Can any MP ask the government why early treatment kits to stop viral replication & infection are not made available cheaply & prescription free in pharmacies as they are in India? Is it lives we want to save or is it Big Pharma profits? Because the two are mutually exclusive.

There could even be competing kits, & the decision which to take could be left to doctors & patients, as happens with most medicines. The problem is that there is not one of these kits available cheaply & prescription free anywhere in the West.
Doxycycline, Ivermectin, Azithromycin, Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, Vitamin D, Vitamin C, omega-3s, all approved as safe drugs decades ago. This is clearly not an issue of safety. It should be left to a doctor's experience & judgement whether they are effective or not, not academia.
A GP could simply state on his website: of all the kits I recommend Kit Z, then Kit Y etc. No need to wait hours for consultations, as soon as the symptoms are clear the self administered treatment begins, and thousands of lives are saved, as well as hospitals remain underwhelmed
There is no need to go to ER or ICU if people can buy early treatment kits from pharmacies. There is no need for any hospital to be overwhelmed. This problem could be resolved in days. There is simply no political will to save lives as it means to go against Big Pharma profits.
If it works in India, it can work everywhere else. The real question is do our politicians really want to save lives, or are they personally scared about the backlash from the Big Pharma lobby against saving lives cheaply & effectively? Recovery means immunity to severe Covid19.
Immunity against severe Covid19 means no need for vaccination. Acknowledgement that effective treatments exist means that vaccines are no longer emergency authorised drugs but need proper testing. The kit drugs are already tested & safe so in advantage over vaccines.
The pandemic would be over before the vaccines receive proper testing, & people willing to take them would be fewer. The early home kits would save thousands if not millions, the hospitals would not be overwhelmed. The solution is right here but the profit is not.
With early treatment home kits you sell at minimal profit to those who get the disease, which could be only 10% in any locality in total, with the vaccines you charge exorbitant amounts to public via governments & target 70% of the population, but its slow & slowness kills.
The profit interests of Big Pharma are mutually exclusive to the interest in saving lives whenever there is a fast evolving pandemic & the idea of vaccines is rolled out. They are by definition the wrong solution, as they are too slow. Early treatment is the right solution.
If the politician who represents you says they are interested in saving lives, please ask them to put pressure on government ministers to authorise early home treatment kits & make them available cheaply in pharmacies. This is how lives & social cohesion (no lockdowns) are saved.
@threadreaderapp pls unroll

More from Robin Monotti

I have now re-examined this document:


It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"

"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."

"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"

"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."
The evidence based science shows that medical face masks for the healthy do not alter rates of community transmission of SARSCoV2 while they contribute to the plastic pollution of planet. Cloth & masks of other materials increase rates of infection through nebulization spread.

"Speaking through some masks dispersed largest droplets into a multitude of smaller droplets..smaller particles are airborne longer than large droplets (larger droplets sink faster), a mask might be counterproductive."
https://t.co/jBQlWRxcEL


Influenza like illness rates 3 times higher with cloth masks when compared to control group:
https://t.co/djT0mfutv9
Prof. Carl Heneghan, Oxford University: "The high quality trial evidence for cloth masks suggest they increase your rate of reinfection."


Please note, droplets smaller than 120 microns can't be measured. SARSCoV2 is 0.14 microns. This means that the nebulization effect of medical masks could not be measured, not that it does not happen. ⬇️


The really small aerosols <1 μm [the ones that pass through ALL surgical masks] can penetrate all the way to the alveoli - the basic units for gas exchange

More from Health

Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.


More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.

You May Also Like

1/“What would need to be true for you to….X”

Why is this the most powerful question you can ask when attempting to reach an agreement with another human being or organization?

A thread, co-written by @deanmbrody:


2/ First, “X” could be lots of things. Examples: What would need to be true for you to

- “Feel it's in our best interest for me to be CMO"
- “Feel that we’re in a good place as a company”
- “Feel that we’re on the same page”
- “Feel that we both got what we wanted from this deal

3/ Normally, we aren’t that direct. Example from startup/VC land:

Founders leave VC meetings thinking that every VC will invest, but they rarely do.

Worse over, the founders don’t know what they need to do in order to be fundable.

4/ So why should you ask the magic Q?

To get clarity.

You want to know where you stand, and what it takes to get what you want in a way that also gets them what they want.

It also holds them (mentally) accountable once the thing they need becomes true.

5/ Staying in the context of soliciting investors, the question is “what would need to be true for you to want to invest (or partner with us on this journey, etc)?”

Multiple responses to this question are likely to deliver a positive result.