Remdesivir: What You Should Know

September 19, 2024

Dr. Vernon Coleman: Remdesivir – What You Must Know

“Please share this article with everyone you know. And please send or show copies of this article to every doctor and nurse you can reach. “

Lioness of Judah Ministry
Aug 29, 2024

By Dr. Vernon Coleman

Remdesivir is described as a `broad spectrum antiviral drug’. It is a RNA polymerase inhibitor which disrupts the production of vital RNA. It is said to prevent the multiplication of SARS-CoV-2.

Remdesivir was introduced for the treatment of covid-19 patients who were in hospital suffering from covid-19, with or without pneumonia. It is still being widely used. I have been researching and writing about drugs since 1970 and I am appalled at the way that it now appears that in some countries some hospitals and doctors (and even nurses) are now routinely giving remdesivir to patients – particularly elderly patients – who do not have severe signs and/or symptoms of the flu or a flu-like viral infection. You can form your own opinion on whether remdesivir ever has a value by reading the following information.

1. Remdesivir is officially used to treat patients who have symptoms of covid-19 or who have covid-19 according to the discredited PCR test which no one with any functioning brain tissue should use. Anyone who uses a PCR test to diagnose covid-19 is a moron and you can tell them I said that. Please see my two recent articles (on http://www.vernoncoleman.com) entitled `PCR: How the PCR test has killed millions’ and `The PCR test can kill you’. A positive PCR test does NOT prove that you have covid-19, dandruff, chilblains, covid-19 or anything else.

2. Remdesivir seems to be very, very popular with very, very stupid doctors who seem to think it is a panacea for all illnesses. If their Mercedes or BMW breaks down they probably give the car a shot of remdesivir.

3. Remdesivir is given directly into a vein. Doctors who tell you that giving drugs via a vein is an entirely safe procedure are stupid. No medical procedure is entirely safe. Giving drugs by injection into a blood stream requires skill and experience to avoid dangers.

4. The brand name of remdesivir is Veklury. (Brand names always begin with an initial capital but generic names are all lower case.) If you are being given Veklury, you are being given remdesivir.

5. Remdesivir should be prescribed by a doctor and given under a doctor’s supervision. (Nurses may wear stethoscopes round their necks, but they are not doctors.)

6. Remdesivir must be given slowly over a period of between 30 minutes and 120 minutes.

7. Hospital patients are usually given remdesivir once a day for up to 10 days.

8. Patients not in hospital are usually given remdesivir once a day for three days.

9. Patients who are given remdesivir MUST have regular blood tests to check that their livers are functioning properly. If a doctor gives remdesivir without doing regular liver function tests he or she is dangerous and, in my opinion, should have their medical licence revoked.

10. Liver function tests MUST be done before remdesivir is prescribed. Any doctor who does not do liver tests before starting treatment should be sacked and have their medical licence revoked.

11. Severe renal toxicity has been noted in animal studies. (Some doctors claim that animal studies are irrelevant. I agree. But why do them if they are irrelevant?)

12. No one should be given remdesivir if they are allergic to it.

13. Anyone who has ever had liver disease or kidney disease should inform their doctor if he/she suggests prescribing remdesivir.

14. Anyone who is pregnant or breastfeeding should tell their doctor. The UK’s National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) says that the safety of covid-19 antiviral treatment during pregnancy has NOT been established.

15. Remdesivir may interact, to your disadvantage, with other prescription medicines, with over the counter medicines, with vitamins and with herbal products. Doctors who prescribe remdesivir must ask patients about all the medicines they are taking.

16. Remdesivir has received a number of reviews on drugs.com, and of the reviews listed on 24th August 2024, 19.38% or reviewers had a `positive experience’ but 47% had a `negative experience’.

17. According to the journal `Science’, in October 2020,`The World Health Organisation’s Solidarity Trial showed that remdesivir does not reduce mortality or the time covid-19 patients take to recover.’ And `A second, smaller placebo-controlled study of remdesivir on hospitalised covid-19 patients in China, published online by The Lancet on 29th April 2020, found no statistically significant benefit from the treatment – and the antiviral surprisingly had no impact on levels of the coronavirus’. I find it difficult to see why the FDA, the EU and the UK’s drug regulator all approved remdesivir, though they appear to have done so without worrying too much about the research showing that it was pretty useless.

18. Side effects which may occur when remdesivir is injected include: fast, pounding heartbeats; trouble in breathing; wheezing, shivering, itching, sweating, facial swelling, severe headache, a feeling of being about to pass out. Side effects subsequently may include nausea and abnormal liver function tests.

19. NICE reports that there are twelve drugs with which remdesivir inter-reacts. Any doctor prescribing remdesivir should know of these interactions – which are listed on the NICE website. So, for example, the manufacturers advise that patients avoid taking remdesivir with chlorquine, hydroxychloroquine and phenytoin. I cannot put a link to the NICE website because such links are not allowed. The list of side effects below was NOT taken from the NICE website. (Since it is a public sector body and paid for by taxpayers, you’d think that NICE would be delighted to share information about drug dangers wouldn’t you?)

20. Side effects which can occur in patients taking remdesivir may include:

Back pain
Bleeding
Blistering
Burning
Chest tightness
Chills
Coldness
Cough
Dark coloured urine (a possible sign of liver problems)
Difficulty in swallowing
Discolouration of skin
Fast heartbeat
Feeling of pressure
Fever

Flushing
Headache
Hives and itching
Infection
Inflammation
Light coloured stools (a possible sign of liver problems)
Lumps
Nausea and vomiting
Numbness
Pain
Puffiness or swelling of the eyelids or around the eyes, face, lips or tongue
Redness

Scarring
Seizures
Skin rash
Soreness
Stinging
Stomach pain, continuing
Swelling
Tenderness
Tingling
Trouble breathing
Ulceration
Unusual tiredness or weakness
Yellow eyes or skin (a possible sign of liver problems)

You will be relieved to know that not all patients would be expected to have all of these side effects, though a number of these side effects are classified as `common’.

Please share this article with everyone you know. And please send or show copies of this article to every doctor and nurse you can reach. Send copies to your GP and your local hospital.

Unlike NICE I like to share the information I obtain, and unlike YouTube and the mainstream media I believe that the truth should not be censored and must be shared as widely as possible. I suspect that this article will be suppressed and hidden by Google et al. And I am banned from all media (mainstream and online) so please help share this article.

Copyright Vernon Coleman August 2024

NOTE
My first two books `The Medicine Men’ and `Paper Doctors’ dealt with dishonesty and corruption in medicine. `The Medicine Men’ dealt with the relationship between doctors and the drug industry. `Paper Doctors’ dealt with medical research. Both were published in the 1970s and attracted much praise at the time (though not from the pharmaceutical industry or the medical establishment). You can purchase them both from the bookshop on www.vernoncoleman.com

The Defender just came out with two articles on how ‘huge’ financial incentives led hospitals to tragically use COVID treatments that killed patients, which included remdesivir and ventilators.

For more:

Category:

Treatment, Viruses

Comments Off on Remdesivir: What You Should Know

Scrutinizing Clinical Biomarkers in a Large Cohort of Patients with Lyme Disease and Other Tick-Borne Infections

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10893018/

 2024 Feb; 12(2): 380.
Published online 2024 Feb 12. doi: 10.3390/microorganisms12020380
PMCID: PMC10893018
PMID: 38399784

Scrutinizing Clinical Biomarkers in a Large Cohort of Patients with Lyme Disease and Other Tick-Borne Infections

David Xi, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization,1 Kunal Garg, Conceptualization, Methodology, Software, Formal analysis, Investigation, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Visualization,2 John S. Lambert,1,3,4 Minha Rajput-Ray, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Writing – review & editing, Supervision,5 Anne Madigan, Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation,1 Gordana Avramovic, Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – review & editing, Supervision, Project administration,1 and Leona Gilbert, Conceptualization, Methodology, Formal analysis, Investigation, Resources, Data curation, Writing – original draft, Writing – review & editing, Visualization, Supervision, Project administration2,*

