Those who demonized hydroxychloroquine bear responsibility for causing preventable deaths of possibly hundreds of thousands of patients.
Following publication by The Lancet of a demonstrably fraudulent study, the World Health Organization suspended its hydroxychloroquine studies and urged countries around the world to suspend both their clinical trials, and prevent doctors from using the drug for Covid. Several governments did ban the use of the drug. Some lifted the ban after the Lancet study was retracted two weeks after publication.
Switzerland, which had been using hydroxychloroquine for months, banned the drug from May 27th until June 11th. Here is the Johns Hopkins graph showing a precipitous increase in the case fatality rate (CFR) – i.e., preventable deaths that occurred in Switzerland during the 13-day period during which patients were denied this life-saving treatment.
The graph charting high Covid-19 deaths in Switzerland during the 13 day ban, following the fraudulent Lancet report proves that the drug had reduced the rate of deaths; that rate increased precipitously when the drug was withheld. The Swiss death rate from Covid-19 dropped as soon as patients were again treated with Hydroxychloroquine.
This constitutes scientific proof of the curative effect of Hydroxychloroquine for patients with Covid-19, by means of challenge-dechallenge-rechallenge. In this case, it was not an experiment by design, but rather as a result of government edicts.
The graph further demonstrates that France whose government issued a series of regulations to restrict the use of this effective treatment, such as changing the drugs’ status from over-the-counter to prescription only on January 13th, followed by a ban on the use of the drug two months later. In contrast to Switzerland, France has a high 19.12% Covid-19 mortality rate.
Further evidence demonstrating the life-saving benefit of Hydroxychloroquine for Covid-19 infected patients comes from clinical trials conducted by the world renowned virologist, Didier Raoult, MD, PhD: patients treated with Hydroxychloroquine were at minimal risk (0.52%) of death. .
The US government, like France, issued draconian restrictions on the use of Hydroxychloroquine – nationally and through numerous state edicts that resulted in exceedingly high death rates. The US leads the world with the most reported COVID-19 deaths --a smoking gun providing grounds for legal action.
On August 18th US Senators Ron Johnson, Mike Lee and Ted Cruz wrote a letter to FDA Commissioner, Stephen Hahn, requesting substantiating scientific evidence in support of FDA’s withdrawal of the Emergency Use Authorization for Hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of the coronavirus. And they requested outcome studies, reports, and data from the US and internationally, about the treatment of patients with HCQ or Chloroquine under a doctor’s supervision outside of hospitals.
Doctors who dispute the official Covid-19 narrative are under siege --subjected to a coordinated government-media censorship campaign. Medical doctors are being threatened for using their professional judgment which is supported by both scientific and clinical evidence.
Doctors are being vilified for putting the lives of their patients first – which is their sworn duty under the Hippocratic Oath, “First, do no harm.”
Frontline Doctors who speak publicly about the evidence from their own clinical experience of having saved hundreds of lives by use of hydroxychloroquine in combination with Zinc, and Azithromycin, are being threatened by state Medical Licensing Boards and by Congressional representatives.
Fronline Doctors in DC
On July 27, America’s Frontline Doctors held a “White Coat Summit” in Washington D.C., during which they exposed a “massive disinformation campaign” against the life-saving ability of Hydroxychloroquine. The Big Tech cartel totally blacked out the event from the Internet and shut down America’s Frontline Doctors’ website in a grotesque effort to prevent the truth from reaching the public. This is the equivalent of Nazi book burning. Indeed the tactics of Big Tech follow closely the Goebel’s Propaganda playbook
These tech giants are financially intertwined with Big Pharma; they have captured the media narrative, deliberately preventing the public from gaining access to the truth.
The truth about Covid-19, and the truth about an existing effective treatment, poses a serious financial threat to the projected market of 7 billion people – for a yet undeveloped vaccine.
Dr. Anthony Fauci’s narrative about Covid-19 is identical to that of Bill Gates, who has billions of dollars invested in a yet to be developed vaccine – and investment in technology aimed at tracking compliance with vaccination mandates that he promotes.
The Gates–Fauci false market-driven narrative is parroted by the World Health Organization, the National Institute of Health, and the Center for Disease Control – all of who have private-public partnerships with the Gates Foundation.
This marketing propaganda juggernaut has paralyzed much of the Western world for over six months; it has devastated economies, and has resulted in hundreds of thousands of preventable deaths!
Read the White Paper on Hydroxychloroquine by Simone Gold, MD, JD in which she documents the indisputable safety of the drug that has been FDA-approved for 65 years.
Examine also, a compilation of medical studies in support of prescribing Hydroxychloroquine for Early Stage Covid-19 by Vladimir Zelenco, MD, Harvey A Risch, MD, PhD and George C Fareed, MD; and a list of 78 global studies (47 peer reviewed and 31 preprints). These studies demonstrate that early treatment with Hydroxychloroquine is effectove, whereas late treatment shows mixed results.
Physicians – not government bureaucrats – must be free to use their professional judgement to prescribe what’s best for their patients. So far, there are 41,462 co-signatories to the petition.
DEMONIZING HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE: THE CHECKLIST PROOF
Meryl Nass, MD
Dr. Meryl Nass has compiled a damning checklist that keeps increasing; it currently lists 47 fully documented facts that constitute a legal case against government officials’ collusion to demonize an effective existing medicine.
Dr. Nass’ checklist begins with government edicts that were issued to prevent medical doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective (in outpatients at onset of illness). Government prohibitions against the use of the drug outside of controlled clinical trials – that were designed to show no benefit – included 3 large, randomized, multi-center clinical trials — Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP-Covid) – each of them controlled the dose by specifying extremely high doses of hydroxychloroquine; doses that were known to be toxic and potentially lethal. [Dr. Nass’ previous articles analyzed these trials in detail here and here.]
A 4th study, conducted in China also used comparable toxic high doses of hydroxychloroquine (3.6 g HCQ in the first three days and 800mg/day thereafter). This study also reported no benefit from HCQ.
Why would scientists design clinical trials that subject thousands of patients to known to be toxic doses of a drug? And why would governments support these unethical trials?
Dr. Nass points out in #41 of her checklist: Hydroxychloroquine use is truly the wedge issue for understanding and turning around the pandemic. If hydroxychloroquine works reasonably well as a prophylactic and treatment for Covid-19, it could potentially end the seriousness of the pandemic and return us to life as we knew it.
It is remarkable that a large series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe. The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, Covid-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.
In the US, "Never Trump" morphed into "Never Hydroxychloroquine," and the result for the pandemic is "Never Over." But while anti-Trump spin is what characterized suppression strategies in the US, the frauds perpetrated about hydroxychloroquine and the pandemic include most western countries.
Were these acts carefully orchestrated? You decide.
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich? Are these events evidence of a conspiracy?
Here is a list of what happened, in no special order. Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include. This will be a living document, added to as new information becomes available.
I have penned this as if it is the "To Do" list of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings. The items on the list have already been carried out. One wonders what else might be on their list, yet to be carried out, for this pandemic.
1. You stop doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective (in outpatients at onset of illness). You prohibit use outside of situations you can control.
Situations that were controlled to show no benefit included 3 large, randomized, multi-center clinical trials (Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP-Covid), the kind of trials that are generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence. However, each of them used excessive hydroxychloroquine doses that were known to be toxic and may have been fatal in some cases; see my previous articles here and here. And a 4th Chinese study that also used excessive doses (3.6 g HCQ in the first three days and 800mg/day thereafter, comparable to the above studies) also found no benefit from HCQ.
2. You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug, using different methods in different countries and states. For example, in New York state, by order of the governor, hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized patients. In Nevada, the governor outright prohibitedboth prescribing and dispensing chloroquine drugs for a Covid-19 diagnosis. In New Jersey, the Department of Consumer Affairs required a positive test result before a chloroquine prescription could be dispensed or prescribed.
France has issued a series of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it. France's Health Minister also changed the drugs' status from over-the-counter (OTC) to a drug requiring a prescription on January 13.
3. You play up the danger of the drug, emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly. You make sure everyone has heard about the man who died after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner. Yet its toxicity at approved doses is minimal. Chloroquine was added to table salt in some regions in the 1950s as a malaria preventive, according to Professor Nicholas White in his study for the Recovery trial.
5. You design clinical trials to give much too high a dose, ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects, sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect. You make sure that trials in 400 hospitals in 35 countries (Solidarity) plus most hospitals in the UK (Recovery) use these dangerous doses, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (REMAP-Covid trial).
6. You design clinical trials to collect almost no safety data, so any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the drug.
7. You issue rules for use of the drug based on the results of the UK Recovery study, which overdosed patients. Of course the Recovery results showed more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm, since they gave patients 2.4 g in the first 24 hrs, 800 mg/day thereafter. Furthermore, the UK has the 2nd highest death rate in the world for Covid-19 (Belgium is 1st), so simply conducting the trial in the UK may have contributed to the poor results.
8. You publish, in the world's most-read medical journal, the Lancet, an observational study from a massive worldwide database (96,000 Covid cases) that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased mortality. This was said to be the paper to end all controversy about HCQ and Covid-19. You make sure that all major media report on this result. This was said to be the nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine. Then you have 3 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug.
9. You do your best to ride out any controversy, never admitting culpability. Even after hundreds of people renounced the Lancet's observational study due to easily identified fabrications--the database used in the study did not exist, and the claimed numbers did not agree with known numbers of cases--the Lancet held firm for two weeks, serving to muddy the waters about the trial, until finally 3 of the 4 coauthors (but not the Lancet) retracted the study. Neither the authors nor the journal have admitted responsibility, let alone explained what it was that induced them to coauthor and publish such a fraud.
You made sure very few media reported that the data were fabricated, the "study" was fraudulent, and the drugs were actually safe. Even though the story of the database company, Surgisphere, was full of scandalous details, the story of the study's retraction went largely unnoticed by the public. You made sure most people remember the original story: that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine frequently kill patients.
d) Despite the fact that Belgium's COVID treatment guidelines repeatedly mention that the doses of HCQ in the Recovery and Solidarity trials were 4 times the cumulative dose used in Belgium, you make sure the Belgian guidelines, paradoxically, only recommend use of HCQ within clinical trials.
11. You make sure to avoid funding/encouraging clinical trials that test drug combinations like hydroxychloroquine with zinc, with azithromycin, or with both, although there is ample clinical evidence that such combinations provide a cumulative benefit to patients. For example, one study that did look at this combination had no funding.
12. You have federal and UN agencies make false, illogical claims based on models (or invention) rather than human data. For example, you have the FDA state on June 15 that the dose required to treat Covid is so high it is toxic, after the Recovery and Solidarity trials have been exposed for toxic dosing. This scientific double-speak gives some legal cover to the clinical trials that overdosed their patients. According to Denise Hinton, RN, the FDA's Chief Scientist (yes, a registered nurse without scientific qualifications is the Chief Scientist at FDA), or perhaps a clumsy FDA wordsmith:
"Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays, the calculated free lung concentrations that would result from the EUA suggested dosing regimens are well below the in vitro EC50/EC90 values, making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not likely achievable with the dosing regimens recommended in the EUA. The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns."
You have a WHO report claim toxic doses are needed. This is nonsense since:
Toxicity in the Brazilian study was seen after only 3 days of treatment, during which 3.6 grams of chloroquine were administered. But the Solidarity (3.2 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days), Recovery (3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) and REMAP-Covid trials (3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) continued overdosing patients until June, despite Brazil's evidence of deaths by overdose.
Tellingly, JAMA editor Gordon Rubenfeld wrote in April, after the Brazilian study came out in JAMA, "if you are prescribing HCQ after these JAMA results, do yourself and your defense lawyer a favor. Document in your medical record that you informed the patient of the potential risks of HCQ including sudden death and its benefits (???)."
14. You frighten doctors so they don't prescribe hydroxychloroquine, if prescribing it is even allowed in their jurisdiction, because prescribing outside the new NIH "standard of care" leaves them open to both malpractice lawsuits and potential loss of license. For example, Michigan's Medical Licensing Board issued the following:
"Prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine without further proof of efficacy for treating COVID-19 or with the intent to stockpile the drug may create a shortage for patients with lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, or other ailments for which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are proven treatments. Reports of this conduct will be evaluated and may be further investigated for administrative action...It is also important to be mindful that licensed health professionals are required to report inappropriate prescribing practices."
In other words, Michigan pharmacists are required to snitch on doctors prescribing the drugs for Covid.
You further tell doctors (through the FDA) they need to monitor a variety of lab parameters and EKGs when using the drug, although this was never advised before, which makes it very difficult to use the drug in outpatients. You have the European Medicines Agency issue similar warnings. In Australia only physicians in certain specialties are allowed to prescribe the drug for Covid. And in Queensland, physicians or pharmacists who do not comply (for example, by prescribing the drug for prevention of Covid) face up to 6 months' imprisonment and a fine up to $13,000 Australian dollars.
15. You manage to control the conduct of most trials around the world by specially designing the WHO-managed Solidarity trials, currently conducted in 35 countries. WHO halted hydroxychloroquine clinical trials around the world, twice. The first time, May 25, WHO claimed it was in response to the (fraudulent) Lancet study. The second time, June 17, WHO claimed the stop was in response to the Recovery trial results. Recovery used highly toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine in over 1500 patients, of whom 396 died. You stop the trial before the data safety monitoring board has looked at your data, a move that is unlikely to be consistent with trial protocol. WHO's trial in over 400 hospitals overdosed patients with 2.0 g hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours. The trial was halted 3 days after the toxic doses were exposed (by me). The trial involved doctors around the world typing minimal patient information into an online WHO platform, which assigned the patient a treatment.
The only "safety" information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen, required a ventilator, or died. This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested.
21. You have CDC (with help from FDA) prevent the purchase of coronavirus test kits from Germany, China, WHO, etc, and fail to produce a valid test kit themselves. The result was that during January and February, US cases could not be tested, and for several months thereafter insufficient and unreliable test kits made it impossible to track the epidemic and stop the spread.
Yet Dr. Fauci told USA Today on February 17 that Americans should worry more about the flu than about coronavirus, the danger of which was "just miniscule." Then on February 28, Drs. Fauci and Robert Redfield (CDC Director) wrote in the New England Journal:
"...the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively."
23. You destroy the reputation of respected physicians who stand in your way. Professor Didier Raoult and his team in Marseille have used hydroxychloroquine on over 4,000 patients, reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8%. (The mortality rate of patients given hydroxychloroquine in the Recovery trial was 25.7%.) Raoult is very famous for discovering over 100 different microorganisms, and finding the long-sought cause of Whipple's Disease. With this reputation, Raoult apparently thought he could treat patients as he saw fit, which he has done, under great duress. Raoult was featured in a New York Times Magazine article, with his face on the magazine cover, on May 12, 2020. After describing his accomplishments, the Times very unfavorably discussed his personality, implied he conducted unethical trials without approval, and using anonymous sourcing produced a detailed hit piece. Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank in the US.
You gather a group of Yale professors to dispute their Yale colleague Harvey Frisch, MD, PhD epidemiologist on his publications and vocal support of the benefits of HCQ for Covid. Their first argument is that he is not an infectious disease doctor. Notably, the first signer of the statement opposing Dr. Frisch is an economist.
Physician and state senator Scott Jensen of Minnesota is being investigated by his state medical board due to anonymous complaints about 'spreading misinformation' and giving 'reckless advice' about COVID in interviews. Jensen was previously selected as "Family Physician of the Year" in his state. Now his medical license is at risk, not because of how he treated a patient, but for what he said outside of the office. Unprecedented.
24. You have social media platforms ban content that does not agree with the desired narrative. As YouTube CEO and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin, Susan Wojcicki said,
“YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations. Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”
25. When your clinical trials are criticized for overdosing patients, you have Oxford-affiliated, Wellcome Trust-supported scientists at Mahidol University publish papers (a literature review with modeling and a modeling study) purporting to show that the doses used were not toxic. You develop a new method to measure hydroxychloroquine in a handful of Recovery patients who were not poisoned. However, there are 2 problems you forgot with this approach:
The Brazilian data, including 16 deaths, extensive clinical information and documented ventricular arrhythmias, are much more persuasive than a theoretical model of hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetics.
Either the drug is too toxic to use, even at normal doses, for a life-threatening disease, or even extremely high doses are safe. You can't have it both ways.
Oxford is the institution running the Recovery trial, and invented a Covid vaccine that already has 400 million doses on order. The Wellcome Trust funded the Recovery trial.
26. You change your trial's primary outcome measures after the trials have started, in order to prevent detection of drug-induced deaths (Recovery) or to make your drug appear to have efficacy (NIAID Remdesivir trial).
Sanofi (a pharma company) begins acting like a regulator. From the Australian DOH's Therapeutic Goods Administration website:
Sanofi, the supplier of one of the hydroxychloroquine products marketed in Australia (Plaquenil), has also written to health professionals reinforcing that hydroxychloroquine is not approved for use in Australia for treatment of COVID-19 outside the confines of a clinical trial. Sanofi also reinforced some of the known risks of prescribing hydroxychloroquine, in particular potentially serious cardiac issues. Globally, Sanofi has received an increased number of reports of serious cardiac issues, including deaths, in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, This appears to be more common in patients also treated with other medicines that can affect the heart.
Then Sanofi started collecting information on all off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in New Zealand and Australia. Why is Sanofi, a drug manufacturing company, becoming a surveillance/enforcement mechanism intended to frighten medical providers from using the drug for Covid, which use is by definition "off label." Sanofi alternatively suggests one may report (anonymously or not) others' off-label use to New Zealand's Pharmacovigilance Center or the Australian equivalent.
And see this: Novartis will supply HCQ only under certain conditions, and halted its HCQ trial due to lack of enrollments, although enrollment was not an issue for its other COVID trials.
30. You can get your experimental, unlicensed drugs tested, much more expeditiously and cheaply than under ordinary circumstances, on Covid patients in large clinical trials, but only as long as no drug is designated effective for the condition. This opportunity only lasts while the "standard of care" is nothing more than supportive measures.
32. You stopped use of hydroxychloroquine, allegedly in response to the fabricated Lancet study, in France, Italy and Belgium (countries with very high COVID mortality rates) then Portugal then Switzerland. But Switzerland restarted using HCQ 15 days later. This created a natural experiment in Switzerland. About 2 weeks after hydroxychloroquine use was halted, death rates approximately tripled, for about 15 days. Then, after its use was allowed again, two weeks later death rates from Covid fell back to their baseline. (Thanks to FranceSoir:
33. You reverse an old trick of clinical trials, to mask benefit of hydroxychloroquine. The trick was to replace the saline placebo with a substance that is being used by many clinicians and in many trials against Covid, thus by comparison likely to reduce the positive effect of your tested medication. This was done in trials both at NYU and at University of Washington, using vitamin C or vitamin C and folate respectively as placebos.
34. You have the chief medical officers of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the director of the UK's National Health Service, write to UK doctors, a) urging them to enroll their Covid patients in one of 3 national clinical trials, two of which greatly overdosed patients with hydroxychloroquine, and b) stopping their use of "off license treatments" outside of a trial. Yet again, we encounter a veiled threat against clinicians actually attempting to treat the primary SARS-Cov-2 infection. The chief doctors wrote:
While it is for every individual clinician to make prescribing decisions, we strongly discourage the use of off-licence treatments outside of a trial, where participation in a trial is possible... Any treatment given for coronavirus other than general supportive care, treatment for underlying conditions, and antibiotics for secondary bacterial complications, should currently be as part of a trial, where that is possible."
35. You have a state Pharmacy Board refuse to dispense hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials on June 15, citing the FDA recommendation for use only in trials. You issue this new regulation on the same day that FDA publishes its recommendation, indicating prior coordination. But when your regulation is exposed on July 14, you immediately rescind it.
37. A group of doctors went to Washington DC July 27-28. They called themselves "America's Frontline Doctors" and gave a press conference and livestream talks about the Covid-19 pandemic as well as about the need for physicians to be able to prescribe HCQ freely. While the media sparsely attended the press conference, the livestream got millions of views. And within hours, their livestream was banned by Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Twitter was said to additionally ban comments about its ban. Then Squarespace took down the Frontline Doctors' website.
40. After massive attention to the banning of the videos posted by the physician group 'America's Frontline Physicians' and its website, you make intense efforts to discredit the physicians involved.
MedPageToday claimed it "could find no evidence that any of the speakers worked in hospitals with significant numbers of COVID-19 patients." But the doctors claimed they used the drug early and prevented hospitalizations and deaths. With over 4.4 million Americans diagnosed with Covid, what doctor hasn't seen a Covid patient?
USAT headlined: 'America's Frontline Doctors' may be real doctors, but experts say they don't know what they're talking about.
You have USA Today review and publish detailed information on the licenses, practice locations and malpractice histories of the doctors who spoke out. USAT reporters claim these doctors are not experts and lack knowledge about the use of HCQ in Covid-19, despite the fact that most work in primary care, urgent care or emergency medicine and report using the drug for Covid. Yet no one asks how many years ago 'expert' Fauci last treated a patient? Expert Birx' medical license expired in 2014, so she hasn't treated a Covid patient either.
41. Hydroxychloroquine use is truly the wedge issue for understanding and turning around the pandemic. If hydroxychloroquine works reasonably well as a prophylactic and treatment for Covid-19, it could potentially end the seriousness of the pandemic and return us to life as we knew it. You must make use of the levers of government, mainstream media and social media to stop that from happening.
So, just in case doctors thought the Frontline Doctors' video, or a new study from Spain showing the drug's usefulness meant they should use hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid, you must act fast. You use Representatives at a Congressional health subcommittee hearing on July 29 to threaten doctors about the use of the drug last April in veterans who were nursing home patients. Per the Washington Post:
"doctors at the 238-bed nursing home dosed  patients with what came to be called a “covid cocktail” for more than two weeks in April, often over the objections of nurses and without the full knowledge of residents’ families. At least 11 residents received the drug even though they had not been tested for covid-19, The Post found."
I have treated patients in nursing homes, and one rarely discusses medication changes with family, unless the patient is seriously ill. When nursing home residents were dying like flies last April, when tests were hard to come by and confirmed diagnoses few and far between, doctors used this medicine to try to prevent nursing home deaths during a pandemic. And now they are being scapegoated for doing so.
The WaPo article does not even tell us whether the patients survived, thrived or were harmed. The article hardly makes sense. Its only purpose is to blacken the drug and the physicians who use it.
43. You have Dr. Fauci discredit published observational studies that show benefit during a Congressional hearing, demanding randomized controlled trials. Fauci never tells the Committee he has cancelled the one randomized controlled trial of HCQ that his agency, NIAID, was supposed to conduct on HCQ. NIAID claimed that it could not enroll enough subjects, and was cancelled after only 20 were enrolled. However, Fauci told the Committee that 250,000 Americans have shown interest in participating in trials of a Covid vaccine. It is difficult to believe there was extreme lack of interest in a treatment trial, and such massive interest in a vaccine trial.
Doctors who wrote studies showing benefit (50% mortality reduction) defended their work from Fauci's criticism.
45. You use the term "stellar" to describe the Recovery trial in the August 5 NY Times, but avoid any hint that the Recovery trial's hydroxychloroquine arm gave 1500 patients a toxic, potentially lethal dose.
47. Despite assuring you control the outcome of the vast majority of randomized clinical trials of the chloroquine drugs, you have been thwarted by physician researchers in Detroit, Spain, Italy, France, Saudi Arabia who publish their observational results with hydroxychloroquine, showing the drug dramatically reduces mortality from Covid. So you have frontman Tony Fauci repeatedly dismiss this evidence from thousands of patients, since it did not come from randomized controlled trials. See c19study.com for a compilation of 78 studies of the chloroquine drugs' efficacy.
Remember: the system would not be going to these lengths if hydroxychloroquine didn't work. Please think about that.
The People and the Professionals Fight Back
I am starting a new "live" list of ways in which the people are pushing back against the abrogation of our rights, the propagation of lies, and our ability to access the medical care we choose. Please help contribute to it.
1. A huge Thank You goes to FranceSoir, which has covered the hydroxychloroquine restrictions in a long series of articles, has done the digging that the mainstream media refuses to do, and has brought the issue before a judge. The judge ruled that a Press Release issued on May 27 by France's Minister of Solidarity and Health, informing doctors they cannot use hydroxychloroquine for Covid, has no legal meaning, and cannot restrict the prescribing of medicines by France's medical providers.
3. Skye News Australia presents information on the effective responses to the pandemic in Sweden and Switzerland. The pandemic is over in Sweden. Switzerland proved (again) the benefits of HCQ used at the proper dose, in conjunction with other drugs/supplements. "The destruction of our economies was completely pointless."
4. The statistical methods of 3 major, randomized controlled trials of hydroxychloroquine efficacy in Covid have been questioned by a large group of statisticians, researchers and clinicians. All 3 trials were inadequately powered, with large p values. In fact, evaluated differently, "the evidence from all these trials points to [HCQ] treatment effectiveness" according to the group of professionals providing the critique.
5. The assertion that antibodies only last a few months, and therefore immunity wanes rapidly, seems to be another misleading claim from the fake-science influencers. As with many other viruses, T and B lymphocytes are critical for coronavirus immunity, and a lot more durable than antibodies. From a U. Washington study, "the SARS-CoV-2-specific memory lymphocytes exhibited characteristics associated with potent antiviral immunity: memory T cells secreted IFN-γ and expanded upon antigen re-encounter, while memory B cells expressed receptors capable of neutralizing virus when expressed as antibodies."
6. The governor of Minnesota on August 12 rescinded his state's ban on the use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for Covid.
7. Three US Senators demand answers from the FDA on what evidence it used to recommend against outpatient treatment with HCQ, whether states have the right to regulate what drugs can be used, etc. Very powerful letter that cuts to the heart of the legal confusion regarding HCQ restrictions.
by Fintan Dunne, 29th June, 2009 Influential Iranian former-president, Ayotalloh Rafsanjani has deferred for tactical reasons an emergency meeting of the Assembly of Experts -despite having now secured a majority in favor of convening the powerful clerical body, according to the Iranian political analyst Professor Muhammad Sahimi. In a telephone interview this weekend, Prof. Sahimi said Rafsanjani and Iran's opposition leaders are biding their time to allow social pressures on Iran's government to intensify. Their aims are to split the government and to detach some commanders of the Revolutionary Guard from supporting the hardline government stance on the official election outcome. "And if that happens," said Professor Sahimi, "then stronger actions such as an emegncy meeting of the Assembly of Experts to investigate the performance of the Supreme Leader can be done." The government also now seems to be avoiding a definitive showdown. The deadline to inves
Enoch Burke at the Four Courts accompanied by his father, Sean Burke. Picture: Collins Courts WHAT IF ENOCH BURKE WAS A MUSLIM? by Fintan Dunne http://FintanDunne.com http://BreakForNews.com 9 September, 2022 Enoch Burke’s biggest problem is that he is not a Muslim. If he had refused to use gender pronouns because it conflicted with the Koran –we would be falling over ourselves to accommodate him on the basis of religious tolerance. But he is a devout Christian. And Irish media is hostile to such beliefs with their own religious fervour. Tell me they would persecute a Muslim teacher in precisely this manner and I will call you a naive fool. This is not a level playing field. That secular hostility extends to the point of intolerance. Such as the intolerance of the school where Enoch voiced his religious objections to being forced to buy into condoning a process which often ends via the dubious medical benefits of surgical transgenderism. I say dubious because the U.K. Tavistoc
COVID Vaccines: Necessity, Efficacy and Safety Doctors for Covid Ethics 2 days ago · 14 min read Abstract: COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers have been exempted from legal liability for vaccine-induced harm. It is therefore in the interests of all those authorising, enforcing and administering COVID-19 vaccinations to understand the evidence regarding the risks and benefits of these vaccines, since liability for harm will fall on them. In short, the available evidence and science indicate that COVID-19 vaccines are unnecessary, ineffective and unsafe. Necessity: Immunocompetent individuals are protected against SARS-CoV-2 by cellular immunity. Vaccinating low-risk groups is therefore unnecessary. For immunocompromised individuals who do fall ill with COVID-19 there is a range of medical treatments that have been proven safe and effective. Vaccinating the vulnerable is therefore equally unnecessary. Both immunocompetent and vulnerable groups are better protected against variants of SARS
Post a Comment