principiascientificinternational--2020-08-11--Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?

Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus ?
The Corona Simulation Machine : Why the Inventor of The “ Corona Test ” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus .
“ Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it .
I don ’ t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.
” –Kary Mullis , Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction What do we mean when we say somebody has ‘ tested positive ’ for the Corona Virus ?
The answer @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ answer ” is like getting to a very rare mushroom that only grows above 200 feet on a Sequoia tree in the forbidden forest .
I say that for dramatic effect , but also because I wound up , against all odds , finding it .
Every day I wake up and work at shedding one more layer of ignorance —by listening carefully .
I got lucky with scientists many years ago ; Epic , incredible scientists , happening to cross my path when nobody else wanted to talk to them .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ warnings and corrections crystallizing .
True “ science ” ( the nature of the natural world ) is never bad news .
Globalist science is nothing but bad news .
The reason Bill Gates wants you to believe a Corona Virus will exterminate over 450 million people is that he hates nature , God , and you .
( A subjective interpretation . )
Why is that ?
You ’ d have to ask his psychiatrist .
But let ’ s talk about the latest terror bomb detonated by Global Atheist PC Creeps @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as a US citizen in 2020 , governed by a President who does not think backwards .
How many of us are “ infected ” with this novel Corona virus , and how scared should we be ?
First , a spiritual law : Anything that tries to frighten you comes from “ opposition , ” in spiritual battle .
It ’ s not the Holy Spirit , period .
Ignore its threats and keep your wits about you .
You don ’ t have to shout , “ Stay safe !
’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We have an immune system that is a miracle like The Sistine Chapel .
It withstands toxic , microbial inundation on a grand scale at all times , while operating a super-highway of adaptive life-sustaining genetic information , on cellular bridges , emitting telegrams of vital evolutionary code , slandered as “ viruses ” or “ retroviruses.
” People die—yes .
But people don ’ t die the way Bill Gates would have you believe , at the mercy of malicious , predatory pathogens , “ lurking ” on every surface , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s not “ science.
” That ’ s social engineering .
Terrorism .
What do we mean when we say a person “ tests positive ” for Covid-19 ?
We don ’ t actually mean they have been found to “ have ” it .
We ’ ve been hijacked by our technologies , but left illiterate about what they actually mean .
In this case , I am in the rare position of having known , spent time with , and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ( Polymerase Chain Reaction . )
His name was Kary B. Mullis , and he was one of the warmest , funniest , most eclectic-minded people I ever met , in addition to being a staunch critic of HIV “ science , ” and an unlikely Nobel Laureate , i.e .
a “ genius.
” One time , in 1994 , when I called to talk to him about how PCR was being weaponized to “ prove , ” almost a decade after it was asserted , that HIV caused AIDS , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ people who have taken all your freedoms away in recent weeks , they ’ re social engineers , politicians , globalist thought leaders , bankers , WHO fanatics , and the like .
Their army is composed of “ mainstream media , ” which is now literally a round-the-clock perfect propaganda machine for the Gates-led Pandemic Reich .
Kary Mullis was a scientist .
He never spoke like a globalist , and said once , memorably , when accused of making statements about HIV that could endanger lives : “ I ’ m @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a lifeguard.
” That ’ s a very important line in the sand .
Somebody who goes around claiming they are “ saving lives , ” is a very dangerous animal , and you should run in the opposite direction when you encounter them .
Their weapon is fear , and their favorite word is “ could.
” They entrap you with a form of bio-debt , creating simulations of every imaginable thing that “ could ” happen , yet hasn ’ t .
Bill Gates has been waiting a long time for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he put it , “ pandemic potential.
” But Gates has a problem , and it ’ s called PCR .
What does HIV have to do with Covid-19 ?
PCR played a central role in the HIV war ( a war you don ’ t know about , that lasted 22 years , between Globalist post-modern HIV scientists and classical scientists . )
The latter lost the war .
Unless you count being correct as winning .
The relentless violence finally silenced the opposition , and it seemed nobody would ever learn @ @ @ @ @ @ @ they fought this thing so adamantly and passionately .
And PCR , though its inventor died last year , and isn ’ t here to address it , plays a central role in Corona terrorism .
Here is an outtake from an article I published in SPIN , in 1994 , about Kary Mullis , PCR , HIV and…Tony Fauci : “ PCR has also had a great impact on the field of AIDS , or rather , HIV research .
PCR can , among other things , detect HIV in people who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The word “ eccentric ” seems to come up often in connection with Mullis ’ name : His first published scientific paper , in the premier scientific journal Nature in 1986 , described how he viewed the universe while on LSD – pocked with black holes containing antimatter , for which time runs backward .
He has been known to show photographs of nude girlfriends during his lectures , their bodies traced with Mandelbrot fractal patterns .
And as a side project , he is developing a company which sells lockets containing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is his views on AIDS that have really set the scientific establishment fuming .
Mullis , like his friend and colleague Dr. Peter Duesberg , does not believe that AIDS is caused by the retrovirus HIV .
He is a long-standing member of the Group for the Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis , the 500-member protest organization pushing for a re-examination of the cause of AIDS .
One of Duesberg ’ s strongest arguments in the debate has been that the HIV virus is barely detectable in people who suffer from AIDS @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to HIV research , around 1989 , researchers claimed to have put this complaint to rest .
Using the new technology , they were suddenly able to see viral particles in the quantities they couldn ’ t see before .
Scientific articles poured forth stating that HIV was now 100 times more prevalent than was previously thought .
But Mullis himself was unimpressed .
“ PCR made it easier to see that certain people are infected with HIV , ” he told Spin in 1992 , “ and some of those people came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that doesn ’ t begin even to answer the question , ‘ Does HIV cause it ?
’ ” Mullis then went on to echo one of Duesberg ’ s most controversial claims .
“ Human beings are full of retroviruses , ” he said , “ We don ’ t know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands .
We ’ ve only recently started to look for them .
But they ’ ve never killed anybody before .
People have always survived retroviruses.
” Mullis challenged the popular @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are simply too “ mysterious ” to comprehend .
“ The mystery of that damn virus , ” he said at the time , “ has been generated by the $ 2 billion a year they spend on it .
You take any other virus , and you spend $ 2 billion , and you can make up some great mysteries about it too.
” Like so many great scientific discoveries , the idea for PCR came suddenly , as if by direct transmission from another realm .
It was during a late-night @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ironically , that HIV was announced to be the “ probable ” cause of AIDS .
“ I was just driving and thinking about ideas and suddenly I saw it , ” Mullis recalls .
“ I saw the polymerase chain reaction as clear as if it were up on a blackboard in my head , so I pulled over and started scribbling.
” A chemist friend of his was asleep in the car , and , as Mullis described in a recent special edition of Scientific American : “ Jennifer objected @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , but I exclaimed I had discovered something fantastic .
Unimpressed , she went back to sleep.
” Mullis kept scribbling calculations , right there in the car , until the formula for DNA amplification was complete .
The calculation was based on the concept of “ reiterative exponential growth processes , ” which Mullis had picked up from working with computer programs .
After much table-pounding , he convinced the small California biotech company he was working for , Cetus , that he was on to something .
Good thing they finally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ PCR to Hoffman-LaRoche for the staggering sum of $ 300 million – the most money ever paid for a patent .
Mullis meanwhile received a $ 10,000 bonus .
Mullis ’ s mother reports that as a child , her lively son got into all kinds of trouble – shutting down the house ’ s electricity , building rockets , and blasting small frogs hundreds of feet into the air .
These days , he likes to surf , rollerblade , take pictures , party with his friends – most of whom are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ he loves to write .
Mullis is notoriously difficult to track down and interview .
I had left several messages on his answering machine at home but had gotten no response .
Finally , I called him in the late evening , and he picked up , in the middle of bidding farewell to some dinner guests .
He insisted he would not give me an interview , but after a while , a conversation was underway , and I asked if I couldn ’ t just please turn my tape recorder on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , ” he gruffed .
“ Turn the fucker on.
” Our talk focused on AIDS .
Though Mullis has not been particularly vocal about his HIV skepticism , his convictions have not , to his credit , been muddled or softened by his recent success and mainstream acceptability .
He seems to revel in his newly acquired power .
“ They can ’ t pooh-pooh me now , because of who I am , ” he says with a chuckle – and by all accounts , he ’ s using that power @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nightline ” approached Mullis about participating in a documentary on himself , he instead urged them to focus their attention on the HIV debate .
“ That ’ s a much more important story , ” he told the producers , who up to that point had never acknowledged the controversy .
In the end , “ Nightline ” ran a two-part series , the first on Kary Mullis , the second on the HIV debate .
Mullis was hired by ABC for a two-week period , to act as their scientific consultant @ @ @ @ @ @ @ show was superb , and represented a historic turning point , possibly even the end of the seven-year media blackout on the HIV debate .
But it still didn ’ t fulfill Mullis ’ ultimate fantasy .
“ What ABC needs to do , ” says Mullis , “ is talk to [ Chairman of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) Dr. Anthony ] Fauci and [ Dr. Robert ] Gallo [ one of the discoverers of HIV ] and show that they ’ re assholes , which @ @ @ @ @ @ @ But I point out , Gallo will refuse to discuss the HIV debate , just as he ’ s always done .
“ I know he will , ” Mullis shoots back , anger rising in his voice .
“ But you know what ?
I would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his office and say , ‘ This is Kary Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question , ’ and let the cameras follow .
If people think I ’ m a crazy person @ @ @ @ @ @ @ here ’ s a Nobel Prize-winner trying to ask a simple question from those who spent $ 22 billion and killed 100,000 people .
It has to be on TV .
It ’ s a visual thing .
I ’ m not unwilling to do something like that.
” He pauses , then continues .
“ And I don ’ t care about making an ass of myself because most people realize I am one.
” While many people , even within the ranks of the HIV dissidents , have of late tried @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Mullis defends him passionately and seems genuinely concerned about his fate .
“ I was trying to stress this point to the ABC people ” he says , “ that Peter has been abused seriously by the scientific establishment , to the point where he can ’ t even do any research .
Not only that , but his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this , and it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific moral standards .
There ought to be some goddamn private @ @ @ @ @ @ @ say , ‘ Well , we ’ ll move in where the NIH [ National Institutes of Health ] dropped off .
We ’ ll take care of it .
You just keep right on saying what you ’ re saying , Peter .
We think you ’ re an asshole , and we think you are wrong , but you ’ re the only dissenter , and we need one , because it ’ s science , it ’ s not religion.
’ And that was one of the reasons why I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ waiting to be convinced that we ’ re wrong , ” Mullis continues .
“ I know it ain ’ t going to happen .
But if it does , I will tell you this much – I will be the first person to admit it .
A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can piece together , that will show how this works .
Like , ‘ What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that one induces this one ’ – that stuff becomes , after two molecules , conjecture of the rankest kind .
People who sit there and talk about it don ’ t realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical , and that their interactions are more so , and that the biological reactions are even more so .
You don ’ t need to look that far .
You don ’ t discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things .
You just look at what the hell @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s a bunch of people that are practicing a new set of behavioral norms .
Apparently , it didn ’ t work because a lot of them got sick .
That ’ s the conclusion .
You don ’ t necessarily know why it happened .
But you start there.
” About the author : Celia Farber is a journalist , author , and editor based in New York City , who grew up in Sweden and New York City .
Farber has written on a variety of subjects for SPIN , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s , Salon , New York Press , and many more .
She hosts a show called “ Radio Free Science ” every Friday at 3 pm on PRN .
( progressiveradionetwork.com ) and is the author of Serious Adverse Events : An Uncensored History of AIDS ( MHP ) 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 .

Was the COVID-19 Test Meant to Detect a Virus?
Written by Celia Farber
The Corona Simulation Machine: Why the Inventor of The “Corona Test” Would Have Warned Us Not To Use It To Detect A Virus. “Scientists are doing an awful lot of damage to the world in the name of helping it. I don’t mind attacking my own fraternity because I am ashamed of it.” –Kary Mullis, Inventor of Polymerase Chain Reaction
What do we mean when we say somebody has ‘tested positive’ for the Corona Virus? The answer would astound you. But getting this “answer” is like getting to a very rare mushroom that only grows above 200 feet on a Sequoia tree in the forbidden forest.
I say that for dramatic effect, but also because I wound up, against all odds, finding it.
Every day I wake up and work at shedding one more layer of ignorance —by listening carefully. I got lucky with scientists many years ago; Epic, incredible scientists, happening to cross my path when nobody else wanted to talk to them. Now their names are emerging, their warnings and corrections crystallizing. True “science” (the nature of the natural world) is never bad news. Globalist science is nothing but bad news.
The reason Bill Gates wants you to believe a Corona Virus will exterminate over 450 million people is that he hates nature, God, and you. (A subjective interpretation.)
Why is that? You’d have to ask his psychiatrist.
But let’s talk about the latest terror bomb detonated by Global Atheist PC Creeps upon your perfectly good, free life as a US citizen in 2020, governed by a President who does not think backwards.
How many of us are “infected” with this novel Corona virus, and how scared should we be?
First, a spiritual law: Anything that tries to frighten you comes from “opposition,” in spiritual battle. It’s not the Holy Spirit, period. Ignore its threats and keep your wits about you. You don’t have to shout, “Stay safe!’ to your neighbors. We are safe. We have an immune system that is a miracle like The Sistine Chapel. It withstands toxic, microbial inundation on a grand scale at all times, while operating a super-highway of adaptive life-sustaining genetic information, on cellular bridges, emitting telegrams of vital evolutionary code, slandered as “viruses” or “retroviruses.”
People die—yes. But people don’t die the way Bill Gates would have you believe, at the mercy of malicious, predatory pathogens, “lurking” on every surface, and especially other humans. That’s not “science.” That’s social engineering. Terrorism.
Let’s proceed.
What do we mean when we say a person “tests positive” for Covid-19?
We don’t actually mean they have been found to “have” it.
We’ve been hijacked by our technologies, but left illiterate about what they actually mean. In this case, I am in the rare position of having known, spent time with, and interviewed the inventor of the method used in the presently available Covid-19 tests, which is called PCR, (Polymerase Chain Reaction.)
His name was Kary B. Mullis, and he was one of the warmest, funniest, most eclectic-minded people I ever met, in addition to being a staunch critic of HIV “science,” and an unlikely Nobel Laureate, i.e. a “genius.”
One time, in 1994, when I called to talk to him about how PCR was being weaponized to “prove,” almost a decade after it was asserted, that HIV caused AIDS, he actually came to tears.
The people who have taken all your freedoms away in recent weeks, they’re social engineers, politicians, globalist thought leaders, bankers, WHO fanatics, and the like. Their army is composed of “mainstream media,” which is now literally a round-the-clock perfect propaganda machine for the Gates-led Pandemic Reich.
Kary Mullis was a scientist. He never spoke like a globalist, and said once, memorably, when accused of making statements about HIV that could endanger lives: “I’m a scientist. I’m not a lifeguard.” That’s a very important line in the sand. Somebody who goes around claiming they are “saving lives,” is a very dangerous animal, and you should run in the opposite direction when you encounter them. Their weapon is fear, and their favorite word is “could.” They entrap you with a form of bio-debt, creating simulations of every imaginable thing that “could” happen, yet hasn’t. Bill Gates has been waiting a long time for a virus with this much, as he put it, “pandemic potential.” But Gates has a problem, and it’s called PCR.
Of Mullis’ invention, Polymerase Chain Reaction, the London Observer wrote:
“Not since James Watt walked across Glasgow Green in 1765 and realized that the secondary steam condenser would transform steam power, an inspiration that set loose the industrial revolution, has a single, momentous idea been so well recorded in time and place.”
What does HIV have to do with Covid-19?
PCR played a central role in the HIV war (a war you don’t know about, that lasted 22 years, between Globalist post-modern HIV scientists and classical scientists.) The latter lost the war. Unless you count being correct as winning. The relentless violence finally silenced the opposition, and it seemed nobody would ever learn who these scientists were, or why they fought this thing so adamantly and passionately.
And PCR, though its inventor died last year, and isn’t here to address it, plays a central role in Corona terrorism.