Abstract

Standard clinical markers can improve tick-borne infection (TBI) diagnoses. We investigated immune and other clinical biomarkers in 110 patients clinically diagnosed with TBIs before (T0) and after antibiotic treatment (T2). At T0, both the initial observation group and patients without seroconversion for tick-borne pathogens exhibited notably low percentages and counts of CD3 percentage (CD3%), CD3+ cells, CD8+ suppressors, CD4 percentage (CD4%), and CD4+ helper cells, with the latter group showing reductions in CD3%, CD3+, and CD8+ counts in approximately 15-22% of cases. Following treatment at the T2 follow-up, patients typically experienced enhancements in their previously low CD3%, CD3+ counts, CD4%, and CD4+ counts; however, there was no notable progress in their low CD8+ counts, and a higher number of patients presented with insufficient transferrin levels. Moreover, among those with negative serology for tick-borne infections, there was an improvement in low CD3% and CD3+ counts, which was more pronounced in patients with deficient transferrin amounts. Among those with CD57+ (n = 37) and CD19+ (n = 101) lymphocyte analysis, 59.46% of patients had a low CD57+ count, 14.85% had a low CD19 count, and 36.63% had a low CD19 percentage (CD19%). Similar findings were observed concerning low CD57+, CD19+, and CD19% markers for negative TBI serology patients. Overall, this study demonstrates that routine standard clinical markers could assist in a TBI diagnosis.

For more:

Category:

Lyme, research, Testing

Comments Off on Scrutinizing Clinical Biomarkers in a Large Cohort of Patients with Lyme Disease and Other Tick-Borne Infections

Critical Scoping Review of Expert Meanings of “Misinformation” in the Covid Era

September 18, 2024

https://www.mdpi.com/2673-8112/4/9/101

Trust Us—We Are the (COVID-19 Misinformation) Experts: A Critical Scoping Review of Expert Meanings of “Misinformation” in the Covid Era

by Claudia Chaufan1,*, Natalie Hemsing1, Camila Heredia1 and Jennifer McDonald2
1School of Health Policy and Management, York University, Toronto, ON M3J 1P3, Canada
2Medical School, University of Central Lancashire, Preston PR1 7BH, UK
*Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
COVID 2024, 4(9), 1413-1439; https://doi.org/10.3390/covid4090101
Submission received: 18 June 2024 / Revised: 19 August 2024 / Accepted: 28 August 2024 / Published: 10 September 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue How COVID-19 and Long COVID Changed Individuals and Communities 2.0)

Abstract

Since the WHO declared COVID-19 a pandemic, prominent social actors and institutions have warned about the threat of misinformation, calling for policy action to address it. However, neither the premises underlying expert claims nor the standards to separate truth from falsehood have been appraised. We conducted a scoping review of the medical and social scientific literature, informed by a critical policy analysis approach, examining what this literature means by misinformation. We searched academic databases and refereed publications, selecting a total of 68 articles for review. Two researchers independently charted the data.
Our most salient finding was that verifiability relied largely on the claims of epistemic authorities, albeit only those vetted by the establishment, to the exclusion of independent evidentiary standards or heterodox perspectives. Further, “epistemic authority” did not depend necessarily on subject matter expertise, but largely on a new type of “expertise”: in misinformation itself.
Finally, policy solutions to the alleged threat that misinformation poses to democracy and human rights called for suppressing unverified information and debate unmanaged by establishment approved experts, in the name of protecting democracy and rights, contrary to democratic practice and respect for human rights.
Notably, we identified no pockets of resistance to these dominant meanings and uses. We assessed the implications of our findings for democratic public policy, and for fundamental rights and freedoms.  (See link for article)
_________________
Important excerpt:
Take, for instance, the Virality Project mentioned earlier, a US-government supported “partnership” among Stanford University, New York University, and University of Washington researchers; tech companies; federal agencies; state-funded or independent non-profit organisations; and six social media platforms, described as “a global study aimed at understanding the disinformation dynamics specific to the COVID-19 crisis” that boasted a program on “democracy and the Internet” [95]. However, as critics have pointed out, the project has reduced democracy, by accelerating “the evolution of digital censorship, moving it from judging truth/untruth to a new, scarier model, openly focused on political narrative at the expense of fact” (Twitter Files Tweet, dates March 18, 2023) (emphasis added).
The study found that continued efforts to identify, manage, or suppress ‘misinformation’:
  • blunts democratic and open debate
  • impairs open scientific inquiry
  • has chilling effects on normative academic principles such as the pursuit of knowledge, protection of freedom of expression, and the promotion of critical thinking
  • is a grave threat to bioethical principles such as informed consent
  • violates the dignity of human beings by placing them lower than ‘higher’ societal goals despite a long history of policy interventions implemented ‘for our own good’ or ‘for the greater good,’  that turned out to be morally disastrous
As long as the establishment vetted experts—or, rather, a cult of expertise [149]—dominate public discourse and policy practice, the loss of public trust that appears to preoccupy authorities as they attempt to regain this trust will be inevitable.

