Friday, January 28, 2022

Doctor’s offering early treatment of Covid have Treated Over 150,000 COVID-19 Patients With 99.99 Percent Survival

A doctor who has been offering free telehealth services to COVID-19 patients during the pandemic says that early treatment for COVID-19 works, claiming that he has a 99.99 percent survival rate.

“We have a team of volunteer free doctors that donate their time to help treat these patients that come to us,” Dr. Ben Marble, the founder of, an online medical consultation service, said at a roundtable discussion hosted by Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) on Jan. 24.

He added, “We deliver the early treatment protocols to them as early as we can, and we have a 99.99 percent survival rate. So, I believe, the free volunteered doctors have settled the science on this—early treatment works, period!”

Marble was answering Johnson’s question about what people can do if they or their loved ones have COVID-19.

People can visit the website, create an account, and fill out a patient intake form if the doctors are accepting new patients for that day. One of the doctors will then reach out in less than 24 hours. With a huge demand for their services, the physicians say they can only “accept a certain number of patients each day.”

Marble says that he and his small team of volunteer doctors prescribe Dr. Peter McCullough’s treatment protocol, which consists of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, monoclonal antibodies, prednisone, and other low-cost generic drugs. They also prescribe vitamins D and C, and zinc.

McCullough, a cardiologist, and epidemiologist, along with several physicians put together an early treatment protocol to provide outpatient care for COVID-19 patients. Their paper was published in The American Journal of Medicine in August 2020.

Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonologist and the President at the Frontline COVID-19 Critical Care (FLCCC) Alliance, says that the public is not aware that there are doctors across the country who will provide telehealth and early treatment for COVID-19.

“On our website, we have a button, which says find a provider. We’ve tried to collect as many telehealth providers that treat all states in the country,” Kory said.

“We are trying to let that message be known because that message is being suppressed that this disease is treatable,” he added.

Kory also claims that there is corruption at the federal level in suppressing early treatment with repurposed cheap drugs and their availability and that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has been “captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“The corruption is because they don’t want you to use off-label, repurposed generic medicines. It does not provide profit to the system,” Kory said, adding that, “you know what’s going on in this country right now, is that the CDC has been captured by the pharmaceutical industry.”

“They sent out a memo in August of 2021, they sent out a similar memo back in the spring 2020, telling the nation’s physicians and pharmacists not to use generic medicines.”

The Epoch Times has reached out to the CDC for comment.

Early treatments were and continue to be discouraged by the CDC, whose guidance since the beginning of the pandemic up until January 2022, only focused on people self-quarantining for 14 days, keeping hydrated, taking analgesics, and only seeking hospital care when they can’t breathe or turn blue. They also warned people to not take any medications not approved for COVID-19.

“People have been seriously harmed and even died after taking products not approved for use to treat or prevent COVID-19, even products approved or prescribed for other uses,” the CDC wrote on its potential treatments webpage.

The weblink provided for the alleged harmful product was related to a March 2020 health alert warning of a serious health effect from ingesting non-pharmaceutical chloroquine phosphate used to clean fish tanks. This alert came after an Arizona man and his wife took the non-pharmaceutical drug in an attempt to self-medicate for COVID-19.

For the past two years, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has only authorized limited early outpatient treatments for COVID-19 that include monoclonal antibodies for high-risk patients and antiviral pills from Merck and Pfizer. However, the FDA on Jan. 24 announced it was limiting the use of Eli Lilly and Regeneron monoclonal antibodies only to patients “likely to have been infected with or exposed to a variant that is susceptible to these treatments.”

Johnson held the roundtable discussion to offer a different perspective on the response to the pandemic, including on “the current state of knowledge of early and hospital treatment, vaccine efficacy and safety, what went right, what went wrong, what should be done now, and what needs to be addressed long term.”

The discussion panel consisted of health experts and scientists that included McCullough, Dr. Robert Malone, and Dr. Paul Marik.

According to a press release, Johnson also invited over a dozen prominent figures involved in developing, promoting, and leading the pandemic response, including the CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky and White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Jeffrey Zients. All of the individuals declined to attend the forum.


COVID-19 oral antivirals have been embraced in much of the US and could be a pandemic game changer

Jeff Carlson is a keen cyclist who has kept active throughout the pandemic, and is double-vaccinated and boosted.

But as he lay on his couch struggling for breath, he felt worse than he could ever remember feeling in his life.

Within a day or two of experiencing COVID-19 symptoms, the 61-year-old from Minnesota was "going downhill" fast. "I was laying on my couch. A lot of my body functions were slowing," he said.

His blood oxygen levels, which he measures regularly because of underlying health conditions, dropped dangerously low. In his condition, he could have been sent straight to hospital.

But his telehealth team offered him what he now describes as a "miracle drug": a course of one of the newly authorised oral antivirals for COVID-19.

A friend picked the pills up at the pharmacy for him. Mr Carlson said less than 24 hours later, things were turning around.

A week later he could barely believe he had been sick at all. "I'm back out exercising … and I don't have any side effects," he said.

Mr Carlson was among the very first Americans to be prescribed oral antivirals for COVID-19.

In December, the US Food and Drug Administration authorised Pfizer's Paxlovid and Merck's molnupiravir for the treatment of mild to moderate cases of COVID-19.

The drugs are taken twice a day for five days with the aim of preventing hospitalisations.

"I believe it saved my life," Mr Carlson said. "And if it didn't save my life, it saved me from taking up another bed in the hospital."

Vaccines are still considered the best defence against serious disease. The pills are intended for patients who are not yet hospitalised but are at risk of being admitted or of dying.

Until now, COVID-19 treatments, including monoclonal antibodies and the antiviral remdesivir, have largely only been available in hospitals because they are administered intravenously.

The arrival of the take-at-home COVID treatments has been eagerly awaited. "It's a game changer that allows us to get back to some kind of normal life where we can treat patients effectively and easily," Bryan Jarabek, from M Health Fairview in Minnesota — Mr Carlson's healthcare provider — said.

Dr Jarabek said he and his team were thrilled by Mr Carlson's speedy recovery. "We all celebrated a tonne," Dr Jarabek said.

M Health Fairview is just beginning to roll out the new medicines and is experiencing the kinds of issues that will challenge providers the world over.

The first issue with antivirals is supply. Mass production of the drugs is time consuming, so for the moment stock is "extremely limited", according to Dr Jarabek.

There is also a small time frame in which the drugs can be prescribed. The drugs interfere with the virus's ability to multiply so a patient must take them within five days of becoming ill.

That means that in a very short space of time the patient has to be tested for COVID-19, get the result, consult with their medical team, locate a pharmacy that has the drug and start taking it.

The third issue is that although Paxlovid has a far higher success rate in preventing hospitalisations in trials — 90 per cent compared to 30 per cent for molnupiravir — it has potentially dangerous interactions with other drugs.

For Mr Carlson, who was already on medications for diabetes and coronary heart disease, Paxlovid just was not an option.

He was lucky that in his case, molnupiravir worked. "I was told this drug that I took had a 30 per cent effective rate," he said. "In my case, it was 100 per cent."

Katherine Yang, a clinical professor of pharmacy at the University of California San Francisco (UCSF), said the danger of drug interactions associated with Paxlovid were "a little bit of a Catch 22".

The very patients who could benefit most from the COVID pills are the very ones who shouldn't take it.

Dr Yang said the arrival of the first generation of COVID-19 pills was nevertheless "exciting and the next step".

"I don't know if it's the magic bullet," she said. "It's the most magic bullet we have so far."


Proposed State Law Would Make It Illegal to Request a Person’s Vaccine Status

A newly proposed South Carolina law would make it illegal for certain institutions to ask a person for their COVID-19 vaccination status.

“The government has no place in making you or telling you to take the vaccination or threatening your livelihood if you don’t,” said state Rep. William Chumley, a co-sponsor of the bill, known as H.4848.

A representative of a public, private, or nonprofit entity who asks about a person’s COVID-19 vaccination status should be fined more than $14,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both, according to the text of the bill.

“South Carolina didn’t want to get in this fight,” Chumley told local media outlets. “It was brought to us by the federal government.”

The bill is currently being discussed in a state House committee.

Lawmakers who sponsored the bill said they support the measure because it can serve as a bulwark against government coercion.

“It’s about protecting people from being forced or coerced into getting a vaccine for purposes of employment, admission to schools, or government services,” state Rep. Wayne Long, a Republican, told Channel 2 News.

“I get calls from people literally every week begging the legislature to take some kind of action to protect people’s rights, to protect their privacy, and to keep them from being forced or coerced into getting a vaccine that they frankly don’t want to get,” Long added. “And even for people who have gotten the vaccine, I’ve spoken with many of them, it’s really a privacy issue.”

South Carolina labor law attorney Jeremy Summerlin told local media that he believes the bill would be very difficult to implement.

“You put employers in an impossible position,” Summerlin remarked. “You’ve got a (proposed) state law now that says that if you ask about that, and try to comply with federal law, then you are going to jail,” he added.

“What if you ask your coworker about their vaccination status, and you are just having a conversation?” he said. “What if you are a nurse, and you ask a fellow nurse about it? Do you want the local law enforcement to go in and arrest them because of this law?”

The proposed law comes two weeks after the Supreme Court, in a 6–3 majority opinion, blocked an Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) emergency temporary standard that required employees at companies with 100 or more workers to either get the vaccine or submit to weekly testing. And on Tuesday, OSHA published an announcement saying it would formally withdraw the rule Wednesday.




No comments: