They are lying to us: We now know masks don't work but hydroxychroquine does, but some states ban it
Imagine a large grizzly bear is terrorizing your neighborhood. You have a potent bear spray and a Colt Commander ACP .45 loaded with hollow points that will make the bear go away or allow you to eliminate it if it attacks you.
But your local government tells you not to use those tools. Instead, they insist you camouflage yourself, hunker down, and hope the bear doesn’t get you.
That about sums up Wuhan virus in America. We have powerful methods for getting rid of the virus if one gets a bad infection, but instead we’re told to wear masks and stay six feet apart. Oh, and no large gatherings, either — unless you’re protesting, or course.
We have tools just as effective against the Wuhan virus as those tools above are effective against a rampaging bear. It is unfathomable to me the number of people who believe fear-mongering politicians and their media cohorts who convey the idea that catching Wuhan is a death sentence.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner in Monroe, New York says that treating the virus early and correctly makes it nothing to fear.
“I saw early use of zinc, hydroxychloroquine, and azithromycin result in an over 99% survival rate in my WUHAN patients,“ Dr. Zelenko tweeted. “Don’t let professional scaremongers dictate the narrative.”
The subject of much controversy and disinformation, that trio of medications has indeed been highly effective, resulting in a 100% survival rate in low-risk patients and a 99.3% survival rate in high-risk patients. Zelenko says anyone age 60+ with symptoms and those under 60 with comorbidities or shortness of breath qualify as high-risk.
The protocol’s success comes from treating on clinical suspicion, which means not waiting for test results. If a high-risk person presents with symptoms, Zelenko starts the protocol right away so the infection doesn’t have time to get a strong foothold.
The doctor dismisses out of hand any contention that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous, as claimed by many, including the World Health Organization (WHO) and the CDC. Zelenko points out it has been used for 65 years without the reports of heart problems the Left is pushing as it’s narrative against the use of the drug.
Another tool gaining attention is using a nebulizer for inhaling the corticosteroid Budesonide. Normally used for treating asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), Budesonide inhaled through a nebulizer combined with zinc has produced a 100% Wuhan recovery rate for patients of Dr. Richard Bartlett of Midland, Texas. At least one hospital has cleared its ICU of Wuhan patients by using Bartlett’s protocol.
Bartlett wrote that he chose Budesonide over other corticosteroids because “it appears to block most of the cytokine storm inflammatory chemicals that Wuhan virus triggers.” He also says 100% of his patients appear to be symptom-free following a course of inhaled Budesonide therapy.” Bartlett has published a Case Study Report for people to review.
Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, a family practitioner in Monroe, New York has been successfully treating Wuhan virus with a triumvirate of medications — zinc, hydroxychloroquine and Z-pak — with a 100% recovery rate without hospitalization when administered early in the infection. (Photo Illustration: ACV Reports)
While many doctors across the country are using these protocols successfully, other doctors — and even some states — are refusing to shoot the bear. They just want us to use camouflage, masking up and hoping the virus, like the bear, doesn’t get us.
In ping pong-like fashion, we’ve heard conflicting stories on masks. We have Dr. Anthony Fauci telling us that masks are useless for preventing viral spread, and then we have video of Fauci telling us facial coverings will prevent the spread. We have the WHO telling us not to wear masks unless we’re sick or caring for someone who is, and then we have them telling us the public should wear masks.
A little digging revealed a likely reason for this change of advice: Neither the CDC nor the WHO suggest any Wuhan outpatient treatments. In other words, these agencies have zero suggested treatments for Wuhan until tests are completed and an infected person is admitted to a hospital ER.
You may recall, the early — and, for that matter, ongoing — advise from CDC is not to go to a hospital ER if you suspect you have Wuhan virus. They recommend seeing your doctor first. The problem with the advice is that waiting, if you have the virus, means you are sicker when your doctor finally sees you from 1-3 days later and tells you to go to the hospital.
That increases the image of the disease as “serious” and even “deadly.”
