We need to spread this before it is squelched.
Is hydroxychloroquine a cure? Well, it most certainly is not dangerous, and that is what the panic artists claim.
Do your own research, and start checking sources beyond the Liberal Democrat legacy media.
Our state governor has just joined the list of several other states and issued an “emergency order” requiring face masks in all public gatherings, including churches. These kinds of measures are absurd for two reasons. First, it’s based on bad science; second, we have a cure available right now, which means we should be able to open up the country, not close it down even more.
View original post 460 more words
Citizen Tom 
Thanks for the re-post, Tom. I added an addendum that included two reputable Medical organizations (Mayo and Henry Ford). One is using Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment and the other is not, so there is some honest dispute over this. But there’s other treatments, like immune-treatment therapy (that cured my son’s father-in-law just this week). My main point is yours. We have essentially shut down the entire country, even the world, in an unprecedented way, but why? And how many deaths were caused because of the shutdown? In addition to that, I saw one video where a lady sprayed someone not wearing a mask with pepper spray! Do we call this being a civil society? This is one of many reasons why the solution seems to be worse than the problem.
Why is the country totally shut down when we can treat the virus and safely protect those most vulnerable? Answer: fear-mongering politics and anti-Trump hysteria.
@Mel Wild
Heard about the “lady” with the pepper spray. I wonder if she was just itching to unload that spray on someone. Psychos are always with us.
The government’s approach to this is based purely on fear. This seems to me the verse for these times.
Amen.
Hi Mel, regarding the Henry Ford study, it takes serious flak from other scientists right now. I had a look at it when it came out and was surprised to see, that treatment was “protocol driven”, rather than double-blind. Patients were selected for different treatments according to their severity of symptoms and complications. Double-blind studies, where neither docor nor patient knows at the time of treatment, whether they get a placebo or the real drug, are usually used to prevent this kind of bias. Now that experts have had a closer look, it turns out, that e.g. patients given chloroquine were twice as likely to be given steroids, too, which are known to be effective in reducing the severity of Covid-19. In another letter to the editor of the publishing journal, scientists whose data has been reinterpreted by the Henry Ford group point out, that the Henry Ford group simply ignored more detailed data (available in the cited paper) and hence skewed their reinterpretation. So from my point of view, the Henry Ford study is just another one of those studies, that make extraordinary claims and do not stand scrutiny. As I mentioned on the “magical thinking” post already, these medical studies are carried out in various countries. You’d have to believe that scientists, doctors and newspapers worldwide are suppressing life-saving information, with the sole purpose of discrediting Trump.
On a slightly brighter note, yes, from gathered experience we are getting better at treating Covid-19 patients (see e.g. dexamethasone or remdesivir), even if we are far from having found a panacea, a real cure. I am furthermore happy to see, that several vaccines seem to make fast progress.
My best wishes go out to your son’s father-in-law, may he fully recover. Many hospitalized patients suffer long-term damage due to reduced lung function or other debilitating effects like chronic fatigue, after all.
@marmoewp
Studies with human guinea pigs tend to be difficult to start with. If the treatment works, who wants to be in the control group?
What makes the Coronavirus (COVID-19) especially difficult is that it is not particularly dangerous. So, it is difficult to discern whether the treatment helped or whether the patient recovered on their own. Therefore, people can argue over the studies endlessly, especially when they inject their own biases. And we do. “We” includes the experts. You do realize those “experts” get their money from politicians?
What is clear is that the drug in question has been used for a long time. The notion that it is dangerous is silly, Yet we have had experts claim it is dangerous.
Because we don’t even know who is being objective, this is one of those cases where the patient and the doctor should decide.
@ Tom
“Studies with human guinea pigs tend to be difficult to start with. If the treatment works, who wants to be in the control group?”
Quite the contrary, human guinea pigs are standard procedure in the final testing phases of a new drug. And it is done to find out, whether or not the new drug actually works the way it is intended to work in humans, as opposed to mice or other test animals.
@marmoewp
I think it stands to reason that the first people to use a drug with respect to a new treatment are guinea pigs, but the fact that is an unavoidable standard doesn’t make testing any easier.😆
“What makes the Coronavirus (COVID-19) especially difficult is that it is not particularly dangerous. ”
I do not know the not particularly dangerous Covid-19 virus you are talking about. The SARS-CoV-2 I know:
– has so far neither cure nor vaccination, our main weapons against other diseases
– easily transmits (case doubling times of just two days, many instances of family renunions, church services, etc, where one source infected 50+ people)
– has a infection-fatality-rate of 0.5% to 1.5%, if treated to the best standards of Western medicine.
– puts about five times more people than it kills into hospital, who would die but for this care administered for several weeks
Obviously your definition of dangerous virus differs, I’d like to understand in what respect. I presume we can agree on the easily transmitted part. The question most interesting to me is, what infection-fatality rate (IFR) would you consider dangerous? 1 dead in thousand infections (infections, not symptomatic cases), 10/1000 dead? 100/1000 dead? As you like to point out, that the virus is preferentially killing the elderly, what IFR would you consider dangerous for chlldren, which for those aged 20 to 40? I’d just like to understand your point of view better, and getting it pinned down substantially better than “not particularly” would help a lot in that regard.
@marmoewp
I would take the statistics more seriously except for some pertinent details.
1. The disease has little affect on children.
2. We don’t actually know how many people have been infected. We know how many have tested positive.
3. The median age for the people who have died is 78. That is the same as the life expectancy in this country. Just because someone had COVID-19, that is not necessarily why they died. Nevertheless, they will most likely become a COVID-19 statistic.
Did you hear Dr Birx on TV today?
Talking about wearing goggles with glitter
Birx has become a laughingstock
@hocuspocus13
No. Missed that. I hope she is not a laughingstock. Nobody deserves that.
I try not to wish ill on anyone. I just want my fellow Americans to appreciate the freedom we have and the responsibilities we have to preserve it for future generations.
The fact that politicians have abused their authority is our fault. We shouldn’t let them do it. When they don’t make good decisions anyway, what is the point of letting them make so many decisions we could make for ourselves? So, everyone makes the same decision? It is a rare occasion when that’s actually necessary or even desirable. Consider what happens to the roads when everyone goes to work at the same time.
Why not just listen to the Presidential appointed scientists on the Covid task force?
@Doug
Why don’t you listen to all the experts?
I can think for myself. I think we make a practice of doing that.
I see.. “we” are now moving way past trusting Trump’s appointees, or Trump’s judgement in appointing them.
Have “we” invalidated the election already like Trump has?
@Doug
Everything is not about Trump. He may be President, but that’s it.
Exactly! He IS President.. and that IS entirely IT.
@Doug
So you have every right to obsessed? Well, I am not.
I’m “patriotically” obsessed.
@Doug
Hating Trump and trying to force him out of office looks likes not accepting the results of an election. That is not patriotic.
As I have said often in the past.. I don’t “hate” Trump… if anything I “hate” what he’s done/doing to the country. I’ve also made no issue that I have accepted the 2016 results as it was according to the Constitution.. the document I am most concerned about. The crazy thing about all this, Tom, is I don’t fault Trump for being who he is; he was raised that way.. and he’s managed to do business in whatever defective behavioral persona he has grown into over the years. I tend to cast great judgement on those who continue to support him.. continue to enable all those psychotic aberrations in which he ebbs and flows according to his current whims. It makes me constantly wonder how so many people find this behavior in an American president so acceptable in a way that they themselves want to see America become. Trump is deficient because he was born that way. What does that say about his enablers?