We attended the digital funeral today of an innocent victim, slaughtered in a horrific drive-by shooting. That victim was of course Ivermectin, a wonder drug that has over the last two decades saved countless lives. The vehicle involved was the pandemic and the vehicle’s occupants, none other than individuals from within the medical and wellness sectors.

To understand why people sworn to protect their patients at all costs would cross over to the dark side, we need to highlight facts that have surfaced over the last few months. Understanding motive will I hope also enable those who remain skeptical to accept the truth about Ivermectin.

It is not a treatment or prophylactic for Covid-19 or the SARS-CoV2 virus. It never was.

A small, as yet unvalidated possibility exists that it may offer some benefit to late-stage Covid-19 patients, but that remains inconclusive pending further research. Proving Ivermectin’s efficacy in early-stage Covid or as prophylactic poses very real, and some would argue, insurmountable methodological challenges.

All Ivermectin ever claimed to be, was an anti-parasitic drug. It is as much a victim of the intricate web of deceit and deception spun by certain individuals, as the intended targets, who consume it in the mistaken belief it offers salvation.

Let’s begin by examining how that web has begun to unravel and then we’ll take a closer look at those who engineered the deception and why.

The Preprint

Most of the scientific and medical community speaking up on behalf of Ivermectin used the following pre-print as validation for the efficacy of the drug as a Covid-19 treatment. The paper was called Efficacy and Safety of Ivermectin for Treatment and prophylaxis of COVID-19 Pandemic and the first of four versions was made available to the public on the 13th of November, 2020.

The preprint was published on researchsquare.com and if you click on the link above you will see that the preprint has been removed and an investigation initiated into the content and contributing authors. Why is explained below.

ReasearchSquare posts the following text in red font above the preprints it publishes as fair warning that the content is not peer-reviewed and should not be considered as anything more than an unverified opinion.

This is a preprint, a preliminary version of a manuscript that has not completed peer review at a journal. Research Square does not conduct peer review prior to posting preprints. The posting of a preprint on this server should not be interpreted as an endorsement of its validity or suitability for dissemination as established information or for guiding clinical practice.

Despite this, the preprint was seized upon, Google scholar showing 43 citations. In case you’re not familiar with publication terms, in scientific journals, a citation is a reference from a published article to a published paper (note, not a preprint) intended to provide confirmation or reference for content.

In short, 43 papers that have done exactly what the warning above suggests shouldn’t be done. Why this warning exists and preprints are broadly unreferenced in the scientific community became apparent as peer review set about validating the integrity of the data in the preprint and claims of plagiarism that had been leveled against the authors.

Examining the Data

Much like forensic auditors check for cooked books, forensic data analysts exist to sniff out anything fishy in sets of data. Nick Browne was tasked with examining the data used in the preprint to validate claims made relating to the efficacy of Ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19. You can read a full breakdown of his analysis here if the summation below is insufficient.

The data file for the research was made available as a locked Excel spreadsheet, rather than an SPSS 21 file, the tool the preprint authors purported they had used for their analysis. Browne was forced to pay for access to the file and then had to manually guess at the password (1234) before gaining access to the Excel data. From there, things rapidly progressed from bad to worse.

Many of the patients who died appear to be duplicates. According to the original data, there were ‘four’ patients with the initials NME, NEM, and NES (twice), who were all males aged 51 years old, all suffered from diarrhoea(sic), had the same blood hemoglobin levels, were all diagnosed on the 22nd of May, and all died on the 29th of May 2020. They also all share identical values in at least four other data columns.

At least a further ten deceased patients also display evidence of being duplicated. Duplicates make up around half of the recorded deaths. Much of the patient data is identical, but minor changes exist, proving that a simple copy and paste error cannot be the cause of the duplicates.

In no particular order, and again, please refer to the linked report for specifics, Browne also identified issues with;

• Formatting
• Numbers containing non-numeric characters
• Confusion around date formats
• Repeated or cloned sequences of data
• Apparent failures of randomization
• Descriptive statistics that did not match the preprint
• Table results that do not match the preprint
• Other issues included age distribution, trailing digits of numerical variables, study entry and exit dates, and last, but not least, the lack of the SPSS file.

In summation, Browne arrived at the following conclusion;

In view of the problems described in the preceding sections, most notably the repeated sequences of identical numbers corresponding to apparently “cloned” patients, it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Excel file provided by the authors does not faithfully represent the results of the study, and indeed has probably been extensively manipulated by hand.

We aren’t limited by Browne’s proclivity for professional restraint so we’ll call it as he saw it. The data provided for the preprint are a largely concocted fairy tale, an ambitious con designed to mislead. Manipulation of the data was not accidental but rather intentional, engineered to support very specific predetermined outcomes, for reasons we will examine below.

Plagiarism

Lead-authored by Dr. Ahmed Elgazzar, a Professor Emeritus at the University of Behna, the preprint claimed to represent the results of a multi-center, 600-patient study evaluating the use of ivermectin in preventing and treating COVID-19.

The author’s claims centered around the following;

• Ivermectin significantly reduced both the number of deaths and the length of patient’s hospital stay compared to standard Egyptian treatment protocols
• Ivermectin exhibited a substantial effect in preventing the onset of the disease in the first place, in other words, it acted as a prophylactic against the virus.

The article by Jack Lawrence we will reference with regards to the above can be read in full here, and again, we have provided a summation of his findings below. There are numerous instances in the preprint of text being lifted directly from an original source and not credited. In a schoolboy fashion, the authors have tried to obfuscate the plagiarism by changing a few words in each extract.

Plagiarized Elgazzar et al 2020

“This novel virus infection has incapacitated the world’s medical services framework as well as the political and financial relations [2. As another section in human life opens

up [3, the world is by all accounts divided into two sections pre-and post-COVID19 time.”

Original Heidary & Reza Gharebaghi 2020

“This novel virus has paralyzed not only the world’s health care system but also the political and economic relations [13]. As a new chapter in human life opens up [14], the world seems to be divided into two parts pre- and post-COVID19 era.”

Note: Elgazzar even used the same sources

https://www.nature.com/articles/s414290200336-z

A schoolboy could be chastised and excused for similar behavior, but there can be no excuse offered by the preprint author, Elgazzar, who would be intimately familiar with protocols surrounding scientific publications. The preprint is littered with further examples of plagiarism and Larence uncovered further unethical actions pertaining to the study.

While the disclosures above may shock some, they pale in comparison to what is to follow, namely acknowledging the extent of duplicity and malintent by members of the medical community across the globe. Doctors, scientists, pharmacists, alternate health practitioners, and individuals from the wellness sector have teamed up to exploit vulnerable patients for financial gain in the midst of a pandemic.

That is the only logical and unavoidable conclusion that can be drawn from the Ivermectin fiasco and avoiding confronting this unpleasant reality prevents us from protecting vulnerable patient populations.

Acknowledging the Grift

Medika first became aware of Ivermectin and its ability to kill the SARS-CoV2 virus in a paper in Nature, released in mid-2020. We published an article, highlighting the results, achieved in vitro, and suggested, like others, that immediate trials should be undertaken to see if the effects could be replicated in vivo.

The pandemic was gaining momentum and there would be no shortage of willing trial candidates. The problems though were obvious at the outset. Ivermectin had successfully killed the test tube sample in a laboratory, but achieving similar dosage levels in human subjects was highly inadvisable and patently unachievable without endangering the patient’s health.

Conducting broad-scale trials at tolerable dosages should have been a priority for either the FDA or a recognized European health authority. No one stepped up to conclusively prove or disprove the potential of Ivermectin as a Covid treatment. The lack of credible trials was potentially driven by an industry-wide skepticism of the drug’s ability to impact viruses (it is an anti-parasitic) and although this rationale made sense to scientific circles, the public was unable to make the connect.

A potential ‘treatment void’ had been unintentionally created for Ivermectin and it was into this void, as is so often their want, that the grifters stepped, seizing an opportunity to co-opt the pandemic for profit on a global scale.

Plumbing the dark depths of deception

India was one of the countries that fully embraced the grift. Provincial authorities distributed Ivermectin as a Covid treatment to residents and other countries, notably South American populations, followed suit.

Proving the efficacy of a treatment is often far simpler than disproving its efficacy and the grifters took full advantage, distributing their ‘Covid treatment’ via the global digital conspiracy network surrounding the pandemic. They assured the public that the drug was being intentionally withheld and the rest is history. Across the internet, both the public and many from within the medical community bought into the Ivermectin lie.

A lie that was cemented in many minds as fact by anecdotal evidence, falsified data and manipulated trials like the one conducted by Elgazzar and his colleagues. It is far easier to believe a convenient lie than face an unpleasant truth.

Doctors (the term is used loosely) have taken advantage of a vulnerable patient population to sell them drugs and in case you think this deplorable behavior was limited to non-western countries, the evidence suggests the west drove the trend. This is not simply supposition but fact.

In the US, rapidly formed organizations like America’s Frontline Doctors, a despicable congruence of dishonest doctors, pharmacists, and marketing individuals set about creating the ultimate pill mill for not only Ivermectin but the other darling of Covid conspiracies, hydroxychloroquine. You can read more on that here, including comments from exploited patients, shown below the article.

This pattern of profiting by deception from the sale of Ivermectin and other Covid cures continues unabated. We have unintentionally created the environment where large sums of money can be made from misleading the public in the midst of a pandemic. The fact the public’s health may be forfeit is irrelevant to the quacks and charlatans claiming to be healers.

These individuals are doctors, nurses, pharmacists, caregivers, and individuals of science. The lie could not exist without their duplicity and in many instances, the lie exists at their instigation. It is a hard truth to face and one we look away from. We need to openly acknowledge this and develop effective methods to prevent future occurrences.

Ivermectin’s lasting legacy should not be as the drug that failed to treat Covid and fooled the world. It should be seen as the drug that taught the world about a bitter pill, one we need to swallow now, lest we repeat history.

The post Ivermectin is Dead and Buried Despite NIH Website Misstep and Twitter Buzz appeared first on Medika Life.

Ask a room full of people any of the above and a lot of hands would go up. They would, of course, all be wrong. The reasons are relatively simple and straightforward, the logic undeniable and yet millions of Americans still pursue these drugs, in some instances forfeiting their lives in the process.

To understand why the evidence for the success of these drugs as a treatment for Covid isn’t compelling, we need to establish a few facts first. For instance, take the following question. Just how much risk is there of Covid killing you? It seems like a simple question to answer, but in truth, it is anything but.

Case Fatality Rates, CMR, and IFR

The probability that someone dies from a disease doesn’t just depend on the disease itself, but also on the treatment they receive, and on the patient’s own ability to recover from it. This makes interpreting data complex and very nuanced.

Catching SARS-CoV2 and developing Covid isn’t a death sentence, not for most of the people who contract it. Global figures based on PCR testing reflect over 222 million cases to date. Of these cases, 4.5 million have proved fatal. The press will tell you this works out roughly at a risk ratio of around 2%, commonly referred to as the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), where the number of deaths is divided by the number of cases. The press is wrong.

Not to be confused with the Crude Mortality Rate (CMR), CFR is far from perfect in determining your personal risk from Covid. There are a few problems using CFR, the most obvious being the reported number of infected in a population. Cases could underreport infections as not everyone is tested and some patients present as asymptomatic (no symptoms).

CFR can decrease or increase over time, as responses change; and that it can vary by location and by the characteristics of the infected population, such as age, or sex. For instance, older populations would expect to see a higher CFR from COVID-19 than younger ones. For similar reasons, the Crude Mortality Rate or CMR is also not a reliable indicator.

So if neither the CFR nor CMR are a good indicator for risk, where do we turn. The scientific community (not the press and media) uses another measure called the Infection Mortality Rate, or IMR. This is the number of deaths from a disease divided by the total number of cases. If 10 people die of the disease, and 500 actually have it, then the IFR is [10 / 500], or 2%.

Confused?

To work out the IFR, we need two numbers: the total number of cases and the total number of deaths, but some of you may already have figured out that we don’t know the true number of cases and probably never will. We cannot test everyone and many are, as discussed earlier, asymptomatic, so researchers will use a ‘best guess’ in their calculation. Far from ideal, but we have no other method.

Despite what some press and media reports imply, the CFR is not the same as, or, even similar to the IFR. If the CFR is 2% then in reality the IFR for Covid will be far lower. For the purposes of this piece, let’s assume it to be 1%. For every 100 confirmed Covid cases, 1 patient will die.

And that is where the rub lies for treatments of the infection, particularly treatments that rely on early-stage administration. Drugs like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin and treatments like monoclonal antibody infusions. It is only possible to tell if these drugs work in a clinical setting.

Pepsi® is the miracle cure

If all the 100 infected patients were to self-administer Pepsi® at home, 99 would statistically survive and 1 patient would die. People would sing the praises of Pepsi® and stores would be looted as a naive population stockpiled Pepsi®, just in case. The unfortunate patient who died would have had to stop drinking Pepsi®. Being intubated has its drawbacks.

The press and general public would of course be able to extrapolate these data and expand them to reach the following conclusions. Pepsi® is effective against Covid, offering you up to 99% protection. It isn’t an effective treatment in the late stages of the disease, so make sure you order your Pepsi® early from Americas’ Frontline Doctors (AFLDS). Sound familiar?

Obviously the above is an analogy, please don’t rush out and buy Pepsi® in the mistaken belief it will help your body combat Covid. The point is that exactly the same principle applies to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. If 99 out of 100 people were going to survive no matter what, then arguably you could ascribe their recovery to literally anything, including Pepsi®, Coke, Dr. Pepper’s, or tap water.

There are however mouth-watering sums of money to be made out of a gullible public that has in large part lost confidence in the system. A public that is in many ways its own worst enemy, spreading news of miracle cures online and belittling science and themselves in the process.

If you are one of the true believers, I hope you’re still reading and I’d recommend reading the above again. Let it really sink in.

Clearly, this problem isn’t merely limited to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. It affects all early-stage treatments and there are carefully controlled situations where the real efficacy of the treatments can be assessed and monitored, but these are also fraught with pitfalls.

Is there any way of proving that drugs or treatments do help?

Yes and no. Speak to almost any frontline doctor that’s been embedded in the Covid wards since the start of the pandemic and they’ll tell you the following. HCQ and ivermectin make no difference to the mortality rate of patients in their wards.

This, you can correctly argue, could simply be because the patient is too far gone by the time they are admitted for the drugs to have any effect. True, but in that case, please refer to the preceding argument.

Ideally, patients would need to be identified in the early stages of infection, treated with the drugs, and then have the viral load in their systems monitored. This method assumes that we have established viral loads across all patient populations and variants. We cannot identify deviations from the disease’s natural progression without these control data.

Sadly, a trial of this nature would be unable to correctly identify if the treatments actually ‘cure’ the patient or if they simply speed up the patient’s natural ability to recover. Something, let’s remind ourselves, 99 out of 100 were going to do in any case. Again, this problem isn’t mutually exclusive to ivermectin and HCQ, it affects the assessment of all Covid treatments.

To be able to confirm without a doubt that a treatment is effective against the onset of death from Covid, the treatment would need to prove effective in reducing mortality in admitted patients. That is the gold standard and doctors will tell you, it doesn’t apply to either ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine.

Sorry.

Vaccines however do work. That 1% can be reduced to 0.05% if you simply get vaccinated. That’s a proven fact.

The post The Simple Truth Ivermectin and HCQ Supporters Fail to Acknowledge appeared first on Medika Life.

Others do recognize the existence and the seriousness of Covid-19 but spread misinformation, blatant anti-science concepts, and some frankly conspiratorial theories about the virus’ origin, treatment, and why the vaccines are dangerous, at best. 

Here are just a few minor and, in a few cases, hilarious examples of misinformation followed by surveys of conspiracy theories and then the more serious and concerning anti-science and conspiracy concepts.

Breathing in steam or saltwater will kill the virus in your nose. Smelling sesame seeds cures COVID-19. Sea lettuce prevents COVID-19. Holding your breath for ten seconds is a good test to see if you are sick with COVID-19. One of the best stories is that Russian President Vladimir Putin released 500 lions onto the streets of Moscow to keep people indoors. Fortunately or unfortunately, none of these are true or correct.

Misinformation during a serious event is common, and conspiracy theories arise during times of stress. A few surveys are illustrative.

Investigators at the University of Basel in Switzerland surveyed 1,684 participants in July 2020 regarding conspiracy theories. The surveyors gave a list of presumed Covid-19 conspiracy theories such as “Big Pharma created coronavirus to profit from the vaccines.” Ten percent agreed strongly with at least one of the presented theories. Another twenty percent agreed sightly or moderately with at least one theory; seventy percent agreed with none. 

“Most popular were statements suggesting that the virus was man-made, or that the official explanation of the cause of the virus was questionable.” [The concept that the virus might have been released by accident from the Wuhan Virology Institute, once debunked by many scientists and the media, is being reconsidered intensively by the U.S. government as a legitimate possibility.] The ten percent tended to be younger, were more stressed, had more extreme political views, and had a lower educational level.

A Pew Research Foundation survey in June 2020 found that five percent of Americans believed then that the pandemic was created intentionally by powerful people, and another 20% believed this was likely true. Of those with a high school or less education, 48% thought it was definitely or probably true compared to 24% of college graduates and 18% with a graduate degree. Republicans were more likely to ascribe to this theory than Democrats, as were Blacks compared to whites and Hispanics.

A Cornell University study of media misinformation in late September 2020 examined the results from an analysis gleaned from 38 million English language Covid-19 articles between Jan1 and May 26, 2020. 1.1 million news articles (nearly 3% of all Covid-19 articles) “disseminated, amplified or repeated misinformation.” Only 16% indicated any evidence of “fact-checking” suggesting that “the majority of misinformation is conveyed by the media without question or correction.” The five most prevalent topics were “miracle cures,” “deep state,” a Democratic party hoax, the Wuhan laboratory as the source of an intentional bio-weapon thesis, and related to Bill Gates, such as implanting a chip with a vaccine shot.

Why do these beliefs develop? When big problems are leading to prolonged stress, we need big explanations. The concept that the pandemic originated from bats or the wet markets in Wuhan City, China is not psychologically satisfying. It is much more satisfying to believe that a person, a group, or a country created it with an underlying nefarious purpose — the “deep state.” [This, of course, is a different belief than that the virus was accidentally released.]

Over the summer and fall, friends asked me to look at two lengthy videos they had received, wondering if the information therein was accurate. Each was a talk given by an apparently respected physician. Each was an excellent presenter, seemed reasonable and expert, and both were very effective at sowing doubt about accepted science. 

One commented early in her presentation that Dr. Anthony Fauci, director of the NIH Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, was “not an infectious disease doctor.” “He is an immunologist.” She also said that she fell asleep at a lecture he gave when she was an intern. Each of these was meant to undermine Dr. Fauci’s credibility. 

Dr. Fauci, however, is very well trained in infectious diseases and has been involved with them his entire career. Yes, his research uses immunologic techniques, but these are focused on understanding infectious diseases. As to her falling asleep, she was a surgical intern, and the lecture occurred early in the morning. 

My supposition — she was tired from being up much of the night, and probably a talk about infectious disease immunology was not of perceived great relevance to this particular surgical intern.

She suggested that the name of the virus was inappropriate. She said to call it “the Wuhan virus” or the “China virus.” She compared these names to “German” measles, “Middle East Respiratory-distress Syndrome” (MERS), and “Lyme” disease. Without saying it directly, she was implying that the virus was released from the laboratory.

 She did not say that most infections, e.g., polio, pneumococcal pneumonia, meningococcal meningitis, etc., do not use a place name for identification. The actual name assigned by the World Health Organization to this virus is Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome-related CoronaVirus-2 or SARS-CoV-2. The disease name, COVID-19, is from the words Corona Virus Infectious Disease 2019. 

For those who believe that China or a laboratory in China released the virus intentionally, it is understandable that they would like to see the terms “Wuhan virus” or “China virus” used.

Another claim was that masks do little to protect the acquisition of the virus. She presented apparently solid scientific evidence that masks do not entirely prevent the passage of viruses. It is undoubtedly true that masks are not perfect and that some, such as the N95 masks, are better than a simple mask of sheeting. 

Nevertheless, masks are the best method to prevent airborne spread, especially when both parties wear them. But the clear implication of her explanation was that masks are not effective and therefore not necessary.

Certainly not limited to these two speakers is the belief that hydroxychloroquine is safe and effective for treating Covid-19. There was a lot of initial enthusiasm for this drug due to a French study that showed a reduction in the concentration of virus in nasal swabs of infected patients when treated with hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, for five days. 

Hydroxychloroquine is inexpensive, is generally safe, and has been widely used for decades, so it was promptly hailed as a potentially beneficial drug to use for COVID-19, including by President Trump. 

The FDA gave emergency use authorization in March 2020. There were, however, no clinical trials at the time that had proven for or against its efficacy. Nevertheless, many physicians and some infectious disease associations recommended hydroxychloroquine at least until further information became available. 

Soon an article was published in the Lancet, a highly regarded medical journal based in the United Kingdom and authored by well-respected academic physicians. It reported data collected by an analytics firm from 96,032 patient records from 700 hospitals over six continents. The report stated that, based on this review, hydroxychloroquine was not only ineffective but was dangerous. This information shot across the world in no time. 

Not appreciated then, yet noted in retrospect, the analytic firm that conducted the analysis was relatively small with few employees, had a non-existent track record, and would not let the authors or anyone else view the underlying data. Yet, it had somehow obtained presumably reliable patient-level data when regulators in most countries prohibit access to such protected healthcare information. 

The authors who had used this material were roundly criticized for inadequate attention to these basics. They were contrite, and the paper was withdrawn. Unfortunately, mainly based on this article, the World Health Organization and others had already stopped ongoing scientific trials of hydroxychloroquine.

Despite the back and forth, eventually, multiple clinical trials were completed, some looking at treating hospitalized patients, some looking at treating patients who had very early symptoms, and some looking at preventing disease in high-risk populations. None showed much if any value and the FDA has rescinded its emergency use authorization. Nevertheless, some still claim its effectiveness.

Another drug, ivermectin, has been suggested by many as effective and safe for preventing or treating Covid-19. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic drug that has been highly effective in treating river blindness in Africa and a diarrheal disease caused by strongyloidiasis. It is cheap, it is effective, and it is generally safe. It has been used for decades, and the World Health Organization classifies it as one of the twenty essential medications. So why consider it in COVID-19? Because in cell culture, it reduced virus counts by 99+%. But in clinical use, there has been minimal information. 

The most intriguing observation comes from India. Amid a rapid increase in infections, hospitalizations, and deaths across the country in April and early May 2021, yet with only a few percentage of individuals yet vaccinated, ivermectin was made generally available by the government to all at no cost. How many took it is unknown, but temporally the case counts began to fall precipitously. Whether this drop was related to the widespread use of ivermectin is unknown.

This presumed impact of ivermectin contrasts with a randomized clinical trial comparing placebo to ivermectin to treat mild Covid-19 (See graphic above.). Those who received ivermectin had resolution of symptoms, on average, by day ten compared to day 12 for placebo, not a statistically significant difference. 

The jury on ivermectin is still out, but the true believers have offered the India observations as solid evidence that ivermectin is effective. The Indian Health Ministry, as of June 7, 2021, has, however, reversed its recommendation for using ivermectin. I think the final answer is still pending.

Let us move on to vaccination. One of the frequent anti-vaxxer claims is that the mRNA vaccines are unsafe. Why? Because “it will mess with my DNA” or “it is used as a chip for tracking me.” In actual fact, the messenger RNA does not get into the cell nucleus where the DNA resides, so it is not possible for it to interfere with or to change a person’s DNA. And the concept of a chip is just, well, interesting. Since the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is an active vaccine advocate and study funder, some conflate this with Microsoft and from there to an embedded chip. 

Despite the science to the contrary, many do not trust it or the scientists. They feel, and present powerfully, that the mRNA vaccines are unsafe. The lead image of this article is of a person holding a sign which says, “this is a planned global power grab — the mRNA vaccine will kill millions more than CVI.” 

Individuals like this will not accept the carefully developed science as reviewed on this CDC link entitled “Science Brief: COVID-19 Vaccines and Vaccination.”

Many concerns have been raised for women of childbearing age. Are the vaccines safe during pregnancy? Can they cause infertility? The large, prospective randomized clinical trials from which the FDA decided to authorize them for emergency use did not include pregnant women. This is standard practice until a drug or vaccine is determined to be safe in the general population. 

However, it is also essential to be aware that pregnant women are at substantially higher risk for severe COVID-19, namely hospitalization, intensive care, or even death. In an article published in the New England Journal of Medicine on April 21, 2021, the CDC reports there have been no added risks reported to those pregnant individuals vaccinated since the new vaccines from Pfizer/BTN and Moderna became available. The Centers for Disease Control now recommends that pregnant women should be vaccinated.

Vaccines will likely be available for children as young as 2 years of age by September or soon thereafter. This will raise substantial anxiety among parents, especially mothers, who will be bombarded with anti-vax propaganda. Parents only want the best for their children but with the knowledge that kids usually do not get seriously infected and since the vaccines are new and testing will have only recently been completed, it is no wonder that anxiety will be high for many.

One of the more vocal anti-vaxxers, anti-masking, advocates for hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin is Dr. Simone Gold, an emergency medicine physician in the Los Angeles area. She started an organization called “America’s Frontline Doctors.” She gave a talk in Washington, D.C., which was videotaped and quickly went “viral.” Pun intended. Among her claims are that vaccines can produce infertility in normal women. That totally misrepresents facts. There is no evidence that vaccines can cause infertility, but it is out there, and many people are concerned as a result. 

Another one of her claims is that the vaccines are “experimental.” This is an interesting statement given that they were authorized by the FDA only after considerable data analysis, publishing the data on their website, a review by an outside group of experts, and then given emergency use authorization. She also said that since the FDA is collecting adverse event data that if you get vaccinated, then you are “participating in an experiment and don’t even realize it.” She is implying there must be some concern or why bother to collect this information. It is unfortunate because the FDA collects adverse event data on every vaccine and every drug continuously into the future. This data collection continually proves itself very useful. 

