Dr. Fauci’s Double Standards: Polarizing the Nation on Hydroxychloroquine

[Mayacaman]

Dr. Fauci’s Double Standards: Polarizing
the Nation on Hydroxychloroquine

By Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.,
Children’s Health Defense
August 06, 2020

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 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 and abundant evidence from US doctors and other nations suggest—HCQ might compete with Dr. Fauci’s vaccines including the Moderna vaccine for which his agency co-owns the patent and Dr. Fauci has invested $500 million in taxpayer dollars. 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.” To date, Dr. Fauci has never advocated such studies for any of the 72 vaccine doses 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.”

Bill Gates, the World Health Organization and Pharma have fueled public suspicions by funding multiple studies of HCQ using protocols transparently calculated to discredit the drug. FDA condemned HCQ for COVID based on two studies in NEJM and Lancet 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.

[ Source ]

[Jon Jackson]

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]

“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.

[ Source ]

[Mayacaman]

“…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 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 and 2004) and at the Special Pathogens Branch of the CDC (2005) 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 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.

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, and the president of El Salvador not only reported taking HCQ as prophylaxis for Covid-19 himself but asserted that “most of the world’s leaders,” including President Trump, 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 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 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases again directed attention to CQ as a “valuable therapeutic option if SARS re-emerges.” In 2014, 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 sub-clinical infection” resulting in less adverse disease outcomes.

“Extra-scientific factors”

In March, the U.S. readily accepted millions 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 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 (and counting) that have shown CQ or HCQ to be effective against Covid-19 under certain conditions—the FDA revoked 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 or cures.

At this point, when countries using HCQ are displaying a Covid-19 mortality rate that is “only one-tenth 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 is taking place both domestically and internationally. Columbia University medical graduate Dr. James Todaro 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—including the alarming Moderna 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 earlier this spring, Columbia University’s Dr. Ian Lipkin admitted to Maddow—with a grin—that “sexy and new and patentable” 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, social media giants and captured media, regulatory and scientific journal partners—tens of thousands of Covid-19 patients “are dying unnecessarily” 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.”

Instead, the doctors were met with Google’s removal of their white paper.

= MORE =

[Mayacaman]

“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.

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.”

Here is a direct ink to the World Health Organization's "List of essential medicines"
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/...6-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?


Dr. Meryl Nass Discovers Hydroxychloroquine Experiments Were Designed to Kill COVID Patients – How Many Were Murdered?

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...

https://healthimpactnews.com/2020/dr...urdered/print/



***********

[Jon Jackson]

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.

Jon Jackson, M.D.

[Barry]

Worth a read:



An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch

ANALYSIS
By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020

[Mayacaman]

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:

Worth a read:



An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch

ANALYSIS
By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020

[Jon Jackson]

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]

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.

But - as it should be evident - in the massive media blitz 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 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


Article by Josh Rogin, in the Washington Post, April 14, 2020
State Department cables warned of safety issues
at Wuhan lab studying bat coronaviruses

[Mayacaman]

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” 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 ]

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.

[ Source ]

[Mayacaman]

Why COVID-19 Clinical Trials Cannot Be Trusted


The “Gold Standard” for Science Is Gold for the Drug Companies


Peter R. Breggin, M.D. 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 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.

Meanwhile, the People’s Drug Is Running Ahead

As we have documented in earlier reports, here and here and on our 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 is considered the most successful treatment for COVID-19 by experienced clinicians. 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 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... ]

[Jon Jackson]

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.

[podfish]

Worth a read:



An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch

ANALYSIS
By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020

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

[Mayacaman]

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]

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" 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,
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.

Running for re-ëlection without offering even a hint of a program, as
Donald Trump has, is a sure indicator of aspirational authoritarianism

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 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 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.

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, 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 the “China virus” or warns Americans that 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]

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?

[Mayacaman]

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”

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 World

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 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: "one may smile and smile and be a villain."

Furthermore, the connections between Bill Gates and Dr. Anthony Fauci are extensive. Fauci serves as a member of the Leadership Council for the Global Vaccine Action Plan 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."

[Mayacaman]

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 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 and 2004) and at the Special Pathogens Branch of the CDC (2005) 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 in The Lancet Infectious Diseases again directed attention to CQ as a “valuable therapeutic option if SARS re-emerges.” In 2014, 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 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 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.

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, and the president of El Salvador not only reported taking HCQ as prophylaxis for Covid-19 himself but asserted that “most of the world’s leaders,” including President Trump, 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 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 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 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 (and counting) that have shown CQ or HCQ to be effective against Covid-19 under certain conditions—the FDA revoked 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 or cures.

At this point, when countries using HCQ are displaying a Covid-19 mortality rate that is “only one-tenth 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 is taking place both domestically and internationally. Columbia University medical graduate Dr. James Todaro 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—including the alarming Moderna 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 earlier this spring, Columbia University’s Dr. Ian Lipkin admitted to Maddow—with a grin—that “sexy and new and patentable” 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, social media giants and captured media, regulatory and scientific journal partners—tens of thousands of Covid-19 patients “are dying unnecessarily” 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.”

Instead, the doctors were met with with Google’s removal of their white paper.

= *MORE*=

[Mayacaman]

Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of
SARS coronavirus infection and spread


Virology Journal volume 2,
Article number: 69
[ 2005 ]
Cite this article

Abstract


Background

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.

Background

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]. Complete genome sequencing of SARS-CoV [2, 3] 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] 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]. 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].

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], passive antibody transfer [8], DNA vaccination [9], vaccinia or parainfluenza virus expressing the spike protein [10, 11], interferons [12, 13], and monoclonal antibody to the S1-subunit of the spike glycoprotein that blocks receptor binding [14]. 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]. 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.

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] 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) 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). 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.

[ Source ]

[geomancer]

"Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture."

Cool, now do it in a human being

[Mayacaman]

geomancer wrote:
"Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture."

Cool, now do it in a human being

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”

- 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!”

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? "

by the Children’s Health Defense Team...

[Mayacaman]

Hydroxychloroquine Is Widely Used Around the Globe


by Brian Giesbrecht

Death rates in countries that rely on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for the treatment of 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).

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 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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. 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 (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 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. 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 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 for the drug have been written by doctors. And Russia refused to stop 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 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 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 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.

[ Source ]

[podfish]

that guy tries to restrain himself from too much hyperbole and hyperventilation. He's a good advocate.

[Mayacaman]

podfish wrote:

that guy tries to restrain himself from too much hyperbole and hyperventilation. He's a good advocate.

That guy, Brian Giesbrecht, writes for Epoch Times, where the article first appeared. Epoch Times is published in America by the Falun Gong, 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 (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 ?) for the abuse they have experienced in the PRC.

[Valley Oak]

This thread belongs in the Coronavirus Conspiracy Theories section of Wacco.

[Mayacaman]

Valley Oak wrote:
"This thread belongs in the 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]

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]

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...

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]

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.