• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* * * * * 2 votes

Protecting from Coronavirus - Supplements & Therapies

coronavirus flu disease epidemics viruses immunity covid-19

  • Please log in to reply
2688 replies to this topic

#2641 Hebbeh

  • Guest
  • 1,600 posts
  • 667

Posted 03 April 2021 - 12:10 AM

Remember India rolled out an ambitious vaccination program in January with more than 65 million vaccinated so far and aiming for 250 million by July.  They are in their 3rd phase rollout now.

 

 

https://www.bbc.com/...-india-56345591

 

 



#2642 Advocatus Diaboli

  • Guest
  • 245 posts
  • 226
  • Location:Chronosynclastic Infundibulum ( floor Z/p^nZ )
  • NO

Posted 03 April 2021 - 12:35 AM

Hebbeh says in post #2639:

 

"One claim Dr Cole made was that India solved their covid problem with ivermectin. Obviously that's not true. Ivermectin doesn't appear to have made any kind of appreciative dent in the covid rate of India or any other country."

 

For the truth as to what Dr. Cole actually says, go to minute 18:00 in the video.

 

 


Edited by Advocatus Diaboli, 03 April 2021 - 12:41 AM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1

#2643 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,239 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 04 April 2021 - 10:22 AM

The point is that in the video you posted, Dr Cole made disingenious and dishonest claims as demonstrated.

One claim Dr Cole made was that India solved their covid problem with ivermectin. Obviously that's not true. Ivermectin doesn't appear to have made any kind of appreciative dent in the covid rate of India or any other country.

 

 

He mentions that when the one province in India used Ivermectin, they did better - data which has been documented and shared previously. No word on if they are still using it or if the province has since had things worse or better since then.


  • like x 1

#2644 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 490 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 April 2021 - 10:43 PM

Looks like there might be some better alternatives to IVM

 

https://c19early.com/


  • Informative x 2

#2645 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 490 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 08 April 2021 - 03:19 PM

Hopefully more media outlets start to pickup on this so we can get some real reform.  Even if Cole is not 100% on the money(discussed last 2 pages), NIH has really botched this.

Part I - Have Americans Needlessly Died from the ChiCom Virus?

Part II - Have Americans Needlessly Died from the ChiCom Virus?

 

Anyone seen this elsewhere?

Vitamin D is the master key to the human immune system; if one has a D level of 50 nanograms per milliliter, one cannot develop a “cytokine storm,” which is the killing mechanism associated with COVID

Lots more like this on IVM

A few Ivermectin studies are finally being conducted independently in the US in Texas, Florida, and Wisconsin hospitals (results: they have decreased their COVID death rates by 70-90%!)

 

There were many good points like 96% of ICU patients being deficient in vitamin D, but I found this one in particular

In Houston, one hospital was using it; now, all hospitals in Houston administer the drug

Apparently good news stops at the city border...

 

This conflict of interest is something I think Congress could really latch onto

The NIH, which is involved in approving medications, co-holds the patent on the Moderna vaccine (a complete conflict of interest!)

When NIH and other public health agencies look at therapeutics, the conflict of interest of the federal government in bed with a vaccine company weighs large in the “decision-making” process (they don’t want a therapeutic to work because then they can vend their vaccine)


Edited by Gal220, 08 April 2021 - 03:22 PM.

  • Informative x 1

#2646 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 08 April 2021 - 03:50 PM

Outpatient HCQ gets another thumbs-UP: 

 

https://www.scienced...567576921002721

 

Early administration of HCQ reduced the odds of hospitalization by 38%.

 

Early administration of HCQ reduced the odds of death by 73%%.

 

A decent sized (7295 treated) retrospective.  No serious adverse events were reported.  


  • Informative x 1
  • like x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2647 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,239 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 09 April 2021 - 03:16 PM

Of course HCQ works. Of course Ivermectin works. Of course vitamin D is helpful. This is all obvious from the data over the past year.

 

Here is another drug that probably works (sure to be ignored and not made available to suffering populations of the world - molnupiravir.

 

So tragic.

