• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
- - - - -

COVID treatments debate

covid coronavirus treatments fda

  • Please log in to reply
109 replies to this topic

#61 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 27 October 2021 - 11:07 PM

Why are vaccinated dying then? Why arent the hospitals communicating and working towards the best protocol? Why isnt this information publicly available?
Lots of talking, where is the data on who is winning and who isnt?

Chart more on target from Japan , trialsitenews
https://pbs.twimg.co...=jpg&name=large


My brother is a pulmonologist who has had a ton of Covid patients. The hospitals do communicate. They might not follow the advice of the internet gurus you follow but they do the best they can.
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Needs references x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Good Point x 1
  • like x 1

#62 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 28 October 2021 - 10:25 PM

My brother is a pulmonologist who has had a ton of Covid patients. The hospitals do communicate. They might not follow the advice of the internet gurus you follow but they do the best they can.

I wonder how many of them continue to exploit people on Remdesivir?

https://twitter.com/...730701567709187

 

Sadly I even saw the Medcram guy still giving people this poison a few weeks ago on twitter.  The best they can.. $cience


  • Informative x 1
  • Agree x 1

#63 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,386 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 29 October 2021 - 02:38 PM

My brother is a pulmonologist who has had a ton of Covid patients. The hospitals do communicate. They might not follow the advice of the internet gurus you follow but they do the best they can.

 

Did you ask him what protocol they are following?


  • Cheerful x 1
  • like x 1

#64 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,217 posts
  • 992
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 29 October 2021 - 05:01 PM

Did you ask him what protocol they are following?

 

https://www.marketwa...mer-11635521301

 

Sales of Gilead’s COVID-19 drug jumped in conjunction with the surge in delta cases this summer

 

"More than half of the people in the U.S. who have been hospitalized with COVID-19 have received Veklury as a treatment"

 

"Veklury, which is used to treat patients with severe forms of the disease, had sales of $1.9 billion in the third quarter of 2021, up from $873 million in the same period a year ago."

 

------------------------------

 

Too bad it doesn't work: https://www.who.int/...vid-19-patients

 

WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients

 

"The evidence suggested no important effect on mortality, need for mechanical ventilation, time to clinical improvement, and other patient-important outcomes."


  • Good Point x 1
  • Informative x 1

#65 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,217 posts
  • 992
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 29 October 2021 - 05:32 PM

In other news...  The good old USA has finally passed UK & Italy to become the new COVID champ, with more deaths per million people than any other country!

 

https://ourworldinda...llion-exemplars

 

USA! / We're number one!  USA! / We're number one!  


  • Cheerful x 3
  • Enjoying the show x 1

#66 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 29 October 2021 - 10:07 PM

Did you ask him what protocol they are following?


I haven't discussed it with him in a while but just asked him. He said it depends on the person and their oxygen levels and symptoms. He said that he thinks only monoclonals really work.

And he said it's very complicated. To have armchair doctors sit around and criticize and say "you are not following the advice of my guru or giving them the treatment I believe is best (though still unproven) therefore you are a shill and killing people" is completely ridiculous. The doctors and nurses are doing the best they can against a deadly pandemic. They cannot work miracles. Ivermectin is NOT a miracle drug. It may very well have positive effects but according to the experts the jury is still out and lots of the studies are crappy. No one here as far as I know is knee deep in the trenches or is a virology expert. You sit in front of your computers and gobble up the latest from the Mercolas or whoever gurus and right-wing pundits who rile you up and you think you know more than the scientists and people in the trenches. You don't. You really don't.

Edited by geo12the, 29 October 2021 - 10:30 PM.

  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1
  • Ill informed x 1
  • Unfriendly x 1
  • Informative x 1

#67 Dorian Grey

  • Guest
  • 2,217 posts
  • 992
  • Location:kalifornia

Posted 29 October 2021 - 10:21 PM

"He said that he thinks only monoclonals really work"

 

Did he mention how often monoclonals were given in hospitalized patients?  I heard this was almost never done, as by the time patients are hospitalized, they are usually well up against the 10 day deadline.  

