Steve James wrote:Well, GIles, here's the thing. Let's assume that claims about the effectiveness of hydrochloroquine are not simply attempts to say "See, Trump (or Bolsonaro) were right all along." Ok, but nobody has said or shown that any drug prevents catching or passing the corona virus. I.e., a person has to contract the virus before they'll even need hydroxychloroquine. I'd bet that those who believe of the drug's effectiveness won't wear masks --or will find/support reasons not to. However, both Trump and Bolsonaro downplayed the seriousness of the virus. If they were right, there wouldn't be any need for hydroxychloroquine.
But, ok, suppose it works as they promised in the video. If hospitals in Republican, Trump supporting states like Texas and Florida are not using hydroxychloroquine, it's not because they're trying to smear Trump. People are dying, and I think it's more likely that Trump would let them die than their doctors would. And, the Texas doctors would be the first to prove the drug's effectiveness.
We're going to have 150K deaths by the first week of August. But, the campaign argument will be "See, what we did saved millions of people" from the disease we said was not "worse than the flu" and would "just disappear." So, even if hydroxychloroquine works, we'll need a shitload for all the people who'll need it. That is, unless people take responsibility and ignore what's irrelevant --like whether the orange man "was" right about anything.
Steve James wrote:Well, Giles, here's the thing....
And should people be allowed to judge for themselves, instead of these videos being censored? Well, that's a basic political consideration, isn't it. Should total freedom of speech apply on the internet, on YouTube etc. or under certain clearly defined circumstances should this freedom of speech be curtailed?
Without presenting any grounded evidence that it IS indeed efficacious. So WHY, pray tell, does she think that all these highly heterogeneous entities are doing this? She doesn't answer this
White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine
Dr. Simone Gold, MD, JD
Introduction: General Consensus HCQ is safe...............................................................1
Rheumatologists
Cardiologists
Ophthalmologists
Safety Studies ...................................................................................................................4
2000-2020 (twenty years) study
FDA Database (fifty years)
CDC Statement
American Heart Association
Efficacy Studies (sample) ................................................................................................7
February 19, 2020
March 4, 2020
March 20, 2020
March 22, 2020
March 22, 2020
April 11, 2020
April 13, 2020
April 17, 2020
April 21, 2020
April 24, 2020
April 30, 2000
May 15, 2020
May 16, 2020
June 6, 2020
June 20,2020
June 29, 2020
June 29, 2020
June 30, 2020
July 3, 2020
Corruption of the Scientific Journals ..............................................................................10
Corruption of the Media .................................................................................................12
Censorship of the Public “Town Square” & Surgisphere ......................................13
Excessive & Punitive Regulations at the State Level & Off-Label Use ........................13
Misstatements at the Federal Level.............................................................15
Why Has HCQ Been Maligned .................................................................19
Implications for the USA if restrictions on HCQ are not lifted immediately..............21
Conclusion .....................................................................................................................28
This white paper is to draw the reader’s attention to the indisputable safety of
hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), an analog of the same quinine found in tree barks that George
Washington used to protect his troops.
The modern version has been FDA approved for
65 years, has shown remarkable efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 and its use is being
wrongly restricted despite the immediate danger to the American people and the rest of the
world.
We speak in support of immediately reversing the massive, irresponsible disinformation
campaign that is literally preventing doctors from dispensing HCQ, advocating as well
that it be made available over the counter in the United States. This is logistically easy to
do in a manner that ensures the supply and appropriate dispensation.
Introduction:
The purpose of this white paper is to dispassionately present the evidence regarding the
safety and efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and determine its proper role in the current
pandemic.
General Consensus that Hydroxychloroquine is Safe
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has been FDA approved for over 65 years and has been used
billions of times throughout the entire world without restriction. For many decades it has
been given to: pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, elderly patients, immune
compromised patients and healthy persons.
In the USA it is used most often in three situations: systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE),
rheumatoid arthritis (RA), and as malaria prophylaxis for travelers. These three situations
happen to represent three different types of populations.
Patients with SLE are immune compromised.
Patients with RA are elderly.
Travelers are younger and typically healthy.
Although all doctors can and do prescribe HCQ, because it is most commonly used for
SLE and RA, rheumatology specialists are the physicians in America who prescribe it the
most. Although it is in the safest category of medication and it is virtually always safely
used, the two most common possible complications fall under the specialty of cardiology
and ophthalmology.
So let us see what these three types of specialties say.
I can quote my state-certified naturopath status as proof that I know what I'm talking about. And I can gaze with conviction, passionately, into the camera and say: "Overcome your doubts, don't be one of the sheeple, believe me!"
So should that video be allowed to remain up
So, dear WW, that's why I "feel qualified to judge Dr Gold's findings". Because they aren't "findings", they are politically driven and often logically flawed claims. Get the difference?
It doesn't mean that anyone has the obligation to listen or publish it.
“The petition requests that the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) clarify that Section 230 does not permit social media companies that alter or editorialize users’ speech to escape civil liability,”
Strangely enough the US government does not seem to be in control of the speech on the net it claims is free.
It’s abdicated control to private entities that in many instances are against it.
Soon to be corrected
Published? For f's sake, you published it yourself.
windwalker wrote:So, dear WW, that's why I "feel qualified to judge Dr Gold's findings". Because they aren't "findings", they are politically driven and often logically flawed claims. Get the difference?
your not a doctor, who has treated patients for covid 19
you're a "state-certified naturopath"
Because I downloaded their white paper in order to examine the findings I can make my own decision as to whether I agree or not. You and others cannot because they are censored by those in Control of the platforms with their rationale
for not allowing you to see it.
Get the difference?
Trick wrote:Naturopath!?,,,,,,is that the same as Anti-vaccer and Herd-immunity'ist ??....
Return to Been There Done That
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 87 guests