Trump Admits He Takes Hydroxycloroquine

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: ElectricUniverse

If the police is still investigating this as a homicide it is not because there is no evidence supporting the possibility of "homicide.

They aren't. They never were.
www.ktnv.com...

This says it all about your "source".

"The Mesa Police Department is refuting claims that a death involving a chemical similar to the one promoted by President Donald Trump as a treatment for the coronavirus"


How exactly is fish tank cleaner similar to Hydroxychloroquine? Chemically similar? Therapeutically similar? Usage similar? Or is just kinda maybe sounds a little like it, if you are a slow adult?

a reply to: Phage

You can play your dumb game like you did before, like you always do, but again, just like before, it's not going to change the reality of the matter. Go ahead, discredit me some more by twisting my points to make people focus on what you want them to focus on and give them a false impression of the situation, I will just continue speaking the truth and being honest about it. Darkness will not forever remain in control of this system of things, nor will people remain ignorant as to the marketing and propaganda tricks I've mentioned forever.

Your confirmation bias and psychological projection will not change reality.

a reply to: whereislogic

Darkness will not forever remain in control of this system of things, nor will people remain ignorant as to the marketing and propaganda tricks I've mentioned forever.

Rebel forces will prevail against the dark side!

a reply to: panoz77

How exactly is fish tank cleaner similar to Hydroxychloroquine?

Did I say it was?

All I did was point out that there was no homicide investigation. Do you disagree?

a reply to: Phage

Here's my prediction regarding the ongoing (mostly) government-funded clinical trials that are ongoing for HCQ (the ones you linked in another thread whose results will take a while, some having an end-date in 2021):

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 substances such as Azithromycin, zinc, Vitamin C and D, for starters; then something to 'dampen the cytokine storm' if needed, high quality care with constant monitoring of the patient + the kind of things the nurse says they weren't doing in the New York hospital she is talking about, which is not a unique situation, and not doing the kind of things she describes as "horrible care").

Now if these so-called "clinical trials" are not being manipulated to get that endresult and send that message about HCQ when they are published, how could I predict that? (a negative picture includes the picture that there is no clear benefit, not just the one that includes the marketing message that it's even harmful and will cause more problems for the patient, either death or in this case also "an increased risk of de-novo ventricular arrhythmia during hospitalization.") 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.

a reply to: whereislogic

Here's my prediction regarding the ongoing (mostly) government-funded clinical trials that are ongoing for HCQ (the ones you linked in another thread whose results will take a while, some having an end-date in 2021):

Yes, quality science can take a while.

Each and every one will paint a negative picture

Got any bets on who will win the 2022 Super Bowl?


But like I said, if the results are less than great the study is obviously wrong. I understand that now.

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.

Most of the protocols around the world still say that HCQ should be given when it's too late (hospital/inpatient setting at least, and you only get admitted to the hospital when things are getting really bad). Then they report on HCQ being given under those conditions by saying 'see, it doesn't work' (yeah, duh, you know you gave it too late; you know you refused to treat the cytokine storm with other drugs thereafter and let all your HCQ patients die with "horrible care" while you are giving much better care for your non-HCQ patients. Just like the situation the numbers of the VA study are based on).

Fact: all of the statistics in the report linked by Grimpachi before my comment above are based on patients in an inpatient setting, i.e. in the hospital.

Protocols for hospitals have strict policies of not admitting positively tested or diagnosed Covid-19 patients (even sending them back home from the ER or some other location than the hospital, usually nursing homes, where residents have little chance of even getting to the ER in the first place) if their oxygen saturation is still above a certain threshold (and some other harsh criteria that still cause very sick patients to be not admitted to the hospital, protocols and policies that are adjusted towards the harsher side as things get more busy in the hospital, so that you have to be even more sick just to get admitted to the hospital).