 

So basically inside the hospital, patients get oxygen & remdesivir (which doesn't work), & perhaps some low dose dexamethasone as they circle the drain?  

 

Major fail.  We're almost 2 years into this pandemic.  Ralph Baric, the godfather of coronavirus research pointed out way back in 2010 Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture

 

Anyone know a good zinc ionophore we might try during the viral replication phase?  


  • Good Point x 2
  • like x 1

#68 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 29 October 2021 - 10:38 PM

You sit in front of your computers and gobble up the latest from the Mercolas or whoever gurus and right-wing pundits who rile you up and you think you know more than the scientists and people in the trenches. You don't. You really don't.

 

If you sat around and gobbled up McCullough and Fareed, you would know they were on the Mono AB protocol several months ago trying to get them more mainstream ... But they arent always available


  • Good Point x 2
  • Agree x 1

#69 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 01 November 2021 - 04:30 AM

We dont send our Covid patients to the hospital - link1, link2

 

"We have now expanded our services to include treatments that are normally only done in hospitals: IV steroids (Solumedrol), IV vitamin C , IV Tylenol, IV famotidine (Pepcid), IV antibiotics, and oxygen.

Dr. Bowden follows the FLCCC protocol and believes in aggressive treatment with safe medications such as ivermectin to help patients with COVID19"

 

Several tips /preventions discussed(extra magenisum with high dose vit D, irrigation, laying down collapses the lungs), nice page.


  • Good Point x 2
  • Informative x 1

#70 Daniel Cooper

  • Member, Moderator
  • 2,699 posts
  • 642
  • Location:USA

Posted 01 November 2021 - 07:53 PM

I haven't discussed it with him in a while but just asked him. He said it depends on the person and their oxygen levels and symptoms. He said that he thinks only monoclonals really work.

 

If I came down with covid tomorrow, I would try to get monoclonal antibodies asap. It's a strategy that should work "by inspection". You read the studies. You hear the anecdotal reports. I've seen them in action first hand. They are the best game in town in terms of proven post infection anti-virals and we should be pushing them harder than we currently are.

 

I've had the vaccine and I take zinc and quercetin prophylactically which I think is a reasonable low risk thing to do, but if I wanted to give myself the best edge if I were to come down with an infection, I'd be at a clinic getting a monoclonal infusion.

 

I really feel like we missed the boat by not giving monoclonal antibodies at least equal emphasis to vaccine development. We had every reason to believe they should be effective and safe when this pandemic began and they had perhaps the quickest development schedule of anything going (as we didn't need to develop these antibodies de novo, we only had to isolate and copy them from infected patients).  It's a shame we focused early on on vaccines to the near exclusion of therapeutics.


  • Good Point x 2

#71 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 01 November 2021 - 09:30 PM

I really feel like we missed the boat by not giving monoclonal antibodies at least equal emphasis to vaccine development. We had every reason to believe they should be effective and safe when this pandemic began and they had perhaps the quickest development schedule of anything going (as we didn't need to develop these antibodies de novo, we only had to isolate and copy them from infected patients). 

 

Monoclonal antibodies are reasonably effective, but expensive.

 

Monoclonal antibody (MA) treatment for COVID costs about $2100 per infusion, plus around $1000 for medical staff to perform the infusion; whereas a vaccine costs $20. MA reduces rates of hospitalization by about 3 times, whereas the Pfizer vaccine for example reduces rates of hospitalization by 25 times. So vaccines are far cheaper and far more effective. So it makes sense to focus on vaccines as the first line of treatment.

 

This new drug molnupiravir reduces rates of hospitalization by about 2 times (though this has yet to be confirmed), and costs $700 for a course. This oral drug can be administered at home. 


  • Needs references x 2
  • Ill informed x 2
  • Good Point x 1

#72 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 02 November 2021 - 08:42 PM

New very safe and very cheap treatment costing just a few dollars for the entire course just been shown to reduce risk of COVID death by an astounding 10 times, in placebo controlled study! You can buy this drug at many online pharmacies, but some are out of stock already. But I've just managed to order some.

