lewrockwell--2020-07-08--LancetGate: ‘Scientific Corona Lies’ and Big Pharma Corruption Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Re

LancetGate: ‘Scientific Corona Lies’ and Big Pharma Corruption Hydroxychloroquine versus Gilead’s Remdesivir

There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) , a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19 .
The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements , media smears , not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “ evaluation ” published on May 22nd by The Lancet , which was based on fake figures and test trials .
The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20 , 2019 , and April 14 , 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide .
The database had been @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma .
While The Lancet article was retracted , the media casually blamed “ a tiny US based company ” named Surgisphere whose employees included “ a sci-fi writer and an adult content model ” for spreading “ flawed data ” ( Guardian ) .
This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments , inciting them to ban HCQ .
None of those trial tests actually took place .
A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO ... Holmes , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ While the blame was placed on Surgisphere , the unspoken truth ( which neither the scientific community nor the media have acknowledged ) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital ( BWH ) which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School .
When the scam was revealed , Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital apologized : But that “ truly sorry ” note was just the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Studies on Gilead Science ’ s Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) Were Conducted Simultaneously by Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital ( BWH ) While The Lancet report ( May 22 , 2020 ) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended “ to kill ” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19 , another important ( related ) study was being carried out ( concurrently ) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc. Dr. Francisco Marty , a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham ’ s contract with Gilead Sciences Inc : Fauci : The Bernie Mado ... Ortleb , Charles Buy New $ 5.99 While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty , he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences Inc : “ He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate ” ( France Soir , May 23 , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ his ( failed ) study ?
To undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine ?
According to France Soir , in a report published after The Lancet Retraction : Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest ?
( That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon ) .
Who are the Main Actors ?
Good-Bye Germ Theory : ... Trebing , Dr. William P Best Price : $ 36.69 Buy New $ 14.00 Dr. Anthony Fauci , advisor to Donald Trump , portrayed as “ America ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead ’ s Remdesivir .
Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) since the Reagan administration .
He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma .
Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June ( see details below ) .
According to Fauci , Remdesevir is the “ corona wonder drug ” developed by Gilead Science Inc. @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dollar bonanza .
Gilead Sciences Inc is a Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing Remdesivir .
Gilead has a long history .
It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co , among others .
It has developed ties with the US Government .
In 1999 Gilead Sciences Inc , developed Tamiflu ( used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu ) .
At the time , Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense ( 2001-2006 ) .
Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan ( 2001 ) and Iraq ( 2003 ) .
Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense ( 2001-2006 ) .
According to CNN Money ( 2005 ) : “ The prospect of a bird flu outbreak … was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [ who still owned Gilead stocks ] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best Price : $ 7.50 Buy New $ 12.99 Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984 , using his position as “ a go between ” the US government and Big Pharma .
During Rumsfeld ’ s tenure as Secretary of Defense , the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially , involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would : In 2008 , Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives.
” We will be focussing on key documents ( and events ) April 10 : The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on Remdesivir April 29 : Release of the NIH Government Study on Remdesivir May 22 , The BWH-Harvard Study on Hydroxychloroquine coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra published in The Lancet June 5 : The ( fake ) Lancet Report ( May 22 ) on HCQ is retracted .
July 29 , Fauci announcement .
The $ 1.6 Billion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ April 10 : The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on the “ Compassionate Use of Remdesivir ” A Gilead sponsored report was published in New England Journal of Medicine in an article entitled “ Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19 ” .
It was co-authored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors and scientists , many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc. Gilead Sciences Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as co-authors .
The NEJM article states @ @ @ @ @ @ @ requests from clinicians for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25 , 2020 ” .
From whom ?
According to the WHO ( January 30 , 2020 ) there were 82 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in the US , 5 in France and 3 in Canada .
Unreported Truths abou ... Berenson , Alex Buy New $ 5.99 Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast doubt on the Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead , focussing on the small size of the trial .
Ironically , the number @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the number of co-authors : “ 53 patients ” versus “ 56 co-authors ” Below we provide excerpts of scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project ( Science Media Centre emphasis added ) published immediately following the release of the NEJM article : “ ‘ Compassionate use ’ is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a patient because there are no other treatments available .
Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation , which are @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in clinical trials .
Prof Duncan Richard , Clinical Therapeutics , University of Oxford .
“ It is critical not to over-interpret this study .
Most importantly , it is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir .
Dr Stephen Griffin , Associate Professor , School of Medicine , University of Leeds .
“ The research is interesting but doesn ’ t prove anything at this point : the data are from a small and uncontrolled study .
Simon Maxwell , Professor of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Edinburgh .
“ The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable .
It is very surprising , perhaps even unethical , that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it .
It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study .
At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written .
Prof Stephen Evans , Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology , London School of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this particularly with a new disease where we really don ’ t know what to expect and with wide variations in outcomes between places and over time .
One really has to question the ethics of failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else , a missed opportunity.
” Prof Adam Finn , Professor of Paediatrics , University of Bristol .
To review the complete document of Science Media Centre pertaining to expert assessments click here @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) Study on Remdevisir On April 29th following the publication of the Gilead Sciences Inc Study in NEJM on April 10 , a report of the National Institutes of Health ( NIH ) on Remdevisir was released .
The study had been initiated on February 21 , 2020 .
It included preliminary data analysis from a randomized trial involving 1063 hospitalized patients .
The results of the trial labelled Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial ( ACTT ) are scanty and preliminary .
conducted under the helm of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Allergy and Infectious Diseases ( NIAID ) .
On balance , the initial scholarly response at Science Media Centre to the NIH study has been positive when compared to those pertaining to the Gilead study published in the NEJM ( see above ) .
Pertains to “ preliminary results ” .
May 22 : The Fake Lancet Report on HCQ The Fake Lancet Report on HCQ was published on May 22 , 2020 .
Immediately , the media went into high gear , smearing the HCQ cure , while applauding Gilead ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ) and the April 29 HIH Report : When the Lancet HCQ article by Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5 , it was too late , it received minimal media coverage .
Despite the Retraction , the HCQ cure “ had been killed ” .
June 29 : Fauci Greenlight .
The $ 1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences Inc Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the “ Greenlight ” to Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29 , 2020 , largely justified on the HIH Report .
The Gilead study based on scanty test @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the NEJM , April 10 , of 53 cases ( and 56 authors ) was not highlighted .
The results of this study had been questioned by several prominent physicians and scientists .
The official US government HIH report ( April 29 ) considered as “ preliminary ” was nonetheless used to justify a major agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc. On June 29 , 2020 , the Department of Health and Human Services ( HHS ) announced on behalf of the Trump Adminstration an agreement to secure large supplies @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Inc. for the treatment of Covid-19 in America ’ s private hospitals and clinics .
Who will be able to afford Remdisivir ?
500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $ 3,120 per patient , namely $ 1.6 billion ( see the study by Elizabeth Woodworth ) The Drug was also approved for marketing in the European Union .
under the brandname Veklury .
If this contract is implemented as planned , it represents for Gilead Science Inc. and the recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money .
According @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Secretary Alex Azar ( June 29 , 2020 ) : Carefully timing : The Remdesivir study ( 50+ authors ) in the New England Journal of Medicine ( April 10 , 2020 ) was followed by the fake Lancet HCQ report led by BWH-Harvard Dr. Mehra ( May 22 , 2020 ) .
The unspoken truth was that the Lancet study ( published on May 22 ) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to Covid-19 , with a view to sustaining Dr. Fauci ’ s launch of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29th .
What Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been “ studied ” and tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections .
And that Hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of Covid-19 in several countries .
According to the Virology Journal ( 2005 ) “ Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread ” .
It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002 .
It had the endorsement of the CDC @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it is “ inexpensive ” when compared to Remdesivir , at an estimated “ $ 3120 for a US Patient with private insurance ” .
Below are excerpts of an interview of Harvard ’ s Professor Mehra ( who undertook the May 22 Lancet study ) with France Soir published immediately following the publication of the Lancet report ( prior to its Retraction ) .
Dr. Mandeep Mehra : In our study , it is fairly obvious that the lack of benefit and the risk of toxicity observed for hydroxychloroquine are fairly reliable @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Lancet study ] France Soir : Do you have the data for Remdesivir ?
MM : Yes , we have the data , but the number of patients is too small for us to be able to conclude in one way or another .
FS : As you know , in France , there is a pros and cons battle over hydroxychloroquine which has turned into a public health issue even involving the financial lobbying of pharmaceutical companies .
Why not measure the effect of one against the other to put an end @ @ @ @ @ @ @ In fact , there is no rational basis for testing Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine .
On the one hand , Remdesivir has shown that there is no risk of mortality and that there is a reduction in recovery time .
On the other hand , for hydroxychloroquine it is the opposite : it has never been shown any advantage and most studies are small or inconclusive In addition , our study shows that there are harmful effects .
It would therefore be difficult and probably unethical to compare a drug with demonstrated harmfulness to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of hope .
FS : You said that there is no basis for testing or comparing Remdesivir with hydroxychloroquine , do you think you have done everything to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous ?
All we are saying is that once you have been infected ( 5 to 7 days after ) to the point of having to be hospitalized with a severe viral load , the use of hydroxychloroquine and its derivative is not effective .
The damage from the virus is already there and the situation is beyond repair .
With @ @ @ @ @ @ @ generate more complications FS Mandeep Mehra declared that he had no conflict of interest with the laboratories and that this study was financed from the endowment funds of the professor ’ s chair .
He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate .
France Soir , translated by the author , emphasis added , May 23 , 2020 ) In Annex , see the followup article by France Soir published after the scam surrounding the data base of Dr. Mehra ’ s Lancet @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to the nth Degree involving Dr. Anthony Fauci , “ The Boston Connection ” and Gilead Sciences Inc. Harvard Medical School and the BWH bear responsibility for having hosted and financed the fake Lancet report on HCQ coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra .
Is there conflict of interest ?
BWH was simultaneously involved in a study on Remdesivir in contract with Gilead Sciences , Inc .
While the Lancet report coordinated by Harvard ’ s Dr. Mehra was retracted , it nonetheless served the interests of Gilead Sciences Inc. Two studies were used @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Remdesivir drug produced by Gilead Sciences Inc. ( June 29 , 2020 ) : A 1.6 billion dollar project : It is important that an independent scientific and medical assessment be undertaken , respectively of the Gilead Sciences Inc New England Journal of Medicine ( NEMJ ) peer reviewed study ( April 10 , 2020 ) and the NIH governmental study ( April 29 , 2020 ) .
We call upon medical doctors and the scientific community to take a firm stance .
The fraud concerning the Lancet Report was revealed in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ subsequent article ( June 5 , 2020 ) points to the Boston Connection : La connexion de Boston , namely the insiduous relationship between Gilead Sciences Inc and Professor Mehra , Harvard Medical School as well as the two related Boston based hospitals involved .
The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra , a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School , did not produce confidence , fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results .
… However , the reported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir , a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine ( HCQ ) – early in April called for further investigation It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital ( BWH ) in Boston .
That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world , also by Surgisphere .
Funding for the study was “ Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere.
” The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine , alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic .
… It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks , 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra , Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere , Dr. Desai @ @ @ @ @ @ @ physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity .
The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day , the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ , another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of…remdesivir .
In the conclusion of this randomized , double-blind , placebo-controlled trial , “ remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ lower respiratory tract infection.
” Concretely : on the same day , May 22nd , one study demeaned HCQ in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal .
It should be noted that one of the main co-authors , Elizabeth “ Libby ” * Hohmann , represents one of the participating hospitals , the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston , also affiliated with Harvard Medical School , as is the Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital in Boston , where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead ’ s remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals : “ While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail , Massachusetts General Hospital ( MGH ) and Brigham and Women ’ s Hospital ( BWH ) are leading the search for effective treatment .
MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health ( NIH ) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19 , sponsored by the National Institute of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ NIH .
MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial , according to a list of sites shared by the hospital .
” It ’ s a gigantic undertaking , with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country , getting better .
“ The NIH trial , which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments , aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19 , helping patients leave hospital earlier .
** As a reminder , the NIAID/NIH @ @ @ @ @ @ @ staunch opponent of HCQ .
“ At the Brigham , two additional trials initiated by Gilead , the drug developer , will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses .
These trials will also be randomized , but not placebo controlled , and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide .
Those patients , noted Francisco Marty , MD , Brigham physician and study co-investigator , will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip.
” As a result , the first major @ @ @ @ @ @ @ 20 , whose results are highly important for Gilead , are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston , precisely where Dr. Mehra , the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial , is practising .
Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later .
Indeed , in recent days , several US media outlets have reported Gilead ’ s announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston .
: “ Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study , and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen .
… ” Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 – One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone – The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures , ” Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks .
These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ , a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra , are probably again a coincidence .
So many coincidences adds up to coincidences ?
Really ?
The original source of this article is Global Research .

Introduction
There is an ongoing battle to suppress Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a cheap and effective drug for the treatment of Covid-19. The campaign against HCQ is carried out through slanderous political statements, media smears, not to mention an authoritative peer reviewed “evaluation” published on May 22nd by The Lancet, which was based on fake figures and test trials.
The study was allegedly based on data analysis of 96,032 patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between Dec 20, 2019, and April 14, 2020 from 671 hospitals Worldwide. The database had been fabricated. The objective was to kill the Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) cure on behalf of Big Pharma.
While The Lancet article was retracted, the media casually blamed “a tiny US based company” named Surgisphere whose employees included “a sci-fi writer and an adult content model” for spreading “flawed data” (Guardian). This Chicago based outfit was accused of having misled both the WHO and national governments, inciting them to ban HCQ. None of those trial tests actually took place.
A VOYAGE IN IMAGINATIO... Holmes, Dr Joel S Buy New $9.95 (as of 04:21 UTC - Details) While the blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth (which neither the scientific community nor the media have acknowledged) is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra under the auspices of Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) which is a partner of the Harvard Medical School.
When the scam was revealed, Dr. Mandeep Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital apologized:
I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. It is now clear to me that in my hope to contribute this research during a time of great need, I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use. For that, and for all the disruptions – both directly and indirectly – I am truly sorry. (emphasis added) Mandeep R. Mehra, MD, MSC (official statement on BWH website)
But that “truly sorry” note was just the tip of the iceberg. Why?
Studies on Gilead Science’s Remdesivir and Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) Were Conducted Simultaneously by Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH)
While The Lancet report (May 22, 2020) coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra was intended “to kill” the legitimacy of HCQ as a cure of Covid-19, another important (related) study was being carried out (concurrently) at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Inc. Dr. Francisco Marty, a specialist in Infectious Disease and Associate Professor at Harvard Medical School was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under Brigham’s contract with Gilead Sciences Inc: Fauci: The Bernie Mado... Ortleb, Charles Buy New $5.99 (as of 02:55 UTC - Details)
Brigham and Women’s Hospital began enrolling patients in two clinical trials for Gilead’s antiviral medication remdesivir. The Brigham is one of multiple clinical trial sites for a Gilead-initiated study of the drug in 600 participants with moderate coronavirus disease (COVID-19) and a Gilead-initiated study of 400 participants with severe COVID-19.
… If the results are promising, this could lead to FDA approval, and if they aren’t, it gives us critical information in the fight against COVID-19 and allows us to move on to other therapies.”
While Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesevir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague Dr. Francisco Marty, he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences Inc: “He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate” (France Soir, May 23, 2020)
What was the intent of his (failed) study? To undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine?
According to France Soir, in a report published after The Lancet Retraction:
The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, … professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results. (France Soir, June 5, 2020)
Was Dr. Mandeep Mehra in conflict of interest? (That is a matter for BWH and the Harvard Medical School to decide upon).
Who are the Main Actors? Good-Bye Germ Theory: ... Trebing, Dr. William P Best Price: $36.69 Buy New $14.00 (as of 04:04 UTC - Details)
Dr. Anthony Fauci, advisor to Donald Trump, portrayed as “America’s top infectious disease expert” has played a key role in smearing the HCQ cure which had been approved years earlier by the CDC as well as providing legitimacy to Gilead’s Remdesivir.
