š¬š§š®š¹ Vincenzo is a Christian, a husband, a dad, a theologian, an apologist, a scientist, a polyglot, and an anglicised Neapolitan. Not always in this order.
Influenza deaths overtook those caused by coronavirus in mid-June, UK figures show. What’s really noteworthy is that this happened in the midst of the measures that were (and are) in place for limiting the spread of Covid-19, which really, should limit the spread of any virus, because the principle is the same.
And yet Covid is basically not killing anymore, but flu is. What does this mean? That the drop in deaths by Covid-19 has got nothing to do with lockdown, masks, hand washing, etc. etc. It’s simply the course of the virus, just like many great virologists and epidemiologists had predicted.
Fake pandemic. If they only allowed treatment by HCQ+AZ+Zinc, Covid-19 would’ve likely caused far less deaths than influenza. In fact, it might have helped with influenza, too.
We didn’t have to have so many people dying. We didn’t to lockdown an entire world.
But they did. And they have reasons for it that are far beyond the containment of the disease.
All over you’re hearing news of “new wave of Covid cases”. And yet you’re not hearing of hospitals collapsing, people dying by the dozens, etc. That’s because it’s not happening.
What’s going on?
Notice one thing: almost every country has increased its test capacity way after the peak was reached in their midst. There’s way more testing now than there ever was.
You might say “good”. I say “not good”.
Beda M Stadler, former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus, explains:
if we do a PCR corona test on an immune person, it is not a virus that is detected, but a small shattered part of the viral genome. The test comes back positive for as long as there are tiny shattered parts of the virus left. Even if the infectious viruses are long dead, a corona test can come back positive, because the PCR method multiplies even a tiny fraction of the viral genetic material enough [to be detected]. Thatās exactly what happened, when there was the global news, even shared by the WHO, that 200 Koreans who already went through Covid-19 were infected a second time and that there was therefore probably no immunity against this virus. The explanation of what really happened and an apology came only later, when it was clear that the immune Koreans were perfectly healthy and only had a short battle with the virus. The crux was that the virus debris registered with the overly sensitive test and therefore came back as āpositiveā.Ā It is likely that a large number of the daily reported infection numbers are purely due to viral debris.
Mark Woolhouse, Prof of infectious disease epidemiology, University of Edinburgh, said: āThis is the public health version of the Prosecutorās Fallacy where just because a rare event has happened, such as testing positive for coronavirus, we think it can only have one cause. āBut at low prevalence we actually face a high probability that other factors can be involved, such as false positives and given the volume of testing we would expect some false positives to occur. āThe positive predictive value is much lower where there is not a lot of disease around and for any diagnostic test that is potentially a concern and can lead to misdiagnosis, hence clinicians are very concerned about false positives.ā
This way the “pandemic” will never end
If we keep ramping up testing when there’s no disease around, we’ll continue to have “cases” without having actual disease. But the governments will continue to use “cases” to restrain our personal liberty, and impose a level of control on society thatāthis timeāis truly unprecedented.
What’s the solution?
Prof Sheila Bird, formerly programme leader, MRC Biostatistics Unit, University of Cambridge, said: āThe answer to false positives is to repeat swab tests for a sufficient random sample of positives to find out, or to offer antibody tests four weeks after the first positive swab date.
Risch suggests to do that only for high risk patients. God forbid I should elevate myself above an expert such as Risch, but in light of the fact that many (even young and healthy, allegedly) that have ārodeā Covid have ended up with permanent damage (the so called ālong haulersā), I would say that anyone that shows symptoms should just be treated with the Zelenko protocol and be done with it.
HCQ works and it is safe
Have a look at my first article regarding my recent discoveries about HCQ being safe and effective. And also remember that countries that have decided to use HCQ for early treatment have an incredibly lower death rate.
The real pandemic is “fear”
It should be blatantly obvious by now that the āpandemicā is being perpetuated on purpose, and off the back of this, a number of social engineering experiments are being carried out.
The reason for this is perfectly clear under the Christian worldview: globalists are rehearsing techniques and ways to impose a global government on the world. To usher in the new world that eventually will be ruled by what is going to look like a saviour, but would instead be the anti-Christ.
The difference between this protocol and HCQ-based treatments seems to be about the “when”.
MATH+ is designed for hospital treatment, rather than for home treatment. That is, it’s ādesigned for hospitalized patients, to be initiated as soon as possible after they develop respiratory difficulty and require oxygen supplementationā, and not for people who are in the early stage of the disease with mild symptoms, and can be treated at home.
This study at https://hcqtrial.com is, IMHO, a very clever initiative. They decided to use globally available data to build randomised controlled trial for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). 2.7 billion people were divided in treatment group (those who took HCQ) and a control group (those who did not). Their abstract (follows) explains in summary the setup of the study.
Many countries either adopted or declined early treatment with HCQ, forming a large country-randomized controlled trial with 2.0 billion people in the treatment group and 663 million to the control group. As of August 7, 2020, an average of 39.6/million in the treatment group have died, and 443.7/million in the control group, relative risk 0.089. After adjustments, treatment and control deaths become 82.0/million and 637.0/million, relative risk 0.13. Confounding factors affect this estimate, including varying degrees of spread between countries. Accounting for predicted changes in spread, we estimate a relative risk of 0.21.Ā The treatment group has a 79.1% lower death rate. We examined diabetes, obesity, hypertension, life expectancy, population density, urbanization, testing level, and intervention level, which do not account for the effect observed.
Hydroxychloroquine is probably best known to the world these days as the magic drug that Donald Trump claimed to be the game changer in the fight against Covid-19. Soon after, the drug was discredited as dangerous, and prescribing the drug off label as a method to treat Covid-19 was eventually prohibited, if not demonised altogether, especially in the west.
I largely ignored the matter, thinking that the evidence simply was against the drug, and moved on. Until a few days ago.
America Frontline Doctors
A group of doctors that recently formed an association called America Frontline Doctors, went live on Facebook and other social media to declare to the US and the world that they had been treating patients with Hydroxychloroquine (+ Zinc + Azithromycin) and they had seen a great benefit. In fact, they essentially stated that the cure for Covid-19 exists and no one has or had to die so far. And went as far as saying that the protocol can be used as prophylaxis, too. The video has been banned repeatedly from all sorts of platforms. It’s currently available on this site (no direct link available, but it’s currently on the homepage, in rightmost column, entitled: āCENSORED: America’s Frontline Doctors Press Conference at the Supreme Courtā).
Hardcore censorship and defamation
With the apparent reason of “false information about Covid-19”, the information shared by these doctors was forcefully censored (and still is) from all sorts of platforms. Not only that, very shortly after the fact, a number of blog and newspapers (mostly leftwing) have done their best to discredit the doctors involved. From claiming that these doctors never actually treated any Covid patient to using Dr Stella Immanuel’s peculiar religious beliefs (I haven’t fact-checked her beliefs, because for me it is beside the point), they have done their best to defame these doctors, although I have seen very little actual evidence against them.
Digging
I admit the whole thing seemed weird, but one fact actually haunted me: I was convinced these doctors had no advantage or benefit whatsoever from claiming what they claimed. So, why?
When I started digging, the first thing I realised is that I had been distracted during this pandemic. I mean, I have a lot going on. But. I should have paid more attention. I am referring to the Lancet study. The study, now formally retracted (which happened only 13 days after its publication), was based on fake data from a joke of a company. This is the same study that both the FDA and WHO have leveraged to carry out the decision to stop off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 treatment. As a result of that move, other bodies around the western world have done the same.
Some more digging
That just me made want to dig even more, specifically into some scientific literature.
Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.
You read that, and you go: mhm, ok. (The rest of the paper is available for free, by the way).
So, this guy isn’t just a random nobody holding a sudden press conference saying they have been treating 350+ patients to date of all kind of ages and with comorbidities, with zero deaths (this is Dr Stella Immanuel, by the way). This is a respectable Yale professor publishing in reputable journals.
In this op-ed you’ll find that he says:
Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.
A Sound Approach: Hydroxychloroquine Reduces Mortality in Severe COVID-19 ā HCQ was indep assoc w/decreased mortality, distinct benefit from steroid effect. Safe dosage & early utilization of HCQ reduced mortality in hosp COVID19 pts. Large cohort studies support our findings from NYC, (Italy) & France.
At this point I stop and wonder: what about Italy? I usually trust the Italian doctors. They are excellent, they have a great training, they are very knowledgeable, and being Italian, they don’t just follow orders because they are orders. Which in cases like this, it’s probably good.
Yet I didn’t hear much about hydroxychloroquine in Italy. Or perhaps, once again, I hadn’t paid much attention. Of course, above, I linked a study by an Italian team that agrees with Henry Ford Health System. But that’s recent in my research trail.
Early in my research, I found out that Dr Moreno Ferrarese of Alessandria (Piedmont) had been using hydroxychloroquine with success. Hundred more doctors were apparently doing the same. We are talking about GPs, family doctors, treating patients at home. And we talk about May time, before The Lancet came out with its fraudulent study.
The latest public comment by Dr Ferrarese I could find goes back to 25 May, and states that he had by then treated 169 patients, no deaths, and only 7% was hospitalised, although none of them ever developed severe complications.
When the AIFA forbade the use of hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19, the Italian doctors denounced that without alternatives, home-based treatment of patients was now at risk.
Also, as far as I can tell, the “Alessandria protocol” (such was labelled the approach used by Ferrarese using hydroxychloroquine) was never big news on TV or elsewhere. In fact, living in the UK, the thing I had heard more about coming from Italy was the Ascierto protocol, using Tocilizumab, which now a randomised study says had no statistically relevant benefits.
That said, it remains that in Italy, too, we have doctors that disagreed with the global advice of not using hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19.
As you dig, you find many doctors in the West have chosen, for the sake of their patients, to follow the science instead of the politics. Some names are:
Interestingly enough, after the storm that the American Frontline Doctors unleashed, suddenly more and more people came out as both patients willing to testify and more doctors willing to put their neck on the line.
Within days from that presse conference, Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Stephen Hahn said there are some medical observational studies that “suggest a benefit” in using the drug hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19 and that doctors can still prescribe the drug off-label for coronavirus patients.
The FDA official guidance hasn’t however changed, and Hahn added that clinical, randomised trials do not show a benefit (which based on the literature I reviewed, I don’t think it’s an accurate claim).
Fauci insists
In the light of all the data I presented here, which is only a fraction of what’s available, it bewilders me to read Fauci, as of three days ago, still say that hydroxychloroquine is ineffective.
You should really be starting to think hard at this point, because if you don’t feel something is wrong, I am not sure what could ever make you budge.
Natural experiments
Again, from prof. Risch:
These have been “natural experiments.” In the northern Brazil state of ParĆ”, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.
A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.
Not new and not unsafe
It was 2005 when Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread was published. Now, the study speaks of chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine, but the latter is essentially a less toxic form of the former. So, the efficacy of such a drug against this kind of viruses has been known for a while, and the SARS-related study mentioned above suggests āboth prophylactic and therapeutic advantageā, which is essentially the same thing many doctors are now claiming of hydroxychloroquine for SARS-CoV-2.
It is also false that these drugs are not safe. Fears of heart problems seem overblown. Prof. Risch also deems the drug safe. And many have suggested that it takes extremely long period of exposure to the drug or toxic doses to see the problems HCQ has been accused of causing. In essence, the so much feared side-effects seem to be extremely rare.
In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence.
The reasonis not scientific. In fact, Risch continues:
The medication has become highly politicised
The drug has not been used properly in many studies
Concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis.
To close, some common misconceptions about the virus
There is (was) no immunity at all in the population. False. Because the virus belongs to a family of viruses we as human have already encountered, and because the virus is naturally similar to those other coronaviruses, claiming total lack of immunity to the virus is a lie. See recent research from Oxford scientists. And also interview with Dr Gupta, who says āThe pre-existing antibodies & T-cell responses against coronaviruses seem to protect against SARS-CoV-2 infection, not just the outcome of infectionā.
The pandemic will become endemic. Actually, research suggests that the four coronaviruses responsible for the cold once caused pandemics. This also may suggest that this new coronavirus will end up the same. This is also the opinion of Sadler, former director of the Institute for Immunology at the University of Bern, a biologist and professor emeritus.
Children have a central role in spreading the virus. Early in the pandemic had become clear this wasnāt the case. A recent study confirms that āAlmost 6 months into the pandemic, accumulating evidence and collective experience argue that children, particularly school-aged children, are far less important drivers of SARS-CoV-2 transmission than adults.ā
It is tiring. The wokeness has replaced even basic education.
There is no way anyone can prove blacklist and whitelist are racially charged terms, and yet most in my line of work actually believe this nonsense.
This is only the tip of the iceberg, and if you google the issue, you’ll find tons of projects, software houses, and IT companies rushing to do the same thing: replace terms that have been used technically for decades, all without a valid reason.
An in doing so, they are now doing something that never happened in history before: they are the ones racially charging these terms for the first time, effectively revealing the evil that resides in the human heart.
Origin of the English Terms
Blacklist originates first, for obvious reasons. It’s much more organically natural to start making ālists of disallowed thingsā than “lists of allowed thingsā.
Ye secret oppressors,..ye kind drunkards, and who euer come within this blacke list of wickednesse.
The word black when used in this context refers to negative connotations, and is attested as such way before 1624. The term blackball, which is first attested in 1550, describes the act of placing a black ball into a container as a means of recording a negative vote (and vice-versa using a white ball to record a positive vote). That concept is in turn related to the ancient Greek practice of ostracising someone, before modern racism even developed.
Another 17th century occurrence of blacklist is in the tragedy The Unnatural Combat by Philip Massinger:
Might write me down in the black List of those That have nor Fire, nor Spirit of their own
None of these occurrences is racially charged. Not even a subtle hint. Zilch.
Over the course of 1915 and 1916 British government agencies gradually developed an implemented a system whereby neutral firms and individuals suspected of trading with or otherwise aiding the Central Powers would be denied access to Entente infrastructure such as ship bunker, financial services and communications. British government agencies and departments maintained several such lists, but only one of these were public. Officially called the Statutory List, but much more commonly known simply as the British blacklist.
Another example is the Indiana University, which has a great list of mostly non-racist metaphorical uses of āblackā in English and Korean. Using the terms black as night, black sheep, black humor, and black magic isnāt racist at all (and the use of black sheep might not be metaphorical as it applies to sheep, since some are black, with varyingly marketable wool), though in fairness some speakers of English would find a phrase like āblack as the ace of spadesā potentially racist, though likely not strongly so.
Some would question whether using āblackā for ābadā is fair to Wicca, witchcraft, and magic. They would so from a worldview that offers no absolute moral standard, anyway. Plus, the use of innocuous and ancient phraseology with the word āblackā in it canāt be seen as inherently racist.
The term whitelist is of much more recent origin, first being attested in 1842, and is then explicitly used to refer to the opposite of a blacklist (i.e. a list of approved or favored items).
The Spiritual Connection
Every civilisation on earth has been using “dark and light” (and derivatives) as a metaphor for “bad and good”. The reason should be obvious, since naturally speaking, the darkness of the night renders your own environment more dangerous and riskier on multiple levels, whereas in the light many dangers disappear.
āPrivilegeā is the idea that you should react with shame to whatever you should actually react to with gratitude. It assumes that anything about your existence that doesn’t suck was achieved by evil means and this evil emanates from you. And that anything that is good about your life should be removed. It is the assumption that you enjoy a better life than you have, and that a moral duty exists to reduce your circumstances to put things back in some kind of cosmic balance.
The redefinition of privilege embodies communist and socialist principles, according to which, if you merited the good things in your life (even if by working hard and honestly, like the majority does), this it is somewhat unfair, and your hard-gained rewards should be taken away from you, and redistributed to others who have not done anything at all to merit them.
The resulting inequality is achieved in the name of equality, which itself is redefined so to mean something it doesn’t. It is the legalisation of robbery, in its simplest form.
