Another cure for Covid-19

AFCDorset

Subscribed
That you will not be allowed to take.

Since the beginning of the covid outbreak the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine based therapies has, by and large, been successfully suppressed by the authorities and the MSM, a few articles still turn up from time to time, but are quickly memory-holed. Similarly, in recent months, Ivermectin, another low cost yet apparently effective treatment has suffered a similar fate.

Both these drugs have been reported as being effective but tests carried out by medical authorities apparently prove otherwise. It is my understanding that these drugs are effective when they are given early, ie at the onset of symptoms but are much less effective given later, when the symptoms are established. Hospital patients are generally in the second group, which may explain why hospitals see no benefit from the drugs.

Given that the NHS still has no treatment for covid I find it odd that the aforementioned therapies were not tried, on an outpatient basis, when symptoms first appear. In reality the NHS tell people to go home and isolate, that is it, it is their only response at this stage. Should severe symptoms develop you may be taken into hospital but far to late for the HCQ+ or Ivermectin+ treatments to be effective. You will be given oxygen and steroids and will survive or not.

Now we have EXO-CD24, an Israeli cancer drug that, in tests so far, appears very effective on patients with more well developed symptoms. In a trial of patients with ‘moderate to severe’ symptoms all 30 patients recovered, 29 of them within a couple of days, astonishing if true and pretty much a real ‘cure’ if those results are replicated on a larger scale.

Is this going to be another effective covid treatment that patients will not be allowed to have?
Will more people be allowed to die to protect the ‘vaccine agenda’? Eyes open folks, it is going to be interesting.
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
Hydroxychloroquine was trialled on 11,000 NHS patients last year.

I have no idea about whether it is effective at early onset? If it is, I believe the drug can be purchased online.

The NHS is continually trying various treatments for Covid, including the immuno-suppressant ones, where an immunology overload is causing worse problems.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Hydroxychloroquine was trialled on 11,000 NHS patients last year.

I have no idea about whether it is effective at early onset? If it is, I believe the drug can be purchased online.

The NHS is continually trying various treatments for Covid, including the immuno-suppressant ones, where an immunology overload is causing worse problems.
Hi sixthswan.

Sorry to rehash old arguments but I have seen enough to convince me that HCQ+ and Ivermectin+ based therapies are effective if used early or in the case of HCQ as a prophylaxis for people who are vulnerable or otherwise at risk. That most of this information has been removed from the web is, to my suspicious mind, a very good indicator that there is something in this, no one is suggesting that these therapies are perfect, they are largely ineffective once more serious symptoms develop for example.

To buy HCQ in the was virtually impossible when I tried last autumn, (I wanted to take it as a precaution before going into hospital for my first heart procedure), you would need a script and these will only be given to treat specific issues such as arthritis or lupus. I explained to my GP Head of Practice why I wanted it, but was flatly refused, asking why, I was told it was contrary to 'guidelines'.

Again, my understanding is that the NHS is making no attempts to treat covid in it's early stages, go home and isolate, is still the mantra.

Prevention is better than the cure.
With a 'vaccine' that does not prevent you catching covid, developing symptoms, or being infectious.
 

Adumass

Bentleys Roofer
With a 'vaccine' that does not prevent you catching covid
that is not proven. it's a question that cannot be quickly answered, as it will take many months of data study to prove either way.

however, the early data suggests the opposite...that the vaccine does appear to reduce the transmission. see the news last week from astra zeneca, and this week from pfizer.

but then i think you know this, and it won't stop you posting the same thing in a fortnight: about how wonderful HCQ is, how the dreadful NHS are for refusing to try it, and how dastardly the MSN are for burying all those success stories. and around the merry-go-round goes.
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
As with any coronavirus, a vaccine will not prevent transmission. It is meant to reduce the impact of the virus on the body.

Like any other coronavirus, you can catch Covid more than once and will require booster vaccinations to maintain some level of protection.

It is amusing in a way to see any speculation about this. It is almost as if experts are fearful of admitting that Covid is like any other coronavirus.

What makes it more of a worry is that it is that Covid is new in humans. But it will continue like any of the other viruses in the family. Spreading, infecting multiple times, killing people annually and mutating. It will never go away. We need to prepare to live with it.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Easy Adumass, just an exchange of views.

This is a complex and evolving situation, there are clearly agendas at play here and right now, the dominant theme is 'take the vaccine'

We have been relentlessly told that it will be our salvation despite also being told that it will not stop us contracting covid and becoming infectious so we have to continue to endure masks, lockdown, the whole nine yards. Simply reducing the severity of the symptoms can be done by other means, as above, so why is the vaccine so important?

Why is learning to live with the corona virus now a thing? Important enough to trash our economy and social structure, why is that necessary in 2020 but not in earlier years when similar outbreaks occurred? Bird flu, Swine flu, Hong one flu have all come and gone without this sort of a reaction, why was that?

That in essence is my issue, is it simply 'the perfect storm' of an incompetent government, big Pharma and 24 news media, or is it something altogether more sinister, I know what I think, make up your own mind.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Strangely, tocilizumab, is now being touted as the 'new' treatment for covid patients with more severe symptoms. It is an established treatment for Arthritis (as is HCQ) that seems to have positive results, interesting.
 

hackneyfox

Subscribed
Strangely, tocilizumab, is now being touted as the 'new' treatment for covid patients with more severe symptoms. It is an established treatment for Arthritis (as is HCQ) that seems to have positive results, interesting.
Now you need to think of a reason as to why they are using this and not the ones you’ve been banging on about.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Now you need to think of a reason as to why they are using this and not the ones you’ve been banging on about.
Morning hackney fox.

That is actually a good question. The simple factual answer to your question is that hospitals in this country only take patients once they develop symptoms, HCQ+ and Ivermectin based therapies work best if taken early and are less effective as the disease progresses.

If you are of a a more conspiratorial frame of mind, you might think that the lack of early treatment is deliberate, it keeps the need for hospital admissions high and ramps up 'project fear', pushing people to a dubious vaccine as the only way to protect themselves.

At this stage I genuinely do not know what to believe, that the UK authorities have consistently lied to the public and manipulated the problem to suit there own ends is undeniable, I just don't know how far they are prepared to go.
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
Bit difficult trundling everyone off to hospital at the first sign of symptoms.

Especially as the majority won't ever need hospital care.

I'm not sure that protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed, can be achieved by adding such a huge pressure on resources; on something that hasn't been proven to work for everyone.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Bit difficult trundling everyone off to hospital at the first sign of symptoms.

Especially as the majority won't ever need hospital care.

I'm not sure that protecting the NHS from being overwhelmed, can be achieved by adding such a huge pressure on resources; on something that hasn't been proven to work for everyone.
That was never the intention, therapies based around HCQ and Ivermectin would be administered by GPs and pharmacists well before hospitalisation becomes necessary. It would not impact significantly on NHS resources and might actually reduce the numbers needing hospital care, thus actually reducing the load on the NHS.
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
So there would be a campaign led by GPs to give out medication. Would this be mandatory? Each GP would have to see a patient first. You can't just hand out medications, without assessing a patient. What would be the starting point for the medication?
  • Fever or chills
  • Cough
  • Shortness of breath or difficulty breathing
  • Fatigue
  • Muscle or body aches
  • Headache
  • New loss of taste or smell
  • Sore throat
  • Congestion or runny nose
  • Nausea or vomiting
  • Diarrhoea
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Sixthswan.

The checklist you give is a good starting point, run through it with a GP, practice nurse or qualified pharmacist and if it is thought necessary and appropriate take a standardised course of therapy based around HCQ or Ivermectin and Azithromycin (or similar) with added vitamin D3 and Zinc.

The course is relatively short, 5 to 7 days usually shows results, but re-evaluate at this time. If you can reduce the need for hospitalisation by just 10% it would be worthwhile.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
HCQ is more expensive than the standard treatment (dexamethasone).
Different treatment for different purposes.

Dexamethasone is a steroid used to help people with severe symptoms and breathing difficulties. HCQ+ is an immune system 'booster' that suppresses the development of the disease so that symptoms are milder or perhaps non-existent.

The medical establishment routinely dismisses these treatments so they are rarely used in mainstream medical care. Independent practitioners who do use them report good results though these reports are quickly removed from the main social media outlets.

It is another example of positive results not being investigated properly as positive results will not support the agenda.
 

sixthswan

Mod Roofer
What about those people who have died from the immunity system response?

Some people require a dampening of their immunity to survive Covid.

How many people do you think the GP would need to see, based on the symptoms mentioned above. At 15 minutes per appointment, how long do you think it would take to see everyone with those symptoms?

Then you give them a drug in a non-clinical environment; that may compromise the heart rhythm, especially when combined with azithromycin?
 

Outfoxed

Subscribed
This is an interesting paragraph.

“Both these drugs have been reported as being effective but tests carried out by medical authorities apparently prove otherwise”

Reported as being effective by who?
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Sixthswan. As you probably know I have issues with my heart, that is perhaps the main reason I am looking into all this. Both the commonly available vaccines include arrhythmia as one of there more obvious side effects.

Medical science is rarely 100%, all kinds of issues can be found, Cisplatin, a normally safe and reliable cancer drug nearly killed me in 2017 so I am very aware of the seriousness of possible side effects. Some risks have to be taken though, HCQ and Ivermectin are well established and widely used medications with, in most cases minimal side effects, better understood and perhaps safer than the vaccines.

Public health is very much a matter of numbers, a standard course of these drugs, no more than 5-7 days could be given with minimal risks, given the circumstances I think it might be worthwhile.

Outfoxed. The reports come mainly from the US where independent medical practitioners are much more common than in the UK. They report good results but these are mostly ignored by the medical establishment. Some reports did appear on platforms like twitter and Utube but were removed as 'fake news'.

For context, HCQ+ therapies were the centre of Disease Control's recommended treatment for the SARS-COV2 virus from 2005 until the beginning of last year, when information was removed from the CDC's website around April. This is not an unknown or experimental treatment.
 

AFCDorset

Subscribed
Small scale independent hospitals and clinics that exist outside the largely insurance funded, big Pharma run hospitals that make up the bulk of mainstream medical care in the US.
 

Richardvanles

Top Poster
Hi sixthswan.

Sorry to rehash old arguments but I have seen enough to convince me that HCQ+ and Ivermectin+ based therapies are effective if used early or in the case of HCQ as a prophylaxis for people who are vulnerable or otherwise at risk. That most of this information has been removed from the web is, to my suspicious mind, a very good indicator that there is something in this, no one is suggesting that these therapies are perfect, they are largely ineffective once more serious symptoms develop for example.

To buy HCQ in the was virtually impossible when I tried last autumn, (I wanted to take it as a precaution before going into hospital for my first heart procedure), you would need a script and these will only be given to treat specific issues such as arthritis or lupus. I explained to my GP Head of Practice why I wanted it, but was flatly refused, asking why, I was told it was contrary to 'guidelines'.

Again, my understanding is that the NHS is making no attempts to treat covid in it's early stages, go home and isolate, is still the mantra.


With a 'vaccine' that does not prevent you catching covid, developing symptoms, or being infectious.
 
Top