Monthly Archives: November 2020

Home-based COVID treatment to avoid hospitalization

Hello, wonderful Surak readers. I hope you are enjoying your Thanksgiving. Leave some turkey for the Kraken.

I just received an e-mail from a doctor friend of mine. He graduated from an internationally known medical school, and taught there some time ago.

My friend is a free-thinker, rather libertarian, and an advocate for patient freedom. He forwarded a great protocol to help you prepare in case you get coronavirus. This protocol was published by the American Academy of Physicians and Surgeons. It has information that will help you get around the evil governors who are forbidding patients from getting the healthcare they need. I recommend downloading and printing out the first link, a short pdf from the AAPS, and watching the second link, a 15-minute video from a doctor at Baylor University Hospital. Here is my friend’s message.

This email provides information for those who wish to explore the possibility of avoiding COVID hospitalization by treating COVID early and aggressively at home.

I believe that the approach discussed below, if implemented on scale, would greatly reduce the frequency with which high-risk individuals, if infected with COVID, are hospitalized, enter the ICU, or die. I myself intend to follow a variant of this approach if I develop COVID. However, this is a personal decision that each person must make for him- or herself, or on a family basis, according to their unique circumstances and level of “buy in” to the approach.

Three notes, by way of preface:

1. The approach discussed here is intended for “high-risk” individuals — not for relatively young and healthy persons. The risk of a bad COVID outcome increases gradually with age and the extent of preexisting illness, and there is no hard-and-fast line between low-risk and high-risk individuals. However, most would define “high-risk” as persons older than age 50, 55, or 60, or persons of any age who have a serious underlying health condition. Examples of such conditions include: obesity, cardiovascular disease (for example, heart disease or hypertension), lung or kidney disease, diabetes, cancer, significant sleep apnea, and immunosuppression.

2. In what follows, I refer to “physicians” and “doctors” but make little mention of independently functioning nurse practitioners or PA’s. Please mentally substitute “clinicians” for my “physicians” as you read, if you happen to see an independently functioning non-physician prescriber, or if you are one yourself.

3. Home treatment is also referred to as “outpatient” or “ambulatory” treatment. The three terms can be used interchangeably. 

Home Guide and Accompanying Videos
Here is a link to a newly published, 26-page guide to home (outpatient) treatment. The guide embodies a protocol advocated by a group of physicians and researchers in the US and Italy led by Peter McCullough, M.D., M.P.H., Vice Chief of Medicine at Baylor University Medical Center at Dallas. The target audience for the guide is laypersons (non-medically trained persons who are at risk for COVID) but will be a useful introduction for physicians a well:

Next is a 15-minute video of Dr. McCullough, in which he informally discusses the approach presented in the guide. The video is user-friendly and intended for those with no special medical background, but it also will provide a good, brief introduction for physicians who wish to make a “first pass” at the approach. You may wish to watch this video before reading the guide.

Next is a detailed webinar given by Dr. McCullough, for those who wish to better understand the protocol advocated in the guide and introductory video. Physicians who treat outpatients will certainly want to watch this detailed video:

The treatment approach advocated in the guide and webinar is a modified version of an approach first published in the American Journal of Medicine; I include the link for those who wish to see the peer-reviewed source of the protocol:

How to Obtain Medications for Home Treatment
The above-linked guide advocates for working with your regular physician to implement the protocol. It also suggests that if your physician is not willing to implement the approach, you should seek another physician who is willing to do so.

However, I am aware that some people are finding that their physicians are not willing to implement a home-based approach, and that it is difficult to find a new physician quickly. If you are a high-risk person who wishes to obtain treatment (either because you are currently ill, or because you want to keep medications “in the fridge” so you can treat rapidly if you develop COVID symptoms) but are unable to do so with the assistance of your regular physician, this website provides an option:

There may be other, similar web-based options, but that is the one I am aware of. (If you know of any others, please let me know the details.) Here’s how it works: for a fee of $59.95, paid online by credit card, you fill out an online form and will be scheduled for a telemedicine call with one of their affiliated MD’s or nurse practitioners. If this clinician decides to prescribe for you, you can then have medications shipped to you by UPS from their affiliated pharmacy. All medications must be paid for out of pocket; their pharmacy does not accept medicare or any other form of insurance. The cost for a typical package of COVID medications of the sort discussed in the protocol is in the range of $150-200.

