principiascientificinternational--2020-08-02--The Science & Media Lies About Quinine, Chloroquine & HCQ

Last week we learned of the ‘ Mysterious ‘ Suicide ’ Of Dr. Fauci ’ s Right-Hand Man At NIAID .
The news is stirring fresh talk of Fauci ’ s mendacity as it coincides with further clinical results showing the quinine family of drugs – chloroquine and HCQ – are effective against COVID-19 .
Rather than being the medical saint depicted by the media bravely leading the White House Coronavirus Task Force , incompetent/corrupt Dr Anthony Fauci is guilty of no fewer than ‘ 15 Deadly COVID-19 Errors.
’ Perhaps the worst Fauci foul up is the story from @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2005 — nobody needed to die ’ ( Bryan Fischer , April 27 , 2020 ) .
The worst because Fischer had rightly exposed a cover up but his revelation was swiftly ‘ fake check ’ bombed by the mainstream .
On the very same day Fischer posted his damning ‘ Fauci Knew ‘ story the left-wing blog Politifact.com rushed out a counter story that succeeded in quelling public interest in the back story of this virus .
By the quick action , Politifact.com and author Daniel Funke pulled off a neat @ @ @ @ @ @ @ light from where it most needed shining : on the safe and cheap drug hydroxychloroquine , proven efficacious in treating coronavirus 15 years ago .
Their conclusory and scientifically cherry-picked ‘ fake check ’ was thereafter widely deployed to quell claims that Dr Fauci already knew ( or should have known ) of the remarkable properties of Chloroquine ( Hydroxychloroquine ) on coronavirus .
The first part of their ploy was persuading the public to believe SARS-CoV-1 ( commonly called ‘ SARS ’ ) was not at all like SARS-CoV-2 ( commonly called @ @ @ @ @ @ @ swallowed that crock , the ploy ’ s second part was to have us believe the drug from 2005 “ Fauci knew about ” ( choloroquine ) is nothing like hydroxychloroquine ( President Trump ’ s CV19 ‘ game changing ’ wonder drug ) and thus irrelevant .
The media largely succeeded with this double gambit – until now…..
The 2005 study in question is from Virology Journal , a publication of BioMed Central , which is owned by Springer Nature .
[ 1 ] The National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Fauci was head of NIH when this study came through .
Even if Fauci wasn ’ t personally aware of it , he would be advised of it by colleagues once the pandemic hit home hard in March .
However , the smoke and mirrors of author , Daniel Funke , was in conveniently failing to reveal that : ( a ) chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are both pharmaceutical derivatives of quinine and ; ( b ) the 2005 SARS and 2019/20 viruses share nomenclature classification because they are closely related .
Funke must @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his cited references .
Prominent among them is the article ‘ COVID-19 vs. SARS : How Do They Differ ?
’ ( April 2 , 2020 ) from healthline.com which reveals that virologists admit : You don ’ t need to be a virologist to appreciate the obvious connection here : SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2 Indeed , get past the COVID-19 name and identify the original classification , not just in the reference above , but since January 2020 scientists repeatedly identified that the new virus “ is related to SARS-CoV-1 ” [ 2 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in his footnotes openly reveal the connection , he and politifact.com opted to bury this crucial fact in footnotes and not highlight it in the body of his article .
On its own , this one ‘ oversight ’ is insufficient to conclusively prove a motive to deceive .
But Mr Funke then goes on to compound that ‘ oversight ’ with a second ; glibly telling readers that chloroquine is “ a different drug ” from hydroxychloroquine .
He merely left it at that , failing to reveal the key fact both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drugs ( under quinine ) .
So , of course , anyone falling for such horse sheet would opine : Non-experts were easily duped .
They didn ’ t understand that the ‘ hydroxy ’ addition makes the treatment safer and more readily absorbed , and would work just as well in combating SARS and Covid-19 – from the same family of viruses .
Do a search on Google Scholar on the topic .
You will learn that : Thus , beyond all doubt , SARS-CoV-1 ( ‘ SARS ’ ) from 2005 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in 2020 are closely related and virologists knew that a proven therapy for SARS ( virus-1 ) must be a prime candidate to use against virus-2 .
Politifact.com and their msm co-conspirators dodged explaining the details – at the behest of their paymasters – in favor of their top story about the search for a completely new and expensive vaccine ( via Bill Gates ) .
But in the real world experts were aware of an altogether cheaper and quicker route via a re-purposed old medication which was shown to be effective as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ chloroquine ) .
Independent researchers thus realized – with high probability – these re-purposed cheap drugs could prove successful , so dozens of studies to validate the issue ensued .
But the msm only wanted to focus on negative and largely fake stories to discredit HCQ , as detailed very well by www.investmentwatchblog.com Not to be outdone by the fake news media , the multiplicity of ongoing and earnest efforts by ( independent ) researchers on quinine , chloroquine and HCQ can be found in the scientific literature .
[ 4 ] But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ relentless as propagandists .
They only say HCQ is “ dangerous ” , “ unproven ” , not subjected to double-blind testing , etc .
Yet quinine ( the original source drug ) is a key ingredient in your supermarket tonic water ( used in gin and tonic ) .
So , why would a “ dangerous ” , “ unproven ” ingredient be permitted in a common beverage ?
And do you really believe mainstream journalists are ignorant of these facts ?
Notwithstanding those questions , Funke is exposed by his cherry-picking @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the article plainly state what he failed to report .
For example , his reference from healthline.com reveals that : “ The new coronavirus has a 79 percent genetic similarity to the SARS virus.
” The biggest difference between the two viruses , it says , is that the 2005 “ SARS is much more deadly than COVID-19.
” It gets better .
The authors then admit : The only significant difference between the 2005 SARS ( SARS-CoV-1 ) from the current coronavirus , SARS-CoV-2 , which we generally call COVID-19 is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 2005 version was much deadlier but less infectious than the current virus causing all the global pandemonium !
What this global crisis needed from Day One was honest and accurate journalism .
If the mainstream won ’ t oblige then online citizen journalists will do the job .
From Africa comes an example of how honest journalism should be done .
Check out ‘ COVID-19 : Nigerian study finds Chloroquine , Hydroxychloroquine effective as Prophylaxis ’ ( June 23 , 2020 ) where Chioma Obinna reports : A promising African Study Protocol @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oral for regular inpatients and intravenous for ICU Patients ) .
The researchers found that : Because results were promising this has meant that “ the study protocols are currently being used in Kaduna , Bauchi , and some other States in Nigeria , ” reports Obinna .
The article continues : So , there you have it from Africa , a key aspect of the fake media ’ s defense against accusations of Dr Fauci ’ s malfeasance is debunked .
As proven by trials on real patients quinine , chloroquine and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it isn ’ t just in Africa where scientists are proving this family of drugs can do the job .
A rudimentary search of Google Scholar reveals a plethora of studies from around the world substantiating the African findings , contrary to what politifact.com and other fake news outlets would have you believe .
[ 6 ] If these drugs were already proven to be “ dangerous ” then why would researchers invest so many resources in doing more trials ?
In fact , there are no fewer than 80 registered trials ongoing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ COVID-19 treatment and the evidence for success is building [ 7 ] The conclusions are becoming more inescapable : science is showing Trump was right all along .
Dr Fauci should have known – and was duty-bound to make it widely known – that HCQ ( combined with the Z-pac protocol ) was a proven front line candidate for a cure .
What Fauci had to do from March 21 2020 was apply due diligence and check Trump ’ s “ game changer ” claims to uncover and share what was known in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lead White House Task Force expert he was duty bound to do this .
Instead , he played dumb and obfuscated .
If Dr Fauci had acted perhaps 500,000+ lives could have been saved and the wholesale destruction of the world economy prevented because of an avoidable global ‘ lock down ‘ .
[ 1 ] ‘ Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread ’ ( Aug 22 2005 ) https : //virologyj.biomedcentral.com/about doi : 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69 .
See : https : //pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/ [ 4 ] M. Wang , R. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , J. Liu , M. Xu , et al.Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus ( 2019-nCoV ) in vitro Cell Res , 30 ( 2020 ) , pp .
269-271 , 10.1038/s41422-020-0282-0 [ 6 ] The list is extensive , here are just a few : Gao J , Tian Z , Yang X. Breakthrough : chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies .
Biosci Trends .
( 2020 ) 14:72–3 .
doi : 10.5582/bst.2020.01047 Gautret P , Lagier JC , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ L , Mailhe M , et al .
Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19 : results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial .
Int J Antimicrobial Agents .
( 2020 ) .
doi : 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949 .
[ Epub ahead of print ] .
About the author : John O ’ Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder ( with Dr Tim Ball ) of Principia Scientific International ( PSI ) .
John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert , Michael @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ‘ science trial of the century ‘ .
O ’ Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘ Slayers ’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world ’ s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method @

The Science & Media Lies About Quinine, Chloroquine & HCQ
Written by John O'Sullivan
Last week we learned of the ‘Mysterious ‘Suicide’ Of Dr. Fauci’s Right-Hand Man At NIAID. The news is stirring fresh talk of Fauci’s mendacity as it coincides with further clinical results showing the quinine family of drugs – chloroquine and HCQ – are effective against COVID-19.
Rather than being the medical saint depicted by the media bravely leading the White House Coronavirus Task Force, incompetent/corrupt Dr Anthony Fauci is guilty of no fewer than ‘15 Deadly COVID-19 Errors.’
Perhaps the worst Fauci foul up is the story from April that ‘Fauci knew about HCQ in 2005 — nobody needed to die’ (Bryan Fischer, April 27, 2020). The worst because Fischer had rightly exposed a cover up but his revelation was swiftly ‘ fact fake check’ bombed by the mainstream.
On the very same day Fischer posted his damning ‘Fauci Knew‘ story the left-wing blog Politifact.com rushed out a counter story that succeeded in quelling public interest in the back story of this virus.
By the quick action, Politifact.com and author Daniel Funke pulled off a neat smoke and mirrors job and deflected the light from where it most needed shining: on the safe and cheap drug hydroxychloroquine, proven efficacious in treating coronavirus 15 years ago.
Their conclusory and scientifically cherry-picked ‘ fact fake check’ was thereafter widely deployed to quell claims that Dr Fauci already knew (or should have known) of the remarkable properties of Chloroquine (Hydroxychloroquine) on coronavirus.
The first part of their ploy was persuading the public to believe SARS-CoV-1 (commonly called ‘SARS’) was not at all like SARS-CoV-2 (commonly called ‘COVID-19’).
Once we swallowed that crock, the ploy’s second part was to have us believe the drug from 2005 “Fauci knew about” (choloroquine) is nothing like hydroxychloroquine (President Trump’s CV19 ‘game changing’ wonder drug) and thus irrelevant.
The media largely succeeded with this double gambit – until now…..
The 2005 study in question is from Virology Journal, a publication of BioMed Central, which is owned by Springer Nature. [1]
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) indexes and archives these publications. Dr Fauci was head of NIH when this study came through. Even if Fauci wasn’t personally aware of it, he would be advised of it by colleagues once the pandemic hit home hard in March.
So, the Politifact.com article began:
“A widely shared conspiracy theory on Facebook alleges that Dr. Anthony Fauci is knowingly advocating against a treatment for the novel coronavirus. An April 27 article says the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases has known since 2005 that hydroxychloroquine, a drug used to treat conditions like lupus and arthritis, is effective against coronaviruses like the one that causes COVID-19.”
However, the smoke and mirrors of author, Daniel Funke, was in conveniently failing to reveal that:
(a) chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are both pharmaceutical derivatives of quinine and;
(b) the 2005 SARS and 2019/20 viruses share nomenclature classification because they are closely related.
Funke must have known what he was doing from his cited references. Prominent among them is the article ‘COVID-19 vs. SARS: How Do They Differ?’ (April 2, 2020) from healthline.com which reveals that virologists admit:
“Both COVID-19 and SARS are caused by coronaviruses. The virus that causes SARS is known as SARS-CoV-1, while the virus that causes COVID-19 is known as SARS-CoV-2. There are also other types of human coronaviruses.” [emphasis added]
You don’t need to be a virologist to appreciate the obvious connection here: SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2
Indeed, get past the COVID-19 name and identify the original classification, not just in the reference above, but since January 2020 scientists repeatedly identified that the new virus “is related to SARS-CoV-1” [2]
While Funke’s cited sources in his footnotes openly reveal the connection, he and politifact.com opted to bury this crucial fact in footnotes and not highlight it in the body of his article.
On its own, this one ‘oversight’ is insufficient to conclusively prove a motive to deceive.
But Mr Funke then goes on to compound that ‘oversight’ with a second; glibly telling readers that chloroquine is “a different drug” from hydroxychloroquine. He merely left it at that, failing to reveal the key fact both are pharmaceutically from the same family of drugs (under quinine).
So, of course, anyone falling for such horse sheet would opine:
“But, but, but that’s chloroquine, not hydroxychloroquine, and it’s SARS, not Covid-19”
Non-experts were easily duped. They didn’t understand that the ‘hydroxy’ addition makes the treatment safer and more readily absorbed, and would work just as well in combating SARS and Covid-19 – from the same family of viruses.
Do a search on Google Scholar on the topic. You will learn that:
“Chloroquine and the 4-aminoquinoline drug hydroxychloroquine belong to the same molecular family [quinine]. Hydroxychloroquine differs from chloroquine by the presence of a hydroxyl group at the end of the side chain: the N-ethyl substituent is β-hydroxylated.” [2]
Hydroxychloroquine gradually replaced chloroquine mostly because:
“Unfortunately, the efficacy of chloroquine gradually declined due to the continuous emergence of chloroquine-resistant P. falciparum strains.” [3]
Thus, beyond all doubt, SARS-CoV-1 (‘SARS’) from 2005 and SARS-CoV-2 (‘COVID-19’) in 2020 are closely related and virologists knew that a proven therapy for SARS (virus-1) must be a prime candidate to use against virus-2.
Politifact.com and their msm co-conspirators dodged explaining the details – at the behest of their paymasters – in favor of their top story about the search for a completely new and expensive vaccine (via Bill Gates). But in the real world experts were aware of an altogether cheaper and quicker route via a re-purposed old medication which was shown to be effective as a treatment for SARS in 2005 (chloroquine).
Independent researchers thus realized – with high probability – these re-purposed cheap drugs could prove successful, so dozens of studies to validate the issue ensued. But the msm only wanted to focus on negative and largely fake stories to discredit HCQ, as detailed very well by www.investmentwatchblog.com
Not to be outdone by the fake news media, the multiplicity of ongoing and earnest efforts by (independent) researchers on quinine, chloroquine and HCQ can be found in the scientific literature. [4]
But Funke (and media co-conspirators) are relentless as propagandists. They only say HCQ is “dangerous”, “unproven”, not subjected to double-blind testing, etc. Yet quinine (the original source drug) is a key ingredient in your supermarket tonic water (used in gin and tonic).
So, why would a “dangerous”, “unproven” ingredient be permitted in a common beverage? And do you really believe mainstream journalists are ignorant of these facts?
Notwithstanding those questions, Funke is exposed by his cherry-picking and his footnote references at the end of the article plainly state what he failed to report. For example, his reference from healthline.com reveals that:
“The new coronavirus has a 79 percent genetic similarity to the SARS virus.”
The biggest difference between the two viruses, it says, is that the 2005 “SARS is much more deadly than COVID-19.”
It gets better. The authors then admit:
“A recent study has confirmed that both SARS-CoV-2 and SARS-CoV use the same host cell receptor. It also found that, for both viruses, the viral proteins used for host cell entry bind to the receptor with the same tightness (affinity).”
The only significant difference between the 2005 SARS (SARS-CoV-1) from the current coronavirus, SARS-CoV-2, which we generally call COVID-19 is that the new virus:
“spreads more easily and often causes mild symptoms.”
So, the 2005 version was much deadlier but less infectious than the current virus causing all the global pandemonium!
What this global crisis needed from Day One was honest and accurate journalism. If the mainstream won’t oblige then online citizen journalists will do the job.
From Africa comes an example of how honest journalism should be done. Check out ‘COVID-19: Nigerian study finds Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine effective as Prophylaxis’ (June 23, 2020) where Chioma Obinna reports:
“Preliminary trials on the use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as prophylaxis for COVID-19 in Nigeria has recorded some level of success.”
A promising African Study Protocol recommends quinine for all COVID-19 Inpatients (oral for regular inpatients and intravenous for ICU Patients). The researchers found that:
“….quinine crosses the blood-brain barrier into the alveoli which gives it an added advantage over chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 and picks up where CQ/ HCQ stop….“Chloroquine / Hydroxychloroquine has multiple modes of action which prevents the virus from penetrating the host cell using its S protein and Protease. It breaks the polymerase chain and prevents viral replication. “It is a zinc ionophore and ensures penetration of zinc into the viral cell.”
Because results were promising this has meant that “the study protocols are currently being used in Kaduna, Bauchi, and some other States in Nigeria,” reports Obinna. The article continues:
“Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine Prophylaxis works effectively for COVID-19 as all the clients recovered fully, after six weeks post-lockdown. None of the 110 placed on Prophylaxis has progressed into full-blown COVID-19.”
In conclusion the researchers:
“…observed that there were 100 percent positive outcome and zero deaths with 4Aminoquinolines in COVID-19 Response, stressing that quinine works in an advanced stage of COVID-19 as the case of the single laboratory tested positive clients have shown.”
So, there you have it from Africa, a key aspect of the fake media’s defense against accusations of Dr Fauci’s malfeasance is debunked. As proven by trials on real patients quinine, chloroquine and hydroxychlorine ALL work against coronavirus.
