[Disclaimer: I am not medically qualified. If you feel unwell you should seek professional medical advice. Do not take medication without medical advice.]
Hydroxychloroquine trials were temporarily suspended by the World Health Organisation (WHO). In Part 1 we looked at the WHO’s backers and considered if their vested interests had impacted the WHO’s decision to suspend hydroxychloroquine trials. We also looked at the implausible Surgisphere study the WHO based that decision upon.
This post builds upon the discussion in Part 1. If you haven’t done so, I recommend you read that article first.
Now we will consider what an effective preventative treatment for COVID 19 would mean for those who hope to distribute a global vaccine. We will explore the evidence which shows both how and why these interests have converged to make sure the potential threat of hydroxychloroquine is quashed. We ask what any of this has to do with saving lives.
The Hydroxychloroquine War Begins
Chinese doctors, struggling to treat their COVID 19 patients, immediately acted and started treating with chloroquine. The Chinese medics expanded their clinical trials with promising initial results. In order to spread the word, Chinese researchers published an English language letter, explaining their findings, including the links to their research data.
Scientists and doctors around the world took note. In France, Professor Didier Raoult, one of the worlds most published microbiologists, and also a qualified M.D, publicly announced his own trials. He stated that he thought it would be foolish not to trial chloroquine more widely.
Scientists at Stanford University soon followed suit, reporting apparent treatment success in both China and South Korea, who had formally added chloroquine to their recommended treatment schedule. The Stanford team also advocated more thorough clinical trials of chloroquine.
Professor Raoult was sufficiently encouraged by his first small scale study to step up treatment with hydroxychloroquine in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin. Following up with a second and then third clinical trial of 1061 COVID 19 patients. Raoult is among many practising doctors, around the world, who have apparently treated COVID 19 patients successfully with hydroxychloroquine.
Doctors in New York found that hydroxychloroquine treatment increased survival rates; Brazillian doctors discovered that treating patients with hydroxychloroquine reduced their chances of requiring hospital treatment by nearly 300%, with no notable adverse events; Chinese doctors reduced fever duration and improved the clinical outcomes for patients treated with chloroquine; doctors in Spain used hydroxychloroquine to increase patient survival rates; researchers in the U.S. found that the addition of zinc further improved outcomes; contrary to Surgisphere’s dodgy claims, doctors treating Chinese patients with hydroxychloroquine found no increase in adverse events for their patients and a systemic review of the available evidence by Indian researchers concluded:
“There is theoretical, experimental, preclinical and clinical evidence of the effectiveness of chloroquine in patients affected with COVID-19. There is adequate evidence of drug safety from the long-time clinical use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in other indications.”
It is important to understand what the claims for hydroxychloroquine are. Few doctors, who advocate it, highlight its potential to treat the most acutely ill COVID 19 patients who need intubation (ventilation.) There is some evidence it may help the critically ill, but it is more broadly suggested as a preventative treatment to stop patients becoming seriously ill in the first place. Especially the most vulnerable.
COVID 19 risk increases with age and comorbidities. The risk to people of working age is very low and virtually non existent for all below 40 years old. In the UK, up to May 8th, 88.6% of the deceased were over 65 with more than 46% of all deaths in the over 85 age group.
Of these more than 90% had at least one other serious condition (comorbidity). In terms of demographic age distribution, deaths from COVID 19 are practically indistinguishable from quite normal mortality.
For the oldest patients the mortality risk, calculated as the Case Fatality Rate (CFR), is reported to rise to more than 14%. Raoult’s largest field study showed that the CFR for older patients, treated with hydroxychloroquine, dropped to 0.5%.
Other researchers have demonstrated it’s apparent efficacy as a prophylaxis. Despite the WHO’s bizarre trial suspension, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has stated that it will continue to advocate its use for front line health workers as no notable adverse reactions were evident. Dr Samiran Panda, director of the ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute, reported the results of Indian trials into it use as a prophylaxis for health professionals:
“The main conclusion that can be drawn after analysing the data is that hydroxychloroquine has beneficial effects in infection risk reduction from fourth dose onwards…….[hydoxychloroquine] will help cut the risk of infection by 80% in healthcare workers who are not already sick.”
If hydroxychloroquine was commonly used by the public, the clinical and scientific evidence overwhelmingly suggests the COVID 19 risks could be further reduced for the general population. Towards the point of almost total insignificance.
Extremely cheap and widely available (in some countries), should you develop symptoms, you would simply get your medication from a local pharmacy, take yourself off to your bed and probably recover over a few days, before returning to work. Much as you would with the flu. The lockdown would be unnecessary, health services would be more than able to cope with the reduced numbers requiring treatment, and there would be no need for a universal vaccine.
A Tale of Two Interest Groups
When the WHO declared a global pandemic, chloroquine, and the modern form hydroxychloroquine, were perhaps the most obvious candidates for investigative clinical trials. It’s possible antiviral properties against SARS-CoV infections had been noted since at least 2005. These indications were from laboratory results in cell cultures (in vitro) and the priority was for more extensive clinical trials.
However, rather than explore its potential, chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine advocates have had to battle governments and global health institutions every inch of the way, even to get it into trials. Now the WHO have used an obviously suspect study to kick it out within days of trials commencing. Subsequent reinstatement doesn’t really inspire much confidence.
When the world is supposedly presented with a virus which causes a potentially fatal disease, for which there is no known treatment, if your only claimed wish is to “save peoples’ lives,” this resistance makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The lunacy of this position was summed up by Professor Harvey Risch, MD, from Yale University. Arguing that hydroxychloroquine in combination with azithromycin (HCQ+AZ) should immediately be used as an early therapy fro COVID 19 patients he wrote:
“Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media…..Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy. Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”
Surgisphere’s risible study didn’t even vaguely reflect the very well known risk profile of HCQ+AZ. For the WHO to use it as a reason to halt HCQ+AZ trials smacks of protecting the interests of their benefactors. It appears to have nothing to do with saving peoples’ lives. However, Surgisphere’s disgrace is far from the only study to have made dubious claims about the HCQ.
