How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created to maximize death

Normally intent is hard to prove when incompetence would suffice.  But in this case the intent is hard to miss.

It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe.  The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, Covid-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.

Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients.  And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for Covid-19.  It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked.

Were these acts carefully orchestrated?  You decide.

Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going?  To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population?   Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich?  Are these events evidence of a conspiracy?

Here is a list of what happened, in no special order. Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include.  This will be a living document, added to as new information becomes available.

I have penned this as if it is the “To Do” list of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings.  The items on the list have already been carried out.  One wonders what else might be on their list, yet to be carried out, for this pandemic.

———————

  1. You stop doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective (in outpatients at onset of illness).  You prohibit use outside of situations you can control.

Situations that were controlled to show no benefit included 3 large, randomized, multi-center clinical trials (Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP-Covid), the kind of trials that are generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence. However, each of them used excessive hydroxychloroquine doses that were known to be toxic and may have been fatal in some cases; see my previous articles here and here.

  1. You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug, using different methods in different countries andstates.  In NY state, by order of the governor, hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized patients.  France has issued a series of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it.  France also changed the drugs’ status from over-the-counter to a drug requiring a prescription.
  1. You play up the danger of the drug, emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly. You make sure everyone has heard about theman who died after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner. Yet its toxicity at approved doses is minimal. Chloroquine was added to table salt in some regions in the 1950s as a malaria preventive, according to Professor Nicholas White in his study for the Recovery trial.
  1. You limit clinical trials to hospitalized patients, instead of testing the drug in outpatients, early in the illness,when it is predicted to be most effective.

Finally, but not until May, you have Fauci’s NIAID conduct a trial in outpatients, using hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, but you only enroll 20 patients, after earlier planning for 2,000. Only half get the drugs. You reduce the duration of followup from 24 weeks to 13 days post treatment. This ridiculously small number of subjects assures meaningless results. Who pulled the plug on this trial?

  1. You design clinical trials to givemuch too high a dose, ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects, sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect.  You make sure that trials in 400 hospitals in 35 countries (Solidarity) plus most hospitals in the UK (Recovery) use these dangerous doses, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (REMAP-Covid trial).
  1. You design clinical trials tocollect almost no safety data, so any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the drug.
  1. You issue rules for use of the drug based on theresults of the UK Recovery study, which overdosed patients. Of course the Recovery results showed more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm, since they gave patients 2.4 g in the first 24 hrs, 800 mg/day thereafter. Furthermore, the UK has the 2nd highest death rate in the world for Covid-19 (Belgium is 1st), so simply conducting the trial in the UK may have contributed to the poor results.
  1. You publish, in the world’s most-read medical journal, theLancet, an observational study from a huge worldwide database (96,000 Covid cases) that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased mortality.  You make sure that all major media report on this result. This was said to be the nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine. Then you have 3 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug.
  1. You do your best to ride out any controversy, never admitting culpability.  Even after hundreds of people renounced theLancet’s observational study due to easily identified fabrications–the database used in the study did not exist, and the claimed numbers did not agree with known numbers of cases–the Lancet held firm for two weeks, serving to muddy the waters about the trial, until finally 3 of its 4 coauthors (but not the journal) retracted the study. But neither the authors nor the journal admitted responsibility. You make sure very few media report that the data were fabricated and the “study” was fraudulent. Even though the story was full of scandalous details, it went largely unnoticed.  You make sure people believe the original story: that hydroxychloroquine routinely kills.
  1. You ensure federal agencies like FDA and CDC hew to your desired policies.  For example,FDA advised use only in hospitalized patients (too late) or in clinical trials (which are limited, are difficult to enroll in, or may use excessive doses).  As of mid June, FDA advises patients and doctors to only give the drug to patients if they are in a clinical trial where, presumably, the results can be controlled.

Another example:  you have FDA make unsubstantiated and false claims, such as:  “Hospitalized patients were likely to have greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness) and claim the chloroquine drugs have a slow onset of action. If that were really true, they would not be used for acute attacks of malaria or in critically ill patients with Covid. (Disclosure:  I once dosed myself with chloroquine for an acute attack of P. vivax malaria, and it worked very fast.). Providing no other treatment advice, even though providing such information is a large part of its mission, CDC instead refers clinicians to the NIH guidelines, discussed below.

Despite the fact that Belgium’s COVID treatment guidelines  repeatedly mention that the doses of HCQ in the Recovery and Solidarity trials were 4 times the cumulative dose used in Belgium, you make sure the Belgian guidelines, paradoxically, only recommend use of HCQ within clinical trials. ….

