Thoughts on the Plague (Part 3) 05/16/21

For this third installment, I’d like to think out loud about how we treated the disease itself. These are just blogs, and they’re written quickly. As such, I probably won’t be including any links to scientific papers. In my experience, this is a waste of time to begin with. Starting at the very beginning of the pandemic, any time I would share a study or some new findings, they were instantly dismissed as “bad science” by the doomer crowd, often with no real explanation as to why. Often this occurred as a passed-down mimetic structure from doctors looking to advance their own celebrity. Nobody would know who Eric Fe***-D*** is if not for his apocalyptic c*vid-posting day in and day out. These people have an incentive for not giving you good news, the same as those who are looking for clout on the other end of the spectrum (Ber**son, etc.) have no interest in giving you bad news. It’s partisan reality tunneling at its most maddening. I have found very few realistic, level-headed voices in this whole thing, so that’s what I’m trying to do here. Think of these as “things to think about” that you can research if you want to. My thought process is that whoever wants to learn more can look for it. I’m not going to waste my time linking to papers, etc. if they’re just going to be rejected out of hand anyway.

So, moving on: what was the deal with hydroxychloroquine? How about Ivermectin? What about good old fashioned Vitamins D & C? What ever happened to all of those ventilators? What happens when you get the plague? What are the steps here? And what about this vaccine business?

I’ll present some ideas as I recall them (once again, this is literally from memory, so the facts could be and likely are technically wrong):

Hydroxychloroquine is an anti-malarial drug that has been in use for about a hundred years. Before 2020, it was taken by most of the world’s leaders. On the African continent (and in India), HCQ is ubiquitous and sold over-the-counter. Early on in the pandemic, Dr. Zelenko developed a protocol for treating patients early with HCQ, Zinc, and Azithromycin (not sure on the spelling for that one). This was touted as a miracle treatment, reducing the need for hospitalization by about 85-90%. I don’t remember why HCQ worked.

Another pair of doctors were treating c*vid with Vitamin C. They would administer it intravenously to something called “bowel tolerance,” essentially until the patient got diarrhea. They claimed this worked very well. They had no patients die of the disease.

About five or six months ago, doctors were testifying in front of Senate committees basically begging them to allow the use of Ivermectin in early stages of C-19. This mostly fell on deaf ears. I recall stories of families having to sue hospitals to allow their elderly parents to use Ivermectin, which they won, which saved the patients. Ivermectin is an anti-parasitical drug used to de-worm horses. It is safe for human consumption.

Okay, so what exactly happened here? We have a vaccine now, and that’s all well and good. I’ve given this some thought, and if C-19 escaped as a result of gain-of-function research, that means that a vaccine was being developed concurrently with the research, which could lead to its efficacy. But before all of that, why were these other treatments not made available? Doctors were threatened. They could lose their licenses if they treated people with this non-experimental drugs that would have been 100% fine to use pre-2020.

Again: what’s going on here? Why didn’t we at least try? There were a few studies that didn’t hold a lot of water. In one, patients were given HCQ (and just HCQ) while they were in the late stages of C-19. The doctors who used these treatments shouted into the void: “You have to use these protocols early, and they have to be the entire protocol, not just one piece of them.” These studies, flawed as they were from the start, became held up by doomers and vaccine-evangelists as proof enough to not treat sick patients in the meantime.

What I could never get my head around was this: say you have a patient who comes into your ER. They’re in their 80s, meaning they are in major danger of dying from C-19. What could it hurt to at least try to use these protocols to save their lives? I’ve seen enough from my time in hospitals: when someone is deathly ill, doctors will try all manner of methods to keep them alive. It’s kind of what doctors do. So why, then, did they take these drugs, again, all of them well tested over the past 50-100 years, and make it practically illegal to use them?

What’s going on?

I’m not going to speculate. But this has stuck in my mind for the past year. It seemed like every week there was a new doctor with a new idea for how to treat this thing. And I watched the pattern happen over and over again: the clout doctors roundly criticized the findings, the CDC condemned them, and the FDA subsequently banned the protocol. Over, and over, and over again.

A very simple question to consider: why were these drugs not made available? Why did we get that horse shit Darwin Awards story about the guy who drank fish tank cleaner, thinking it was medicinal HCQ?

And another question to consider: let’s say the protocols listed above were mostly effective, but not 100%. Let’s say that some people had side effects. Why is it all of a sudden completely okay for the vaccines to have side effects (there are 4,000 reports of adverse reactions/deaths on the VAERS website, last I checked) but not for these largely safe drug protocols? What is up with that double standard?

What are we not getting, here? Does no one else think this is, at a minimum, a little weird?

On ventilators: we know now that those were complete disasters. They overinflated people’s lungs and killed them. It wouldn’t be an exaggeration to say that many of the early deaths, that huge body count, especially in NYC, came from people getting the vent and subsequently having their lungs blown out. Recorded as a C-19 death, of course. Which…it is, I guess, in the way that “going to the store” is the cause of a car crash.

And finally, good old Vitamin D. Dr. Rhonda Patrick (along with many others) have been beating this drum from the beginning. It’s cheap and easy to supplement with, and seemed to have some positive effects. The keto blogger bros have been shouting about the link to metabolic health and survival rates from the beginning. The thesis is sound: if you start eating healthy and exercising, your chances of dying from C-19 go down. Simple. So why was this never pushed? Why was the messaging “hide from the disease until a vaccine arrives?” Why didn’t we give people actionable steps that they could take to, at the very least, protect themselves from the worst effects of this pandemic?

Worth thinking about. The whole thing is worth thinking about. I’d ask you to consider this, today: were the deleterious effects of the previously-mentioned protocols (HCQ, AZH, Zinc, Ivermectin, Vitamins D&C, sunlight, exercise, metabolic health) in conjunction with all established safety precautions (masks, social distancing, etc.) so risky, so potentially fatal, that it was better to bury them instead of maybe, just maybe, letting doctors do their jobs, letting them at least try? It’s my contention that many lives could have been saved on balance, had these treatments not been demonized.

And I still don’t understand why they were.

I hope your weekend has been great!

Leave a Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s