A positive test result shows you may have antibodies from an infection with the virus that causes COVID-19. However, there is a chance a positive result means that you have antibodies from an infection with a virus from the same family of viruses (called coronaviruses), such as the one that causes the common cold.
If you test negative
You could still have a current infection.
_____________________
**Comment**
Ha, ha, ha….yes this is where we are at folks – months and months into a ‘pandemic.’ Our authorities are so inept they STILL don’t have an accurate test.
This isn’t new to Lyme/MSIDS patients. Forty years into the history of Lyme and we still don’t have an accurate test, so don’t hold your breath for COVID testing.
“I open up the door, and there’s like eight different people, five different cars, and I’m like ‘what the heck’s going on?’ This guy’s in a suit with a mask. It’s the Health Department guy, and they have three papers for us. For me, her and my daughter,” he said.
The couple was ordered to wear ankle monitors. If they travel more than 200 feet, law enforcement will be notified.
Having fun yet? Ready to admit this experiment is about far more than a virus? That the same ‘authorities’ guilty of the mismanagement of Lyme are the same ones mismanaging COVID?
I’ve posted numerous articles on the faulty testing which is as bad as Lyme testing. In the words of a doctor, bio-chemist, protease developer, and former founder of a lab:
I’m skeptical that a PRC test is ever true. It’s a great scientific research tool. It’s a horrible tool for clinical medicine.
His advice for people who want to be tested for COVID-19:
Key quote: “These serologic tests cannot distinguish active infection, past infection, or reinfection.”
In plain English, these tests don’t show squat.
Please spread the word. The general public is clueless about how the CDC uses faulty testing against people. For Lyme – you can’t get treated without testing positive, even though testing misses over half of all cases. With COVID, if you test positive, even without symptoms, you could be forced to quarantine and have your rights taken away.
The costs of the government responses to the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic have been severe. New evidence suggests they could be even worse than we imagined.
An ABC affiliate in California reports that doctors at John Muir Medical Center tell them they have seen more deaths by suicide than COVID-19 during the quarantine.
“The numbers are unprecedented,” said Dr. Michael deBoisblanc, referring to the spike in suicides.
“We’ve never seen numbers like this, in such a short period of time,” deBoisblanc added. “I mean we’ve seen a year’s worth of suicide attempts in the last four weeks.” (See link for article)
Mental health before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: a longitudinal probability sample survey of the UK population
After a month of lockdown in the U.K., the prevalence of mental distress jumped from 18.9% to 27.3% — mostly affecting women, young people, and those with preschool age children.
__________________
**Comment**
This was written at the end of May and the lockdown & mask-wearing continues…..which means suicide attempts are probably far worse – and continuing.
It is unfortunate that the ‘Eye or Mordor’ continues to rivet on a virus that will ‘run its course’ despite anything we do, when there are plenty of other medical needs that are being completely ignored – including mental health.
…a new report by The Well Being Trust released last month found that 75,000 additional people could die from what they called “deaths of despair,” (which include suicide and substance use) because of Covid-19.
The article has some great advice and things to look for – as well as ways to get help.
Ellen Townsend, a professor of psychology at the University of Nottingham and an expert in self-harm and suicide prevention, warned there could be “a tsunami of mental health issues” on the horizon. “I’m worried that those who are already vulnerable will be struggling even more. I’m worried there are certain groups of young people who have been fine but are now struggling.
Lastly, a campaign known as REACH, is the core part of a $53 million, two-year effort announced by President Donald Trump to reduce suicide, particularly among veterans: https://www.armytimes.com/veterans/2020/07/07/us-government-launches-campaign-to-reduce-high-suicide-rates/ (I flat-out disagree with Adams’ statement that mask wearing is going to decrease suicides. That is pure conjecture and there’s much to show masks are harmful to the healthy population. The last thing a depressed or anxious person needs is less oxygen!)
By H. Ealy, M. McEvoy, M. Sava, S. Gupta, D. Chong, E. Braham, C. Fieberg, D. White, P. Anderson
Key Findings For Data Through July 5th
Increases in new cases in Texas, Arizona, Florida & California demonstrate a clear correlation with significant increases in PCR testing, but the percentage of these new cases that require hospitalization, or result in a fatality, are far lower than what occurred in NY & NJ.
Texas, Arizona, Florida & California do not statistically qualify as ‘new epicenters’ and additional executive orders, including a 2nd ‘Stay At Home’ order and major alterations to traditional in-person education, is not statistically justified particularly in light of Probability of Recovery.
Fatalities Per Week have decreased nationally, each week, for the 10thconsecutive week according to data published by each of the 56 US State & Territory Health Departments.
At least, 1,045,888 Americans have been confirmed as recovered according to data published by each of the 56 US State & Territory Health Departments.
Far too frequently, the American people are underinformed by members of the mainstream media (MSM) and the Center For Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) …
Abstract
As of July 5th 2020, more than 1 Million Americans have been confirmed as recovered according to data compiled from each of the 56 US State & Territory Health Departments (USSTHD). This is undoubtedly good news and provides a source of hope for our beleaguered society.
While every recovery is to be celebrated, we also respect the physical demands recovery has placed upon many Americans and honor that the process of recovery is not without its own unique challenges or potential for long-term adverse health impacts. What we share in our collective work is a data-focused perspective and is never meant to marginalize the experiences of anyone adversely impacted by an infection.
The purpose of this statistical research paper is to provide the reader with a fresh and unique perspective regarding the SARS-CoV-2 virus, commonly referred to as the COVID-19 infection. One of the great concerns we have as authors and professionals is the skewed methodology of data reporting, leading to ambiguity in what the correct course of action regarding public health policy should be moving forward.
Far too frequently, the American people are underinformed by members of the mainstream media (MSM) and the Center For Disease Control & Prevention (CDC) as to (1) the total number of cases, (2) the number of daily new cases, (3) the total number of fatalities, and (4) the number of daily new fatalities.1 Each of these categories are important statistics to be aware of, particularly in April when we knew much less than we know now.
However, when cases and fatalities are the only data consistently shared, many Americans are left to conclude that the current situation only continues to worsen as cases and fatalities inevitably increase. These attempts at mental conditioning can and do create objective justifications in listening audiences. Objective justifications for fear of the unknown can, in turn, support the extension of restrictions upon our Constitutionally protected freedoms, and in doing so, be responsible for creating unintentional collateral damage throughout our society.
The urgent need for more thorough and balanced statistical reporting is of the utmost importance in order to foster more productive, less argumentative, conversations.
The CDC has not begun reporting Recovery Data supplied by 46 of 51 US State & Territory Health Departments.
Curiously, what we are not frequently seeing side by side the aforementioned data categories are (1) the total number of people tested, (2) the number of new negative tests per day, (3) the total number of recoveries, and (4) the number of new recoveries vs new fatalities per day. These equally important statistical categories add balance and value to all discussions on this topic if we are to be pragmatic in our thinking, decision making, and future policy formation.
Our data projections suggest, with weekly new fatalities declining for the 10thconsecutive week according to the CDC, and in relationship to significant increases in new recoveries each day, the United States is now projected to have over 2.7 Million recoveries. Additionally, of those 2.7 Million anticipated recoveries, over 2.45 Million will not require hospitalization. This projected statistical data is extremely important for providing Americans a more balanced perspective that incorporates positive information with concerning information. It is unclear why few MSM outlets and the CDC are not readily reporting this data.
The CDC has not begun reporting Recovery Data supplied by 46 of 51 USSTHDs.
In this follow up research paper, we will discuss the positive signs of recovery for the US as well as some of the most recent problems with the data being published at the USSTHD level.
Following a June 13th CDC guideline update for PCR testing in hospitals, we have seen an uncharacteristic increase in new cases. This increase in new cases has not yet lead to an increase in hospitalizations similar to what was reported by the New York & New Jersey health departments in April.2
Moreover, the new guidelines only serve to further complicate the situation and impede accurate data analysis in our professional opinions.
More recently the MSM, CDC, Dr. Fauci, and even several Governors have placed a greater importance on the new cases per day statistic despite new fatalities declining for the 10th consecutive week.
Do Texas, Arizona, Florida & California Compare To New York & New Jersey As Potential Epicenters?
Prior to April 2020, Americans were warned several times by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) group from Washington University, and the CDC of a coming storm of fatalities due to the SARS-CoV-2 virus that could be as high as 2.2 Million or range between 100,000 to 1.7 Million.3,4,5,6,7,8,9
This set the expectations that the basis for determining the severity of this unknown infection and its impact upon the United States would be in the published fatality data.
However, more recently the MSM, CDC, Dr. Fauci, and even several Governors have placed a greater importance on the new cases per day statistic despite new fatalities declining for the 10th consecutive week.
There is some objective rationale for public health concerns escalating due to increases in new cases, IF there is an equal percentage rise in new hospitalizations and/or fatalities similar to what was reported in New York & New Jersey in April during the height of the initial wave of infections.
However, we have not seen rises in hospitalizations or fatalities similar to what was reported in New York & New Jersey at the beginning of the crisis, in any of the 4 states being closely watched due to rises in new cases over a comparative 3-week period. In New York & New Jersey, the 3-week period that initiated there designation as the epicenter for COVID-19 was Mar 21st to Apr 10th. The comparable 3-week period for Texas, Arizona, Florida & California is Jun 15th to Jul 5th. The increase in new cases is likely due to a higher volume of testing, improved overall reporting, and a slightly truer ratios of case reports to hospitalizations than were available in the earlier part of the pandemic for New York and New Jersey.
This graphic demonstrates a significant increase in testing from Jun 15th to Jul 5th for TX, FL, and CA as compared to a similar 3-week time period from Mar 21st to Apr 10th in NY/NJ. It also reveals, the relative percent disparity in new cases in the latter time period despite the significant increase in testing as this crisis has progressed. The percentage of positive tests in NY/NJ (44.3%) is considerably higher than the percentage of positive tests in TX (12.0%), AZ (20.1%), Florida (11.8%), and California (5.9%).
In summary, as new cases rise in TX, AZ, FL, and CA, similar to what happened previously in NY/NJ, the percentage of people testing positive is significantly less than what occurred in NY/NJ during the epicenter-level rise in that region. This is primary statistical evidence that what is occurring in TX, AZ, FL, and CA is not an epicenter-level rise. (See Table 1 For A Summary of Data)
This graphic demonstrates a sizeable discrepancy in percentage of new cases requiring hospitalization between NY/NJ (20.7%) and Texas (5.5%), Arizona (2.8%), Florida (3.2%), and California (2.3%).
It also demonstrates the sizeable discrepancy in percentage of new cases resulting in fatal outcomes between NY/NJ (4.6%) and Texas (0.6%), Arizona (1.0%), Florida (0.7%), and California (1.1%).
While many of the fatalities in NY/NJ. during this and later periods, have been reportedly due to the COVID-19 ravaging senior assisted living centers and nursing homes, this data may suggest that procedures for protecting our most vulnerable in these environments has improved immensely.
If the statistical volume and correlation data for cases, hospitalizations, and fatalities in NY/NJ establish the criteria for defining an epicenter, then by this definition Texas, Arizona, Florida, and California do not currently qualify as epicenters. This is further statistical evidence that what is occurring in TX, AZ, FL, and CA is not an epicenter-level rise. (See Table 1 For A Summary of Data)
Therefore, a rise in new cases alone, without comparable rises in new hospitalizations and/or fatalities, does not justify cases becoming the new benchmark for justifying epicenter-level executive orders or increased social anxiety.
Recovery vs Fatality Data
This data reveals that Americans are now almost 9 times more likely to recover than pass away due to COVID-19 and the gap between recoveries and fatalities continues to grow each day. (See Table 2 For A Summary of Data By State)
As you can see, recoveries are significantly outpacing fatalities every day and the distance between the two continues to grow so much that it makes graphical visualization for comparison very challenging. The spikes in recoveries you see, typically occur when a new health department begins reporting recoveries for the first time as happened on June 21st.
As of July 5th, while fatality data is being reported by every USSTHD, recovery data is being reported by only 46 of the 51 USSTHDs. California, Florida, Georgia, Missouri, & Washington State are the only USSTHDs currently not reporting recovery data.
Published recovery data is most commonly comprised of patients who have been discharged from the hospital following a lab confirmed hospitalization whereby the patient has had 2 consecutive negative PCR molecular tests at least 24 hours apart.2
However, many states have begun confirming Americans, who have tested positive, as recovered cases, if the person testing positive was asked to quarantine and in a specific time frame did not require hospitalization or additional medical attention. This time range is 14 days from the date of the positive test for most states and up to 30 days in a small number of states. This is a critical data point as “recovered cases” are not simply those who are released from hospitals but also the much larger group who never needed hospital care.
Table 2 – Summary Of Confirmed Cases, Recoveries & Fatalities By State
Conclusion
This statistical research paper provides objective, data-driven results that demonstrate the United States is well into recovery despite the increase in new cases, which are more likely due to significant increases in testing (and potentially CDC hospital testing guidelines updated June 13th).
This data suggests that any further executive orders based exclusively on increases in new cases, including a 2nd quarantine period and either delaying the new school year or enforcing virtual classrooms, are likely to be statistically unjustified with respect to NY/NY defining the statistical criteria for what constitutes an epicenter.
A time is at hand when the national conversation must shift away from fears over new cases and refocus on addressing the very real economic, mental health, physical health, emotional health and social collateral damage created by the prolonged intrusion of executive orders upon our Constitutional freedoms.
It is important to remember that Americans were implored, and ordered in most states, to stay home in order to flatten the curve of infective spread and minimize the impact of this infection upon our healthcare systems.
Americans complied willingly with the implicit understanding that this course of action would be relatively brief and not extended without significant and verifiable data justification.
At no point did Americans agree in unison that we would not be able to register official public comment in order to voice our unique concerns and perspectives during the first time period of executive orders. Nor did we agree that allowing small business owners to reopen their businesses would be postponed by additional executive orders without emergency legislative sessions.
And we certainly didn’t agree to reopening houses of worship, schools and entertainment venues in multiple phases, with these key components for social health being placed last.
We didn’t agree that the criteria for approving a return to ‘life as we knew it’ would be based on anything other than healthcare impact or fatalities…yet now there is a seeming call to move away from hospitalizations and fatalities in favor of new cases for determining policy.
Americans did our part, and now it’s time for the MSM, CDC, and Governors of each state to do their part and facilitate a path forward that honors the spirit of the Constitution, reengages the economy, and reestablishes the social networks, so essential for a healthy and thriving republic.
We urge the MSM and CDC to begin reporting total tests per day alongside new cases, new recoveries per day alongside new fatalities, and in doing so, provide a more balanced perspective to a society that depends upon them for trusted information.
We urge all Governors to prioritize places of worship and in-person education for all citizens and to begin adding qualified Naturopathic Doctors and Holistic Nutritionists to their appointed health department teams and advisors, so Americans can receive peer-reviewed nutritional recommendations alongside recommendations for hygiene, masks and social distancing.
If we can figure out a way to test over 34 Million Americans in a 3 month window, then we can figure out a way to implement logical improvements in how this crisis is being reported and how we respond medically to this unexpected adversity.
Mahalo.
Updated Probability of Recovery, Age Demographic & Testing Data
Probability of Recovery continues to improve for all age demographics from our initial June 21st research article.
Data Limitations
As we covered in the Data Limitations section of our previous article, ‘Are Children Really Recovering 99.9584% of the Time From COVID-19,’ from the very beginning the CDC supported the counting of every case and fatality as COVID-19 caused, even without a confirmatory lab test. A case or fatality can be legitimately counted as a COVID-19 case or fatality from any of the following:10
“A. Narrative: Description of criteria to determine how a case should be classified. A1. Clinical Criteria At least two of the following symptoms: fever (measured or subjective), chills, rigors, myalgia, headache, sore throat, new olfactory and taste disorder(s) OR At least one of the following symptoms: cough, shortness of breath, or difficulty breathingOR Severe respiratory illness with at least one of the following: Clinical or radiographic evidence of pneumonia, or Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) AND No alternative more likely diagnosis.”
The CDC classifies these types of cases and fatalities as ‘Probable’.
As of July 5th, there are currently 47,174 Probable Cases & 9,431 Probable Fatalities. The concern is that Probable Cases & Fatalities continue to grow daily despite massive testing that has seen at least 36,853,943 lab tests performed and every USSTHD having the ability to list a case as ‘Pending’, if a lab test has been performed but has yet to result.
On July 5th there were 47,174 Probable Cases, but only 2,205 Pending lab tests.
Additionally, we are concerned that the rise in new cases coincides with the CDC’s June 13th updated testing guidelines.
