Tveir veikst slvarlega í bóluefnisprófun AZ, hvaðan Ísland á að fá bóluefni. Íslendingar verða tilraunadýr fyrir glænýja gerð DNA bóluefnis sem fer inn í frumukjarna mannsins ! Læknir um (óprófaða) DNA bóluefnið, binst erfðaefni í mönnum.

Þið sem eruð vel menntaðir, lesið samantektina hjá GBB, og komið því til okkar í fáum orðum.

Blog:    Guðjón Bragi Benediktsson 

slóð

Tveir hafa veikst alvarlega í bóluefnisprófun AZ hvaðan Ísland á að fá bóluefni 

slóð

Íslendingar verða tilraunadýr fyrir glænýja gerð DNA bóluefnis sem fer inn í frumukjarnann.

slóð

(Kóvid) Nýtt byltingarkennt DNA bóluefni fer inn í frumukjarna mannsins ! 

slóð

Læknir fjallar um frábæra nýja (óprófaða) DNA bóluefnið sem binst erfðaefninu í mönnum. 

(frábæra, er þetta grín? jg)

https://youtu.be/pu9pxQOooBg   

1:35:57 

Egilsstaðir, 28.09.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

Það er ekki amalegt að fá leiðbeiningarnar beint inn í hugann, eins og Einstein, Nikola Tesla og Jesú tala um, beint frá miðjunni, sem við þekkjum ekki, Einstein, frá kjarnanum hans Tesla og Heilögum Anda og Guði, eins og Jesú kenndi.

Sett á blog:   Jón Frímann Jónsson

Horkafullur Brynjar

Þurfum við allir að læra á innsæið, sem þeir Einstein, Nikola Tesla og Jesú kenndu. 

Það er ekki amalegt að fá leiðbeiningarnar beint inn í hugann, eins og Einstein,  Nikola Tesla og Jesú tala um, beint frá miðjunni, sem við þekkjum ekki, Einstein, frá kjarnanum hans Tesla og Heilögum Anda og Guði, eins og Jesú kenndi. 

Ró hugans, bænin, og samlegðar áhrifin í kirkjunni margfaldar móttöku möguleikana. 

Fyllum kirkjurnar með ástúð, umhyggju og bæn, hlustum á leiðbeiningarnar með innsæinu, og allt verður miklu betra. 

Þetta er innbyggði tölvu farsíminn í fólkinu.  

Þetta er ipaddinn, sem er innbyggður í sálina, hjá karlinum og konunni. 

Skaparinn var fyrir löngu búinn að hanna þetta, þú þurftir aðeins að nota það. 

Þessi búnaður í fólkinu var hannaður fyrir þig, okkur öll.

Þegar við byrjum að nota þennan innbyggða tölvufarsíma verðum við að sína mikla ástúð og tillitsemi.

Margir ferðast í huganum, Andanum, án þess að allir, þeir sjálfir hafi í raun áttað sig á því. 

Gangi ykkur vel að lifa, og allt í haginn.

Egilsstaðir, 10.10. 2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

Ef einhver vill fá greitt það sem er kallað skuld Bandaríkjanna, þá skrifa Bandaríkin samstundis ávísum í dollurum og greiða skuldina. Þegar einhver þjóð er dugleg, framleiðir mikið, þá þarf hún mikið bókhald, mikið af peningum.

Sett á blog:    Jón Magnússon

Blessun ríkishyggjunnar

000

Sæll Jón Magnússon

Þú segir rétt, bókhaldið verður að vera rétt. 

Hugmyndin í dag, sem breytist með réttari upplýsingum.

Venjan er að eigendur að seðlabönkum heimsins, skrifa bókhaldið, peningana, inn í bankabækurnar sínar í aðal seðlabanka heimsins. 

Það er svo lánað út til seðlabanka landana og þá mega þeir lána til dæmis í krónum 10 sinnum þá upphæð. 

Þetta kerfi spilar á vanþekkinguna, og gætir þess að kenna okkur ekki spilverkið.

Bandaríkin skulda ekki neitt, en þegar einhver þjóð er dugleg, framleiðir mikið, þá þarf hún mikið bókhald, mikið af peningum. 

Núverandi stjórn Bandaríkjanna, er að vinna að því að breyta kerfinu, frá þessum plat skuldum, og hefur tekið Federal reserve bankann frá Djúpríkinu, sem missir þá verulegan hluta af fjármagninu. 

Ef einhver vill fá greitt það sem er kallað skuld Bandaríkjanna, þá skrifa Bandaríkin samstundis ávísum í dollurum og greiðir skuldina.

Einfalt. 

Þessi slóð er svona grín. 

Þetta er gamla sagan,

ég lána þér pening, og hirði peninginn af þér.

Þá hef ég það sem ég lánaði þér og þú skuldar það líka.

Og það besta, ég lánaði þér ekki neitt.

Það hringsnýst allt fyrir augunum á þér.

og þú skilur ekki neitt.

Hef ég ekki kennt þér, veist þú ekki hvert vandamálið er?

Viltu öskra , berja í potta,

væri ekki nær að biðja guð um að hjálpa sér,

að hreinsa glýjuna úr augunum, og skítinn úr eyrunum.

Þá er líklegt að þú getir gætt hagsmuna þinna.

Egilsstaðir, 08.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

Jónas Gunnlaugsson, 8.10.2020 kl. 13:05

SJÓÐUR "0" Jón og Gunna byggja hús. Fjármála stofnunin, Sjóðurinn er - 0 -, skrifar tölu, bókhald í sjóð - 0. Jón og Gunna byggja húsið, og þá er komið veð fyrir tölunni sem var ekkert í SJÓÐI - 0.

SJÓÐUR "0"

20.10.2013 | 07:07

SJÓÐUR "0" 

Sköpunar bókhaldið.  

Skipti bókhaldið  

Peningurinn.  

Jón og Gunna koma í fjármálastofnunina og vilja byggja hús.  

Fjármálastofnunin, Sjóðurinn er  „0“  

Fjármálastofnunin skrifar tölu, bókhald í sjóð „0“  

Jón og Gunna byggja húsið, og þá er komið veð fyrir tölunni

sem var ekkert í SJÓÐI „0“  

Svona er góð peningasköpun, peningaprentun, peningabókhald.  

----  

Síðan er peningasköpun, peningaprentun, peningabókhald, sem er skapað,

án þess að búa til verðmæti eða þjónustu.  

(Til dæmis að selja verðbréf og gjaldeyrir fram og til baka,

og græða fúlgur fjár)

 -- 

Á þá sköpun verður að líta á sem atvinnusköpun án markmiðs.    

Peningabókhaldssköpun án markmiðs er betri en of lítið af Peningasköpunarbókhaldi.  

Það myndi valda verðhjöðnun, og atvinnuleysi.   

 -- 

Allir fjárfestar eru að leita að einhverjum til að gera verðmæti

úr tölu frá SJÓÐI „0“  

 --

Allir peningar, öll peningasköpun, allt peningabókhald,

kemur frá SJÓÐI „0“  

Skoða betur  

Egilsstaðir, 20.10.2013  Jónas Gunnlaugsson

 

Þegar við höfum lesið greinarnar um pestina, þorir þá nokkur að nota bóluefnið? Það er verið að koma í veg fyrir að læknar og heilsugæslustöðvar á staðnum ávísi lyfi sem virkaði áður, en er bannað núna.

HCQ er lyf sem fékk alþjóðlegtsamþykki og notast fyrir fjölda sjúkdóma. Lyfið hefur reynst vel í 60 ár.

En á einni nóttu varð það djöfulsins drykkur.

000

Lest neðar.*

Sett á blog:   Halldór Jónsson

Landlæknir !

000

 Þegar við höfum lesið greinarnar um pestina, þorir þá nokkur að nota bóluefnið?

slóð

Lönd sem notuðu hýdroxýklórókín við meðhöndlun covid-19 sáu 73% lægri dánartíðni, sem þýðir að Fauci, CDC og FDA hafa lagt á ráðin um að DREPA tugi þúsunda Bandaríkjamanna til að vernda ábatasaman bóluefnaiðnað

000

slóð

Mega heimilislæknar og heilsugæslur gera allt sem í þeirra valdi stendur til að forða nýveiku fólki frá að lenda á sjúkrahúsi og deyja? Svarið er nei. Þau mega það ekki. Læknar og heilsugæslustöðvar mega ekki ávísa lyfi sem virkaði áður er núna bannað.

Jónas Gunnlaugsson | 2. október 2020

Arutz Sheva www.israelnationalnews.com Hydroxychloroquine ( í Ísrael )

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/287773

Það má byrja að lesa í litaða letrinu neðar í greininni. Ísrael fagnaði þegar það virtist vera að komast í gegnum

slóð

Hydroxychloroquine was banned for Covid patients by the World Health Organization on the basis of these failed late stage trials. Local doctors and clinics are being prevented from prescribing a drug that worked before, but is banned now.

Jónas Gunnlaugsson | 23. september 2020

Smá tölvuþýðing og endursögn. Covid ráðgáta Ísraels HCQ var bannað fyrir Covid sjúklinga af WHO á grundvelli rannsókna á seina stigi. En læknar halda því fram að það hafi virkað á byrjunarstigi. https://jonasg-egi.blog.is/blog/jonasg-egi/entry/2254978/

slóð

Lönd sem notuðu hýdroxýklórókín við meðhöndlun covid-19 sáu 73% lægri dánartíðni, sem þýðir að Fauci, CDC og FDA hafa lagt á ráðin um að DREPA tugi þúsunda Bandaríkjamanna til að vernda ábatasaman bóluefnaiðnað

Jónas Gunnlaugsson | 6. september 2020

Ekki getur þetta verið rétt? Þetta er varúðar setning. ← AMERICAN CIVIL WAR II: Brought to you by the power elite Dr. Anthony Fauci: His Disastrous Track Record Tells the Real Story → Hard Scientific Data Confirms HCQ Dramatically Lowers

slóð

Hydroxychloroquine, drepur vírusinn, ef það er gefið strax, en ef vírusinn fær í friði að skaða líffæri, þá virkar þetta frábæra lyf síður. Bakteríudrepandi lyf virka þá hugsanlega betur. Bakteríulyf í dýrafóðri, gera virkni þeirra minni í mannfólkinu.

Jónas Gunnlaugsson | 5. september 2020

Egilsstaðir, 05.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

0000000000000000000000000000000000000000

*Frá Haret            ,  Israel

www. israelnationalnews.com

Er staðbundnum læknum (héraðslæknum) og heilsugæslustöðvum heimilt að gera allt sem unnt er til að koma í veg fyrir að sjúklingar á byrjunarstigi leggist á sjúkrahús og deyi?

Svarið er nei.

Reyndar er komið í veg fyrir að þessir fyrstu læknar, sem hafa náið faglegt samband við sjúklinga sína, geti hafið meðferð fyrir þá.

Voru ísraelskir læknar að ávísa einhverju í fyrstu bylgjunni sem kom í veg fyrir stórfelldar dánartölur sem þeir eru ekki að ávísa núna?

Svarið er já.

Það er verið að koma í veg fyrir að læknar og heilsugæslustöðvar á staðnum ávísi lyfi sem virkaði áður, en er bannað núna.

Sumir hafa verið reknir frá fagaðila sínum fyrir að þora að gefa í skyn að þetta lyf, ásamt öðrum, hafi bjargað óteljandi mannslífum.

Nú hefur það bann verið sett á ísraelska lækna á staðnum og fleiri deyja.

HCQ er lyf sem fékk alþjóðlegtsamþykki og notast fyrir fjölda sjúkdóma. Lyfið hefur reynst vel í 60 ár.

En á einni nóttu varð það djöfulsins drykkur.

 

Hvers vegna erum við nú með yfir 1300 dauðsföll þegar, í fyrstu bylgjunni, þau voru aðeins rétt rúmlega 300 talsins? Hvers vegna er þessi munur upp á 400%? …

 

Mega heimilislæknar okkar og heilsugæslur gera allt sem í þeirra valdi stendur til að forða nýveiku fólki frá því að lenda á sjúkrahúsi og deyja?

 

Svarið er nei. Þau mega það ekki.

 

Reyndar eru þessir fyrsta flokks læknar, sem hafa náið faglegt samband við sjúklinga sína, hindraðir í að nota það sem gæti hjálpað þeim að meðhöndla þá á árangursríkan hátt.

 

000

sum: In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.

5.10.2020 | 12:46

@Anonymous above my post, these trials (Recovery and Solidarity and REMAP) were designed to kill patients to discredit Hydroxychloroquine. Some studies using reasonable doses show a very good reduction in mortality, even for vulnerable patients.

3.10.2020 | 21:32

Mega heimilislæknar og heilsugæslur gera allt sem í þeirra valdi stendur til að forða nýveiku fólki frá að lenda á sjúkrahúsi og deyja? Svarið er nei. Þau mega það ekki. Læknar og heilsugæslustöðvar mega ekki ávísa lyfi sem virkaði áður er núna bannað.

2.10.2020 | 14:39

There is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and azithromycin. Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery . Hardly anyone has to die now. ísl.

1.10.2020 | 12:17

Nevada er sjöunda ríkið í Bandaríkjunum, sem dregur til baka svo að lítið beri á, bannið við að ávísa lyfinu HCQ, hydroxychloroquine vegna Covid-19. Læknar í Nevada geta nú aftur ávísað HCQ eins og þeir telja nauðsynlegt.

24.9.2020 | 21:06

Opið bréf frá læknum og heilbrigðisstarfsfólki til allra stjórnvalda Belgíu og belgískra fjölmiðla. það er ekki lengur nein læknisfræðilegur grundvöllur sem baráttan byggist á. Kreppu stjórnunin, gerir meira tjón en pestin.

