principiascientificinternational--2020-04-23--The Truth on Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) COVID-19 Treatment

Since the intervention of the President of the USA , Donald Trump announcing that the FDA approved Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 , the news spread that a treatment was now available .
However , on the same day , the FDA denied having given the approval for this drug .
We are now facing questions and requests from patients for this medication that medical professionals can not give without going astray from the current standard of care established by the FDA .
More concerning is the consequences on the epidemic and on lives to refrain the prescription of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ for COVID-19 ?
Is there any alternative treatment ?
Is Hydroxychloroquine really dangerous to the point to limit or to delay its use until studies confirm the validity of its use in the treatment of COVID ?
Didier Raoult , M.D .
is a Professor in Infectious Diseases in Marseille , France .
He is ranked as the first world expert in communicable diseases by the online resource , http : //www.expertscape.com .
He is the leader in France in the research on COVID-19 .
He is also an expert in Plaquenil since @ @ @ @ @ @ @ years on Plaquenil to treat other diseases .
He is currently the European voice who promotes the use of Hydroxychloroquine against the position of the FDA .
As a French native , I was able to follow the interviews that the Professor Didier Raoult gave and because lives may be saved today with the use of Hydroxychloroquine I feel an ethical duty to share the expert advice that supports the use of Hydroxychloroquine ( Plaquenil ) .
Plaquenil has been used for the past 70 years as a drug to treat and to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has been proven , having been used by millions of people during this period .
Its safety profile is well-known , which is not the case of newer drugs that may be safe in the early studies , but often turn out to be dangerous over time .
If , two months ago , you would have to go to Africa , Asia or any endemic zone of malaria the same doctor who , today , refuses to give you Plaquenil , based on the FDA instructions , would have given you Plaquenil @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and probably even without looking up the potential side effects .
Malaria may kill and the prevention of a potential lethal disease has justified for the past 70 years this practice that nobody never discussed .
Suddenly , in 2020 , Plaquenil became a dangerous drug when there is a threat of crisis in Plaquenil supply .
Is Malaria much worse than COVID-19 ?
Is the risk of being bitten by a mosquito in a hotel much higher than catching COVID-19 in your local supermarket full of sick individuals or by touching door @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days ?
Three studies have been published recently by Chinese doctors showing the efficacy of Plaquenil on COVID-19 .
One study reported by the Pr .
Didier Raoult , showed the eradication of coronavirus in 75 % of patients with hydroxychloroquine alone and when combined with Azithromycin an eradication in 95 % of cases .
Pr .
Raoult published a few days ago his own study showing similar results .
Pr .
Raoult thinks that Chinese doctors are reliable .
They were the first to face this epidemic , have the largest experience @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more than 20 studies .
The usual rule in Medicine requires protocols , well conducted double-blind randomized studies , studies at large scale to officially promote a medication .
Dr. Hahn , director of the FDA states : THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE YET THESE “ MORE APPROPRIATE TREATMENTS ” AND PEOPLE IN ICU CAN NOT WAIT .
Today , there is no other FDA approved drug to fight against COVID-19 .
Today , while people may be between life and death , when some do not know how fast @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , which is FDA approved for the treatment and prevention of malaria and for some inflammatory diseases , is still not approved for the treatment of COVID .
The FDA ensures the safety and the good use of medications and physicians who today refuse to give Plaquenil , strictly , follow the FDA instructions in your best interest .
Is it really so ?
The history of Medicine can also teach us lessons .
One oral antidiabetic medication ( Metformin ) was introduced in Europe in 1950 and in the USA in 1995 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ FDA to authorize what turned out to be the basic treatment of diabetes .
The first oral anti-diabetes medication was introduced in the USA in 1984 .
It took 14 years for the FDA to allow american citizens to have tablets instead of insulin shots .
It took 12 years for Alexander Fleming to convince his peers that penicillin was not a quackery resulting in the death of hundreds that was avoidable .
How many victims from COVID-19 will it take until pragmatic therapeutic approaches are taken ?
The concept of the patient @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reconsidered in times of crisis .
Yes , well-conducted studies are necessary and should guide our medical practice .
Sometimes , however , when it is urgent , the risk/benefit ratio may be the only guide .
The common Plaquenil side effects may include nausea , vomiting , stomach pain or cramps , loss of appetite , weight loss , diarrhea , dizziness , spinning sensation , headache , ringing in your ears , mood changes , nervousness , irritability , skin rash , itching , or hair loss .
As to the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the medical website Medscape is not well defined .
Plaquenil may also cause severe eye damage but only when taken for a long term .
This concern is certainly not relevant to a 5 day treatment .
Plaquenil may have an effect on the heart visible on an electrocardiogram ( EKG ) ( prolongation of the QT interval ) as does Zithromax .
The concern is the risk of cardiac arrhythmia .
The risk is even greater when Plaquenil is combined with other drugs that also prolong the QT interval on EKG @ @ @ @ @ @ @ more studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance of this EKG abnormality .
Pr .
Didier Raoult who has used Plaquenil for the past 10 years in his clinical practice and research writes that the combination of Hydroxychloroquine ( Plaquenil ) with Azithromycin ( Zithromax ) was a concern but has not yet been shown to cause EKG problems .
An EKG is advisable before starting Plaquenil .
Any prolongation of the QT interval requires the approval of a cardiologist to use Plaquenil .
In his interview on 03/23/20 , the Pr @ @ @ @ @ @ @ possible risk of arrhythmia that is more relevant to patients who present with multiple diseases or in the ICU setting .
Drug interaction : Plaquenil may interact with acetaminophen , cancer medications , tuberculosis medications , birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy , arthritis medications , ACE inhibitors , antibiotics , antifungals , cholesterol medications , HIV/AIDS medications , NSAIDs ( non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs ) , or seizure medications .
Side effects must always be correlated with their frequency , and with the risk/benefit ratio .
Any medication may have serious side @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the use of Plaquenil in his interview on 03/23/20 seems to be very annoyed by the warning about side effects and goes up to stating that it is purposely done like to “ frighten people with ghosts ” .
Again , He insists on the fact that several millions of individuals took Hydroxychloroquine over the past 70 years .
He does not hesitate to say that the fear of side effects due to Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin ( Zithromax ) does not make sense .
The risks of COVID-19 in a selected population @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In people at high risk of dying from COVID-19 , the risk/benefit ratio favors the use of Plaquenil .
Pr .
Raoult , in his interview on 03/23/20 states that when there is respiratory insufficiency the virus is almost not or no longer detectable .
When patients start having severe respiratory insufficiency , when patients are admitted in ICU , it is just too late to initiate Plaquenil .
The virus is already gone .
It is the remaining inflammation ( cytokine storm ) that is a life threat .
According to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ initiated when COVID-19 becomes moderate or when patients start getting worse .
Plaquenil should be used when the virus is multiplying not when it is almost or totally gone .
Focusing on serious side effects without considering their relative frequency of occurrence and without taking into consideration the immediate life-threatening status and the absence of other alternative therapy causes an unrealistic and unjustified threat and fear on a medication that has the ability to save lives .
I understand that the authorization to use Plaquenil in the treatment of COVID-19 may lead to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ risk/benefit ratio would not favor the drug , a shortage of this medication and the impossibility to give to those who really need it , for COVID-19 or for other indications .
Providers should determine based on their clinical judgment and ethics what to do .
However , today people are in ICU , others will have to be admitted in ICUs .
These people can not wait for studies to be completed .
About the author : Alain Mass , M.D .
Board Certified in Family Practice , Dr. Mass graduated from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Paris in 1984 .
Dr. Mass works in Monsey , NY and specializes in Family Medicine .
contact @ massfunctionalmd.com Coronavirus and Plaquenil in the medical literature PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Truth on Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) COVID-19 Treatment
Written by Dr. Alain Mass
Since the intervention of the President of the USA, Donald Trump announcing that the FDA approved Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19, the news spread that a treatment was now available.
However, on the same day, the FDA denied having given the approval for this drug. We are now facing questions and requests from patients for this medication that medical professionals cannot give without going astray from the current standard of care established by the FDA.
More concerning is the consequences on the epidemic and on lives to refrain the prescription of Hydroxychloroquine.
Is Hydroxychloroqine really a treatment for COVID-19?
Is there any alternative treatment?
Is Hydroxychloroquine really dangerous to the point to limit or to delay its use until studies confirm the validity of its use in the treatment of COVID?
Didier Raoult, M.D. is a Professor in Infectious Diseases in Marseille, France. He is ranked as the first world expert in communicable diseases by the online resource, http://www.expertscape.com. He is the leader in France in the research on COVID-19.
He is also an expert in Plaquenil since he has worked for the past 10 years on Plaquenil to treat other diseases. He is currently the European voice who promotes the use of Hydroxychloroquine against the position of the FDA.
As a French native, I was able to follow the interviews that the Professor Didier Raoult gave and because lives may be saved today with the use of Hydroxychloroquine I feel an ethical duty to share the expert advice that supports the use of Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil).
Plaquenil has been used for the past 70 years as a drug to treat and to prevent malaria.
Plaquenil’s safety has been proven, having been used by millions of people during this period. Its safety profile is well-known, which is not the case of newer drugs that may be safe in the early studies, but often turn out to be dangerous over time.
If, two months ago, you would have to go to Africa, Asia or any endemic zone of malaria the same doctor who, today, refuses to give you Plaquenil, based on the FDA instructions, would have given you Plaquenil for weeks or months without any hesitancy and probably even without looking up the potential side effects.
Malaria may kill and the prevention of a potential lethal disease has justified for the past 70 years this practice that nobody never discussed. Suddenly, in 2020, Plaquenil became a dangerous drug when there is a threat of crisis in Plaquenil supply.
Is Malaria much worse than COVID-19? Is the risk of being bitten by a mosquito in a hotel much higher than catching COVID-19 in your local supermarket full of sick individuals or by touching door knobs where the virus can stay 9 days?
Three studies have been published recently by Chinese doctors showing the efficacy of Plaquenil on COVID-19. One study reported by the Pr. Didier Raoult, showed the eradication of coronavirus in 75{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of patients with hydroxychloroquine alone and when combined with Azithromycin an eradication in 95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of cases.
Pr. Raoult published a few days ago his own study showing similar results. Pr. Raoult thinks that Chinese doctors are reliable. They were the first to face this epidemic, have the largest experience in COVID-19 patients and have already published more than 20 studies.
The usual rule in Medicine requires protocols, well conducted double-blind randomized studies, studies at large scale to officially promote a medication. Dr. Hahn, director of the FDA states:
“We must ensure these products are effective: otherwise we risk treating patients with a product that might not work when they could have pursued other more appropriate treatments”.
THE PROBLEM IS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE YET THESE “MORE APPROPRIATE TREATMENTS” AND PEOPLE IN ICU CANNOT WAIT.
Today, there is no other FDA approved drug to fight against COVID-19. Today, while people may be between life and death, when some do not know how fast and severely they will deteriorate, Plaquenil, which is FDA approved for the treatment and prevention of malaria and for some inflammatory diseases, is still not approved for the treatment of COVID. The FDA ensures the safety and the good use of medications and physicians who today refuse to give Plaquenil, strictly, follow the FDA instructions in your best interest. Is it really so?
The history of Medicine can also teach us lessons. One oral antidiabetic medication (Metformin) was introduced in Europe in 1950 and in the USA in 1995. It took 45 years for the FDA to authorize what turned out to be the basic treatment of diabetes. The first oral anti-diabetes medication was introduced in the USA in 1984.
It took 14 years for the FDA to allow american citizens to have tablets instead of insulin shots.
It took 12 years for Alexander Fleming to convince his peers that penicillin was not a quackery resulting in the death of hundreds that was avoidable.
How many victims from COVID-19 will it take until pragmatic therapeutic approaches are taken?
The concept of the patient’s best interest has to be reconsidered in times of crisis. Yes, well-conducted studies are necessary and should guide our medical practice. Sometimes, however, when it is urgent, the risk/benefit ratio may be the only guide.
The common Plaquenil side effects may include nausea, vomiting, stomach pain or cramps, loss of appetite, weight loss, diarrhea, dizziness, spinning sensation, headache, ringing in your ears, mood changes, nervousness, irritability, skin rash, itching, or hair loss.
As to the serious side effects, their frequency according to the medical website Medscape is not well defined. Plaquenil may also cause severe eye damage but only when taken for a long term. This concern is certainly not relevant to a 5 day treatment.
Plaquenil may have an effect on the heart visible on an electrocardiogram (EKG) (prolongation of the QT interval) as does Zithromax. The concern is the risk of cardiac arrhythmia. The risk is even greater when Plaquenil is combined with other drugs that also prolong the QT interval on EKG.
A study in 2018 concluded that more studies are needed to evaluate the clinical significance of this EKG abnormality. Pr. Didier Raoult who has used Plaquenil for the past 10 years in his clinical practice and research writes that the combination of Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) with Azithromycin (Zithromax) was a concern but has not yet been shown to cause EKG problems.
An EKG is advisable before starting Plaquenil. Any prolongation of the QT interval requires the approval of a cardiologist to use Plaquenil. In his interview on 03/23/20, the Pr. Raoult speaks of an hypothetical but possible risk of arrhythmia that is more relevant to patients who present with multiple diseases or in the ICU setting.
Drug interaction: Plaquenil may interact with acetaminophen, cancer medications, tuberculosis medications, birth control pills or hormone replacement therapy, arthritis medications, ACE inhibitors, antibiotics, antifungals, cholesterol medications, HIV/AIDS medications, NSAIDs (non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs), or seizure medications.
Side effects must always be correlated with their frequency, and with the risk/benefit ratio. Any medication may have serious side effects. Pr. Raoult, expert in the use of Plaquenil in his interview on 03/23/20 seems to be very annoyed by the warning about side effects and goes up to stating that it is purposely done like to “frighten people with ghosts”.
Again, He insists on the fact that several millions of individuals took Hydroxychloroquine over the past 70 years. He does not hesitate to say that the fear of side effects due to Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin (Zithromax) does not make sense.
The risks of COVID-19 in a selected population at risk are serious and potentially lethal. In people at high risk of dying from COVID-19, the risk/benefit ratio favors the use of Plaquenil. Pr. Raoult, in his interview on 03/23/20 states that when there is respiratory insufficiency the virus is almost not or no longer detectable.
When patients start having severe respiratory insufficiency, when patients are admitted in ICU, it is just too late to initiate Plaquenil.
The virus is already gone. It is the remaining inflammation (cytokine storm) that is a life threat. According to the Pr. Raoult
Hydroxychloroquine should be initiated when COVID-19 becomes moderate or when patients start getting worse.
Plaquenil should be used when the virus is multiplying not when it is almost or totally gone.
Focusing on serious side effects without considering their relative frequency of occurrence and without taking into consideration the immediate life-threatening status and the absence of other alternative therapy causes an unrealistic and unjustified threat and fear on a medication that has the ability to save lives.
I understand that the authorization to use Plaquenil in the treatment of COVID-19 may lead to unjustified use of this drug where the risk/benefit ratio would not favor the drug, a shortage of this medication and the impossibility to give to those who really need it, for COVID-19 or for other indications. Providers should determine based on their clinical judgment and ethics what to do. However, today people are in ICU, others will have to be admitted in ICUs. These people cannot wait for studies to be completed.
About the author: Alain Mass, M.D. Board Certified in Family Practice, Dr. Mass graduated from the University of Paris,University of Paris in 1984. Dr. Mass works in Monsey, NY and specializes in Family Medicine. contact@massfunctionalmd.com
Coronavirus and Plaquenil in the medical literature
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32075365/?fbclid=IwAR1RcuL4O4yFacJ5jRo8Oj0ABJxUsBZamA4rxw8XJ3xGzsAzyR3VPHMJcS4
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/03/17/an-effective-treatment-for-coronavirus-covid-19-has-been-found-in-a-common-anti-malarial-drug/
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0.pdf
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32150618?fbclid=IwAR07pI0OyQES3nZfrCkHY0qxhX7OUjTuMlmy51nZY6SeUpBwFpVaRnnNYo4
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Hydroxychloroquine_final_DOI_IJAA.pdf
https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69
Read more at madisonarealymesupportgroup.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-23--Flatten the Curve & the Vaccine Lobby Will Move the Goalposts

Flatten the Curve & the Vaccine Lobby Will Move the Goalposts When the IMHE models were introduced , there was a pretty high peak in the number of COVID-19 infections .
Related to this high peak , there were a significant number of hospitalizations and deaths in a very short time period .
The fear was we would run out of hospital beds and critical care resources such as ventilators .
The Coronavirus Task Force extended their original guidelines to slow the spread from 15 days to 30 .
The goal was to flatten the curve on the IMHE model @ @ @ @ @ @ @ flatten the curve ” mean ?
It meant we as a nation were buying time to ramp up medical resources so that every patient could receive needed care and to try and identify effective therapeutics .
Largely , these goals have been met .
Every patient who has required an ICU bed or a ventilator has been provided one .
We have been able to shift these resources between regions with outbreaks .
The federal government continues to build additional capacity in the event it is needed .
There are also dozens of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Clinicians have offered anecdotal information based on patient experience and we continue to refine how those with severe disease are cared for .
Our testing system has been significantly upgraded .
Supply chain management has been upgraded through public/private partnerships and new systems to identify and deliver resources on a just in time basis .
This is why the United States in among the lowest global mortality rates from COVID .
However , this period of severe social distancing and economic shutdown was never meant to stop the virus from circulating in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ slow the rate at which it moved so our healthcare system would not be overwhelmed .
When you flatten the curve , the area under it remains largely the same .
The curve just extends over a longer period of time and the peak is blunted .
Anyone expecting COVID to disappear from our lives is under a serious delusion .
As we open up , people are going to continue to test positive .
Some will get severely ill. A small number will unfortunately die .
What we can be assured of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ cared for .
We can also have great hope that treatment will continue to improve lowering the number of severe cases and fatalities .
I feel the need to make this distinction because my state , Georgia , will be one of the first to emerge from severe lockdown .
On April 3 , Governor Kemp issued a statewide stay at home order .
Until that point the response was being managed at the local level .
My particular area had been closed with stay at home orders for two weeks prior to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been hunkered down for over a month .
The Governor has now authorized opening up certain types of businesses with conditions beginning Friday .
Like other Governors who have opened beaches or are inching back to somewhat normal operations , Governor Kemp is coming under significant criticism .
Media talking heads and Democrats like failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams are screaming .
“ People are going to get sick !
” “ People are going to die !
” .
More than likely , this is the case .
No one ever said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , no one is calculating the real public health cost of continuing to stay locked down .
What are the cost in lives of missed mammograms , colon cancer screenings and blood A1C labs ?
How many new cancers have we missed and heart stents haven ’ t been placed ?
What are the life threatening effects for those awaiting joint surgeries who have lain immobile for 45 days ?
COVID-19 is not the only illness that people become very ill or die from .
It is not even the most common .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ be attributed to delay or denial of treatment during this time period .
Hardly anyone is talking about them .
Meanwhile in Georgia , healthcare workers are being furloughed and ancillary services like physical therapy have closed their doors .
Given our total COVID-19 experience to date , it makes no sense to continue these policies regarding so called “ elective ” healthcare .
We Are Smarter Now Additionally , we know who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 and how to protect them and the public .
No one in Georgia or is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ visitors .
Or that those with pre-existing conditions change what they are currently doing .
However , for large swaths of the population the risk is relatively low .
This becomes even more evident as data on asymptomatic cases continues to accumulate .
So long term we will have to make accommodations for children with asthma and continue to help and support the elderly with heart disease .
This doesn ’ t mean an entire generation of children needs to miss another school year .
It doesn ’ t mean the local hair @ @ @ @ @ @ @ clients they normally do with proper precautions .
That the local movie theater can ’ t improve cleaning between shows and sell a third of their tickets .
Or that family groups can ’ t eat in a well cleaned half empty restaurant .
It is imperative to remember that the people screaming the loudest generally have not missed a paycheck .
For some reason they also think you are incapable of taking in information and making good decisions .
They have also been wrong about almost everything .
From comparing COVID-19 to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the China travel ban xenophobic , to the estimation of the impact .
The experts were building the plane while they were flying it .
As one might expect , their models were way off .
Experts have a narrow focus by definition .
It is time to let Americans look at the big picture and make their own decisions based on all available information .
They asked us to help flatten the curve .
We did exceeding all expectations .
It would seem we can be trusted not to screw it up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Flatten the Curve & the Vaccine Lobby Will Move the Goalposts
Written by Stacey Lennox
When the IMHE models were introduced, there was a pretty high peak in the number of COVID-19 infections. Related to this high peak, there were a significant number of hospitalizations and deaths in a very short time period.
The fear was we would run out of hospital beds and critical care resources such as ventilators. The Coronavirus Task Force extended their original guidelines to slow the spread from 15 days to 30. The goal was to flatten the curve on the IMHE model.
What It Is
What does “flatten the curve” mean? It meant we as a nation were buying time to ramp up medical resources so that every patient could receive needed care and to try and identify effective therapeutics. Largely, these goals have been met. Every patient who has required an ICU bed or a ventilator has been provided one. We have been able to shift these resources between regions with outbreaks. The federal government continues to build additional capacity in the event it is needed.
There are also dozens of clinical trials going on for therapeutic drugs. Clinicians have offered anecdotal information based on patient experience and we continue to refine how those with severe disease are cared for. Our testing system has been significantly upgraded. Supply chain management has been upgraded through public/private partnerships and new systems to identify and deliver resources on a just in time basis.
What It Isn’t
This is why the United States in among the lowest global mortality rates from COVID. However, this period of severe social distancing and economic shutdown was never meant to stop the virus from circulating in the population. It was meant to slow the rate at which it moved so our healthcare system would not be overwhelmed. When you flatten the curve, the area under it remains largely the same. The curve just extends over a longer period of time and the peak is blunted.
Anyone expecting COVID to disappear from our lives is under a serious delusion. As we open up, people are going to continue to test positive. Some will get severely ill. A small number will unfortunately die. What we can be assured of is that every patient will be properly cared for. We can also have great hope that treatment will continue to improve lowering the number of severe cases and fatalities.
First Mover
I feel the need to make this distinction because my state, Georgia, will be one of the first to emerge from severe lockdown. On April 3, Governor Kemp issued a statewide stay at home order. Until that point the response was being managed at the local level. My particular area had been closed with stay at home orders for two weeks prior to that point. Most of us have been hunkered down for over a month.
The Governor has now authorized opening up certain types of businesses with conditions beginning Friday. Like other Governors who have opened beaches or are inching back to somewhat normal operations, Governor Kemp is coming under significant criticism. Media talking heads and Democrats like failed gubernatorial candidate Stacey Abrams are screaming. “People are going to get sick!” “People are going to die!”. More than likely, this is the case. No one ever said it wouldn’t be.
Other Public Health Costs
However, no one is calculating the real public health cost of continuing to stay locked down. What are the cost in lives of missed mammograms, colon cancer screenings and blood A1C labs? How many new cancers have we missed and heart stents haven’t been placed? What are the life threatening effects for those awaiting joint surgeries who have lain immobile for 45 days? COVID-19 is not the only illness that people become very ill or die from. It is not even the most common.
There will absolutely be deaths that can be attributed to delay or denial of treatment during this time period. Hardly anyone is talking about them. Meanwhile in Georgia, healthcare workers are being furloughed and ancillary services like physical therapy have closed their doors. Given our total COVID-19 experience to date, it makes no sense to continue these policies regarding so called “elective” healthcare.
We Are Smarter Now
Additionally, we know who are most vulnerable to COVID-19 and how to protect them and the public. No one in Georgia or is suggesting we throw open nursing homes to visitors. Or that those with pre-existing conditions change what they are currently doing. However, for large swaths of the population the risk is relatively low. This becomes even more evident as data on asymptomatic cases continues to accumulate.
So long term we will have to make accommodations for children with asthma and continue to help and support the elderly with heart disease. This doesn’t mean an entire generation of children needs to miss another school year. It doesn’t mean the local hair salon can’t service half the clients they normally do with proper precautions. That the local movie theater can’t improve cleaning between shows and sell a third of their tickets. Or that family groups can’t eat in a well cleaned half empty restaurant.
It is imperative to remember that the people screaming the loudest generally have not missed a paycheck. For some reason they also think you are incapable of taking in information and making good decisions. They have also been wrong about almost everything. From comparing COVID-19 to the flu in January, then calling the China travel ban xenophobic, to the estimation of the impact. The experts were building the plane while they were flying it. As one might expect, their models were way off.
Experts have a narrow focus by definition. It is time to let Americans look at the big picture and make their own decisions based on all available information. They asked us to help flatten the curve. We did exceeding all expectations. It would seem we can be trusted not to screw it up now.
Read more at noqreport.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-23--Respiratory Specialist: ALL Breathing Problems Now Labeled as COVID-19

Respiratory Specialist : ALL Breathing Problems Now Labeled as COVID-19 A respiratory therapist with 21 years of professional experience who works in a hospital in Georgia has posted a video on YouTube in which he explains all the problems , contradictions , and inconsistencies with the official narrative of the alleged COVID-19 ‘ pandemic ’ .
The video below was originally posted on an important website called questioningcovid.com One of the take-aways from his comments is that the so-called ‘ deaths ’ being reported in the media and by the CDC are from a multitude of causes , not merely @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and given how they ’ ve lumped all the deaths together , it ’ s virtually impossible to discern who the actual COVID-19 patients are — if there are any that can actually be confirmed .
And all of this goes a long way in explaining why no one particular treatment or drug will ‘ cure ’ all ‘ COVID-19 ’ patients , since so many different conditions are being mislabeled as such .
-He shows the ventilator storage room is full of unused ventilators -Hospital is using fewer ventilators than they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with respiratory problem was presumed to be a COVID-19 patient -Patients with heart disease and stage 4 lung cancer were presumed to have COVID-19 -Patients who were never tested for virus and died presumed to be COVID-19 -Results of COVID-19 tests take up to two weeks to come back ( no in-house testing ) -COVID-19 ‘ death ’ statistics are cooked to scare the public -Non-invasive ventilators are NOT allowed to be used on any presumed COVID-19 patients -All patients admitted are labeled “ COVID Under Investigation ” -COVID tests do NOT test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only a specific RNA genetic sequence from a presumed reaction to the virus -There is NO Test for COVID-19 -All are run through a PCR Test that exaggerates the presence of the RNA sequence -No proof that the virus is as infectious as the media is claiming -There is no ventilator shortage -Virtually no health care workers are testing positive or show symptoms -All sick patients have co-morbidities and are old-age -H1N1 far more ‘ scary ’ than COVID -You can not vaccinate for a sinus infection — it won ’ t work @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we will see a spike and then a drop — and mortality rate will drop -No evidence the shutdown is warranted , not even close -Doctors are just as fooled and unquestioning as the public [ This video should be backed up on Bitchute or some other independent site , as YouTube has been purging any videos that contradict the ‘ official ’ narrative . ]
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Respiratory Specialist: ALL Breathing Problems Now Labeled as COVID-19
Written by HOLLYWIERD NEWS 2.0
A respiratory therapist with 21 years of professional experience who works in a hospital in Georgia has posted a video on YouTube in which he explains all the problems, contradictions, and inconsistencies with the official narrative of the alleged COVID-19 ‘pandemic’.
The video below was originally posted on an important website called questioningcovid.com
One of the take-aways from his comments is that the so-called ‘deaths’ being reported in the media and by the CDC are from a multitude of causes, not merely an alleged new strain of flu virus, and given how they’ve lumped all the deaths together, it’s virtually impossible to discern who the actual COVID-19 patients are — if there are any that can actually be confirmed.
And all of this goes a long way in explaining why no one particular treatment or drug will ‘cure’ all ‘COVID-19’ patients, since so many different conditions are being mislabeled as such.
Video summary:
-He shows the ventilator storage room is full of unused ventilators
-Hospital is using fewer ventilators than they normally use
-Any patient who came in with respiratory problem was presumed to be a COVID-19 patient
-Patients with heart disease and stage 4 lung cancer were presumed to have COVID-19
-Patients who were never tested for virus and died presumed to be COVID-19
-Results of COVID-19 tests take up to two weeks to come back (no in-house testing)
-COVID-19 ‘death’ statistics are cooked to scare the public
-Non-invasive ventilators are NOT allowed to be used on any presumed COVID-19 patients
-All patients admitted are labeled “COVID Under Investigation”
-COVID tests do NOT test for a flu virus, but rather only a specific RNA genetic sequence from a presumed reaction to the virus
-There is NO Test for COVID-19
-All are run through a PCR Test that exaggerates the presence of the RNA sequence
-No proof that the virus is as infectious as the media is claiming
-There is no ventilator shortage
-Virtually no health care workers are testing positive or show symptoms
-All sick patients have co-morbidities and are old-age
-H1N1 far more ‘scary’ than COVID
-You cannot vaccinate for a sinus infection — it won’t work
-If this truly is a viral infection, we will see a spike and then a drop — and mortality rate will drop
-No evidence the shutdown is warranted, not even close
-Doctors are just as fooled and unquestioning as the public
[This video should be backed up on Bitchute or some other independent site, as YouTube has been purging any videos that contradict the ‘official’ narrative.]
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-23--NIH Exposed in Shock Mass Deception over COVID19 Treatment

At the very same time the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) , Dr Fauci and the media are deriding HCQ as ‘ unsafe ’ for treating COVID-19 , the NIH backs dozens of clinical trials of Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) as a safe treatment for cancer .
How can that be ?
On Tuesday an NIH panel reported that HCQ , the 75-year-old re-purposed malaria drug was unsafe “ because of the potential for toxicities.
” However , the NIH panel could only cite one piece of evidence – a single study which was not even peer reviewed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been dismissing the ‘ Trump Cure ’ because of “ risky side effects “ since the US President and hundreds of doctors claimed it was highly effective .
The MSM , Dr Fauci , WHO and the CDC are holding out for a vaccine instead .
Examination of the more detailed , prior peer-reviewed research cited below – where clear evidence shows no adverse affects from HCQ – should have all alarm bells ringing .
HCQ is performing well in U.S. clinical trials as a potential treatment for many diseases , including cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the dawn of a new era of cheap , effective cures for some of the most deadly maladies .
The contradictory claims coming from NIH raises grave questions about the reliability , motives and procedures employed by the NIH panel which dismissed HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients on the basis of alleged “ toxicities.
” The Guardian headline below typifies the media ’ s bias : Doesn ’ t that smell like desperation to keep the mass lockdown in place ?
At minimum , this new revelation exposes a grave omission @ @ @ @ @ @ @ surely initiate an urgent federal investigation .
Let ’ s now look at the emerging medical evidence : We have select sections shown below : Chloroquine ( CQ ) and hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) are well-known 4-aminoquinoline antimalarial agents .
Scientific evidence also supports the use of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of cancer .
Overall , preclinical studies support CQ and HCQ use in anti-cancer therapy , especially in combination with conventional anti-cancer treatments since they are able to sensitise tumour cells to a variety of drugs , potentiating the therapeutic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are mostly in favour of the repurposing of CQ .
However , over 30 clinical studies are still evaluating the activity of both CQ and HCQ in different cancer types and in combination with various standard treatments .
Interestingly , CQ and HCQ exert effects both on cancer cells and on the tumour microenvironment .
In addition to inhibition of the autophagic flux , which is the most studied anti-cancer effect of CQ and HCQ , these drugs affect the Toll-like receptor 9 , p53 and CXCR4-CXCL12 pathway in cancer cells .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to affect the tumour vasculature , cancer-associated fibroblasts and the immune system .
The evidence reviewed in this paper indicates that both CQ and HCQ deserve further clinical investigations in several cancer types .
Special attention about the drug ( CQ versus HCQ ) , the dose and the schedule of administration should be taken in the design of new trials .
Chloroquine ( CQ ) and hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) are both 4-aminoquinoline agents that have been used for more than 70 and 50 years …..
Although HCQ and CQ differ only @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of this hydroxyl group results in an important decrease in toxicity…..
Both drugs are available as generic products and mentioned on the WHO list of essential medicines….. Short-term administration of CQ or HCQ rarely causes severe side effects… CQ and HCQ have been extensively studied both in vitro and in vivo in various cancer types…..
Both drugs can be administered as monotherapy or as adjuvant agents to increase the efficacy and to limit drug resistance of standard anti-cancer therapy…..
Starting with in vivo studies that observed beneficial effects of CQ administration in cancer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tumour growth in mice bearing epidermal growth factor receptor ( EGFR ) -overexpressing glioblastoma xenografts in response to CQ administration .
In addition , the time to reach four times the initial tumour volume was significantly longer in the CQ-treated group [ 16 ] .
They observed that the number of mitotic cells was significantly reduced and the number of apoptotic cells was increased after CQ administration [ 17 ] .
In addition , a significant reduction of tumour volume and tumour incidence was shown by Song et al [ 18 ] in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Hu et al [ 19 ] observed significant tumour growth and weight reduction in an orthotopic xenograft model of liver cancer after CQ administration .
Lakhter et al [ 20 ] demonstrated that CQ significantly reduced both tumour volume and tumour mass in a human melanoma xenograft model .
Zheng et al [ 21 ] showed reduced tumour progression and prolonged survival time ( not significant ) in colon cancer-bearing mice when administering either 25 or 50 mg/kg of CQ .
Doses of 25 and 50 mg/kg of CQ both significantly increased survival @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mice implanted with a highly metastasizing breast cancer cell line , as shown by Jiang et al .
Interestingly , the number and diameter of lung metastases was reduced as well , and CQ enhanced tumour cell apoptosis in the high dose group [ 22 ] .
The incidence of mammary tumours and their growth rate was significantly lower and tumour onset was delayed in CQ-pre-treated rats after being subjected to mammary adenocarcinoma induction using N-methyl-N-nitrosourea ( NMU ) , as shown by Loehberg et al .
In wild-type BALB/c mice transplanted with @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CQ pre-treatment did not affect tumour incidence [ 23 ] .
Maclean et al confirmed that CQ could not prevent spontaneous tumour formation in p53-deficient mice .
In contrast , intermittent CQ administration significantly reduced the tumour development and doubled the overall survival ( OS ) of Eμ-Myc mice [ 24 ] .
Furthermore , Sun et al showed that CQ administration is effective in reducing tumour growth in rats with established hepatocarcinoma .
In contrast , CQ promoted tumour development in the earlier so-called dysplastic stage , clearly illustrating the dual role @ @ @ @ @ @ @ section on mechanisms of action ) [ 25 ] .
Finally , Maes et al [ 26 ] reported that either a dose of 50 mg/kg or a dose of 100 mg/kg of CQ can reduce tumour growth and cell proliferation , dependent on the cell type .
Of note , this study showed that CQ not only inhibits autophagy but also affects the tumour microenvironment and tumour vasculature .
The exact working mechanisms will be clarified in the section on mechanisms of action .
Some studies noted that the efficacy of CQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ tumour type that is being treated and suggested that the autophagy dependency of tumour cells might play a role [ 27 , 28 ] .
summarises the information from articles that studied the effect of CQ ( n = 46 ) or HCQ ( n = 5 ) in vivo in combination with other therapies….Interestingly , CQ and HCQ have already been tested in combination with over 40 other drugs in preclinical cancer research .
Both CQ and HCQ can effectively increase the efficacy of various anti-cancer drugs , which is further explained @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Numerous clinical trials in which either CQ or HCQ is being used to treat patients with a range of cancer types are registered in clinical trial databases .
In clinical trials , these drugs are most often administered in combination with other anti-cancer agents… .
In May 1998 , one of the first clinical trials on CQ use in cancer was started , which was an open , prospective , randomised controlled study with 18 glioblastoma multiforme ( GBM ) patients [ 38 ] .
In the abstract of this study , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ significantly enhanced patient survival [ 33 ± 5 months for CQ-treated patients and 11 ± 2 months for controls ( p < 0.0002 ) ] .
No important adverse effects were noted in this trial .
[ emphasis added ] After the observation of promising outcomes in five recurrent GBM patients treated with 250 mg CQ a day and reirradiation for 20 months [ 42 ] , a phase-2 clinical trial tested the effects of CQ as a radio-sensitising agent in patients with brain metastases [ 43 ] .
In this trial , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 30 Gy in 10 fractions over two weeks ) in combination with a daily dose of 150 mg CQ for four weeks , while 34 patients received placebo instead of CQ in addition to the same radiation treatment .
The overall response rate or OS did not improve after CQ administration .
However , the progression-free survival of brain metastases rate was increased ( CQ-treated group : 83.9 % [ 95 % CI 69.4–98.4 ] and control group : 55.1 % [ 95 % CI 33.6–77.6 ] ( at one year ) , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ CI 0.1–0.9 , p = 0.046 ] ) .
The absence of adverse effects and the improved local control of brain metastases indicate that CQ might be a useful addition to whole brain irradiation in patients with brain metastases…..
In a prospective , single-cohort study of 20 patients with brain metastases from solid tumours , 250 mg CQ daily was administered for five weeks in combination with whole-brain irradiation [ 44 ] .
….no adverse reactions were detected .
[ emphasis added ] The effect of HCQ and temsirolimus combination therapy was tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ during a phase-1 dose-escalating study and subsequently in 13 patients with metastatic melanoma at the phase-2 recommended dose [ 51 ] …..This study recommends an adjuvant HCQ dose of 600 mg , twice daily….. …Next , the combinatory effect of HCQ and temozolomide was investigated in 40 cancer patients with advanced solid tumours and melanoma , and the recommended dose of 600 mg twice daily was confirmed [ 52 ] .
HCQ was shown to successfully inhibit autophagy , … The safety and preliminary efficacy of HCQ and vorinostat combination treatment was tested @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with advanced solid tumours [ 53 ] .
The efficacy and safety of HCQ was studied in combination with radiotherapy and temozolomide in 92 GBM patients during a phase-1–2 study [ 55 ] .
This study indicated a maximum tolerated dose ( MTD ) of 600 mg HCQ a day in this therapeutic setting…..
The combination of HCQ with erlotinib can be used safely in daily doses of 150 mg erlotinib and 1000 mg HCQ , as determined by a phase-1 study in 27 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer ( NSCLC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ phase-1 study , the safety of the combination of HCQ and bortezomib was explored in 25 patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma [ 59 ] .
A dose of 600 mg HCQ twice daily was reported to be safe and tolerable in combination with standard doses of bortezomib…..
The safety of the combination of pre-operative HCQ ( 1200 mg daily ) and gemcitabine administration was demonstrated in 35 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a phase-1–2 trial [ 60 ] .
This study reported promising clinical response markers ( e.g .
CA 19–9 biomarker @ @ @ @ @ @ @ exploratory analysis showed significantly improved disease-free survival and OS ( 15.03 versus 6.9 months and 34.83 versus 10.83 months , respectively ) in patients for whom autophagy was sufficiently inhibited ( n = 8 ) ( at least 51 % increase in the autophagy marker LC3B-II in peripheral blood mononuclear cells ) compared with other patients ( n = 9 ) …… Next , a phase-2 study investigated the safety and efficacy of HCQ monotherapy with either 400 or 600 mg two times a day in 20 patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic @ @ @ @ @ @ @ observed between groups [ 61 ] … .
Multiple hypotheses have been proposed on how CQ and HCQ exert their anti-cancer activity .
Most studies reported the direct action of these drugs on cancer cells , but more recent studies have also mentioned important effects of CQ and HCQ on the tumour microenvironment .
Based on preclinical studies , it is safe to say that CQ and HCQ have multiple mechanisms of action that might complement each other…..
The main and most studied anti-cancer effect of CQ and HCQ is the inhibition of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ activities of the antimalarial agents include influencing the TLR9/nuclear factor kappa B ( NF-κB ) signalling pathway , the CXCL12/CXCR4 signalling pathway and the p53 pathway… .
CQ and HCQ can activate caspase-3 and modulate the Bcl-2/Bax ratio inducing apoptosis in CLL , B-cell CLL and glioblastoma cells [ 17 , 89 , 98–100 ] .
CQ-mediated cell-cycle-arrest and apoptosis was observed in breast cancer cells and was associated with a decrease in protein levels/activity of polo-like kinase 1 ( Plk-1 ) , ERK1/2 Akt and cell division cycle 25C ( CDC25C ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ caspase-3-mediated spindle abnormalities and down regulation of the mitochondrial transmembrane potential by CQ [ 101 ] .
A decreased lung cancer cell growth after low CQ concentrations was ascribed to an increased lysosomal volume and a phosphatidylcholine-specific phospholipase C involvement ( PC-PLC ) .
Higher CQ concentrations still induce apoptosis and necrosis , but likely via different processes [ 102 ] ….. CQ can inhibit hypoxia-stimulated metastasis via modulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1α ( HIF-1α ) , vascular endothelial growth factor ( VEGF ) , and epithelial mesenchymal transition ( EMT ) as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 105 ] .
In triple-negative breast cancer , CQ was shown to eliminate cancer stem cells through reduction of the expression of Janus-activated kinase 2 and DNA methyl transferase 1 [ 106 ] or through induction of mitochondrial dysfunction , subsequently causing oxidative DNA damage and impaired repair of double-stranded DNA breaks [ 107 ] .
Of note , various studies showed growth inhibition of melanoma cells after CQ administration , but this inhibition was more pronounced in pigmented melanoma , which could be ascribed to CQ ’ s high affinity for melanin @ @ @ @ @ @ @ some contradictory evidence about a potential link between Burkitt ’ s lymphoma incidence and CQ administration [ 109 , 110 ] … .
An increasing level of research is addressing the essential role of the immune system in cancer development .
Activating the immune system against cancer cells is becoming a promising therapeutic approach [ 111 ] , as immune cells have the ability to detect and destroy malignant cells [ 66 ] .
Interestingly , autophagy and lysosomal function have been found to be involved in both innate and adaptive immunity [ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these processes such as CQ and HCQ could potentially modulate the immune system and subsequently influence tumour development… .
A recent study showed that CQ normalises tumour vessels , independent of its autophagy inhibitory effect , through reduction of vessel density and improvement of cell alignment and formation of tight junctions .
At the molecular level , CQ alters endosomal Notch1 trafficking and signalling in endothelial cells , hereby increasing the quiescent phenotype of the endothelial cells [ 26 , 116 ] .
Of note , systemic CQ administration has also been shown @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intratumorally administered , anti-tumour agent Transferrin-CRM107 in in vivo glioma models [ 117 ] ….. CQ can prevent the entrapment of protonated chemotherapeutic drugs by buffering the extracellular tumour environment and intracellular acidic spaces [ 112 ] .
For example , CQ can reduce the endosomal sequestration of certain drugs by raising the endosomal pH and , thus , increase their efficacy ( e.g .
doxorubicin , daunorubicin and mitoxantrone ) [ 122–124 ] .
Vezmar et al [ 125 , 126 ] suggested that CQ influences multidrug resistance protein-mediated doxorubicin resistance by @ @ @ @ @ @ @ final goal of this literature review was to inform further research and trials on repurposing CQ and HCQ as anti-cancer agents , as done previously for other agents [ 138 ] .
In addition , the ideal dose , route of administration , and therapeutic schedule that should be applied in anti-cancer therapy was explored .
Finally , the potential difference in efficacy and toxicity between CQ and HCQ has been investigated .
Efficacy of CQ and HCQ in anti-cancer therapy The vast majority of preclinical studies on the effect of CQ monotherapy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ effect , but the study parameters , doses , animal models and tumour types differ strongly between studies , complicating the interpretation of the results .
Preclinical studies investigating the effect of HCQ in cancer are limited .
Therefore , follow-up in vivo studies are warranted .
A risk of publication bias exists so we can not guarantee that all negative results have been reported .
Combination therapy with CQ or HCQ and existing anti-cancer therapies has been extensively studied in preclinical research , both in vitro and in vivo .
The majority @ @ @ @ @ @ @ therapeutic efficacy as compared with monotherapy with existing anti-cancer drugs .
Most studies hypothesise that CQ and HCQ could increase the efficacy of other anti-cancer drugs by blocking pro-survival autophagy .
Because not all studies measured autophagy levels in vivo , it is difficult to determine to what extent the other proposed mechanisms play a role .
is limited to studies that tested CQ or HCQ in combination with conventional anti-cancer agents in vivo , but there are many other combinations that have only been tested in vitro .
Finally , multiple clinical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to investigate , the use of CQ and HCQ in different cancer types , always in combination with other anti-cancer drugs .
The availability of clinical results is limited now , as most trials are still recruiting or ongoing , and those that have been completed focused primarily on safety and tolerability of CQ and HCQ in cancer .
In short , these drugs have been found safe and tolerable in all completed studies and the anti-cancer effect of both compounds is promising .
[ emphasis added ] [ 1 ] see : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Schaaf MB , et al .
Repurposing Drugs in Oncology ( ReDO ) -chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as anti-cancer agents .
Ecancermedicalscience .
2017 ; 11:781 .
Published 2017 Nov 23. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2017.781 About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael ‘ hockey stick ’ Mann in the ‘ science trial of the century @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

NIH Exposed in Shock Mass Deception over COVID19 Treatment
Written by John O'Sullivan
At the very same time the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr Fauci and the media are deriding HCQ as ‘unsafe’ for treating COVID-19, the NIH backs dozens of clinical trials of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a safe treatment for cancer. How can that be?
On Tuesday an NIH panel reported that HCQ, the 75-year-old re-purposed malaria drug was unsafe “because of the potential for toxicities.”
However, the NIH panel could only cite one piece of evidence – a single study which was not even peer reviewed.
For weeks the mainstream media has been dismissing the ‘Trump Cure’ because of “risky side effects“ since the US President and hundreds of doctors claimed it was highly effective. The MSM, Dr Fauci, WHO and the CDC are holding out for a vaccine instead.
Examination of the more detailed, prior peer-reviewed research cited below – where clear evidence shows no adverse affects from HCQ – should have all alarm bells ringing.
HCQ is performing well in U.S. clinical trials as a potential treatment for many diseases, including cancer, such that we may be witnessing the dawn of a new era of cheap, effective cures for some of the most deadly maladies.
The contradictory claims coming from NIH raises grave questions about the reliability, motives and procedures employed by the NIH panel which dismissed HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 patients on the basis of alleged “toxicities.”
The Guardian headline below typifies the media’s bias:
Doesn’t that smell like desperation to keep the mass lockdown in place?
NIH Incompetence or Dishonesty?
At minimum, this new revelation exposes a grave omission by the NIH. President Trump must surely initiate an urgent federal investigation.
Let’s now look at the emerging medical evidence:
The key document is Ecancermedicalscience. 2017; 11: 781.
We have select sections shown below:
Abstract Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are well-known 4-aminoquinoline antimalarial agents. Scientific evidence also supports the use of CQ and HCQ in the treatment of cancer. Overall, preclinical studies support CQ and HCQ use in anti-cancer therapy, especially in combination with conventional anti-cancer treatments since they are able to sensitise tumour cells to a variety of drugs, potentiating the therapeutic activity. Thus far, clinical results are mostly in favour of the repurposing of CQ. However, over 30 clinical studies are still evaluating the activity of both CQ and HCQ in different cancer types and in combination with various standard treatments. Interestingly, CQ and HCQ exert effects both on cancer cells and on the tumour microenvironment. In addition to inhibition of the autophagic flux, which is the most studied anti-cancer effect of CQ and HCQ, these drugs affect the Toll-like receptor 9, p53 and CXCR4-CXCL12 pathway in cancer cells. In the tumour stroma, CQ was shown to affect the tumour vasculature, cancer-associated fibroblasts and the immune system. The evidence reviewed in this paper indicates that both CQ and HCQ deserve further clinical investigations in several cancer types. Special attention about the drug (CQ versus HCQ), the dose and the schedule of administration should be taken in the design of new trials. …. Chloroquine (CQ) and hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) are both 4-aminoquinoline agents that have been used for more than 70 and 50 years ….. Although HCQ and CQ differ only by one hydroxyl group, the addition of this hydroxyl group results in an important decrease in toxicity….. Both drugs are available as generic products and mentioned on the WHO list of essential medicines….. Toxicity Short-term administration of CQ or HCQ rarely causes severe side effects… Pre-clinical evidence in cancer—in vivo CQ and HCQ have been extensively studied both in vitro and in vivo in various cancer types….. Both drugs can be administered as monotherapy or as adjuvant agents to increase the efficacy and to limit drug resistance of standard anti-cancer therapy….. Starting with in vivo studies that observed beneficial effects of CQ administration in cancer, Jutten et al noted a delayed tumour growth in mice bearing epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-overexpressing glioblastoma xenografts in response to CQ administration. In addition, the time to reach four times the initial tumour volume was significantly longer in the CQ-treated group [16]. They observed that the number of mitotic cells was significantly reduced and the number of apoptotic cells was increased after CQ administration [17]. In addition, a significant reduction of tumour volume and tumour incidence was shown by Song et al [18] in mice bearing liver cancer stem cells and Hu et al [19] observed significant tumour growth and weight reduction in an orthotopic xenograft model of liver cancer after CQ administration. Lakhter et al [20] demonstrated that CQ significantly reduced both tumour volume and tumour mass in a human melanoma xenograft model. Zheng et al [21] showed reduced tumour progression and prolonged survival time (not significant) in colon cancer-bearing mice when administering either 25 or 50 mg/kg of CQ. Doses of 25 and 50 mg/kg of CQ both significantly increased survival time and reduced primary tumour volume in mice implanted with a highly metastasizing breast cancer cell line, as shown by Jiang et al. Interestingly, the number and diameter of lung metastases was reduced as well, and CQ enhanced tumour cell apoptosis in the high dose group [22]. The incidence of mammary tumours and their growth rate was significantly lower and tumour onset was delayed in CQ-pre-treated rats after being subjected to mammary adenocarcinoma induction using N-methyl-N-nitrosourea (NMU), as shown by Loehberg et al. In wild-type BALB/c mice transplanted with mammary ducts of BALB/c p53-null mice, CQ pre-treatment did not affect tumour incidence [23]. Maclean et al confirmed that CQ could not prevent spontaneous tumour formation in p53-deficient mice. In contrast, intermittent CQ administration significantly reduced the tumour development and doubled the overall survival (OS) of Eμ-Myc mice [24]. Furthermore, Sun et al showed that CQ administration is effective in reducing tumour growth in rats with established hepatocarcinoma. In contrast, CQ promoted tumour development in the earlier so-called dysplastic stage, clearly illustrating the dual role of autophagy in tumour formation (see section on mechanisms of action) [25]. Finally, Maes et al [26] reported that either a dose of 50 mg/kg or a dose of 100 mg/kg of CQ can reduce tumour growth and cell proliferation, dependent on the cell type. Of note, this study showed that CQ not only inhibits autophagy but also affects the tumour microenvironment and tumour vasculature. The exact working mechanisms will be clarified in the section on mechanisms of action. Some studies noted that the efficacy of CQ application in anti-cancer therapy depends on the tumour type that is being treated and suggested that the autophagy dependency of tumour cells might play a role [27, 28]. Combination therapy summarises the information from articles that studied the effect of CQ (n = 46) or HCQ (n = 5) in vivo in combination with other therapies….Interestingly, CQ and HCQ have already been tested in combination with over 40 other drugs in preclinical cancer research. Both CQ and HCQ can effectively increase the efficacy of various anti-cancer drugs, which is further explained in the section on mechanisms of action. Human data Numerous clinical trials in which either CQ or HCQ is being used to treat patients with a range of cancer types are registered in clinical trial databases. In clinical trials, these drugs are most often administered in combination with other anti-cancer agents…. CQ Glioma and brain metastases In May 1998, one of the first clinical trials on CQ use in cancer was started, which was an open, prospective, randomised controlled study with 18 glioblastoma multiforme (GBM) patients [38]. In the abstract of this study, the authors reported that adjuvant CQ administration significantly enhanced patient survival [33 ± 5 months for CQ-treated patients and 11 ± 2 months for controls (p < 0.0002)]. No important adverse effects were noted in this trial. [emphasis added] After the observation of promising outcomes in five recurrent GBM patients treated with 250 mg CQ a day and reirradiation for 20 months [42], a phase-2 clinical trial tested the effects of CQ as a radio-sensitising agent in patients with brain metastases [43]. In this trial, 39 patients were administered whole-brain irradiation (30 Gy in 10 fractions over two weeks) in combination with a daily dose of 150 mg CQ for four weeks, while 34 patients received placebo instead of CQ in addition to the same radiation treatment. The overall response rate or OS did not improve after CQ administration. However, the progression-free survival of brain metastases rate was increased (CQ-treated group: 83.9{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} [95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} CI 69.4–98.4] and control group: 55.1{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} [95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} CI 33.6–77.6] (at one year), relative risk: 0.31 [95{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} CI 0.1–0.9, p = 0.046]). The absence of adverse effects and the improved local control of brain metastases indicate that CQ might be a useful addition to whole brain irradiation in patients with brain metastases….. In a prospective, single-cohort study of 20 patients with brain metastases from solid tumours, 250 mg CQ daily was administered for five weeks in combination with whole-brain irradiation [44]. ….no adverse reactions were detected. [emphasis added] HCQ Solid cancers The effect of HCQ and temsirolimus combination therapy was tested in 27 patients with advanced solid cancer during a phase-1 dose-escalating study and subsequently in 13 patients with metastatic melanoma at the phase-2 recommended dose [51]…..This study recommends an adjuvant HCQ dose of 600 mg, twice daily….. …Next, the combinatory effect of HCQ and temozolomide was investigated in 40 cancer patients with advanced solid tumours and melanoma, and the recommended dose of 600 mg twice daily was confirmed [52]. HCQ was shown to successfully inhibit autophagy,… The safety and preliminary efficacy of HCQ and vorinostat combination treatment was tested during a phase-1 study in 27 patients with advanced solid tumours [53]. Glioblastoma The efficacy and safety of HCQ was studied in combination with radiotherapy and temozolomide in 92 GBM patients during a phase-1–2 study [55]. This study indicated a maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 600 mg HCQ a day in this therapeutic setting….. Lung cancer The combination of HCQ with erlotinib can be used safely in daily doses of 150 mg erlotinib and 1000 mg HCQ, as determined by a phase-1 study in 27 patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) [57]…… Multiple myeloma During a phase-1 study, the safety of the combination of HCQ and bortezomib was explored in 25 patients with relapsed or refractory myeloma [59]. A dose of 600 mg HCQ twice daily was reported to be safe and tolerable in combination with standard doses of bortezomib….. Pancreatic cancer The safety of the combination of pre-operative HCQ (1200 mg daily) and gemcitabine administration was demonstrated in 35 patients with pancreatic adenocarcinoma in a phase-1–2 trial [60]. This study reported promising clinical response markers (e.g. CA 19–9 biomarker and R0 resection rate). An exploratory analysis showed significantly improved disease-free survival and OS (15.03 versus 6.9 months and 34.83 versus 10.83 months, respectively) in patients for whom autophagy was sufficiently inhibited (n = 8) (at least 51{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} increase in the autophagy marker LC3B-II in peripheral blood mononuclear cells) compared with other patients (n = 9)…… Next, a phase-2 study investigated the safety and efficacy of HCQ monotherapy with either 400 or 600 mg two times a day in 20 patients with previously treated metastatic pancreatic cancer, but no significant differences were observed between groups [61]…. Mechanism of action Multiple hypotheses have been proposed on how CQ and HCQ exert their anti-cancer activity. Most studies reported the direct action of these drugs on cancer cells, but more recent studies have also mentioned important effects of CQ and HCQ on the tumour microenvironment. Based on preclinical studies, it is safe to say that CQ and HCQ have multiple mechanisms of action that might complement each other….. Direct anti-tumour effects The main and most studied anti-cancer effect of CQ and HCQ is the inhibition of autophagy, but other preclinically proven anti-cancer activities of the antimalarial agents include influencing the TLR9/nuclear factor kappa B (NF-κB) signalling pathway, the CXCL12/CXCR4 signalling pathway and the p53 pathway…. CQ and HCQ can activate caspase-3 and modulate the Bcl-2/Bax ratio inducing apoptosis in CLL, B-cell CLL and glioblastoma cells [17, 89, 98–100]. CQ-mediated cell-cycle-arrest and apoptosis was observed in breast cancer cells and was associated with a decrease in protein levels/activity of polo-like kinase 1 (Plk-1), ERK1/2 Akt and cell division cycle 25C (CDC25C). The same study described induction of caspase-3-mediated spindle abnormalities and down regulation of the mitochondrial transmembrane potential by CQ [101]. A decreased lung cancer cell growth after low CQ concentrations was ascribed to an increased lysosomal volume and a phosphatidylcholine-specific phospholipase C involvement (PC-PLC). Higher CQ concentrations still induce apoptosis and necrosis, but likely via different processes [102]….. CQ can inhibit hypoxia-stimulated metastasis via modulation of hypoxia-inducible factor 1α (HIF-1α), vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF), and epithelial mesenchymal transition (EMT) as shown in a cholangiocarcinoma cell line [105]. In triple-negative breast cancer, CQ was shown to eliminate cancer stem cells through reduction of the expression of Janus-activated kinase 2 and DNA methyl transferase 1 [106] or through induction of mitochondrial dysfunction, subsequently causing oxidative DNA damage and impaired repair of double-stranded DNA breaks [107]. Of note, various studies showed growth inhibition of melanoma cells after CQ administration, but this inhibition was more pronounced in pigmented melanoma, which could be ascribed to CQ’s high affinity for melanin [108]. There is also some contradictory evidence about a potential link between Burkitt’s lymphoma incidence and CQ administration [109, 110]…. Modulation of tumour micro-environment Immunomodulation An increasing level of research is addressing the essential role of the immune system in cancer development. Activating the immune system against cancer cells is becoming a promising therapeutic approach [111], as immune cells have the ability to detect and destroy malignant cells [66]. Interestingly, autophagy and lysosomal function have been found to be involved in both innate and adaptive immunity [66]. Therefore, inhibitors of these processes such as CQ and HCQ could potentially modulate the immune system and subsequently influence tumour development…. A recent study showed that CQ normalises tumour vessels, independent of its autophagy inhibitory effect, through reduction of vessel density and improvement of cell alignment and formation of tight junctions. At the molecular level, CQ alters endosomal Notch1 trafficking and signalling in endothelial cells, hereby increasing the quiescent phenotype of the endothelial cells [26, 116]. Of note, systemic CQ administration has also been shown to reduce the vascular toxicity of the intratumorally administered, anti-tumour agent Transferrin-CRM107 in in vivo glioma models [117]….. CQ can prevent the entrapment of protonated chemotherapeutic drugs by buffering the extracellular tumour environment and intracellular acidic spaces [112]. For example, CQ can reduce the endosomal sequestration of certain drugs by raising the endosomal pH and, thus, increase their efficacy (e.g. doxorubicin, daunorubicin and mitoxantrone) [122–124]. Vezmar et al [125, 126] suggested that CQ influences multidrug resistance protein-mediated doxorubicin resistance by binding the multidrug resistance protein…. Our take The final goal of this literature review was to inform further research and trials on repurposing CQ and HCQ as anti-cancer agents, as done previously for other agents [138]. In addition, the ideal dose, route of administration, and therapeutic schedule that should be applied in anti-cancer therapy was explored. Finally, the potential difference in efficacy and toxicity between CQ and HCQ has been investigated. Efficacy of CQ and HCQ in anti-cancer therapy The vast majority of preclinical studies on the effect of CQ monotherapy in cancer have reported a positive therapeutic effect, but the study parameters, doses, animal models and tumour types differ strongly between studies, complicating the interpretation of the results. Preclinical studies investigating the effect of HCQ in cancer are limited. Therefore, follow-up in vivo studies are warranted. A risk of publication bias exists so we cannot guarantee that all negative results have been reported. Combination therapy with CQ or HCQ and existing anti-cancer therapies has been extensively studied in preclinical research, both in vitro and in vivo. The majority of these studies have reported an improved therapeutic efficacy as compared with monotherapy with existing anti-cancer drugs. Most studies hypothesise that CQ and HCQ could increase the efficacy of other anti-cancer drugs by blocking pro-survival autophagy. Because not all studies measured autophagy levels in vivo, it is difficult to determine to what extent the other proposed mechanisms play a role. is limited to studies that tested CQ or HCQ in combination with conventional anti-cancer agents in vivo, but there are many other combinations that have only been tested in vitro. Finally, multiple clinical trials have investigated, or are going to investigate, the use of CQ and HCQ in different cancer types, always in combination with other anti-cancer drugs. The availability of clinical results is limited now, as most trials are still recruiting or ongoing, and those that have been completed focused primarily on safety and tolerability of CQ and HCQ in cancer. In short, these drugs have been found safe and tolerable in all completed studies and the anti-cancer effect of both compounds is promising. [emphasis added] [1] see: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5718030Verbaanderd C, Maes H, Schaaf MB, et al. Repurposing Drugs in Oncology (ReDO)-chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as anti-cancer agents. Ecancermedicalscience. 2017;11:781. Published 2017 Nov 23. doi:10.3332/ecancer.2017.781
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-24--The Models Were Wrong. Does Anyone Care?

The Models Were Wrong .
Does Anyone Care ?
Everyone who has been paying attention knows that the epidemiological models on which the current shutdown mania is based have been proved to be wrong , wrong , wrong .
Yet , zombie-like , they continue to influence our ill-informed policymakers .
A reader who prefers to remain anonymous despite her apparent qualifications writes : I just want to follow up yet again on how extraordinarily wrong the projections for hospital demand have been , along with some detail about what ’ s going on in hospitals .
In a number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reopen for nonemergency procedures .
But over the past month they ’ ve been so empty that they ’ ve been laying off staff .
Here are some details I got from a friend at UNC-Chapel Hill this morning : “ Less than 373 hospitalized with COVID as of yesterday .
More than 800 empty ICU beds in the state & more than 7000 empty hospital beds overall .
Close to 2000 ventilators not in use .
Approximately 40 % of deaths in the state have been in nursing homes/retirement homes/prisons.
” Again @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease is not nearly as deadly as was originally expected .
Thinking about that study showing that 13.7 % of pregnant women presenting for delivery at NYC hospitals in March-early April tested positive for COVID-19 AT THE TIME of admission .
Unless one thinks pregnant women are more likely to have been exposed to the virus than other people in the population , surely must mean that ~15 % of NYC has been exposed .
( Recall also that the NYC study was only of active infections not of antibodies . )
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 15 % of NYC ( 1.2 million ) points to an infection fatality rate around .008 , very much in the ballpark of seasonal flu .
Why these lines of analysis aren ’ t being pursued vigorously in the press is truly amazing .
Empty hospitals during a pandemic ?
?
Evidence that the disease may not be another Spanish Flu ?
The huge extent to which the disease is a bane of the very old , especially those in nursing homes , not of the whole American population ?
How many stories @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in different age categories , as in the data shown in the tables in this analysis ?
Having read that Massachusetts was experiencing a surge in COVID cases , I just checked the MA COVID dashboard and found the below .
Shouldn ’ t this information be more readily available in the news ?
It strongly suggests that an isolation strategy focused on the most vulnerable would help a lot !
The American people are terrified , but all media seem to do is fan the flames of more terror , even though @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the health front ( albeit not on the economic front ) .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

The Models Were Wrong. Does Anyone Care?
Written by John Hinderaker
Everyone who has been paying attention knows that the epidemiological models on which the current shutdown mania is based have been proved to be wrong, wrong, wrong. Yet, zombie-like, they continue to influence our ill-informed policymakers.
A reader who prefers to remain anonymous despite her apparent qualifications writes:
I just want to follow up yet again on how extraordinarily wrong the projections for hospital demand have been, along with some detail about what’s going on in hospitals.