U.S. researchers concluded that there were no significant benefits to HCQ treatment. Their conclusion did not match the data in their own study.
They gave HCQ+AZ only to the sickest patients with multiple comorbidities. The group who you would expect to have the highest mortality. The WHO’s Solidarity trials are doing the same.
When they found that there was no difference in mortality between the sickest cohort (given HCQ+AZ) and those with lower risk, who didn’t receive it, they concluded that there was no advantage to treatment with HCQ+AZ. Directly contradicting the evidence in their own paper.
Of the fourteen researchers, the only declared conflict of interest was from Dr Dufort who was married to a Gilead Sciences grant recipient. Dr Dufort was one of the two researchers who obtained the funding to finance the study. The source of that funding was not declared.
A similar pattern was noted in a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine. Associated Press reported this Paper as showing no benefit from HCQ+AZ. Yet, once again, the conclusion did not match the data reported in the study.
The patients given HCQ+AZ were the most acutely ill. A marker for this is the arterial oxygen partial pressure, or P/F ratio. A normal value is 500. The HCQ group had an average PF of 223 compared to control groups average of 360.
Nearly 50% of the HCQ group had hypertension compared to less than 7% in the non-HCQ group and 22% of the non HCQ group also received AZ. You could be forgiven for suspecting this was another attempt to deliberately skew the research.
The study called a bad outcome either death or intubation, drawing no clear distinction between the two. Perhaps the reason for this was that 60% of the intubated HCQ patients died whereas nearly 90% of the non HCQ patients died. Despite the non HCQ control group being considerably healthier at the start of the trial than the HCQ group.
Of the 12 researchers 4 had declared financial conflicts of interest with various foundations and pharmaceutical corporations. The study was funded by the National Institute of Health who have received numerous multi million dollar grants from the BMGF.
Broadly the evidence for HCQ can be said to have come predominantly from doctors undertaking field studies, while trying to treat their patients, and academics with few notable financial conflicts of interest. The evidence against has come largely from research scientists with close ties to pharmaceutical corporations and COVID 19 vaccine funding foundations.
The Vaccine Fallacy
The WHO’s Solidarity Trials were launched on March 18th by the Director General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus. From 2009 to 2011 he was the director of the Global Fund to fight HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, which was co-founded and is funded by the BMGF. In keeping with the Global Fund Quality Assurance Policy, chloroquine is listed as one of its recommended medications. He is also a former board member of the BMGF funded GAVI vaccine alliance.
At the Solidarity Trials launch the WHO stated that 400 hospitals in 35 countries had recruited 3500 patient. The control group were those following “local standard of care” and the drugs to be trialled were remdesivir, ritonavir/lopinavir, lopinavir/ritonavir with interferon beta 1a and hydroxychloroquine.
Remdisivir is an antiviral patented by Gilead Sciences which had shown early in vitro promise in China. Ritinavir/lopinavir (commonly branded Kaletra), primarily an HIV antiviral treatment, is patented by AbbVie. They reportedly wavered their patent rights for COVID 19 treatment and the Solidarity Trials. Kaletra, in combination with interferon beta-1a, often deemed to enhance its effects, is patented under various brand names by numerous pharmaceutical corporations. Hydroxychloroquine is the only off patent drug in the trials.
At the same time the WHO launched its Solidarity Trial for potential vaccines. For a vaccine to be considered effective by the WHO it must meet their Target Product Profiles (TPP) for COVID-19 vaccines.
The WHO would prefer that the vaccine prevent infection with SARS-CoV-2 but it doesn’t have to. As long as it reduces the worst effects of COVID 19 that would be deemed proof of efficacy under the WHO’s TPP.
Nor does it need to be 100% effective, 70% is fine, based upon entire population monitoring. Transient or mild adverse events (adverse reaction to vaccination) are also OK as long as they are not judged by the WHO to be serious.
It is notable that the WHO oversee vaccine injury compensation programmes (VICP) operated by various nations around the world. They indemnify manufactures against all liability. They WHO system is designed to avoid litigation. All claimants must agree to pursue a “no fault” claim as a prerequisite to using the VICP’s.
Despite billions paid out in compensation over the years, proving “serious” vaccine injury is incredibly difficult. Affected individuals and families have to somehow defeat the pharmaceutical corporation’s very expensive legal teams, and their equally well paid expert witnesses, in order to prove their case.
The WHO’s TPP means that a global COVID 19 vaccine would be considered effective if it protects 70% of the people on Earth from the worst effects of the disease. At the time of writing, COVID 19 is said to have impacted less than 0.08% of the global population, allegedly killing less than 0.005%.
Given the WHO’s TPP criteria, an inert saline solution should do the job. No wonder vaccine developers are so confident of breaking new “scientific” ground.
The WHO doesn’t say how many people suffering adverse reaction to its successful vaccine it would consider unacceptable. However, if everyone on Earth is vaccinated and just 0.2% suffer an adverse reaction, the vaccine would be more than twice as damaging as COVID 19.
The vaccine will be considered a success if it achieves exactly the same outcome as any other effective preventative treatment. Something which Pascal Soriot (CEO of Astrazeneca) is undoubtedly aware of.
Unlike an effective preventative treatment, only taken if you test positive or develop symptoms of COVID 19, the WHO’s plan is to give their approved vaccine to 7.7 billion people. Whether they need it or not.
A vaccine which merely treats COVID 19 symptoms will not inhibit any potential spread of SARS-CoV-2. Yet the WHO would consider that a “successful outcome.” As would Bill Gates who wrote:
“Efficacy measures how well the vaccine protects you from getting sick…….It’ll take months—or even years—to create 7 billion doses (or possibly 14 billion, if it’s a multi-dose vaccine), and we should start distributing them as soon as the first batch is ready to go.”
Johnson & Johnson, one of the pharmaceutical corporations working to develop a vaccine, have stated that they would be willing to supply 1 billion doses of their anticipated COVID 19 vaccine at cost. They estimate a unit cost of $10.
Assuming pharmaceutical corporation aren’t in the least bit concerned about ever making any profit, it seems vaccinating 7 billion people will cost about $70 billion annually. Bill Gates suggested multi dose vaccines will presumably cost in the region $140 billion annually.
Of course, this is a bare minimum. Whether investor groups, who hold trillions of dollars of pharmaceutical stocks, will remain perfectly content to sell a global vaccine at cost seems questionable. The likelihood would appear to range from probably not to no chance.
The WHO’s TPP threatens to deliver a global SARS-CoV-2 vaccine which delivers absolutely no observable benefit at all, costing the tax payer billions. Year in, year out.
While all deaths are tragedies, the BMGF want to vaccinate everyone on the planet to protect them from a disease that clearly presents no mortality risk at all to at least 99.99% of the global population. This is an absurd vaccine fallacy.
Stop Hydroxychloroquine At All Costs
Governments around the world, guided by the WHO, have seemingly done everything they can to make sure meaningful trials of hydroxychloroquine don’t proceed. We will focus on the UK and France but others, including the U.S. and Germany have also abandoned hydroxychloroquine trials in response to the WHO’s suspension. The WHO are the world’s leading public health authority after all. Hopefully, they will now reinstate them.
Without large scale WHO approved clinical trials, which usually require some level of government support, the prospects of hydroxychloroquine being offered by public health services as a preventative treatment seem slim. Yet the vast bulk of the available scientific evidence, including data from some relatively large clinical trials, indicate that it is an effective prophylaxis.
Perhaps other drugs, such as remdesivir, are more useful. However, it could be that hydroxychloroquine is by far the most effective drug to prevent the worst symptoms of COVID 19 for people who contract SARS-CoV-2.
It is clear that the WHO have little to no interest in finding out. Vaccines, which don’t exist yet, appear to be earmarked for that role. Prophylactic hydroxychloroquine trials are off the cards it seems. Saving lives be damned.
From mid February to mid March 2020 Chinese research had already highlighted the possible COVID 19 treatment potential of two drugs in particular, chloroquine and remdesivir. This was backed up by research from Japan and elsewhere. Doctors in South Korea and China were reporting promising initial treatment outcomes. If saving life was the aim then more extensive patient trials were the priority.
As noted by the Indian researchers, hydroxychloroquine was of particular interest for it’s apparent prophylaxis properties against SARS-CoV-2. U.S. researchers suggested it for use among front line health care workers exposed to the highest viral loads. They noted:
“Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are able to inhibit replication at early stages of viral infection…..In contrast, no similar effect on early phases of coronavirus infection has been reported for other drugs proposed for SARS-CoV-2 treatment……(remdesivir or ribavirin).”
Initial chloroquine clinical trial results came from China on February 19th. The UK State banned both the exporting and mass storage of chloroquine phosphate on February 26th, and hydroxychloroquine in March 14th.
Halting the parallel export of lopinavir/ritonavir at the same time, the UK State were aware of these potential COVID 19 treatments. They ordered more than £2M of hydroxychloroquine shortly before the WHO suspension.
The UK, like and the U.S, are not partaking in the WHO’s Solidarity trials. Instead the UK State established their Recovery Trials and separate COPCOV and PRINCIPLE trials.
The Recovery trial is researching the possible effectiveness of a range of drugs, including hydroxychloroquine. The drugs will be offered to participating patients who have been admitted to hospital.
The Recovery Trial is funded by the BMGF, GlaxoSmithKlines’s Welcome Trust and Oxford University among others. It is another trial that will not investigate the use of hydroxychloroquine as a prophylaxis. Though it appears Oxford University are running vaccine trials, in partnership with Astrazeneca, to develop a prophylactic vaccine.
As soon as the WHO suspended their hydroxychloroquine trials, the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) immediately pressured the Nuffield Department of Population Health to halt their Recovery Trial of hydroxychloroquine. In a letter to Recovery participants, co-signed by Professors Peter Horby and Martin Landray, they rejected the call to close the trial. They stated:
“The Data Monitoring Committee saw no cogent reason to suspend recruitment for safety reasons and recommended the trial continue recruitment without interruption.”
Perhaps some research scientists are less impressed with the Surgisphere study than the WHO. It seems Prof. Horby was alluding to it when he said:
“Since Recovery (trial) patients are randomised, our data are much less vulnerable to the biases that plague studies that use routine health care data.”
On this occasion the MHRA agreed to allow the Recovery trials of hydroxychloroquine to proceed. They did not allow the COPCOV and PRINCIPLE trials to continue.
The COPCOV trial would have assessed hydroxychloroquine prophylactic efficacy in protecting healthcare workers against contracting COVID 19. Up to 40,000 workers in the Asia, Africa and Europe were to be monitored for SARS-CoV-2 and any subsequent COVID 19. The study was jointly run by Oxford University and the Mahidol Oxford Tropical Medicine Research Unit (MORU) in Thailand.
MORU apparently agreed to the MHRA suspension without hesitation. MORU are funded by the BMGF and GSK’s foundation trust (Welcome). They are the founding members of the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI) who are running COVID 19 vaccine trials having received a grant from the COVID 19 Solidarity Response Fund.
The PRINCIPLE trial was perhaps the most relevant to the apparent prophylactic capacity of hydroxychloroquine. Vulnerable over 50 and people over 65 were to be offered hydroxychloroquine in a large cohort study of patients in primary care (GP practices and community care settings). As they represent approximately 99% of those at risk of dying from COVID 19, finding an appropriate preventative treatment for this group couldn’t be more important.
The WHO suspended hydroxychloroquine Solidarity Trials on the 25th May. The UK’s medicines regulatory authority followed suit and suspended UK trials on the 26th May. Like the WHO, the MHRA either didn’t exercise any due diligence or don’t care about saving lives. We can only hope they too will now reinstate the COPCOV and PRINCIPLE trials. Although trials don’t appear to be that important to the MHRA.
The same day, 26th March, despite there being no UK completed trials of Gilead Science’s remdesivir at all, the MHRA approved it for hospital treatment of COVID 19 patients. They based this on the expert recommendation of the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM).
According to the CHM declaration of interests (p141 – p247) there doesn’t seem to be a single pharmaceutical corporation which isn’t well represented by its members. Gilead Sciences have strong ties with the CHM.
The MHRA decision, and CHM recommendation, followed the release of remdisivir trial data from the U.S. which suggested the drug could aid recovery of seriously ill patients by up to 31%. The National Institute of Health (NIH) study was funded by the BMGF backed NIAID, headed by Dr Anthony Fauci, which first invested $37.5M in the initial development of remdisivir.
A number of other studies have not been able to find any significant benefit from remdisivir. The WHO withdrew some of these unfavourable remdesivir studies from their trial database as they had accidentally uploaded them. Other remdisivir trials were stopped when adverse effects were observed.
It is notable that of the three UK trials, the MHRA insisted on suspending the two which could have resulted in hydroxychloroquine undermining the need for a vaccine. The MHRA are an executive agency of the UK government Department of Health. However, they receive the bulk of their funding from the pharmaceutical corporations. In their FAQ they state:
“The costs of medicines regulations are met by fees from the pharmaceutical industry.”
From Strange To Crazy
Presumably the UK government proceeded with trials and stockpiled hydroxychloroquine because they could see its life saving potential. Yet the pharmaceutical industry’s pet regulator, the MHRA, could just step in and end the trials most likely to deliver on that promise. They can also seemingly approve patented drugs without trials, which makes you wonder why the UK government bother with them at all.
All of which strongly indicates who is really running government in the UK. It certainly doesn’t appear to be elected politicians.
If there is a strong whiff of corporate corruption about the UK’s handling of hydroxychloroquine trials, the stench in France is nauseating. Not only have they strongly resisted trialling hydroxychloroquine at all, the French State has gone the extra mile and denied the French public free access to it.
Following a recommendation made in November 2019, on January 15th 2020, as the world was stirring to the unfolding health crisis in China, then French Minister of Solidarity In Health, Agnès Buzyn, reclassified hydroxychloroquine in all its forms as a poisonous substance. It is by no means clear why a medication, available over the counter in French pharmacies for more than 50 years, with a proven safety profile, should suddenly be made solely available on prescription.
Much like the WHO, the French parallel Discovery Trials, run by Inserm, also abandoned their hydroxychloroquine trials as a result of the Surgisphere study. In a coordinated statement with the WHO they said:
“The inclusions of the hydroxychloroquine group in the Discovery trial have been suspended since Sunday, May 24, following the joint decision of Solidarity, a trial conducted under the aegis of the WHO, and of Discovery, a trial led by Inserm which is its closely associated. This decision was prompted by scientific literature on the use of hydroxychloroquine in observational studies, including the recent study in The Lancet.”
Presumably this came as a relief to Inserm, as they strongly resisted trialling hydroxychloroquine from the outset. It will be interesting to see if Inserm will now reinstate their trials.
Four days before the launch of the WHO’s Solidarity Trials Professor Yazdan Yazdanpanah, head of France’s health emergency rapid response committee (REACTing – REsearch and ACTion targeting emerging infectious diseases) stated the Discovery trial would exclude chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine) and only trial the patented drugs:
“We have not retained it [chloroquine] for the moment, in particular because of its undesirable effects. It also has frequent interactions with other drugs. However, intensive care patients are often treated with multiple drugs.”
There is no rationale in this decision that has anything to do with saving lives. At the time hydroxychloroquine appeared to be the most likely candidate to be an effective preventative treatment, not the least.
REACTing is a committee of Inserm which operates under the joint authority of the French Ministries of Health and Research. Through their Inserm Transfert public private partnership, Inserm hold 82 license agreements and 300 R&D agreements with pharmaceutical corporations. It is delighted to announce its patent successes.
Prior to its exclusion (the first time) Professor Didier Raoult had been strongly advocating for extensive trials of hydroxychloroquine. He came to the attention of the French public and the hydroxychloroquine has remained high profile in France.
The propaganda assault upon him by the French MSM has been remarkable. With an outspoken, somewhat iconoclastic public persona he was perhaps an easy target. But his scientific & medical credentials and experience cannot be disputed.
Almost certainly in response to public opinion stirred up by Raoult, and with the WHO initially including hydroxychloroquine in their Solidarity Trials, Inserm had little option but to reluctantly include it in their Discovery Trials on Solidarity launch day, March 22nd. Inserm stated, in their press release:
“We analyzed the data from the scientific literature concerning the SARS and MERS coronaviruses as well as the first publications on SARS-COV2 from China to arrive at a list of antiviral molecules to be tested: remdesivir, lopinavir in combination with ritonavir…….and hydroxychloroquine. The list of these potential drugs is also based on the list of experimental treatments classified as priorities by the World Health Organization.”
This can be seen as little more than back peddling. The data from the scientific literature hadn’t changed in the space of a few days. If REACTing previously considered the hydroxychloroquine risks too high, no new evidence had emerged to alter that assessment. Yet they tabled their future hydroxychloroquine trial anyway.
It seems either Inserm were making up their scientific assessments as they went along, or REACTing had gone collectively crazy. If we rule out those two unlikely conclusion, we are faced with is the realisation that Inserm and REACTing were making decisions based upon something other than the scientific and medical evidence.
REACTing would only consider hydroxychloroquine for trials with the most seriously ill patients. A distinct pattern is evident.
If hydroxychloroquine is ever officially trialled by a body with links to globalist foundations and pharmaceutical corporations, which Inserm most certainly posses, it is always trialled with the most seriously ill COVID 19 patients. It seems impossible to get hydroxychloroquine into large scale trials as a preventative treatment. This is contrary to the existing scientific and clinical evidence.
When such trials have commenced they have been terminated within days, some restarted, others not as yet. Few of the trials have been willing to study the recommended combination of HCQ+AZ and none have incorporate zinc, to aid with absorption, as advised by scientists and clinicians.
This resistance is not explicable from either a scientific or a clinical perspective. It suggests that powerful institutions are determined that the only “effective preventative” COVID 19 treatment will be delivered in the form of a vaccine. The WHO’s TPP requirements have set the bench mark for proving that efficacy below the known prevalence of the disease it is supposed to protect against.
Shoot the Messenger
Once hydroxychloroquine trials had been announced in France, the attacks upon both the molecule and leading supporting voices, especially Raoult, were relentless. On 25th March Le Monde’s Décodeurs Published an article in which they alleged that Prof. Didier Raoult had offered a “miracle cure.” They decried his opinion as “at best fragile, at worst wobbly” adding, “we are starting to count the first victims – by intoxication – of the craze for this molecule.”
This was a thinly veiled reference to comments made by the French health minister Olivier Véran. Following President Trumps early support of chloroquine, an Arizona couple drank fish tank cleaner because chloroquine was listed in the ingredients. Véran told the public:
“Cardiologists are also warning me that hydroxychloroquine can cause heart problems. In the United States, today, a person who had used it in self-medication suffered a fatal cardiac arrest.”
This was not “self medication” with hydroxychloroquine tablets. Véran’s suggestion that people had died in the U.S after using hydroxychloroquine, as prescribed, was at best misinformation but probably disinformation. Les Décodeurs were strongly insinuating that Raoult’s was endangering life by advocating hydroxychloroquine.
Ridiculous as it is, the hydroxychloroquine heart risk claimed in Surgisphere’s ostensibly faux study has been repeatedly cited as a reason not to trial it. Millions of people around the world have taken chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for years. Véran’s claim that cardiologists had warned him about its cardiovascular risks would certainly come as news to the U.S. Federal & Drug Administration. They have approved it as a safe generic drug for more than 65 years.
It is a generic drug like ibuprofen, easily available over the counter in many countries. If people were dropping like flies after taking it, someone would have noticed. But no one did notice, anywhere in the world, until it was suggested as a possible COVID 19 prophylaxis.
The incessant heart risk claim is unmitigated nonsense. All drugs have risks, paracetamol is one of the worlds most common suicide drugs. The cardiovascular risks for hydroxychloroquine are overwhelmingly associated with acute poisoning, often deliberate, when used in combination with other antiviral drugs, such lopinavir, or with prolonged high dosage use.
There is virtually no risk at all to taking it, as recommended, for short courses. As you would if you took it as a preventative treatment for COVID 19.
The attempts to make Raoult’s advocacy of hydroxychloroquine a political issue are notable. The New York times wrote a rambling hit piece claiming that Raoult promoted the treatment because he enjoyed notoriety, had a Napoleon complex, and said he makes “tendentious scientific claims” for his own amusement. The New York Times only insinuated that hydroxychloroquine was a “Trumpian” issue, Politico suggested that advocating hydroxychloroquine demonstrated “far right” tendencies:
“Far-right leaders have also sided with Raoult, with National Rally leader Marine Le Pen saying that general practitioners should be allowed to prescribe chloroquine ‘right away,’ and questioning the government’s assessment of the situation.”
Back in France a similar preposterous narrative was being spun to discredit hydroxychloroquine and the scientists and clinicians who promoted it’s potential benefits. The weekly French current affairs magazine Le Point more or less claimed it was absolutely deadly. Les Décodeurs, part of the Les Nouvelles Editions Indépendantes (LNEI), the European media conglomerate created by Matthieu Pigasse who co-ownes Le Monde, are allegedly fact checkers. However, on the issue of hydroxychloroquine, they haven’t exactly been shy about expressing their fact free opinions.
As an official fact checking partner of Facebook, Les Décodeurs removed access to a video published by Raoult’s Mediterranean Infection Institute (IHU). Explaining why they felt this constituted “fake news” Les Décodeurs wrote:
“Professor Raoult’s announcement is based on a very short “letter” to the journal BioScience Trends February 18 and published online the same day. Three researchers from the city of Qingdao (east China) mention ongoing clinical trials in more than ten Chinese hospitals.”
This claim wasn’t even close to being a fact. Forget about the fact that his opinion “is based” upon more than 40 years as one of the worlds leading research scientists, the letter referenced was the English write up of the initial Chinese clinical trial into the use of chloroquine. It included the links to the China Clinical Trial Registry and Raoult was among the many scientists around the world who could go and look at the trial data.
Les Décodeurs then released a video in which fellow scientist Professor Karine Lacombe appeared to suggest Prof. Raoult was recommending people take the drug contrary to medical advice. Whereas, in reality, he was advocating rapid repurposing trials.
Prof. Lacombe claimed the conduct of Prof. Raoult’s team was “absolutely scandalous.” She accused them of being “outside any ethical approach.”
Prof. Lacombe is a grant recipient from Gilead Sciences who hold the patent for remdesivir. She is one of Inserm’s leading authors and chief of the Department of Infectious Diseases at the St-Antoine Hospital (AP-HP).
