• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Corona Virus News & Info

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,660
Likes
86,820
Location
Earth
1597772119870.png
 

tigerwillow1

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
1,210
Likes
2,090
Many researchers have focused on patients with systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE) and RA because HCQ is frequently taken by these patients. Anecdotal reports in the early stages of the pandemic showed these patients were not getting COVID-19. Earlier researchers then explored HCQ in the lab and found it effective against the virus, in addition to its already established anti-inflammatory properties, so testing in people for prevention or treatment at first held some promise. Since those early tests, various more recent studies have shown that HCQ is not effective in treating moderate-to-severe hospitalized cases. Treatment with HCQ early in the disease or for mild cases is still under review.
Translation:
After spending a lot of resource studying it, we concur with other studies that say HCQ is not effective when given at the wrong time. As far as studying if HCQ is effective when administered properly, we'll get around to that sometime later.
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
HCQ dose.png
 

dacrunch

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,867
Likes
6,033

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
9,575
Likes
18,370
ON MY MIND: THEY BLINDED US FROM SCIENCE
Dr. Sonal Desai unveils the first insights from the new Franklin Templeton-Gallup research project on behavioral response to COVID-19.
https://www.franklintempleton.ca/en.../on-my-mind-they-blinded-us-from-science.html

excerpt:

Our Fixed Income CIO Sonal Desai unveils the first insights from the new Franklin Templeton–Gallup research project on the behavioral response to the COVID-19 pandemic and implications for the recovery: we find a gross misperception of COVID-19 risk, driven by partisanship and misinformation, and a willingness to pay a significant “safety premium” that could affect future inflation.

The first round of our Franklin Templeton–Gallup Economics of Recovery Study has already yielded three powerful and surprising insights:

  1. Americans still misperceive the risks of death from COVID-19 for different age cohorts—to a shocking extent;

  2. The misperception is greater for those who identify as Democrats, and for those who rely more on social media for information; partisanship and misinformation, to misquote Thomas Dolby, are blinding us from science; and

  3. We find a sizable “safety premium” that could become a significant driver of inflation as the recovery gets underway.

Much more at the link above.
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,660
Likes
86,820
Location
Earth
I just received this in my email...what could possible go wrong??

What to know about contact tracing

If you've been in close contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19, you may be contacted by a contact tracer or public health worker from your state or local health department in an effort to help slow the spread of the disease. Here's what to know if you get a call:
  • A contact tracer may call to let you know you may have been exposed to someone with COVID-19. All information you share with a contact tracer, like who you've been in contact with and your recent whereabouts, is confidential.
  • You may be asked to self-quarantine for 14 days. This means staying home, monitoring your health, and maintaining social distance from others at all times.
  • You may be asked to monitor your health and watch for symptoms of COVID-19. Notify your doctor if you develop symptoms, and seek medical care if your symptoms worsen or become severe.
Contact Tracing
Be aware of scammers pretending to be COVID-19 contact tracers. Legitimate contact tracers will never ask for your Medicare Number or financial information. If someone calls and asks for personal information, like your Medicare Number, hang up and report it to us at 1-800-MEDICARE.
Sincerely,
The Medicare Team
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,660
Likes
86,820
Location
Earth
Fixed it to send to those who would stop reading at the 3rd line...

View attachment 177269
You gotta ask yourself who benefits from keeping businesses closed, the economy strapped and the need to develop/sell covid 'vaccines' by demonizing this treatment option using safe, cheap and currently FDA approved drugs?
 

hammerhead

Morphing
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Feb 22, 2012
Messages
11,102
Likes
14,759
Location
On a speck of dust
I just received this in my email...what could possible go wrong??

What to know about contact tracing

If you've been in close contact with someone who tested positive for COVID-19, you may be contacted by a contact tracer or public health worker from your state or local health department in an effort to help slow the spread of the disease. Here's what to know if you get a call:
  • A contact tracer may call to let you know you may have been exposed to someone with COVID-19. All information you share with a contact tracer, like who you've been in contact with and your recent whereabouts, is confidential.
  • You may be asked to self-quarantine for 14 days. This means staying home, monitoring your health, and maintaining social distance from others at all times.
  • You may be asked to monitor your health and watch for symptoms of COVID-19. Notify your doctor if you develop symptoms, and seek medical care if your symptoms worsen or become severe.
Contact Tracing
Be aware of scammers pretending to be COVID-19 contact tracers. Legitimate contact tracers will never ask for your Medicare Number or financial information. If someone calls and asks for personal information, like your Medicare Number, hang up and report it to us at 1-800-MEDICARE.
Sincerely,
The Medicare Team
I'd have to answer the phone first. My home phones mailbox is full and dies not accept any messages. So far the cell has been quiet when it comes to solicitations.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
9,575
Likes
18,370
10-4, thanks for the assist.
On the fly and on the move and don't get to all the available options all the time ...'specially 1st thing in the a.m.
Regards SSAU
Here's another video by that guy. He cracks me up.

2020 08 16 Sunday Roundup (16 min 37 sec):​
Published on Aug 16, 2020 by Tickerguy​
Here’s the site he is using:
https://covidtracking.com
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
Who Do You Trust

Amazing Polly
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
9,575
Likes
18,370
At least Joe's got some U.S. flags on the stage this time. The Dems have been bad about that. Perhaps they are learning.

1597887186266.png


But I saw a 2020 Biden commercial today and the virus was all they can talk about. That's all they got? The virus is over in most places. The Dems are hanging on to the China virus as long as they can. Pushing fear to the whole country.

Screw it, Joe. Rip off the mask and at least act like you want to be President.

Without the virus, they don't have anything to talk about.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,198
Likes
21,544
https://thetexan.news/texas-coronav...mets-after-record-high-set-from-system-error/

Texas Coronavirus Positivity Rate Plummets After Record High Set From System Error
State officials say that the record high positivity rate that just plummeted occurred after a system error undercounted COVID-19 tests.
Daniel FriendAugust 18, 2020

Headquarters of the Texas Department of State Health Services, Austin, TX.
Last week, the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) reported a record high coronavirus positivity rate while the number of hospitalizations continued to descend.
Now, DSHS says that the high positive rate was caused in part because of a computer error in the state’s reporting system.
While the state usually updates its COVID-19 statistics every day in the late afternoon or evening, DSHS did not report any new numbers on August 2 because of an upgrade to its reporting system.
The change reportedly increased the capacity of tests that the state could process in order to reduce the backlog experienced with the high number of tests processed in July.
After the change, the average number of tests processed per day plummeted from 61,000 on August 1 to a low 35,000 ten days later.

Though the number of reported tests had decreased, the number of positive cases remained fairly steady, causing the positivity rate to spike to an all-time high of 24.5 percent.
DSHS reportedly said that when the system was upgraded in early August, the digital files sent to DSHS from a private lab contained information that the system did not read.
On August 12, after the error was identified, the state added over 120,000 new tests, of which only 4.5 percent were positive.
The high number of negative tests caused the skyrocketing positivity rate to plummet, dropping from near 25 percent to 16 percent.
Since then, the rate has leveled out even further to 11.3 percent, just slightly below its level in late July before the system update.

Prior to the spike, the positive rate had gone up with the surge of cases in June and July, but began declining from mid- to late-July.
At press conferences last week prior to the discovery of the error, Governor Greg Abbott said that a contributing factor to the high positive rate could be the decreased surge testing of coronavirus “hot-spots” and nursing homes.
Abbott said that in the coming weeks, “you should anticipate seeing another increase in the number of people being tested.”
The number of coronavirus-related hospitalizations, the hospitalization rate, and the number of active cases are continuing in a downward trend.

Data from DSHS last week showed that the number of COVID-19-related deaths had reached a high on July 14 before slowly declining, but updated data has moved the peak to July 22, which now shows a few higher number of deaths.
The weekly average of newly reported deaths has held about constant for the past ten days.

D
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
not CV19, but...

DPH: Flu vaccine required for all students of Massachusetts schools

BOSTON — Aug 19, 2020
Flu shots will now be required for all students in Massachusetts schools, from child care through colleges, the Department of Public Health announced Wednesday.

Students older than six months will have to be vaccinated by Dec. 31, unless either a medical or religious exemption is provided.

Screen Shot 2020-08-19 at 11.20.53 PM.png


"The new vaccine requirement is an important step to reduce flu-related illness and the overall impact of respiratory illness during the COVID-19 pandemic," officials wrote in an announcement of the new policy.

Students who are home-schooled are exempt from the policy, but health officials said students at elementary and secondary schools that are using a remote learning model are not exempt.

College or university students who are entirely off-campus will also be exempt from the mandate.

"Every year, thousands of people of all ages are affected by influenza, leading to many hospitalizations and deaths," the medical director of DPH’s Bureau of Infectious Disease and Laboratory Sciences, Dr. Larry Madoff, said in a statement. "It is more important now than ever to get a flu vaccine because flu symptoms are very similar to those of COVID-19 and preventing the flu will save lives and preserve healthcare resources."

In previous years, the flu shot was recommended but not required, DPH officials explained.

"Flu and COVID-19 are both serious respiratory illnesses," said Dr. Brian Chow, an infectious disease physician at Tufts Medical Center. "We were somewhat lucky this year in that the flu season was on a downswing when the coronavirus pandemic hit, and it is possible to be infected with both at the same time."