 

The question remains, why are health bureaucrats so adamant that no other treatment be used except the experimental gene therapies from Moderna and Pfizer, and other various vaccines.


  • like x 2
  • Agree x 2

#2648 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 April 2021 - 07:35 PM

Of course HCQ works. Of course Ivermectin works. Of course vitamin D is helpful. This is all obvious from the data over the past year.

 

Here is another drug that probably works (sure to be ignored and not made available to suffering populations of the world - molnupiravir.

 

So tragic.

 

The question remains, why are health bureaucrats so adamant that no other treatment be used except the experimental gene therapies from Moderna and Pfizer, and other various vaccines.

 

Dr Fauci & the rest of the Borg Medical Collective have issued a response: 

Resistance is futile… You will be vaccinated!



#2649 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 1,833 posts
  • 331
  • Location:USA

Posted 09 April 2021 - 07:59 PM

Dr Fauci & the rest of the Borg Medical Collective have issued a response: 

Resistance is futile… You will be vaccinated!

 

It's interesting to remember Fauci's history. 

 

Before he was elevated to near sainthood during the Covid pandemic, he ran a lot of the U.S. government response to HIV/AIDs from the 1980s till today.

 

Fauci was widely criticized for focusing on an HIV vaccine whilst ignoring the anti-retro viral drugs that are the mainstay of HIV treatment today. Drugs which ended up taking what was almost always a death sentence and made it a highly treatable disease that most people can live with.

 

It seems that history repeats itself.  Again, Fauci has focused on developing a vaccine whilst giving anti-viral drugs a 2nd tier effort. But, at least today we have something to show for it. We do indeed have a vaccine, as opposed to HIV where we to this day still don't have a vaccine after spending 30 years and billions of dollars attempting to develop one. The anti-retro virals ended up being mostly funded with non-government private sector money.

 

That's the problem with a government oriented response essentially run by one guy - it's a single point failure. If that guy puts his money on the wrong horse then you have the possibility of most of the government funding getting poured into an avenue which ultimately may not yield results.

 

Fauci's responses to these two health crisis are probably down to his background in immunology which has biased him towards a vaccine solution rather than post infection treatment solutions.  


  • Agree x 3
  • Good Point x 2

#2650 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 09 April 2021 - 09:48 PM

It's interesting to remember Fauci's history. 

 

Before he was elevated to near sainthood during the Covid pandemic, he ran a lot of the U.S. government response to HIV/AIDs from the 1980s till today.

 

Fauci was widely criticized for focusing on an HIV vaccine whilst ignoring the anti-retro viral drugs that are the mainstay of HIV treatment today. Drugs which ended up taking what was almost always a death sentence and made it a highly treatable disease that most people can live with.

 

It seems that history repeats itself.  Again, Fauci has focused on developing a vaccine whilst giving anti-viral drugs a 2nd tier effort. But, at least today we have something to show for it. We do indeed have a vaccine, as opposed to HIV where we to this day still don't have a vaccine after spending 30 years and billions of dollars attempting to develop one. The anti-retro virals ended up being mostly funded with non-government private sector money.

 

That's the problem with a government oriented response essentially run by one guy - it's a single point failure. If that guy puts his money on the wrong horse then you have the possibility of most of the government funding getting poured into an avenue which ultimately may not yield results.

 

Fauci's responses to these two health crisis are probably down to his background in immunology which has biased him towards a vaccine solution rather than post infection treatment solutions.  

 

Back on page 84: https://www.longecit...-84#entry903587

 

I posted on his suppression of Bactrim for prevention of HIV pneumonia.  A cheap generic that could have saved thousands.

 

"Fauci refused to acknowledge the evidence and, according to one account, even encouraged people with AIDS to stop taking treatments, like Bactrim, that weren’t specifically approved for use in people with AIDS.  Longtime treatment activist Richard Jefferys wrote in 2001 that Fauci “went as far as telling activists attending a 1987 meeting that there was no data to suggest PCP prophylaxis was beneficial and that it may, in fact be dangerous.”

 

------------------

 

Oh, those dangerous cheap generics.  Where have I heard that before?  