With this, one can understand why they started recommending masks. These organizations will make big bucks once vaccines come out, so it makes no sense for them to promote Dr. Zelenko’s or Dr. Bartlett’s proven treatments. Yet because these treatments have been successful against Wuhan, the powers that be had to do something other than promoting low-cost effective treatments.
If you’ll recall, back in March the coronavirus task force told us everyone would be exposed to the virus, but by closing non-essential businesses and staying home for two weeks, we would flatten the curve and not overwhelm our healthcare systems. Of course, we now know that was a bait and switch.
Here’s my translation of the 40,000-foot view:
Big pharma and other organizations will make big bucks on vaccines, so any competing treatment must be pooh-poohed.
The CDC, WHO and big pharma don’t have an outpatient treatment recommendation, but they still need to look like they’re doing something, so they changed their story on mask efficacy.
By making masks mandatory, multiple psychological effects are engaged, such as (a) people believe non-mask wearers are spreading the infection and (b) if we’d all just obey the government, everything would get better.
Which leads to, “Hurry, government — bring us a vaccine so we can go back to normal.” (see # 1)
Until recently, the overwhelming percentage of doctors recommended against masks for anyone who wasn’t sick or caring for someone who was. Consider that on May 21 of this year, the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine stated, “We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.”
We have been led to believe that masks will reduce infections, but 15 years of studies in hospitals and clinics indicate that even the standard surgical mask is not designed to stop viruses. (Photo Illustration: ACV Reports)
Consider the report by trauma & emergency physician Dr. Kelly Victory, who said, “[T]here’s no scientific justification for normal healthy people to be wearing masks.”
Okay, those are statements. What about studies?
As I dug for scientific articles both in favor of and against the wearing of masks (I really do strive to understand both sides of an issue), I came across a thorough meta-analysis of extant studies on mask efficacy. The work was conducted by Denis G. Rancourt, Ph.D, and by reading his paper, “Masks Don’t Work: A Review of Science Relevant to COVID-19 Social Policy,” you will save yourself hours of boring library research.In an interview Rancourt did with Del Bigtree on The Highwire YouTube channel, Rancourt gave an overview of his research, saying:
“If you use only proper studies — randomized, controlled trials with verified outcomes — they all unambiguously say that there is no statistical evidence of a benefit in terms of reducing risk of getting a viral respiratory disease..”
Rancourt also says the current narrative about wearing masks to prevent spreading Wuhan is simply “a river of talk, it’s a river of posturing, it’s a river of policy statements.” He says you can’t just ask people in a study if they had the sniffles last week. You have to determine if people really got sick.
“[I]f you look at those [studies],” Rancourt says, “and there have been many of them over the last decade, none of them show a statistically significant advantage to wearing a mask compared to not wearing a mask.”
For those who want to dig deeper, Rancourt's article contains links to each randomized, controlled trial on mask efficacy, and it’s a recommended read.
Despite what many professional fear mongers are trying to tell us, there are risks to long-term mask wearing. Lower oxygen levels is one result.
A 2006 study showed that reduction in blood oxygenation (hypoxia) and/or an elevation in blood C02 (hypercapnia) can create painful headaches for people required to wear masks all day. It should also be noted that people with asthma or hypotension are at a greater risk of stroke, cardiac arrest, or an irregular heartbeat when suffering from hypoxia.
The point to remember is all the properly conducted studies — randomized, controlled trials with verified outcomes — all say there is no statistical evidence of a benefit in terms of reducing risk of getting a viral respiratory disease.
But also remember the story about the bear. When weapons are available to fend off the bear but people are either ignorant about them or told not to use them, people die unnecessarily.
Health care workers wear masks around Wuhan patients all the time, and yet health care workers get infected. Tragically, some states have banned doctors from prescribing the trifecta of drugs Dr. Zelenko prescribes, and worse yet, some doctors don’t even know it exists.
This is a deliberately created travesty of ignorance, foisted on the public and healthcare workers who continue to die unnecessarily. It makes zero sense to hide behind a mask when tools for fending off the virus are readily available but aren’t being used.