Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

The home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Forum rules
This is the home for all non-political Coronavirus (Covid-19) discussions on The Lemon Fool
Julian
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1385
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 9:58 am
Has thanked: 532 times
Been thanked: 676 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453251

Postby Julian » October 26th, 2021, 3:10 pm

Hallucigenia wrote:
ursaminortaur wrote:Wouldn't it then be an idea to combine a delta and classic vaccine in a single jab just as the yearly influenza jab consists of a number of different flu variant vaccines ?


It's a possibility, but from a manufacturing and regulatory point of view, there's a lot to be said for keeping things simple, and the classic vaccine still works pretty well against delta. Given the timescales, I suspect most of the world will end up getting a classic jab - once trials of the delta vaccines as single shots are complete we will understand better how well they work in their own right, and then there would need to be separate trials of a mix. And then an assessment of whether the additional complexity was worth it relative to the variant mix at the time.

I know what you meant but being a bit picky I could extend that further. If a booster dose is taken into consideration I would actually strengthen your comment to "the classic vaccine still works exceptionally well against delta". At least on the basis of Israeli studies their Pfizer booster program seems to deliver 10 to 20 fold increases in efficacy against 6 month old double-jab residual efficacy that, even with the slightly trickier Delta variant now prevalent which I assume is the dominant variant that people in that Israeli booster trial are exposed to at the moment. The results from that trial so far show the booster increasing efficacy against symptomatic disease by about 11 fold so, even if un-boosted protection against Delta has waned in some recipients down to close to 50%, that still gets it back up into the 95+% range and against severe disease the booster effect observed was even more dramatic with a 19.5 fold increase so protection back to the >99% mark I think (those increases have confidence intervals associated with them of course). [ Source: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2114255 ]

Some cause for optimism I think. Under current UK policy I become eligible for my booster shot in 25 days time and I will be booking my booster as soon as I possibly can.

- Julian

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2619
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453260

Postby Hallucigenia » October 26th, 2021, 3:31 pm

Julian wrote:I know what you meant but being a bit picky I could extend that further. If a booster dose is taken into consideration I would actually strengthen your comment to "the classic vaccine still works exceptionally well against delta".


Again it comes down to the specifics - for areas where the logistics are difficult, whether through war or lack of freezers, then the preference might be for a mixed dose that reduces the need for additional jabs, even if there was less evidence to support safety, whereas developed countries where boosters are easy might choose to wait until more extensive trials have been signed off.

look
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 213
Joined: June 15th, 2017, 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453343

Postby look » October 26th, 2021, 8:07 pm

I think that if the doctors are obliged to work seriuosly by authorities and the people, the covid could be eliminated in 6 to 12 months.

If the trend that we see nowadays continyes, the virus will disturb us for nearly 10 years, and we will receice around 30 vaccines in the next 10 years, and restrictions will continue in the 10 years.

In Uganda they used a mix of herbs called covidex.

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453357

Postby XFool » October 26th, 2021, 8:49 pm

look wrote:I think that if the doctors are obliged to work seriuosly by authorities and the people, the covid could be eliminated in 6 to 12 months.

If the trend that we see nowadays continyes, the virus will disturb us for nearly 10 years, and we will receice around 30 vaccines in the next 10 years, and restrictions will continue in the 10 years.

In Uganda they used a mix of herbs called covidex.

Government approves use of COVIDEX to treat viral infections

https://www.ntv.co.ug/ug/news/national/government-approves-use-of-covidex-to-treat-viral-infections-3454598

"However, Mr Nahamya stressed that the medicine does not cure Covid-19 but it can supplement the medicine being used by medics to treat Covid-19 patients."

onthemove
Lemon Slice
Posts: 540
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 722 times
Been thanked: 471 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453386

Postby onthemove » October 26th, 2021, 9:45 pm

look wrote:I think that if the doctors are obliged to work seriuosly by authorities and the people, the covid could be eliminated in 6 to 12 months.


Care to provide any remotely plausible details how you think that could come about?
I mean, even if "the doctors are obliged to work seriuosly by authorities and the people", how do you think covid could plausibly be eliminated, let alone in as quick as 6 to 12 months?

Fortress, isolated New Zealand couldn't even manage to keep it out even from a position of no local cases and supposedly very tightly closed borders.

look wrote:If the trend that we see nowadays continyes, the virus will disturb us for nearly 10 years, and we will receice around 30 vaccines in the next 10 years, and restrictions will continue in the 10 years


Again, care to elaborate?

