The above hearing is lengthy, I think it worth one's time. The gist of the testimony is that the CDC has no
guidelines for treating Covid early, i.e., as outpatients. Each physician's testimony is available to be downloaded and the opening statements should be read.
This is one of the opening paragraphs of the testimony of Harvey Risch, M.D.,Ph.D professor of epidemiology, Yale University School of Public Health
"In May of this year I observed that results of studies of a drug suggested to treat Covid, hydroxychloroquine, were being misrepresented by what I thought at the time was sloppy reporting. We have heard from Dr. McCullough how Covid disease progresses in phases, from viral replication, to florid pneumonia to multi-organ attack. Viral replication is an outpatient condition, but the pneumonia that fills the lungs with immune-system debris is hospitalizable and potentially life-threatening. We have also heard how each phase, each pathologic aspect of the disease, has to have its own specific treatments that apply to its own biologic mechanisms. Thus, I was frankly astounded that studies of hospital treatments were being represented as applying to outpatients, in violation of what I learned in medical school about how to treat patients.
We are now finally coming to address why over the last six months, our government research institutions have invested billions of dollars in expensive patent medication and vaccine development but almost nothing in early outpatient treatment, the first line of response to managing the pandemic. It is not that we lacked candidate medications to study, we have had a number of promising agents. But I believe that the early-on conflation of hospital with outpatient disease served to imply that treatment of outpatient disease had been studied and found ineffective. This illogical premise motivated me to look at the evidence for outpatient treatment."
THANK U for posting the video...I skimmed thru the two hours plus....I am in agreement that the way
the med community approached this was short sighted,that EARLY intervention was sadly lacking THERE ARE MANY reasons for that, which are hard to quantify and the "blame" is a wildly cast net.
WHILE LISTENING, it struck me that there a parallels to how the med community approaches WELL
KNOW diseases....each physician has their"favorite" protocol and will default TO IT FIRST.
TWO examples of this are hypothyroidism/Hashimoto's and Menriess's Disease. (unfortunately,I
happen to have personal experience with).
In Hypothyroidism (which by the way, an article from MEDSCAPE states is being OVER diagnosed).THE
FIRST protocol is to test the TSH value....HOWEVER, that will not give U a complete and
accurate picture...and most doctors will prescribe LEVTHROXINE (Synthroid) for a value over a set number....the problem is, there are AT LEAST 5 or 6 values that need testing to understand the condition
and IF meds are required
2nd case...vertigo issues with the inner ear (Menerries)--spg? the protocol is diuretics or OTC Meclzine
With the first treatment (diuretic) U are REQUIRED to get labs (on a regular bases) to check your
electrolytes AND it screws with your blood pressure. THE correct TREATMENT is lo do DIAZEPAM...
NO LABS and depending upon how severe the symptoms are....U R go to go.
Have I had an EASY pathway to a partnership with my PCP...NO....because they will default to THEIR
preferred protocol.....SO,it seems the same with this new and exotic virus....thinking out of the
box and allowing the blinders to come off seems to be the problem.....
AN X RAY OF THE LUNGS might be helpful,as a proactive process....if there is a HINT of cloudy/or
poss spots on the film. THAT TOO has been reported as a 1st step treatment...
Johns Hopkins Study Saying COVID-19 Has 'Relatively No Effect on Deaths' in U.S. Deleted After Publication
BY MATT MARGOLIS NOV 27, 2020 11:24 AM ET
Conventional wisdom is that COVID-19 has caused thousands of deaths in the United States and nearly 1.5 million worldwide. This perception has been directly challenged by a study published by Johns Hopkins University on Sunday, November 22.
Genevieve Briand, assistant program director of the Applied Economics master’s degree program at Johns Hopkins University, critically analyzed the impact that COVID-19 had on U.S. deaths. According to her, the impact of COVID-19 on deaths in the United States can be fully understood by comparing it to the number of total deaths in the country.
According to study, “in contrast to most people’s assumptions, the number of deaths by COVID-19 is not alarming. In fact, it has relatively no effect on deaths in the United States.”
Wait, what? Really?
That’s what it says. And, it should come as no surprise that not long after the study was published it was deleted within days.
Luckily, a back-up copy remains on The Wayback Machine, and we can still read the study.
On Thursday, Johns Hopkins University explained that they deleted the article on the study because it “was being used to support false and dangerous inaccuracies about the impact of the pandemic.
They did not, however, challenge the accuracy of the data or its conclusions. In other words, the article was deleted because it didn’t fit the proper narrative."
It is disheartening to observe the censorship of any paper/view that does not fall in line.
Very interesting take from John Hopkins. Since most Covid-19 deaths are the very old and those with pre-existing conditions, I can see some validity to this idea. Many of those people were going to die this year already.
THANK U for the link.....the link below shows trending deaths for a younger group (who would NOT be
expected to die from this virus...of course the ethnic group has a higher percentage because of their
lack of access/finances/healthcare)......I agree with the geriatric death factor, the YOUNGER group,tho????