I don’t know if hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) is effective against COVID. It’s disturbing that I, like many other Americans, feel that we won’t learn the truth from Dr. Fauci. A 2005 Virology Journal (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/) article by MJ Vincent and CDC’s Eric Bergeron et al, surfaced last week. The study concludes: “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-Coronavirus infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.” This conclusion implies that chloroquine functions both as a preventative “vaccine” and as a cure for strains of coronavirus.
If these results persist in human models in COVID 19, as last month’s Michigan hospital study (https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study) and abundant evidence from US doctors (https://videos.utahgunexchange.com/watch/presser-american-frontline-doctors-on-hcq-a-must-see_nOfbAV4Hbe8DUdc.html) and other nations (https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/top-medical-org-demands-fda-make-hydroxychloroquine-more-widely-available) suggest—HCQ might compete with Dr. Fauci’s vaccines including the Moderna vaccine for which his agency co-owns the patent (https://www.citizen.org/article/the-nih-vaccine/) and Dr. Fauci has invested $500 million in taxpayer dollars (https://www.forbes.com/sites/leahrosenbaum/2020/05/08/fueled-by-500-million-in-federal-cash-moderna-races-to-make-1-billion-doses-of-an-unproven-cure/#37f4f09f79dc). Worse yet—for vaccine makers—HCQ’s patents are long expired; pills cost 30 cents. Dr. Fauci insists he will not approve HCQ for COVID until its efficacy is proven in “randomized, double-blind placebo studies (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDjVwXM8ESE).” To date, Dr. Fauci has never advocated such studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses (https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/vaccines-age.html) added to the mandatory childhood schedule since he took over NIAID in 1984. Nor is he requiring them for the COVID vaccines currently racing for approval. Why should hydroxychloroquine be the only remedy required to cross this high hurdle? HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines since its safety is well established after 60 years of use and decades on WHO’s list of “essential medicines.”
(https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325771/WHO-MVP-EMP-IAU-2019.06-eng.pdf?ua=1)
Bill Gates, the World Health Organization and Pharma have fueled public suspicions by funding multiple studies of HCQ (https://vaccineimpact.com/2020/dr-meryl-nass-discovers-hydroxychloroquine-experiments-were-designed-to-kill-covid-patients-how-many-were-murdered/) using protocols transparently calculated to discredit the drug. FDA condemned HCQ for COVID based on two studies in NEJM (https://www.mdedge.com/cardiology/article/223352/arrhythmias-ep/lancet-nejm-retract-studies-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19) and Lancet (https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/10/a-month-after-surgisphere-paper-retraction-lancet-retracts-replaces-hydroxychloroquine-editorial/) even after the journals retracted them for fraud. Dr. Fauci’s peculiar hostility towards HCQ is consistent with his half-century bias favoring vaccines and patent medicines. Dr. Fauci’s double standards create confusion, mistrust and polarization.
As Dr. Fauci himself said in his recent testimony, and as you can ascertain elsewhere, there are problems with the study printed in this journal. Yes, it is peer-reviewed. But, it is NOT a double blind study. It is complicated by the fact that many of the subjects were ALSO given a steroid medication along with the hydroxychloroquine, with no comparable control group. Like any study of this kind, the intent to then do follow-up studies to further look into the matter, and to try to replicate the findings. We do not have ANY such studies. And we also know from long ago that hydroxychloroquine is potentially dangerous, known for sometimes causing death from abnormal heart rhythms. The medication was un-approved for COVID-19 in England because it was causing those cardiac deaths with NO improvement in COVID symptoms.
Jon Jackson, M.D.
Mayacaman
08-08-2020, 12:14 PM
“As Dr. Fauci himself said in his recent testimony, and as you can ascertain elsewhere, there are problems with the study printed in this journal. Yes, it is peer-reviewed. But, it is NOT a double blind study…”
Jon Jackson, M.D.
“Dr. Fauci himself” has made a huge volte face
on the Subject of Hydroxychloroquine.
Cover Up: Fauci Approved Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine
15 Years Ago to Cure Coronaviruses; “Nobody Needed to Die”
By True Pundit
Global Research,
May 21, 2020
Dr. Anthony Fauci, whose “expert” advice to President Trump has resulted in the complete shutdown of the greatest economic engine in world history, has known since 2005 that chloroquine is an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses.
How did he know this? Because of research done by the National Institutes of Health, of which he is the director. In connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV – the NIH researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.
The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institutes of Health – published what is now a blockbuster article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – get ready for this – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” (Emphasis mine throughout.) Write the researchers, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”
This means, of course, that Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”). So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus. Said Dr. Fauci’s NIH in 2005, “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.” Fauci’s researchers add, “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”
Dr. Didier Raoult, the Anthony Fauci of France, had such spectacular success using HCQ to treat victims of SARS-CoV-2 that he said way back on February 25 that “it’s game over” for coronavirus.
He and a team of researchers reported that the use of HCQ administered with both azithromycin and zinc cured 79 of 80 patients with only “rare and minor” adverse events.
“In conclusion,” these researchers write, “we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness.”
The highly-publicized VA study that purported to show HCQ was ineffective showed nothing of the sort. HCQ wasn’t administered until the patients were virtually on their deathbeds when research indicates it should be prescribed as soon as symptoms are apparent. Plus, HCQ was administered without azithromycin and zinc, which form the cocktail that makes it supremely effective. At-risk individuals need to receive the HCQ cocktail at the first sign of symptoms.
But Governor Andrew Cuomo banned the use of HCQ in the entire state of New York on March 6, the Democrat governors of Nevada and Michigan soon followed suit, and by March 28 the whole country was under incarceration-in-place fatwas.
Nothing happened with regard to the use of HCQ in the U.S. until March 20, when President Trump put his foot down and insisted that the FDA consider authorizing HCQ for off-label use to treat SARS-CoV-2.
On March 23, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko reported that he had treated around 500 coronavirus patients with HCQ and had seen an astonishing 100% success rate. That’s not the “anecdotal” evidence Dr. Fauci sneers at, but actual results with real patients in clinical settings.
“Since last Thursday, my team has treated approximately 350 patients in Kiryas Joel and another 150 patients in other areas of New York with the above regimen. Of this group and the information provided to me by affiliated medical teams, we have had ZERO deaths, ZERO hospitalizations, and ZERO intubations. In addition, I have not heard of any negative side effects other than approximately 10% of patients with temporary nausea and diarrhea.”
Said Dr. Zelenko: “If you scale this nationally, the economy will rebound much quicker. The country will open again. And let me tell you a very important point. This treatment costs about $20. That’s very important because you can scale that nationally. If every treatment costs $20,000, that’s not so good. All I’m doing is repurposing old, available drugs which we know their safety profiles, and using them in a unique combination in an outpatient setting.”
The questions are disturbing to a spectacular degree. If Dr. Fauci has known since 2005 of the effectiveness of HCQ, why hasn’t it been administered immediately after people show symptoms, as Dr. Zelenko has done? Maybe then nobody would have died and nobody would have been incarcerated in place except the sick, which is who a quarantine is for in the first place. To paraphrase Jesus, it’s not the symptom-free who need HCQ but the sick. And they need it at the first sign of symptoms.
While the regressive health care establishment wants the HCQ cocktail to only be administered late in the course of the infection, from a medical standpoint, this is stupid. Said one doctor, “As a physician, this baffles me. I can’t think of a single infectious condition — bacterial, fungal, or viral — where the best medical treatment is to delay the use of an anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, or anti-viral until the infection is far advanced.” So why has Dr. Fauci minimized and dismissed HCQ at every turn instead of pushing this thing from jump street? He didn’t even launch clinical trials of HCQ until April 9, by which time 33,000 people had died.
“…It is complicated by the fact that many of the subjects were ALSO given a steroid medication along with the hydroxychloroquine, with no comparable control group. Like any study of this kind, the intent to then do follow-up studies to further look into the matter, and to try to replicate the findings. We do not have ANY such studies….”
Two-Tiered Medicine: Why Is
Hydroxychloroquine
Being Censored and Politicized?
July 30, 2020
By the Children’s Health Defense Team
In 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) induced a global panic—a dress rehearsal, as it were, for Covid-19 in 2020. Although SARS fatalities rapidly petered out (with an eventual worldwide tally of just 774 (https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/fs-sars.html) deaths), concerns about the potential for future spread of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) left doctors eager to identify effective drugs for treatment and prevention. In short order, researchers in Europe (2003 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7128816/) and 2004 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15351731/)) and at the Special Pathogens Branch of the CDC (2005 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/)) published theoretical models and detailed in vitro findings about a drug offering likely “prophylactic and therapeutic advantage”: chloroquine (CQ).
This ongoing body of research was clearly at the forefront of many doctors’ minds when SARS-CoV-2 surfaced this year. In early April, a survey (https://jacksoncoker.com/about/in-the-news/physician-poll-on-covid-19-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine/) of U.S. physicians found that two-thirds (65%) would prescribe CQ or HCQ “to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member,” and roughly the same percentage (67%) would take it themselves. (The company conducting the survey noted that “the best way to get a candid perspective on treatment options from a physician is to ask: ‘Would you give this to your family?’”) Another early April survey of over 6,000 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of respondents who had already treated Covid-19 rated HCQ as the most effective therapy (https://www.sermo.com/press-releases/largest-statistically-significant-study-by-6200-multi-country-physicians-on-covid-19-uncovers-treatment-patterns-and-puts-pandemic-in-context/).
Apparently, the physicians advising the world’s heads of state are likewise favorably disposed to HCQ. In May, the White House doctor confirmed HCQ’s excellent benefit-to-risk ratio (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-donald-trump-taking-drug-covid-19-prevention/), and the president of El Salvador not only reported taking HCQ as prophylaxis (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-elsalvador-idUSKBN2330C4) for Covid-19 himself but asserted that “most of the world’s leaders,” including President Trump (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-donald-trump-taking-drug-covid-19-prevention/), have been doing the same. However, in what has turned out to be a gross understatement, the Salvadorean leader also admitted that “Sometimes what’s recommended to the people is something different (https://qcostarica.com/el-salvadors-millennial-president-says-he-takes-hydroxychloroquine/) than what’s recommended to the leaders.”
For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines … it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running.
Following these promising cell culture studies (cited hundreds of times in the scientific literature), researchers around the world continued to explore the antiviral potential of CQ and its more benign analog hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). A 2006 paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7129107/) in The Lancet Infectious Diseases again directed attention to CQ as a “valuable therapeutic option if SARS re-emerges.” In 2014 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24841273/), in the aftermath of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), researchers at the Anthony-Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) identified 27 existing compounds “with activity against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV,” including CQ and HCQ. Noting that the “screening of approved drugs to identify therapeutics for drug repurposing is a valid approach,” the NIAID researchers singled out CQ and one other drug in their closing paragraph as having noteworthy potential to “reconfigure” the two coronavirus illnesses “into a less virulent (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24841273/) sub-clinical infection” resulting in less adverse disease outcomes.
“Extra-scientific factors”
In March, the U.S. readily accepted millions (https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/06/trump-hydroxychloroquine-fact-check/) of HCQ tablets donated by pharmaceutical giants Bayer and Sandoz for the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, and the FDA even granted emergency use authorization (https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-daily-roundup-march-30-2020) for HCQ as a Covid-19 therapy, yet what has been recommended to the American people ever since has most certainly not been HCQ. In fact—ignoring over five dozen studies (https://c19study.com/) (and counting) that have shown CQ or HCQ to be effective against Covid-19 under certain conditions—the FDA revoked (https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download) the drug’s Covid-19 authorization in June. Meanwhile, the nation’s number-one-ranked hospital, the Mayo Clinic, currently states on its website that there are no Covid-19 medications (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20479976) or cures.
At this point, when countries using HCQ are displaying a Covid-19 mortality rate that is “only one-tenth (https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/509605-the-hydroxychloroquine-debacle-playing-doctor-on-social-media-platforms) the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States,” it is difficult to deny that an HCQ hit job (https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-sabotage-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-doctors-worldwide-protest-disaster/5717382) is taking place both domestically and internationally. Columbia University medical graduate Dr. James Todaro (https://www.medicineuncensored.com/) recently declared as much: “If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack that’s going on against hydroxychloroquine, it’s because there is.” For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/video/dr-fauci-and-covid-19-priorities-therapeutics-now-or-vaccines-later-video/)—including the alarming Moderna vaccine (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/modernas-guinea-pig-sickest-in-his-life-after-being-injected-with-experimental-vaccine/) co-developed by NIAID—it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running. In a Rachel Maddow interview (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/shelter-in-place-starts-in-s-f-but-could-become-nation-policy-80754757648) earlier this spring, Columbia University’s Dr. Ian Lipkin admitted to Maddow—with a grin—that “sexy and new and patentable (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/dr-fauci-and-covid-19-priorities-therapeutics-now-or-vaccines-later/)” formulations are far more attractive to researchers and investors than “tried-and-true, classical sort of methods repurposing drugs and strategies that have already been shown to work.”
As a result of the HCQ attacks—enabled by the pharmaceutical industry, Fauci and other top health officials (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fauci-throws-cold-water-trumps-declaration-malaria-drug/story?id=69716324), social media giants (https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/509605-the-hydroxychloroquine-debacle-playing-doctor-on-social-media-platforms) and captured media, regulatory and scientific journal partners—tens of thousands of Covid-19 patients “are dying unnecessarily (https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535)” for “reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science.” The expert making that dire assessment—Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch, MD, PhD—believes that in the future, “this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxychloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence (https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535).”
Instead, the doctors were met with Google’s removal of their white paper.
= MORE (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/two-tiered-medicine-why-is-hydroxychloroquine-being-censored-and-politicized/) =
“And we also know from long ago that hydroxychloroquine is potentially dangerous, known for sometimes causing death from abnormal heart rhythms. The medication was un-approved for COVID-19 in England because it was causing those cardiac deaths with NO improvement in COVID symptoms.”
As Robert Kennedy Jr. wrote in the article, above: “HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines since its safety is well established after 60 years of use and decades on WHO’s list of “essential medicines.” (https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325771/WHO-MVP-EMP-IAU-2019.06-eng.pdf?ua=1)
Here is a direct ink to the World Health Organization's "List of essential medicines"
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/325771/WHO-MVP-EMP-IAU-2019.06-eng.pdf?ua=1
On page 58, the drug, "hydroxychloroquine" is listed in the Index. * See footnote, Below.
Was a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Created to Destroy the Competition for Gilead’s Remdesivir?
(https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/was-a-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative-created-to-destroy-the-competition-for-gileads-remdesivir/)
Dr. Meryl Nass Discovers Hydroxychloroquine Experiments Were Designed to Kill COVID Patients – How Many Were Murdered?
(https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/dr-meryl-nass-discovers-hydroxychloroquine-experiments-were-designed-to-kill-covid-patients-how-many-were-murdered/print/)
Below, Dr. Meryl Nass reviews long a list of corrupt practices. The practices undermine the integrity of medical practice during the current medical crisis; a crisis significantly made worse by stakeholders who are focused on projected future profits from not-yet-developed “countermeasures” against COVID-19. The stakeholders include public health officials, global public...
Hey Everyone. Sorry, when I tried to post this from my phone, it didn't post, maybe went out as a private reply? I don't know. I meant it to be public.