  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2651 Mind

  • Life Member, Moderator, Secretary
  • 17,239 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 10 April 2021 - 10:03 AM

Just another doctor, among thousands around the world, wondering why obviously helpful treatments, that could have probably reduced deaths by 80% AT LEAST, are not being used!! It seems criminal to me - a classic case of regulatory capture - aided an abetted by the awful national media in the U.S.

 

Sadly you have to go to Rumble to find this information: https://rumble.com/v...ed-fatalit.html

 

Youtube is aligned with Fauci and the Borg health bureaucrats - no critical thinking allowed.


  • Good Point x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2652 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 490 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 10 April 2021 - 07:20 PM

Texas Physician/Researchers Case Series Finds Reduction in COVID-19 Hospitalization by 87.6% & Death 74.9%

Using a protocol of zinc, hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin and one antibiotic (azithromycin, doxycycline, ceftriaxone) in combination with inhaled budesonide and/or intramuscular dexamethasone, the doctors, including accomplished researchers, such as Dr. Peter McCullough who have presented on TrialSite Podcast,  sought to follow the Hippocratic oath and care for their COVID-19 patients—opting to take action and not passively stand by and do nothing

  • like x 2

#2653 albedo

  • Guest
  • 1,752 posts
  • 575
  • Location:Europe
  • NO

Posted 11 April 2021 - 08:17 AM

why I am not surprised ... ?

 

Masana, L., Correig, E., Ibarretxe, D. et al. Low HDL and high triglycerides predict COVID-19 severity. Sci Rep 11, 7217 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1...598-021-86747-5

 

Lipids are indispensable in the SARS-CoV-2 infection process. The clinical significance of plasma lipid profile during COVID-19 has not been rigorously evaluated. We aim to ascertain the association of the plasma lipid profile with SARS-CoV-2 infection clinical evolution. Observational cross-sectional study including 1411 hospitalized patients with COVID-19 and an available standard lipid profile prior (n: 1305) or during hospitalization (n: 297). The usefulness of serum total, LDL, non-HDL and HDL cholesterol to predict the COVID-19 prognosis (severe vs mild) was analysed. Patients with severe COVID-19 evolution had lower HDL cholesterol and higher triglyceride levels before the infection. The lipid profile measured during hospitalization also showed that a severe outcome was associated with lower HDL cholesterol levels and higher triglycerides. HDL cholesterol and triglyceride concentrations were correlated with ferritin and D-dimer levels but not with CRP levels. The presence of atherogenic dyslipidaemia during the infection was strongly and independently associated with a worse COVID-19 infection prognosis. The low HDL cholesterol and high triglyceride concentrations measured before or during hospitalization are strong predictors of a severe course of the disease. The lipid profile should be considered as a sensitive marker of inflammation and should be measured in patients with COVID-19.

 


  • Informative x 2
  • unsure x 1

#2654 Zwergpirat

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 11 April 2021 - 11:40 AM

Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19: https://www.thelance...0160-0/fulltext


  • like x 1

#2655 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 11 April 2021 - 03:04 PM

Early administration of inhaled budesonide reduced the likelihood of needing urgent medical care and reduced time to recovery after early COVID-19: https://www.thelance...0160-0/fulltext

 

Getting your hands on a budesonide inhaler may be tough sledding in today's environment, but there are budesonide nasal sprays available over the counter.

 

https://www.rhinocor...tive-ingredient

 

The concentration of the nasal spray appears low (32mcg per shot vs 90mcg with inhaler) 

 

https://www.pdr.net/...budesonide-2315

 

If you're desperate to get some of this stuff into your lungs, it might be worth a try. The nasal spray does appear to atomize the solution quite well.  

 

A nebulizer protocol would also be helpful.   


  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#2656 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • 141
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 11 April 2021 - 03:45 PM

Just a reminder that Dr. Richard Bartlett in West Texas found in clinical practice that inhaled budesonide was a “silver bullet” against Covid-19.  He claimed in July of 2020 that of his 1000 patients there were zero deaths.  The claim was widely deplored, debunked, ridiculed, censored. 

 

I understand that clinical anecdote from a country doctor is not a sound basis for policy.   But there was theory and in vitro evidence supporting the claim https://www.cebm.net...on-of-covid-19/  It is a cheap, widely used, and safety-tested drug (you can buy the nasal inhaler off the shelf), and we are in an emergency that it is killing thousands of people.   In a pandemic emergency it should take far less than a year to approve an existing and comparatively safe drug with life-saving indications.

 

Same old story you’ve heard a thousand times here. 

 

When it's all over and there is a lessons-learned policy review I hope someone calculates the lives lost to "early-outpatient-treatment-with-cheap-safe-drugs hesitancy."  

 


  • Agree x 2

#2657 joesixpack

  • Member
  • 161 posts
  • 14
  • Location:arizona
  • NO

Posted 11 April 2021 - 08:01 PM

Getting your hands on a budesonide inhaler may be tough sledding in today's environment, but there are budesonide nasal sprays available over the counter.

 

https://www.rhinocor...tive-ingredient

 

The concentration of the nasal spray appears low (32mcg per shot vs 90mcg with inhaler) 

 

https://www.pdr.net/...budesonide-2315

 

If you're desperate to get some of this stuff into your lungs, it might be worth a try. The nasal spray does appear to atomize the solution quite well.  

 

A nebulizer protocol would also be helpful.   

 

This is interesting. From the "Questions Answered" Section regarding Rhinocort on Amazon:

 

"Rhinocort is a licensed trademark of AstraZeneca according to the listing on the package."


  • Informative x 2

#2658 Zwergpirat

  • Guest
  • 12 posts
  • 6
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 13 April 2021 - 02:14 PM

Just a reminder that Dr. Richard Bartlett in West Texas found in clinical practice that inhaled budesonide was a “silver bullet” against Covid-19.  He claimed in July of 2020 that of his 1000 patients there were zero deaths.  The claim was widely deplored, debunked, ridiculed, censored. 

 

You guys should really relax every now and then. In my scientific world inhaled budesonide was never widely deplored, debunked, ridiculed or censored. In fact, it was followed with interest. The study I mentioned recruited the participants from July 16 on. So it was certainly planned before the claims by your Texas doctor. So there is absolutely no reason to suspect conspiracies again. Calm down! :-*


Edited by Zwergpirat, 13 April 2021 - 02:23 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Informative x 1
  • Cheerful x 1

#2659 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 199 posts
  • 141
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 13 April 2021 - 09:35 PM

Maybe there is more freedom in Germany than in the U.S.  Here, debates on health policy are suppressed:

 

Factcheck:  Budesonide doctor lives in Texas, is a Republican, and appeared on a conservative talk radio show.

YouTube deletes video of Senate hearing on COVID treatment from senator’s channel

 

Where in my post did I say there was a conspiracy to suppress budesonide?  Instead, I said that health policy is possessed by an irrational hesitancy that is costing lives.  It’s like vaccine hesitancy – caused in some number of instances by mistaken evaluations of the costs and benefits of vaccination compared to no vaccination. 

 

“Conspiracy theory” is a meaningless accusation used as a conservation-stopper by people who assume that those who disagree with them come from an inferior social stratum.   What counts is whether a claim is better supported by evidence than other claims.  Whether the claim includes an element of secret collective action or of coincidence of interest observationally equivalent to conspiracy is irrelevant to its likely truth – all that counts is comparative evidentiary support for necessary elements of the claim. 

 

At least 3 million deaths to date globally, and 500,000 in the U.S.  Pandemic called at end of January, 2020.  15 months have passed.  What treatments are approved by the FDA?   Full approval, Remdesivir -- shortens median hospital stay from 15 to 10 days, no significant difference in all-cause mortality.  WHO recommends against its routine use.  Emergency approval of therapeutics:  casirivimab with imdevimab, baricitinib with remdesivir, bamlanivimab, and convalescent plasma (www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe2035678 a bust so far, but now proposed for early treatment – remind anyone of HCQ?).  That’s it.  Three of the five for hospitalized patients only and two also for those rapidly progressing to hospitalization.  Mostly novel, all expensive. Budesonide?  Budesonide?  Budesonide?  No, no, no.  What about these already approved for other purposes, cheap, and safety-evaluated drugs suitable for early outpatient treatment?  Ivermectin? Fluvoxamine? Bromhexine? Nitazoxanide? Dexamethasone, methylprednisolone? Colchicine? HCQ? Aspirin? Vitamin D?  Zinc? Lactoferrin? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,  Etc., etc.,?? No, no. 

