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

The problem with meta-analysis like this is that it obfuscates the most important issue of treatment, which is timing.


This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.

Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.

All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.

And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.
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

No-regret #hydrogen:
Charting early steps for H₂ infrastructure in Europe.

👉Summary of conclusions of a new study by @AgoraEW @AFRY_global @Ma_Deutsch @gnievchenko (1/17)
https://t.co/YA50FA57Em


The idea behind this study is that future hydrogen demand is highly uncertain and we don’t want to spend tens of billions of euros to repurpose a network which won’t be needed. For instance, hydrogen in ground transport is a hotly debated topic
https://t.co/RlnqDYVzpr (2/17)

Similar things can be said about heat. 40% of today’s industrial natural gas use in the EU goes to heat below 100°C and therefore is within range of electric heat pumps – whose performance factors far exceed 100%. (3/17)


Even for higher temperatures, a range of power-to-heat (PtH) options can be more energy-efficient than hydrogen and should be considered first. Available PtH technologies can cover all temperature levels needed in industrial production (e.g. electric arc furnace: 3500°C). (4/17)


In our view, hydrogen use for feedstock and chemical reactions is the only inescapable source of industrial hydrogen demand in Europe that does not lend itself to electrification. Examples include ammonia, steel, and petrochemical industries. (5/17)

You May Also Like