That means, that for those who finally get into the hospital, the disease has progressed quite far, often the cytokine storm is already occurring or it's too late to avoid it or mitigate its effects significantly enough to prevent serious damage to the organs. Viral load begins to diminish at this point and antivirals like HCQ become less important than substances that can dampen the cytokine storm. These substances that can 'dampen the cytokine storm' are not included in many hospital protocols, where they are quick to resort to mechanical ventilation and painkillers instead, a.k.a. "supportive care" (but more accurately described as "horrible care" or even "murderous care" once you know the details). These are the conditions in which some patients get HCQ in hospitals, often without Azithromycin (while some others do get Azithromycin that are not getting HCQ, as brought out in the so-called "VA study"), without Zinc, without Vitamin C (also having an effect on dampening the cytokine storm by regulating the auto-immune system), without Vitamin D, and without other substances to dampen the cytokine storm or regulate the auto-immune system (while again, some others, in the imaginary 'control group' in such 'studies' as the VA one and the type Grimpachi linked to just now, do get treatments for the cytokine storm, skewering the results for HCQ + "horrible care" vs no HCQ + semi-quality care, only withholding the HCQ, including some patients where they are not so quick to resort to mechanical ventilation or not doing more damage some other way as is done with a number of those getting HCQ because of horrible protocols, etc.; add to that only giving HCQ for 5 days maximum, another way to lower the quality of care for the HCQ patients and skewer the numbers against HCQ, mostly unbeknownst to those carrying out the protocols and policies cause they are manipulated to fear giving HCQ + Azithromycin for any longer than 5 days).

Why aren't they publishing anything about outpatient statistics concerning HCQ + Azithromycin + Zinc + Vitamin C + Vitamin D + anything else specifically tailored to a well monitored patient that gets quality care all the way through, from beginning of the disease till the end (which would include treatment to dampen the cytokine storm if needed and avoidance of mechanical ventilation until the very last moment; see my earlier quotations of the EVMS in other threads, or perhaps even this one, for details as to what I'm talking about concerning oxygen saturation levels and how far they can drop before one resorts to ventilation, which can then first be HFNC and then CPAP/BiPAP, especially the latter being avoided and skipped by many a hospital protocol, and happily followed by health care workers in full PPE protection, for ungrounded conditioned fear of viral transmission, yes, while having full PPE protection already they're still worried they're gonna get it if they use CPAP/BiPAP, caring more about themselves than the damage mechanical ventilation will do to their patient and happily following the protocol thinking that those who write them are trustworthy and to be obeyed for various shady motivations and reasons, another deception to manipulate and make the corona problem worse than it has to be; as explained by the NYC nurse that I mentioned before concerning "horrible care"*).

*: ah well, might as well quote the relevant parts again now that I looked it up:

14.Escalation of respiratory support (steps); Try to avoid intubation if at all possible, (see Figure 4)
•Accept “permissive hypoxemia” (keep O2 Saturation > 84%); follow venous lactate and Central Venous O2 saturations (ScvO2) in patents with low arterial O2 saturations
•N/C 1-6 L/min•High Flow Nasal canula (HFNC) up to 60-80 L/min
•Trial of inhaled Flolan (epoprostenol)
•Attempt proning (cooperative repositioning-proning)
•Intubation ... by Expert intubator [whereislogic: compare with what the NYC nurse says again about inexperienced intubator and a "figure it out-mentality"]; Rapid sequence. No Bagging; Full PPE. Crash/emergency intubations should be avoided.
•Volume protective ventilation; Lowest driving pressure and lowest PEEP as possible. [wil: compare with what the nurse says again about that hospital using high pressure and high PEEP] Keep driving pressures < 15 cmH2O. •Moderate sedation to prevent self-extubation
•Trial of inhaled Flolan (epoprostenol)
•Prone positioning. [compare with what the nurse says again about "neglect", "they're not going into rooms", "they're not assessing the patient"]

There is widespread concern that using HFNC could increase the risk of viral transmission. There is however, no evidence to support this fear. [now compare that with what the nurse says about this fear in relation to CPAP/BiPAP and how it affects the behaviour of those carrying out the protocols that avoid CPAP/BiPAP!!! That's your biggest clue regarding what I've been talking about concerning "horrible care" and "involutary manslaughter" in aother thread] HFNC is a better option for the patient and the health care system than intubation and mechanical ventilation. CPAP/BiPAP may be used in select patients, notably those with COPD exacerbation or heart failure.
...
The above pathologies are not novel, although the combined severity in COVID-19 disease is considerable. Our long-standing and more recent experiences show consistently successful treatment if traditional therapeutic principles of early and aggressive intervention is achieved, before the onset of advanced organ failure. It is our collective opinion that the historically high levels of morbidity and mortality from COVID-19 is due to a single factor: the widespread and inappropriate reluctance amongst intensivists to employ anti-inflammatory and anticoagulant treatments, including corticosteroid therapy early in the course of a patient’s hospitalization. It is essential to recognize that it is not the virus that is killing the patient, rather it is the patient’s overactive immune system. The flames of the “cytokine fire” are out of control and need to be extinguished. Providing supportive care (with ventilators that themselves stoke the fire) and waiting for the cytokine fire to burn itself out simply does not work... this approach has FAILED and has led to the death of tens of thousands of patients.

The systematic failure of critical care systems to adopt corticosteroid therapy resulted from the published recommendations against corticosteroids use by the World Health Organization (WHO), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the American Thoracic Society (ATS) amongst others. A very recent publication by the Society of Critical Care Medicine and authored one of the members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) group (UM), identified the errors made by these organizations in their analyses of corticosteroid studies based on the findings of the SARS and H1N1 pandemics. Their erroneous recommendation to avoid corticosteroids in the treatment of COVID-19 has led to the development of myriad organ failures which have overwhelmed critical care systems across the world. ... Treating these patients with early intubation and the ARDNSnet treatment protocol will cause the disease you are trying to prevent i.e. ARDS. These patients tolerate hypoxia remarkable well, without an increase in blood lactate concentration nor a fall in central venous oxygen saturation. We therefore suggest the liberal us of HFNC, with frequent patient repositioning (proning) and the acceptance of “permissive hypoxemia”. However, this approach entails close patient observation.

Source: EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protoco l.pdf

a reply to: IAMTAT

I like a President willing to lead by example.
I'd be willing to bet plenty of Dems are also taking it as a preventative...but don't dare admit it.

Pretty much nails it for me. The President without a word shows the whole
nation he would ask nothing of us that he wouldn't do himself to beat covid
tyranny and get our nation back up and running all at once.

This is the truest form of leader a people could hope for and yet the hate marches
on.

I wonder if anyone else sees what I see. That our President only needs one weapon
to defeat these wicked people who want to enslave us all. His resilience is a miracle
in itself keeping vicious wolves at bay for three years. But it will all be for not if he
can not acquire the single most important weapon for victory.

He needs us. All we have to do to secure freedom for our children and generations
beyond that is get behind our President right now. I think he's waiting for that. For
us to descend on Washington DC and tell the criminals that DT has exposed we don't
want their socialist utopia.

We want our freedom!

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: whereislogic
...
But like I said, if the results are less than great the study is obviously wrong. I understand that now.

The point I made was not that they are "wrong" (or merely "wrong"), but that I have every reason to suspect that they are deliberately deceptive and motivated by a (materialistic, financial) desire to downplay HCQ's well-established and proven effectiveness in relation to Covid-19 (for which we don't need any further questionably motivated clinical trials that are supposed to establish that either way, it's already been well-established and proven, no amount of fancy looking supposed "golden standard" clinical trials will change that reality no matter what they say or how much the numbers are skewered or fudged against the use of HCQ in the treatment of Covid-19 and prophylactically, or outright fabricated numbers coming from proven untrustworthy physicians, scientists and a health care system that predominantly remained quiet about the so-called "VA study" or the attacks on HCQ and ongoing exaggeration of its harmfulness and side effects in comparison to its benefits in relation to Covid-19).

