202 replies to this topic

[Daniel Cooper]

Well, we will see what comes out in the wash with Tony Fauci and the NIAID, as far as any GOF funding is concerned. Enquires into these sort of things often take years to complete.

 

 

Fauci is 82 years old so an inquiry lasting years might as well be never to him.

 

In any case, the government will not be much inclined to investigate itself and find evidence of wrong doing or bad decisions. Fauci is after all a member of the government. In fact he's the virtual face of the US federal health bureaucracy at this point.

 

And I don't know how things currently work in the UK, but at present in the US once you make it into the upper echelon of the bureaucracy, politics, or a certain level of material wealth it's very rare that corruption or gross incompetence ever result in significant consequences.  You basically have to do things that negatively impact other people at the top (as SBF may be finding out) before consequences come into play.

 

Which is a shame - a society where things run "open loop" (engineering term there - without feedback) generally isn't going to be stable or productive long term.

 

 

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 03 January 2023 - 03:44 PM.

[Mind]

Dr. Fauci lied again. He did not retire. He is still on the government payroll so he can have taxpayer-funded security. Dr. Fauci is OBSCENELY WEALTHY! He should hire his own private security.

 

It is a shame he has gotten death threats (according to him, I have not seen any evidence of this), but he should have considered the blowback before publicly bashing and mocking people who did not want to take the COVID injections. He should have thought about these things before lying to everyone about gain of function research. He should have thought about that before trying to crush the Great Barrington Declaration behind the scenes with Francis Collins.

[Hip]

It's odd that super-antivaxers like Mercola, Kennedy, Carlson and others are not also receiving death threats. The messaging from these people has killed countless Americans, and killed people further afield too.

 

Imagine if you are a young person deprived of a parent, because that parent died of COVID after becoming vaccine hesitant, as a result of listening to a super-antivaxer. You're going to be angry. You are going to hate that antivaxer. You're going to want some justice.

 

 

[gamesguru]

Telling someone "they deserve it, to hire security" in response to them receiving death threats is pretty insensitive, and not at all revealing of the sort of grace and sophistication the keepers of truth ought to have. It borders on hate speech, and amounts to a witch hunt. You know who else we could enumerate endless complaints about? Trump.

 

The only shame here is the finger pointing and circular reasoning which continues passionately. COVID is old news, most of us have since moved on with our lives and are thankful things have mostly re-opened and the hospitals are well below capacity. Why should we care what Fauci or Elon says? An appeal to authority is a common thread in mass psychosis.

[Mind]

Telling someone "they deserve it, to hire security" in response to them receiving death threats is pretty insensitive, and not at all revealing of the sort of grace and sophistication the keepers of truth ought to have. It borders on hate speech, and amounts to a witch hunt. You know who else we could enumerate endless complaints about? Trump.

 

The only shame here is the finger pointing and circular reasoning which continues passionately. COVID is old news, most of us have since moved on with our lives and are thankful things have mostly re-opened and the hospitals are well below capacity. Why should we care what Fauci or Elon says? An appeal to authority is a common thread in mass psychosis.

 

Just for the record, I did not say he "deserves it". I said it is a "shame" he has gotten death threats, and then listed some of the reasons why some people are angry. 

 

In addition, I stand by the statement that obscenely wealthy people should pay for their own security.

[Daniel Cooper]

It's odd that super-antivaxers like Mercola, Kennedy, Carlson and others are not also receiving death threats. The messaging from these people has killed countless Americans, and killed people further afield too.

 

Imagine if you are a young person deprived of a parent, because that parent died of COVID after becoming vaccine hesitant, as a result of listening to a super-antivaxer. You're going to be angry. You are going to hate that antivaxer. You're going to want some justice.

 

 

I don't know, but highly suspect that that bunch likely received internet death threats during the height of the pandemic.  Back when it wasn't uncommon to see video of unmasked people in public spaces being harassed and threatened.

Edited by Daniel Cooper, 20 January 2023 - 03:57 PM.

