5 Filters

Latest meta-analysis of HCQ studies shows increased mortality

[This is a reply to Alananda’s last message. I thought the system would automatically indicate that fact - because this message was posted using the system’s “Reply” button - but it doesn’t seem to do so, except when I use the “Quote” button.]

1. It “is” confusing to “use” quotation marks in a non-standard way “without” explanation. Anyway, I take it “you” weren’t actually denying the existence of “the” virus, “after” all. (I’m being snarky, as I’m sure you understand!) :wink:

2. When I try to download the article referred to, I only get an error message:

The page you are requesting is currently unavailable. We’re sorry for any inconvenience this issue has caused. Please check back in the future as it is possible that this issue will be resolved.

Thank you for visiting www.fda.gov

3.

I’m sorry, I can’t follow your argument. Perhaps someone will explain it to me.

4.

One again, I’m not clear what you’re saying. As you seem to have clarified that you are not denying the existence of the virus, then perhaps you are saying that the virus is not known to cause the disease known as COVID-19?

(I do seem to recall similar claims being made about AIDS and HIV, but, as with COVID-19 and SARS-CoV-2, I haven’t taken the trouble to become well-informed on the topic.)

If I’m just being thick, or inexcusably ignorant, then perhaps someone will tell me so. (Preferably gently, and without descending to Lifeboat levels of rudeness!)

5.

So you are denying its existence, after all! This is really confusing.

6. I’m completely bewildered by the fact that you have chosen to raise the topic of bioweapons, while simultaneously appearing repeatedly to deny the existence of the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

Am I the only one here who is confused by Alananda’s posts on this topic?

I’m on the verge of giving up, especially because dicussion of this one admittedly important topic seems to be swamping the forum. (Still, it’s early days.)

Hi @Twirlip!

So, the threading in this place is a little confusing sometimes. You should see a little arrow appear to the person you are replying to (in the top left, just above the reply box), but it’s also possible to just add a generic reply to the bottom of the list, depending which reply button you click on… It gets a little less confusing with time!

As far as Covid goes, I agree that it seems to be dominating the board at the moment. I think that’s because (a) it’s fairly high up on folks list of stuff that’s affecting them right now, and (b) due to the crazy covfefe on (whisper it) the other place quite a few hackles have been raised, and folk seem to want to discharge that particular build up of energy over here. I hope that once the charge has been spent, we will get a more balanced set of subject to chew on. Oh, and ( c) there’s a wide spectrum of high-stakes action being taken by a large number of governments across the world, leading to a good degree of speculation about what’s actually going on!

From my reading of my fellow posters on this board, I see three groups represented here:

  • Those who see this new virus as a real public health threat that has caused a large amount of suffering and death.
  • Those who reckon that this new virus is spreading widely and making some people ill, but that it is far, far less dangerous than is being described in the media, and represents much less of a threat than it is portrayed to be
  • Those who simply either don’t believe that there is a new virus at all and/or that the virus doesn’t cause any new disease - i.e. the whole thing is a multi-government hoax towards some unspeakably nefarious ends. This is what government do quite often, after all!

There are all kinds of fun sub-groups within those basic categories (a single person can be a few sub-groups all by themselves!). Personally, I am still in the first category. I do believe that there have been a large number of deaths, and there is a large contingent of people who are now struggling with long-term health problems due to this virus. I am also still naive enough to believe that masks can slow down transmission of the virus, and that social distancing (as part of a wider program of action) can make sense.

My hope is that this place will be able to accommodate a wide range of viewpoints on this and any given subject. The goal is good-natured discussion, even when we disagree. A pretty damn rare thing on these here interwebs, but hey. If a leftie-anarchist can’t also be a techno-utupian, then what they hell is life all about?

In the meantime, please don’t give up! There is more to life (and possibly death, but who really knows?) than Covid! Let’s keep the momentum going, and hopefully a wider range of topics will start to emerge on this board. Space enough for all of us!

Cheers good buddy! Come say hi on a different thread if you are suffering Covid-fatigue! I’ll buy you a beverage of your choice on the house.

xx

All I see is the grey “Reply” rectangle, containing an arrow. When I click on that, I also see a small arrow next to your user name (“Admin”) above the composition window, but when I click on that, the options I see in a pop-up box are:

  • Reply as linked topic: create a new topic linked to this message
  • New message: create a new personal message
  • Reply to topic: reply to the topic, not any specific post

none of which is what I want to do.

Another problem: I wanted to put a dash at the start of that phrase (“none of which is what I want to do”), but it caused Markdown to regard the phrase as another item in the list, even though I had not used the bullet point character (an asterisk) I had chosen for the list items. It did that even when I left a blank line after the list.

After posting my last message, I realised that my last paragraph was ambiguous, and it might give the impression that I’m on the verge of giving up on the new forum. I see it has indeed given that impression.

I’m sorry! That was far from what I meant. I’m greatly cheered to have this new place to go to, even when I have nothing much to say myself (the usual case). I only meant that I fear this particular conversation between me and another user doesn’t appear to be going anywhere. I’ll try not to push it unnecessarily, but I had to respond, because no-one else had voiced the puzzlement I was feeling.

P.S. Whisky, please! Tamnavulin is nice.

1 Like

By the way, what’s a covfefe?

I feel very thick-skulled today! Sorry if I’m missing a joke.

Ive not tried a Tamnavulin… I am partial to Talisker though… hmmm

Twirlip, let’s try one more go 'round on this. I shall reply to your numbered excerpts and comments.

  1. Quotation marks are no more or less meaningful than the emoticons you use. Context usually explicates their use. “Snark marks” do convey a sarcastic undertone. Other uses of quotation marks include singling out a term of art or phrase others employ, signaling that one does not necessarily accept the term without reservation. I suppose whole chapters on writing styles deal with proper, accepted uses of quotation marks (cf. The Chicago Manual of Style).

  2. A search on the web with identify and gain access to the FDA document I referenced.

  3. The shift from concern over COVID as a lethal virus with a high death rate to concern over numbers of “COVID cases”, perhaps a majority without symptoms, was abrupt and notable. Suppose I find two dead birds killed with a single stone. Talk about a high death count from a single rock! Then I do a survey of all the birds hit with rocks thrown by young boys. I even capture a representative sample of a flock of birds, some dead, some injured, some not, and test to verify they sustained a hit by a stone. Now I have many more birds in the sample, and when I calculate a death rate, it goes way down – from 2/2 to perhaps 5/1,000,000. BUT, instead of dead birds, I count birds hit by stones, some injured, some not, I get a much higher number in the numerator, say, 1,200/1,000,000! Same with COVID statistics.

  4. I am not saying either (a) COVID-19 does not exist or (b) COVID-19 does exist, whether natural or man-made. The proper scientific determination has either NOT been done or, if done, NOT REPORTED

  5. As a scientist (yes, I am), I cannot conclude with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, that “COVID-19” as commonly discussed exists. As practiced, Science does not, cannot prove a negative. I understand that medical professionals have encountered cases where patients exhibit symptomology either unusually severe or not seen previously. I have to defer to their judgement as to the reality of clinically encountered COVID cases. That’s beyond my expertise and practice.

  6. It is no secret that Level 4 “biosafety” laboratories engage in research on bioweapons. Presuming such a discrete entity exists, possibly rapidly mutating into many different “strains”, I conclude no one has done the necessary studies to determine whether or not the “SARS-CoV-2 virus” [sorry] is a man-made bioweapon – in the US or China or elsewhere. In my view, that uncertainty plays to the advantage of The Power$ That Be. As Hillary Clinton (in)famously exclaimed during a hearing into the murder of US citizens in Libya, “What difference, at this point, does it make?!”

Tried my best here, Twirlip!