Greetings,
All of this may be true. Fauci I has more than 1500 medical literature citations, which is extraordinary even among researchers. It may be that hydroxychloroquine showed some efficacy for SARS and other coronaviruses in the past. This would suggest *possible* efficacy against our *novel* coronavirus COVID-19, but it does not guarantee it in any way. You have to do the studies. We currently have NO studies showing that it works for COVID-19, and in fact quite the reverse, which is why the treatment in England was halted and the drug un-approved for COVID-19.
An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
(https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html?fbclid=IwAR19K63DlhIV3iBvG0srBiB_sWk8AQzCd-d4prGYTAhlGmosQhiycY_gWno)
ANALYSIS
By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020
Mayacaman
08-08-2020, 04:47 PM
Yes, Barry, it is worth a read. -And, Thank You for posting it. I encourage everyone who cares about the issue to read this article:
An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
(https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html?fbclid=IwAR19K63DlhIV3iBvG0srBiB_sWk8AQzCd-d4prGYTAhlGmosQhiycY_gWno)
ANALYSIS
By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020
Jon Jackson
08-09-2020, 09:19 AM
Hello Everyone,
Thank you for publishing this article. I'm not one to get my medical information from the press, so I had to read this one quite closely and compare with information I have from actual medical sources. I'm sorry to say I see this article as a blatant political attempt to implicate Fauci (as opposed to the true culprit in this pandemic), filled with numerous half-medical-truths that are intended to mislead about COVID-19 information and about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. I've seen a number of articles like this in the press, and they are all following the same line and using the same talking points. I am not aware of any valid medical information that supports these ideas.
With respect, I submit my strong conclusions and opinions,
Jon Jackson, M.D.
Mayacaman
08-09-2020, 11:36 AM
Hello Everyone,
Thank you for publishing this article. I'm not one to get my medical information from the press, so I had to read this one quite closely and compare with information I have from actual medical sources. I'm sorry to say I see this article as a blatant political attempt to implicate Fauci (as opposed to the true culprit in this pandemic), filled with numerous half-medical-truths that are intended to mislead about COVID-19 information and about the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine. I've seen a number of articles like this in the press, and they are all following the same line and using the same talking points. I am not aware of any valid medical information that supports these ideas.
With respect, I submit my strong conclusions and opinions,
Jon Jackson, M.D.
Greetings, Jon Jackson, M.D.
I see from the brevity of your single paragraph of a response that you have probably not opened any of the links in any of the material that I posted above, on yesterday. You dismiss it all out of hand, as "from the press" which, presumably makes it illegitimate, and you sign your name with your M.D. - as if that makes your slackness in doing any further study ok. You are a Doctor after all, and you know.
Beyond that, I have Three points:
A. Could you supply a few links to the information you have received from "actual medical sources" ? I for one would like to make a study of that.
B. As far as the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine goes in curing "100%" of the SAR-CoV-2 cases that have been treated with it, I do not know. Furthermore, I do not have a dog in the race. On general principles I do not like or use pharmaceutical drugs. I am an advocate of other, more natural therapies (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?133327-Electro-therapy-Colloidal-Silver-Water-Baking-Soda-Herbs-amp-Vitamins&highlight=Electrotherapy&p=236389#post236389).
But - as it should be evident - in the massive media blitz (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=dr.+stella+immanuel+news&t=osx&atb=v182-1&ia=web) and campaign to discredit & malign Dr. Stella Immanuel that has occurred since July 27, we may discern a very clear example of a "blatant political attempt " to discredit the use of hydroxychloroquine by "shooting the messenger" - the woman who has passionately spoken out (https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/nobody-needs-to-die-frontline-doctors-storm-d-c-claiming-thousands-of-doctors-are-being-silenced-on-facts-and-treatments-for-covid/) in front of the Supreme Court that she has seen a "100% success rate" of curing the SAR-CoV-2 cases that she treated with that drug.
C. Could you please let us know, Dr. Jackson, just who the "true culprit in this pandemic" is - if it is not Dr. Anthony Fauci?
Perhaps you missed the salient point that the man, Dr. Fauci spent 3.7 millions of taxpayer dollars to underwrite the "gain-of-function" research done by Dr. Peter "mengele" Daszak on bat-cave corona-viruses at the BSL-4 Lab in Wuhan, China.
Check out these Links:
Article by Fred Guterl in Newsweek, April 28, 2020:
Dr. Fauci Backed Controversial Wuhan Lab with U.S. Dollars for Risky Coronavirus Research (https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741)
Article by Josh Rogin, in the Washington Post, April 14, 2020
State Department cables warned of safety issues (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/14/state-department-cables-warned-safety-issues-wuhan-lab-studying-bat-coronaviruses/)
at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses
More Doctors Speak Out on Censorship and Mass Murderer
Anthony Fauci’s False Information Regarding Hydroxychloroquine
August 9, 2020
by Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact News
As mass murder Dr. Anthony Fauci continues to appear in the corporate media to attack the use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which thousands of doctors have now said can completely cure COVID, more doctors are coming forward to expose his lies.
Fauci publicly attacked a recent positive study about HCQ published by the Henry Ford Health System, prompting two of the leading doctors of the study, doctors Adnan Munkarah, M.D. and Steven Kalkanis, M.D., to publish an “Open Letter (https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/08/hydroxychloroquine-an-open-letter)” refuting the lies of the mass murderer, Anthony Fauci.
Dr. Munkarah works as the chief clinical officer of the Henry Ford Health System, and Dr. Kalkanis works as the chief academic officer. Here is an excerpt:
"We want to point out that scientific debate is a common occurrence with almost every published study. In part, this is what fuels the advancement of knowledge – challenging one another on our assumptions, conclusions and applications to get to a better place for the patients we collectively serve. You can read the original study here and the senior author’s letter to the editor here.
Unfortunately, the political climate that has persisted has made any objective discussion about this drug impossible, and we are deeply saddened by this turn of events. Our goal as scientists has solely been to report validated findings and allow the science to speak for itself, regardless of political considerations.
To that end, we have made the heartfelt decision to have no further comment about this outside the medical community – staying focused on our core mission in the interest of our patients, our community, and our commitment to clinical and academic integrity..."
[ Full letter here (https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/08/hydroxychloroquine-an-open-letter) ]
Fauci’s main complaint about their study is that it was not a “double-blind, randomized clinical trial,” which is considered the “Gold Standard.”
This is an interesting criticism, since almost all of the current new medical products being fast-tracked by the FDA to treat COVID, are also not “double-blind, randomized clinical trials.”
This is especially true for the COVID vaccine drug trials, which do not even use a true placebo, but instead usually use another vaccine known for serious side effects, to make the new COVID vaccine appear to be more safe.
The “Gold Standard” for Science Is Gold for the Drug Companies
Peter R. Breggin, M.D. (https://breggin.com/why-covid-19-clinical-trials-cannot-be-trusted/) and Ginger Ross Breggin
August 3, 2020
Science! We have been told that science must be relied upon to make our decisions when dealing with the pandemic called COVID-19. We must in effect bow down to science, no matter how humiliating and painful it may feel.
But science has an Achilles heel—a fatal flaw that can completely ruin it and frequently does.
What is the fatal flaw of science? It is conducted by human beings. Where serious science controversies exist, science is no more reliable than politics…or heaven forbid…no more reliable than religion. Science is only as dependable as the people who conduct and disseminate it. The adage for judging opinions still holds true—consider the source!
When Anthony Fauci announced the rollout of his initial clinical trial for remdesivir as the great hope for knocking out the coronavirus epidemic, he boasted about the clinical trial’s importance: “A randomized, placebo-controlled trial is the gold standard (https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-remdesivir-treat-covid-19-begins) for determining if an experimental treatment can benefit patients.”
Since controlled clinical trials involving drugs and vaccines are very expensive, require access to sick and often highly infectious patients, and must be approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and the FDA—they can only be conducted with funding from Big Pharma and Big Government or occasional other large institutions. We will see that the tragic result of this hegemony was remarkably demonstrated in Fauci’s government trial on behalf of his favorite drug company, Gilead (https://breggin.com/faucis-remdesivir-inadequate-to-treat-covid-19-and-potentially-lethal/).
Meanwhile, the People’s Drug Is Running Ahead
As we have documented in earlier reports, here (https://breggin.com/america-time-to-save-the-world-again/) and here (https://breggin.com/stunning-news-about-hydroxychloroquine-to-treat-covid-19/) and on our Coronavirus Resource Center (https://breggin.com/coronavirus-resource-center/), hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic, and hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and zinc for patients developing COVID-19 could right now greatly improve the treatment of patients in the US, as it has done elsewhere.
Doctors and entire nations have been and are continuing to use this drug successfully, especially in combination with azithromycin and zinc. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has shown that the countries which actively use hydroxychloroquine have significantly lower death rates than those that do not.
Meanwhile, the so-called “gold standard” of controlled clinical trials has been vastly ramped up by the pharmaceutical industry and we can expect a deluge of supposedly scientific studies pouring from them. This report warns the world not to trust the Pharmaceutical Empire’s forthcoming tsunami of evidence for the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Bias Already Controls Ongoing and Planned Clinical Trials
You can see the drug company bias in a recent list of all current and planned registered trials of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. Many of the trials have “arms” or comparator studies for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. There are fourteen of these chloroquine and/or hydroxychloroquine trial arms; but all of them are set up so that they are doomed to fail. Only one adds azithromycin to the hydroxychloroquine and none adds zinc. Yet, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc (https://files.internetprotocol.co/ebook-covid-19.pdf) is considered the most successful treatment for COVID-19 by experienced clinicians (https://breggin.com/america-time-to-save-the-world-again/). In addition, several studies compare remdesivir to the older drug chloroquine rather than to hydroxychloroquine which is considered safer. Put simply, every single registered remdesivir clinical trial has been rigged to make hydroxychloroquine fail in comparison.
We cannot take seriously any of the in-progress or planned remdesivir studies!
Meanwhile, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov (https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=Covid19&term=hydroxychloroquine%2C+azithromycin%2C+zinc+&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=) shows only three ongoing or proposed trials for the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc. Their outcome will probably be determined by whether or not they are intended to show that the medication works. Meanwhile, it is likely that some clinical trials of “Trump’s Wonder Drug” will be conducted by researchers who are hostile toward the President. Almost all clinical trials are conducted by researchers with vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry, what we call The Pharmaceutical Empire. Nearly all will be conducted by experienced researchers with long histories of working for drug companies. They are likely to be interested in knocking hydroxychloroquine out of the competition in favor of more financially rewarding drugs and vaccines or simply to please those in the Pharmaceutical Empire who have been paying their salaries and giving them bonuses for years.
Perhaps in the crucible of the epidemic, some institutions will courageously conduct genuinely scientific studies of the hydroxychloroquine’s rug’s safety and effectiveness in combination with azithromycin and zinc; but that is an idealistic longshot. The world that awaits the clinical trial results should be warned that most of the trials will be showcase trials for those who sponsor them.
Science is a process. To develop genuine or more lasting scientific validity often takes many trustworthy and honest scientists and institutions working independently and separately in many settings, publishing numerous papers, over a long period of time. I doubt that “Trump’s Wonder Drug” will ever be given a fair scientific review, at least in the United States. It is more likely to occur in other countries where the Pharmaceutical Empire has somewhat less influence. And when that happens, the research will get scant airing in the US.
[ MORE (https://breggin.com/why-covid-19-clinical-trials-cannot-be-trusted/)... ]
Jon Jackson
08-09-2020, 01:35 PM
Greetings,
I do appreciate the request for what I know (or don't know) of the clinical data. But, I am going to decline for a couple of reasons. First, it's a long and complicated argument. Second, this is a situation where I doubt anyone will be convinced about anything, anyway. Perhaps I can sum it up, in a way, by saying this. Like Dr. Fauci, I have 45+ years experience of hydroxychloroquine, though I don't think I actually ever prescribed it myself. It's a very old drug from an era (before my time) when most drugs at the time were noted to have some clinical benefit (in this case, malaria and rheumatoid arthritis), but those same drugs were (and are) "dirty drugs" with some pretty nasty side-effects, some of which can be life-threatening. Because of this, one has to be pretty darn sure why you would go to it and use it for something new. When the word first came out that it might be useful for COVID-19, I thought: "Well, okay, sometimes things like that turn out to be true." But, in my view, the evidence has been precisely in the reverse. Doctors always have the freedom to prescribe whatever they will based on their own clinical judgement. But, in this case, for myself at least (though I am now retired), to prescribe hydroxychloroquine in this case would be a violation of my oath to do no harm. Other doctors may believe differently. But, my view is that this would be based on their own clinical experience and judgement, and not on hard science.
An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch
(https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/08/04/an_effective_covid_treatment_the_media_continues_to_besmirch_143875.html?fbclid=IwAR19K63DlhIV3iBvG0srBiB_sWk8AQzCd-d4prGYTAhlGmosQhiycY_gWno)
ANALYSIS
By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020really?? there is nothing about that article that inspires any confidence in me. It's got a barely masked agenda to defend Trump, repeatedly implying that this is all about denying him credit. They're really quick to paint Fauci et. al. as having bad motives. Now before anyone goes all 'whattabout..." on me, sure, the Washington Post can be challenged the same way. You might notice I don't post a link to them as a rebuttal. In fact, I'm not even asserting they're wrong; maybe there is a benefit to Hydroxychloroquine use. Actually, calmer reports do discuss the reason why it's seen as beneficial, and why it's actually not a useful treatment. This is another case where Sagan's law (or an analog to it) has to apply.
The consensus is that it's not useful. When you challenge a consensus, you need clear refutations of their arguments (in a way that shows you understand them) and new arguments that have a solid base. If your base is that Gates is empire-building for big pharma, or Trump-haters built a case against it because he's for it, that won't work on anyone but the other members of your choir. Even if Gates is building an empire that would be damaged by alternatives to whatever magic juju he'll be selling, just pointing out that hydroxy is one of those alternatives says nothing about its efficacy. But many many arguments take off from exactly that point
Mayacaman
08-09-2020, 06:41 PM
And I appreciate your response, Dr. Jon Jackson. -Though I would ask again that you supply us with "a few links to the information you have received from "actual medical sources" -[because ]- "I for one would like to make a study of that." I don't mind long and complicated arguments, and am game on that score.
=Meanwhile= I would encourage you all to study the material and the links posted in this thread so far. There are legitimate arguments and valuable data from an alternative point of view here - one that runs counter to the cover stories and the general narrative being promoted by the mainstream media.
Mayacaman
08-09-2020, 07:16 PM
really?? there is nothing about that article that inspires any confidence in me. It's got a barely masked agenda to defend Trump, repeatedly implying that this is all about denying him credit. They're really quick to paint Fauci et. al. as having bad motives. Now before anyone goes all 'whattabout..." on me, sure, the Washington Post can be challenged the same way. You might notice I don't post a link to them as a rebuttal. In fact, I'm not even asserting they're wrong; maybe there is a benefit to Hydroxychloroquine use. Actually, calmer reports do discuss the reason why it's seen as beneficial, and why it's actually not a useful treatment. This is another case where Sagan's law (or an analog to it) has to apply.
The consensus is that it's not useful. When you challenge a consensus, you need clear refutations of their arguments (in a way that shows you understand them) and new arguments that have a solid base. If your base is that Gates is empire-building for big pharma, or Trump-haters built a case against it because he's for it, that won't work on anyone but the other members of your choir. Even if Gates is building an empire that would be damaged by alternatives to whatever magic juju he'll be selling, just pointing out that hydroxy is one of those alternatives says nothing about its efficacy. But many many arguments take off from exactly that point
I took what you wrote to heart, Peter, and went searching in the haystack of "Real Clear Politics (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/)" to see whether or not they are pro-Trump to the degree that their political agenda is to get Trump re-elected. I found a link to this article from the New Yorker, which indicates that it isn't :
Trump's Determined Absence of a 2nd-Term Agenda
Susan Glasser (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/authors/susan_glasser),
The New Yorker
August 7, 2020
“Mr. President, What Are Your Priorities?” Is Not a Tough Question
Trump is running for reëlection, but, unlike four years ago, he can’t even say why.
