If you only watched CNN or read the New York Times, you might think that Coronavirus symptoms cannot be treated and the best one can do is wait until you’re so sick that you are hospitalized.
In fact, ever since Trump mentioned hydroxychloroquine, there has been a unified effort from both the corporate media and state agencies to shut down any discussion of possible Coronavirus treatments outside of getting a vaccine.
One of the most important voices in exposing the lie that there is no Coronavirus outpatient treatment is Dr. Peter McCullough, Professor of Medicine at the Texas A & M University Health Sciences Center.
Dr. McCullough is an internationally recognized authority on the role of chronic kidney disease as a cardiovascular risk state with over 1000 publications and over 500 citations in the National Library of Medicine.
No small feat, right?
Yet, despite his position and scholarship, his work on developing a Coronavirus outpatient treatment protocol has been largely suppressed.
Dr. McCullough, like any decent doctor, was concerned about Coronavirus spread and wanted to see what he could do to help advance possible treatments to prevent hospitalization.
He contacted doctors in Italy, where the initial media “hotbed” was labeled, and started sharing knowledge with them to see what kinds of treatments they were using over there in a collaborative effort to come up with a protocol.
He then worked with the Italian doctors along with doctors in India and at American institutions like UCLA and Emory University to start writing up a treatment paper.
In the process, Dr. McCullough found out that in the 50,000+ peer-reviewed papers out on Coronavirus treatment, none of them addressed outpatient protocols, that is, treatment before one is so severely symptomatic that hospitalization is necessary.
Shocked by this, Dr. McCullough dove into studying how Coronavirus was affecting people in the days leading up to hospitalization, and saw that it was affecting the body in multiple ways. He and his colleagues came up with a protocol to treat these symptoms, which included addressing inflammation, thrombosis, and curtailing viral replication.
You can read his paper here:
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext
Dr. McCullough decided to make a YouTube video covering his published paper with the help of his daughter, who had just come home from law school.
That video, which was nothing more than covering the points of his peer-reviewed paper, was taken down by YouTube.
Dr. McCullough was stunned by this, especially as he was a literal professor at a major institution and was doing nothing more than talking about his credible findings along with other well-credentialed doctors.
Eventually, Dr. McCullough had to take his findings before congress in a November, 2020, Senate hearing because there was a near-total block on sharing his findings within mainstream media platforms.
He was appalled to find that, even after his testimony, virtually no labs or doctors gave patients an outpatient treatment protocol with their positive test.
In other words, those who tested positive were basically told to just go home and wait until their symptoms were so dire that they needed to go to the hospital and die.
In Dr. McCullough’s direct and meta research, he found that this lack of outpatient care likely led to 85 percent more deaths and hospitalizations than would have occurred if patients had been given a self-care protocol after receiving a positive test.
Think about that for a moment.
If, theoretically, 500,000 people DID actually die from Coronavirus (this number is unlikely though, as you can see from my past articles on testing deceptions), it would mean that some 425,000 people could have avoided death in the U.S. if there was not a media blackout on the protocols.
That’s INSANE.
What kind of world do we live in where treating patients before they get horribly sick is shunned?
I can tell you.
It’s one where the goal is not to help people, but to force a one-size-fits-all vaccination regime onto an entire population for politically nefarious ends.
Dr. McCullough also noted in several interviews (available below) that Dr. Fauci was treated as the all-knowing source of truth for Coronavirus.
He said that Fauci’s elevation neglected the need for round-table discussions with doctors who were actively treating patients. Without this shared knowledge from active practitioners, everyone was left believing that Coronavirus was inevitably deadly.
And, worse, individual treatment drugs were downplayed in the media while ignoring that Coronavirus attacks the body on multiple fronts, requiring several elements of treatment to stave off.
So people were left thinking that the drugs were ineffective, when really, the studies being cited to had single-variable treatment (one drug) or were done with dangerously lethal does, as was the case with the often-media-cited (and later retracted) hydroxychloroquine study.
See for hydroxychloroquine: RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
and
Researchers Overdosing COVID-19 Patients on Hydroxychloroquine, States Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS)
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/researchers-overdosing-covid-19-patients-on-hydroxychloroquine-states-association-of-american-physicians--surgeons-aaps-301078986.html
See for Ivermectin: FDA warns against using anti-parasitic drug for Covid-19 after reports of hospitalizations
https://www.cnn.com/2021/03/05/health/ivermectin-covid-19-fda-statement-wellness/index.html
Dr. Peter McCullough is not the only one who has published papers on treatments.
In fact, the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance is a team of doctors who have come up with their own protocols called the I-MASK+ Prevention & Early Outpatient Treatment Protocol for COVID-19.
See here: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/
But, like the other doctors researching outpatient treatments, their work has been censored on mainstream social media and has been blacked out by corporate media news networks.
Which means that, if we want to save lives, it will be up to us to, in a decentralized manner, share these protocols with others and inform local doctors that there are credible outpatient treatments with proven clinical success.
You can be a part of that change by sharing the videos and information here below:
Peter McCullough, MD testifies to Texas Senate HHS Committee
Dr. Peter McCullough warns: Covid vaccinations of pregnant women an "atrocity" and "shameful"
https://www.brighteon.com/fc2aa0fe-eae0-4c32-bc23-47e6b6ab9d97
Summary of studies on the use of Ivermectin in COVID-19:
https://c19early.com/
The establishment also suppressed information about immune health.
There were common sense measures that people could take to increase immune health. Here is one:
Apparently a free fructose molecule is very reactive. Because it is so reactive, fructose is almost always combined with other chemicals in nature.
But a free fructose molecule is super sweet. Food manufacturers see it as a cheap way to get people addicted to their products.
Here is the problem. Free fructose destroys vitamin D and leads to vitamin D deficiencies.
Free fructose molecules are found in High Fructose Corn Syrup, invert sugar, agave nectar and many other processed sugars.
I doubt a single network TV show would tell us this information because it might interfere with their selling ads. I doubt that a single politician would say this with fear that it might affect contributions.
Absolutely! Vitamin D, along with a few other key immune-system-supporting vitamins, were downplayed in the media. This video speaks well to it:
DR RYAN COLE TESTIFIES TO IDAHO LEGISLATURE ON COVID TREATMENTS AND HIS EXPERIENCE WITH THE PANDEMIC
https://www.bitchute.com/video/wtuaxzrpdBQG/
Yay! 🤗
Your content has been boosted with Ecency Points, by @thepholosopher.
Use Ecency daily to boost your growth on platform!
Support Ecency
Vote for Proposal
Delegate HP and earn more
There is typically no peer review on a research article. The public health consensus is that Hydroxychloroquine is not a treatment or prophylactic for SAR-CoV-2. Why would you reference a retracted publication, from the Lancet no less (the researchers wouldn't provide the source data? who's trying to hide the facts?)?
Here are the NIH guidelines for COVID-19 on the use of Hydroxychloroquine.
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-and-or-azithromycin/
Additionally
-and- a link to the studies conducted for the use of Hydroxychloroquine
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/tables/table-2b/
I don't know maybe more legit studies to be done...peer-reviewed (which means access to data) - until that happens it really does not look promising for the drug as a treatment option for COVID. And Dr's shopping around their paper is not helping that cause. Do the research, present the data - follow the science.
Do you understand that the retracted paper on Hydroxychloroquine was a paper saying that Hydroxychloroquine was dangerous? It's not a retracted paper in favor of my position. I was pointing out that the manipulation was so bad in that paper, they had to retract it because they unethically gave test subjects lethal doses.
Hydroxychloroquine has been a long-time studied drug and is used around the world to fight other contractions. People even take a tablet each week in third-world countries as preventative measure.
If you're not sure about Hydroxychloroquine's use with C19, then you should read the following studies:
https://c19hcq.com/
It has a moderate effect. But it is just one drug among MANY that are used together to treat various symptoms as Coronavirus has SEVERAL effects to treat.
You cannot just do one drug at a time.
Not on that particular retracted document. It was specifically pulled because the research group would not provide data.
Hydroxychloroquine is an antiinflammatory used for Arthritis, Lupus and a few other inflammatory diseases. The same with ivermectin is has specifically targeted applications (this may have more merit but again, needs valid, verifiable research - not meta-analysis.)
The site that you are pulling all your inspiration and analysis from only confounds the issue of misinformation.
They are hiding behind anonymity which should not be the case. "We are PhD researchers, scientists, people who hope to make a contribution" - Arent we all. To be taken seriously they should list their qualifications for their analysts, PhD's, and any affiliations.
I've read a few... peer-reviewed? There's a lot of confounding verbiage in a lot of the ones that I read that would not make it through peer-review on RCT's, which many claim to be but are not. So many of the references on this site are cherry-picked retrospective observational papers.
They are the The FLCCC Physicians.
You can read their bios here:
https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/the-flccc-physicians/
I also recommend you read the work of the following doctors as well who are doing work aligned with the above:
Peter A. McCullough, MD, MPH
https://www.cardiometabolichealth.org/peter-mccullough.html
Jayanta Bhattacharya
https://profiles.stanford.edu/jay-bhattacharya
John P.A. Ioannidis
https://profiles.stanford.edu/john-ioannidis
Ryan Cole, MD
https://independentdocsid.com/RyanColeMD
Dr. Lee D. Merritt
https://health.usnews.com/doctors/lee-merritt-859595
Uh, ya no. I saw those. I should have specified. I'm talking about the HQMETA.com, c19hcq.com sites. All the same sites just different URL's.
Please be sure to reference the entire protocol for your thought. Hydroxychloroquine is not even the focus.
See: https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-19-protocols/i-mask-plus-protocol/
Sure, but you mention Hydroxychloroquine several times and the "Dr" paper has a pretty biased section on its use amongst other things. I picked up on the primary theme... if there is nothing to Hydroxychloroquine why would he even put it in his paper and treatment protocol? His protocol is different from the one that you posted - is his wrong? Which one is correct(both are flawed)? Also, the research on Ivermectin(an antiparasitic) is still out there and leads it to be recommended only in clinical trials.
If I'm proven wrong and the I-MASK+ protocol is mass adopted I'll change my mind and admit it, that's what's done in the science world. Until then ... seems like there is a lot of proselytising rather than science being done.