Trang 39/39
How Vitamin C Evidence Was Censored Because of Covid
Đã gửi: Thứ bảy 05/03/22 18:08
bởi Hoàng Vân
-
How Vitamin C Evidence Was Censored Because of Covid
__________________________________
Part One:
Low-risk treatment offers potential even as it stirs controversy
BY Conan Milner TIME _ May 21, 2020
Many of us reach for vitamin C for any cold or flu. But doctors who administer, or even promote, this nutrient to treat COVID-19 risk intimidation and censorship.
On April 23, FBI agents raided the Allure Medical Clinic in Shelby Township, Michigan. The visit came soon after Allure announced that it was treating COVID-19 patients using intravenous vitamin C therapy, “with great results.”
In a press release, the clinic’s founder, osteopath Dr. Charles Mok, offered free, high-dose vitamin C treatments to anyone working closely with the public: hospital staff, police, first responders, and grocery store workers. Anyone else who had been exposed to the virus or exhibiting symptoms was also welcome to try the treatment. Mok said his aim was to support people’s immune systems and help those with the COVID-19 virus recover quicker.
“We want to provide this treatment to those who need it, regardless of their ability to pay,” he said.
Mok was charged with health care fraud and conspiracy to commit health care fraud. A statement from the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Michigan claims that Mok took “advantage of fears surrounding COVID-19 to profit illegally” by offering high-dose intravenous vitamin C infusions to patients at risk of contracting COVID-19, and those who tested positive for the virus.
“In multiple launch videos, Dr. Mok claimed that Allure offered the infusions because vitamin C reduces the severity of symptoms, duration of illness, and therefore the contagiousness of COVID-19 and significantly increases the immunity system of those who have a high risk for contracting the virus. There are currently no known U.S Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved vaccines or drugs to treat COVID-19,” says the statement.
Dr. Andrew W. Saul says he’s taken heat for suggesting that vitamin C may help treat and protect people from COVID-19, and he knows doctors across the country who are facing similar examples of intimidation and censorship for stating that vitamin C can help patients suffering from COVID-19, and protect others from getting sick.
“These so called raids are deliberately done to intimidate doctors because they are afraid of losing their medical license. But it’s more of a political than a medical situation,” Saul said.
Saul is the founder and editor of the Orthomolecular News Service (ONS)—an organization that promotes the use of substances natural to the body to address illness. Since January, Saul has sent out several press releases to share studies and clinical evidence demonstrating the success of treating COVID-19 with Vitamin C. But he says his message is repeatedly censored.
Vitamin C has collected a long list of studies looking into its effects on a range of conditions and biological processes, from immune response to neurodegenerative disease. While the vitamin doesn’t always prove effective, it often shows promising results across several conditions largely thanks to its antioxidant status.
ONS was the first to report the use of vitamin C to treat COVID in China, thanks to Dr. Richard Cheng—Chinese editor for the ONS and a physician at the Cheng Integrative Health Center of South Carolina.
Cheng was visiting family in Shanghai during the Chinese New Year and met with Dr. Enqian Mao, chief of an emergency medicine department at a major hospital in Shanghai. Mao had spent over a decade successfully treating patients with acute pancreatitis, sepsis, as well as surgical and other medical conditions with high doses of vitamin C.
Mao’s team began treating COVID-19 patients with the same high-dose regimen (about 10,000 mg to 20,000 mg of intravenous vitamin C). In 50 patients, who ranged from moderate to severe, all recovered. One particularly severe case received 50,000 mg over a period of four hours and improved rapidly. No side effects were reported.
The findings were published in the Chinese Journal of Infectious Diseases, and as a result, the government of Shanghai officially recommended intravenous vitamin C for COVID-19 patients. In March, doctors from all over the world joined Mao in a video conference to discuss his protocol. But Saul says the report was blocked by Facebook as fake news.
“This is highly significant in a world that is locked down through fear of a virus,” Saul said. This information was deleted from YouTube again, and again, and again for violating their community standards. Facebook took it down, saying that it was a violation of their standards because it could cause physical harm.”
In March, the World Health Organization (WHO) warned governments of all nations not to promote any unproven and potentially dangerous remedies in regard to COVID-19. Several health officials have identified vitamin C as a prime offender, stating that there is no scientific evidence that taking this nutrient will help prevent or treat COVID-19.
On CNN, YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki declared that her company would ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts WHO’s coronavirus recommendations.
“So people saying, ‘Take vitamin C, take turmeric, we’ll cure you,’ those are the examples of things that would be a violation of our policy,” she said.
Saul says that silencing those who recommend or use vitamin C protects nobody, and only hurts public health. He says doctors have been successfully using high doses of vitamin C against viruses of all forms for decades, with the support of several studies.
“Nothing is proven to work against COVID-19, because it is a new virus,” Saul said. “We have a situation where we have an illness for which there is no vaccine and there is no specific drug, but medical doctors have already shown the way. The only moral and ethically acceptable move is to make the very best use of the information we already have.”
Everyone agrees that a modest daily dose of vitamin C is essential to good health. Some medical experts suggest that mega doses might be harmful but the National Institutes of Health (NIH) claims vitamin C “is not believed to cause serious adverse effects at high intakes. The most common complaints are diarrhea, nausea, abdominal cramps, and other gastrointestinal disturbances due to the osmotic effect of unabsorbed vitamin C in the gastrointestinal tract.”
Saul is frustrated by the censorship, but not surprised. He says the medical establishment has long been dismissive of vitamin C treatments. The Epoch Times spoke with Saul about the history of this battle, past research that supports the use of vitamin C in treating and preventing illness, and the impact that censorship has on public health.
Epoch Times: Why would a doctor even consider vitamin C as a treatment for COVID-19?
Dr. Andrew Saul: Vitamin C has been used by physicians to treat viral illnesses since the 1930s. Dr. Claus W. Jungeblut, professor of bacteriology at Columbia University, showed that vitamin C can prevent and reverse polio. Jungeblut published in a peer-reviewed journal in 1935, with a few more papers in the following years.