But it isn’t just in Africa where scientists are proving this family of drugs can do the job. A rudimentary search of Google Scholar reveals a plethora of studies from around the world substantiating the African findings, contrary to what politifact.com and other fake news outlets would have you believe. [6]
If these drugs were already proven to be “dangerous” then why would researchers invest so many resources in doing more trials?
In fact, there are no fewer than 80 registered trials ongoing worldwide into chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 treatment and the evidence for success is building [7]
The conclusions are becoming more inescapable: science is showing Trump was right all along. Dr Fauci should have known – and was duty-bound to make it widely known – that HCQ (combined with the Z-pac protocol) was a proven front line candidate for a cure.
What Fauci had to do from March 21 2020 was apply due diligence and check Trump’s “game changer” claims to uncover and share what was known in 2005. In his capacity as the lead White House Task Force expert he was duty bound to do this. Instead, he played dumb and obfuscated.
If Dr Fauci had acted perhaps 500,000+ lives could have been saved and the wholesale destruction of the world economy prevented because of an avoidable global ‘lock down‘.
[1] ‘Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread’ (Aug 22 2005) https://virologyj.biomedcentral.com/about doi: 10.1186/1743-422X-2-69. See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/
[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920300881
[3] T.E. Wellems, C.V. Plowe, Chloroquine-resistant malaria, J Infect Dis, 184 (2001), pp. 770-776
[4] M. Wang, R. Cao, L. Zhang, X. Yang, J. Liu, M. Xu, et al.Remdesivir and chloroquine effectively inhibit the recently emerged novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV) in vitro Cell Res, 30 (2020), pp. 269-271, 10.1038/s41422-020-0282-0
[5] https://www.vanguardngr.com/2020/06/covid-19-nigerian-study-finds-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-effective-as-prophylaxis/
[6] The list is extensive, here are just a few:
https://japer.in/storage/models/article/35pnDAguYFOxpT6iPhlybXNg64ULBZMQIxvX4aD2WzEEyhkSwVdOsU92f9OQ/molecular-docking-of-quinine-chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-to-angiotensin-converting-enzyme-2.pdf
Gao J, Tian Z, Yang X. Breakthrough: chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies. Biosci Trends. (2020) 14:72–3. doi: 10.5582/bst.2020.01047
Gautret P, Lagier JC, Parola P, Hoang VT, Meddeb L, Mailhe M, et al. Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial. Int J Antimicrobial Agents. (2020). doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.105949. [Epub ahead of print].
[7] Ferner RE, Aronson JK. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in covid-19. BMJ. (2020) 369:m1432. doi: 10.1136/bmj.m1432
About the author: John O’Sullivan John is CEO and co-founder (with Dr Tim Ball) of Principia Scientific International (PSI). John is a seasoned science writer and legal analyst who assisted Dr Ball in defeating world leading climate expert, Michael ‘hockey stick’ Mann in the ‘science trial of the century‘. O’Sullivan is credited as the visionary who formed the original ‘Slayers’ group of scientists in 2010 who then collaborated in creating the world’s first full-volume debunk of the greenhouse gas theory plus their new follow-up book.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-03--Coronavirus – A perspective from Britain Part 8

This article covers the month of July .
The graph below gives the number of new cases in Birmingham and Solihull for July .
On July 2nd , data on tests in the community were added to the number of cases for English local authorities causing the numbers to increase sharply .
Figures for the rest of the UK already included people tested in the wider population , but it had not been made clear that was not the case in England .
The number of cases increased by 1401 in Birmingham , and 197 in Solihull .
This is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the percentage of deaths compared to the number of cases has reduced .
During July there was one day with no new cases in Birmingham , and five days in Solihull .
I have left out the spikes on July 2nd , as they make the other numbers too small to see .
Since March , there have been 1174 deaths in Birmingham , and 261 in Solihull , up to July 17th .
This is the most recent data available .
The chart below shows the number of new cases across the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ heading says confirmed cases are starting to rise .
This is due to the inclusion of previously unrecorded data detailed in the opening paragraph , and of course increased testing .
A lot has been made of spikes in cases in places like Leicester , Merthyr Tydfil and Bradford , but all those places have seen an increase in the number of tests given , so an increase in cases should hardly be surprising .
Leicester was placed back under full lockdown again on June 29th .
Also on July 2nd , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the number of new cases by approximately 30,000 due to a ‘ revision of data ’ .
This resulted in the UK dropping from 5th place to eighth place on Worldometer , having been ‘ overtaken ’ by Peru , Spain & Chile .
By the end of July , the UK had dropped to 11th place on Worldometer , and to 9th place on Covidly .
The number of people in the UK in critical condition had dropped from 1559 at the end of May , to 279 by June 30th , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ July .
The chart below shows the number of deaths across the whole of the UK up to 31st July .
The chart for the number of suspected virus cases in hospitals was removed from the BBC virus webpage on July 2nd , and the chart for the number of tests done was removed from the webpage on July 4th .
Neither have been reinstated .
This curious statement appeared on the BBC virus webpage in early July : Notice the wording .
The first wave .
Is it just me , or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there will be a second wave ?
Or as some postulate , are going to tell us there is one regardless ?
The BBC virus webpage can be seen at www.bbc.co.uk/news An article appeared in The Evening Standard on June 18th , but I only became aware of on July 3rd .
It says school teachers are noting many younger pupils seem ‘ withdrawn , disturbed and traumatised ’ on returning to schools , according to Sir Daniel Moynihan , CEO of the Harris Federation , which runs 48 schools in the UK @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : The article can be seen at www.standard.co.uk The article by Arjun Walia on July 3rd published on PSI seems to hit the nail on the head with its description of the ‘ excess deaths ’ on top of those allegedly caused by the virus .
I won ’ t copy any of it here for space considerations , as you can see it yourself at principia-scientific.org The same day , I was made aware of an article on the website GreenMedInfo , about the effectiveness of wearing facemasks during a viral outbreak @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , so I will quote just a few pieces – The article can be seen at greenmedinfo.com On July 4th , the CDC in Atlanta reported that the percentage of deaths in the United States has dipped low enough so that the nation is at the epidemic threshold , which means if the percentage drops any lower , the CDC will no longer call the coronavirus an epidemic .
On July 5th , Health Secretary Matt Hancock said asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19 was not known when thousands of patients were released from hospitals @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Blanket testing of all discharges was introduced on 16 April , but figures released by NHS England show 25,000 were discharged from hospital into care homes in the month leading up to that date .
When questioned about this by the BBC ’ s Andrew Marr , Mr Hancock said : “ At that point it was not known about the asymptomatic transmission of this disease , because no other coronavirus transmits asymptomatically , is my understanding.
” So , no other known coronavirus can be spread asymptomatically , but Covid-19 can ?
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ The video can be seen at www.bbc.co.uk This lack of asymptomatic transmission is backed up in a study published on the US website PMC on May 13th .
The abstract reads , in part : We can see from this that 455 people were exposed to an asymptomatic carrier , and none of them developed symptoms of the virus .
This strongly suggests there is no asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19 .
The article can be seen at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov On the 6th , The Times published an article saying work done by Health Data @ @ @ @ @ @ @ health data science , suggested that we could see upwards of 18,000 excess cancer deaths in the next few years , partly because referrals for cancer treatments had been delayed or cancelled , and partly because many people had been scared of seeking help from their GP , or going to hospital for treatment for fear of catching the virus .
The article can be seen at www.thetimes.co.uk In April , a report produced by the Department of Health , the Office of National Statistics , the government ’ s Actuary Department and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ disease itself could kill 50,000 , but delayed healthcare would kill 12,000 to 25,000 in the short term and 185,000 people in the long term .
On top of that , the inevitable recession caused by the lockdown could kill thousands more , approaching a quarter of a million according to their estimates .
The report is discussed in detail at www.spiked-online.com A retired former senior government scientist I am acquainted with commented : The same day , the Independent newspaper published an article with the headline ‘ Boris Johnson blames care home @ @ @ @ @ @ @ However , the headline is misleading , as the first sentence of the article states ‘ Boris Johnson is under fire after appearing to blame care home owners for the huge death toll from coronavirus in their properties .
( Emphasis added ) The article then goes on to contradict itself by explaining the real reason for the large number of care home deaths : - As in America , infected elderly patients had been forcibly placed in care homes , which resulted in large numbers of deaths there .
The article can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , the BBC reported three pubs had closed again ( in Somerset , West Yorkshire and Hampshire ) due to some customers having tested positive for the virus .
It is interesting to note the article says ‘ pub & hospitality trade bodies ’ have told venues to record the arrival times of customers and how long they stay .
It also says people can refuse to give information , but owners can choose not to serve them .
In other words , do as you ’ re told or leave .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 7th , the BBC virus webpage said : The same day , Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the government will look again at whether people in England should wear face coverings or masks while out in public , after Dr Venki Ramakrishnan ; a ‘ Nobel Prize-winning biologist ’ , claimed they should just be considered a routine item of clothing and ‘ part of the new normal ‘ .
This ‘ new normal ’ is what many are saying will be standard practice from now on in the ‘ post-Covid world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ masks in public will become permanent .
This is despite the World Health Organisation saying they do not recommend face masks out in fresh air .
On July 10th , an article appeared in The Telegraph that claimed the government is sidelining the SAGE group , and will be advised by the ‘ Joint Biosecurity Centre ’ on how to deal with the virus crisis .
For those who can get past the paywall , the article can be seen here : -www.telegraph.co.uk On the 12th , Michael Gove told Andrew Marr facemasks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The video can be seen here : -www.standard.co.uk/news The following day , Sky News reported the government is making facemasks mandatory in shops from the 24th , but it does not apply to shop staff .
The article says : It can be seen here : -news.sky.com/story Another relaxation of the lockdown then .
This measure should have been introduced at the outset , not when cases and deaths are falling steadily .
On the 14th , during an interview on Radio 4 ’ s The Today Programme , the chair of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Ken Marsh , said it would be “ nigh-on impossible ” to enforce the new requirement on face masks , and The same day , the Office for National Statistics said the number of deaths from all causes registered in a single week has fallen below the five-year average for the third consecutive week .
On the 15th , the Huffington Post website reported Matt Hancock said ‘ People could be required to wear a face covering in shops until a vaccine for coronavirus is found .
How long is ‘ for the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
Years ?
The same day , another fearmongering headline appeared , this time from The Metro newspaper : ‘ Second wave of coronavirus could see 120,000 hospital deaths ’ .
The article states : In other words , there is just as much possibility of there being a second wave as there is of there not being one .
IF there is a ‘ second wave ’ , it will mean that the antisocial distancing , the masks and the lockdown were all a waste of time .
The article can be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 17th , Matt Hancock launched an urgent review of how virus deaths are counted in the UK , after he apparently suddenly became aware that anyone who has tested positive for the virus even months before their death is being listed as a death caused by it , something many of us have known , and said , for some time .
The same day , Sky News also reported on the call for a review .
Their article included the following : Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan of CEBM said @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are dying from Covid-19 each day in Britain .
This is why Covidly is still showing a 97 % mortality rate for the UK .
It can be seen here : -news.sky.com/story Also on the 17th , Public Health England confirmed that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died .
May have .
I think we can probably take this to mean they did .
Does this strike the reader as either gross incompetence , or a deliberate attempt to jack up the death numbers ?
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Responsibility said the economy is expected to shrink by 12.4 % this year , which would be the biggest economic decline in 300 years , and the PM said he was devolving power to local councils to close shops , cancel events and shut outdoor spaces to manage local outbreaks .
On the 18th , the ‘ official ’ global death toll from the Covid virus reached 602,000 .
That puts it on a par with the average number dying globally from seasonal flu every year .
A significant part of this number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ attributed to other causes , are now being attributed to the virus , and deaths attributed to other causes have dropped significantly .
The following day , the Office for National Statistics ’ chief Professor Sir Ian Diamond told Sky News that the UK ’ s current Covid infection rate is “ basically flat , ” adding that the trend will continue if we are “ really careful “ .
On the 20th , Yahoo News reported the government say unless everyone agrees to be vaccinated , restrictions will remain in place .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the government ’ s vaccine taskforce , was quoted as saying : This effectively means unless 90+ % of the population agree to be vaccinated , the entire country will remain under some kind of restrictions permanently .
The same day , the government announced that it had signed deals with pharmaceutical companies to secure 90 million doses of a Covid vaccine .
That ’ s on top of 100 million doses of an Oxford University vaccine being developed by the company AstraZeneca .
190 million doses for a population of 67 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Office for National Statistics said the number of deaths from all causes – including coronavirus – registered in a single week has now stayed below the five-year average for four consecutive weeks .
The same day , Health Secretary Matt Hancock told a Commons committee on Tuesday that the results of the death-number review would be published “ very , very shortly “ .
The following day , some supermarkets updated their policies on facemasks .
Aldi said “ you will need to wear a face covering to enter one of our @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradicts itself by saying- Sainsbury ’ s , Waitrose , Lidl , Tesco and Iceland said they won ’ t challenge customers who aren ’ t wearing a mask in stores .
The Co-Op has said masks will be mandatory for all non-exempt customers .
Asda , Marks and Spencer , and Morrisons have yet to comment .
Also on the 22nd , The Times reported Chris Whitty as saying “ The Coronavirus pandemic was probably already in retreat before the full lockdown was imposed “ .
If this is so , it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ still in effect , and being made worse by ordering mask-wearing in shops .
The same day , the UK ’ s Vaccine Taskforce chair Kate Bingham cautioned against over-optimism that a Covid-19 vaccine will be found .
She told Sky News “ We have to be very cautious , because there has never been a vaccine against a coronavirus and there may never be one.
” ( Emphasis added ) Should we take that to mean we may well have to wear face-nappies for the rest of our lives ?
On the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Leicester were told they could re-open , but people were ‘ urged not to leave their homes just to go shopping ’ .
In other words , we ’ ve allowed shops to re-open , but we don ’ t want you to go to them .
The following day , Sky News reported the PM as saying the worst of it will be over “ by the middle of next year ” , although he warned of “ tough times ahead “ .
The worst of it ?
Does this mean we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of restrictions and antisocial distancing ?
The article can be seen here : -news.sky.com On the 26th , I did my parents ’ shopping at Tesco , and didn ’ t wear a mask .
Most of the customers were wearing masks , but not all .
No-one said anything to me at all , though a couple of customers did give me Paddington Hard Stares 🙂 On the 30th , an article appeared in the Leamington Courier that claimed ‘ There have been a number of studies in recent weeks that have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be more at risk of contracting the disease.
’ As if your height could make any difference !
It can be seen here : -www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk The same day , the government announced separate households will not be allowed to meet indoors in Greater Manchester , Blackburn with Darwen , Burnley , Hyndburn , Pendle , Rossendale , Bradford , Calderdale and Kirklees from midnight due to an increase in the number of cases .
This also applies to the city of Leicester .
The number of deaths from which the only cause could @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from 1318 on June 2nd , to 1385 on July 31st .
Click the link below , go about a third of the way down the page and click ‘ COVID-19 total announced deaths ( date ) -weekly file ’ , then on the spreadsheet that opens , click Tab 3 ‘ Deaths by condition ’ .
The number you ’ re looking for is the ‘ No ’ column .
On July 31st , the BBC virus webpage stated : The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies , known as Sage , believes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the whole of the UK is currently between 0.8 and 0.9 as of 31 July .
The estimate for England is between 0.8 and 1.0 , while for Scotland it is between 0.6 and 0.9 .
In Northern Ireland it is 0.5-0.9 , while it is 0.6-0.9 in Wales .
This is a slight increase on last month .
The government has said that the R number is one of the most important factors in deciding when lockdown measures can be eased .
On the Gov.UK website , in the section ‘ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and how to make your own ’ , section 4 says , in part ; It can be seen here : www.gov.uk A BBC article from November 2018 revealed there were approaching 60,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-18 , the highest since the winter of 1975-76 .
The increase is thought to be down to the flu , the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in older people and spells of very cold weather that winter .
I was recently made aware of this illustration , which shows a list @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Antonine Plague of 165-180AD .
We can see Covid is one of the ones that barely registers as a mortality percentage .
What happens if no vaccine for Covid can be made ?
Do we just accept mask-wearing and antisocial distancing for the rest of our lives ?
What happens when another virus appears ?
Do we just accept another lockdown , and suffer even more damage to mental health , livelihoods and economies ?
I don ’ t know how true this is , but a friend of mine who works in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ there are half a million people waiting for treatment in hospital , but they can not go because most hospitals are not taking anything but emergency admissions .
How many of those people will die before they can be treated ?
Another friend who is a supply teacher told me during July he ’ d heard other teachers saying they ’ d been told not to prepare work after October , as there will be another lockdown .
It will be interesting to see if this transpires , or whether it was just @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the time of writing , Worldometer says there have been 17.6 million cases and 679,000 deaths .
Of the 5.9 million currently active cases worldwide , 5.8 million are mild , while just 66,000 are classed as serious / critical .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Coronavirus – A perspective from Britain Part 8
Written by Andy Rowlands
This article covers the month of July. The graph below gives the number of new cases in Birmingham and Solihull for July. On July 2nd, data on tests in the community were added to the number of cases for English local authorities causing the numbers to increase sharply.
Figures for the rest of the UK already included people tested in the wider population, but it had not been made clear that was not the case in England. The number of cases increased by 1401 in Birmingham, and 197 in Solihull. This is actually good news, as it means the percentage of deaths compared to the number of cases has reduced.
During July there was one day with no new cases in Birmingham, and five days in Solihull. I have left out the spikes on July 2nd, as they make the other numbers too small to see.
Since March, there have been 1174 deaths in Birmingham, and 261 in Solihull, up to July 17th. This is the most recent data available.
The chart below shows the number of new cases across the UK to 31st July.
Notice the heading says confirmed cases are starting to rise. This is due to the inclusion of previously unrecorded data detailed in the opening paragraph, and of course increased testing.
A lot has been made of spikes in cases in places like Leicester, Merthyr Tydfil and Bradford, but all those places have seen an increase in the number of tests given, so an increase in cases should hardly be surprising. Leicester was placed back under full lockdown again on June 29th.
Also on July 2nd, the Department of Health and Social Care reduced the number of new cases by approximately 30,000 due to a ‘revision of data’. This resulted in the UK dropping from 5th place to eighth place on Worldometer, having been ‘overtaken’ by Peru, Spain & Chile. By the end of July, the UK had dropped to 11th place on Worldometer, and to 9th place on Covidly.
The number of people in the UK in critical condition had dropped from 1559 at the end of May, to 279 by June 30th, and to 84 by the end of July.
The chart below shows the number of deaths across the whole of the UK up to 31st July.
The chart for the number of suspected virus cases in hospitals was removed from the BBC virus webpage on July 2nd, and the chart for the number of tests done was removed from the webpage on July 4th. Neither have been reinstated.
This curious statement appeared on the BBC virus webpage in early July:
The government has argued it is too soon to make definitive international comparisons but, as the impact of the first wave becomes clear in many countries, analysis is beginning to suggest the UK has been the hardest hit of the leading G7 nations.
Notice the wording. The first wave. Is it just me, or does this suggest the government somehow knows there will be a second wave? Or as some postulate, are going to tell us there is one regardless?
The BBC virus webpage can be seen at www.bbc.co.uk/news
An article appeared in The Evening Standard on June 18th, but I only became aware of on July 3rd. It says school teachers are noting many younger pupils seem ‘withdrawn, disturbed and traumatised’ on returning to schools, according to Sir Daniel Moynihan, CEO of the Harris Federation, which runs 48 schools in the UK. The articles states, in part:
Sir Daniel told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “It’s fair to say many children have been severely damaged educationally…’ and ‘have gone backwards in their emotional development.’ “They have missed interaction with their friends. They haven’t only gone back in learning, they have gone backwards in emotional development as well.” More than 1,600 paediatricians have added their voices to the call to reopen schools, saying there is a risk of “scarring the life chances” of a generation of children if they remain shut. In an open letter to the Prime Minister, signed by members of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health, they said vulnerable children were suffering while schools were shut. They fear for the impact on children’s mental health and the loss of educational achievement.
The article can be seen at www.standard.co.uk
The article by Arjun Walia on July 3rd published on PSI seems to hit the nail on the head with its description of the ‘excess deaths’ on top of those allegedly caused by the virus. I won’t copy any of it here for space considerations, as you can see it yourself at principia-scientific.org
The same day, I was made aware of an article on the website GreenMedInfo, about the effectiveness of wearing facemasks during a viral outbreak. It is quite a long article, so I will quote just a few pieces –
There have been extensive randomized controlled trial (RCT) studies, and meta-analysis reviews of RCT studies, which all show that masks and respirators do not work to prevent respiratory influenza-like illnesses, or respiratory illnesses believed to be transmitted by droplets and aerosol particles. (Emphasis added) It would be a paradox if masks and respirators worked, given what we know about viral respiratory diseases: The main transmission path is long-residence-time aerosol particles (< 2.5 μm), which are too fine to be blocked, and the minimum-infective-dose is smaller than one aerosol particle. (Emphasis added) The article then shows abstracts from seven studies between 2009 & 2020 that show facemasks do not prevent infection from spreading. It continues:- By making mask-wearing recommendations and policies for the general public, or by expressly condoning the practice, governments have both ignored the scientific evidence and done the opposite of following the precautionary principle. (Emphasis added) In an absence of knowledge, governments should not make policies that have a hypothetical potential to cause harm. (Emphasis added) The present paper about masks illustrates the degree to which governments, the mainstream media, and institutional propagandists can decide to operate in a science vacuum, or select only incomplete science that serves their interests. Such recklessness is also certainly the case with the current global lockdown of over 1 billion people, an unprecedented experiment in medical and political history. (Emphasis added)
The article can be seen at greenmedinfo.com
On July 4th, the CDC in Atlanta reported that the percentage of deaths in the United States has dipped low enough so that the nation is at the epidemic threshold, which means if the percentage drops any lower, the CDC will no longer call the coronavirus an epidemic.
On July 5th, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19 was not known when thousands of patients were released from hospitals into care homes without being tested. Blanket testing of all discharges was introduced on 16 April, but figures released by NHS England show 25,000 were discharged from hospital into care homes in the month leading up to that date.
When questioned about this by the BBC’s Andrew Marr, Mr Hancock said: “At that point it was not known about the asymptomatic transmission of this disease, because no other coronavirus transmits asymptomatically, is my understanding.”
So, no other known coronavirus can be spread asymptomatically, but Covid-19 can? Does that sound credible to readers?
The video can be seen at www.bbc.co.uk
This lack of asymptomatic transmission is backed up in a study published on the US website PMC on May 13th. The abstract reads, in part:
An ongoing outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has spread around the world. It is debatable whether asymptomatic COVID-19 virus carriers are contagious. We report here a case of the asymptomatic patient and present clinical characteristics of 455 contacts, which aims to study the infectivity of asymptomatic carriers. The median contact time for patients was four days and that for family members was five days. Cardiovascular disease accounted for 25% among original diseases of patients. Apart from hospital staffs, both patients and family members were isolated medically. During the quarantine, seven patients plus one family member appeared new respiratory symptoms, where fever was the most common one. The blood counts in most contacts were within a normal range. All CT images showed no sign of COVID-19 infection. No severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections was detected in 455 contacts by nucleic acid test. (Emphasis added) In summary, all the 455 contacts were excluded from SARS-CoV-2 infection and we conclude that the infectivity of some asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 carriers might be weak. (Emphasis added)
We can see from this that 455 people were exposed to an asymptomatic carrier, and none of them developed symptoms of the virus. This strongly suggests there is no asymptomatic transmission of Covid-19.
The article can be seen at www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
On the 6th, The Times published an article saying work done by Health Data Research UK; the national institute for health data science, suggested that we could see upwards of 18,000 excess cancer deaths in the next few years, partly because referrals for cancer treatments had been delayed or cancelled, and partly because many people had been scared of seeking help from their GP, or going to hospital for treatment for fear of catching the virus.
The article can be seen at www.thetimes.co.uk
In April, a report produced by the Department of Health, the Office of National Statistics, the government’s Actuary Department and the Home Office, concluded that the disease itself could kill 50,000, but delayed healthcare would kill 12,000 to 25,000 in the short term and 185,000 people in the long term. On top of that, the inevitable recession caused by the lockdown could kill thousands more, approaching a quarter of a million according to their estimates.
The report is discussed in detail at www.spiked-online.com
A retired former senior government scientist I am acquainted with commented:
“This is what I was saying at the outset – and it won’t just be cancer deaths. Excess deaths over the next 5 – 10 years as a knock-on from government policies are likely to outstrip anything the virus could have done. Neither are deaths the main issue – additional costs of extended care and excess morbidity are going to rocket across the board.”
The same day, the Independent newspaper published an article with the headline ‘Boris Johnson blames care home owners for deaths from coronavirus’. However, the headline is misleading, as the first sentence of the article states ‘Boris Johnson is under fire after appearing to blame care home owners for the huge death toll from coronavirus in their properties. (Emphasis added)
The article then goes on to contradict itself by explaining the real reason for the large number of care home deaths:-
Anger has grown over the decision to discharge 25,000 hospital patients who had not been tested, fuelled by health secretary Matt Hancock’s notorious claim to have “thrown a protective ring” around them. (Emphasis added)
As in America, infected elderly patients had been forcibly placed in care homes, which resulted in large numbers of deaths there. The article can be seen at www.independent.co.uk
On the 7th, the BBC reported three pubs had closed again (in Somerset, West Yorkshire and Hampshire) due to some customers having tested positive for the virus.
It is interesting to note the article says ‘pub & hospitality trade bodies’ have told venues to record the arrival times of customers and how long they stay. It also says people can refuse to give information, but owners can choose not to serve them. In other words, do as you’re told or leave.
The article can be seen at www.bbc.co.uk
On the 7th, the BBC virus webpage said:
‘Figures released by the Office for National Statistics (ONS) show the number of deaths from all causes registered in a single week has fallen below the five-year average for the second consecutive week.
