Face coverings

[donnk]

22 hours ago, Billhook said:

1984 is here about forty years late.  New Norm = Newspeak, cameras= Big Brother watches you everywhere,  thought crime = gender, trans issues, people encouraged to rat on their neighbours,  widespread turning a blind eye to drugs, especially in prisons ( Soma in Brave New World) and Winston Smith's job of tearing up past history ,  cancelling people and removing all traces of them from literature

 

dont worry if this continues it WILL end up in violence and the cheerleaders of this woke system being forced down the publics throat by those in charge, the law, the media etc will rue the day they inflected their very own form of socialism/fascism. Exactly the same happens every time in socialist/totalitarian systems, the 'leaders' end up swinging from ropes by the oppressed when they have had enough.

 

List of totalitarian regimes - Wikipedia

EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

 

 

 

[Stubby]

7 hours ago, Mark Bolam said:

No big issues down here in rural Kent wearing masks.

People seem happy to put them on in local shops and supermarkets.

 

The big thing is the majority are keeping the distance thing going as well.

After all, who wants to get near a freak wearing a mask?

 

The government control issue is such a crock of shit.

If masks improve things by 1%, then that’s 1% more than the ‘it’s the government trying to control us’ brigade can come up with.

 

Unless you’ve got any better ideas?

 

Not arguments.

Not bullshit.

Not anti-Boris.

Not negative crap.

 

Just positive anti-mask arguments, please.

 

Replies preferable from those who actually work in the tree game please.

 

Its the same here in my area . No complaints . Everyone just does it . Simples .

[Big J]

7 hours ago, Haironyourchest said:

https://www.bitchute.com/video/ZYdzBDtLu2I1/

Here's my suggestion. Hydroxychloroquin+

Doctors are saying it works. Perfectly safe at the right dosage. Used by millions all over the world for decades. And cheaper than dirt.

The medical establishment don't like it.

Cos it's cheaper than dirt.

The media doesn't like it.

Cos it takes away the need for fear and hysteria (bread and butter to the media).

Government doesn't like it.
Cos they need to string out the panic to justify their overreaction and trashing of the economy. And some, in government, would like to enjoy their power trip a bit longer, probably.

And half of US don't like it, cos Trump liked it first.

Please watch the video. Maybe you will see things from a different position, maybe not.
 

All studies have shown that hydroxychloroquin (when used as a phophylactic) is useless, and when used as a treatment for covid-19, it actually increased the mortality rate. 

 

The reason it's being ignored isn't just because Trump likes it (he is a f*cking moron, but in this case, it's besides the point), it's because it's worse that ineffective. It's harmful.

[Haironyourchest]

Watch the video Big J.

Those studies were deliberately self sabotaged. The doctors gave doses that were far too high. You are repeating the propaganda you heard from the medical establishment via the media.

There are plenty of honest studies and trials that prove it works and is safe.

Watch the video. There they present an overview of their experience, in other videos the individual doctors present their data.

You will be hearing a lot about this in the coming weeks. The media will smear these people as frauds, right winger fanatics etc.

[Stere]

You maybe need to stop believing every wacky thing you read on  internet?

 

Learn to differentiate between reputable information sources and bogus ones.

 

But it looks like you have  may have already fallen too far down the rabbit hole, and inhabit an alternative reality of of crazy stuff?

 

Why are the MSM and docs supressing the truth in this case?

 

What is the motivation?

 

Something   incoherent about NWO and lizard men  and sheeple?

[Haironyourchest]

Ok Stere, how's this for wacky? - a Yale PHD Epidemiologist. Please read it and reflect honestly, and then come back to me and tell me about reptilians and sheeple again.

(From Newsweek)


The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion
BY HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD ON 7/23/20 AT 7:00 AM EDT
SHARE
OPINION CORONAVIRUS HEALTH AND MEDICINE MEDICINE FDA
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.


I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.


Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.


My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.

Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.


Hydroxychloroquine tabletsGEORGE FREY/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.

Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?


First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.

Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.


In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.

Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.


But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.


In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately.

Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.

The views expressd in this article are the writer's own.

[Johnsond]

41 minutes ago, Haironyourchest said:

Ok Stere, how's this for wacky? - a Yale PHD Epidemiologist. Please read it and reflect honestly, and then come back to me and tell me about reptilians and sheeple again.

(From Newsweek)


The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It | Opinion
BY HARVEY A. RISCH, MD, PHD ON 7/23/20 AT 7:00 AM EDT
SHARE
OPINION CORONAVIRUS HEALTH AND MEDICINE MEDICINE FDA
As professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, I have authored over 300 peer-reviewed publications and currently hold senior positions on the editorial boards of several leading journals. I am usually accustomed to advocating for positions within the mainstream of medicine, so have been flummoxed to find that, in the midst of a crisis, I am fighting for a treatment that the data fully support but which, for reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science, has been pushed to the sidelines. As a result, tens of thousands of patients with COVID-19 are dying unnecessarily. Fortunately, the situation can be reversed easily and quickly.


I am referring, of course, to the medication hydroxychloroquine. When this inexpensive oral medication is given very early in the course of illness, before the virus has had time to multiply beyond control, it has shown to be highly effective, especially when given in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline and the nutritional supplement zinc.
On May 27, I published an article in the American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) entitled, "Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis." That article, published in the world's leading epidemiology journal, analyzed five studies, demonstrating clear-cut and significant benefits to treated patients, plus other very large studies that showed the medication safety.


Physicians who have been using these medications in the face of widespread skepticism have been truly heroic. They have done what the science shows is best for their patients, often at great personal risk. I myself know of two doctors who have saved the lives of hundreds of patients with these medications, but are now fighting state medical boards to save their licenses and reputations. The cases against them are completely without scientific merit.

Since publication of my May 27 article, seven more studies have demonstrated similar benefit. In a lengthy follow-up letter, also published by AJE, I discuss these seven studies and renew my call for the immediate early use of hydroxychloroquine in high-risk patients. These seven studies include: an additional 400 high-risk patients treated by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, with zero deaths; four studies totaling almost 500 high-risk patients treated in nursing homes and clinics across the U.S., with no deaths; a controlled trial of more than 700 high-risk patients in Brazil, with significantly reduced risk of hospitalization and two deaths among 334 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine; and another study of 398 matched patients in France, also with significantly reduced hospitalization risk. Since my letter was published, even more doctors have reported to me their completely successful use.


My original article in the AJE is available free online, and I encourage readers—especially physicians, nurses, physician assistants and associates, and respiratory therapists—to search the title and read it. My follow-up letter is linked there to the original paper.

Beyond these studies of individual patients, we have seen what happens in large populations when these drugs are used. These have been "natural experiments." In the northern Brazil state of Pará, COVID-19 deaths were increasing exponentially. On April 6, the public hospital network purchased 75,000 doses of azithromycin and 90,000 doses of hydroxychloroquine. Over the next few weeks, authorities began distributing these medications to infected individuals. Even though new cases continued to occur, on May 22 the death rate started to plummet and is now about one-eighth what it was at the peak.


Hydroxychloroquine tabletsGEORGE FREY/AFP VIA GETTY IMAGES
A reverse natural experiment happened in Switzerland. On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand. People who die from COVID-19 live about three to five weeks from the start of symptoms, which makes the evidence of a causal relation in these experiments strong. Both episodes suggest that a combination of hydroxychloroquine and its companion medications reduces mortality and should be immediately adopted as the new standard of care in high-risk patients.

Why has hydroxychloroquine been disregarded?


First, as all know, the medication has become highly politicized. For many, it is viewed as a marker of political identity, on both sides of the political spectrum. Nobody needs me to remind them that this is not how medicine should proceed. We must judge this medication strictly on the science. When doctors graduate from medical school, they formally promise to make the health and life of the patient their first consideration, without biases of race, religion, nationality, social standing—or political affiliation. Lives must come first.

Second, the drug has not been used properly in many studies. Hydroxychloroquine has shown major success when used early in high-risk people but, as one would expect for an antiviral, much less success when used late in the disease course. Even so, it has demonstrated significant benefit in large hospital studies in Michigan and New York City when started within the first 24 to 48 hours after admission.


In fact, as inexpensive, oral and widely available medications, and a nutritional supplement, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin or doxycycline, and zinc are well-suited for early treatment in the outpatient setting. The combination should be prescribed in high-risk patients immediately upon clinical suspicion of COVID-19 disease, without waiting for results of testing. Delays in waiting before starting the medications can reduce their efficacy.

Third, concerns have been raised by the FDA and others about risks of cardiac arrhythmia, especially when hydroxychloroquine is given in combination with azithromycin. The FDA based its comments on data in its FDA Adverse Event Reporting System. This reporting system captured up to a thousand cases of arrhythmias attributed to hydroxychloroquine use. In fact, the number is likely higher than that, since the reporting system, which requires physicians or patients to initiate contact with the FDA, appreciably undercounts drug side effects.


But what the FDA did not announce is that these adverse events were generated from tens of millions of patient uses of hydroxychloroquine for long periods of time, often for the chronic treatment of lupus or rheumatoid arthritis. Even if the true rates of arrhythmia are ten-fold higher than those reported, the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients. This fact is proven by an Oxford University study of more than 320,000 older patients taking both hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, who had arrhythmia excess death rates of less than 9/100,000 users, as I discuss in my May 27 paper cited above. A new paper in the American Journal of Medicine by established cardiologists around the world fully agrees with this.


In the future, I believe this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence. But for now, reality demands a clear, scientific eye on the evidence and where it points. For the sake of high-risk patients, for the sake of our parents and grandparents, for the sake of the unemployed, for our economy and for our polity, especially those disproportionally affected, we must start treating immediately.

Harvey A. Risch, MD, PhD, is professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.

The views expressd in this article are the writer's own.


 

I can’t comment on the effectiveness of this medication as a treatment but what is plain to see even on a forum for people in the “tree game” is that opinion that differs from that put out by the media etc or those whom agree with it are vilified and attacked, those people whom question the media etc and route of action taken by government are hit with verbal abuse, shamed for being uncaring and selfish told that their opinions ain’t welcome. We are told to just get on with it be a good citizen don’t question anything wear your mask don’t use cash, do this with whom when and where and how far apart etc etc etc, all instructions passed down by individuals whom have no idea of the effects that this is actually having on people. 
An earlier post asked if I’d experienced anyone in ICU for 3  months and the answer is no I have not, I actually do not know anyone whom has had a Covid 19 symptoms that has  resulted in a visit to hospital with a confirmed case, that includes working on vessels with Norwegian, Finnish, Swedish, Romanian, Ukrainian, Dutch, Irish and British crew members. But in reality bearing  in mind the figures that are actually spoken of vs the population that’s not really surprising if you think about it. Does Covid exist, yes of course it does, do I believe the dark lord is sitting in a room with a master plan to control us ?‍♂️No I don’t. Do I think the measures taken are wrong, yes I do massively. Do I think power is addictive for politicians yes I do and countless historical references can confirm it.  
what I do know is at least two guys who’s homes are now on the market as a result of financial hardship caused by the lockdown. I personally know at least 15 people all with families etc that have lost their jobs. We are not even seeing the tip of the iceberg in relation to mental health, job losses and subsequent financial disaster. 
I can’t help but go back to the post regarding replies preferably from those in tree game and basically by the tone of the post those that conform with my own views ?‍♂️?‍♂️?‍♂️Think about that for a minute. Or to put it another way “tell me what I want to hear” 

[Khriss]

I think ( and this includes my scuba diving research cos if my lungs get **************** ed it's finished ) no Drs really understood the chemistry of C19 so forced ventilator therapy was an obvious choice BUT in hindsight not the best one, as divers with only minor symptoms,  still showed massive lung damage on pre dive examination. The clotting issue which finishes a lot of people off wasn't realised until later. It's a very serious bug that masks won't stop dead, but will help .  K

[Khriss]

( as IF yr 20m down, on pressured air, lung tissue ruptures will have you belching blood into yr Reg before yr buddy gets you surfaced )

[Stere]

Science works by reaching an evidence based  consesus that changes with new evidence over time. His opinion seems an outlier view atm at odds with the the majority.

 

Experts, Evidence & Hydroxychloroquine | by Robert A Stribley | Jul, 2020 | Medium

MEDIUM.COM

---

Always Be Evaluating Your Sources—Especially During a Pandemic

 

If new studies do show its works  maybe the consesus it will change in future.

 

 

Thts how science works something some people don't  seem to get.