WHO was aware of the fact that dosing for COVID-19 was the same as (or even less than) malaria which has over decades proven to be safe and efficacious because it was already conducting clinical trials including HCQ and a number of other Big Pharma drugs. Yet, as of April 29, WHO has ignored it. This act alone justifies not only defunding but ignoring WHO.
https://zenith.news/finding-a-cure-hcq-remdesivir-and-vaccines/
By Richard J. Quitliano
Editorialist & NewsHawk
ZENITH NEWS®
WASHINGTON, DC (@ZENINEWS) — Ever since President Trump voiced his support for the HCQ – Azithromycin – Zinc (HCQ) protocol for treating CV-19, the MSM and the scientific establishment have been working overtime to denigrate it in favor of more expensive treatments. In the past several weeks scientific journals have been pushing articles against HCQ, most of which were never even submitted for peer review — we’re just supposed to accept them because “science.”
Here are a few of the articles criticizing the HCQ protocol:
Magagnoli et al.
“(Magagnoli, 2020) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print. It makes a retrospective statistical comparison of the outcome in COVID-19 patients, who received HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment prior to April 11, in Veterans Affairs hospitals. In the Abstract, it claims that a larger percentage of HCQ treated patients died compared to untreated patients. This ignores the fact that HCQ or HCQ+AZ treatment was given only in the most desperate cases, frequently as compassionate care. Deep inside of the manuscript, it does acknowledge that initial conditions of the HCQ and HCQ+AZ groups were much worse than those of the untreated group, but then ignores it”
“(Tang, 2020) is a not peer-reviewed pre-print. It reports results of a clinical trial in China, in which HCQ was given to patients 16-17 days after onset of the disease. This is too late for an antiviral to work. Thus, this study describes the incorrect use of HCQ, rather than efficacy or safety of the drug. From the comments:
“With an average delay of 16 days from symptom onset to enrollment and treatment in this trial, those patients are pretty much past the viral phase of the disease, where an antiviral treatment would have the most value and are well on their way to pneumonia and a cytokine storm problem, which is ultimately what kills.”
Mahevas et al.
“(Mahevas, 2020) is another not peer-reviewed pre-print. Didier Raoult and his colleagues replied to it with a bluntness, rare in scientific journals: Scientific fraud to demonstrate the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine compared to placebo in a non-randomized retrospective cohort of patients with COVID: Response to MAHEVAS et al. , MedRxiv, 2020. (Brouqui, et al., 2020). (Mahevas, 2020) also gathered many negative comments on MedRxiv.”
Oral Statements of Holtgrave & Cuomo
“A study of 600 patients at 22 hospitals in New York is being conducted by the University at Albany School of Public Health under the management of dean David Holtgrave. Although the study was not finished, Mr. Holtgrave already announced that the results are negative: “We don’t see a statistically significant difference between patients who took the drugs [HCQ, HCQ+AZ] and those who did not,” according to CNN. New York Governor Andrew Cuomo referred to the results as neither positive nor negative, per CNN and ABC.
“No paper, or even pre-print, reporting these results, has been published, as of April 29 (searches on Google Scholar, PubMed, and medRxiv were conducted for Holtgrave hydroxychloroquine; Holtgrave COVID-19).1
Garbage science — not peer-reviewed, more ideological than scientific. No legitimate scientist starts out trying to prove a negative. The purpose of science is to find the truth, there was none of that here. Each study started from the premise that HCQ doesn’t work. The WHO, the UN’s health administration supposedly dedicated to science was even less scientific.
WHO
“On March 27, WHO erected another roadblock to treating COVID-19 patients with HCQ. WHO stated that HCQ was not only insufficiently tested (which was true at that time), but that it was considered for COVID-19 at much higher doses than for malaria.”
“In the context of the COVID-19 response, the dosage and treatment schedules for chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine that are currently under consideration do not reflect those used for treating patients with malaria. The ingestion of high doses of these medicines may be associated with adverse or seriously adverse health outcomes.”
“This is dangerous misinformation. HCQ dosage for COVID-19 is the same or lower than for malaria (Drugs.com, 2019). WHO was aware of this, because it was already conducting clinical trials including HCQ and a number of other Big Pharma drugs. Yet, as of April 29, this paragraph still appears there. This act alone justifies not only defunding but ignoring WHO.”
“Google and Facebook adhered to WHO on everything related to COVID-19. Together with Twitter, they purged information favorable to HCQ. This is outrageous behavior for telecommunications and computational services providers.”2
The WHO is only concerned with controlling the narrative while pushing for a vaccine (one from a Gates-funded study which should come as no surprise, as Gates is WHO’s largest contributor).
The Truth About HCQ
“I reviewed the scientific literature on hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), azithromycin (AZ), and their use for COVID-19. My conclusions:
HCQ-based treatments are effective in treating COVID-19, unless started too late.
Studies, cited in opposition, have been misinterpreted, invalid, or worse.
HCQ and AZ are some of the most tested and safest prescription drugs.
Severe COVID-19 frequently causes cardiac effects, including heart arrhythmia. QTc prolonging drugs might amplify this tendency. Millions of people regularly take drugs having strong QTc prolongation effect, and neither FDA nor CDC bother to warn them. HCQ+AZ combination, probably has a mild QTc prolongation effect. Concerns over its negative effects, however minor, can be addressed by respecting contra-indications.
Effectiveness of HCQ-based treatment for COVID-19 is hampered by conditions that are presented as precautions, delaying the onset of treatment. For examples, some states require that COVID-19 patients be treated with HCQ exclusively in hospital settings.
The COVID-19 Treatment Panel of NIH evaded disclosure of the massive financial links of its members to Gilead Sciences, the manufacturer of a competing drug remdesivir. