I have now re-examined this document:

It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"
"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."
"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"
"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."
"Empiric therapy should be de-escalated on the basis of microbiology results and clinical judgment"

THE WHO IS CALLING FOR DOCTOR'S JUDGEMENT ON WHEN TO STOP ANTIBIOTICS.

ANTIBIOTICS WERE ALWAYS PART OF THE COVID19 CURE, EVEN ACCORDING TO THE WHO.

Why is this controversial?
Therefore AZYTHROMYCIN was indeed included in the category of indicated treatments by the WHO, as it is indeed an empiric antimicrobial therapy drug.
AZYTHROMYCIN was of course considered safe by the WHO
https://t.co/sw4e7AAIXM
As are MINOCYCLINE & DOXYCYCLINE. Thread continues here: https://t.co/KEuohls1vi

More from Robin Monotti

The problem with meta-analysis like this is that it obfuscates the most important issue of treatment, which is timing.


This meta-analysis of controlled trials only looks at hospitalized patients. How long were the patients ill for before being hospitalized? One week? Two? Three? Too late for zinc ionophores (HCQ) (+ZINC? No zinc no point..) to work. Severe illness becomes bacterial in nature.

Was azythromycin administered when the bacterial infections were also too advanced? I have seen Azythromycin work with my very own eyes but that's not to say that if administered too late it may not save the patient. How many patients were given AZT & ventilated? It's all timing.

All the meta-analysis is telling us is if you leave it too late you may have missed the early window for antiviral zinc treatment (Zn+HCQ) & that if you are given AZT when you are ventilated or very severe it may too late for it to save you & corticosteroids may be last resort.

And of course antibiotics need also probiotics, or they may harm the bacterial flora which is part of the immune response. Difficult to tell from a meta-analysis how this problem was managed.

More from Health

I think @SamAdlerBell in his quest to be the contrarian on Fauci gets several things wrong here. 1/


First, the failure last year actually was driven by the White House, the #Trump inner circle. Watch what's happening now, the US' scientific and public health infrastructure is creaking back to life. 2/

I think Sam underestimates the decimation of many of our health agencies over the past four years and the establishment of ideological control over them during the pandemic. 3/

I also am puzzled why Tony gets the blame for not speaking up, etc. Robert Redfield, Brett Giroir, Deb Birx, Jerome Adams, Alex Azar all could have done the same. 4/

Several of these people Bob Redfield, Brett Giroir, Alex Azar were led by craven ambition, Jerome Adams by cowardice, but I do think Deb Birx and Tony tried as institutionalists, insiders to make a difference. 5/
Some thoughts on this: Firstly, it might be personal preference, but I am not keen on this kind of campaign as I feel like it trivialises cancer. Sometimes the serious message gets lost because people are sharing pics of cats or whatever and the important context is gone.


More importantly, the statistic being used in the campaign is misleading. It says 57% of women put off cervical screening if they can't get waxed. But on further investigation, that's not accurate.

The page here goes on to say "57% of women who regularly have their pubic hair professionally removed would put off attending their cervical screening appointment if they hadn’t been able to visit a beauty salon."

So the 57% represents a concern not across the whole population of women, but only those who regularly get waxed. So how big of an issue is this across the whole population? And what else is stopping people getting smears?

I think campaigns for cancer screening are really tricky because there is so much nuance that often doesn't fit into a catchy headline or hashtag. It's certainly not easy and is part of a bigger conversation.

You May Also Like