For example, this surveillance methodology, both by European regulators and the FDA, quickly detected the unusual blood clotting disorder with reduced platelet counts was detected with the Oxford/AstraZeneca vaccine and the Johnson & Johnson vaccine. These blood clots are very rare, but they are real and serious. As a result of their recognition, appropriate warnings have be given. 

Another example often touted as a reason not to be vaccinated is the later development of Bell’s Palsy or temporary paralysis of one of the facial muscles after vaccination. However, when evaluated over time in vast numbers of those who had been and those who had not been vaccinated, Bell’s Palsy does rarely occur, but no more frequently in the vaccinated than in the general population.

In Dr. Gold’s video, she gave recommendations for the vaccines and for therapy. She indicated that vaccines should be “prohibited” for those between the ages of 20–50. They should “probably be prohibited” for those between the ages of 50–70. For those over the age of 70, it would probably be better to take hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin. For nursing home residents, it should be a case-by-case decision. She firmly espoused the use of hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. It is of interest that on January 6, 2021 videos of the United States Capitol insurrection showed Dr. Simone inside with a megaphone. She has since been arrested by the FBI and indicted by the Justice Department.

So-called “influencers” on social media with their large followings are sometimes the most effective purveyors of misinformation. A recent article on Medium by Mathew Remski discussed what he calls “Reverse Contagion Anxiety.” He writes that social media influencers are “turning the vaccine into a virus” and claiming that the vaccine sheds a virus or something that can harm others nearby.

What happens when these misrepresentations and misinformation create enough concern? Perhaps the most glaring is the possibility of losing one’s job if vaccinated! The Centner Academy in Miami which teaches grades K through eight is warning its teachers not to be vaccinated. In an article in Science magazine, April 26, 2021, “Florida private school threatens jobs of teachers who seek COVID-19 vaccines.” A letter was written by Leila Centner, co-founder of the academy, which was sent to teachers. “It is our policy, to the extent possible, not to employ anyone who has taken the experimental COVID-19 injection until further information is known…It is in the best interest of the children to protect them from the unknown implications of being in close proximity for the day with a teacher who has very recently taken the COVID-19 injection.” (My italics).

Ms. Centner wrote the following to explain the academy’s decision. “Tens of thousands of women all over the world have recently been reporting adverse reproductive issues simply from being in close proximity with those who have received any one of the COVID-19 injections, for example, irregular menses, bleeding, miscarriages, post-menopausal hemorrhaging, and amenorrhea (complete loss of menstruation).”

This is a telling example of what can happen when the anti-vaxxers create enough concern to sway otherwise intelligent people that the vaccines are unsafe. The National Institutes of Health has stated that “there is no evidence that individuals vaccinated for COVID-19 can transmit the viruses to others or that vaccination of one person can have negative health effects on others.” The CDC has a detailed review entitled “Myths and Facts Regarding Covid-19 Vaccines,” but unfortunately, this and the NIH statement will not be enough to convince those genuinely concerned. The Centner Academy has not altered its vaccine approach.

What is needed? These types of misinformation, anti-science theories, and conspiracy theories have become extremely common at a time of great crisis, stress, and frustration for everyone. In that setting, people can be led into thinking that at least some of this misinformation is valid. 

What we all need is to learn to think critically using tools such as careful analysis, open-mindedness, and problem-solving. Schools need to teach critical thinking at all levels, and the media needs to utilize it in reporting and support it. 

Another key is for reporters and their editors to insist upon primary data before accepting some statement as fact. All too often, when a claim is made, the reference is to a speech or an article that in turn is based on someone else’s paper or statement, etc. but following it back leads nowhere. 

As readers, listeners, or viewers of the media, we need to be able to assume the reporter did his or her job of finding the actual primary source and its credibility. Unfortunately, that is commonly not the case.

The post COVID-19 Misinformation, Anti-Science, and Conspiracies Theories appeared first on Medika Life.

We Americans have a long and glorious history of snake oil salesmen. There is always someone peddling useless — and sometimes harmful — concoctions when there’s sickness and suffering. John D. Rockefeller’s father was just such an itinerant quack. What finer pedigree could you ask for?

It should be no surprise then that here in the US of A, we’ve taken the most dubious claims of hydroxychloroquine’s effects on COVID-19 and hyped them from the highest podium in the land: “What do you have to lose?”.

Aside from the shame of snake oil salesmen being encoded into the DNA of our country is the fact that Americans always seem eager to buy what the shameless hucksters are selling.

And then, there’s the question of the snake oil itself. The stuff in the bottle. What is it anyway?

What is hydroxychloroquine, and where does it come from?

The short answer is that hydroxychloroquine is a modification of an earlier drug called chloroquine, which in turn is a synthetic version of a natural drug derived from tree bark that many of us have heard of, called quinine. Quinine has a veeery long history as an antimalarial drug. Still, it is also commonly known as an additive in tonic water (as in gin and tonic), giving it its characteristic bitter taste. Quinine is a plant alkaloid. Alkaloids can be toxic and are known for their bitterness. Think of caffeine — a classic alkaloid.

With some very smart commentators blogging on current issues with these drugs (Derek Lowe on the Science Magazine website is particularly good).

Despite the fun of digging into that black hole of technical information, I thought the back story was even more interesting.

Countess Ana de Osorio

It all starts with Ana de Osorio, wife of Luis Jeronimo de Cabrera, Count of Chinchon and importantly, Viceroy of Peru from 1629 to 1639.

I love the names and titles.

Ana de Osorio, Countess of Chinchon…

In 1638, the story goes, Ana de Osorio became very sick from malaria. The governor of Loxa wrote to the viceroy claiming to have been cured by the bark of the quinaquina tree. The governor was summoned, the medicine administered, and Ana was cured. Ana returned soon after to Spain bringing this miraculous bark of the tree eventually named after her as the Cinchona tree.

It turns out that this story, documented in 1663 by an Italian, Sebastiano Bado, was wrong on most counts and was disproved by the discovery in 1930 of the Viceroy’s official diary.

It turns out, for example, that Ana, the first Countess of Chinchon, died three years before Luis even went to Peru as viceroy. The second Countess of Chinchon, who did accompany Luis, was the picture of health the whole time but died on the journey from Peru back to Spain. But the (mis)story of Ana de Osorio persists to this day, like a virus that has become integrated into the DNA of our culture.

The Cinchona Tree

The bark of the Cinchona tree nonetheless bent the curve of medical and human history. It was brought by Jesuit priests to Europe, where the Spanish apparently knew of the bark’s medicinal value as early as the 1570s and was first used to treat malaria in Rome in 1631 (long before the mythical Ana even fell ill).

This bark, also called Jesuit’s bark or Peruvian bark at the time, became one of the most valuable exports from Peru when it became clear that it successfully treated malaria patients in Rome. Rome was once surrounded by marshes, and the name malaria comes from the medieval Italian words mala (bad) and aria (air). Malaria was associated with “bad air” emanating from Roman swamps.

Today we know that the cause of the disease is a single-celled parasite, Plasmodium falciparum, carried by mosquitoes that are endemic to marshlands.

Bad Air

Bad air was typically what Western medieval people blamed for any kind of disease. This was consistent with the ‘miasmic theory,’ passed down almost unchanged from ancient Greece a couple of millennia before. Microscopic organisms were not even known until Robert Hooke published his findings on them in 1665, followed soon after by Anton van Leeuwenhoek’s observations with his famous homemade microscopes. The role played by some of these microorganisms in human disease was still not recognized until Louis Pasteur’s experiments in the 1860s and Lister’s treatise on antisepsis which was published in 1867. Too late to mitigate the savagery of the American Civil War, which killed 2% of the population, most from disease (like malaria) and infection (doctors did not wash their hands or otherwise use aseptic technique while sawing off soldier’s mangled limbs).

But back to Rome, where malaria killed indiscriminately. Popes, cardinals, priests, and many other Romans — rich and poor — died miserably from the disease. The Jesuit’s knowledge of this bark’s curative abilities eventually led to its explosive rise in value and demand throughout 17th and 18th century Europe.

The Peruvian quinaquina tree eventually yielded a purified drug, the active ingredient called quinine, in 1820. Pierre Joseph Pelletier and Joseph Bienaime Caventou, French chemists who discovered caffeine and strychnine, among many other alkaloid plant compounds, found quinine was the active ingredient in the Peruvian tree bark.

Colonial Drugs

Quinine used as a drug enabled Europeans to colonize Africa. Native Africans had evolved certain traits associated with sickle-cell anemia and other genetic diseases, which gave them some resistance to malaria. Europeans did not have these genetic characteristics and were much more susceptible to the parasite. Africa became known as the White Man’s Grave. Quinine rectified that genetic deficiency and led to Europe rapidly colonizing and chopping up Africa in a global game of Risk.