I can’t reply at length now, but your point 3 is a lot clearer now, and I’ll make an effort to digest it. On point 2, I did try searching for the FDA document, but gave up (probably too soon) when I got the same error message from two slightly different URLs. I’ll try to dig up a couple of references to refute your points 4 and 6. I think we’ll have to agree to differ over point 1. I can’t quite make sense of point 5, but perhaps the penny will drop later, so there’s no need to reply now.

Hi Alananda

Further down you distinguish between deaths (real) and cases (objectively defined, due to nature of testing). So I see where you are coming from regarding the present situation of increasing cases but decreased deaths, but yet a lot of worry about the cases.
But why would Drs Raoult and Zelenko, of all doctors, stand out as examples of uncritical acceptance? They treat symptomatic people who walk into their clinics, to prevent them from becoming death statistics. Zelenko says he doesn’t test them because the delay usually causes patients to enter the cytokine storm phase. Both have accused their respective establishments of mass murder or crimes against humanity. In the video posted by Rhisiart, Raoult himself accuses medical authorities - telling the world that HCQ is suddenly dangerous after 60 years, and doesn’t work for covid-19 - of not being real doctors. So they seem to have their feet firmly on their own ground, which they staked out at the beginning.

Your issue is really about the present fuss about testing. Do you know you can start a new thread? Cheers

I do not have any insight into data or motives of Drs. Raoult and Zelenko. I do not judge these individuals one way or the other. They represent themselves as hands-on physicians treating people in immediate distress, some with life-threatening conditions, including co-morbidities. I do call into question their assumption(s) – if indeed they made such – that each and all of their patients were “COVID patients”. With no reliable test to verify the presence and amount of presumed COVID-19, how would they really know what they are treating with their protocols?

Whatever works, do it. They worked wonders, according to their reports!

I observe that both came onto the COVID scene (stage?) at a high level of dialectic. For example, we could describe this layer as COVID REAL Treatment A | COVID REAL Treatment B (C, D, and E). Central to this layer was the controversy over HCQ.

You will recall POTUS Trump was instrumental in getting this controversy started politically, backboarding off people with TDS. Ironically, Fauci (see the NIH paper 2005 about chloroquine and SARS!) got caught in the middle, flip-flopping like a fish on dry deck. The discourse became so conflicting, so confusing, most people outside modern medicine could make neither heads nor tails of it. By design, I suggest, for consideration and thoughtful reflection.

About this same time, of course, you have the VACCINE FOR COVID rumor mills ginned up. The dialectic morphed quickly to COVID Real Easy and Inexpensive to Treat | COVID Real Requires Vaccine. Or worse: Nonspecific testing and monitoring (temperature 100.4 or higher), you be COVID positive, subject to special treatment(s). If the “easy and inexpensive to treat” side goes down to defeat, then those behind the vaccine, vaccination certificates, and the like win – SOLUTION!

Thus and so, being a paranoid CONs’ Piracy theorist, I hold suspect, subject to verification, two of the more vocal, visible proponents that kept the “debate over HCQ” alive while affirming the reality of COVID-19, along with the much more maligned (set up to fail?) “America’s Frontline Doctors”. I also observe that Dr. Raoult, however excellently he may perform as a knowledgeable, caring physician, would not go over well among Americans conditioned to distrust “hippies” and hippie-looking men of his age!

Full disclosure – when I let my hair down, I look like Dr. Raoult, my beard longer!

Thanks Alananda, I might comment further on your conspiracy theory if it’s on another thread - this thread was specifically about a new medical paper.

I understand. Your deployment of the pejorative (now hackneyed phrase conspiracy theory speaks volumes about your viewpoint of my contributions here thus far. Mind you, self-admittedly, I do research and celebrate the discovery of CONs’ Piracies, among which COVID-19 appears one. I point out that so-labelled “conspiracy theories” tend over time to morph into conspiracy facts, as you may appreciate in other domains (e.g., the murder of JFK, 9-11, 7-7, 3-11-11).