[Daniel Cooper]

Telling someone "they deserve it, to hire security" in response to them receiving death threats is pretty insensitive, and not at all revealing of the sort of grace and sophistication the keepers of truth ought to have. It borders on hate speech, and amounts to a witch hunt. You know who else we could enumerate endless complaints about? Trump.

 

The only shame here is the finger pointing and circular reasoning which continues passionately. COVID is old news, most of us have since moved on with our lives and are thankful things have mostly re-opened and the hospitals are well below capacity. Why should we care what Fauci or Elon says? An appeal to authority is a common thread in mass psychosis.

 

Covid is old news and we do need to move on. It would be nice if someone in an official capacity (maybe the US President) would make a statement to that effect. I know people with out any underlying health issues that are still masking and avoiding public places. But the US federal health bureaucracy continues pressing people to get updated boosters. Right before Christmas I heard a statement out of the CDC that if your last booster was prior to September then it's time for a new one.  They are either running on autopilot and pleas for updating boosters just pop out once a month or so, or boosters have taken on a quasi-religious significance.

 

But, even as we move on past covid that does not mean we shouldn't do some retrospective contemplation about the pandemic and it's response. What was done right? What was done wrong? And exactly how did this virus appear on the scene? If it did originate as a lab leak from gain of function research, the world needs to understand that and there needs to be some serious discussion about what safeguards need to be implemented around this type of research and how much of it needs to be done at all. Because if it was a lab leak and we don't understand that, the next one may be far far worse.

[Mind]

There has to be a reason why governments of the world and public "health" bureaucracies are absolutely desperate to NOT look into any issues regarding the pandemic response/policies or the COVID injections. The obfuscation and lies from the CDC and FDA are eroding trust among the public in a BIG way.

 

Every day there are more revelations about unethical and mysterious things going on behind the scenes. There needs to be an investigation and criminal prosecutions. Dr. Fauci seems to be caught in yet another lie, according to recently released emails. There WAS a coordinated effort behind the scenes to discredit the lab-leak theory, in contrary to most of the evidence that was and is still available.

[Mind]

In this video, Dr. Fauci says we need to keep doing "gain-of-function research".

 

Maybe there is something going on behind the scenes, like covert action to protect the world against rogue actors creating super deadly viruses, and Dr. Fauci is the hero working desperately to fend off future attacks.

 

I doubt it.

 

I know that is how some of the researchers perceive their work, but there are some things we don't "need". With the advent of stronger AI and automated tools, people like Fauci will be able to create thousands and thousands of super deadly versions of every virus known. Things that would otherwise take eons to evolve, will be on our doorstep in the next year or two.

 

I am not naïve. I know the "cat is out of the bag/the toothpaste is out of the tube". We need a new worldwide effort to greatly restrict this type of research before Dr. Fauci creates another COVID episode.

Edited by Mind, 28 March 2023 - 06:13 PM.

[Mind]

More testimony about how Dr. Fauci lied to everyone - pretty obvious to everyone by now.

[Mind]

Not only did Dr. Fauci lie about gain of function research, he also lied about social media use during the COVID panic.

[Mind]

Now that it is obvious to almost everyone that the COVID policies were an unmitigated disaster, all of the officials who pushed for them, are running away as fast as they can. If the COVID policies worked even a tiny bit to prevent the spread of COVID, they would be basking in praise as heroes. Instead they are trying cover their tracks.

 

Dr. Fauci is trying to say he "never locked anything down", and he "never advocated for school closures". Good thing there is video to show how inane and laughable these claims are. Has there ever been a worse public health official?

[gamesguru]

I do not think policy makers and governing officials are in a position to be either running away or basking in praise as heroes.

 

They have simply done their job to their abilities, and the crisis has passed. Most of us have returned to normal life and stopped worrying about the pandemic. There may be some who wish the regulation had been more strict (e.g. those who lost elderly family members due to the disease) and there may be some who wish it had be more relaxed (e.g. restaurant owners who went out of business during the pandemic). I've learned the nature of human affairs is the impossibility of pleasing all sides.

 

But the general sentiment is that mitigation policies were needed to prevent a shortage of hospital beds during the early stages of the pandemic. This remains the prevailing view of leading scientists and the academic community at large.

 

Fauci is clearly responding to the backlash of criticism, which he should not do. He should remain strong and congruent to his past self.

 

Lately there seems to be disproportionate criticism from lockdown critics, and not enough praise from its supporters. And this pressure may, as in the case of Dr. John Campbell, result in adapting to your audience and pleasing your viewers.

 

In August 2022 David Gorski wrote for Science-Based Medicine that while at the beginning of the pandemic Campbell had "seemed semi-reasonable", he later became a "total COVID-19 crank".^[2]

 

The Swiss government has dropped its vaccine recommendation, this is true. But this is temporary. It is not due to perceived regrets or a radical change in opinion about the vaccine's safety. It is merely because 97% of the Swiss population now has immunity, and current infection levels have substantially declined.

 

The FOPH says that “in principle, no Covid-19 vaccination is recommended for spring/summer 2023”, given that most people in the country have come into contact with the virus through vaccination or infection.. However, for autumn 2023, the recommendation “will be evaluated again and adjusted accordingly”.

 

[Mind]

I do not think policy makers and governing officials are in a position to be either running away or basking in praise as heroes.

 

They have simply done their job to their abilities, and the crisis has passed. Most of us have returned to normal life and stopped worrying about the pandemic. There may be some who wish the regulation had been more strict (e.g. those who lost elderly family members due to the disease) and there may be some who wish it had be more relaxed (e.g. restaurant owners who went out of business during the pandemic). I've learned the nature of human affairs is the impossibility of pleasing all sides.

 

But the general sentiment is that mitigation policies were needed to prevent a shortage of hospital beds during the early stages of the pandemic. This remains the prevailing view of leading scientists and the academic community at large.

 

Fauci is clearly responding to the backlash of criticism, which he should not do. He should remain strong and congruent to his past self.

 

Lately there seems to be disproportionate criticism from lockdown critics, and not enough praise from its supporters. And this pressure may, as in the case of Dr. John Campbell, result in adapting to your audience and pleasing your viewers.

 

 

The Swiss government has dropped its vaccine recommendation, this is true. But this is temporary. It is not due to perceived regrets or a radical change in opinion about the vaccine's safety. It is merely because 97% of the Swiss population now has immunity, and current infection levels have substantially declined.

 

There really are two different realities/histories floating around, as you point out.

 

I am in the camp that Fauci (and Collins/Birx et al.) did not perform well - and there is quite a bit of evidence that they acted unethically. As highlighted previously in this discussion, Fauci lied several times in public. As evidenced by emails and other testimony, Fauci was NOT listening to all of the experts in the academic community. Behind the scenes, Fauci and Collins were squashing any alternative input about pandemic measures or treatments. They sought to destroy the GBD and its authors, which is now the defacto pandemic measure for almost the entire world. They led the attacks on a lot of highly respected virologists, epidemiologists, medical experts, if they didn't fall in line. The pandemic measures that Fauci/Collins forced upon the US and most of the world were an utter failure. None of their measures stopped COVID from spreading anywhere. None of it worked.

[gamesguru]

What were the "experts" saying that he was not recommending? Was it related to the now defunct "treatment" Ivermectin?

 

I'm just curious why you're spending so much energy contemplating this? Plenty of people in positions of authority lie every day. Plenty of issues with the environment and economy that ought to take precedent.

 

The GBD is not a de facto and authoritative standard, it is a collection of guidelines put out by private authors. It is by no means comprehensive or self-consistent. Where did you learn of this GBD, where was it presented to you?

 

The measures were NOT designed to eradicate COVID, only to slow its spread and reverse the overcapacity of localized hospitals. If we cannot agree on a premise, we cannot evaluate the effects.