Dr. Fauci has been the head of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) since the Reagan administration. He is known to act as a mouthpiece for Big Pharma.
Dr. Fauci launched Remdesivir in late June (see details below). According to Fauci, Remdesevir is the “corona wonder drug” developed by Gilead Science Inc. It’s a $1.6 billion dollar bonanza.
Gilead Sciences Inc: History
Gilead Sciences Inc is a Multibillion dollar bio-pharmaceutical company which is now involved in developing and marketing Remdesivir. Gilead has a long history. It has the backing of major investment conglomerates including the Vanguard Group and Capital Research & Management Co, among others. It has developed ties with the US Government.
In 1999 Gilead Sciences Inc, developed Tamiflu (used as a treatment of seasonal influenza and bird flu). At the time, Gilead Sciences Inc was headed by Donald Rumsfeld (1997-2001), who later joined the George W. Bush administration as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). Rumsfeld was responsible for coordinating the illegal and criminal wars on Afghanistan (2001) and Iraq (2003).
Rumsfeld maintained his links to Gilead Sciences Inc throughout his tenure as Secretary of Defense (2001-2006). According to CNN Money (2005): “The prospect of a bird flu outbreak … was very good news for Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld [who still owned Gilead stocks] and other politically connected investors in Gilead Sciences”. Vaccine Epidemic: How ... Best Price: $7.50 Buy New $12.99 (as of 06:30 UTC - Details)
Anthony Fauci has been in charge of the NIAID since 1984, using his position as “a go between” the US government and Big Pharma. During Rumsfeld’s tenure as Secretary of Defense, the budget allocated to bio-terrorism increased substantially, involving contracts with Big Pharma including Gilead Sciences Inc. Anthony Fauci considered that the money allocated to bio-terrorism in early 2002 would:
“accelerate our understanding of the biology and pathogenesis of microbes that can be used in attacks, and the biology of the microbes’ hosts — human beings and their immune systems. One result should be more effective vaccines with less toxicity.” (WPo report)
In 2008, Dr. Anthony Fauci was granted the Presidential Medal of Freedom by president George W. Bush “for his determined and aggressive efforts to help others live longer and healthier lives.”
The 2020 Gilead Sciences Inc Remdesivir Project
We will be focussing on key documents (and events)
Chronology
April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on Remdesivir
April 29: Release of the NIH Government Study on Remdesivir
May 22, The BWH-Harvard Study on Hydroxychloroquine coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra published in The Lancet
June 5: The (fake) Lancet Report (May 22) on HCQ is retracted.
July 29, Fauci announcement. The $1.6 Billion Remdevisir HHS Agreement with Gilead Sciences Inc
April 10: The Gilead Sciences Inc study published in the NEJM on the “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir”
A Gilead sponsored report was published in New England Journal of Medicine in an article entitled “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19” . It was co-authored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors and scientists, many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences Inc.
Gilead Sciences Inc. funded the study which included several staff members as co-authors.
The testing included a total of 61 patients [who] received at least one dose of remdesivir on or before March 7, 2020; 8 of these patients were excluded because of missing postbaseline information (7 patients) and an erroneous remdesivir start date (1 patient) … Of the 53 remaining patients included in this analysis, 40 (75%) received the full 10-day course of remdesivir, 10 (19%) received 5 to 9 days of treatment, and 3 (6%) fewer than 5 days of treatment.
The NEJM article states that “Gilead Sciences Inc began accepting requests from clinicians for compassionate use of remdesivir on January 25, 2020”. From whom? According to the WHO (January 30, 2020) there were 82 cases in 18 countries outside China of which 5 were in the US, 5 in France and 3 in Canada. Unreported Truths abou... Berenson, Alex Buy New $5.99 (as of 03:17 UTC - Details)
Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast doubt on the Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead, focussing on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test is less that the number of co-authors: “53 patients” versus “56 co-authors”
Below we provide excerpts of scientific statements on the Gilead NEJM project (Science Media Centre emphasis added) published immediately following the release of the NEJM article:
“‘Compassionate use’ is better described as using an unlicensed therapy to treat a patient because there are no other treatments available. Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomisation, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials. Prof Duncan Richard, Clinical Therapeutics, University of Oxford.
“It is critical not to over-interpret this study. Most importantly, it is impossible to know the outcome for this relatively small group of patients had they not received remdesivir. Dr Stephen Griffin, Associate Professor, School of Medicine, University of Leeds.
“The research is interesting but doesn’t prove anything at this point: the data are from a small and uncontrolled study. Simon Maxwell, Professor of Clinical Pharmacology and Prescribing, University of Edinburgh.
“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead have been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high quality scientific paper would be written. Prof Stephen Evans, Professor of Pharmacoepidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine.
“It’s very hard to draw useful conclusions from uncontrolled studies like this particularly with a new disease where we really don’t know what to expect and with wide variations in outcomes between places and over time. One really has to question the ethics of failing to do randomisation – this study really represents more than anything else, a missed opportunity.” Prof Adam Finn, Professor of Paediatrics, University of Bristol.
To review the complete document of Science Media Centre pertaining to expert assessments click here
April 29: US Government Study. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Study on Remdevisir
On April 29th following the publication of the Gilead Sciences Inc Study in NEJM on April 10, a report of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) on Remdevisir was released. The study had been initiated on February 21, 2020. It included preliminary data analysis from a randomized trial involving 1063 hospitalized patients. The results of the trial labelled Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial (ACTT) are scanty and preliminary. conducted under the helm of Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID).
An independent data and safety monitoring board (DSMB) overseeing the trial met on April 27 to review data and shared their interim analysis with the study team. Based upon their review of the data, they noted that remdesivir was better than placebo from the perspective of the primary endpoint, time to recovery, a metric often used in influenza trials. Recovery in this study was defined as being well enough for hospital discharge or returning to normal activity level. Preliminary results indicate that patients who received remdesivir had a 31% faster time to recovery than those who received placebo (p<0.001). Specifically, the median time to recovery was 11 days for patients treated with remdesivir compared with 15 days for those who received placebo. Results also suggested a survival benefit, with a mortality rate of 8.0% for the group receiving remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group (p=0.059).
The Washington Post applauded Anthony Fauci’s initiative:
“The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony S. Fauci, … fall short of the magic bullet or cure… But with no approved treatments for Covid-19,[Lie] Fauci said, it will become the standard of care for hospitalized patients …The data shows that remdisivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery,” Fauci said.
The government’s first rigorous clinical trial of the experimental drug remdesivir as a coronavirus treatment delivered mixed results to the medical community Wednesday — but rallied stock markets and raised hopes that an early weapon to help some patients was at hand. The preliminary results, disclosed at the White House by Anthony Fauci, chief of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, which led the placebo-controlled trial found that the drug accelerated the recovery of hospitalized patients but had only a marginal benefit in the rate of death. … Fauci’s remarks boosted speculation that the Food and Drug Administration would seek emergency use authorization that would permit doctors to prescribe the drug. In addition to clinical trials, remdesivir has been given to more than 1,000 patients under compassionate use. [refers to the Gilead study published on April 10 in the NEJM] The study, involving 1,000 patients at 68 sites in the United States and around the world (??), offers the first evidence (??) from a large (??), randomized (??) clinical study of remdesivir’s effectiveness against COVID-19.
Large, randomized?? Around the World (??)
On balance, the initial scholarly response at Science Media Centre to the NIH study has been positive when compared to those pertaining to the Gilead study published in the NEJM (see above). Pertains to “preliminary results”.
May 22: The Fake Lancet Report on HCQ
The Fake Lancet Report on HCQ was published on May 22, 2020. Immediately, the media went into high gear, smearing the HCQ cure, while applauding Gilead’s Remdesivir (April 10 in the NEJM) and the April 29 HIH Report:
Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat Covid-19, sped the recovery time of patients with the disease, … “It’s a very safe and effective drug,” said Eric Topol, founder and director of the Scripps Research Translational Institute. “We now have a definite first efficacious drug for Covid-19, which is a major step forward and will be built upon with other drugs, [and drug] combinations.”
