Dr Stella Immanuel V Dr. Fauci-TKO. HCQ Championed.

America’s Frontline Doctors traveled to Washington and gave a press conference.

UPDATE. Here’s a version that is still up

UPDATE 2. Squarespace has censored America’s Frontline Doctors website.

Give her a listen.

Several versions of this have been pulled off YouTube while I was preparing this post. I hope this FB version survives till the am. And now the FB has been pulled.

Here is a version of the complete news conference still on YouTube as of this moment. I’ve cued it to Dr Immanuel’s speaking.

614 thoughts on “Dr Stella Immanuel V Dr. Fauci-TKO. HCQ Championed.

    • The full Summit is below, go to Menu-Summit:


      It is nearly 3 hours but very much worth listening to whole thing

      • Three hours? Did you watch the 5 minute clip that Youtube just pulled?

        The 5 minute clip of the angry Houston woman doctor who also is black and comes from Nigeria who’s speech will Change America…..

        This is most important non political speech ever made by a doctor, to save lives at a time of a pandemic….

        She and her staff used the HCQ cocktail as a prophylactic, in addition to treating 350 covid sick, high risk patients who had diabetes, ashama, who are obese, who are elderly (oldest patient 92) and so on. Her patients all got better and her staff did not get covid.

        She states that she doesn’t care if she risks her career, as she knows what she is saying is the truth…

        Why did youtube pull suddenly pull this video?

        Why did youtube block the account of Trump Jr. for posting the 5 minute clip of the Doctor speaking about this very important subject…

        Based her clinical experience she states, it is medical fact that, the HCQ cocktail is close to a cure for covid when used early.

        This is consistent with the results of Michigan HCQ cocktail study, except the Michigan HCQ cocktail study waited 48 hours before using the HCQ cocktail which drastically reduced the effectiveness of the HCQ cocktail.

        Americans are dying needlessly. She say that is madness. Which it is. It is also a crime to hide an effective treatment for a virus at at time of a pandemic.

        You Tube, CNN, Washington Post, NYT, and so on…. are going to face company ending lawsuits whose size will depend on those companies taking immediate action to mitigate damages.

        When criminal negligence has happened, logically needless dying must be stopped as soon as possible.

        Or criminal negligence becomes mass murder.

        The Houston doctor compares those (Media companies, fake news) who are hiding the effectiveness of the HCQ cocktails, because their care more about politics than the American people, to the evil done by the Nazis.

        Is there another possible spin? I am tired of 24/7 lies.

        Our country is not a political game. We need to stop this madness. This is a time for action.

        She is an honest angry Houston doctor, who is on the side of her patients and who appears to have no connection to either the Republican or Democratic parties.

        • Her comment about those who are fighting against prescribing this cure is that they’re just like the good Nazis that turned a blind eye to the holocaust. That’s what got the video pulled. Without that one line, there’s no justification to block the video.

          • None of them are claiming that, they are actually giving no specific reason other than the amorphous”It violates our policy”.

        • The family of a woman who died in Immanuel’s care do to malpractice tried to sue in another state but couldn’t find her to serve her papers. She had fled to Texas. Not the kind of doctor I would want taking care of me.

        • From Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD , Professor of Epidemiology, Yale School of Public Health
          2 peer reviewed papers in: American Journal of Epidemiology, published by Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
          May 27, 2020- “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis”

          July 20, 2020- Response to: “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients” and “Re: Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis”

          More from Dr. Risch:

          More COVID 19 Science journal articles Aggregated Here:

          Read the science. Check your confirmation Bias. Draw your own conclusions.

          Medicine should be practiced by Trained Physicians using their knowledge, experience and the tools they have at hand, not by untrained poorly informed politicians and pundits.

          “We don’t know how many people will get COVID-19 in the future, but based on deaths to date, a treatment which is x% effective could have saved:
          17% effective could have saved 111,393 lives. 30% effective could have saved 196,577 lives.
          49% effective could have saved 321,076 lives.”

          It does not have to be 100% effective to make a difference. Remdesivir is not as effective as they had hoped. Perfect is the enemy of the good.

      • I am looking for the first part of this video, where the doctors are talking about kids and teachers and the virus

    • Since when is truth that disputes the Marxists agenda against against Googles terms service? As an ex-Googler who is not a radical Socialist, I was keenly aware of their far left leaning politically biased culture, but this is embarrassing.

      • It is called Lysenkoism.
        Trofim Lysenko led a political purge of any science, especially genetics, that threatened official party Marxist doctrine of Lamarkian evolution… The offending scientists went to the gulag.

        It set soviet agriculture back decades.

    • Try Breibart, it works in the Netherlands!! The simple FACT that this news item has been censured makes me mad; this will have repercussions in the coming elections world-wide, except ofcourse in China….

      • It means they are directly over the target!!! If you have a cure you don’t need a vaccine multiple times a year. Good for us and bad for Baal & Medusa Gates, Fraudci & Co

    • Has no one done any background check on this “doctor”? Sorry, but she’s a nut. Doesn’t matter whether she’s right or wrong, telling the truth or lying – she’s a nut. It’s embarrassing to see her promoted on this site. 🙁

      • Well, Paul, Dr. Stella tears into Dr. Sanjay Gupta and that makes her the real deal in my book. When you put “doctor” in parenthesis it suggests you don’t think she is a doctor? A little racism here?

        • Hate to have to tell Paul this, lots of doctors are nuts. May be brilliant in their field, take them outside of it and they come off as bat poop crazy a lot of the time. And yes, over the years I have known doctors, worked for several, hunted with 4 a few years ago and have spent many an hour shooting with a few. Just being a doctor does not preclude them being a bit off.

          • Paul (July 28, 2020 at 9:33 am) … is the nut, …….. a “trough feeding” Trump hating nut.

        • Why would racism have anything to do with it… the Dr. has made many irrational statements pertaining to things that are not scientific. I don’t believe Paul was referring to anything but that. I don’t even see why you would bring that up.

          • Supporting this doctor because she has a narrative that is convenient is like supporting Alex Jones because he says climate change is a crock. Her other videos do very little to make her credible, even if she is 100% correct on this issue. Sorry, but it’s true. I’d rather take my medical advice from MedCram, thanks. This has nothing to do with the identity of the doctors in question, and everything with their credibility.

      • What did you find in your background check of her to establish that she’s a nut? I know that what she is claiming is also claimed by many other medical professionals. It is also supported by a recent study (Published in the Journal of Infectious Disease) conducted in Michigan. I don’t know, so I can only rely on the science and not what I hear on the news or opinion discussions.

          • I don’t know if she’s telling the truth about her covid patients’ results using HCQ-Zn-Azithromicin, but she’s not saying that her covid treatments depend on anything related to her religious beliefs. Have we reached the point where religious belief is a disqualification for practicing medicine?

            She believes in demons, is it? Ok, well I’m actually not finding that so far-fetched anymore, having had a quick look around!

            WTF is this country coming to when censorship is being so openly and sanctimoniously implemented?

          • “The Supernatural world is as real as the physical. What takes place in the spiritual realm affects us physically in our day to day lives.
            The subject of the evil spiritual marriage has been grossly mis- understood by many people. While some hold erroneous views, others demonstrate partial knowledge of this all- important subject. The problem of evil marriage goes beyond dilettantish purposes.”


          • The country is in a health emergency, and there is every reason and many laws backing up decisions to prevent people from spreading unsupported medical claims.

            She is giving medical advice contrary to what evidence based medicine has determined the facts to be re HCQ and covid.
            We are no longer in an information vacuum.
            She is making claims that a cure is known.
            This is a false statement of medical efficacy.

        • The Lancet and the New England Journal of medicine have both withdrawn papers that states HCQ does not work. Big market growing for lawyers to go after Fauci et al . What are his links to Gilead again?

          • The reason for the withdrawal was because the source of the data is not allowed to make the data public.
            Health care data is highly private data and is in many places protected from public disclosure, or disclosure to anyone not specifically authorized by each patient.
            In the US it is a ironclad set of protections, many of which are contained in what are called the HIPAA.

            So that being retracted is no indication one way or the other of whether the results reported in the study were accurate or true.

          • One of the rules of the scientific method is that the data has to released so that the hypothesis can be tested. If it cannot be tested it is not peer reviewed.

        • That is not saying much MJ. I think she is a nut, I mean alien DNA and stuff? There are people who think ‘climate change’ is a load of crap but for quite irrational, hairbrained reasons as distinct from the massive flaws in the so called science and the financial and political incentives to get on the green bandwagon. You don’t need the interference of aliens or such like to make the argument.

          She sounds like a nut, talks like a nut….. conclusion…?

          • Ergo she will float, but if she sinks and dies, she is not a witch.
            Who she is is basically irrelevant to the question at hand, which is whether these drugs work and if her statement constitutes evidence, or is it something else?
            An opinion? A set of personal observations?
            Her report of what she says is her experience?
            This is what is called anecdotal information in the world of medicine, and for good reason.
            That is all it is.
            It is something said by someone.
            It matters no one bit who said it, or what was said, when it some to the value of her assertion as scientific evidence.
            If one wants to get around that, I do not see how one would, but one way someone might claim is it is possible to do so is to examine credibility.
            Which becomes highly subjective.
            Which is why such information was long ago deemed un-useful for the purpose of evaluating the efficacy of a drug or a treatment

            Right here on this thread is a guy who states outright that to criticize or question her veracity or how much weight to give it is de facto proof of racist intent, but in a separate comment denounces leftists and touts his own conservative bona fides.

            It is downright embarrassing how well some people have learned and adopted the mentality and tactics of the left in general, and warmistas (but not only them) in particular, when it suits them, and yet are in all probability blind to what they are themselves doing.
            Such is cognitive dissonance.

            This is incredibly dangerous.
            I for one am imagining the left winning the elections here in the US this fall because of this one single issue.
            And all that could result from that…a actual calamity that can never be undone.
            Anyone saying we need to even further politicize this issue and make the political Right the champions of HCQ, are being mind-bogglingly irrational.

      • A “nut” who saves lives – especially mine – is welcome into my world. You have no need of including that treatment set. She didn’t invent it, it was a doctor in NYC whose personal score is better than anyone else in that city.

        For me the simple evaluation is this: If Fauci or CDC claims that no one should use HCQ because of side effect dangers, or only in a monitored setting inside a hospital, and I know full well that this medicine has been used for three generations outside hospitals with the full blessing of the medical establishment, then I know they are lying. I do not know why they are lying, but it is obvious they are, because they are contradicting well-established medical science and millions of successfully treated people, otherwise known as “evidence”.

        This lady is pointing out what she found works. Same as in NYC (with one doctor) and Florida generally where (I hear) everyone gets HCQ. According the updates at MedCram (now with 100 updates on file – see them) Vitamin D3 and Ivermectin are also providing immense benefit.

      • So we are supposed to believe an anonymous person who cites no evidence, but just throws out smears? I don’t think so.

        • What about all the doctors standing in back of her who support her? Not one hit piece bothered to interview the many men and women doctors seen in the background. Bernie, Fauci, and Feely Joe have made some of the whakiest comments imaginable, but they are not roundly comdemned.

          • “Doctors in the background.” Sorry, wearing a white coat doesn’t make you a “doctor.”

        • It’s easy to be right about trivialities, especially if the purpose is to distract.

          Right is right, but being partially right about some elements of the message doesn’t count for much.

          This whole affair looks like an “anti” psy-op. The message they are putting out is that there is this terrible deadly virus and that there is a wonderful cure that bad people are hiding from us. While you are busy processing that dramatic message and reacting to it, you might forget to question the existence of the deadly virus, or its deadliness — which I presume was the purpose of this performance.

          Besides the partial truthfulness of the message, another sign of it being controlled is that the governors did not shut it down until it had reached 20 million people. Cutting it at that point guaranteed that it would eventually reach 200 million.

          In a similar case not long ago, people were fiercely debating whether Epstein was killed in jail or was suicided. No one cared to ask whether both hypotheses were false.

          • Gene,
            I have been trying to figure out how to raise a possibility that has occurred to me that I have no idea how to evaluate as to likelihood or plausibility.
            I had not considered the phrase psy-op, but this is the exact concept I had in mind.
            I was wondering whether it is possible, perhaps likely, or just looking for an explanation of something that has no good explanation…if the reason this HCQ thing keeps popping up again and again, and keeps doing so in ways that seem contrived and almost hokey, but that a lot of people are seeming to latch onto as confirmation of many of their darkest suspicions?
            How likely it is just random chance?
            How likely is it that the only people who have claimed to have found anything like what this doctor in Texas is saying, are sketchy individual characters who nonetheless have the credentials to be called medical professionals?
            No ER doctors or people working in or running large hospitals that have a treatment nightmare on their hands.
            This miraculous result doe not show up anytime a clinical trial is conducted, and we now have results from many, with a whole lot more in the pipeline.
            One hospital after another has discontinued using this drug and it’s various combinations, after treating large numbers of patients with it early in the outbreak.
            One hospital system after another.
            One whole state after another.
            One whole country after another has stopped using it except in ongoing clinical trials, and even many of those have closed down the treatment arms that used it.
            Tens of thousands of people at this point have been given the drug in scientifically contacted clinical trials. Not one single randomized trials of HCQ alone or in combination has found any benefit to the drug, and certainly nothing close to 100% efficacy with any treatment or combination of treatments that has looked at enough people to rise to statistical significance.
            And there are a lot of them, many of which have used this specific combination.
            At least one very large one tested this combo in patients who were not hospitalized but treated on an outpatients basis, and took place in teh US and Canada in a wide geographic spread.

            Decades of testing on a variety of viruses, including corona virus, have been found to show the drug ineffective. It only works on cells in a culture.

            But even most critics of this drug all seem to miss the fact that the 2005 study was done using chloroquine, not HCQ, and did not use zinc, and did not use z pak.

            The left are dirty tricksters, and they know that many on the right have for one reason or another latched onto this drug and will not let go no matter how much evidence accumulates that it is worthless for this purpose.

          • Nicholas McGinley:

            You are grossly in error about hydroxychloroquine. The drug has proven efficacy in treating Covid-19 and is precisely why these front line physicians have been using it for their patients and it is far more than “wild guessing” treatment options for Covid-19 that is causing these doctors to get onboard with its use.

            The studies you reference are dead wrong, seriously flawed, because zinc sulphate was not used in conjunction with hydroxy nor was “Z-Pack” antibiotic to stop developing pneumonia from occurring which often happens as a second infection from the virus. Further, in many studies, hydroxy was only used in a late stage of progression of the disease in a hospital setting, where results will be less satisfactory.

            The established treatment regimen is to use hydroxy and zinc sulphate at disease onset, NOT when you have advanced disease and need hospitalization. In these cases, success has been defined with >95% recovery.

            To better educate yourself, below is a link to a Microbiologist who discusses five different ways hydroxychloroquine attacks and neuters viral production of Covid-19 in your body that significantly reduces viral loading and wards off a cytokine storm, which is the immune response that often leads to fatal destruction of the lungs and other organs.

            There is no excuse for Dr. Fauci, the CDC or NIH to continue their ridiculous attacks on doctors and the use of this drug to treat Covid-19. The injection of politics into all of this to promote more expensive and less satisfactory drugs like remdisivir and incorrectly claiming more economic shutdowns and isolation is necessary causing irreparable economic damage to this country is fast becoming criminally negligent.

            This is especially so when state medical boards are stepping between a physician and patient and harassing and threatening physicians who want this treatment for their patients, and in some states, governors have actually developed the audacity to order pharmacy’s not to dispense hydroxychloroquine to a patient even with a prescription order from a practicing physician. This is outrageous!

            As these physicians have warned, many more will needlessly die if this political crap doesn’t stop, which is being aimed squarely at hurting President Trump. Dr. Fauci is right square in the middle of it all, as he promoted the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat SARS1-Covid in 2003, which is in the same family of viruses that SARS2-Covid-19 is in. That is a damning contradiction that Fauci has not explained.


          • Chuck,
            There are few laypeople who have more knowledge than I do, of every aspect of this entire saga.
            You link to a video from a microbiologist.
            Is a microbiologist a doctor?
            And you scoff at the notion of a state medical board having authority for treatment protocols in a public health emergency.

            Should we just “educate ourselves” via you tube videos and ignore what thousands of doctors, entire hospital systems, and the vast majority of health care professionals have found to be the case, all over the world?
            Amazing how you can curtly dismiss with some trite and shallow criticisms, a long list of scientifically conducted clinical trials, but point to a video from a person who is not even a health care professional as if it was some sort of over riding proof of anything…anything except one persons uninformed opinion.
            Medical science uses evidence to decide such matters, not speculative and imagined “mechanisms”, which once enunciated, are taken to be the gospel truth, evidence to the contrary be damned.
            Pharmaceutical and biotech companies test thousands of new drugs every year, and every one has a strong rationale for theoretical efficacy…all have a well described mechanism.
            Then they are tested in cell cultures, then in animals if the seem to work in vitro.
            Only after careful evaluation in animal models are any of them given to human volunteers.
            After several phases of testing, they are given to large numbers of people to see if they actually work, and if they are safe.
            About one in 5000 ever gets approved after being found to be both safe and effective.

            All 5000 have a “mechanism”/
            So what?
            Clinical trials are what actually happens when actual sick people were given the drugs.
            Very few drugs have ever been given to so many sick people by so many doctors with no proof they would work. Maybe none.
            But hey, a microbiologist with a video!

      • It doesn’t matter if she is right or wrong? Perhaps it is you who should be embarrassed for posting such a statement on this site.

        • Google this lady and she what else she believes and preaches. “Demon sperm”. She is a nut. The good thing is all the believers here can go to her clinic in Houston and be treated. Good luck!

          • And you just stick with your $2,500 per dose drug that has never once cured anything it was promoted to cure. Good luck with that

          • So the rationale for choosing a treatment is now to ignore evidence of efficacy and choose based on what drug has the best low low price?
            Governments are subsidizing treatment, clinical trials are free, and everyone is supposed to have insurance.
            For me, “it works” trumps “it’s dirt cheap” when it comes to treating a potentially fatal disease.
            The only times cheaper is better is when two options are known to be medically equivalent.

          • Well, maybe nutty “Demon sperm” doctor(*) makes more sense than superstars like “Doctor” Fauci and “David Gorski, MD, PhD”(**)…

            (*) yet she seems to be a real registered MD not a witch “doctor”
            (**) “Surgeon, scientist, skeptic promoting science and exposing quackery, and editor of Science-Based Medicine.” according to his Twitter bio

          • So the rationale for choosing a treatment is now to ignore evidence of efficacy and choose based on what drug has the best low low price?

            These doctors (it’s not just this one doctor whose religious/cultural beliefs you don’t share but are willing to attack as a substitute for actually looking into her claims) are telling you that they’ve seen the lower price drug is effective and you are choosing to ignore that because the bad orange man said nice things about their choice of treatment. By all means choose the more pricy drug because the orange man likes the cheaper one and so does one doctor whose religious/cultural beliefs sound bizarre to you. Just don’t expect everyone else to follow your unscientific lead.

          • I am not ignoring it. I am discussing it.
            The only people ignoring anything are all the ones who refuse to look at the total weight of the evidence.
            To you, this one person who is a proven liar by her own words and videos and FB page, outweighs all of the medical community around the world who have tried this drug, and moved on when it was found not to work.
            Many thousands of people in many clinical trials conducted by doctors and using rigorous protocols to treat and keep track of patients.
            Not one word in any of those trials needs to be taken on faith or trust.

            I am not at all desperate, and why would I be?
            I would be as happy as anyone if that drug or combo had proven to be a magic bullet against this virus.
            It is all of the HCQ faithful who have no explanation for why it should work on this virus and this one alone, and only when it is given by people who offer no documentation.

          • “many clinical trials conducted by doctors and using rigorous protocols to treat and keep track of patients”

            Like those trials in Brasil first and UK recently designed to overdose patients, that is, a conspiracy to commit murder directly and indirectly, with which the whole Medical Establishment is complicit by its silence?

            Or the trials where patients did not all had confirmed Kung Flu?

            You really are desperate.

          • No, I think desperation is attacking someone with ad hominem remarks instead of sticking to the issues at hand.
            She plainly said she thinks no one needs to wear a mask.
            Her own actions prove she does not really think that.
            She claims she and her staff only ever use surgical masks, but in the Facebook video I just posted a link to, she is covered head to toe in a full body suit, rubber gloves, goggles, and an N95 surgical respirator.
            She warns anyone coming to her clinic to avoid all contact with anyone not in their immediate household, and to be sure to wear a face covering before they enter her office.
            As recently as April (and I think I saw one in which she was still saying that much more recently) she was an outspoken advocate of everyone wearing a mask.
            These are points of factual variance of her past actions with her recent statement.

            In this statement, she says that anyone who speaks of double blind clinical trials is a Nazi.
            But the scientific standards we have developed for how to evaluate new drugs is exactly why we have effective and safe treatments for anything.
            She states that doctors that speak of having evidence for the efficacy of the drugs they prescribe are not real doctors, and she says that she is a real doctor, implicitly saying this is because she requires no such proof of efficacy or standard of evidence.
            Without objective standards, everyone would be at risk anytime they took any medicine for any condition…because all we would have is someone’s belief that the drugs is either safe OR effective.
            In short, we would not have in place the system that has allowed life expectancies to grow ever longer, and for people to be on average far healthier than even in the time of our parents’ generation.

      • She seems to have a good reputation among patients, but relative to her bizarre beliefs that seem to be related to her religious bias, why would that discredit her as a physician? We have many health professionals who think that de-funding the police is a good idea, that systemic, hate based racism against any identity group other than white male Presidents exists, that open borders are a good idea, that CO2 is destroying the planet, and so on and so forth, all justified by their political bias alone. Why is this any better?

        • Yes, she is also an evangelical preacher, and that makes her an easy target for cancellation, though not as easy as if the spokesman were a white male like Harvey Risch. Her speech is an emotional rant, with almost Greta-like intensity, but based on clinical caregiving. Here is a post with a transcript of the main points, along with reports of HCQ saving lives elsewhere in Africa.

        • Not as bizarre as promoting Recovery, the UK trial as an example of good science and something UK should be proud of, when it’s a conspiracy to k*ll paid for by Bill and Melinda Gates’s GAVI (the crazy vaccines promoters).

          The whole world is bizarre.

          • Golly, son…it must suck to be you.
            No such thing as doctors helping people…it is all conspiracies to kill people?

      • Gee, Dr. Fauci’s been wrong on major issues – the ‘experts’ seem to have done everything they can to worsen and prolong the effects of Covid – the least effective and most economically damaging policies possible.

        But of course, HE’S not a nut.

        Aristotle was big into Revelations, Einstein believed in God – I’m sure most modern progressives would reject them out of hand.

      • There seems to be a huge effort to destroy her, and that makes me suspicious. What’s embarrassing is accepting this massive reputation-destruction effort at face value. On a side note, I’m going to start referring to Facebook as “Fakebook”, and Twitter as simply “Twit”.

          • Ron Clutz- How about combining Facebook and Twitter with Youtube.

        • Probably doing her a favor.
          Medical malpractice lawsuit get expensive.
          At This point she is ignoring best practice and established standard of care treatement.
          That is malpractice in the world of medicine.
          Making false claims about cures is illegal for several reasons and many statutes support preventing people from saying anything they want about medical efficacy.

          • It appears that many have never watched the entire presentation as I have including the second indoor session where many other Drs and scientists gave other presentations including one complicated scientific describing how the combination works, you need all three.
            You need to spend 3 or more hours otherwise you are ignorant and uninformed as demonstrated by only making comments on one Doctor. Did you listen to all the presentations?

            Another point, they only claim good results when administered early not when patients are in advanced stages like the VA and CDC feeble attempts. Numerous other doctors have reported good results with early treatment
            The Drs involved are all front line treating patients day in and day out that are upset that bureaucrats are preventing them from using what they have found to work only if used early because they are saving lives
            Part of the concern is the lies and distortions claiming side reactions that are totally false for a medication widely used for over 65 years without problems.
            They fail to mention that this was widely given to our troops in Vietnam to avoid Malaria.
            Why would they lie about side effects?

          • @ Nicolas. Lots of opinion here and an attempt to shoot the messenger. One more fact is that of over 60,000 Italian folks with RA that that regularly take HCQ for that condition, none of them died from Wuhan during the pandemic and only 20 of them were positive to Wuhan. Don’t believe any of the studies and don’t even believe this “anecdotal” evidence but all others but “Nicolas” should once they acquire this virus check with your doctor on any viable treatments. Ignoring an early treatment for some especially older folks is a death sentence. Once a cytokine storm occurs things really get difficult. And the likelihood of side effects other than diarrhea and upset stomach from the French protocol are small. Chloroquine has been around for decades and Hydroxychloroquine is the preferred drug for this and has also been used by large numbers of people for a long time. My doctor knows my medical history and is quite willing to prescribe this protocol. He treats his RA patients with this drug and knows quite well what the effects might be.

          • “One more fact is that of over 60,000 Italian folks with RA that that regularly take HCQ for that condition, none of them died from Wuhan during the pandemic and only 20 of them were positive to Wuhan.”

            This is false.
            Assertions are not evidence, and this assertion, moreover, has been shown to be a complete fabrication.
            There is a registry of people with rheumatoid diseases, and includes a large number of patients, some of whom were and some of whom were not taking HCQ prior to the outbreak.
            A careful study has documented the disease progression in these patients, and found no benefit to having taken the malaria drug.

            Here is the link to a registry of 600 patients with rheumatic disease who are infected.
            45% wound up hospitalized, so far, and 9% are dead…so far.
            There was no protective effect from being on HCQ when they got sick.
            There were two groups that had a protective effect…those taking biologics, as they are called.

            Anti-TNF drugs worked the best, they were protected, but only partially.
            People taking anti-IL-6 drugs were also protected, but not as much.

      • Well of course it matters if she is right !! Don’t attack her personality. If she is correct, this is a life saving game changer. We need the patients she has cured, to speak up.

        • This is no secret, many doctors around the world are using this treatment. It’s western governments that are propagandizing a drug safely used for 50 years and rushing out now retracted studies about how it’s dangerous. One doctor in the UK even confused it with another drug and poisoned people with a misdose and then proceeded to get THAT paper published about how it was dangerous.

          But in the post truth world there are no repercussions for being on the side of the truth over fact gang.

      • Actually it matters a LOT whether she’s right.

        Beliefs on other subjects make no difference.

      • ‘Paul’,
        Are you calling this doctor a Liar? This is not a joke.

        This Doctor is stood on the Congressional steps and stated that it is afact that people are dying in the US ….

        Because the HCQ cocktail works and people are scared to use it or doctors cannot even use it because it is not available in their state or country because of Left Wing Lie or the Democratic Governor in their has told the doctors ….

        Any doctor who uses the HCQ cocktail risks losing their license to practice medicine.

        The lady Doctor who is standing on the Congressional steps, and has stated it is a clinical medical fact that the HCQ cocktail is both effective as a prophylactic and is effective to treat high risk covid patients.

        She and her staff treated 350 high risk covid patients who were diabetic, obese, ashamatic, and so on and used the HCQ as a prophylactic to protect her staff.

        Do you have a single fact, evidence, that supports you accusation? Do you?

        If you do not then you are a liar. There can only be one liar.

        Please immediately provide proof for you accusation.

        It is a fact that are there Peer reviewed results, of a US test of the HCQ cocktail, with 2541 patients, in six Michigan hospitals..

        The Michigan peer reviewed study supports what must logically be true. Medical science is logical and repeatable. The HCQ cocktail worked.

        HCQ with azithromycin reduced deaths by 71% compared to no treatment.

        The Michigan results could have been much better, as they waited no less than 48 hours before starting the HCQ cocktail treatment.

        2500 patients treated with the HCQ cocktail no heart attacks. 6 Michigan hospitals.


        Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

        Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American, with median time to follow-up of 28.5 days (IQR:3-53).

        Lancet study which alleged HCQ is not effective against covid and kills people which CNN quoted on and on and on, was been removed.

        The data base the Lancet ‘study’ was ‘based’ on is not accessible. Fake data is worse than a ‘mistake’ analyzing real data.

        There should be a criminal investigation of both Lancet and the issues of the ‘Fake’ HCQ paper.

        • Look up Dr. Didier Raoult who also did an careful patient study using HCQ with very good results. Unless Youtube has removed his interview as well. Numerous US Doctors have used this treatment. It is a safe proven treatment for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus so it is not like it cannot be used very widely and safely. Talk to your doctor about it of course, but don’t let Dr. Fauci and the FDA stop an honest look at this “proven” (at least by a standard of success) drug.

        • Look up Dr. Didier Raoult who did a study with about 1500 patients with Wuhan. If he is still up on the web. Numerous US Dr.s have used the HCQ protocol successfully. Since HCQ is a well known and safely used drug for rheumatoid arthritis and lupus your Dr. can safely prescribe it for about anything. This lady Dr. successfully used it on 350 patients. In a crisis my only criteria is safety and success. This is it IMO.

        • Thank you.
          The Lancet and New England Journal rushed to publish that totally fake so-called study because it appeared to be a rebuke to Trump.The study was entirely bogus and fictional data presented by non-medical charlatans.
          That is bad enough but the fact that these 2 so-called prestigious journals published the paper is even more scandalous and severely dented the reputation of those journals.They abused the basic principles of medical science in an egregious way.
          There are ongoing studies into HCQ around the world.The jury is still out on its efficacy but it is a very safe drug compared to the vast numbers of other drugs in common use.

      • Her beliefs are cultural, there for you are attacking her culture for your own political purposes. Your attacks are racist and unacceptable, you can’t stand a women of color having a powerful message.

      • Totally agree! She is BATSHIT crazy! Here is some things she believes: “s
        She claims that certain medical issues like endometriosis, cysts, infertility and impotence are the result of sex with “spirit husbands” and “spirit wives,” which Immanuel described as having sex in dreams with witches and demons.

        “We call them all kinds of names —endometriosis, we call them molar pregnancies, we call them fibroids, we call them cysts, but most of them are evil deposits from the spirit husband,” she said.

        • Sorry this is junk comment. No link. Just make up hate.

          The HCQ cocktail works. See Michigan study. Please get back to us.

          HCQ with azithromycin reduced deaths by 71% compared to no treatment.

          The Michigan results could have been much better, as they waited no less than 48 hours before starting the HCQ cocktail treatment.

          2541 patients treated with the HCQ cocktail no heart attacks. 6 Michigan hospitals.


          Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

          • How is it hate to pass along quotes from her, and to call crazy what it is?
            You pass along plenty of your opinions while disparaging others who disagree.

            That crap that was quoted is crazy talk.

      • Paul – Provide evidence!! Anyone can just say “she’s a nut” and it can be any level of baloney they choose. Provide evidence!! Without it, your statement is just a vile ad hominem. Now I don’t know the lady, but her statement deserves legitimate discussion no matter what, and the simple fact is that what she says has already been supported from a number of other sources (eg. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1, https://docs.google.com/document/d/1SesxgaPnpT6OfCYuaFSwXzDK4cDKMbivoALprcVFj48/mobilebasic). So your evidence had better be good. And BTW, don’t bother telling me that these people are nuts too, just argue the case.

      • True, but if she says what people want to hear, that’s good enough…I did read some of her other medical opinions…how some “diseases” are causes by evil spirits…Part Physician, part faith healer and part witch doctor…

      • What a crappy attitude you have. Some one presents a solution and you want to bad mouth them. That’s typical democratic way of handling something they have no negative facts they attack the person. Call her names and attack her character but what she said was right on. 500 we’re saved in Albany Ga. more would have been saved if they had more HCQ. There were 2034 affected. If fraudci hadn’t caused the non-use with his lies.
        Dr. Rault of France saved 1061 before Europe shut it down.

    • In that video Dr. Stella Immanuel touts treating COVID with hydroxychloroquine. We should also know she claims that endometriosis, impotence, and infertility are the result of having sex with “spirit husbands” or “spirit wives.” We should be skeptical of any of her medical claims.

      • What about all the doctors standing in back of her who support her? Not one hit piece bothered to interview the many men and women doctors seen in the background. Bernie, Fauci, and Feely Joe have made some of the whackiest comments imaginable, but they are not roundly comdemned.

        • That’s because the condemners are the ones controlling the narrative, and THOSE nuts are the ones supporting it.

        • What about all the ‘scientists’ whi stand with Michael Mann and co? Does that make Mann anything but the craven piece of work/nutjob catasrophist that many think he is?

          A proposition using the uncertainty principle as a metaphor where instead of postion and truth being the uncertainty related parameters it is truth and broadcast quantity. i.e. if so called ‘social media’ can broadcast some Tweet, video or still picture to millions and millions, even billions, in minutes or hours then it is almost impossible for a community to form an accurate assessment of the truth or otherwise of the content. In reality such a mechanism is the perfect vector for ‘fake news’ whichever way it may be slanted. Do not kid yourself that fake news is a phenomenon confined to the left.

      • Yes, be skeptical. But also don’t fall for this modern day practice whereby if you find someone’s statement as disagreeable, then troll through their social media statements and find something else and use it out of context to attack the person and not the argument.
        1. She’s a licensed doctor so she’s not stupid.
        2. Hydroxychloroquine is $1.50/dose roughly and has side effects no worse than many OTC drugs.
        3. Hydroxychloroquine treatment has enough evidence to indicate that it’s beneficial especially in the early stages of CoVid-19 infection.
        4. Currently, even if an infected patient is treated with Hydroxychloroquine, they have to get the symptoms, get tested, get an appointment with a doctor and get a prescription. This takes days and can negate the effects of Hydroxychloroquine on the early stages of infection.
        5. If the drug was available OTC, it’s side effects are less severe than other OTC medications like Paracetamol and Aspirin, what harm is there if it doesn’t work as well as anticipated? A person is out of pocket $30. On the upside, early treatment saves lives.
        $2500/treatment with Remdesivir and the potential billions to be made from a possible vaccine buy a lot of influence, media persuasion and PR compared to an easily available drug costing $1.50 per dose.

  1. “Here is a version of the complete news conference still on YouTube as of this moment. I’ve cued it to Dr Immanuel’s speaking.”

    Well that didn’t last long, clicked on the play button 1 minute after the posting on WUWT and it was pulled already.

    • Youtube and Facebook must have people there who are primed to jump on anything concerning the Wuhan virus. An alarm must go off in their office at any mention of the Chinese viirus.

      In another office, sirens go off at the mention of Human-caused climate change.

      They don’t want to waste any time in their censorship.

      The arrogance of these people!

      • YouTube and Twitter tell us that “fake news” is real.
        But I can’t see it.
        (yuk, yuk)

        My observation fits perfectly with my contention that YT, Twitter etc are avid adherents to the principles of that ancient Chinese philosopher –

    • BertK,
      FYI, it’s 10:28 am, Pacific, in my location and I was just able to see the entire segment cued up for viewing. Hope you are able to link to it elsewhere; the good doctor’s passion also makes this worth viewing. I especially love her reference to ‘if this is the hill I die on, so be it’ (paraphrased from my less than perfect memory.)


  2. Pulled already.

    Never expected to live to see the day that the US was controlled by Thought Police.

    • Policing Thought is the main preoccupation of the Left. They have to police the thought, otherwise their political ideology could not survive the Light of Truth.

      The Left is just one Big Lie. To succeed, they have to fool people into believing in False Realities and the way to do that is to control Thought by attacking anyone who does not adhere to their radical ideology..

      • “Policing Thought is the main preoccupation of the Right. They have to police the thought, otherwise their political ideology could not survive the Light of Truth.

        The Right is just one Big Lie. To succeed, they have to fool people into believing in False Realities and the way to do that is to control Thought by attacking anyone who does not adhere to their radical ideology.”

        “The broad masses of population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.”
        “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they’ll believe.”
        “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.”

        • “Policing Thought is the main preoccupation of the Right. They have to police the thought, otherwise their political ideology could not survive the Light of Truth. –Adolph Hitler: Socialist

          “The broad masses of population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” –Adolph Hitler: Socialist

          “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they’ll believe.” –Joseph Goebbels: Socialist

          “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” –Adolph Hitler: Socialist

        • “The broad masses of population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force.” -Adolph Hitler, Socialist
          “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it and eventually they’ll believe.”-Adolph Hitler, Socialist
          “All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach.” -Joseph Goebbels, Socialist

  3. Transcript from rev.com

    Partial transcript from press conference – Dr. Stella –
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (05:27)
    Hello, I’m Dr. Stella Immanuel. I’m a primary care physician in Houston, Texas. I actually went to medical school in West Africa, Nigeria, where I took care of malaria patients, treated them with hydroxychloroquine and stuff like that. So I’m actually used to these medications. I’m here because I have personally treated over 350 patients with COVID. Patients that have diabetes, patients that have high blood pressure, patients that have asthma, old people … I think my oldest patient is 92 … 87 year olds. And the result has been the same. I put them on hydroxychloroquine, I put them on zinc, I put them on Zithromax, and they’re all well.
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (06:12)
    For the past few months, after taking care of over 350 patients, we’ve not lost one. Not a diabetic, not a somebody with high blood pressure, not somebody who asthma, not an old person. We’ve not lost one patient. And on top of that, I’ve put myself, my staff, and many doctors that I know on hydroxychloroquine for prevention, because by the very mechanism of action, it works early and as a prophylaxis. We see patients, 10 to 15 COVID patients, everyday. We give them breathing treatments. We only wear surgical mask. None of us has gotten sick. It works.
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (06:46)
    So right now, I came here to Washington DC to say, America, nobody needs to die. The study that made me start using hydroxychloroquine was a study that they did under the NIH in 2005 that say it works. Recently, I was doing some research about a patient that had hiccups and I found out that they even did a recent study in the NIH, which is our National Institute … that is the National … NIH, what? National Institute of Health. They actually had a study and go look it up. Type hiccups and COVID, you will see it. They treated a patient that had hiccups with hydroxychloroquine and it proved that hiccups is a symptom of COVID. So if the NIH knows that treating the patient would hydroxychloroquine proves that hiccup is a symptom of COVID, then they definitely know the hydroxychloroquine works.
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (07:42)
    I’m upset. Why I’m upset is that I see people that cannot breathe. I see parents walk in, I see diabetic sit in my office knowing that this is a death sentence and they can’t breathe. And I hug them and I tell them, “It’s going to be okay. You’re going to live.” And we treat them and they leave. None has died. So if some fake science, some person sponsored by all these fake pharma companies comes out say, “We’ve done studies and they found out that it doesn’t work.” I can tell you categorically it’s fixed science. I want to know who is sponsoring that study. I want to know who is behind it because there is no way I can treat 350 patients and counting and nobody is dead and they all did better.
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (08:21)
    I know you’re going to tell me that you treated 20 people, 40 people, and it didn’t work. I’m a true testimony. So I came here to Washington DC to tell America nobody needs to get sick. This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax. I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need mask. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (08:48)
    And let me tell you something, all you fake doctors out there that tell me, “Yeah. I want a double blinded study.” I just tell you, quit sounding like a computer, double blinded, double blinded. I don’t know whether your chips are malfunctioning, but I’m a real doctor. I have radiologists, we have plastic surgeons, we have neurosurgeons, like Sanjay Gupta saying, “Yeah, it doesn’t work and it causes heart disease.” Let me ask you Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Hear me. Have you ever seen a COVID patient? Have you ever treated anybody with hydroxychloroquine and they died from heart disease? When you do, come and talk to me because I sit down in my clinic every day and I see these patients walk in everyday scared to death. I see people driving two, three hours to my clinic because some ER doctor is scared of the Texas board or they’re scared of something, and they will not prescribe medication to these people.
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (09:35)
    I tell all of you doctors that are sitting down and watching Americans die. You’re like the good Nazi … the good one, the good Germans that watched Jews get killed and you did not speak up. If they come after me, they threaten me. They’ve threatened to … I mean, I’ve gotten all kinds of threats. Or they’re going to report me to the bots. I say, you know what? I don’t care. I’m not going to let Americans die. And if this is the hill where I get nailed on, I will get nailed on it. I don’t care. You can report me to the bots, you can kill me, you can do whatever, but I’m not going to let Americans die.
    Dr. Stella Immanuel: (10:09)
    And today I’m here to say it, that America, there is a cure for COVID. All this foolishness does not need to happen. There is a cure for COVID. There is a cure for COVID is called hydroxychloroquine. It’s called zinc. It’s called Zithromax. And it is time for the grassroots to wake up and say, “No, we’re not going to take this any longer. We’re not going to die.” Because let me tell you something, when somebody is dead, they are dead. They’re not coming back tomorrow to have an argument. They are not come back tomorrow to discuss the double blinded study and the data. All of you doctors that are waiting for data, if six months down the line you actually found out that this data shows that this medication works, how about your patients that have died? You want a double blinded study where people are dying? It’s unethical. So guys, we don’t need to die. There is a cure for COVID.
    Simone Gold: (11:02)
    My gosh. Dr. Immanuelle also known as warrior. Before I introduce the next guest, I just want to say that I wish all doctors that are listening to this bring that kind of passion to their patients. And the study that Dr. Immanuel was referring to is in Virology, which talks about a SARS viral epidemic that affects the lungs that came from China. And they didn’t know what would work. The study showed that chloroquine would work. It sounds exactly like it could have been written three months ago, but in fact, that’s study in Virology, which was published by the NIH, the National Institute of Health when Dr. Anthony Fauci was the director. Again, the official publication of the NIH, Virology, 15 years ago showed that chloroquine … we use hydroxychloroquine, it’s the same … little safer … works. They proved this 15 years ago when we got this novel coronavirus, which is not that novel, it’s 78% similar to the prior-
    Simone Gold: (12:03)
    … coronavirus, which is not that novel. It’s 78% similar to the prior version. The COV-1, not surprisingly. It works. I’m now going to introduce our next speaker. Sorry. I forgot to say your name. Sorry.
    Dr. Dan Erickson: (12:12)
    That’s all right. Dr. Dan Erickson, Dr. Gold asked me to talk about the lockdown, how effective they were and do that cause anything nonfinancial? They always talk about the financial, but you have to realize that lockdown, we haven’t taken a $21 trillion economy and locked it down. So when you lock it down, it causes public health issues. Our suicide hotlines are up 600%, our spousal abuse. Different areas of alcoholism are all on the rise. These are public health problems from a financial lockdown. So we have to be clear on that fact that there is, it’s not like you just lock it down and have consequences to people’s jobs. They also have consequences, health consequences at home. So we’re talking about having a little more of a measured approach, a consistent approach. If we have another spike coming in cold and flu season, let’s do something that’s sustainable.

    • I’m upset. Why I’m upset is that I see people that cannot breathe. I see parents walk in, I see diabetic sit in my office knowing that this is a death sentence and they can’t breathe. And I hug them and I tell them, “It’s going to be okay. You’re going to live.” And we treat them and they leave. None has died.”

      Thank you, Dr. Immanuel, for being there, and thinking clearly.. “It’s going to be okay” is just what one wants to hear in the doctor’s office.

      I wonder how many people have had HCQ deliberately withheld from them for one reason or another? It’s a crime what the Left and the Leftwing Media have done to demonize this drug.

      • If that truly turns out to be the case – more than a hundred thousand dead…

        I don’t think ‘upset’ is the word for it

    • God bless you Mary. Now it’s on WUWT in writing and the social media censors can’t take it down.

      Dr. Stella Immanuel has made claims about what happened in her practice. She has records and they can be checked. Until someone proves otherwise, we have to assume she’s telling the truth. If the authorities want to call her a quack and a liar, the onus is on them to subpoena her records and interview the patients. I’d bet next month’s coffee money that’s not going to happen. They’re even not going to try because they know she’s telling the truth.

      350 patients are hard to ignore, kinda like the bodies piled on the streets in Ecuador or the overwhelmed undertakers in Brazil. Some facts just shine through all the BS.

      • I saved the entire transcript from the 45 minute press conference, in case it is also censored from rev.com. Very informative to read what all the doctors had to say.
        We seek out second and even third opinions on diagnosis, prognosis and treatment from doctors, when faced with other life changing health issues. My question is why is Covid any different? Why are these professional ‘second opinions’ on treatment being censored? I digress…

        Per doctors, Only 200 mg twice a week for HCQ and daily zinc as prophylactic. This sounds like a game changer to me…. but FEAR IS POWER… just saying.


        Transcript portion Where Dr. Gold and another speak to dosage of HCQ for prophylaxis-

        Speaker 8: (27:27)
        And you guys also said that previous doctors have used it, but they’ve used it in the wrong dosage. So I keep hearing the drug, but then what is the right dosage. What is the right mixture?
        Dr. Stella Immanuel: (27:39)
        That you’re going to discuss with your doctor, but let [inaudible 00:03:43] take that.
        Speaker 9: (27:45)
        Yeah, that’s a great question. Because the whole political situation has driven the fear towards this drug. So let’s address that. This drug is super safe. It’s safer than aspirin, Motrin, Tylenol. It’s super safe. All right. So what the problem is in a lot of those studies, they did very, very high doses, massive doses all through the country. They did the remaps study, the solidarity trial. That was the world health organization trial, and also the recovery trial. They use 2,400 milligrams in the first day. ———-—All you need is 200 twice a week for prophylaxis. ———-They used massive toxic doses. And guess what they found out? When you use massive toxic doses, you get toxic results. The drug doesn’t work when you give toxic doses. It’s a very safe drug. It concentrates in the lungs, 200 to 700 times higher in the lungs.

        Simone Gold: (29:15)
        Yeah. I want to emphasize on something that Dr. [inaudible 00:29:20] just said, because I love the question. This is a treatment regimen that’s very simple, and it should be in the hands of the American people. The difficult aspect of this is that at the moment, because of politics, it’s being blocked from doctors prescribing it, and it’s being blocked from pharmacists releasing it. They’ve been empowered to overrule the doctor’s opinion. Why is this not over the counter? As you can get it in much of the world and almost all of Latin America, in Iran, in Indonesia, in Subsaharan Africa, you can just go and buy it yourself. ———-And the dose, my friends is 200 milligrams twice in a week and zinc daily. ———-That’s the dose. I’m in favor of it being over the counter. Give it to the people. Give it to the people.

        • You mean she (the so-called nut) wasn’t the only frontline doctor recommending HCQ? Why does the media want people to die?

        • I just saw an interview with Dr. Simone Gold and she is quite believable. She is also a Lawyer and she does talk about how Dr. Fauci has known about the use of this medication since 2005 with the treatment for Sars 2, which is Covid 19. I know if I start feeling any of these symptoms of Covid 19, I will be asking for this treatment! They don’t want this used because we will not be as sick or need a vaccine! It’s all about the money!

        • DMacKenzie: nice character assassination attempt. It would be far more refreshing if you refuted her evidence. But even then, notice that she wasn’t quoted in the posts above; these were other doctors addressing questions from journalists.

        • Dan
          Do you have a problem with powerful women of color? Why do you resort to attacking her cultural beliefs to try and discredit her?

          • Attacking the messenger when you can’t attack the message is a tactic that is as old as debate itself.

          • Bob,
            Are you a leftist proponent of intersectional theory, white fragility, and/or equity theory?
            Are you employed by the grievance industry?
            Are you an anti-racism lecturer hauling down the big bucks for telling white people that everything wrong with the world is, always has been, and always will be, the fault of whiteness?
            Or do you just admire their tactics and specific langauge and so adopt them when it suits you?

          • Or perhaps, Nicholas , he’s using their (your?) own tactics against them (you?) Hoist by their own petard.

    • “Dr. Stella Immanuel: (09:35)
      I tell all of you doctors that are sitting down and watching Americans die. You’re like the good Nazi … the good one, the good Germans that watched Jews get killed and you did not speak up. If they come after me, they threaten me. They’ve threatened to … I mean, I’ve gotten all kinds of threats. Or they’re going to report me to the bots. I say, you know what? I don’t care. I’m not going to let Americans die. And if this is the hill where I get nailed on, I will get nailed on it. I don’t care. You can report me to the bots, you can kill me, you can do whatever, but I’m not going to let Americans die.”

      What kind of person threatens a doctor who is successfully treating patients and saving their lives, just because they don’t want people to know that a particular drug regimen works?

      Why are the social media companies supporting these threats by acting in concert to remove from their internet services reports and evidence that a drug regimen works. Not only removing but removing with unusual alacrity. I will emphasize that ALL of the social media companies in concert removing the reports in minutes: On whose bidding is this action being taken?

      • Amen that. There is something EVIL going on. I took a few courses in psychology in college… one thing I never forgot was that “anger” is a strong motivating force. The MSM peddles in stoking hate and gaslighting. It’s a source of power for them. They and the Dem’s have mastered this power to sell out America for power. The Dem’s use the force of government to take from the coffers, promise it to good voters, by taking money from bad voters. The level of evil is at perhaps an all time high.

      • Not Luddites; they’re far worse than that. First, they are censoring information that opposes their own agenda. Second, the consequences are, literally, life and death.

  4. As of 8 am Central Time, the link to the 2 hr presentation works, but Youtube has pulled the headpost video.

    The couple of minutes I’ve watched so far at the link looks to be the lead-in to a factual presentation by working physicians about hydroxychloroquine, it’s efficacy, and its use.

    If such a video violates Youtube’s terms of service, then Youtube’s TOS are prejudicially biased. If the physicians’ presentations about HCQ efficacy are correct, then one may surmise that Youtube’s TOS will be in service to negligent homicide.

  5. Why leave it on FB or YT – is there no alternative space in the cloud where the piece can reside without fear of it being pulled down? We know what kind of actors FB and YT are so why do people continue to patronize them – ie. Daily Wire, PragerU, Breitbart, TheBlaze, Crowder, Project Veritas, WUWT – is there no Conservative billionaire with wedding tackle large enough to step up and create a platform?

    • Those videos are not of the conference. The conference was indoors and lasted about 3 hours.

  6. Well that was quick. They must have seek and destroy robots all primed to eliminate these ASAP. I found one and it quit midstream. Makes me double curious what’s so scary about these videos.

  7. Wow, censorship ROCKS!!!! Remove everything that disagrees with leftist dogma. Next she will be attacked by media and Democrat politicians. I wonder how fast she will be fired from her current job?

  8. Full 3 hour video still available from the Americas Frontline Doctors link. It is worth the watch from the beginning since, as mentioned above, it lays out their argument quite nicely.

  9. This video has been removed for violating YouTube’s Terms of Service.

    Speed of Service
    What an excellent example for Twitter, who couldn’t be bothered to take down Wiley’s racist tweets until pressured.

  10. The video has some debatable points (should schools reopen? Maybe. There is an argument worth having). But it deserves to be banned as the doctors advocating HCQ display a catastrophic misunderstanding of how scientific evidence needs to be gathered that puts them squarely alongside advocated for anti-vaccine views and homeopathy.

    The only way to know for sure whether HCQ is effective for covid is to conduct careful trials. “I gave it to hundreds of my patients and none of them died” is not a careful trial.

    There have been plenty of published trials of HCQ that are extraordinarily poor (on both sides of the argument). And the advocates for HCQ quote the ones with the results they like whether conducted well or not. The best trials currently say it doesn’t work. More, and better, trials are still being done. Anyone who claims to know it is effective is either ignoring the trials they don’t like or acting prematurely. Worse, their very actions in prescribing HCQ in an uncontrolled way make finding out whether it works much harder.

    Science is not about weight of opinion: it is about weight of evidence (as global warming critics often point out). Those contrarian pro-HCQ opinions are not worth anything in the debate about truth.

    Unfortunately, banning the video just reinforces the ridiculous conspiracy that the truth is being suppressed.

    • This drug has been widely used for decades, and is formally assessed as being safer than aspirin. Both the science behind it’s effectiveness and practical clinical tests and experience have shown that it should not be prescribed as a cure in the late stage of the disease when the body’s immune response is creating havoc. It should be used prophylactically and as an early stage treatment.

      You could buy it over the counter before the pandemic!

      I would support your comments if we were dealing with an unknown drug, but we are not.

      • point by point….
        So would you treat CoVid with Aspirin ? You could have all your neighbours take aspirin and they likely will all recover from CoVid…..
        So you think HCQ is a prophylactic when different studies show it is/isn’t ?
        It’s now not-over-the-counter to thwart a black market in counterfeit drugs, with the result that you can get it by prescription instead of only on the dark web.
        I support your right to buy it if you want it, but not your belief that it is a magic bullet. You can believe Vitamin C is a prophylactic for the common cold too, but it isn’t…..and people still believe after dozens of studies….

        • Yours is an incoherent reply, DMacK.

          The video presents the considered views of front-line professional physicians with real-life experience using HCQ to treat covid. They uniformly report success.

          You are in no position to dispute or discount their credible reports.

          • “credible” Really?

            “In general, America’s Frontline Doctors lack credibility as none of the Doctors are specialized in the field of infectious diseases. Further, much of the information they present is not supported by the scientific consensus regarding Covid-19. Lastly, the group appears to be connected to the Tea Party Patriots, which is owned by the Tea Party Patriots Fund that lobbies for small government and conservative causes.

            Overall, we rate America’s Frontline Doctors a quackery level pseudoscience website based on the promotion of false or misleading information regarding Coronavirus that does not align with the consensus of science. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency as well as using known pseudoscience sources to draw their conclusions. ”


            The first A is the CRAAP Test

            Authority Authority lets us know that someone with expertise or experience in the topic is sharing their knowledge. Remember, though, that authority is contextual. Having a Ph.D. in Astronomy would not give someone authority to write about the impact of music therapy on children who have autism. The expertise or experience needs to be relevant to the topic.
            What credentials related to the topic at hand does the author have?

            Does the author have any relevant affiliations with a respected university or organization?

            What can you find about the author online?

            Has the author published on this subject before?

            Is the publication reputable?

          • Lastly, the group appears to be connected to the Tea Party Patriots, which is owned by the Tea Party Patriots Fund that lobbies for small government and conservative causes.

            Oops, Jack, your sloppy thinking is showing again.

            Your logical fallacy is?


          • Sorry I forgot that that logical fallacy is the domain of the regulars on WUWT. It will not happen again.

          • Sorry I forgot that that logical fallacy is the domain of the regulars on WUWT. It will not happen again.

            Oops, Jack, you’ve already broken your pledge, and this at the EXACT MOMENT you made it! Now THAT’S progressivism in a nutshell!

            Your logical fallacy is?


            Wanna go for a hat trick?

          • What makes you think mediabiasfactcheck.com is a reliable checker of fact, Jack?

            I found both Statista and Factcheck.org to be lying by omission when I checked their claims against the FBI uniform crime report.

          • I also check other sources.

            None of those associated with America’s Frontline Doctors have any expertise in epidemiology or infectious diseases.


            Here is another factchecker’s take:


            Then there is peer-reviewed science.


            Frontline also fails the CRAAP Test.


            And I have a very sensitive crap detector.

          • And I have a very sensitive crap detector.

            That’s to be expected, when a great deal of what you’re detecting is yourself.

            See the (un)redolent thinking examples above.


          • You have a sensitive crap detector???

            So you sense crap, then put in a lot of effort to find crap so as to verify your initial crap sense???

            Do yourself a favor. Go stand in front of the mirror, make eye contact, say “I have a sensitive crap detector; I have a sensitive crap detector; I have a sensitive crap detector. I can sense crap; I know when I see it”

            (don’t lose eye contact, or you have to start over again … see you in a few days.)

          • Yes, you just posted crap. You seem to be like a dung beetle, who looks for crap, rolls it back home and posts it.

          • ‘YYou seem to be like a dung beetle, who looks for crap, rolls it back home and posts it’

            Wow – talk about lack of self awareness.

          • You seem to be like a dung beetle, who looks for crap, rolls it back home and posts it.

            Hmm, don’t you contradict yourself Jack?

            There’s the hat trick I knew was coming!

          • All of your comments meet this logical fallacy.

            Ad hominem, Jack? Are you sure?

            I mean, are you REALLY sure you have a clue?

            “Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument.”

            Oh come now Jack . . . you’re not REALLY going to make this argument are you? Can you cite for me ONE example where I “subtly cast doubt on” your “character or personal attributes”? Can you do that Jack?


            Because if you can’t, then not only are you a Trifecta of Sloppy Thinking, but you’ve now graduated to a Quadrophenia:

            Your logical fallacy is?


            Gratz buddy. I’m pretty sure you’re Quadrophenia is a first.

            I for one, am impressed!

          • Pat,
            it was a point by point coherent reply to RichardW, not you.
            Now on to your comment about “considered view of frontline…”..
            This is the view of some front line physicians, but a number of studies have found HCQ to be ineffective. So who to believe? Front line un-corroborated un-reviewed opinions or real studies done in real hospitals by equally competent doctors focused on the study effort.
            The studies DON’T uniformly report success as you say.
            For the record, HCQ is statistically a safe enough medication to consume. Take it if you want.

          • Pat,
            Here are the scientific findings of thousands of doctors in hundreds of hospital treating many thousands of patients in controlled settings, with randomization, double blinding, independent review board evaluating individual patient data, and clearly tabulated results published with concise and complete data.
            Not someone saying that they did something.
            There are engineers who claim that particle beams and nanothermite brought down the towers.
            Other engineers claim you can double gas mileage with a water fueled hydrogen generator powered by the alternator on your car.
            Raoult is discreditted and no longer stands behind his earlier claims.
            Zelenko has been shown to be a fraud and a liar and no longer will give info on his hundreds of so called patients, none of who he ever had any follow up with, to see if they even filled his telemedicine prescribed treatment prescriptions. He never saw anyone.
            He is under investigation by the FBI. His community told him to leave because he is a liar.
            It is now the case he reports results in line with SoC.

            Scientists cannot ignore information they find inconvenient and claim to be scientific.
            A scientist cannot choose to believe a spoken assertion with no evidence to back it up, while ignoring a mountain of carefully collected actual evidence from a large number of doctors not engaging in self promotion or inserting politics into the treatment of patients. Not while having a credible claim to being objective

            Here is a small fraction of the clinical trials showing lack of efficacy of HCQ alone or in combination with anything, including zinc, including z pak, including taken before symptoms even occur. I will post a longer list with many many more once I have the time to compose a comprehensive list and comment:

            The evidence from clinical trials is overwhelming.
            HCQ does not help at any stage of infection, or as a prophylactic drug.



            At this point there is a long and growing list of clinical trial data showing complete lack of efficacy.
            Many results show it is harmful.

            There are trials which used the z pak antibiotic and HCQ.


            No efficacy.
            There are ones using zinc and HCQ. Also vitamin C and HCQ…and zinc.
            In patients with mild disease, who were not in a hospital setting:


            No efficacy

            For post exposure prophylaxis:

            No efficacy.

            There are many many studies with results published now…more every day for the past few weeks

            If being hard headed would cure viral illnesses, we would have this one licked.

          • “Global HCQ studies. PrEP, PEP, and early treatment studies show high effectiveness, while late treatment shows mixed results.” <– from C19study.com has worldwide trials.
            It shows the negative and positive results; it does not confine itself to just positive nor negative.

          • Jack,

            Thanks for posting the NEJM study. It’s interesting, but consider that you should do the same thing there that you do here. Namely, read the comments. Additional information and counterpoints can be educational.

            I’ve taken the liberty of excerpting one such that offered a statistical check to the study. The comment’s authors noted:

            …Therefore, in accordance with the guidelines of the Journal and the American Statistical Association, it is critical to not view results in a dichotomized manner on the basis of P values, especially when the results are fragile, the trial is underpowered, and other statistical measures suggest a possible benefit with no signal for harm.3,4

            Muhammad-Shahzeb Khan, M.D.
            Cook County Hospital, Chicago, IL

            Javed Butler, M.D., M.P.H.
            University of Mississippi, Jackson, MS


          • Has anyone noticed what we are NOT talking about here on this thread?
            We are not talking about her evidence.
            Because she presents none.
            All she did was make assertions.
            And people here are calling those assertions facts.
            She does not say how long her follow up period is, or if she tested anyone, or if she had any way to know if her patients have COVID, or how she could known how 350 people she treated out of her strip mall clinic (possibly by telemedicine) are doing at every poiint in the future after she treated them.
            Primary care physicians are not in constant contact with patients.
            They do not call them all every day to see how they are doing.
            Few ever call anyone.
            Any no patient is obligated to call a clinic doctor if their condition worsens and they go to a hospital.
            We simply have no info on any of that.
            Because she gave none!
            Raoult claimed 100% success, but it was found out he got that result by eliminating the people who died or got worse, of which there were several.
            Zelenko claimed such success, but it was found out he lied, and had never followed up on anyone, and in any case he claimed to have cured people he never tested for the virus, and his announcement came 10 days after he treated his first patient.
            A meaninglessly short time for people who were only concerned enough to see a regular doctor via a telehealth appointment. At the time he made his report, it was not even possible to get his prescriptions filled in the state he was practicing in.

            All of these claims that so many people are rapidly certain of are based on nothing more than assertions, and as far as can be seen, they are made by people who are not credible and who site either no data or downright disingenuous lies.

        • So because you believe it doesn’t work I should not be allowed to take it? Even though it’s safe? And many doctors are saying it may work? And there is mechanism that describes how it may work? And there is lots of anecdotal evidence that it may work? And of course any that doesn’t agree with your view is nuts.
          Thought process of a group think fanatic, the sickness of today’s progress world.

        • 1. No I wouldn’t treat Covid with aspirin. What a daft statement.
          2. Many studies show it is effective in early stage treatment. The studies showing it didn’t work have been pulled; they looked at its effectiveness as a late stage treatment, which it is not.
          3. Withdrawing a drug from OTC availability is exactly what you do if you want to create a black market.
          4. It is not a magic bullet but is is better than anything that has so far been tried.

        • “None of those associated with America’s Frontline Doctors have any expertise in epidemiology or infectious diseases.”

          Why on Earth would any of America’s Frontline Doctors need “expertise in epidemiology”? They are physicians treating sick people, many, or even most of whom suffer from infectious diseases. The latter gives them first-hand expertise in infectious diseases. They have developed a course of treatment that works for a particular infectious disease. That is the way that medicine evolved since the beginning.

          The requirement of proving out effectiveness of a new treatment via double-blind study is, in my view, often inhuman. If something shows promise, even anecdotally, it should be given to someone likely to die of the disease for which it could provide a cure. Requiring vast studies to prove that it’s “safe and effective” before anyone can receive it sounds to me like something a sick, sadistic psychopath would do if he or she ever acquired the power to do it.

          A colleague and dear friend of mine was diagnosed with breast cancer on her 30th birthday. It was an aggressive type, but with chemotherapy and surgery, they thought they had gotten it. They were wrong. About four years later, they found that it had metastasized to her bone marrow.

          She was then put into a clinical trial of a drug that had shown great promise against this particular cancer. It was double-blind, but there were known side-effects every time it was used. After a few weeks, she and the clinicians in the study knew that she was in the placebo group.

          She died shortly before her 35th birthday.

          I will never forgive the sadists at the FDA for this. Never.

          • Again, see C19study.com. Really. There are 65 trials. Yes, late use is negative, early and prophylactic use is positive.
            In addition the below shows what stopping HCQ (after Lancet) and restarting HCQ did.

            P.S. It doesn’t matter who says it if it happens to be right. Trump (who doesn’t understand virology at all. Zilch, Nada.) or a random Nigerian doctor (who is mistaken about other things), or me (a computer modeling expert).

          • The C 19 “study” is no study, it is an opinion article.
            They list trials as having 100% positive results by looking at studies that showed no clinical efficacy and even ones that showed less chance of a favorable outcome, then claimed to have found some positive way to interpret the fact that there was no benefit from taking the drugs.

            IOW, whoever wrote it is just making stuff up.

            Lets look at the Boulware et al study as an example:
            The difference in people taking HCQ and those not taking HCQ was not statistically significant, but the HCQ group were almost three times more likely to have side effects from the treatment.
            It is factually incorrect to call a result with no statistically significance a positive finding.
            Claiming otherwise is simply unscientific.
            Not to mention, all of the results from other sources of information showed some people in even small cohorts of patients at any stage of infection had some fatalism, and most of the studies ended with some patients still having unresolved status. IOW…some people still in the hospital.
            There was one guy that got sick on the Japan cruise ship that just got out of the hospital a few weeks ago.
            There was a guy stuck in an airport for three months because no country would let him enter until he had two negative tests in a row, and it took three months for that to happen in his case!

            To summerize, this C-19 site takes studies in which sometimes as many as thousands of patients take part, and there is no benefit, and finds some way to claim that really there was some benefit, then calls them collectively 100% positive studies. The reports that incredibly tendentious assertion as, “…treatment studies show high effectiveness…”

            He uses “studies” from countries such as Cuba and Morocco, and some others, which are preprints of almost laughable quality or credibility, and lumps them in with peer reviewed studies from the US and EU.
            Example: The Khurana et al “study”.
            First off, lead author is an an assistant professor of orthopedics. Oh well, maybe that is no indication.

            They sent out questionnaires to health care workers, and of the ones they came back, they separated out ones that self reported as positive and ones that self reported as negative. Then after whatever they did, they had the gall to call this a clinical trial of pre exposure prophylaxis!
            A questionnaire is no study, and it sure aint a clinical trial. And looking retroactively at some people who were positive and some who were negative, less than 100 of each, and calling this pre exposure prophylaxis testing?

          • Just to restate simply.
            Some of these “trials” were nothing like a actual clinical trial.
            Some were, for example, such things as questionnaires sent out to people and then examined for statistical significance of self reported answers to some questions, then called a clinical trial or pre exposure prophylaxis.

            Other results C19 calls a positive results were studies that found no efficacy, but which C19 decided did have some detail that could be interpreted as positive, then called all those imagined positive results to be studies that show “high effectiveness”.

            It could not be more full of crap if that was their goal.

          • I think you’re right on Michael Kelly.
            Double blind placebo controlled tests the FDA and HHS require are unethical. It is particularly evil for diseases with a high death rate or other severe consequences.
            Your friend’s case is a highlight example. If either the drug under test or the placebo have any obvious effects there simply can’t be a valid double blind test. This was particularly egregious in your friend’s case. You have my sympathy.

            Even with open control tests there are many problems. I take a number of drugs for multiple problems. I’ve found that most come with a clinical sheet in addition to directions for the patient. It is very useful for evaluating the drugs. In a typical example the sheet shows a trial with a placebo, a control drug, and a couple treatment levels for the trial drug.

            In most cases the placebo is 30-50% effective. The control may or may not be better than the placebo. The trial drug may be better anywhere from 40 to 60% effective. Depending on the trial results the drug has been approved but obviously that doesn’t guarantee a cure in any specific case.

            I had a practical experience with one newer drug. The doctor wanted me to try a $6000/dose drug which needed a hospital visit for intravenous administration. I looked at the clinical trials. The placebo was 30-35% effective. My current treatment was 40-50% effective. The new drug was 50-60% effective.
            Since the current treatment is reasonably effective and relatively cheap spending some $25,000 to find out for the pharma company that for at least one patient their drug was ineffective or no better than the current treatment did not seem attractive!

            For Covid the hydroxychloroquine/zinc/+ treatment has a non-zero effect in trials and is very cheap as drugs go. It ought to be the first treatment tried on any new patient as early as possible. It’s clearly up to the clinical judgement of the treating doctors how to handle individual cases. There is lots of evidence the Covid virus does not behave in a reliable manner. The counter example is measles- very infectious, very uniform symptoms in children, and variable but dangerous for adults. Fortunately the best treatment for measles is a quite effective vaccine so most people don’t have to worry about it.

        • @DMacKenzie

          Sorry, but you don’t know what your are talking about. At least 5 studies have shown HCQ to have a prophylactic effect against COVID-19. Only two small studies (Macias et al and Gendelman et al) did not show a protective effect.

          Chatterjee et al showed a significant dose-related prophylactic effect.

          Khurana et al., medRxiv, doi:10.1101/2020.07.21.20159301 (Preprint)
          Prevalence and clinical correlates of COVID-19 outbreak among healthcare workers in a tertiary level hospital

          Zhong et al., Lancent Rheumatology, 10.1016/S2665-9913(20)30227-7 (Peer Reviewed)
          COVID-19 in patients with rheumatic disease in Hubei province, China: a multicentre retrospective observational study

          Ferreira et al., J. Medical Virology, July 9, 2020, doi:10.1002/jmv.26286 (preprint 6/29) (Peer Reviewed)
          Chronic treatment with hydroxych loroquine and SARS-CoV-2 infection

          Bhattacharya et al., medRxix, doi:10.1101/2020.06.09.20116806 (Preprint)
          Pre exposure Hydroxych loroquine use is associated with reduced COVID19 risk in healthcare workers

          Chatterjee et al., Indian J. Med. Res., June 20, 2020, doi:10.4103/ijmr.IJMR_2234_20 (Peer Reviewed)
          Healthcare workers & SARS-CoV-2 infection in India: A case-control investigation in the time of COVID-19

          Macias et al., medRxiv, 10.1101/2020.05.16.20104141 (Preprint)
          Similar incidence of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) in patients with rheumatic diseases with and without hydroxychloroquine therapy

          Gendelman et al., Autoimmunity Reviews, 19:7, July 2020, doi:10.1016/j.autrev.2020.102566 (Peer Reviewed)
          Continuous Hydroxychloroquine or Colchicine Therapy Does Not Prevent Infection With SARS-CoV-2: Insights From a Large Healthcare Database Analysis

    • So you would rather see thousands die, and many more suffer needlessly based on the idiotic notion that maybe it doesn’t work, or maybe not in all cases and circumstances.
      That’s an asinine, and frankly morally-depraved position.

    • I agree, but in the current atmosphere can you imagine any IRB giving the green light to a clinical trial of any design? Politics destroys whatever it touches.

    • ”The best trials currently say it doesn’t work.”
      Who is defining ‘best’? The only published trials I have seen do not use zinc, do not use the HCQ/zinc combo at an early stage, do not use HCQ in the correct safe quantities.
      However there a literally thousands of doctors around the world using HCQ/zinc combo and are ( anecdotaly) reporting success.
      Given at an early stage with zinc in the correct quantities is not dangerous. If it doesn’t work then given the lack of alternatives it does no harm.
      The excessive negative pressure on doctors not to use it in this manner is of itself of great concern. People are right to ask, why?

      • And Jack has ZERO reply to your correct assertion…
        “The only published trials I have seen do not use zinc, and or do not use the HCQ/zinc combo at an early stage, and it do not use HCQ in the correct safe quantities.”


        • She claims her patients have advanced to a stage of not being able to breathe. That does not sound like she is only treating people early.
          She runs a clinic.
          She sees people who walk in her door of her strip mall office.
          Really sick people who cannot breathe go to hospitals, not a strip mall to grab a prescription.
          What has happened is, anyone who just automatically believes what she says has suspended disbelief.
          Except when it comes to published results from doctors who systematically treat and keep track of their patients in an organized way.
          For all of those doctors, the standard seems to be that they do not exist…or something.

    • It’s quite a well established and safe drug which has been in use for quite some time for treating Malaria. The Doctor in question has considerable expertise in admininstering it to patients for Malaria. if it helps by (I assume) reducing the severity of the symptoms in the early stages , so the immune system can fight the virus, then good.
      seems to me like you are trying to shoot the messenger

      • HCQ works as an Ionophore to shuttle zinc across the cell membranes into the cells. Zinc interferes with RNA virus hijacking of the RNA transcription process so that the virus cannot replicate. HCQ also has the effect of reducing inflammation. The antibiotic prevents opportunist bacterial infections.

        It is not as if the NIH doesn’t know all this. I got the information from NIH papers some as is said in the video, written in 2005 about the SARS epidemic.

        • The molecular biologist who spoke early in the three hour presentation explained the five different ways the drug interferes with or stops the replication process within the cell. Only one of those mechanisms involves the Zinc, for which the drug acts as an ionophore.


        • There is no evidence HCQ is a zinc ionophore.
          Chloroquine has been claimed to be and that claim is backed up by a ref research studies from years back.
          Everyone who asserts HCQ is one is just assuming it is one.
          And they are assuming that this is an actual mechanism that occurs inside the body of a person who has a virus.
          There is zero evidence that this is the case.

    • yeah science…
      so why did the trials usehuge dangerous dosesof HQ? leave out the zinc? not use azithromycin or again big doses?
      like all other meds that might be cheap and not manage huge fundingas theyre off patent
      FDA wont get its multimil payola pay to play?
      how many mil handed to modena already andmore th other day…hmm?

      theres a few thousand patients now who are alive and used HQ
      far exceeding the vaccine start trials
      sfe old drugs not fiddled mRna never used at all..
      yes we’d like to see some

    • Why we make truth or facts so complicated is mind boggling. Agreed her treatment regimen was not approved by CDC/WHO or big pharmaceutical companies, she believes over 350 was treated successfully of covid-19 — this can be verified by WHO/CDC.
      I believe in science and data, but a 100% success rate of treating any disease shouldn’t be wished away. Yes, her English or articulation may be poor, but those 350 plus lives saved is more crucial. The truth is, the dead have no say, and living who are in perpetual fear and hopelessness, are increasing in number. This is not okay.

      • And importantly she is not the only doctor successfully treating COVID-19 patients. There are many many more. But perhaps the USA will listen to a doctor from Nigeria looking in and saying what are you panicking about there is a cure!

        There is a huge gulf in attitude between the doctors (front line) that are hands on treating real patients and trying to save their lives; and the medical bureaucrats and researchers in the FDA/NIH etc who are more concerned with funding streams and the next orbit of the revolving door into big pharma.

        There’s nothing to gain in funding from a 50 year old generic drug with zinc and a generic antibiotic indeed it is the enemy of the huge riches from a worldwide vaccination program which will only happen IF politicians can be convinced that the only way out of lock-down is a vaccine.

        It seems that the front line doctors are the only ones concerned about saving patient’s lives.

    • “The only way to know for sure whether HCQ is effective for covid is to conduct careful trials. ‘I gave it to hundreds of my patients and none of them died’ is not a careful trial.”

      Mr. black, you’re not familiar with current leftist thought, it seems. What we used to call “anecdotal evidence” is now “lived experience,” and “your truth.” Lived experience trumps white inventions like statistics.

    • Mr. Black: “But it deserves to be banned….” When “science” trumps free speech, then fascists march with banners that say “science”. Better than banning, let’s let you see it and you can tell us what’s wrong with it. Oh, wait, we just did that! Talk of “banning” is a slippery slope, Mr. black.

    • You can dismiss Dr Stella Immanuel’s evidence as anecdotal but that’s 350 anecdotes.

      Double blind testing is the gold standard but it produces false results most of the time because of small sample sizes and small <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effect_size"effect sizes.

      When you have data that exhibits a huge effect size, it is disingenuous to carp that no double blind testing was involved.

      • There will come a day when we will look back on the standard of refusing to accept anecdotal evidence as a time when soulless people were in command.