The vaccines are giving good protection against severe disease and death. Catching covid gives even broader protection against new variants (as has been covered in recent posts).

The most reasonable and pragmatic way out of the pandemic now everyone 'at risk' has been offered and had plenty of time to accept the vaccines, would be to just let covid rip. Let people catch it while the vaccine protection is still quite good to further boost and broaden immunity.

There have been some scientists even reported by the Guardian (usually one of the most hysterical, paranoid papers that there seems to be in relation to covid, seemingly wanting every restriction under the sun to be enforced on the population) who have said that catching covid may be preferable to boosters. (I think I may have even previously referenced a BBC article reporting some scientists saying this as well)

And to be honest, it looks in actual fact like this might indeed be the governments strategy, albeit not openly admitting as such.

You can see why they probably don't want to admit it. After the past 18 months of the scientists and government trying to put the fear of god into us telling us how dangerous covid is, to gain compliance into putting us under house arrest, etc, there are an awful lot of people who now have a pretty fearful perception of covid, and the government now being seen to just let it ripple around as an endemic disease would leave them horrified!

It's going to take some time before the fear subsides in a large number of people.

look wrote:In Uganda they used a mix of herbs called covidex.


Any particular reason why you keep throwing arbitrary names into the discussion?

I mean, here you've thrown in covidex, emphasing that it's a mix of herbs, earlier you've thrown in "baricitinib" with no further elaboration what-so-ever.

I googled the latter, and an article in the Lancet suggested "one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants" ( https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanr ... 13-2600(21)00331-3/fulltext ). Obviously anything is a help, but why are you just throwing the name about? What's your point? Preventing 1 in 20 deaths is obviously better than nothing, but what's your point?

You've also in an earlier post arbitrarily linked to something that you tagged "old pandemies and herbs".

If you think there is a substance behind the things you're posting, it might be beneficial if you could explain what it is, because as it stands it's leading me to think you're trying to promote 'non-conventional' treatments and just throwing their names in amongst the names of some legit research to try to form an association / legitimacy, while at the same time just trying to circumvent the moderation process which you know will likely delete obvious promotion of quackery.

look
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 213
Joined: June 15th, 2017, 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453409

Postby look » October 26th, 2021, 11:01 pm

onthemove wrote:
look wrote:I think that if the doctors are obliged to work seriuosly by authorities and the people, the covid could be eliminated in 6 to 12 months.


Care to provide any remotely plausible details how you think that could come about?
I mean, even if "the doctors are obliged to work seriuosly by authorities and the people", how do you think covid could plausibly be eliminated, let alone in as quick as 6 to 12 months?

Fortress, isolated New Zealand couldn't even manage to keep it out even from a position of no local cases and supposedly very tightly closed borders.

look wrote:If the trend that we see nowadays continyes, the virus will disturb us for nearly 10 years, and we will receice around 30 vaccines in the next 10 years, and restrictions will continue in the 10 years


Again, care to elaborate?

The vaccines are giving good protection against severe disease and death. Catching covid gives even broader protection against new variants (as has been covered in recent posts).

The most reasonable and pragmatic way out of the pandemic now everyone 'at risk' has been offered and had plenty of time to accept the vaccines, would be to just let covid rip. Let people catch it while the vaccine protection is still quite good to further boost and broaden immunity.

There have been some scientists even reported by the Guardian (usually one of the most hysterical, paranoid papers that there seems to be in relation to covid, seemingly wanting every restriction under the sun to be enforced on the population) who have said that catching covid may be preferable to boosters. (I think I may have even previously referenced a BBC article reporting some scientists saying this as well)

And to be honest, it looks in actual fact like this might indeed be the governments strategy, albeit not openly admitting as such.

You can see why they probably don't want to admit it. After the past 18 months of the scientists and government trying to put the fear of god into us telling us how dangerous covid is, to gain compliance into putting us under house arrest, etc, there are an awful lot of people who now have a pretty fearful perception of covid, and the government now being seen to just let it ripple around as an endemic disease would leave them horrified!

It's going to take some time before the fear subsides in a large number of people.

look wrote:In Uganda they used a mix of herbs called covidex.


Any particular reason why you keep throwing arbitrary names into the discussion?

I mean, here you've thrown in covidex, emphasing that it's a mix of herbs, earlier you've thrown in "baricitinib" with no further elaboration what-so-ever.

I googled the latter, and an article in the Lancet suggested "one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants" ( https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanr ... 13-2600(21)00331-3/fulltext ). Obviously anything is a help, but why are you just throwing the name about? What's your point? Preventing 1 in 20 deaths is obviously better than nothing, but what's your point?

You've also in an earlier post arbitrarily linked to something that you tagged "old pandemies and herbs".

If you think there is a substance behind the things you're posting, it might be beneficial if you could explain what it is, because as it stands it's leading me to think you're trying to promote 'non-conventional' treatments and just throwing their names in amongst the names of some legit research to try to form an association / legitimacy, while at the same time just trying to circumvent the moderation process which you know will likely delete obvious promotion of quackery.



Beginning with your first question: you ask how could covid be eliminated in 6 to 12 months. The answer is using some of the things that you consider quackery.
The vacinnes are useful, some restriction are useful, others not so much, what must be added is among the things that you consider quackerry.

Baricitinib is produced by the big pharma, certainly it's expensive. I wrote the name expecting that someone would try to discover if it is already approved for use in UK. I don't know if it is good or not. It is already approved in USA and in brazil. The interest for the approval in UK should be your interest. I don't know if it is good or not. In general, delayed approval is a benefit for the virus.

the studies of independent groups of doctors in universities or not here and there should be studied by the doctors. the research by non doctors should also be studied and applied without any approval of the regulators. It's an emergency, the regulators should be sent to the moon or mars (regarding covid). the use of remedies sold in the market for attemps to combat covid should not provoke discussion, it's logical that in this emergency it must be free.

My posts are almost all an attemps to help to build a better world.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453417

Postby servodude » October 26th, 2021, 11:22 pm

look wrote: the research by non doctors should also be studied and applied without any approval of the regulators.


look that's nonsense - just nonsense
with that logic we'd be injecting bleach and inserting UV lamps


- sd

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453420

Postby Lootman » October 26th, 2021, 11:26 pm

servodude wrote:
look wrote: the research by non doctors should also be studied and applied without any approval of the regulators.


look that's nonsense - just nonsense
with that logic we'd be injecting bleach and inserting UV lamps

When you place all your trust in self-styled "experts" then you are already half way to giving up all independent thought.

look
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 213
Joined: June 15th, 2017, 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453428

Postby look » October 26th, 2021, 11:53 pm

servodude wrote:
look wrote: the research by non doctors should also be studied and applied without any approval of the regulators.


look that's nonsense - just nonsense
with that logic we'd be injecting bleach and inserting UV lamps


- sd


No, that's not nonsense and it doesn't mean that we should injecting bleach.
You are misunderstanding.

Among people that are not doctor, there are some that deserve confidence and others that doesnt deserve confidence. But it's rare non doctors given informations about their studies. Until now, all the medicines about i wrote (and the most posters consider quackery) have the support of some doctors.

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453433

Postby servodude » October 27th, 2021, 12:15 am

look wrote:
servodude wrote:
look wrote: the research by non doctors should also be studied and applied without any approval of the regulators.


look that's nonsense - just nonsense
with that logic we'd be injecting bleach and inserting UV lamps


- sd


No, that's not nonsense and it doesn't mean that we should injecting bleach.
You are misunderstanding.

Among people that are not doctor, there are some that deserve confidence and others that doesnt deserve confidence. But it's rare non doctors given informations about their studies. Until now, all the medicines about i wrote (and the most posters consider quackery) have the support of some doctors.


It's great that every possible depth is being trawled to find mitigations for this disease; that's not quackery

Quackery is where you take something, make claims without sufficient supporting evidence and dispense it with disregard for the protocols and patients
Even with the best intentions that's nonsense

If anyone has evidence that something works and proof that it does not harm then there is no issue and it will be used
the burden of proof is necessarily quite high though and annecdotal reports don't cut it

regulation is essential
- sd

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18681
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6564 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453435

Postby Lootman » October 27th, 2021, 12:18 am

servodude wrote:If anyone has evidence that something works and proof that it does not harm then there is no issue and it will be used
the burden of proof is necessarily quite high though and annecdotal reports don't cut it.

Agree but that appears to rule out the validity of 90% of your posts here.

And by the way it is "anecdotal".

