Conspiracy Theory Coronavirus #2: Lockdowns

Thoughts on COVID-19? (Choose 2 options)

  • It's a naturally occurring virus

    Votes: 15 20.3%

  • It came from a Chinese laboratory

    Votes: 31 41.9%

  • It came from a US/other laboratory

    Votes: 5 6.8%

  • It's dangerous and harsh restrictions are necessary

    Votes: 19 25.7%

  • It's not dangerous enough to warrant harsh restrictions

    Votes: 22 29.7%

  • It's basically another flu, so restrictions are silly

    Votes: 14 18.9%
  • Total voters
    74

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Here are the latest disability and death stats from the murder-jabs:





USA:
Ug3T3ND.jpg
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

mcnulty you're in the wrong thread with your recommendation that people that do not have COVID, should not take HCQ.
Even though they say there were 6000 people in their meta data, when you look at the references there was a variety of standards from anonymous Internet questionnaires with COVID being guessed by having some symptoms, or giving a swab test on themselves, underpowered or had wildly different doses and analysis, which makes any recommendation unreliable.

Secondly, the studies were looking at HCQ as a preventative, but didn't include Zn or Vit C. Both used shown in the most effective preventative HCQ studies. One placebo group was given Vit C, which negated the result of that study.

Thirdly, the levels of HCQ ranged from potentially toxic (800 mg once, followed by 600 mg in 6 to 8 hours, then 600 mg daily for 4 additional days) to 400mg once weekly or twice weekly for 12 weeks which was significant for 1483 healthcare workers that reported the incidence of Covid-19 (laboratory-confirmed or symptomatic compatible illness) was 0.27 events per person-year with once-weekly and 0.28 events per person-year with twice-weekly HCQ compared with 0.38 events per person-year with placebo.

web.archive.org

(PDF) Hydroxychloroquine is Effective and Safe for the Treatment of COVID-19, and May be Universally Effective When Used Early Before Hospitalization: A Systematic Review

PDF | INTROUCTION Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) has shown efficacy against COVID-19 in some but not all studies. We hypothesized that systematic review... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate
web.archive.org web.archive.org

HCQ is effective for COVID-19. The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive in the 212 studies to date, is estimated to be 1 in 184 quadrillion
1614693083703.png

Early treatment is most successful, with 100% of studies reporting a positive effect and an estimated reduction of 65% in the effect measured (death, hospitalization, etc.) using a random effects meta-analysis, RR 0.35 [0.27-0.44].

92% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0032.

There is evidence of bias towards publishing negative results. 89% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 76% of retrospective studies do.

c19study.com

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 260 studies

HCQ for COVID-19: real-time analysis of all 260 studies
c19study.com c19study.com

COVID-19: A realistic approach to community management - Quadrant Online

This not the time for those who should know better to publicly argue for one or other COVID-19 vaccine, not when full and adequate evidence for any such choice is well down the line. What the current moment most definitely does demand is early treatment, especially for the aged and most...
quadrant.org.au quadrant.org.au
Review of clinical studies in early (pre-hospital) disease as at end of November 2020 illustrate the data:

# All 27 trials of HCQ showed protection (OR 0.37 (0.29-0.47)). 10 of these were RCT (OR 0.71 (0.54-0.95))

# 26 of 32 prophylaxis studies using HCQ showed protection (OR for 5 post exposure studies: 0.61 (0.4-0.74))

# IVM in 8 studies, half of which were RCT, showed protection in early treatment studies (OR 0.28(0.13-0.59) P=0.004)

As this clinical data continues to accumulate, regions around the world are adopting therapy with HCQ or IVM with dramatic results, when compared to adjoining areas that have not adopted this therapy. This has been marked in regions in Brazil.

The most recent Observational Study, with good propensity matching, co-ordinated by Peter McCullough of Baylor University Medical Center in an early sequenced multidrug trial, combined HCQ with IVM in 869 high risk subjects (age>50, with at least one co-morbidity), using the Cleveland Clinic COVID19 hospitalisation calculator for controls. The early ambulatory treatment regimen was associated with estimated 87.6% and 74.9% reductions in hospitalisation and death respectively, (P<0.0001).
 

Attachments

  • 1614690954788.png
    1614690954788.png
    5.2 KB · Views: 17
It kind of hits me that people have a absolute 100% misconception on money being used to save lives. In Australia and hell the entire world we have this weird concept that the barrier between life and death in the health system is your health and a bit of luck. The brutal truth is, this is far from true. In life, many people of all walks of life are given life saving options, a monetary figure attached to said option and a decision made.

I just look at W.As lockdown. 120 million dollars for W.A ONLY lost (so excluding GST to other states). If you invested that in its entirety in childs health, its unfathomable to me how many lives one could save. Itd be in the thousands across Australia if we are fair dinkum.

Ive come across so many examples in life where money was the barrier between life and death. Some good examples. A friends dad was given 6 months to live. He was also absurdly wealthy. He flew to Spain regularly for stem cell treatment at 200k a go. He lived another 11 years. A distant relatives daughter had to have heart surgery in Melbourne. It cost the family 700,000 dollars. Luckily for her, her dad could afford this and she is still alive and hopefully getting better. The actual truth is if he did not spend that 700,000 she would be dead today. No if buts or maybes about it. Ive got a few others that hit close to home that didnt turn out as well as those too. Ive had to say goodbye to someone in my life who at 13 couldnt afford the USA trip to give her one last chance at survival. Its been 20 years and it still impacts me today.

It sickens me a tad that as a society we cannot look at this and I guess burden ourselves with some responsibility to help it. The lockdown seemed to be a case of "Well if it protects me its worth it" without reasoning the cost of it all.

If lockdown cost Australia 200 billion dollars, the opportunity cost isnt the lifes saved from dieing from Covid against that 200 billion spending only. It is also a cost of "If we spent 200 billion dollars in our health and aged care system today, how many lives would we have saved also", then you would compare it to the lives potentially lost by Covid. You could also take the data and even take it with the realisation that if you spend 200 billion primarily in child healthcare and your 700,000 dollars spent saves a 12 year olds life and she lives another 60 years as a result, then we as a society have achieved more have we not then if we saved 10, 94 year olds from dieing? Id like to think that is a given?

People like HawkDork I guess havnt been in the hospital system, they havnt seen the burden of financial costs on the health system and they havnt had to bury a friend who couldnt afford the life saving treatment they needed. I have and for that reason I kind of weep a little for the situation. If only Mark cared for Sarah as much as he cared for his 94 year old grandma, she would have lived past 13. I guess thats not how politics works though. The 94 year old can vote and the 13 year old cannot perhaps. I dont know. All I know is I simply cant make peace with the situation we are in today as hard as I try

Sorry for the rant but its got me down today
 
ioppolo said:
McGowan wants to keep the hard border post COVID, tracking and tracing anyone who enters. I'm beginning to think he's in deeper than any other premier bar Dan Andrews
Click to expand...

People just need to look around them.
The world is now set up so that unwinding any of the many restrictions will be impossible as the unreachable narratives of targeting CovidZero and keeping everyone safe from whatever might be around the corner (new variants, strains) means endless an endless loop of vaccines, permits, renewed lockdowns etc.

And all this in less than a year for a virus that kills less than 0.01% of people under 50 and diminishes the younger you get.

How are we getting out of this?
 
Registered User said:
Here are the latest disability and death stats from the murder-jabs:





USA:
Ug3T3ND.jpg
Click to expand...

7.52% deaths and permanent disability from COVID injections reported to VAERS.

What was the death and permanent disability rate from the virus again?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

nationalfile.com

BUSTED: NIH Owns Financial Stake In Gates-Funded Coronavirus Vaccine

The National Institutes of Health has a financial stake in the Moderna Coronavirus vaccine.
nationalfile.com nationalfile.com

National Institutes of Health (NIH) own a financial stake in the Bill Gates-funded Moderna Coronavirus vaccine, raising big questions about the supposed impartiality of the federal government’s policy decisions during the Coronavirus outbreak. NIAID director Dr. Anthony Fauci, a financial ally of Bill Gates whose institute is part of NIH, has been critical of Hydroxychloroquine and the FBI even raided a health spa serving intravenous vitamin C, which are competitors to a vaccine.

“We do have some particular stake in the intellectual property” for the Moderna vaccine stated Francis Collins, the director of NIH.

One of the vaccines– the one that’s furthest along– what started, actually, at the federal government in our own Vaccine Research Center at NIH– then worked with a biotechnology company called Moderna to get to where we are now, with very impressive Phase I results and getting ready to go into a large-scale trial as early as July. That one, of course, we do have some particular stake in the intellectual property. Others, though, come from companies who’ve invested their efforts into getting them to the point where they might now be ready for a trial,” Collins stated.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top