28.9.2020 | 20:59

Dr. Zelenko's outpatient treatment regimen consists of, hydroxychloroquine, 200mg twice a day for five days; azithromycin, 500mg once a day for five days; and zinc sulfate, 220mg once a day for five days. drugs well known, usually well-tolerated;

27.9.2020 | 11:35

Lyfið verður að gefa strax og vart verður við veikina. Lyfið eyðir vírusnum og þá komast hinir sýklarnnir ekki í líffærin. Best er að gefa lyfið áður en fólk veikist. Þá virkar lyfið sem bólusetning. Tekst okkur að skilja þetta mikla vandamál?

3.9.2020 | 11:04

 000

Egilsstaðir, 22.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

Egilsstaðir, 08.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

Fiskarnir 5, sem þú átt aldrei að borða, og fiskarnir 5 sem þú þarft að borða. Við höfum þetta í huganum, og meltum það.

Fiskarnir 5, sem þú átt aldrei að borða, og fiskarnir 5 sem þú þarft að borða.

Við höfum þetta í huganum, og meltum það.

000

Top 5 Best Fish You Should NEVER Eat & 5 Fish You Must To Eat

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hdVpzvLbYo

klikka mynd, þá stærri

klikka mynd, þá stærri

Fimm bestu fiskarnir, og  verstu fiskarnir til átu.

Omega stafurinn kemur sem stafarugl

 

		Ω*3	Hg	FREQ	GENERAL
1		2590	22	------	Protein
2		2670	50	------	Size/Age
3		1500	13	------	Location
4		1890	84	------	Tilefish Atl. (144)
5		1070	71	------	Tilefish Mex. (1450)
6		350	9	------	Trout Fresh (71)
7		250	45	------	Trout Ocean (256)
8		320	65	------
9		200	111	------
10		160	160	------
11	Orange Roughy		571	--- ---
12	Tuna		350 - 689	--- --- ---	- Unnatural
13	King Mackerel		730	--- --- ---	- Antibiotick
14	Shark		979	--- --- ---	- Red Dye
15	Swordfish		995	--- --- ---	- 1**PCB (16 x)
16	Tile Fish  (Mexico)		1450	--- --- ---	- 1** Ω6 – 1? Ω***3

 

Egilsstaðir, 08.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson    * Omega  ** Ör upp. *** Omega

sum: In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.

Tekið úr bloggi: 

slóð 

@Anonymous above my post, these trials (Recovery and Solidarity and REMAP) were designed to kill patients to discredit Hydroxychloroquine. Some studies using reasonable doses show a very good reduction in mortality, even for vulnerable patients.

3.10.2020 | 21:32

To sum up:

1. 1.  In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2. 2.  HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
3. 3.  Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
4. 4.  It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial.  Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
5. 5.  The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:

1.  a)  WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors.
2.    b)  In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
3.    c)   In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. Update June 18: I sent a tweet to WHO Director General Tedros informing him of these findings 3 days ago.  I also emailed WHO's Dr. Restrepo, inquiring about the doses used in the Solidarity trial.  I am very pleased to report thatWHO stopped this deadly trial yesterday, with no fanfare.  WHO claimed the decision was made on the basis of the Recovery trial result and a Cochrane review, as well as WHO data.  One wonders if the DSMB was bypassed again, as occurred on May 25 when WHO halted its HCQ arm for the first time. I had pointed out that if trial investigators had not disclosed to subjects the known risks associated with the high HCQ doses used, the investigators and WHO would be liable for damages.  I like to think my investigation has helped save some lives.

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 9:17 AM 

000

slóð

Hydroxychloroquine, drepur vírusinn, ef það er gefið strax, en ef vírusinn fær í friði að skaða líffæri, þá virkar þetta frábæra lyf síður. Bakteríudrepandi lyf virka þá hugsanlega betur. Bakteríulyf í dýrafóðri, gera virkni þeirra minni í mannfólkinu.

Jónas Gunnlaugsson | 5. september 2020

000

Egilsstaðir, 05.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

@Anonymous above my post, these trials (Recovery and Solidarity and REMAP) were designed to kill patients to discredit Hydroxychloroquine. Some studies using reasonable doses show a very good reduction in mortality, even for vulnerable patients.

Google translate.

@Anonymous fyrir ofan færslu mína, þessar rannsóknir (Recovery and Solidarity and REMAP) voru hannaðar til að drepa sjúklinga til að ófrægja Hydroxychloroquine.

Sumar rannsóknir sem nota hæfilega skammta sýna mjög góða lækkun á dánartíðni, jafnvel hjá viðkvæmum sjúklingum.

Ég ætla ekki að endursegja þetta. Það er of viðkvæmt. Verður að vera rétt.

Reynið að þýða sjálf með

translate.google.com 

www.bing.com/Translator 

Setja textan inn í Word, ýta á Reviw, ýta á Translate, og velja svo Document eða Selected text

000

Hér er ein commentin, afrituð að neðan úr comments.

000

August 22, 2020 at 8:57 AMAnonymous said...

@Anonymous above my post, these trials (Recovery and Solidarity and REMAP) were designed to kill patients to discredit Hydroxychloroquine.
Some studies using reasonable doses show a very good reduction in mortality, even for vulnerable patients.
If HCQ had not be demonized, there would be no need for a vaccine. There are a couple other cheap drugs being discovered with promising results vs Covid-19 as well

000

Sunday, June 14, 2020

 

WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant

The Solidarity Trial is a WHO-led conglomeration of many national trials of treatments for Covid-19. In March alone, the WHO collected $108 million from donors to cover costs of Solidairy clinical trials. Per the WHO:

As of 3 June 2020, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries, with over 400 hospitals actively recruiting patients. Overall, over 100 countries have joined or expressed an interest in joining the trial, and WHO is actively supporting 60 of them...

The hydroxychloroquine arm of the Solidarity trials restarted enrolling patients June 3, after being halted May 25 by WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus and the Executive Group of the Solidarity Trial. The hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) arm of the trials had been stopped after publication of the Lancet Surgisphere study, which claimed that patients who received chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine had 35% higher death rates, but the Lancet study was retracted 13 days after publication, as its data turned out to be fabricated. The HCQ Solidarity trials are currently ongoing.

Below are the drugs being tested in Solidarity:

• Remdesivir
• Hydroxychloroquine
• Lopinavir with Ritonavir
• Lopinavir with Ritonavir plus Interferon beta-1a.

Initially, the WHO planned to use neither cloroquine in its trials.  But multiple countries requested chloroquines, so both chloroquine (CQ) and HCQ were then added to the trial plan.  However, HCQ was felt to be a little safer, countries preferred it, so WHO dropped CQ from its trials.  Other clinical trials continue to test both CQ and HCQ against Covid-19.  The doses were not specified on WHO's list of the drugs to be trialed, nor were they specified, surprisingly, in WHO's April 8 four-person "consultation on chloroquine (CQ) dosing".  The Introduction of the Report of that meeting notes, 

"The chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine schedule selected for the trial includes two oral loading doses (250 mg per tablet CQ or 200 mg per tablet HCQ), then oral twice-daily maintenance doses for ten days. This meeting convened to discuss the appropriateness of the selected doses for the trial."

Last week, I was alerted to the fact that India's ICMR, its official medical research agency, had written to the WHO, telling WHO that the hydroxychloroquine doses being used in the Solidarity trial were 4 times higher than the doses being used in India.  Then I learned that Singapore had been hesitant to participate in the WHO trial due to the hydroxychloroquine dose.  

The UK "Recovery" trial was very similar to, but not part of, the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials.  The Recovery trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 deaths, about 10% higher than those receiving standard care, a non-significant difference.

The UK Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies.  The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22.  Twitter users began to notice a dosing problem, with hashtag #RecoveryGate.  

The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days.  This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.

Even more disturbing than this, babies weighing 5 kg could be given a dose of 300 mg HCQ in the first 24 hours in the UK Recovery trial, which is 233 mg of the base (47 mg/kg), nearly 4 times the recommended maximum.  One to two pills (200-400 mg) is "potentially fatal in a toddler". And authors from George Washington University say:

"Ingestion of 1-2 tablets of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is thought to predispose children under 6 years of age to serious morbidity and mortality...ingestions of greater than 10 mg/kg of chloroquine base or unknown amounts require triage to the nearest health care facility for 4-6 h of observation. There is very limited data on pediatric hydroxychloroquine overdoses and no reports of toxicity from 1-2 pills, but given its similarity to chloroquine, it also should be considered potentially toxic at small doses. Thus, similar recommendations should be followed for triage after accidental hydroxychloroquine overdose." UPDATE July 21: The American Association of Poison Control Centers said on March 25:  "These medications have a narrow therapeutic window, meaning that accidental ingestion of amounts that exceed recommended dosing can be extremely dangerous with toxicity including coma, seizures, cardiac dysrhythmias, low potassium levels, cardiac arrest and death. Even a single pill can be potentially life threatening to a child."

The quote from the WHO report on dosing, provided 9 paragraphs ago, seems to be deliberately vague regarding the dose used in the Solidarity trial, stating the number of milligrams per tablet, but not the number of tablets to be used.  The Solidarity trial is registered but the registration fails to specify dosages.

The registration of the Canadian portion of the Solidarity trial informs us of its HCQ dose: ten 200 mg tablets during the first 24 hours (800 mg initial dose, 800 mg 12 hours later then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days).  This is 2.0 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 8.8 grams over 10 days, or only 0.4 grams less than what Recovery used. The Norwegian Solidarity trial uses dosing identical to Canada.

Co-Principal Investigators of the Recovery trial, Drs. Peter Horby and Martin Landray, said they followed the WHO dosing. This is what their trial document says as well, on page 23. Landray also claimed in an interview with Paris Soir that the maximum allowed HCQ dose was "6 or 10 times" the dose used in Recovery, and that he was using the hydroxychloroquine dose that is used for amebic dysentery.  However, the accepted use for HCQ in amebiasis is only for a liver abscess and only then in pregnancy, when other drugs cannot be used.  That dose is 600 mg per day for 2 days, then 300 mg per day, considerably less than half the Recovery dose.  Co-Principal Investigator Peter Horby said that Paris Soir misinterpreted Landray's comments, but Paris Soir said Landray had confirmed what he told them in an email prior to publication.  Landray is a very busy man, too busy, apparently, to look up the proper dose of a drug he gave to over 1500 subjects, who were randomized to the treatment and had no say in the matter.

We know that in Brazil, both a high CQ dose and a low CQ dose were trialed, and by April 17 the high dose arm was stopped prematurely due to an excess of deaths, with 39% mortality (16 deaths in 41 subjects).  The mean age in the high dose group was 54.7. The high dose arm used 600 mg CQ twice daily for ten days, with cumulative dose of 12 grams. EKG changes typical of toxicity were seen in 25% of high dose subjects. The low dose trial continues in Brazil.

How is the drug hydroxychloroquine normally used?  For chronic daily use in systemic lupus erythematosus, rheumatoid arthritis or Lyme disease, patients receive between 200 and 400 mg daily, or a maximum of 5 mg/kg.  In acute Q fever, 600 mg daily may be given at the start of treatment. For acute attacks of malaria, 1,500-2,000 mg may be given over 3 days.  Professor Didier Raoult's group in Marseille used 600 mg daily for up to ten days in 1061 Covid-19 patients, and reported 8 deaths, a mortality rate of 0.75%, all over 74 years of age.  The mortality rate reported by Landray and Horby in the Recovery trial is 34 times higher.

We know from WHO's March 13 Informal consultation on the potential role of chloroquine that the Gates Foundation had been studying the drug's complex pharmacokinetics, and of the 25 participants at this meeting, 5 were from the Gates Foundation.  

The only treatment dose mentioned in the March 13 Informal consultation report was in a paragraph about preventive doses.  It said, "Higher doses would be considered for treatment, i.e., 10mg/kg base, followed by 5mg/kg twice daily for seven days." 

What is the "base"?  A 200 mg dose of hydroxychloroquine contains 155 mg "base" drug. Generally, a loading dose refers only to a high first dose, not to several high additional doses. However, the trial protocol used in Solidarity employs the same dose for all, rather than weight-based dosing.

What is a toxic dose?  All experts agree on this: "... chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin," according to Goldfrank's Toxicologic Emergencies.  The drug is very safe when used correctly, but not a lot more can potentially kill.  Prof. Nicholas White, a Wellcome Trust Principal Research Fellow and expert in malaria treatment, who attended both WHO consultations on the chloroquines, has confirmed this.  Careful monitoring of electrolyte levels and an EKG can prevent most problems.

The WHO hired a consultant to explore the toxicity of chloroquine in 1979. The consultant, H. Weniger, looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs.  Weniger on page 5 notes that a single dose of 1.5-2 grams of chloroquine base "may be fatal." 

According to Browning and Goldfrank, the pharmacokinetics and potency of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are almost identical, while the maximum used chronic dose of chloroquine is 3.5 mg/kg. 

The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients.  The Canadian and Norwegian Solidarity trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug's half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.)  

The doses used in these trials are not recommended for therapy of any medical condition, which I confirmed with Goodman and Gilman's Pharmacology textbook, the drug's US label, and the online subscription medical encyclopedia UptoDate. 

Excessive, dangerous HCQ dosing continues to be used in WHO's Solidarity trials. While the Solidarity trials have an "adaptive" design which allows midstream protocol changes, no lessons were learned from the Brazil or Recovery trials' experience with excessive dosages. Solidarity has not reduced its HCQ dosing, although it can do so at any time.  The Solidarity trials are not, in fact, testing the benefits of HCQ on Covid-19, but rather are testing whether patients survive toxic, non-therapeutic doses.

The WHO Solidarity trials, in order to rapidly enroll patients and spare clinicians a lot of paperwork, collect only limited information on side effects.  No information has yet been provided regarding causes of death in the completed hydroxychloroquine arm of the Recovery trial, in which 396 patients died, and may never be.  

The Solidarity trial design being employed by WHO obscures whether mortality is due to drug toxicity (in which case, one would expect death to be due to an arrhythmia, neuropsychiatric effects, or hypoglycemia) as opposed to death due to Covid-19.