The same day, Health Secretary Matt Hancock said the government will look again at whether people in England should wear face coverings or masks while out in public, after Dr Venki Ramakrishnan; a ‘Nobel Prize-winning biologist’, claimed they should just be considered a routine item of clothing and ‘part of the new normal‘.
This ‘new normal’ is what many are saying will be standard practice from now on in the ‘post-Covid world’, so this suggests wearing face masks in public will become permanent. This is despite the World Health Organisation saying they do not recommend face masks out in fresh air.
On July 10th, an article appeared in The Telegraph that claimed the government is sidelining the SAGE group, and will be advised by the ‘Joint Biosecurity Centre’ on how to deal with the virus crisis.
For those who can get past the paywall, the article can be seen here:-www.telegraph.co.uk
On the 12th, Michael Gove told Andrew Marr facemasks should NOT be made mandatory in shops. The video can be seen here:-www.standard.co.uk/news
The following day, Sky News reported the government is making facemasks mandatory in shops from the 24th, but it does not apply to shop staff. The article says:
Enforcement will be carried out by police – not retail staff – and anyone failing to wear a face covering while shopping will be subject to a fine of up to £100.
It can be seen here:-news.sky.com/story
Another relaxation of the lockdown then. This measure should have been introduced at the outset, not when cases and deaths are falling steadily.
On the 14th, during an interview on Radio 4’s The Today Programme, the chair of London’s Met Police Federation; Ken Marsh, said it would be “nigh-on impossible” to enforce the new requirement on face masks, and
“We’ll be driving round and round London looking for people who weren’t wearing masks, it’s absolutely absurd.”
The same day, the Office for National Statistics said the number of deaths from all causes registered in a single week has fallen below the five-year average for the third consecutive week.
On the 15th, the Huffington Post website reported Matt Hancock said ‘People could be required to wear a face covering in shops until a vaccine for coronavirus is found.
“I expect that this law will be in place for the foreseeable future”.
How long is ‘for the foreseeable future’? Weeks? Months? Years?
The same day, another fearmongering headline appeared, this time from The Metro newspaper: ‘Second wave of coronavirus could see 120,000 hospital deaths’. The article states:
Scientists advising the Government have given the figure as a ‘reasonable worst-case scenario’ in a new report from the Academy of Medical Sciences, commissioned by the Government’s chief scientific adviser Sir Patrick Vallance. The figures do not take account of Government intervention to reduce the transmission rate, or the use of the drug dexamethasone in intensive care units, which has been shown to cut deaths. Professor Stephen Holgate, a Medical Research Council clinical professor of immunopharmacology who led the study, said: ‘This is not a prediction, but it is a possibility. (Emphasis added)
In other words, there is just as much possibility of there being a second wave as there is of there not being one. IF there is a ‘second wave’, it will mean that the antisocial distancing, the masks and the lockdown were all a waste of time.
The article can be seen here:- metro.co.uk
On the 17th, Matt Hancock launched an urgent review of how virus deaths are counted in the UK, after he apparently suddenly became aware that anyone who has tested positive for the virus even months before their death is being listed as a death caused by it, something many of us have known, and said, for some time.
The same day, Sky News also reported on the call for a review. Their article included the following:
A recent article published by the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM), based at Oxford University, described the “statistical anomaly” which means that “no one can ever recover from COVID-19 in England“. Anyone who has tested COVID positive but subsequently died at a later date of any cause will be included on the PHE COVID death figures. A patient who has tested positive, but successfully treated and discharged from hospital, will still be counted as a COVID death even if they had a heart attack or were run over by a bus three months later. (Emphasis added to all three paragraphs)
Dr Jason Oke and Professor Carl Heneghan of CEBM said in reality, fewer than 40 people are dying from Covid-19 each day in Britain.
This is why Covidly is still showing a 97% mortality rate for the UK. It can be seen here:-news.sky.com/story
Also on the 17th, Public Health England confirmed that reported deaths may have included people who tested positive months before they died. May have. I think we can probably take this to mean they did.
Does this strike the reader as either gross incompetence, or a deliberate attempt to jack up the death numbers?
The same day, the Office for Budget Responsibility said the economy is expected to shrink by 12.4% this year, which would be the biggest economic decline in 300 years, and the PM said he was devolving power to local councils to close shops, cancel events and shut outdoor spaces to manage local outbreaks.
On the 18th, the ‘official’ global death toll from the Covid virus reached 602,000. That puts it on a par with the average number dying globally from seasonal flu every year. A significant part of this number is because deaths that would normally be attributed to other causes, are now being attributed to the virus, and deaths attributed to other causes have dropped significantly.
The following day, the Office for National Statistics’ chief Professor Sir Ian Diamond told Sky News that the UK’s current Covid infection rate is “basically flat,” adding that the trend will continue if we are “really careful“.
On the 20th, Yahoo News reported the government say unless everyone agrees to be vaccinated, restrictions will remain in place. See: uk.news.yahoo.com
Kate Bingham, chair of the government’s vaccine taskforce, was quoted as saying:
“Vaccination has had a massively positive benefit to society and if we get large numbers of people vaccinated then the restrictions we are all currently facing will stop and we will return to normal. “But conversely, if large numbers of people…do not get vaccinated, then the restrictions will have to remain and we will not be returning to normal until the vaccination is in place.” (Emphasis added)
This effectively means unless 90+% of the population agree to be vaccinated, the entire country will remain under some kind of restrictions permanently.
The same day, the government announced that it had signed deals with pharmaceutical companies to secure 90 million doses of a Covid vaccine. That’s on top of 100 million doses of an Oxford University vaccine being developed by the company AstraZeneca. 190 million doses for a population of 67 million??
On the 21st, the Office for National Statistics said the number of deaths from all causes – including coronavirus – registered in a single week has now stayed below the five-year average for four consecutive weeks.
The same day, Health Secretary Matt Hancock told a Commons committee on Tuesday that the results of the death-number review would be published “very, very shortly“.
The following day, some supermarkets updated their policies on facemasks. Aldi said “you will need to wear a face covering to enter one of our stores from this date.”
It then contradicts itself by saying-
“It has been heartwarming to see customers remembering that not all disabilities and health conditions are visible, and being considerate of others who may not be able to socially distance or wear a mask.”
Sainsbury’s, Waitrose, Lidl, Tesco and Iceland said they won’t challenge customers who aren’t wearing a mask in stores.
The Co-Op has said masks will be mandatory for all non-exempt customers.
Asda, Marks and Spencer, and Morrisons have yet to comment.
Also on the 22nd, The Times reported Chris Whitty as saying “The Coronavirus pandemic was probably already in retreat before the full lockdown was imposed“. If this is so, it begs the question why the lockdown is still in effect, and being made worse by ordering mask-wearing in shops.
The same day, the UK’s Vaccine Taskforce chair Kate Bingham cautioned against over-optimism that a Covid-19 vaccine will be found. She told Sky News “We have to be very cautious, because there has never been a vaccine against a coronavirus and there may never be one.” (Emphasis added)
Should we take that to mean we may well have to wear face-nappies for the rest of our lives?
On the 24th, ‘non-essential’ shops in Leicester were told they could re-open, but people were ‘urged not to leave their homes just to go shopping’. In other words, we’ve allowed shops to re-open, but we don’t want you to go to them.
The following day, Sky News reported the PM as saying the worst of it will be over “by the middle of next year”, although he warned of “tough times ahead“.
The worst of it? Does this mean we should expect at least another 12 months of restrictions and antisocial distancing?
The article can be seen here:-news.sky.com
On the 26th, I did my parents’ shopping at Tesco, and didn’t wear a mask. Most of the customers were wearing masks, but not all. No-one said anything to me at all, though a couple of customers did give me Paddington Hard Stares 🙂
On the 30th, an article appeared in the Leamington Courier that claimed ‘There have been a number of studies in recent weeks that have concluded those over six feet tall could be more at risk of contracting the disease.’
As if your height could make any difference!
It can be seen here:-www.leamingtoncourier.co.uk
The same day, the government announced separate households will not be allowed to meet indoors in Greater Manchester, Blackburn with Darwen, Burnley, Hyndburn, Pendle, Rossendale, Bradford, Calderdale and Kirklees from midnight due to an increase in the number of cases. This also applies to the city of Leicester.
The number of deaths from which the only cause could have been the virus, has increased from 1318 on June 2nd, to 1385 on July 31st. Click the link below, go about a third of the way down the page and click ‘COVID-19 total announced deaths (date) -weekly file’, then on the spreadsheet that opens, click Tab 3 ‘Deaths by condition’. The number you’re looking for is the ‘No’ column.
See: www.england.nhs.uk
On July 31st, the BBC virus webpage stated: The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies, known as Sage, believes the R number [Reproduction number] across the whole of the UK is currently between 0.8 and 0.9 as of 31 July. The estimate for England is between 0.8 and 1.0, while for Scotland it is between 0.6 and 0.9. In Northern Ireland it is 0.5-0.9, while it is 0.6-0.9 in Wales. This is a slight increase on last month.