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2619
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453436

Postby Hallucigenia » October 27th, 2021, 12:19 am

look wrote:Baricitinib is produced by the big pharma, certainly it's expensive. I wrote the name expecting that someone would try to discover if it is already approved for use in UK. I don't know if it is good or not. It is already approved in USA and in brazil. The interest for the approval in UK should be your interest. I don't know if it is good or not. In general, delayed approval is a benefit for the virus.

It has a limited approval as a second-line treatment for arthritis and dermatitis. It is not approved for treating Covid-19.

However Marconi et al found it seems to reduce Covid-19 deaths a bit, but doesn't make a significant difference in other respects :
one additional death was prevented per 20 baricitinib-treated participants. The 60-day all-cause mortality was 10% (n=79) for baricitinib and 15% (n=116) for placebo (HR 0·62 [95% CI 0·47–0·83]; p=0·0050). The frequencies of serious adverse events (110 [15%] of 750 in the baricitinib group vs 135 [18%] of 752 in the placebo group), serious infections (64 [9%] vs 74 [10%]), and venous thromboembolic events (20 [3%] vs 19 [3%]) were similar between the two groups.

28 tablets cost the NHS £805.56, but elsewhere it seems to go for around US$2400 for 30 days worth.

look wrote:the studies of independent groups of doctors in universities or not here and there should be studied by the doctors. the research by non doctors should also be studied and applied without any approval of the regulators.


This is a terrible idea, it allows resources to be wasted on treatments that don't work, it puts vulnerable and desperate people at the mercy of bad research and even fraud. As has happened with ivermectin. The authors of the meta-analysis that suggested ivermectin might be useful against Covid-19 ended up withdrawing it once it became apparent how bad the underlying research was, including outright fraud in some cases, with patients copy-and-pasted, patients dying before the study was meant to have started and so on. They've done a revised version here :

https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1003006/
The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor quality and potentially fraudulent studies. This highlights the need for rigorous quality assessments, the need for authors to share patient level data and efforts to continue to avoid publication bias for registered studies. These steps are vital to facilitate accurate conclusions on any clinical treatment.

There's more detail in this series of articles :
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin- ... c079278602
https://elemental.medium.com/ivermectin ... 913bb49483
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin- ... 475523b4e4
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin- ... 66aa6819b3
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin- ... 0eeb30d2ff
https://gidmk.medium.com/is-ivermectin- ... 41044dab13

look
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 213
Joined: June 15th, 2017, 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453446

Postby look » October 27th, 2021, 1:08 am

answer to Hallocinegia

you wrote:

"This is a terrible idea, it allows resources to be wasted on treatments that don't work,"

thousands of studies are already done, and the doctors in general don't read them. they should read

the MATH+ protocol, from a Virginia university, has the ivermectin as main remedy. They use also thiamine, vit. C, vit.D, zinc, melathonin and other substances.
the protocol is for use in hospital and the dosis of ivermecitine is terribly high, something like tenfold the dosis that others recommend to use to prevent the pest.
you want to help, as i too, i suppose ivermectine is to be used, but there are some restrictions. One problem is the effect on liver.

I have bought ivermectine, before using this i will use several other substances.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4098 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453477

Postby 88V8 » October 27th, 2021, 9:43 am

Hallucigenia wrote:The results suggest that the significant effect of ivermectin on survival was dependent on largely poor quality and potentially fraudulent studies.

I've been prescribed Ivermectin for a skin problem.
Perhaps if I rub it around my nose it will protect me against Covid.
Not.

Understandable though, that people who spend a lot of time on FB or suchlike might believe what they read there and believe that it's helpful to promulgate it.
Relatively few people are as well informed as some who post here.

V8

XFool
The full Lemon
Posts: 12636
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 7:21 pm
Been thanked: 2608 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453513

Postby XFool » October 27th, 2021, 11:30 am

look wrote:answer to Hallocinegia

you wrote:

"This is a terrible idea, it allows resources to be wasted on treatments that don't work,"

thousands of studies are already done, and the doctors in general don't read them. they should read the MATH+ protocol, from a Virginia university, has the ivermectin as main remedy.

The trouble is, look, the MATH+ protocol was developed by a group of physicians in the US around June 2020, early on in the pandemic when no certain treatments were available. In particular, before the development of vaccines against COVID.

https://covid.us.org/2020/06/24/the-math-protocol-for-prevention-and-treatment-of-covid-19/

According to their website above, the protocol was updated later that year: December 12th Update of MATH+ from EVMS.edu

But that link now points to no more than the Eastern Virginia Medical School page: "COVID-19 Guidance"

There is no mention there of the MATH+ protocol. A search on that site for "MATH" does not return anything immediately relevant.

Also note what it says on the original MATH+ site:

"Covid.us.org offers explanations of recent research into Covid-19 for informational purposes only. For treatment of Covid-19, see your healthcare provider. Nothing said herein is intended to constitute or replace medical care or advice."

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453547

Postby swill453 » October 27th, 2021, 12:32 pm

If you're wondering why we need a budget of £37 bn for Test & Trace... James O'Brien had a caller this morning who manages a small test site (one of the 2300 test sites). As an example of lack of oversight on spending, he says they have two gazebos, each 3m x 3m.

They're rented, at £500 per week each.

https://twitter.com/LBC/status/1453318661763129350

Scott.

Hallucigenia
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 2619
Joined: November 5th, 2016, 3:03 am
Has thanked: 166 times
Been thanked: 1718 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453583

Postby Hallucigenia » October 27th, 2021, 1:55 pm

look wrote:thousands of studies are already done, and the doctors in general don't read them.


Because overall - there is no evidence that ivermectin helps with Covid.

The truth isn't some kind of popularity contest. You're in Brazil, right? If I had thousands of people saying that you were responsible for the death of Isabella Nardoni, that would make it true?

You would accept that it must have happened that way, and accept the punishment, even though those people are not telling the truth?

look
2 Lemon pips
Posts: 213
Joined: June 15th, 2017, 7:56 pm
Has thanked: 17 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453647

Postby look » October 27th, 2021, 4:50 pm

here is the MATH+ protocol, updated september 2021

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-1 ... -protocol/

onthemove
Lemon Slice
Posts: 540
Joined: June 24th, 2017, 4:03 pm
Has thanked: 722 times
Been thanked: 471 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453660

Postby onthemove » October 27th, 2021, 5:31 pm

look wrote:here is the MATH+ protocol, updated september 2021

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-1 ... -protocol/


It comes with a few caveats though...

https://covid19criticalcare.com/about/disclaimer/
"...By continuing to use this Website you are agreeing to all parts of this Disclaimer.... IF YOU ARE DISSATISFIED WITH ANY OF THE CONTENT OR MATERIALS ON OUR WEBSITE, OR ANY SERVICES OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE THROUGH THE WEBSITE, YOUR SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE REMEDY IS TO DISCONTINUE ACCESSING AND USING OUR WEBSITE. .... Nothing on this Website provides medical advice or any form of diagnosis or treatment of any kind to web users. ... these products have not been proven to be safe and effective by prospective, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled studies ... Reliance on any information provided by FLCCC or its staff is solely at your own risk. ... No guarantees can be made that patients will experience benefit or not suffer adverse effects. ... No guarantees can be made that users who choose with their physicians to employ recommendations on this site will experience benefit or not suffer adverse effects. ... FLCCC TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, DISCLAIMS ALL WARRANTIES, EITHER EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, STATUTORY OR OTHERWISE, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, NON-INFRINGEMENT OF THIRD PARTIES’ RIGHTS, AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. WE MAKE NO WARRANTY THAT OUR SERVICES WILL MEET YOUR REQUIREMENTS, NOR DO WE MAKE ANY WARRANTY OR GUARANTEE AS TO THE RESULTS THAT MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE USE OF OUR SERVICES. ... You agree that we are not liable in contract, tort or any other cause of action for any program, product or service that we may promote, market, share or sell on or through this Website. ..."

swill453
Lemon Half
Posts: 7962
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 6:11 pm
Has thanked: 984 times
Been thanked: 3643 times

Re: Coronavirus - General Chat - No statistics

#453661

Postby swill453 » October 27th, 2021, 5:35 pm

look wrote:here is the MATH+ protocol, updated september 2021

https://covid19criticalcare.com/covid-1 ... -protocol/

Hmm
The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) is a small U.S. organization of physicians and former journalists formed in April 2020 that has advocated for various treatments for COVID-19, most of them ineffective (i.e. the anti-parasitic drug ivermectin) and some other drugs and vitamins of dubious efficacy.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Lin ... e_Alliance

Scott.


Return to “Coronavirus Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests