The previous lack of consensus around the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 patients underlines the need to thoroughly assess the in vivo efficacy of drugs against SARS-CoV-2. Small animal infection models, such as the hamster model, have a pivotal place herein. We here show in vivo preclinical results with favipiravir which indicate that antiviral efficacy against SARS-CoV-2 might only be achieved with a very high dose. Hydroxychloroquine, on the other hand, completely lacks antiviral activity, thus providing no scientific basis for its further use in COVID-19 patients. With this study on two key antiviral candidates, we establish the baseline for SARS-CoV-2 antiviral treatment, which will allow us to identify superior antiviral candidates in the near future.
Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) rapidly spread around the globe after its emergence in Wuhan in December 2019. With no specific therapeutic and prophylactic options available, the virus has infected millions of people of which more than half a million succumbed to the viral disease, COVID-19. The urgent need for an effective treatment together with a lack of small animal infection models has led to clinical trials using repurposed drugs without preclinical evidence of their in vivo efficacy. We established an infection model in Syrian hamsters to evaluate the efficacy of small molecules on both infection and transmission. Treatment of SARS-CoV-2−infected hamsters with a low dose of favipiravir or hydroxychloroquine with(out) azithromycin resulted in, respectively, a mild or no reduction in virus levels. However, high doses of favipiravir significantly reduced infectious virus titers in the lungs and markedly improved lung histopathology. Moreover, a high dose of favipiravir decreased virus transmission by direct contact, whereas hydroxychloroquine failed as prophylaxis. Pharmacokinetic modeling of hydroxychloroquine suggested that the total lung exposure to the drug did not cause the failure. Our data on hydroxychloroquine (together with previous reports in macaques and ferrets) thus provide no scientific basis for the use of this drug in COVID-19 patients. In contrast, the results with favipiravir demonstrate that an antiviral drug at nontoxic doses exhibits a marked protective effect against SARS-CoV-2 in a small animal model. Clinical studies are required to assess whether a similar antiviral effect is achievable in humans without toxic effects. …
Clinicians around the world have been shouting from the rooftops for months that it’s the combination of zinc and HCQ that wipes out covid, not HCQ alone. Zinc has long been known to be a potent antiviral. It is the bullet, the HCQ is the gun that drives it into the cells. Without zinc supplementation, its actual role in the experiment is a matter of the composition of the hamster feed in use.
It takes a lot of tunnel vision to overlook what any reasonably well informed person can easily discover from field reports. These people declare no competing interests, but most of them work at Rega Institute for Medical research in Belgium. Who funds medical research? Whoever has the money. Draw your own conclusions. Given the strategic allocation of corporate and corporate-government research funding in pursuit of their own interests, it’s become a rule of thumb that the least credible sources of information are precisely those where credibility is supposed to be a given. The hierarchy of authority is upside down.
Obviously the same holds true for the major media, which, besides their dependence on advertisers, are subsidiaries of corporate behemoths with widely diversified investments and business interests. Not to mention the kickbacks, covert alliances, secret societies etc. They are distillations of every conflict of interest available to their business. It’s a mine field out there. Diversify your sources if you don’t want to be puppeted.
Science begins with empirical data. This is not science.
Since its inception in 1948, the World Health Organization (WHO) never stood a chance to remain independent from Big Pharma’s influence. As part of the United Nations, this global government agency quickly became a playground for globalists to test out their ideologies, agendas, products and experiments on populations around the world, especially in third world countries like Africa.
In 2020, WHO has never been more tangled up in Big Pharma’s web of influence, and has never been so corrupted by convicted felons, eugenicists, communists and the predatory vaccine industry. In 2009, the WHO’s expert working group (EWG) turned their back on the public, shutting out industry critics, whistle blowers, industry watchdog groups and other independent health groups, while deciding to meet directly with the pharmaceutical industry lobbyists to advance their global agendas. In 2019, red flags were raised when the WHO threatened informed consent and individual choice by declaring “vaccine hesitancy” to be a global health threat.
By 2020, the WHO and their inner circle had so much to gain, politically and financially from a pandemic, they covered up the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and hid its Chinese bio-weapon origins, while withholding research on therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine and zinc and staying mum on immune system solutions that could have saved countless lives. In early 2020, U.S. President Donald Trump cut funding to the corrupt behemoth for “severely mismanaging and covering up the spread of the coronavirus.” The behemoth is now primarily funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, who are, admittedly, on a mission to vaccinate the world’s population.
Wikileaks reveals WHO’s Big Pharma ties
Wikileaks released a trove of confidential documents that show how Big Pharma controls the policy-making decisions of the WHO. The WHO expert group is beholden to Big Pharma for funding initiatives and is quick to respond to industry lobbying. The EWG works directly with Big Pharma’s International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufactures and Associations (IFPMA) for research, development and financing of upcoming public health initiatives and goals. (Related: Gilead, Big Pharma and the WHO: An unholy trifecta of corruption and bioterrorism.)
In one instance, the EWG were presented with a plan to advance pharmaceutical products in exchange for a tax on pharmaceutical profits. The proposal would make the WHO a drug pimp for the pharmaceutical industry and the drug makers would have to raise their prices to pay their pimp.
In the EWG draft final report, the financing mechanism included a new indirect tax on the consumer, taxation of repatriated pharmaceutical profits, and new donor funds for health research and development. In order to advance the WHO’s agendas, the final report gave five funding options from Big Pharma: funding via product development partnerships, direct grants to small companies and grants for DC trials, milestone prizes, end prizes, and purchase or procurement agreements.
Now controlled by the pharmaceutical industry, the WHO has been dictating all health information throughout social media and the news networks. Facebook, Twitter, Vimeo and other social media platforms will not allow any health information that is not approved by the Big Pharma-controlled WHO. The pharmaceutical industry is keeping the WHO funded, and is benefiting by using it as the ultimate authority on health, to dictate information on vaccines and drugs and to cover up industry crimes.
An agency that was intended to safeguard public health has been weaponized into a totalitarian dictatorship that not only promotes Big Pharma, but also seeks to eliminate any information or health solutions not patented and profited on by Big Pharma. The WHO has been weaponized and is involved in crimes against humanity. Member countries must work diligently to unravel the WHO’s Big Pharma conflicts of interest and to hold the agency accountable to ultimately restore the integrity of the organization and improve its operations.
I was wondering about the taxes thing… so glad this clarification showed up.
Contrary to the false impression in The New York Times story, Donald Trump did not avoid taxes.
He pre-paid them.
In 2016 and 2017, he requested and got an extension to file his returns.
As required, he made an estimated tax payment of $1 million in 2016 and $4.2 million in 2017. Then, it turned out that he did not owe that much in taxes, but, rather than demand the money back, he let the IRS keep it and apply it to any future tax he owed.
So — when he only paid $750 in taxes for the first two years of his presidency it was because he had already overpaid during the two previous years and just reduced his payment by that amount.
Over the longer term, Trump overpaid his taxes by $72 million…