I'll wait till one of the publishers or those scientists whose work is published speaks out in an honest fashion concerning the so-called "VA study", where the marketing-motivated deception is so blatantly obvious, that any silence about it casts a serious doubt on the motives of any scientist or science news reporter (publisher) publishing something about HCQ's effectiveness since then (without addressing the VA issue, even actively distracting from what happened there). If they can't be honest about the "VA study", why should I think they're being any more honest now that they've dressed up their positive and negative sales-pitches in full 5-piece 'Science'-suit? That doesn't make them any more trustworthy, being honest about the VA report before the corona crisis is already on the decline does. That point of no return we have already passed and anyone who is now still silent about the duplicity and deceitfulness of the so-called "VA study", or isn't describing it at the least as "scientific fraud" like Dr. Raoult did, has lost all credibility in my eyes if they're going to report on HCQ in the future. Why can't they say something now? Or at any time since that VA report came out? Oh no, first we say, 'oh well, it wasn't peer reviewed, so we never supported it, even though we saw the media run with it as well as the intentionally misleading title and we kept quiet as we were preparing our officially sanctioned clinical trials concerning HCQ that we already know what we're going to say about', that it doesn't prove that HCQ is effective, exact same argument used now, we're just going to produce the supposed "evidence" to back up that argument by fiddling around with what we're actually looking at and how we're going to test it, not optimizing HCQ treatment in the process while taking better care of our 'control groups' (cause they're not going to deny care to these patients, they will get a different type of care than the HCQ groups, and even if that's not the case, it's still an inpatient setting, when it's too late or almost too late, and you need additional care than just HCQ for 5 days max, or just HCQ + Azithromycin + Zinc for 5 days max, the bare minimum which should be included in HCQ testing protocols, any Big Pharma + government-sanctioned clinical trial testing that at least amongst the ones you linked in the other thread?); and in so doing, covering the asses of everyone who was party to withholding HCQ + quality care (including Azithromycin, zinc, Vitamin C, Vitamin D and several other substances mentioned in the early stages in the protocol from the EVMS, as well as the substances related to 'dampening the cytokine storm' when treatment needs to change or be expanded) from Covid-19 patients or high risk potential patients (prophylactically, HCW and the elderly with underlying conditions or those who take care of them and therefore could pass it on to them because they're also not getting proper PPE or have proper PPE protocol in the nursing homes as Covid-positive patients are sent there; anything to make it worse than it has to be).

It all gets worse once you realize that before having any chance of being given HCQ in any sort of clinical trial or otherwise, you need to have a positive testresult for Covid-19, taking another 5 days extra while you're not being treated with any antiviral substances. Remember what the EVMS protocol points out? Early and aggressive treatment. If anything qualifies for that label, then that would be presciribing HCQ + Azithromycin + Zinc + Vitamin C + D3 as soon as someone calls the doctor and complains about breathing issues (perhaps even just fever). Yes, that's pretty aggressive/drastic, but that's how you optimize the effects of HCQ when you're not doing everything in your power to make HCQ fail by starting too late and stopping the regime too soon + "horrible care". And not wait until you admit someone to the hospital and the next phase of treatment should already be well on its way to dampen the cytokine storm. Those extra 5 days waiting for a testresult will have a significant impact on the effectiveness of HCQ (+ Azithromycin + supplements), which will then be reflected in the results published from clinical trials and skewer those results against the use of HCQ (+ Azi + supp.), making it look less effective than it really is. Any delay will do that. Just like poor follow-up treatment and stopping HCQ too soon when the patient still needs it (not tailored per patient, not patient specific, but following the 5-day FDA recommended protocol, or at most 5-7 days; already neglecting a treatment to dampen the cytokine storm to work in conjunction with HCQ reducing the viral load and things like proper "close patient observation" as the EVMS puts it, to make adjustments on the spot, do the right things at the right time, and not letting patients "rot" because you are trying to follow the protocol of the clinical trial without adding other treatments to the mix, because you supposedly still need that type of testing data for HCQ or HCQ + Azi specifically, so they go straight from that treatment to mechanical ventilation without anything else in between more specific to the situation of the patient). The "rot" quotation is from the NYC nurse's video again, I recon my commentary can be hard to follow and easy to read something else into when one does not read it in light of what that nurse mentions and as it compares to the EVMS protocol or things mentioned therein. This nurse:

The "horrible care" quote can be heard at the end, which I agree with wholeheartedly, in some cases and under some conditions (when people should know better but don't because of neglect and taking the evidence for HCQ's effectiveness and how and when it should be used not very seriously and blindly trusting the wrong 'experts' on this point, the ones who can't stop talking about "ventricular arrhythmia" when that hasn't been a problem in even 1 case of all the over 3000 patients treated with HCQ+Azithromycin at the IHU hospital in Marseille, and the many hundreds of patients treated in an outpatient setting, never been an issue before in all the years HCQ and many other drugs that also can cause ventricular arrhythmia have been widely usedwithout anyone feeling the need to emphasize that side effect related to QT prolongation, raise any alarm bells about, constantly use as an argument against using these drugs or pit it against the supposedly "unproven" benefits, which would be much more apprpoiate to point out regarding the actual unproven benefits of the psych drugs that so many people are prescribed and taking like candy, that also cause qt prolongation; but then you don't hear anything from Big Pharma, their physician and scientist lap dogs and their marketeer mainstream media whose airtime they are buying up)

Title is:
Whistleblower NYC Nurse claims the city is 'murdering' COVID-19 patients "Patients are left to rot"

originally posted by: Phage

a reply to: whereislogic

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

originally posted by: Phage

Got any bets on who will win the 2022 Super Bowl?

Make it "expectation" instead of "prediction" then. Any more funny remarks in the database (or in store) if I express it as an expectation instead?

"You're a funny man...huh? A very funny man."

Or would you prefer this version?

My comment, or one of them at least (the short one), will probably be removed again while yours stays, even though it only has 4 short slogan-like sentences with little content to trigger the usual effects and pre-programmed way of thinking about the sciences, eg. as to what qualifies as sufficient scientific evidence for the statement that "HCQ is well-established and proven to be effective in the treatment of Covid-19", and what doesn't qualify under the marketingbanner "Science" as proper evidence for the definitive statements of publications such as the "VA study" and their accompanying news article titles such as "Hydroxychloroquine, chloroquine linked to increased risk of death in hospitalized coronavirus patients, study finds"; nicely vague, so does eating too many eggs, anyone arguing you can't have any eggs at all when you have corona? That's what they're doing with HCQ though. Or take the CQ example from Brazil, give too much, then point out the harmful result of giving too much, or not properly monitoring patients to adjust the treatment accordingly, such as switching from Azithromycin to Doxycycline, or better yet, CQ to HCQ, taken in lesser quantities; which by then, concerning that Brazil study, was already long known to be more effective and less toxic than CQ, so why do the study with CQ? And then give way too much? Are you deliberately sabotaging the results? Are we supposed to believe this is incompetence? It has all the hallmarks of being deliberate when done by those who not only know all this stuff, but who are also supposed to know all this stuff. Just like with the FDA guidelines and consequent hospital protocols that cause HCQ to be given when it's too late or nearly too late. They all know HCQ is supposed to be given as early as possible, rather sooner than later, and that viral load will diminish and therefore be less of an issue once people are admitted to the hospital with ongoing or oncoming cytokine storms. Dr. Raoult and a whole set of early published studies concerning HCQ already made this clear. Why are they pretending to be deaf to this information as to how to use HCQ effectively? Why are they preventing that type of use of HCQ in their guidelines and protocols that limit the use of HCQ to an inpatient setting, and then often only in officially sanctioned clinical trials, the ones they can control closely and not the type a general practitioner might want to setup to actually help patients and not make HCQ fail?

Can Post-Exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 Be Considered as an Outbreak Response Strategy in Long-Term Care Hospitals? - PubMed

...2020 Apr 17...
...
Abstract

... post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) for COVID-19. After a large COVID-19 exposure event in an LTCH in Korea, PEP using hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) was administered to 211 individuals, including 189 patients and 22 careworkers, whose baseline polymerase chain reaction (PCR) tests for COVID-19 were negative. PEP was completed in 184 (97.4%) patients and 21 (95.5%) careworkers without serious adverse events. At the end of 14 days of quarantine, all follow-up PCR tests were negative. ...