        • Good anecdotal evidence beats the hell out of junk science from what I;ve seen so far

    • The accumulation of personal experience *is* a weight of direct evidence. It can’t be waved away as merely anecdotal. 350 samples is not insubstantial. You are implying that statistical evidence is the only acceptable type of evidence. That just isn’t true. For literally centuries acupuncture has been classed as voodoo by the medical establishment. Yet over the past 50 years acupuncture has gained significantly in acceptance by Western medicine based on vast personal experience and an accumulation of direct evidence.

      Do you believe in acupuncture as an acceptable treatment for pain even though it has no double-blind statistical study proving anything?

    • **The best trials currently say it doesn’t work.**
      What best trials?
      Some of those trials are designed to failure.
      The successful ones are the ones that give the combination of the drugs EARLY.
      Some of the failures used only HCQ.
      Fauci & co do not want to see it wok if it makes Trump look good.
      Remdesivir has been shown to affect the liver, it is much more expensive and some of the top drug people have invested in it.

      • You are a loser. Another attacker of character who is excessively ignorant. Be very careful of your accusations, they may happen to you.

      • There was no investment in Rendesivir. It was an orphan drug. Gilda’s got it for nothing.

        • It has been publicly announced to be $3000 or more per dose, and a treatment sched lists 30 or more doses. Yea, no one gonna make money off that failed Ebola treatment.

    • steve black, how can you expect to be taken seriously when you post a statement like “The only way to know for sure whether HCQ is effective for covid is to conduct careful trials.”?

      Do you really discount the PRACTICAL EXPERIENCE of working physicians that HCQ (in combination with zinc and azithromycin) is effective, just because “careful trails” (conveniently left undefined by you) have not been conducted? Seriously???

      • Since many physicians also report the drug doesn’t work, which group is right? “Practical experience” is clearly not the same for all and the point of proper trials is to produce trustworthy evidence that does tell us which group is right.

        If you can’t show why the practical experience of these particular doctors is better than the doctors who disagree with them, then you have no argument at all.

        • There has been no active physician reporting that HCQ w/AZ and zinc didn’t work. Those reporting failures were the scientific pawns following orders of fraudci and company. When people die from improper medication, what’s it called?

    • How dum are you exactly?
      So you mean fake corrupted science weigh more then a doctor’s results of treating 350 people?

    • I love (i.e., really hate) how people are demanding double blind controlled studies and sky high statistical certainty in randomized controlled trials to get near absolute perfect evidence to justify HCQ, yet these same people maniacally and slavishly accept mass lockdowns and mass masking using simple cloth as gospel, when that very level of evidence is MISSING there. F&@&ing, sub-human, anti-human hypocrits!

    • In reply to ‘steve black’ lots of talk. No links to fake studies? The HCQ cocktail worked in a random test.

      So 71% of those in the ‘test’ of the HCQ cocktail randomized study….

      … either died or suffered serious organ damage because they did not get the HCQ cocktail treatment.

      Is that immoral?

      Here is the link to the Michigan study 2541 patients, all covid positive, all at risk patients …

      Older than 60 or those with diabetes or those who were obese and so on.

      The Michigan results could have been much better, as they waited no less than 48 hours before starting the HCQ cocktail treatment.

      2541 patients treated with the HCQ cocktail no heart attacks. 6 Michigan hospitals.

      Results: A 71% reduction in deaths and serious covid organ damage for those treated with HCQ cocktail, as compared to no treatment.


      Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

      • That trial wasn’t neither random nor prospective. And it didn’t lead to a 71% reduction in deaths. And 71% of those not treated didn’t die. And it couldn’t account for many confounders that would skew the sample.

        This is why we need to not just quote the results we like but look at the other studies that report different results. And check the methods used so they get high quality, reliable results.

        One of the largest and best conducted studies so far tested several drugs including HCQ. They found that dexamethasone worked but HCQ didn’t. See this reference for why small, poorly conducted studies are useless in comparison and what the Recovery trial demonstrated: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/07/one-uk-trial-transforming-covid-19-treatment-why-haven-t-others-delivered-more-results

        If you do a badly controlled study on a small scale, random chance alone will frequently give you the result you want. Which is why Dr Emmanuels’s experience is irrelevant to reliable knowledge (in addition to the fact that her data and protocols haven’t been published).

  11. You can see entire video with Dr Stella Emmanuel Physician and the other doctors on http://WWW.BITCHUTE.COM
    This is very important as these Doctors are curing their patients and declaring the HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE DRUG a cure and a PREVENTITIVE.against COVID-19. please check it out. President Trump needs to welcome her and these other good doctors who are saving lives to his media press conference urgently.

    • ” President Trump needs to welcome her and these other good doctors who are saving lives to his media press conference urgently.”

      I didn’t hear it personally, but a reporter just said that Trump was talking about HCQ today.

      Trump’s son, Donald Jr. tweeted out the video that is the subject of this article and his Twitter account was promptly frozen, so that might have been why Trump used the forbidden word, or maybe Trump was impressed with the what the doctors said in the video.

      I agree, Trump should collect testimonials from all the doctors who have had success treating the Wuhan virus with the HCQ treatment, since he can’t accomodate all of them at the White House, and then choose a representative group of the doctors to hold the public conference, with the comments of the doctors not at the news conference to be made available online.

      Hundreds of doctor testimonials to the effectiveness of HCQ. That’s the ticket!

      Dr. Seigel, Fox News Medical consultant, claims HCQ saved his 95-year-old father’s life when he got the Wuhan virus, and the HCQ was given to him when he was far along with the disease, not at the start of his infection. It was a last resort. It looks like HCQ can help even the very ill if administered properly. Of course, at some time there is a point of no return, but we don’t know for sure where that is when it comes to HCQ.

      I also recall that one of the studies that showed a 50 percent reduction in deaths used HCQ alone, without the antibiotic.

      • You last comment clearly much not be this study.

        “‘A total of 1542 patients were randomised to hydroxychloroquine and compared with 3132 patients randomised to usual care alone. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of 28-day mortality (25.7% hydroxychloroquine vs. 23.5% usual care; hazard ratio 1.11 [95% confidence interval 0.98-1.26]; p=0.10). There was also no evidence of beneficial effects on hospital stay duration or other outcomes. ”


        • The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.

          Co-Principal Investigators of the Recovery trial, Drs. Peter Horby and Martin Landray, said they followed the WHO dosing. This is what their trial document says as well, on page 23. Landray also claimed in an interview with Paris Soir that the maximum allowed HCQ dose was “6 or 10 times” the dose used in Recovery, and that he was using the hydroxychloroquine dose that is used for amebic dysentery. However, the accepted use for HCQ in amebiasis is only for a liver abscess and only then in pregnancy, when other drugs cannot be used. That dose is 600 mg per day for 2 days, then 300 mg per day, considerably less than half the Recovery dose. Co-Principal Investigator Peter Horby said that Paris Soir misinterpreted Landray’s comments, but Paris Soir said Landray had confirmed what he told them in an email prior to publication. Landray is a very busy man, too busy, apparently, to look up the proper dose of a drug he gave to over 1500 subjects, who were randomized to the treatment and had no say in the matter.

        • Or the data is a lie. Medical science is absolutely repeatable or there are criminal acts by some players.

          The HCQ cocktail works. It worked in Michigan. 71% reduction in deaths or serious organ damage as compared to untreated patients.

          Evidence based. What option is the best for Americans? Odd that Medical science appears to be not repeatable. This is criminal.

          he Michigan results could have been much better, as they waited no less than 48 hours before starting the HCQ cocktail treatment.

          2541 patients treated with the HCQ cocktail no heart attacks. 6 Michigan hospitals.


          Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19

          Of 2,541 patients, with a median total hospitalization time of 6 days (IQR: 4-10 days), median age was 64 years (IQR:53-76 years), 51% male, 56% African American, with median time to follow-up of 28.5 days (IQR:3-53).

          Lancet study which alleged HCQ is not effective against covid and kills people which CNN quoted on and on and on, was been removed.

      • Funny that you should mention Dr Siegel, who was on Tucker tonight saying that this bunch of White Coat doctors was “using last week’s science”, while “this week’s science” is showing that HCQ doesn’t work. Yet Dr. Siegel himself was using the FDA’s HCQ EUA paradigm, canceled by the FDA itself more than 5 weeks ago, which limited the medicine to hospitalized patients who weren’t in clinical studies. So Siegel ran with the status quo, HCQ for the hospitalized severely ill, ignoring that the drug works best when used early. Which has been known for ages by everyone. And Tucker didn’t say a thing, nor ask which study he was talking about, or ask about zinc, vitamin D, or dosing levels in these studies, when Tucker himself has gone off at length on those very topics. He let Dr Siegel impugn these White Coat doctors with misdirection. Boo hiss.

      • “collect testimonials from all the doctors” And patients. Should not be difficult to have them come forward, flood the zone with so many targets the leftists start attacking each other out of frustration.

    • Their standard is “anything that contradicts the word of WHO – i.e., the Chinese Communist Party.”

      I would dearly love to see them prosecuted as unregistered foreign agents. Complete with highly publicized dawn raids by SWAT teams in MRAPs, a la Roger Stone.

    • I searched, but could not find it.
      If I upload it to my Vimeo account, does it get closed then?

      P.S.: I have it on my hard disk.

  12. The last thing Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, MSM and any Liberal wants is to have a Black, conservative, legal immigrant, professional woman speak the truth about this safe drug that could save lives. They are taking these videos down everywhere.

  13. The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion
    ON 7/23/20 AT 7:00 AM EDT

    This is an article in Newsweek from a weighty source. It might help break down the stone wall against Trump-endorsed effective treatments.

    • I’d rather be treated by a whack-job who knows how to heal people than a “respectable” doctor who is unable to think outside of protocols.

        • It occurred to me the other day exactly what medical protocols are for. They are the “CYA” to keep doctors from being sued.

          “Dr. X your patient died.” “Yes, but I followed the protocol to the letter.”

    • So . . . because someone has other, fanciful beliefs, means, ipso facto, that a witnessed, true belief in scientific facts she demonstrates positively every day must be suspect?

      How about the fact that every patient of hers — and the rest of the doctors there to testify to this — demonstrating early symptoms of COVID-19 who was given HCQ and zinc did not die, did not even continue on ill? That’s quantifiable. Anyone bothering to look into those facts? There is testing for COVID-19 antibodies and at least temporary serum immunity, isn’t there?

      Because someone may believe in aliens delivering groceries to his/her local grocery store every night means her/his belief that he/she can go to that grocery store every day and buy whatever she/he wants, factually, demonstrably, every day, that the groceries she/he buys are really only his/her imagination, and that other people who also do that, and witness him/her do it, are not to be believed?

      Is everything unconventional everyone believes in one degree or another always wrong, false, and therefore should not be trusted? Doesn’t everyone hold some beliefs regarded by some others as factually incorrect, fanciful, even preposterous? Does that cancel out factual demonstrations and practices with quantifiable results?

      How did the practice of medicine and science ever get started in the first place, if unconventional beliefs should cancel out all other demonstrable, quantifiable facts?

      It’s neither here nor there what ELSE any of these doctors believe. What matters is the demonstrated facts of what they are saying and doing regarding COVID-19 and HCQ with zinc, and the living results of that.

      • “because someone has other, fanciful beliefs, means…”

        “How about the fact that every patient of hers — and the rest of the doctors there to testify to this — demonstrating early symptoms of COVID-19 who was given HCQ and zinc did not die, did not even continue on ill?”

        Your only knowledge of that “fact” comes from someone who has those “other fanciful beliefs”.

        Whatever happened to scepticism?

        • If you would please re-read what I wrote, you’d see I DO advocate looking at the records of those patients.

          And, the fact is, regardless of her particular other beliefs, she’s giving her testimony among how many others who testify to the same thing, without her particular beliefs?

          All of that should count. All of that is verifiable facts and evidence.

        • Nick – my father-in-law is Dr Ananda Prasad (google him) the worlds foremost expert on zinc. He is involved in the study in Detroit using the hydrochloroquine with zinc protocol. When started early enough there is essentially zero mortality and statistically significant improved outcomes even in very sick patients. The truth will eventually come out but since no one gets rich with this protocol it is not being touted. He is 92 and cured both himself and his wife at home – the key is zinc. Hydrocloroquine alone has only a marginal effect.

          • The world’s foremost expert on zinc?
            That is an extraordinary claim.
            Got any extraordinary evidence?
            Michael Mann claims to be the world’s foremost expert on tree rings.

            And when is early enough?
            Studies that started HCQ and zinc as a overexposure prophylaxis show no benefit.e
            Those are double blind and placebo controlled.

            Claims of 100% efficacy are not backed up with any evidence.
            The ones who have made such claims in the past have been exposed as liars.

        • Clinical trial results from Michigan, testing HCQ with zinc and vitamin c vs placebo in various combinations.
          Gold standard study of treatment in mild cases, randomized and double blinded.

          At this point ego and political narratives have replaced scientific analysis in the minds of those who continue to insist this stuff has efficacy as an antiviral.
          It is irresponsible to promote assertions and anecdotes over evidenced-based clinical trials.

          I am on my tablet, but have compiled a long list of published clinical trial results that collectively amount to many thousands of patients in hundreds of hospitals, thousands of doctors dozens of countries, that I will post when in my pc.
          All show no benefit, early or late.
          Prophylaxis or treatment of illness.
          Alone and in combination.
          Mild or moderate or severe or no symptoms.
          Same result in all cases.
          No benefit.
          This latest doctor claiming otherwise works out of a strip mall where she also has some sort of quasi religious organization.
          People associated with this group have pretended to be ER doctors and have made videos outside hospitals where they claim to practice but do not.
          She offers no data, just vague and unsupported claims.
          Anyone who believes random assertions from sketchy self promoters over scientific studies involving thousands of doctors and patients and teaching hospitals and medical researchers, is acting out of emotion, not logic of science.
          Faith and belief do not Trump science and best medical practices.
          At this point HCQ advocates are deep in cognitive dissonance with their minds locked up tight.
          These are quacks, and you discredit yourselves immensely to give them need and tout their nonsense.
          It is shocking and embarrassing.

          • On and on you go. So just as a counter to your beliefs and other beliefs here goes . . .

            You and all others can believe in what you want and not believe in HCQ-Zinc-Zpack but I have seen no alternative treatments noted in any of this and the fact that in the lower doses used in the French protocol no serious side effects (talk to you doctor about that and also see if he/she has an alternative treatment) in my mind these thousands of anecdotes – 350 of them here as commieBob notes – indicates a really huge success rate. So here we have a cheap, safe and effective treatment versus none.

            What do you suggest I treat a Wuhan infection with THE vaccine (where do I get this?) or an ineffective dose of remdesivir at $3000 to $4000? I am looking for solutions here not guarantees. Where is your solution?

          • How dare you call Dr. Prasad a liar. He was the very first person to prove zinc was an essential nutrient for humans and has been honored all over the world for his research. Because I see him almost every week I am privvy to his ongoing work as it pertains to covid, most of which has not been published yet. When it is hopefully you will be honest enough to admit you are wrong. He is an extremely careful researcher and as honest and hard-working as anyone I have ever met. Did you bother to look up his record? To insinuate he is a quack makes you nothing but a pompous ass.

          • Mike,

            Don’t limit yourself when firing off rebuttal criticisms.

            Your qualification (“nothing but”) provides your subject with a personal out when they read what you wrote, because they know you are very wrong. They latch onto your wrongness and it is easier for them to ignore the accurate part of your critique.

            By forever restricting your criticism to “pompous ass”, you leave out other very relevant and apt descriptors … redundant; compensating; at times, confused; repetitive; and big’ol poopy head.

        • Foremost Expert
          “world-renowned expert in zinc… honored at the APS symposium…”

          Dr. Prasad is now into his 90’s and still more than relevant!

          Though it’s perfectly fine to question hyperbole, I’d respond to say, that’s splitting hairs.

          I don’t care to argue about something that cannot be quantified so easily in place of learning something from the very smart guy. So instead of “Look Squirrel” I’d rather learn something.


      • GrayCat
        It is true that her other beliefs don’t prove or disprove her claim about HCQ. However, it does speak to the credibility of her claims. Personally, I’d be hesitant to accept her HCQ claim at face value knowing that she had bizarre views about things like the cause of endometriosis. Has anyone bothered to verify her HCQ claims? Or, have you blindly accepted them because you want to believe? Snake Oil salesmen make their living promising things they can’t deliver because people want to believe that there is a cure for everything that ails them. One of their techniques is to have shills in the audience give testimonials.

        You said, “What matters is the demonstrated facts of what they are saying and doing regarding COVID-19 and HCQ with zinc, and the living results of that.” Do you have any “demonstrated facts,” or only her word? Skepticism can be your friend.

        • No Clyde, it does not speak to the credibility of her claims, it speaks to the ad hominem of her attackers. The only thing that speaks to the credibility of her claims is her 350 patients. Show that those patients didn’t have treatment or the outcomes she claims and then you can say she has a credibility problem on *this* subject. Anything else is attacking the messenger not the message.

          • Endicott
            The point that you miss is that as of the moment we only have her word that her claims are true and that the patients are a representative sample of those needing medical intervention. I have seen no third-party verification of her claims. People such as yourself seem willing to accept her claims at face value, despite her having unhinged views on other less controversial medical topics. “Trust, but verify.”

            You said, “Show that those patients didn’t have treatment or the outcomes she claims and then you can say she has a credibility problem on *this* subject.” It is commonly held that whoever is making a claim has the responsibility for demonstrating its truth. Carl Sagan went further and said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.” If I were to claim that unicorns exist, no one has a responsibility to to prove me wrong. The onus is on me to prove I’m right.

            You might find the following article to be of interest:

          • Her own words are very dodgy when you add them all up with a critical eye.
            At one point she says she has treated “over 350 patients” herself, personally.

            This makes it sound like she has treated that many patients over a long period of time and has followed up with each of them right up to the present. In order for this not to be totally misleading, she would logically have to have some way to be sure that if any one of her patients became more ill, or died, or worsened and went to a hospital, that she would necessarily know.

            So that is the part that seems to be what everyone is hearing the loudest and taking at face value.
            But HIPAA laws do not allow any doctor to get info about any of their patients treated elsewhere unless each patient has specifically directed that all of their records be sent to her. If anyone goes to a hospital, you have to sign papers on disclosure, and info can only be passed on to others if you give affirmative consent. The default is that all info is strictly private. No one can even get questions about their own status answered over the phone or any other way of communicating, unless that person has specifically said that this is authorized.
            Every provider in the US has to have everyone read and sign the same thick sheaf of disclosure forms at every single provider.
            It is IMO impossible 350 all directed to have their info sent to her if treated elsewhere.
            And how would she even know if one of her patients died?
            She has a clinic in a strip mall and states flat out many of her patients drive from far away just to get an HCQ prescription.
            These are not 350 of her close personal friends who she would of course know the status of at all times.

            Then she makes some other comments to the effect that it is more of a “we treated” thing.
            Hard to know what to make of that.
            But she plainly says that she treats 10-15 patients WITH COVID every day!
            That is gonna be almost 350 people in a month! Somewhere between 200 (if she works 5 days a week and a month is four weeks) and 407 (15 a day for a 31 day month with 4 Sundays off) in a month.
            | So she is probably exaggerating. She has to be. And clearly many of the people she has treated have been quite recent, and not several months ago.

            Then she says other things that just do not comport with her won words.
            People come in “who cannot breathe”. But no one has gotten sick and everyone is “well”.
            People come in who cannot breathe. But she gives them a prescription and sends them home?
            Come on!
            Doctors in the US hand out prescriptions. They do not hand out bottles of pills. (although some have pharmacies in the building, they are not typically the best option for those concerned about the cost)
            But people come into her strip mall clinic who have in her own words a death sentence, and she gives them a hug and tells them they will live…
            Here is the exact quote:
            “I see parents walk in, I see diabetic sit in my office knowing that this is a death sentence and they can’t breathe. And I hug them and I tell them, “It’s going to be okay. You’re going to live.” And we treat them and they leave.”
            And we treat them?
            What does that mean?
            What does it mean to say they have a death sentence but they are only sick enough to go to a strip mall clinic?
            What does it mean to say they cannot breathe but she hugs them and treats them and sends them home?
            Not being able to breathe is a medical emergency.
            But not in her office.
            She cures it with a hug and a few prescriptions and they are well enough to all of them, 100%, go home.
            She has lost no one. No one has gotten sick. But she says they cannot breathe and have a death sentence!

            She says she and her staff wear masks, then says no one needs to wear a mask.
            BTW…as of April, she was a strong mask advocate on her FB page.
            They wear mask and they do not even need a mask…no one does, even people sitting in her clinic waiting room so sick some of them cannot breathe, but what about the mom with her kid who is there for something else? Hmmm…

            At one point she says this, which taken literally is the opposite of what she is claiming:
            “I want to know who is behind it because there is no way I can treat 350 patients and counting and nobody is dead and they all did better.”

            She sounds mental. What is this crap about bots wanting to kill her?
            No one needs to get sick. No need for a mask.
            Because there is a cure.
            Is she claiming everyone needs to get a permanent prophylaxis dose?
            Or to go get some pills if they cant breathe so she can treat them?
            Which is it?

            She never mentions testing any of the people she treats.
            I was just reading about the testing, how it still takes 6-8 days to get results.
            Does she even know how many of the people she says she treats, even have COVID?

            I sincerely doubt she could possibly know that about everyone she sees.
            It is impossible for everything she says to simultaneously be true.

            How is it that these drugs work for her 100% but no one else sees anything like that in people who “cannot breathe”?

            After reading over that transcript and examining everything she is saying and has said on FB, I do not see how anyone takes what she is saying literally, or even seriously?

            I saw one thing I believe is true when she said it.
            It was from her FB page a few months back, in March. She said: ” “those who know what to look for” will find the pandemic to be an opportunity to make money.’


            She is being terribly irresponsible, and I for one know she is full of crap.
            She will not convince any doctors or hospitals to start using it again, but she will make a lot of people who do not know any better believe that if everyone did as she instructs, not one person will ever die. Or even get sick. All with no masks.

          • Clyde & Nicholas, you are claiming she’s lying, it’s up to you to prove she’s lying. Attacking her “credibility” on anything *other than* her scientific claims (ie her patients conditions, treatments and results) is an ad hominem and not scientific. Neither of you have laid a glove on her credibility on this subject because neither of you have addressed the issue at hand. You are and continue to attack the messenger not the message. And all you do is destroy your own credibility while doing so.

            People such as yourself seem willing to accept her claims at face value

            I’ve done no such thing and you can’t show anywhere (in context) where I have. All I have done is point out that people like you are willing to attack her not on the basis of her claims (patients, treatment, results) but on non-related issues. Disagree with her position all you want but do so on the facts of her claims and *not* on non-related cultural/religious issues of so-called “credibility “, because doing it your way only shreds your own credibility.

          • Ridiculous John.
            You call her claims “scientific”.
            You clearly have not one clue what that word means if you regard words spoken into a microphone to be scientific.
            If it was scientific, it would not be claims, but data, or evidence.
            But she gave no data, or evidence.
            Just a long screed in which she asserted the drug works perfectly and instantly on everyone who comes to see her.
            An effect seen no where else.
            At least warmistas have documentation and data for the things they assert.

            What you seem to be saying is, anyone with a white coat on who has a certain educational credential cannot be a liar?
            How frickin naïve are you?
            Do you use this standard, having to prove that something someone says is wrong, when looking at climate catastrophist BS?
            She gives no documentation to even begin to refute.
            Why is her word golden, but dozens of large and careful clinical trials by other doctors from all over the entire planet not even significant enough for you to look at?
            I will tell you why.
            Your mind is locked up tight.
            You cannot and will not look at one bit of the mountain of contrary evidence, let alone explain how the standard is different for people who confirm what you long age decided you want to believe, that for people with far better credentials who do give data, and extensive documentation, and use the actual scientific method to get the results they report.

          • Nick, your trolling is what is ridiculous. Get back to me when you can show the least bit of comprehesion of what you had read because your characterization of what I have said bears absolutely no resemblance to anything I’ve written. I’m not going to waste my time responding to your lies about what I’ve said, so go troll someone else.

          • It’s all about the Message and the Messenger.. Thank you John Endicott…
            Absent first hand experience, which she claims and should be easily verifiable, my instincts lean towards the Message and are repulsed by the Messenger assassins.
            Besides, having made it into the 4th quarter of my first century despite having consumed boxes of CHQ while working in Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda and other malarial hotspots, I am not sold on the ‘dangerous drug’ narrative.

        • Do you, Mr. Spencer, have any such demonstrated facts disproving her demonstrated record of patients? Have you gone over those patients’ records, and talked to those patients, or are you taking only her word about them, and because of your assumed skepticism, automatically discounted it?

          Skepticism for its own sake is neither your friend nor a virtue. Actually checking out the evidence is. Until you do that, there is no reason to doubt a practicing physician’s practical, documented experience, is there?

          Especially when this one particular doctor is obviously not the only one making these claims, backed up with documentation and living, breathing former COVID-19 patients.

          I’m not the problem here; blind skepticism without investigation is. That’s shilling, too.

          • “Until you do that, there is no reason to doubt a practicing physician’s practical, documented experience, is there?”
            She gave no documentation whatsoever.
            And there is plenty of reason to doubt it, because tens of thousands of people have been treated all over the world, and clinical trial results from all manner of patients from every corner of the globe and at every stage of illness have found results completely at odds with what she is saying.
            She makes claim after claim and statement after statement that do not add up, and are not credible, and are contradicted by every scrap of actual documented evidence we have to compare to.

          • Mr. McGinley, your zeal for getting documented information about all this is commendable. It’s just a tad one-sided.

            As well, Dr. Immanuel is not the where-all and be-all of documented HCQ+zinc claims and experiences. She was singled out in the short video for the style of her presentation, being the most “interesting” of all the “stodgy” speakers, because “stodgy” she definitely is not. She is thus “newsworthy” in many other, flamboyant, ways.

            And an easy target to dismiss without having to examine anything else any of the less scintillating doctors had to say. An easy distraction, a red herring.

            Still, because she presented no documentation is no excuse for discounting what she says just because of her irrelevant extracurricular beliefs and her flamboyancy. This press conference was not the venue for detailed, intimate, itemized documentation.

            But boy, her flamboyant passion, then stupidly pounced on by the Big Tech censors, certainly attained the goal of getting these doctors noticed! “All publicity is good publicity,” as the saying goes. These doctors may be censored on the platforms the censors control, but it was WAY too late by the time they did it to silence these doctors and what they have to say.

            And thank goodness!

            And now everybody knows that regardless of what these doctors say or don’t, censoring them was the unethical, immoral, illegal, and wrong thing to do, worthy of our ostensible nemesis, Communist China, and should be reversed, and those who did it should be themselves be sued and held accountable, and prevented from doing such a thing, at least in this country, ever again.

            Have you watched the videos of the whole summit (almost six hours long), with the presentations and meticulous documentation and discussions of all the other doctors? That’s where your attention and commentary should be. You can still find those videos at Bitchute.

            If not, then it’s little, a cheap shot, to smear this one outspoken, animated, female, African, passionate, loud doctor in a venue that does not permit presenting detailed, documented case reports and studies — a BRIEF — outdoor! — press conference.

            She has issued a plea, an invitation, to all patients, hers and those of other doctors who used HCQ+zinc to treat COVID-19 successfully, to come forward with their stories and release their medical records of these facts. And another doctor has offered $200,000 to anyone who can prove HCQ+zinc is not helpful but harmful. You can find links to these things, especially at Bitchute, which the censors can’t touch; it has them all.

            Had you seen where The Lancet within its own pages has come clean about that infamous HCQ “study” and the real reasons they pulled it? Quite interesting.

            Someone else on this comments board has presented plenty of good studies on HCQ, and even a compendium of over 100 of such studies, with some 60+ specifically analyzed for their design, conduct, record-keeping, and results. It’s worth looking at, perhaps. Here’s the link (and thank you to that poster!): https://c19study.com/

            While facts don’t care about emotions, emotions don’t negate facts, either. Just because Dr. Immanuel was emotional does not negate the factual, practical, experiential, empirical claims of her and thousands of other doctors here and all over the globe using HCQ+azithromycine+zinc to overcome — CURE, in its properly applied medical definition — people who not only would have suffered, but even died from lack of any other effective treatments, from COVID-19.

            Please leave alone Dr. Immanuel and go for the bigger fish, in deeper, calmer, less flamboyant waters, all neatly arranged, presented, and tallied. They’re out there, and more and more formal studies are coming out every day — the only obstacle is censorship of them if they disprove the official anti-HCQ+zinc narrative.

            HCQ with azithromycine and zinc — at least with zinc — should be freely available over-the-counter for any free adult American to purchase at its pre-COVID-19 prices. For any reason. Especially for prophylaxis, and for treating and alleviation, early on, against this disease!

            If something truly, absolutely doesn’t work, let alone causes serious harm, word gets out and people won’t use it. Of their own free will. No one has to censor it. If someone hasn’t “officially” proved it works, but it does no harm, then who cares? Certainly no other adult has the right to make the decision to censor it or withhold it from anyone else.

            HCQ protocols have been used for over 70+ years without all the horrors now “officially” claimed for it, only since this particular disease began to be widely known. It is just wrong to attempt to erase it and pretend it’s dangerous just because of this particular disease.

            That is irrational, illogical, unjustifiable, unreasonable, and irresponsible. People are dying and being permanently disabled because of this disease, needlessly. Withholding HCQ+zinc for any reason is criminal.

            So I’m done now. Thanks for the discussion.

          • GrayCat: Your post was so well reasoned and written, I want to commend you. I reposted on FB, claiming another poster had written it. You cover all the pertinent bases. Thank you so much for taking the time!

          • GrayCat
            I claim that unicorns exist. Take all the time you want to prove that I’m wrong.

      • Grumpy
        You said, “… and can vouch that it’s not as deadly as the media had been claiming.” A sample of one! How scientific! The problem is that not everyone reacts the same to any medicine. And, you don’t discover whether you are unusually sensitive until after you start taking it.

        • Hi C.S. – I am familiar with the “Yes, but …” communication methodology. That seems to be your paragraph’s posit.

          Every medicine I’m given by a USA pharmacist comes with an extensive list of potential side effects. And a recommended dosage, often with the context of age.

          • gringojay
            You said, “… comes with an extensive list of potential side effects.”
            That is as it should be. Doctors and patients should be making informed decisions about their health. What I take issue with is laymen claiming that there are no side effects to HCQ. It simply isn’t true.

          • Who said there are no side effects? Not dying from Chinese Disease is a major side effect. Is that the one you oppose?

          • 2hotel9
            Get real! There are numerous posters throughout these continuing COVID threads who outright ‘De-Nye’ HCQ side-effects, or in a more passive-aggressive mode, ‘De-Nye’ that any of the effects are serious.

          • Prove it, I have and will again use it, I ain’t dead. Prove it kills everyone who takes it.

          • Clyde: Let’s just make a statement I assume you can “live” with… and in support of 2Hotel9: Usage of HCQ is safe. And in its usage, the main thing that is said about it is a direct benefit, in which it increases life expectancy. [hint look for studies before HCQ prior to 2020 when it suddenly became the new demon of the Left]


            Oh: And here is a study which shows that not taking HCQ increases death. Have fun… But do not trust political science in place of actual science.


            Conclusions In this study, we found a nearly four-fold increased risk of death associated with recent HCQ discontinuation and a substantially increased risk of CVD death. This could be partially explained by a direct protective effect of HCQ that is rapidly lost following discontinuation. We also demonstrated a 65% reduced risk of death among current HCQ users compared with remote users. By leveraging remote users as the comparison group, we reduced the potential for confounding by indication.

          • Mario
            Apparently it hasn’t occurred to you that a person with an autoimmune disease and no other co-morbidities might respond differently to HCQ than a person with a serious infection and probable co-morbidities. You are comparing apples and oranges. That is the reason that so many of the recent ‘studies’ or personal experiences don’t qualify as rigorous research.

          • That paper from the lupus site has nothing to do with COVID 19 or any viral infection.
            The gist of it is that people with lupus are very ill people with few drugs that provide long term benefit.
            No one disputes that HCQ helps people with rheumatic diseases like RA and lupus.
            It works by turning off parts of their overactive immune system.
            People that have an incurable and debilitating disease who stop taking their medicine are at increased risks of death.
            That is what the paper you are citing is giving evidence of.

            Here is a more recent paper published by that same site that gives details of people wit lupus and RA and other rheumatic diseases, some of whom who were already taking HCQ when they got COVID 19. Others were taking other drugs.
            Those taking HCQ when they got COVID showed no evidence of having any benefit from having been already on HCQ when they got the virus.


            Far more relevant.
            The evidence on HCQ it details?
            No benefit.
            Some other drugs did provide a benefit, such as TNF inhibitors.

        • The problem is that not everyone reacts the same to any medicine.

          Clyde this medicine has been on the market for half a century. It’s side-effects are well documented, the safe-dosage levels are well documented. It’s not the killer it’s being painted out to be because orange man bad.

          And, you don’t discover whether you are unusually sensitive until after you start taking it.

          That’s true of every drug ever. That doesn’t turn a drug that has been safely used for decades into a rampant killer just because orange man said nice things about it.

          • Straw man much?
            Who said anything about it being “a rampant killer”?
            No one I have seen.
            Anyone can see that you are refuting a point no one made.

      • God help me! Stokes and I appear to agree on something. However, I try to go where the evidence (or lack of it) leads me, rather than sing from the hymnal.

        • Judging by your posts, no you are going where the ad hominem’s lead you. Attack the facts of the issue at hand not the messenger. Show us that her patients (and patients of all the other doctors that are with her) haven’t received the treatment or gotten the outcomes that she claims. don’t attack her beliefs on unrelated issues. All doing the later does is show us you can’t do the former. That’s not following the evidence, it’s called not even trying to.

          • There is no evidence.
            Someone making an assertion is not evidence.
            Is what she is saying evidence because she is a doctor?
            Or is it because what she says comports with what you want to think is true?

            How do we know when something someone says counts as “evidence?”

          • Someone making an assertion is not evidence.

            Look in the mirror.

            She made claims that can be looked into to. Now granted you, as a nobody on the internet, lack the resources to effective look it to it, and that no doubt frustrates you no end because what she says doesn’t comport with what you want to think/wish to believe is true. But attacking her on non-related issues is no substitute. But it does speak to your own credibility (or lack there of).

      • GrayCat, ”
        You seem to have a very poor understanding of what constitutes factual information.

        A “fact” is not something someone says or claims while showing no evidence.
        Facts are not assertions you wish or hope or want to think are true.

        What is a fact is, you have given no evidence of having any ability to know how to give any information a critical evaluation.
        Without evaluation, nothing is a fact.

        What we call science is a method of elucidating objective reality, and one that was invented and was required precisely because someone claiming to be an expert making an assertion or saying they know something, made it impossible to ever know anything with certainty.
        And so the body of human knowledge went no where for many thousands of years.
        Our modern industrial and technological civilization only exists because some people determined a method for sifting out what people thinking from what can be shown to be true by evidence.

        IOW, science is the method which allowed us to move into the modern era.
        It did so by rejecting the notion that people can choose what to believe.
        By rejecting the entire concept that a fact is what an expert says it is.
        By completely discarding the notion that we can know what is true just by thinking about it.

        • Mr. McGinley, it appears you did not read what I wrote.

          (Or it may be the fact that I did not express myself well. If that is true, I apologize. I hope this reply helps clarify.)

          I do in fact argue that modern medicine and science are the results of questioning conventional beliefs with unconventional beliefs, and demonstrating their factual truth in contradiction to the accepted conventional beliefs. Or if the conventional belief holds true, then that particular unconventional belief is proved to be untrue, and can be discarded.

          And what is demonstrably, repeatably factual is separate from other beliefs, however conventional or unconventional. It is the facts that should be considered, not muddied by extraneous unconventional or conventional beliefs that don’t affect the facts in question.

          That a Nigerian believes in what we in the U.S. might consider superstition does not bear on her rightly-earned and granted western medical degree and license, nor on the documented medical results in her COVID patients. That such documentation was not laboriously and impractically recited at a press conference does not preclude its existence, or that anyone serious about ascertaining the facts of the claims can investigate and either prove or disprove.

          Until that is done, and the results published honestly, holding this doctor’s unrelated beliefs against her to discredit her claims about HCQ is disingenuous and dishonorable, and argues against the credibility and sincerity of anyone who does so.

          We need oxygen to breathe, and water to drink, or we die. Those facts have nothing to do with whether or not one likes the color green or red, do they?

          • GrayCat.

            POI The lady doctor is from Cameroon, she earned her degree in Nigeria.
            I agree with all the points you make, her cultural framework is irrelevant in the context of her professional experience. The issue is one of probity not belief.

          • Thank you for clarifying Dr. Immanuel’s country of origin, Cameroon. And yes, the issue is one of probity, not belief. Thank you.

          • GrayCat
            You said “Those facts have nothing to do with whether or not one likes the color green or red, do they?” You appear to be logic impaired. No one is concerned about the doctor’s preferences or what she “likes.” What is at issue is what she thinks causes certain diseases, because that will decide how she treats the disease. Past performance is a valid concern on everything from bets that are placed in the Kentucky Derby to the sentence that a judge hands out to a person convicted of a crime. In the real world, one right statement does not make up for ten wrong statements. A prudent person will withhold endorsement of a person with a poor ‘track record.’ There are no “facts” available in this situation with which to judge separately because all anyone has are her verbal claims — most of which appear to be wrong-headed thinking. She has not published anything that would give detailed accounts of her selection and treatment protocol, or their outcomes. There is no detailed description of the methodology by which she might be judged. What you and others are incorrectly calling ad hominen attacks are just pointing out that the essential elements of scientific research are missing from her verbal claims. Real ad hominen attacks are attempts to discredit someone through claims about their intelligence, morality, or other attributes that are totally unrelated to the thesis presented.

    • An NYT style guide? Anecdotal evidence, indeed. The efficacy of HCQ, Zn, AZ, etc. can be judged independently.

    • Yes, and then there’s this other doctor, a Dr. Mann, who thinks that carbon dioxide is going to destroy the Earth in my lifetime. And the MSM loves that crap. Go figure.

    • Gord

      Do have a problem with powerful women of color voicing asserting themselves? Why attack someone for the cultural beliefs? How about you refute her position.

      • They can’t. If they could they would. As the old saying about lawyers goes: when the facts are on your side, pound the facts, When the law is on your side pound the law, when neither are on your side pound the table. these ad hominems are them pounding the table.

  14. I have been taking 200mg of HCQ twice a day and can vouch that it’s not as deadly as the media had been claiming. The only side effect I’ve experienced was mild nausea for the first few weeks.
    I know other lupus sufferers who have been taking it for as long as 10 years without serious problems.

    Does it work to prevent or lessen the effects of SARS-CoV-2? I’ll probably find out because it’s pretty much inevitable that I’ll become infected at some point and I have several risk factors for a serious outcome.

    • My 91 year old father has been taking it for Lupus for about 10 years. Prior to taking HCQ he had had a heart attack and a quadruple bypass. He still has an arrhythmia, and the doctor prescribed it anyway. His doctor told him he could take a little extra zinc if he wanted, which he did. A snowbird, he flew back to New Jersey from Florida last month. He’s doing fine. The reckoning will come. Many politicians and MSM types may be murderers. Same with YouTube.

    • Indeed Grumpy Bill. This is a drug that has been widely used for decades. If it was as deadly as is being claimed, it would have been banned long ago. It’s not. It’s relatively safe (as drugs go). Yes, it has side-effects, most drugs do, but those effects are well known and documented thanks to those decades of wide use. Does it work to prevent or lessen the effects of SARS-CoV-2? maybe. There’s certainly a number of Doctors who have been prescribing it to their patients that believe so. When the best their opponents can come up with is a character assassination of one of the more outspoken doctors, well it certainly speaks to credibility – just not that of the doctor who’s character is being assassinated.

  15. Ah yes it’s the Barbara Streisand effect in action. So here we have a treatment that may be of considerable help in treating the virus. by reducing the symptoms in the early stages, and allowing the immune system to fight the virus , but the only problem is that it is cheap and readily available, and it will allow people to go back to normal life, so any knowledge of it must be suppressed, even to the extent of conducting studies designed to fail
    No wonder people have a tendency to think that it’s a planned hoax

  16. (1) The FDA approved Plaquenil. It has been proven safe and effective for at least one disease.
    (2) A physician can prescribe any approved drug. It does not have to be for the condition for which it has proven effective. “Off label” use. There was a randomized controlled study so the side-effects are well known. Side-effects are available in the PDR.
    (3) Technically Dr Emmanuel was giving anecdotal clinical experience. It may have been that each of her patients were going to recover regardless of treatment. It may have been that all of them had a low viral load and would have recovered anyway. That is indeed a problem when the disease, untreated, has a very high recovery rate. Even the most severely compromised have a recovery rate exceeding 80%. Absent a randomized controlled study, sacrificing a number of participants, Plaquenil has not been proven to be effective for preventing COVID19 after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nor has it been proven effective as a prophylactic.
    (4) Real medicine is practiced in the clinic by physicians treating patients. The FDA has no business making treatment recommendations.

    • How about her and her staff none of which got the virus while all working with COVID cases on a daily basis. Having several family members who work in hospitals I can tell you that is not the norm. Most hospitals have seen 30% + getting the virus.

      • Apparently there have been Random Controlled Trials. C19study.com
        If you check this site you will find that they show HCQ+Z-pac+zinc reduces morality when given early, but not when started late.

  17. It is fortunate that people of Nigerian heritage tend to be quite animated – Dr. Immanuel made her point forcefully, and made it well. I could not detect any sign of insincerity in her body language.

    No wonder they want to shut her up.

    She’s a brave lady.

    • Nick Graves
      “I could not detect any sign of insincerity in her body language.”
      So what? She is as mad as a snake, but that doesn’t mean she is not sincere. If this woman is what Trump’s son is tweeting then God help us and thank goodness it was taken down. I thought this site was all about being skeptical?

        • NC
          “Simon, being skeptical is why HCL is being supported.”
          No, it is being supported here because King Trump told his people to believe, and because the “right” want the workers back at the factory floor ASAP. That fiend Fauci telling people we need to go carefully is the last thing they want to hear. They would rather listen to some bat shit crazy lady delivering the message they want to hear. All that money slipping through their fingers hurts almost as bad as being taxed. Almost….

          • So all the people who have used HCQ are mind-numbed robots simply following Orangemanbad’s commands. Got it.

          • Fauci was in place long before Trump was elected, he has been in that bureaucracy for a couple of decades. Remember when he said the entire population would get aids in 2 years time and then said he was going to cure aids before it could happen? Where is Fauci’s cure for aids? He said he would have a cure for ebola in 6 months. Where is his cure for ebola? Only thing attached to his work on ebola is now called remdesivir and he is hailing it as the only cure for Chinese Disease. Why, again, is anyone listening to this snakeoil huckster? Oh, yea, multiple decades as a government employee.

          • “Remember when he said the entire population would get aids in 2 years time ”
            Umm no I don’t remember that.
            “He said he would have a cure for ebola in 6 months.”
            Yeah, Naa… he didn’t say that either.
            “Why, again, is anyone listening to this snakeoil huckster? Oh, yea, multiple decades as a government employee.”
            Because he is a whole lot more credible than the BS artist Trump. When you listen to him he makes complete sense… unless you have none.

          • Keep defending the liar. HCQ works, nothing Fauci has worked has ever work and every recommendation he has ever made was crap, but hey, keep defending him.

      • Her point is that her clinical success (according to her) supersedes allowing current patients to die waiting for those study results. And she correctly asks, who is behind those studies?

        • Agreed Tom, but if you are Henry then no study is valid without being double blind. Henry never answers when questioned about how he wants to give some people the placebo 😉

    • So? Do you even know what an ad hominem argument is? It has no bearing whatsoever on her arguments, or the others’ vis a vis HCQ.

  18. Immanuel, Risch, Zelenko, Raoult, and thousands of other doctors have used HCQ with positive outcomes for Covid patients. Further, the use of HCQ in 2020 was predicated on studies going back 15 years or more.

    What should be a choice made by doctor and patient has become a political football, though. The radical insane arsonist street-violent Left Wing anti-humanity death cult Media has successfully caused the unnecessary demise of hundreds of thousands of people around the world by denying them this curative treatment.

    It’s more than naysaying. The satanic Left has censored discussion and their toadies in office have banned HCQ use, while at the same time packing virus-shedding untreated Covid suffers into nursing homes where tens of thousands more have died.

    The extent of the evil perped by Democrats is breathtaking. That political party should be banned and their members arrested and imprisoned.

      • Well, Mike was describing crimes against the people combined with violence in the streets, along with an inciting press controlling the message.

        But you toss it off as ‘censoring discussion’.


      • Nick

        Who is doing the censoring? Its all on the left! not theoretical censoring but actual censoring! Not just removing information either, destroying lives and careers! And not just that but violence, conservatives and libertarians are regularly physically intimidated or assaulted when they try to speak there beleifs!

  19. Apparently, Donald Trump Jr. tweeted about this interview with the doctors and has now had his Twitter account shut down.

    Why does anyone put up with this censorship? I don’t do Twitter because of things like this and don’t miss it a bit.

  20. Seriously Mr. Rotter, please investigate the credibility of Immanuel before you make WUWT a laughingstock.

      • Yea, two hours long, multiple speakers, so all the focus is on one because she was the more forceful in how she presented what she had to say. Perhaps that is what has put so many off, forceful women do tend to be off-putting to a large segment of the population.

    • Pool,

      How about trying to be more selective in your framing of the issues du jour; this physician’s direct perspective can now easily be overlaid upon many similar statements from many other front line physicians. At the very least, it should help observers like you, Stokes and many others to formulate a sense that there are unresolved issues here. Ever read Roosevelt’s “Man in the Arena” speech? Seemingly not. Let me assist you in another way then: should we discard and/or ridicule calculus because Newton was an occultist and alchemist?

      I’ve read your posts. For years. With respect, the water is possibly a little deep for where you seem want to swim here on WUWT. Sometimes being an interested observer is better than trying to wade out into the ocean.

      • Louis Pasteur is sure lucky he did live today and thank god he didn’t, millions and maybe billions would have died needlessly

    • If that was a concern, Henry Pool, you would be banned. But I guess you don’t understand what real diversity of viewpoint means.

    • Henry Pool
      You are a typical racist troll, who can’t stand powerful women of color and their differing cultural beleifs

  21. These responses here are instructive; the writing is on the wall, as in Daniel’s day. The United States has less than a hundred days left; implementation of this end will be less than three months later. Massive voter fraud will be just another outrage never to be questioned. It looks like it was fun, for over 200 years, while it lasted.

  22. they are already debunking her by saying she is a Christian pastor and talks against gays. people don’t even want to listen they just want to destroy her automatically

  23. Not sure you want to throw in with the lady who believes that Alien DNA is currently used in medical treatments and that vaccines will be used to prevent people from being religious.

    loony tunes attacks RCT

    • Steven, you may explain if I’m wrong,
      but if I’m vaccinated with antibodies of an other persons blood, is there alien DNA in the vaccine ??

    • PHWEEET! Ad hominem (wohominem?) argument, five yards and loss of down.

      If you don’t like her, you might be more inclined to take the word of a proper white male Yale epidemiology professor instead. Search for Harvey A. Risch article in American Journal of Epidemiology, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients”. He makes essentially the same points. Early use at lower doses. If you wait until the patient hits the ICU, it’s too late.

    • The only really important thing is ‘is she right about this?”

      I notice none of the trolls are going there – instead proceeding with the Daily Beast’s pseudo- if-then statement.

    • Moshed – she may be looney but she is right. See my response to Stokes and if you would like to bet me that zinc and hydrocloroquine is highy effective just tell me how much you want to wager.

    • Just another fraud who can’t handle women of color having a voice. Resort to attacking her cultural beliefs to shut her up. Good job Mosh!

    • Mosher, ngai sabai dee iue ppaao

      Attacking someone because of their background, unrelated to the subject matter is rude.

    • Not sure anyone wants to throw in with a drive-by English Major’s ad hominem. How about trying to attack the message and not the messengers sometime Steven.

  24. The FDA is a revolving door between Big Pharma and government. I don’t trust them on anything.

  25. LOL Rotter is “censoring” someone (me) who embarrasses himself. Immanuel is a quack, and you’ve endorsed the quackery. FaceBook, Twitter, etc. recognize the quackery.

    • He censored you because you embarrassed yourself? Naw, he put your idiocy up top for everyone to laugh at.

      • It appears that he is the ‘other’ Henry Pool because there is no link associated with his name.

          • And Jack has ZERO reply to your correct assertion…
            “The only published trials I have seen do not use zinc, and or do not use the HCQ/zinc combo at an early stage, and it do not use HCQ in the correct safe quantities.”


          • Tom
            The HP with a link to his name disavowed a comment by an HP with no link in another thread.

      • Lots of opinions on this site today some seem to be based on some CNN or MSNBC talking head reports.
        In the following link papers are listed showing both positive and negative results. Note the negative results seem to be with late usage of HCQ. The results are categorized in pre-exposure, post-exposure prophylaxis, early treatment, and late treatment. 65 studies are included (so far) with 39 peer reviewed.


        • The only negative published trials I have seen do not use zinc, and or do not use the HCQ/zinc combo at an early stage, and or do not use HCQ in the correct safe quantities.

          This group of Doctors, one of whom has some irrelevant weird religious beliefs, avoided all the errors in the negative studies and are getting very positive results.

          Is there even one negative study that avoided the common errors described?

          • David
            Her beliefs in what cause certain diseases is very relevant to how she treats someone who presents with symptoms. But, even a blind squirrel get lucky once in awhile.