<figure class="iframe-embed iframe-embed--center" data-event-boundary="click" data-event-click="{"pattern":"IframeEmbed"}" data-include-experiments="true" style="text-align: left;"><figcaption class="caption lead-asset__caption caption-shade--light" data-event-boundary="click" data-event-click="{"pattern":"Caption"}" data-include-experiments="true">
Running for re-ëlection without offering even a hint of a program, as
Donald Trump has, is a sure indicator of aspirational authoritarianism
</figcaption><svg class="icon icon-twitter" width="15.3" height="13" viewBox="0 0 15.3 13" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2000/svg"></svg>
It was not supposed to be a trick question, or even all that tricky. For any other candidate, it would have been the softest of softballs, the slowest of pitches. But when the Fox News host Ainsley Earhardt asked Donald Trump (https://www.newyorker.com/tag/donald-trump) the other morning, “Mr. President, what is your second-term agenda? What are your top priorities?,” his inability to answer was one of the most revealing moments of his reëlection campaign so far. “I want to take where we left,” Trump said. “We were better than we were ever,” he added, wistfully conjuring the booming pre-pandemic America of his fantasies, where everybody had a job and the stock market was great. Facing uncontrolled death from the coronavirus (https://www.newyorker.com/tag/coronavirus) and an economy that is cratering because of it, Trump is desperate for a do-over. Other than that, he had pretty much nothing to say about why he should be elected to a second term, although he took more than three hundred words to say it. The bottom line seemed to be that Trump is promising four more years of “jobs” and of stopping U.S. allies, especially Germany, from “ripping us off.” And that’s it.
</figure>
This painful exchange, which even the Fox hosts eventually cut off, after a few cringe-inducing minutes, was little noted among the many whoppers, distortions, and outrages offered up by Trump this week. It wasn’t even the big news out of that particular Fox interview, the coverage of which rightfully focussed on the President’s absurd claims that the coronavirus is just “going away” and that schools should reopen because children are “almost immune” to COVID-19. Throughout the week, Trump’s near-delusional state about the pandemic has been on awkward display (https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/trumps-attempt-to-obscure-the-reality-of-the-pandemic-is-getting-comical), most notably in his instant classic of an interview with the Axios journalist Jonathan Swan, whose simple but skeptical queries about the virus revealed a President unable to comprehend basic facts about the public-health crisis or devise a national plan for combatting it. “It is what it is,” Trump told Swan, when asked about the large, and growing, American death toll—a line that may well go down as one of his most chillingly callous.
But Trump’s struggle to answer such an important and straightforward question about what he would do in a second term should not be overlooked, because it goes to the heart of why his campaign—and the country that he nominally governs—is in such trouble. As an incumbent, Trump is certainly in a bind: he can hardly campaign on his record, when the United States is in the midst of the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression and close to a hundred and sixty thousand Americans are dead of the coronavirus. There’s only so much blame that Trump can deflect; this is a catastrophe that happened on his watch, and—no matter how many times he calls it (https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/whats-at-stake-in-a-viruss-name) the “China virus” or warns Americans that Joe Biden (https://www.newyorker.com/tag/joe-biden) will turn the country into a godless hellscape—he knows it.Trump’s vapid answer is more than a reflection of a political-messaging dilemma—it’s a sign of decline, both in terms of the President’s ability to respond cogently to a simple query and as a warning for American democracy, given that such a large segment of the electorate apparently finds it acceptable to support a leader whose only campaign selling point is himself. Is Trump’s inability to come up with something to say about the next four years a reflection of the fact that even he thinks he is going to lose? Perhaps, but it’s also a measure of how far Trump has descended into full “l’état, c’est moi”-ism. Running for reëlection without offering even a hint of a program is a sure indicator of at least aspirational authoritarianism.
The Trump of four years ago was a far more conventional candidate, at least in this one sense. He had a slogan of making America great again, and a platform, however objectionable or unrealistic, that went with it. He made campaign promises. He repeated them over and over. Some were highly specific and executable, and could even be said to constitute a coherent world view: Barack Obama was a terrible President who represented a decadent, globalized élite that is outsourcing your jobs and opening your borders to criminals—I will do the opposite. In the fall of 2016, Trump gave a speech called a “Contract with the American Voter,” in which he promised to withdraw from the Obama-era multinational trade pact called the Trans-Pacific Partnership, to exit the Paris climate accord, and to approve the controversial Keystone XL oil pipeline from Canada, all of which he did after he took office. One politically useful, and highly concrete, promise that Trump made during the 2016 campaign was to assure conservatives that he would pick federal judges and Supreme Court Justices from a Federalist Society-approved list. He stuck to that, too.
Post Script:
Peter, you wrote: "The consensus is that it's not useful."
I don't think one can reasonably argue that there is a "consensus" among doctors and men of science about the efficacy of using hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of SARS-CoV-2. Has anyone done a Census or a poll on this? I am not aware of any.
occihoff
08-11-2020, 03:28 PM
So why do you think Dr. Fauci has done this apparently crazy and even homicidal thing? And why do so many other experts agree with him?
So why do you think Dr. Fauci has done this apparently crazy and even homicidal thing? And why do so many other experts agree with him?
Good Question, Richard ! And a Question that we should all ponder - in the light of the information in the article,
"Cover Up: Fauci Approved Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine 15 Years Ago to Cure Coronaviruses; “Nobody Needed to Die” (https://www.globalresearch.ca/cover-up-fauci-approved-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-15-years-ago-cure-coronaviruses/5713659)
If you are asking for a psychological analysis, I can not begin to comment on the man's mentation {hate that word}. I do not know him, nor am I his shrink. On an emotional level I suspect there is a great deal of greed in the mix, also lust for power, in the manner that James Corbett described it in this documentary:
Why Big Oil Conquered The Worldhttps://www.waccobb.net/forums/images/youtube.png (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wlNey9t7hQ)
These people - the Billionaires in the World Economic Forum circles - have an Agenda in the immediate present - and that is to get everybody in the world vaccinated and micro-chipped. Hydroxychloroquine - if it did indeed work to counteract the virus, both as a preventative and also in the early stages of the disease - would be an impediment to the fulfillment of that Agenda.
You ask "why do you think Dr. Fauci has done this apparently crazy and even homicidal thing?" He has done a lot of homicidal things in the past several years. You might as well ask why Dr. Fauci funded Dr. Peter Daszak to the tune or 3,700,000 dollars (https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741) of "our" (i.e., taxpayer) money to do "gain-of-function research" on Chinese bat-cave viruses at the BSL-4 (Bio-weapons) Lab in Wuhan, China. Just remember (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=one+may+smile+and+smile+and+be+a+villain&t=osx&ia=web): "one may smile and smile and be a villain."
Furthermore, the connections between Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci are extensive (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=%22connections%22+%2C+Bill+Gates+%2C+Dr.+Anthony+Fauci&t=osx&iax=images&ia=images). Fauci serves as a member of the Leadership Council for the Global Vaccine Action Plan (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Leadership+Council+for+the+Global+Vaccine+Action+Plan%2C+Fauci&t=osx&ia=web) developed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, the World Health Organization, UNICEP and Fauci’s own NIAID — the plan that called in 2010 for a 'Decade of Vaccines' to spread far and wide, all around the globe, and now calls for universal, Global vaccination of everybody on earth. Yes, Bill Gates has a 'multi-million dollar relationship' with Dr. Fauci.
To answer the second part of your question : the reason "so many experts" agree with him is on account of just who is getting a hearing in the media these days. Those guys are all financially interested in the profits windfall. Just remember, "Big Pharma owns the mainstream media (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Big+Pharma+owns+the+mainstream+media&t=osx&ia=web)."
Mayacaman
08-12-2020, 12:53 AM
Two-Tiered Medicine:
Why Is Hydroxychloroquine
Being Censored and Politicized?
By the Children’s Health Defense Team
In 2003, severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) induced a global panic—a dress rehearsal, as it were, for Covid-19 in 2020. Although SARS fatalities rapidly petered out (with an eventual worldwide tally of just 774 (https://www.cdc.gov/sars/about/fs-sars.html) deaths), concerns about the potential for future spread of the SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV) left doctors eager to identify effective drugs for treatment and prevention. In short order, researchers in Europe (2003 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7128816/) and 2004 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15351731/)) and at the Special Pathogens Branch of the CDC (2005 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/)) published theoretical models and detailed in vitro findings about a drug offering likely “prophylactic and therapeutic advantage”: chloroquine (CQ).
Following these promising cell culture studies (cited hundreds of times in the scientific literature), researchers around the world continued to explore the antiviral potential of CQ and its more benign analog hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). A 2006 paper (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7129107/) in The Lancet Infectious Diseases again directed attention to CQ as a “valuable therapeutic option if SARS re-emerges.” In 2014 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24841273/), in the aftermath of the Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus (MERS-CoV), researchers at the Anthony-Fauci-led National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) identified 27 existing compounds “with activity against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV,” including CQ and HCQ. Noting that the “screening of approved drugs to identify therapeutics for drug repurposing is a valid approach,” the NIAID researchers singled out CQ and one other drug in their closing paragraph as having noteworthy potential to “reconfigure” the two coronavirus illnesses “into a less virulent (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24841273/) subclinical infection” resulting in less adverse disease outcomes.
This ongoing body of research was clearly at the forefront of many doctors’ minds when SARS-CoV-2 surfaced this year. In early April, a survey (https://jacksoncoker.com/about/in-the-news/physician-poll-on-covid-19-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine/) of U.S. physicians found that two-thirds (65%) would prescribe CQ or HCQ “to treat or prevent COVID-19 in a family member,” and roughly the same percentage (67%) would take it themselves. (The company conducting the survey noted that “the best way to get a candid perspective on treatment options from a physician is to ask: ‘Would you give this to your family?’”) Another early April survey of over 6,000 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of respondents who had already treated Covid-19 rated HCQ as the most effective therapy (https://www.sermo.com/press-releases/largest-statistically-significant-study-by-6200-multi-country-physicians-on-covid-19-uncovers-treatment-patterns-and-puts-pandemic-in-context/).
Apparently, the physicians advising the world’s heads of state are likewise favorably disposed to HCQ. In May, the White House doctor confirmed HCQ’s excellent benefit-to-risk ratio (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-donald-trump-taking-drug-covid-19-prevention/), and the president of El Salvador not only reported taking HCQ as prophylaxis (https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-elsalvador-idUSKBN2330C4) for Covid-19 himself but asserted that “most of the world’s leaders,” including President Trump (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/hydroxychloroquine-donald-trump-taking-drug-covid-19-prevention/), have been doing the same. However, in what has turned out to be a gross understatement, the Salvadorean leader also admitted that “Sometimes what’s recommended to the people is something different (https://qcostarica.com/el-salvadors-millennial-president-says-he-takes-hydroxychloroquine/) than what’s recommended to the leaders.”
For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines … it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running.
“Extra-scientific factors”
In March, the U.S. readily accepted millions (https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/06/trump-hydroxychloroquine-fact-check/) of HCQ tablets donated by pharmaceutical giants Bayer and Sandoz for the U.S. Strategic National Stockpile, and the FDA even granted emergency use authorization (https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-daily-roundup-march-30-2020) for HCQ as a Covid-19 therapy, yet what has been recommended to the American people ever since has most certainly not been HCQ. In fact—ignoring over five dozen studies (https://c19study.com/) (and counting) that have shown CQ or HCQ to be effective against Covid-19 under certain conditions—the FDA revoked (https://www.fda.gov/media/136534/download) the drug’s Covid-19 authorization in June. Meanwhile, the nation’s number-one-ranked hospital, the Mayo Clinic, currently states on its website that there are no Covid-19 medications (https://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/coronavirus/diagnosis-treatment/drc-20479976) or cures.
At this point, when countries using HCQ are displaying a Covid-19 mortality rate that is “only one-tenth (https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/509605-the-hydroxychloroquine-debacle-playing-doctor-on-social-media-platforms) the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States,” it is difficult to deny that an HCQ hit job (https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-sabotage-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-doctors-worldwide-protest-disaster/5717382) is taking place both domestically and internationally. Columbia University medical graduate Dr. James Todaro (https://www.medicineuncensored.com/) recently declared as much: “If it seems like there is an orchestrated attack that’s going on against hydroxychloroquine, it’s because there is.” For the biopharma companies poised to profit from new drugs and Covid-19 vaccines (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/video/dr-fauci-and-covid-19-priorities-therapeutics-now-or-vaccines-later-video/)—including the alarming Moderna vaccine (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/modernas-guinea-pig-sickest-in-his-life-after-being-injected-with-experimental-vaccine/) co-developed by NIAID—it is not an attractive option to keep older drugs that have outlived their patent terms in the running. In a Rachel Maddow interview (https://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow/watch/shelter-in-place-starts-in-s-f-but-could-become-nation-policy-80754757648) earlier this spring, Columbia University’s Dr. Ian Lipkin admitted to Maddow—with a grin—that “sexy and new and patentable (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/dr-fauci-and-covid-19-priorities-therapeutics-now-or-vaccines-later/)” formulations are far more attractive to researchers and investors than “tried-and-true, classical sort of methods repurposing drugs and strategies that have already been shown to work.”
As a result of the HCQ attacks—enabled by the pharmaceutical industry, Fauci and other top health officials (https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/fauci-throws-cold-water-trumps-declaration-malaria-drug/story?id=69716324), social media giants (https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/509605-the-hydroxychloroquine-debacle-playing-doctor-on-social-media-platforms) and captured media, regulatory and scientific journal partners—tens of thousands of Covid-19 patients “are dying unnecessarily (https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535)” for “reasons having nothing to do with a correct understanding of the science.” The expert making that dire assessment—Yale epidemiology professor Harvey Risch, MD, PhD—believes that in the future, “this misbegotten episode regarding hydroxy-chloroquine will be studied by sociologists of medicine as a classic example of how extra-scientific factors overrode clear-cut medical evidence (https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535).”
Instead, the doctors were met with with Google’s removal of their white paper.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is caused by a newly discovered coronavirus (SARS-CoV). No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available.
Results
We report, however, that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage. In addition to the well-known functions of chloroquine such as elevations of endosomal pH, the drug appears to interfere with terminal glycosylation of the cellular receptor, angiotensin-converting enzyme 2. This may negatively influence the virus-receptor binding and abrogate the infection, with further ramifications by the elevation of vesicular pH, resulting in the inhibition of infection and spread of SARS CoV at clinically admissible concentrations.
Conclusion
Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) is an emerging disease that was first reported in Guangdong Province, China, in late 2002. The disease rapidly spread to at least 30 countries within months of its first appearance, and concerted worldwide efforts led to the identification of the etiological agent as SARS coronavirus (SARS-CoV), a novel member of the family Coronaviridae [1 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR1)]. Complete genome sequencing of SARS-CoV [2 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR2), 3 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR3)] confirmed that this pathogen is not closely related to any of the previously established coronavirus groups. Budding of the SARS-CoV occurs in the Golgi apparatus [4 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR4)] and results in the incorporation of the envelope spike glycoprotein into the virion. The spike glycoprotein is a type I membrane protein that facilitates viral attachment to the cellular receptor and initiation of infection, and angiotensin-converting enzyme-2 (ACE2) has been identified as a functional cellular receptor of SARS-CoV [5 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR5)]. We have recently shown that the processing of the spike protein was effected by furin-like convertases and that inhibition of this cleavage by a specific inhibitor abrogated cytopathicity and significantly reduced the virus titer of SARS-CoV [6 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR6)].