If you proceed via this route, you should make clear in the on-line form, and during the consultation, what your objective is, and explain why you are at elevated risk for a bad COVID outcome (age, health conditions, etc.). In my experience, their clinicians are very open to considering prescribing for high-risk persons who are (1) currently acutely ill with COVID, or (2) wish to obtain medications while healthy so they can immediately begin treatment if they become infected, or (3) wish to consider prophylaxis with ongoing, low-dose hydroxychloroquine, and also wish to keep a supply of the full suite of medications on hand should they nonetheless become infected.

If you are currently ill with COVID, you should make that fact clear, so that you will be prioritized, although my understanding is that after submitting the form you are, in any case, likely to receive a phone call within an hour or two. (They also have a phone number listed at the website). Likewise, you should emphasize that you are currently ill when you speak with their pharmacy, as they will then expedite the order and offer (for an additional fee) to ship the medications to you by overnight delivery, which you should take advantage of.

Other Videos
For those who wish to better understand the rationale for home treatment, a number of additional, excellent videos are available.
1) Interview with Brian Tyson, M.D., in California. As of the date of this interview (October 2, 2020), Dr. Tyson reports having treated 1,700 COVID-positive patients, with no deaths, using a three-agent regimen of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline), and the nutritional supplement zinc. To my knowledge, he has treated more COVID outpatients patients than anyone else in the U.S.

2) Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D. — Yale University School of Public Health – two-part interview by a highly credentialed and outspoken M.D. and mathematical epidemiologist:
At the end of the second video, Dr. Risch mentions that the home-based treatment approach can be thought of as an appropriate (some, including Dr. Risch, would argue absolutely necessary) concomitant to the selective-protection approach to immediate societal opening advocated in the Great Barrington Declaration.

3) The next video has two parts. The first part (up to about the 46-minute mark) is another webinar with Peter McCullough, which substantially (but not completely) recapitulates the one linked above. The second part of the video (starting at the 46-minute mark) is a discussion and Q&A between Dr. McCullough and Dr. Tyson. This second part is instructive and may be of interest even to those who don’t want to watch the first 46 minutes. During the course of their discussion, both doctors reveal that they are currently infected with COVID and are treating themselves with the same protocol they prescribe for their patients:

4) Finally, here is a webinar on the treatment and prophylaxis of COVID in nursing homes — Drs. Armstrong (Texas) & Fareed (California), describe their personal experiences using hydroxychloroquine and other medications and supplements in nursing homes. The doctor’s begin their presentations about 12 minutes into the video:

Final Comments
I’ll close with comments about a few things that are not explicit in most of the above information; these may be useful for high-risk persons who are trying to determine whether they are likely to have COVID and whether they should consider initiating treatment.

The viral (“PCR”) test for COVID, while useful, is much less than 100 percent reliable. In particular, it has a high rate of false negatives (that is, when infected persons give a test result of “negative.”). Given this high frequency of false negatives, a single negative test result should never be used to rule out COVID in a person who has a history, signs, and symptoms consistent with COVID. Even two consecutive negative tests may (depending when testing is done, relative to the onset of symptoms) rule out COVID with less than a 90 percent level of confidence. Beyond this, some labs take days to return a result on these tests, which will delay your treatment.

For these reasons, the diagnosis of COVID should be considered primarily a *clinical* diagnosis (based on history, signs, and symptoms) rather than a laboratory diagnosis (based on a test result). This clinical diagnosis can be made by phone or other telemedicine venue, especially if you have access to a thermometer. You also probably can diagnose yourself, based on well-known signs and symptoms, which are listed in the home-treatment guide. There is thus no need, on onset of signs and symptoms, to run out and get a PCR test if doing so is inconvenient or uncomfortable for you, or if doing so will put you or others at risk of infection.

Note that this clinical diagnosis will not be fully reliable — you may have the flu or some other acute illness — but if you have relevant signs and symptoms, there really is no way to be sure you do not have COVID short of obtaining multiple negative PCR tests — which, as a practical matter, is not feasible in most circumstances.

Accordingly, the optimal way to implement a home-based COVID treatment plan appears to be: (1) define signs and symptoms as best you and/or your doctor can, (2) make a *presumptive* diagnosis of COVID, if the signs and symptoms point in this direction, and (3) initiate home treatment and plan to continue it for the full duration recommended in the protocol. Note also (4) that nothing in the protocol should prevent you from being seen personally by your physician, or going to an emergency room, if such seems warranted.

It is important to understand that an oxygen saturation level (“SaO2”) lower than about 94 percent likely points to lung involvement. It is useful to own a pulse oximeter and take a few measurements across several days while you are healthy — so you know your starting point, which is your “baseline”. (These non-invasive finger-tip devices can be purchased inexpensively via Amazon or the drug store.) Then, if you are elderly and at especially high risk, you may wish to check your oxygen levels periodically. This is especially important in people over age 80 who may have been exposed, as elderly persons may not have, or readily recognize, other early signs and symptoms of COVID. In fact, some nursing homes, where the risk of exposure is high, have implemented routine, thrice-daily oxygen checks of all their clients. If your normal baseline is, say, 96 percent, and you are in your eighties or in poor health, and you subsequently get a pulse-oximetry reading of, say, 92 or 93 percent, it may be wise to presume that you have COVID and to immediately treat accordingly, even if you have no other signs or symptoms.

At the same time, be aware that pulse oximeters are not absolutely reliable or consistent across readings. Your baseline on two different pulse oximeters may differ by a percentage point or two, and you may get that degree of variation even on the same device on two consecutive readings. Still, any marked deviation should be taken seriously and, in an elderly or debilitated person might reasonably be taken as presumptive evidence of COVID, regardless of other indications of disease.

Finally, note that your baseline oxygen saturation level will depend somewhat on your age and prior lung health. Most persons have a baseline between 95 and 100 percent, with young healthy people being at the high end of that range, and those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) may have baselines as low as the high 80s — so be sure to take your baseline level into account when trying to assess for COVID.

Those are my current (11.25.2020), personal views, offered for consideration. They are not intended as either definitive guidance or “medical advice.” (end of friend’s message)

The treason of the clerks

It seems so clear now, does it not? The issue is never the issue. The imminent destruction of all life on earth due to catastrophic global warming; Russia blackmailing the President; a drug addict’s death in police custody after taking four times the lethal dose of fentanyl; a pandemic plausibly created as a bio-weapon. These are all squirrels to divert those with short attention spans.

The goal is always power. The means, according to Yuri Bezmenov, is the four-step process of demoralization, destabilization, crisis, and normalization:

The demoralization has been the cultural marxism dividing the West by race and sex for the last several decades, culminating in the original sins of white racism and toxic masculinity.

The destabilization has been the last four years of open sedition and insurrection, with zero response from law enforcement.

The crisis is the stolen presidential election of 2020.

The new normal, if a Biden win is certified by the Electoral College, will be permanent masks and lockdowns, and perpetual humiliation of whites and east Asians, men, and Christians and Jews.

Who wants power so badly? The West’s self-appointed priestly caste, the cognitive elite: GAMETEBB. That is an acronym for Government, Academia, Media, Entertainment, Technological Elite, Big Business. They are brainy talkers who lack the capacity for independent thinking, and are eager for approval, as my friend Nitzakhon observed in a recent blog post:

I will address the psychopathy of the left at another time. Suffice it to say now that they feel entitled to rule. Any rejection of their superior wisdom is derided as mere populism. They are in a continual war against the American founding (the second paragraph of the Declaration of Independence), in favor of a Platonic bureaucracy of the credentialed.

This was illustrated well by Alexander Vindman’s horror that the elected President of the United States chose to act in opposition to “the interagency consensus”, a phrase that appears nowhere in the Constitution. The legislative and executive branches have been losing power to the judicial branch, but this power center too is expected to bow before the almighty bureaucracy.

This cognitive elite, who hold the levers of power and money in modern society, have conscripted the underclass to act as their violent enforcers. If a person expresses doubts about whether the electoral process was followed properly in Wayne County, Michigan, the only possible motivation for expressing doubts must have been racism. Consequently, it is appropriate to threaten the lives of the doubter’s children, to encourage the doubter to have the proper opinion. GAMETEBB applaud dutifully, never imagining this would ever happen to them.

I do not want to live with such people. If the government continues to refuse to enforce the laws against violent crimes and terroristic threats, society will become ungovernable, and people will turn in desperation to whoever can provide order.

Analyzing the 2020 presidential election results

Dear readers, I have been waiting to discuss the 2020 presidential election results on the assumption that we would have complete results promptly. The only thing prompt about the reporting has been to call states in favor of Joe Biden, even when this was not justified. In contrast, other states have not been called even when it became mathematically impossible for Biden to win them. Specifically, as of this writing, it is possible for President Trump to win Arizona, but Fox News already called it for Biden; it is impossible for Biden to win North Carolina, but Fox News has not called it for Trump.

According to the predictive model I presented earlier in this blog, President Trump could expect to have a national margin of victory of about 3.5% in the popular vote. This model forecast the outcomes of the 17 presidential election from 1952 to 2016 with never more than an error of 5.7%; more than half the time, the error was under 3.2%. The current “official” tally has Biden, a man who never had more than 50 people at a rally, leading the national popular vote by 3.4%. This constitutes an apparent error of prediction of 6.9%. This is what we call an outlier, an observation that appears so unusual that it deserves further investigation.

Studying the results of the presidential elections in all states from 1948 to the present, the state deviating the least from the national popular vote is Ohio (blue), followed by Florida (orange), and then Iowa (gray). See the following chart.

By averaging together the results from these three states (yellow), we find an even more stable approximation to the national vote; the green curve is a mean weighted by the current (2020) number of electors.

It is inexplicable that the three best predictive states were all wrong about this one election, and that the best predictor, Ohio, with the least bias of any state, underwent a significant increase in bias in this one election.

On the other hand, it also needs to be understood that Trump lost support in 38 states compared to his 2016 performance, when measured as a percentage of the total number of votes tallied as of November 11. See the following map.

Obviously these numbers are subject to change, and we expect the results from the swing states particularly to change in the coming weeks, as the extent of voter fraud is revealed.

Nevertheless, it needs to be explained why it is that President Trump lost a percentage of support in many solidly Republican states. Indeed, in half the states, he lost more than 2.6% support compared to 2016.

This is not the usual pattern for presidents seeking re-election, unless you find President Trump comparable to President Carter. Trump has a higher approval rating now than Obama did at the time of his re-election. The Gallup organization reported that the highest percentage of people ever in their polling history responded affirmatively to the question of whether they were better off than four years ago.

It may be that we shall discover that the Dominion voting system, which was used in more than half the states nationwide, may have perpetrated a national-scale fraud. It is very good news that there will be, apparently, audits in Georgia, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. Arizona, Minnesota, Nevada, and Wisconsin should be added to that list as well.

Republicans in Congress should conclude this sorry episode with a pledge to pass a national voter ID law. A new Attorney General, a new FBI director, and a new CIA director need to prosecute the many government bureaucrats who engaged in sedition.