Funding & Conflict of Interest Statement
This statistical research paper has been developed, composed and published without any funding and thanks in part to a strictly, 100% volunteer community effort made by a diverse array of qualified professionals who care deeply about children and the health of every American. The authors of this paper confirm no conflicts of interest, financial, political or otherwise.
Steckler, A., & McLeroy, K. R. (2008). The importance of external validity. American journal of public health, 98(1), 9–10. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.126847
Matthay, E. C., & Glymour, M. M. (2020). A Graphical Catalog of Threats to Validity: Linking Social Science with Epidemiology. Epidemiology (Cambridge, Mass.), 31(3), 376–384. https://doi.org/10.1097/EDE.0000000000001161
Sign up for free news and updates from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and the Children’s Health Defense. CHD is planning many strategies, including legal, in an effort to defend the health of our children and obtain justice for those already injured. Your support is essential to CHD’s successful mission.
The controversy over hydroxychloroquine is perhaps one of the most perplexing and frustrating. Doctors and health experts around the world have spoken out both for and against the use of the drug, some reporting spectacular benefits while others warn of mortal dangers
In an international poll of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. In Spain, where the drug was used by 72% of doctors, it was rated “the most effective therapy” by 75% of them
French microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult reported a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin administered immediately upon diagnosis led to recovery and “virological cure” — nondetection of SARS-CoV-2 in nasal swabs — in 91.7% of patients
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko has found treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results “as early as possible after symptom onset” with zinc, low dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin lowered mortality fivefold
Zinc appears to be key. If given early, zinc along with a zinc ionophore such as hydroxychloroquine or quercetin should, at least theoretically, help lower the viral load and prevent the immune system from becoming overloaded
There’s no shortage of controversies surrounding the COVID-19 pandemic, but the controversy over hydroxychloroquine is perhaps one of the most perplexing and frustrating. Doctors and health experts around the world have spoken out both for and against the use of the drug, some reporting spectacular benefits1 while others warn of mortal dangers.2
Game-Changer or Deadly Treatment?
In one international poll3 of 6,227 doctors in 30 countries, 37% rated the antimalaria drug hydroxychloroquine as “the most effective therapy” for COVID-19. The poll was done by Sermo, the world’s largest health care data collection company and social platform for physicians.
In Spain, where the drug was used by 72% of doctors, it was rated “the most effective therapy” by 75% of them. The typical dose used by a majority of doctors was 400 milligrams per day.
French science-prize winning microbiologist and infectious disease expert Didier Raoult, founder and director of the research hospital Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection,4reported5,6 that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, administered immediately upon diagnosis, led to recovery and “virological cure” — nondetection of SARS-CoV-27 in nasal swabs — in 91.7% of patients.
According to Raoult, the drug combination “avoids worsening and clears virus persistence and contagiosness in most cases.” No cardiac toxicity was observed using a dose of 200 mg three times a day for 10 days, along with 500 mg of azithromycin on Day 1 followed by 250 mg daily for the next four days. The risk of cardiac toxicity was ameliorated by carefully screening patients and performing serial EKGs.
As reported by The Highwire (see video above), July 2, 2020, Raoult is quoted as saying failure to prescribe hydroxychloroquine to a COVID-19 patient “should be grounds for malpractice.” Meanwhile, University of Oxford investigators claim the drug is useless and shouldn’t be prescribed at all in hospitalized patients.8
An interesting website tracking hydroxychloroquine trials is c19study.com.9 It lists more than 40 studies and meta-analyses showing positive results of the drug, compared to nine that have reached a negative conclusion.
The Zelenko Regimen
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a primary care physician in Monroe, New York, has also reported excellent results using the drug. He told radio host Sean Hannity he’d had a near-100% success rate using hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc sulfate for five days. “I’ve seen remarkable results; it really prevents progression of disease, and patients get better,” he told Hannity.
In the video above, Del Bigtree interviews Zelenko about the criticism levied against him for promoting use of the drug. According to Zelenko, hydroxychloroquine deniers “are guilty of mass murder.”
He points out hydroxychloroquine has been used for decades and is safe even for pregnant and nursing women, so he felt very comfortable prescribing it off-label. He prescribed 200 mg of hydroxychloroquine twice a day, 500 mg of azithromycin once a day and 220 mg of zinc once a day, for five days.
The treatment was initiated within the first five days of clinical symptoms of COVID-19, based on “clinical suspicion” of SARS-CoV-2 infection (not lab confirmed testing, as test results took three days and viral load typically explodes by Day 6).
June 30, 2020, Zelenko and two co-authors published a study,10 currently in preprint, which found treating COVID-19 patients who had confirmed positive test results “as early as possible after symptom onset” with zinc, low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin “was associated with significantly less hospitalizations and five times less all-cause deaths.”
As noted by Zelenko in Bigtree’s interview, the real virus killer in this combination is actually the zinc. The hydroxychloroquine merely acts as a zinc transporter, allowing it to get into the cell. The antibiotic, meanwhile, helps prevent secondary infections.
Concerted Coordinated Effort to Inhibit Use of Effective Drug?
According to Dr. Meryl Nass, the wildly divergent views on hydroxychloroquine appear to have little to do with its safety and effectiveness against COVID-19, and more to do with a concerted and coordinated effort to prevent its use. In the video11 above, Chris Martensen Ph.D., also reviews the “profound lack of integrity” we’re currently seeing when it comes to hydroxychloroquine.
Indeed, there are several reasons for why certain individuals and companies might not want an inexpensive generic drug to work against this pandemic illness. (A 14-day supply costs just $2 to manufacture12 and can retail for as little as $20.13)
One of the most obvious reasons is because it might eliminate the need for a vaccine or other antiviral medication currently under development.14 Hundreds of millions of dollars have already been invested, and vaccine makers are hoping for a payday in the billions if not trillions of dollars. In a June 27, 2020, blog post, Nass points out:15
“It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past three months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the U.S., Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe.16
The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, COVID-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients. And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for COVID-19. It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked. Were these acts carefully orchestrated? You decide.
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich?”
The fight over hydroxychloroquine may also have political underpinnings. As noted by investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson in a May 18, 2020, Full Measure report, “never before has a discussion about choices of medicine been so laced with political overtones.”
Trials Undermine Safety and Efficacy by Using Toxic Doses
Nass’ article17 lists what has occurred with regard to hydroxychloroquine so far, the intention being to keep it as a living document that will be added to as time goes on.
Nass says she wrote it in such a way that it might be read as a “to do list … to be carried out by those who pull the strings,” with the intention of suppressing use of the drug. At the time of this writing, Nass’ list18 contains 27 bullet point entries. I highly recommend reading through it, as I will only highlight a select few here.
Several items on Nass’ list detail the various ways in which safe and effective use of the drug were undermined, which allowed for a false narrative of danger to be crafted.
For example, Nass points out that three large, randomized multicenter clinical trials all used excessive dosages known to be toxic.19 These include the following. She also discusses these trials in other in-depth articles:20,21,22
• The U.K. Recovery Trial23,24,25 — Funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and the U.K. government through Oxford University,26 this study randomly assigned patients to usual care or to one of five primary drug treatments: lopinavir-ritonavir; a corticosteroid (low-dose dexamethasone); hydroxychloroquine; tociizumab; or azithromycin. They also used convalescent plasma.
Patients received 2,400 mg of hydroxychloroquine during the first 24 hours — three to six times higher than the daily dosage recommended27 followed by 400 mg every 12 hours for nine more day for a cumulative dose of 9,200 mg over 10 days. The trial ended its hydroxychloroquine arm on June 4, reporting “no benefit.”
• The Solidarity Trial28 — Launched by the World Health Organization and funded by 43 countries and 203,000 individuals and organizations,29 this trial also compares standard of care against four drug options, including hydroxychloroquine, among patients in 35 countries.
Strangely, the WHO does not specify the daily dosage used in the trial. However, the registration of the Canadian30 and Norwegian31 portions of the trial lists a dosage of 2,000 mg on the first day, and a cumulative dose of 8,800 mg over 10 days. This is only 400 mg less than the U.K.32 Recovery Trial’s toxic dose.
The hydroxychloroquine arm was halted May 25,33 following the publication of the Surgisphere study34 in The Lancet. June 3, after tremendous controversy had been raised over the veracity of the study, and a day before the study was retracted for using fabricated data,35,36 (and this despite having undergone peer-review), the hydroxychloroquine arm was restarted.37
June 17, 2020, the hydroxychloroquine arm was stopped again, this time “based on evidence from the Solidarity trial, U.K.’s Recovery trial and a Cochrane review of other evidence on hydroxychloroquine.”38
• The REMAP-CAP Trial (Randomized, Embedded, Multifactorial Adaptive Platform Trial for Community-Acquired Pneumonia)39 — Here, patients either received nothing, a combination of lopinavir and ritonavir, or hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with lopinavir and ritonavir.
REMAP used the same toxic dose as the Recovery Trial but for six days instead of 10. What’s more, only critically ill hospitalized patients were included in this trial. Nass addresses other concerns as well in her June 19 blog40 about this study.
Is Lifesaving Medicine Withheld to Ensure Profits?
What possessed the study designers and investigators of these three huge clinical trials to use such exaggerated dosages? Hydroxychloroquine has been on the market for 65 years and both toxic and the effective dosages for a variety of ailments are well documented. Doctors who have reported excellent treatment results in the field stayed within the recommended hydroxychloroquine dosages.
Were they trying to purposely sabotage these trials using dosages known to be toxic? Doctors have also reported that best results are observed when the drug is administered early, while symptoms are still mild or moderate, yet in these trials the drug was not given until it was too late.
A July 1, 2020, retrospective analysis41,42,43 of 2,541 patients in the Henry Ford Hospital System in Detroit, Michigan, found use of hydroxychloroquine alone cut mortality by more than half, from 26.4% to 13.5%. (Hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin had a mortality rate of 20.1%, and azithromycin alone had a mortality rate of 22.4%.)
More than 90% of the patients had received the drug or drugs within 48 hours of admission into the hospital. No adverse heart-related events were observed among those given hydroxychloroquine.
All three trials above that used toxic hydroxychloroquine doses — Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP — also failed to include zinc, which appears to be a key factor. As noted by Zelenko above, the hydroxychloroquine is really only used to drive the zinc in to the cells. Nass observes:44
“The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development.
In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.”
Facets That Need To Be Discussed
Aside from that, there are two additional facets of what’s going on that are not yet being discussed:
1. What we’re seeing happen right now is that patients are being turned into guinea pigs en masse. As of June 16, 2020, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration stated the only way a patient should receive hydroxychloroquine is by enlisting in a clinical trial.45
Similarly, in the U.K., treating physicians have been asked to enroll all hospitalized COVID-19 patients into the Recovery and REMAP trials. As of July 9, 2020, Recovery had enrolled more than 12,000 subjects.46
What this means is that thousands of patients are having their treatment selected via randomization by computer rather than by their own doctors’ choice of treatment. The U.K., by the way, has one of the highest COVID-19 death rates in Europe already.47 By removing physician and patient choice of treatment, the death toll might end up being far worse than it needs to be.