 

The standard of evidence required for a scientific finding of beyond a reasonable doubt differs from the standard of evidence needed for public policy.  Anyone applying the demanding scientific standard for choices in their personal life would die in a few weeks from inability to act.  Same goes for a society making political choices. 

 

Steve Kirsch of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund

But if our goal is simply to minimize the number of deaths per unit time, and we are OK about being wrong once in a while because saving lives is more important than our reputation, then we can look at drugs that are just shy of the Phase 3 bar and ask the question: “Based on a systematic review of the data on the table today, is the drug more likely to save lives or cost lives?”

 

When we change the problem we are trying to solve to minimize the number of deaths, we find that we have evidence-based treatments today that have a high probability to significantly reduce the hospitalization and death rates and reduce the chance of any long term impacts with virtually no incremental risk. It is an unnecessary loss of life, to “wait for more data” (such as a phase 3 trial) if the evidence on the table is statistically significant and impossible to explain with confounders.

 

I think there are good enough reasons for regulation of the sale of pharmaceuticals.  However, it cannot be denied that such regulation is a paternalistic limitation on individual liberty that requires extraordinary justification.  In the midst of a life-threatening pandemic, the commoners in the unscientific world have a right not to die from coercively-imposed epistemic fastidiousness. 

 

And we’ve got to do away with therapeutic hesitancy in emergency conditions.  We were lucky that this pandemic was not as bad as initially feared.  Another that is far worse is inevitable in the airport-connected world.


Edited by bladedmind, 13 April 2021 - 09:48 PM.

  • Good Point x 2
  • Agree x 2
  • Well Written x 2
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Informative x 1
  • dislike x 1

#2660 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 24

Posted 14 April 2021 - 02:33 PM

 

 

“Conspiracy theory” is a meaningless accusation used as a conservation-stopper by people who assume that those who disagree with them come from an inferior social stratum.   What counts is whether a claim is better supported by evidence than other claims.  Whether the claim includes an element of secret collective action or of coincidence of interest observationally equivalent to conspiracy is irrelevant to its likely truth – all that counts is comparative evidentiary support for necessary elements of the claim. 

 

  What treatments are approved by the FDA?   

 

Conspiracy theories are real: Pizzagate, the whole Qanon cult, "the vaccines have microchips", Chemtrials, Obama was Muslim, Hillary eats baby faces, stop the steal. These are not disagreements, they are fantasies and fiction held up as fact by gullible people because they reinforce a narrative that validates their beliefs. and people will use excuses like the "element of secret collective action or of coincidence of interest " to justify this idiocy. Never in my time on earth have I seen so many Americans completely out of touch with reality. It's a tragedy.

 

People here rail on and on about how evil the FDA, how evil Fauci is, how evil science nerds are in one breath and in another breath whine that they have not found a cure for this horrible new disease. It's tiring. I don't believe in HCQ is a miracle cure for COVID. The rest is a shopping list of things shown to have some benefit in some studies. There is no magic bullet being intentionally held back.   I am grateful to the scientists who developed the MRNA vaccines so quickly that will allow our lives to return to a semblance of normality. 


  • like x 2
  • Well Written x 2
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 2
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1

#2661 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 490 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 April 2021 - 12:32 AM

People here rail on and on about how evil the FDA, how evil Fauci is, how evil science nerds are in one breath and in another breath whine that they have not found a cure for this horrible new disease. It's tiring. I don't believe in HCQ is a miracle cure for COVID. 