Here is an outtake from an article I published in SPIN, in 1994, about Kary Mullis, PCR, HIV and…Tony Fauci:
“PCR has also had a great impact on the field of AIDS, or rather, HIV research. PCR can, among other things, detect HIV in people who test negative to the HIV antibody test. The word “eccentric” seems to come up often in connection with Mullis’ name: His first published scientific paper, in the premier scientific journal Nature in 1986, described how he viewed the universe while on LSD – pocked with black holes containing antimatter, for which time runs backward. He has been known to show photographs of nude girlfriends during his lectures, their bodies traced with Mandelbrot fractal patterns. And as a side project, he is developing a company which sells lockets containing the DNA of rock stars. But it is his views on AIDS that have really set the scientific establishment fuming. Mullis, like his friend and colleague Dr. Peter Duesberg, does not believe that AIDS is caused by the retrovirus HIV. He is a long-standing member of the Group for the Reappraisal of the HIV-AIDS Hypothesis, the 500-member protest organization pushing for a re-examination of the cause of AIDS. One of Duesberg’s strongest arguments in the debate has been that the HIV virus is barely detectable in people who suffer from AIDS. Ironically, when PCR was applied to HIV research, around 1989, researchers claimed to have put this complaint to rest. Using the new technology, they were suddenly able to see viral particles in the quantities they couldn’t see before. Scientific articles poured forth stating that HIV was now 100 times more prevalent than was previously thought. But Mullis himself was unimpressed. “PCR made it easier to see that certain people are infected with HIV,” he told Spin in 1992, “and some of those people came down with symptoms of AIDS. But that doesn’t begin even to answer the question, ‘Does HIV cause it?’” Mullis then went on to echo one of Duesberg’s most controversial claims. “Human beings are full of retroviruses,” he said, “We don’t know if it is hundreds or thousands or hundreds of thousands. We’ve only recently started to look for them. But they’ve never killed anybody before. People have always survived retroviruses.” Mullis challenged the popular wisdom that the disease-causing mechanisms of HIV are simply too “mysterious” to comprehend. “The mystery of that damn virus,” he said at the time, “has been generated by the $2 billion a year they spend on it. You take any other virus, and you spend $2 billion, and you can make up some great mysteries about it too.” Like so many great scientific discoveries, the idea for PCR came suddenly, as if by direct transmission from another realm. It was during a late-night drive in 1984, the same year, ironically, that HIV was announced to be the “probable” cause of AIDS. “I was just driving and thinking about ideas and suddenly I saw it,” Mullis recalls. “I saw the polymerase chain reaction as clear as if it were up on a blackboard in my head, so I pulled over and started scribbling.” A chemist friend of his was asleep in the car, and, as Mullis described in a recent special edition of Scientific American: “Jennifer objected groggily to the delay and the light, but I exclaimed I had discovered something fantastic. Unimpressed, she went back to sleep.” Mullis kept scribbling calculations, right there in the car, until the formula for DNA amplification was complete. The calculation was based on the concept of “reiterative exponential growth processes,” which Mullis had picked up from working with computer programs. After much table-pounding, he convinced the small California biotech company he was working for, Cetus, that he was on to something. Good thing they finally listened: They sold the patent for PCR to Hoffman-LaRoche for the staggering sum of $300 million – the most money ever paid for a patent. Mullis meanwhile received a $10,000 bonus. Mullis’s mother reports that as a child, her lively son got into all kinds of trouble – shutting down the house’s electricity, building rockets, and blasting small frogs hundreds of feet into the air. These days, he likes to surf, rollerblade, take pictures, party with his friends – most of whom are not scientists – and above all, he loves to write. Mullis is notoriously difficult to track down and interview. I had left several messages on his answering machine at home but had gotten no response. Finally, I called him in the late evening, and he picked up, in the middle of bidding farewell to some dinner guests. He insisted he would not give me an interview, but after a while, a conversation was underway, and I asked if I couldn’t just please turn my tape recorder on. “Oh, what the hell,” he gruffed. “Turn the fucker on.” Our talk focused on AIDS. Though Mullis has not been particularly vocal about his HIV skepticism, his convictions have not, to his credit, been muddled or softened by his recent success and mainstream acceptability. He seems to revel in his newly acquired power. “They can’t pooh-pooh me now, because of who I am,” he says with a chuckle – and by all accounts, he’s using that power effectively. When ABC’s “Nightline” approached Mullis about participating in a documentary on himself, he instead urged them to focus their attention on the HIV debate. “That’s a much more important story,” he told the producers, who up to that point had never acknowledged the controversy. In the end, “Nightline” ran a two-part series, the first on Kary Mullis, the second on the HIV debate. Mullis was hired by ABC for a two-week period, to act as their scientific consultant and direct them to sources. The show was superb, and represented a historic turning point, possibly even the end of the seven-year media blackout on the HIV debate. But it still didn’t fulfill Mullis’ ultimate fantasy. “What ABC needs to do,” says Mullis, “is talk to [Chairman of the National Institutes of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) Dr. Anthony] Fauci and [Dr. Robert] Gallo [one of the discoverers of HIV] and show that they’re assholes, which I could do in ten minutes.” But I point out, Gallo will refuse to discuss the HIV debate, just as he’s always done. “I know he will,” Mullis shoots back, anger rising in his voice. “But you know what? I would be willing to chase the little bastard from his car to his office and say, ‘This is Kary Mullis trying to ask you a goddamn simple question,’ and let the cameras follow. If people think I’m a crazy person, that’s okay. But here’s a Nobel Prize-winner trying to ask a simple question from those who spent $22 billion and killed 100,000 people. It has to be on TV. It’s a visual thing. I’m not unwilling to do something like that.” He pauses, then continues. “And I don’t care about making an ass of myself because most people realize I am one.” While many people, even within the ranks of the HIV dissidents, have of late tried to distance themselves from the controversial Duesberg, Mullis defends him passionately and seems genuinely concerned about his fate. “I was trying to stress this point to the ABC people” he says, “that Peter has been abused seriously by the scientific establishment, to the point where he can’t even do any research. Not only that, but his whole life is pretty much in disarray because of this, and it is only because he has refused to compromise his scientific moral standards. There ought to be some goddamn private foundation in the country, that would say, ‘Well, we’ll move in where the NIH [National Institutes of Health] dropped off. We’ll take care of it. You just keep right on saying what you’re saying, Peter. We think you’re an asshole, and we think you are wrong, but you’re the only dissenter, and we need one, because it’s science, it’s not religion.’ And that was one of the reasons why I cooperated with ABC.” “I am waiting to be convinced that we’re wrong,” Mullis continues. “I know it ain’t going to happen. But if it does, I will tell you this much – I will be the first person to admit it. A lot of people studying this disease are looking for the clever little pathways they can piece together, that will show how this works. Like, ‘What if this molecule was produced by this one and then this one by this one, and then what if this one and that one induces this one’ – that stuff becomes, after two molecules, conjecture of the rankest kind. People who sit there and talk about it don’t realize that molecules themselves are somewhat hypothetical, and that their interactions are more so, and that the biological reactions are even more so. You don’t need to look that far. You don’t discover the cause of something like AIDS by dealing with incredibly obscure things. You just look at what the hell is going on. Well, here’s a bunch of people that are practicing a new set of behavioral norms. Apparently, it didn’t work because a lot of them got sick. That’s the conclusion. You don’t necessarily know why it happened. But you start there.”
Read more at uncoverdc.com
About the author: Celia Farber is a journalist, author, and editor based in New York City, who grew up in Sweden and New York City. Farber has written on a variety of subjects for SPIN, Rolling Stone, Esquire, Harper’s, Salon, New York Press, and many more. She hosts a show called “Radio Free Science” every Friday at 3 pm on PRN. (progressiveradionetwork.com) and is the author of Serious Adverse Events: An Uncensored History of AIDS (MHP)
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--2020-08-11--COVID19: Nations Using HCQ Perform 80 Percent Better than U.S.!

COVID19 : Nations Using HCQ Perform 80 Percent Better than U.S. !
The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79 % lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug .
This means that Dr. Fauci , Dr. Birx , the CDC , the fake news media and the tech giants have been pushing a lie that has had deadly consequences !
That number could have been lowered by possibly 80 % if HCQ use would have been promoted in the US @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lives could have been saved !
( See graph above ) Here is the website that has compiled all of this international data .
Even developing nations Ukraine , Greece , Cuba , Morocco , Indonesia and Algeria fared better than the US under Dr. Fauci !
Over 100,000 US deaths could have been prevented !
This is mass murder .
To this day Dr. Fauci , Dr. Birx , the CDC and the FDA continue to refuse to promote the use of HCQ in the early treatment of hydroxychloroquine .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

COVID19: Nations Using HCQ Perform 80 Percent Better than U.S.!
Written by Jim Hoft
The latest international testing of hydroxychloroquine treatment of coronavirus shows countries that had early use of the drug had a 79% lower mortality rate than countries that banned the use of the safe malaria drug.
This means that Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the CDC, the fake news media and the tech giants have been pushing a lie that has had deadly consequences!
America has lost (reportedly) over 150,000 lives.
That number could have been lowered by possibly 80% if HCQ use would have been promoted in the US!
We are talking over 100,000 American lives could have been saved! (See graph above)
Here is the website that has compiled all of this international data.
Even developing nations Ukraine, Greece, Cuba, Morocco, Indonesia and Algeria fared better than the US under Dr. Fauci!Over 100,000 US deaths could have been prevented!
This is mass murder.
To this day Dr. Fauci, Dr. Birx, the CDC and the FDA continue to refuse to promote the use of HCQ in the early treatment of hydroxychloroquine.
Read more at www.thegatewaypundit.com
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


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-11--U.K. Study: ‘Very Little Evidence’ of Virus Spread in Schools

U.K. Study : ‘ Very Little Evidence ’ of Virus Spread in Schools A study on coronavirus transmission in 100 U.K. schools , described as one of the world ’ s largest , will confirm that there is “ very little evidence ” the disease is spreading in those institutions , a leading scientist reportedly proclaimed recently .
Over the weekend , the Sunday Times quoted Professor Russell Viner , the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a member of a government advisory group , as saying : The comments from Viner , who supports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ remarks made by a top U.S. public health official who said the United States must reopen schools for public health reasons , Public Health England , a government agency , is conducting the U.K. study , which is to be published later this year .
Researchers reportedly tested an estimated 20,000 students and teachers in 100 schools across England to monitor the spread of COVID-19 ( coronavirus disease ) until the end of the summer school session .
“ He warns that children have lost friendships , missed months of lessons and will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ academic problems if schools stay closed , ” the Times reported .
“ For teenagers , in particular , being cut off from their peers is bad for their development.
” “ It is absolutely essential for schools to reopen in September , ” Viner declared .
“ The risks to children from COVID are very low , and the risks of school closures we know are very serious.
” At the end of July , CDC Chief Redfield said the U.S. must reopen schools K through 12 with in-person learning this fall @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preventing suicides , drug abuse , and domestic violence .
Last week , the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres pointed out that the pandemic had triggered the “ largest disruption of education ever , ” as school closures in more than 160 nations in mid-July are “ affecting over one billion students.
” Along with the CDC chief and Viner , Guterres called for the safe reopening of schools , including in-person learning .
According to a recent study by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children ’ s Hospital Association , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus in the final two weeks of July , as U.S. schools nationwide finalize their reopening plans .
Compared to adults , very few children end up in the hospital , suffer from complications after recuperating , or succumb to the disease , the research showed , similar to the conclusions of other assessments .
For the most part , children generally experience much milder symptoms than adults , if any .
The vast majority of kids are asymptomatic , and COVID deaths among children remain rare .
“ Based on available evidence @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be at higher risk for COVID-19 than adults , ” the CDC declared .
“ While some children and infants have been sick with COVID-19 , adults make up most of the known cases to date.
” The spread of coronavirus among children , mostly experiencing no symptoms , remains an area of considerable uncertainty .
Some infectious disease experts have noted that people with no symptoms can still spread the disease to more vulnerable segments of the population , particularly older teachers with underlying health conditions .
Meanwhile , others like Dr. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Hospital of Philadelphia ( CHOP ) , believe that children have deficient concentrations of the virus and “ are not capable of transmitting it , ” the liberal Huffington Post acknowledged in June .
A few experts , including French epidemiologist Arnaud Fontanet , have concluded that children are at least less likely to spread the virus than adults because they do not have many symptoms and do not cough .
Several studies have found “ the rate of spread and the rate of positivity for kids was far lower than for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Westmed Medical Group , reportedly noted .
Some studies have indicated that asymptomatic “ shed [ the ] virus for a shorter period of time , ” Health.com reported in late May .
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 .

U.K. Study: ‘Very Little Evidence’ of Virus Spread in Schools
Written by Edwin Mora
A study on coronavirus transmission in 100 U.K. schools, described as one of the world’s largest, will confirm that there is “very little evidence” the disease is spreading in those institutions, a leading scientist reportedly proclaimed recently.
Over the weekend, the Sunday Times quoted Professor Russell Viner, the president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and a member of a government advisory group, as saying:
A new study that has been done in U.K. schools confirms there is very little evidence that the virus is transmitted in schools. This is some of the largest data you will find on schools anywhere. Britain has done very well in terms of thinking of collecting data in schools.
The comments from Viner, who supports the reopening of schools, echoed recent remarks made by a top U.S. public health official who said the United States must reopen schools for public health reasons,
Public Health England, a government agency, is conducting the U.K. study, which is to be published later this year. Researchers reportedly tested an estimated 20,000 students and teachers in 100 schools across England to monitor the spread of COVID-19 (coronavirus disease) until the end of the summer school session.
Viner asserted that reopening schools is “imperative.”
“He warns that children have lost friendships, missed months of lessons and will suffer long-term social, mental, and academic problems if schools stay closed,” the Times reported. “For teenagers, in particular, being cut off from their peers is bad for their development.”
“It is absolutely essential for schools to reopen in September,” Viner declared. “The risks to children from COVID are very low, and the risks of school closures we know are very serious.”
At the end of July, CDC Chief Redfield said the U.S. must reopen schools K through 12 with in-person learning this fall for public health reasons, such as preventing suicides, drug abuse, and domestic violence.
Last week, the United Nations Secretary-General Antonio Guterres pointed out that the pandemic had triggered the “largest disruption of education ever,” as school closures in more than 160 nations in mid-July are “affecting over one billion students.”
Along with the CDC chief and Viner, Guterres called for the safe reopening of schools, including in-person learning.
According to a recent study by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the Children’s Hospital Association, over 97,000 children tested positive for the coronavirus in the final two weeks of July, as U.S. schools nationwide finalize their reopening plans.
Compared to adults, very few children end up in the hospital, suffer from complications after recuperating, or succumb to the disease, the research showed, similar to the conclusions of other assessments.
For the most part, children generally experience much milder symptoms than adults, if any. The vast majority of kids are asymptomatic, and COVID deaths among children remain rare.
“Based on available evidence, most children do not appear to be at higher risk for COVID-19 than adults,” the CDC declared. “While some children and infants have been sick with COVID-19, adults make up most of the known cases to date.”
The spread of coronavirus among children, mostly experiencing no symptoms, remains an area of considerable uncertainty.
Some infectious disease experts have noted that people with no symptoms can still spread the disease to more vulnerable segments of the population, particularly older teachers with underlying health conditions.
Meanwhile, others like Dr. Susan Coffin, from the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia (CHOP), believe that children have deficient concentrations of the virus and “are not capable of transmitting it,” the liberal Huffington Post acknowledged in June.
A few experts, including French epidemiologist Arnaud Fontanet, have concluded that children are at least less likely to spread the virus than adults because they do not have many symptoms and do not cough.
Several studies have found “the rate of spread and the rate of positivity for kids was far lower than for adults,” Dr. Sandra Kesh from the Westmed Medical Group, reportedly noted.
Some studies have indicated that asymptomatic “shed [the] virus for a shorter period of time,” Health.com reported in late May.
Read more at www.breitbart.com
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


principiascientificinternational--2020-08-11--How the False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created

How the False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine , and produced similar policies about the drug in the US , Canada , Australia , NZ and western Europe .
The message is that generic , inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease , Covid-19 , for which there are no ( other ) reliable treatments .
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients .
And so @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is safe for its other uses , but dangerous when used for Covid-19 .
It doesn ’ t make sense , but it seems to have worked .
In the US , “ Never Trump ” morphed into “ Never Hydroxychloroquine , ” and the result for the pandemic is “ Never Over.
” But while anti-Trump spin is what characterized suppression strategies in the US , the frauds perpetrated about hydroxychloroquine and the pandemic include most western countries .
Were these acts carefully orchestrated ?
You decide .
Might these events have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ?
To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population ?
Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship , eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich ?
Are these events evidence of a conspiracy ?
Here is a list of what happened , in no special order .
Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include .
This will be a living document , added to as new information becomes available .
I have penned this as if @ @ @ @ @ @ @ list of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings .
The items on the list have already been carried out .
One wonders what else might be on their list , yet to be carried out , for this pandemic .
• You stop doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective ( in outpatients at onset of illness ) .
You prohibit use outside of situations you can control .
Situations that were controlled to show no benefit included 3 large , randomized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Solidarity and REMAP-Covid ) , the kind of trials that are generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence .
However , each of them used excessive hydroxychloroquine doses that were known to be toxic and may have been fatal in some cases ; see my previous articles here and here .
• You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug , using different methods in different countries andstates .
In NY state , by order of the governor , hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it .
France also changed the drugs ’ status from over-the-counter to a drug requiring a prescription .
• You play up the danger of the drug , emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly .
You make sure everyone has heard about theman who died after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner .
Yet its toxicity at approved doses is minimal .
Chloroquine was added to table salt in some regions in the 1950s as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Nicholas White in his study for the Recovery trial .
• You limit clinical trials to hospitalized patients , instead of testing the drug in outpatients , early in the illness , when it is predicted to be most effective .
Finally , but not until May , you have Fauci ’ s NIAID conduct a trial in outpatients , using hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin , but you only enroll 20 patients , after earlier planning for 2,000 .
Only half get the drugs .
You reduce the duration of followup from 24 weeks @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ridiculously small number of subjects assures meaningless results .
Who pulled the plug on this trial ?
• You design clinical trials to givemuch too high a dose , ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects , sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect .
You make sure that trials in 400 hospitals in 35 countries ( Solidarity ) plus most hospitals in the UK ( Recovery ) use these dangerous doses , as well as additional sites in 13 countries ( REMAP-Covid trial ) .
• You design clinical trials @ @ @ @ @ @ @ any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the drug .
• You issue rules for use of the drug based on theresults of the UK Recovery study , which overdosed patients .
Of course the Recovery results showed more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm , since they gave patients 2.4 g in the first 24 hrs , 800 mg/day thereafter .
Furthermore , the UK has the 2nd highest death rate in the world for Covid-19 ( Belgium is 1st ) , so simply @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have contributed to the poor results .
• You publish , in the world ’ s most-read medical journal , the Lancet , an observationalstudy from a huge worldwide database ( 96,000 Covid cases ) that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased mortality .
You make sure that all major media report on this result .
This was said to be the nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine .
Then you have 3 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug .
• You do your best @ @ @ @ @ @ @ admitting culpability .
Even after hundreds of people renounced the Lancet ’ s observational study due to easily identified fabrications–the database used in the study did not exist , and the claimed numbers did not agree with known numbers of cases–the Lancet held firm for two weeks , serving to muddy the waters about the trial , until finally 3 of its 4 coauthors ( but not the journal ) retracted the study .
But neither the authors nor the journal admitted responsibility .
You make sure very few media report that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” was fraudulent .
Even though the story was full of scandalous details , it went largely unnoticed .
You make sure people believe the original story : that hydroxychloroquine routinely kills .
• You ensure federal agencies like FDA and CDC hew to your desired policies .
For example , FDA advised use only in hospitalized patients ( too late ) or in clinical trials ( which are limited , are difficult to enroll in , or may use excessive doses ) .