 

Probably not worth me posting any information about this drug here though, as my posts tend to be marked with "Ill Informed", so I doubt if anyone will believe me anyway.

 


  • Pointless, Timewasting x 4
  • Needs references x 1
  • Agree x 1

#73 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 03 November 2021 - 03:57 PM

New very safe and very cheap treatment costing just a few dollars for the entire course just been shown to reduce risk of COVID death by an astounding 10 times, in placebo controlled study! You can buy this drug at many online pharmacies, but some are out of stock already. But I've just managed to order some.

 

Probably not worth me posting any information about this drug here though, as my posts tend to be marked with "Ill Informed", so I doubt if anyone will believe me anyway.

 

Fluvoxamine discussion in this video, 10 days worth for 4 dollars.  As Campbell mentions, very attractive for poorer countries. 

 

I would use it in combo with NAC, IVM, niacin flush, blood thinner, and whatever antiviral you believe in(EGCG, curcumin, Xlear)

 

I think it is better than John gives it credit, trial he sites is flawed.



#74 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 03 November 2021 - 04:52 PM

Fluvoxamine discussion in this video, 10 days worth for 4 dollars.  As Campbell mentions, very attractive for poorer countries. 

 

I would use it in combo with NAC, IVM, niacin flush, blood thinner, and whatever antiviral you believe in(EGCG, curcumin, Xlear)

 

I think it is better than John gives it credit, trial he sites is flawed.

 

I read on another website that Fluvoxamine can have some serious side effects. 

 

Is there any concern for the side effect with its use for just 10 days?



#75 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 03 November 2021 - 10:39 PM

Campbell claims to have taken it himself, there are addiction concerns if taken long term, but relatively safe otherwise(upset stomach, diarrhea)

 

From Fareed - https://twitter.com/...89705256407042 

 

"The oral C19 protocol was fully effective against the primary variant last year, but more aggressive treatment needed now— without monoclonals, I recommend extension  beyond 5 days on HCQ twice a day, Fluvoxamine and colchicine."

 

 

I think there are probably safer natural solutions(I would go with nebulized h202 in saline, NAC(lung clearance), EGCG/curcumin/licorice(antiviral/inflammation), blood thinner), but here is a guy who has treated over 7000 patients.

So if you are a numbers guy... 


  • Informative x 1

#76 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 November 2021 - 01:40 AM

I read on another website that Fluvoxamine can have some serious side effects. 

 

Is there any concern for the side effect with its use for just 10 days?

 

FLCCC has Fluoxetine (Prozac) 30mg/day as an alternative in its protocol, better tolerated

 

https://covid19criti...col-ENGLISH.pdf



#77 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 November 2021 - 03:55 AM

FLCCC has Fluoxetine (Prozac) 30mg/day as an alternative in its protocol, better tolerated

 

https://covid19criti...col-ENGLISH.pdf

 

I see in their guidelines that they FLCCC still state that ivermectin is antiviral for coronavirus. Ivermectin is not antiviral in clinical use. Where did these people get their medical degrees?  

 

There is no clinical evidence that fluoxetine has benefit for COVID. Nobody knows why fluvoxamine works for coronavirus, so it would be risky to assume that another drug like fluoxetine will work, just because it is in the same class of SSRI antidepressants as fluvoxamine.  


Edited by Hip, 05 November 2021 - 03:56 AM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • Agree x 2

#78 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 November 2021 - 02:44 PM

. Nobody knows why fluvoxamine works for coronavirus, so it would be risky to assume that another drug like fluoxetine will work, just because it is in the same class of SSRI antidepressants as fluvoxamine.  

 

Here is one explanation - link1 , link2

 

"Fluvoxamine is a stronger Sigma1 agonist than any other SSRI. That is why we chose to test it for COVID rather than the others. Makes sense to also test some of the others in RCTs though."