I saw another dichotomy criticizing Dr.Cole in this video for not being compassionate about guys who are 75 and then in almost the same breathe say there is not enough evidence for drugs like IVM, no compassionate use...   Were talking about giving someone 10mg of IVM for a couple of days, a drug approved decades ago, with the RCTs showing 68% efficacy.  When the only other option is death by ventilator, something is REALLY wrong.

 

Are you really saying if you were in the hospital with Covid, you wouldnt try the mutli-treatment above?  Vs Remdesivir and whatever?  Personally, it would be a very easy decision for me.


Edited by Gal220, 15 April 2021 - 12:32 AM.

  • Good Point x 1
  • Cheerful x 1
  • Agree x 1

#2662 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 340 posts
  • 24

Posted 15 April 2021 - 03:31 AM

I saw another dichotomy criticizing Dr.Cole in this video for not being compassionate about guys who are 75 and then in almost the same breathe say there is not enough evidence for drugs like IVM, no compassionate use...   Were talking about giving someone 10mg of IVM for a couple of days, a drug approved decades ago, with the RCTs showing 68% efficacy.  When the only other option is death by ventilator, something is REALLY wrong.

 

Are you really saying if you were in the hospital with Covid, you wouldnt try the mutli-treatment above?  Vs Remdesivir and whatever?  Personally, it would be a very easy decision for me.

 

I think people should be able to do whatever they want, ingest any substances drugs or medications as they see fit. That being said if someone I cared about ended up in the hospital with severe COVID and I could control their medical regime, based on what I've read I would give them Monoclonals, which are always left out of the discussion here, and steroids. I would NOT give them HCQ. I might give them IVM.  



#2663 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 490 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 15 April 2021 - 03:43 AM

 I would give them Monoclonals, which are always left out of the discussion here, and steroids. I would NOT give them HCQ. I might give them IVM.  

Absolutely agree, I would take the Monoclonals if available as well.  Supposedly only effective early on like HCQ, but I would take them over HCQ if they were available. I would also take IVM over HCQ.


  • Agree x 1

#2664 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 15 April 2021 - 04:04 AM

Regarding outpatient therapeutics, speed is of the essence.  Viral replication & load is already near its peak when symptoms appear.  Lucky if you can get your PCR test same or next day & results within 48 hours.  How long before you can schedule a monoclonal infusion?  Another day or two?  

 

Personally, I want something I can take as soon as I realize "Oh Crap, I'M SICK!"  I've got IVM & HCQ standing by in my medicine chest.  Will not be waiting 5 days to start therapy if I get sick.  


  • Good Point x 4

#2665 joesixpack

  • Member
  • 161 posts
  • 14
  • Location:arizona
  • NO

Posted 15 April 2021 - 05:35 AM

I think people should be able to do whatever they want, ingest any substances drugs or medications as they see fit. That being said if someone I cared about ended up in the hospital with severe COVID and I could control their medical regime, based on what I've read I would give them Monoclonals, which are always left out of the discussion here, and steroids. I would NOT give them HCQ. I might give them IVM.  

 

The point of ivermectin and HCQ and others, is to give them early, before the hospital, with appropriate drugs like z packs and zinc, in order to prevent the hospital.

 

The so called fail studies just gave the drugs late without the supporting drugs. And gave them after hospitalization. 

 

This is like lyme disease in Wisconsin. The infection is easily defeated by giving doxycycline right away, when exposed. Doctors won't prescribe it unless you test positive, with a test that does not work. Result, lots of long term debilitating lyme disease case.

 

Idiots.


  • Good Point x 3
  • Agree x 3

#2666 Hip

  • Guest
  • 1,090 posts
  • 80
  • Location:UK

Posted 18 April 2021 - 04:00 PM

Coronavirus may be reactivating retroviruses found within the human genome.

 

 

 

All human beings naturally have retroviruses in their genes, which are referred to as human endogenous retroviruses (HERVs)

 

HERVs are ancient viruses that the human race caught millennia ago, and which have become incorporated within our DNA.

 

 

Normally these HERVs remain dormant in the body, but viral infections you catch may reactivate these HERVs, so that you then have two infections for the price of one. And some diseases like multiple sclerosis involve reactivated HERV infections in the body.

 

 

It seems that coronavirus may be able to reactivate a HERV called HERV-W:

 

Evidence of the pathogenic HERV-W envelope expression in T lymphocytes in association with the respiratory outcome of COVID-19 patients 

 

 

 

Potentially this means if you can find some antiviral treatment which is effective against HERV-W, then this may help in the treatment of COVID, and possibly long COVID too.

 

HIV antiretroviral drugs have been shown effective against HERV-K, but I am not sure if they would work for HERV-W.

 


  • Informative x 3

#2667 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 490 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2021 - 03:03 AM

Dr. Paul Marik of the FLCC going conspiracy theorist against the WHO. Inclined to believe him.

 

Ghost writers for the WHO altering papers presented by Andrew Hill.  Hill confirms his analysis was  altered.

https://www.youtube....aoKfOaI&t=2489s

 

Why? They would have to stop vaccinations

https://youtu.be/i6oQaoKfOaI?t=2604

 

Review of compromised study, done by people with a conflict of interest

https://youtu.be/i6oQaoKfOaI?t=2726


Edited by Gal220, 19 April 2021 - 03:06 AM.

  • Informative x 3
  • Well Written x 1

#2668 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 19 April 2021 - 04:36 AM

After the hit job WHO did on HCQ (Recovery/Solidarity), I confess I'm inclined to believe they (and others!) are after IVM too. 

 

The Cali/Columbia trial JAMA saw fit to publish is almost laughable.  Young patients self reporting how many days they felt icky with & without IVM, proof it can't help reduce mortality & morbidity in senior populations?  Oh My!  

 

I'm getting to a point where I'll never believe anything a political/desk doctor says.  Pure evil.  Sold their soul to Big Pharma.  It's becoming more obvious every month.  It's sad to see the faith our leaders & public have in them.  Like teenagers who still believe in Santa.  "Ivermectin?  Don't you think if it worked Dr Fauci would know about this & save us?"


  • Agree x 6
  • Well Written x 1
  • Good Point x 1

#2669 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 490 posts
  • 167
  • Location:United States

Posted 19 April 2021 - 05:39 AM

British Panel backs up Marik with a lengthy rebuttal to the WHO/EMA (their findings showed 68-83% improvement in mortality) - link

 

In summary:  It is time for regulatory authorities to recognize that ivermectin’s effectiveness in covid-19 has already been demonstrated, and that its general safety profile is extremely well-known. In a pandemic situation, regulators should approve this very safe medicine for routine use, at the clinical discretion of any licensed medical practitioner. Further delay can lead only to further unnecessary loss of life.

 

It could be said the EMA thinks more lives would be saved with the vaccine than IVM, so they are doing this out of compassion. Dangerous game IMO, if something like this goes mainstream, would the EMA ever be trusted again?  The UK hasnt approved it for emergency use as far as I know, so the WHO has some cover for the time being.  As more data rolls in though, hard to believe there will not be a breaking point. I thought that would already happen though, who knows.


  • Agree x 1

#2670 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 1,587 posts
  • 573
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 20 April 2021 - 01:58 AM

News Flash: NIH has decided to start a massive RCT (n=13,500) on repurposed drugs (Cost: $155 million)

 

https://www.nih.gov/...vid-19-symptoms

 

Large clinical trial to study repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19 symptoms

 

Enrollment will require a positive PCR test, with up to a week of mild to moderate symptoms in those over age 30.

Test drugs will be MAILED to the participants once they are accepted.  

Looks like yet another trial that will not be initiating therapy until 10-12 days after symptom onset.  This will be well past peak viral load, and well into the hyper-immune response (if this is occurring). 

Designed to fail, but it will be a good excuse to delay any EUA/FDA approval for existing meds until after the trial is over. 

The trial will follow participants for 90 days to evaluate long COVID, so probably will not publish until next Fall. 

Until then...  No outpatient therapeutics for you!  


  • Informative x 2
  • Good Point x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: coronavirus, flu, disease epidemics, viruses, immunity, covid-19

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users