The government has said that the R number is one of the most important factors in deciding when lockdown measures can be eased.
On the Gov.UK website, in the section ‘Face coverings: when to wear one and how to make your own’, section 4 says, in part;
The best available scientific evidence is that, when used correctly, wearing a face covering may reduce the spread of coronavirus droplets in certain circumstances, helping to protect others. (Emphasis added)
It can be seen here: www.gov.uk
A BBC article from November 2018 revealed there were approaching 60,000 excess winter deaths in England and Wales in 2017-18, the highest since the winter of 1975-76. The increase is thought to be down to the flu, the ineffectiveness of the flu vaccine in older people and spells of very cold weather that winter.
I was recently made aware of this illustration, which shows a list of viral outbreaks going back to the Antonine Plague of 165-180AD. We can see Covid is one of the ones that barely registers as a mortality percentage.
What happens if no vaccine for Covid can be made? Do we just accept mask-wearing and antisocial distancing for the rest of our lives? What happens when another virus appears? Do we just accept another lockdown, and suffer even more damage to mental health, livelihoods and economies?
I don’t know how true this is, but a friend of mine who works in a hospital in middle England told me there are half a million people waiting for treatment in hospital, but they cannot go because most hospitals are not taking anything but emergency admissions. How many of those people will die before they can be treated?
Another friend who is a supply teacher told me during July he’d heard other teachers saying they’d been told not to prepare work after October, as there will be another lockdown. It will be interesting to see if this transpires, or whether it was just rumours.
Across the world, at the time of writing, Worldometer says there have been 17.6 million cases and 679,000 deaths. Of the 5.9 million currently active cases worldwide, 5.8 million are mild, while just 66,000 are classed as serious / critical.
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-03--Analysis: Heatwaves Are LESS Frequent And Severe

Analysis : Heatwaves Are LESS Frequent And Severe Heatwaves during recent decades remain far less frequent and severe than was the case during the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago , reports a new topical summary at the website Climate at a Glance .
When climate alarmists react to annual summer heatwaves by claiming they are being caused by global warming , people interested in the truth now have a concise , compelling source for rebuttal .
According to Climate at a Glance : U.S. Heatwaves , a majority of each state ’ s all-time high-temperature records @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the 20th century – approximately 100 years of global warming ago .
Also , the most accurate nationwide temperature station network , implemented in 2005 , shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005 .
Heatwaves have always been a natural part of the American climate .
Global warming will not put an end to heatwaves .
However , global warming is not making heatwaves much worse , either , if at all .
That is because the lion ’ s share of the Earth @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , at night , and closer to the poles .
The graph below illustrates how heatwaves were much more frequent and severe during the 1930s .
Also , data show recent heatwaves are well within historically typical ranges .
Like all other aspects of the well-funded Climate Delusion , claims that global warming is causing more frequent and severe heatwaves wilt under the heat of scientific scrutiny .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Analysis: Heatwaves Are LESS Frequent And Severe
Written by James Taylor
Heatwaves during recent decades remain far less frequent and severe than was the case during the 1930s – nearly 100 years of global warming ago, reports a new topical summary at the website Climate at a Glance.
When climate alarmists react to annual summer heatwaves by claiming they are being caused by global warming, people interested in the truth now have a concise, compelling source for rebuttal.
According to Climate at a Glance: U.S. Heatwaves, a majority of each state’s all-time high-temperature records were set during the first half of the 20th century – approximately 100 years of global warming ago.
Also, the most accurate nationwide temperature station network, implemented in 2005, shows no sustained increase in daily high temperatures in the United States since at least 2005.
Heatwaves have always been a natural part of the American climate. Global warming will not put an end to heatwaves. However, global warming is not making heatwaves much worse, either, if at all.
That is because the lion’s share of the Earth’s modest warming occurs during winter, at night, and closer to the poles.
The graph below illustrates how heatwaves were much more frequent and severe during the 1930s. Also, data show recent heatwaves are well within historically typical ranges.
Like all other aspects of the well-funded Climate Delusion, claims that global warming is causing more frequent and severe heatwaves wilt under the heat of scientific scrutiny.
Read more at Climate Realism
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print
Related


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-03--Why Is Hydroxychloroquine Being Censored and Politicized?

Why Is Hydroxychloroquine Being Censored and Politicized ?
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 ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 , ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
In March , the U.S. readily accepted millions of HCQ tablets donated by pharmaceutical giants Bayer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , 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 : 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .
Until this year , CQ and HCQ had an uneventful track record .
The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ antimalarial in 1934 , and HCQ came along about a decade later .
In 1955 , the FDA approved HCQ for use in the U.S. , where the drug has become a staple for the control of certain autoimmune-inflammatory conditions .
The World Health Organization ( WHO ) includes CQ and HCQ on its list of essential medicines , and both have the reputation of being safe if dosed properly .
The most problematic sequelae have been the emergence of drug-resistant malaria and , with long-term use and higher-than-recommended doses , retinopathy .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ Todaro and a coauthor published an online white paper that pointed to the CDC ’ s 2005 chloroquine research and outlined the early and successful use of CQ in Covid-19 patients in South Korea and China .
Noting these promising results and the fact that China had zeroed in on CQ “ after several screening rounds of thousands of existing drugs , ” the two physicians urged the U.S. to give America ’ s medical profession an immediate green light to prescribe CQ and HCQ for Covid-19 patients .
Instead , the doctors @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of their white paper .
Around the same time , France reported positive results for HCQ use in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin .
The French doctor achieving these results , Dr. Didier Raoult , has been writing for years about the potential to “ recycle ” CQ and HCQ for 21st century viral and other infections .
More recently , a Michigan study of patients hospitalized with a Covid-19-related admission and treated early confirmed that both HCQ alone and HCQ plus azithromycin can significantly reduce Covid-19-linked mortality .
Other studies have highlighted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ HCQ , azithromycin and zinc , a known antiviral .
CQ/HCQ rapidly increase intracellular zinc levels—important given that the individuals most likely to be Covid-19 patients ( the elderly and those with comorbid chronic conditions ) tend to be zinc-deficient .
As of late July , a tally of 65 studies around the world indicated that 100 % of the studies that assessed HCQ for Covid-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis ( PrEP ) , post-exposure prophylaxis ( PEP ) or early use showed “ high effectiveness , ” as did 61 % of the studies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ illness .
Describing a “ natural experiment ” in Switzerland , Yale ’ s Dr. Risch has noted : Even with the mixed results for late use , some clinicians have described “ clear-cut and dramatically positive clinical responses ” in individuals treated “ when breathing was already very difficult and continuing to worsen.
” In six patients : … [ clinical trials ] that were supposed to lay questions about HCQ safety and effectiveness to rest administered non-therapeutic , toxic and potentially lethal doses of HCQ ( four times higher than standard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The media ’ s flagrant misrepresentation of the HCQ science is bad enough , but the willingness of top-tier journals to finagle the science in an anti-HCQ direction is even more shocking .
In early June , scrutiny from dozens of independent scientists forced The Lancet to retract a study it had published just 13 days previously—a “ study out of thin air ” that used apparently fabricated data to undermine CQ/HCQ therapy .
The debacle has since become known as # LancetGate .
( The same day as the Lancet retraction @ @ @ @ @ @ @ retracted a separate Covid-19-related study that relied on unverifiable data sourced from the same company that supplied the data for the Lancet study . )
The French health minister used the Lancet study results as justification to ban HCQ ’ s use despite widespread public interest in and support for the drug .
Confirming that the anti-HCQ campaign is international in scope , several large-scale , multicenter clinical trials ( the WHO-led “ Solidarity ” trial , the UK-led “ Recovery ” trial and the REMAP-Covid study ) that were supposed to lay @ @ @ @ @ @ @ rest administered non-therapeutic , toxic and potentially lethal doses of HCQ ( four times higher than standard doses ) to thousands of study participants .
The trials also selected clinically inappropriate patients who either had severe late-stage illness ( Solidarity and Recovery ) or were near death and not even able to provide consent in some cases ( REMAP ) .
The sponsoring agencies then used the disastrously skewed results to discredit HCQ and unblushingly marshalled the bogus Lancet study ( before its retraction ) in support of their negative conclusions .
When @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , MD conducted a detailed analysis of the study protocols , she concluded that “ WHO and other national health agencies , and charities , have designed huge clinical trials to assure that hydroxychloroquine will fail to show benefit , ” and in so doing , conspired to “ increase the number of deaths in these trials ” and “ deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug during a major pandemic.
” … a propaganda war against a potentially life-saving medication is being waged for political purposes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In the U.S. , physician and Stanford-educated lawyer Simone Gold , MD , JD pointed out in a mid-June interview about HCQ ’ s politicization that “ There was never controversy about hydroxychloroquine right up until March 20 , 2020 ” —the day that President Trump praised HCQ as a “ game changer ” ( timestamp 3:42 ) .