As of mid June , FDA advises patients and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ patients if they are in a clinical trial where , presumably , the results can be controlled .
Another example : you have FDA make unsubstantiated and false claims , such as : “ Hospitalized patients were likely to have greater prospect of benefit ( compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness ) “ and claim the chloroquine drugs have a slow onset of action .
If that were really true , they would not be used for acute attacks of malaria or in critically ill patients with Covid .
( Disclosure : @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an acute attack of P. vivax malaria , and it worked very fast. )
.
Providing no other treatment advice , even though providing such information is a large part of its mission , CDC instead refers clinicians to the NIH guidelines , discussed below .
Despite the fact that Belgium ’ s COVID treatment guidelines repeatedly mention that the doses of HCQ in the Recovery and Solidarity trials were 4 times the cumulative dose used in Belgium , you make sure the Belgian guidelines , paradoxically , only recommend use of HCQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sure to avoid funding/encouraging clinical trials that test drug combinations like hydroxychloroquine with zinc , with azithromycin , or with both , although there is ample clinical evidence that such combinations provide a cumulative benefit to patients .
For example , oneof very few studies to look at this combination had no funding .
• You have federal and UN agencies make false , illogical claims based on models ( or invention ) rather than human data .
For example , you have the FDA state on June 15 that the doserequired to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toxic , after the Recovery and Solidarity trials have been exposed for toxic dosing .
This scientific double-speak gives some legal cover to the clinical trials that overdosed their patients .
According to Denise Hinton , RN , the FDA ’ s Chief Scientist ( yes , a registered nurse without scientific qualifications is the Chief Scientist at FDA ) , or some clumsy FDA wordsmith : “ Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays , the calculated free lung concentrations that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regimens are well below the in vitro EC50/EC90 values , making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not likely achievable with the dosing regimens recommended in the EUA .
The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns.
” You have a WHO report claim toxic doses are needed .
This is nonsense since : • the drug at normal doses is being tested in over 30 different medical conditions ( see clinicaltrials.gov ) , and • reports @ @ @ @ @ @ @ drug is effective for Covid-19 at normal doses , while • a high dose chloroquine treatment trial was halted in Brazil and a preprint of the study was posted April 11 , or perhaps April 7 , after finding that drug effects were causing ventricular arrhythmias and deaths .
Toxicity was noted after only 3 days of treatment , during which 3.6 grams of chloroquine were administered .
But the Solidarity ( 3.2 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days ) , Recovery ( 3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days ) and REMAP-Covid @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 3 days ) continued overdosing patients until June , despite Brazil ’ s evidence of deaths by overdose .
Tellingly , JAMA editor Gordon Rubenfeld wrote in April , after the Brazilian study came out in JAMA , “ if you are prescribing HCQ after these JAMA results , do yourself and your defense lawyer a favor .
Document in your medical record that you informed the patient of the potential risks of HCQ including sudden death and its benefits ( ?
?
? )
.
” • You create an NIH Guidelines @ @ @ @ @ @ @ which16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead , maker of Remdesivir .
The members were appointed by the Co-Chairs .
Two of the three Co-Chairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead .
Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir , and that they deem this the new “ standard of care ” ?
• You frighten doctors so they don ’ t prescribe hydroxychloroquine , if prescribing it is even allowed in their jurisdiction , because prescribing outside the newNIH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ open to malpractice lawsuits .
You further tell them ( through the FDA ) they need to monitor a variety of lab parameters and patient EKGs when using the drug , although this was never advised before , which makes it very difficult to use the drug in outpatients .
You have the European Medicines Agency issue similar warnings .
• You manage to control the conduct of most trials around the world by specially designing the WHO-managedSolidarity trials , currently conducted in 35 countries .
WHO halted hydroxychloroquine clinical trials around the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , May 25 , WHO claimed it was in response to the ( fraudulent ) Lancet study .
The second time , June 17 , WHO claimed the stop was in response to the Recovery trial results .
Recovery used highly toxic doses of hydroxychloroquine in over 1500 patients , of whom 396 died .
You stop the trial before the data safety monitoring board has looked at your data , a move that is unlikely to be consistent with trial protocol .
WHO ’ s trial in over 400 hospitals overdosed patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 24 hours .
The trial was halted 3 days after the toxic doses were exposed ( by me ) .
The trial involved doctors around the world typing minimal patient information into an online WHO platform , which assigned the patient a treatment .
The only “ safety ” information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen , required a ventilator , or died .
This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested .
I should mention that WHO ’ s initial plan for its Solidarity trial entirely omitted @ @ @ @ @ @ @ added at the urging of participating nations .
WHO ’ s fallback position appears to have been to use toxic doses .
• You have theWHO pressure governments to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine .
• You have theWHO pressure professional societies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine .
• You make sure that the most-consulted US medical encyclopedia , UptoDate , advises physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials , citing the FDA .
• You have the head of the Coronavirus Task Force , Dr. Tony Fauci , insist the drug can @ @ @ @ @ @ @ strong evidence…while he insisted exactly the opposite in the case of the MERS coronavirus outbreak several years ago , when he recommended an untested drug combination for use…which had been developed for that purpose by his agency .
And while he was bemoaning the lack of evidence , he was refusing to pay for trials to study hydroxychloroquine .
And he was changing the goalposts on the Remdesivir trial , not once but twice , to make Remdesivir show a tiny bit of benefit , but no mortality benefit .
And don ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ sponsor a trial of a Covid vaccine in humans before there were any data from animal trials .
So much for requiring high quality evidence before risking use of drugs and vaccines in humans .
• You convince the population that the crisis will be long-lasting .
You have the 2nd richest man in the world , and biggest funder of the WHO , Bill Gates , keep repeating to the media megaphone that we can not go back to normal until everyone has been vaccinated or there is a perfect drug .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ WHO clinical trials , helped fund the Recovery trial , and Gates is heavily invested in Covid pharmaceuticals and vaccines . )
• You have CDC ( with help from FDA ) prevent the purchase of coronavirus test kits from Germany , China , WHO , etc , and fail to produce a valid test kit themselves .
The result was that during January and February , US cases could not be tested , and for several months thereafter insufficient and unreliable test kits made it impossible to track the epidemic and stop @ @ @ @ @ @ @ medical spokesmen lie to the public about the pandemic ’ s severity , so precautions weren ’ t taken when they might have been more effective and less long-lasting .
Congress was repeatedly briefed about the pandemic in January and February , which scared several Congress members enough that they sold off large amounts of stock , risking insider trading charges .
Senator Burr is one of them , currentlyunder investigation for major stock sales on February 13 .
Yet Dr. Fauci told USA Today on February 17 that Americans should worry more @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the danger of which was “ just miniscule.
” Then on February 28 , Drs .
Fauci and Robert Redfield ( CDC Director ) wrote in the New England Journal : “ …the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza ( which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1 % ) or a pandemic influenza ( similar to those in 1957 and 1968 ) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS , which have had case fatality rates of 9 @ @ @ @ @ @ @ respectively.
” • You destroy the reputation of respected physicians who stand in your way .
Professor Didier Raoult and his team in Marseille have used hydroxychloroquine on over 4,000 patients , reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8 % .
( The mortality rate of patients given hydroxychloroquine in the Recovery trial was 25.7 % . )
Raoult is very famous for discovering over 100 different microorganisms , and finding the long-sought cause of Whipple ’ s Disease .
With this reputation , Raoult apparently thought he could treat patients as he @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , under great duress .
Raoult was featured in a New York Times Magazine article , with his face on the magazine cover , on May 12 , 2020 .
After describing his accomplishments , the Times very unfavorably discussed his personality , implied he conducted unethical trials without approval , and using anonymous sourcing produced a detailed hit piece .
Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank in the US .
Physician and state senator Scott Jensen of Minnesota is being investigated by his state medical board due to anonymous complaints about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reckless advice ’ about COVID in interviews .
Jensen was previously selected as “ Family Physician of the Year ” in his state .
Now his medical license is at risk , not because of how he treated a patient , but for what he said outside of the office .
Unprecedented .
UPDATE : Jensen was exonerated .
• You have social media platforms ban content that does not agree with the desired narrative .
As YouTube CEO and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin , Susan Wojcickisaid , “ YouTube will @ @ @ @ @ @ @ contradicts World Health Organisation ( WHO ) coronavirus recommendations .
Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.
” • When your clinical trials are criticized for overdosing patients , you have Oxford-affiliated , Wellcome Trust-supported scientists at Mahidol University publish papers ( aliterature review with modeling and a modeling study ) purporting to show that the doses used were not toxic .
You develop a new method to measure hydroxychloroquine in a handful of Recovery patients who were not poisoned .
However , there @ @ @ @ @ @ @ approach : • The Brazilian data , including 16 deaths , extensive clinical information and documented ventricular arrhythmias , are much more persuasive than a theoretical model of hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetics .
• Either the drug is too toxic to use , even at normal doses , for a life-threatening disease , or even extremely high doses are safe .
You can ’ t have it both ways .
Oxford is the institution running the Recovery trial , and invented a Covid vaccine that already has 400 million doses on order .
