It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Trump Admits He Takes Hydroxycloroquine

page: 15
36
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 5 2020 @ 02:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: Willtell
UK trial on hydroxychloroquine: ‘It doesn’t work’

link


A large, randomized U.K. trial found “no clinical benefit” of hydroxychloroquine to treat hospitalized Covid-19 patients, researchers announced Friday.

“It doesn’t work,” declared Martin Landray, one of the lead researchers, at a briefing. Patients receiving hydroxychloroquine died at about the same rate — about one in four — as those receiving regular care in a randomized trial being conducted by the University of Oxford and the U.K. National Health Service.


Ironically, the WHO who Trump condemns still thinks it might have some use( Though as of now most of the studies say it doesn't work) and will continue to test it.
Yet Trump calls them clueless.

Goes to show us...
Trump is NEVER right about anything



Wow, I've been 100% on my prediction of what picture was going to be painted and what conclusions were going to be attached by news articles about these so-called "randomized clinical trials" or "randomized placebo-controlled clinical trials" (often sanctioned and even funded by the government or the Big Pharma controlled bureaucracy in the sciences and health care sector).

I must have a gift, either that, or I'm right about the motivation and decision made ahead of time to paint this negative picture of HCQ, and fudging (or cherry-picking and manipulating by means of hospital protocol, making things worse for HCQ patients by combining it with "horrible care" while giving better care to no HCQ groups that are being compared with) the numbers accordingly to support those arguments and opinions presented as if it's the reality of the matter, which has already been proven to not be the case with honest observational reports, case studies and honest statistics.

originally posted by: whereislogic
What a surprise, another negative marketing/sales-pitch report. More to follow, as predicted.

All produced by scientists who were quiet about the blatant bias and scientific fraud concerning the VA study, providing evidence that none of their publications can be trusted in the future.
...
And as also predicted before, the newer reports will be much better at giving the appearance of being legit and having no conflict of interest compared to the VA study (which almost looks intentional, the VA study was so blatantly corrupt and deceitful, that any negative report about HCQ thereafter looks like a scientific gem of integrity in comparison, even though it's just more of the same, but dressed better), where almost halve the scientists on that study are known to have received funding from Gilead or otherwise have significant financial ties with Gilead (Remdesivir).

Here's the last time I responded to another one of these attempts to present these marketing/sales-pitch reports under the marketinglabel "Science":


originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Grimpachi
...
The New England Journal of Medicine (your source of publication) has lost all credibility. Anyone who thinks they've got something worth your while to publish, check out the 2nd video of Dr. Raoult for a response to the NEJM and their behaviour in terms of scientific integrity and honesty vs a conflict of interest with Big Pharma pulling the strings.

From the piece you quoted yourself, as if you don't even get how such a negative marketing/sales-pitch report works:


Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine...


Basically the same trick as the VA study. ...


originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: Phage

Here's my prediction [edit: expectation] regarding the ongoing (mostly) government-funded clinical trials ...:

Each and every one will paint a negative picture on HCQ's already well-established and proven effectiveness both as a prohylaxis and treatment of Covid-19 (more so when optimized with ...).

... How can I know ahead of time that none will send out the message that HCQ has clear benefits (that outweigh any minimal risks concerning QT prolongation, i.e, ventricular arrhythmia*)? Even though frontline experience and honest statistics have already shown clear benefits in spite of all the denial that we already have sufficient data and don't need manipulated so-called "randomized clinical trials" that are really better described as marketing/sales-pitch reports once they are published (again by publishers who said nothing about the VA study akin to what Dr. Raoult had to say about it)? Why is NEJM still in business publishing so-called "scientific articles"? NEJM = The New England Journal of Medicine (who published something about Remdesivir, as discussed by Dr. Raoult in the video of my longer comment on the previous page, and was also the publisher of the article about HCQ that Grimpachi brought up in another thread, another favorite publication of the mainstream media, in particular on the left).

*: something easily fixed in those extremely rare cases where it does occur, by switching from Azithromycin to Doxycycline, showing that it's not HCQ that is the problem here; not to mention all the other drugs that are prescribed for minor issues that also can cause QT prolongation, psych drugs that often do more harm than good for actual unproven benefits. Used all the time with no one complaining about how dangerous they are.

The NEJM is at it again...now they're arguing that HCQ has no prophylactic value. And of course, the media is quick to jump on board. Not a word about the South Korean prophylactic study with 211 cases that I either mentioned in this thread or another (which btw, is so utterly contradictory to the results they are publishing now, that they cannot be reconciled, either the ones who published the statistics for the South Korean study are lying, or the NEJM is, which one of those has actually already proven to be highly unreliable and to eagerly lie, fudge, twist and/or manipulate the statistics by means of protocol* for marketing motives concerning Big Pharma?) *: ...

My expectation seemed to have been correct.

But I'm wondering, is there any reason someone can think of why anyone should trust any sort of statistics or publication by the NEJM on this subject after the crap they've already pulled, or why anyone should trust the type of scientists, hospitals or doctors whose statistics they are claiming to have published?

Or in other words: Why is the NEJM still in business publishing so-called, so-perceived or so-marketed "scientific articles"? Why do people still take them as a serious scientific source and not a marketing company which they've clearly already proven to be?

Dr. Raoult's response to the NEJM (regarding another article that was published but it's just more of the same, slightly better dressed up, plus more importantly, they haven't been honest about what marketing techniques were used in the article responded to below, showing their dishonesty and lack of scientific integrity, or any integrity for that matter):

General tip: never ever trust anything being published by the NEJM or the Lancet ever again. There is no good reason to as long as they're quiet about the article responded to above and their true motivation for publishing it (or staying quiet about it, not mentioning the blatant deceptive marketing and propaganda techniques employed).
That last thing counts for any scientist or publisher publishing something about HCQ's efficacy without saying anything about the above, without having issues with the behaviour and addressing the cancer in the sciences that is influenced or enhanced by Big Pharma's control and conditioning, that turns science publishing houses and the scientists that get their research published by these, into marketing companies and marketeers respectively.




posted on Jun, 5 2020 @ 03:16 PM
link   
This is Dr. Raoult's response to the VA study, which is of the same nature as the UK study not linked by Willtell (he linked a news article about), it's the same negative message about HCQ, the UK study is just much better dressed up (as explained in my previous comment, it looks more legit, with a less obvious conflict of interest of those involved, it looks more reliable and trustworthy, it looks more like "science" than "marketing"; but looks can be deceiving, especially in the sciences when presented by expert marketeers of the philosohies/ideas/opinions they want to have promoted and tickle the ears of the right market of people, usually including scientism fanboys, with):

Do the scientists who published the UK study concerning HCQ's effectiveness have anything to say about the VA study? Why haven't they said anything yet after it (the VA study) was published? How about making some objections to the other usual marketing crap published by the Lancet and the NEJM and just like the VA study, completely hyped in the media under the marketingbanner (reliable) "science", while publications with a positive message about HCQ, are ignored, downplayed, discredited, accompanied by a multitude of caveats to downgrade their value, such as 'not peer reviewed', 'not randomized', 'no placebo group or control group', 'not double-blinded', etc.? Do they have anything to say about that that might build some trust for me in them? Did they have anything to say about that before publishing their own sales-pitch against the use of HCQ and excusing those health care workers, scientists, bureaucrats, politicians, Big Pharma and media people that have stood in the way of patients being treated by HCQ + max. quality care (see Dr. Ban's modus operandi and HCQ treatment protocol in the playlist below to see what "max. quality care" looks like compared to the HCQ + horrible care given in hospitals during clinical trials or otherwise to support the argument that it doesn't work)?

Real frontline reports: Help with Corona/Covid-19 treatment: Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc(+Copper 10:1 ratio)+Azithromycin+vitC+D3
edit on 5-6-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2020 @ 03:31 PM
link   
I have been taking Hydroxycloroquine for three weeks now and other than the odd anal bleed I feel absolutely fine. I was even able to get the strength to stand and salute our astute and honourable President on the TV yesterday. Anyone know whether chest pain is associated with this miracle drug? (Asking for a friend).



posted on Jun, 5 2020 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not breaking any rules. What you refer to are mere guidelines, and a Doctor can prescribe it for whatever they want its called an Off Label Use

Perfectly legitimate



posted on Jun, 6 2020 @ 08:00 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

There are state by state rules about the prescribing of HCQ. In most states, the prescribing of HCQ for prophylaxis is not allowed (if a doctor defies these state regulations, the pharmacy simply won't fill the prescription), not even for health care workers. And in many states, general practitioners (home doctors? That's how we call them in my country, the ones that don't work in the hospital) are not even allowed to prescribe it in the outpatient setting (outside the hospital). In quite a few states, physicians aren't even allowed to prescribe it outside of officially sanctioned (i.e. government/Big Pharma/bureaucracy-controlled) clinical trials, so not even on compassionate basis (in the hospital or otherwise).

Of course, shouldn't be too hard for Trump's physician to get around that, special rules already seem to apply to rich powerful people who haven't lifted a finger to do anything against these state by state regulations to make HCQ more available to the over 99% of us that aren't considered 'elite' (or privileged like that, like Trump and others I've heard that can get HCQ prophylactically), at the least they could have said something about it; but I guess they're fine with it as long as they can get it. Lots of selfishness going around in these privileged circles.

Remember, officially sanctioned clinical trials (the only way someone without connections in health care in my country could get HCQ as a treatment, you can forget about prophylaxis) tend to limit HCQ (or HCQ + Azithromycin, zinc is never given in these in my country) to a max. of 5 days (in a hospital/inpatient setting, so too late for maximum effect). From Dr. Ban's case studies you can see that 5 days is often not enough, you can get a rebound of the disease if you don't finish it off properly. They're setup for failure. There should be no max. limit for how many days it's used, it needs to be tailored to what's going on with the patient, if they get a rebound because of stopping too early, you need to give it again. "Treat the patient", as Dr. Ban puts it. Officially sanctioned clinical trials don't do that, they stop after 5 days max, then if the patient gets a rebound of the disease, say HCQ doesn't work instead of giving it again (with the appropiate enhancing or supporting substances: Azithromycin, zinc, copper, vitamin C, vitamin D3 and perhaps even melatonin to dampen the cytokine storm, if supplements of melatonin can do the same things as the melatonin naturally produced in cells, not sure about that; I think famotidine can also increase Ph levels in the body, but I'm not sure if it's as effective as HCQ in doing that within cell organelles like lysosomes and endosomes, plus HCQ also has additional useful functions in relation to Covid-19 which famotidine doesn't have, or at least it's not as well researched*).

*: the useful functions and mechanisms of action of HCQ vs corona (the virus) or Covid-19 (the disease):


Pretty sure famotidine can't do all of that (noticed the media in my country likes to talk about famotidine now, they already kept almost completely silent about the HCQ debate for the past 3 months, keeping people nicely distracted from the subject; now finally some more people are talking about it, but the media only posts articles about it when they want to emphasize a publication that argues against the efficacy of HCQ, such as the Lancet study or the latest NEJM publication concerning HCQ and post-exposure prophylaxis, they love emphasizing those publications, but not a word about Dr. Raoult's results, or Dr. Ban's, or Dr. Zelenko, etc.; not a positive word about HCQ; 1 out of every 1000 news articles if not more are about HCQ that way, i.e. negative, downplaying its proven efficacy as if it isn't proven, or not clear enough to warrant the use of HCQ in the fight against corona, while exaggerating its side effects and toxicity to support that argument).

There's also an additional advantage of HCQ/CQ/Quinine over famotidine (if you only look at the ability to increase Ph) in the sense that the earlier group of substances gravitate towards the cells in the lungs, liver and kidney (if I remember correctly, I'm sure about the lungs), exactly the areas most heavily affected by the corona virus and Covid-19. I think famotidine (PEPCID) is more for the stomach. "Famotidine, sold under the brand name Pepcid among others, is a medication that decreases stomach acid production. It is used to treat peptic ulcer disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and Zollinger-Ellison syndrome." (from wikipedia) If it decreases stomach acid production it's basically increasing Ph (which is a decrease in acidity, it's an alkalizer like Alka Seltzer), not sure if it's mostly effective in the stomach, but even if has the same effect throughout the cells in your body, or thoughout the body, it doesn't gravitate towards the cells in lungs, liver and kidneys like HCQ/CQ/Quinine (which make the latter group of substances more specific to Covid-19, also meaning you can take less for the same effect when it's focused targeting like that).
edit on 6-6-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 6 2020 @ 09:12 AM
link   

originally posted by: JBurns
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Not breaking any rules. What you refer to are mere guidelines, and a Doctor can prescribe it for whatever they want its called an Off Label Use

Perfectly legitimate


My best mate Derek's, ex wife's son's friend, Terry, gets them from eBay. They seem fairly legit. I assume the horrendous stench that emanates from them is quite normal.



posted on Jun, 6 2020 @ 11:30 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

It's illegal for any US doctor to prescribe drugs that are not approved for use by the FDA. The FDA has not approved the use of Hydroxychloroquine as a preventative against Covid 19. What the FDA has done is authorize an emergency use for hospitalized patients only, and it's approved some studies, of "off label" research.

The President of the United States isn't a test study. He wasn't hospitalized. The White House doctor would be in violation of the FDA rules if he had prescribed the drug to the president on an experimental whim.

Most likely, Trump was given a placebo.

www.fda.gov...



posted on Jun, 6 2020 @ 11:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

Sookie you're mistaken, it's called off label use. It doesn't prevent a Dr from prescribing it. Most drug companies only obtain one approval due to cost, despite having multiple off label uses.

Look it up it's not a crime or improper in the least. Very common.



posted on Jun, 8 2020 @ 04:47 PM
link   
a reply to: Sookiechacha

I dont think you digested the study repeal.

They can give him it everyday and its not going to hurt him, people use this thing for 60+ years.

Cookie, how many deaths HCQ TOTAL since its release into the world market?



posted on Jun, 9 2020 @ 10:54 AM
link   
a reply to: JBurns

Here are some details concerning the state by state regulations for the prescribing of HCQ that I spoke about in my previous response. I haven't uploaded the 2nd episode yet with all the specific state by state regulations but all the important points are already made in the first episode (which I had to break up into multiple parts because I can't upload videos longer than 15 minutes to youtube, which is why I'm saying "episode" and not "part"):



The 2nd episode, episode 32, can be found on Dr. Ban's website (the podcasts), here's a direct link to the episode.

Here's an example what all these regulations (in which the Trump government had a hand, as in not lifting a finger to prevent it, and using things like the EUA to support making these regulations and legislations, to set it up and open a bureaucratic path for governors, state licensing boards and state pharmacy boards to limit access to HCQ for the general public) lead to in practice:


Dallas is in Texas, a Republican State isn't it?
edit on 9-6-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 11:46 AM
link   
Ruh Roh!

FDA withdraws emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine thehill.com...


The agency said recent clinical trial failures mean chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine may not be effective at treating COVID-19 or preventing it in people who have been exposed, and that their potential benefits do not outweigh the risks.
Doctors have warned that the drugs can cause serious heart problems, but the FDA had previously allowed their use for hospitalized patients and during clinical trials.



posted on Jun, 15 2020 @ 07:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
Ruh Roh!

FDA withdraws emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine thehill.com...

What is horrifying about this whole era is that millions of seemingly decent people are happily cheering on mass murder.*

“How could the people of a supposedly civilised country not simply tolerate but become implicated in the horrific barbarism of the Nazi state?” asks Dick Geary in Hitler and Nazism. They were drawn into this because they preferred the philosophies, “false stories” and schemes of men to “the truth” and “beneficial teaching” (2 Tim 4:3,4; ftn). And how many sincere, idealistic men and women have been led into horrific atrocities since then?

“What experience and history teach is this,” says German philosopher Georg Hegel, “that nations and governments have never learned anything from history or acted upon any lessons they might have drawn from it.” Many may disagree with Hegel’s philosophy on life, but few will disagree with that statement. Sadly, people do seem to have severe difficulty learning anything from history. But must that be true of you?

*: note the term "murderous rage" below:

Or "murder" below:

There aren't that many that will call it as it is, or call it what it really is. But there are plenty of clues when putting the videos above in the right context, such as attempted in the playlist below (even with all the youtube bans and dishonest censorship to hide the truth):

Real frontline reports: Help with Corona/Covid-19 treatment: Hydroxychloroquine+Zinc(+Copper 10:1 ratio)+Azithromycin+vitC+D3

I updated it with some videos from Dr. Mobeen concerning the mechanism of action of HCQ. No doubt not seen yet by many. The knowledge/science is not made easily available nor emphasized.
edit on 15-6-2020 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
36
<< 12  13  14   >>

log in

join