Colchicine and Covid and Google

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
January 25, 2021 | 5 Comments


  1. My eyes paused on “could have been a conspiracy” . The Corbett Report back in 2013 did an excellent episode entitled “Rockefeller Medicine” telling the history of how the healthcare industrial complex turned against us.

    Worth a watch (44 minutes) to understand the whole picture. Notice the shift from empirical evidence to ‘selective’ evidence-based medicine.

    Conspiracy? Nah. Just good old fashioned long term business planing, financial muscle, imaginative propaganda and indoctrination (err… I might have missed a few others).

    • I watched the “Rockefeller Medicine” and it was a real eye opener.
      The health industry is only interested in making money and they don’t care if people are maimed or die. My cataclysmic experience, has taught me that once you are damaged by bad medicine, you don’t want to enter the dark valley of the pitfalls of medicine, ever again. No matter how hard you try to educate people, they don’t want to know ~ this is the sad reality.
      A majority of people have been adversely indoctrinated and it’s not until something tragic happens, that one has more insight and knowledge. How many people are going to be gravely impacted by these vaccines? Sadly, we will never know the truth.
      Right now, there is no democracy regarding this Covid -19 or vaccines because we are all too busy wearing masks. This is so they can silence up those who know too much! Sometimes, if you are lucky, you get a few aware lawyers who are not afraid to speak their minds about this Covid-19. Here I am thinking, it was just me!

  2. A snippett from the waffle – should individuals in positions of leadership be having unrecorded secret one to one meetings – of course they do – Shss – meet him/her on the park bench .he’ll be wearing red sox, the code is ‘you help us we’ll help you.’
    Wounded Healer
    Clare Gerada: Tips for surviving leadership
    BMJ 2021; 372 doi: (Published 26 January 2021)
    Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n195Recognise that some discussions will take place in spaces you can’t access—pubs, clubs, social events. It’s important that you have sufficient informal one-to-one meetings with people of influence.

    Towards better patient care:
    drugs to avoid in 2020 (On the website there’s a very long detailed list of named drugs)
    ● To make it easier to choose quality care, and to
    prevent disproportionate harm to patients, Prescrire
    has published its annual update of drugs
    to avoid.
    ● Prescrire’s assessments of the harm-benefit balance of drugs in given situations are based on a
    rigourous procedure involving a systematic and
    reproducible literature search, results based on
    patient-relevant outcomes, prioritisation of the supporting data based on the strength of evidence, comparison with standard treatment (if one exists), and
    taking into account known and potential adverse
    effects, as well as the uncertainties surrounding them.
    ● This annual review of drugs to avoid covers all
    the drugs examined by Prescrire between 2010 and
    2019 that are authorised in the European Union or
    in France. We identified 105 drugs (92 of which are
    marketed in France) that are more harmful than
    beneficial in all their approved indications.
    ● In most cases, when drug therapy appears to
    be the best course of action, other drugs with a
    better harm-benefit balance are available.
    ● Even if a patient has a serious condition for which
    no effective treatment exists, there is no justification for prescribing a drug with no proven efficacy
    that provokes severe adverse effects. It is sometimes acceptable to test these drugs in clinical
    trials, but patients must be informed of the uncertainties over their harm-benefit balance as well as
    the trial’s objectives. If this option is not chosen,
    appropriate support and symptomatic care should
    be implemented when there are no effective treatments for improving the prognosis or quality of life.
    Rev Prescrire 2019; 39 (434): 931-942
    This is Prescrire’s eighth consecutive annual
    review of drugs to avoid, which includes
    documented cases of drugs that are more
    dangerous than beneficial (1,2). The aim is to make
    it easier to choose safe, effective treatments,
    primarily to avoid exposing patients to unacceptable
    harms. The drugs listed (sometimes a particular
    form or dose strength) should be avoided in all the
    clinical situations for which they are authorised in
    France or in the European Union.
    A reliable, rigorous and independent
    What data sources and methodology do we use to
    assess a drug’s harm-benefit balance?
    Our list of drugs to avoid concerns drugs and
    indications on which we published detailed analyses
    in our French edition over the 10-year period from
    2010 through 2019 inclusive. Some drugs and indications were examined for the first time, while
    others were re-evaluated as new data on efficacy
    or adverse effects have become available.
    One of the main objectives of our publications is
    to provide health professionals (and thereby their
    patients) with the clear, independent, reliable and
    up-to-date information they need, free from conflicts
    of interest and commercial pressures.
    Prescrire is structured in such a way as to guarantee
    the quality of the information provided to our
    subscribers. The Editorial Staff comprise a broad range
    of health professionals working in various sectors and
    free from conflicts of interest. We also call on an
    extensive network of external reviewers (specialists
    in the relevant area, methodologists, and practitioners
    representative of our readership), and each article
    undergoes multiple quality controls and cross-checking
    at each step of the editorial process (see About
    Prescrire > How we work at
    Downloaded from on 28/01/2021
    Copyright(c)Prescrire. For personal use only.
    Prescrire International • January 2020 • Volume 29 N° 212 • Page 51-2
    Our editorial process is a collective one, as symbolised
    by the “©Prescrire” signature.
    Prescrire is also fiercely independent. Our work
    is funded solely and entirely by our subscribers. No
    company, professional organisation, insurance
    system, government agency or health authority has
    any financial (or other) influence whatsoever over
    the content of our publications.
    Comparison with standard treatments. The
    harm-benefit balance of a given drug has to be continually re-evaluated as new data on efficacy or adverse effects become available. Similarly, treatment
    options evolve as new drugs arrive on the market.
    Some drugs offer a therapeutic advantage, while
    others are more dangerous than beneficial and
    should not be used (3).
    Prescrire’s assessments of drugs and indications
    are all based on a systematic and reproducible literature search. The resulting data are then analysed
    collectively by our Editorial Staff, using an established procedure:
    – efficacy data are prioritised: most weight is given
    to studies providing robust supporting evidence,
    i.e. double-blind, randomised controlled trials;
    – the drug is compared with a carefully chosen standard treatment, if one exists (not necessarily a drug);
    – the results taken into account are based on the
    clinical endpoints most relevant to the patients
    concerned. This means that wherever possible we
    ignore surrogate endpoints such as laboratory
    markers that have not been shown to correlate with
    a favourable clinical outcome (4,5).
    Careful analysis of adverse effects. Adverse
    effects can be more difficult to analyse, as they are
    often less thoroughly documented than efficacy.
    This discrepancy must be taken into account.
    The adverse effect profile of each drug is assessed
    by examining data from clinical trials and animal
    pharmacotoxicology studies, and any pharmacological affiliation.
    When a new drug is approved, many uncertainties
    remain. Some rare and serious adverse effects may
    have been overlooked during clinical trials and may
    only emerge after several years of routine use by
    a large number of patients (3).
    Empirical data and personal experience:
    risk of major bias. Empirical assessment of a
    drug’s harm-benefit balance, based on individual
    experience, can help to guide further research, but
    it is subject to major bias that strongly reduces the
    level of evidence of the findings (3,4). For example,
    it can be difficult to attribute a specific outcome to
    a particular drug, as other factors must be taken
    into account, including the natural history of the
    disease, the placebo effect, the effect of another
    treatment the patient may not have mentioned, or
    a change in lifestyle or diet. Similarly, a doctor who
    sees an improvement in certain patients cannot
    know how many other patients’ conditions worsened
    when they received the same treatment (3).
    The best way to minimise subjective bias caused
    by non-comparative evaluation of a few patients is
    to prioritise the results of clinical trials, particularly
    double-blind, randomised trials versus standard
    care (3,4).
    Serious conditions with no effective treatment: patients should be informed of the
    consequences of interventions. When faced
    with a serious condition for which there is no effective treatment, some patients opt to forgo treatment
    while others are willing to try any drug that might
    bring them even temporary relief, despite a risk of
    serious adverse effects.
    When the short-term prognosis is poor, some
    health professionals may propose “last-chance”
    treatments without fully informing the patient of
    the harms, either intentionally or unwittingly.
    But patients in this situation must not be treated
    as guinea pigs. “Trials” of drugs belong in the sphere
    of formal, properly-conducted clinical research, not
    health care. It is useful of course to enrol patients
    in clinical trials, provided they are informed of the
    harms and the uncertain nature of the possible
    benefits. The trial results should be published
    (whether positive, negative or inconclusive) in order
    to advance medical knowledge.
    However, patients must always be made aware
    that they have the option of refusing to participate
    in clinical trials or to receive “last-chance” treatments
    with an uncertain harm-benefit balance. They must
    also be reassured that, if they do refuse, they will
    not be abandoned but will continue to receive the
    best available care. Even though the aim of supportive care and symptomatic treatment is not to
    modify the underlying disease, they are useful
    elements of patient care.
    While there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the harm-benefit balance of drugs that are under
    evaluation in clinical trials, drugs used for routine
    care must have an acceptable harm-benefit balance.
    Marketing authorisation should only be granted on
    the basis of proven efficacy relative to standard
    care, and an acceptable adverse effect profile: in
    general, little, if any, additional information on efficacy is collected once marketing authorisation has
    been granted (3).
    105 authorised drugs that are more
    dangerous than beneficial
    As of late 2019, based on the drugs examined by
    Prescrire between 2010 and 2019 that are authorised
    in France or in the European Union, 105 drugs were
    identified as more dangerous than beneficial in all
    their authorised indications

  4. Thank you Suzanne for your invaluable information.
    Those who highlight the TRUTH are labelled anti vaxxers.
    There is no need for these kind of labels especially when one has never experienced an unfavourable outcome.
    We are now considered a BIG THREAT to pharmaceutical companies.
    If I am not informed about the safety or efficacy of a product, I am not willing to take the RXISK (s)!
    We do not know how it impacts:
    – people who have pre-existing health issues
    – people who have allergies to certain substances in the vaccine
    – immunosuppressed people
    – people who are ingesting other medicines e.g. antibiotics, other vaccines, herbal products
    – people who are having chemotherapy or radiotherapy
    If this vaccine is claimed to be safe for all, why are pregnant women or children exempt.

Leave a Reply to Anon