Disturbingly, this classic propaganda technique where the perpetrator claims to hold agency over the truth and then uses the arrow of “misinformation” to injure the victim is now fully entrenched in modern academic medicine. Anytime one wants to gain an advantage over another, they can accuse their opponent. This form of academic oppression can cause great harm and stifles scholarly interchange particularly on a novel topic such as the SARS-CoV-2 outbreak and genetic vaccines. ~ Dr. Peter McCullough Source:  https://petermcculloughmd.substack.com/p/scoping-review-uncovers-new-expertise?

Category:

Activism, research

Comments Off on Critical Scoping Review of Expert Meanings of “Misinformation” in the Covid Era

Vaxxed III Showing Today

https://vaxxed3.childrenshealthdefense.org/?utm_id=20240918  Trailer here

Click on link to find a screening near you.

There is a screening in Green Bay, two in Milwaukee, 3 in Chicago, and two in Minneapolis.

Category:

Activism, vaccines

Comments Off on Vaxxed III Showing Today

EBV & Lyme: A Patient’s Perspective

https://www.globallymealliance.org/blog/epstein-barr-virus-and-lyme-disease?

Epstein-Barr Virus and Lyme Disease: A Patient’s Perspective

by Jennifer Crystal on August 7, 2024

<span id="hs_cos_wrapper_name" class="hs_cos_wrapper hs_cos_wrapper_meta_field hs_cos_wrapper_type_text" style="" data-hs-cos-general-type="meta_field" data-hs-cos-type="text" >Epstein-Barr Virus and Lyme Disease: A Patient's Perspective</span>
Understand the intricate relationship between Epstein-Barr Virus (EBV) and Lyme Disease through the experience of Jennifer Crystal. Learn how they coexist and impact each other in chronic illness.

Whenever I write about my chronic tick-borne illnesses Lyme disease and babesiosis, I always add “as well as chronic active Epstein-Barr virus (EBV).” This is because for me—and for many Lyme disease patients—EBV and Lyme go hand in hand. Though one is a virus and one is a bacterial infection, the two wreak havoc on the body together, and a flare of one can lead to a flare of another.

I know this now, two decades into my chronic illness journey. When I got mononucleosis, which is caused by the Epstein-Barr virus, in 2003, I had no idea that I also had underlying tick-borne infections or that the two could impact each other. Since 1997, I’d had all sorts of strange symptoms, ranging from an on-and-off-again flu to migraine headaches, hypoglycemia, asthma, trembling hands, and hives. Each of these complaints had been treated individually—often brushed aside as stress or “just feeling run down”—and tick-borne illnesses were never considered. Ironically, every time the flu-like symptoms came back, I would worry that I had mono. I knew that virus could take a while to get over, and I didn’t have time to be sick. But the tests were always negative.

Until, days before I was to start a job as a Head Counselor at a summer camp in Maine, a sore throat and mounting fatigue led to a mono test that actually did come back positive. Now I really didn’t have time to be sick. I had just finished a strenuous year teaching high school English and Journalism in Colorado, had driven cross country by myself, and was supposed to spend only a few days with family in Connecticut before heading off to Maine.

The universe had other plans, but I didn’t agree with them. I knew that some people got over mono in a few weeks, while some cases took longer. I took a steroid to alleviate symptoms and speed up recovery. I rested in Connecticut for two weeks. And then, with my doctor’s permission, I set off for camp, where I so desperately wanted to be.

Camp needed me, too, as the oldest returning Head Counselor. But my being there that summer wasn’t fair to anyone—not to the campers, not to the directors, not to me. Camp needed me to give my all. I could for a short while, but then the fatigue of mono came raring back, and I found myself dragging my body to activities.