Edited by gamesguru, 16 June 2023 - 04:11 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

For the latest on treatments, we might wish to take a quick refresher on the two main ones.  No, not remdesivir & a vent, or Paxlovid, but: 

 

IVM: https://c19ivm.org/meta.html

 

and

 

HCQ: https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

 

The fullness of time has produced some stellar results in meta-analysis.  

 

And now, a moment of silence for those who might have been saved from a horrible end in America's ICUs.  

[gamesguru]

Fauci was a proponent of remdesivir

 

https://www.healio.c...tandard-of-care

 

Findings on HCQ are mixed at best. See this study: https://pubmed.ncbi....h.gov/35870876/ (which seems to be lacking on the website you linked above c19hcq.org, which seems to be biased by its very name lol.

 

Our results indicated that HCQ-AZI combination treatment increased mortality rate in patients with COVID-19, but it also showed benefits associated with viral clearance in patients. HCQ-alone used for treatment has revealed benefits in decreasing the mortality rate among severely infected COVID-19 group and showed potential to be used for COVID-19 treatment in long-term follow-up period group. Accordingly, more rigorous, large-scale, and long follow-up period studies in patients with COVID-19 are needed.

 

 

Same goes for ivermectin. From a recent study, 2022 Jul 23

 

The evidence suggests that ivermectin does not reduce mortality risk and the risk of mechanical ventilation requirement. Although we did not observe an increase in the risk of adverse effects, the evidence is very uncertain regarding this endpoint.

 

[Dorian Grey]

We can compare individual studies until the cows come home and likely would never agree.  

 

That's the beauty of meta-analysis; the final word when extensive research has been done.  

 

https://c19ivm.org/meta.html

 

Statistically significant improvements are seen for mortality, ventilation, ICU admission, hospitalization, recovery, cases, and viral clearance. All remain significant after exclusions. 59 studies from 53 independent teams in 23 different countries show statistically significant improvements in isolation (41 primary outcome, 39 most serious outcome).

 

https://c19hcq.org/meta.html

 

Early treatment shows 62% [52‑70%] improvement with pooled effects in the 36 early treatment studies. Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis and after restriction to peer-reviewed studies. The 15 mortality results shows 72% [57‑81%] lower mortality, and the 15 hospitalization results shows 41% [28‑52%] improvement.

 

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

 

Any meta-analysis you know of for remdesivir & therapeutic ventilation?  

[gamesguru]

By whom was this list compiled? Why does it seem to be missing studies?

 

The link I posted was a meta-analysis. Please read some of the materials I supply. If I'm going to do it for yours, it's only polite to return the favor.

 

Remdesivir? Not for intubated patients, the results for less severe cases are the most promising.

Edited by gamesguru, 16 June 2023 - 08:20 PM.

[Dorian Grey]

What matters is not who compiled the meta, but whether or not the studies & data are real & accurate.  They list all of the studies in their meta, so you can confirm for yourself they are real.  

 

C19early claims they include all published studies, and also  state they delete studies that have been retracted by the author or publisher.  

 

Your IVM meta did not include all published studies, and allowed studies with Standard of Care patients as comparators, which smacks of fiddling, though I confess I'm not an expert in data analysis.   I'll follow the meta that includes all legitimate / published work over filtered material.  

 

Anyone who's dying from omicron these days likely has some serious health issues besides COVID.  It's the patients of the dark days of 2020/21 Fauci froze out of any help from any doctor outside a hospital (remdesivir & a vent), that I seek justice for.  He kept the window open for the vaccine & Paxlovid EUAs, while hundreds of thousands died alone.  Not cool!  

[gamesguru]

What matters is not who compiled the meta, but whether or not the studies & data are real & accurate.  They list all of the studies in their meta, so you can confirm for yourself they are real.  

 

C19early claims they include all published studies

 

Your IVM meta did not include all published studies

 

Some studies seem to be omitted, while others are wrongly marked as redacted. None of these are marked as redacted in their academic journals.