 

 

 

unfortunately it also means that Prozac maybe not as effective.


Edited by Gal220, 05 November 2021 - 02:48 PM.


#79 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 05 November 2021 - 03:04 PM

I see in their guidelines that they FLCCC still state that ivermectin is antiviral for coronavirus. Ivermectin is not antiviral in clinical use. Where did these people get their medical degrees?  

 

There is no clinical evidence that fluoxetine has benefit for COVID. Nobody knows why fluvoxamine works for coronavirus, so it would be risky to assume that another drug like fluoxetine will work, just because it is in the same class of SSRI antidepressants as fluvoxamine.  

 

Fareed thinks Fluvoxamine is better based on his latest comments, if Monoclonals arent available.  See post above


Edited by Gal220, 05 November 2021 - 03:05 PM.


#80 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 05 November 2021 - 04:15 PM

Here is one explanation - link1 , link2

 

"Fluvoxamine is a stronger Sigma1 agonist than any other SSRI. That is why we chose to test it for COVID rather than the others. Makes sense to also test some of the others in RCTs though."

 

Fluvoxamine has the strongest sigma-1 receptor affinity out of the SSRI drugs, as this paper indicates. The receptor affinities of these drugs are in this order of strength: 

 

Fluvoxamine > sertraline > fluoxetine > escitalopram > citalopram >> paroxetine

 

However, we do not know for sure that sigma-1 receptor agonism is the reason fluvoxamine has benefits for COVID. So it would be risky to assume that other sigma-1 receptor drugs would work. So for the moment, fluvoxamine would seem the best choice, until we get further studies which indicate the mechanism by which fluvoxamine is beneficial for COVID.

 

The benefits of fluvoxamine for COVID appear to be very substantial: this article says that fluvoxamine 100 mg given twice daily for 10 days reduces COVID deaths by 90% if taken early enough, which means fluvoxamine reduces death by a factor of 10, which is incredible. We need replication studies of course to confirm this, but so far it is looking very good. The fluvoxamine study itself is here.  

 

If confirmed this would make the efficacy of fluvoxamine similar to that of the vaccines (the latest vaccine data indicates that for the delta variant, the Pfizer vaccine reduces death by a factor of 10).

 

I bought my fluvoxamine from the excellent and very reliable prescription-free pharmacy Buy-Pharma. It's not as cheap as some are making out though: I paid around $36 for 30 x 100 mg tablets.

 

 

 

 

If it does turn out that sigma-1 receptor agonism is the reason for the COVID benefits, then there are quite a few other sigma-1 agonists that might also work, including dextromethorphan, which is found in some over-the-counter tickly/dry cough medicines (dextromethorphan would be a great way to treat COVID, as it would suppress the incessant cough at the same time). 

 

However, it's not that easy to calculate the in vivo strength of the dextromethorphan sigma-1 agonism compared to fluvoxamine, so again, at this point, substituting fluvoxamine with dextromethorphan may not be a good idea. Although if dextromethorphan is all you have, it might be worth taking it if you were hit with COVID.

 

 

 

 

Digging into the binding affinities a bit more, I found this paper which details the binding affinities: 

 

The order of potency for SSRIs at sigma-1 receptor is as follows:

 

fluvoxamine Ki = 17 nM

sertraline Ki = 31.6 nM

fluoxetine Ki = 191.2 nM

escitalopram Ki = 288.3 nM

citalopram Ki = 403.8 nM

paroxetine Ki = 2041 nM

 

Note that a lower Ki number signifies a higher affinity. So fluvoxamine has the strongest binding to the receptor.

 

Remember that the binding affinity to a receptor tells you how strongly a drug is attracted to and sticks onto a receptor, but it does not tell you whether the drug acts as an agonist or antagonist at the receptor. It turns out that all the above are agonists — except possibly for sertraline.

 

The paper goes on to say that sertraline may act as an antagonist of sigma-1 receptorThis Wikipedia list of sigma-1 receptor agonists and antagonists also puts sertraline into the antagonist category. 

 

As for dextromethorphan, this paper provides the sigma-1 receptor binding affinity: 

 

dextromethorphan Ki = 205 nM

 

So dextromethorphan has a roughly similar receptor binding affinity to fluoxetine (Prozac). 

 

 

 

 

However, binding affinity is just part of the picture. To determine the actual in vivo strength of agonism that a drug achieves when you take it orally, you also have to take into consideration the blood concentrations of the drug that are attained, using pharmacokinetic data. 

 

A quick Google search for pharmacokinetic data shows that 50 mg of oral fluvoxamine achieves a peak blood concentration (Cmax) of 15 ng/ml in young people, and 31 ng/ml in elderly people. Plasma protein binding of fluvoxamine is 77%.

 

This article says the peak blood concentration (Cmax) of 20 mg of oral fluoxetine (Prozac) is about 12 ng/ml. Plasma protein binding of fluoxetine is 94%.

 

 

So the blood concentrations of fluvoxamine are a little higher than fluoxetine, and the plasma protein binding of fluvoxamine is lower, and both these facts will actually serve to make free fluvoxamine more concentrated in the blood than free fluoxetine. So the pharmacokinetics favor fluvoxamine.

 

And we know fluvoxamine blows fluoxetine out of the water in terms of fluvoxamine's much higher sigma-1 receptor affinity. So all in all, oral fluvoxamine is going to have a much stronger effect on sigma-1 than fluoxetine (Prozac).

 

 

 

So in summary: if the benefits for COVID do indeed come from sigma-1 receptor agonism, fluoxetine (Prozac) would make a poor substitute for fluvoxamine.


Edited by Hip, 05 November 2021 - 04:33 PM.

  • Informative x 2
  • WellResearched x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • like x 1

#81 lancebr

  • Guest
  • 440 posts
  • 196
  • Location:USA

Posted 06 November 2021 - 01:25 AM

This doctor thinks that 50mg twice a day for 14 days is a better doasge of Fluvoxamine to prevent side effects and he also says to

lay off the caffeine when taking this drug to prevent certain side effect.

 

https://stevekirsch....web&utm_source=

 

The concern I have is what this doctor says about certain side effects from these type of drugs:

 

"In the earliest studies of SSRIs & related A/Ds, 66% of healthy volunteers exposed to these drugs for 1-2 weeks had clear withdrawal

problems includ. depression, anxiety & completed suicide. But none of these data have ever been published." — Dr David Healy

 

https://twitter.com/...368395096580099

 

https://www.survivin...ng-fluvoxamine/

 

There is also a list of some short term and long term side effects from these type of drug and some sound very scarey....so is this a safe

drug to even take for short term?

 

https://pbs.twimg.co...=jpg&name=large


Edited by lancebr, 06 November 2021 - 01:34 AM.

  • Informative x 1
  • WellResearched x 1
  • like x 1

#82 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 06 November 2021 - 03:14 AM

This doctor thinks that 50mg twice a day is a better doasge of Fluvoxamine to prevent side effects and
he also says to lay off the caffeine when taking this drug to prevent certain side effect.

 

That is a useful thing to know about avoiding caffeine, otherwise he says you can feel wired if you take caffeine + fluvoxamine together.
 
 


There is also a list of some shirt term and long term side effects from these tpye of drug and some sound very scarey....so is this a safe
durg to even take for short term?

 

Long term effects of SSRIs (and indeed other antidepressants like TCAs and MAOIs) can include sexual dysfunction and emotional flatness. This sexual dysfunction can be permanent (see the medical condition called post-SSRI sexual dysfunction).

 

In fact, this study found that the prevalence of sexual dysfunction in some SSRIs and SNRIs can be as high as 70%. By comparison, TCAs have a 30% prevalence of sexual dysfunction, and MAOIs 40%.

 

Although interestingly, that study found that one MAOI antidepressant drug called moclobemide had a low rate of sexual dysfunction, just 3.9%. Moclobemide is the drug I use to treat my depression, because of its low incidence of sexual dysfunction. 