By the end of the summer, I was bedridden. By fall, I was no better. I slept twenty hours a day and developed new symptoms like burning extremities and hallucinogenic nightmares. Tests for mono remained positive, and tests for Epstein-Barr titers remained high. My doctor explained to me that people who have had mono will always test positive for Epstein-Barr virus, but that once the mono goes away, the Epstein-Barr virus titers should decrease (the same way those of us who had chicken pox as kids always carry that virus even though it’s not active). In my case, the titers remained high, which is known as chronic active Epstein-Barr virus, or chronic mono. The doctor told me it might take a couple years for me to get better.

I was devastated. I was supposed to work as a ski instructor in the Rocky Mountains that winter. That dream was shattered. Unable to support or care for myself, I had to surrender my independence and move back with my parents in Connecticut.

I blamed myself for the chronic active Epstein-Barr virus because I’d pushed my body to go to camp. While that choice probably didn’t help my recovery, there were much larger, physiological explanations for my immune system’s inability to fight off mono: Lyme disease, babesiosis, and ehrlichiosis, which my body had been harboring since an unknown tick bite while at camp in 1997.

For the first two years that I had chronic active EBV, I spent so much energy trying to convince people that I really was sick, not lazy; that EBV was a legitimate diagnosis; and that I wanted to be working, socializing, and exercising as I once had, but could barely move from bed—that I didn’t consider whether anything else might be going on in addition to EBV, rather than instead of it.

One day in 2005 while drying my hair, I noticed circular rashes on my elbows when I saw my raised arms in the mirror. I’d become so accustomed to writing symptoms off as nothing, but the naturopathic physician who’d been treating me for EBV said, “Those look suspiciously like the bullseye rashes of Lyme disease,” which he explained can show up months or years after a tick bite, in various places on the body. He said, “I’ve started to suspect you have something additional going on, like an underlying infection, because otherwise you would be getting better.” He sent me to a Lyme Literate Medical Doctor (LLMD) who ran tests that showed I indeed had three tick-borne diseases. The doctor traced these illnesses back to a red rash I’d had on my arm in 1997, just before all my symptoms began. He concluded that the tick-borne diseases had come out in full force when I got mono, because my immune system was so overtaxed that it couldn’t fight all the illnesses; instead, it was walloped by them.

Once I was adequately treated for tick-borne illness, my EBV symptoms quieted, but they still flare from time to time. Because Lyme and EBV symptoms can be so similar (flu-like symptoms, fatigue, achiness, low grade fever), sometimes it’s hard for me to tell which one is activated. Having spent so long in the throes of tick-borne disease treatment and recovery, I sometimes forget that I have EBV, too. But when symptoms flare, it’s important for me to take a step back and ask, is this Lyme, or could this be EBV? Sometimes it’s both and a slight change in a supplement can help either. Sometimes it’s EBV and I need to rest. Sometimes it’s babesiosis and I need a specific anti-malarial medication.

Scientists don’t yet know why there seems to be such a correlation between Lyme and EBV, though they have discovered EBV may be a leading cause of Multiple Sclerosis[i], a Lyme imitator. We know from emerging science and from patient experience that EBV seems to impact certain autoimmune disorders and infections, and vice-versa. Until the science catches up to the experience, the important thing is for patients with overlapping symptoms to keep both EBV and other medical conditions like Lyme disease in mind. If they’ve only been diagnosed with one, they may only be fighting half the battle.

[i] https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/study-suggests-epstein-barr-virus-may-cause-multiple-sclerosis

Writer

Jennifer Crystal

Opinions expressed by contributors are their own. Jennifer Crystal is a writer and educator in Boston. Her work has appeared in local and national publications including Harvard Health Publishing and The Boston Globe. As a GLA columnist for over six years, her work on GLA.org has received mention in publications such as The New Yorker, weatherchannel.com, CQ Researcher, and ProHealth.com. Jennifer is a patient advocate who has dealt with chronic illness, including Lyme and other tick-borne infections. Her memoir, One Tick Stopped the Clock, is forthcoming from Legacy Book Press in September 2024. Ten percent of proceeds from the book will go to Global Lyme Alliance. Contact her via email below.

Email: lymewarriorjennifercrystal@gmail.com

Category:

Lyme, Viruses

Comments Off on EBV & Lyme: A Patient’s Perspective