100% prophylaxis succes-rate. Much better than some flu vaccins at 10% effectiveness and high toxicity or other concerning side effects at that %. And we've been having a lot better success with flu vaccins than corona vaccins at 0% effectivity for the past 17 years of research (since SARS-CoV-1).

a reply to: whereislogic

From that very study.

In this study, there were no additional confirmed cases among exposed patients and caregivers; however, it is not clear whether PEP was effective because there was no control group.

Randomized clinical studies are needed to evaluate whether PEP is an effective option for an outbreak response strategy against COVID-19 in LTCHs.

www.sciencedirect.com...
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...

Actually reading the study can be helpful in clearing up misunderstandings about what the findings actually represent. Sometimes some secondary or later sources don't encourage that sort of thing.

a reply to: Phage

And none of that changes the 100% effectiveness results in the numbers. 211 people given HCQ prohylactically after exposure to the corona virus (205 completed), 0 people showing signs of the virus after 2 weeks.

No need for a control group or randomized clinical studies to confirm those numbers. Actually accepting honest statistics without looking for the exit may help in clearing up misunderstandings what these statistics actually represent:

clear and convincing evidence that HCQ has significant prophylactic benefits in relation to Covid-19.

No matter how much people want to nag about control groups and randomized clinical studies, even if the authors set that up as an excuse themselves (without literally spelling it out but handing that straw to those who want to grasp at straws to avoid acknowledging the above, for example by using convenient selective denial according to the philosophy of vagueness), not going to change a damn thing about what the statistics are already clearly showing. With 99% efficiency there should have been around 2 people contracting the virus with those numbers. Compare that with the 10% efficiency of some flu vaccins that have been marketed and sold by your buddies and programmers in recent years (without mentioning that 10% efficieny number to patients they are marketing these vaccins to, not a word about it).

Like I said before, if you're just going to repeat their arguments and talking points, at least try to get some money out of it like those who worked on the VA report did. Don't be just their chatbot.

Only the statistics (numbers) matter here, not the fluff opinions around it that you felt the need to emphasize. The numbers don't lie. Coming from a former (assistent) accountant who studied economics for the financial sector and marketing. A common phrase in those circles.

But hey, way to be predictable, as I was reading the abstract, I knew people like you would focus on the parts I decided not to quote for the reasons stipulated above, only the numbers (statistics) should matter; but some people can't resist grasping at straws to deny the obvious. Next up: '211 (205) is not enough or 2 weeks is not enough' (for the conclusion I drew from it concerning "clear and convincing evidence"*; apparently not even when considered in light of all the related evidence concerning HCQ as prophylaxis, in vitro being almost as telling as in vivo, likewise, the research into CQ compared to HCQ, and SARS-CoV-1 compared to SARS-CoV-2, a.k.a. Covid-19, which still uses the same ACE2 receptor and same issues with viral replication when HCQ is ready for the fight inside the cell, already having made alterations to the Ph-level to hamper viral replication, among other useful things HCQ does in that regards).

*: a terminology also used by the AAPS (quoted before in this thread I think:

Dear Governor Ducey:

This concerns your Executive Order forbidding prophylactic use of chloroquine (CQ) or hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) unless peer-reviewed evidence becomes available.

Attached and posted here (cqhcqresearch) is a summary of peer-reviewed evidence, indexed in PubMed, concerning the use of CQ and HCQ against coronavirus. We believe that there is clear and convincing evidence of benefit both pre-exposure and post-exposure.
...
... Many nations, including Turkey and India, are protecting medical workers and contacts of infected persons prophylactically. According to worldometers.info, deaths per million persons from COVID-19 as of Apr 27 are 167 in the U.S., 33 in Turkey, and 0.6 in India.

Based on this evidence, we request that you rescind your Executive Orders impeding the use of CQ and HCQ and further order that administrative agencies not impose any requirements on the prescription of CQ, HCQ, azithromycin, or other drugs intended to treat or prevent coronavirus illness that do not apply equally to all approved medications that may be used off-label for any purpose.

Respectfully,

Michael J. A. Robb, M.D.
President, Arizona State Chapter of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Jane M. Orient, M.D.
Executive Director, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

CC Speaker Rusty Bowers, Rep. Warren Petersen, Rep. Nancy Barto, Sen. Karen Fann, Sen. Rick Gray, and Sen. Kate Brophy-McGee

Attachments:
...
The probabilities of clinical success using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc against the novel betacoronavirus, COVID-19, revised Apr 26, 2020 hcqtable

Source: AAPS Letter Asking Gov. Ducey to Rescind Executive Order concerning hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19

originally posted by: whereislogic
a reply to: whereislogic
Here are some of the details in video-format for those who are not allergic to honest information about the subject because they prefer falsehoods (darkness, "men have loved the darkness rather than the light", see John 3:19,20) or holding on to those, claiming or feigning ignorance regarding the evidence that proves these falsehoods/lies wrong.

Part 2 has a nice state by state overview of the regulations and restrictions (many of which are applicable to when a doctor is allowed to prescribe it or not, otherwise be shunned as a heretic and lose their license over it if they defy these regulations and restrictions and prescribe it anyway; if they aren't already blocked at the apothecary level who won't release it to the patients even if their doctor prescribed it to them):

...

The videos above have been removed from youtube because of pressure from those that have no problem with any positive video about Remdesivir, the Japanese HIV drugs, supplements that just won't do the trick well enough, vaccins that have a trackrecord of 17 years of 0% efficiency, i.e. total failure, 'end the lockdown' videos, videos that nag about the economic impact of lockdowns, videos about bleach, videos about HCQ being administered without Axithromycin, or without zinc (or without a relating amount of copper), or without Vitamin C or without Vitamin D3, videos that speak about there being a supposed shortage of HCQ, etc.

But they can still be found here:

Dr. Ban's Videos & Tutorials

The 2 videos above are called:

Is there REALLY a shortage of Hydroxychloroquine? Part 1: Timeline, Legality & Access (Doc Talk with Dr. Ban Episode 31 and 32)

The short answer is no, but they're hoarding and holding it back anyway, blocking access unless they can control that it's administered too late under conditions of "horrible care" and in the wrong way so that it looks less efficient and the statistics are skewered (often by means of regulations that limit the use of HCQ to officially sanctioned clinical trials or other regulations and guidelines limiting and influencing access and duration a Covid-19 patient can get it; it's a long story that I went into about before, so I'll leave it at that; the videos explain much better, especially in light of another video I shared in my comment that I was quoting from above).

Now if there was someone out there that can upload videos longer than 15 minutes to youtube (or has a video editor to quickly chop up longer videos into 15 minute-parts), and feels like they have a bit of time on their hands (you're supposed to stay in anyway), they can download those videos there (there is a download button on Dr. Ban's website) and re-upload some of the crucial ones to youtube. It's a bit of effort (unless you're quite familiar with video editors or can just upload videos longer than 15 minutes to youtube), but you'd be doing me, and possibly many others a great service. The most crucial videos are, in order of importance:

Hydroxychloroquine treatment for Covid-19 patients - OAN interview part 1 - Doc Talk w Dr. Ban Ep.33

also part 2 and 3 (Ep. 34 and 35)

Hydroxychloroquine treatment for Covid-19 Case Studies for Doctors - Doc Talk with Dr. Ban Episode 26

The 2 videos (especially part 1) about the intentionally false impression given by the media, government, bureaucrats, scientists, health care sector (predominantly, those with clout, those seen on TV, those with a succesful career and prominent positions, a reputation to defend and market/promote) and others that there is a supposed shortage of HCQ (and the related argument that HCQ shouldn't be used for Covid-19 patients otherwise the Lupus and Rheuma patients get in trouble, when they are simply being hampered from access by the same intentional hoarding regulations to make sure they don't get enough, and nothing at all if they have been recently diagnosed and prescribed HCQ for those diseases, again, long story). Leaving out the inconvenient detail about how easy it is to make more HCQ in large quantities that could provide HCQ prophylactically for millions of people easily, and certainly plenty for Covid-19 patients or suspected Covid-19 patients (those still waiting for a testresult). And could have been used that way in the past 2 months as well.

Covid-19 Treatment - Respiratory Distress case studies - Doc Talk with Dr. Ban Episode 37
Hydroxychloroquine and Prolonged QT - What are the dangers Doc Talk with Dr. Ban Ep.39
Coronavirus There is a treatment - Doc Talk with Dr. Ban Episode 22
Coronavirus Impact! How Public Health Guidance can make people more vulnerable - Doc Talk with Dr. Ban podcast Episode 16

That would be so awesome if someone could upload those to youtube and share the link here.

HCQ works great. Proven conclusively. "Clear and convincing evidence" as the AAPS puts it. No clinical trials needed to establish that already well-established reality/fact/truth/certainty.

So, now you've got all threads with something actually important in them situated together on this subforum.

Now if only you people would start ignoring the other distracting and often misleading crap. Wake up for real for a change!

M'Kay?

a reply to: whereislogic

as the AAPS puts it.

This AAPS?

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is a conservative non-profit association founded in 1943. The group was reported to have about 5,000 members in 2014. The association advocates a range of scientifically discredited hypotheses, including the belief that HIV does not cause AIDS, that being gay reduces life expectancy, that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer, and that there is a causal relationship between vaccines and autism.

en.wikipedia.org...

No, thank you very much. Their endorsement does little for me.

a reply to: Phage

As usual, the discrediting game by using a patsy like Trump is not going to change the reality of the matter.

It'll work wonders though on those who already want to believe HCQ hasn't been proven "absolutely effective". The AAPS, just like Trump, can say anything that is true, and it won't make it a lie just because they also tell lies and have crazy ideas. But I would take information from wikipedia with a grain of salt anyway, they have a tendency to put words in people's mouth, just like you did in my thread on the origins & creationism forum with the 'are you saying'-routine.

He stopped taking his drugs.
So he says.

for now he decided to just say no to those drugs.

I think they were messing with his balance, high heels and shoe lifts are a challenge I suppose, under ordinary circumstances.

originally posted by: carsforkids
Pretty much nails it for me. The President without a word shows the whole nation he would ask nothing of us that he wouldn't do himself to beat covid

Leading by example from a position of great influence would be admirable if the example wasn't so idiotic. Telling the nation you're taking a drug with potentially serious side effects to prevent covid is astonishingly irresponsible, the more so when the current scientific consensus is that it is ineffective.

a reply to: whereislogic

The most crucial videos from Dr. Ban are back online, updated in this playlist:

Real frontline reports: Help with Corona/Covid-19, treatment for Covid-19/Corona (Hydroxychloroquine + Zinc + Azithromycin/Zithromax/Z-pack)

For example, this one (now 3) I used in this thread concerning restrictive regulations:

Or this one concerning the difference between the flu or common cold and covid-19, also to get an idea what kind of patients are denied admittal to the hospital by the ER and send home where they will infect their families, and a reminder that the corona virus also seriously affects young people, don't underestimate it, don't take it lightly because you think it only kills old people (as per the media programming emphasizing that point, conveniently downplaying the perminent lung damage it can do to young people as well, or not paying much attention to it, not feeling the need to emphasize that issue as they try to get people to infect eachother again by manipulating their behaviour and attitudes towards the corona virus; again, all part of the plan to make the corona problem a bigger problem than it otherwise would be):

And these 2 (now broken up into multiple parts) were the most important ones, remember the phrase "fever gone":


2 more parts for that one (see playlist)

5 more parts for that one, the most crucial information and points being made starting somewhere halfway (I gave exact time frames for the key points in the OAN interview previously, perhaps even in this thread).