Article: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/a-safe-effective-outpatient-treatment-plan-for-covid-19-exists-why-arent-more-doctors-using-it

  • Thread starter Thread starter Joegrane
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Joegrane

Guest
An internationally known Catholic doctor recently wrote an article appearing at lifesitenews about access to the controversial medication hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Fitzgibbons is not a medical researcher or infectious disease expert. He is a psychiatrist and marriage counselor who has done work for the NCCB and a Vatican office. You may have seen him as a guest on EWTN.

So this discussion is not primarily about the pros and cons of a particular medication, but about ethics in medicine, in the media and in government officials. Catholics need to be aware of the controversy if we are to make a difference in society and in politics.

Dr. Fitzgibbons quotes a Yale professor, Dr. Harvey Risch. Risch’s view is expressed particularly well in an article at covexit
It is our obligation not to stand by, just “carefully watching,” as the old and infirm and inner city of us are killed by this disease and our economy is destroyed by it and we have nothing to offer except high-mortality hospital treatment.

We have a solution [HCQ+], imperfect, to attempt to deal with the disease. We have to let physicians employing good clinical judgement use it and informed patients choose it.

There is a small chance that it may not work. But the urgency demands that we at least start to take that risk and evaluate what happens, and if our situation does not improve we can stop it …

… but we will know that we did everything that we could instead of sitting by and letting hundreds of thousands die because we did not have the courage to act according to our rational calculations.
Click to expand...
Many of you who get your news from left-leaning sources with advertising from the pharma industry are probably not aware of encouraging studies of hydroxycloroquine (HCQ), usually with an antibiotic (AZT), sometimes with the mineral zinc. You’ve probably only heard about the negative studies of HCQ, which some critics think were designed to fail. (1) The worst of them was published in the (formerly) influential Lancet medical journal. It was so corrupt it actually had to be retracted after over a hundred scientists complained! (2)

At least two of the encouraging studies reported roughly half the number of deaths in those who were treated with HCQ+! In the three largest encouraging studies I’ve come across with a total of roughly 4500 treated patients there were NO reported sudden cardiac deaths (torsade de pointe). (3) (4) (5)

You may be thinking that in the event you get Covid-19 you will want to speak to your doctor about HCQ+; however Fitzgibbons points out that your doctor may not be allowed to prescribe it.

“In many states physicians are forbidden to initiate this effective treatment for their patients by mandates of the Governor of the state which only permits prescribing HCQ in the hospital setting.”

Why are governors making medical decisions?!

Isn’t the mantra among the Left, My body my choice?
 
Last edited:
References from the post above.
  1. Chris Martenson, PhD evaluates several studies of HCQ that he suspects were designed to fail, including the study by the US NIH.
Martenson questions why zinc is being left out of most HCQ studies despite a history of data going back ten years.
  1. The Lancet’s retraction of the fake HCQ study it published.
More than 100 scientists cosigned a letter complaining about a list of problems with the study.

Chris Martenson, PhD presents many problems with the study, presumably because the data was fictitious.

The same data collection company was used in another questionable COVID-19 study in the New England Journal Medicine. The NEJM is warning about a problem with the data in that study. It will likely be retracted as well.
  1. Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France:
Those of you who listen to Larua Ingram’s program at 10PM on Fox News may have heard of Dr. Raoult from France. He works at the hospital where this study was done. Laura supposedly is a Catholic convert. I like my odds that a real Catholic would not blatantly lie about such an important matter. It is so hard to find trustworthy reporters.

At one point Dr. Raoult claimed they had the lowest death rate in the world, around 1%

This article at covexit.com provides commentary about the Raoult/Marseille study.

Chris Martenson, PhD presents the impressive Time to Death graph from the Raoult study. It appears that HCQ+ buys patients extra time.
  1. Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19 by Arshad et al at the Henry Ford medical system in Michigan
Martenson presents some of the study data here.
  1. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin plus zinc vs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone: outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients by Carlucci, et al at NYU, New York
Martenson presents some of the impressive study data here, including roughly half the intubations and deaths.
 
Last edited:
President Trump said it works, and he’s taking it, and obviously he is pretty healthy, so okay!
 
And Trump is even one step ahead of the doctors who support the drug since he took it as a preventative. Apparently he knows more than the doctors, the generals (as he said early on), and all of us.
 
Joegrane said:
An internationally known Catholic doctor recently wrote an artticle…
Click to expand...
I really don’t think that medical advice should be given on the forum. If anyone has any questions regarding medication and any methods that you can use to stay safe then don’t get it from the media. Either ‘left leaning’ or otherwise. Please don’t consider this to be a political problem. It affects us all and has killed way too many people already.

Please consult a medical expert.
 
On 15 June 2020, the US FDA issued a press release that starts:
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, or participation in a clinical trial was not feasible. The agency determined that the legal criteria for issuing an EUA are no longer met. Based on its ongoing analysis of the EUA and emerging scientific data, the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA…
This action was taken following a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Click to expand...
This is the basis for the decisions “made by governors.” Those who are promoting the use of HCQ+ could be right, but the scientists at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research think it is unlikely.
 
Joegrane said:
Isn’t the mantra among the Left, My body my choice?
Click to expand...
kek
Regardless this:
Joegrane said:
There is a small chance that it may not work. But the urgency demands that we at least start to take that risk and evaluate what happens, and if our situation does not improve we can stop it …
Click to expand...
Is grossly oversimplifying the issue. Take a look at this article,, which talks about how a study showed that the drug is not a helpful treatment.
Some points of interest:
Results published Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine show that hydroxychloroquine was no better than placebo pills at preventing illness from the coronavirus. The drug did not seem to cause serious harm, though – about 40% on it had side effects, mostly mild stomach problems.
Click to expand...
Dr. David Boulware on the results of the study
“There’s basically no effect. It does not prevent infection,” he[Boulware] said of the drug. Even if it were to give some slim advantage, “we’d want a much larger effect” to justify its use and risk of side effects for preventing illness, he said.
Click to expand...
The conclusion of the study in question:
After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure. (Funded by David Baszucki and Jan Ellison Baszucki and others; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT04308668. opens in new tab.)
Click to expand...
Granted, there were some issues with the study, as detailed here.
The results “are more provocative than definitive,” and the drug may yet have prevention benefits if tried sooner or in a different way, Dr. Myron Cohen of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill wrote in a commentary in the journal.
Click to expand...
But given the general consensus about the drug’s usefulness in treating COVID, I wouldn’t hold my breath. See more comments from the article.
“This fits with everything else we’ve seen so far which suggests that it’s not beneficial,” said Dr. Peter Bach, director of a health policy center at Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center in New York.
Click to expand...
 
" Results published Wednesday by the New England Journal of Medicine show that hydroxychloroquine was no better than placebo pills at preventing illness from the coronavirus. The drug did not seem to cause serious harm, though…"

I don’t want to get into a debate about study design. I want to stick to the ethical ramifications of corrupt studies and unethical actions by government officials.

For those who want to understand why the NEJM study is deceptive junk used by unethical members of the media for political spin, check out the analysis of that study by Dr. Chris Martenson here.

I read the Boulware junk study/survey over a week ago. Martenson explains a little about the weakness of it at 38min into this video. He was generously polite .

There are even accusations out there that Boulware had undisclosed connections with HCQ’s competitor, Giliad, the maker of Remdesivir. Yet another example of lack of ethics

For those who are impressed by the New England of Medicine–forget it. As I previously reported in my second post, they already published a corrupt Covid study and issued a warning about it. It is so inconceivable that their editors were fooled by the bad data.

Corrupt medical studies is not a new issue over 10 years ago a 20 year editor of the NEJM wrote a scathing book on the subject. Excerpts are here. including…


It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgment of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of The New England Journal of Medicine.”

These are examples of the effect of the loss of our Christian culture which taught to act for the common good, not just selfish interests. It is a talking point when we are trying to reevangelize the culture.
 
This is anti-science, pure and simple. You take the word of a family psychologist and other, dare I say, spectators; you are too focused on personal liberty/choice and self-determination; you are spreading baseless suspicions and accusations; and you completely disregard the evidence which has been systematically accumulated for years by doctors and scientists who have studied, discussed, and come to understand molecular biology and medicine.
Joegrane said:
These are examples of the effect of the loss of our Christian culture which taught to act for the common good, not just selfish interests.
Click to expand...
The loss of Christian culture that I’m seeing is the contempt that the anti-science movement has for the doctors and scientists who have devoted their lives and careers to the good of others.
 
Last edited:
Life site news !!!
Life site news!!!

***running around waving my arms hyperventilating.
 
Joegrane said:
…ethical ramifications of corrupt studies and unethical actions by government officials…deceptive junk used by unethical members of the media for political spin…I read the Boulware junk study/survey…There are even accusations out there that Boulware had undisclosed connections with HCQ’s competitor…a corrupt Covid study…Corrupt medical studies…
Click to expand...
My bad. Joe isn’t offering medical advice. He’s trying to make a political point. So I guess he’s free to do that without breaking forum rules.

Here’s another political point as we’re talking about the virus in those terms. Because the situation has been politicised in America, you now have more deaths than the rest of the world combined. You are now banned from travel to the EU. While most of the rest of the world is being careful about not suffering a second wave, your first wave is accelerating in intensity.

We used to look to you guys for some leadership. We now look on you in bemusement. And I love your country. I love your people. I can’t wait to get back there. So please get your act together for everyone’s sake. We all need a strong America.
 
Beryllos said:
The loss of Christian culture that I’m seeing is the contempt that the anti-science movement has for the doctors and scientists who have devoted their lives and careers to the good of others.
Click to expand...
So which group of researchers are you referring to? The ones whose studies have reported half the deaths when treated with HCQ in an early phase of the illness or those who designed studies to fail during a pandemic?

What should happen to those involved with the fake Lancet study?

I think everyone involved should be investigated. Those responsible for a fake study during a pandemic should be prosecuted for crimes against humanity.

Failing to investigate and prosecute the guilty will just enable other criminals in the future and probably cost more lives.

Remember after the Lancet study was released the WHO cancelled their HCQ study.

Some countries changed their regulations about the access to HCQ. Interestingly I saw a tweet from a health authority from Spain who suggested there were problems with the study. I don’t think they made any changes.

I imagine it became harder to find volunteers for HCQ studies around the world. I fear some Covid patients who were offered HCQ declined it due to the deceptive information in the media.
Interestingly, in his testimony yesterday, at the French National Assembly, Prof. Raoult indicated that the article was refused by The Lancet the very same week as the venerable publication accepted the fraudulent and now retracted article by Mehra et al.
http://covexit.com/ihu-marseille-research-on-3737-covid-19-patients-published/
Click to expand...
Remember Dr Raoult at one point said his hospital had the best death rate in the world. Yet the Lancet preferred to publish fake data. Someone at a high level at the Lancet must have been desperate to lie about HCQ!
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
While most of the rest of the world is being careful about not suffering a second wave, your first wave is accelerating in intensity.
Click to expand...
I respect you comment about the need for America to “get your act together.”

However is our first wave actually accelerating in intensity or is that mostly media spin about the regions that are having a spike in infections?

The doomsayers in the media love to talk about the increases in “cases.” However “cases” is partially a function of the number of tests performed. If you double the number of tests, you’ll likely find more positive cases.

That is why I like percentage of positive tests that Johns Hopkins reports for the US and every state. Essentially it is the number of positive cases adjusted for the number of tests performed.

Some states are in a disturbing trend for example, Florida.

The country as a whole looks very different and not nearly as bad as Florida.

Why do members of corporate media prefer to report “cases” rather than the more relevant percentage of positive tests?

The following data may be a week or so old but I have it handy in my Covid notes.

Cases Up, Deaths Down; What’s Going On With COVID-19 in Texas? Stats from the Texas medical association.


Notice that nationally the % positive among teens is almost double the number for adults. Is that due to young people out partying and protesting, etc without adequate precautions? Is that information not what some in the media want to present?
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

How often to you hear about death rates reported in the media?

“Nationally the percentage of deaths attributed to pneumonia, influenza or COVID-19 (PIC) decreased from 11.4% during week 23 to 7.1% during week 24 but remained above baseline. This is the eighth week of a declining percentage of deaths due to PIC”


Again some of the data may be a few weeks old but was handy in my notes.
 
Every time a study on HCQ is released, someone posts a topic about it and arguments in ensue. I don’t think this is any different, just happens to not be the World News Forum.
 
Dr Chris Martenson thought it was strange that the FDA did not say which study or studies provided the basis for their decision.

“Unlikely” is not sufficient reason for a governor to decide to keep doctors–I think in primary care–from being able to use a medication that is already approved by the FDA.

A report by nytimes.
Alex M. Azar II, the secretary of health and human services, said at the round table Monday that the F.D.A.’s action only ended the authorization for hospitals to use federal stockpiles of the drugs on hospitalized patients and noted that doctors could still prescribe the drugs to patients.

“In fact the F.D.A. removal of the emergency use authorization takes away what had been a significant misunderstanding by many that had made people think it could only be used in a hospital setting,” he said.
Click to expand...
This is an evolving matter. The FDA and presumably the governors knew other studies of HCQ were ongoing and had not yet been completed. Surely they had heard earlier encouraging reports from Dr Raoult in France and others.

The following May 19 article summarizes some of the encouraging reports about HCQ long before the FDA’s decision. It is not that the FDA was recommending some other medication with obviously better outcomes than Dr Raoult’s.


I saw a post by someone claiming 35 years of medical practice, “I have never heard of ANY MEDICATION that has had EMERGENCY ORDERS issued by state governors on its use.”

Anyone know if that is true?
Dovekin said:
Today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) revoked the emergency use authorization (EUA) that allowed for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate donated to the Strategic National Stockpile to be used to treat certain hospitalized patients with COVID-19 when a clinical trial was unavailable, …the FDA determined that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the authorized uses in the EUA…
This action was taken following a rigorous assessment by scientists in our Center for Drug Evaluation and Research
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top