Due to the severity of SARS-CoV infection, the potential for rapid spread of the disease, and the absence of proven effective and safe in vivo inhibitors of the virus, it is important to identify drugs that can effectively be used to treat or prevent potential SARS-CoV infections. Many novel therapeutic approaches have been evaluated in laboratory studies of SARS-CoV: notable among these approaches are those using siRNA [7 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR7)], passive antibody transfer [8 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR8)], DNA vaccination [9 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR9)], vaccinia or parainfluenza virus expressing the spike protein [10 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR10), 11 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR11)], interferons [12 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR12), 13 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR13)], and monoclonal antibody to the S1-subunit of the spike glycoprotein that blocks receptor binding [14 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR14)]. In this report, we describe the identification of chloroquine as an effective pre- and post-infection antiviral agent for SARS-CoV. Chloroquine, a 9-aminoquinoline that was identified in 1934, is a weak base that increases the pH of acidic vesicles. When added extracellularly, the non-protonated portion of chloroquine enters the cell, where it becomes protonated and concentrated in acidic, low-pH organelles, such as endosomes, Golgi vesicles, and lysosomes. Chloroquine can affect virus infection in many ways, and the antiviral effect depends in part on the extent to which the virus utilizes endosomes for entry. Chloroquine has been widely used to treat human diseases, such as malaria, amoebiosis, HIV, and autoimmune diseases, without significant detrimental side effects [15 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR15)]. Together with data presented here, showing virus inhibition in cell culture by chloroquine doses compatible with patient treatment, these features suggest that further evaluation of chloroquine in animal models of SARS-CoV infection would be warranted as we progress toward finding effective antivirals for prevention or treatment of the disease.
</section>Results
Preinfection chloroquine treatment renders Vero E6 cells refractory to SARS-CoV infection
In order to investigate if chloroquine might prevent SARS-CoV infection, permissive Vero E6 cells [1 (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#ref-CR1)] were pretreated with various concentrations of chloroquine (0.1–10 μM) for 20–24 h prior to virus infection. Cells were then infected with SARS-CoV, and virus antigens were visualized by indirect immunofluorescence as described in Materials and Methods. Microscopic examination (Fig. 1A (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#Fig1)) of the control cells (untreated, infected) revealed extensive SARS-CoV-specific immunostaining of the monolayer. A dose-dependant decrease in virus antigen-positive cells was observed starting at 0.1 μM chloroquine, and concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection. For quantitative purposes, we counted the number of cells stained positive from three random locations on a slide. The average number of positively stained control cells was scored as 100% and was compared with the number of positive cells observed under various chloroquine concentrations (Fig. 1B (https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1743-422X-2-69#Fig1)). Pretreatment with 0.1, 1, and 10 μM chloroquine reduced infectivity by 28%, 53%, and 100%, respectively. Reproducible results were obtained from three independent experiments. These data demonstrated that pretreatment of Vero E6 cells with chloroquine rendered these cells refractory to SARS-CoV infection.
It has been done "in a human being" already, Richard. Evidence: the testimonies that were given by "America's Frontline Doctors" in the Press Conference on July 27, 2020, in front of the Supreme Court.
Here is a link to the whole forty-five minute Press Conference in front of the Supreme Court building on Monday, July 27, 2020:
“Nobody Needs to Die” – Frontline Doctors Storm D.C. Claiming “Thousands of Doctors” are Being Silenced on Facts and Treatments for COVID (https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/nobody-needs-to-die-frontline-doctors-storm-d-c-claiming-thousands-of-doctors-are-being-silenced-on-facts-and-treatments-for-covid/)”
(https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/nobody-needs-to-die-frontline-doctors-storm-d-c-claiming-thousands-of-doctors-are-being-silenced-on-facts-and-treatments-for-covid/)
- the “viral video” that racked up over seventeen million views on the first day, and was "purged" that very night.
Here is the video of the subsequent Press Conference of these “Tea Party” Doctors, made after the ‘purge’ of the video that went viral & their website host provider pulled their platform out from under them:
“Frontline Doctors on Censorship: We’re Coming After You Big Tech – We will Not be Silenced! (https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/frontline-doctors-on-censorship-were-coming-after-you-big-tech-we-will-not-be-silenced/)”
Now, you may not like their Bircher (i.e., "Tea Party") politics - but does that vitiate their testimonies as men and women of Science? I don't think so. Indeed, the Question has already been posed in this thread,
" Why Is Hydroxychloroquine Being Censored and Politicized? (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Why+Is+Hydroxychloroquine+Being+Censored+and+Politicized%3F&t=osx&ia=web) "
by the Children’s Health Defense (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/) Team...
Mayacaman
08-22-2020, 09:40 PM
Hydroxychloroquine Is Widely Used Around the Globe
by Brian Giesbrecht (https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-brian-giesbrecht)
Death rates in countries that rely on hydroxychloroquine (https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-hydroxychloroquine) (HCQ) for the treatment of COVID-19 (https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-covid-19) appear to be dramatically lower than death rates in countries that discourage the use of the drug.
A new study claims that the death rate in the countries that used HCQ early on was 77 percent lower than in countries where the drug was not used (c19study.com (http://c19study.com/)).
The startling thing about this finding—if accurate—is that the countries where HCQ has been extensively used are poor in relation to the countries that could afford to adopt the “lockdown” model. Those poorer countries cannot afford the massive amounts of money spent by lockdown countries, where businesses were shut down and trillions were then spent compensating workers and business owners.
The HCQ countries are also unable to afford the expensive health-care systems that rich countries are lucky to have. If the findings of this study are borne out it will be a massive indictment not only of all of the HCQ naysayers, but of the advocates of the lockdown model.
It might also mean that a pill costing a few cents saves lives, while the mountain of money spent on lockdowns in the rich part of the world has failed to do so.
The other notable difference between the HCQ countries and lockdown countries is that those countries don’t attempt to prevent doctors from prescribing HCQ to their patients. Here, doctors are discouraged from doing so.
Speaking Out
A detailed analysis of the c19 study is far beyond the ability of this author. The fact is, the study is currently being attacked by scientists and other experts—as it should be. However, the point is, many countries claim that HCQ works, and the truth of this claim is largely being ignored by a biased media and self-serving politicians.
However, senior doctors are now beginning to speak out against the unofficial campaign that clearly exists to discredit any doctor or scientist who advocates for the use of HCQ.
Recently, Yale University Dean of Public Health Sten Vermund defended the right (https://www.thecollegefix.com/yales-dean-of-public-health-defends-right-to-argue-hydroxychloroquine-could-save-lives/) of a fellow senior doctor to openly discuss his view that HCQ works, and that American doctors must be freed up to prescribe a drug that could save many lives.
The general belief of these doctors is that HCQ, in combination with zinc and azithromycin, should be used as early as possible in the treatment of the disease for best results. Clearly, the campaign to stop doctors who believe that HCQ works from prescribing it to their patients is beginning to crack.
The doctor the dean was defending is Yale epidemiologist and public health professor Harvey Risch. Risch—the author of 300 published articles—is a distinguished professor and cancer epidemiologist. He had appeared on Fox News and told Ingraham Angle host Laura Ingraham that not only were doctors who believed in the use of HCQ being unfairly treated, but that the use of the drug could save (https://www.foxnews.com/media/hydroxychloroquine-could-save-lives-ingraham-yale-professor) between 75,000 and 100,000 lives.
For his advocacy of HCQ he was facing criticism, and Vermund defended Risch’s right to advocate for the use of a treatment he believed in.
Another senior doctor who spoke on Ingraham’s show recently is cardiologist Ramin Oskoui. He described the results of the finding of the c19 study on Fox News on Aug. 5, 2020. Speaking with Ingraham (https://video.foxnews.com/v/6178621375001#sp=show-clips), Oskoui urged health officials to abandon their political opposition to the drug and incorporate it into a treatment program that could potentially save many lives, and reduce the suffering of people stricken by the disease.
It’s far too early to determine how this particular study will hold up. However, it’s clear that scientists and doctors in many nations have enough of a belief in the efficacy of the drug to incorporate it into both the prevention and the early treatment stage of their COVID-19 treatment regime.
How Countries Use HCQ
Perhaps it would be useful to look briefly at how some of these countries are using the drug. The following is a brief description of some of the countries that use HCQ extensively, both as a prophylactic and as a treatment for COVID-19 in the early stages.
Turkey is one such country. When a person shows symptoms of the disease in Turkey, they are prescribed low doses of HCQ and advised to remain at home and report on their progress. If their illness progresses to a stage where hospitalization is necessary, they are then prescribed slightly higher doses of HCQ, together with other treatment. Turkey’s reported death rate is dramatically lower than the death rate in countries such as Britain and the United States, where HCQ use is discouraged, and therefore not openly used.
India also uses HCQ extensively. This is made easier by the fact that much of the world’s supply (https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/coronavirus-vaccine-hydroxychloroquine-hcq-covid-19-treatment-6504276/) of the drug comes from India, and as a result its use there is particularly inexpensive. The belief is that the early use of HCQ cuts the mortality rate in half. Statistics from India appear to bear that out. Police, health-care workers and frontline workers are given HCQ as a prophylactic, and the results there are very encouraging.
Israel has not only been making use of HCQ in COVID treatment, but has also been supplying it to its friends. For instance, Israel made a major donation (https://floridapolitics.com/archives/325642-israeli-drugs-combatting-coronavirus) of HCQ to Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida, who incorporated the drug into the COVID treatment plan there. It should be noted that Florida’s COVID death rate remains far lower than the rate in states such as New York, despite Florida’s large elderly population. It’s an open question whether this lower death rate is related to Florida’s use of the donated drug.
Other countries (https://techstartups.com/2020/07/23/countries-using-hydroxychloroquine-low-coronavirus-fatality-rate-compared-countries-dont-association-american-physicians-surgeons-says/) where the use of HCQ is encouraged, rather than discouraged, also show dramatically lower death rates. Russia and South Korea are examples, but there are many countries, such as Switzerland, where the drug is used quietly.
Switzerland, in fact, provides strong proof that HCQ is effective. Simply put, when the flawed study that WHO relied upon to recommend the suspension of HCQ use, Switzerland followed that advice and suspended HCQ use. When that flawed Lancet reported study was withdrawn as false (https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/06/04/coronavirus-live-updates-us/), Switzerland resumed HCQ use. During the few weeks when HCQ was not used, the death rate shot up. When HCQ use resumed, the death rate came down again (https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535). This is strong proof that the drug works.
In many countries, the drug is available as an easily affordable and safe over-the-counter drug. It’s sold in the same way that common pain relievers are marketed.
However, even in countries that do not encourage the use of HCQ, or even actively discourage its use, the drug is certainly being used. In the United States, for example, a significant number of doctors are defying the HCQ taboo and prescribing the drug to their patients both as a prophylactic, and for treatment. HCQ’s possible life-saving benefits (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41419-020-2721-8) (combined with its safety and low cost) are simply considered to be too great to ignore. The fact that it had been used safely by millions of people for decades has convinced many doctors that they cannot in good conscience keep the drug from their patients.
Exactly how many doctors worldwide are prescribing the drug for their patients, either as a prophylactic or as part of their treatment, is an unknown, but it’s known that the drug is being produced (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01619-8) and sold in huge quantities.
Germany, as well, is reported to have made extensive use of HCQ in the very early stages of the pandemic (https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-pandemic). This might account for its relatively low COVID death rate. The fact that the huge German pharmaceutical company Bayer produces HCQ in Germany made German use easier. In fact, Bayer donated a million doses (https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/03/29/hhs-accepts-donations-of-medicine-to-strategic-national-stockpile-as-possible-treatments-for-covid-19-patients.html) of HCQ to the United States during the height of the pandemic.
India, Brazil, and Ecuador all reported that when HCQ was administered to local populations, death rates fell sharply. In France, 466 million prescriptions (https://www.forbes.com/sites/alexledsom/2020/05/10/hydroxychloroquinenumber-of-prescriptions-explode-in-france/) for the drug have been written by doctors. And Russia refused to stop (https://www.themoscowtimes.com/2020/06/01/as-russian-officials-back-hydroxychloroquine-doctors-take-matters-into-their-own-hands-a70435) its reliance on HCQ, even when the later debunked Lancet study caused the WHO to recommend a temporary halt to all HCQ use. HCQ remains an important part of Russia’s COVID treatment regime.
The tragedy in all of this may be that the strongest opposition to the use of HCQ appears to be found in one of the countries most badly infected—the United States.
While the drug is being used—apparently successfully—in many parts of the world, politicians, the mainstream media, and social media vehicles such as Google (YouTube), Twitter, and Facebook are working aggressively to make it impossible for the American public to either obtain the drug, or to use it. They also appear to be working in concert with media organizations and politicians to promote a smear campaign against the use of the drug.
Why is that?
The answer is clear. Much of it is purely political. President Donald Trump famously stated his belief that the drug might work, and as a result his opponents have decided to make it unavailable to the American public—no matter the possible cost in lives.
As The Wall Street Journal (https://www.wsj.com/articles/hydroxychloroquine-given-early-helped-coronavirus-patients-study-finds-11593729664) recently reported, there are encouraging HCQ test results, although there’s no definitive answer at this time. Politics should play no part in what should be a purely medical decision.
Unbiased Testing
Perhaps some medical authorities worry that large-scale HCQ usage would prevent the widescale vaccinations that would be necessary to reach herd immunity when vaccines become available. But that is not a good reason. HCQ might prove to be a far safer and more affordable treatment. Unbiased testing should be undertaken to answer this question.
That unbiased, rigorous testing is incredibly important. In the words of visionary Scott Adams, it’s so important that we should be “chewing through concrete walls” to get definitive answers. And yet, mainstream testing is done almost reluctantly.
And even the WHO-approved studies that are undertaken almost look they were designed to fail. The two main studies studied the wrong things. They analyzed the results of using massive doses of HCQ in the advanced stages of the disease. None of the HCQ-using countries are administering it in that way. They are using it both as a prophylactic and, in the case of infection, at the very early stage of the disease—using modest doses to prevent the disease from progressing to the stage where the lungs have become severely impacted.
None of the HCQ-using countries administer it in the dangerously large doses used in the oft-quoted negative studies. The rigorous studies that the mainstream media insists on referring to when denouncing HCQ having nothing to do with how the drug is actually being used.
It should also be noted that the naysayers who talk about the dangers of taking the drug are grossly overstating any danger. All drugs have side effects, but HCQ has been used safely for the past 65 years. Billions of tablets have been consumed. As an example, anyone in the military who travelled to tropical areas was routinely given HCQ as protection against malaria. Rheumatism, arthritis, and lupus sufferers have been taking the drug safely since the 1950s.
Simply put, healthy people can tolerate this drug with no complications. Those with heart or other similar conditions need to consult their doctor about taking the drug in the same way that they need to consult about taking aspirin or ibuprofen. It’s a fact that HCQ is a safe, inexpensive drug.
Finally, for the naysayers who assert—quite correctly—that there are no definitive studies that HCQ works, it should be stated that the same can be said for other drugs and treatments that are proving to be successful in the treatment of COVID patients.
For instance, it appears that although the much-touted remdesivir has proven to be a disappointment, dexamethasone appears to have been very successful in the treatment of hospitalized COVID patients. The drug has not gone through the rigorous peer-reviewed testing usually required for experimental drugs for the simple reason that the coronavirus (https://www.theepochtimes.com/t-coronavirus) is new and the need is immediate. It’s hypocritical to demand a one- or two-year-long test for HCQ when other promising drugs are being used—quite properly—for COVID treatment.
And for that matter, the entire “science” of lockdowns, as a strategy to combat a virus, has not undergone any kind of normal scientific vetting. The “lockdown” is a brand new strategy that has literally been dreamed up by a group of leaders in consultation with various “experts.” The concept apparently came from a 2006 high-school science project.
It was a strategy—some would say a panicked response—that was very quickly improvised in an attempt to respond to a new virus that threatened to overwhelm health-care systems. It was decided upon very quickly largely in response to the now completely discredited (https://www.iedm.org/the-flawed-covid-19-model-that-locked-down-canada/) Neil Ferguson Imperial College model that predicted massive death.
At this time there is absolutely no “science” behind the “lockdown” model, as it has never been used before in human history. If the lockdown model required a year-long study before it could be used, it would never have been implemented—which might have been a good thing.
Even if it transpires that HCQ was not effective, it should strike all of us as odd that poorer countries that could not afford to employ the lockdown model—closing businesses, sending workers home, and sending everyone money—had far lower death rates than richer countries that did all of those things. There will be many books written about this. But that’s for the future.
At some point there will be definitive tests results that prove conclusively that HCQ either does or does not work. If the result is that the drug does not work, people will have wasted the few dollars that the drug costs—that’s really the only downside. If it turns out the the drug does work—the way Risch and many others believe it does—it will be clear that thousands of lives could have been saved by its early use. The lawsuits will begin.
We should learn from the countries that have been using the drug. The dramatic fall in death rates that occurred after HCQ treatment was initiated in countries such as India, Brazil, and Ecuador can no longer be ignored. To do so, and to continue to interfere with a doctor’s right to prescribe HCQ to their patients, is reckless and immoral.
·that guy tries to restrain himself from too much hyperbole and hyperventilation. He's a good advocate.
Mayacaman
08-23-2020, 08:37 AM
podfish wrote:
that guy tries to restrain himself from too much hyperbole and hyperventilation. He's a good advocate.
That guy, Brian Giesbrecht (https://www.theepochtimes.com/author-brian-giesbrecht), writes for Epoch Times, where the article first appeared. Epoch Times is published in America by the Falun Gong (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Falun+Gong&t=osx&ia=web), the Qigong practitioners with the apocalyptic doctrine who are considered dangerous heretics by the Chinese Communist Party in the "Peoples Republic of China," and are allegedly subjected to vivisection, dismemberment & organ harvesting (https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=china+organ+harvesting+epoch+) (sale of body parts) in special factories in Manchuria.
Caveat: In the United States, the Falun Gong are unabashedly pro-Trump. I suppose that is some kind of compensation (Adolf Adler (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Adolf+Adler%2C+compensation&t=osx&ia=web) ?) for the abuse they have experienced in the PRC.
Valley Oak
08-23-2020, 05:24 PM
This thread belongs in the Coronavirus Conspiracy Theories (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?135-Coronavirus-Conspiracy-Theories) section of Wacco.
Fascist. That comment reeks of chauvinism and elitism, Edward. Shame on you. This is what has become of the self-proclaimed, so-called "Left" of today in Amerika. They are intolerant, self-righteous and favor the suppression of free speech and open discourse every chance they get. As Wilson Ogg of Berkeley told me back in the early 90's, "The Left have become reactionaries without realizing it."
But don't worry, Edward Mendoza . You may soon get your wish. Just about every post that I have delivered uptown into the Garden City nice folks Ward has been shuffled back into the Ninth Ward by Barry. He's good at that; doesn't even ask for a show of hands. You can count on it.
Jon Jackson
08-23-2020, 06:00 PM
I think what Edward is referring to is related to the criticism Sartre got in the '60s when he formed an alliance in France with the Communist Party. What he said in reply was that the Left needs to be united. And he was willing to form that alliance, even though the Communists were far too conservative for his tastes.
Mayacaman
08-23-2020, 06:36 PM
Jon Jackson wrote:
"I think what Edward is referring to is related to the criticism Sartre got in the '60s when he formed an alliance in France with the Communist Party. What he said in reply was that the Left needs to be united. And he was willing to form that alliance, even though the Communists were far too conservative for his tastes"
That may have something to do with it, Jon. But - were I to guess - Edward seems to be reacting to my statement that the Falon Gong are subjected to organ harvesting and systemic, widespread vivisection in the PRC. That is pretty much an established fact - though an extremely unpleasant fact that some would prefer not to believe. I provided a link or two to that effect.
But since Edward only dropped a one-liner on the trail here, who knows what he found disturbing or outré about this thread. He'll have to explain himself; I hope he does, in some detail...
<style> <!-- /* Font Definitions */ @font-face {font-family:Cambria; panose-1:0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0; mso-font-alt:"Times New Roman"; mso-font-charset:77; mso-generic-font-family:roman; mso-font-format:other; mso-font-pitch:auto; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} @font-face {font-family:"book antiqua"; mso-font-alt:Palatino; mso-font-charset:0; mso-generic-font-family:auto; mso-font-pitch:variable; mso-font-signature:3 0 0 0 1 0;} /* Style Definitions */ p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal {mso-style-parent:""; margin-top:0in; margin-right:0in; margin-bottom:10.0pt; margin-left:0in; mso-pagination:widow-orphan; font-size:12.0pt; font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria; mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-fareast-font-family:Cambria; mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria; mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin; mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman"; mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}size:8.5in 11.0in; margin:1.0in 1.25in 1.0in 1.25in; mso-header-margin:.5in; mso-footer-margin:.5in; mso-paper-source:0;} div.Section1 {page:Se</style>I have no brief for the Falon Gong and I have even less of a brief for the sitting POTUS. I was merely commenting - as an aside - that they are vehement Trumpsters. It is so.
Jon Jackson
08-27-2020, 09:58 PM
Okay, folks. Get ready. Here is Dr. Campbell's update about hydroxychloroquine! 08/27/20.
A new study from Belgium suggests LOW DOSE hydroxychloroquine IS EFFECTIVE with COVID-19.
Previous studies have been quite flawed...AND using way too high a dose. This is a very interesting bit of information. Dr. Campbell discusses these things in this video.
Of Course. This is old news for those of us who have been following this story. But Thank you, Doctor Jon Jackson. Truly; thank you.
“Scientific Corona Lies” and Big Pharma Corruption.
Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir
By Prof Michel Chossudovsky (https://www.globalresearch.ca/author/michel-chossudovsky)
Global Research, August 24, 2020
Introduction
There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “evaluation” published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.
The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.
While The Lancet article was retracted, (https://www.thelancet.com/pdfs/journals/lancet/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6.pdf) the media casually blamed “a tiny US based company” named Surgisphere whose employees included “a sci-fi writer and adult content model” for spreading “flawed data” (Guardian) (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine). This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took place.
While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific community nor the media have acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra (https://www.chinadaily.com.cn/a/202006/08/WS5edda46aa310834817251720.html) under the auspices of Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School.When the scam was revealed, Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital apologized:
I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards.
It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added)
Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSC (official statement on BWH website)
(https://www.brighamandwomens.org/about-bwh/newsroom/press-releases-detail?id=3592)
But that “truly sorry” note was just the tip of the iceberg.
Why?Studies on Gilead Science’s Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Were Conducted Simultaneously by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)
While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended “to kill” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19, another important (related) study was being carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc.
Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist inInfectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham’s contract with Gilead Sciences Inc (https://www.brighamhealthonamission.org/2020/03/26/two-remdesivir-clinical-trials-underway-at-brigham-and-womens-hospital/):
Brigham and Women’s Hospital began enrolling patients in two clinical trials for Gilead’s antiviral medication remdesivir. The Brigham is one of multiple clinical trial sites for a Gilead-initiated study of the drug in 600 participants with moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and a Gilead-initiated study of 400 participants with severe COVID-19.
… If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren’t, it gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other therapies.”
While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences Inc: “He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate” (France Soir, May 23, 2020)
What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine?According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet Retraction:
The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, … professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results. (France Soir, June 5, 2020)
Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon).
Who are the Main Actors?
Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s Remdesivir.
Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.
Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Science Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.
Gilead Sciences Inc: HistoryGilead Sciences Inc (https://www.marketscreener.com/GILEAD-SCIENCES-INC-4876/company/) is a Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing Remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among others. It has developed ties with the US Government.
In 1999 Gilead Sciences Inc, developed Tamiflu (https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/99/21087_Tamiflu.cfm) (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the time, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005) (https://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/fortune_rumsfeld/): “The prospect of a bird flu outbreak … was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences”.
Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as “a go between” the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would:
(https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/warandhealth.html)
“accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used in attacks, and the biology of the microbes’ hosts — human beings and their immune systems. One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity.” (WPo report)
In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George W. Bush “for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives.”
https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/800px-President_George_W._Bush_and_Dr._Anthony_S._Fauci.jpg (https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/800px-President_George_W._Bush_and_Dr._Anthony_S._Fauci.jpg)
Check out the two Big Pharma Ghouls on the left and
the right, wha' also gat Medals on that fine day frae W...
Mayacaman
08-29-2020, 11:55 AM
Open Letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci Regarding the
Use of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19
By George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California
Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida
Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California
August 12, 2020
Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Washington, D.C.
Dear Dr. Fauci:
You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.
You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar”. This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.
As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.
Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published (https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586) an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis”. He further published an article (https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535) in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.
Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.
Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection,
[ Continues here (https://www.globalresearch.ca/open-letter-dr-anthony-fauci-regarding-use-hydroxychloroquine-treating-covid-19/5721065)... ]
Mayacaman
09-01-2020, 05:25 PM
Dr. Fauci and the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious
Diseases Use of Foster Children in Developing an HIV Vaccine
by Faith Dyson
Faith Dyson recently published an article on Facebook titled:
What Was Fauci’s Role In Funding Tuskgegee-Like AIDS Experiments On Foster Children In Seven U.S. States (https://www.facebook.com/notes/faith-dyson/what-was-faucis-role-in-funding-tuskgegee-like-aids-experiments-on-foster-childr/10157586697714677/)?
She relies heavily on the work of investigative journalist Liam Scheff, and his research published in the book, The House That AIDS Built (https://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm), which can be found online here (https://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm).
In 2004 – investigative journalist, Liam Scheff, exposed the fact that hundreds of Foster children at Incarnation Children’s Center in NYC were used and abused as lab rats for unsupervised and unrestricted AIDS research and Vaccine studies by Big Pharma and The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases [NIAID].
Years later in separate investigations – 13,878 children were discovered to have been made subject of the same fate during the 1980’s and 1990’s in six other states: Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Colorado and Texas.
As we found out in our own investigative report back in 2015, Congress knew about these medical experiments being conducted on foster children and conducted a hearing in 2005, with the title “Protections for Foster Children Enrolled in Clinical Trials.”
The transcript of these hearings used to be on the House.gov website, but since we published our article it has been removed. A copy can be found at Archives.org here (https://archive.org/details/gov.gpo.fdsys.CHRG-109hhrg36660/mode/2up).
When the Subcommittee on Human Resources of the Committee on Ways and Means, U.S. House of Representatives met to examine this problem, Chairman Wally Herger, Representative from California made this statement:
"Over the last 18 months, this Subcommittee has heard hearings about a number of issues affecting kids in the Federal, State child welfare programs, and this issue is like many of them: It has the potential for being explosive. The child welfare program in the richest, most powerful country in the world is, and has been, often an abysmal failure.
[I]"Now, we don’t need proof of more of that. We can give you all kinds of examples of it. We know about kids losing their lives in the child welfare system. Practically every State legislature every year deals with one case or another, and everybody wrings their hands, and the problems go on. The kids are sometimes locked up and sometimes starved under the supervision of the agencies. We know the children have been used without proper supervision for drug testing. " (emphasis added)
The first witness to testify before the House subcommittee was Dr. Donald Young, M.D., U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Planning and Evaluation. He provided extensive testimony regarding governmental oversight. Dr. Young concluded his remarks by stating:
"We continue to address challenges posed by the threat of HIV/AIDS and are committed to basic and clinical research to strengthen the nation’s ability to cope with this infectious disease. The protection of human subjects, including children, in clinical trials has been and will remain a top priority for HHS. HHS is firmly committed to the protection of the rights and welfare of every individual who participates in human research consistent with sound ethical standards and regulatory requirements."
Later in the hearing, Dr. Young was asked if any changes were needed in regard to foster children and their participation in drug experimentation. Dr. Young stated:
"We are not aware of any changes that we believe need to be made. If they are identified, we will be very happy to consider them and make a decision as how best to proceed. We share with you the concern about the adequate protection of foster children. At the same time, the opportunity to let them participate and get the advantage of clinical research, if that is theirs and their guardian’s decision."
It appears that this Congressional hearing, while acknowledging that foster children were being enrolled in HIV/AIDS vaccine trials, did nothing to stop it.
Liam Scheff details what some of these foster children went through in his book (https://www.altheal.org/texts/house.htm).
In New York’s Washington Heights is a 4-story brick building called Incarnation Children’s Center (ICC). This former convent houses a revolving stable of children who’ve been removed from their own homes by the Agency for Child Services [ACS]. These children are black, Hispanic and poor.
Once taken into ICC, the children become subjects of drug trials sponsored by NIAID (National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Disease, a division of the NIH), NICHD (the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development) in conjunction with some of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies – GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, Genentech, Chiron/Biocine and others.
The drugs being given to the children are toxic – they’re known to cause genetic mutation, organ failure, bone marrow death, bodily deformations, brain damage and fatal skin disorders.
If the children refuse the drugs, they’re held down and have them force fed. If the children continue to resist, they’re taken to Columbia Presbyterian hospital where a surgeon puts a plastic tube through their abdominal wall into their stomachs. From then on, the drugs are injected directly into their intestines.
In 2003, two children, ages 6 and 12, had debilitating strokes due to drug toxicities. The 6-year-old went blind. They both died shortly after. Another 14-year old died recently. An 8-year-old boy had two plastic surgeries to remove large, fatty, drug-induced lumps from his neck.
This isn’t science fiction. This is AIDS research. The children at ICC were born to mothers who tested HIV positive, or who themselves tested positive. However, neither parents nor children were told a crucial fact — HIV tests are extremely inaccurate. The HIV test cross-reacts with nearly seventy commonly-occurring conditions, giving false positive results. These conditions include common colds, herpes, hepatitis, tuberculosis, drug abuse, inoculations and most troublingly, current and prior pregnancy. This is a double inaccuracy, because the factors that cause false positives in pregnant mothers can be passed to their children – who are given the same false diagnosis.
Most of us have never heard this before. It’s undoubtedly the biggest secret in medicine. However, it’s well known among HIV researchers that HIV tests are extremely inaccurate – but the researchers don’t tell the doctors, and they certainly don’t tell the children at ICC, who serve as test animals for the next generation of AIDS drugs. ICC is run by Columbia University’s Presbyterian Hospital in affiliation with Catholic Home Charities through the Archdiocese of New York.
Does the issue of “inaccurate tests” sound familiar? It should, because we are seeing the exact same thing today with COVID tests.
Faith Dyson writes about her reaction after reading Liam Scheff’s reports:
When I read the report, I was much like the general public – totally ignorant of NIAID; its director, funding, etc. and I doubt at that time there were very many other people who would have known who was in charge of the Agency outside of government bureaucrats, scientists, researchers, activists and possibly those who were affected by ‘the AIDS/HIV virus’.
What’s interesting to note here is that the source and/or existence of that pandemic is another highly questionable subject, because it appears to mimic the same scenario that accompanies the latest super-bug to attack the world’s population, the Coronavirus.
In fact – they’re so much alike, one would think the exact same plan had been followed in the production of both epidemics; the older one, AIDS/HIV, using monkeys and the newer one, Corona, using bats. (See link #3 for a shocking revelation re: active viruses in childhood vaccines that cause AIDS, Cancer, and Leukemia plus a host of other diseases and disorders and see #4 for the traumatic details of how the effects are still plaguing our population decades later..
Therefore – due to the results of the AIDS/HIV epidemic, those most affected by it had been demanding – from the same government Agency and pharmaceutical companies – some sort of treatment, vaccine, drug, etc. to stem the tide of the infection.
So the big question back then was:
“Where could Big Pharma and NIAID find lab rats to whom they could offer ‘free medical care’ in the guise of ‘helping to prevent and/or remedy their suffering’ all the while using them in AIDS/HIV drug and vaccine trails – without being bothered from outside interference, the same as was done in the infamous Tuskgegee Syphilis Experiment?” (See link #5.)
As Liam Scheff uncovered – the answer to their mad scientific prayers was the unsupervised and unprotected wards of the state, a.k.a. ‘Foster children’.
However – since the newest pandemic has arisen to overshadow all others, and we now have a much larger group of people demanding the same provisions from the same corporations and Government Agency, we all know who is the head of NIAID.
It’s Dr. Anthony Fauci, one of the lead members of the Trump Administration’s White House Coronavirus Task Force addressing the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States.
So a recap of the facts we’ve learned from the corona outbreak – in conjunction with the AIDS/HIV funding that spawned the experiments at Incarnation Children’s Center and elsewhere – are as follows:
1) Dr. Fauci has been the director of NIAID, a division of The Executive Branch of The U.S. Government, since 1984, so he was also director during the Incarnation Children’s Center Experiments,
2) his NIAID profile states that he still currently “oversees an extensive research portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases such as HIV/AIDS, respiratory infections, diarrheal diseases, tuberculosis and malaria as well as emerging diseases such as Ebola and Zika.” (See link #6),
3) Fauci participates in Gate-sponsored Global Health Conferences and is listed on The Leadership Council for The Bill And Melinda Gates Foundation (See link #7 and #8.), which has a huge stake in the profits from a Vaccine, Contact Tracing, microchipping, and various other technologies,
4) NIAID illegally outsourced $3.7 Million in U.S. Tax-payer’s money to Chinese scientists in the Wuhan Lab at the center of the Coronavirus outbreak for researching its ‘gain of function’ – after a moratorium had called a halt to all U.S. involvement in such studies. (See link #9.)
and,
5) Fauci famously predicted in a speech from 2017 at Georgetown University: “[…], but also there will be a surprise outbreak […], and the history of the last 32 years that I’ve been the director of NIAID will tell the next administration that there’s no doubt in anyone’s mind that they will be faced with the challenges that their predecessors were faced with” – in a battle with a pandemic of infectious disease. (See link #10)
Read the entire article by Faith Dyson here
(https://www.facebook.com/notes/faith-dyson/what-was-faucis-role-in-funding-tuskgegee-like-aids-experiments-on-foster-childr/10157586697714677/)
Covid-19 cases are on the rise again in the U.S. Why are Dr. Anthony Fauci’s NIAID, the FDA, and the CDC so blind to the real-world success of HCQ+azithromycin?
If this combination is the simple, cheap, safe way to prevent hospitalization, would government agencies, Big Pharma, and the corporate media want to know?
If yes, then the proposed solution from a prominent Yale epidemiologist would prevent hundreds of thousands of deaths, and help the world to recovery.
Real-World Research on Hydroxychloroquine
During February and March of 2020, there was a lot of excitement in the medical community because early indications in China and France seemed to show a cure for people in the early stage of Covid-19. The ancient anti-malarial drug quinine (aka chloroquine, aka hydroxychloroquine, aka HCQ) had been repurposed to show very promising results against Covid-19 when given to outpatients with early symptoms.
On March 21 all that changed when President Donald Trump tweeted:
“HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine.”
HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains – Thank You! Hopefully they will BOTH (H works better with A, International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents)…..
— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) March 21, 2020
Hydroxycholoroquine, made from the ancient, cheap, and plentiful anti-malarial drug quinine, had suddenly become highly politicized. Its industry rivals and the media vigorously decried a business president, who, not a doctor, had dashed hopes for a profitable magic-bullet drug by tweeting an almost-free solution.
On May 22, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has been on the WHO list of essential medicines since 1977, was sent into further freefall by a deceptive, industry-backed Lancet article claiming that hydroxychloroquine was causing heart problems in hospitalized Covid patients across six continents.
Headlines blared, hydroxychloroquine clinical trials were called off, and the World Health Organization recommended that physicians everywhere stop prescribing HCQ for Covid-19.
By May 27, Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale Schools of Public Health and Medicine, had confronted this disaster. He issued an urgent call through the top-ranked [I]American Journal of Epidemiology for hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin “to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”[iv]
“Five studies,” he wrote from Yale, “including two controlled clinical trials, had demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.” Incredibly, this call for immediate action published in America’s top epidemiology journal did not appear in the mainstream news.[v]
Instead, the opposite occurred. Although international protest drove the Lancet to retract its fraudulent May 22 article on June 4, the retraction made few headlines. In those two short weeks the U.S. media, with one voice, established HCQ as “controversial,” “anecdotal,” and even “dangerous” when paired with Gilead Science’s highly publicized golden goose, remdesivir.
https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Screen-Shot-2020-06-30-at-2.59.56-PM-300x169.png
(https://www.globalresearch.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Screen-Shot-2020-06-30-at-2.59.56-PM.png)
On May 21, the day before the Lancet’s HCQ attack appeared, the ever-helpful New York Times had issued a timely update of its massive 7,500-word hit piece against Dr. Didier Raoult (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html?searchResultPosition=1), the French microbiologist whose published studies in March and April had preceded Yale’s profit-threatening call for sanity.
[I]What was the Covid-HCQ background in China and France?
Dr. Didier Raoult, M.D., PhD., age 68, has long been France’s most cited microbiologist. For 35 years he has been professor of infectious diseases at the Aix-Marseille University in Marseille. Twelve years ago he founded, and is director of, the university’s Institute of Emerging Tropical Diseases.
Raoult is co-author of 2,300 published, peer-reviewed articles, in which he follows classical research standards by stating plagiarism checks, conflict of interest declarations, and funding declarations.
He is married to a psychiatrist and they have three children. In a July 7 BFM-TV interview he said that his philosophy it to treat patients like family. He also has three laboratories in Senegal, West Africa.
A vacation village near Marseille in Carry le Rouet was used to quarantine French citizens returning from Wuhan in case they needed treatment. President Macron visited Raoult on April 9.
What had Raoult learned from China?
During the early months of the pandemic, Raoult discovered studies from China showing that the repurposed anti-malarial generic drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were found to be effective in arresting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in vitro (in the laboratory).[vi]
Further Chinese studies followed, including randomized clinical trials, showing that when administered to patients in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, during the early days of the infection, their symptoms would most often resolve.[vii]
It thus seemed that almost anyone with early symptoms who tested positive could benefit from effective, affordable prophylactic treatment.
Raoult welcomed the people of Marseille for HCQ-azithromycin treatment and they lined up (socially distanced) around the block outside his 200-staff clinic.
This led to published studies. A first group of 80 patients showed a 50-fold benefit, and a larger group of 1,061 patients showed a similar result while achieving a mortality rate of only 0.5% – and with no cardiac toxicity.[viii]
Recent HCQ efficacy studies, unreported by the mainstream media
Two new independent U.S. studies have come to similar conclusions as Dr. Rault in Marseille and Dr. Risch at Yale:
On July 1, 2020, the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan reported that a peer-reviewed retrospective study of 2,541 Detroit cases showed up to 71% mortality reduction in early treatment, using HCQ and azithromycin.
In a June 30, 2020 study, Dr. Takahisa Mikami and his team at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, analyzed the outcomes of 6493 patients who had confirmed Covid-19 and found that hydroxychloroquine decreased the mortality in hospitalized patients.[x]
[I]
The Government arm of the triad
Conflicts of interest: the corporate fox in the government henhouse
During recent decades, the health role of government, which is to serve and protect its citizens, has been muddied by increasing corporate representation and influence in higher education and on government advisory committees and foundations. The drug industry, for example, funds university research, pours millions into medical schools, has personnel appointments to university faculties, and supplies textbooks to students.
In 1995 Congress established the private CDC Foundation to support the work of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
In public-private partnerships, there is a thin line between support and conflict of interest. Susan Perry writes of the Gilead Tamiflu scandal in 2015:
“Unbeknownst to many, the CDC receives substantial industry funding through the CDC Foundation. A spokesperson said that over the past three years the foundation has received an average of about $6.3 [million] from the industry a year, 21% of the foundation’s overall funding. Since 1995 the foundation has received funding from more than 150 corporate “partners,” including Gilead, which holds the patent on oseltamivir [Tamiflu], as well as Genentech and Roche, the drug’s manufacturers.”[xi]
The creation of the CDC Foundation in 1995 altered the make-up of the highly respected CDC as a purely a tax-supported agency belonging to, and financed by, the people it served.
Dozens of pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences Inc., contribute millions of dollars to the CDC Foundation each year.[xii]
[I] Anthony Fauci’s strange position on hydroxychloroquine
On April 4, a major fight erupted at a meeting of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, when economics advisor Peter Navarro passed around file folders, pointing out that overseas hydroxychloroquine studies showed “clear therapeutic efficacy.” The government’s top infectious diseases specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, countered that there was only anecdotal evidence that HCQ works.[xiii]
The evidence above shows that Fauci was wrong. Navarro was furious and a heated argument ensued.
As the head of the $5.9 billion National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci should have known better – he should have known about the clinical trials, case reports, and observational studies in the medical literature. And he must certainly have known that it is not ethical to perform placebo-controlled studies during a pandemic: if the drug saves lives, some of the placebo people will die – a point often made by Professor Raoult.
Nor did Fauci mention real-world treatment guidelines. An April 17 article from the “Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection” shows that government guidelines in Ireland, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt list chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as the first line of defense for mild-to-moderate Covid-19. The U.S. guideline listed only remdesivir as the first-line defense.[xiv]
Dr. Fauci should have known about, and mentioned, such national guidelines beyond the United States.
But most particularly, Fauci should have known about the two most critical reasoning aspects regarding hydroxychloroquine:
It is only recommended with azithromycin or doxycycline, and only in an early illness outpatient setting in order to stop the infection before hospitalization becomes necessary.[xv]
The studies above show that this is not rocket science. Why is Dr. Fauci still talking about anecdotal evidence?
Why did he not retract what he told CNN on Wednesday, May 27, referring to what became the May 22 Lancet scandal?
http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/misc/nytlogo152x23.gif
He Was a Science Star.
Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for Covid-19.
(https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html?searchResultPosition=1)
The man behind Trump’s favorite unproven treatment has made a great career assailing orthodoxy. His claim of a 100 percent cure rate shocked scientists around the world.
Didier Raoult.
By Scott Sayare
Published May 12, 2020
Updated May 21, 2020
See article (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html?searchResultPosition=1)
Jon Jackson
09-12-2020, 03:56 PM
Barry,
Thank you for publishing the link to this very interesting article. I'll just repeat here what I've shared elsewhere. We now have ONE good scientific article (by research standards - i.e., double-blind, large study sample, etc.) published very recently on the use of low-dose hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19. There has been *nothing* (i.e., *zero* studies) meeting true research criteria until now. The results of the new study were positive, with a slightly larger percentage of those on hydroxychloroquine doing better and surviving if they were seriously ill. There were more than 8000 patients in this study, which suggests the results are highly reliable. Previous studies ALL had serious design flaws, the treatment doses were much too high, the sample sizes too small, and the conclusions they drew were out of proportion to realistic expectations. This is why many of us were not willing to accept the older information as being true. And we still don't.
M/M
09-12-2020, 05:51 PM
The "benefit" of having no viable treatment options for Covid -- for Dr. Fauci, Bill, et al -- is that Covid vaccine can then be MANDATED, despite that being a violation of our Constitutional rights. I'll post this in conspiracy theories as well :heart: as it covers many issues that many believe belong there... Excellent short video by an MD, she discusses how mandate would work at about 19+ minutes:
Will new COVID vaccine make you transhuman? (https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/09/12/coronavirus-vaccine-transhumanism.aspx)
·
Jon Jackson
09-12-2020, 08:55 PM
These kinds of theories are mind-boggling to me, and involve a kind of science that doesn't exist yet...including the vaccine! I still have my doubts we'll find one that is safe, reliable and effective. And we certainly won't anytime this year. Don't get me wrong, I'm high-risk about COVID, and if and when there is such a vaccine, I WILL take it. But, I won't even consider it in November. And anyway, in this theory about mandatory vaccines - what makes you think that plan will work any better than the mask mandates have worked? The plan is doomed to failure.
Anyway, as a physician and someone who cares...there is NO advantage to not having treatments that work for COVID. It means hundreds of thousands of people will die. Many hundreds of thousands. People we know. There is NO upside to this. None at all.
M/M
09-12-2020, 09:39 PM
Absolutely I agree w/you: 'there is NO advantage to not having treatments that work for COVID' --
the only benefit is for those who want vaccine to be mandatory..
in this theory about mandatory vaccines - what makes you think that plan will work any better than the mask mandates have worked? The plan is doomed to failure.
I hope you're right..
There is talk that the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine trial was stopped because a woman developed a neurological inflammation - transverse myelitis - and lost sensation in her hands/feet. It appears that this may be suppressed and trials resumed soon: https://twitter.com/uTobian/status/1303554355543437312
·
podfish
09-12-2020, 10:30 PM
There is talk that the AstraZeneca coronavirus vaccine trial was stopped because a woman developed a neurological inflammation - transverse myelitis - and lost sensation in her hands/feet. It appears that this may be suppressed and trials resumed soonto channel Inigo Montoya -- suppressed? I don't think that word means what you think it does. Now, they may indeed decide to continue the trial. I somehow doubt that they've designed a study where a single adverse indication means that they should forget the whole idea, and just pump hydroxychoroquine and bleach into everyone.
M/M
09-13-2020, 09:45 AM
for the central nervous system to be so symptomatic... is not a minor thing. Ethical science would stop until it was determined: how this happened, (and if woman in fact has transverse myelitis) can it be reversed or are her nerves damaged for life, et cetera. There are adverse reactions and there are adverse reactions.. a financially incentivized research often cannot wait for real answers, which makes science done this way dangerous. "First, do NO harm."
Conflating hydroxychloroquine and bleach is a cheap trick podfish.
·
podfish
09-13-2020, 10:06 AM
Conflating hydroxychloroquine and bleach is a cheap trick podfish.:wink: true.