When the Lancet HCQ article by Bingham-Harvard was retracted on June 5, it was too late, it received minimal media coverage. Despite the Retraction, the HCQ cure “had been killed”.
June 29: Fauci Greenlight. The $1.6 Billion Remdesivir Contract with Gilead Sciences Inc
Dr. Anthony Fauci granted the “Greenlight” to Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29, 2020, largely justified on the HIH Report.
The Gilead study based on scanty test results in Gilead’s study published in the NEJM, April 10, of 53 cases (and 56 authors) was not highlighted. The results of this study had been questioned by several prominent physicians and scientists.
The official US government HIH report (April 29) considered as “preliminary” was nonetheless used to justify a major agreement between the HHS and Gilead Sciences Inc.
On June 29, 2020, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced on behalf of the Trump Adminstration an agreement to secure large supplies of the remdesivir drug from Gilead Sciences Inc. for the treatment of Covid-19 in America’s private hospitals and clinics.
Who will be able to afford Remdisivir? 500,000 doses of Remdesivir are envisaged at $3,120 per patient, namely $1.6 billion (see the study by Elizabeth Woodworth)
The Drug was also approved for marketing in the European Union. under the brandname Veklury.
If this contract is implemented as planned, it represents for Gilead Science Inc. and the recipient US private hospitals and clinics a colossal amount of money.
According to The Trump Administration’s HHS Secretary Alex Azar (June 29, 2020):
“To the extent possible, we want to ensure that any American patient who needs remdesivir can get it. [at $3120] The Trump Administration is doing everything in our power to learn more about life-saving therapeutics for COVID-19 and secure access to these options for the American people.”
Remdesivir versus Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)
Carefully timing: The Remdesivir study (50+ authors) in the New England Journal of Medicine (April 10, 2020) was followed by the fake Lancet HCQ report led by BWH-Harvard Dr. Mehra (May 22, 2020).
The unspoken truth was that the Lancet study (published on May 22) was intended to undermine the legitimacy of Hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to Covid-19, with a view to sustaining Dr. Fauci’s launch of the $1.6 billion Remdesivir drug by Gilead Sciences Inc. on June 29th.
What Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been “studied” and tested fifteen years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections. And that Hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of Covid-19 in several countries.
According to the Virology Journal (2005) “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread”. It was used in the SARS-1 outbreak in 2002. It had the endorsement of the CDC.
HCQ is not only effective, it is “inexpensive” when compared to Remdesivir, at an estimated “$3120 for a US Patient with private insurance”.
Below are excerpts of an interview of Harvard’s Professor Mehra (who undertook the May 22 Lancet study) with France Soir published immediately following the publication of the Lancet report (prior to its Retraction).
Dr. Mandeep Mehra: In our study, it is fairly obvious that the lack of benefit and the risk of toxicity observed for hydroxychloroquine are fairly reliable. [referring to the May 22 Lancet study]
France Soir: Do you have the data for Remdesivir?
MM: Yes, we have the data, but the number of patients is too small for us to be able to conclude in one way or another.
FS: As you know, in France, there is a pros and cons battle over hydroxychloroquine which has turned into a public health issue even involving the financial lobbying of pharmaceutical companies. Why not measure the effect of one against the other to put an end to all speculation? …
MM: In fact, there is no rational basis for testing Remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine. On the one hand, Remdesivir has shown that there is no risk of mortality and that there is a reduction in recovery time. On the other hand, for hydroxychloroquine it is the opposite: it has never been shown any advantage and most studies are small or inconclusive In addition, our study shows that there are harmful effects.
It would therefore be difficult and probably unethical to compare a drug with demonstrated harmfulness to a drug with at least a glimmer of hope.
FS: You said that there is no basis for testing or comparing Remdesivir with hydroxychloroquine, do you think you have done everything to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous?
MM: Exactly. …
All we are saying is that once you have been infected (5 to 7 days after) to the point of having to be hospitalized with a severe viral load, the use of hydroxychloroquine and its derivative is not effective.
The damage from the virus is already there and the situation is beyond repair. With this treatment [HCQ] it can generate more complications
FS Mandeep Mehra declared that he had no conflict of interest with the laboratories and that this study was financed from the endowment funds of the professor’s chair.
He participated in a conference sponsored by Gilead in early April 2020 as part of the Covid-19 debate.
France Soir, translated by the author, emphasis added, May 23, 2020)
In Annex, see the followup article by France Soir published after the scam surrounding the data base of Dr. Mehra’s Lancet report was revealed.
Concluding Remarks
Lies and Corruption to the nth Degree involving Dr. Anthony Fauci, “The Boston Connection” and Gilead Sciences Inc.
Harvard Medical School and the BWH bear responsibility for having hosted and financed the fake Lancet report on HCQ coordinated by Dr. Mandeep Mehra.
Is there conflict of interest? BWH was simultaneously involved in a study on Remdesivir in contract with Gilead Sciences, Inc.
While the Lancet report coordinated by Harvard’s Dr. Mehra was retracted, it nonetheless served the interests of Gilead Sciences Inc.
Two studies were used to justify the distribution and marketing of the Remdesivir drug produced by Gilead Sciences Inc. (June 29, 2020): A 1.6 billion dollar project:
The Gilead study published in the NEJM involving a “small” test trial of 53 patients, which cannot be taken seriously by the scientific community (and which was the object of several critiques by prominent physicians). The second study is that of the US (government) NIH (coordinated by Dr. Fauci) which appears to have the support of the scientific community but which is nonetheless tagged as “preliminary”.
It is important that an independent scientific and medical assessment be undertaken, respectively of the Gilead Sciences Inc New England Journal of Medicine (NEMJ) peer reviewed study (April 10, 2020) and the NIH governmental study (April 29, 2020).
We call upon medical doctors and the scientific community to take a firm stance.
ANNEX
Retraction by France Soir
The fraud concerning the Lancet Report was revealed in early June. France Soir in a subsequent article (June 5, 2020) points to the Boston Connection: La connexion de Boston, namely the insiduous relationship between Gilead Sciences Inc and Professor Mehra, Harvard Medical School as well as the two related Boston based hospitals involved.
(excerpts here, to access the complete text click here translation from French by France Soir, emphasis in the original article)
The often evasive answers produced by Dr Mandeep R. Mehra, a physician specializing in cardiovascular surgery and professor at Harvard Medical School, did not produce confidence, fueling doubt instead about the integrity of this retrospective study and its results. … However, the reported information that Dr. Mehra had attended a conference sponsored by Gilead – producer of remdesivir, a drug in direct competition with hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) – early in April called for further investigation It is important to keep in mind that Dr. Mandeep Mehra has a practice at the Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) in Boston. That study relied on the shared medical records of 8,910 patients in 169 hospitals around the world, also by Surgisphere. Funding for the study was “Supported by the William Harvey Chair in Cardiovascular Medicine at Brigham and Women’s Hospital. The development and maintenance of the collaborative surgical outcomes database was funded by Surgisphere.” The study published on May 22 sought to evaluate the efficacy or otherwise of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, alone or in combination with a macrolide antibiotic. … It is therefore noteworthy that within 3 weeks, 2 large observational retrospective studies on large populations – 96,032 and 8,910 patients – spread around the world were published in two different journals by Dr. Mehra, Dr. Desai and other co-authors using the database of Surgisphere, Dr. Desai’s company. These two practising physicians and surgeons seem to have an exceptional working capacity associated with the gift of ubiquity. The date of May 22 is also noteworthy because on the very same day, the date of the publication in The Lancet of the highly accusatory study against HCQ, another study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine concerning the results of a clinical trial of…remdesivir. In the conclusion of this randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, “remdesivir was superior to placebo in shortening the time to recovery in adults hospitalized with Covid-19 and evidence of lower respiratory tract infection.” Concretely: on the same day, May 22nd, one study demeaned HCQ in one journal while another claimed evidence of attenuation on some patients through remdesivir in another journal. It should be noted that one of the main co-authors, Elizabeth “Libby”* Hohmann, represents one of the participating hospitals, the Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston, also affiliated with Harvard Medical School, as is the Brigham and Women’s Hospital in Boston, where Dr. Mandeep Mehra practices. Coincidence, probably. Upon further investigation, we discovered that the first 3 major clinical trials on Gilead’s remdesivir were conducted by these two hospitals: “While COVID-19 continues to circle the globe with scientists following on its trail, Massachusetts General Hospital (MGH) and Brigham and Women’s Hospital (BWH) are leading the search for effective treatment. “Both hospitals are conducting clinical trials of remdesivir.” MGH has joined what the National Institute of Health (NIH) describe as the first clinical trial in the United States of an experimental treatment for COVID-19, sponsored by the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, part of NIH. MGH is currently the only hospital in New England to participate in this trial, according to a list of sites shared by the hospital. ” It’s a gigantic undertaking, with patients registered in some 50 sites across the country, getting better. “The NIH trial, which can be adapted to evaluate other treatments, aims to determine whether the drug relieves the respiratory problems and other symptoms of COVID-19, helping patients leave hospital earlier.** As a reminder, the NIAID/NIH is led by Antony Fauci, a staunch opponent of HCQ. Coincidence, probably. “At the Brigham, two additional trials initiated by Gilead, the drug developer, will determine whether it alleviates symptoms in patients with moderate to severe illness over five- and ten-days courses. These trials will also be randomized, but not placebo controlled, and will include 1,000 patients at sites worldwide. Those patients, noted Francisco Marty, MD, Brigham physician and study co-investigator, will likely be recruited at an unsettlingly rapid clip.” As a result, the first major clinical trials on remdesivir launched on March 20, whose results are highly important for Gilead, are being led by the MGH and BWH in Boston, precisely where Dr. Mehra, the main author of the May 22nd HCQ trial, is practising. Small world! Coincidence, again, probably. Dr. Marty at BWH expected to have results two months later. Indeed, in recent days, several US media outlets have reported Gilead’s announcements of positive results from the remdesivir clinical trials in Boston.: “Encouraging results from a new study published Wednesday on remdesivir for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.** Brigham and Dr. Francisco Marty worked on this study, and he says the results show that there is no major difference between treating a patient with a five-day versus a 10-day regimen. …”Gilead Announces Results of Phase 3 Remdesivir Trial in Patients with Moderate COVID-19 – One study shows that the 5-day treatment of remdesivir resulted in significantly greater clinical improvement compared to treatment with the standard of care alone – The data come on top of the body of evidence from previous studies demonstrating the benefits of remdesivir in hospitalized patients with IDVOC-19 “We now have three randomized controlled trials demonstrating that remdesivir improved clinical outcomes by several different measures,” Gilead plans to submit the complete data for publication in a peer-reviewed journal in the coming weeks. These results announced by Gilead a few days after the May 22 publication of the study in the Lancet demolishing HCQ, a study whose main author is Dr. Mehra, are probably again a coincidence. So many coincidences adds up to coincidences? Really ?
The original source of this article is Global Research.


lewrockwell--2020-07-08--Private Defense in the History of Genoa

Private Defense in the History of Genoa

The city of Genoa is often excluded from histories of medieval and Renaissance republicanism .
Similarly , Genoa is also absent from discussions on the rise of territorial states in northern Italy .
This exclusion can be explained in various ways .
To be sure , the Genoese have demonstrated a lack of interest in writing political philosophy and in intellectualizing their civic values .
But , more importantly , Genoa represents an unwelcome contradiction for all the comprehensive theses proposed by scholars to describe the “ progress ” from medieval chaos to modern state building and statecraft .
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not know how to tackle Genoa , they very often ignore it .
In this article , I will not give a complete account of the history of Genoa—its rise as a maritime community in response to Islamic raids , its sophisticated constitutional history , and its countless commercial colonies and business networks scattered across the Mediterranean world and beyond .
I do not have the space to accomplish all this .
Rather , my aim here is to focus on a particular aspect of Genoese history , namely , military organization and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a systematic theory of private defense , its practical feasibility and its moral superiority to various forms of warfare state and to the state monopoly of violence , because I would not be qualified to attempt such an endeavor , and anyway Hans-Hermann Hoppe , Bob Murphy , and Walter Block ( among others ) have already articulated such a theory .
Instead , I will simply offer some examples of historical episodes surrounding private wealth and private arms in Genoa that do not fit current historical narratives about the rise of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I include private wealth in this discussion , because , as we shall see , private wealth was strictly linked to the ability to raise private armies , build private fleets , and develop financial/diplomatic ties akin to insurance .
Admiral of the Ocean S ... Morison , Samuel Eliot Best Price : $ 20.55 Buy New $ 17.99 In a sense , what I wish to do is simply wonder .
Does the history of Genoa—and in this instance , specifically , its tradition of private defense—fit into modernist , teleological narratives @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , or even simply imperfectly sketch , an alternative to state-run monopolies of violence—an alternative that is more respectful of property rights and less conducive to wasteful aggression ?
This subject is relevant for Austro-libertarians , because if we wish to question the legitimacy of the modern state , we have to explore examples from history that show how all government “ services ” have at some point been offered in alternative , effective ways by private actors or privatized “ governments.
” The Italian Wars were a long and tragic series of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ across the Italian Peninsula .
They had a multiplicity of objectives , among which were the control of cities such as Milan and Naples but also the leadership of Christendom in the difficult fight against Ottoman Islam .
To make a long story short , the main contestants were France—a kingdom that since the end of the Hundred Years ’ War had become one of the most militarized on the entire continent—and Spain—whose Habsburg rulers held a transnational collection of crowns and titles including of the Holy Roman Empire .
This conflict between @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of medieval communes and local self-government in Italy , because small states could not survive in the brave new world of large standing and mercenary armies raised by foreign princes .
To survive , independent Italian states had to come to their senses and modernize , tax away , and build efficient bureaucracies .
This , in a nutshell , is the story we are told .
A triumph of Machiavellian determinism .
And yet it is interesting to consider what happened in the late 1530s , when the French king Francis I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( the traditional title for the head of government in Genoa ) .
The request was very straightforward : Francis I knew that Genoese funds were being used by his Habsburg rival , Charles V , to finance military campaigns , and because Genoese merchants were at that time trying to mend the relations between their city and France in order to continue to access the French markets , Francis demanded as a sign of goodwill that the doge order some public funds to be lent to his court as well , not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The reply that the French king received from Genoa shows the intellectual and ideological gap separating this Italian republic from its increasingly “ modern ” neighbors .
The doge and the Genoese government , baffled by the French request , explained how in Genoa the state owned almost nothing and its funds were very limited .
The doge went on to explain to the French court that yes , it was true that the Spanish monarch had received money from Genoa , but he had done so by dealing on the capital market @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , aristocratic families , and professional moneylenders .
If the French king needed funds , he was very welcome to do the same .
The Private Production ... Hoppe , Hans-Hermann Best Price : $ 5.99 Buy New $ 4.95 Was the doge bluffing ?
No .
He was not .
Since the fourteenth century , Genoa ’ s constitutional order had embodied a medieval conception of freedom that favored the dispersion of power and limited public expenditures .
And from the fifteenth century , the creation of the Bank of St. George @ @ @ @ @ @ @ centralization of power and state formation .
St. George was not merely a bank , but rather a spontaneous , crossclass organization of creditors who effectively privatized tax farming and took over the administration of the colonies in the Levant : very often the members of the assembly of St. George were the same businessmen who had invested in trade across the Mediterranean .
They were skeptical toward the idea of empowering a specific doge or the communal government with a standing army or a navy—yet they were ready to put together funds @ @ @ @ @ @ @ colonies and the rule of law .
As a result of these institutional changes ( which I can only mention here ) , sixteenth-century Genoa was still a medieval polity , with a series of overlapping jurisdictions , and a city of private family wealth and power—what George Gorse has aptly described as the “ antithesis of Venice.
” The exchange of missives about a loan to the French court had not been the first misunderstanding—to use a euphemism—between the French and the Genoese .
Genoa had started the Italian Wars on the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been sacked by Spanish troops in 1522 .
Coups and countercoups were too many to list and would be boring and pointless .
What is significant is that during the 1520s , as Genoese-French relations deteriorated , the Genoese and the Spanish Habsburg monarchy slowly , at times painfully , but progressively understood each other .
The Habsburgs had crushed the last ambitions of medieval liberty in Castile , but the rest of their empire ( including other parts of Spain such as Aragon ) was a loose patchwork of different political and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ had to be mindful of local autonomy and tactful in dealing with issues concerning military support and financial contributions .
The Habsburgs had to weave a network of different local elites , an international pool of families ready and willing to contribute funds , troops , and warships—for reasons as varied as prestige in their own communities , a shared religious faith , and personal friendship with the emperor .
This Habsburg system was comparatively flexible and , for the Genoese people , much more palatable than the arrogant French demands for military @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extraordinary taxation .
The progressive mutual understanding between Genoa and Habsburg Spain created the conditions for a change in alliances .
First as a consequence of the 1522 sacking and then in the aftermath of an anti-French aristocratic coup , Genoa switched sides , and by 1528 the Spanish-Genoese alliance ( which would last for more than a century ) had been born .
Genoa and the Genoese , ... Epstein , Steven A .
Best Price : $ 37.00 Buy New $ 47.46 This alliance was based on mutual interests and on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ toward Genoa ’ s independence and constitutional organization .
I want to stress once again that it was through a process of diplomatic trial and error that the Spaniards realized just how irascible the Genoese could be when a friend overstepped and attempted to treat them like a dependency or ( worse ) like a “ modern ” polity with public funds and public assets .
In 1524 , in the aftermath of the Spanish sack of Genoa and during a first attempt to coordinate Spanish and Genoese interests , the emperor Charles @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demand that the Genoese contribute to the impending imperial assault against the coast of southern France .
The result of such a demand ?
I will let you be the judges .
Here is my translation of part of the letter that the Spanish ambassador sent to Charles V : In other words , virtually all of the Genoese galleys were privately owned .
The few galleys that the doge eventually put to sea did not fight for the Spanish in Provence but remained near the Italian coast to patrol the Ligurian Sea @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the naval confrontation in Provence : but they were galleys of the Doria family , which had been hired by the French .
Just like the episode concerning loans suggests that Genoa remained a city of private wealth , so the episode that I have just described confirms that Genoa was late in the so-called development of a monopoly of violence : most arms remained in private hands .
This anomaly has been occasionally noted by historians .
Rodolfo Savelli has discussed the idea of late medieval and early modern Genoa as @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ unarmed republic ” ) .
And Thomas Kirk has dedicated part of his book on Genoa and the Sea to the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century debates on the creation of a public fleet .
An interesting fact is that , although historians usually assume that from the early modern period every polity that wished to survive had to have a centralized and militarized state , the “ unarmed ” Genoa survived the storm of the Italian Wars and with its private arms represented a pivotal part of the military coalition that defended Christendom @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
The Republic of Genoa : ... Charles River Editors Best Price : $ 10.81 Buy New $ 9.99 To be sure , private families owning military assets that are simultaneously economic assets for commerce and as a kind of capital good would not wish to risk such assets in senseless military adventures—or rather would be relatively less inclined to do so than state bureaucrats and heads of state who have confiscated such assets or built them using other people ’ s money , and who can externalize the cost of aggressive behavior @ @ @ @ @ @ @ amusing to see that within Genoa the “ modernist , ” statist , Machiavellian party was annoyed precisely by the resilience of the model of private defense that ( to them ) constricted Genoa ’ s imperialistic potential .
One of these Genoese dissidents was Uberto Foglietta , who in a 1559 book on the political situation in Genoa accused the Doria family of keeping its galleys instead of giving them as a gift to the republican government .
Foglietta ’ s warmongering attitude descended into utter absurdity when he claimed that the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and the rest of Tuscany if they had had a unified government and the will to wage war .
In the writings of Foglietta and other members of this party , often called the “ new nobility , ” we read of a contraposition between private interests and the public good .
Writers like Giovanni Recco used this contraposition to call for both the armament of a public fleet and higher taxes on private wealth .
These were mostly the frustrated voices of the losers of the long debate on a state @ @ @ @ @ @ @ was never financed and never built by the republic , and between the sixteenth and the seventeenth century the number of public galleys at the disposal of the doge remained very low , usually no more than four .
In the meantime , a much larger number of galleys—privately owned by the Doria , but also by the Lomellini , the Centurione , and other Genoese families—were hired out to Spain .
What I have suggested thus far with a few examples ( and obviously skimming over several complex issues ) is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and private self-defense .
This is not to say that Genoa had no taxes at all or to deny that at times the communal government had armed public fleets for a limited period .
But what matters is the trend , the institutional tradition , and the value system emerging from a study of Genoa .
The Republic of Venice ... Charles River Editors Best Price : $ 13.97 Buy New $ 12.99 This pattern continued even after the earthquake of the French invasion of Italy , after the Machiavellian revolution in political @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s neighbors embarked on what most historians see as the inevitable voyage toward progress and the modern state .
Even after fiscal pressure was slightly increased in the 1560s , Genoa remained a remnant of medieval genius , private wealth and arms , and limited government—with not only the local church but also the Bank of St. George guaranteeing a plurality of jurisdictions .
Yet there is one more thing to say , or one more aspect that should make us wonder .
The consensus among historians of Renaissance republicanism is that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , Italian polities could survive only by taking one of two available paths .
Either they became signorie—the form of government linked to a dynasty—or they turned into imperialistic republics that increased their territory at the expense of neighboring cities .
This is a change seen as rational and teleologically oriented toward the modern state .
For example , according to Fabrizio Ricciardelli : I shall here simply point out that Genoa does not fit into this account .
To make a long story short , Genoa remained both antiseigneurial and territorially small @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to transform the republic into a signoria—not even the Doria family , led by the great and longevous admiral Andrea , who effectively held the destiny of the city in his hands once he ousted the French in 1528 .
Similarly , no military campaign was launched to enlarge Genoa ’ s traditional territorial possessions , which were the narrow strip of land east and west of the city , the fortresses guarding strategic passes through the mountains , and the island of Corsica .
A large-scale military expansion was impossible , because @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state lacked both a standing army and a large public fleet .
As late as 1625 the Genoese government had at its disposal a very limited number of soldiers .
In that year , when the Duchy of Savoy invaded the Genoese territory , Genoa defended itself with recourse to a mix of strategies .
To be sure , extraordinary funds for the payment of mercenary troops were approved .
But more interestingly , in 1625 the defense of Genoa was effective also thanks to nonstate means : first , diplomatic pressure on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ reputation was on the line and whose finances partly depended on the private loans coming from Genoese moneylenders ; secondly , the troops privately organized and paid by wealthy families ( for instance , by the Genoese aristocrat Francesco Serra ) ; finally , the militias , which were groups of ablebodied males in each town and village of the Genoese territory with a duty to arm themselves and rally to the defense of their territory in case of invasion .
These militias were neither paid nor armed by the government , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ could not be employed for political aims in times of peace nor for military adventures beyond the borders of the republic .
It was only after the war of 1625 that the medieval conception of private defense in Genoa started to give way to what resembles state formation , first in 1626 , when a new alliance with Spain laid out Genoa ’ s duty to pay for an army of more than fifteen thousand men , and then in the following years , with the introduction of new or higher taxes to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ I have briefly illustrated the peculiar resilience of a republic with a weak , premodern state , and the fascinating fact that the availability of private arms and private wealth rendered a conquest of this republic by a foreign power always difficult—its pacification and annexation almost a mirage .
This remained true even after a sack , even after putting a new , friendly doge in charge of the government .
Because , after all , what could a doge in Genoa really do ?
For this history , see Steven Epstein , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Chapel Hill , NC : University of North Carolina Press , 1996 ) ; and Matteo Salonia , Genoa ’ s Freedom : Entrepreneurship , Republicanism , and the Spanish Atlantic ( Lanham , MD , and London : Lexington Books , 2017 ) .
On the sophisticated practice of arbitration by a foreign podestà ( developed by Genoese citizens during the High Middle Ages ) , see Avner Greif , “ Self-Enforcing Political System and Economic Growth : Late Medieval Genoa ” ( November 1997 ) , https : //dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.49207 .
Hans-Hermann @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Defense : Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production ( Auburn , AL : Mises Institute , 2003 ) .
George L. Gorse , “ A Question of Sovereignty : France and Genoa , 1494–1528 , ” in Christine Shaw , ed.
, Italy and the European Powers ( Leiden : Brill , 2006 ) , 190 .
Fabrizio Ricciardelli , The Myth of Republicanism in Renaissance Italy ( Turnhout : Brepols , 2015 ) , 28 .
Note : The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of @ @ @ @

The city of Genoa is often excluded from histories of medieval and Renaissance republicanism. Similarly, Genoa is also absent from discussions on the rise of territorial states in northern Italy. This exclusion can be explained in various ways. To be sure, the Genoese have demonstrated a lack of interest in writing political philosophy and in intellectualizing their civic values. But, more importantly, Genoa represents an unwelcome contradiction for all the comprehensive theses proposed by scholars to describe the “progress” from medieval chaos to modern state building and statecraft. In other words, because statist historians do not know how to tackle Genoa, they very often ignore it. In this article, I will not give a complete account of the history of Genoa—its rise as a maritime community in response to Islamic raids, its sophisticated constitutional history, and its countless commercial colonies and business networks scattered across the Mediterranean world and beyond. I do not have the space to accomplish all this.
Rather, my aim here is to focus on a particular aspect of Genoese history, namely, military organization and defense. I shall not flesh out a systematic theory of private defense, its practical feasibility and its moral superiority to various forms of warfare state and to the state monopoly of violence, because I would not be qualified to attempt such an endeavor, and anyway Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Bob Murphy, and Walter Block (among others) have already articulated such a theory. Instead, I will simply offer some examples of historical episodes surrounding private wealth and private arms in Genoa that do not fit current historical narratives about the rise of the modern, militarized and territorial state. I include private wealth in this discussion, because, as we shall see, private wealth was strictly linked to the ability to raise private armies, build private fleets, and develop financial/diplomatic ties akin to insurance. Admiral of the Ocean S... Morison, Samuel Eliot Best Price: $20.55 Buy New $17.99 (as of 03:50 UTC - Details)
In a sense, what I wish to do is simply wonder. Does the history of Genoa—and in this instance, specifically, its tradition of private defense—fit into modernist, teleological narratives about state formation? Does it exemplify, or even simply imperfectly sketch, an alternative to state-run monopolies of violence—an alternative that is more respectful of property rights and less conducive to wasteful aggression? This subject is relevant for Austro-libertarians, because if we wish to question the legitimacy of the modern state, we have to explore examples from history that show how all government “services” have at some point been offered in alternative, effective ways by private actors or privatized “governments.”
Private Wealth
The Italian Wars were a long and tragic series of conflicts starting in 1494 and fought mainly across the Italian Peninsula. They had a multiplicity of objectives, among which were the control of cities such as Milan and Naples but also the leadership of Christendom in the difficult fight against Ottoman Islam. To make a long story short, the main contestants were France—a kingdom that since the end of the Hundred Years’ War had become one of the most militarized on the entire continent—and Spain—whose Habsburg rulers held a transnational collection of crowns and titles including of the Holy Roman Empire. This conflict between regional powers kickstarted or hastened the demise of medieval communes and local self-government in Italy, because small states could not survive in the brave new world of large standing and mercenary armies raised by foreign princes. To survive, independent Italian states had to come to their senses and modernize, tax away, and build efficient bureaucracies. This, in a nutshell, is the story we are told. A triumph of Machiavellian determinism.
And yet it is interesting to consider what happened in the late 1530s, when the French king Francis I sent a request to the Genoese doge (the traditional title for the head of government in Genoa). The request was very straightforward: Francis I knew that Genoese funds were being used by his Habsburg rival, Charles V, to finance military campaigns, and because Genoese merchants were at that time trying to mend the relations between their city and France in order to continue to access the French markets, Francis demanded as a sign of goodwill that the doge order some public funds to be lent to his court as well, not just to the Habsburg Spanish one. The reply that the French king received from Genoa shows the intellectual and ideological gap separating this Italian republic from its increasingly “modern” neighbors. The doge and the Genoese government, baffled by the French request, explained how in Genoa the state owned almost nothing and its funds were very limited. The doge went on to explain to the French court that yes, it was true that the Spanish monarch had received money from Genoa, but he had done so by dealing on the capital market and borrowing money from private Genoese citizens, aristocratic families, and professional moneylenders. If the French king needed funds, he was very welcome to do the same. The Private Production... Hoppe, Hans-Hermann Best Price: $5.99 Buy New $4.95 (as of 03:50 UTC - Details)
Was the doge bluffing? No. He was not. Since the fourteenth century, Genoa’s constitutional order had embodied a medieval conception of freedom that favored the dispersion of power and limited public expenditures. And from the fifteenth century, the creation of the Bank of St. George had represented yet another obstacle to the centralization of power and state formation. St. George was not merely a bank, but rather a spontaneous, crossclass organization of creditors who effectively privatized tax farming and took over the administration of the colonies in the Levant: very often the members of the assembly of St. George were the same businessmen who had invested in trade across the Mediterranean. They were skeptical toward the idea of empowering a specific doge or the communal government with a standing army or a navy—yet they were ready to put together funds necessary to ensure the survival of their colonies and the rule of law. As a result of these institutional changes (which I can only mention here), sixteenth-century Genoa was still a medieval polity, with a series of overlapping jurisdictions, and a city of private family wealth and power—what George Gorse has aptly described as the “antithesis of Venice.”
Private Arms
The exchange of missives about a loan to the French court had not been the first misunderstanding—to use a euphemism—between the French and the Genoese. Genoa had started the Italian Wars on the French side, and it had even been sacked by Spanish troops in 1522. Coups and countercoups were too many to list and would be boring and pointless. What is significant is that during the 1520s, as Genoese-French relations deteriorated, the Genoese and the Spanish Habsburg monarchy slowly, at times painfully, but progressively understood each other. The Habsburgs had crushed the last ambitions of medieval liberty in Castile, but the rest of their empire (including other parts of Spain such as Aragon) was a loose patchwork of different political and institutional traditions, a composite monarchy that had to be mindful of local autonomy and tactful in dealing with issues concerning military support and financial contributions. The Habsburgs had to weave a network of different local elites, an international pool of families ready and willing to contribute funds, troops, and warships—for reasons as varied as prestige in their own communities, a shared religious faith, and personal friendship with the emperor.
This Habsburg system was comparatively flexible and, for the Genoese people, much more palatable than the arrogant French demands for military “contributions”—that is, for extraordinary taxation. The progressive mutual understanding between Genoa and Habsburg Spain created the conditions for a change in alliances. First as a consequence of the 1522 sacking and then in the aftermath of an anti-French aristocratic coup, Genoa switched sides, and by 1528 the Spanish-Genoese alliance (which would last for more than a century) had been born. Genoa and the Genoese,... Epstein, Steven A. Best Price: $37.00 Buy New $47.46 (as of 03:50 UTC - Details)
This alliance was based on mutual interests and on the respect that the Spanish emperor showed toward Genoa’s independence and constitutional organization. I want to stress once again that it was through a process of diplomatic trial and error that the Spaniards realized just how irascible the Genoese could be when a friend overstepped and attempted to treat them like a dependency or (worse) like a “modern” polity with public funds and public assets. In 1524, in the aftermath of the Spanish sack of Genoa and during a first attempt to coordinate Spanish and Genoese interests, the emperor Charles V ordered his ambassador in Genoa to demand that the Genoese contribute to the impending imperial assault against the coast of southern France. The result of such a demand? I will let you be the judges. Here is my translation of part of the letter that the Spanish ambassador sent to Charles V:
I have put pressure on the doge of Genoa to get him and the people of this republic to arm as many ships as possible. However, he says that in case it will be necessary for the expedition to Provence he will arm as many ships as possible, but the Genoese will not do it simply to accompany the galleys of your Majesty to assault the coast of Provence, because this would have damaging consequences for this community.
In other words, virtually all of the Genoese galleys were privately owned. The few galleys that the doge eventually put to sea did not fight for the Spanish in Provence but remained near the Italian coast to patrol the Ligurian Sea. Some Genoese galleys did take part in the naval confrontation in Provence: but they were galleys of the Doria family, which had been hired by the French.
Just like the episode concerning loans suggests that Genoa remained a city of private wealth, so the episode that I have just described confirms that Genoa was late in the so-called development of a monopoly of violence: most arms remained in private hands. This anomaly has been occasionally noted by historians. Rodolfo Savelli has discussed the idea of late medieval and early modern Genoa as a “repubblica disarmata” (an “unarmed republic”). And Thomas Kirk has dedicated part of his book on Genoa and the Sea to the sixteenth- and seventeenth-century debates on the creation of a public fleet.
An interesting fact is that, although historians usually assume that from the early modern period every polity that wished to survive had to have a centralized and militarized state, the “unarmed” Genoa survived the storm of the Italian Wars and with its private arms represented a pivotal part of the military coalition that defended Christendom from the Ottoman threat in the Mediterranean. The Republic of Genoa:... Charles River Editors Best Price: $10.81 Buy New $9.99 (as of 03:50 UTC - Details)
To be sure, private families owning military assets that are simultaneously economic assets for commerce and as a kind of capital good would not wish to risk such assets in senseless military adventures—or rather would be relatively less inclined to do so than state bureaucrats and heads of state who have confiscated such assets or built them using other people’s money, and who can externalize the cost of aggressive behavior onto others. Indeed, it is amusing to see that within Genoa the “modernist,” statist, Machiavellian party was annoyed precisely by the resilience of the model of private defense that (to them) constricted Genoa’s imperialistic potential.
One of these Genoese dissidents was Uberto Foglietta, who in a 1559 book on the political situation in Genoa accused the Doria family of keeping its galleys instead of giving them as a gift to the republican government. Foglietta’s warmongering attitude descended into utter absurdity when he claimed that the Genoese could have conquered Lombardy, Pisa, and the rest of Tuscany if they had had a unified government and the will to wage war. In the writings of Foglietta and other members of this party, often called the “new nobility,” we read of a contraposition between private interests and the public good. Writers like Giovanni Recco used this contraposition to call for both the armament of a public fleet and higher taxes on private wealth.
These were mostly the frustrated voices of the losers of the long debate on a state fleet. A large fleet of galleys was never financed and never built by the republic, and between the sixteenth and the seventeenth century the number of public galleys at the disposal of the doge remained very low, usually no more than four. In the meantime, a much larger number of galleys—privately owned by the Doria, but also by the Lomellini, the Centurione, and other Genoese families—were hired out to Spain.
A Remnant
What I have suggested thus far with a few examples (and obviously skimming over several complex issues) is that medieval Genoa was characterized by private wealth and private self-defense. This is not to say that Genoa had no taxes at all or to deny that at times the communal government had armed public fleets for a limited period. But what matters is the trend, the institutional tradition, and the value system emerging from a study of Genoa. The Republic of Venice... Charles River Editors Best Price: $13.97 Buy New $12.99 (as of 03:50 UTC - Details)
This pattern continued even after the earthquake of the French invasion of Italy, after the Machiavellian revolution in political theory, and after most of Genoa’s neighbors embarked on what most historians see as the inevitable voyage toward progress and the modern state. Even after fiscal pressure was slightly increased in the 1560s, Genoa remained a remnant of medieval genius, private wealth and arms, and limited government—with not only the local church but also the Bank of St. George guaranteeing a plurality of jurisdictions.
Yet there is one more thing to say, or one more aspect that should make us wonder. The consensus among historians of Renaissance republicanism is that, between the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries, Italian polities could survive only by taking one of two available paths. Either they became signorie—the form of government linked to a dynasty—or they turned into imperialistic republics that increased their territory at the expense of neighboring cities. This is a change seen as rational and teleologically oriented toward the modern state. For example, according to Fabrizio Ricciardelli:
Contrary to what happened in Spain, France, and England, where the territorial unification was achieved on a national scale, both the signorie that asserted themselves, thereby squashing every form of republicanism, and the Italian communes that did not give in to the will of authoritative signorie gave life to regional states, each of which sought to expand itself.
I shall here simply point out that Genoa does not fit into this account. To make a long story short, Genoa remained both antiseigneurial and territorially small. No noble family was ever able to transform the republic into a signoria—not even the Doria family, led by the great and longevous admiral Andrea, who effectively held the destiny of the city in his hands once he ousted the French in 1528. Similarly, no military campaign was launched to enlarge Genoa’s traditional territorial possessions, which were the narrow strip of land east and west of the city, the fortresses guarding strategic passes through the mountains, and the island of Corsica. A large-scale military expansion was impossible, because as we have seen, the Genoese state lacked both a standing army and a large public fleet.
As late as 1625 the Genoese government had at its disposal a very limited number of soldiers. In that year, when the Duchy of Savoy invaded the Genoese territory, Genoa defended itself with recourse to a mix of strategies. To be sure, extraordinary funds for the payment of mercenary troops were approved. But more interestingly, in 1625 the defense of Genoa was effective also thanks to nonstate means: first, diplomatic pressure on its traditional ally, Spain, whose reputation was on the line and whose finances partly depended on the private loans coming from Genoese moneylenders; secondly, the troops privately organized and paid by wealthy families (for instance, by the Genoese aristocrat Francesco Serra); finally, the militias, which were groups of ablebodied males in each town and village of the Genoese territory with a duty to arm themselves and rally to the defense of their territory in case of invasion. These militias were neither paid nor armed by the government, but represented a traditional form of self-defense—and therefore could not be employed for political aims in times of peace nor for military adventures beyond the borders of the republic. It was only after the war of 1625 that the medieval conception of private defense in Genoa started to give way to what resembles state formation, first in 1626, when a new alliance with Spain laid out Genoa’s duty to pay for an army of more than fifteen thousand men, and then in the following years, with the introduction of new or higher taxes to cover military expenditures.
Conclusion
In conclusion, I have briefly illustrated the peculiar resilience of a republic with a weak, premodern state, and the fascinating fact that the availability of private arms and private wealth rendered a conquest of this republic by a foreign power always difficult—its pacification and annexation almost a mirage. This remained true even after a sack, even after putting a new, friendly doge in charge of the government. Because, after all, what could a doge in Genoa really do?
—
For this history, see Steven Epstein, Genoa and the Genoese, 958–1528 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1996); and Matteo Salonia, Genoa’s Freedom: Entrepreneurship, Republicanism, and the Spanish Atlantic (Lanham, MD, and London: Lexington Books, 2017). On the sophisticated practice of arbitration by a foreign podestà (developed by Genoese citizens during the High Middle Ages), see Avner Greif, “Self-Enforcing Political System and Economic Growth: Late Medieval Genoa” (November 1997), https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.49207.
Hans-Hermann Hoppe, ed., The Myth of National Defense: Essays on the Theory and History of Security Production (Auburn, AL: Mises Institute, 2003).
George L. Gorse, “A Question of Sovereignty: France and Genoa, 1494–1528,” in Christine Shaw, ed., Italy and the European Powers (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 190.
Lope de Soria to Charles V, April 30, 1524, Colección Salazar y Castro, ms. 4301, A-31, f. 223, Real Academia de la Historia, Madrid.
Rodolfo Savelli, Politiche del diritto e istituzioni a Genova tra medioevo ed età moderna (Genoa, 2017), 356–77.
Thomas Kirk, Genoa and the Sea (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2005).
Fabrizio Ricciardelli, The Myth of Republicanism in Renaissance Italy (Turnhout: Brepols, 2015), 28.
Carlo Bruzzo, Note sulla guerra del 1625 (Genoa, 1938).
Filippo Casoni, Annali della Repubblica di Genova, vol. 5 (Genoa, 1800), 109–10.
Note: The views expressed on Mises.org are not necessarily those of the Mises Institute.