AP-HP holds more than 650 medical patents and have recently announced a public private research partnership, in collaboration with the French government and the global pharmaceutical giant Sanofi. Her department will receive money from the seed fund set up by Sanofi. Speaking of their pride in the potentially lucrative collaboration, Sanofi announced:
“Europe’s biggest university hospital center AP-HP and France’s leading pharma firm Sanofi, are joining forces to speed up clinical research to stem the epidemic……Since the outbreak of the epidemic, Sanofi has tirelessly continued to apply its knowledge of vaccines in particular…..sharing its experience with…..CEPI (Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations).”
Sanofi, like Inserm, the WHO, the MHRA, German researchers and many other corporations and institutions around the world, have suspended their hydroxychloroquine trials and stopped supplying the drug as a result of Surgisphere’s apparent fabrication. Perhaps they will reinstate them given that the WHO now seem to realise that the Surgisphere study was junk. Or rather they realise scientists from around the world know it is junk and have publicly said so.
All of this suggests the real problem with hydroxychloroquine is not the heart risk. It is not that Donald Trump supports its use either. The real problem appears to be twofold.
Firstly, as a generic off patent drug, there’s no profit in it. Secondly, if it ever were found to be an effective preventative treatment for COVID 19, the world would have no need for Bill and Melinda Gate’s vaccine.
Nor would any of the other BMGF solutions to Pandemic I be relevant.
Please consider supporting my work. I really need your help if I am going to continue to provide the research and analysis that you value on a full-time basis. You can support my work for less than the price of a cup of coffee via my donor page or alternative become a paid subscriber to my Substack.
I extend my gratitude to my editor, who has provided invaluable contributions to my articles since October 2021 (but who, for personal reasons, prefers to remain anonymous).
Please feel free to share anything from iaindavis[.]com excluding any and all third party content. I use a Creative Commons License. All I ask is that you give credit to the author and clearly mark any changes you make. Please share my work widely. Censorship is increasing and we need to get this information out there. If you value what I do then please consider supporting my work. Many thanks.
This is very depressing. 🙁 But thank you again for the excellent coverage.
Thanks Olivia. It is a bit depressing, especially if people do nothing about it and simply allow HCQ to be hidden and accept their “shots.” However, If we keep sharing this information hopefully people will start to stir from their apathy. Look on the bright side. 🙂
Thanks for your great work, Iain! It looks like the cabal is starting to unravel. Three authors have just retracted from the Lancet article as details on the shady Surgisphere outfit keep popping up.
The French paper France Soir found out among other things that the main author of the Lancet article, Dr Mandeep Mehra, works at Boston’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital where clinical trials of Remdesivir are being conducted. Also, on the same day as the negative Lancet article about HCQ (May 22nd), an article was published in the New England Journal of Medicine about Remdesivir. Btw, on May 23rd, the current French Health minister, Olivier Veran, brandished the Lancet study to blanket-ban HCQ.
http://www.francesoir.fr/politique-monde/de-coincidences-en-coincidences-la-boston-connexion-au-service-du-remdesivir
Thanks Dead Elvis. I thanks so much for an excellent comment. I will check it out and update the post accordingly, especially the Veran statement.
Hi Iain, I should also point out that the HCQ dosage of the UK Recovery trial is extremely high: 2400mg within the first 24hrs, and 800mg/day thereafter. In comparison the Raoult protocol calls for 600mg/day, and that dosage is known to be potentially dangerous for patients with a heart condition.
I couldn’t find any patient data (maybe you would have better luck than me), but if the patients of this trial are elderly and/or in a severe condition, applying this protocol would amount to something close to attempted murder.
https://www.recoverytrial.net/files/recovery-protocol-v6-0-2020-05-14.pdf
Thanks for the Info Dead Elvis. No I haven’t seen any patient data but that does indeed sound extremely high.
Hi Iain, quick update. The French Public Health High Authority has now also banned the use of antibiotics in general and of Azithromycin in particular in the treatment of C19.
http://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/covid-19-restriction-de-la-liberte-de-prescrire-de-lazithromycine-un-deni-de-soin-pour
I would say I’m shocked but sadly I’m not in the least. Many thanks.
Fantastic and well-researched article, bravo! Given just how powerful this cabal is, one can easily give into dispondancy. I’m far from being a fan of The Guardian, but I was delighted to read their articles about the Lancet scandal. Meanwhile, if you want to have a laugh at the BMGF: https://www.accredited-times.com/2020/04/15/why-the-bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-is-our-only-hope/
Thanks Pbier. LOL! Yes the BMGF are the saviours of the world.
I wonder how many people in the various risk groups had previsouly had a vaccine injection, say in the last 3-5yrs?
Judy Mikovits believes people who have had flu vaccine may suffer a worse illness, as many vaccines are contaminated with corona and retroviruses.
See https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/05/10/is-there-a-vaccine-for-coronavirus.aspx – The Well-Known Hazards of Coronavirus Vaccines
I’ve seen suggestions that the hot spots of Lombardy, New York and London all received the same vaccine. This is not something I have looked into and I have no firm opinion on the alleged link, but it would certainly be an interesting fact if true.
Several Americans say there’s a very close correlation between fatalities and five jee hotspots. Do you have any such info for UK? Please do an article on why they’re so keen to irradiate us with frequencies which are known to be a weapon useful for crowd control. Thousands of studies showing them to be harmful, but none proving their safety.
When cv patients are getting worse their blood ferritin levels shoot up. If this loose iron has come out of the haemoglobin, it means their red blood cells can no longer carry oxygen. The same symptoms have also been experienced by otherwise healthy people when new antennae were erected nearby.
Thanks Sumy, I am not aware of any such research regarding clusters in the UK. I am aware of Active Denial systems and so forth and also the danger of 5G in the 60Ghz range but it is not something I have researched in any depth. I may well do so though. Thanks for the request.
Good summary of the medical criminality being foisted on the public because of greed. Recently there was a nice summary paper called “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis” by Dr. Risch that perhaps would be a good source for a follow-up article.