The Wellcome @ @ @ @ @ @ @ You change your trial ’ s primary outcome measures after the trials have started , in order to prevent detection of drug-induced deaths ( Recovery ) or to make your drug appear to have efficacy ( NIAID Remdesivir trial ) .
• You stop manufacturers from supplying the drug .
Shortly after the fraudulent Lancetpaper came out , Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid , and would halt its two hydroxychloroquine clinical trials .
One of the cancelled Sanofi trials was expected to test 210 outpatients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The trial remains suspended at the time of writing , while the Lancet paper was retracted 13 days after publication .
You surely don ’ t want a trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment early in the disease , since it might show an excellent effect .
Then Sanofi started collecting information on all off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in New Zealand and Australia .
Why is Sanofi , a drug manufacturing company , becoming a surveillance/enforcement mechanism intended to frighten medical providers from using the drug for Covid , which use is by definition “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may report ( anonymously or not ) others ’ off-label use to New Zealand ’ s Pharmacovigilance Center or the Australian equivalent .
And see this : Novartis will supply HCQ only under certain conditions , and halted its HCQ trial due to lack of enrollments , although enrollment was not an issue for its other COVID trials .
• You attempt to retract published papersthat provide evidence to support use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID .
• You have your ‘ bought ’ scientists conceal their financial conflicts of interest in their HCQ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the guidelines they produce .
• You can get your experimental , unlicensed drugs tested , much more expeditiously and cheaply than under ordinary circumstances , on Covid patients in large clinical trials , but only as long as no drug is designated effective for the condition .
This opportunity only lasts while the “ standard of care ” is nothing more than supportive measures .
• You have a research organization with big Pharma members ( A.O.K.I . )
pressure the Russian Ministry of Healthto remove hydroxychloroquine from its treatment guidelines .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ allegedly in response to the fabricated Lancet study , in France , Italy and Belgium ( countries with very high COVID mortality rates ) then Portugal then Switzerland .
But Switzerland restarted using HCQ 15 days later .
This created a natural experiment in Switzerland .
About 2 weeks after hydroxychloroquine use was halted , death rates approximately tripled , for about 15 days .
Then , after its use was allowed again , two weeks later death rates from Covid fell back to their baseline .
( Thanks to FranceSoir : • @ @ @ @ @ @ @ trials , to mask benefit of hydroxychloroquine .
The trick was to replace the saline placebo with a substance that is being used by many cliniciansand in many trials against Covid , thus by comparison likely to reduce the positive effect of your tested medication .
This was done in trials both at NYU and at University of Washington , using vitamin C or vitamin C and folate respectively as placebos .
• You have the chief medical officers of Wales , England , Scotland and Northern Ireland , and the director of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , write to UK doctors , a ) urging them to enroll their Covid patients in one of 3 national clinical trials , two of which greatly overdosed patients with hydroxychloroquine , and b ) stopping their use of “ off license treatments ” outside of a trial .
Yet again , we encounter a veiled threat against clinicians actually attempting to treat the primary SARS-Cov-2 infection .
The chief doctors wrote : While it is for every individual clinician to make prescribing decisions , we strongly discourage the use of off-licence treatments @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a trial is possible… Any treatment given for coronavirus other than general supportive care , treatment for underlying conditions , and antibiotics for secondary bacterial complications , should currently be as part of a trial , where that is possible.
” • You have a state Pharmacy Board refuse to dispense hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trialson June 15 , citing the FDA recommendation for use only in trials .
You issue this new regulation on the same day that FDA publishes its recommendation , indicating prior coordination .
But when your regulation @ @ @ @ @ @ @ immediately rescind it .
• You have the IMF offer rapid financing to Belarus , but only if it follows the recommended model of Covid responseand imposes quarantines , isolation and curfews .
• A group of doctors went to Washington DC July 27-28 .
They called themselves “ America ’ s Frontline Doctors ” and gave a press conference and livestream talks about the Covid-19 pandemic as well as about the need for physicians to be able to prescribe HCQ freely .
While the media sparsely attended the press conference , the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ within hours , their livestream was bannedby Google , YouTube , Facebook and Twitter .
Twitter was said to additionally ban comments about its ban .
Then Squarespace took down the Frontline Doctors ’ website .
Today , Bitchute is hosting their press conference .
So is Brighteon .
In those media that describe what happened , the group is tarred for providing misinformation .
• After the HCQ issue got so much attention on social media , you impose another ban on July 29 on the prescribing of HCQ for Covid , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ its Pharmacy Board to dictate to physicians what they may not prescribe .
( A repeat of # 35 in a different state . )
This ban got so much attention that the Ohio Governor ( who must have initially supported it ) rescinded it the next morning .
July 30 , saying he agrees with FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn , who said in a July 30 interview that the prescribing of HCQ is between a doctor and patient .
• After having Google take down physician James Todaro ’ s article on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to resurface right before Google ’ s ( and Facebook ’ s and Amazon ’ s and Apple ’ s ) CEOs testify before Congress on July 29 on censorship and abuse of power .
You have Twitter warn that Todaro ’ s article is at an unsafe link .
• After massive attention to the banning of the videos posted by the physician group ‘ America ’ s Frontline Physicians ’ and its website , you make intense efforts to discredit the physicians involved .
MedPageToday claimed it “ could find no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in hospitals with significant numbers of COVID-19 patients.
” But the doctors claimed they used the drug early and prevented hospitalizations and deaths .
With over 4.4 million Americans diagnosed with Covid , what doctor hasn ’ t seen a Covid patient ?
USAT headlined : ‘ America ’ s Frontline Doctors ’ may be real doctors , but experts say they don ’ t know what they ’ re talking about .
You have USA Today review and publish detailed information on the licenses , practice locations and malpractice histories of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ claim these doctors are not experts and lack knowledge about the use of HCQ in Covid-19 , despite the fact that most work in primary care , urgent care or emergency medicine and report using the drug for Covid .
Yet no one asks how many years ago ‘ expert ’ Fauci last treated a patient ?
Expert Birx ’ medical license expired in 2014 , so she hasn ’ t treated a Covid patient either .
• Hydroxychloroquine use is truly the wedge issue for understanding and turning around the pandemic .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ prophylactic and treatment for Covid-19 , it could potentially end the seriousness of the pandemic and return us to life as we knew it .
You must make use of the levers of government , mainstream media and social media to stop that from happening .
So , just in case doctors thought the Frontline Doctors ’ video , or a new study from Spain showing the drug ’ s usefulness meant they should use hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid , you must act fast .
You use Representatives at a Congressional health subcommittee @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about the use of the drug last April in veterans who were nursing home patients .
Per the Washington Post : “ doctors at the 238-bed nursing home dosed [ 30 ] patients with what came to be called a “ covid cocktail ” for more than two weeks in April , often over the objections of nurses and without the full knowledge of residents ’ families .
At least 11 residents received the drug even though they had not been tested for covid-19 , The Post found.
” I have treated patients @ @ @ @ @ @ @ discusses medication changes with family , unless the patient is seriously ill .
When nursing home residents were dying like flies last April , when tests were hard to come by and confirmed diagnoses few and far between , doctors used this medicine to try to prevent nursing home deaths during a pandemic .
And now they are being scapegoated for doing so .
The WaPo article does not even tell us whether the patients survived , thrived or were harmed .
The article hardly makes sense .
Its only purpose is to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ use it .
• You use state Medical Licensing Boards tothreaten doctors who claim there is a cure for Covid-19 .
• You have Dr. Faucidiscredit published observational studies that show benefit during a Congressional hearing , demanding randomized controlled trials .
Fauci never tells the Committee he has cancelled the one randomized controlled trial of HCQ that his agency , NIAID , was supposed to conduct on HCQ .
NIAID claimed that it could not enroll enough subjects , and was cancelled after only 20 were enrolled .
However , Fauci told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ interest in participating in trials of a Covid vaccine .
It is difficult to believe there was extreme lack of interest in a treatment trial , and such massive interest in a vaccine trial .
Doctors who wrote studies showing benefit ( 50 % mortality reduction ) defended their work from Fauci ’ s criticism .
• Youerode the doctor ’ s primary responsibility to the patient , replacing it with the need to perform clinical research .
This is the first time I have ever heard such a thing : research physicians @ @ @ @ @ @ @ from protocol-determined treatment , even when patients enrolled in treatment trials are at risk of death .
• You mention the “ stellar ” Recovery trial in the August 5NY Times , but avoid any hint that its hydroxychloroquine arm gave patients a toxic dose .
About the author : Meryl Nass , MD , is an internal medicine physician and activist with expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism ; her interest is in prevention , investigation , amelioration , and safe and effective medical response .
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL , legally registered in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 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 .

How the False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative Was Created
Written by Meryl Nass, M.D.
It is remarkable that a series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe.
The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, Covid-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.
Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients. And so the message was crafted that the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for Covid-19. It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked.
In the US, “Never Trump” morphed into “Never Hydroxychloroquine,” and the result for the pandemic is “Never Over.” But while anti-Trump spin is what characterized suppression strategies in the US, the frauds perpetrated about hydroxychloroquine and the pandemic include most western countries.
Were these acts carefully orchestrated? You decide.
Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going? To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich? Are these events evidence of a conspiracy?
Here is a list of what happened, in no special order. Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include. This will be a living document, added to as new information becomes available.
I have penned this as if it is the “To Do” list of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings. The items on the list have already been carried out. One wonders what else might be on their list, yet to be carried out, for this pandemic.
You stop doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective (in outpatients at onset of illness). You prohibit use outside of situations you can control.
Situations that were controlled to show no benefit included 3 large, randomized, multi-center clinical trials (Recovery, Solidarity and REMAP-Covid), the kind of trials that are generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence. However, each of them used excessive hydroxychloroquine doses that were known to be toxic and may have been fatal in some cases; see my previous articles here and here.
You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug, using different methods in different countries andstates. In NY state, by order of the governor, hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized patients. France has issued a series of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it. France also changed the drugs’ status from over-the-counter to a drug requiring a prescription.
You play up the danger of the drug, emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly. You make sure everyone has heard about theman who died after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner. Yet its toxicity at approved doses is minimal. Chloroquine was added to table salt in some regions in the 1950s as a malaria preventive, according to Professor Nicholas White in his study for the Recovery trial.
You limit clinical trials to hospitalized patients, instead of testing the drug in outpatients, early in the illness,when it is predicted to be most effective.
Finally, but not until May, you have Fauci’s NIAID conduct a trial in outpatients, using hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, but you only enroll 20 patients, after earlier planning for 2,000. Only half get the drugs. You reduce the duration of followup from 24 weeks to 13 days post treatment. This ridiculously small number of subjects assures meaningless results. Who pulled the plug on this trial?
You design clinical trials to givemuch too high a dose, ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects, sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect. You make sure that trials in 400 hospitals in 35 countries (Solidarity) plus most hospitals in the UK (Recovery) use these dangerous doses, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (REMAP-Covid trial).
You design clinical trials tocollect almost no safety data, so any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the drug.
You issue rules for use of the drug based on theresults of the UK Recovery study, which overdosed patients. Of course the Recovery results showed more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm, since they gave patients 2.4 g in the first 24 hrs, 800 mg/day thereafter. Furthermore, the UK has the 2nd highest death rate in the world for Covid-19 (Belgium is 1st), so simply conducting the trial in the UK may have contributed to the poor results.
You publish, in the world’s most-read medical journal, the Lancet, an observationalstudy from a huge worldwide database (96,000 Covid cases) that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased mortality. You make sure that all major media report on this result. This was said to be the nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine. Then you have 3 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug.
You do your best to ride out any controversy, never admitting culpability. Even after hundreds of people renounced the Lancet’s observational study due to easily identified fabrications–the database used in the study did not exist, and the claimed numbers did not agree with known numbers of cases–the Lancet held firm for two weeks, serving to muddy the waters about the trial, until finally 3 of its 4 coauthors (but not the journal)retracted the study. But neither the authors nor the journal admitted responsibility. You make sure very few media report that the data were fabricated and the “study” was fraudulent. Even though the story was full of scandalous details, it went largely unnoticed. You make sure people believe the original story: that hydroxychloroquine routinely kills.
You ensure federal agencies like FDA and CDC hew to your desired policies. For example,FDA advised use only in hospitalized patients (too late) or in clinical trials (which are limited, are difficult to enroll in, or may use excessive doses). As of mid June, FDA advises patients and doctors to only give the drug to patients if they are in a clinical trial where, presumably, the results can be controlled.
Another example: you have FDA make unsubstantiated and false claims, such as: “Hospitalized patients were likely to have greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness)“ and claim the chloroquine drugs have a slow onset of action. If that were really true, they would not be used for acute attacks of malaria or in critically ill patients with Covid. (Disclosure: I once dosed myself with chloroquine for an acute attack of P. vivax malaria, and it worked very fast.). Providing no other treatment advice, even though providing such information is a large part of its mission, CDC instead refers clinicians to the NIH guidelines, discussed below.
Despite the fact that Belgium’s COVID treatment guidelines repeatedly mention that the doses of HCQ in the Recovery and Solidarity trials were 4 times the cumulative dose used in Belgium, you make sure the Belgian guidelines, paradoxically, only recommend use of HCQ within clinical trials.
You make sure to avoid funding/encouraging clinical trials that test drug combinations like hydroxychloroquine with zinc, with azithromycin, or with both, although there is ample clinical evidence that such combinations provide a cumulative benefit to patients. For example, oneof very few studies to look at this combination had no funding.
You have federal and UN agencies make false, illogical claims based on models (or invention) rather than human data. For example, you have the FDA state on June 15 that the doserequired to treat Covid is so high it is toxic, after the Recovery and Solidarity trials have been exposed for toxic dosing. This scientific double-speak gives some legal cover to the clinical trials that overdosed their patients. According to Denise Hinton, RN, the FDA’s Chief Scientist (yes, a registered nurse without scientific qualifications is the Chief Scientist at FDA), or some clumsy FDA wordsmith:
“Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays, the calculated free lung concentrations that would result from the EUA suggested dosing regimens are well below the in vitro EC50/EC90 values, making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not likely achievable with the dosing regimens recommended in the EUA. The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns.”
You have a WHO report claim toxic doses are needed. This is nonsense since:
Toxicity was noted after only 3 days of treatment, during which 3.6 grams of chloroquine were administered. But the Solidarity (3.2 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days), Recovery (3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) and REMAP-Covid trials (3.6 grams of hydroxychloroquine in 3 days) continued overdosing patients until June, despite Brazil’s evidence of deaths by overdose.
Tellingly, JAMA editor Gordon Rubenfeld wrote in April, after the Brazilian study came out in JAMA, “if you are prescribing HCQ after these JAMA results, do yourself and your defense lawyer a favor. Document in your medical record that you informed the patient of the potential risks of HCQ including sudden death and its benefits (???).”
You create an NIH Guidelines committee for Covid treatment recommendations, in which16 members have or had financial entanglements with Gilead, maker of Remdesivir. The members were appointed by the Co-Chairs. Two of the three Co-Chairs are themselves financially entangled with Gilead. Are you surprised that their guidelines recommend specifically against the use of hydroxychloroquine and in favor of Remdesivir, and that they deem this the new “standard of care”?
You frighten doctors so they don’t prescribe hydroxychloroquine, if prescribing it is even allowed in their jurisdiction, because prescribing outside the newNIH “standard of care” leaves them open to malpractice lawsuits. You further tell them (through the FDA) they need to monitor a variety of lab parameters and patient EKGs when using the drug, although this was never advised before, which makes it very difficult to use the drug in outpatients. You have the European Medicines Agency issue similar warnings.
The only “safety” information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen, required a ventilator, or died. This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested.
I should mention that WHO’s initial plan for its Solidarity trial entirely omitted the chloroquine drugs, but they were added at the urging of participating nations. WHO’s fallback position appears to have been to use toxic doses.
You have theWHO pressure governments to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
You have theWHO pressure professional societies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine.
You make sure that the most-consulted US medical encyclopedia, UptoDate,advises physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials, citing the FDA.
You convince the population that the crisis will be long-lasting. You have the 2nd richest man in the world, and biggest funder of the WHO, Bill Gates, keep repeating to the media megaphone that we cannot go back to normal until everyone has been vaccinated or there is a perfect drug. (The Gates Foundation helped design the WHO clinical trials, helped fund the Recovery trial, and Gates is heavily invested in Covid pharmaceuticals and vaccines.)
You have CDC (with help from FDA)prevent the purchase of coronavirus test kits from Germany, China, WHO, etc, and fail to produce a valid test kit themselves. The result was that during January and February, US cases could not be tested, and for several months thereafter insufficient and unreliable test kits made it impossible to track the epidemic and stop the spread.
You have trusted medical spokesmen lie to the public about the pandemic’s severity, so precautions weren’t taken when they might have been more effective and less long-lasting. Congress was repeatedly briefed about the pandemic in January and February, which scared several Congress members enough that they sold off large amounts of stock, risking insider trading charges. Senator Burr is one of them, currentlyunder investigation for major stock sales on February 13.
Yet Dr. Fauci told USA Today on February 17 that Americans should worry more about the flu than about coronavirus, the danger of which was “just miniscule.” Then on February 28, Drs. Fauci and Robert Redfield (CDC Director) wrote in the New England Journal:
“…the overall clinical consequences of Covid-19 may ultimately be more akin to those of a severe seasonal influenza (which has a case fatality rate of approximately 0.1%) or a pandemic influenza (similar to those in 1957 and 1968) rather than a disease similar to SARS or MERS, which have had case fatality rates of 9 to 10% and 36%, respectively.”
You destroy the reputation of respected physicians who stand in your way. Professor Didier Raoult and his team in Marseille have used hydroxychloroquine on over 4,000 patients, reporting a mortality rate of about 0.8%. (The mortality rate of patients given hydroxychloroquine in the Recovery trial was 25.7%.) Raoult is very famous for discovering over 100 different microorganisms, and finding the long-sought cause of Whipple’s Disease. With this reputation, Raoult apparently thought he could treat patients as he saw fit, which he has done, under great duress. Raoult was featured in a New York Times Magazine article, with his face on the magazine cover, on May 12, 2020. After describing his accomplishments, the Times very unfavorably discussed his personality, implied he conducted unethical trials without approval, and using anonymous sourcing produced a detailed hit piece. Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank in the US.