In fact, the lack of safety data being collected is downright scary.  Here is a description of the data obtained on patients enrolled in Solidarity, as reported in Science magazine:

The participant has to sign an informed consent form that is scanned and sent to WHO electronically. After the physician states which drugs are available at his or her hospital, the website will randomize the patient to one of the drugs available or to the local standard care for COVID-19.  “After that, no more measurements or documentation are required,” says Ana Maria Henao Restrepo, a medical officer at WHO’s Emergencies Programme. Physicians will record the day the patient left the hospital or died, the duration of the hospital stay, and whether the patient required oxygen or ventilation, she says. “That’s all.”

The WHO report of its meeting on chloroquine dosing states,

Although the preponderance of opinion tilted towards a reasonable benefit risk profile for the intervention, there was some scepticism about what was considered a ‘minimalistic safety data collection’ currently included in the protocol. 

The high dose regimen being used in these trials has no medical justification.  The trial design, with its limited collection of safety data, makes it difficult or impossible to identify toxic drug effects, compared to a standard drug trial.  This is completely unethical.

Excessive dosing makes it impossible to assess therapeutic benefit, if any, of HCQ. Furthermore, because there are over 400 trial sites, and relatively few subjects in each, unexpectedly high trends in mortality are likely to be missed at individual trial sites.

Finally, testing the drug only in hospitalized patients means that the window of time during which HCQ would be expected to provide the most benefit, early in the illness when viral titers are rising, has passed.

Didier Raoult's group has recently published on the major differences in treatment and outcomes patients receive when placed in "big data" studies vs. receiving individualized care for Covid-19.

As I was completing this article, the FDA announced it was withdrawing its Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19, because the "known and potential benefits" no longer outweigh the risks of the drug. The FDA cited data from the Recovery trial in its announcement. I discuss the implications here.

To sum up:

1. 1.  In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2. 2.  HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
3. 3.  Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
4. 4.  It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial.  Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
5. 5.  The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:

1.  a)  WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors.
2.    b)  In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
3.    c)   In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic.  This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths. Update June 18: I sent a tweet to WHO Director General Tedros informing him of these findings 3 days ago.  I also emailed WHO's Dr. Restrepo, inquiring about the doses used in the Solidarity trial.  I am very pleased to report thatWHO stopped this deadly trial yesterday, with no fanfare.  WHO claimed the decision was made on the basis of the Recovery trial result and a Cochrane review, as well as WHO data.  One wonders if the DSMB was bypassed again, as occurred on May 25 when WHO halted its HCQ arm for the first time. I had pointed out that if trial investigators had not disclosed to subjects the known risks associated with the high HCQ doses used, the investigators and WHO would be liable for damages.  I like to think my investigation has helped save some lives.

Posted by Meryl Nass, M.D. at 9:17 AM 

 

8 comments:

John said...

Mind boggling to think Anne Frank if alive could be in these high dose HCQ WHO studies.
Doctors here earned deserving mistrust on level that defies comprehension.
Dr Mengele’s School of Medicine in many ways has won the day, and honest physicians could not disregard how high the mountain piles in nearly ever direction of MD Mengele facts!!!
Physicians themselves report don’t know what to do about the corruption coming from those in charge!!
Reading about another pile in Bitten on Lyme Disease Kris Newby on Biological Weapons for citizens, the thrill of it all.
Mr. Hilter election Pls Monty Pythons Flying Circus https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hWIyVRNAxCg&feature=emb_title
Caution Killers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLL5igJOsXo
Human Race Matters?

June 18, 2020 at 12:05 AMUnknown said...

This is an article of exceptional quality. We quickly came to the conclusion that the RECOVERY trials were an act of sabotage. We, however, did not look at the dosage to infants and children. The RECOVERY trials recommend a toxic dose of hydroxychloroquine to infants. Neither infants nor breastfeeding mothers should be administered hydroxychloroquine according to the insert of the manufacturer for the US. It is shocking that the RECOVERY protocol contains such a gross and potentially deadly error. Thank you for your excellent work. The New Neander's Medical.

June 18, 2020 at 9:07 AMDrew458 said...

I hope that President Trump keeps his mouth shut about the news of Dexamethasone. That too will become instant anathema if he so much as nods his head in it's direction.

June 18, 2020 at 12:22 PMAnonymous said...

A very scary and well researched article of evidence to show Cov-19 was made in the USA Not a quick read, so you may want to skip the history of viruses and scroll to: Man-Made SARS-CoV-2 https://www.sott.net/article/437083-Compelling-Evidence-That-SARS-CoV-2-Was-Man-Made

June 28, 2020 at 12:01 PMAnonymous said...

The Elephant in the room is what boys and girls ….?
http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=41979
Breadcrumbs.
Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag
Prashant Pradhan, Ashutosh Kumar Pandey, Akhilesh Mishra, Parul Gupta, Praveen Kumar Tripathi, Manoj Balakrishnan Menon, James Gomes, Perumal Vivekanandan, Bishwajit Kundu
This article is a preprint and has not been certified by peer review [what does this mean?]. AbstractFull TextInfo/HistoryMetrics Preview PDF Abstract
We are currently witnessing a major epidemic caused by the 2019 novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV). The evolution of 2019-nCoV remains elusive. We found 4 insertions in the spike glycoprotein (S) which are unique to the 2019-nCoV and are not present in other coronaviruses. Importantly, amino acid residues in all the 4 inserts have identity or similarity to those in the HIV-1 gp120 or HIV-1 Gag. Interestingly, despite the inserts being discontinuous on the primary amino acid sequence, 3D-modelling of the 2019-nCoV suggests that they converge to constitute the receptor binding site. The finding of 4 unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV, all of which have identity /similarity to amino acid residues in key structural proteins of HIV-1 is unlikely to be fortuitous in nature. This work provides yet unknown insights on 2019-nCoV and sheds light on the evolution and pathogenicity of this virus with important implications for diagnosis of this virus.
Breadcrumbs.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1

July 3, 2020 at 10:41 AMUnknown said...

in reply to Anonymous: "The Elephant in the room is what boys and girls ….?" and "Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag"
***PAPER WITHDRAWN***
read the comments on it at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.30.927871v1
it's total rubbish, basically.

July 13, 2020 at 8:48 AMAnonymous said...

I think the same trials should not be continued because they are too risky to human health. Do you think a vaccine is more practical, at least it has no effect on health? Remember to visit my blog if you have some time: à¸ªà¸¥à¹‡à¸­à¸•

August 22, 2020 at 8:57 AMAnonymous said...

@Anonymous above my post, these trials (Recovery and Solidarity and REMAP) were designed to kill patients to discredit Hydroxychloroquine.
Some studies using reasonable doses show a very good reduction in mortality, even for vulnerable patients.
If HCQ had not be demonized, there would be no need for a vaccine. There are a couple other cheap drugs being discovered with promising results vs Covid-19 as well

August 30, 2020 at 4:16 AM

Post a Comment

Newer PostOlder PostHome

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)

 

Mega heimilislæknar og heilsugæslur gera allt sem í þeirra valdi stendur til að forða nýveiku fólki frá að lenda á sjúkrahúsi og deyja? Svarið er nei. Þau mega það ekki. Læknar og heilsugæslustöðvar mega ekki ávísa lyfi sem virkaði áður er núna bannað.

Arutz Sheva

www.israelnationalnews.com

Hydroxychloroquine (í Ísrael)

https://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/287773

 

Það má byrja að lesa í litaða letrinu neðar í greininni.

Ísrael fagnaði þegar það virtist vera að komast í gegnum Wuhan-vírusfaraldurinn með glæsibrag. Í júnílok, með aðeins rétt rúmlega 300 dauðsföll, þá vorum við heimsmeistarar. Okkur var leyft að snúa aftur til daglegs lífs. Síðan dundi ógæfan á okkur aftur. Af fullum þunga. Dánartölur ruku upp og yfir 1200 manns létust.

Hvers vegna? Hvað gerðum við sem var ólíkt því sem áður var?

Okkur var sagt að við værum að halda partí, að gifta okkur, að safnast saman til bænafunda, að fara á ströndina. En við vorum líka að gera allt þetta áður. Í hverju er þá munurinn fólginn?

Við fengum aldrei nein svör við því. Í staðinn var ákveðið að útnefna heilsueinvald, kalla hann Ráðabruggarann, gefa honum lyklavöldin að kastalanum, þ.m.t. að fjárhagnum, ráðuneytum, rannsóknarstofum, sjúkrahúsum, heilsugæslum, meira að segja hernum, til að fletja út seinni bylgjuna. Stjórnmálamennirnir lofuðu að halda sig til hlés.

Í fyrsta lagi breytti Ráðabruggarinn landinu í umferðarljósasvæði. Þau með hæstu smitatölurnar voru merkt rauð og sett í sóttkví. Hljómaði vel þar til að í ljós kom að mikill meirihluti rauðu svæðanna, 80%, voru annaðhvort arabahverfi eða strangtrúarhverfi og það olli mótspyrnu – að ekki sé minnst á háar dánartölur á þessum svæðum.

Ráðabruggarinn sagði að þessum svæðum yrði að loka alveg. Og þá varð allt vitlaust. Stjórnmálamenn komu fram úr fylgsnum sínum. Þingfundir urðu að uppþotum. Flokksbrot hlynnt forsætisráðherranum kröfðust stuðnings hans og þau sem voru gegn honum fóru að berja að dyrum. Hann sá enga útleið þannig að hann gerði það sem allir stjórnmálamenn hefðu gert. Hann henti áætlun Ráðabruggarans út um gluggann og fyrirskipaði allsherjar útgöngubann í þrjár vikur, sem féllu á helstu hátíðir gyðinga, þ.á m. nýárshátíðina, friðþægingardaginn og laufskálahátíðina.

Útgöngubannið hófst síðdegis á föstudegi fyrir hina hefðbundnu nýárshátíð til að koma í veg fyrir fjölmennar fjölskyldusamkomur. En hugmyndaríkir Ísraelsmenn fluttu hátíðahöldin um einn dag og héldu sínar fjölskylduveislur á fimmtudegi í staðinn fyrir á föstudegi. Bráðsnjallt.

Þúsundir gyðinga drifu sig á sýnatökustöðvar áður en þeir mættu á Ben Gurion-flugvöllinn og flugu frá rauðum svæðum Ísraels til grænna grunda frekar en að sitja innilokaðir svo vikum skipti. Sumir bókuðu bara miða aðra leið.

Mikið spjallað í sjónvarpi. Miklu bleki eytt á síðum dagblaðanna.

Þögn ríkti um stærstu ráðgátuna.

Hvers vegna var fleira fólk að veikjast alvarlega og deyja en áður?

Hvers vegna erum við nú með yfir 1300 dauðsföll þegar, í fyrstu bylgjunni, þau voru aðeins rétt rúmlega 300 talsins? Hvers vegna er þessi munur upp á 400%?

Þetta er ekki vegna meiri sýnatöku því að fólk veiktist, jafnvel án þess að sýni væru tekin, í fyrstu bylgjunni. Embættismenn og spekingar tala endalaust um sýnatökur, samskiptafjarlægð og útgöngubann en lítið annað. Þeir hafa áhyggjur af að spítalar og rannsóknarstofur kikni undan álagi við að sinna alvarlega veikum sjúklingum.

En enginn er að tala um hvernig á að forða nýlega veiku fólki frá því að hraka og lenda á spítala eða þaðan af verra.

Mega heimilislæknar okkar og heilsugæslur gera allt sem í þeirra valdi stendur til að forða nýveiku fólki frá því að lenda á sjúkrahúsi og deyja?

Svarið er nei. Þau mega það ekki.

Reyndar eru þessir fyrsta flokks læknar, sem hafa náið faglegt samband við sjúklinga sína, hindraðir í að nota það sem gæti hjálpað þeim að meðhöndla þá á árangursríkan hátt.

Voru ísraelskir læknar að gefa sjúklingum sínum eitthvað í fyrstu bylgjunni sem kom í veg fyrir háar dánartölur, eitthvað sem þeir eru ekki að gefa sjúklingum sínum núna?

Svarið er já.

Læknar og heilsugæslustöðvar mega ekki ávísa lyfi sem virkaði áður en er núna bannað. Lyfið sem ekki má nefna heitir Hydroxychloroquine (hér eftir skammstafað HCQ).

Lyfjafræðingum er bannað að minnast á þetta efni í fjölmiðlum. Sumir hafa verið reknir fyrir að voga sér að nefna að þetta lyf, í bland við önnur, hafi bjargað óteljandi lífum.

Núna er búið að setja þetta bann á heilsugæslulækna í Ísrael og fleira fólk deyr.

HCQ er lyf sem hefur fengið alþjóðlegan opinberan staðal sem meðal við margskonar veikindum og sjúkdómum. Það er með ótrúlegt öryggismet til sextíu ára.

En í einni andrá varð það að djöfladrykk.

Mörg hundruð lækna og þúsundir sjúklinga sem fullyrða um gagn þess þegar það er notað á fyrstu stigum sjúkdómsins, í réttu magni og með öðrum lyfjum eins og t.d. sinki og azithromycin, hafa verið settir í gapastokk og þeim bannað að sýna gögn sín eða segja frá reynslu sinni.

Farið er með lækna, sem eru í nánu sambandi við sjúklinga sína, eins og villutrúarmenn.

Yfirvöld segja að HCQ hafi ekki staðist seinni stig klínískra prófana. Þau fullyrða að nokkrir sjúklingar hafi upplifað hjartaóreglu, fullyrðing sem margir hafa hrakið, þ.á m. dr. Harvey Risch, prófessor í farsjúkdómafræði við Yale-læknadeildina, sem er mjög gagnrýninn á hversu lélegar þessar klínísku prófanir voru.

Eftir að hafa kynnt sér þær þá komst hann m.a. að þeirri niðurstöðu að lyfið hefði verið gefið á rangan hátt, jafnvel í banvænum skömmtum, oft ekki með öðrum lyfjum, til sjúklinga sem ekki áttu miklar lífslíkur, hvað sem öllum lyfjum leið.