Thanks Robert (I’ve removed the address details for privacy reasons but I have noted them many thanks.)
i’d like to clarify – the main action of hydroxychloroquin in early stages of disease, and as a preventive, is as a zinc ionophore – carrying zinc inside our cells, where zinc inhibits viral replication. Many doctors report best results with a 5 day course of 200mg Hydroxychloroquine twice/day with zinc sulphate 220mg @1/day & Azithromycin 500mg @1/day.
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/04/20/zinc-dosage-for-immune-system.aspx – How to Improve Zinc Uptake with Quercetin to Boost Immune Health
AAPS brings this action on behalf of its members and their patients to end the irrational interference by the FDA with timely access to hydroxychloroquine:
https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-v-fda-hcq-6-2-2020.pdf
Even the http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources seem to be blocked (403 Forbidden)
http://www.orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v16n28.shtml “Vitamin C and Coronavirus: Not a Vaccine; Just a Humble Cure”
“The role of vitamin D in reducing risk of COVID-19: a brief survey of the literature”
by William B. Grant, Orthomolecular Medicine News Service, June 9, 2020
Thanks for another informative comment. I hope others will follow the links you have provided to take a look at the evidence you present.
Apologies if it was remiss of me not to mention that people with glucose-6-dehydrogenase G6PD enzyme deficiency should not take hydroxychloroquine. This modified G6PD gene is common in the tropics because It gives resistance to malaria. But it means some medicines, including hydroxychloroquine, cannot be tolerated.
Thanks Sumy
Heartbreaking
https://www.bitchute.com/video/1OdvUd8c9eTe/
As you describe yourself as an ‘author, journalist, blogger and video maker’, I might take your opinions more seriously if you knew how to spell ‘principal’ in the context where you use the term. Using upper case does rather shine a headlight on the error!
It might if the name of the trial wasn’t PRINCIPLE. https://www.phctrials.ox.ac.uk/principle-trial
Perhaps you should raise your concerns with Oxford University.
Re my earlier post with respect to the spelling of principal/principle I completely accept your explanation and therefore an apology is offered without qualificaction. You can post this or not, whaterevr suits you.
However I would like to take issue with some other of your assertions with respect to lockdowns. I want to send yuo a statistical graph to develop my argument. Can you give me email address that I can use to send you this?
Regards
Ian
Yes Ian I will send you an email.
Iain
I have sent you graph separately.
Hi Iain
The screen grab below is from this site: https://www.travellingtabby.com/scotland-coronavirus-tracker/ I am confident that his data sources are accurate.
You can see that it records total deaths from all causes over 6 years. It is worth pointing out that in Scotland, unlike in England, there has never been a significant discrepancy between excess deaths in 2020 and reported COVID deaths. That has been because data collection has been better at including care home deaths and deaths in private homes where COVID has been a factor. As an aside, there is an interesting article on English statistics in yesterday’s Guardian. You will see that the adjusted death rates largely account for the excess deaths: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/19/over-1000-deaths-day-uk-ministers-accused-downplaying-covid-19-peak
The point I am making by sending you this graph is that I contend that it disproves your assertions about the number of deaths caused by the lockdown as stated in your Lockdown Regime Deaths post. Now, don’t get me wrong. I am not stating that no deaths have been caused by, or hastened by, the lockdown but your statement that ‘tens of thousands’ have died in the UK for that reason is clearly nonsense. The graph below only refers to Scottish cases but I imagine your view would be that Scotland is not exceptional in this respect.
Why does the graph disprove your assertion? Quite simply by its shape. Look at it. Were lockdown deaths to be a considerable proportion of excess deaths we would expect that, firstly, the longer the lockdown lasted, the greater the number of lockdown-related deaths would be recorded per week. People don’t die of lockdown after one or two days. But look at the steepness of the slope of the upward curve. In Scotland, the lockdown has only been relaxed in very small measure in the last three weeks and not at all for those shielding until yesterday. And yet by last week total deaths in Scotland were down to seasonally predictable numbers with only very small single digit COVID deaths recorded daily.
If your theory was correct, what the graph would be showing, despite virtually no COVID deaths, would be sustained above average total deaths as people continued to succumb from the effects of lockdown. There is absolutely no evidence for this.
Regards
Ian
Thanks Ian. You make a good point but I do not agree that the shape of the mortality graph, assuming Scotland has a similar lockdown policy (which I don’t know), disproves my lockdown deaths hypothesis. Quite the opposite.
More than 83% of those who died during Lockdown in England and Wales were over 70 years old with 95% having at least one comorbidity with the majority having two or more. The mortality graph is not dissimilar to that for Scotland, as described. We have a sharp initial increase in mortality peaking in the second week of April and then a steady decline.
I disagree with your contention that lockdown deaths would take some time to emerge. If the death is attributable to denial of healthcare then I see no reason why these deaths would not start to emerge in the first hour, let alone first day, of the denial of that care. There’s a good article here that seems to show that deaths took off across the world following the instigation of lockdowns. Needs verifying, but interesting.
https://medium.com/@JohnPospichal/questions-for-lockdown-apologists-32a9bbf2e247
The NHS in England relaxed their “do not convey to hospital” instructions on the 14th April. Corresponding almost precisely with the mortality peak. If deaths are largely attributable to restricted healthcare that would explain the graphical trend. (in England and Wales but not in Scotland if similar “do not convey” instructions weren’t made.)
https://www.hsj.co.uk/patient-safety/prejudiced-hospital-admissions-guidance-for-the-elderly-dropped-by-nhse/7027414.article
People can only die once, so whether death is from CV19 or the Lockdown, what we have effectively seen is a hastening of death for many approaching end of life care. These being the deaths that would have happened in subsequent months had they not been effectively hastened and concentrated into the the lockdown or CV19 period.
It is an unpleasant way of framing it, but we might say that the available pool of mortality has been depleting during the CV19/Lockdown period. As it is really only the most vulnerable who are at any risk from either CV19 or a lack of effective healthcare, that pool has been depleted equally, and at an equal rate, for both case scenarios.
Therefore, if CV19 is the primary cause, we might equally expect mortality to fall considerably below the average over the coming months. Quite simply, by now, those people are no longer with us.
While lockdown measures persist, if mortality doesn’t fall considerably below the 5 year average over the coming months, it would clearly indicate that people are still dying form lack of access to healthcare (assuming CV19 has gone). Time will tell.
I assume you accept that at least 13,000 people have died (in England and Wales) over and above the 5 year average during the lockdown thus far, whose deaths have not been attributed to CV19. May I ask if you know what that figure is for Scotland and what you think caused this spike in mortality?
My hypothesis of the numbers of deaths ascribed to the lockdown is based upon asymptomatic rates (with a test) and the relative plausibility of claiming a death from CV19, from observed symptoms alone, where both pneumonia and influenza are also “observed.”
So in England we have a lifting of the harshest lockdown measures corresponding precisely with the mortality peak; we have at least 13,000 deaths not attributable to CV19; deaths across many nations rose considerable immediately after lockdowns but not before; there is now a smaller pool of likely deaths over the coming months and so we should see mortality drop below the average. If not, absent CV19, we have further deaths evidently from Lockdown restricted healthcare (if restrictions remain in place.)
So, if you are willing, can I ask you to conduct some further research and let me know what you find. Could you please look at the following.
1. Did Scotland have a similar “do not convey to hospital” policy?
2. If so, has it been lifted and when? Does that similarly correspond to peak mortality?
Thanks for the excellent comment and evidenced response. While I disagree with your conclusion at this stage, I do not rule out the possibility that you are right. If deaths drop considerably below the average, and the healthcare restrictions remain largely in place, that would strengthen your position and undermine mine. So any further data you can offer would be appreciated.
All the best
Just for clarity, the RECOVERY Trial protocol for HCQ, and used around the world in other WHO sponsored trials administered 2400mg in the first 24hrs, 50% greater than the MAXIMUM recommended dose for full blown malaria. The trial followed this with 800mg per day, double the MAXIMUM daily rate for malaria or lupus. The MAXIMUM total WHO/CDC dose is 2,000mg. Therefore the Recovery Trial specifies a dose of 9,600mg over 9 days – nearly 5x the maximum. With an in vivo 1/2 life of 21 days, this is a massively dangerous level to be given to anyone, let alone critically ill patients, and probably killed some patients.(useful link to 2017 WHO paper on toxicity 5. https://www.who.int/malaria/mpac/mpac-mar2017-erg-cardiotoxicity-report-session2.pdf
Thanks Bill. Very informative.
I understand that Professor Raoult’s group has put out a paper showing a very high correlation between studies showing bad results for HCQ and conflicts of interests by their authors, can’t find it yet!
I would be fascinated top read that. Please let me know if you find it.
Some historic references that are worth remembering:
1. In 2005 Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread https://web.archive.org/web/20200506181048/https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/
2. In 2010 In Vitro (laboratory) research indicates that zinc if allowed to penetrate the human cell, will inhibit all Coronavirus replication. https://journals.plos.org/plospathogens/article?id=10.1371/journal.ppat.1001176
3. In 2014 Chloroquine (earlier version of hydroxychloroquine) is found to be an ionophore a substance which is able to transport particular ions across a lipid membrane in a cell, in this case a zinc ionophore. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0109180&type=printable
4. In 2015 Dr Fauci knew that chloroquine was an effective inhibitor of coronaviruses yet has vilified its use. https://web.archive.org/web/20200506140801/https:/onenewsnow.com/perspectives/bryan-fischer/2020/04/27/fauci-knew-about-hcq-in-2005-nobody-needed-to-die#.Xr-guE98N0U.twitter
5. In 2017 a published paper by the World Health Organisation (WHO) “The cardiotoxicity of antimalarials” concluded “Despite hundreds of millions of doses administered in the treatment of malaria, there have been no reports of sudden unexplained death associated with quinine, chloroquine or amodiaquine, although each drug causes QT/QTc interval prolongation….if dosage <3.5mg base/kg”. In short this is a safe drug if kept to advisory dosage levels. https://www.who.int/malaria/mpac/mpac-mar2017-erg-cardiotoxicity-report-session2.pdf
Thanks Bill. More excellent information.
This might be of interest showing how badly the UK Government’s scientific advisers are infected with “Gates” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lb2AF-m4kZ0
Zach Bush (part of his talk explaining pollutants more of the problem than virus) – https://youtu.be/ifEAJZOzfos
https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/07/15/hydroxychloroquine-for-coronavirus.aspx
Hydroxychloroquine deniers “are guilty of mass murder.” ~ Dr. Vladimir Zelenko
Thanks Sumy
Hopefully soon everyone will know that they’ve been trying to hide the cure.
https://www.americasfrontlinedoctors.com – “website expired” – but their video is still up on https://www.brighteon.com/3571f9ae-ec43-4254-8a56-1a931c250888
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2020/07/27/facebook-censors-viral-video-of-doctors-capitol-hill-coronavirus-press-conference/
Hoping to hear from alot more UK doctors, but this one says they are told to “Shut up or you don’t get paid”:
https://www.thebernician.net/nhs-consultant-says-staff-are-being-silenced-over-covid-19/
Thank Sumy for some interesting links. Yes it is good to see more clinicians speaking out. The censorship response has been remarkable. Quite clearly the narrative spinners are worried.
https://c19study.com/
a meta-analysis of 68 published studies (41 peer-reviewed) involving 2.66 billion people, showing a 79% reduction in death rate from Covid-19 in those countries which allowed early use of Hydroxychloroquine for treating Covid-19 compared to those countries which allowed very limited or no early use of HCQ