Problem With Covid Protocol Treatment
Problem With Covid Protocol Treatment. The COVID Protocol hospital physicians must follow, in lockstep across the U.S., appears to be the implementation of the 2009-2010 “Complete Lives System” developed by Dr. Ezekiel Emanuel for rationing medical care for people older than 50.
Dr. “Zeke” Emanuel, who was the senior White House health policy adviser to President Obama and has been advising President Joe Biden about COVID-19, stated in his classic 2009 Lancet paper: “When implemented, the complete lives system produces a priority curve on which individuals aged between roughly 15 and 40 years get the most substantial chance, whereas the youngest and oldest people get chances that are attenuated.”
“Attenuated” means rationed, restricted, or denied medical care that commonly leads to premature death.
In 2021, whistleblower doctors, nurses, attorneys, patient advocates and journalists have exposed egregious hospital abuses, neglect of patients, and denial of vital intravenous fluids and basic medicines to hospitalized COVID patients across the U.S.
Now we see its malevolent manifestation in the COVID Protocol. Age-based rationing is happening every day on COVID units of our hospitals, since the overwhelming majority of COVID patients are older than 50, the age at which Emanuel claims that a life is “complete” and not worth the use of medical resources.
Unconscionable hospital violations of human rights, including even violations of the Geneva Conventions established following World War II to prevent abuses of prisoners, are occurring daily across the U.S.
Patients are coerced to take rapidly approved drugs like Remdesivir, in spite of known risks of kidney and liver failure, and to be placed on ventilators, both of which bring in incentive payments and create huge profits for hospitals.
Patients are denied adequate fluids and nutrition, as well as vitamins, inhaled and intravenous corticosteroids, antibiotics, antivirals,and adequate doses of “blood-thinners” (anticoagulants).
Patients suffer inhumane isolation with use of chemical and physical restraints, in violation of existing guidelines for patient protection.
Hospitals are using law enforcement to deny access to hospital grounds for family and advocates.
Patients and their advocates have been denied information on benefits of early treatments and denied access to such treatment. Autopsies have confirmed many patients died because of inadequate doses of standard anticoagulation, even after family members went to court to demand therapeutic doses to help save lives.
Doctors and nurses risk their careers, their licenses, livelihoods and even their lives as they courageously speak out to give their patients and the public with lifesaving information. One ICU physician colleague posted this on social media recently:
Just finished a 10-night stretch in the ICU. Patient bashing and blatant meanness have taken on a whole new level within our health care colleagues. How can we NOT spiral downwards towards despair when this behavior is allowed and is being normalized?? … I feel I’ve been thrown into a “Mean Girls” sequel. Making fun of patients and families for not being V’d is the cool thing now. … I don’t mind taking care of COVID patients. But this hateful vibe that has permeated my world is what’s going to end my career if it doesn’t [stop].
Welcome to the brave new world of government-directed medical care carried out by obedient, profit-focused hospital executives eager for the government handouts of incentive payments for following the “COVID Protocol.”
Poor job of summarizing the study for the layman.
Just finished going through this study. This article actually does a poor job of summarizing the study for the layman.
Here’s my summary of it (for context, I’m a final yr Bsc student in a local uni, so I am very capable of reading and breaking down scientific papers)
The study is a cross analysis of 7 OTHER studies that conducted Randomized Control Trials to compare ivermectin + standard treatment vs standard treatment alone. So they didn’t do any experimentation on their own, they just analysed data from others.
Their method for picking out studies is just randomly finding any (ivermectin + standard care vs standard care alone) from the listed scientific databases. Note that across studies, theres differences in what is defined as “standard care”(country and hospital differences), severity of covid(from mild to severe), and “survival rate”(aka patient outcome).
So their data is ivermectin + (rojak care standards) vs (rojak care standards).
To note, they listed 1300+ combined samples for their data. But if you go through each individual study, you realize that number is not accurated. Whilst 1300+ participated in these studies, not all completed the studies. What does this mean? It means whilst 1300+ ppl started, they never completed the study. So for a lot of participants, the studies didnt get any data for the final outcome(survival rates). For those incomplete samples, the data is invalid because you have no result datat
After going through all 7 studies, the true number of “valid” samples is ~650, which is a low number for 7 studies.
Their math analysis is appropriate for what theyre trying to find out. Their analysis does show that there is marked improvement in patient outcomes, though I think the term “survival” is misleading. The outcome data from the studies measure recovery time rather than whether u live or die. So a better summary of their findings is “ivermectin + standard care speeds up recovery for hospitalized covid cases than standard care alone”
Overall the paper is weak in sampling and their word choice misrepresents their findings to the layman. To say their sample size is 1300+, and theyre looking at “survival” is misleading.
The “spirit” of the research is there, theres nothing wrong with wanting to do a cross evaluation of several studies on ivermectin to explore its viability as a possible treatment option, however it could’ve been handled better.
Whether you think this research is adequate proof of ivermectins effectiveness is up to you. My mission with this summary is to just tell you the facts in an easy to digest way.
As a takeaway msg from this, be critical of secondary sources interpreting scientific papers. Make sure theyre capable of reading those papers in the first place, because scientific literacy is a very different skillset than regular reading and not every layman has that skillset.
Stay critical, stay thinking!