Opinion: We should be questioning the global suppression of early treatment options for COVID-19

Clark County Today Administrator Heidi Wetzler shares what she believes is a medical tragedy that COVID-19 patients are not being treated immediately.

Clark County Today Administrator Heidi Wetzler shares what she believes is a medical tragedy that COVID-19 patients are not being treated immediately

If you walked into your doctor’s office with a case of shingles, what do you think would happen? Would you be sent home and instructed to return when the pain was unbearable – or would you be treated on the spot?  While there is no cure for shingles, prompt treatment with prescription antiviral drugs can speed healing and reduce the risk of complications. 

Heidi Wetzler, administrator, ClarkCountyToday.com
Heidi Wetzler, administrator, ClarkCountyToday.com

What about viral pneumonia, viral hepatitis, or HIV/Aids? Same question. Would you be treated? The answer of course, is yes. These all have treatment protocols, to speed recovery and increase comfort, even though viruses don’t necessarily have “cures.”  Because viruses don’t respond to antibiotics, alternative treatments are important. And they all work best when started early.  So why do we have a fatal viral infection ravaging the world, with barely a mention of ambulatory treatment?

Millions of people have tested positive for COVID-19,  and are promptly sent home to quarantine and self-monitor their symptoms. No health care professional checks in on them. They are told to stay home and only come back if they are having trouble breathing. While I would imagine it is common knowledge in the medical community that early treatment for any ailment greatly improves the chance of a favorable outcome, why is there a virtual blackout of information surrounding the global conversation of early treatment protocol in order to AVOID hospitalization and death? Controlling the healthy with masks and social distancing and now vaccines, and then Herculean efforts involving the critically ill, have taken up all of the air, while the person in their first two weeks of the infection suffering at home is all but ignored by the medical community. 

Dr. Peter McCullough, vice chief of Internal Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center in Dallas, Texas, and the most prolifically published academic physician in his field of heart and kidneys in history, has testified several times lately that there is a shocking suppression of early treatment for COVID-19 in medical literature. A review of several of his communications resulted in this summary of his findings. He calls this effort to suppress any hope of treatment, extraordinary. All of the patients he sees are considered high risk, and with the sequenced multi-drug approach he uses, he has only lost two. When he extrapolates the data he has personally acquired through treating his own very ill patients, and calculates what that would mean for the death rate worldwide if a similar treatment protocol was adopted globally, an astonishing 85 percent of COVID-19 deaths could have been prevented. The key is that treatment must begin early in order to avoid hospitalization. And that is the opposite of what has happened and is continuing to happen.  

The treatment regimen includes 4-6 drugs taken in a specific time frame, starting with monoclonal antibodies, then antivirals, then anti-inflammatories, and then anticoagulants. It is recommended that anyone over 50 with at least one comorbidity begin this course of treatment immediately. Reduction of viral replication at the forefront of infection is key. There has been unconventional concern worldwide regarding the safety of certain therapeutics for this virus. In fact, in Australia doctors were threatened with a 6-month prison sentence if they dared to prescribe the antiviral, Hydroxychloroquine. This move is unprecedented. The use of Hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 is off-label they said. But off-label use of older medicines for new uses occurs every day. In fact, 20 percent of all prescriptions in the U.S. are written for off-label uses when a doctor thinks a medicine will benefit a patient. Apparently, the list of what not to use is long and broad within the treatment recommendations. We are 16 months into this thing and as-of-yet, there are zero trials of multidrug therapies. There is no national or global panel of doctors in charge of early treatment protocol. Why? Maybe it’s because a vaccine is only allowed to be produced if there are no effective treatments.  

The conversation around building up one’s own immune system is also nearly nonexistent in medical and mainstream circles. A study conducted from March-June 2020 including 191,000 patients in the US found that Vitamin D deficiency increased the risk of acquiring COVID-19 by 54.5 percent. Additionally, 80 percent of people with COVID-19 didn’t have adequate levels of the vitamin in their blood. This is a wildly important piece of information that doctors should be shouting from the rooftops. Zinc is also critical as it helps block the virus from multiplying. An Adult Treatment Guide put out by Yale University cites “a lack of clinical data to support” the effectiveness of various vitamins and medicines. It is high time for the medical community to be implementing trials of all kinds and gathering such data. But the sole focus today seems to be on a one-size-fits-all vaccination campaign, instead of on strengthening one’s immune system and finding effective treatments. All of the eggs in the proverbial COVID-19 basket seem to be filled with only one treatment – the vaccine.  

Dr. McCullough testifies that there is no scientific rationale to vaccinate anyone under the age of 50. The individual risk outweighs the individual benefit. Also, there were several groups that were intentionally excluded from the Moderna, Pfizer, and Johnson & Johnson vaccine trials in 2020; COVID-19 recovered, suspected COVID-19 recovered, those with COVID-19 antibodies, pregnant women, and women of childbearing potential that couldn’t assure the use of contraceptives. Pregnant women as a rule of best medical practice are always discouraged from coming in contact with anything pathogenic. The COVID-19 vaccine produces a pathogenic protein. Why then, are pregnant women being given the shot? The existing scientific data simply does not ensure that it is safe for this group. My family is COVID-19 recovered. Why are we being encouraged to participate when our situation was not included in the clinical trial? Whether we want to believe it or not, COVID-19 recovered individuals are unknowingly signing up for a trial now if they receive the vaccine.  

Historically, those who contract and recover from a virus, have robust, complete and durable immunity. COVID-19 recovered, have actually been found to possess a terrific track record of freedom from reinfection. Moreover, SARS-coV-1, which emerged from China in 2002 is 79 percent similar to SARS-coV-2 (COVID-19), and most of those who contracted SARS-coV-1 still had immunity 17 years later. It is a false narrative at this point to suggest that there is significant concern that you can get it twice. While it is possible, it is now known that the chances are extremely low. On top of that those with natural immunity cannot acquire or spread it, as is a concern with those whose only immunity is from the vaccine. 

What we are witnessing now is tremendous coercion for everyone to receive this vaccine, no matter the individual risk/benefit analysis. This strategy is in direct opposition to The Nuremberg Code which doctors profess to uphold. The first tenant of this code begins as follows: 

1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. 

THE NUREMBERG CODE

Simply put, each person gets to decide what happens to their body. We are witnessing all manner of coercion regarding the distribution of this vaccine. Free donuts, lottery-style winnings, reduced prison sentences, and pressure from Hollywood stars. The weird and wild list goes on and on. Schools are offering vaccine clinics around the world, some without requiring the consent of parents. There simply is no significant evidence that children are at risk of spreading or becoming sick or dying from this virus. To me, these actions are nothing short of criminal. 

The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons have put out a guide to Home-Based COVID treatment. A copy can be found here. There are 35 treatment centers in Texas for early treatment of COVID and if you need help finding one near you, there is a link to a list within this guide. As a society, we need to be questioning the radical suppression of early treatment options for a potentially fatal virus. It simply makes no logical sense. 

Advertisement
Advertisement
Subscribe
Notify of
guest
14 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Nicole LaVoie
Nicole LaVoie
19 days ago

What a fantastic well informed written statement! Everyone should be reading this article.

John Lifflander
19 days ago

Extremely good article. Never before have we seen this type of government intrusion into our lives and it will only get worse if we don’t speak out and even demonstrate if needed. This dangerous so called vaccine is being pushed on every one and someday, maybe years from now, we may have a lot of sick people from it and find it is much worse than Covid. The lies are appalling, Melnick, the County Health person, just said it is not experimental when FDA says it is. There is no end to the lying – reminds me of my visit to communist countries where everyone is afraid that may say something that might get them arrested.

Jamie Bradshaw
Jamie Bradshaw
13 days ago

Great article with well-thought out questions. I am sharing it with a long list of people who will find it encouraging and helpful.

Carol Crevier, RN MPH
12 days ago

Excellent reporting getting to the heart of the issues.

Riekie Erasmus
Riekie Erasmus
10 days ago

Great article. I listened to the interview on vimeo. It is powerful, a bright light in the dark tunnel of deceit.

jmk
jmk
9 days ago

Dr. Peter McCullough, who seems to be a cardiologist, according to the linked report, was debunked many times. It’s irresponsible for this publication to be publishing anti-vaxx nonsense.

https://factcheck.afp.com/us-cardiologist-makes-false-claims-about-covid-19-vaccination

Charles Geraghty
Charles Geraghty
2 days ago
Reply to  jmk

Notice how the “Fact Checkers” never answer the question about how early treatment is saving so many lives. How can the official response still be to go home and wait to get worse and then do the same in hospital with the mantra of ‘wait for the vaccine’. One can only conclude that there is a forced vaccine agenda at play here that is at complete odds with the Nuremberg code. Perhaps they’re in the process of developing an even more virulent strain in the Wuhan labs to be accidently released with the only saviour being another vaccine?

Jon
Jon
1 day ago
Reply to  jmk

FYI re incorrect factcheck info about supposed asymptomatic transmission – a German study on the CDC’s web site found: “The fact that we did not detect any laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 transmission from asymptomatic case-patients is in line with multiple studies.”

Rachel Pozzesi
Rachel Pozzesi
5 days ago

Excellent article! Thank you so much for sharing this valuable and life-saving information!! Sharing with all my friends and family!

Linda Herman
Linda Herman
4 days ago

John Hopkins has published a report on the failure of vaccines to elicit an antibody response in transplant/immunocompromised patients. This leaves a very high risk segment of the community extremely vulnerable. The NIH website lists places where they are distributing monoclonal antibodies, FDA approved treatments, however they have to be administered at an outpatient infusion clinic. Not one of the places listed in Portland knows anything about these infusions, I called all of them. My husband is a transplant patient with multiple comorbidities, our own transplant center said to call the CDC. This is crazy, we don’t have access to life saving FDA approved treatment? Why is this, who’s accountable?

Heidi Wetzler
Heidi Wetzler
4 days ago
Reply to  Linda Herman

Thank you for your comment. I highly encourage you to submit an opinion piece for publication from your personal experience. We need more voices asking these questions. Best, Heidi

Patricia Carlson
Patricia Carlson
3 days ago

I’m wondering how to contact treatment centers that offer early intervention for covid 19? There is reference to 35 centers in Texas. Are there any in WA? Are there telemedicine ways to access HCQ and AZM or DOXY at the beginning of infection. One of Dr. McCullough’s articles shows an early treatment pack given to patients in Brazil. Why is this not available here?

Jon
Jon
1 day ago

Excellent article. The disturbing suppression of cheap drug approaches to Covid is beyond suspicious. The battle has spread to India where the Mumbai-based Indian Bar Association has taken legal action against the WHO’s Dr Soumya Swaminathan of “Running a disinformation campaign against Ivermectin by deliberate suppression of effectiveness of drug Ivermectin as prophylaxis and for treatment of COVID-19.”

Last edited 1 day ago by Jon
14
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x