Importantly, will this trend continue post-COVID? Now that doctors are being groomed to accept having their patients treated by randomization rather than with the treatment any given doctor believes to be best, will they sign up their future non-COVID patients as subjects just as easily?
2. Secondly, three recent papers48,49,50 argue that the excessive doses of hydroxychloroquine used in the Recovery Trial were not actually toxic. This creates a serious contradiction that has yet to be addressed. As noted by Nass in an email to me:
“For argument’s sake, say they are right, and even high doses are safe. Well then, why are the FDA, European Medicines Agency, pharmacy boards, governors, etc. restricting this drug that is so safe you can even overdose it and be fine?
Either the drug is so toxic at normal doses that it can’t be used for a life-threatening illness, or it is perfectly safe at extremely high doses. You can’t have it both ways.“
Zinc Is a Crucial Key
In conclusion, let us circle back to where we started — with the reports of treatment success. A study51 posted on the prepublication server medRxiv, May 8, 2020, compared outcomes in hospitalized COVID-19 patients treated with either hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin alone, or Zelenko’s triplet regimen of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc.
While the addition of zinc sulfate had no impact on the length of hospitalization, ICU duration or duration of ventilation, univariate analysis showed it was associated with other positive effects:
Increased hospital discharge frequency
Decreased the need for ventilation
Decreased ICU admission rates
Decreased the rate of transfer to hospice for non-ICU patients
Decreased mortality
As noted by the authors:52
“After adjusting for the time at which zinc sulfate was added to our protocol, an increased frequency of being discharged home (OR 1.53 …) reduction in mortality or transfer to hospice remained significant (OR 0.449 …). This study provides the first in vivo evidence that zinc sulfate in combination with hydroxychloroquine may play a role in therapeutic management for COVID-19.”
In short, to maximize effectiveness, you need zinc. As explained in “Is Quercetin a Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?” hydroxychloroquine acts as a zinc ionophore,53,54 meaning it shuttles zinc into your cells, and zinc appears to be a “magic ingredient” required to prevent viral replication.55
If given early, zinc along with a zinc ionophore should, at least theoretically, help lower the viral load and prevent the immune system from becoming overloaded. As noted in the preprint paper, “Does Zinc Supplementation Enhance the Clinical Efficacy of Chloroquine / Hydroxychloroquine to Win Todays Battle Against COVID-19?” published April 8, 2020:56
“Besides direct antiviral effects, CQ/HCQ [chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine] specifically target extracellular zinc to intracellular lysosomes where it interferes with RNA-dependent RNA polymerase activity and coronavirus replication.
As zinc deficiency frequently occurs in elderly patients and in those with cardiovascular disease, chronic pulmonary disease, or diabetes, we hypothesize that CQ/HCQ plus zinc supplementation may be more effective in reducing COVID-19 morbidity and mortality than CQ or HCQ in monotherapy. Therefore, CQ/HCQ in combination with zinc should be considered as additional study arm for COVID-19 clinical trials.”
So far, no major clinical trial has bothered to follow this rather commonsense advice. Unfortunately, due to the corruption and politicization of science on this matter, it’s hard to offer any clear recommendations. In the end, it probably comes down to who you trust.
Quercetin — An All-Natural Safe Home Alternative
That said, if you suspect you’ve contracted COVID-19, it probably wouldn’t hurt to give a version of Zelenko’s regimen a try, at the first sign of symptoms. As explained in “Is Quercetin a Safer Alternative to Hydroxychloroquine?” quercetin is also an ionophore and has the same mechanism of action as hydroxychloroquine — it improves zinc uptake by your cells.
Personally, I’m taking quercetin and zinc at bedtime as a prophylactic each day. The reason it’s best to take them in the evening, several hours after your last meal, and before the long fast of sleeping, is because quercetin is also a senolytic (i.e., it selectively kills senescent or old, damaged cells) that is activated by fasting. So, why not maximize the timing and use of quercetin?
Zelenko points out that the debate on HCQ is an ideological one on whether you trust real-world clinical data or only data derived from a lab. This is exactly what we face with Lyme/MSIDS. We have doctors who have successfully treated patients yet mainstream medicine sniffs at this because their clinical success hasn’t been replicated in a lab setting.
ONE OF THE MOST FRUSTRATING ASPECTS of how academic science conducts itself in the US is high reliance to SELECTIVE ATTENTION to information that suits one’s particular viewpoint in science. Graduate students writing theses or dissertations are expected to provide a reasonable approximation of a background of the foundations upon which their thesis is built. Somewhere along the way, some scientists have forgotten the ethics of the moral responsibility of providing an unbiased representation of the state of knowledge upon which they base their positions. To seek only confirming instances that match one’s own viewpoint is positivistic – and it is the essential driver of confirmation bias. CDC and Fauci’s reliance of the Selective Attention Bias is monumental is size and historically destructive in scope.
Here I outline a few rather important facts that CDC and Fauci (and thus the rest of public health and most of the US medical system) have forgotten. The result is a public health policy response in the US that is full of … holes, at immense cost to the well-being of society.
When I read headlines like “Scientists discover” X, Y or Z about Coronavirus”, I almost always groan. “We ALREADY KNOW that about coronviruses” is my response, and so off to Pubmed I go.
Here are some things we already know that are being forgotten, or ignored, in public health policy in the US (and elsewhere) on the COVID-19 response.
(1) Coronavirus antibodies don’t last. Based on a non-peer-reviewed study preprint of a King’s College Study that monitored SARS-CoV-2 antibody levels for three months, the media represents this as new because the researchers who have presented the data failed to provide an thorough representation of past studies – and the media failed to pick up on the reality of what we already know. We’ve known that the antibody response to coronaviruses in humans is shorter than that, say, for human rhinoviruses (the common cold) since 1990.
Here’s the study on coronviruses (1990):
“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week
later. Thereafter antibody titres slowly declined. Although concentrations were still slightly raised 1 year later, this did not always prevent reinfection when volunteers were then challenged with the homologous virus. However, the period of virus shedding was shorter than before and none developed a cold. All of the uninfected group were infected on re-challenge although they also appeared to show some resistance to disease and in the extent of infection. These results are discussed with reference to natural infections with coronavirus and with other infections, such as rhinovirus infections.“And here’s the study on rhinoviruses (1989):
“The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.“So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:Why then are we reading headlines such as
The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not “enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.2. Masks Don’t Really Work Outside of Healthcare Systems.A meta-analysis on masks concluded that masks should work in the healthcare setting, but the three studies that focused on the utility of masks to protect the wearer outside of the healthcare system? Two of three studies say “no effect” – and the one that is significant is only marginally significant, and oh, also (like all of the other studies) only focused on the ability of masks to protect the wearer.And, for good measure, N95 does NOT mean they stop 95% of droplets, as incorrectly reported by “Ask Ethan” on Forbes – it means they can block viruses no smaller than 5 microns. SARS-CoV-2 is 30 times smaller than N95.
In a BSL3 laboratory, workers must wear much more effective equipment that an N95 mask, or a handkerchief, or a shirt collar, to block viruses the size of coronaviruses. Clearly we are being socially conditioned to submit to pressure to conform to an agenda to accept the spate of SARS-CoV-2 vaccines as the living Savior of society. Oh, if only that could even be theoretically true. Unfortuantely, CDC, Fauci and apparently FDA also forgot that
“Objective The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy of cloth masks to medical masks in hospital healthcare workers (HCWs). The null hypothesis is that there is no difference between medical masks and cloth masks.
Setting 14 secondary-level/tertiary-level hospitals in Hanoi, Vietnam.
Participants 1607 hospital HCWs aged ≥18 years working full-time in selected high-risk wards.
Intervention Hospital wards were randomised to: medical masks, cloth masks or a control group (usual practice, which included mask wearing). Participants used the mask on every shift for 4 consecutive weeks.
Main outcome measure Clinical respiratory illness (CRI), influenza-like illness (ILI) and laboratory-confirmed respiratory virus infection.
Results: The rates of all infection outcomes were highest in the cloth mask arm, with the rate of ILI statistically significantly higher in the cloth mask arm (relative risk (RR)=13.00, 95% CI 1.69 to 100.07) compared with the medical mask arm. Cloth masks also had significantly higher rates of ILI compared with the control arm. An analysis by mask use showed ILI (RR=6.64, 95% CI 1.45 to 28.65) and laboratory-confirmed virus (RR=1.72, 95% CI 1.01 to 2.94) were significantly higher in the cloth masks group compared with the medical masks group.
Penetration of cloth masks by particles was almost 97% and medical masks 44%.
Conclusions: This study is the first RCT of cloth masks, and the results caution against the use of cloth masks. This is an important finding to inform occupational health and safety. Moisture retention, reuse of cloth masks and poor filtration may result in increased risk of infection. Further research is needed to inform the widespread use of cloth masks globally. However, as a precautionary measure, cloth masks should not be recommended for HCWs, particularly in high-risk situations, and guidelines need to be updated.
Trial registration number Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry: ACTRN12610000887077.”
From Ref #2
“Summary:
Respiratory infection is much higher among healthcare workers wearing cloth masks compared to medical masks, research shows. Cloth masks should not be used by workers in any healthcare setting, authors of the new study say.”
C. R. MacIntyre, H. Seale, T. C. Dung, N. T. Hien, P. T. Nga, A. A. Chughtai, B. Rahman, D. E. Dwyer, Q. Wang. A cluster randomised trial of cloth masks compared with medical masks in healthcare workers. BMJ Open, 2015; 5 (4): e006577 DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006577
Even Medpage today published an article that concluded that some politicians are pushed masks for fear mongers, not toward evidence-based medical purposes.
3. Coronavirus Vaccines Cause Pathogenic Priming… and Therefore Require Phase 1 Animal Studies to Detect Disease Enhancement
This has been covered in my blog before as suggested reading, but I’ll put those findings again right here for those expecting more from our regulatory agencies. In March 2020, FDA allowed Fauci, I mean, Moderna, to skip the critical Phase 1 animal studies that led to a halth to human studies for SARS and MERS vaccines. That was a LONG time ago now (5 months). How many times over could Moderna (I mean, Fauci) have conducted the animal studies to detect pathogenic priming by now? Maybe they have! Certainly we would have heard of the results if they showed no disease enhancement. Come on, we may be – collectively- stupid, but we’re not dead. Yet.
Immunization with inactivated Middle East Respiratory Syndrome coronavirus vaccine leads to lung immunopathology on challenge with live virus.“Lung mononuclear infiltrates occurred in all groups after virus challenge but with increased infiltrates that contained eosinophils and increases in the eosinophil promoting IL-5 and IL-13 cytokines only in the vaccine groups.Inactivated MERS-CoV vaccine appears to carry a hypersensitive-type lung pathology risk from MERS-CoV infection that is similar to that found with inactivated SARS-CoV vaccines from SARS-CoV infection.”https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27269431
Vaccine efficacy in senescent mice challenged with recombinant SARS-CoV bearing epidemic and zoonotic spike variants.“VRP-N vaccines not only failed to protect from homologous or heterologous challenge, but resulted in enhanced immunopathology with eosinophilic infiltrates within the lungs of SARS-CoV-challenged mice. VRP-N-induced pathology presented at day 4, peaked around day 7, and persisted through day 14, and was likely mediated by cellular immune responses.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17194199
Immunization with Modified Vaccinia Virus Ankara-Based Recombinant Vaccine against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Is Associated with Enhanced Hepatitis in Ferrets“Immunized ferrets developed a more rapid and vigorous neutralizing antibody response than control animals after challenge with SARS-CoV; however, they also exhibited strong inflammatory responses in liver tissue.”
Animal Models for SARS and MERS coronaviruses. “The concern that is extrapolated from the FIPV vaccine experience to human SARS-CoV vaccines is whether vaccine recipients will develop more severe disease if they are exposed to or infected with SARS-CoV after neutralizing antibody titers decline. The second concern is whether recipients of a SARSCoV vaccine would be at risk of developing pulmonary immunopathology following infection with an unrelated human coronavirus e.g. 229E, OC43, HKU1 or NL63 that usually causes mild, self limited disease. Although findings from preclinical evaluation have revealed these concerns, studies in animal models may not be able to provide data to confirm or allay these concerns.” https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4550498
Lab-Made Coronavirus Triggers Debate“…a study on his team’s efforts to engineer a virus with the surface protein of the SHC014 coronavirus, found in horseshoe bats in China, and the backbone of one that causes human-like severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in mice. The hybrid virus could infect human airway cells and caused disease in mice…”
There are many other bits of Science that CDC, Fauci, and the FDA have forgotten – such as how to accurately count deaths, how to design an accurate PCR test. And there will no doubt be some science they would like to forget .
They seem hell bent on holding society hostage with lock-downs, and mask mandates, and destruction of small businesses, depletion of retirement accounts.
We won’t forget that the disaster is largely man-made, stemming first from CDC’s flawed PCR test, fumbled attempts to contain by early contact tracing, and made much worse by a lock-down that was supposed to last two weeks. We have not forgotten that we never signed up for lock-downs of long duration that destroy our means of making a living, feeding and housing ourselves and our children. But there is a bright light coming out of the tunnel BEFORE the untested vaccines.
A Bit of Science CDC and Fauci Would Like To Ignore
Here’s a bit of Science I want YOU to help make certain NO ONE forgets. Please share Dr. Brownstein’s case series study on his protocol used on 107 COVID-19 patients with zero deaths – and only 1 hospitalization on the core protocol – with every ND, DO, DC, nurse, geriatric specialist, nursing home employee, public health official, friend, neigbor, and family member you know. Share my editorial, too.
If this virus can be so easily treated, why are we destroying America?
“After preliminary trials, the detailed changes in the concentration of specific circulating and local antibodies were followed in 15 volunteers inoculated with coronavirus 229E. Ten of them, who had significantly lower concentrations of preexisting antibody than the rest, became infected and eight of these developed colds. A limited investigation of circulating lymphocyte populations showed some lymphocytopenia in infected volunteers. In this group, antibody concentrations started to increase 1 week after inoculation and reached a maximum about 1 week
“The specific humoral immune response of 17 volunteers to infection with human rhinovirus type 2 (HRV-2) has been measured both by neutralization and by ELISA. Six volunteers who had HRV-2-specific antibodies in either serum or nasal secretions before HRV-2 inoculation were resistant to infection and illness. Of the remaining 11 volunteers who had little pre-existing HRV-2-specific antibody, one was immune but 10 became infected and displayed increases in HRV-2-specific antibodies. These antibodies first increased 1-2 weeks after infection and reached a maximum at 5 weeks. All six resistant volunteers who had high pre-existing antibody and eight of the volunteers who became infected maintained their HRV-2-specific antibody for at least 1 year. At this time they were protected against reinfection. Two volunteers showed decreases in HRV-2-specific antibodies from either serum or nasal secretions. They became infected but not ill after HRV-2 inoculation 1 year later.“So, people infected with coronaviruses have short-lived active antibodies compared to rhinovirus, but have a mild infection a year later if re-exposed. To be fair to the authors of the study, they referenced the coronavirus study from 1990, as well as length of antibody responses in SARS and MERS. But it’s still a fair question to ask:Why then are we reading headlines such as
The high profile emphasis is followed by proclamations that natural immunity from infections might not “enough”, begging the question of definition of “enough” – Fauci and others (like Paul Offit) have already presaged that an untested vaccine might only make the infection less severe, and not prevent infection or transmission. So this high emphasis and follow-on claim that natural herd immunity might not be enough is a type of distortion used to convince the public that they may have to wait for a vaccine to save society. Of course.
Madison Area Lyme Support Group 
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/06/fraudulent-hcq-covid-19-study-in-lancet-exposed/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/24/influence-of-conflicts-of-interest-on-public-positions-in-the-covid-19-era-the-case-of-gilead-sciences/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/16/aaps-sues-fda-for-irrational-interference-of-access-to-life-saving-hydroxychloroquine/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/05/11/podcast-evidence-supporting-hcq-azithromycin-for-covid-19/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/06/09/hcq-breakthrough-icmr-finds-its-effective-in-preventing-coronavirus-expands-its-use/
Remdesivir (BTW: studies have only shown it to reduce days in hospitalization from 15 days to 10 days) https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/02/remdesivir-for-covid-19-not-backed-by-results/
https://madisonarealymesupportgroup.com/2020/07/15/covid-19-drug-remdesivir-could-cost-up-to-3120-per-patient-maker-says/
Zelenko points out that the debate on HCQ is an ideological one on whether you trust real-world clinical data or only data derived from a lab. This is exactly what we face with Lyme/MSIDS. We have doctors who have successfully treated patients yet mainstream medicine sniffs at this because their clinical success hasn’t been replicated in a lab setting.