There is a whole series of papers on using vitamin C as an antiviral in the 1940s. Some came from Dr. Frederick Robert Klenner, a board-certified chest physician in North Carolina. Klenner was treating polio successfully using higher doses of vitamin C and got even better results than Jungeblut.
Then, in the ’70s, ’80s, and ’90s, we had the work of Robert Fulton Cathcart, an orthopedic surgeon in California. Cathcart used even higher doses of vitamin C, up to 200,000 milligrams a day, for acute, very serious viral illness.
People are being told that there is a safety issue, but there isn’t. The safety of vitamin C is fabulous. Klenner said it’s the safest substance available to the physician. The American Association of Poison Control Centers keeps an eye every year on who dies from what since at least 1985, and there are no deaths from vitamin C.
The U.S. government has set a tolerable upper level for vitamin C at 2,000 milligrams a day. But that’s been misconstrued, misquoted, and miscast as a safe upper limit. It isn’t. It’s a tolerable upper level. There’s a significant difference here.
The reason this limit exists at all is that some people don’t need as much vitamin C, and they will have loose stool or gastric distress if they take more than 2,000 mg a day. I know some people that take only 500 milligrams a day and they’re very healthy. They just can’t take anymore. They don’t need it. I know a lot of other people who take 18,000 milligrams of vitamin C a day, and that would include me— and that’s the amount that keeps them well.
So it varies from person to person. The bottom line is, the tolerable upper level has been misconstrued as the safe upper limit and therefore, you can’t give any more, but it’s being done anyway.
There’s so much research on vitamin C every year that you would have to have a lot of extra time to follow it. Vitamin C is one of the most studied substances on the planet. Vitamin C is being used right now to treat COVID in hospitals in China, Turkey, Italy, and, of course, the United States.
For example, the New York Post ran an article on the Northwell Health System in Long Island. They have over 20 hospitals. They’re the largest health care provider in New York State. They’re using vitamin C intravenously. They’re not giving a lot—1,500 mg a day. For some, they would bring it up to 3000 or 6000 mg a day. I talked to a staff member who said they can’t get enough right now to give more.
Based on what I said, you might think that’s really not very much vitamin C. But if it’s given intravenously, even 3,000 milligrams of C is very, very powerful, because the absorption is absolute.
Epoch Times: Besides absorption, what are some other advantages of taking vitamin C intravenously?
Dr. Saul: Not everybody is going to want to take a lot of tablets or powder orally, and when a person is in the hospital they already have an IV running anyway. It’s just easy to give it by vein.
Oral dosing for prevention is sensible because you don’t need as much to prevent. In the same way, you don’t need a whole lot of water to put out a tiny fire in a wastebasket, but you need an awful lot of water to put out a four-story commercial building.
Epoch Times: The recommended daily allowance (RDA) of vitamin C is less than 100 mg a day. Why would we ever want more than that?
Dr. Saul: With the exception of humans, gorillas, orangutans, guinea pigs, and a few others, most animals make their own vitamin C in their livers. The key here is that they make a lot of it.
Now, the U.S. RDA for an adult is only 90 milligrams a day—in Britain, it’s a preposterous 49 mg. But animals per human body weight equivalent manufacture between 2,000 and 10,000 milligrams of vitamin C a day.
A monkey in the wild that weighs about 20 to 25 pounds is known to consume about 600 milligrams of vitamin C in its diet. So if you extrapolate that for a human, that would be about 4,500 milligrams a day, and that happens to be the amount that gorillas consume. Geoffrey Bourne found that out back in 1949, when he studied gorillas and vitamin C consumption.
Vitamin C is an antioxidant. So it goes after free radicals. We’ve all heard about that. When somebody is seriously ill with a disease like COVID, their need for vitamin C skyrockets. If you test people with pneumonia, influenza, or COVID-19, you can measure and see that their vitamin C levels are low. So the body is actually consuming it in this battle to recover.
Another thing that vitamin C does is it strengthens the bond among the cells of the body. The substance that cements all our cells together is made out of collagen. It’s what keeps your joints and skin together. It’s what keeps your blood vessels intact. When you don’t have enough vitamin C, you don’t make collagen. The connective tissue becomes weak and you get scurvy. In the old days, wherever you touched a sailor with scurvy, they would instantly have a bruise because the little blood vessels would all break.
Vitamin C enables the manufacture of collagen so that you don’t bleed into yourself. Well, the lungs are just full of blood. All your blood is sent through tiny blood vessels in your lungs which go to millions of tiny air sacs called alveoli. This is how oxygen comes into the body. It’s absorbed into the blood vessels.
If you don’t have enough vitamin C, those blood vessels are going to rupture, so the person will fill with blood and die. And, in COVID, that’s one of the things they worry about.
Vitamin C also enables white blood cells—the army of the body that fights invaders. White blood cells require vitamin C to function. And in high enough doses, vitamin C is actually an antiviral. This goes back to the ridiculously-sounding high doses that I mentioned earlier with Dr. Klenner and Dr. Cathcart. Klenner was reversing viral pneumonia in 52 hours.
In every nutrition textbook ever written, it says that vitamin C is essential for a properly functioning immune system. Well, if you have COVID, the one thing you want more than anything else is a properly functioning immune system.
Too little vitamin C will cause the immune system to be weak or cause the immune system to work wrong.
Pneumonia and SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) is what kills COVID patients. You can also get pneumonia from a cold that just gets worse. It happened to me many years ago. I had a severe cold, I didn’t take care of myself and I got double viral pneumonia. So I decided to do what Dr. Cathcart did— I took 2,000 mg of vitamin C every six minutes I was awake. I had a high fever and I was coughing.
In three hours, my temperature came down three degrees and my cough stopped. This is exactly what Klenner and Cathcart reported in their medical papers.
All of this makes it a plausible therapy for COVID. What people are being told is that this is being looked into, but there’s no evidence or proof, so don’t do it because we’re not going to have the results until November. Well, we can’t wait until November. So we’re going to the doctors who are getting the results now.
The doctors who are using vitamin C for COVID all over the world are doing what is best for the patient. And this is the Hippocratic Oath.
Doctors are morally and ethically bound to do everything they can for the good of the patient. If they don’t know about vitamin C, we can understand why they might not use it. But now, the cat is out of the bag. Doctors know other doctors who are using vitamin C. And now, it’s a political battle to tell them to not do it.
I think we should save the lives of these patients first and work out the politics later. Doctors need to save the lives of their patients, and physicians who are using vitamin C are reporting that this is working. Unfortunately, the media is putting out stuff that is scary because that is what the media does.
https://www.theepochtimes.com/censoring ... hXD%2FsfNz
Decreases Mortality Dirt-Cheap COVID Pill Strikes Back, Proof It Works Better
Đã gửi: Thứ năm 24/03/22 10:32
bởi Hoàng Vân
-
Decreases Mortality
Dirt-Cheap COVID Pill Strikes Back,
Proof It Works Better
______________________
JOSEPH MERCOLA _ MARCH 17, 2022
Billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on novel medication with poor effectiveness, while these dirt-cheap pills have been ignored, suppressed and outright criminalized. Yet the latest study proves it is far more effective than the one heralded as the gold standard.
While ivermectin has been widely vilified as either useless, dangerous or both, studies have repeatedly demonstrated its usefulness against COVID-19. Most recently, a study published in the March 2022 issue of the International Journal of Infectious Diseases again found that treatment with ivermectin reduced mortality in COVID-19 patients — and to a greater degree than remdesivir.
In the video above, nursing educator John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews the findings of this paper. Importantly, the researchers compared the use of ivermectin against the use of remdesivir, which is one of the few drugs recommended for use against COVID in the U.S.
To compare outcomes between the two treatments, they analyzed data from a network of 44 health care organizations with 68 million patients. Patients aged 18 and over with a recorded COVID-19 infection between January 1, 2020, and July 11, 2021, were included in the analysis. Patients who received only remdesivir but not ivermectin were compared against those who received ivermectin but not remdesivir.
After controlling for a variety of confounding factors, including but not limited to comorbidities, other treatments that might affect COVID-19 survival, age, gender, ethnicity, nicotine use, diabetes, obesity and ventilator use, they concluded that treatment with ivermectin reduced mortality to a greater degree than remdesivir.
As noted by Campbell, - remdesivir is an extremely expensive drug, costing between $2,340 and $3,120 depending on your insurance.
- Ivermectin, meanwhile, costs between $48 and $95 for 20 pills depending on your location. The average cost is said to be about $58 per treatment.
Ivermectin Outperforms Other Drug Options
Another recent investigation by Cornell University, posted on the University’s preprint server January 20, 2022, found ivermectin outperformed no less than 10 other drugs. Here, the researchers used a computational analysis to look at the Omicron variant, which has demonstrated a lower clinical presentation and lower hospital admission rates.
After having retrieved the complete genome sequence and collecting 30 variants from the database, the researchers analyzed 10 drugs against the virus, including ivermectin, nirmatrelvir, ritonavir, lopinavir and boceprevir. While all of the 10 drugs had some degree of effectiveness against the virus, ivermectin was the most effective against the Omicron variant.
Of special note here is the inclusion of nirmatrelvir (Paxlovid), a new protease inhibitor that was granted emergency use authorization against COVID in December 2021. This drug, created by Pfizer, has cost U.S. taxpayers $5.29 billion — $529 per course of treatment, not quite as expensive as remdesivir, but still nearly 10 times more costly than ivermectin, which is also more effective.
Aside from affirming the benefit of ivermectin, these studies also reveal the government’s incredible wastefulness. Billions upon billions of taxpayer dollars have been wasted on novel drugs with poor effectiveness, while dirt-cheap drugs have been ignored, suppressed and outright criminalized.
How Ivermectin Works
While ivermectin is best known as an antiparasitic, it also has antiviral and anti-inflammatory properties. Studies have shown it helps to lower the viral load by inhibiting replication. A single dose of ivermectin can kill 99.8% of the virus within 48 hours. It also impairs the spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes, which helps prevent infection of the cell.
A meta-analysis in the American Journal of Therapeutics showed the drug reduced infection by an average of 86% when used preventively.
An observational study in Bangladesh evaluated the effectiveness of ivermectin as a prophylaxis for COVID-19 in health care workers. Only four of the 58 volunteers who took 12 mg of ivermectin once a month for four months developed mild COVID symptoms, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who declined the medication.
Ivermectin has also been shown to speed recovery, in part by inhibiting inflammation and protecting against organ damage. This pathway also lowers the risk of hospitalization and death. Meta analyses have shown an average reduction in mortality that ranges from 75%16 to 83%.
The drug also prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 when taken before or after exposure, and helps prevent blood clots if you’re infected by binding to SARS-CoV-2 spike protein.
This prevents the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells and triggering clumping. (Please note, if you check this reference, you’ll find it’s retracted; however, journal editors point out the retraction was due to questions on the methodology and conclusions, not on the mechanisms of action of ivermectin.)
So, added together, all of these benefits suggest ivermectin could easily have ended this pandemic within the first year, if not within months, had it been widely used.
Who’s Responsible for the Suppression of Ivermectin?
I don’t think any one person can be singled out as being responsible for the suppression of ivermectin. Many drug industry players have undoubtedly played a large role in it, as have regulators and government officials. The question is why?
One obvious answer is that if ivermectin were recognized as a valid treatment for COVID-19, the emergency use authorization for the COVID jabs would disappear. Additionally, ivermectin is long off-patent and nearly worthless in terms of its profit potential. Meanwhile, new patented drugs were available, and there were enormous profits to be made. But first, ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine had to be eradicated.
Certain researchers also appear to have been enlisted to blackball these drugs. One of them is Dr. Andrew Hill, an adviser to both - the Clinton Foundation
- and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
As explained in the video above, in October 2020, the World Health Organization asked Hill to do a meta-analysis of dozens of ivermectin studies.
Hill had shared his excitement about the promising data with Dr. Paul Marik, Dr. Pierre Kory and Dr. Tess Lawrie, all of whom have publicly advocated for the use of ivermectin in all stages of the infection. Lawrie is a medical doctor, Ph.D., researcher and director of Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd.
She helped organize the British Ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) panel and the International Ivermectin for COVID Conference, which was held online, April 24, 2021. (All of the lectures, which were recorded via Zoom, can be viewed on Bird-Group.org.)
Ironically, as a consultant to the World Health Organization and many other public health organizations, her largest clients are the very ones who have been actively suppressing the use of ivermectin.
According to Lawrie, in late 2020 she and Hill discussed working together to get ivermectin approved for use against COVID as soon as possible, as the drug looked like “a cheap, safe and effective way to end the pandemic.”
Hill’s Betrayal
That collaboration never happened. When a preprint of Hill’s analysis was posted, Lawrie was shocked by what she read.
Hill stated that ivermectin was - “associated with reduced inflammatory markers,”
- “faster viral clearance,”
- “significantly shortened duration of hospitalization,”
and a 75% reduction in mortality in those with moderate to severe infection.
All of those things were true then and are still true today. Yet Hill’s conclusion was that - “ivermectin should be validated in larger, appropriately controlled randomized trials before the results are sufficient for review by regulatory authorities.”
This was the complete opposite of what he’d shared with Lawrie and the others.
In mid-January 2021, Lawrie emailed Hill, asking him to retract his review and reframe his conclusions before publishing, as additional placebo-controlled RCTs “are definitely not needed.” She added that his review “will do immeasurable harm.” Marik and Kory were also alarmed by Hill’s misrepresentation, and they too asked him to correct his paper before publishing.
In the video above, Lawrie shows the written assessment of Hill’s paper by a forensic communications expert, who concluded that there were “multiple instances of interference (additional text added to the paper) from … a ‘shadow author.’” These additional, but unnamed authors, appear to have manipulated the paper to undermine the positive findings.
Who are they?
Lawrie confronted Hill with that question during their January 2021 Zoom call. Hill tried to shirk the question, but in the end, he admitted that Unitaid, the charity that sponsored the analysis, had a say in the conclusions of his paper. Incidentally, Unitaid has received at least $150 million from The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
Hill’s paper was published with its negative conclusion intact, and subsequent efforts by Lawrie to get her team’s meta-analyses published were rejected, as Hill’s analysis had declared that more large-scale studies were still needed. According to Lawrie, they had all the evidence they needed in January 2020. They knew ivermectin could lower mortality by 75% or more. Additional studies weren’t needed.
Hill Urged to Come Clean
Hill, during that Zoom call, kept saying he was walking a fine line but promised Lawrie that he would not allow ivermectin to be ignored “for very long.” He predicted that by the end of February 2021, there would be enough evidence to push for approval. That didn’t pan out either, in large part because of the false conclusion presented in Hill’s paper.
That particular moment of history needed a man in Hill’s position to speak the truth, and he chose not to.
Not only did his paper make it more difficult for scientists to publish positive findings, - it was also used as justification to restrict access to the drug across the world. There’s no telling how many died as a result.
- His paper also paved the way for the emergency use authorization of novel mRNA COVID shots, which could not be authorized were there known safe and effective treatments available.
So, clearly, Hill has blood on his hands for his participation in this suppression.
As noted by Kory, that particular moment of history needed a man in Hill’s position to speak the truth, and he chose not to. Now, Lawrie is begging Hill to make up for his previous moral failure by exposing the corruption of science; to come forward and explain how the evidence on ivermectin was undermined, and to name the people who influenced his conclusion.
“We will forgive you, Andy,” Lawrie says, “but come forward.” In the video below, Lawrie provides even more details about her conversations with Hill.
Has the ‘Shadow Author’ Been Identified?
Producer/director Phil Harper now claims he may have identified the “shadow author” who fiddled with Hill’s conclusion. The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) reports:
“‘The Digger’ on Substack (aka producer/director Phil Harper) has revealed the name of the person who could have edited the paper’s conclusions — which led to the WHO’s non-recommendation of the use of ivermectin. That decision could have led to the unnecessary deaths of millions across the world …
Harper studied the PDF of the paper, wanting to learn the identity of its ‘ghost’ author. ‘The hope was that some artifact on the PDF would reveal something, maybe a font was different, maybe there was a hidden comment, maybe some tracked changes had been saved to the document,’ said Harper. ‘None of those lines of inquiry came to anything.’
Then it came to him. Was it in the PDF’s metadata? ‘Sometimes it’s the most obvious of things,’ Harper writes. ‘The ‘v1_stamped’ version of the paper did indeed have metadata.
It even had author information inside the metadata. Expecting to see Andrew Hill listed as the author, instead, I saw a name I recognized. Andrew Owen. Unless someone used his computer, Andrew Owen has his digital fingerprint on the Andrew Hill paper.
As it turns out, Andrew Owen is a Professor of Pharmacology & Therapeutics and co-Director of the Centre of Excellence in Long-acting Therapeutics (CELT) at the University of Liverpool. He is also scientific advisor to the WHO’s COVID-19 Guideline Development Group. Just days before Dr. Hill’s paper was to be published, a $40M grant from Unitaid, the paper’s sponsor, was given to CELT — of which Owen is the project lead.
‘The $40 million contract was actually a commercial agreement between Unitaid, the University of Liverpool and Tandem Nano Ltd (a start-up company that commercializes ‘Solid Lipid Nanoparticle’ delivery mechanisms) — for which Andrew Owen is a top shareholder,’ says Harper.”
If it turns out that Unitaid had anything to do with the alteration of Hill’s conclusion about ivermectin, then it has completely violated its mission and mandate, which is to “[find] innovative solutions to prevent … and treat diseases more quickly, cheaply and effectively.”
This is critical because, for COVID, ivermectin was one such solution. Front line doctors and researchers knew it in 2020; Hill knew it; and therefore Unitaid knew it. Did they subvert the truth and let people die? If so, for what? A commercial agreement for a novel lipid nanoparticle product? Perhaps.
Sources and References
- International Journal of Infectious Diseases March 2022; 116(Supplement): S40
AJMC June 29, 2020
WellRx, Ivermectin
Drugs.com Ivermectin
JAMA 2022;327(6):584-587
Cornell University, January 20, 2022
FDA, December 22, 2021
Precision Vaccinations, November 19, 2021
Journal Control Release, 2021;329
FLCCC Summary of Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19 (PDF)
News-Medical.net, April 6, 2020
In Vivo September-October 2020; 34(5): 3023-3026
American Journal of Therapeutics, 2021;28(4) Therapeutic Advances
European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences 2020; 2(6)
Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, August 29, 2021
FLCCC January 7, 2020 Press Release (PDF)
Swiss Policy Research December 31, 2020
Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd. Rapid Review and Meta-Analysis January 3, 2021 (PDF)
The Journal of Antibiotics June 15, 2021 DOI: 10.1038/s41429-021-00430-5
Andrew Hill MD Bio
Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy Ltd
Trial Site News April 9, 2021
Ivermectin for COVID Conference
Bird-group.org Conference videos
Unitaid December 7, 2017
World Council for Health, Insight Into the Conversation Between Dr. Lawrie and Dr. Hill
The Digger Substack March 7, 2022
FLCCC Substack March 8, 2022
Unitaid.org
https://www.theepochtimes.com/dirt-chea ... Z7brIkX%2F
Doctor’s Advice on Early Treatment for COVID-19
Đã gửi: Thứ sáu 08/04/22 14:47
bởi Hoàng Vân
-
Doctor’s Advice
on Early Treatment for COVID-19
Treat COVID with the best practices learned from every other virus, advises doctor
_____________________
CONAN MILNER _ APRIL 15, 2021
We’ve long known that treating a viral illness within the first few days of symptoms
can prevent it from establishing an infection.
Over a year later, many people still live in fear of COVID-19. This pandemic has claimed millions of lives, has infected many more, and other dangerous variants are said to lurk just over the horizon.
Even though the odds of developing a serious case may be low, it can still leave us feeling vulnerable. Anyone who has heard of the painful and often life-threatening symptoms that can accompany this disease is urged to take caution.
But what kind of caution can we take? Other than wearing a mask and social distancing, what strategies for protection do we have? Experimental vaccines are now available through an Emergency Use Authorization, but not everyone is comfortable with this gene therapy solution. And for those who do take the shot, the treatment only promises to lessen symptom severity. Those who get vaccinated can still catch the disease and transmit it to others.
For those looking for other ways to guard against SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, advice from real doctors on reliable options can be hard to find. Since the beginning of the pandemic, any information on remedies that may work for prevention and treatment has been routinely censored—even when they’re recommended by board-certified physicians.
The only remedy ever approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to treat COVID-19 is an expensive new drug called remdesivir. Otherwise, health officials have had little to offer. People who test positive are merely told to quarantine themselves for several days and seek emergency care if symptoms become severe.
A free booklet from the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) aims to fill the gap.
offers clinically successful protocols from doctors who have personally treated many COVID-19 patients. The treatments haven’t been subjected to randomized controlled trials to measure their efficacy against SARS-CoV-2, but they’re proven safe and inexpensive strategies against other viruses and have worked for many with COVID-19.
The remedies recommended in this booklet resemble those used for other viral diseases. And since they can be implemented from home, it reduces the spread of illness, because infected individuals will inevitably spread their disease in a public clinic or hospital.
Co-editor and author of the booklet is Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet, a board-certified physician practicing in Arizona who specializes in preventive medicine.
The Epoch Times talked to Dr. Vliet about the need for home-based treatment and how the official response to COVID-19 is different from any disease response in history.
The Epoch Times: Health officials have already issued guidelines about how we should address COVID-19. Why is this booklet necessary?
Dr. Elizabeth Lee Vliet: We are in an infectious disease war. I could not stand back and let my patients die on my watch if there were things I could do to help them. And it became clear fairly quickly in February and March 2020 that this was similar to other viral diseases. And if you treat a viral illness within the first few days of symptoms, you prevent the virus from establishing the infection. You prevent it from multiplying and causing more damage. It’s a very simple principle of preventative medicine. It’s what we’ve always done. It’s what doctors do. We treat disease early.
I was reading about what Dr. Peter McCullough, Dr. Zev Zelenko, and doctors in Italy were doing to treat COVID-19, and I learned that we could treat with antivirals quickly. We add cortico-steroids if there are signs of inflammation and we add anti-coagulants if there are markers of blood-clotting risk. It’s really pretty straightforward. Basic internal medicine with medicines that are FDA approved with a proven safety record. I’ve been doing it my whole career with these medicines. Why not apply them to a new viral disease? It just made common sense.
That’s what got me started. But the more medical evidence there was supporting these approaches, the more I was seeing the censorship of them.
The Epoch Times: I remember last year that any mention of taking vitamins C and D for COVID-19 was being censored. Social media companies said it was to prevent misinformation. But why would they try to prevent doctors from providing basic nutritional information, especially at a time when so many people feared for their lives?
Dr. Vliet: It was to drive control of the population through fear to get them to follow the vaccination campaign. That’s clearly the motive. There is no other explanation for the orchestrated attacks on vitamins, hydroxychloroquine, and now ivermectin to prevent early treatment, and censoring any doctor that posts about this on Twitter.
I was on Twitter for six years. I had about 80 thousand followers. I was summarily suspended from Twitter on Jan. 11 for posting medically correct information about the vaccine risk and about early treatment options that were available. My account was suspended without warning and with no reason given. There wasn’t anything medically incorrect that I had posted. I consider it my responsibility to read the medical literature and put it into layman’s language in the hopes that people understand their options. I’ve always done that. I’ve written seven consumer books on health care topics.
Doctors have a duty to educate patients and put it into language that patients can understand and not talk over their heads. It’s always been a part of being a doctor. Pythagoras in the 5th century BC said it’s the physician’s duty to teach men and women the physical and spiritual laws of life, and to live in accordance with God’s purpose for them.
The Epoch Times: Why is early treatment important for COVID-19?
Dr. Vliet: Because every viral treatment known to man has an early phase where the virus invades the cells of the body and then uses the cells of our body to multiply itself. Those two steps are the point at which a viral illness needs to be interrupted if you’re going to keep people from getting sick. I will tell you unequivocally that there is no doctor in practice in the United States that doesn’t know that from medical school. All physicians will say, “You’ve got to start Tamiflu within 48 hours if you get the flu, or it doesn’t work.” If you’re going to treat shingles, you have to talk to your doctor as soon as you feel the tingle, and see if you need antiviral medicine. If you’re going to treat herpes, same principle. Why are they choosing to ignore that principle with COVID?
Every viral illness starts that way. The more it’s allowed to progress, the more it takes over the cells and replicates itself. Then you have a viral load in the body that’s spread to others with coughing and sneezing, through touch, or through the stool, for example. Then you have a viral load that triggers inflammation. And the chemicals released during the inflammatory phase start doing their own damage to the body.
In the case of COVID, it’s even more critical to treat it early than it is with the influenza virus, because there are two unique aspects of the SARS-CoV-2 virus. If the virus infects the cells and replicates, it increases the viral load in the first five days after you’re exposed. Then this virus triggers an exaggerated immune response of inflammation and damage. The second key difference is that it triggers a massive exaggerated blood clotting response, causing clots affecting critical organs.
It’s these two differences with COVID that made it absolutely critical to treat in the first week of symptoms, and not let it get past day seven.
The National Institutes of Health guidelines instructs people to stay at home until they have symptoms, and then have them go to the ER. So people would wait through two and a half weeks of symptoms. And by that point, this virus would have triggered an exaggerated inflammatory response which can lead to the lethal form of cytokine storm. And it can trigger the exaggerated blood-clotting response, and people were developing micro-blood clots throughout the lungs.
That’s a problem, and that’s why this virus absolutely had to be treated early to prevent those damages. Primarily what has killed people with COVID is a delay to treatment, and allowing the exaggerating inflammatory response and blood clotting response to take hold in the body. But by then, there is little we can do.
By the time people got to the hospital and into the ICU, the average mortality was running across the U.S. around 25 percent. That’s totally unacceptable. We’ve never had anything like that before during my career in medicine.
By preventing treatment for that long, you’re essentially putting 25 percent of those patients to death. The 75 percent that recovered then suffered long-term complications. We’ve seen pulmonary fibrosis developing. We’ve seen neurological complications, fatigue, heart damage. You’ve got inflammation of the brain, inflammation of the heart, kidney damage, and lung damage. All of these are consequences of waiting until the late stage to treat this virus.
It’s a potential death sentence. There’s no way around it. But they’ve consciously hidden that message. Our administrators and hospitals have financial incentives to keep people in the hospital. But physicians who work in hospitals are told they can’t use these early treatment medicines.
Never in the history of medicine, and especially in the history of modern medicine in the United States of America have you had agencies directing doctors to stand down and do nothing until the patient was critically ill and needed oxygen and had to go to the hospital. Never.
If you really consider what’s been done, it’s criminal negligence. Failure to treat is a malpractice case in any other area of medicine.
The Epoch Times: Your booklet focuses on the basics of good health: a healthy diet, drinking plenty of water, getting fresh air and sunshine. How do these things help protect us against COVID?
Dr. Vliet: Many ways. I have a nutritionist and exercise physiologist who has been with my practice for 25 years, and we’re constantly working with our patients to reduce the dietary triggers of inflammation.
Hippocrates said 2,500 years ago, “Let food be thy medicine.” And it is. People can clean up their diet and reduce their risk of inflammation, which drives the COVID infection and damage. But also, healthy eating literally improves your immune function by many mechanisms.
Vitamins play a role because they’re co-factors in the enzyme pathways involved in the immune response. Vitamin D is not a vitamin, it’s a hormone. It improves immune function, but it actually plays many roles in the body. There have been numerous studies that show that low vitamin D levels put people at higher risk for breast cancer, prostate, and other cancers. I’ve been working with my patients for years, checking their vitamin D levels, and making sure they’re getting plenty of vitamin D.
We also get vitamin D from being out in the sunshine, not wearing sunblock, and letting your skin become a little factory that takes the sunlight and triggers the precursors to help your body. It’s why people who live in sunny climates can have higher vitamin D levels than those who live in northern climates where there are long winters.
Sunshine and fresh air have been known since ancient times as helpful in disease prevention. It was known in the flu pandemic of 1918. We have pictures in the museum in Arizona and other places where they actually moved hospital beds outside to get people sunshine and fresh air. You’re not recirculating the virus in a closed room if you’ve got the patient outside breathing fresh air.
All these people wearing the mask outdoors are inhibiting the normal mechanisms that get rid of the viruses. They’re just recirculating bad viruses and bacteria that make themselves more susceptible.
I watch people out in the sunshine in Arizona—running, riding a bike, or power walking wearing a mask. No one is around them doing their exercise. They’re decreasing their oxygen. They’re increasing the build-up of CO2—and some of them are a little older.
The Epoch Times: One of the medicines you recommend in your booklet is hydroxychloroquine. I’ve read that doctors in several non-Western countries are using this drug in early COVID treatment, but it remains very controversial here. Can patients trust this medicine?
Dr. Vliet: Hydroxychloroquine has been used for 65 years for all ages, from young children to people in their 90s and older, as well as pregnant and nursing mothers. The CDC and other agencies all over the world have always said this was safe.
Malaria prophylaxes [a treatment designed to reduce risk of getting an illness] with hydroxychloroquine is similar to the dosage we use for COVID-19. But I have patients on it for rheumatoid arthritis at larger doses for decades without complications.
The Epoch Times: Why is hydroxychloroquine considered such an important drug for early treatment of COVID-19? And why do they always combine it with zinc?
Dr. Vliet: Because a [2005 study from the Journal of Virology] showed that chloroquine and its derivative, hydroxychloroquine, in cell cultures blocked the virus from entering the cell at the ACE2 receptor, and blocked the SARS-CoV-1 virus from using our cells to multiply. So these drugs address the first two stages of viral illness.
The reason we focus on hydroxychloroquine as opposed to the older chloroquine is that chloroquine has a little more risk of prolonging the QT interval [causing fast, chaotic heartbeats]. Hydroxychloroquine has far less risk of that. So it’s a safer derivative.
It’s antiviral and it’s anti-inflammatory, so hydroxychloroquine actually hits two of the COVID mechanisms: the virus establishing the infection and the inflammation that the virus causes. In addition, hydroxychloroquine is a zinc ionophore. It helps zinc get into the cells to block the virus from multiplying. Zinc is needed with hydroxychloroquine to stop the replication inside your cells. They work together.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used as a drug to treat diabetes since the 1980s and even earlier. It’s a second-line diabetes drug in India. So it actually lowers glucose and hemoglobin A1C. And we’ve known that diabetes is one of the greatest factors of dying from COVID.
I’ve found articles published in the United States from the 1980s about its use in diabetes. It just got overwhelmed by the new, expensive diabetes drugs in the U.S. But in countries that don’t have the money to pay for the expensive diabetes drugs that we use, it’s commonly used to treat diabetes.
There are over 16 different cancer trials with hydroxychloroquine as an anti-cancer drug as well. I found some studies just a couple of weeks ago where they’re using it to stop the spread of prostate cancer. It’s an amazing drug.
It’s widely available. It’s inexpensive. It’s a generic medicine. A course of treatment for a week, which is all you need, probably runs around 20 bucks. You can pay cash for it, and you don’t need insurance. You can get a good RX coupon card that may bring the cost down to $10.
Pharmaceutical companies have ramped up production to make it available. It’s been a political suppression. It is medically available. It is FDA approved. And doctors are using it for every condition day in and day out.
Once a medicine becomes FDA approved, doctors are legally, ethically, and morally able to use medicines off-label. This means that if a drug is approved for rheumatoid arthritis and we think in our medical judgment that it could help a patient with osteoarthritis, we’re legally allowed to do that. In fact, about 20 percent of prescriptions written in the United States each day are for off-label uses of existing FDA-approved drugs for new uses.
I’ve been using FDA-approved medications legally off-label for a new use. FDA has already demonstrated their safety because they were approved years ago. And I’ve been using them successfully to treat COVID patients within the first three to five days of symptoms. I’ve had no hospitalizations, no deaths, and I’ve not had any patients develop the COVID long-haulers syndrome, because we treat it early.
China knew of the study on hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in SARS CoV-1 that stopped the virus from entering the cells and multiplying in cell culture. The Chinese applied that information to the new SARS-CoV-2 virus, which shares about 79 percent of the viral genome of SARS-CoV-1.
I later found from reports from overseas that China had shipped millions of doses of hydroxychloroquine to Iran and Turkey in the fall of 2019. I thought, “Well, son of a gun. They had some inside knowledge.”
In January and February 2020, China was already using it in their hospitals, and Chinese doctors were sharing that information with South Korea and helped them get on top of it quickly. By March, India’s Council of Medical Research had already published on their government website using hydroxychloroquine for prophylaxis in health care centers across the country for health care workers and high-risk patients, and for treatment, and they were publishing the guidelines and the doses.
I had that available in March 2020 and I was using a similar dose with my patients here in the U.S. and it has worked beautifully.
Phương thức chữa Covid (cập nhật tháng 3/2023)
Đã gửi: Chủ nhật 17/09/23 20:28
bởi Hoàng Vân
Re: Dịch Covid-19 (SARS-CoV-2 / 2019-nCoV)
Đã gửi: Chủ nhật 14/01/24 20:20
bởi Hoàng Vân
-
Biến thể mới nhất của COVID có thể dẫn đến
“đại dịch suy tim” toàn cầu
________________________
Facts Matter _ 14/01/24
Virus COVID 19 liên tục đột biến và hiệu quả của vaccine ngày càng giảm dần. Hiện tại gần như mỗi tháng đều có các biến thể virus mới. Trong thời gian gần đây, các nhà khoa học đã có một phát hiện quan trọng.
Có thể bạn vẫn còn nhớ, trong thời kỳ đỉnh dịch COVID-19, một số người cho rằng phong trào tiêm vaccine sẽ không dừng lại ở hai mũi và rất có thể COVID-19 sẽ trở thành loại virus phải tiêm vaccine theo mùa giống virus cúm. Đương nhiên lúc đó, nhiều người không quan tâm đến ý kiến này và cho rằng đó là thuyết âm mưu. Tuy nhiên, thực tế đã xảy ra đúng với dự đoán trên.
Tạp chí AARP là tạp chí lớn nhất của Mỹ (AARP – American Association of Retired Persons) với số lượng người đăng ký hàng tháng lên đến khoảng 38 triệu thành viên mỗi tháng. Trong số mới nhất của tạp chí AARP là số tháng 12, tạp chí này đã khuyến cáo 38 triệu thành viên nhanh chóng tiêm thêm vaccine COVID-19, dù đã tiêm 5 mũi vaccine tăng cường trước đó.
Lời đề nghị được ra dưới dạng Q&A (Câu hỏi và trả lời) với nội dung như sau:
Câu hỏi: “Tôi đã tiêm 5 mũi vaccine tăng cường. Tôi có cần đăng ký tiêm thêm không?”
Trả lời: “Vâng, nếu bạn chưa tiêm vaccine COVID vào mùa thu, bạn nên nhanh chóng tiêm”.
Câu trả lời này có nghĩa là, sau khi tiêm 2 mũi vaccine cơ bản và 5 mũi vaccine tăng cường, bạn tiêm mũi vaccine thứ 8 nhanh nhất có thể. 8 mũi vaccine trong vòng 3 năm.
Tiếp theo câu trả lời nhắc các thành viên rằng:
“Mũi vaccine mới đây nhất được đưa vào tháng 9 năm 2023 không phải là mũi vaccine tăng cường mà là một loại vacccine mới nhắm vào biến thể virus mới nhất”.
Về biến thể mới nhất, các nhà khoa học đã gióng lên hồi chuông cảnh báo rằng biến thể COVID-19 mới nhất có thể gây ra đại dịch suy tim toàn cầu. Có nghĩa là khi bạn thấy những người xung quanh bị suy tim, thì nguyên nhân có thể là do biến thể mới nhất của virus COVID-19.
Biến thể COVID-19 mới nhất đang lây nhiễm trên toàn thế giới hiện nay là biến thể JN.1. Biến thể này đã gây ra làn sóng lây nhiễm mới ở nhiều quốc gia như Mỹ, Anh, Trung Quốc, Ấn Độ, Úc và nhiều quốc gia khác.
JN.1 đã trở thành biến thể lây nhiễm ưu thế ở Mỹ. Theo kết quả kiểm tra nước thải của Trung tâm kiểm soát và phòng ngừa dịch bệnh Hoa Kỳ:
“JN.1 biến thể virus COVID lây lan nhanh mới nhất đã trở thành biến thể lưu hành rộng nhất… Là một biến thể phụ từ biến thể của chủng Omicron, JN.1 chiếm khoảng 62% các ca nhiễm hiện tại, tăng lên so với tỷ lệ 44% cách đây hai tuần. Sự gia tăng này được ghi nhận khi phân tích nước thải trong nước, ở những du khách quốc tế và nhiều nơi trên thế giới”.
Các triệu chứng của biến thể JN.1 giống với các chủng khác và giống với triệu chứng của bệnh cúm như đau họng, chảy nước mũi, ho, đau đầu, sốt, tiêu chảy,… Tuy nhiên, các chuyên gia y tế đã cảnh báo về sự gia tăng nguy cơ mắc các vấn đề tim mạch ở những người nhiễm biến thể mới này.
Lời cảnh báo này được đưa ra trong một báo cáo của viện nghiên cứu hàng đầu tại Nhật Bản. Báo cáo cho biết thụ thể ACE – loại thụ thể được virus sử dụng để xâm nhập tế bào người, rất phổ biến ở tế bào cơ tim. Điều này có nghĩa là những người nhiễm các chủng virus mới có thể có tình trạng suy giảm chức năng tim.
Báo cáo cho biết:
"Mặc dù chưa có bằng chứng lâm sàng thuyết phục cho thấy nhiễm virus SARS-CoV-2 dai dẳng có liên quan đến tình trạng suy giảm chức năng tim, các nghiên cứu chứng minh khái niệm (proof-of-concept study) về khả năng nhiễm virus SARS-CoV-2 dai dẳng ở tim và nguy cơ tiến triển tình trạng suy tim cần phải được đánh giá trên mô hình mô tim 3 chiều. Nghiên cứu này sẽ là hồi chuông cảnh báo về nguy cơ sức khỏe toàn cầu".
Nghiên cứu được tiến hành như sau:
“Đầu tiên, nhóm nghiên cứu tạo ra mô tim nhờ các tế bào gốc đa năng cảm ứng (iPS). Khi cho một số lượng lớn virus tấn công mô này, chức năng tim suy giảm và không hồi phụ. Khi sử dụng 10% lượng virus trên, chức năng tim vẫn được duy trì ở một mức độ nhất định, nhưng nếu quá trình nhiễm virus sẽ kéo dài đến bốn tuần. Các nhà nghiên cứu cho rằng có thể một số bệnh nhân sẽ không xuất hiện tình trạng suy tim khi nhiễm virus kéo dài.
Ngoài ra, khi đặt mô tim trong tình trạng thiếu oxy để làm giảm chức năng tim, các tế bào không nhiễm virus sẽ phục hồi sau một thời gian. Tuy nhiên, những tế bào nhiễm virus sẽ không thể phục hồi. Điều này cho thấy khả năng phục hồi của mô tim sẽ giảm đi khi nhiễm virus kéo dài".
Một nhà nghiên cứu của viện nghiên cứu tại Nhật Bản đã trả lời báo chí rằng:
“Một số người nhiễm virus Corona có thể sẽ có tình trạng nhiễm virus dai dẳng ở tim. Cần xây dựng hệ thống đánh giá và tìm ra phương pháp điều trị để chuẩn bị cho ‘đại dịch suy tim’, khi số bệnh nhân suy tim gia tăng nhanh chóng”.
Như vậy, báo cáo này muốn cho chúng ta biết rằng nếu xuất hiện đại dịch suy tim trên toàn cầu, thì đại dịch này là do biến thể COVID mới, chứ không phải do những nguyên nhân khác.
Bằng khoản lợi nhuận khổng lồ thu được trong thời kỳ đại dịch, gần đây Pfizer đã mua lại một số công ty, trong đó bao gồm cả thương vụ mua lại một công ty có tên là Arena Pharmaceuticals với trị giá khoảng 6,7 tỷ đô.
Đây là công ty chuyên phát triển các phương pháp điều trị viêm tim như viêm cơ tim và viêm màng ngoài tim. Như vậy, nếu thật sự xảy ra đại dịch suy tim trên toàn cầu, công ty Pfizer sẽ giúp chúng ta giải quyết vấn đề này. Chắc chắn rằng khoảng đầu tư của Pfizer sẽ có lãi nếu chúng ta có “một mùa cúm nghiêm trọng”.
Cuối cùng, nếu bạn muốn chuẩn bị cho mùa cúm này, hãy nhớ rằng tạp chí AARP đã khuyến khích bạn tiêm mũi vaccine thứ 8. Nếu bạn muốn đọc lại bài báo của AARP hoặc báo cáo của Nhật Bản về khả năng xảy ra đại dịch suy tim trên toàn cầu, đường link sẽ được để ở phần mô tả.
Báo cáo của Nhật Bản:
Bài viết của tạp chí AARP
Thương vụ của Pfizer
Theo The Epoch Times - Epoch TV
Đức Nhân biên dịch
https://www.ntdvn.net/bien-the-moi-nhat ... 02807.html
Phương thức chữa Covid (cập nhật tháng 12/2023)
Đã gửi: Chủ nhật 14/01/24 21:08
bởi Hoàng Vân