Early medical treatment when Covid-19 is diagnosed

156 posts in this topic

It is by now well known that efficacious early treatment for Covid-19 is available. Are there medical practicioners in Berlin or elsewhere in Germany who are offering this?

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes. I think it's called the German health care system. I'm pretty sure they have doctors and hospitals in Berlin who can help.

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is by now well known that really bad information regarding bogus  early treatment for Covid-19 is available from our eastern european friends.

Спасибо Vladimir. 

Easier to avoid Covid than try to find a reliable post infection wonder cure. If they only had vaccines...

 

Eastern (washington) anti vax/public health insurance legislator requests washington state government send him monoclonal treatment in El Salvador.

 

https://news.yahoo.com/washington-lawmaker-said-hes-el-154630496.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAK9nIXENBdy4gJ_4pU89s-SSytEV5Zy7kaZ6zHrDQCm9Mr_e0HOsL4qoXilgrB7NbOzcamxXlpzyLQp_sjzEIhmJhlQ-VI_rONdoqCpRlKEZhbA3o9pPPUiZ_mdK-zrmSTSh9gFzbKvorkBi0mKPAv9_bq2E14A9y-qxI1GDWVEA

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Chelski. Yes. I think it's called the German health care system. I'm pretty sure they have doctors and hospitals in Berlin who can help. Yeah, yeah, thanks so much. It's just that efficacious early treatment with, for example, Ivermectine and/or Hydroxychloroquine has in many/most countries of the world been disallowed, with doctors who prescribe these drugs finding themselves mired in difficulties (such as being struck off). And then there are stories like this: https://conservativefiringline.com/man-dies-from-covid-as-hospital-refuses-to-prescribe-ivermectin-despite-court-orders/

 

If you've been following the progress of this "pandemic" and related issues, you'll know about such things. You'll also know that these drugs were banned so that the current "vaccines" could be given emergency approval.

 

As for the jabs, mako 1, it's up to each individual to do their research and reach their own decision.

 
1
  •  
1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, popotla said:

It's just that efficacious early treatment with, for example, Ivermectine and/or Hydroxychloroquine...

 

You forgot to mention injecting yourself with bleach.

 

Are you @DonaldTrump in disguise?

 

Posting on here because no one else on social media wants to hear your lies and shite? Just curious...

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

11 minutes ago, popotla said:

Yeah, yeah, thanks so much. It's just that efficacious early treatment with, for example, Ivermectine and/or Hydroxychloroquine has in many/most countries of the world been disallowed

 

Have you considered moving to the US? I'm sure you'd be able to obtain those drugs in US states governed by people who don't believe in science. 

6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

pp.JPG

 

Also, shurley, Pfizer and Moderna are acktually not vaccines at all, but some sort of genetic therapy?  I have read this on TT:

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, snowingagain said:

There are rumours that wanking helps.  You will be fine.

 

 

Don't encourage his spouting off

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, popotla said:

P.S. yourkeau, an Impstoff isn't a treatment.

It is a treatment for those who travel faster than light.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ivermectin-COVID-19 study retracted; authors blame file mixup

 

Quote

The authors of a study purportedly showing that ivermectin could treat patients with  SARS-CoV-2 have retracted their paper after acknowledging that their data were garbled. 

The paper, “Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon,” appeared in the journal Viruses in May. According to the abstract: 

A randomized controlled trial was conducted in 100 asymptomatic Lebanese subjects that have tested positive for SARS-CoV2. Fifty patients received standard preventive treatment, mainly supplements, and the experimental group received a single dose (according to body weight) of ivermectin, in addition to the same supplements the control group received. … 

Results results results … and: 

Ivermectin appears to be efficacious in providing clinical benefits in a randomized treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions. However, larger-scale trials are warranted for this conclusion to be further cemented.

However, in early October, the BBC reported — in larger piece about the concerns about ivermectin-Covid-19 research — that the study:

was found to have blocks of details of 11 patients that had been copied and pasted repeatedly – suggesting many of the trial’s apparent patients didn’t really exist.

The study’s authors told the BBC that the ‘original set of data was rigged, sabotaged or mistakenly entered in the final file’ and that they have submitted a retraction to the scientific journal which published it.

That’s not quite what the retraction notice states

The journal retracts the article, Effects of a Single Dose of Ivermectin on Viral and Clinical Outcomes in Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 Infected Subjects: A Pilot Clinical Trial in Lebanon [1], cited above.

Following publication, the authors contacted the editorial office regarding an error between files used for the statistical analysis.

Adhering to our complaints procedure, an investigation was conducted that confirmed the error reported by the authors.

This retraction was approved by the Editor in Chief of the journal.

The authors agreed to this retraction.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Large Ivermectin Study Retracted

 

Quote

A large Egyptian study of ivermectin for COVID-19 patients has been retracted over concerns of plagiarism and serious problems with their raw data, the publisher confirmed to MedPage Today.

Michele Avissar-Whiting, PhD, editor-in-chief of the preprint server Research Square, said in an emailed statement that the study was withdrawn on July 14 "because we were presented with evidence of both plagiarism and anomalies in the dataset associated with the study, neither of which could reasonably be addressed by the author issuing a revised version of the paper."

Avissar-Whiting noted that the concerns were first raised by Jack Lawrence, a British medical student, according to The Guardian.

"Based on what Jack found, we have reason to believe the preprint's conclusions are compromised, so the withdrawal was done to stop its propagation as sound science," she said. "This is the strategy employed by a number of preprint servers, per best practice guidance."

The study was one of the largest ivermectin trials in the world, and has been included in two recent meta-analyses (Bryant et al. and Hill et al.) that received much attention for their positive results -- particularly the Hill review, which had been anticipated by a U.S. group that has long promoted ivermectin.

Some have questioned whether the positive conclusions of those meta-analyses would still stand when the Egyptian study is removed.

David Boulware, MD, MPH, of the University of Minnesota, told MedPage Today that the 400-patient Egyptian trial -- from Ahmed Elgazzar, MD, of Benha University, and colleagues -- was the largest study included in the Hill review and accounted for 20% of the total data.

Lead author Andrew Hill, PhD, of the University of Liverpool in England, said in an email to MedPage Today that his team will be "re-running our analysis with the Elgazzar trial removed."

Hill added that his team will also include a recently published 500-patient randomized controlled trial from Argentina, published in BMC Infectious Diseases, which found no effect for ivermectin in terms of preventing hospitalization in patients with COVID-19. It also found that those who received ivermectin required invasive ventilation sooner than those on placebo.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mortality outcomes with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in COVID-19 from an international collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials

 

Quote

Substantial COVID-19 research investment has been allocated to randomized clinical trials (RCTs) on hydroxychloroquine/chloroquine, which currently face recruitment challenges or early discontinuation. We aim to estimate the effects of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine on survival in COVID-19 from all currently available RCT evidence, published and unpublished. We present a rapid meta-analysis of ongoing, completed, or discontinued RCTs on hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine treatment for any COVID-19 patients (protocol: https://osf.io/QESV4/). We systematically identified unpublished RCTs (ClinicalTrials.gov, WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, Cochrane COVID-registry up to June 11, 2020), and published RCTs (PubMed, medRxiv and bioRxiv up to October 16, 2020). All-cause mortality has been extracted (publications/preprints) or requested from investigators and combined in random-effects meta-analyses, calculating odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), separately for hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. Prespecified subgroup analyses include patient setting, diagnostic confirmation, control type, and publication status. Sixty-three trials were potentially eligible. We included 14 unpublished trials (1308 patients) and 14 publications/preprints (9011 patients). Results for hydroxychloroquine are dominated by RECOVERY and WHO SOLIDARITY, two highly pragmatic trials, which employed relatively high doses and included 4716 and 1853 patients, respectively (67% of the total sample size). The combined OR on all-cause mortality for hydroxychloroquine is 1.11 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.20; I² = 0%; 26 trials; 10,012 patients) and for chloroquine 1.77 (95%CI: 0.15, 21.13, I² = 0%; 4 trials; 307 patients). We identified no subgroup effects. We found that treatment with hydroxychloroquine is associated with increased mortality in COVID-19 patients, and there is no benefit of chloroquine. Findings have unclear generalizability to outpatients, children, pregnant women, and people with comorbidities.

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, popotla said:

for example, Ivermectine and/or Hydroxychloroquine has in many/most countries of the world been disallowed, with doctors who prescribe these drugs finding themselves mired in difficulties (such as being struck off).

 

Down to the ignore list. That was fast.

5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

treatment of asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2-positive subjects, effectively resulting in fewer symptoms, lower viral load and reduced hospital admissions.

 

Because asymptomatic patients don't have symptoms or go to hospital. Duh.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now