Chow believes it will be challenging to enforce the requirement, but says that being vaccinated against the flu is crucial this year in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
9,575
Likes
18,370
The COVID-19 Pandemic Is Rolling Over: The Number Of US Hospitalizations Is Declining By 1 Percent Per Day

by Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/20/2020 - 06:30

Back on July 14 when a wave of new covid cases was sweeping the sunbelt states prompting many to speculate if a new round of shutdowns was imminent, we took the other side of the argument and said that the pandemic peak had hit, and that in Arizona - an early recent outbreak state, "the worst was over for the COVID breakout." We were right, and as Bank of America writes today, Arizona has seen a 66% decline since its peak on July 14th, while the US excl. the four major recent outbreak states (AZ, CA, FL, TX) experiencing a 13% decline since the peak on July 30th.

There's more: as BofA also points out, "we continue to see clear signs the Coronavirus is rolling over in the US as the number of people hospitalized due to COVID-19 declines at a rapid pace of about one percent a day (26% in 23 days)."

Extrapolating, this rate of decline means that there will be zero covid-related hospitalizations around the Nov 3 election day, a feat that if marketed properly, could mean the differnce for Trump between victory and defeat.



Some more observations from BofA:

This week saw front page headlines that official COVID-19 statistics can no longer be trusted due to decreasing testing volumes. We agree but are wondering why there were no such headlines when daily new cases were rising due to more testing.
This is why we rely on statistics for the number of people hospitalized due to COVID-19. Drawback is that hospitalizations are lagged indicators of infections. Let's assume for this discussion that the lag is three weeks. The recent peak number of hospitalized on July 24th suggests peak daily new COVID-19 infections in the US around Independence Day (July 4th).
But daily new COVID-19 cases continued to rise sharply in July, which dominated the headlines. It looks like daily new cases and the number of people hospitalized are virtually coincident, as the peaks for both were reached around the same time. This actually makes sense as probably the primary driver of testing is someone going to the hospital with COVID-19 symptoms. We imagine that person gets tested along with the immediate family, friends and colleagues. Because COVID-19 statistics are very persistent, it seems likely that the numbers continue to roll over.
There is little doubt that all these negative COVID-19 related headlines have weighed on consumer, business and investor confidence. As this now reverses we remain positioned for a re-steepening Treasury curve by expecting bull flattening IG corporate spread curves, compression along the quality curve and outperformance of the most COVID-19 negatively impacted names. Heavy new issuance remains a headwind, but it is mitigated by strong inflows. Next week should be busy and then the window closes in the two weeks before Labor Day.​

It wasn't just Bank of America that had good news: in its state-level coronavirus tracker, Goldman confirmed that the number of new confirmed coronavirus cases continues to decline in the vast majority of states, yet the bank urged some caution, noting that "although the nationwide downward trajectory is encouraging, state government officials may wait until case levels decline further before moving forward with additional reopening policies."

Ironically, there is just one state where there is a tangible number of new cases - the one which was among the first to permit protests (and riots) in late May and early June: as Goldman notes, "Cases are on the rise in the most populous state of California, which has faced technical difficulties in reporting accurate daily case counts."

https://www.zerohedge.com/medical/c...r-us-hospitalizations-declining-1-percent-day
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,198
Likes
21,544
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/bait-switch-how-theyve-changed-covid-conversation

Bait-&-Switch: How They've Changed The COVID Conversation



by Tyler Durden
Thu, 08/20/2020 - 05:00

Authored by Kit Knightly via Off-Guardian.org,
Do you remember five months ago?
Normally I wouldn’t ask, but the world is moving incredibly fast these days.
Do you remember that it was predicted that covid19 would kill literally millions of people?

Do you remember that hospitals were going to be over-run with patients and our struggling medical infrastructure was going to collapse under their weight?

Do you remember that locking down global society was the only way to prevent this disaster? That we had to do it, regardless of how much damage it did to the livelihoods and security of countless millions of people?

Final question – do you know how many people in the United Kingdom officially died with (not of) the coronavirus yesterday?

It’s 12.

Twelve people.

You probably didn’t hear about that, because sometime in the last five weeks or so the media completely stopped using the word “deaths”, and started talking only about “cases”.




A “case” is anyone who tests positive for Sars-Cov-2, using the notoriously unreliable PCR tests which produce huge numbers of false positives.

Even supposing the positive test is real, the vast majority of “cases” are asymptomatic. Between false positives, unreliable tests and asymptomatic infection, a “case” count for sars-cov-2 is borderline meaningless.

Let’s say there are symptoms AND a positive test, and assume they’re not just a false positive who has a cold or the flu. Well, even the vast majority of the “symptomatic cases” will only ever be mildly ill. In fact of the 6 million active cases in the world, only 1% are considered severely ill. The majority of them will survive.

The CDC estimates the infection fatality ratio of Sars-Cov-2 to be about 0.26%. A number perfectly in line with severe flu seasons. Virtually every country in Europe is now reporting average, or even below average, mortality.

Broadly speaking, the vast majority of the world is, and will likely remain, absolutely fine.

But things aren’t going back to normal, are they?

In fact, they are getting worse.

The governments have got their foot in the door, and they have no intention of moving it.

Masks are now mandatory in the UK, and Australia, and New Zealand, and Germany and France. And many others. The Democrat’s nominee for President, Joe Biden, has said they should be mandatory in the US as well.