I do find it entertaining (?) how it seems that there'd be little overlap in the Venn diagrams of the attitudes of people regarding medical issues. For example, hydroxychloroquine seems to have many supporters who in general reject vaccines. I'm not sure I have any guess about the other beliefs that bleach-sniffers have about main-stream medicine!
And of course most of the dialog that goes on is about the media portrayal anyway. It's full of hyperbole and oversimplification,and subject to radical about-faces. If indeed Hydroxycholoquine has beneficial effects overall, it's going to come out. It too hasn't been very actively suppressed - it's in the news pretty much every damn day, with plenty of vocal supporters.
It won't be rejected just because John Oliver speaks derisively about it. People get way too excited about what 'influencers' are saying (great neologism; it describes Limbaugh, AOC and Trump as well as the instagram-kiddies) and forget that the world's a giant termite mound. The results we see in the end have emerged from the sometimes-invisible cumulative efforts of people from all over.
M/M
09-13-2020, 10:16 AM
Excellent points...
·
Mayacaman
09-13-2020, 10:41 AM
Peter/podfish wrote:
It too hasn't been very actively supressed - it's in the news pretty much every damn day, with plenty of vocal supporters.
It has been "actively suppressed", Peter. -By the FDA, for instance. Try buying a bottle of the stuff over the counter at the back window of any Pharmacy. Try getting a prescription for even a small bottle of Hydroxychloroquine from your personal physician or any clinic.
And Who or What is the FDA? - As I seem to have proved over on the other thread in my debate with "snoop4truth", the "Alphabet Agencies" created during the "New Deal" were all Delaware Corporations (http:// https://www.waccobb.net/forums/showthread.php?130336-THE-HOAXES-OF-DEBORAH-TAVARES-(CONSPIRACY-WEAPONIZED-WEATHER-FIRES-and-DEPOPULATION)&p=231406#post231406)- i.e., Corporate-fascist entities.
The gist of which was also confirmed by that problem child over at "Natural News":
Rockefeller, the Chemical Industry and the FDA (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IZcUd3V8L30&feature=emb_logo)
Chauncey Gardner
09-16-2020, 08:22 AM
·
The conflated numbers for this years flu and the rebranding campaign were a brilliant success..
Mayacaman
09-18-2020, 02:40 PM
Yes, Fauci and Gates Do Have
Ties to COVID-19 Vaccine Maker
by Jeremy R. Hammond (https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/author/jeremy-r-hammond/)
Sep 16, 2020
A USA Today headline falsely claiming Anthony Fauci and Bill Gates have “no ties” to Moderna is illustrative of a major problem with our media.
On September 11, USA Today published an article with a headline declaring, “Fact check: Fauci, Gates, Epstein and Soros have no ties to drug company Moderna (https://web.archive.org/web/20200912135435if_/https:/www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/11/fact-check-fauci-gates-soros-epstein-not-tied-moderna/5715707002/)”.
But that headline was false.
Both Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Disease (NIAID) and member of the White House coronavirus task force, and Bill Gates do have ties to Moderna, a pharmaceutical company developing a COVID-19 vaccine using mRNA technology.
The article does rightly identify misinformation presented in a video widely shared on social media.
With respect to Fauci, USA Today notes that the video’s claim that Fauci was the first CEO of Moderna is false. Nevertheless, Fauci does have ties to Moderna.
Similarly, the article notes that the video’s claim that Fauci and Gates were college roommates is false. But Gates, too, nevertheless does have direct ties to Moderna.
In fact, USA Today contradicts its own headline by acknowledging that the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation “is listed as one of Moderna’s collaborators” on the company’s page (https://www.flagshippioneering.com/companies/moderna) at the investor website Flagship Pioneering.
The closest connection USA Today acknowledges with Fauci is his having been “a co-reviewer of a vaccine platform Moderna is working to improve”, as indicated by a 2019 Shareholder Letter (https://web.archive.org/web/20200913054217/https:/www.modernatx.com/moderna-blog/moderna-2019-shareholder-letter). This refers to a review of vaccine technologies Fauci coauthored that was published last year in the journal Nature Reviews Immunology.
Although USA Today doesn’t mention it, the same letter, under the subheading “Partnerships”, mentions having $187 million in funding from grants, with a footnote reference. The footnote specifies that the grants are from the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
BARDA (https://www.phe.gov/about/barda/Pages/default.aspx) operates under the Department of Health and Human Services. DARPA (https://www.darpa.mil/) is a research and development agency of the Department of Defense.
That both Fauci and Gates have close ties to Moderna is no secret. Having encountered the headline in a news feed, I knew it was false and so did a quick Google search to document its falsity. It took about ten seconds to fact check USA Today’s “Fact Check”.
My search immediately turned up a page published in March on the website of the NIAID, which operates under the National Institutes of Health (NIH), announcing (https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-clinical-trial-investigational-vaccine-covid-19-begins) the beginning of a phase one clinical trial for Moderna’s COVID-19 vaccine. The webpage notes that Fauci’s NIAID is “funding the trial.”
Furthermore, Moderna’s candidate vaccine “was developed by NIAID scientists and their collaborators” at Moderna.
The page quotes Fauci saying that the trial was “an important step” toward developing “a safe and effective vaccine to prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2”.
Similarly, I was able to immediately pull up a page from Moderna’s website listing (https://www.modernatx.com/ecosystem/strategic-collaborators/foundations-advancing-mrna-science-and-research) the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation as a “strategic collaborator”, with the foundation having “entered a global health project framework agreement” in January 2016 “to advance mRNA-based development projects for various infectious diseases.”
https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/fauci-gates-moderna.jpgThe original USA Today headline falsely claimed that Anthony Fauci
and Bill Gates have “no ties” to COVID-19 vaccine manufacturer Moderna.
I emailed the author and the corrections editor on September 13 to request that they correct their false headline and acknowledge the NIAID’s partnership with Moderna, in accordance with USA Today’s code of ethics (https://cm.usatoday.com/ethical-conduct/).
I also pointed out that, even if they were unaware of that partnership, since the collaboration between the Gates Foundation and Moderna is acknowledged in the article, they knew that their headline was false. I also noted the hypocrisy of fact checking others while willfully misinforming the public themselves.
Two days later, I received a reply from the author, Chelsey Cox, thanking me for my comments but sticking to the headline with the reasoning that “The headline reflects the analysis of the claim subject to fact-checking.”
I replied, “It does not follow that since the claims about Fauci and Gates subject to fact-checking are false that therefore they have ‘no ties’ to Moderna. That is a non sequitur fallacy. Indeed, you point out yourself in the article that Gates does have ties to Moderna, his foundation being partnered with the company. The headline is false and should, by USA Today’s own ethical guidelines, be corrected.”
She responded later that day to let me know that she’d gotten an editor’s approval to change the headline, which now reads, “Fact check: Moderna post makes false claims about Fauci, Gates, Soros, Epstein (https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/09/11/fact-check-fauci-gates-soros-epstein-not-tied-moderna/5715707002/)”. (That’s also not a great title since it makes it sounds as though Moderna itself was spreading the misinformation, but at least the false claim about Fauci and Gates having “no ties” to Moderna was removed.)
USA Today did not publish an acknowledgement of the error and did not update the article to acknowledge that Fauci, like Gates, is partnered with Moderna in the development of its COVID-19 vaccine.
Download the Report (https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/09/16/fauci-gates-moderna/?utm_source=ActiveCampaign&utm_medium=email&utm_content=Yes%2C+Fauci+and+Gates+Do+Have+Ties+to+COVID-19+Vaccine+Maker&utm_campaign=Yes%2C+Fauci+and+Gates+Do+Have+Ties+to+COVID-19+Vaccine+Maker&vgo_ee=LwUA9VPGKVwXqV0Lj9BExYVqKS9CKj2GTlHjTV%2FgYww%3D)
Mayacaman
01-26-2021, 05:11 PM
·
Not only does Dr. Anthony Fauci have a conflict of interest in being a heavy investor in Big Pharma while at the same time a Federal Government employee, it turns out that Dr. Anthony Fauci is also the highest paid employee of the Federal Government. Yet to this day the so-called "liberals" love him. How can they be so blind? Whatever happened to the ethics of the Old Left?
Fauci Is the Highest Paid Employee in
the Entire 4-Million Federal Government
Rakes in $420,000 a year in taxpayer money to tell you why your small business has to close
Adam Andrzejewski
(https://anti-empire.com/guest-author/adam_andrzejewski/)
Dr. Anthony Fauci made $417,608 in 2019 (https://www.openthebooks.com/executive-agencies-of-the-united-states/?Year_S=2019), the latest year for which federal salaries are available. That made him not only the highest paid doctor in the federal government, but the highest paid out of all four million federal employees.
In fact, Dr. Fauci even made more than the $400,000 salary of the President of the United States. All salary data was collected by OpenTheBooks.com via Freedom of Information Act requests.
Only federal employees whose salaries were funded by taxpayers were included in the study. Therefore, Tennessee Valley Authority CEO Jeffrey Lyash— whose salary is paid by revenues of the corporation (owned by the federal government) — was not included.
$2.5 million. That’s how much Dr. Fauci, Director of the National Institute for Health’s (NIH) National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) and current Chief Medical Advisor to the President, will make in salary from 2019 through 2024, if he stays in his post through the end of the current Administration, and doesn’t (or didn’t already) get a raise.
In a ten-year period between 2010 and 2019, Fauci made $3.6 million in salary. Since 2014, Fauci’s pay increased (https://www.openthebooks.com/executive-agencies-of-the-united-states/?F_Name_S=fauci&Year_S=0) from $335,000 to the current $417,608.
In an August 13, 2020 Instagram interview (https://www.instagram.com/tv/CD2WoXupHV-/?utm_source=ig_embed) with actor Matthew McConaughey, Dr. Fauci was asked (at point 16:49) if he had millions of dollars invested in the vaccines. Dr. Fauci laughed and answered, “Matthew, no, I got zero! I am a government worker. I have a government salary.” He didn’t mention his $417,608 salary was the largest in the entire federal government.
Dr. Fauci became the early face of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, appearing daily, often in a live broadcast, to update the nation on the emerging COVID-19 disease. In March 2020, he convinced President Donald Trump on the 15-day lockdown policy to try and flatten the curve, and reportedly advocated on March 29, 2020 (https://time.com/5812439/trump-coronavirus-measures-fauci/), for extending the policy beyond its initial 15 days.
Vice President Mike Pence, who chaired the Taskforce might have outranked Dr. Fauci in authority, but the VP’s $235,100 salary in 2019, was less than the well-paid NIH director with whom he shared the stage.
Their Taskforce colleague Dr. Deborah Birx earned $305,972 in 2019, also less than Dr. Fauci’s salary.
In comparison to Dr. Fauci: Speaker Nancy Pelosi will earn $223,500 this year (https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/06/30/the-trouble-with-speaker-nancy-pelosi--leader-mitch-mcconnells-congress-that-double-dips-retirement-plans/?sh=166c9a728ea5). U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts will make (https://www.openthebooks.com/supreme-court-of-the-united-states/) $270,700, and Members in the House of Representatives and Senators will make (https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2020/05/29/perks-members-of-congress-give-to-themselves--the-selfie-report/?sh=23d44d25270f) $174,000. Four-star military generals outrank, but still fall below Dr. Fauci at $268,000 a year.
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) scientist Dr. Stephen Lindstrom in charge of overseeing the CDC COVID-19 testing system, a system whose early roll-out failure (https://www.npr.org/2020/11/06/929078678/cdc-report-officials-knew-coronavirus-test-was-flawed-but-released-it-anyway) set the U.S. testing system back several crucial weeks, made $108,747 in basic pay, an additional $23,533 in adjusted pay, and received an “award” of $750 in 2019.
The 80-year-old Dr. Fauci holds a medical degree from Cornell University and began his 53-year career at NIH in 1968. He assumed his NIAID Director position in 1984 and has advised every president since President Ronald Reagan, though he serves directly under the NIH Director Francis Collins. Known as the nation’s top infectious disease expert, he qualifies for a full federal pension and social security under pre 1984 federal pension reform rules.
The Executive Branch includes (https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R43590.pdf) 2.1 million federal agency employees, 1.4 million members of the military, and 500,000 postal employees. Federal employee salaries are generally capped at level IV of the Executive Schedule (https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2020/03/05/2020-04484/january-2020-pay-schedules), which was $172,500 in 2019.
However, there are exceptions, as Dr. Fauci’s salary demonstrates. The exception exists to make federal salaries for doctors and scientists more competitive with the private-sector.
In our data at OpenTheBooks.com (https://www.openthebooks.com/executive-agencies-of-the-united-states/), there are three doctors, all working for HHS, who out-earn the U.S. President with 2019 incomes ranging from $406,000 to $417,000.
Critics and lifetime achievements
On October 19, 2020, President Trump called Dr. Fauci “a disaster (https://www.axios.com/trump-calls-fauci-disaster-42428ddc-01e9-44a6-9ff9-55aa4cc5f55f.html),” though his criticism appeared to be unrelated to the doctor’s salary.
In 2008, President George W. Bush honored (https://georgewbush-whitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2008/06/20080619-9.html) Dr. Anthony Fauci with the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the highest civilian honor.
Dr. Fauci is the 32nd-most highly cited living researcher according to an analysis (https://www.webometrics.info/en/hlargerthan100)of Google Scholar citations. Polling has shown he’s the most trusted (https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/report/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-december-2020/) public figure in the U.S. for information on the pandemic and reliable information on Covid-19 vaccines.
Does Doctor Anthony Fauci also {& simultaneously} deserve "every dime" of profit he makes from his huge investments (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pharmaceutical+industrial+complex%2C+%22Fauci%22%2C+%22investments%22&t=osx&ia=web) in the Pharmaceutical-Industrial-Complex (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pharmaceutical+industrial+complex%2C+Fauci&t=osx&ia=web), Barry?
Anthony Fauci, "conflict of interests" (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=Anthony+Fauci%2C+%22conflict+of+interests%22&t=osx&atb=v182-1&ia=web)
So I ask again, "Whatever happened to the ethics of the Old Left?" -For it seems to me that the present so-called & self-proclaimed "Liberal / Left" - who have been manipulated by the MSM into becoming fans of Fauci - are a pseudomorph (https://duckduckgo.com/?q=pseudomorph&t=osx&ia=definition). They are certainly not cut from the same cloth that I knew as a young child and teenager, growing up in Berkeley and North Oakland in the 'Fifties and 'Sixties.
Elizabeth Warren has questioned Fauci and concluded he does not hold direct financial investments in any of the companies developing COVID-19 vaccines.
Apart from that being a dead link, Zeno [eliminate the i before the h in https ] Elizabeth Warren did not exactly pin Dr. Fauci to the Wall. She merely asked him one question - to which he answered "No." And then she took him at his word. Case closed. Well Zeno, may i inform you that - sometimes - people lie. -And her examination of the man is colloquially known as a "whitewash."
Hot off the Presses:
Covid-19 and the Global
Medical-Industrial-Complex
William Walter Kay BA JD
<time datetime="2021-01-18" pubdate="">January 18, 2021</time>
Those lucky enough to have read Bertram Gross’s Friendly Fascism (1980) hot from the presses have long been equipped with a conceptual tool helpful in grasping a key component of modern society. The book explicates the “complex” as in: military-industrial-complex.
Gross’s main insight:
“…the military-industrial-complex does not walk alone.”
Rather:
“The so called “military-industrial-complex” is no unique institutional form; the “complex” has become the standard mode of structuring the planning and control activities of corporate banking, agribusiness and mass communications.”
Complexes are sprawling Big Government/Big Business alliances wherein cross-penetration blurs public-private lines. Complexes are broader, deeper and more flexible than cartels. They decentralise to the point of being leaderless:
“The web is spidery but there is no single spider.”
Corporations and Ministries comingle with industry associations and university departments to form juggernauts that game regulations and drain treasuries.
Gross’s exemplar is the auto-highway-construction-complex. America’s automobilization arose not merely as a function of consumer choice but proceeded on the basis of immense government investments in interstate highways and urban expressways. Gross also isolates a banking-housing-construction-complex. Others espy a prison-industrial-complex. I’ve written of a climate-industrial-complex.
The medical-industrial-complex includes: pharmaceutical companies, hospital administrators, equipment manufacturers, nurses’ unions, medical schools, epidemiology agencies, and public health bureaucracies etc. These leviathans dominate every polity and transcend boundaries.
Covid-19 is to the global medical-industrial-complex what the Iraq War was to the US military-industrial-complex.
From liberal peaceniks to small-government conservatives, Americans knew the Iraq War was unnecessary. Iraq never had a serious weapons of mass production program; never harboured Islamic terrorists; never threatened the US. Nevertheless, the military-industrial-complex barrelled ahead. Result: trillions of dollars wasted; millions of lives destroyed.
Similarly, across the political spectrum many know Sars-CoV-2 presents no greater health risk than a “nasty flu bug” the likes of which we’ve encountered countless times. Nevertheless, spearheaded by agencies like Fauci’s 2,000-employee National Institute for Allergies and Infectious Disease (NIAID) medical-industrial-complexes compelled governments to hype Sars-CoV-2 into the harbinger of the next Black Death. Result: trillions of dollars of unnecessary medical expense and sweeping economic disruption causing catastrophic levels of business failure, unemployment, substance abuse and suicide.
The Iraq War was not a lose-lose situation. Arms manufacturers thrived. The war shunted billions toward high-tech research and development (R&D).
Similarly, Covid-19 is a bonanza for many, especially Big Pharma.
In true “complex” fashion, the US Government’s Operation Warp Speed allocated $10 billion to vaccine R&D. Pfizer received $2.5 billion for R&D and was further aided by National Institute of Health technology transfers and clinical trials. Pfizer’s partner, BioNtech, developed its mRNA vaccine with $440 million from the German Government. Pfizer received another $2 billion from Uncle Sam to retrofit factories.
Moderna’s mRNA vaccine was developed by NIAID and the Biomedical Advanced R&D Authority. According to the New York Times:
“The mRNA vaccines in which we are now staking so much hope wouldn’t exist without public support through every step of the development.”
(Oxford professors developed AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine.)
Moderna’s and Pfizer’s vaccines require patients to receive two shots. Mandated pricing agreements limit these companies to charging US customers no more than $19.50 per dose. Customers outside the US pay $25 to $37. At $19.50 Pfizer turns a 70% profit. One billion First World denizens will get vaccinated as will another billion in the developing world (at First World taxpayer expense). That’s two billion customers; two shots each. Do the math.
Finally, no complex walks alone. Behind every complex’s mega-grift lurk politicians who daren’t let good crises go to waste. Ushering in our complex world order stride mandarins eager to nudge along state-building, democracy-winnowing processes.
Sources
Gross, Bertram. Friendly Fascism; M. Evans and Co., New York, 1980.
Opinion | The Covid-19 Vaccine Doesn’t Mean Big Pharma Is Your Savior – The New York Times (nytimes.com) (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/17/opinion/covid-vaccine-big-pharma.html)
Department of Health and Human Services, National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) FY 2020 Budget (nih.gov)
About the author: William Walter Kay graduated from the University of Saskatchewan in 1985 with a BA Adv. (English) and a JD. After briefly practicing law William undertook an array of pursuits including non-profit and small business management, radio broadcasting and writing. He is the author of two books: ‘The Green Swastika – Environmentalism in the Third Reich’ and ‘From Malthus to Mifepristone – A Primer on the Population Control Movement’. William has maintained the ecofascism.com (http://ecofascism.com/) website for 20 years. Scores of his articles have appeared on dozens of different websites. His forte is the sociology of scientific knowledge.
the backstory : Fauci, AIDS, and other Mysteries (https://www.brasscheck.com/video/fauci-aids-and-other-mysteries/)
Mayacaman
01-27-2021, 11:49 PM
Anthony Fauci: 40 Years of Lies From AZT to Remdesivir (https://off-guardian.org/2020/10/27/anthony-fauci-40-years-of-lies-from-azt-to-remdesivir/)
As the planet’s “Virus Tsar” since 1984, he has spread misinformation and
ignored critical questions. The consequences could hardly be more fatal.
Torsten Engelbrecht & Konstantin Demeter
Oct 27, 2020
Mayacaman
01-28-2021, 12:11 AM
Dr. Seth Farber: Big Pharma, Mandatory Vaccination
and the Emerging Bio-Fascist State | Part One (https://everydayconcerned.net/2020/12/27/dr-seth-farber-big-pharma-mandatory-vaccination-and-the-emerging-bio-fascist-state/)
December 27, 2020 (https://everydayconcerned.net/2020/12/27/dr-seth-farber-big-pharma-mandatory-vaccination-and-the-emerging-bio-fascist-state/)
Mayacaman
01-28-2021, 12:43 AM
Yes, Fauci and Gates Do Have
Ties to COVID-19 Vaccine Maker (https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/2020/09/16/fauci-gates-moderna/)
by Jeremy R. Hammond (https://www.jeremyrhammond.com/author/jeremy-r-hammond/)
Sep 16, 2020
Mayacaman
01-28-2021, 12:17 PM
from the transcript (https://childrenshealthdefense.org/transcripts/truth-with-rfk-jr-and-david-martin-faucis-checkered-past-modernas-warp-speed-vaccine/) of an interview :
...
David Martin:
And as you’ve seen over the now 140 patents and patent applications that Moderna has prosecuted, not once have they followed the law and identified the fact that they are in fact beholden to federal government grants for all of the things that they developed. They’re violating the Bayh-Dole Act, the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act, in every single one of their patent filings. This company has been operating as an illegal operation from the beginning. And it’s not surprising that their apologist-in-chief, their advocate- in-chief is none other than Tony Fauci, who’s every bit of an interest in seeing their vaccine jump to the front of the line, because NIAID has its vested interest in seeing it succeed.
RFK, Jr.:
Right, and Tony Fauci has put in 2.4 billion US taxpayer dollars into this venture.
David Martin:
At least, at least. Yeah. What we know, what we know is that he has put several appropriated and noncompeting grants, and most of your viewers don’t understand the difference between a competitive grant, which is a researcher who has to file a grant application. They’re up against all kinds of other grant applications that are competing for funds. Moderna has received noncompeting funds, meaning they don’t have to prove anything. They don’t have to do anything. They don’t even have to tell you, really, what the money is going to be used for. It’s like getting blank check authorizations, and we know that since 2005, roughly $1.7 billion a year, $1.7 billion a year has gone through the DARPA-funded bioweapon and biopreparedness program through NIAID. NIAID is the administerer of that $1.7 billion a year, and much of that has gone into a variety of programs that ultimately ended at Moderna.
RFK, Jr.:
Yeah. So let me give people kind of a little bit of a background on Tony Fauci. Tony Fauci came out of his internship. Since his internship ended at 1968, he’s never treated a patient. He’s a doctor, but he’s a doctor who doesn’t see patients. He went directly to NIAID. He then became the head of NIAID in 1984 at the very time that the HIV epidemic exploded. What Tony Fauci does, NIAID is supposed to look for the causes and also treatments for infectious diseases, for allergic diseases and autoimmune diseases.
Tony Fauci does almost none of those things. What he’s done is he’s taken an enormous budget that began with the AIDS budget, which is now about $6 billion a year, plus another $1.7 billion a year that he gets from the Defense Department, which becomes part of his discretionary spending, and he invests that money in developing new drugs. He farms the money out to about 1,300 principal investigators who run their own little empires at Harvard, at NYU, at Berkeley, at MIT, and they begin the drug development forum. They do the clinical studies, and then when it gets to a certain point, he sells the drug or transfers it to one of the big pharmaceutical companies. But he does a deal with them where he splits the royalties for many of these drugs. [inaudible 00:14:19]. David mentioned the Bayh–Dole Act. The Bayh–Dole Act, I believe, was passed in ’84, but you may be right. It may have been passed a little earlier than that.
David Martin:
It was debated in 1979, signed into law in 1980.
RFK, Jr.:
All right. What that act did was, for the first time, it said it used to be that if the government developed a new technology or a new drug, it became part of the public domain, and anybody could use it, that there was no patent for it and you couldn’t patent it. The Bayh–Dole Act changed that, and it was a good intention. It was saying, “We’re going to give our universities and we’re going to give NIH the ability to patent things so that the money that the industry is making on them, on taxpayer-funded projects, some of that money can come back to NIH. Some of it can go to the universities, where there were brilliant scientists who could be working for private industry, but instead, they’re working in academic fields and they’re doing pure research. We want to reward them so they’re not walking around in tweed jackets with leather elbow pads and can’t afford anything. We’re going to actually give them a reward for their labor.”
RFK, Jr.:
The problem was, and you correct me if I’m wrong here, because I still don’t understand how this happened, that HHS interpreted the Bayh–Dole Act not only to allow the academic scientists to collect money and the academic institutions, like Harvard and MIT, which are making billions of dollars now on royalties on technologies that were created by their scientists. Also, HHS interpreted it to allow individual scientists within the agencies who use taxpayer money and worked for some period on these projects to also file a patent on the projects and then collect royalties.
David Martin:
Correct.
RFK, Jr.:
At that time, it was unlimited royalties. I think, actually, there was a scandal involving Tony Fauci with interleukin. He owned a patent for a drug called interleukin, and it came to Congress’s attention because an internal agent in his investigation found that a lot of the trial subjects in that study were getting very sick and they were dying and there was suicidal ideation and that Fauci had not told them of that risk when he was recruiting them.
David Martin:
Right.
RFK, Jr.:
During the process of that investigation, it became clear that Fauci owned a patent for interleukin, and people were saying, “Wow, this guy isn’t telling people the risks of this. He’s going to make a lot of money on it.” At that time, he told Congress and he told the [inaudible 00:06:25], “Oh, don’t worry. I always planned to give that money to charity.” But he never told us how much. We have no idea to this day how much money he’s made on that or how many patents he owns.
David Martin:
Right.
RFK, Jr.:
He could own patents. He could own thousands. Well, I think there are over 1,000 patents that he’s funded development of. We have no idea.
David Martin:
Close to 2,600 that they acknowledge. I think it’s 2,655 that they acknowledge, and they have another approximately 1,000 that we’ve tracked where the grants they’ve given have given rise to a patent, which is where, to your point, they would have march-in rights.
RFK, Jr.:
Let me [crosstalk 00:18:12].
David Martin:
So somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,500 patents.
RFK, Jr.:
Let me just finish painting this portrait of what Tony Fauci does. So this is a federal agency that is supposed to tell us why, where’s the autism coming from? This all happened under Tony Fauci’s watch. When he came in in ’84, the chronic disease rate in our country was 12.8%. By 2006, it had gone up to 54%. Those are autoimmune disease. Those are allergic disease. So that’s right in his wheelhouse. That is his expertise. He’s supposed to be an autoimmune expert. He does not spend a penny trying to figure out what environmental toxin exposure is causing this epidemic of disease.
RFK, Jr.:
Instead, he has transformed NIAID, his agency, into the primary incubator for the pharmaceutical industry for new products. So he creates the products. He sells it to them. He transfers it to them for very, very beneficial prices, and he walks it through the FDA approval process, which means then Medicare and Medicaid have to pay for that drug. He helps negotiate those deals and get beneficial deals with the drug companies, and then the money comes back to him and his staff through royalties.
RFK, Jr.:
So instead of researching and trying to stop all these chronic diseases from happening to our children, he’s ignoring all of that and simply essentially printing money. Let me tell you how important this is. In between 2009 and 2016, there were hundreds of drugs approved by FDA, and every single one of them came out of Tony Fauci’s shop. So that is the impact he has had on the pharmaceutical industry. During his tenure, the chronic disease rate has gone from 12% to 54%. We now use more drugs than any country in the world. We pay the highest prices for those drugs, and the drug industry is now controlling our government.
RFK, Jr.:
Tony Fauci, the reason he’s lasted there for 50 years is he’s like a mix between Bernie Madoff, which we can see in this Moderna racket, and J. Edgar Hoover. J. Edgar Hoover lasted for 50 years. He’s the only other guy who’s lasted for 50 years as an agency head, because he was using that agency to benefit big shots and make sure the Mafia didn’t get prosecuted, to make sure that dissidents, people he didn’t like would be spied on, like Martin Luther King and others, to bribe and blackmail big shots and files on everybody and to make friends in big places. Tony Fauci played the same game, and you’ve seen what he did. You know how this is a Ponzi scheme, this Moderna vaccine.
David Martin:
No question.
RFK, Jr.:
Nobody in the world would buy this vaccine if they knew what you and I know about it. It does not stop the disease. It has a huge injury rate, it does not stop transmissibility, and he has a $9 billion contract with the Pentagon for $500 million. How did he get that, by the way?
David Martin:
Well, but this is a thing, and this is where would that the generation that preceded you still be around, where you could actually pick up the phone and call an AG and say, there’s a crime. This is a crime and I think we need to stop dancing around the edge of it and call it what it is. Anthony Fauci’s behavior is racketeering. He controls the means of production. He allocates the market beneficiaries. To your point, he picks the winners and losers. That’s an illegal thing to do. That’s an antitrust thing to do. That’s a criminal conspiracy. He is actually picking winners and losers.
David Martin:
Then, just to add insult to injury, he’s doing the price fixing. Think about what happens when you negotiate a price where you in fact are a vested interest in that negotiation. There’s no public interest being served. This is a violation of his standard practice as a federal officer because he’s actually not acting in good faith. He is in fact price fixing.
David Martin:
You have the market allocation, a definition of antitrust. You have the interlocking directorate problem, which sounds sophisticated, but it isn’t. He runs the shop on the organizations that declare the problem. He mysteriously always has the solution in hand. I mean, people need to know that we’ve got COVID 2.0 on the books right now. Suddenly polio is back. Suddenly the threat of acute transverse myelitis is back. Suddenly the threat of a whole bunch of other things that allegedly his 50 years at the helm of infectious disease managed, these are all coming back.
David Martin:
If you could go back and you look at the patent record of his funded research, you realize he controls the pathogen, he then controls the means of detection, and the means of therapy, and then he controls the price that it’s going to get sold at, and he gets paid every step along the way.
David Martin:
This is Chicago mafia, 1920s. And the worst thing is we now have a situation where justice isn’t being served because, to your point, Bobby, the government controlled by pharmaceuticals has no incentive to actually address this problem. So we’re going to see a rush to approve an untested and unproven, and the reason, by the way, it’s untested and unproven is because every time they started down the pathway of a safety trial, it blew up.
David Martin:
Moderna’s technology was bad technology. That’s why in 10 years they didn’t produce a drug. It’s not because the technology was speculative. It was because the technology literally harmed the things that they put it in. And so the reason why we don’t have a drug from Moderna is for a good reason, they haven’t produced anything that’s safe. And now we’re going to whitewash that because we’ve got the guy who’s writing the check to support it, who’s now on the other side.