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.
“If they come after me” ROTFLMAO. Okay I can see all the “authorities” sending in the “enforcers” to arrest her and the cops going “never mind”.
Hey Trump, I think we just found your next head of the health department.
Africa is a continent of 1.216 billion people
U.S. is a country of 3228 million people (roughly 1/3 the population of Africa)
Number of Covid cases in Africa=859,237
Number of Covid cases in U.S.=4,442,000 (more than three times that of Africa which has 3 times the population)
Fact: Hydroxychloroquine is used extensively in all of Africa.
Fact: Hydroxychloroquine use is stifled in the U.S.
Camel
As a friend from Rwanda remarked to me, a confounding fact for your hypothesis is that Africans may have stronger immune systems because they are challenged more frequently in their less hygienic environment, and there may be selective evolutionary pressures on Africans to have strong immune systems.
Besides that, places like NY City, Dallas, and Los Angeles have airplanes bringing in sick people from all over the world. How many cities in Africa have airports with the same air traffic as the three American cities I mentioned?
Cairo, Johannesburg, Lagos, Kinshasa to name a few. The proximity to southern Europe, Middle East, and other hotspots via marine travel makes Africans just as exposed as other areas. I concede to a degree your point about possible mass resistance due to living conditions, but the ratios are just too lopsided for that explanation to be absolute.
We see that people who are very old and in rather poor health are the ones who are at by far the highest risk of a bad outcome.
I have no data to cite, but I would be surprised if developing countries have anywhere near as many very old and very sick people as places like the EU and the US.
We see that people who are very old and in rather poor health are the ones who are at by far the highest risk of a bad outcome.
I have no data to cite, but I would be surprised if developing countries have anywhere near as many very old and very sick people as places like the EU and the US.
Large populations of elderly sick people is a new phenomenon mostly occurring only in the most prosperous countries wherein most of the bad diseases have been eliminated or drastically reduced.
Number of REPORTED cases in Africa.
The Daily Beast has done an effective hit job on her and only her so far. The other doctors at the conferencr have not been targeted yet. https://www.thedailybeast.com/stella-immanuel-trumps-new-covid-doctor-believes-in-alien-dna-demon-sperm-and-hydroxychloroquine?source=facebook&via=desktop&fbclid=IwAR0QqK0bW5JE6lJWdRDis_UDUOYY8NQjHtGLsjHmgxRq8uAyqTWGQAGm57Y
Attack the person if you can’t attack the message. Standard tactic from the holder of the weak hand. Should we only get medical advice from atheists, agnostics, Muslims, Jews, Christians, Hindus, Buddhists?
I don’t go to a specialist for their religious beliefs. I go to get problems solved.
The amount of anti-panty-wading (the censoring by the left of what displeases them) is astounding and a bit surreal.
Even more astounding is the sheep-silence of the right.
I’ve not seen a provider kill a website and YT/FB keep deleting videos like this one. They really touched a nerve.
How much is at stake money wise? Billions of vaccines given multiple times a year? Don’t need that if there is a cure and preventative. Opps.
The anti-HCQ campaign, which is based on pseudoscience, disinformation, and lies has blood on their hands. Those responsible should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Dr. Fauci, to his great shame, is part of that campaign.
This is an unbelievable effective 5 minute video.
She specifically calls out people, as spreaders of lies. And she should. Something works or it does not.
If you have not watch this amazing 5 minute video, please do. Pass this video on.
DR. STELLA IMMANUEL, PRIMARY CARE PHYSICIAN IN HOUSTON, 350 SUCCESSES WITH HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE
https://www.bitchute.com/video/8nXePkc9nPJn/?fbclid=IwAR3r3AZtszg-_ejbvKtE2vwa3cu2-cwOMEszish5D1UD3LgYwWVgyWF1QTo
This Lady is real in a way that cannot be faked.
This woman is not a made for TV model with makeup. This is a woman who has travelled to Washington, risking her career, to save American lives.
This woman is not political because she did not grow up in America. All she cares about is her patients and her fellow Americans.
She is like Martin Luther King, except she is a hero in our time.
Could there possibly be a better story for the Media to tell? Problem is the Media hide this story which now appears to be a criminal act, that has and is result in the needless death of Americans?
Interfering in a US election, with the interference resulting in the deaths of Americans?
A Black woman, Houston front line doctor, from Nigeria, is going to change America by defeating covid. The HCQ cocktail if used early is almost a cure for covid.
Can there be a happier story? A better outcome for our country? Something to wake up those who were mindless supporting the Fake news agenda.
William
Snake Oil salesmen are never effective if they are not convincing.
Please see the chart from gummibear737 on Twitter on HCQ use vs death rate. I didn’t check the numbers myself but it looks very convincing that HCQ is doing something good.
People who want HCQ and are prevented from getting it by bureaucrats should invoke Trump’s “Right to Try” law that allows people to use any medicine, even those not approved by the FDA, if those medicines might make a difference in their disease outcome.
Thank you, Charles Rotter, Anthony and commenters for your commitment to truths and the scientific method. Free and open discussion is what America is about. WUWT remains true to these ideals and purposes.
Hard evidence of HCQ being effective.
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
Summary, WHO suspended trials of HCQ based on a fake article in Lancet that was withdrawn 2 weeks later. The Swiss stopped and restarted use of HCQ resulting in a perfect square wave pulse of excess deaths that corresponds perfectly with the stop and start dates (given a 1 week delay for people to die from the lack of treatment.)
This is also a great example of a fake science article leading directly to statistically countable deaths. (p<0.0001, 99% confidence level)
Shame on You-Tube/Google for censoring Dr Stella Emmanuel. We stand with Dr Stella Emmanuel. You-Tube/Google needs to be Regulated asap. They have demonstrated their bias so many times.
It’s still working all three hours on my FB. Please check it out. It was terrific!
https://www.facebook.com/Breitbart/videos/1722837017868299
Thx for that link, I’m just downloading the video for later view !
Great!
From their white paper:
““Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread”
by Vincent, Bergeron, Benjannet, et. al., was published by the official publication of the
National Institutes of Health when Dr. Fauci was NIH Director. Given that CQ was
demonstrated to be very effective against a 78% identical coronavirus less than 15 years
ago during a very similar situation, it is very curious that there was a multinational effort
to restrict it starting in mid-January. (CQ is a precursor to the more modern HCQ. We now
use HCQ in the USA. But studies of CQ are as reliable as studies of HCQ.)”
They refer to this paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
“CQ is a precursor to the more modern HCQ. We now
use HCQ in the USA. But studies of CQ are as reliable as studies of HCQ.”
CQ was first synthesized in 1934, HCQ 12 years later in 1946.
Not sure what you mean to say re studies of CQ as reliable as studies as HCQ.
Do you mean that any finding for one drug can automatically be assumed to be valid for the other?
Very similar molecules often have widely different effects and efficacy.
CQ was found to block infection of the kidney cells from the green monkey in an in vitro study.
This effect was never replicated in animal models, despite many efforts to do so.
There is an encyclopedia of drugs which have in vitro effects on cell cultures which do not translate into the same effect in a living organism.
It is also very commonly the case that drugs work in some small animal models that do not have any use or efficacy in people.
Any drug tested in people for use as a new drug, are first tested in cell or tissue cultures and then in animal models before a single person is ever given it.
And yet, the vast majority of all such drugs fail in clinical trials and never get approved for use in people.
The lab bench to FDA approval success rate is about one in 5000.
And most drugs are far less than perfectly effective, even the ones that work well in some people.
Antivirals in particular have been very difficult to find and get approved, despite a huge number of molecules that seem to have antiviral effects in vitro.
Besides for all of that, the in vitro results that showed CQ could block infection of VERO cells with the SARS virus, did not use any zinc as part of the experiment.
The study that used zinc and CQ was a investigation for an anticancer drug.
It was found that CQ allowed zinc into the cell, and that this induced programmed cell death.
But the combo was never found to have efficacy in actually treating cancer, despite many clinical trials looking for an effect.
The zinc ionophore antiviral effect is basically an internet legend.
No one has ever shown an actual antiviral effect in any living creature for HCQ or for CQ with or without zinc and with or without any antibiotics.
The studies in people that looked for antiviral or anticancer effects for CQ and Zpak also compared Zpak with doxycycline, and although neither worked as a therapy for the target condition, doxycycline was found to be much safer.
We went all over these studies and issues many times over many weeks back around March and April.
https://medicalkidnap.com/2020/07/28/frontline-doctors-on-censorship-were-coming-after-you-big-tech-we-will-not-be-silenced/?fbclid=IwAR00PSMNr1FOIMmgdR6B_XeHIsWUOsBlqEZPVxmvkQ6gCKM1KaK2mGtF5ik
It’s unfortunate that this excellent website will now have its credibility destroyed by association with something that has nothing to do with climate change. Dr Stella Immanuel is a quack, as any reasonably diligent internet search will reveal.
Thank YOU dkj, for FINALLY bringing some sense of rationality to this discussion with these obvious morons at WUWT.
I mean, who DOESN’T get the fact that guilt by association is a wholly valid and reasonable objection to the otherwise credible reputation of someone or something, in this case, the “thing” being WUWT.
You’re JUST the BEST at what every thinking man everywhere all over the world should strive for as an example of purity of logic and verity of reason!
Wow!!
It’s rare that one has the opportunity to read so eloquent a b**ch-slap. Kudos!!
Hey my pleasure Joe, enjoyed your product for many a year before I had to quit.
Take care!
First I have to thank WUWT for cluing me in to this story. It has been so effectively wiped that I might never had seen it. Bottom line – I went to Breitbart for the first time in years to watch the video. Way to go google, fb, and twitterville. When something as innocuous as that video is banned it makes people wonder about what makes it so dangerous. And the danger is that in the smallest way it could make President Trump look a little better, and that cannot be allowed. These three companies are playing for keeps. Trump is known to be vindictive, and if he is reelected it might be monopoly busting time again.
This bloke reads the tea leaves that way too
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2020/07/24/trump-steps-in-to-restore-order/
I asked my doctor:
If my wife or I were to be infected with the coronavirus would you prescribe Hydroxychloroquine if we requested it?
His answer:
it is not a med that we can rx as outpatient– it is restricted to pts in hospital for now
Anyone know how it can be obtained?
The headline post doctor says she is giving it to all her patients.
She works with outpatients at a small clinic in a strip mall.
In the US any doctor can prescribe any FDA approved drug for “off label” use, although they might risk repercussions from medical boards.
Many years ago I was prescribed Cytoxan for an acute kidney problem, even though it was only approved as a cancer treatment. And trust me…the side effects were a lot worse than any from HCQ. Loss of body hair, severe anemia, etc. All the typical chemo effects.
True.
Michigan HCQ Cocktail study looks as if was designed to give poor results by waiting two days…
I repeat, two days before treating covid positive at risk patients with the Covid cocktail.
And the Michigan study recommends more double blind study.
OK you a patient. What do you chose?
A 71% reduction in death or serious organ damage… and if given earlier likely much better results…
Or take your chances…..
Hey I know the odds for stupid cancer drugs that do not work. The odds for the HCQ cocktail are super great compared to the very best cancer drug.
And we can find out how great, by treating all at risk patients with the HCQ cocktail as soon covid is detected in the patient.
This is a link to the Michigan Study and two quotes from that study.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/pdf/main.pdf
Even with that handicap…
hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin provided a 71% hazard reduction (reduction in deaths or serious organ damage) compared to neither treatment (p<0.001).
Every covid positive at risk patient, logically, should be treated with the HCQ cocktail as soon as possible.
The Patient is sick, at risk, and the HCQ treatment is most effective it is started as early as possible in virus’s progression.
Quote from the Michigen Study
All patients evaluated were 18 years of age and older and were treated as inpatients for at least 48 hours unless they expired within the time period.
The primary objective was to assess treatment experience with hydroxychloroquine versus hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin, azithromycin alone, and other treatments for COVID-19. Treatments were protocol driven, uniform in all hospitals and established by a system-wide interdisciplinary COVID-19 Task Force.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/DiRrEQJzdHmr/
“The primary objective was to assess treatment experience with hydroxychloroquine versus hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin, azithromycin alone, and other treatments for COVID-19. Treatments were protocol driven, uniform in all hospitals and established by a system-wide interdisciplinary COVID-19 Task Force.”
These studies always seem to be missing the Zinc!!
Not always.
https://twin-cities.umn.edu/news-events/early-treatment-mild-covid-19-university-minnesota-trial-shows-hydroxychloroquine-has-no
Nicholas,
Have you read that study? Not the curt, graphics-enhanced summary, but the actual study paper linked from your link? No control over Zinc was effected; authors do not know which patients in EITHER group were taking Zinc. 58% of subjects in the overall study had no PCR-test confirmation of even having contracted SARS-COV2. Only 423 of 465 completed the end survey, further complicating the issue. No application of Azithromycin (sp?) to handle opportunistic secondary infection. Sizable portion of subjects only had 2 of 3 major symptoms. “PCR testing was unavailable”. No it wasn’t. The study designers did not want to pay for it. Major sports teams worldwide have been able to independently pay for testing since February to protect their players and staff, many of which employ far more people than the paltry 465 subjects in this study. No follow-up in-clinic analysis of each subject; just a survey of symptoms and severity completed by the subjects themselves. 50% reduction of hospitalization for COVID-19 (8 to 4, tossing out two non-COVID hospitalizations in the placebo group). 1 death for both groups, but the HCQ death is curiously listed as (non-hospitalized) but is counted against the HCQ results without comment as to why someone who may have been severely sick wasn’t hospitalized, or even if it happened to be COVID-related at all). In the placebo group they carefully note the non-COVID hospitalizations and subtract them from that groups total hospitalizations (10 total) when we have by now learned that COVID-19 can cause hospitalizations for other issues (blood clots, stroke) which are in fact, directly related to the virus in the body. Finally, no antibody testing was performed on either group at the conclusion, which should have been mandatory given the lack of PCR testing provided the subjects.
That a poorly-designed and executed study should be promoted as “HCQ ineffective” with such egregious flaws is, in and of itself, grounds for a malpractice suit, were a halfway competent lawyer to get involved. The comment section at the bottom of the actual posted study paper points out ALL of the above issues and more. Without using the exact word, the commentators essentially deem this work as “sloppy”.
This was NOT a study which examined the controlled use of Zinc + HCQ. Please do not claim it as such.
Amen and well done, Mr. Eikenberry.
Hush Eric, Nicholas already made up his mind long ago, he’s not interested in the details just the graphics-enhanced summary that supports the conclusions he’s already reached.
Funny thing about it is, you can read the published study results and get all the details of their methodology.
Which you claim proves nothing.
But people who give no such info are somehow more credible?
Is a doctor in a strip mall who gives people who come through her door some prescriptions, and sends them on their way, doing controlled studies?
They are not doing anything but saying stuff.
But those “reports” you find highly credible?
I will tell you why: Because they are saying something you want to hear, and so you just swallow it, hook, line and sinker, no questions asked.
No proof or multitudes of anecdotes will quiet you since your mind is made up but my question remains, what will you do when you get Wuhan? I am always open to new ideas and different treatments. What’s yours?
I think if Nick gets the WuFlu, he will not be worried. My guess is that he is in better than average health, and so the risks are exceedingly low. I agree that the HCQ and Zn has pretty much no downside risk the way it’s prescribed for an RNA virus cold, and the upside is enormous. At worst, your cold will disappear FAST. At best it could save your life. So, what have you got to lose?
” So, what have you got to lose?” Our leftist superiors don’t want us to have that choice, they will decide who lives and dies just as Andrew Cuomo did in New York, Tom Wolfe did in PA, just as Phil Murphy did in NJ, just as Gavin Newsom did in Cali, just as Mike Dewine did in Ohio yesterday. Democrat Party leaders decide who gets life saving drugs and treatments. Don’t like it? They will fine you. Still don’t like it? They will jail you, then go after your family members. People had best figure this sh*t out.
2Hotel9: You are preaching to my choir… just wanted to make that clear.
” So, what have you got to lose?”
It inhibits the efficacy of one of the few drugs which has demonstrated any efficacy:
“Following the availability of in vitro data demonstrating chloroquine inhibits the antiviral activity of remdesivir in a dose-dependent manner, Gilead conducted an analysis of clinical outcomes with patients who were treated with both remdesivir and hydroxychloroquine concomitantly, versus patients who were treated with remdesivir and who did not receive concomitant hydroxychloroquine. Through a median follow-up of 14 days, the rates and likelihood of recovery were lower in patients who received concomitant hydroxychloroquine compared with patients treated with remdesivir who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (57 percent vs. 69 percent, covariate-adjusted HR [95% CI] 0.61 [0.45, 0.83], p=0.002). Concomitant hydroxychloroquine use was not associated with increased mortality in the 14-day analysis window. The analysis also showed that patients in the concomitant hydroxychloroquine group experienced overall higher rates of adverse events. After adjusting for baseline variables, this difference was significant for Grade 3-4 adverse events.”
https://www.gilead.com/news-and-press/press-room/press-releases/2020/7/gilead-presents-additional-data-on-investigational-antiviral-remdesivir-for-the-treatment-of-covid-19
So, what one has to lose, potentially, is a 12% reduction in benefit of a drug which has been proven to help reduced hospital time by 5 days on average, and lower death rates among the sickest patients.
“No proof or multitudes of anecdotes will quiet you since your mind is made up but my question remains, what will you do when you get Wuhan? I am always open to new ideas and different treatments. What’s yours?”
Now hold on a second, here.
You say no proof will quiet me?
This seems to imply what you want is for me to be quiet.
The entire purpose of this site is for people to read and make comments about the issues presented, as they see fit, within certain established site guidelines.
Beyond that, why would anyone with some proof of something, of anything, want to remain quiet? why would anyone else want someone with proof to be silent?
That very issue is what we seem to be focused on right now.
The only thing I have made up my mind about, long before this episode began, is that the scientific method is the best way we have to get evidence about what is what, as opposed to getting opinions about what is what.
And prospective clinical trials that are carefully controlled, and well conducted, using double blinding and randomization when appropriate, is the best way anyone has ever come up with to find out objectively if a drug or treatment is of value in treating a disease of condition.
Nothing else comes close.
We either have unbiased evidence, or we have nothing but opinions and suppositions.
It takes a lot of evidence to constitute proof.
Most often, the results of clinical trials are not precisely clear cut, and frequently they are at least somewhat ambiguous or contradictory.
When that happens, we need to do more trials, or to look at the ones we have to see if it can be discerned that some have a better methodology that others.
We have that here.
Studies that look ahead from a proscribed starting point are better than retrospective studies.
Studies which have organized and consistent data collection are better than those that have spotty and disorganized data collected and presented.
Studies in which large numbers of participants are tested are better than ones that only look at a small number of people.
Studies that use a comparator vs the study drug, and in which the drugs and comparators given are assigned in a double blinded and randomized manner, are better than ones in which these things are not the case.
When people are chosen to participate based on criteria which are decided ahead of time, have many possible biases removed by this process.
When the decision about which participants get which treatment regimen are not known to anyone involved directly with treating the patients, or to the patients themselves, and done so randomly, this tends to eliminate another large swath of possible confounding biases and interferences that might produce a unreliable result.
All of these principles have come into place over many years, and all have a large amount of support for why they are needed and helpful in achieving a scientifically valid result.
They were not dreamed up willy-nilly by one person one fine day and imposed with no justification. The opposite is the case.
The ethics and the protocols for such trials are and have been debated and discussed for many years and remain so today on an ongoing basis.
One of the more striking aspects of the statement from Dr. Emmanuel was when she asked “what will happen if in six months it is found out these drugs are a cure”, or words to that effect.
However, unless one is presupposing a specific conclusion of ultimate efficacy, one must also ask what if the opposite is found to be the case? The precautionary principle is not a one way street.
For months I have urged caution regarding reaching unwarranted and unevidenced conclusions. I did so because many people seemed to have decided virtually instantly that they knew these drugs were a miracle cure, after hearing of/from a very few advocates who proclaimed it to be so, long before any concrete evidence could be possible.
Advocates who cited questionable evidence, or made unlikely assertions of certitude, such as claiming they had treated a bunch of people for fewer than two weeks and thus had all the proof they needed that this combination was a “cure”.
Given that, I find it laughable that all these months later, someone is claiming I made up MY mind prematurely, or have ignored the need for “proof”.
After a large number of gold standard clinical trials had published results that showed no benefit from these drugs, I am pointing to that evidence.
I am pointing out what I see as illogical statements and inconsistent assertions.
I am right here to discuss any disagreements rationally and calmly, and in detail.
If you want to make it a discussion about your interest in knowing what I would do in some hypothetical circumstance, I am going to decline to have that conversation.
That is not what this is about.
It is not about what I would do, or what questions you have about my personal hypothetical behavior, or my decisions about a circumstance that does not exist.
If you have been participating in this conversation that has been ongoing here for months and months, you would know a lot about “other treatments”.
And let me tell you, in case you are unclear…this regiment discussed here and asserted to be a cure…it is nothing like a “new idea”.
It is one of the most tested drug combinations in history at this point, with published results or multiple large clinical trials, and many more in the pipeline and more still ongoing.
As for other treatments, there has rarely, perhaps never, been so many clinical trials all goin on at once for so many different possible treatments, and so many possible vaccines, nor has so much been written about so many other measures that can or could be taken to avoid infection to begin with.
To me, being open minded means going where the evidence leads, whether or not it is what one wanted or expected to hear.
Down at the bottom of this thread, I listed a whole bunch of evidence, and gave links for anyone to look at it, and dispute it, or what have you.
Besides for everything else that has been going on, this particular issue has been a case study in moving goalposts and unevidenced certainty all along.
But not by me.
There now a second video from frontline doctors
https://medicalkidnap.com/2020/07/28/frontline-doctors-on-censorship-were-coming-after-you-big-tech-we-will-not-be-silenced/?fbclid=IwAR00PSMNr1FOIMmgdR6B_XeHIsWUOsBlqEZPVxmvkQ6gCKM1KaK2mGtF5ik
Definitely worth watching, and this time, all of them speak. The TDS-deranged, foul-mouthed, hate-filled heckler adds some drama, and even humor, especially at the end. The retarded maniac can’t even manage to make a homemade mask that stays in place, so every time he speaks (yells actually), the mask slips down, and he has to pull it back up.
These are the folks who want to “save the planet” and quite frankly, destroy America. They don’t give a sheet about people’s lives, that is just a pretense on their part.
Bruce,
On the original webcast which I watched in full more of the doctors (e.g Dr Bob Hamilton) also spoke.
The viral clip was cut from this original longer presentation.
https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/nobody-needs-to-die-frontline-doctors-storm-d-c-claiming-thousands-of-doctors-are-being-silenced-on-facts-and-treatments-for-covid/
The introduction to working mechanisms of HCQ and the MD holding up the papers “backing that up” are misleading.
Half of the papers mentioned are “views” and “perspective” articles not actual data. E.g. there is no experimental data at all about HCQ affecting glycosylation of ACE2 receptor. None.
The in vitro study from the Raoult lab about Azi+HCQ uses only Ct values from infected cells. No other readout. Huge variability between replicates, even sometimes higher in treated vs. control although it is the same type of cells all the time. Not convincing.
It is never helping a course to stretch, hide, mislead etc. even if you think it serves a greater good. Don’t become a climate activist.
For me, the jury about HCQ is still open though I am convinced it has nothing to do with Zn2+. Zn2+ on it’s own is another story.
The funny thing is: most sources indicate that the way (hydroxy)chloroquine, quinine, various quinoline compounds… work against the plasmodium is yet unknown, after at least half of century of pharma use (or centuries for the natural Cinchona extract).
The inhibition of the plasmodium’s vacuole function by (hydroxy-)chloroquine is quite well understood.
In Marseille the are healing patients in vitro ???
The Raoult group tried to prove efficacy of Azi+HCQ in an in vitro model as was done for HCQ by the Chinese group from Wuhan that started all the hype started. The design and results are not very convincing.
I have enjoyed, contributed to, and appreciated Wattsupwiththat as a great source of sound science and discussion of scientific matters, but lately, the content has veered into political issues and conspiracy theories like those espoused by Dr. (?) Stella Emanuel. If you read the whole article you should realize that she is a nut case, and giving credence to her ramblings is unconscionable.
Please Anthony, give back on track with your original science-based objective if you want your site to be continued to be viewed as a rational purveyor of the truth.
“to be viewed as a rational purveyor of the truth”
Has it ever been?
Concern troll much?
Cover-ups of science fraud is a good legitimation to be posted here.
Do you deny the fact there is an international conspiracy against *chloroquine?
Facebook Fact Check flagged this video which I had posted on my wall as being false, with the claim that there is no known cure for Cov19, and totally framed within a blatant Trump bashing exercise.
I posted several links to the press conference on FB.
All but one has been deleted and I received a notification that I’d posted “false information”.
I’ll continue to post links with comments that the FB censors have deleted previous postings.
From what I am seeing she is a Christian who preaches against the occult, satanism and witchcraft. These beliefs exist and are fashionable in some circles. Voodoo is still a thing that people believe in. It is clear that she is opposed to these beliefs. How does the make her a nutter? She can be a doctor and Christian at the same time.
I do not take the Daily Beast as a credible source, but in any case it is paywalled, so I have not read the hit piece.
North American medicine is not evidence based. Doctors and nutritionist promote a diabetes inducing diet and lifestyle which has caused an epidemic of heart disease and cancer over the last 75 years. The data and evidence is there.
I have never met a doctor who promotes any diet of any lifestyle.
And what is a nutritionist, and why are you lumping them with doctors and calling what they do a part of “medicine”.
What exactly is “North American medicine”, for that matter?