There’s talk of “local lockdown” in Birmingham, because of a “sudden increase in cases”, but we get no details on the numbers are, or if that’s translating into any kind illness, let alone deaths.

The same for Oldham, which is on the brink of a “catastrophic lockdown” thanks to its infection rate of 83 people per 100,000. (Oldham has a population of about 250,000, so that’s about 200 cases.)

Actually, over the last week the UK’s covid death count has reduced by over 5000, thanks to a review which removed duplicates and mistakes (which OffG predicted would happen months ago). The case count is bloated by at least 30,000 duplicates too.

In New Zealand, the patron saint of coronavirus Jacinda Ardern has just postponed next months general election. It’s only a month, for now. But what if there’s a “second wave” in October and they have to postpone it again? Regardless, the precedent is set.

New Zealand has had 1600 cases, total, in 5 months. They haven’t had a reported death since May. But their country is on lockdown and their democracy on hold.

Oh, and they’re shipping positive tests (and their families) off to “quarantine centres”, where if you refuse to be tested, you will be detained indefinitely.

Australia is locking down cities, even imposing curfews, based on 450 deaths.

Every day there are more and more articles discussing the need for mandatory vaccination, or something even worse.

And everywhere the language is changing. “The New Normal” was about beating Covid19, but now it’s about “covid19 and future pandemics”, or the “other colossal challenges facing humanity”….which can mean literally anything they want it to mean.

All this is based on the ever-increasing number of cases, without any reference to the fact deaths are falling.

All the way through those of us calling for a measured, proportional response were abused or ignored. The numbers have shown we were right, but that doesn’t matter now. They scared people into giving them the power, then they set the precedent for using that power, and there’s no reason to think they will ever stop.

It used to be about “deaths”, now it’s about “cases”. It used to be about coronavirus, next time it will be about something else.
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,198
Likes
21,544
Has anyone heard about the huge outbreak at Sturges? Me either............... :oriental:
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
there's a bitchute video at the bottom link

Dig It or Go Home

America's Frontline Doctors Summit Day One Highlights

This video starts with a detailed scientific analysis of the mechanisms of Covid-19 and how Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) coupled with Zinc disrupts the infection processes of the virus. The next section cites numerous peer-reviewed studies that confirm the efficacy and safety factors of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in treating corona virus, specifically, as well as numerous other debilitating terminal conditions and diseases. The final section is an analysis of Covid-19 cases worldwide and the success rates of countries that have used Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylaxis.

All of the data in this video is fully backed by years of peer-reviewed scientific data and mean statistics on the pandemic infections. Dr. Richard Erso said ”It's an amazing drug. If I ever get stuck on a desert island the drug I want is Hydroxychloroquine”. In fact, he is so confident in the efficacy of HCQ in fighting Covid-19 that he has personally offered $200,000 to anyone who can debunk the position of America's Frontline Doctors regarding Hydroxychloroquine's use in fighting Covid-19 infections.

Currently, Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is banned in most states. HCQ is a derivative of quinine and we have been using it as a prophylactic for centuries in one form or another. HCQ was originally FDA approved in 1955 and no one ever had an issue with the safety of the drug until President Donald J. Trump started talking about it. Consider the fact that Pfizer and Gilead would lose roughly $3.6 billion in government contracts for the vaccine and Remdisivir if we ended the pandemic with a medicine that until last week cost just $10 per bottle (it's $20 now) and it's pretty clear what this is all about. The science cited by America's Frontline Doctors is solid and is backed by decades of peer reviewed data, unlike the retracted studies from the Lancet and the NEJM, which is a very big deal. Complete studies have never in history been fully retracted by either of these organizations. They used toxic doses 12x the recommended dose to achieve their fraudulent results. The data used to ban HCQ was so faulty they couldn't even evaluate the most basic data points and they had to be retracted.

Supporting data can be found at the following links:

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/04/health/retraction-coronavirus-studies-lancet-nejm/index.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/ar...vDc7paUWnjIkqJbOdAVedNC5h1K1eZW2D2WAs-MeMaoqM

We have been using quinine, from which HCQ is a highly refined and effective derivative, for more than 300 years: https://www.britannica.com/science/quinine

Join the Discussion and Effort for Advocacy for Reinstating Prescribed Off-Label use of HCQ with the America's Frontline Doctors Facebook Group:

https://www.facebook.com/AmericasFrontlineDoctors/

https://www.bitchute.com/video/yHfusMbjYBbs/
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
Lancetgate: Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to Treat Covid-19 Patients. Why Was this “Monumental Fraud” Not a Huge Scandal?
By Daniel Espinosa
Global Research, August 21, 2020
Dissident Voice 20 August 2020

A high-profile and highly influential scientific study regarding the potential of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid-19 patients was retracted among suggestions of fraud back in June. The research in question was headed by a renowned Harvard professor called Mandeep Mehra and published by The Lancet, the most prestigious medical journal in the world.

It concluded that the antimalarial drug used since the 1950´s was actually killing Covid-19 patients by inducing heart failures. It caused quite a stir. (Brief historical fact: the Quina tree, the source of quinine and its family of medications, is also the “national tree” of Peru).

Short after the publication of the study (22 May), the World Health Organization (WHO) halted all research being conducted on hydroxychloroquine, which included simultaneous testing in 17 countries. The worldwide influence of the scientific paper – and the fact that hundreds of doctors were already trying the drug in Covid-19 patients – led a lot of researchers to look closely into it, immediately finding an alarming level of incoherence.

In the meantime, the news was spread far and wide by the corporate media, many times in a highly politicized fashion. They swiftly convinced the world of the danger of treating the symptoms of Sars-Cov-2 with HCQ.

In the realm of social media, a wave of censorship against dissenting voices soon followed. A viral video showing a group of physicians called the Frontline Doctors, speaking publicly in favor of HCQ – by sharing their own clinical experience – was removed by most social media giants (but only after millionshad already watched it). Could a testimony taken from a physician’s own experience be called “false”? Of course! Today a handful of social media corporations control what we can say or hear.

Instead of informing their audiences with a balanced discussion about all the scientific research conducted so far regarding the drug, both positive and negative, corporate media directed a barrage of ad-hominems and smear toward the mentioned doctors. An army of “fact-checkers” was opportunely deployed after that to police the web and reassure everyone that HCQ is both useless and dangerous. Everyone who said otherwise was snake oil peddler.

more:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/lancetgate-why-monumental-fraud-not-huge-scandal/5721761
 

Silver

Platinum Bling
Midas Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
7,258
Likes
12,303
sign.jpg
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,198
Likes
21,544
August 12, 2020

Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Fauci:

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.



You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar”. This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis”. He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.



Questions regarding early outpatient treatment

There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?

When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?

There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?

Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?

There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?

It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?

Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?

These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15% or higher, correct?

So just so we are clear—the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see” approach?

Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail” for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?

Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID 19 as an outpatient?

Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?

Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or “cocktail” recommend use within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?

Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu—like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?

Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?

Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this “cocktail?”

Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?

If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?

Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?

Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”

But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms- correct?

All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?

Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?

None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?

While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first 5 to 7 days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3%), and no zinc was given, correct?

Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc + Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?

Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?

It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct? How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?

Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?

The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?

Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?

Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?

Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert anti-viral effects?

So- the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline) and zinc, the “HCQ cocktail,” is based on science, correct?

Questions regarding safety

The FDA writes the following: “in light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use.”So not only is the FDA saying that Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years?

Isn’t true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?

Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID -19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns?

Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), Advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study, just to name a few)? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?

Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15% or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities?

To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, 2020 that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”?

Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for 5 to 7 days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years- does it make any sense to you logically that a 5 to 7 day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous?

You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?

If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?

After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?

In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct?

According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch’s findings?

Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine?

Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions?

Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s?

Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?

And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patient a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?

So, people who want to be treated in that critical 5-to-7-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct?

So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the Hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult if not impossible in some cases to get this treatment, correct?

Questions regarding methodology

The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It

In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: “The Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine.” Is that correct?

In Dr. Risch’s article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he disputes your opinion. He scientifically evaluated the data from the studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to support your opinions?

You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?

The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?

Are you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called “Evidence for Health Decision Making – Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)”? Have you read that article?

In it Dr. Frieden states that “many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action, including “analysis of aggregate clinical or epidemiological data”-do you disagree with that?

Frieden discusses “practiced-based evidence” as being essential in many discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)-do you disagree with that?

Frieden writes the following: “Current evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials, which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data.” Dr. Fauci, have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?

Risch, who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early treatment of COVID 19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He cites 5 or 6 studies, and in an updated article there are 5 or 6 more-a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?

Is there any document that you can produce for the American people of your analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch’s analysis?

Yet, despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?

Would you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail?”

Are you aware that the FDA approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence. The trials came later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?

You are well aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this in the best interest of our soldiers?

You would agree that many lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were used before any randomized clinical trials–correct?

You have referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as “anecdotal”- which is defined as “evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony”- correct?

But there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has there not been?

So it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?

Comparison between the US and other countries regarding case fatality rate

(It would be very helpful to have the graphs comparing our case fatality rates to other countries)

Are you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use Hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United States?

Have you pondered the relationship between the use of Hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the reduction of the case mortality rate.?

Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?

Why shouldn’t our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?

We should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case fatality rate from near 5% to 2.5%, in line with many countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in half, correct?

Why not consult with countries who have lower case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?

Giving Americans the option to use HCQ for COVID-19

Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent Epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.” Did you read the article?

Are you aware that the cost of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail” including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?

You are aware the cost of Remdesivir is about $3,200?

So that’s about 60 doses of HCQ “cocktail,” correct?

In fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?

Those are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more frequently of COVID-19, do they not?

But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?

Would you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?

So, 160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school, suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglecting and dying from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak with another lockdown- is it not time to re-think your strategy that is fully dependent on an effective vaccine?

Why not consider a strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never come?

Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for typically one week with HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin?

You don’t see a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a choice between the doctor and the patient?

While some doctors may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is indicated be able to offer it to their patients?

Are you aware that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?

You are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court steps advocating for the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail.In fact, you said these were “a bunch of people spouting out something that isn’t true.”Dr. Fauci, these are not just “people”- these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?

Do you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?

Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?

Did you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel, was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a “witch doctor”?

Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the following day?

Are you aware that physicians advocating for this treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?

Don’t you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?

Are you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as “misinformation.”?

Is it not misinformation to characterize Hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?

Is it not misleading for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm the efficacy of a treatment?

Was it not misinformation when on CNN you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?

Is it not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a drug approval?

Don’t you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?

How is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?

Fauci, if you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like symptoms, and you knew as you do now that there is a safe and effective cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the medication?

Why not give our healthcare workers and first responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at a 3 to 4 times greater rate than the general public, the right to choose along with their doctor if they want use the medicine prophylactically?

Why is the government inserting itself in a way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?

Why not give the American people the right to decide along with their physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first 5 to 7 days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs around $50?

Final questions

Fauci, please explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc) administered within 5-7 days of the onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers in so many states?

For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?

Please explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?

Please explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?

In fact, how is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?

What is your recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of U.S. physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.

If you were in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on 5 patients in England or would you have stated that a randomized clinical trial was needed?

Why would any physician put their medical license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the HCQ cocktail (that does not make them any money) unless they knew the treatment could significantly help their patient?

Why would a physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that the medication was beneficial?

How is it informed and ethical medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?

How is your approach to “wait and see” in the early stages of COVID-19 infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science?



While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.

As you recall, you stated on March 8th, just a few weeks before the devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren’t needed. You later said that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect themselves, as we are doing now?

Rather, you issued no such warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently now.

Conclusion
Since the start of the pandemic, physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best when coupled with azithromycin. In fact, it was the President of the United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and a “Z-Pack.” Additional studies showed that patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a “cocktail” with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.

As clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the “science” behind the disease. Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure, and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the American Public.

Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc), in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same, unequivocally positive results.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.

Curiously, despite a 65+ years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low, especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health professionals. The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government’s obstruction of the early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so long, is unprecedented.

It is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as cytokine storm.

Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch’s Newsweek article declares, “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”

Very Respectfully,

George C. Fareed, MD, Brawley, California

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH, Pensacola, Florida

Donald C. Pompan, MD, Salinas, California
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
WILL YOU BE A GOOD SLAVE & COMPLY?


SGTreport
 

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
As COVID-1984 Accelerates Bill Gates Blames ‘Freedom’ For Spread of the Virus


Spiro Skouras
 

SongSungAU

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
9,575
Likes
18,370
Aug 22, 2020

Are You Ready for the “No One Could Have Known” Routine?
Thomas Harrington

Ready for another rendition of the “no one could have known” routine made famous by all the self-proclaimed liberals who shamelessly went along with the Neo-Cons planned and lie-supported destruction of the Middle East nearly two decades ago?

As in “no one could have known” that by shutting down life as we know it to focus obsessively on a virus mostly affecting what is still a relatively small number of people at the end of their lives (yes, oh squeamish ones we must summon the courage to talk about Quality Adjusted Life Years when making public policy) we probably would:

1. Cause economic devastation and hence excess deaths, suicides, divorces depressions in much larger numbers than those killed by the virus.

2. Provide an already monopolistic and predatory online retailing establishment with competitive advantages in terms of capital reserves and market share that will make it virtually impossible at any time in the near or medium future for the country’s and the world’s small and even medium-sized businesses to ever catch up to them. And that this will plunge huge sectors of the world-wide economy into serf-like ruin, with all that this portends in terms of additional death and human suffering.

3. Cause greatly increased misery and countless additional deaths in the so-called Global South where many people, rightly or wrongly, depend on the consumption patterns of us relatively fortunate sit-at-homers to make it through the week.

4. Destroy much of what was attractive about urban life as we know it and lead to a real estate collapse of extraordinary proportions, turning even our few remaining showplace cities into crime-ridden reserves of ever more desperate people.

5. Force state and local governments, already struggling before the crisis, and unable to print at money at will like the Feds, to cut their already insufficient budgets at a time when their broke and stressed constituents need those services more than ever.

6. Push “smart” monitoring of our lives, already intolerable for anyone still clinging to memories of freedom in the pre-September 11th world, to the point where most people will no longer understand what people used to know as privacy, intimacy or the simple dignity of being left alone.

7. Train up a generation of children to be fearful and distrustful of others from day one, and to view bending to diktats “to keep them safe”, (no matter how empirically dubious the actual threat to them might be), rather than the courageous pursuit of joy and human fullness, as the key goal in life.

We will also no doubt be told that no one could have imagined or known at the time:

That governments often make policy on the basis of information they know to be largely unsubstantiated or flat-out false. Because they know (Karl Rove spilled the beans in his famous interview with Ron Susskind) that by the time the few conscientious researchers out there get around looking past the hype to debunk their initial storylines, the structures favorable to them put into place on the basis of the false narrative will have been normalized, and thus be in no danger of being dismantled.

That our educational institutions, already failing miserably in the essential democratic task of educating the young to engage in productive conflict with those whose ideas are different than their own, will only further promote dehumanization of “the other” through ever-greater reliance on the disembodied practices of remote learning. And that this, in turn, will only encourage the further growth of the “drive-by shooting” approach to “coping” with new and challenging ideas seen so often in our public “discussions” in recent years.

That further fomenting the alienated and alienating educational practices mentioned above will make than it easier than it already is for our oligarchs to enhance their already obscene levels control over our daily lives and long-term destinies through divide and rule tactics.

That according to the Institute for Democracy and Election Assistance (IDEA) fully twos thirds of elections scheduled to be held since February have been postponed due to COVID. And that this does much to accustom citizens and populations to the idea that one of their few remaining democratic rights can essentially be taken away on the basis of bureaucratic whims, creating a dangerous “new normal” that obviously favors the interests of established centers of power.

That Sweden and other countries developed much more proportionate, culture-saving and dignity-saving ways to live safely and much more fully with the virus.

That Anthony Fauci has a well-documented tendency to see every health problem as being amenable to expensive pharmaceutical solutions (some might even call it corruption), even when other less intrusive, less expensive, and equally effective therapies are available.

That the recent history of using vaccines to fight respiratory infections has been ineffective when not grotesquely counterproductive.

That during the first half of the 20th century the infectious disease of polio was a constant danger, culminating in 1952 with a devastating toll of 3,145 deaths and 21,269 cases of paralysis in a US population of 162,000,000, almost all of the victims being children and young adults. The danger then to the under-24 population (some 34 million) of being infected (.169%) paralyzed (.044%) or killed (.0092%) far outstripped in percentages and, obviously, severity anything COVID is doing to the same age group. And yet there was no talk of blanket school closures, cancelled high school, college and pro sports or, needless to say, lockdowns or masking for the entire society.

That the world lost some 1.1 million people in the 1957-58 Asian flu epidemic (more than the present COVID number of 760,000), with some 116,000 in the US (.064% of the population) and the world similarly did not stop.

That the Hong Kong flu of 1968-69 killed between 1 and 4 million worldwide and some 100,000 in the US (.048% of population killed) and that life similarly was not stopped. Indeed, Woodstock took place in the middle of it.

That the decisions to get on with life in all of these cases were probably not the result, as some today might be tempted suggest, of a lack of scientific knowledge or lesser concern for the value of life, but rather a keener understanding in the more historically-minded heads of that time that risk is always part of life and that aggressive attempts to eliminate this most ubiquitous human reality can often lead to severe unwanted consequences.

That there were many prestigious scientists, including Nobel prize winners, who told us as early as March that this virus, while new, would in greater or lesser measure behave much like all viruses before it and fade away. And, therefore, the best way to deal with it was to let it run its course while protecting the most vulnerable people in society and letting everyone else live their lives.

That significant information platforms banned or sidelined the views of these high-prestige scientists, while aggressively circulating the words of jokers like Neil Ferguson at Imperial College, whose stupid and alarmist predictions of COVID mortality (the latest in a career full of stupid and alarmist, but not coincidentally, pharmaceutical-industry-friendly predictions), gave politicians the pretext for setting in motion perhaps the most aggressive experiment in social engineering in the history of the world.

That just as the levels of mortality from the virus were diminishing rapidly in the late spring and early summer of 2020, thus raising hope for a much-needed return to normality, there was seamless bait and switch in the major media from a discourse centering on the logical and laudable goal of “flattening the curve” to one centered on the absurdly utopian (and not coincidentally vaccine-oriented) goal of eliminating new “cases”.

That having the news media focus narrowly and obsessively on the growth of “cases” when 99%+ of them are completely non-life-threatening was journalistic malpractice of the highest order, comparable to, if not exceeding in its sinister effect that which was generated by the media’s wholly unsubstantiated talk of mushroom clouds and WMD two decades ago, talk that led (so sorry brown people) to the deaths of millions and the destruction of entire civilizations in the Middle East.

That government and corporate power holders, having successfully habituated people to engage in major solidarity-destroying social changes through the repetition of the largely meaningless term “case“, will surely come to rely on it and other breathlessly repeated, albeit largely empty, signifiers to paralyze society at will, especially at those times when the people appear to be waking up and coming together to demand a change In the existing balance of social power.

That as numerous existing and emerging studies seem to demonstrate, hydroxychloroquine is, when combined with other similarly affordable drugs, a safe and rather effective early-stage treatment for COVID 19.

That the negative studies on hydroxychloroquine effectiveness published at two of the most prestigious medical journals in the world The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, and which were adduced time and again at a key moment in the early debate of possible COVID treatments to debunk the drug’s effectiveness, were found to be based on forged data sets. (see earlier entry on how power centers play the game of perception lag with false information to achieve long-term structural changes)

That suggesting world-class professional athletes in their 20s and 30s, or even their less talented and less fit high school and college counterparts, were running a risk of mortal consequences in even minimal numbers by playing in the midst of the COVID spread was, in light of known age-related numbers on the disease’s lethality, at best ridiculous and, at worst, a very cynical fear-mongering ploy.

Repeat after me, “no one could have possibly known these things” and then check your screen to see, as citizens of Oceania, whether you are supposed to be worried this week about the threat from Eurasia or Eastasia.

And, of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t remind you to mask up real tight, especially in light of the CDC numbers — you’ll have to forgive here for breaking with the rich tradition of pure panic-driven narrative and moving to the realm of empirical figures — which tell us that up until this point in our “everything must change” crisis:
  • 0.011% of the US population under 65 have died of COVID
  • 0.005% of the US population under 55 have died of COVID
  • 0.0009% of the US population under 35 have died of COVID
  • 0.0002% of the US population under 25 have died of COVID
  • 0.00008% of the US population under 15 have died of COVID
And as for the most “high risk” people?
  • 0.23% of the US population over 65 have died of COVID

Though they’ve tried to sell it otherwise, this thing has very little, if anything, to do with great-grandma’s Spanish flu of 1918.

Indeed, it not even completely clear if it is cumulatively worse in terms of loss of life than the influenzas outbreaks of 1957-58 or 1968-69 that most everyone slept through. But, I guess that doesn’t matter when there’s a narrative to keep.

Might it be time to ask if there might be something else afoot with all this?

Thomas S. Harrington is a professor of Hispanic Studies at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut and the author of the recently published book, Livin’ la Vida Barroca: American Culture in a Time of Imperial Orthodoxies.

https://off-guardian.org/2020/08/22/are-you-ready-for-the-no-one-could-have-known-routine/
 

Varmint Hunter

Gold Member
Gold Chaser
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 10, 2010
Messages
2,277
Likes
8,320

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
Are You Ready for the “No One Could Have Known” Routine?
That goes along with the "Mistakes were made... my bad" and nobody gets shitcanned for screwing up...
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,660
Likes
86,820
Location
Earth
1598196586165.png


https://twitter.com/PressSec

Quoted off the internet:
Trump will announce that the vaccine for Covid is our own immune systems which cures the virus in over 99% of the cases

If this is true (the government's very own statistics suggests it is), why do we need a vaccine? Think about that for a minute!!!
 
Last edited:

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,660
Likes
86,820
Location
Earth
1598198796875.png
 

newmisty

Splodey-Headed
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
31,736
Likes
49,485
Location
Qmerica

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,660
Likes
86,820
Location
Earth

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,198
Likes
21,544
Seems someone knows when it ends. Got this in an email. NOTE; After location........

Hi

Greetings,

We have an opening for . Below are the requirement details, just go through it & if you feel interested, revert back to me with your updated resume Your earliest.


Role: Process Engineer

Location: San Antonio, TX (remote initially) after pandemic onsite

Duration: 12+ Months W2 C CONTRACT
 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,198
Likes
21,544
only the beer virus has closed businesses, ruined economies, mandated masks and forced self confinement.
Has been exploited to this extent........ so far.................
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,660
Likes
86,820
Location
Earth

Goldhedge

Moderator
Site Mgr
Sr Site Supporter
GIM Hall Of Fame
Joined
Mar 28, 2010
Messages
52,749
Likes
99,472
Location
Rocky Mountains
Australian researchers tout new 'wonder drug' as potential cure for coronavirus patients

 

Uglytruth

Midas Member
Midas Member
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Apr 6, 2011
Messages
11,198
Likes
21,544
Live now. Fast Forward until Trump comes on but the guy after him is good.
 

Rusty Shackelford

Midas Member
Midas Member
Sr Site Supporter
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
6,827
Likes
5,655
Location
Northern most Southern State

dacrunch

Platinum Bling
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
5,867
Likes
6,033
Live now. Fast Forward until Trump comes on but the guy after him is good.
Notable....
- when Trump comes in, he adresses the Press with an ad lib "I hope that you enjoyed YOUR convention last week, and we'll be enjoying OURS this week" (or something close...)
- at the end one (brit?) muckraker tries to diminish the value of saving 35% more lives... then another tries to grill the doctor with "Were you pressured to fast-track this treatment" (i.e. "forced"...)

Yep, the so called "free" press is sold out... Heck, if the press is "free", you get what you paid for...
 
Last edited: