For the dumb hydroxychloroquine cultists

[gwb-trading]

Bullshit.
Leftist anti HQC propaganda. He believes HQC treatment is the best thing that can be giving to anyone infected especially at time of onset.

Starts at 1:40

https://ktrh.iheart.com/featured/ji...xychloroquine-update-with-dr-robin-armstrong/

So he's been demoted at The Resort nursing home so he can no longer prescribe medicine without strict oversight (wow this must be a real peak in his medical career). He has received a letter from the Texas Medical Board this past week stating they will pull his license if he keeps pimping hydroxychloroquine.

All Dr. Armstrong did with his failed care at the nursing home is turn a 27% average COVID death rate to over a 44% death rate by improperly prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

 

[Dr. Love]

So he's been demoted at The Resort nursing home so he can no longer prescribe medicine without strict oversight (wow this must be a real peak in his medical career). He has received a letter from the Texas Medical Board this past week stating they will pull his license if he keeps pimping hydroxychloroquine.

All Dr. Armstrong did with his failed care at the nursing home is turn a 27% average COVID death rate to over a 44% death rate by improperly prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

Hydroxychloroquine Switzerland, indice nrCFR created par Michel Jullian

Let’s take a look at the period when hydroxychloroquine was banned in Switzerland, i.e. from May 27th till June 11th, 2020. The27th of May is 5 days after the publication

 

[gwb-trading]

Hydroxychloroquine Switzerland, indice nrCFR created par Michel Jullian

Let’s take a look at the period when hydroxychloroquine was banned in Switzerland, i.e. from May 27th till June 11th, 2020. The27th of May is 5 days after the publication

Yes... and the Switzerland assertions above has been debunked as nonsense.

 

[Dr. Love]

So he's been demoted at The Resort nursing home so he can no longer prescribe medicine without strict oversight (wow this must be a real peak in his medical career). He has received a letter from the Texas Medical Board this past week stating they will pull his license if he keeps pimping hydroxychloroquine.

All Dr. Armstrong did with his failed care at the nursing home is turn a 27% average COVID death rate to over a 44% death rate by improperly prescribing hydroxychloroquine.

Dr. Gold was fired. The same corrupt health globalist system doesn't want HQC to come out because they know if will cost them trillions of dollars. Isn't it amazing that outpatient trials with the combo are almost impossible to make? Wouldn't that be something people who actually want to 'save lives" would want to at least investigate? Of course not because there is no money. In the meantime people who don't have the ability to see the con that is perpetrated upon societies across the world fall pray to the hoax.

Ever wonder why for some amazing reason they never found a better solution to the common flu? Vaccines, sales of cold drugs? Did you see how much money countries spent of Tamiflu alone in previous 'epidemics'?

As you know it is winter in South Africa. SA is using Hydroxychoroquine. SA does not show a seasonal flu outbreak so far this season. Coincidence? Of course not. HQC works for the common flu as well as the CCP virus.

 

[Dr. Love]

Yes... and the Switzerland assertions above has been debunked as nonsense.

Of course, that is what the corrupt health care industry want to do. Don't you think it is crazy they would fire Dr. Gold for promoting a drug that has been on the market for 65 years with a risk profile lower than Tylenol? Don't you think that is weird?

 

[Dr. Love]

Renowned European scientist: COVID-19 was engineered in China lab, effective vaccine ‘unlikely’

Prof. Giuseppe Tritto in a March 2020 interview. Tv UPTM / Youtube
Steven Mosher

Mon Aug 10, 2020 - 12:27 pm EST




PETITION: No to mandatory vaccination for the coronavirus! Sign the petition here.

August 10, 2020 (LifeSiteNews) – It will not be possible for the Dr. Fauci’s of the world to dismiss Professor Giuseppe Tritto as a crank. Not only is he an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology who has had a stellar academic career, but he is also the president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT), an institution founded under the aegis of UNESCO in 1997.

Advertisement
In other words, he is a man of considerable stature in the global scientific community. Equally important, one of the goals of WABT is to analyze the effect of biotechnologies—like genetic engineering—on humanity.

In his new book, this world-class scientist does exactly that. And what he says is that the China Virus definitely wasn’t a freak of nature that happened to cross the species barrier from bat to man. It was genetically engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 (high-containment) lab in a program supervised by the Chinese military.

Prof. Tritto’s book, which at present is available only in Italian, is called Cina COVID 19: La Chimera che ha cambiato il Mondo (China COVID 19: The chimera that changed the world). It was published on August 4 by a major Italian press, Edizioni Cantagalli, which coincidently also published the Italian edition of one of my books, Population Control (Controllo Demografico in Italian) several years ago.

What sets Prof. Tritto’s book apart is the fact that it demonstrates—conclusively, in my view—the pathway by which a PLA-owned coronavirus was genetically modified to become the China Virus now ravaging the world. His account leaves no doubt that it is a “chimera”, an organism created in a lab.

He also connects the dots linking the Wuhan lab to France and the United States, showing how both countries provided financial and scientific help to the Chinese as they began to conduct ever more dangerous bioengineering experiments. Although neither American nor French virologists are responsible for the end result—a highly infectious coronavirus and a global pandemic—their early involvement may explain why so many insist that the “chimera” must have come from nature. The last thing they want to admit is that they might have had a hand in it.

Those of us who, early on, argued for a laboratory origin were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Our articles were censored as “fake news,” often by American virologists who knew perfectly well what the truth was, but preferred to protect China, and themselves, from scrutiny lest they themselves be implicated.

Dr. Tritto’s 272 pages of names, dates, places, and facts leaves such apologists with no place to hide. The story begins following the SARS epidemic of 2003, as the Chinese attempt to develop vaccines to combat the deadly disease. Dr. Shi Zhengli, about whom I have previously written, was in charge of the program at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

In vaccine development, reverse genetics is used to create viral strains that have reduced pathogenicity but to which the immune system responds by creating antibodies against the virus. But reverse genetics can also be used to create viral strains that have increased pathogenicity. That is what Dr. Shi, encouraged by PLA bioweapons experts, began increasingly to focus her research on, according to Prof. Tritto.

Dr. Shi first solicited help from the French government, which built the P4 lab, and from the country’s Pasteur institute, which showed her how to manipulate HIV genomes. The gene insertion method used is called “reverse genetics system 2.” Using this method, she inserted an HIV segment into a coronavirus discovered in horseshoe bats to make it more infectious and lethal.

The U.S. was involved as well, particularly Prof Ralph S. Baric, of the University of North Carolina, who was on the receiving end of major grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. This is, of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s shop. Fauci was a big proponent of “gain of function” research, and when this was prohibited at Baric’s lab because it was considered to be too dangerous, the research was shifted to China.

Prof. Tritto believes that, while Dr. Shi’s research began as an effort to develop a vaccine against SARS, it gradually morphed into an effort to use “reverse genetics” to build lethal biological weapons. This was the reason that the Wuhan lab became China’s leading center for virology research in recent years, attracting major funding and support from the central government.

Advertisement
I would add that the rule in Communist-controlled China is “let the civilian support the military,” which means that as soon as Dr. Shi’s research showed any potential military uses the PLA would have begun exercising control of the research. This came out in the open with the outbreak, when China’s leading expert on bioweapons, People’s Liberation Army Major General Chen Wei, was immediately placed in charge of the Wuhan Institute of Virology. As for Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, she seems to have disappeared.

As Dr. Tritto explained in an interview with Italian media:

In 2005, after the SARS epidemic, the Wuhan Institute of Virology was born, headed by Dr. Shi Zheng-Li, who collects coronaviruses from certain bat species and recombines them with other viral components in order to create vaccines. In 2010 she came into contact with American researchers led by Prof. Ralph Baric, who in turn works on recombinant viruses based on coronaviruses. Thanks to the matrix viruses provided by Shi, Baric created in 2015 a mouse Sars-virus chimera, which has a pathogenic effect on human cells analyzed in vitro.

At that point, the China-US collaboration becomes competition. Shi wants to work on a more powerful virus to make a more powerful vaccine: it combines a bat virus with a pangolin virus in vitro and in 2017 publishes the results of this research in some scientific articles.

Her research attracts the interest of the Chinese military and medical-biological sector which deals with biological weapons used as a deterrent for defensive and offensive purposes. Thus Shi is joined by doctors and biologists who belong to the political-military sphere, such as Guo Deyin, a scholar of anti-AIDS and anti-viral hepatitis vaccines and expert in genetic recombination techniques. The introduction of the new engineered inserts into the virus genome is the result of the collaboration between the Shi team and that of Guo Deyin. The realization of this new chimera, from a scientific point of view, is a success. So much so that, once the epidemic has broken out, the two researchers ask WHO to register it as a new virus, H-nCoV-19 (Human new Covid 19), and not as another virus derived from SARS. It is reasonable to think that Shi acted only from the point of view of scientific prestige, without however taking into account the risks in terms of security and the political-military interests that her research would have aroused.

When asked why China has refused to provide the complete genome of the China Virus to the WHO or to other countries, Dr. Tritto explained that “providing the matrix [source] virus would have meant admitting that SARS-CoV-2 [China Virus] was created in the laboratory. In fact, the incomplete genome made available by China lacks some inserts of AIDS amino acids, which itself is a smoking gun.”

The key question, for those of us who are living through the pandemic, concerns the development of a vaccine. On this score, Prof. Tritto is not optimistic:

Given the many mutations of SARS-CoV-2, it is extremely unlikely that a single vaccine that blocks the virus will be found. At the moment 11 different strains have been identified: the A2a genetic line which developed in Europe and the B1 genetic line which took root in North America are more contagious than the 0 strain originating in Wuhan. I therefore believe that, at the most, a multivalent vaccine can be found effective on 4-5 strains and thus able to cover 70-75% of the world’s population.

In other words, by withholding from the world the original genetic code of the China Virus that it created, the Chinese Communist Party is ensuring that no completely effective vaccine will ever be developed by the West.

In other words, China continues to lie, and people continue to die.

Steven W. Mosher @StevenWMosher is the President of the Population Research Institute and the author of Bully of Asia: Why China’s “Dream” is the New Threat to World Order.

 

[gwb-trading]

Of course, that is what the corrupt health care industry want to do. Don't you think it is crazy they would fire Dr. Gold for promoting a drug that has been on the market for 65 years with a risk profile lower than Tylenol? Don't you think that is weird?

Any doctor who pushes a drug for off-label non-approved use should be terminated. Preferably as quickly as possible.

 

[Dr. Love]

Any doctor who pushes a drug for off-label non-approved use should be terminated. Preferably as quickly as possible.

Did you hit your head with a TDS bucket this morning?

Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use.

https://www.ahrq.gov › off-label-dr...
Off-Label Drugs: What You Need to Know | Agency for Health ...

 

[Arnie]

Any doctor who pushes a drug for off-label non-approved use should be terminated. Preferably as quickly as possible.

Question 1: What is the Definition of OLDU?
The most common form of OLDU involves prescribing currently available and marketed medications but for an indication (eg, a disease or a symptom) that has never received Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval.8,9 Hence, the specific use is “off-label” (ie, not approved by the FDA and not listed in FDA-required drug-labeling information). The term OLDU can also apply to the use of a marketed medication in a patient population (eg, pediatric), dosage, or dosage form that does not have FDA approval.

Question 2: Is OLDU Common?
Indeed, OLDU is common. Radley et al1 reported in 2006 that in a group of commonly used medications, 21% of prescriptions were for an off-label use. In certain subpopulations of patients, this rate may be even higher. For example, a study by Shah et al11 found that 78.9% of children discharged from pediatric hospitals were taking at least 1 off-label medication. In addition, in a pediatric emergency department, the rate of OLDU was estimated to be 26.2%.2 The off-label use of antidepressant, anticonvulsant, and antipsychotic medications is high and is more prevalent with increasing patient age.12 In an intensive care unit, Lat et al13 reported that 36.2% of medication orders were for an off-label use. In addition, β-adrenergic blocking agents are commonly prescribed for an off-label indication, and specialists may more commonly prescribe for off-label β-blocker use than primary care physicians.10 In a headache specialty practice, Loder and Biondi14 reported that off-label use accounted for 47% of prescriptions written.

Question 3: Can an OLDU for a Given Drug Become a Widely Accepted Practice or Even a Standard of Care?
Off-label drug uses can become widely entrenched in clinical practice and become predominant treatments for a given clinical condition. For example, tricyclic antidepressants do not have FDA approval as a treatment for neuropathic pain, yet this class of drugs is considered a first-line treatment option.15 The use of aspirin provides another interesting example of OLDU. Aspirin was widely used before the introduction of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. Therefore, aspirin was grandfathered and approved as an existing drug without the rigorous testing that modern medications undergo. Currently, aspirin is FDA approved for use in patients with pain, fever, rheumatic diseases, cardiovascular diseases (eg, acute myocardial infarction, previous myocardial infarction, angina pectoris, and previous cerebrovascular disease), and a history of a revascularization procedure (eg, coronary artery bypass grafting and carotid endarterectomy).16 However, aspirin does not have an indication for coronary disease prophylaxis in diabetic patients, yet guidelines recommend its use in these patients.8 Therefore, aspirin prophylaxis for coronary disease in high-risk patients is an off-label use.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3538391/

 

[gwb-trading]

Did you hit your head with a TDS bucket this morning?

Off-label prescribing is when a physician gives you a drug that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved to treat a condition different than your condition. This practice is legal and common. In fact, one in five prescriptions written today are for off-label use.
View attachment 237102
https://www.ahrq.gov › off-label-dr...
Off-Label Drugs: What You Need to Know | Agency for Health ...

Let's be more explicit so you completely understand. The Emergency Use Authorization to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 has been terminated. The FDA has explicitly stated that hydroxychloroquine cannot be used to treat COVID-19 outside of an approved study.

Any doctor who uses hydroxychloroquine (outside a study) or promotes using hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19 in an off-label manner should have their license removed and be fired immediately. Proper medical institutions and state boards have taken appropriate action in firing and removing licenses of violators.

If a doctor really desires to use hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 patients then they can join one of over approved 50 studies in the U.S. and report the results to the study. However it should be noted that nearly all medical studies have strict clauses against publicly promoting the drug or information -- until the study is completed.