Risch prófessor er ákafur talsmaður fyrir notkun HCQ í bland við önnur lyf á fyrstu stigum sjúkdómsins, sem og dr. Vladimir Zelenko, grísk-kaþólsk-trúaður amerískur læknir, sem fann upp Zelenko-reglurnar þar sem lýst er í smáatriðum, fyrir heimilislækna og heilsugæslustöðvar sem eru að meðhöndla sjúklinga á fyrstu stigum Covid, hvernig á að skammta lyf og fylgjast með sjúklingum fyrstu fimm dagana eftir að hafa greinst með kórónuveiruna.

Prófessor Risch skráir niður og sundurgreinir velgengni og mistök í meðhöndlun snemmstigs Covid-sjúklinga og er sannfærður um að HCQ, í bland við önnur lyf, sé örugg og árangursrík aðferð til að koma í veg fyrir lamandi áhrif kórónuveirunnar.

Þessari snemmstigsmeðhöndlun var hleypt af stokkunum í Frakklandi af veirufræðingnum Didier Raoult, sem meðhöndlaði hundruð Covid-sjúklinga, áður en Big Pharma útmálaði hann sem skottulækni.

Alþjóðaheilbrigðismálastofnunin (WHO) bannaði HCQ fyrir Covid-sjúklinga á grunni þessarar löku útkomu í seinni stigs prófunum.

En WHO mælir með parasetamóli, lyfi sem hefur ekki verið sett í klínískar prófanir fyrir Covid-sjúklinga, og er þekkt fyrir alvarlegar aukaverkanir.

Þetta er ekki aðeins hræsnisfullt heldur líka mjög grunsamlegt. Og WHO er grunsamleg stofnun – eins og Donald Trump sagði í ræðu sinni hjá Sameinuðu Þjóðunum.

Sem kallar á spurninguna: Hvers vegna þessi mismunun?

Athygli mín á þessu hrópandi ósamræmi var vakin þegar ég tók viðtal við dr. Rob Elens, heimilislækni með heilsugæslu í suðurhluta Hollands.

Dr. Elens hafði upphaflega tuttugu og fimm sjúklinga sem veiktust af Covid. Þeir fengu meðhöndlun skv. reglum frá hollenskum heilbrigðisyfirvöldum, semsagt parasetamól og einangrun.

Þeim versnaði öllum. Þeir lentu allir á sjúkrahúsi. Tólf þeirra dóu.

Dr. Elens, sem er samúðarfullur læknir, lá það mjög á hjarta að eitthvað betra hefði getað bjargað sjúklingum hans.

Þannig að hann gerði það sem allir ábyrgðarfullir læknar myndu gera. Hann sökkti sér í vísindin og fann Zelenko-reglurnar, reynda og prófaða afleiðu af rannsóknum nokkurra lækna við að hjálpa sjúklingum á fyrstu stigum Covid-veirusýkingar að komast yfir veikindin.

Þannig að þegar næsti sjúklingur kom til hans þá bauð hann honum upp á opinberu leiðina eða lyfjablönduma með sinki, HCQ og azithromycin. Dr. Elens fylgdist með sjúklingnum á klukkustundarfresti og var hæstánægður með að sjá að sjúklingurinn svaraði meðferð vel og var búinn að ná sér að fullu innan þriggja daga.

Læknirinn endurtók sömu meðferð í ráðlögðum skömmtum á næstu níu snemmstigs-sjúklingum. Allir náðu sér fljótt.

En þegar hann tilkynnti hollenskum heilbrigðisyfirvöldum um vel heppnaða meðferð sína þá var honum sagt að hætta.

Í myndbandi mínu, „Covid, og lyfið sem ekki ná nefna“, (e. Covid, and the drug that dare not speak its name),  svarar hinn, nú óhlýðni, dr. Elens um sjúklinga sína: „Það er betra að vera ólöglega á lífi en löglega dauður.“

Í samanburðarrannsókn sem gerð var í júní á Covid-19-sjúklingum á saudi-arabísku covid-sjúkrahúsunum, var komist að þeirri niðurstöðu að snemmtæk íhlutun með meðferð byggð á HCQ á lítið til meðalveikum Covid-sjúklingum tengdist lægri sjúkrahúsinnlögn, gjörgæsluinnlögn og/eða dauða.

Hvers vegna, ef það er svona mikilvægt að koma í veg fyrir að sjúkrahúsin okkar yfirfyllist, erum við ekki að tala opinberlega um tálmun á notkun á lyfi sem ekki má nefna þegar svo margir læknar og nafntogaðir sérfræðingar ábyrgjast áhrif þess?

Þetta er spurning sem á rétt á sér og krefst svara á svo viðsjárverðum tímum.

Barry Shaw, Senior Associate, Israel Institute for Strategic Studies

000

Israel’s Covid mystery

HCQ was banned for Covid patients by the WHO on the basis of late stage trials. But doctors claim it worked in early stage usage. Opinion.

 Tags: hydroxychloroquine Coronavirus Barry Shaw lockdown

Barry Shaw , 23/09/20 10:27

Share

 

Hydroxychloroquine

iStock

Israel congratulated itself on coming through the Wuhan virus pandemic with flying colors. By the end of June, with only 300 plus deaths, we were king of the world. We were allowed to go about our normal daily lives. And then we were hit again. Big time. The death rate rocketed to over 1200.

Why? What did we do differently?

They said we were partying, getting married, gathering to pray, going to the beach. But we were doing all that before. So why the difference?

We were never given the answer. Instead, they decided to appoint a health czar, called him the Projector, gave him the keys to the castle, including budget, ministries, laboratories, hospitals, the health clinics, even the army, to flatten the second curve. The politicians promised to stay in the background.

First, The Projector turned the country into traffic light zones. Those with the highest infection rate were zoned red and required to be quarantined. Made sense, until it was discovered that the vast majority of the red zones, fully 80%, were either Arab or Orthodox towns, and that caused resistance - never mind the high morbidity in those sectors.

These places, The Projector said, must be placed in immediate lockdown. Then all hell let loose. Politics reared its inevitable head. Knesset meetings became riots. Factions which the Prime Minister depended for his support, and those that opposed him, began banging on his door. He could not win so he did what any politician would do. He threw The Projector’s plan out the window and decreed a national lockdown of three weeks coinciding with the Jewish High Holidays encompassing Rosh Hashanah, Yom Kippur and Sukkot.

It began on the Friday afternoon before the traditional New Year’s eve to prevent mass family gatherings. But innovative defiant Israelis moved Rosh Hashanah festivities a day earlier and held their family gatherings on Thursday night instead of Friday. Brilliant.

Thousands of Jews rushed to test centers before heading to Ben Gurion Airport and flying from red Israel to green pastures rather than remain in lockdown for weeks. Some booked indefinite one way tickets.

Lots of TV chatter. Lots of ink splashed in pages of news media.

Silence about the biggest mystery of all.

Why are more people becoming seriously ill and dying than before?

Why do we now have over 1,300 deaths when, in the peak of the first curve, our mortality rate was just over 300? Why the over 400% difference?

It isn’t due to greater testing because people got sick, even without testing, in the first wave.

Officials and pundits talk endlessly about testing, social distancing, lockdown, but little else. They are worried about hospitals and laboratories becoming overloaded with seriously infected patients.

But no one is talking about how to stop early stage sufferers from deteriorating into hospitalization and worse.

Are our local doctors and clinics being allowed to do everything possible to stop early stage patients from becoming hospitalized and dying?

The answer is no. They are not. In fact, these first-line physicians, who have intimate professional contact with their patients, are being prevented from what might lead to treating them successfully.

Were Israeli doctors prescribing something in the first wave that prevented massive mortality figures they are not prescribing now?

The answer is yes.

Local doctors and clinics are being prevented from prescribing a drug that worked before, but is banned now. The drug that dare not speak its name is hydroxychloroquine. Medical experts are forbidden on social media to mention its name. Some have been fired from their professional for daring to suggest that this drug, in combination with others, has saved countless lives.

Now that ban has been placed on Israeli local physicians, and more people are dying.

HCQ is a drug that received global official status use for a number of illnesses and diseases. It has a remarkable sixty-year safety record. But overnight, it became the devil’s potion.

Many hundreds of doctors and thousands of patients who swear to its efficacy when used on early stage sufferers in the right dose and in combination with other medications such as zinc and azithromycin, have been pilloried and banned from expressing their data and from sharing their experiences.

Professional physicians, in intimate contact with their private patients, are treated like heretics.

The authorities say HCQ failed late stage clinical trials. They claim it left a few patients with heart irregularities, a claim refuted by many experts, including Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale School of Medicine, who is highly critical about how badly the clinical trials were conducted.

After studying the clinical trials, he concluded, among the things, that they applied the drug incorrectly, even in dangerously high dosages, often not in combination with other drugs, to patients who had little chance of surviving with any drug.

Professor Risch is an ardent advocate for the application of HCQ in combination with other medications to early stage patients, as is Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, an Orthodox American physician, who came up with the Zelenko Protocol which details, for local doctors and clinics dealing with early stage Covid patients, how to prescribe and monitor patients starting in the first five days of contracting the coronavirus.

Professor Risch records and analyses the successes and failures of treating early stage Covid patients and is convinced in his judgment that HCQ, in combination with other drugs, is a safe and efficient method of preventing the debilitating effect of the coronavirus.

This early stage treatment was pioneered successfully in France by virologist Didier Raoult, who successfully treated hundreds of Covid patients, before he was pilloried as being a quack by Big Pharma.

Hydroxychloroquine was banned for Covid patients by the World Health Organization on the basis of these failed late stage trials. But the WHO recommends paracetamol, a drug that has not undergone clinical trials for Covid patients, and is known to have serious side effects. This is not only hypocritical, but highly suspect. And the WHO itself is suspect - as Donald Trump said in his UN speech.

Which begs the question. Why the difference?

This troubling discrepancy was brought home to me when I interviewed Dr. Rob Elens, a local physician with a busy clinic in the south of Holland.

Dr. Elens had an initial twenty-five patients who came down with Covid. They were prescribed with the Dutch health authorities recommendation, namely paracetamol and isolation.

The condition of all twenty-five worsened. All were hospitalized. Twelve of his patients died.

Dr. Elens, a compassionate doctor, was gravely concerned that something better could have saved his patients’ lives. So he did what any self-respecting doctor would do. He went in search of the science and came across the Zelenko Protocol, a tried and tested derivative of several doctors’ experiences in helping their early stage patients get over Covid.

So, when his next infected patient came along he offered him the choice of the official track or the drug combination of zinc, HCQ and azithromycin. Dr. Elens monitored the patient hourly and was pleased to discover that his patient responded well to the treatment and recovered completely within three days.

The doctor repeated the same medication in the required doses with his next nine early stage patients. All recovered quickly. But when he reported his successful cases to the Dutch medical authorities he received a warning to desist.

In my video “Covid, and the drug that dare not speak its name,” the now defiant Dr. Elens responded by saying of his patients, “Better illegally alive, than legally dead.”

A June comparative study, carried out into Covid-19 patients by the Saudi national fever clinics, concluded that early intervention of a HCQ-based therapy in mild to moderate COVID-19 patients was associated with lower odds of hospitalization, ICU admission and/or death.

And why, if it is so important to prevent our hospital system from being overwhelmed, are we not having a public conversation on the prevention of the use of a drug that dare not speak its name, but about which so many physicians and renowned specialists swear to its efficacy?

This is a legitimate questions that demands answers at such a critical time.

Barry Shaw, Senior Associate, Israel Institute for Strategic Studies.

000

Egilsstaðir, 02.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson

There is an affordable, safe and efficient therapy available for severe symptoms of disease in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and azithromycin. Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery . Hardly anyone has to die now. ísl.

Endursögn.

Núna er til ódýr, örugg. og skilvirk meðferð fyrir þá sem eru með greinileg einkenni veikinnar. 

Meðferðin er að nota HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc og azithromycin.

Ef þessi meðferð, er gerð strax, kemur bati og oft þarf ekki sjúkrahús vist.

Næstum engin þarf að deyja.

 

(severe þýði ég hér sem greinileg, vegna þess, að best er að gefa HCQ strax til að stöva svokallaða vírusa, svo að þeir nái ekki að veikja varnarkerfi líkamans og opna fyrir að sýklarnir komist í hin ýmsu líffæri.

HCQ virkar á vírusa en þegar sýklarnir hafa komist í líffærin, verður að nota sýkla lyf.

HCQ, hydroxychloroquine er sagt virka sem bóluefni.

Þessvegna er elítan, sögð taka HCQ til að verjast veikinni.)

000

Meanwhile, there is an affordable,

safe and efficient therapy available

for those who do show severe symptoms of disease

in the form of HCQ (hydroxychloroquine), zinc and azithromycin.

Rapidly applied this therapy leads to recovery and often prevents hospitalisation. Hardly anyone has to die now.

slóð

Ef við gefum fólkinu HCQ, Hydroxychloroquine, þá fær fólkið ekki, eða síður veikina, Helmingunar tími HCQ í líkamanum er 30 til 60 dagar, og aldrei má gefa of mikið. Indland hefur selt 85 milljón skammmta, og er mikil eftirspurn, það virkar svo vel.

Jónas Gunnlaugsson | 13. ágúst 2020

Slóð

Nevada er sjöunda ríkið í Bandaríkjunum, sem dregur til baka svo að lítið beri á, bannið við að ávísa lyfinu HCQ, hydroxychloroquine vegna Covid-19. Læknar í Nevada geta nú aftur ávísað HCQ eins og þeir telja nauðsynlegt.

24.9.2020 | 21:06

Lærum við af Ríkistjórunum, Governorunum og læðum lausninni til fólksins. 

Kannt þú betra ráð?

slóð

Ef við gefum fólkinu HCQ, Hydroxychloroquine, þá fær fólkið ekki, eða síður veikina, Helmingunar tími HCQ í líkamanum er 30 til 60 dagar, og aldrei má gefa of mikið. Indland hefur selt 85 milljón skammmta, og er mikil eftirspurn, það virkar svo vel.

13.8.2020 | 16:00

Egilsstaðir, 01.10.2020   Jónas Gunnlaugsson