Please read this, if you have not already, Part one:
and Part two:
And Part three:
And this:
The sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship
For background about why the doctor-patient relationship must be sacred and protected from interference, please listen to the interview here with Canadian doctor, Dr Kulvinder Kaur Gill.
The Geneva Declaration of 1948
"It is a declaration of a physician's dedication to the humanitarian goals of medicine, a declaration that was especially important in view of the medical crimes which had just been committed in German-occupied Europe".
In the case of COVID19, many health professionals are becoming very uncomfortable about the undue influence Government officials, academics and politicians are having over how they run their practices. They feel that Government officials, politicians and their advisers are over-reaching when it comes to the sanctity of the doctor-patient relationship. While there is the need for some oversight to ensure safety and to control costs, the restrictions being placed on what a doctor can and can not do for her patient with regards to COVID19 is excessive and can not be justified.
For example, the cheap anti-parasitic drug, HCQ (Hydroxychloroquine), is effectively being banned for use with COVID19, either as a prophylactic or as a treatment. Another example is the move by NZ's Medsafe to severely restrict the use of the herb artemisia, another anti-parasitic that is in widespread use worldwide. This was done on the day that natural health professionals were permitted to reopen their practices and while they were all totally preoccupied doing so. This was an outrageously cynical move.
HCQ has been the target of unpreceded restrictions. The World Health Organisation has this to say about HCQ and COVID19:
"FACT: Studies show hydroxychloroquine does not have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19"
This is a carefully and sneakily-worded statement which is best called "Clinton-speak". It is a lie cloaked in the clothing of truth.
They are playing with statements by the omission of a keyword or two such as "all", "some", or "most". Do they mean "all studies", "some studies", "most studies" - or what? Their statement allows far too much wiggle-room. They are playing us.
Let's see what the studies show and see if they can answer our question about which qualifying word needs to be added on the front of the authoritative WHO statement.
"Many countries either adopted or declined early treatment with HCQ, effectively forming a large trial with 1.8 billion people in the treatment group and 663 million in the control group.
As of September 3, 2020, an average of 55.2 per million in the treatment group have died, and 461.9 per million in the control group, relative risk 0.120.
After adjustments, treatment and control deaths become 114.9 per million and 684.1 per million, relative risk 0.17. The probability of an equal or lower relative risk occurring from random group assignments is 0.008. Accounting for predicted changes in spread, we estimate a relative risk of 0.23. The treatment group has a 76.8% lower death rate.
Confounding factors affect this estimate. We examined diabetes, obesity, hypertension, life expectancy, population density, urbanization, testing level, and intervention level, which do not account for the effect observed."
"No serious side effects were seen, even with the dosage used which is higher than typically recommended."
"We don't know how many people will get COVID-19 in the future, but based on deaths to date, a treatment which is x% effective could have saved:
17% effective could have saved 147,517 lives.
30% effective could have saved 260,325 lives.
49% effective could have saved 425,198 lives."
What we can conclude is the WHO statement should read as follows:
"FACT: Most studies show hydroxychloroquine does have clinical benefits in treating COVID-19. When given prophylactically, or in the early stages of infection, all studies to date show some benefits".
Your doctor knows best
HCQ is cheap and safe. The majority of studies show it has effectiveness as both a prophylactic and treatment for COVID19.
Unless there is clear evidence of a significant safety risk or cost factor, of which there are neither in the case of HCQ, agencies like our Government's health department need to step back and let doctors get on with the job of doing what they think is best for their patients. After all, isn't this what they studied the best part of a decade for and isn't this what they are licenced to do?
What is next?
In the next few days, I will publish our COVID19 Escape Plan. We now have enough intelligence to be able to finalise our plan and put it into action.
I'll pull together what we have learned about this pandemic since the beginning of the year and put it into a coherent and practical plan.
This escape plan will have us gradually re-engaging with the rest of the world within a month while ensuring that everything has been done to ensure there are no deaths.
Please read these articles about how to escape from our COVID19 Prison:
And these: