.
No point saying anything about HCQ to you. It is more likely to cause harm in multiple studies, but you know better.
Interesting you all love John Campbell (who does some decent stuff) who is neither a medic or a scientist but a retired Nurse Practitioner and nursing lecturer (University of Cumbria). Nothing against him but no virologist or immunologist by any stretch.
0
Coronavirus mortality on 14:48 - Oct 7 with 915 views
Coronavirus mortality on 13:22 - Oct 7 by onehunglow
Just how and why is a decent poster like Professor refered to a scum. Left wing he might well be but he deserves a little respect for his views.
I have plenty of disagreements with the Prof but I can think of many others who Id truly refer to as scum,one of which has disappeared from these sites.
Wing yer neck in pikey. Apologise.Move on.
Blimey-you make me sound like a communist!
0
Coronavirus mortality on 15:44 - Oct 7 with 889 views
Coronavirus mortality on 14:47 - Oct 7 by Professor
Metronidazole is the treatment for amoebal infections (Flagyl) or similar antimicrobials. So that information is duff. Has been for many years and is reasonably effective.
No point saying anything about HCQ to you. It is more likely to cause harm in multiple studies, but you know better.
Interesting you all love John Campbell (who does some decent stuff) who is neither a medic or a scientist but a retired Nurse Practitioner and nursing lecturer (University of Cumbria). Nothing against him but no virologist or immunologist by any stretch.
The good professor is the one that said it is used for "amoebic dysentry", which was wrong. Hydroxyquinoline used to be used to treat it before more modern drugs came along. Why don't you go and argue with another professor? How come you aren't calling him a charlatan, shark, liar etc when he didn't even get his study peer reviewed before telling the world their results of any obviously dire study design which poisoned his patients? Where is your condemnation for such a crap study, couldn't be because it it the Oxford Unit could it. Couldn't be double standards could it?
0
Coronavirus mortality on 16:31 - Oct 7 with 868 views
Coronavirus mortality on 14:01 - Oct 7 by A_Fans_Dad
Did you bother to read why it was not recommended? It was based on the same UK Oxford Recovery Study, which gave completely the wrong dangerous dose to the patients in the trial and the Lancet retracted study.
Thank you for you gleefully pointing out yet another link that now refers and defers to the prestigious Oxford Recovery Study (ORS). We now have 2 studies ammended to include the ORS and one Medical protocol. The EVMS protocol was ammended to include the "not recommended" comment in the middle of June, shortly after the ORS announcements by Professor Peter Horby telling the WHO and the rest of the world to stop using HCQ as it didn't work and may be dangerous.
Here is a link to the EVMS protocol from May 25th which shows HCQ as "optional" with caveats based on the Retracted Lancet Mehra MR, Desai SS, Ruschitzka F et al. Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19 study. https://web.archive.org/web/20https://www.evms.edu/media/evm
The reason that I am glad that you brought it up yet again is because it gives me the chance to enlighten anyone reading this post what the consequences are for not only bogus studies like the Lancet one but the much worse consequences of the totally inept ORS.
Anybody who read the study was absolutely shocked by the dosage used in the study. HCQ is known to be toxic in high doses due to it's long history of the treatments of other deseases and the recommended dose is a total of 2400mg, they gave an overall does of 9600mg. It also did not include the recommended combination of Zinc and Azithromycin which was developed by front line doctors. So, they gave already seriously ill patients 4 TIMES the recommended maximum dose. They are fortunate the families of the patients who died during this study are not sueing the pants off of them. I wonder how many of the surviving patients ended up with permanent damage due to the overdose.
When asked how they derived the dosage that they had used, this is the quote from Professor Landry. "The doses were chosen on the basis of pharmacokinetic modelling, and these are in line with the sort of doses that you use for other diseases such as amoebic dysentery.....For a new disease such as Covid, there is no approved dosing protocol. But the HCQ dosage used [is] not dissimilar to that used, as I said, in for example amoebic dysentery."
There is one teeny weeny problem with this statement, HCQ is NOT USED to treat amoebic dysentery.
The correct drug for treating amoebic dysentery is Hydroxyquinoline.
So these totally incompetent doctors POISONED their patients based on a "model" and the dosage of the WRONG DRUG.
This lapse is bad enough in itself, but they then compound it by going on to declare to the WHO and the rest of the world that HCQ does not work and should be withdrawn from treatment immediately. The result of this is that many thousands of patients have and are are now being denied a known effective treatment.
But the biggest scandal of all is the fact that the Oxford Recovery Study has not been withdrawn or retracted and is still being referred to by new studies.
To provide some background to this here is the Dr Cambell video of when he finds out the mistake the Oxford Unit made.
Here is the background of the assault on HCQ as a viable treatment including the details of the ORS.
So scotia and prof what do you think of getting a treatment banned worldwide using such a discredited, but not retracted non peer reviewed study? If it was peer reviewed, the reviewers couldn't possibly have done a proper peer review without realising that the wrong dangerous dosage was selected.
You have posted two articles by Dr's treating Covid paitients that say it doesn't work recently, they may reference the same original research but it is research that has obviously been read and further understood by them and they have seen fit to agree with it. After all they are Dr's treating covid patients, and their years of training and experience probably puts them in a good place to understand and act on medical research.
You also posted another back in March/April in which nearly 80% of Doctors treating Covid paitients thought there was a better alternative. This isn't a new phenomenon. You claim it works and post links that say it doesn't.
You've now posted a video by a retired A&E nurse that claims it works.
If only there was a high profile recent patient who could extoll the virtues of successful treatment with HCQ?
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.