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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
YT has also pulled the video.
Using DuckDuckGo, I was able to find it at archive.org
I guess black Doctors’ lives don’t matter much to You Tube ..
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.
THe video can bee seen here
https://www.hitc.com/en-gb/2020/07/28/who-is-dr-stella-immanuel/
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.
HCQ should be available OTC. Acetaminophen is OTC and it’s far more dangerous.
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. ”
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/americas-frontline-doctors/
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?
Oops, Jack, your sloppy thinking is showing again.
Your logical fallacy is?
https://tinyurl.com/bvfmw4k
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?
https://tinyurl.com/k4tp28a
Wanna go for a hat trick?
You’re a regular, aren’t you, Jack?
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.
https://gizmodo.com/who-are-americas-frontline-doctors-the-pro-trump-pro-1844528900
Here is another factchecker’s take:
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/stella-immanuel/dont-fall-video-hydroxychloroquine-not-covid-19-cu/
Then there is peer-reviewed science.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2016638
Frontline also fails the CRAAP Test.
https://guides.library.duq.edu/informationevaluation/CRAAP
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.
Gee, I wonder if this is all pulled from the same well.
‘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.
DonM really does lack a sense of self-awareness. But he does have a sense of small.
Hmm, don’t you contradict yourself Jack?
There’s the hat trick I knew was coming!
All of your comments meet this logical fallacy.
https://tinyurl.com/ke2gw3r
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?
No?
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?
https://tinyurl.com/k4tp28a
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.
IOW…science.
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.
https://medcitynews.com/2020/07/hydroxychloroquine-flunks-phase-iii-trial-in-mild-to-moderate-covid-19/
https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/low-cost-dexamethasone-reduces-death-by-up-to-one-third-in-hospitalised-patients-with-severe-respiratory-complications-of-covid-19
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.
https://www.nejm.org/medical-articles/original-article
https://relief.unboundmedicine.com/relief/view/Coronavirus-Guidelines/2355000/all/Coronavirus_Disease_2019__COVID_19_
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:
https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/10.7326/M20-4207
No efficacy
For post exposure prophylaxis:
https://rheumnow.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-fails-postexposure-prophylaxis-covid-19
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:
rip
Has anyone noticed what we are NOT talking about here on this thread?
We are not talking about her evidence.
Why?
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.
Why?
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.
Evidence.
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.
Many places in the world HCQ is over the counter
“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.
https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/07/15/media-should-do-a-mea-culpa-as-french-analysis-offers-a-stunning-observation-about-hydroxychloroquine-use-n643181
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?
GMAFB.
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.”
Jack???????
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.
https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com/
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..
science?
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.
I believe nothing “deserves to be banned.”
“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?
I just search for the placebo needle 😀
(“imagine a needle piercing your left earlap”)
**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.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
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).
Hmm… who is Congress interviewing today?
It’s time to cancel the Cancel Culture.
And speaking of relevance to the 1st amendment..
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-trump/trump-administration-petitions-fcc-on-social-media-content-rules-idUSKCN24S2QM
Here’s the best part of the video … https://www.bitchute.com/video/8nXePkc9nPJn/?fbclid=IwAR3r3AZtszg-_ejbvKtE2vwa3cu2-cwOMEszish5D1UD3LgYwWVgyWF1QTo
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. ”
https://www.recoverytrial.net/news/statement-from-the-chief-investigators-of-the-randomised-evaluation-of-covid-19-therapy-recovery-trial-on-hydroxychloroquine-5-june-2020-no-clinical-benefit-from-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-in-hospitalised-patients-with-covid-19
Not used early. Not used with zinc.
Studies appear to have been designed to fail.
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.
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext
Treatment with Hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, and Combination in Patients Hospitalized with COVID-19
Results
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.
So Twitter is banning the video as well.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/twitter-partially-suspends-donald-trump-jr-for-sharing-hydroxychloroquine-video
So social media must have a bunch of expert doctors reviewing treatments, NOT A CHANCE! Political action to harm patients by hiding information.
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.
at VIMEO
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.
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.
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion
HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD , PROFESSOR OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH
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.
Dr. Stella may not be the post anyone who wants to be credible should be hitching their horse to.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-immanuel-trumps-new-covid-doctor-believes-in-alien-dna-demon-sperm-and-hydroxychloroquine
Ad hominem much?
+1 Gord
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.
icisil
Said by a doctor
“I was never one for protocols as they end up tablets of stone.”
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?
A) She wasn’t alone.
B) Ad Hominem is a proxy for well done work.
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.
There you go, Nick – I’d say you got your answer.
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.
That should be pre exposure prophylaxis.
Dang autocorrect
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.
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/early-treatment-mild-covid-19-university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no
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
vs
“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.
https://today.wayne.edu/medicine/news/2012/03/09/aps-will-recognize-dr-prasad-for-his-landmark-zinc-findings-28293
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.
I do. See my response to Stokes.
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:
https://scitechdaily.com/why-do-people-believe-con-artists/
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.’
https://www.facebook.com/drstella.gwp/posts/10158334090409180?__cft__%5B0%5D=AZXLwmYGwJjl2tSiNKoJgmUHVzivLn2Pnq_HEhsAwqfI2AgiwSE5RUYBZ2k2An9a_SvsEUOdFi82vZh3QJxqZihkdh-JSPRnNXbmXojq_Mi8BLN9l__ikyuAt8QRlTRBSlo&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R
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.
Cheers
Mike
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!
BRAVO!!!!! Frickin’ BRAV-EFFING-O!!!!!
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]
e.g.
https://ard.bmj.com/content/77/Suppl_2/144.3
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.
https://lupus.bmj.com/content/6/Suppl_1/A217
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.
https://ard.bmj.com/content/annrheumdis/79/7/859.full.pdf
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.
It might be worse. I agree with you.
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).
+1000
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.
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.
Andrew Cuomo is, by his own personal order people died.
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.
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
(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.
Dr. Stella Immanuel video- https://www.facebook.com/FirePowerMinistriesWithDrStellaImmanuel/videos/3009608749092837/
If I were sick, I think I would look for a different doctor. Just sayin’
And this thing about not needing a mask?
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?
Simon, being skeptical is why HCL is being supported. You must have missed that.
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.
“She is as mad as a snake” So is Anthony Fauci, yet you believe him.
2hotel9
Fauci is Trumps pick to lead the fight so that makes Trump the chief loon.
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.
“In sermons posted on YouTube and articles on his website, Immanuel claims that medical issues such as endometriosis, ulcers, infertility and impotence are caused by sex with “spirit husbands” and “spirit wives” —ea Emmanuel essentially Describes sex as witches and demons in a dream. ”
..
https://tech2.org/stella-emanuel-trumps-new-covid-19-doctor-believing-in-alien-dna-demon-sperm-and-hydroxychloroquine/
Did she do a double blind study?
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 😉
I don’t believe aspirin ever went through a double blind study, penicillin either.
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.
**his website** ??
Missed the part about NY Yankee fans.
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.
“That political party should be banned and their members arrested and imprisoned.”
For “censoring discussion”.
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’.
Right.
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!
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ry5DYhpXHzY&feature=youtu.be
Its witchcraft I tell you!
Ad hominem.
They have been hunting witches and judging warlocks for the past 16 trimesters. They resurrected human sacrificial rites (i.e. life deemed unworthy of life “burden”, clinical cannibalism of profitable parts) almost a century ago. They have embraced diversity dogma (i.e. class-based taxonomic system, processes, beliefs) that denies individual dignity, denies individual conscience. Weird religions indeed.
Speaking of witchcraft, when are you going to get back to me on this Ghalfrunt:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/07/24/democrats-green-new-deal-would-make-us-reliance-on-china-much-worse/#comment-3039529
Powerful women of color with differing cultural beliefs. Scare you much, maybe you should check your racism at the door.
Seriously Mr. Rotter, please investigate the credibility of Immanuel before you make WUWT a laughingstock.
Do you think the linked video was only about Dr. Immanuel? Pity.
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.
Are you a laughingstock or just a troll?
He’s both
Quite successful at both!
Henry Pool
You are a typical racist troll, who can’t stand powerful women of color and their differing cultural beleifs
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.
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