[fanofourforebears]

 viable and economical treatments banned

As someone who tries to keep up with the evolving medical literature on treatment of Covid-19, I'd greatly appreciate some clarification and evidence regarding this statement. Does "viable" mean "proven effective," "possibly effective," or if something else, what? I'd also appreciate evidence about which specific treatments you are referring to, who has banned them and how, and why? Thanks in advance.

Hi Old Alum, here goes... Our bodies are designed to both protect against attacks to our cells and to repair damage from the attacks from toxins. Healthy cells can release Exosomes and/or certain Enzymes, which seek out and digest the toxins when under attack. Also, cells can recover from damage from toxin attacks by using essential nutrients, such as vitamin C or D3 to conduct needed repairs and maintenance.
Sometimes we need a little help so treatments can and might be needed. Two treatments that have had some success are Vitamin C and Hydroxychloroquine. Vitamin C reduces damage to cells from toxins. Hydroxychloroquine stimulates the body to release of lysosomal enzymes which eat and digest toxins. Plaquenil (hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)) is known to have worked to treat Sars and the work done by Raoult Didiet showed treatments that included HCQ are preferable to putting patient on ventilators and knocking them out or to the more expensive and likely to cause side effects to the liver and kidneys such as Remdesivir which have been pushed for and encouraged to be used instead of therapies or treatments including HCQ. Raoult Didier's studies also showed a reduction in clogging from using HCQ are a help to the patient. Most treatments in both America and France involving HCQ have nonetheless been either discouraged or banned. This is unfortunate as Doctors should be able to decide, not politicians as to what is best for their patients.

---

Given that I have seen a whole rainbow of opinions and "facts" published (sometimes too hastily) about all manner of Covid-19 topics, I'd say the press is pretty free to do whatever the heck it wants, including publishing typos and poor grammar...

Here's where things break down: you can effectively implement de facto censorship by gaming search algorithms to overwhelm news readers with a barrage of seemingly different articles promoting opinion X over all other opinions or articles.  As it turns out, in today's internet news economy, you can publish whatever you want, but what others read is filtered by "popularity" and "engagement" to monetize ads.

Check out this Twitter account that lists the ten top-performing link posts by US Facebook pages in the past 24 hrs: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10

I have no qualms about our freedom of press.  In fact, elements of the "press" have been known to promote falsehoods and dangerous opinions without consequence, so maybe we're too free?  (Dangerous opinion, I know.)  It's what's in between the press and our eyeballs that might be the problem, if we allow something to get in between the press and our eyeballs.

Don't get me wrong, I want a free press, as in "free" to investigate and report the truth wherever it leads them.  I am not sure just repeating what has been handed to them, as appears far to often to be the case today qualifies.  For instance, the reporting on the cost of the Covid-19 restrictions linked by Mick, that does not seem to be a very accurate or responsibly investigated story, or those stories coming from organizations such as the CTP.  I think we deserve more truth from the media and this means more unbiased investigation and reporting.

[fanofourforebears]

 viable and economical treatments banned

As someone who tries to keep up with the evolving medical literature on treatment of Covid-19, I'd greatly appreciate some clarification and evidence regarding this statement. Does "viable" mean "proven effective," "possibly effective," or if something else, what? I'd also appreciate evidence about which specific treatments you are referring to, who has banned them and how, and why? Thanks in advance.

Hi Old Alum, here goes... Our bodies are designed to both protect against attacks to our cells and to repair damage from the attacks from toxins. Healthy cells can release Exosomes and/or certain Enzymes, which seek out and digest the toxins when under attack. Also, cells can recover from damage from toxin attacks by using essential nutrients, such as vitamin C or D3 to conduct needed repairs and maintenance.
Sometimes we need a little help so treatments can and might be needed. Two treatments that have had some success are Vitamin C and Hydroxychloroquine. Vitamin C reduces damage to cells from toxins. Hydroxychloroquine stimulates the body to release of lysosomal enzymes which eat and digest toxins. Plaquenil (hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)) is known to have worked to treat Sars and the work done by Raoult Didiet showed treatments that included HCQ are preferable to putting patient on ventilators and knocking them out or to the more expensive and likely to cause side effects to the liver and kidneys such as Remdesivir which have been pushed for and encouraged to be used instead of therapies or treatments including HCQ. Raoult Didier's studies also showed a reduction in clogging from using HCQ are a help to the patient. Most treatments in both America and France involving HCQ have nonetheless been either discouraged or banned. This is unfortunate as Doctors should be able to decide, not politicians as to what is best for their patients.

---

Given that I have seen a whole rainbow of opinions and "facts" published (sometimes too hastily) about all manner of Covid-19 topics, I'd say the press is pretty free to do whatever the heck it wants, including publishing typos and poor grammar...

Here's where things break down: you can effectively implement de facto censorship by gaming search algorithms to overwhelm news readers with a barrage of seemingly different articles promoting opinion X over all other opinions or articles.  As it turns out, in today's internet news economy, you can publish whatever you want, but what others read is filtered by "popularity" and "engagement" to monetize ads.

Check out this Twitter account that lists the ten top-performing link posts by US Facebook pages in the past 24 hrs: https://twitter.com/FacebooksTop10

I have no qualms about our freedom of press.  In fact, elements of the "press" have been known to promote falsehoods and dangerous opinions without consequence, so maybe we're too free?  (Dangerous opinion, I know.)  It's what's in between the press and our eyeballs that might be the problem, if we allow something to get in between the press and our eyeballs.

Don't get me wrong, I want a free press, as in "free" to investigate and report the truth wherever it leads them.  I am not sure just repeating what has been handed to them, as appears far to often to be the case today qualifies.  For instance, the reporting on the cost of the Covid-19 restrictions linked by Mick, that does not seem to be a very accurate or responsibly investigated story, or those stories coming from organizations such as the CTP.  I think we deserve more truth from the media and this means more unbiased investigation and reporting.