 

Short-term side effects of SSRIs can include greatly increased depression and suicidal ideation, especially in teenagers. This may be why some teenagers kill themselves after being prescribed and SSRI, or after their doctor increases their dose. 

 

 

On the other hand, many people find SSRIs are life savers for the mental health problems they have. Major depression or OCD are very serious illnesses, so these side effects have to be balanced against the seriousness of the mental illnesses they treat. You can read this list of user reviews for fluvoxamine to see people's feedback.

 

Personally, I would avoid SSRIs if possible, and try to find a drug which treats depression without the risk of causing permanent sexual dysfunction.

 

If you are only taking fluvoxamine for 10 days to treat COVID, however, I imagine you are not going to be hit with sexual dysfunction; but it might be worth investigating what short term side effects are likely to occur. I would think side effects are going to be less in healthy people anyway, compared to those with underlying mental illnesses like anxiety or depression.

 

It may be an idea to taper off fluvoxamine over several days when you want to stop, just to avoid an abrupt discontinuation. People mention a taper is a good thing, although that's after long term use.

 

 


Edited by Hip, 06 November 2021 - 03:18 AM.

  • Informative x 3

#83 Mind

  • Life Member, Director, Moderator, Treasurer
  • 19,386 posts
  • 2,000
  • Location:Wausau, WI

Posted 15 December 2021 - 09:33 PM

Here is another good review of different treatments that have been used with good success by thousands of doctors around the world. https://www.lewrockw...id-19-reviewed/

 

I think this is the first time in my life that there has been such an extreme reaction against doctors and researchers trying to help their patients and create successful treatments. With every other disease, treatments are explored, lives are saved. With COVID, the WHO, CDC, FDA, NIH, US National media, Google, Facebook, Social Media, have consigned a lot of people to death with their absolute censorship on any successful treatments. Doctors are being fired and threatened for even bringing up the subject of out-patient and early treatment!


  • Informative x 3

#84 bladedmind

  • Guest
  • 286 posts
  • 221
  • Location:United States
  • NO

Posted 16 December 2021 - 09:35 PM

The authoritarian here with delusions of intellectual superiority continually appeals to the purity of science.  Anyone with practical or scientific knowledge of public-policy formation, however, knows that, despite the best attempts at institutional design, raw power can determine outcomes contrary to the public good.  For example, https://en.wikipedia...latory_capture Science as an ideal is pure, but scientists can err in many ways.

 

This is certainly reprehensible abuse of power. 

 

https://www.worldtri...on-human-lives/
 

Researcher Andrew Hill’s conflict: A $40 million Gates Foundation grant vs a half million human lives

In a stunning admission, virologist Dr. Andrew Hill acknowledged in a zoom call that publication of his study could lead to the deaths of at least a half million people.
In defending his reversal on the effectiveness of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19, he discussed his “difficult situation” and said, “I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance.”…

Lawrie: All right. So who helped to … Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?
Hill: Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it … Unitaid …
Lawrie: I think that . . . it needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged? Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?
Hill: Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.
Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?
Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t …
Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.
Hill: Yeah.
Lawrie: Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?
Hill: Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name … but I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance …
Lawrie: Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?
Hill: Yeah … it’s a very strong lobby …
Lawrie: Okay. Look, I think I can see kind of a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy.
I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.
Hill: You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.

 

Also discussed at current FLCCC webinar:  https://twitter.com/...238704282882049


  • Informative x 3
  • like x 1

#85 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 December 2021 - 04:59 PM

The authoritarian here with delusions of intellectual superiority continually appeals to the purity of science.  Anyone with practical or scientific knowledge of public-policy formation, however, knows that, despite the best attempts at institutional design, raw power can determine outcomes contrary to the public good.  For example, https://en.wikipedia...latory_capture Science as an ideal is pure, but scientists can err in many ways.

 

This is certainly reprehensible abuse of power. 

