https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/does-lupus-or-arthritis-affect-your-prognosis-if-you-get-covid-19-2020110921230
In one study:
“early 60% of those with COVID-19 and lupus became sick enough to be hospitalized, and 10% were admitted to the intensive care unit.about 10% died.
In a second study:
of 102 infected patients, “26% of study subjects were hospitalized. About 4% died.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
What a mess that first study is. No wonder you quote it. I'm not going to bother to read the second.
Based on the uniform conduct of the CDC driven medical establishment, and the use of the FAKE PCR test, no one knows what actute respiratory illness(es) those patients actually had, and they never recevied safe, effective, appropriate care.
You failed to mention the hospitalized had co-morbidities like cancer, COPD, Asthma, Diabetes, heart failure etc.
The man in this tweet spoke publicly about his horror when he realized the hospital he worked for was euthanizing patients rathter than treating them. I think the 'study' you cited may have utilized that evil practice as well.
According to him, the hospital would deny patients effective medicine and prevent patients from even one minute of visiting with family ("No! No! Wait until their blood ox is over 90!) and break them psychologically by telling them this isolation and ventilator was permanent, there would be no recovery for them. The patients broke and called in palliative care to give them morphone as they were taken off the vent and died.
The following quote from your link indicates that tactic was likely at work in 'the study' or the hospital in the study too.
"Four patients (16.7%) died of hypoxemic respiratory failure from COVID-19; of note, 3 of these patients had changed their code status to do not resuscitate/do not intubate (DNR/DNI), and 1 underwent intubation and renal replacement therapy during ICU admission. The average age of the deceased patients was 72 ± 6.9 years, and the majority (75%) were nonwhite, female, and experiencing at least 1 comorbidity (uncontrolled hypertension and LN were the most common, in 75% and 50% of patients, respectively). All 4 patients who died were receiving HCQ, 2 were receiving prednisone (≤7.5 mg/day), and 1 each were receiving cyclophosphamide and MMF. Additional characteristics of the admitted patients, including laboratory and chest imaging results, are provided in Table 2."
In bold text above, the patients who died were only on HCQ and not with AZithromycin. The deep state medical establishment refuses to use both together, as is critical, and all dosing is either too high, too low, or too late. NONE of the 24 hospitalized patients received Azithromycin and it's likely the 18 who did were given the wrong dose, intentionally. Haven't we already seen nationwide attempts to keep people from accessing drugs that work?
Those patients had other medications and having to take immunosuppressents at the same time they were ill with an unidentified respiratory illness, and trying to fight off organized medicine was an extraordinary challenge.
The data you quote is compromised by Faucists. Harvard and the Lancet have been caught singing along with the Wuhan choir before. They labor to destroy lives.
hey ransomnote.
You failed to mention the hospitalized had co-morbidities like cancer, COPD, Asthma, Diabetes, heart failure etc.
no I did - right before the link ‘older and those with more than one..blah blah
I can’t really argue ‘fake pcr test’ unless we’re talking specifics. I’m partial to the Curative PCR, which erred on the negative side, rather than the positive side. (I’d rather have a false negative delaying two days than a false positive making me freak out). But with the introduction of Abbott Labs 3-in-1 test, I guess the single PCRs will cycle out of use?
from even one minute of visiting with family
I read somewhere that covid in hospital patients is gone by 20 days or couldn’t be PCR’d in 20 days, something like that. But not all ICU or isolation patients go in at the same time - not all, you group, 20 days. So there’s still a risk of cross-contamination from visitor to patient and ward patient to visitor. You’ve seen the photos of wards where the tubing and cords from equipment goes out the ward door and the staff are on the other side - that is, nobody in the room but patients. I know that the nurses will help with facetime or zoom or whatever the chat app is, so that families can talk to their loved ones. I can’t imagine being family in that position. And it’s not like the med staff can’t hear the anguish and it not affect them.
HCQ and dying - well, it’s been known for a while that our beloved HCQ tanked in studies including this one of immunocompromised. RIP little buddy you tried.
Regarding treatment medications: here’s the NIH guidelines. Doctors may or may not add their favorite to the lineup but they do give you medication and some heavy hitting stuff at that. Mostly its’ to control the inflammation caused by the virus and/or deal with stacked rBCs. But what you need most is oxygen:
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/hospitalized-adults—therapeutic-management/
changing advance directives - It’s not something medical staff can do. Caveat: crisis standard of care allows triage and triage will consider pre-existing directives in an emergency case by case. I think if someone is suffocating or in extreme pain, and it’s been weeks, a patient may decide to throw the towel in by creating or updating their Advance Directive (which everyone of every age should have btw). But even then, if there’s a chance of them getting better, it’s not going to apply. No assisted suicide on demand going on. In the absence of family or a directive, covid patients have lasted for months and months. There’s no expiration date on the soul of your foot.
re: Az - one of the heaviest antibacterials we have rx, but not recommended by the NIH - showed some antiviral properties in testtubes but requires 14 days for serum levels making it unsuitable for treating serious cases who may not have 14 days to spare, blah blah. UC San Fran 7/21 says it’s comparable to a placebo, and may increase risk of infection. Another little buddy back on the shelf:
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2021/07/421051/common-covid-19-antibiotic-no-more-effective-placebo
I’d disagree the data here is ‘faucist’. Fauci may be a flake but science done right isn’t.
If something can help protect the immunocompromised, in this case, artificial ‘antibody injections’, that has intrinsic good that supercedes politics. Peer review is also layman review. Papers are meant to be dissected and discussed, not just criticizing good ones, but the bad ones too.
Thanks for the discussion. As always, the mic is yours.