In a number of states they’re about to reopen for nonemergency procedures. But over the past month they’ve been so empty that they’ve been laying off staff.
Here are some details I got from a friend at UNC-Chapel Hill this morning: “Less than 373 hospitalized with COVID as of yesterday. More than 800 empty ICU beds in the state & more than 7000 empty hospital beds overall. Close to 2000 ventilators not in use. Approximately 40{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of deaths in the state have been in nursing homes/retirement homes/prisons.”
Again, the likely cause is that the disease is not nearly as deadly as was originally expected. Thinking about that study showing that 13.7{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of pregnant women presenting for delivery at NYC hospitals in March-early April tested positive for COVID-19 AT THE TIME of admission.
Unless one thinks pregnant women are more likely to have been exposed to the virus than other people in the population, surely must mean that ~15{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of NYC has been exposed. (Recall also that the NYC study was only of active infections not of antibodies.)
If so, then 10,000 deaths out of 15{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of NYC (1.2 million) points to an infection fatality rate around .008, very much in the ballpark of seasonal flu.
Why these lines of analysis aren’t being pursued vigorously in the press is truly amazing. Empty hospitals during a pandemic?? Evidence that the disease may not be another Spanish Flu?
The huge extent to which the disease is a bane of the very old, especially those in nursing homes, not of the whole American population? How many stories have you seen about the death rate in different age categories, as in the data shown in the tables in this analysis?
Having read that Massachusetts was experiencing a surge in COVID cases, I just checked the MA COVID dashboard and found the below. Shouldn’t this information be more readily available in the news? It strongly suggests that an isolation strategy focused on the most vulnerable would help a lot!
The American people are terrified, but all media seem to do is fan the flames of more terror, even though there is encouraging news out there on the health front (albeit not on the economic front).
Read more at www.powerlineblog.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-24--Bill Gates Vaccine Killed 10x More Children than the Target Disease

Bill Gates Vaccine Killed 10x More Children than the Target Disease Anyone defending the Bill Gates/WHO global vaccine program needs to explain this study : Mogensen et al 2017 .
Prior to 2017 , neither HHS nor WHO ever performed the kind of vaccinated/unvaccinated ( or placebo ) study necessary to ascertain if the DTP vaccine actually yields beneficial health outcomes .
The DTP vaccine was discontinued in the US and western nations in the 1990s following thousands of reports of death and brain damage .
… girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine—the flagship of Bill Gates ’ s GAVI/WHO @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rate of unvaccinated kids .
But Bill Gates and his surrogates , GAVI and WHO , made DTP a priority for African babies .
The Danish government and Novo Nordisk Foundation commissioned this study by a team of the world ’ s leading experts on African vaccination .
The two most prominent names , Drs .
Soren Mogensen and Peter Aaby , are both vocal vaccine supporters .
They were shocked when they examined years of data from a so called “ natural experiment ” in Guinea Bissau where 50 % of children @ @ @ @ @ @ @ west African nation , half the children were vaccinated with the DTP vaccine at three months and the other half at six months .
Dr. Mogenson and his team found that girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids .
While the vaccinated children were protected from Diphtheria , Tetanus and Pertussis , they were far more susceptible to other deadly diseases than unvaccinated peers .
The vaccine apparently compromised their immune systems .
Thanks to Gates , DTP is the world ’ s most popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ DTP vaccine is killing more children than the diseases it targets .
For African nations , GAVI and WHO use DTP vaccine uptake to gauge national compliance with vaccine recommendations .
GAVI can financially punish nations that don ’ t fully comply .
The researchers suggested that the DTP vaccine is killing more children than the diseases it targets .
It ’ s possible that millions of children are adversely affected .
Although the New York Times and other Gates boosters will accuse me of promoting “ vaccine misinformation ” , this is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ journal by the world ’ s most authoritative vaccine scientists describing catastrophic outcomes .
Shouldn ’ t we be scrutinizing Bill Gates ’ record in Africa before we let him dictate which medicines we need to take ?
By muzzling legitimate criticism as “ anti-vax ” , the media avoids honest debate on many damning studies like Mogensen .

Bill Gates Vaccine Killed 10x More Children than the Target Disease
Written by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.
Anyone defending the Bill Gates/WHO global vaccine program needs to explain this study: Mogensen et al 2017.
Prior to 2017, neither HHS nor WHO ever performed the kind of vaccinated/unvaccinated (or placebo) study necessary to ascertain if the DTP vaccine actually yields beneficial health outcomes.
The DTP vaccine was discontinued in the US and western nations in the 1990s following thousands of reports of death and brain damage.
… girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine—the flagship of Bill Gates’s GAVI/WHO African vaccine program—died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids.
But Bill Gates and his surrogates, GAVI and WHO, made DTP a priority for African babies. The Danish government and Novo Nordisk Foundation commissioned this study by a team of the world’s leading experts on African vaccination.
The two most prominent names, Drs. Soren Mogensen and Peter Aaby, are both vocal vaccine supporters. They were shocked when they examined years of data from a so called “natural experiment” in Guinea Bissau where 50{154653b9ea5f83bbbf00f55de12e21cba2da5b4b158a426ee0e27ae0c1b44117} of children die before age five.
In that west African nation, half the children were vaccinated with the DTP vaccine at three months and the other half at six months. Dr. Mogenson and his team found that girls vaccinated with the DTP vaccine died at 10 times the rate of unvaccinated kids.
While the vaccinated children were protected from Diphtheria, Tetanus and Pertussis, they were far more susceptible to other deadly diseases than unvaccinated peers. The vaccine apparently compromised their immune systems. Thanks to Gates, DTP is the world’s most popular vaccine.
The researchers suggested that the DTP vaccine is killing more children than the diseases it targets.
For African nations, GAVI and WHO use DTP vaccine uptake to gauge national compliance with vaccine recommendations. GAVI can financially punish nations that don’t fully comply. The researchers suggested that the DTP vaccine is killing more children than the diseases it targets.
It’s possible that millions of children are adversely affected. Although the New York Times and other Gates boosters will accuse me of promoting “vaccine misinformation”, this is a peer reviewed publication in a respected journal by the world’s most authoritative vaccine scientists describing catastrophic outcomes.
Shouldn’t we be scrutinizing Bill Gates’ record in Africa before we let him dictate which medicines we need to take? By muzzling legitimate criticism as “anti-vax”, the media avoids honest debate on many damning studies like Mogensen.
Read more at childrenshealthdefense.org **** PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX. Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-04-24--Trump Did Not Propose Injecting Disinfectant to Kill COVID-19

Trump Did Not Propose Injecting Disinfectant to Kill COVID-19 Mainstream media in the U.S. and internationally is falsely claiming that US President Donald Trump recommended injecting bleach as a treatment for coronavirus .
The lie was broadcast on American news channels , the UK ’ s BBC and elsewhere .
President Donald Trump on Friday said he was being sarcastic when he asked medical experts about injecting disinfectants into the body to fight coronavirus .
“ I was asking a sarcastic and a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside , ” Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.
” The president commented to reporters on the establishment media firestorm over disinfectants after signing a bill providing $ 320 billion in additional funding for the Paycheck Protection Program .
When Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked the president to clarify whether he was encouraging Americans to ingest disinfectants , Trump replied , “ No , of course not.
” He added , “ Interior wise , it ’ s said sarcastically , it was put in the form of a question to a group @ @ @ @ @ @ @ fake news media.
” During the White House press briefing on Thursday , Trump questioned whether it was possible to use disinfectants “ by injection inside ” to kill coronavirus .
He later clarified , “ it wouldn ’ t be through injection.
” Here is what the president asked Acting Undersecretary of Science and Technology for the Department of Homeland Security Bill Bryan : “ Then I see the disinfectant , where it knocks it out in a minute .
One minute .
And is there a way we can do something @ @ @ @ @ @ @ almost a cleaning ?
” he asked .
“ Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs .
So it would be interesting to check that.
” The White House said Friday that Trump ’ s remarks were taken out of context .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific @ @

Trump Did Not Propose Injecting Disinfectant to Kill COVID-19
Written by Charlie Spiering
Mainstream media in the U.S. and internationally is falsely claiming that US President Donald Trump recommended injecting bleach as a treatment for coronavirus. The lie was broadcast on American news channels, the UK’s BBC and elsewhere.
President Donald Trump on Friday said he was being sarcastic when he asked medical experts about injecting disinfectants into the body to fight coronavirus.
“I was asking a sarcastic and a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside,” Trump said. “That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.”
The president commented to reporters on the establishment media firestorm over disinfectants after signing a bill providing $320 billion in additional funding for the Paycheck Protection Program.
When Reuters reporter Jeff Mason asked the president to clarify whether he was encouraging Americans to ingest disinfectants, Trump replied, “No, of course not.”
He added, “Interior wise, it’s said sarcastically, it was put in the form of a question to a group of extraordinarily hostile people, namely the fake news media.”
During the White House press briefing on Thursday, Trump questioned whether it was possible to use disinfectants “by injection inside” to kill coronavirus. He later clarified, “it wouldn’t be through injection.”
Here is what the president asked Acting Undersecretary of Science and Technology for the Department of Homeland Security Bill Bryan:
“Then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning?” he asked. “Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.”
The White House said Friday that Trump’s remarks were taken out of context.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related