Physician and state senator Scott Jensen of Minnesota is being investigated by his state medical board due to anonymous complaints about ‘spreading misinformation’ and giving ‘reckless advice’ about COVID in interviews. Jensen was previously selected as “Family Physician of the Year” in his state. Now his medical license is at risk, not because of how he treated a patient, but for what he said outside of the office. Unprecedented.
UPDATE: Jensen was exonerated.
You have social media platforms ban content that does not agree with the desired narrative. As YouTube CEO and ex-wife of Google founder Sergey Brin, Susan Wojcickisaid,
“YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations. Anything that would go against World Health Organisation recommendations would be a violation of our policy.”
When your clinical trials are criticized for overdosing patients, you have Oxford-affiliated, Wellcome Trust-supported scientists at Mahidol University publish papers (aliterature review with modeling and a modeling study) purporting to show that the doses used were not toxic. You develop a new method to measure hydroxychloroquine in a handful of Recovery patients who were not poisoned. However, there are 2 problems you forgot with this approach:
The Brazilian data, including 16 deaths, extensive clinical information and documented ventricular arrhythmias, are much more persuasive than a theoretical model of hydroxychloroquine pharmacokinetics.
Either the drug is too toxic to use, even at normal doses, for a life-threatening disease, or even extremely high doses are safe. You can’t have it both ways.
Oxford is the institution running the Recovery trial, and invented a Covid vaccine that already has 400 million doses on order. The Wellcome Trust funded the Recovery trial.
You change your trial’s primary outcome measures after the trials have started, in order to prevent detection of drug-induced deaths (Recovery) or to make your drug appear to have efficacy (NIAID Remdesivir trial).
You stop manufacturers from supplying the drug. Shortly after the fraudulent Lancetpaper came out, Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid, and would halt its two hydroxychloroquine clinical trials. One of the cancelled Sanofi trials was expected to test 210 outpatients early in the course of disease. The trial remains suspended at the time of writing, while the Lancet paper was retracted 13 days after publication. You surely don’t want a trial of hydroxychloroquine treatment early in the disease, since it might show an excellent effect.
Then Sanofi started collecting information on all off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in New Zealand and Australia. Why is Sanofi, a drug manufacturing company, becoming a surveillance/enforcement mechanism intended to frighten medical providers from using the drug for Covid, which use is by definition “off label.” Sanofi alternatively suggests one may report (anonymously or not) others’ off-label use to New Zealand’s Pharmacovigilance Center or the Australian equivalent.
And see this: Novartis will supply HCQ only under certain conditions, and halted its HCQ trial due to lack of enrollments, although enrollment was not an issue for its other COVID trials.
http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/covid-19-lhydroxychloroquine-marche-une-preuve-irrefutable)
You reverse an old trick of clinical trials, to mask benefit of hydroxychloroquine. The trick was to replace the saline placebo with a substance that is being used by many cliniciansand in many trials against Covid, thus by comparison likely to reduce the positive effect of your tested medication. This was done in trials both at NYU and at University of Washington, using vitamin C or vitamin C and folate respectively as placebos. You have the chief medical officers of Wales, England, Scotland and Northern Ireland, and the director of the UK’s National Health Service, write to UK doctors, a) urging them to enroll their Covid patients in one of 3 national clinical trials, two of which greatly overdosed patients with hydroxychloroquine, and b) stopping their use of “off license treatments” outside of a trial. Yet again, we encounter a veiled threat against clinicians actually attempting to treat the primary SARS-Cov-2 infection. The chief doctors wrote:
While it is for every individual clinician to make prescribing decisions, we strongly discourage the use of off-licence treatments outside of a trial, where participation in a trial is possible… Any treatment given for coronavirus other than general supportive care, treatment for underlying conditions, and antibiotics for secondary bacterial complications, should currently be as part of a trial, where that is possible.”
You have a state Pharmacy Board refuse to dispense hydroxychloroquine outside of clinical trialson June 15, citing the FDA recommendation for use only in trials. You issue this new regulation on the same day that FDA publishes its recommendation, indicating prior coordination. But when your regulation is exposed on July 14, you immediately rescind it. You have the IMF offer rapid financing to Belarus, but only if it follows the recommended model of Covid responseand imposes quarantines, isolation and curfews. A group of doctors went to Washington DC July 27-28. They called themselves “America’s Frontline Doctors” and gave a press conference and livestream talks about the Covid-19 pandemic as well as about the need for physicians to be able to prescribe HCQ freely. While the media sparsely attended the press conference, the livestream got millions of views. And within hours, their livestream was bannedby Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. Twitter was said to additionally ban comments about its ban. Then Squarespace took down the Frontline Doctors’ website.
Today, Bitchute is hosting their press conference. So is Brighteon. In those media that describe what happened, the group is tarred for providing misinformation.
After the HCQ issue got so much attention on social media, you impose another ban on July 29 on the prescribing of HCQ for Covid, starting July 30 in Ohio, using its Pharmacy Board to dictate to physicians what they may not prescribe. (A repeat of #35 in a different state.)
This ban got so much attention that the Ohio Governor (who must have initially supported it) rescinded it the next morning. July 30, saying he agrees with FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, who said in a July 30 interview that the prescribing of HCQ is between a doctor and patient.
After massive attention to the banning of the videos posted by the physician group ‘America’s Frontline Physicians’ and its website, you make intense efforts to discredit the physicians involved.
MedPageToday claimed it “could find no evidence that any of the speakers worked in hospitals with significant numbers of COVID-19 patients.” But the doctors claimed they used the drug early and prevented hospitalizations and deaths. With over 4.4 million Americans diagnosed with Covid, what doctor hasn’t seen a Covid patient?
USAT headlined: ‘America’s Frontline Doctors’ may be real doctors, but experts say they don’t know what they’re talking about.
You have USA Today review and publish detailed information on the licenses, practice locations and malpractice histories of the doctors who spoke out. USAT reporters claim these doctors are not experts and lack knowledge about the use of HCQ in Covid-19, despite the fact that most work in primary care, urgent care or emergency medicine and report using the drug for Covid. Yet no one asks how many years ago ‘expert’ Fauci last treated a patient? Expert Birx’ medical license expired in 2014, so she hasn’t treated a Covid patient either.
Hydroxychloroquine use is truly the wedge issue for understanding and turning around the pandemic. If hydroxychloroquine works reasonably well as a prophylactic and treatment for Covid-19, it could potentially end the seriousness of the pandemic and return us to life as we knew it. You must make use of the levers of government, mainstream media and social media to stop that from happening.
So, just in case doctors thought the Frontline Doctors’ video, or a new study from Spain showing the drug’s usefulness meant they should use hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid, you must act fast. You use Representatives at a Congressional health subcommittee hearing on July 29 to threaten doctors about the use of the drug last April in veterans who were nursing home patients. Per the Washington Post:
“doctors at the 238-bed nursing home dosed [30] patients with what came to be called a “covid cocktail” for more than two weeks in April, often over the objections of nurses and without the full knowledge of residents’ families. At least 11 residents received the drug even though they had not been tested for covid-19, The Post found.”
I have treated patients in nursing homes, and one rarely discusses medication changes with family, unless the patient is seriously ill. When nursing home residents were dying like flies last April, when tests were hard to come by and confirmed diagnoses few and far between, doctors used this medicine to try to prevent nursing home deaths during a pandemic. And now they are being scapegoated for doing so.
The WaPo article does not even tell us whether the patients survived, thrived or were harmed. The article hardly makes sense. Its only purpose is to blacken the drug and the physicians who use it.
You use state Medical Licensing Boards tothreaten doctors who claim there is a cure for Covid-19.
You have Dr. Faucidiscredit published observational studies that show benefit during a Congressional hearing, demanding randomized controlled trials. Fauci never tells the Committee he has cancelled the one randomized controlled trial of HCQ that his agency, NIAID, was supposed to conduct on HCQ. NIAID claimed that it could not enroll enough subjects, and was cancelled after only 20 were enrolled. However, Fauci told the Committee that 250,000 Americans have shown interest in participating in trials of a Covid vaccine. It is difficult to believe there was extreme lack of interest in a treatment trial, and such massive interest in a vaccine trial.
Doctors who wrote studies showing benefit (50% mortality reduction) defended their work from Fauci’s criticism.
Youerode the doctor’s primary responsibility to the patient, replacing it with the need to perform clinical research. This is the first time I have ever heard such a thing: research physicians are pressuring frontline doctors not to veer from protocol-determined treatment, even when patients enrolled in treatment trials are at risk of death.
You mention the “stellar” Recovery trial in the August 5NY Times, but avoid any hint that its hydroxychloroquine arm gave patients a toxic dose.
About the author: Meryl Nass, MD, is an internal medicine physician and activist with expertise in anthrax and bioterrorism; her interest is in prevention, investigation, amelioration, and safe and effective medical response.
Read more at anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com
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