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.

More from Health

1/16
Why do B12 and folate deficiencies lead to HUGE red blood cells?

And, if the issue is DNA synthesis, why are red blood cells (which don't have DNA) the key cell line affected?

For answers, we'll have to go back a few billion years.


2/
RNA came first. Then, ~3-4 billion years ago, DNA emerged.

Among their differences:
🔹RNA contains uracil
🔹DNA contains thymine

But why does DNA contains thymine (T) instead of uracil (U)?

https://t.co/XlxT6cLLXg


3/
🔑Cytosine (C) can undergo spontaneous deamination to uracil (U).

In the RNA world, this meant that U could appear intensionally or unintentionally. This is clearly problematic. How can you repair RNA when you can't tell if something is an error?

https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc


4/
DNA's use of T instead of U means that spontaneous C → U deamination can be corrected without worry that an intentional U is being removed.

DNA requires greater stability than RNA so the transition to a thymine-based structure was beneficial.

https://t.co/bIZGviHBUc


5/
Let's return to megaloblastic anemia secondary to B12 or folate deficiency.

When either is severely deficient deoxythymidine monophosphate (dTMP*) production is hindered. With less dTMP, DNA synthesis is abnormal.

[*Note: thymine is the base in dTMP]

https://t.co/AnDUtKkbZh

You May Also Like