The COVID-19 pandemic has been exploited by government-sponsored medical scientists who dispensed with foundational international medical ethics standards that were adopted by the world community following the revelations of wartime Nazi medical atrocities. The Nuremberg Code of 1947 is part of the legal verdict against the Nazi doctors on trial at Nuremberg.
Vulnerable elderly human beings are at greatest risk of death; not only from this unnatural, most likely laboratory-crafted virus, but they have been subjected to draconian government-dictated inhumane policies that condemned large numbers of them to death by denying them life-saving treatments in hospitals. New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo, issued an infamous March 25th directive ordering ill-equipped nursing homes to accept infected elderly people; thereby condemning more than 4,500 people at those facilities to die. [NYS Department of Health removed the directive from its website. See Associate Press, New York Post]
COVID-19 has generated a series of unethical, scientifically dubious experiments in an effort to invalidate the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ). The protocols of these studies were crafted in ways that skewed the therapeutic effect of this medicine that has been in use for more than 70 years. These experiments resulted in the predictable death of the elderly human subjects. These unethical experiments were conducted by dozens of academic scientists. They were rapidly “peer reviewed” and published in the premier international scientific journals.
Why were the HCQ studies deliberately skewed? Because this unpatented, cheap (practically free) medicine – that has been shown to work when administered early and in proper doses – poses a very substantial financial threat to those who seek to corner the market with a not-yet-formulated drug and/ or vaccine – that will generate not merely billions of dollars, but trillions of dollars. Bill Gates publicly declared that “the Final Solution” for COVID-19 will be a vaccine.
How could the dubious protocol designs have escaped the peer reviewers ?
We salute the Brazilian scientists and academics who have come forward with a scathing Open Letter that Speaks Truth to Power. “For the truth shall set you free”.
Part of that rarely acknowledged truth, is that scientists’ opinions are not necessarily guided by “science”. When confronted with a strongly disputed issue, scientists , like everyone else who takes sides, make their choice based on personal preferences and self-interest. As acknowledged in the Open Letter bellow: “Scientists are people and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences.”
Brazilian scientists and academics write an Open Letter Challenging the “science” of the coronavirus pandemic, CONNEXÃO POLITICA, May 25, 2020
The coordinator of the statement is Professor Marcos Nogueira Eberlin, a member of the Brazilian Academy of Sciences. He holds a PhD in chemistry from the University of Campinas. After postdoctoral work at Purdue, Dr. Eberlin founded the Thomson Mass Spectrometry Laboratory, growing it into a highly distinguished lab where he supervised some 200 graduate and post-doctoral students and scientists who today work as researchers and professionals all around the globe.
Professor Eberlin is the winner of the prestigious Thomson Medal (2016) and the former president of the International Mass Spectrometry Foundation, He is recognized worldwide as one of the most productive mass spectrometrists ever, having published close to 1,000 scientific articles. He discovered the Eberlin Reaction during his work on gas phase ion chemistry, and he and his research group introduced EASI (Easy Ambient Sonic-spray Ionization), an ionization technique used in mass spectrometry.
Full text of the open letter: [All highlights by VS]
The “science” of the Pandemic
During this pandemic, the term “science” has been used “ad nauseam”, that is, has been repeated to exhaustion: “Science, science, science”, “I’m pro-science”, “For from the science, through the science and to the science I guide my decisions and acts” and “I am, therefore, fully right to do so”. It is clear that the intention here is to lead all of us to the idea of decisions based on something unquestionable and infallible, as scientific as law, as the law of gravity.
Groups of “science experts” or famous YouTube scientists, many of them still “beginners” in science, some of them with a minimal or no experience in fighting pandemics, are selected by the establishment and the media to give “scientific aura” for the lockdown and the condemnation of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as an ineffective drug; worse, as a deadly poison.
That disastrous apocalyptic simulations from the “Imperial College” – this pompous name that brings us to the idea of a center of excellence of infallible, omnipotent and unquestionable knowledge, an “College of the Empire” – are being used to place everyone at home, and then, to compare data as being the absolute reference of the truth. “We did something and as a result, we reduced those many deaths. Therefore: ‘blessed be the science!’”.
But what kind of “science” is that to which they are appealing? And who, in the name of this “science”, would be allowed to speak? Science (I know that there are controversies, as scientists even debate on its meaning) is “the dispassionate search for the truth about the Universe and life”. But ironically, we seek truths that we don’t even know what those truths would be like, or where they would be found. For this reason, sometimes, ironically, even when scientists find a truth that is indeed true, yet they doubt that they have found it. We literally zigzag in the dark, searching for solutions to our problems. Therefore, we sometimes say that: “eating eggs is bad, it increases cholesterol”; and sometimes: “eggs are good, eat at ease”.
Richard Feynman put it this way: “Science is the culture of doubt”. And I would add, “science is the culture of debate, of divergence of opinions”.
Rarely, there are situations in which we reach consensus in science, even a momentary consensus. Some defend the “Big Bang” and the theory of evolution, others, including myself, are skeptical of them. Some defend with data and papers the central role of men in global warming, others defend, with the same data and papers, that human activity is irrelevant. Scientists are human beings, therefore, skeptics and enquirers who can and should speak for themselves, like all scientists have the right to do, but NEVER A SCIENTIST OR A GROUP OF THEM CAN DECLARE TO BE AUTHORIZED TO SPEAK IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE!
Nobody, absolutely nobody is allowed to speak for science or declare that he is “been guided” by science! In times of pandemic, this impossibility is even greater, as we face an unknown enemy. Data is still being collected and research is being performed and published by scientists divided by their worldviews, and by their political and party preferences.
Whoever said he acted in the name of science, dishonestly usurped science prestige. For what type of “science” is this, unanimous and consensual, that no one has ever heard of? Could someone give me its address so I can confirm its consent? Its phone, email and WhatsApp?
As for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), the inevitable scientific clash between theses is clear
When renowned scientists from around the world and in Brazil – such as virologist Paolo Zanotto (with 7,400 scientific citations) and doctors Didier Raoult (with 148,000 citations), Philip M. Carlucci and Vladimir Zelenko – defend its use based on studies and articles, whereas other scientists, also renowned and based on the same or other studies and articles, condemn it.
Numerous countries such as the USA, Spain, France, Italy, India, Israel, Russia, Costa Rica and Senegal use the drug (HCQ) to fight covid-19, whereas other countries refrain from using HCQ as one of the strategies to contain the pandemic, betting on other controversial tactics.
- Who then speaks here in the name of “science”?
- Which group has a monopoly on reason and its exclusive authorization to be the spokesperson of “science”?
- Where is such authorization found?
One can choose an opinion, and base his strategy on it, this is fine, but no one should commit the sacrilege of protecting his decision risking to tarnish it with the “sacred mantle of science”. Outraged, every day I hear mayors and governors saying at the top of their lungs that they “have followed science”. Presidents of councils and some of their advisers, and of academies and deans in their offices write letters on behalf of their entire community, as if they reflect everyone’s consensual position. Nothing could be more false.
Have they followed science? Not at all! They have followed the science wing which they like, and the scientists who they chose to place around them. They ignore the other wing of science, since there are also hundreds of scientists and articles that oppose their positions and measures.
Worse, scientists are not angels. Scientists are people, and people have likes and dislikes, passions and political party preferences. Or wouldn’t they? There are many scientists, therefore, who do good without looking at whom, I know and admire many of them. But there are also pseudoscientists who use science to defend their opinion, their own pocket, or their passion. Scientists have worked and still work hard and detached to contribute to the good of humanity, many of whom are now in their laboratories, risking their lives to develop new methods of detecting coronavirus, drugs and vaccines, when they could stay “safe at home”.
But, to illustrate my point, I know scientists who have published articles, some even in major journals such as “Science” or “Nature”, with data they have manufactured “during the night”; others who have removed points from their curves, or used other similar strategies.
- Many scientists were at Hitler’s side, weren’t they? Did they act in the name of “science”?
- Others have developed atom bombs.
- Others still develop chemical and biological weapons and illicit drugs, by design.
The Manaus’ study with chloroquine (CQ) performed here in Brazil and published in the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) , is emblematic to this discussion of “science”. The manuscript reveals that:
- Scientists used lethal doses in debilitated patients, many in severe conditions and with comorbidities.
- The profiles of the groups do not seem to have been “randomized”, since a clear “preference” in the HIGH DOSE group for risk factors is noted.
- Chloroquine, which is more toxic than HCQ, was used.
- and it seems that they even made “childish mistakes” in simple stoichiometric calculations, doubling the dosage with the error.
I’m incapable of judging intentions, but justice will do it.
The former Brazilian Health Minister Luiz Henrique Mandetta quoted this study, supported it, and based on it, categorically stated: “I do not approve HCQ because I am based on ‘science, science, science’!”.
Another study published by Chinese researchers in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and which is still persistently used against HCQ was also at least revolting . In it, the authors declared: “we administer 1,200 mg for 3 days, followed by 800 mg for 12 to 21 days, in patients with moderate to severe symptoms”.
In other words, they gave a huge dosage of the drug that could reach the absurdity of 20 grams in the end, and it given was too late to patients (HCQ should be administered in the first symptoms or even earlier). And even worse, overdosing on HCQ or any other drug for severe cases is poisonous.
What do you think, was it good science?
The recommended dosage in Brazil, since May 20th, 2020, by the new Ministry of Health, for mild symptoms is 2 times 400 mg in the first day (every 12 hours) and 400 mg for 5 days for a total of 2.8 grams.
In other published studies, also in these internationally renowned journals such as The New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA and BMJ [3-5], once again, “problems” are clearly noted, [sic] patients were randomized in irregular ways, placing older, more susceptible or most severe and hypoxemic patients in the higher (lethal) dose groups.
- more men [for whom covid is] almost 3 times more deadly [sic] than for women,
- or more black people (in the USA, black people have displayed higher mortality)
- and more smokers.
- Most of the deaths occurred in the first days of the studies (signs that these deaths were of critically ill patients, who at this stage would be more “intoxicated” than “treated” with HCQ). They also administered HCQ alone, when it is known that it is necessary to combine HCQ at least with azithromycin….