  1. You create an NIH Guidelines committee for Covid treatment recommendations, in which16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead, maker of Remdesivir. The members were appointed by the Co-Chairs.  Two of the three Co-Chairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead.  Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir, and that they deem this the new “standard of care”?
  1. You frighten doctors so they don’t prescribe hydroxychloroquine, if prescribing it is even allowed in their jurisdiction, because prescribing outside the newNIH “standard of care” leaves them open to malpractice lawsuits.  You further tell them (through the FDA) they need to monitor a variety of lab parameters and patient EKGs when using the drug, although this was never advised before, which makes it very difficult to use the drug in outpatients. You have the European Medicines Agency issue similar warnings.
  1. You manage to control the conduct of most trials around the world by specially designing the WHO-managedSolidarity trials, currently conducted in 35 countries. WHO halted hydroxychloroquine clinical trials around the world, twice.  The first time, May 25, WHO claimed it was in response to the (fraudulent) Lancet study.  The second time, June 17, WHO claimed the stop was in response to the Recovery trial results.  Recovery used highly toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine in over 1500 patients, of whom 396 died.  You stop the trial before the data safety monitoring board has looked at your data, a move that is unlikely to be consistent with trial protocol. WHO’s trial in over 400 hospitals overdosed patients with 2.0 g hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours.  The trial was halted 3 days after the toxic doses were exposed (by me). The trial involved doctors around the world typing minimal patient information into an online WHO platform, which assigned the patient a treatment.

The only “safety” information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen, required a ventilator, or died. This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested.

I should mention that WHO’s initial plan for its Solidarity trial entirely omitted the chloroquine drugs, but they were added at the urging of participating nations. WHO’s fallback position appears to have been to use toxic doses.

  1. You have theWHO pressure governments to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
  1. You have theWHO pressure professional societies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
  1. You make sure that the most-consulted US medical encyclopedia, UptoDate,advises physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials, citing the FDA….
  1. You have CDC (with help from FDA)prevent the purchase of coronavirus test kits from Germany, China, WHO, etc, and fail to produce a valid test kit themselves. The result was that during January and February, US cases could not be tested, and for several months thereafter insufficient and unreliable test kits made it impossible to track the epidemic and stop the spread….
  1. You destroy the reputation of respected physicians who stand in your way.  Professor Didier Raoult and his team in Marseille have used hydroxychloroquine on over 4,000 patients, reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8%.  (The mortality rate of patients given hydroxychloroquine in the Recovery trial was 25.7%.) Raoult is very famous for discovering over 100 different microorganisms, and finding the long-sought cause of Whipple’s Disease.  With this reputation, Raoult apparently thought he could treat patients as he saw fit, which he has done, under great duress.  Raoult was featured in a New York Times Magazinearticle, with his face on the magazine cover, on May 12, 2020.  After describing his accomplishments, the Times very unfavorably discussed his personality, implied he conducted unethical trials without approval, and using anonymous sourcing produced a detailed hit piece. Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank in the US.

Physician and state senator Scott Jensen of Minnesota is being investigated by his state medical board due to anonymous complaints about what he said about COVID in interviews. Jensen was previously selected as “Family Physician of the Year” in his state. Now his medical license is at risk, not because of how he treated a patient, but for what he said outside of the office. Unprecedented.

  1. You have social media platforms ban content that does not agree with the desired narrative.  As YouTube CEO and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin, Susan Wojcickisaid,

“YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations. Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”…

  1. You stopped use of hydroxychloroquine, allegedly in response to the fabricated Lancet study, in France, Italy and Belgium (countries with very high COVID mortality rates) then Portugal then Switzerland. But Switzerland restarted using HCQ 15 days later.This created a natural experiment in Switzerland. About 2 weeks after hydroxychloroquine use was halted, death rates approximately tripled, for about 15 days. Then, after its use was allowed again, two weeks later death rates from Covid fell back to their baseline. (Thanks toFranceSoir:

http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/covid-19-lhydroxychloroquine-marche-une-preuve-irrefutable)

  1. You reverse an old trick of clinical trials, to mask benefit of hydroxychloroquine.  The trick was to replace the saline placebo with a substance that is being used by many cliniciansand in many trials against Covid, thus by comparison likely to reduce the positive effect of your tested medication. This was done in trials both at NYU and at University of Washington, using vitamin C or vitamin C and folate respectively as placebos….
  2.  You have state Pharmacy Boards refuse to dispense hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trials, on June 15, citing the FDA recommendation for use only in trials.  You issue this new regulation on the same day that FDA publishes its recommendation, indicating coordination with FDA. But when your regulation is exposed on July 14, you immediately rescind it.
  3. You have the IMF offer rapid financing to Belarus, but only if it follows the recommended model of Covid responseand imposes quarantines, isolation and curfews.

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/how-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative.html

But it wouldn’t have been possible without fauci and the NIH helping to  fund the development of the virus to begin with.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.