> On 2 Aug 2020, at 02:29, spudboy100 via Everything List > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Myself as well Jason. The pharmacy board appeared to be a political response > here, rather than medical. If Hydro doesn't help it doesn't, and if it does > it does.
The health domain has been fully politicised since the law of prohibition. The goal of prohibition was, right at the start, “political”. In fact the goal was to harass the Mexicans. It was pure unedulcorated racism, with the help of the (alcohol) prohibitionists who was looking for new substance to forbid (after the failure of alcohol prohibition). Prohibition is an antic technic to control people and arrest them arbitrarily. A famous use seems have to been done in Turkey, where a sultan made tobacco illegal … with a death penalty, and this only to kill all its opponents. Prohibition is a nonsense. Even in a prison, you can’t control the drugs, so outside it … Jack Cole, a founder of LEAP (cops against prohibition), said that God is the first prohibitionist (you will not eat this fruit), and God did not succeeded, despite its infinite power, and the fact that the population number was 2. Prohibition is just a technic to transform a free-market into a market driven by crime. It has been, and still is, the golden goose of the terrorists and the criminals. I read sometime ago that more than 90% of the benefits of prohibition and drug dealing is used to corrupt politicians for … continuing the prohibition. Bruno > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Resch <[email protected]> > To: [email protected] > Cc: [email protected] <[email protected]> > Sent: Sat, Aug 1, 2020 5:36 pm > Subject: Re: Sharpiegate > > I agree it is unfortunate that what should purely be a medical/risk > management decision has become politicized. > > Fortunately the Ohio's governor intervened to make the pharmacy board > reversed their ban > <https://www.wkbn.com/news/coronavirus/ohio-board-of-pharmacy-withdraws-hydroxychloroquine-ruling-after-gov-dewines-request/>. > Whether any particular treatment is effective or not, the decision must > remain one made by the patient and their doctor, in my opinion. > > Jason > > On Sat, Aug 1, 2020 at 3:52 PM <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > Yeah Jason, it's shouldn't be about ideology, but results. However, human > nature is what it is, and often "faith" overwhelms facts. If someone hates > Orange Man enough, and see Covid as something secondary or tertiary, they > won't care. Even Scott Adams (Dilbert) was vehemently contemptuous of > Hydroxychloroquine as useless or damaging, and spoke against it as of three > weeks ago. Adams, changed his opinion based on new studies. Adams is not a > physician or a scientist but always uses their papers and voices in his > analysis. 12 min video follows. Adams is big league in math and science, but > was an investment banker as first background. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c > <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCRGYtMgn4c> > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jason Resch <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> > To: Everything List <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> > Sent: Fri, Jul 31, 2020 7:12 pm > Subject: Re: Sharpiegate > > There have been 65 studies on HCQ. Of all the tests that looked at giving it > early in the disease, or prophylactically, they showed HCQ was beneficial. > This site summarizes them all: https://c19study.com/ <https://c19study.com/> > > The only studies that have shown HCQ to be ineffective are those where it is > given late in the disease progression (when the disease shifts from the viral > replication phase to an immune system dysregulation phase > <https://www.evms.edu/media/evms_public/departments/internal_medicine/EVMS_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf> > (see page 2)). Even then, 61% of studies have shown some effectiveness even > when it is given late. > > Given the well-established safety > <https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/Hydroxychloroquine.pdf> > record of HCQ, this is the dilemma we face: > > HCQ works HCQ doesn't work > HCQ widely dispensed 10,000s of thousands of lives saved $20 wasted per > patient > HCQ use restricted 10,000s of thousands of needless deaths $0 wasted per > patient > > Even in the face of impartial information on its effectiveness, the decision > is clear. > > Jason > > > On Fri, Jul 31, 2020 at 5:52 PM PGC <[email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: > > > On Friday, July 31, 2020 at 3:58:02 PM UTC+2, Bruno Marchal wrote: > >> On 30 Jul 2020, at 22:59, PGC <[email protected] <>> wrote: >> >> >> >> On Thursday, July 30, 2020 at 10:52:09 PM UTC+2 Brent wrote: >> >> >> On 7/30/2020 1:02 PM, spudboy100 via Everything List wrote: >>> Refute this Telmo- >>> https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study >>> <https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study> >>> >>> https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext >>> <https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)30534-8/fulltext> >>> >>> One viewer here indicated this was not a study-but it is a study indeed >>> concluding the benefits of Hydro. >>> >>> Now what do I think? If it works it works, and if it doesn't it doesn't. >> >> That's just false. Some things work on some infections in some people using >> some protocols of care. >> >> Agreed. Ongoing large scale international clinical trials are what they are. >> Nobody claims that they or the papers in their wake are perfect, but to >> pretend that a few tiny studies are "in need of refutation" or that the >> world's epidemiological community is orchestrating conspiracies without >> evidence like some on Twitter and on social media tend to peddle, is naive >> or evidence of the effectivity of disinformation, not evidence of >> effectivity of medication. > > OK in principle. But we can also look at the map of the evolution of the > virus in country using it and not using it. My own country has used it, > France has used it, then change its mind, a number of time. > We can also take into account that the US FDA has lied about “not evidence of > effectivity of cannabis” since about a century. It is only very recently that > it has admit its effectivity for some disease in some public way (it accepted > it more discreetly for some rich patients since long though). > > >> >> But if Telmo and/or Mitch need, they can always get in touch with their >> closest epidemiologists/docs and ask for the data and emails, and inform the >> coordinating committee of their findings and worries, citing who they wish. >> While data of the majority of ongoing trials and appropriate epidemiological >> discourse may not be accessible on the net or published ("ongoing" being >> somewhat relevant...), it isn't classified or anything. PGC > > > I have done that a little bit, but it is hard to interpret. A biologist > friend of mine seems to believe that the Canadian studies showing that > Hydroxychoroquine is better than Remdesevir is rather serious. The amount of > money hidden in the pharmaceutical debate is so big that the misinformation > is perpetual. But you are right: it is not classified, and even just googling > on the net shows that hydroxychloroquine, when used convenably, *might* be > better than some other medication, and perhaps cannabis is still better (as > more and more studies seem to show). > > If you, Mitch, Telmo, your biologist friend, or Trump have data concerning > effectiveness of HCQ with significant sample sizes in randomized > placebo-controlled trials, and can demonstrate that said trials are free of > epidemiologists' long lists of possible issues/bias, then the only thing > stopping you guys from stepping forward and making world history as > non-professionals is your own minds. PGC > > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/84ac1e66-92eb-4cf8-85e7-0f9e74f1c3ceo%40googlegroups.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhR3999FBr5sf25kFAbGmFrR-zm71NyJs8yXac9jFb%3D4Q%40mail.gmail.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CA%2BBCJUhR3999FBr5sf25kFAbGmFrR-zm71NyJs8yXac9jFb%3D4Q%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "Everything List" group. > To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an > email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]>. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1637435077.265066.1596328190577%40mail.yahoo.com > > <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/1637435077.265066.1596328190577%40mail.yahoo.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/3A16E69B-1CEE-4632-8FE1-043964901D7C%40ulb.ac.be.