 

https://www.worldtri...on-human-lives/
 

Also discussed at current FLCCC webinar:  https://twitter.com/...238704282882049

I urge everyone to follow the link and read the whole thing. For those who may not done so already, here are some further details:

 

Hill had previously authored an analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.”

So, did Dr. Hill simply do an honest re-evaluation of the data and change his mind? No! As the article points out, he admits to being under pressure from funding sources. The excerpt posted by Bladedmind mentions Unitaid. It is worth repeating:

 

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?
Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t …
Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.
Hill: Yeah.”

 

 

Who, or what, is Unitaid?

 

Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries . . . to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals” for distribution in Africa.”

 

 

 

The article also points out that the “Together Trial” conducted by McMaster University, which has been cited for showing that ivermectin is not effective, was also conflicted:

 

 A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. ….

In other words, the McMaster researchers, just like Andrew Hill, knew that a positive appraisal of ivermectin would cost their university millions of dollars.

 

While the McMaster story could be merely an accusation of conflict, the Hill story rises to a whole different level of evidence. The quotes are from the transcript of a recorded Zoom call. It’s veracity can be readily proven.

 

So, there you have it—smoking gun proof that powerful and influential people have made a deliberate, concerted, and dishonest effort to keep the efficacy of ivermection from being widely appreciated. Those who have previously dismissed this as “conspiracy theory” are politely requested to admit that you have been wrong.


  • Informative x 2
  • Well Written x 1
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 1

#86 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 17 December 2021 - 05:28 PM

I urge everyone to follow the link and read the whole thing. For those who may not done so already, here are some further details:

 

Hill had previously authored an analysis of ivermectin as a treatment for COVID-19 that found the drug overwhelmingly effective.

On Jan. 6 of 2021, Hill testified enthusiastically before the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidlelines Panel in support of ivermectin’s use. Within a month, however, Hill found himself in what he describes as a “tricky situation.” Under pressure from his funding sponsors, Hill then published an unfavorable study. Ironically, he used the same sources as in the original study. Only the conclusions had changed.”

So, did Dr. Hill simply do an honest re-evaluation of the data and change his mind? No! As the article points out, he admits to being under pressure from funding sources. The excerpt posted by Bladedmind mentions Unitaid. It is worth repeating:

 

Lawrie: Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?
Hill: Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t …
Lawrie: So they have a say in your conclusions.
Hill: Yeah.”

 

 

Who, or what, is Unitaid?

 

Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) and several countries . . . to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals” for distribution in Africa.”

 

 

 

The article also points out that the “Together Trial” conducted by McMaster University, which has been cited for showing that ivermectin is not effective, was also conflicted:

 

 A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. ….

In other words, the McMaster researchers, just like Andrew Hill, knew that a positive appraisal of ivermectin would cost their university millions of dollars.

 

While the McMaster story could be merely an accusation of conflict, the Hill story rises to a whole different level of evidence. The quotes are from the transcript of a recorded Zoom call. It’s veracity can be readily proven.

 

So, there you have it—smoking gun proof that powerful and influential people have made a deliberate, concerted, and dishonest effort to keep the efficacy of ivermection from being widely appreciated. Those who have previously dismissed this as “conspiracy theory” are politely requested to admit that you have been wrong.

 

Many of the Ivermectin studies are crappy that is the problem. Just because they are crappy does not mean that there is no effect. we don't know. That's not stopping people from monetizing Ivermectin.

 

Read more here:

 

https://www.nature.c...586-021-02081-w

https://www.wfyi.org...ation-americans

 

America's Frontline Doctors are making big bucks pushing Ivermectin and other treatments:

 

"AFLDS and SpeakWithAnMD.com have reportedly received more than $6.7 million for facilitating paid telehealth consultations and off-label prescriptions for the purported coronavirus treatments that they promote online. "

 

Read more here:

 

https://coronavirus....ing-coronavirus


Edited by geo12the, 17 December 2021 - 05:29 PM.

  • Ill informed x 2
  • like x 1

#87 Hip

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 2,402 posts
  • -449
  • Location:UK

Posted 17 December 2021 - 05:42 PM

Many of the Ivermectin studies are crappy that is the problem. Just because they are crappy does not mean that there is no effect. we don't know. That's not stopping people from monetizing Ivermectin.

 

 

It's ironic that on this forum, which unfortunately has an unfair share of conspiracy theorists and anti-establishment eccentrics, money made by Big Pharma is bad and evil, but when a clinic or doctor massively profits by selling ivermectin as an unproven COVID treatments (which is ethically dubious), they are hailed as heroes. 


  • Ill informed x 3
  • Agree x 1

#88 DanCG

  • Guest
  • 237 posts
  • 162
  • Location:USA

Posted 17 December 2021 - 06:12 PM

Many of the Ivermectin studies are crappy that is the problem. 

America's Frontline Doctors are making big bucks pushing Ivermectin and other treatments:

 

 

 

It's ironic that on this forum, which unfortunately has an unfair share of conspiracy theorists and anti-establishment eccentrics, money made by Big Pharma is bad and evil, but when a clinic or doctor massively profits by selling ivermectin as an unproven COVID treatments (which is ethically dubious), they are hailed as heroes. 

 

Crappy studies notwithstanding, even Dr. Hill admitted to Dr. LawrieI think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.”

 

He says this at the same time that he is about to issue a report that would torpedo any chance that the WHO, FDA, or NIH would officially endorse ivermectin, a report that he admits was altered at the behest of Unitaid. He also expressed the hope that his report would only set back approval of ivermectin by a few weeks, as Lawrie’s report would also come out and that should be convincing enough. So he knew what he was doing. The transcript is clear in showing that he was altering his report to please his paymasters and hoped that the damage would not last long.

 

The issue here is not the monetization of ivermectin. That is a small item compared to the suffering that could have been prevented if ivermection had received official endorsement from the WHO, FDA, NIH and other such agencies who follow their lead.


  • Agree x 2
  • Good Point x 2
  • Ill informed x 1

#89 geo12the

  • Guest
  • 762 posts
  • -211

Posted 17 December 2021 - 07:22 PM

Crappy studies notwithstanding, even Dr. Hill admitted to Dr. Lawrie “I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.”

He says this at the same time that he is about to issue a report that would torpedo any chance that the WHO, FDA, or NIH would officially endorse ivermectin, a report that he admits was altered at the behest of Unitaid. He also expressed the hope that his report would only set back approval of ivermectin by a few weeks, as Lawrie’s report would also come out and that should be convincing enough. So he knew what he was doing. The transcript is clear in showing that he was altering his report to please his paymasters and hoped that the damage would not last long.

The issue here is not the monetization of ivermectin. That is a small item compared to the suffering that could have been prevented if ivermection had received official endorsement from the WHO, FDA, NIH and other such agencies who follow their lead.


Hill also wrote this article published in October:

https://www.theguard...r-death-threats


At the end of the day the jury is still out on the ivermectin story. As I pointed out here I don't think it's a miracle cure. If I had to bet $1 million bucks I would bet it would not save all the lives (suffering as you put it) the Ivermectin advocates say it would. I think it's a red herring that has been latched onto and politicized by the conspiracy minded folks. If a loved one got COVID (several have actually) I would NOT advise them to take HCQ or Ivermectin. Would you?
  • Pointless, Timewasting x 3
  • Disagree x 1
  • Agree x 1

#90 Gal220

  • Guest
  • 1,062 posts
  • 640
  • Location:United States

Posted 17 December 2021 - 10:08 PM

"The Brazilian city of Itajai has offered Ivermectin as prophylaxis (0.2mg/day/kg for 2 days every 2 weeks) to its 220,000 inhabitants and meticulously tracked the results. 60% (with higher risk) took IVM over 7 months. The Covid hospitalization and mortality rates were HALVED."

https://www.research...ective_citywide

https://twitter.com/...738120870600705


  • Informative x 2





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: covid, coronavirus, treatments, fda

1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users