This week , Dr. Gold and an accompanying group of frontline doctors from around the U.S. went public on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court with their frustration about HCQ ’ s marginalization @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reiterated the effectiveness of HCQ , azithromycin and zinc for Covid-19 prophylaxis and early-stage illness and asserted that “ nobody needs to die.
” The video garnered an astonishing 17 million views on Facebook and over 80,000 views on YouTube before the two tech giants ( plus Twitter ) took it down .
The mainstream media then swiftly followed up with pieces designed to character-assassinate the doctors and , ironically , slam them as too political .
Rather than promote the HCQ+azithromycin+zinc combination or other inexpensive therapies that have achieved real-world results , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” ) continues to disparage HCQ while painting a grim “ no end in sight ” picture in which non-evidence-based lockdowns and social distancing are the only response .
In Fauci ’ s recent speeches , it is difficult to find any mention of therapies at all , other than praise for the risky , high-dollar Ebola drug Remdesivir manufactured by Fauci ’ s pharmaceutical counterparts .
Tested in NIAID-sponsored trials , Remdesivir has failed to deliver any clinically meaningful results for Covid-19 patients .
Fauci , the man who has had continuous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Health since 1968 , has dismissed the stunning and health-threatening loss of millions of American jobs—nearly 50 million first-time unemployment applications thus far—as merely “ inconvenient.
” In a late July speech to cancer doctors , Fauci ’ s sole concession to the havoc that his lockdown advice has helped propagate was to “ dispassionately ” admit that up to 10,000 extra cancer deaths may result from the cancer screenings that Americans are currently foregoing .
The message that ought to be equally distressing to the American public is that a propaganda war @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waged “ for political purposes , not based on ‘ medical facts.
’ ” PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes .
Head Office : 27 Old Gloucester Street , London WC1N 3AX .
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method .

Why Is Hydroxychloroquine Being Censored and Politicized?
Written by 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 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.
From essential medicine to political hot potato
Until this year, CQ and HCQ had an uneventful track record. The German company Bayer developed CQ as an antimalarial in 1934, and HCQ came along about a decade later. In 1955, the FDA approved HCQ for use in the U.S., where the drug has become a staple for the control of certain autoimmune-inflammatory conditions.
The World Health Organization (WHO) includes CQ and HCQ on its list of essential medicines, and both have the reputation of being safe if dosed properly. The most problematic sequelae have been the emergence of drug-resistant malaria and, with long-term use and higher-than-recommended doses, retinopathy.
On March 13, 2020, Dr. Todaro and a coauthor published an online white paper that pointed to the CDC’s 2005 chloroquine research and outlined the early and successful use of CQ in Covid-19 patients in South Korea and China.
Noting these promising results and the fact that China had zeroed in on CQ “after several screening rounds of thousands of existing drugs,” the two physicians urged the U.S. to give America’s medical profession an immediate green light to prescribe CQ and HCQ for Covid-19 patients. Instead, the doctors were met with Google’s removal of their white paper.
Around the same time, France reported positive results for HCQ use in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin. The French doctor achieving these results, Dr. Didier Raoult, has been writing for years about the potential to “recycle” CQ and HCQ for 21st century viral and other infections.
More recently, a Michigan study of patients hospitalized with a Covid-19-related admission and treated early confirmed that both HCQ alone and HCQ plus azithromycin can significantly reduce Covid-19-linked mortality.
Other studies have highlighted the success of a triple combination of HCQ, azithromycin and zinc, a known antiviral. CQ/HCQ rapidly increase intracellular zinc levels—important given that the individuals most likely to be Covid-19 patients (the elderly and those with comorbid chronic conditions) tend to be zinc-deficient.
As of late July, a tally of 65 studies around the world indicated that 100% of the studies that assessed HCQ for Covid-19 pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP) or early use showed “high effectiveness,” as did 61% of the studies examining HCQ use in later stages of illness. Describing a “natural experiment” in Switzerland, Yale’s Dr. Risch has noted:
On May 27, the Swiss national government banned outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19. Around June 10, COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and remained elevated. On June 11, the Swiss government revoked the ban, and on June 23 the death rate reverted to what it had been beforehand.
Even with the mixed results for late use, some clinicians have described “clear-cut and dramatically positive clinical responses” in individuals treated “when breathing was already very difficult and continuing to worsen.” In six patients:
…[S]ignificant improvement in breathing was seen within about four hours after the first dose, with a complete clinical recovery seen after about an average of three days. […] The rapidity with which the shortness of breath evolved in all these individuals strongly suggested that respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome was imminent.
… [clinical trials] that were supposed to lay questions about HCQ safety and effectiveness to rest administered non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal doses of HCQ (four times higher than standard doses) to thousands of study participants.
A nefarious agenda
The media’s flagrant misrepresentation of the HCQ science is bad enough, but the willingness of top-tier journals to finagle the science in an anti-HCQ direction is even more shocking. In early June, scrutiny from dozens of independent scientists forced The Lancet to retract a study it had published just 13 days previously—a “study out of thin air” that used apparently fabricated data to undermine CQ/HCQ therapy.
The debacle has since become known as #LancetGate. (The same day as the Lancet retraction, the New England Journal of Medicine retracted a separate Covid-19-related study that relied on unverifiable data sourced from the same company that supplied the data for the Lancet study.)
The French health minister used the Lancet study results as justification to ban HCQ’s use despite widespread public interest in and support for the drug.
Confirming that the anti-HCQ campaign is international in scope, several large-scale, multicenter clinical trials (the WHO-led “Solidarity” trial, the UK-led “Recovery” trial and the REMAP-Covid study) that were supposed to lay questions about HCQ safety and effectiveness to rest administered non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal doses of HCQ (four times higher than standard doses) to thousands of study participants.
The trials also selected clinically inappropriate patients who either had severe late-stage illness (Solidarity and Recovery) or were near death and not even able to provide consent in some cases (REMAP). The sponsoring agencies then used the disastrously skewed results to discredit HCQ and unblushingly marshalled the bogus Lancet study (before its retraction) in support of their negative conclusions.
When medical internist and biowarfare expert Meryl Nass, MD conducted a detailed analysis of the study protocols, she concluded that “WHO and other national health agencies, and charities, have designed huge clinical trials to assure that hydroxychloroquine will fail to show benefit,” and in so doing, conspired to “increase the number of deaths in these trials” and “deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug during a major pandemic.”
… a propaganda war against a potentially life-saving medication is being waged for political purposes, not based on medical facts.
Therapeutics, not politics
In the U.S., physician and Stanford-educated lawyer Simone Gold, MD, JD pointed out in a mid-June interview about HCQ’s politicization that “There was never controversy about hydroxychloroquine right up until March 20, 2020”—the day that President Trump praised HCQ as a “game changer” (timestamp 3:42).
This week, Dr. Gold and an accompanying group of frontline doctors from around the U.S. went public on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court with their frustration about HCQ’s marginalization. In their video, the doctors reiterated the effectiveness of HCQ, azithromycin and zinc for Covid-19 prophylaxis and early-stage illness and asserted that “nobody needs to die.”
The video garnered an astonishing 17 million views on Facebook and over 80,000 views on YouTube before the two tech giants (plus Twitter) took it down. The mainstream media then swiftly followed up with pieces designed to character-assassinate the doctors and, ironically, slam them as too political.
Rather than promote the HCQ+azithromycin+zinc combination or other inexpensive therapies that have achieved real-world results, Fauci (“America’s doctor”) continues to disparage HCQ while painting a grim “no end in sight” picture in which non-evidence-based lockdowns and social distancing are the only response.
In Fauci’s recent speeches, it is difficult to find any mention of therapies at all, other than praise for the risky, high-dollar Ebola drug Remdesivir manufactured by Fauci’s pharmaceutical counterparts. Tested in NIAID-sponsored trials, Remdesivir has failed to deliver any clinically meaningful results for Covid-19 patients.
Fauci, the man who has had continuous job security at the National Institutes of Health since 1968, has dismissed the stunning and health-threatening loss of millions of American jobs—nearly 50 million first-time unemployment applications thus far—as merely “inconvenient.”
In a late July speech to cancer doctors, Fauci’s sole concession to the havoc that his lockdown advice has helped propagate was to “dispassionately” admit that up to 10,000 extra cancer deaths may result from the cancer screenings that Americans are currently foregoing. The message that ought to be equally distressing to the American public is that a propaganda war against a potentially life-saving medication is being waged “for political purposes, not based on ‘medical facts.’”
Read more at childrenshealthdefense.org
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Please DONATE TODAY To Help Our Non-Profit Mission To Defend The Scientific Method.
Share this: Twitter
Facebook
Telegram
Gab
LinkedIn
Reddit
Email
More
Pinterest
Pocket
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Print