The European’s colonial drive took them around the world, and quinine clearly enabled their global competition for territory, resources, and subjects, especially in equatorial and malaria-infested regions of the world. Although quinine is credited with saving many millions of lives over the centuries, one of the unintended consequences was that it enabled the Western powers’ colonial ambitions and conflicts, thus setting the stage for the slaughterhouse of World War I and its domino effect of WWII.

Quinine’s bitterness spurred British officials in various early 19th century colonial outposts to mix their medicine with soda and sugar — which marked the origin of tonic water. The British in colonial India mixed their tonic water with gin, creating a classic cocktail that is still embedded in our culture to this day.

The value of quinine rose rapidly, causing Jesuit’s bark to focus on global games of Risk and Monopoly. Peru and the neighboring countries tried to corner the market for their native Cinchona trees, but the Dutch managed to smuggle seeds out of South America. Eventually, Dutch plantations in Indonesia became the dominant world suppliers. The wily Dutch outplayed the South Americans and ended up with 97% of the global market and set up a quinine cartel in 1913 to control global supply and prices.

The 20th Century Drug

Quinine played a key role in one of the biggest successes and engineering marvels of the 20th century — the Panama Canal, built between 1904–1914 — driven by the big stick policies and willfulness of Teddy Roosevelt. There were many reasons for the failure of the early French efforts to build a canal across Central America. Still, the immense casualty rate among the engineering and labor forces certainly played a key role in France abandoning the project to the Americans.

Tropical diseases such as malaria were a major if not top contributor to French casualties. Central to the success of the American project was the groundbreaking public health initiatives driven by Dr. William Gorgas and his team — and their application of a new scientific understanding of malaria and other tropical diseases being transmitted by mosquitos. Mosquito control and prophylactic administration of quinine were among the cornerstones of their efforts.

Malaria also played an outsized role in the number of casualties during the First World War (disease — not the enemy — was usually the main killer of soldiers in wars throughout history). Before WWI, scientists and public health experts successfully controlled malaria in parts of Europe like Italy and Greece. However, these public health measures lapsed during the war, and also afterward: malaria became a global scourge again, well into the 20th century. Prophylactic use of quinine was studied and implemented by some countries during the Great War.

The late 19th and early 20th century were a sort of golden age of synthetic and organic chemistry, and quinine played a Muse’s role in this. Chemists tried to synthesize quinine since it was an expensive natural product (remember the Dutch cartel). Their efforts often failed miserably — but in a classic example of experimental serendipity — the failures sometimes bore fruit. William Perkin’s attempt in 1856 to make quinine resulted in abject failure and a mess, but the mess yielded a brilliant purple dye which made him a fortune. He was 18 years old.

The Age of Synthetics

Synthetic organic dyes, triggered by Perkin’s success, were one of the economic foundations of the German economy. Starting in the late 1860s, well-known companies formed that exists to this day: Bayer, BASF, Hoechst, etc.

A number of dyes were proposed as treatments for malaria, including methylene blue developed by Paul Ehrlich in 1890 and first used by him to treat malaria patients in 1891. Aside from not being as effective as naturally derived quinine, the dye-based malaria drugs had the unfortunate side effect of turning patients into various unnatural colors.

Finally, Hans Andersag, a researcher at Bayer AG in Germany, discovered a synthetic version of quinine in 1934 which eventually became known as chloroquine. Bayer ran clinical trials of these drugs in North Africa in the early 1940s during WWII, and this information fell into Allied hands around 1943. US doctors eventually recognized the efficacy of chloroquine, and it was approved for clinical use in the US in 1947.

During WWII, millions of US soldiers were given prophylactic antimalarial regimens, which resulted in a very unexpected and positive side effect. Clinicians noted reduced symptoms in those suffering inflammatory disorders such as skin rashes and some forms of arthritis after taking the drug. Clinical trials subsequently demonstrated the efficacy of antimalarials for a range of inflammatory diseases, starting with systemic lupus erythematosus in 1951. Today chloroquine analogs are administered off-label (i.e., not approved by the FDA) for a wide range of autoimmune diseases since they are among the few effective treatments that reduce symptoms. However, we still do not know exactly how chloroquine-based drugs blunt inflammation.

Another positive outcome of WWII was more organizational. The Office of Malaria Control in War Areas, established in 1942, was the immediate predecessor of the CDC, which was first known as the Communicable Disease Center when it kicked off on July 1, 1946. Malaria was the first target on its project roster, with the National Malaria Eradication Program starting a year after the CDC’s founding. Success was declared by 1951. Spraying DDT was one of the cornerstones of the CDC’s efforts to eradicate the mosquito vector of malaria, while chloroquine was the cornerstone of prophylaxis and treatment of the disease.

Where We Are Today

Hydroxychloroquine is a modification of chloroquine where a hydroxyl group (-OH) was appended to the side chain to reduce toxicity and was approved for medical use in the US in 1955.

In the years since chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were approved in the US, we’ve learned a few things about these antimalarial drugs. We know now that these drugs accumulate in lysosomes and inhibit their acidification, which has subsequent effects on a range of cellular processes, including antigen presentation. We know these drugs reduce cytokine production by macrophages and inhibit toll-like receptor signaling and a variety of other immune pathways. But we remain far from causally linking the drugs to these disparate biological effects or ultimately to their clinical efficacy (against malaria or various inflammatory diseases).

Our long history of using these drugs has given us some insights into their limitations, side effects, and adverse drug interactions. One of the more severe side effects includes QT prolongation, an electrical disturbance of the heart that can lead to a fatal arrhythmia. Another is a 30% mortality among patients administered hydroxychloroquine who also took metformin, an important anti-diabetic drug.

In the US, malaria is no longer a significant clinical problem. But hydroxychloroquine and its analogs are prescribed for a wide range of debilitating autoimmune diseases, and many patients have come to rely on these drugs.

Then in 2020, dubious and poorly executed clinical studies hyped the effects of hydroxychloroquine and falsely claimed this drug had beneficial effects on COVID-19 patients. Didier Raoult, who masterminded these efforts, has since been censured and his papers retracted.

No placebo-controlled, double-blinded, sufficiently-powered clinical studies show hydroxychloroquine works against COVID-19.

Diabetics have a worse outcome with COVID-19, and these patients likely take metformin which is known to have lethal interactions with hydroxychloroquine.

In the rest of the world, over a million people per year, mostly pregnant women and young children, still die from malaria. But in a typical display of poorly allocated healthcare capital, we spend more on baldness treatments than for antimalarial treatments. Drug resistance has become a significant problem in many parts of the world so the need to invest in more antimalarial drug development is acute — but we still mostly use drugs that are almost a century old.

We’re gradually learning more and more molecular details of the intricate and complex life cycle of Plasmodium falciparum, the malaria parasite. Here are a couple of beautiful animations that show how malaria moves through the human host in one video and in the mosquito host in the other.

Molecule Allows Malaria Parasite to Commandeer Red Blood Cells
Two groups of HHMI scientists working independently have identified a critical enzyme that allows a malaria-causing…www.hhmi.org.

I don’t think there is anyone left who believes hydroxychloroquine works against COVID-19. If there are, if it is you, don’t be the last sucker buying snake oil. Instead, get vaccinated against COVID-19. Today.

The post The Evolution of Quinine to Hydroxychloroquine, Covid’s Snake Oil appeared first on Medika Life.

They are doing all this for money and they need to be stopped.

We are not referring to the healthcare heroes on the frontlines of the Covid-19 pandemic, but a group of medical misfits that have appropriated the name America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLD), as a moniker for their motley band of quacks and con artists. They are extremely dangerous, with ties to radical conservative extremists, witchcraft, paranoia, conspiracies, and do not possess a shred of actual experience dealing with Covid patients on the frontlines of the pandemic. They are, in short, frauds, exploiting a pandemic for their own financial gain.

They are, and we are ashamed to admit it, doctors. Doctors, however, in name only and that is the intent of this article. If, like so many of us, you would like to see the end of their orchestrated campaign of covid misinformation and attacks on the covid vaccine, join us in deplatforming their social media, reporting them to their individual medical boards, and filing reports with the Department of Justice. They are an affront to the medical profession and a danger to public health.

Their website blatantly tries to combat official Covid-19 advice and destroy public confidence in the covid vaccines for reasons we will explain below. Here is a screenshot from their website where they refer to the vaccines as experimental. This is a false and misleading statement.

They continue to spread advice about hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for Covid despite this having been publically disproven by open studies conducted under the auspices of the World Health Organization and other medical boards. They continue to question the efficacy of masks, thereby encouraging the spread of the virus. Their actions will lead to trusting members of the public accepting their advice and people will die as a result of severe Covid-19. It could be someone close to you.

If you want to protect vulnerable members of your community, register your outrage by contacting the links in the footer of this article or reporting the individual doctors to their relevant medical boards (shown below each doctor listed below).