 

Ivermectin compared with placebo in the clinical course in Mexican patients with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19: a randomized clinical trial
2022 Dec 8
Carmen de la Rocha 1 2, Marco A Cid-López 1, Blanca I Venegas-López 1, Sandra C Gómez-Méndez 1, Adriana Sánchez-Ortiz 1, Alma M Pérez-Ríos 3, Ricardo A Llamas-Velázquez 4, Aidé I Meza-Acuña 3, Bárbara Vargas-Íñiguez 1, Daniela Rosales-Galván 1, Alejandra Tavares-Váldez 1, Nizdali Luna-Gudiño 1, Cinthia V Hernández-Puente 1, Jovana Milenkovic 1, Cecilia Iglesias-Palomares 1, Miriam Méndez-Del Villar 5, Gerardo A Gutiérrez-Dieck 1, Carlos G Valderrábano-Roldán 1, Jennefer Mercado-Cerda 1, Jocelyn G Robles-Bojórquez 1, Arieh R Mercado-Sesma 6 7

"At standard doses, ivermectin is not effective to prevent progression to a severe state or reducing symptoms in adults with asymptomatic and mild COVID-19."


Efficacy of Ivermectin Treatment on Disease Progression Among Adults With Mild to Moderate COVID-19 and Comorbidities: The I-TECH Randomized Clinical Trial
 2022 Apr 1
Steven Chee Loon Lim 1, Chee Peng Hor 2 3, Kim Heng Tay 4, Anilawati Mat Jelani 5, Wen Hao Tan 6, Hong Bee Ker 1, Ting Soo Chow 7, Masliza Zaid 8, Wee Kooi Cheah 6, Han Hua Lim 9, Khairil Erwan Khalid 10, Joo Thye Cheng 2, Hazfadzila Mohd Unit 11, Noralfazita An 12, Azraai Bahari Nasruddin 13, Lee Lee Low 14, Song Weng Ryan Khoo 15, Jia Hui Loh 16, Nor Zaila Zaidan 17, Suhaila Ab Wahab 18, Li Herng Song 19, Hui Moon Koh 20, Teck Long King 21, Nai Ming Lai 22, Suresh Kumar Chidambaram 4, Kalaiarasu M Peariasamy 23; I-TECH Study Group

"In this randomized clinical trial of high-risk patients with mild to moderate COVID-19, ivermectin treatment during early illness did not prevent progression to severe disease."


Effect of Early Treatment with Ivermectin among Patients with Covid-19
May 5, 2022
Gilmar Reis, M.D., Ph.D., Eduardo A.S.M. Silva, M.D., Ph.D., Daniela C.M. Silva, M.D., Ph.D., Lehana Thabane, Ph.D., Aline C. Milagres, R.N., Thiago S. Ferreira, M.D., Castilho V.Q. dos Santos, Vitoria H.S. Campos, Ana M.R. Nogueira, M.D., Ana P.F.G. de Almeida, M.D., Eduardo D. Callegari, M.D., Adhemar D.F. Neto, M.D., Ph.D., et al., for the TOGETHER Investigators*

"Treatment with ivermectin did not result in a lower incidence of medical admission to a hospital due to progression of Covid-19 or of prolonged emergency department observation among outpatients with an early diagnosis of Covid-19."

 

The website omits several negative results since 2021. Which to me indicates bias.

 

What's more is the magnitude of effect is not statistically significant in many individual studies. This seems to be cherry picking insignificant results to give the overall impression of significance.

 

Which is how he achieves such a low p-value (p<0.0000000001) in his calculations.

 

I still would like to know who put the list together. They claim authors did not respond to requests for elaboration. But authors do not have to respond to requests from the public. I would just like to know a bit more about the website maintainer's methods, so it's not such a black box.

[Dorian Grey]

If you're looking for perfection in science, I would suggest limiting your studies for consideration to those authored by Christ himself.   The reason I like large metas is, any substantially biased author will have his bias diluted by the sheer size of the totality of data.  To each his own.  

 

What's unforgivable in my judgement is what Fauci did in 2020/21, when he essentially banned any doctor from trying anything to help the frightened seniors falling ill with the plague.  I still remember jumping through the hoops to get HCQ & IVM from overseas pharmacies.  I didn't know if they would work or not, but I wanted something to TRY.  Anything at all would be better than sitting alone doing nothing as symptoms got worse.  My idea of hell on earth!  Give me a frickin' placebo for Christ's sake; but don't slam the door in my face.  

 

Fauci just smiled, & said NOPE...  No treatment for you till ya start turning blue...  For TWO YEARS!  Unacceptable!   

[gamesguru]

If you're looking for perfection in science, I would suggest limiting your studies for consideration to those authored by Christ himself.   The reason I like large metas is, any substantially biased author will have his bias diluted by the sheer size of the totality of data.  To each his own.

 

I'm looking for a reasonable standard of accountability, not perfection. And based on a few hours research, I found multiple problems with the website.

 

I would not call this a "large meta" as much as a private curation. It upholds an overwhelmingly disproportionate number of positive result studies. It does not pool studies based on related methodology, protocol or time from infection. It lacks consistency and is at odds with other meta-analyses. It fails to differentiate (or even attempt to negatively weight) studies involving other therapeutics (vitamin D, zinc, azithromycin, etc). Overall it does not meet any of the requirements of a peer-reviewed meta-analysis and should not be used to draw conclusions.

 

Their website claims "It is invalid to use partial evidence from a small subset of studies and then claim there is not enough evidence", but ironically they appear guilty of the very charlatanism they seek to squelch.

 

What's unforgivable in my judgement is what Fauci did in 2020/21, when he essentially banned any doctor from trying anything to help the frightened seniors falling ill with the plague.  I still remember jumping through the hoops to get HCQ & IVM from overseas pharmacies.  I didn't know if they would work or not, but I wanted something to TRY.  Anything at all would be better than sitting alone doing nothing as symptoms got worse.  My idea of hell on earth!  Give me a frickin' placebo for Christ's sake; but don't slam the door in my face.  

 

Fauci just smiled, & said NOPE...  No treatment for you till ya start turning blue...  For TWO YEARS!  Unacceptable!

 

Well then responsible science is unforgivable in your eyes. Experimental treatments do not become widely approved until safety and efficiency are demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt, even if they are drugs which have a long history of use for other conditions.

 

Regrettably, the medical institution and governmental framework as we know it does not condone the experimental use of prescription only or controlled substances.

 

As far as "banning any doctor" from prescribing HCQ. It is simply not true. The FDA cautioned against the use of HCQ for COVID, and revoked its status under emergency use authorization. Doctors can, and have, chosen to prescribe it off-label. Some may have had their license suspended, but this likely represents the tip of the iceberg. Sometimes that's the price you pay for going against the grain and ethical standards of mainstream science. According to the Nuremberg code and the Helsinki declaration, human experimentation is not petmitted even during times of war, famine, or distress.

 

There technically were alternative methods of treatment available, you chose one which was regulated.

Edited by gamesguru, 17 June 2023 - 02:54 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

Well, when all is said & done, personal experience is often the most impressive to the individual.  I actually caught the dreaded plague in Jan 2022, and with the help of a little HCQ (+ zinc), my COVID experience was a walk in the park.  I literally spent several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.   

 

Perhaps the entire pandemic was a totally overblown hysteria, or perhaps my HCQ + zinc quieted my immune system from cytokine storm, while inhibiting viral replication until my immune response was primed, armed, and ready to quash the virus.  

 

One guess what I'm taking should I fall ill this Winter...   Yep, the Zelenko protocol.  “Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.” (PMC7587171). Peer reviewed, published, and never disproven.  Beats remdesivir & a vent any old day.  

 

Word is he was nominated for a NOBEL Prize, but no way to prove this. Whether he was or not, I think he deserved it.  

 

Cheers mate, & good to see you posting again.

Edited by Dorian Grey, 17 June 2023 - 06:03 AM.

[Florin]

In terms of letting public officials off the hook: generally speaking, I don't see systematic incompetence coming from the public officials (politicians and scientists) involved in the pandemic. In most cases, 99% of their decisions were good; and I am not going to condemn an individual for the occasional mistake made here and there, as we are all human, and the pandemic was a very trying circumstance. Generally speaking, the officials are intelligent people doing their jobs to the best of their abilities. So these officials have not done much wrong in the first place. I thus don't have to let them off the hook, as they are innocent (even if angry and vindictive members of the public think otherwise).

You've gotta be kidding. These morons failed to encourage the use of respirators before proven medical interventions became widely available. This likely led to the deaths of millions of people.

[gamesguru]

Well, when all is said & done, personal experience is often the most impressive to the individual.  I actually caught the dreaded plague in Jan 2022, and with the help of a little HCQ (+ zinc), my COVID experience was a walk in the park.  I literally spent several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.   

 

Perhaps the entire pandemic was a totally overblown hysteria, or perhaps my HCQ + zinc quieted my immune system from cytokine storm, while inhibiting viral replication until my immune response was primed, armed, and ready to quash the virus.  

 

One guess what I'm taking should I fall ill this Winter...   Yep, the Zelenko protocol.  “Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.” (PMC7587171). Peer reviewed, published, and never disproven.  Beats remdesivir & a vent any old day.  

 

Word is he was nominated for a NOBEL Prize, but no way to prove this. Whether he was or not, I think he deserved it.  

 

Cheers mate, & good to see you posting again.

 

Zinc can greatly improve the immune system and reduce infection time, I'll give you that. It's what people should be taking instead of letting the vitamin C and oranges myth lead them off the trail of truth. I too caught the plague, in Oct 2022; due to luck, good diet, genetics and prior vaccinations I recovered within a week.

 

I do not think it was overblown hysteria. Our hospitals and transportation networks were saturated. I think the overblown hysteria here is limited to critiques of mainstream policy and promotion of alternative treatments.

 

Restrictions were implemented to reduce the transmission rate of the virus, prevent healthcare systems from becoming overwhelmed, protect vulnerable populations, and buy time for the development and distribution of vaccines and treatments. The goal was to save lives and minimize the impact of the pandemic on public health and society as a whole.

 

Given the prevalence of immunity, extreme restrictions no longer make sense and that's why you haven't seen them in almost two years.

[WiryLeery]

Well, when all is said & done, personal experience is often the most impressive to the individual.  I actually caught the dreaded plague in Jan 2022, and with the help of a little HCQ (+ zinc), my COVID experience was a walk in the park.  I literally spent several hours each day of my isolation walking in a park.   

 

Perhaps the entire pandemic was a totally overblown hysteria, or perhaps my HCQ + zinc quieted my immune system from cytokine storm, while inhibiting viral replication until my immune response was primed, armed, and ready to quash the virus.  

 

One guess what I'm taking should I fall ill this Winter...   Yep, the Zelenko protocol.  “Therefore, the odds of hospitalisation of treated patients was 84% less than in the untreated patients.” (PMC7587171). Peer reviewed, published, and never disproven.  Beats remdesivir & a vent any old day.  

 

The study you mentioned, which supposedly supports the Zelenko protocol, is authored by Vladimir Zelenko himself. It is worth noting that this study has limitations and should be interpreted with caution.

 

Firstly, it is important to mention that this study has not been widely replicated or validated by independent researchers. Scientific studies often require independent replication to ensure the reliability and validity of the findings. The fact that this study has not been replicated raises concerns about its generalizability and the robustness of its conclusions.

 

Secondly, the study was published in an open-access journal called "International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents." While it is peer-reviewed, it is important to note that not all peer-reviewed studies are of the same quality or carry the same weight. The credibility and impact of a study depend on the reputation and impact factor of the journal in which it is published. The "International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents" has a relatively low impact factor compared to other reputable medical journals (Nature, Science, Cell), which may raise questions about the quality and rigor of the peer-review process.

 

Additionally, it is crucial to consider the broader body of scientific evidence. Several well-designed studies, including randomized controlled trials, have failed to demonstrate a significant benefit of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19.

 

In light of these considerations, it would be premature to conclude that the Zelenko protocol, as described in the study you mentioned, is an effective treatment for COVID-19.

 

It's also wrong to say "the entire pandemic was a totally overblown hysteria", because it disregards the significant impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on public health, global economies, and the overwhelming scientific consensus regarding the severity and transmission of the virus. And it is not clear that doing nothing would have proved better.

 

Also, confounding variables. Have a look at this, zinc may be effective on its own and must be delineated from the HCQ monotherapy protocol before adequate conclusions can be drawn.

 

Effect of zinc supplementation on symptom reduction and length of hospital stay among pediatric patients with Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)

[Dorian Grey]

Hi WiryLeery & welcome to the scrum.  I'll agree it's not wise to throw your faith in a protocol based on a single study.  I linked to a meta-analysis earlier in the thread that analysed 394 published studies, which also showed substantial benefits, particularly with early treatment.  

 

I do like to give Zelenko credit where credit is due.  He was on the front lines at ground zero New York, Spring of 2020.  Saved a lot of lives and documented his results; even notified the White House he had found an effective protocol.  He was also first to note the importance of zinc as a co-factor.  

 

What troubles me was the lack of followup from the boffins at WHO & the alphabet agencies.  All the major studies done on hospitalized patients, creating a steady drip, drip, drip of failures on the nightly news.  I've read the outpatient trials were about to begin in earnest when Surgisphere was published, which "cancelled" most all of the outpatient trials.  Most peculiar!  

 

Anyway, as I reported above, I have personal experience with the protocol, & my encounter with the plague was a walk in the park.  I'll be using it again next time!   

[WiryLeery]

While it's true that you shared a meta-analysis of 394 published studies, it's worth noting that the source you provided is an anonymous website and may carry biases that could impact the reliability of its findings. It's generally recommended to rely on peer-reviewed studies from reputable scientific journals.

 

Regarding Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, it is acknowledged that he treated patients early on during the pandemic and claimed positive results with his protocol. However, it's crucial to differentiate anecdotal evidence from rigorous scientific studies, as the latter are designed to establish conclusive evidence of effectiveness. The medical and scientific community typically relies on large-scale, well-designed clinical trials to assess the safety and efficacy of treatments.

 

It's understandable that you find the lack of follow-up from organizations like the WHO concerning. However, it's important to recognize that these agencies often base their recommendations on robust scientific evidence, which requires thorough evaluation and replication of findings before widespread adoption. The cancellation of trials you mentioned may be a result of various factors, such as methodological concerns, patient withdrawal, or emerging evidence.

 

Ultimately, individual experiences can vary, and personal anecdotes, while valuable, should be interpreted cautiously.

Edited by WiryLeery, 18 June 2023 - 02:06 AM.

[Dorian Grey]

If you understand how EUA / Emergency Use Authorization works, you should see the strongest incentive for bias, (even in world class trials) appear without much trouble. 

 

The near simultaneous exaltation of remdesivir and demonization of HCQ that occurred at the time facilitated the EUAs for the billion dollar babies (vaccines & Paxlovid).  HCQ has always been primarily an outpatient medication, and any effective outpatient therapeutic would have ruined the EUAs for vaccines and Paxlovid.  Remdesivir was initially given only to hospitalized patients (and wasn't particularly effective), thus it would not affect the EUAs for the billion dollar babies.  Thus remdesivir became the COVID Game-Changer, and HCQ the deadly poison that killed substantial numbers of any patients who dared to try it.  

 

Watching how they danced around the issue, it should have become obvious to any astute observer what was going on.  The EUAs had to be preserved at all costs, even if the cost was hundreds of thousands of lives.  May God have mercy on their souls.  

 

I've worked in front line medicine (Surgical Technology) for 35 years, and I've come to trust doctors who actually treat patients over the desk-doctor boffins in the ivory towers.