    • You know Nils Axel Mörner, expert in ocean research ?
      Rahmstorf, a “climate expert”, not able to discuss about NAM’s reseach, that’s certainly not questionable tried of course to discredit him as wishbone follower.

      You know Theodor Landscheidt, expert in solar and planet constellation research and predictor of several El Niños by research ?
      Rahmstorf, a “climate expert”, not able to discuss about Landscheidts research tried of course to discredit him as adviser for astrologers.

      You know Dr. Roy Spencer, no further infos needed, was discredited as creationist since years, because by his research and work, he was / is incontrovertible.

      You recognise the schema ?
      Incontrovertible by their work, look for something out of the subject for descrediting the person as noncredible.
      In so far, what she is thinking in private about what ever, religious reasons, background etc doesn’t match the work for ill people.

  26. It’s all a bit Zed and Two Noughts, but a lot of good people have weird superstitious ideas.

    Maybe an anti-religion vaccine might stop people believing all sorts of illogical sh!t and doing harm because of it, illibertarian or not.

    • Religion is a moral philosophy. Everyone has a religion. The weirdest religions are typically secular, selective, opportunistic (e.g. Pro-Choice). A twilight faith (i.e. conflation of logical domains). A liberal (i.e. divergent, generational) ideology.

  27. As Immanuel describes, her patients come to her in a flat panic, scared they are in for a painful death. Regardless of the efficacy of HQ, her confidence and lack of fear (putting arm around patients) is a very powerful placebo. Here the local clinic says come to the back door and ring if you have symptoms. The doc and nurses will see you in the storeroom, fully garbed in PPE. This reinforces fear and fear is not good for the immune system. Sure Immanuel may be a quack, but she is treating her patients the right way in this case.

    • She’s religious, that’s her private pleasure, but as far as her work she’s payed for is ok, she’s free to do what she likes, in US and elsewhere you have religious liberty, isn’t it ?
      You may like it or not, it’s out of everyones interest.

    • The only negative published trials I have seen do not use zinc, and or do not use the HCQ/zinc combo at an early stage, and or do not use HCQ in the correct safe quantities.

      This group of Doctors, one of whom has some irrelevant weird religious beliefs, avoided all the errors in the negative studies and are getting very positive results.

      Is there even one negative study that avoided the common errors described?


  28. They now appear to have pulled the website of America’s Frontline Doctors.

    Serious shit going on.

  29. I thought those doctors coats odd (why are they so starched and why are they wearing them in the street) when first seen but then I saw those names on the pockets “America’s Frontline Doctors” so it seemed to add legitimacy.

    Then a quick search brings up this page

    Why would legitimate doctors tie in with this group?

      • What makes you think I do? Check my other posts. I have been to her Immanuel’s ministries web site.They support the assessment.

        Why do you assume the Front line Doctors with a 12 day old website are credible? Now their website is expired. A flash in the pan.

        • Mr. Dale: Above, you leap to conclusion that your own “operator error” was censorship; here, unless you are the half runt, Pat Frank was not talking to you. So what’s worse, a Nigerian doctor with some views that may seem weird to white privileged folks (to coin a phrase), or a commentor on a blog who can’t keep his posts straight?

          • Exactly – THERE’s the elitism – another primary necessary to be a modern progressive.

      • My comment was directed to Ghalfrunt, Jack.

        This new flash: professional competence among physicians is not indicated by a functioning website.

    • RE Ghalfrunt:
      The following is from your quoted website:
      **Overall, we rate America’s Frontline Doctors a quackery level pseudoscience website based on the promotion of false or misleading information regarding Coronavirus that does not align with the consensus of science. We also rate them Low for factual reporting due to a lack of transparency as well as using known pseudoscience sources to draw their conclusions.**
      The above quote is a quack site in my opinion. It is the one giving false information. They suggest that HCQ is not effective. More and more studies are showing the effectiveness of HCQ when given early with zinc. Here is one more:
      That site give no proof, just their opposing political opinion.

      • There is nothing in the Henry Ford paper that you linked to that suggests they gave anyone zinc.
        They looked at people who got HCQ, those who got Z-Pak, and those who got both, and those who got neither.
        It is a retrospective study.
        It has several identified confounding factors.
        The groups treated were not equivalent, and there were other drugs use on the patients, which were not even among the different study groups.
        Besides for that…the Henry Ford retrospective found that people that got HCQ and Zpak did about as well as people that got neither.
        People that got HCQ only did the best…but were also far more like to have gotten steroids, which have been separately shown to be highly effective in preventing deaths.

        Also not mentioned in the study data at all are several drugs and treatments known to have been used in that time period at these hospitals. Remdesivir was coming into increasingly widespread usage over the study period, and yet no where is it listed as being given to anyone.
        What is known is that the four groups of people may have been culled from a consecutive set of patients, but the groups were all treated as distinct time periods within the study interval. Those getting neither of the drugs were most likely the earliest patients, and they were the sickest. they were treated when doctors had little ideas of the particulars of this new disease.
        Those who got both were likely treated in late march and early April, while those getting just HCQ were probably treated last, in late April…which is why they were more likely to have gotten steroids, and probably prone positioning, and probably plasma, and almost surely remdesivir.

        “”Like most health systems, Saint Joseph Mercy Health System tried hydroxychloroquine initially given the lack of effective treatment,” the Catholichealth system said in a statement to The News. “However, with increased data and published literature, we determined there was no benefit as well as an increased risk of harmful side effects, and discontinued use.”

        Henry Ford Health System has continued its multiple clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine, including one that is testing whether the drug can prevent COVID-19 infections in first responders who work with coronavirus patients. The first responder clinical trial was trumpeted by Trump administration officials early in the pandemic.

        But the top infectious disease doctor at Henry Ford Macomb Hospital said he only treats COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine if families insist. ”


        And this rebuttal found many problems with the retrospective:

        This article references a study from the same hospital group in March, and details how the protocol for treating patients was evolving, with patients treated later doing far better than those treated early in the pandemic:

        Why has the more recent paper left out important details, such as the timing of the treatment groups, and the use of medications like remdesivir that they did not even mention?
        AFAIK, I am the only person who has made note of this detail regarding remdesivir, and that there was an earlier study published in May that overlapped with eh time period and patient list of this later retrospective?
        It appears to me that there are people that have some sort of presupposed conclusion that they are willing to support with phony info if need be.
        I have no idea why anyone would want to do that…unless it is to gaslight supporters of Trump into getting behind something which will in all likelihood be discredited with many results of many large trials that will be published long before November.
        Or else they are just hardheaded and/or blind to any evidence which does not support what they have wanted to find.

        • [snip, play nice-mod] Zinc was added to Henry Ford protocol but not in time for publication. Just wait til Dr. Prasad has enough results to publish. Then you will finally learn something. His zinc and HCQ protocol kicks ass. The NY Times interviewed him but nixed the story as they believed people would see HCQ and think Trump. The key is the right amount if zinc administered properly … the HCQ just helps zinc get into the cells.

  30. America’s Frontline Doctors webpage has expired:

    On the Wayback Machine:

    References are still on Google Drive:

    White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine

    This is the culmination of months-long research from all sources. It explains how Americans have come to be in the grip of fear. All the myths and all the misconceptions about a safe, generic drug that has been FDA approved for 65 years, given to pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, the elderly and the immune-compromised for years and decades without complication, are finally put in the trash heap where they belong. You will have the indisputable proof that you have been massively lied to, often very intentionally. At first you will first be heartbroken. And then you will be furious. Good. Because then you will demand change.

    Compendium of HCQ Studies

    The safety of HCQ is irrefutable. The evidence supporting HCQ efficacy against Covid-19 is also overwhelming. All negative HCQ studies have used either: too much, used it alone (it needs Zinc), or used it late (it should be early.) The treatment dose is 200 mg HCQ twice a day for five days + Zinc 50 (elemental) daily. The prophylactic dose is 400 mg HCQ weekly + Zinc 50 (elemental) daily. (There are studies right now to see if HCQ 200 mg. weekly is sufficient.) This is very low dose. (The usual dose of HCQ in Lupus, Rheumatoid Arthritis is 400 mg. daily for years.) There are telemedicine physicians who are aware of the facts and if you are concerned about this, please see one. It is also over the counter in many places in the world including Indonesia and most of South America.

    • America’s Frontline Doctors webpage has expired

      Registry Expiry Date: 2021-07-16T01:27:49Z

      This is outright war
      About 8 hours ago the website https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/ was perfectly in order. From there I watched the 3h video.
      Reflecting on Roy Martin’s announcement, I took a screen shot of the still open tab and made a whois on their domain, which is valid another year. Then I refreshed the page and and saw Roy Martin was correct.
      Normally if your hosting account is about to run out, you will be emailed several warning and I tend not to believe the site owners have ignored this.
      It is no coincidence it is blistering battle, it is the new KGB in full action.

      In an earlier comment, I saw someone writing that President DJT’s Twitter account was closed too. If true, that is inviting to civil general unrest (or way worse).

      • “In an earlier comment, I saw someone writing that President DJT’s Twitter account was closed too”

        It was Trump’s son, Donald Jr., who had his Twitter account frozen for posting these doctors’ video.

  31. Trump takes HCQ, still not ill.
    Bolsanero takes HCQ, got only a mild illness.
    Boris Johnson took no HCQ, ended up in IC on oxygen.

        • Dark Matter
          It isn’t clear who you are directing your “ignorant” remark to. Let me point out that Zuiderwijk said “Trump takes HCQ, still not ill.” The implication is that he believes HCQ behaves as an “immunization.”

      • But Bolsanero already had COVID-19 when he started taking HCQ, therefore he would be “sick” wouldn’t he.
        Your argument is very thin.

      • Infection, disease? HCQ is not a magical elixir, but its active properties complement normal body functions to reduce viral viability and disease progression.

      • Clyde, both Bolsanero & Boris got sick before taking any treatment. Only one of them took HCQ and it wasn’t the one that ended up so bad that he had to be put in IC on oxygen. That’s the point you are deliberately trying to miss/distract from.

        The implication is that he believes HCQ behaves as an “immunization.”

        Nonsense, that’s the implication that you wish to read into it, not the one that is there. He specifically mentioned people that did get sick (one that took HCQ implying the result was their case being mild and one that didn’t implying the result was their case being severe) , so clearly wasn’t talking about “immunization”. So if you are going to disagree with his points, try to do so honestly instead of making up “implications” that are not there.

    • Plenty of competent people are religious nutcases, Matt. There were some in my class in graduate school. Very smart, very competent at math and science, very very religious.

  32. Her question “Has Dr Gupta ever treated a COVID patient?” is an excellent one. Has DR Fauci treated a patient either? Nope. Yet they are first and loudest to throw out the use due to ivory tower excuses.

      • boder
        I expect a graduate MD to treat me based on what (s)he was taught in medical school. If I want to be treated based on cultural beliefs, I’ll call a Witch Doctor. There is a very good reason that the world has turned its back on potions and spells and insisted on drugs shown to have efficacy.

        • Clyde

          Than don’t go see her, that’s is your choice. But those that have seen her are apparently happy they did, but in your world she needs to be censored because you don’t like her. She’s an accredited physician who works in a hospital not a witch doctor, you are the one who beliefs are getting in the way of science and debate. You have no answer to her assertions so you have to attack the messenger.

          • boder
            You are putting words in my mouth. I have never asked that she be “censored.” I’m pointing out that many gullible people are accepting what she has said as being ‘gospel,’ without insisting on verification of her claims and analyzing her treatment protocol.

            It has been a long time since traveling medicine shows came to town and sold snake oil to the gullible who were desperate for a cure to their ails. I’m afraid many people have become careless with their objectivity.

            There are so many things that have been claimed to help COVID-19 (including the ubiquitous cannabis oil) that one should wonder just why there are so many similar claims! It is probably, in part, from experiments that are poorly designed and a populous that is desperate for something akin to a diet pill or a pill to cure ED. Americans, especially, have little patience for difficult solutions.

          • And yet you support censoring her simply because you don’t like her. See how simple it is?

          • I support investigating her claims and taking away her medical license if she is a lying.

        • I expect a graduate MD to treat me based on what (s)he was taught in medical school

          Which, as far as is currently known, she has been doing for her patients. it’s you, who has been bringing up her unrelated cultural/religious beliefs as a means of “censoring” her on what she has seen in her medical practice while using what she was taught in medical school. If you have evidence that she isn’t using what she was taught in medical school but instead is treating COVID patients based on her cultural beliefs show us that evidence. I suspect you don’t have any such evidence otherwise you’d have already brought it forward.

          There is a very good reason that the world has turned its back on potions and spells and insisted on drugs shown to have efficacy.

          HCQ isn’t a potion or spell. And many Doctors that have prescribed it for their patients (not all of them from the same cultural/religious background as the one you’ve gotten your panties in a twist over) has spoken to it’s efficacy for their patients. It seems (based on your postings so far) you just don’t want to listen because the orange man had nice things to say about it, so you look for anything (like religious/cultural beliefs) to attack the messenger rather than the message. And that’s just sad.

  33. Dr Emmanuel was giving anecdotal clinical experience. It may have been that each of her patients were going to recover regardless of treatment. It may have been that all of them had a low viral load and would have recovered anyway. That is indeed a problem when the disease, untreated, has a very high recovery rate. Even the most severely compromised have a recovery rate exceeding 80%. Absent a randomized controlled study, sacrificing a number of participants, Plaquenil has not been proven to be effective for preventing COVID19 after SARS-CoV-2 infection. Nor has it been proven effective as a prophylactic.

    Nevertheless, absent likelihood of harm (it is approved and has been used by many at higher doses for, say, Lupus) I would ask the doctor for the prescription should I get symptoms. I already take a different zinc-ionophore (OTC Quercetin), harmless at recommended dosages and it _might_ work.

    No harm. Might work.

    Why not?

  34. I suggest this site should champion HCQ, promote this strange doctor, and defend the Trump administration in all matters. Eventually, the virus will pass, the world will settle down, and climate will be among the headlines again. WUWT will have great credibility in climate science and be a respected source for information.

  35. I want HCQ, azithromycin and zinc if I get Covid-19. It”s effective and each dose is small change. Remdesivir is ~$3100 according to NPR.

    Gee, I wonder if the price difference is the reason HCQ is out of favor? No way to make money on it.

    • Yes, and that is also why Dr. Bartlett’s steroid treatment will be knocked especially if Trump likes it.

    • Enrico
      What I find incongruous is that there are at least 21 other drugs that have been approved for use with humans, which appear to show efficacy. Yet, many commenters here focus on HCQ and ignore the other drugs, based on some weak conspiracy theory about Big Pharma making more money. Why then acknowledge that there are other useful drugs besides remdesivir?


      If everyone had agreed that HCQ was all that we need, then there would have been no incentive to explore other options. Personally, I’d like to see other options, if for no other reason than to have an alternative to HCQ for those who are unusually sensitive to it. Just as there are many antibiotics in physician’s arsenal of drugs, to treat different strains of bacteria or accommodate those who are allergic to the antibiotic of choice, I think that the world would be better off of doctors had a wider choice than just HCQ.

      • Not so Clyde. People come in this site claiming HCQ does not work at all.

        And some claim that unless there is a double blind study any further claims of it’s effectiveness is bunk.

      • “If everyone had agreed that HCQ was all that we need” What happened is Trump said something good about it and the leftards immediately attacked it, all the while suppressing information about other existing drugs and pushing the failed Ebola drug remdesivir. I have taken HCQ in the past and after my appointment with immunology/ENT specialist Friday I will be taking it again for persistent inflammatory conditions from Sjogren’s Syndrome and early stage RA, that it helps against Chinese Disease is just gravy on top.

  36. Quite a few commenters here jumping on Dr Immanuel’s support for “out there” beliefs in other fields of study.

    Do these same commenters take their log-handled shovels in the same way to all the climate “scientists” who also hold a brief for the Gaia notion?
    (Or their belief that CO2 is the “control knob” for atmospheric behaviors)

    “Whacko ideas” in one topic area don’t always mean that the proponents have no usable contributions in other areas.

    For example, Samuel Langley, a university professor and secretary of the Smithsonian Institution designed & developed an airplane in competition with the Wright Bros. Langley’s was a dud that rolled straight into the Potomac River.
    But that didn’t overshadow his award-winning legacy achievements in air and sea craft, facilities, a unit of solar radiation and infrared discoveries.

    • Exactly, perhaps not independent, but separable nonetheless. We should be wary of indulging diversity dogma (i.e. color judgments). That said, medicine is both engineering and science, and her experience and patient outcomes matter (i.e. anecdotal, observation, limited frame of reference). While the ideal is to heal, the goal is to do mitigate harm and minimize injury (i.e. risk management) relative to the default state. HCQ has a well-established risk profile, and a clinical understanding of its active antiviral properties, but it is not a magical elixir, and its efficacy is to complement normal body functions to reduce viral viability and disease progression.

    • Langley’s plane snagged on launch which crashed it. Curtis retrieved it out of the Potomac restored it and made it fly, which is how he broke the Wright Brothers Patent on the airfoil.

      • Good to know.
        Can I use this info next time I’m playing Trivial Pursuit?
        Might get me a piece of cheese 🙂

  37. Hydroxychloroquine needs to be given to people early in the course of a Covid-19 infection and the earlier the better. That is how it should be used and the evidence that we have suggests that it could save many lives if it is used appropriately.

    Unfortunately nobody is doing those studies.

    Instead we have this pseudoscience, this fake scientific research, where researchers that full well know that this is the case, or at least know that others are alleging that this is the case, give hydroxychloroquine to people that are hospitalized, either on a ventilator or close to it, and then observe that it doesn’t do much good.

    Well guess what we already knew that. We already basically knew that this would be the case before the first study was done.

    And then these pretentious, lying, incompetent researchers, editors and reviewers pretend that that is the appropriate question.

    And that is the essential point that they are lying about. This is what current studies that purport to disprove the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19 are doing.

    We know through many years of experience and literally millions and millions of people that this drug or very similar drugs that have been given to people that when given appropriately hydroxychloroquine is safe. But part of using it appropriately is not giving to people that are quite seriously ill because then there is a significant risk of a heart complication and in particularly when azithromycin is being given at the same time.

    And zinc is also part of this story because we have good evidence that the combination of zinc plus hydroxychloroquine given to people early in an infection and that have been screened for hydroxychloroquine use (not everybody can use this) is better than hydroxychloroquine alone.

    Now I say probably because we need more evidence. But who is doing the studies?

    Given the evidence we do have, this safe drug (when used appropriately) could save a lot of lives.

    • So those bad “studies” is what Fauci would be using. On CNN this morning they said Trump was accusing Fauci of misinformation. So they asked Fauci. He said that HCQ does not help. So that is the idiots on CNN.

      • I’m not sure I understand your point.

        We have a hypothesis. I doubt Fauci bothers to explain his reasoning. But we don’t need Fauci. Any person that understands the subject can speak up and explain their reasoning.

        So where is this evidence against the hypothesis?

  38. Many of the HCQ studies were totally useless. They were giving patients the drug long after the virus got a foothold. That’s like giving anti-venom to a snake bite victim after the organs are shutting down and then claiming anti-venom does not work. Who exactly were behind these studies ? Why did FDA reference such ridiculous studies ? Why to this day have not more studies been done on giving the drug immediately at the very first sign of illness ?

    • Stevek
      The other side of the coin is that the recovery rate is so high with COVID-19 that if those with early onset of symptoms were given table salt, one could make similar claims of its magical curative power. The problem is exacerbated when there aren’t strict controls on who is treated and who is turned away because they are too sick. Those with co-morbidities are likely to get very sick rapidly and not be good candidates for a physician who claims that HCQ only works with those who show early, mild symptoms. However, it is the very sick who are most in need of medical intervention, and they are turned away by those promoting HCQ.

  39. I listened to the live feed Monday morning. Very powerful.

    A big piece of it was the alarming Medical Cancel Culture that is occurring. Medical boards can take away your right to practice for life. So Doctors are silenced.

    Yeah, Social media doesn’t want that to get out

  40. During an office visit with my rheumatologist today, I asked about her personal views on the HCQ/COVID controversy.
    Her reply, in a nutshell, is that she thinks the reason for contradictory outcomes is that HCQ only works for people with underlying, possibly undiagnosed, autoimmune conditions.
    I found that interesting, as I’d never heard or read anything to that effect.

    • I fall into that category, well, diagnosed, Sjogren’s Syndrome and early RA indications.

  41. On c19study.com they list 65 studies (39 peer reviewed). All the “negative” ones have something in common: “Late stage”, “Late treatment” etc. Why are they waiting until late in the treatment cycle to administer it?

    President of El Salvador Nayib Bukele has announced that he is taking hydroxychloroquine as a preventative measure against the coronavirus. Bukele told reporters on Tuesday that “most world leaders” are doing the same and has questioned why world leaders are being advised to use it while the public is not.

    • TRM
      You asked, “Why are they waiting until late in the treatment cycle to administer it?” The answer is because by then the doctors are desperate. There was no standard of treatment and intubation often made the situation worse. It is the sickest who are most in need of treatment!

      • No it isn’t. These studies could have been setup to give it to patients as soon as they are diagnosed. Instead they can’t or won’t give it to people early on.

        If you want to try something on late term patients then what about a study of intravenous vitamin C or the steroid treatment?


        No, they will just try the HCQ without zinc and then say “see it doesn’t work”. Forgive my cynicism
        but these studies were setup to fail (IMHO) and the FDA cites only these and not the positive studies? Sorry but the corruption runs way to deep for me to give any government agency the benefit of the doubt.

  42. Why all this worry about HCQ not being prescribed- Trump has said covid19 is no worse than flu, and it will disappear like magic (more witchcraft?)

  43. “If they come after me” ROTFLMAO. Okay I can see all the “authorities” sending in the “enforcers” to arrest her and the cops going “never mind”.

    Hey Trump, I think we just found your next head of the health department.

  44. Africa is a continent of 1.216 billion people
    U.S. is a country of 3228 million people (roughly 1/3 the population of Africa)

    Number of Covid cases in Africa=859,237
    Number of Covid cases in U.S.=4,442,000 (more than three times that of Africa which has 3 times the population)

    Fact: Hydroxychloroquine is used extensively in all of Africa.
    Fact: Hydroxychloroquine use is stifled in the U.S.

    • Camel
      As a friend from Rwanda remarked to me, a confounding fact for your hypothesis is that Africans may have stronger immune systems because they are challenged more frequently in their less hygienic environment, and there may be selective evolutionary pressures on Africans to have strong immune systems.

      Besides that, places like NY City, Dallas, and Los Angeles have airplanes bringing in sick people from all over the world. How many cities in Africa have airports with the same air traffic as the three American cities I mentioned?

      • Cairo, Johannesburg, Lagos, Kinshasa to name a few. The proximity to southern Europe, Middle East, and other hotspots via marine travel makes Africans just as exposed as other areas. I concede to a degree your point about possible mass resistance due to living conditions, but the ratios are just too lopsided for that explanation to be absolute.

      • We see that people who are very old and in rather poor health are the ones who are at by far the highest risk of a bad outcome.
        I have no data to cite, but I would be surprised if developing countries have anywhere near as many very old and very sick people as places like the EU and the US.

      • We see that people who are very old and in rather poor health are the ones who are at by far the highest risk of a bad outcome.
        I have no data to cite, but I would be surprised if developing countries have anywhere near as many very old and very sick people as places like the EU and the US.
        Large populations of elderly sick people is a new phenomenon mostly occurring only in the most prosperous countries wherein most of the bad diseases have been eliminated or drastically reduced.

    • Attack the person if you can’t attack the message. Standard tactic from the holder of the weak hand. Should we only get medical advice from atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists?

      I don’t go to a specialist for their religious beliefs. I go to get problems solved.

  45. The amount of anti-panty-wading (the censoring by the left of what displeases them) is astounding and a bit surreal.

    Even more astounding is the sheep-silence of the right.

    • I’ve not seen a provider kill a website and YT/FB keep deleting videos like this one. They really touched a nerve.
      How much is at stake money wise? Billions of vaccines given multiple times a year? Don’t need that if there is a cure and preventative. Opps.

  46. The anti-HCQ campaign, which is based on pseudoscience, disinformation, and lies has blood on their hands. Those responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Dr. Fauci, to his great shame, is part of that campaign.

  47. This is an unbelievable effective 5 minute video.

    She specifically calls out people, as spreaders of lies. And she should. Something works or it does not.

    If you have not watch this amazing 5 minute video, please do. Pass this video on.



    This Lady is real in a way that cannot be faked.

    This woman is not a made for TV model with makeup. This is a woman who has travelled to Washington, risking her career, to save American lives.

    This woman is not political because she did not grow up in America. All she cares about is her patients and her fellow Americans.

    She is like Martin Luther King, except she is a hero in our time.

    Could there possibly be a better story for the Media to tell? Problem is the Media hide this story which now appears to be a criminal act, that has and is result in the needless death of Americans?

    Interfering in a US election, with the interference resulting in the deaths of Americans?

    A Black woman, Houston front line doctor, from Nigeria, is going to change America by defeating covid. The HCQ cocktail if used early is almost a cure for covid.

    Can there be a happier story? A better outcome for our country? Something to wake up those who were mindless supporting the Fake news agenda.

  48. Please see the chart from gummibear737 on Twitter on HCQ use vs death rate. I didn’t check the numbers myself but it looks very convincing that HCQ is doing something good.

  49. People who want HCQ and are prevented from getting it by bureaucrats should invoke Trump’s “Right to Try” law that allows people to use any medicine, even those not approved by the FDA, if those medicines might make a difference in their disease outcome.

  50. Thank you, Charles Rotter, Anthony and commenters for your commitment to truths and the scientific method. Free and open discussion is what America is about. WUWT remains true to these ideals and purposes.

  51. Hard evidence of HCQ being effective.


    Summary, WHO suspended trials of HCQ based on a fake article in Lancet that was withdrawn 2 weeks later. The Swiss stopped and restarted use of HCQ resulting in a perfect square wave pulse of excess deaths that corresponds perfectly with the stop and start dates (given a 1 week delay for people to die from the lack of treatment.)

    This is also a great example of a fake science article leading directly to statistically countable deaths. (p<0.0001, 99% confidence level)

  52. Shame on You-Tube/Google for censoring Dr Stella Emmanuel. We stand with Dr Stella Emmanuel. You-Tube/Google needs to be Regulated asap. They have demonstrated their bias so many times.

  53. From their white paper:

    ““Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread”
    by Vincent, Bergeron, Benjannet, et. al., was published by the official publication of the
    National Institutes of Health when Dr. Fauci was NIH Director. Given that CQ was
    demonstrated to be very effective against a 78% identical coronavirus less than 15 years
    ago during a very similar situation, it is very curious that there was a multinational effort
    to restrict it starting in mid-January. (CQ is a precursor to the more modern HCQ. We now
    use HCQ in the USA. But studies of CQ are as reliable as studies of HCQ.)”

    They refer to this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

    • “CQ is a precursor to the more modern HCQ. We now
      use HCQ in the USA. But studies of CQ are as reliable as studies of HCQ.”

      CQ was first synthesized in 1934, HCQ 12 years later in 1946.

      Not sure what you mean to say re studies of CQ as reliable as studies as HCQ.
      Do you mean that any finding for one drug can automatically be assumed to be valid for the other?
      Very similar molecules often have widely different effects and efficacy.

      CQ was found to block infection of the kidney cells from the green monkey in an in vitro study.
      This effect was never replicated in animal models, despite many efforts to do so.
      There is an encyclopedia of drugs which have in vitro effects on cell cultures which do not translate into the same effect in a living organism.
      It is also very commonly the case that drugs work in some small animal models that do not have any use or efficacy in people.
      Any drug tested in people for use as a new drug, are first tested in cell or tissue cultures and then in animal models before a single person is ever given it.
      And yet, the vast majority of all such drugs fail in clinical trials and never get approved for use in people.
      The lab bench to FDA approval success rate is about one in 5000.
      And most drugs are far less than perfectly effective, even the ones that work well in some people.
      Antivirals in particular have been very difficult to find and get approved, despite a huge number of molecules that seem to have antiviral effects in vitro.
      Besides for all of that, the in vitro results that showed CQ could block infection of VERO cells with the SARS virus, did not use any zinc as part of the experiment.
      The study that used zinc and CQ was a investigation for an anticancer drug.
      It was found that CQ allowed zinc into the cell, and that this induced programmed cell death.
      But the combo was never found to have efficacy in actually treating cancer, despite many clinical trials looking for an effect.
      The zinc ionophore antiviral effect is basically an internet legend.
      No one has ever shown an actual antiviral effect in any living creature for HCQ or for CQ with or without zinc and with or without any antibiotics.
      The studies in people that looked for antiviral or anticancer effects for CQ and Zpak also compared Zpak with doxycycline, and although neither worked as a therapy for the target condition, doxycycline was found to be much safer.

      We went all over these studies and issues many times over many weeks back around March and April.

  54. It’s unfortunate that this excellent website will now have its credibility destroyed by association with something that has nothing to do with climate change. Dr Stella Immanuel is a quack, as any reasonably diligent internet search will reveal.

    • It’s unfortunate that this excellent website will now have its credibility destroyed by association with something that has nothing to do with climate change.

      Thank YOU dkj, for FINALLY bringing some sense of rationality to this discussion with these obvious morons at WUWT.

      I mean, who DOESN’T get the fact that guilt by association is a wholly valid and reasonable objection to the otherwise credible reputation of someone or something, in this case, the “thing” being WUWT.

      You’re JUST the BEST at what every thinking man everywhere all over the world should strive for as an example of purity of logic and verity of reason!


  55. First I have to thank WUWT for cluing me in to this story. It has been so effectively wiped that I might never had seen it. Bottom line – I went to Breitbart for the first time in years to watch the video. Way to go google, fb, and twitterville. When something as innocuous as that video is banned it makes people wonder about what makes it so dangerous. And the danger is that in the smallest way it could make President Trump look a little better, and that cannot be allowed. These three companies are playing for keeps. Trump is known to be vindictive, and if he is reelected it might be monopoly busting time again.

  56. I asked my doctor:
    If my wife or I were to be infected with the coronavirus would you prescribe Hydroxychloroquine if we requested it?

    His answer:
    it is not a med that we can rx as outpatient– it is restricted to pts in hospital for now

    Anyone know how it can be obtained?

    • The headline post doctor says she is giving it to all her patients.
      She works with outpatients at a small clinic in a strip mall.

    • In the US any doctor can prescribe any FDA approved drug for “off label” use, although they might risk repercussions from medical boards.
      Many years ago I was prescribed Cytoxan for an acute kidney problem, even though it was only approved as a cancer treatment. And trust me…the side effects were a lot worse than any from HCQ. Loss of body hair, severe anemia, etc. All the typical chemo effects.

  57. Michigan HCQ Cocktail study looks as if was designed to give poor results by waiting two days…

    I repeat, two days before treating covid positive at risk patients with the Covid cocktail.

    And the Michigan study recommends more double blind study.

    OK you a patient. What do you chose?

    A 71% reduction in death or serious organ damage… and if given earlier likely much better results…

    Or take your chances…..

    Hey I know the odds for stupid cancer drugs that do not work. The odds for the HCQ cocktail are super great compared to the very best cancer drug.

    And we can find out how great, by treating all at risk patients with the HCQ cocktail as soon covid is detected in the patient.

    This is a link to the Michigan Study and two quotes from that study.


    Even with that handicap…

    hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin provided a 71% hazard reduction (reduction in deaths or serious organ damage) compared to neither treatment (p<0.001).

    Every covid positive at risk patient, logically, should be treated with the HCQ cocktail as soon as possible.

    The Patient is sick, at risk, and the HCQ treatment is most effective it is started as early as possible in virus’s progression.

    Quote from the Michigen Study
    All patients evaluated were 18 years of age and older and were treated as inpatients for at least 48 hours unless they expired within the time period.

    The primary objective was to assess treatment experience with hydroxychloroquine versus hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin, azithromycin alone, and other treatments for COVID-19. Treatments were protocol driven, uniform in all hospitals and established by a system-wide interdisciplinary COVID-19 Task Force.

  58. “The primary objective was to assess treatment experience with hydroxychloroquine versus hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin, azithromycin alone, and other treatments for COVID-19. Treatments were protocol driven, uniform in all hospitals and established by a system-wide interdisciplinary COVID-19 Task Force.”

    These studies always seem to be missing the Zinc!!

      • Nicholas,
        Have you read that study? Not the curt, graphics-enhanced summary, but the actual study paper linked from your link? No control over Zinc was effected; authors do not know which patients in EITHER group were taking Zinc. 58% of subjects in the overall study had no PCR-test confirmation of even having contracted SARS-COV2. Only 423 of 465 completed the end survey, further complicating the issue. No application of Azithromycin (sp?) to handle opportunistic secondary infection. Sizable portion of subjects only had 2 of 3 major symptoms. “PCR testing was unavailable”. No it wasn’t. The study designers did not want to pay for it. Major sports teams worldwide have been able to independently pay for testing since February to protect their players and staff, many of which employ far more people than the paltry 465 subjects in this study. No follow-up in-clinic analysis of each subject; just a survey of symptoms and severity completed by the subjects themselves. 50% reduction of hospitalization for COVID-19 (8 to 4, tossing out two non-COVID hospitalizations in the placebo group). 1 death for both groups, but the HCQ death is curiously listed as (non-hospitalized) but is counted against the HCQ results without comment as to why someone who may have been severely sick wasn’t hospitalized, or even if it happened to be COVID-related at all). In the placebo group they carefully note the non-COVID hospitalizations and subtract them from that groups total hospitalizations (10 total) when we have by now learned that COVID-19 can cause hospitalizations for other issues (blood clots, stroke) which are in fact, directly related to the virus in the body. Finally, no antibody testing was performed on either group at the conclusion, which should have been mandatory given the lack of PCR testing provided the subjects.

        That a poorly-designed and executed study should be promoted as “HCQ ineffective” with such egregious flaws is, in and of itself, grounds for a malpractice suit, were a halfway competent lawyer to get involved. The comment section at the bottom of the actual posted study paper points out ALL of the above issues and more. Without using the exact word, the commentators essentially deem this work as “sloppy”.

        This was NOT a study which examined the controlled use of Zinc + HCQ. Please do not claim it as such.

        • Hush Eric, Nicholas already made up his mind long ago, he’s not interested in the details just the graphics-enhanced summary that supports the conclusions he’s already reached.

        • Funny thing about it is, you can read the published study results and get all the details of their methodology.
          Which you claim proves nothing.
          But people who give no such info are somehow more credible?
          Is a doctor in a strip mall who gives people who come through her door some prescriptions, and sends them on their way, doing controlled studies?
          They are not doing anything but saying stuff.
          But those “reports” you find highly credible?
          I will tell you why: Because they are saying something you want to hear, and so you just swallow it, hook, line and sinker, no questions asked.

          • No proof or multitudes of anecdotes will quiet you since your mind is made up but my question remains, what will you do when you get Wuhan? I am always open to new ideas and different treatments. What’s yours?

          • I think if Nick gets the WuFlu, he will not be worried. My guess is that he is in better than average health, and so the risks are exceedingly low. I agree that the HCQ and Zn has pretty much no downside risk the way it’s prescribed for an RNA virus cold, and the upside is enormous. At worst, your cold will disappear FAST. At best it could save your life. So, what have you got to lose?

          • ” So, what have you got to lose?” Our leftist superiors don’t want us to have that choice, they will decide who lives and dies just as Andrew Cuomo did in New York, Tom Wolfe did in PA, just as Phil Murphy did in NJ, just as Gavin Newsom did in Cali, just as Mike Dewine did in Ohio yesterday. Democrat Party leaders decide who gets life saving drugs and treatments. Don’t like it? They will fine you. Still don’t like it? They will jail you, then go after your family members. People had best figure this sh*t out.

          • ” So, what have you got to lose?”

            It inhibits the efficacy of one of the few drugs which has demonstrated any efficacy:

            “Following the availability of in vitro data demonstrating chloroquine inhibits the antiviral activity of remdesivir in a dose-dependent manner, Gilead conducted an analysis of clinical outcomes with patients who were treated with both remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine concomitantly, versus patients who were treated with remdesivir and who did not receive concomitant hydroxychloroquine. Through a median follow-up of 14 days, the rates and likelihood of recovery were lower in patients who received concomitant hydroxychloroquine compared with patients treated with remdesivir who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (57 percent vs. 69 percent, covariate-adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.61 [0.45, 0.83], p=0.002). Concomitant hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with increased mortality in the 14-day analysis window. The analysis also showed that patients in the concomitant hydroxychloroquine group experienced overall higher rates of adverse events. After adjusting for baseline variables, this difference was significant for Grade 3-4 adverse events.”


            So, what one has to lose, potentially, is a 12% reduction in benefit of a drug which has been proven to help reduced hospital time by 5 days on average, and lower death rates among the sickest patients.

          • “No proof or multitudes of anecdotes will quiet you since your mind is made up but my question remains, what will you do when you get Wuhan? I am always open to new ideas and different treatments. What’s yours?”

            Now hold on a second, here.
            You say no proof will quiet me?
            This seems to imply what you want is for me to be quiet.
            The entire purpose of this site is for people to read and make comments about the issues presented, as they see fit, within certain established site guidelines.

            Beyond that, why would anyone with some proof of something, of anything, want to remain quiet? why would anyone else want someone with proof to be silent?

            That very issue is what we seem to be focused on right now.

            The only thing I have made up my mind about, long before this episode began, is that the scientific method is the best way we have to get evidence about what is what, as opposed to getting opinions about what is what.

            And prospective clinical trials that are carefully controlled, and well conducted, using double blinding and randomization when appropriate, is the best way anyone has ever come up with to find out objectively if a drug or treatment is of value in treating a disease of condition.
            Nothing else comes close.
            We either have unbiased evidence, or we have nothing but opinions and suppositions.
            It takes a lot of evidence to constitute proof.
            Most often, the results of clinical trials are not precisely clear cut, and frequently they are at least somewhat ambiguous or contradictory.
            When that happens, we need to do more trials, or to look at the ones we have to see if it can be discerned that some have a better methodology that others.
            We have that here.
            Studies that look ahead from a proscribed starting point are better than retrospective studies.
            Studies which have organized and consistent data collection are better than those that have spotty and disorganized data collected and presented.
            Studies in which large numbers of participants are tested are better than ones that only look at a small number of people.
            Studies that use a comparator vs the study drug, and in which the drugs and comparators given are assigned in a double blinded and randomized manner, are better than ones in which these things are not the case.
            When people are chosen to participate based on criteria which are decided ahead of time, have many possible biases removed by this process.
            When the decision about which participants get which treatment regimen are not known to anyone involved directly with treating the patients, or to the patients themselves, and done so randomly, this tends to eliminate another large swath of possible confounding biases and interferences that might produce a unreliable result.

            All of these principles have come into place over many years, and all have a large amount of support for why they are needed and helpful in achieving a scientifically valid result.
            They were not dreamed up willy-nilly by one person one fine day and imposed with no justification. The opposite is the case.
            The ethics and the protocols for such trials are and have been debated and discussed for many years and remain so today on an ongoing basis.

            One of the more striking aspects of the statement from Dr. Emmanuel was when she asked “what will happen if in six months it is found out these drugs are a cure”, or words to that effect.
            However, unless one is presupposing a specific conclusion of ultimate efficacy, one must also ask what if the opposite is found to be the case? The precautionary principle is not a one way street.
            For months I have urged caution regarding reaching unwarranted and unevidenced conclusions. I did so because many people seemed to have decided virtually instantly that they knew these drugs were a miracle cure, after hearing of/from a very few advocates who proclaimed it to be so, long before any concrete evidence could be possible.
            Advocates who cited questionable evidence, or made unlikely assertions of certitude, such as claiming they had treated a bunch of people for fewer than two weeks and thus had all the proof they needed that this combination was a “cure”.

            Given that, I find it laughable that all these months later, someone is claiming I made up MY mind prematurely, or have ignored the need for “proof”.

            After a large number of gold standard clinical trials had published results that showed no benefit from these drugs, I am pointing to that evidence.

            I am pointing out what I see as illogical statements and inconsistent assertions.
            I am right here to discuss any disagreements rationally and calmly, and in detail.

            If you want to make it a discussion about your interest in knowing what I would do in some hypothetical circumstance, I am going to decline to have that conversation.
            That is not what this is about.
            It is not about what I would do, or what questions you have about my personal hypothetical behavior, or my decisions about a circumstance that does not exist.

            If you have been participating in this conversation that has been ongoing here for months and months, you would know a lot about “other treatments”.
            And let me tell you, in case you are unclear…this regiment discussed here and asserted to be a cure…it is nothing like a “new idea”.
            It is one of the most tested drug combinations in history at this point, with published results or multiple large clinical trials, and many more in the pipeline and more still ongoing.
            As for other treatments, there has rarely, perhaps never, been so many clinical trials all goin on at once for so many different possible treatments, and so many possible vaccines, nor has so much been written about so many other measures that can or could be taken to avoid infection to begin with.

            To me, being open minded means going where the evidence leads, whether or not it is what one wanted or expected to hear.
            Down at the bottom of this thread, I listed a whole bunch of evidence, and gave links for anyone to look at it, and dispute it, or what have you.

            Besides for everything else that has been going on, this particular issue has been a case study in moving goalposts and unevidenced certainty all along.
            But not by me.

  59. The introduction to working mechanisms of HCQ and the MD holding up the papers “backing that up” are misleading.

    Half of the papers mentioned are “views” and “perspective” articles not actual data. E.g. there is no experimental data at all about HCQ affecting glycosylation of ACE2 receptor. None.

    The in vitro study from the Raoult lab about Azi+HCQ uses only Ct values from infected cells. No other readout. Huge variability between replicates, even sometimes higher in treated vs. control although it is the same type of cells all the time. Not convincing.

    It is never helping a course to stretch, hide, mislead etc. even if you think it serves a greater good. Don’t become a climate activist.

    For me, the jury about HCQ is still open though I am convinced it has nothing to do with Zn2+. Zn2+ on it’s own is another story.

    • The funny thing is: most sources indicate that the way (hydroxy)chloroquine, quinine, various quinoline compounds… work against the plasmodium is yet unknown, after at least half of century of pharma use (or centuries for the natural Cinchona extract).

      • The inhibition of the plasmodium’s vacuole function by (hydroxy-)chloroquine is quite well understood.

      • The Raoult group tried to prove efficacy of Azi+HCQ in an in vitro model as was done for HCQ by the Chinese group from Wuhan that started all the hype started. The design and results are not very convincing.

  60. I have enjoyed, contributed to, and appreciated Wattsupwiththat as a great source of sound science and discussion of scientific matters, but lately, the content has veered into political issues and conspiracy theories like those espoused by Dr. (?) Stella Emanuel. If you read the whole article you should realize that she is a nut case, and giving credence to her ramblings is unconscionable.

    Please Anthony, give back on track with your original science-based objective if you want your site to be continued to be viewed as a rational purveyor of the truth.

  61. Facebook Fact Check flagged this video which I had posted on my wall as being false, with the claim that there is no known cure for Cov19, and totally framed within a blatant Trump bashing exercise.

    • I posted several links to the press conference on FB.
      All but one has been deleted and I received a notification that I’d posted “false information”.
      I’ll continue to post links with comments that the FB censors have deleted previous postings.

  62. From what I am seeing she is a Christian who preaches against the occult, satanism and witchcraft. These beliefs exist and are fashionable in some circles. Voodoo is still a thing that people believe in. It is clear that she is opposed to these beliefs. How does the make her a nutter? She can be a doctor and Christian at the same time.
    I do not take the Daily Beast as a credible source, but in any case it is paywalled, so I have not read the hit piece.

    North American medicine is not evidence based. Doctors and nutritionist promote a diabetes inducing diet and lifestyle which has caused an epidemic of heart disease and cancer over the last 75 years. The data and evidence is there.

    • I have never met a doctor who promotes any diet of any lifestyle.
      And what is a nutritionist, and why are you lumping them with doctors and calling what they do a part of “medicine”.
      What exactly is “North American medicine”, for that matter?

  63. From what I am seeing she is a Christian who is strongly opposed to the occult, satanism and witchcraft. Voodoo is still a thing . These do exist and are real to the people involved. It is clear that she is opposed to these beliefs.
    That does not make her a nutter. She can be a Christian and a doctor at the same time.
    She is not claiming a cure for CV, but an effective treatment. Not the same thing. Unless she is lying, her clinical experience is evidence.
    If anything, the CDC and WHO are ignoring evidence and resorting to superstition. There is lots of evidence from studies that masks are ineffective against virus infection and transmission. They have limited usefulness against bacteria, that is why they are used by surgeons and dentists. We now have a great deal of evidence on covid, and it is not in line with the actions of the authorities.

    • She said over and over that it is a cure and “no one needs to die”.
      How can you say she is not claiming it is a cure?

    • She did say it was a cure. To me she used the term “cure” correctly in that she is saying if you give HCQ and Zn to someone with an RNA virus, it will make you better. The term cure is not tortured in her usage, me thinks. From the research, not from opinion articles, I am convinced that she is correct.

      1. To heal, to make well, to restore to good health.
      2. A time without recurrence of a disease so that the risk of recurrence is small.
      3. Particularly in the past, a course of treatment. For example, take a cure at a spa.

      The word cure comes from the Latin cura meaning care, concern or attention.

    • Billy, she must have said the word cure a couple of dozen times in the short part of her statement quoted here on this page by a few commenters.
      How is it you claim to know what she said, but missed the part where she kept using the word cure over and over, and even elaborated on exactly what she meant by that?

  64. My wife and I listened to Dr. Immanuel, and frankly, if this stunt had any veracity there would be mass demonstrations in Texas demanding the production and distribution of HCQ. Trump, while touting this drug checkered history has been careful not to openly embrace this scam. Who are the people standing behind her in DC? The whole thing is a stink bomb designed to confuse and cast doubt upon the work of real scientists and health professionals. I suppose she’s actually a doctor, otherwise she would be facing criminal charges.

    • Wrong. It is ludicrous to think that the lack of “mass demonstrations” means something is untrue. Use your brain, if you have one. You have been lied to, and prefer to go on believing the lies.

    • So you are saying it kills people? Just come right out and say what you mean, don’t dance around it. I have taken HQC in the past and will be taking it again beginning Friday. The fact politicians and “journalists” and the owners of IT companies are trying to block me from doing so should be what is concerning you.

      • I have known for years that cognitive dissonance causes people to have hallucinations, but it is still amazing to watch people talk about their hallucinations when the whole conversation is in print.
        You have it so bad you are unable to read the actual words spoken.

        • Pot meet kettle. You’ve just described yourself to a T there Nicholas. The funny part is your so blinded you can’t even see it.

          • Ah, the “I know you are, but what am I” argument.
            Peewee Herman called…he wants his schtick back.

  65. Can anyone who has seen Peter Strzok in front of the Judiciary and Oversight Committee not get the feeling, for at least an instant, that demon possession is a thing?

  66. There should be a law against providers of tech that says they can’t participate in fact checking, etc.

    That would actually help these corporations by restricting their freedom. (Think poker. Think going all in.)

  67. Unhinged anger doesn’t help to persuade people…rational people at least. I hope indeed she is correct, but anger and emotional pleas don’t make it so. Railing against medical studies is unhelpful as well. She should be pushing for more studies, in addition to advocating for prescribing it in the meantime.

    Given that the death rate is 1% or so, 350 isn’t a huge sample size, so it’s entirely possible that her 0 deaths out of 350 is normal, and the HCQ did nothing…by my calculations there is about a 3% chance of 0 deaths out of 350 if the probability of death is 1%.

    • Your “analysis” does not prove that it does not work. Doctors like her are being impeded by Fauci co, and the wackos at CNN.

    • The people she sees drive to a strip mall clinic from far away…according to what she herself says.
      How does she know the status of each of them?
      She says she treated 350 people.
      And 10-15 a day at present.
      So 50-75 of the 350 have been taking her treatment for less than a week.
      100-150 have been taking it for less than two weeks.
      And none of any of her patients have any obligation to let her know their status.
      She could not even know if any of them are positive.
      If they are positive, they are supposed to be quarantined, and any appointments should be by telehealth.
      But it is impossible to know anything about the people she is speaking about…because she gave no documentation or data.

        • “Neither have you.”
          On the contrary, I have throughout this entire episode been vigilant about providing documentation, as well as avoiding reaching unevidenced conclusions.

          “There have been posts here that HCQ works.”
          Indeed there have.
          And there have been scientific studies using the gold standard of evaluating whether a given drug demonstrates efficacy against a given condition.
          In all of these types of studies that have released results, no benefit has ben found.

  68. I would have found Stella’s splendid rant more encouraging if she had taken a minute to clarify whether the only source of quinine available to the vast majority of Americans and Canadians – tonic water – is a viable replacement for hydroxychloroquine .

    I’ve searched this subject online, and found total unanimity on the subject – tonic water doesn’t have enough quinine, and/or quinine is a deadly poison. Not very helpful. The only cheery report I found was that the Panama Canal got built despite the workers having been infused by 650mg of quinine three times daily on a continuous basis. When, strangely, they got sick from this treatment, the dosage was lowered to 650mg twice a day, every second day, for two weeks.

    “Forty-thousand doses of quinine
    were administered daily to canal employees, at a dose of 10 grains (650 mg) of quinine sulfate three times daily. Because of its bitter taste and adverse effects
    such as hearing loss, blindness and cinchonism (headache, dizziness, ringing of the ears and vomiting), compliance was poor. To make quinine more palatable,
    tonic water was made available to employees. Tonic water contained 10 grains of quinine in 2.5 ounces of solution and was given to new employees morning and
    night three times a week for the first two weeks and once a week thereafter.”

    The published treatment protocol for Covid-19 requires only 400mg per day for five days – only 60% of the reduced Panama dosage for a third of the treatment period. So the only questions remaining are:

    1. is the nominal 83mg content per liter of tonic water reliably there?
    President’s Choice Diet Tonic Water, the only diet tonic I’ve been able to obtain, shows “quinine hydrochloride” as the last item on the list of ingredients, without any quantification. The immediately preceding item listed, Acesulfame-potassium, is quantified as 30mg per 375mL, which equals 80mg/L. So the quinine content should not be higher than that. But how much lower might it be? If it contains 30mg per 375mL too, then 5L will still supply 400mg.

    2. is 400mg of quinine taken over 24 hours with 5 litres of water effectively equivalent to 400mg of hydroxychloroquine taken in pill form?

    3. what danger is there in daily consuming 267mg of sodium, 1.6g of aspartame(containing phenylalanine) and 3.33g of potassium dissolved in 5 liters of water for five consecutive days?(The non-diet version offers 466mg of sodium and 479grams! of sugar per day instead of potassium and aspartame)

    • Since none of the technical whizzes here have offered any answers to my questions above about tonic water, I offer as evidence the most detailed “debunking” of the only currently legal alternative source of quinine in Canada and the US for Covid-19 treatment:


      In this lengthy post, the author proposes dangerously absurd amounts of Schweppes Tonic Water as necessary to match the hydroxychloroquine dosages for the same purpose. And I mean dangerous because of the total quinine this would provide. He does not address the effects of so much water and other constituents of the drink. Furthermore, he significantly contradicts himself on the amount of tonic water required, saying , at the beginning of his rant:

      “You would need to drink more than 12 liters of Schweppes tonic water every eight hours to maintain those therapeutic levels of quinine (usually provided in pill form) from tonic water.”]

      And at the end suggesting:

      “unless you are planning on drinking around 25 liters of Schweppes tonic water a day, any claim that equates tonic water with any of these three treatments is meaningless.”

      Well, according to seemingly much better documented clinical reports, the first recommendation (ie. 36 liters per day of tonic water), would provide a sickening, and possibly lethal dose of quinine at (83×36) 3grams per day). It is also (3000/400) 7.5 times the daily dosage reported to have resulted in recovery from Covid-19 in hundreds of patients.

      The second suggestion (25 liters per day) of 2grams per day of quinine is still five times the recommended dose.

      Ironically then, this post is the most supportive I have found of using tonic water as a source of quinine in treating Covid-19. All one has to do is throw out the egregiously (and dangerously) inflated dosages and substitute what corresponds to reports of clinically successful dosages of hydroxychloroquine, ie. 5L per day of tonic water for five days, providing 400mg of quinine per day. The author seems to be saying that quinine IS equivalent in effectiveness to hydroxychloroquine. At least he hasn’t offered any evidence or arguments to the contrary.

      Whether one can trust anything this post says is another question altogether. Therefore I’ve searched on the possibility of distilling tonic water to obtain the quinine without having to drink all the water. Sadly, I’ve struck out there too. Anyone care to offer some technical advice? I do own a water distiller.

      • You want straight, unadulterated quinine? The find you some Jesuit’s Bark at your local arboretum. A little Fragrant Grease discreetly applied and you are good to go. How to process and use it you got to figure out on your own. I would suggest checking a 1900 or prior Encyclopedia Britannica, look in the Q volume.

        • Thanks for your suggestion, but I prefer to leave herbal extractions measured in milligrams to experienced biochemists when human health is at stake.

      • Having now found some credible information on the dangers of consuming large quantities of water, I hasten to share it, so that anyone finding my previous posts on the subject of tonic water encouraging will be better informed as to the risks. NB: this information does not address the risks of consuming too much potassium, aspertame, or sugar.

        The most dangerous result of excessive water consumption is called hyponatremia, which can cause death by encephalopathy. There are numerous cases instances cited in the literature, especially involving athletes or soldiers and police in training. I haven’t followed up all of these citations, but found one that is suggestive, in which a man died after drinking “more than 5 liters of water over a few hours”. However, there is more involved than the amount of water ingested. There is a hormonal reaction, more prevalent in women than men, that causes water to be retained instead of eliminated normally. And this is a seriously complicating factor.

        I searched on “maximum water intake” with duckduck.go to find the articles that led to the papers (free to download) linked below:

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4470176/ (hyponatremia causes)

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5334560/#B38 (Exercise-associated hyponatremia)

        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4529263/ (trial of 3.4L+ per day)

        Here is my take-away from a cursory review of these papers:

        A healthy adult can process between 500ml and 1L per hour of water. I presume that if one is passing water regularly while consuming half a liter or less per hour, there is little danger of acute hyponatremia. And even 250mL per hour will, over 16 hours, amount to 4L, so there’s plenty of wiggle room to get your 400mg of quinine (at 80mg/L) in one 24 hour period.

        Sodium balance may be a problem, but at least one of the papers linked above warns that over-compensation with too much sodium has also caused serious problems.

        The third report linked above is a trial of boosting hydration in two groups of healthy young women, divided into two groups, those who consumed less than 3.2L of water, and those who consumed more (from all sources – the researchers established that the subjects were at baseline getting 57% of their water froom food). Both groups were then made to drink 2L more of water per day, giving the second group more than 3.4L of water per day, in addition to the 1.8L they obtained from food.

        I searched the text for “salt”, “sodium”, and “electrolytes”, and got a single hit for the last two terms, but only the the references. I assume from this that no electrolytes were added to the 2L of additional water intake. I take that as an encouraging sign for anyone considering (carefully) consuming 5L of water per day.

        • CORRECTION: above I quoted a news article that said “three soldiers died after drinking more than 5L of water over a few hours”, but I failed to provide the article’s source. I’ve now read the original (abstract only) and it says:

          “All of these cases are associated with more than 5 L (usually 10-20 L) of water intake during a period of a few hours”. Quite a significant difference, I think.


    • “Because of its bitter taste and adverse effects
      such as hearing loss, blindness and cinchonism (headache, dizziness, ringing of the ears and vomiting), compliance was poor.”


  69. I thought I could not lose any more faith and hope in humanity, but with this I have been proven wrong.

  70. I don’t get all this focus on the personality, rather than the issue. Oh and “alien dna” doesn’t usually refer to little green men.

    Umpteen studies show that hcq is effective against seasonal viruses as a prophylactic and in the early stages, less so in late stages, no surprise there. This is confirmed by this analysis of 65 studies: https://c19study.com/

    The worry about this focus on hcq obscures the fact “covid19” presents little threat to the great majority of the population.

    • One you remember “Orange man bad” you’ll understand their mania. The Orange man said nice things about hcq so it has to be taken down, and anyone that suggests it might possibly be effective under any circumastance must be taken down too. As they say about lawyers: When the facts are on your side pounds the facts, when the law is on your side pound the law, when neither is on your side pound the table. You are witnessing world record table pounding in action.

  71. The 350 are clinical experience. Yet, it could have been, given the 80% chance of survival of even the medically compromised, that they might have gotten well anyway.
    Still, it is evidence. Nothing else. Plaquenil is safe. Perhaps effective. It tips the scale a little.

    • And if we could just get people to admit as such at a minimum:

      1) It’s safe
      2) there is evidence of positive effect

      Then there could be a meaningful discussion from that standpoint.

      Instead, the conversation gets dishonestly dragged down to:

      1) It kills people
      2) It’s proven not to work.

      While denying there is evidence at all that it does work [MEME], they then claim that [the evidence that does not exist] is actual actual evidence and proof of the opposite. You cannot make this stuff up!

      • There is a big difference between saying it is proven not to work, and saying that the studies that use the best methodology have shown the drugs to have no benefit.
        Those of us who struggle to maintain objectivity try to be careful to speak of evidence, not proof.
        The weight of the evidence is piling up on one side of the scale at this point.
        Emphatic assertions are not evidence.

      • Medical science and evaluating the efficacy of disease treatment has never been conducted by means of doctors engaging in self promotion, or the making of internet videos replete with bombastic statements and emphatic dismissals of the very methods that have allowed scientific progress.
        She scoffs at the notion of scientific evidence, and goes so far as to call anyone who speaks of double blind clinical trials “fake doctors”.

        Here is a quote:
        “And let me tell you something, all you fake doctors out there that tell me, “Yeah. I want a double blinded study.” I just tell you, quit sounding like a computer, double blinded, double blinded. I don’t know whether your chips are malfunctioning, but I’m a real doctor.”

        What place has nonsense like this in a rational discussion of drug efficacy in a health emergency?
        She proclaims herself the arbiter of who is a real doctor, and her standard is that anyone who seeks objective evidence, using the best means we know of to get it, is a fake doctor.
        Then she makes some weird flippant remark about their “chips malfunctioning” as a lead in to declaring herself a real doctor.

        Ok, sure.
        I an sure I am on solid ground to say, anyone who is convinced by such remarks is a jackass.
        And she is being obnoxious and unprofessional to make such statements.
        What it amounts to is a complete dismissal of the scientific method as it applies to drugs for the treatment of disease.
        Maybe instead, we could look at what people say if anyone can make up their own criteria for deciding who is a real doctor?
        She cites a 2005 study that looked at using HCQ on the kidney cells of green monkeys as her proof, and backed that up with a remark about a single patient report about someone with hiccups as “proof” of the efficacy of HCQ, even though neither of those reports had any info at all on if HCQ had efficacy in sick people.
        A few sentences later she claims no one needs to get sick, because this virus has a cure. Even if true that this drug combo was a cure, her equating a treatment with “no one need(ing) to get sick” is completely illogical. For no one to get sick we would need to have something that we could give to everyone that would prevent them from ever contracting the virus. But she offers nothing to indicate she knows how to keep anyone from getting the virus. Treating sick people does not mean no one gets sick.
        Then she makes this astounding set of assertions:
        “I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need mask. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.”
        How is having a cure a reason for no one to wear a mask?
        She wears head to toe protection and insists her patients wear a face covering when coming to see her.
        Now, why would someone who thinks there is a 100% foolproof cure bother with all of that?
        This one detail alone is, IMO, very damning for her credibility. Anyone who believes what she says would have zero reason to wear a mask at all. They are expensive (when used all the time, and with the type she is wearing) and uncomfortable.

        And how is a cure a “prevention”?
        Logically, she must be saying everyone should be on a permanent regimen of prophylactic combination therapy. But this does not add up. That would take billions of pills of the stuff every week for the US alone. And do we take zpak antibiotic as part of the prevention? That makes no sense. Antibiotics would be quickly useless if everyone took them all the time. And what about the percentage of people who are known to be sensitive to HCQ for any of several reasons?
        And how and why is she conflating opening schools with HCQ? Is she suggesting every school kid needs to get a regular dose of HCQ as well?
        The people who want to open schools are basing that on the fact that children seem to mostly not be affected by this virus. Nothing to do with masks or HCQ.

        But all of that speaks to logical inconsistencies or questions about why she is saying what she says.

        But she goes way off the rails after this opening set of remarks.

        “Let me ask you Dr. Sanjay Gupta. Hear me. Have you ever seen a COVID patient? Have you ever treated anybody with hydroxychloroquine and they died from heart disease? When you do, come and talk to me because I sit down in my clinic every day and I see these patients walk in everyday scared to death.”

        Q-T prolongation is a well described risk for taking HCQ. Is she saying Gupta cannot cite this fact if he does not personally treat patients and seen some of them die due to heart problems?
        She seems to be saying only personal experience matters. If she has not seen it, it is a lie.

        “I tell all of you doctors that are sitting down and watching Americans die. You’re like the good Nazi … the good one, the good Germans that watched Jews get k*lled and you did not speak up. If they come after me, they threaten me. They’ve threatened to … I mean, I’ve gotten all kinds of threats. Or they’re going to report me to the bots. I say, you know what? I don’t care. I’m not going to let Americans die. And if this is the hill where I get nailed on, I will get nailed on it. I don’t care. You can report me to the bots, you can k*ll me, you can do whatever, but I’m not going to let Americans die.”

        OMG! How to even start unpacking that screed?
        Who is she talking about? What doctors are just sitting down and watching people die?
        Like good Nazis? Like Germans who “watched Jews get k!lled”?
        What on Earth is she talking about here?
        Who is trying to k*ll her? Threaten her? Has she gone to the police? Police take threats very seriously. As we all should. But how seriously can we take someone who rants on like this?
        Report her to the bots? Chips malfunctioning in doctors?
        WTF is she talking about?

        This is who people want to hitch their wagon to?
        This is what we want the election to hinge on?

        “Instead, the conversation gets dishonestly dragged down to:

        1) It kills people
        2) It’s proven not to work.”

        No, that is not what the conversation is dragged down to. To assert so is what is dishonest.

        The questions is, can it save everyone who takes it?
        Can it prevent anyone from ever getting sick?

        Lots of drugs that save lives also cause harm to some percentage of people. So does this one.
        Some people had best not take it.
        The details on that have been presented here over and over for many months.
        To imply no one who takes it can be harmed and even k*lled by it…now that is dishonest.

        Even the advocates here on this page seem mostly willing to concede quite readily that the drug is worthless unless taken early. So what to do about those who are not treated early, who have passed this hypothetical efficacy window?
        Those people need to be helped to, right?
        It seems many of the same people that insist the drug only works if taken early, also scoff at any other drugs or treatments, some of which are known to help people who are gravely ill.
        Can you explain why a rational person would say HCQ is ineffective unless taken early, but also dismiss other treatments which might help all the people who do not get HCQ “early”?

        BTW…there is no indication Stella Immanuel only treated people early, or treated anyone early.
        She says they cannot breathe when she see them.
        That aint early.

  72. For anyone willing to see reality and truth, please see this rather lengthy, but meticulously referenced, article:


    Click on the links within the 57 “Pieces” to the puzzle of HCQ to see original reports, incidents, papers, other official documentation.

    And I hope no one can possibly try to disingenuously dismiss any of this as the author being pro-Trump.

      • She made statements that are not supported by evidence.
        No one is allowed to claim a drug or treatment is a cure, unless there is proof that it is a cure.
        It is illegal in the US, and others places to I would guess, to make statements of medical efficacy that are unsupported.
        Companies advertising supplements and such are highly constrained about what they can say regarding the possible uses and benefits of those substances.

        In the case of a drug which is being tested for efficacy in clinical trials, it is flat out illegal, as well as unethical, to make claims that are not supported by FDA approvals.
        Any doctor can legally prescribe any medication that has been approved (no matter what conditions/diseases the approval was for) for any condition that doctor deems medically appropriate.
        But that does not mean the doctor can go on TV and claim that such off label usage is in fact a cure for a condition or disease that the drug in question has not been approved for.

        Just imagine if any and every doctor did something like this based on nothing more than a belief that that one person had in their mind?
        It would be chaos, and no one would have any idea how to sperate out actual knowledge from spurious and/or unsupported claims.
        Consumers would be in a hopeless morass in such a free-for-all situation.
        For better or worse, love it or hate it, we have a regulatory body that evaluates claims and evidence of medical efficacy, and they use scientific evidence to arrive conclusions and to issue approvals for what can be legally claimed.
        And we also have legislatures and guidelines for how the rules can be changed.
        What we do not have, and no one should want, is a chaotic situation where anyone can say anything they want.

        • I think if someone made such statements and claims as a private citizen, there would be a much stronger case for not allowing such censorship.
          But she was clearly using her status a licensed medical professional to make claims that are not supported by scientific evidence, and not approved by the FDA.
          That is unethical, and probably illegal.
          And she may easily have opened herself up to claims of malpractice if anyone she has treated has a bad outcome.

          If she had qualified her remarks to make it clear that she was voicing personal opinions, the same case could be made, IMO, about unreasonable censorship.
          In fact many people are voicing such opinions all the time.

  73. Issac Newton believed in astrology. I guess that disproves gravity and his Laws of Motion.

    • Chad
      And alchemy! You are being flippant. Calculus and Laws of Motion basically speak for themselves. In the case of this doctor, all anyone has are her unverified verbal claims, with contradictions as pointed out by McGinley above, and no actual scientific evidence. No peer-reviewed publication. No tables. No detailed anything. Yet, there is a claim of 100% success. Anytime anyone in experimental science claims 100% accuracy or success, you should check to see if you still have your wallet, and slowly and quietly back out of the room.

      She hasn’t even demonstrated the ability to turn lead into gold.

    • I knew Isaac Newton.
      Isaac Newton was a friend of mine.
      Stella Emmanuel is no Isaac Newton.

      For one thing, Isaac gave us a very thick book full of his evidence.

  74. Here is a list of studies I found with a short search.
    Though I have made an effort to exclude duplicates of the same trial, some may be duplicates.
    There are no clinical trials which used the gold standard that found any benefit from using HCQ:

    Hydroxychloroquine Fails as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19

    Hydroxychloroquine in Nonhospitalized Adults With Early COVID-19

    Low-cost dexamethasone reduces death by up to one third in hospitalised patients with severe respiratory complications of COVID-19
    Hydroxychloroquine… has now been stopped due to lack of efficacy

    Results of the randomized, controlled, open-label Phase III trial, which took place at more than two dozen sites in Brazil…
    Hydroxychloroquine flunks Phase III trial in mild-to-moderate Covid-19

    Randomized trial shows hydroxychloroquine doesn’t prevent Covid-19 as questions arise about earlier study

    Report: VA still using hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19; mounting data indicate no effect

    Novartis halts its trial of hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19, citing poor enrollment

    Review of: “Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial Gautret et al 2010

    Neither HCQ nor HCQ+AZTH showed a significant effect on the viral load levels in any of the tested compartments. When the drug was used as a pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), HCQ did not confer protection against acquisition of infection. Our findings do not support the use of HCQ, either alone or in combination with AZTH, as an antiviral treatment for COVID-19 in humans.

    Hydroxychloroquine trials for COVID-19 suspended by WHO

    Hydroxychloroquine for Early Treatment of Adults with Mild Covid-19: A Randomized-Controlled Trial
    In patients with mild Covid-19, no benefit was observed with HCQ beyond the usual care.

    Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19: Preliminary results from a multi-centre, randomized, controlled trial.
    Conclusions: In patients hospitalized with COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine was not associated with reductions in 28-day mortality but was associated with an increased length of hospital stay and increased risk of progressing to invasive mechanical ventilation or death.

    Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.

    Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19
    In this observational study involving patients with Covid-19 who had been admitted to the hospital, hydroxychloroquine administration was not associated with either a greatly lowered or an increased risk of the composite end point of intubation or death.

    Outcomes of Hydroxychloroquine Usage in United States Veterans Hospitalized with COVID-19

    A Randomized Trial of Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis for Covid-19
    After high-risk or moderate-risk exposure to Covid-19, hydroxychloroquine did not prevent illness compatible with Covid-19 or confirmed infection when used as postexposure prophylaxis within 4 days after exposure.

    Refuting Henry Ford study in the same journal:
    An observational cohort study of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin for COVID-19

    Brazil study finds no hydroxychloroquine benefit for Covid-19

    Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial
    Administration of hydroxychloroquine did not result in a significantly higher probability of negative conversion than standard of care alone in patients admitted to hospital with mainly persistent mild to moderate covid-19. Adverse events were higher in hydroxychloroquine recipients than in non-recipients.

    Association of Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Azithromycin With In-Hospital Mortality in Patients With COVID-19 in New York State
    Among patients hospitalized in metropolitan New York with COVID-19, treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, or both, compared with neither treatment, was not significantly associated with differences in in-hospital mortality

    No evidence of rapid antiviral clearance or clinical benefit with the combination of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin in patients with severe COVID-19 infection

    Patient Taking Hydroxychloroquine Right After Discontinuing Azithromycin Develops QTc Prolongation and Cardiac Arrest

    The QT interval in patients with COVID-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin

    Risk of QT Interval Prolongation Associated With Use of Hydroxychloroquine With or Without Concomitant Azithromycin Among Hospitalized Patients Testing Positive for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)

    Characteristics associated with hospitalisation for
    COVID-19 in people with rheumatic disease: data
    from the COVID-19 Global Rheumatology Alliance
    physician-reported registry

    “Former FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, MD, said the verdict on hydroxychloroquine is not in doubt.

    “We all hoped it was going to work. … All of the studies that were rigorously done have pointed in the same direction, which is that the drug doesn’t work,” Gottlieb told MSNBC. “I think at this point, we can definitively say hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work. I’m not sure what more we need to do.””

    “It is unprofessional to say there is a cure for COVID or a proven way to prevent COVID through the use of a pill,” John Whyte, MD, chief medical officer of WebMD, said in an interview with Men’s Health.

  75. Why does HCQ not work in people who are sick?
    Why did it seem to work in some in vitro experiments?
    The in vitro tests used VERO cells…kidney cells from green monkeys.
    Recently, the same experiment using HCQ in cells in vitro, but this time using human lung cells, showed that there was no effect for HCQ:

    Hydroxychloroquine can’t stop COVID-19. It’s time to move on, scientists say


    I personally wish these articles and anyone discussing these issues would leave out the politics, but that seems to be asking too much these days.
    I have a feeling many readers will object to the authors of articles, like the Science News one, referring to the characterizations from various political and public health leaders, and from that decide the article is a political one and ignore it.
    This is unfortunate.
    It clouds the ability to be objective.

  76. Dr Simone Gold (@drsimonegold) has tweeted that she was “terminated from employment”, i.e. fired, after her video went viral.

    • She repeatedly referenced a 2005 study as proof that HCQ cured COVID 19.
      But that study was an in vitro look at using chloroquine to block infection in kidney cells from the green monkey.
      For a medical professional to use that as a justification for blithely treating patients who are sick with another virus, could reasonably be taken as proof of incompetence. At best.
      Recklessness and malpractice is probably a fair characterization.

  77. Is CoV-2 confirmed as the cause of this pandemic?
    Posted on August 5, 2020 by budbromley (link below)

    As you know, COVID-19 (aka SARS CoV-2) is said to be affecting senior citizens (like me) more than any other group. But is that really true? Or, is SARS CoV-2 a follow-on infection after pneumonia or other disease which weakened the immune system?

    As far as I can find, neither Koch’s postulates nor Rivers postulates (1), the standards for confirmation of cause (etiology) of infectious diseases, has been completed or published for SARS CoV-2. If you have done this virology, or if you can provide a reference to such a report, then please you would be helping us all by letting us know where it is published.

    My literature search found no confirmation Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates has been fulfilled for SARS CoV-2, which is commonly called Covid-19, and merely associated with the deaths and disease in this so-called pandemic. A PCR test confirms that a specific sequence is found in the patient sample. An antibody test confirms that the patient has antibodies for a given pathogen. But, an association or correlation of a sequence or antibody with a disease is not equivalent and does not prove cause.

    Do your own literature search. The scientists and papers usually mention justification or reason that Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates have not been fulfilled for CoV-2, for example the absence of a validated animal model is mentioned as well as the difficulties with animal models and cell culture media. (3)

    SARS CoV-1 was confirmed following Koch’s postulates in 2003 by Dutch scientists. (2) But sequence homology between CoV-1 and CoV-2 has been reported at about 79%, while for example, homology between bat and CoV-2 is about 96%.

    Without confirmation of cause following Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates, the world is probably doing extensive and expensive testing for sequence and antibodies and designing vaccines for exosomes or apoptotic bodies.

    Time for some due diligence please.

    (1) Viruses and Koch’s Postulates, Thomas M. Rivers. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC545348/

    (2) Koch’s postulates fulfilled for SARS virus. Ron A. M. Fouchier, et al. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7095368/

    (3) Amending Koch’s postulates for viral disease: When “growth in pure culture” leads to a loss of virulence, Joseph Prescott, Heinz Feldmann, and David Safronetz. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5182102/


    • Sequence homology is not informative. With only a few exceptions, most viruses have combinations of highly conserved and highly variable sequences. Coronavirus is the most variable kind.

      The conserved parts are often repetitious, making assembly from short fragments (e.g., Illumina) difficult or impossible. Long-read or single-molecule methods are just not good enough because of their high error rate and significant artifacts.

      Furthermore, most of sequence variation in viruses (as well as in living things), is neutral. Heavy-hitting mutations are small and few in number. Often one amino acid substitution is enough to cause a pandemic, while hundreds of others might have no observable effect. Sequence homology is useless.

      The tests for coronavirus target a short conserved sequence that is common to all or nearly all coronaviruses, If the purported COVID-19 existed and could be defined as a thing (“Here’s a fully assembled genome, cloned and tested for stability, accompanied by reliable serology and protein structure data”), then selecting a more meaningful target for a PCR test could be possible. As things stand, no such feature is known and everyone is testing for “a coronavirus” with no practical purpose.

      Whatever sequence was presented as COVID-19, if it ever was true sequence, will never be found in the wild anymore.

      As far as epidemiology goes, coronaviruses are a normal fact of life. They have been with us for hundreds of millions of years, and I have a strong hunch that regular exposure to them is an absolute requirement for normal life.

      Regarding Koch’s postulates, they suggest good simple questions to ask, but I find them a bit naïve. Today, we know enough to ask questions like this: can we be sure that any given case of respiratory distress associated with a positive CoV test would be less severe without the coronavirus present?

      Here’s some stuff Koch did not know:

Comments are closed.