If you don’t think they pose a risk, then have a look at their petition to stop the covid vaccines. If they were to have their way, your grandparents, parents, and at-risk sectors of our community would be facing Covid-19 without the benefit of a vaccine. Still, think they aren’t dangerous?

Incidentally, no one is enforcing the covid vaccine. That is patently untrue and under the American constitution, you cannot be forced into taking a vaccine. It remains a personal choice.

Their website displays a whole range of supposed “hydroxychloroquine home treatments” for Covid-19, the suggestion a clear one. You can treat Covid-19 at home. This is untrue, not based on any verifiable clinical data and in flagrant breach of the FDA’s policy of advertising cures or treatments for Covid-19. The following screenshot is again taken from their website, in the event they should remove it.

To be clear, there are no home treatments for Covid-19. If you suspect you have contracted the coronavirus, please quarantine and if you are in an at-risk category, dial 9-1-1 and seek immediate medical help.

Why all the effort?

Great question and as will all these cons, profit is at the heart of the sales pitch. In this instance, it wasn’t even very well hidden. Initially, politics and Trump’s agenda to reopen America provided funding and impetus for this group. With those agenda’s now behind them, the business has been repurposed for profit.

Convince the American public you have the cure for Covid-19 in the form of hydroxychloroquine and then proceed to supply it to them through your network of unethical doctors, who are only too happy to write out prescriptions that a complicit pharmacy then fills.

The players in this not so elaborate con are as follows. America’s Frontline Doctors, Ravkoo Pharmacy and Speakwithanmd.com

Here’s how the chain works, not that it’s important, but it will provide a roadmap for the FDA and DOJ to follow. I encourage any journalists who want to explore and expose existing relationships between these entities to investigate further.

Step 1: American Frontline Doctors – The marketing arm

They discredit conventional Covid-19 treatments and scare people off the vaccine in favor of hydroxychloroquine, which as we all know, isn’t that simple to get hold of anymore. They achieve this with a concerted campaign of misinformation and pseudoscientific materials published on their website and spread through social media. They become visible, they become political and they become radical. At the top of their site is a link to purchase hydroxychloroquine, which takes you to this page.

Step 2: Speakwithanmd.com – Distribution

You cant shift your product, which, annoyingly, requires a prescription, without the necessary paperwork. How do you address this across numerous states? Easy, you hook up with an online service that allows your network of doctors to prescribe to their heart’s delight, state by state. Possibly the cleverest bit of the con. You can see the network on this page and I suspect having a look at the prescriptions issued by these doctors would make for fascinating reading.

Here’s what their page says about America’s Frontline Doctors on Speakwithanmd;

• America’s Frontline Doctors (AFLDS) are available in every state. Physician Consult Fee is $90. We see patients between 7 am and 9 pm and we will try hard to see you on the day you contact us but it could be the next day.

• Through telemedicine we can offer convenient and affordable healthcare services to patients. Telemedicine is an excellent option for nonemergency situations, including prophylactic (preventive) and early (home) treatment of COVID-19.

• Our physicians are hydroxychloroquine knowledgeable and fully aware of the science and data regarding its safety and efficacy.

Step 3: Ravkoo Pharmacy – Fulfillment

Linked on their page on Speakwithanmd.com is Ravkoo Pharmacy. Officially, according to America’s Frontline Doctors, partnered with them to ensure all the scripts are quickly filled and dispatched. We have reached out to the Ravkoo CEO, Alpesh Patel for comment regarding their association with AFLD, but have not, at the time of publication, received a response.

Cutting the head off the snake

Let’s start with the originator or founder of AFLD, Dr. Simone Gold. Her most recent claim to fame is a photograph of her in the Capitol building, surrounded by her fellow protestors, after having forcibly gained entry. Her statement that she did not know it was illegal to enter the building should be seen for what it is. Complete bullshit.

She is a trained Stanford lawyer. Ignorance, claimed or otherwise, is not acceptable as a legal defense. You lie, Ms. Gold, and you should be locked up, along with your other seditious conspirators.

Simone Gold, MD, JD, is a board-certified emergency physician in Los Angeles, California. You can view her current status here. She graduated from Chicago Medical School before attending Stanford University Law School to earn her Juris Doctorate degree. Impressed? Well, don’t be. We all know education is not a prerequisite for either common sense, morals, or ethics, none of which Ms. Gold appears to possess.

Her California medical license includes her unverified claim that she is involved in patient care 30-39 hours per week and indicates a practice location in Hesperia, a bedroom community of about 100,000 at the edge of the Mojave Desert. Efforts to determine where specifically she may practice were unsuccessful.

Any platform offering medical advice alongside the sale of the founder’s book and featuring prominent “donate” buttons all over the site is by definition, highly suspect. The strapline Gold uses to advertise their site “Empowering patients and physicians with independent, evidence-based medicine.” is laughable. There is no hard evidence-based medicine taking place in their deluded world.

The quotes Gold references from reputable sources are taken out of context or reflect earlier views, now scientifically repudiated. No sane doctor or medical student would waste five minutes on the journals or papers she uses to justify her flawed agenda. Simply put, Dr. Simone Gold and her band of merry co-conspirators are trying to pull the wool over your eyes for personal financial gain. She is trying to mislead you and is, in effect, threatening your life and the lives of others.

To clarify just how radical her medical views are, let’s take an excerpt from one of her websites, where she responds to a comment on an article she wrote on maks.

then, given these big neocons’ vaccination programs intentionally spreading sterility (as well as thimerosol-caused autism, & even the very diseases being vaccinated against, esp. measles & polio);

Perhaps, Ms. Gold, you would care to explain why that anti-vaccine stance doesn’t quite gel with your comments on your petition website. Here they are, in case you’ve forgotten making them.

SMD & AFLDS is NOT “anti-vaxx” or in any other form to be considered or mislabeled as disapproving of established, reputable vaccines when taken voluntarily without coercion. 

Gold first rose to notoriety when she appeared in a viral video touting hydroxychloroquine back in July of 2020. She was accompanied by Stella Immanuel, MD (we exposed Immanuel’s quackery/witchcraft here), James Todaro, MD, Bob Hamilton, MD,Dan Erickson, DO, Richard Urso, MD and Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD.

In a later article from the Washington Spectator exposing more lies about the media face of Simone Gold and the Republican-backed politics and people enabling her, Emergency physician Nick Sawyer, disturbed by the implications for medical practitioners that Gold and the AFLD poses, had this to say.

The America’s Frontline Doctors campaign, he says, “violates two of the primary principles of medical ethics. Medical ethics has four major principles: beneficence, non-maleficence, autonomy, and justice. As hydroxychloroquine offers no clinical benefit and may be harmful, it violates the first two tenets. Further, their statements place actual frontline physicians treating patients with Covid-19 in conflict with patients’ right to autonomy.

To have Simone Gold’s medical license investigated, you will need to place a formal complaint with California’s medical licensing authority. This link will take you directly to the Califonia Medical Board’s page for filing a complaint online. Gold is not acting in the interest of public health and her outspoken views and advice on the coronavirus, masks, social distancing, lockdowns, and the covid vaccine are not in keeping with her profession’s very clear overriding mandate – First do no harm.

Report Gold and America’s Frontline Doctors directly to the Department of Justice by following this link. The page contains information and telephone numbers or you can call directly on COVID-19 Fraud Hotline: 1-888-C19-WDPA.

Here is information on the other medical voices that have lent support to Gold and enabled her reach online and on Social Media. They are, in Medika’s opinion, incidental and Gold is the driving force behind AFLD.

James Todaro, MD

Todaro, an ophthalmologist based in Michigan who is no longer practicing, graduated from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons in 2014. His medical license, which was classified as “educational limited” in Michigan, expired in 2019. According to his LinkedIn profile, Todaro has not practiced medicine since 2018. He co-founded an investment fund called Blocktown Capital.

Bob Hamilton, MD

Hamilton, a pediatrician and school liaison with America’s Frontline Doctors, has been practicing in Santa Monica, California — home to his private practice, Pacific Ocean Pediatrics — for more than 30 years. He has hospital privileges at Providence-St. John’s Health Center and the UCLA-Santa Monica Medical Center. He has been vocal in suggesting schools re-open, citing no risk to children from Covid-19

Dan Erickson, DO

Erickson is the co-owner of Accelerated Urgent Care in Bakersfield, California. He is a former emergency physician, according to reports, who was featured on national television in late April after he claimed data his center had collected showed that COVID was more widespread and less harmful than reported in medical journals.

The American College of Emergency Physicians and American Academy of Emergency Medicine issued a joint statement condemning Erickson’s claims, calling them “reckless and untested musings” that are “inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19.”

Richard Urso, MD

Urso is an ophthalmologist at Houston Eye Associates in Bellaire, Texas, who has been touting HCQ for COVID-19. He told Fox News host Laura Ingraham earlier this month that he has been working with the drug for 30 years and has never had a patient with a heart issue.

He also said during that interview that HCQ was “safer than Tylenol, aspirin, Motrin.” In 2003, Urso paid a $1,500 fine to resolve allegations that he didn’t provide a narrative of medical records to an attorney for a patient’s personal injury lawsuit.

Joseph Ladapo, MD, PhD

Ladapo is a physician and health policy researcher at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, according to his UCLA profile. His primary research interests include diagnostic technology cost-effectiveness and decreasing cardiovascular disease population burden. He is also an adjunct professor of population health at New York University-Langone, a spokesperson confirmed and sees patients at Langone Medical Center.

He has cared for COVID patients at UCLA, he wrote in a Wall Street Journal editorial in early April, though that could not be confirmed (a UCLA Medicine spokesperson declined to answer questions and said Ladapo declined to comment). On the Supreme Court steps, he said nothing about treating COVID-19 patients himself.

Simone Gold, MD, images are all used in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, commonly known as “fair use law”. This material is distributed without profit with the intent to provide commentary, review, education, and increase public health knowledge.

Still don’t get it?

If you still don’t believe that Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine are sold to you as part of an elaborate medical scam. please read this article on why we just can’t say at this point which treatments are actually useful in reducing deaths.

The post Exposing America’s Frontline Doctors and Their Financial Empire Built on Hydroxychloroquine appeared first on Medika Life.

Yet, a study released today should — once and for all — finally shut the coffin closed on hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. The study — the Prevention and Treatment of COVID-19 With Hydroxychloroquine (PATCH) Study — was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial was conducted at 2 tertiary urban hospitals in Pennsylvania.

They enrolled full-time hospital-based healthcare workers (physicians, nurses, certified nursing assistants, emergency technicians, and respiratory therapists) between April 9, 2020 to July 14, 2020. They planned to enroll 200 subjects.

The trial randomized 132 healthcare workers to take 600 mg of hydroxychloroquine or placebo once a day for 8 weeks, and they tested whether this treatment will prevent infection with SARS CoV-2.

The study found absolutely no difference between the groups (6.3% for hydroxychloroquine vs 6.6% for placebo). In fact, because of futility, the trial was stopped early. This is why they only randomized 132 subjects rather than the planned 200.

This should be the end of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19.

Now, it is understandable — given the novelty of the disease and the frightening nature of its effects on patients — that clinicians wanted to try anything and everything to treat COVID-19. If there was a treatment that may help, clinicians were using it. That’s how hydroxychloroquine started.

Yet, we need to make sure that any treatment we are administering, especially one with potential significant side effects like hydroxychloroquine, actually works. That’s where randomized trials come in. They are the best way to test whether a treatment actually works.

This study was a very good trial: it was randomized, which means that the subjects were randomly assigned to the two groups. It was double-blind, which means that the investigators and the subjects didn’t know if they received treatment or placebo. And it had a placebo group.

And it showed no effect of hydroxychloroquine.

Indeed, as the study authors rightly note, the study had some important limitations:

Our study was likely established with insufficient power. Given the small sample size, we cannot exclude the possibility of an undetected modest potential prophylactic effect of hydroxychloroquine.

We did not attempt to quantify the frequency of participant exposure or specific timing of exposures.

The cohort largely comprised young healthy HCWs and thus may not be generalizable to other populations with increased risk because of advanced age or additional comorbidities.

Both study hospitals were located in Philadelphia and may not be representative of COVID-19 prevalence and exposure risk in other geographical areas.

We cannot exclude the possibility that a lower or intermittent dose of hydroxychloroquine would be more effective at prevention, although a recent preclinical investigation in a COVID-19 macaque model did not find differences in antiviral activity with varied hydroxychloroquine dosing.

Despite these limitations, I think the study is quite an important contribution to the literature surrounding hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19. There are other ongoing prophylaxis trials, and I’m eagerly awaiting those results as well.

There are some who say that hydroxychloroquine helps zinc work its effect on SARS CoV-2. I looked this up on UpToDate, a clinical resource that I frequently use to keep me apprised on the latest literature, and there is no mention of hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc. There are other trials around the world being conducted currently testing zinc in a number of combinations. That said, here is what the authors wrote about hydroxychloroquine:

According to a preliminary, unpublished report from a large randomized trial evaluating a number of potential therapies for hospitalized patients with COVID-19, there was no difference in 28-day mortality among 1561 patients who were randomly assigned to receive hydroxychloroquine compared with 3155 patients who received standard care (26.8 versus 25 percent, rate ratio 1.09, 95% CI 0.96–1.23); hydroxychloroquine also did not decrease length of hospital stay. Based on these data, the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial was closed.

The World Health Organization also terminated the hydroxychloroquine arm of its large SOLIDARITY trial, and the United States National Institutes of Health terminated its trial of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients; each cited a lack of benefit based on preliminary data from the trials.

So, to me, this prophylaxis trial — along with other big studies — should finally put to rest hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19. It simply doesn’t work.

And…if hydroxychloroquine really worked, President Trump would have gotten it. He has received monoclonal antibodies, remdesivir, and other therapies. Hydroxychloroquine was not on the list.

References:

1. RECOVERY trial investigators. No clinical benefit from use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised patients with COVID-19. https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19
2. NIH halts clinical trial of hydroxychloroquine https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-halts-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine
3. WHO. “Solidarity” clinical trial for COVID-19 treatments: Update on hydroxychloroquine. https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/global-research-on-novel-coronavirus-2019-ncov/solidarity-clinical-trial-for-covid-19-treatments
4. Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial.
   Tang W, Cao Z, Han M, et al. BMJ. 2020;369:m1849. Epub 2020 May 14.
5. Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19. Cavalcanti AB, Zampieri FG, Rosa RG, et al. N Engl J Med. 2020

The post Hydroxychloroquine Does Not Prevent Infection with SARS CoV-2 appeared first on Medika Life.

DATE OF RELEASE: July 22, 2020

TUCSON, Ariz., July 22, 2020 /PRNewswire/ — This week the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons submitted additional evidence to a federal court for why interference with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) should end by the Food & Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health & Human Services (HHS), in AAPS v. FDA, No. 1:20-cv-00493-RJJ-SJB (W.D. Mich.).

“As confirmed by another recent study of thousands of patients at the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan, HCQ is both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19, reducing mortality by 50%,” AAPS informed the court in its filing. “Countries with underdeveloped health care systems are using HCQ early and attaining far lower mortality than in the United States, where [HHS and the FDA] impede access to HCQ.”

Yet most Americans are still unable to obtain HCQ for early treatment of COVID-19, and virtually no Americans are able to access it as preventive medicine. HCQ has been used safely for decades by travelers to protect against malaria, but Americans are dying from COVID-19 while HCQ is withheld from them.

“Citizens of the Philippines, Poland, Israel, and Turkey all have greater access to HCQ than American citizens do,” observes AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly. “In Venezuela, HCQ is available over the counter without a prescription, while in the United States pharmacists are prevented from filling prescriptions for HCQ.”

AAPS rebuts arguments presented by the FDA, which implied that medications are approved as safe only for certain conditions. In fact, HCQ and most medications have been approved without limitation, such that physicians can prescribe them for any off-label use.

“The mortality rate from COVID-19 in countries that allow access to HCQ is only one-tenth the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States,” explains Andrew Schlafly.

Polish chemists have even showed the world how to synthesize HCQ from cheaply, widely available ingredients. The cost of this medication is less than a dollar a dose, in contrast with the very expensive alternatives being pushed by FDA officials.

In its filing, the FDA insisted that the public has no right to access nearly 100 million doses of HCQ which were donated to the Strategic National Stockpile. HHS is having that medication waste away while Americans are dying from COVID-19.

“In some areas of Central America, officials are even going door to door to distribute HCQ,” Andrew Schlafly adds. “These countries have been successful in limiting the mortality from COVID-19 to only a fraction of what it is in wealthier countries.”

AAPS filed this lawsuit to obtain legal redress in support of Trump, by ending the obstruction by the FDA of his policies that would save lives.

AAPS has represented physicians of all specialties in all states since 1943. The AAPS motto is omnia pro aegroto, meaning everything for the patient.

SOURCE Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS)

The post The Association of American Physicians & Surgeons Want Access to Hydroxychloroquine appeared first on Medika Life.

Information

The following article has been reproduced with the consent of Swiss Policy Research Group in the interests of presenting a balanced overview of potential Covid-19 treatments.

Immunological and serological studies show that most people develop no symptoms or only mild symptoms when infected with the new coronavirus, while some people may experience a more pronounced or critical course of the disease.

Based on the available scientific evidence and current clinical experience, the SPR Collaboration recommends that physicians and authorities consider the following Covid-19 treatment protocol for the early treatment of people at high risk or high exposure (see references below).

Note: Patients are asked to consult a doctor.

Treatment protocol

1. Zinc (50mg to 100mg per day)º
2. Hydroxychloroquine (400mg per day)*
3. Quercetin (500mg to 1000mg per day)º
4. Bromhexine (50mg to 100mg per day)º
5. Azithromycin (up to 500mg per day)*
6. Heparin (usual dosage)*

*) Prescription only (in most countries)
º) Also prophylactically (for high-risk persons)

Note: Quercetin may be used in addition to or as a replacement of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). Contraindications for HCQ (e.g. favism or heart disease) and azithromycin must be observed. Treatment duration is five to seven days. Prophylactic treatment requires lower doses.

Treatment successes

Zinc/HCQ/AZ: US physicians reported an 84% decrease in hospitalization rates, a 50% decrease in mortality rates among already hospitalized patients (if treated early), and an improvement in the condition of patients within 8 to 12 hours. Italian doctors reported a decrease in deaths of 66%.

Bromhexine: Iranian doctors reported in a study with 78 patients a decrease in intensive care treatments of 82%, a decrease in intubations of 89%, and a decrease in deaths of 100%. Chinese doctors reported a 50% reduction in intubations.

Mechanisms of action

Zinc inhibits RNA polymerase activity of coronaviruses and thus blocks virus replication. Hydroxychloroquine and quercetin support the cellular absorption of zinc and have additional anti-viral properties. Bromhexine inhibits the expression of the cellular TMPRSS2 protease and thus the entry of the virus into the cell. Azithromycin prevents bacterial superinfections. Heparin prevents infection-related thromboses and embolisms in patients at risk. (See scientific references below).

See also: Illustration of the mechanisms of action of HCQ, quercetin and bromhexine

Additional notes

The early treatment of patients as soon as the first typical symptoms appear and even without a PCR test is essential to prevent progression of the disease. Zinc, HCQ, quercetin and bromhexin may also be used prophylactically for people at high risk or high exposure (e.g. for health care workers).

In contrast, isolating infected high-risk patients at home and without early treatment until they develop serious respiratory problems, as often happened during lockdowns, may be detrimental.

The alleged or actual negative results with hydroxychloroquine in some studies were based on delayed use (intensive care patients), excessive doses (up to 2400mg per day), manipulated data sets (the Surgisphere scandal), or ignored contraindications (e.g., favism or heart disease).

Early treatment based on the above protocol is intended to avoid hospitalization. If hospitalization nevertheless becomes necessary, experienced ICU doctors recommend avoiding invasive ventilation (intubation) whenever possible and using oxygen therapy (HFNC) instead.

It is conceivable that the above treatment protocol, which is simple, safe and inexpensive, could render more complex medications, vaccinations, and other measures largely obsolete.

Background

The efficacy of HCQ against SARS coronaviruses was established in 2005 in the wake of the SARS-1 epidemic. The efficacy of zinc in blocking RNA replication of coronaviruses was discovered in 2010 by world-leading SARS virologist Ralph Baric. The efficacy of HCQ in supporting the cellular uptake of zinc was discovered in 2014 as part of cancer research. The efficacy of the flavonoid quercetin in supporting the cellular uptake of zinc was also discovered in 2014. The efficacy of bromhexine in blocking cell entry of coronaviruses was established in 2017.

References

General

• EVMS Critical Care Covid-19 Management Protocol (Paul Marik, MD, June 2020)

Zinc

1. Study: Effect of Zinc Salts on Respiratory Syncytial Virus Replication (Suara & Crowe, AAC, 2004)
2. Study: Zinc Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture (Velthuis et al, PLOS Path, 2010)
3. Study: Zinc for the common cold (Cochrane Systematic Review, 2013)
4. Study: Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients (Carlucci et al., MedRxiv, May 2020)
5. Review: Does zinc supplementation enhance the clinical efficacy of chloroquine/ hydroxychloroquine to win today’s battle against COVID-19? (Derwand & Scholz, MH, 2020)
6. Review: Zinc supplementation to improve treatment outcomes among children diagnosed with respiratory infections (WHO, Technical Report, 2011)
7. Article: Can Zinc Lozenges Help with Coronavirus Infections? (McGill University, March 2020)

Hydroxychloroquine

1. Studies: Overview of more than 50 international HCQ studies (C19Study.com)
2. Study: Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread (Vincent et al., Virology Journal, 2005)
3. Study: Chloroquine Is a Zinc Ionophore (Xue et al, PLOS One, 2014)
4. Study: Physicians work out treatment guidelines for coronavirus (Korean Biomedical Review, February 2020)
5. Study: Expert consensus on chloroquine phosphate for the treatment of novel coronavirus pneumonia (Guangdong Health Commission, February 2020)
6. Study: Clinical Efficacy of Chloroquine derivatives in COVID-19 Infection: Comparative meta-analysis between the Big data and the real world (Million et al, NMNI, June 2020)
7. Study: Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 (Arshad et al, Int. Journal of Infect. Diseases, July 2020)
8. Study: COVID-19 Outpatients – Early Risk-Stratified Treatment with Zinc Plus Low Dose Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin (Scholz et al., Preprints, July 2020)
9. Study: Effectiveness of HCQ in COVID-19 disease (Monforte et al., IJID, July 2020)
10. Protocol: Advisory on the use of HCQ as prophylaxis for SARS-CoV-2 infection (Indian Council of Medical Research, March 2020)
11. Review: White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine (Dr. Simone Gold, AFD, July 2020)
12. Article: The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It. (Professor Harvey A. Risch, Newsweek, July 2020)
13. Article: Using Hydroxychloroquine and Other Drugs to Fight Pandemic (Yale School of Medicine)
14. Article: Moroccan Scientist: Morocco’s Chloroquine Success Reveals European Failures (Morocco World News, June 2020) Zemmouri believes 78% of Europe’s coronavirus-related deaths could have been avoided if European states had mirrored Morocco’s chloroquine strategy.
15. Article (IT): Covid: None of my patients are dead, and only 5% had to be hospitalized (Italia Oggi, June 2020) Dr. Cavanna treated the affected by the virus by intervening promptly and at home.

Quercetin

1. Study: Small molecules blocking the entry of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus into host cells (Ling Yi et al., Journal of Virology, 2004)
2. Study: Zinc Ionophore Activity of Quercetin and Epigallocatechin-gallate: From Hepa 1-6 Cells to a Liposome Model (Dabbagh et al., JAFC, 2014)
3. Study: Quercetin as an Antiviral Agent Inhibits Influenza A Virus Entry (Wu et al, Viruses, 2016)
4. Study: Quercetin and Vitamin C: An Experimental, Synergistic Therapy for the Prevention and Treatment of SARS-CoV-2 Related Disease (Biancatelli et al, Front. in Immun., June 2020)
5. Report: EVMS Critical Care Covid-19 Management Protocol (Paul Marik, MD, June 2020)

Bromhexine

1. Study: TMPRSS2: A potential target for treatment of influenza virus and coronavirus infections (Wen Shen et al., Biochimie Journal, 2017)
2. Letter: Repurposing the mucolytic cough suppressant and TMPRSS2 protease inhibitor bromhexine for the prevention and management of SARS-CoV-2 infection (Maggio and Corsini, Pharmacological Research, April 2020)
3. Study: Potential new treatment strategies for COVID-19: is there a role for bromhexine as add-on therapy? (Depfenhart et al., Internal and Emergency Medicine, May 2020)
4. Study: Bromhexine Hydrochloride: Potential Approach to Prevent or Treat Early Stage COVID-19 (Stepanov and Lierz, Journal of Infectious Diseases and Epidemiology, June 2020)
5. Study: TMPRSS2 inhibitors, Bromhexine, Aprotinin, Camostat and Nafamostat as potential treatments for COVID-19 (Arsalan Azimi, Drug Target Review, June 2020)
6. Trial: Effect of bromhexine on clinical outcomes and mortality in COVID-19 patients: A randomized clinical trial (Ansarin et al., BioImpacts, July 2020): “There was a significant reduction in ICU admissions (2 out of 39 vs. 11 out of 39), intubation (1 out of 39 vs. 9 out of 39) and death (0 vs. 5) in the bromhexine treated group compared to the standard group.”

Heparin

1. Commentary: The versatile heparin in COVID‐19 (Thachil, JTH, April 2020)
2. Study: Anticoagulant Treatment Is Associated With Decreased Mortality in Severe Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients With Coagulopathy (Tang et al, JTH, May 2020)
3. Study: Autopsy Findings and Venous Thromboembolism in Patients With COVID-19 (Wichmann et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, May 2020)
4. Article: Anticoagulation Guidance Emerging for Severe COVID-19 (Medpage Today)
5. Article: Aspirin may prevent blood clots in COVID-19, study shows (Knowridge Science)

The post On the treatment of Covid-19 appeared first on Medika Life.