The “new medical paper” served as one, very minor counterpoint – easily refuted – to positions advanced by Drs. Raoult and Zelenko as well as the media-amplified debut of “America’s Frontline Doctors” – each and all focused on the practical administration and results of treatment with hydroxychloroquine (plus other medications administered concurrently). If that’s the very small sector of COVID Times this thread is to address, then, yes, I shall depart as of now for another, perhaps new and more broadly defined thread!

My apologies for the intrusion!!

No worries. I never use the term conspiracy theory or theorist dismissively, I only used it as you had. See you on the other side!

Sorry I haven’t had time to comment or even seen this interesting discussion on which I’ll just say two, or three things now.
First I fall strongly into the middle group in your useful categorisation - and always in line with my leading light in this disinformation plague - Prof D Raoult. Second is what has been going on in Marseilles over the last three days, with a presser held with Raoult and the female Mayor of Marseilles having some cognitive disjunction, despite its sympathetic treatment of the situation. Cases in the south around Marseilles have been increasing as a hot spot of some kind, presumably partly because of summer tourism/August holidays, and this has been an opportunity for Paris to push back against Raoult’s successes and attacks on their failure, and responsibility for deaths following the banning of HCQ.
The day after Raoult’s presser, French health minister Olivier Veran came to Marseilles and found himself in the same room as Prof Raoult, and behaved quite obnoxiously, listening but arguing with him and then turning away without any grace, leaving Raoult looking like some member of the public who’d just asked a difficult question. It’s in this context that we should see this piece of “research” from France - no different from the fraudulent Lancet study in essence.

What Raoult is trying to point out is that the large rise in cases in France is not accompanied by any rise in deaths at all, and the effects of the virus on the LRT are different. I have a feeling I said this before, somewhere! Was it on TLN even, or in an email? But anyway it needs repeating!

Hi Alananda - and “vive les barbe’s”! Raoult is unusual amongst the French, who are not great beard wearers, nor longish haired, but one shouldn’t be distracted by appearances. He is the world’s foremost expert on communicable diseases, on the number of published papers, and his experience and wisdom shows in every video he has recorded over the last six months, often predicting things that turn out to be true - such as that children act as a reservoir of coronaviruses and help “immunise” their parents, or that the virus was likely to change and become less virulent, and would die out as all epidemics do - (unless we take actions to stop it spreading and developing herd immunity, as it is now in India and probably elsewhere)
I’ve written half a dozen articles about the plague for AHT, including my “american Genie” - which is the leading conspiracy theory, in the absence of others. I still believe the virus was released accidentally from Fort Detrick, but intentionally introduced into Wuhan, but some think it was released intentionally.
Yesterday I wrote to the ABC which has done a series of programmes on “patient zero” and next week will tell us who they think that was for CV19 (we can guess). Yesterday’s programme was very interesting for what it revealed about the ability to identify an unknown disease 13 years ago. I’ll post the email I sent here for interest, fwiw. And if I get a reply from the HCQ denying, bat-shit crazy China virus ABC I’ll post that too…

Below is the letter I sent to the ABC after hearing Patient Zero yesterday, which you can hear here - it is a fascinating study in detective work and science:

Dear Olivia, Joel,

I listened to part 3 of “Patient Zero” this morning with some fascination, and some empathy with the researchers who were determined to pursue the search for something they couldn’t see but which logic suggested must be there. Often such research is necessitated by a coincidence which is simply too improbable to not be a connection, and indeed one could say that the essence of scientific and statistical analysis is in “connecting coincidences”.

I have a particular sympathy with these researchers as I seem to spend my days following leads and investigating such events, despite the overwhelming tide of opinion against me. You may call me a “conspiracy analyst” – but not a “theorist”, as conspiracy is the life-blood of global affairs nowadays. It’s only a matter of whose conspiracy theory one believes.

I don’t happen to believe in the conspiracy theory that some invisible supernatural being (whatever that might be) is controlling our world and bestowing favours on the pious, despite the lack of any evidence, but several billion people do. Instead I have my own conspiracy theory about the origins of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, as roughly laid out in this article from May 15th. (and with which several billion people disagree!)

I’m looking forward to hearing your own conclusions on “patient zero” for CV19 next week, though I don’t expect them to consider my particular suggestion or accept that our closest ally could be so malicious and mendacious, despite all the evidence that this is their normal modus operandi.

However, I hope that you will “hear me out”, and consider the details of my purely scientific proposal – being one that can explain some of the problematic details of the origins and nature of the novel Coronavirus. I hope particularly that you will consider this simple scientific proposal – that the CDC did NOT “fail to identify” the causative agent of the outbreak of severe respiratory disease at Greensprings Retirement village in July 2019, as described in this report from the ABC: (also linked in my article)

ABC news on Fairfax County Greensprings outbreak, July 12th 2019:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/respiratory-outbreak-investigated-retirement-community-54-residents-fall/story?id=64275865

  • and also here in the Washington Post July 18th 2019 behind paywall:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/07/17/third-person-has-died-after-respiratory-illness-outbreak-greenspring-village-fairfax-officials-say/

As I wrote in May, it was simply not believable that the CDC could fail to identify a virus that caused a serious outbreak and deaths in an aged care facility, but listening to today’s “patient zero” made me appreciate just how unbelievable this claim really was. As you described the identification of the novel Adanavirus using DNA sequencing techniques which are now standard practice, it would have been a simple matter to do such tests on residents and staff and identify the new SARS virus, and we may assume that this is exactly what the CDC did.

As I also note, the CDC director Robert Redford testified in Senate questioning that cases of a serious influenza had been noticed in late 2019, months before the virus was officially recorded in Washington state, and before it was identified in Wuhan. It is hardly surprising that this statement was picked up quickly by Chinese FM spokesman Lijian Zhao, with his clear demand to the US to tell China who was the US patient zero.

Early genotyping also indicated that there appeared to be five separate strains of the virus in Wuhan in early December, with implications it had been circulating for a period before the supposed patient zero in Wuhan. I imagine that your focus will be on how this patient zero picked up the virus, noting that he did not have contact with the wet market. In my analysis and that of others also, it seems likely that the virus was introduced to the market by the visiting US team at the military games, being a place much visited by tourists, but it appears to have been circulating amonst staff at the hotel before that.

( the sudden reappearance of the SARS 2 virus in the Beijing market, apparently originating in imported Norwegian salmon and identified as a different European strain must raise questions of similar “foul-play” in both “coincidental” occurrences)

While such facilities are not available to me, I wonder if you may inquire of the US CDC to provide its report on the Greensprings outbreak – or at least to make the request. It may be assumed that not only did the CDC rapidly identify the suspect virus – as an escape from Fort Detrick – but that it made some attempt to discover the real “patient zero” who transferred it to Greensprings. When you look at the ways by which the virus has escaped the hotel quarantine in Melbourne, and ended up in aged-care homes, you might conclude that a similar route was followed in Fairfax county – perhaps with a cleaning contractor, or perhaps serviceman with a relative at the home.

But because of the unusual characteristics of the virus in mostly being mild and asymptomatic, the wider spread through the community was almost inevitable – as indeed it is now in most places around the world. Equally as now, it would have gone mostly unnoticed and undetected until the colder weather arrived.

I would be very glad if you could acknowledge receipt of my email, and delighted if you respond.

with regards,



David Macilwain,

PS: I should add a “disclaimer” – as you will see I have written many “contrarian” articles on this and other geopolitical problems for American Herald Tribune, which is a serious independent alternative journal. I do not subscribe to “civil-rights” on mask wearing – though I don’t believe masks work; I don’t see any conceivable connection between 5G and Coronavirus but do believe it is genetically engineered and possibly intended as a bio-weapon, and I do believe that the campaign against Hydroxychloroquine is a criminal act sponsored by “Big Pharma” and its many agents in science and government, including our own health minister Greg Hunt.

I agree but for different reasons. As as the HCQ controversy started and it was withdrawn from every pharmacy in France when it had been an over the counter medicine for years, my natural scepticism made an instant decision. As they say, if it walks like a duck, swims and goes quack, quack, quack, then its a duck. Whatever HCQ’s efficacy at any point of usage, the only logical explanation for its withdrawal, had to be a big pharma play.

Personally (and perhaps foolishly or misguided), I’m still a believer in vitamins C, D and zinc

Never apologise for believing in the vitamins, Pat - especially the big C! These are anciently-proven good things for your health, and to strengthen your immune system. Though in the topic here at 5F on Chris Martenson’s dissection of some shill-doctor’s efforts to negate the truth about the effective cures for covid already tried and tested in clinical practice, you’ll see an example of an allegedly competent pro. trying to slag them as ‘ineffective and possibly dangerous’. He even utters the ridiculous notion that the immune system ‘can’t be strengthened by dietary supplements’. Utter tosh, of course.

This rubbish suggests strongly that the ‘doctor’ issuing it is either scandalously ill-informed for an MD purporting to publish professionally-competent medical advice, or he’s outright shilling for bribes, for the BigPh racketeers. Chris demolishes his rubbish comprehensively anyway.

For more - actually honest, properly informed, and reliable - details about these matters, see Andrew Saul’s website: Doctoryourself.com.

PS: You may have seen already my brief account of what I believe to be my infection with covid. In a nutshell: feeling just slightly ropey for three days, with a selection of the covid symptoms; zapped it with 30 grams - sic! - per day of powdered sodium ascorbate (vitC) in water, stirred and sipped every quarter hour, pretty well round the clock (though I did sleep as well; but keeping my system soaked in C by divided doses, as Andrew recommends); better in three days, though with occasional rumbles of the symptoms still fleeting by for a couple of days more, what time I was back on my regular regimen of two-to-three grams per day of timed-release C tabs. No bad illness, no noticeable aftermath. And no consultations with the de facto absentee health service during the whole incident.

They’re not actually different reasons Pat - as this all started with Pepe Escobar’s article - which I imagine you also read! But I did then go into the research in some detail, and particularly Raoult’s first study, which he rightly saw as leading the way and made it available immediately. What happened then included him receiving death threats from another academic who had a particular interest in Gilead and Remdesevir - they were funding his research. Raoult says that all the academics and others attacking him and trying to denigrate HCQ treatment have financial interests in GILEAD, and I believe this is the case here in Australia also, thanks to a totally corrupt health minister who has been an intermediary for drug companies to get overpriced special medicines paid for by the taxpayer… "this would normally cost $100,000 for a course, but the government will make it available for just $23 a month to sufferers of… " - add some obscure disease you never heard of before. The intensity of the campaign against HCQ is starting to make me believe that this really is a “conspiracy” driven by health and security companies and their pocket pols, as RG calls them!
Interestingly Raoult’s institute seems intricately connected with “Neurosatis” - which is a holistic health programme with a strong basis in strengthening your immune system. One of Raoult’s most interesting comments recently was how it is important to be positive, to think positively, as this empowers your immune system and general health. Compare that
with the constant negative fear messages put out by our governments.
What we might worry about is that the French government knew in mid January when they kidnapped the stocks of HCQ that this drug was effective, or likely would be effective against CV19 in such a way that it would seriously hinder the drive to hold the population to ransom over a vaccine, and the massive profits to be made from one. They also recognised that it was something of a wonder drug - safe, effective and cheap, and proven to work on some previous viral epidemics. How did they know this?

David: Just read ‘The American Genie’. Masterly stuff! Keep sluggin’ bro! Recommending to all to read this piece by David at American Herald Tribune.