Edit, Friday morning November 13: General Michael Flynn just tweeted out a useful map and timeline of upcoming certification events, addressing the auditing and certification events in the next few weeks; see the graphic below.

We The People Are Not Stupid Or Evil

We the people of the United States generally like to mind our own business. As long as you don’t bother us, we won’t bother you.

But because you have rejected a transcendent God, you have made this world your god. And because you are overly impressed with your own cleverness, you have made yourselves gods.

You have invented a series of existential crises that, according to you, require your intervention. To save humanity from utter extinction, you demand absolute power for the indefinite future.

We are expected to reject the evidence of our senses, the use of reason, and the ability to communicate. Anyone who resists is condemned as stupid or evil or both, and is subject to ridicule, harassment, firing, assault, battery, attempted murder, or actual murder.

You told us that the presence of a Y-chromosome has nothing whatsoever to do with sexual identity, which is infinitely malleable – except in the case of same-sex attraction, in which case sexual identity is completely fixed. You told us that we should give you our children in kindergarten to be brainwashed on sexual identity before they know addition and subtraction.

You told us that carbon dioxide is a pollutant, that the world is hotter than any time in its history, and that all life on earth will be extinguished by the end of this decade. All three statements are patently false. Carbon dioxide is critical for the existence of multi-cellular life, including all plants and animals; it is close to a dangerously low level; the world has been warmer within the last two thousand years; and there is no statistically significant global warming since 1995.

You told us that the fourth most-deadly pandemic to hit America since the beginning of the twentieth century would wipe out all humanity except if a Democrat should be president (conveniently forgetting that the first and third most deadly pandemics occurred under Democrat presidents, and that most coronavirus deaths occurred in states with Democrat governors).

Your healthcare philosophy used to be, “My body, my choice!”, until it came to the bad orange man’s favorable words regarding the world’s single most successful and popular treatment for coronavirus: hydroxychloroquine. At the same time, you happily deny medical care to people who are not sick with coronavirus, but are sick only with much milder diseases like cardiovascular disease and cancer. You demand a permanent lockdown for the economy, not understanding how arugula arrives in your local Whole Foods market, while mouthing the platitude “We’re all in this together!” Children are terrorized as a result of your hatred of President Trump.

You call us “deplorable”, “irredeemable”, “despicable”, “racist”, “racist”, “racist” for daring to love our country. You attempt to convince us of the error of our ways by rioting, looting, intimidating, marching through our neighborhoods, and mobbing us. You tell us that we were born sinful because of our skin color, if that skin color is lighter than average. You tell us we are racist for following Reverend Martin Luther King’s admonition to judge a person by the content of his or her character, not the color of his or her skin. You offer job opportunities to people who identify as female and to people who identify as people of color, at the expense of white males.

You justify your discrimination on the basis of critical race theory, feminism, intersectionality, post-colonialism, social justice, wokeness – in short, whatever meaningless word salad you can put together. These theories are never consistent with the golden rule, but they appeal to those who desire action, and who are spiritually empty.

You announce your intention to open America’s borders to all comers, the more hostile the better; to grant amnesty to all illegal aliens; to provide free healthcare to same, including post-natal abortions; to provide free college to all, which will be paid for by janitors; to destroy the energy infrastructure of America; to return to outsourcing American jobs; to rob some Americans with light-colored skin of their life savings in order to give some money to other Americans with darker-colored skin, because of events that took place 155 years ago, before ancestors of either one were even in America.

You post social media showing your monologues, screaming hysterically at your smartphones, enraged that anyone could have a different thought than you. When sufficiently enraged, you violate the privacy of your fellow citizens who dare to think for themselves, with the hope of destroying their lives. “Tell them they are not welcome anywhere!”

And you can’t understand why we don’t want to vote for you? We are not “literally” “fascists”; actually, you are the fascists. You are about to discover what happens when you keep poking the bear.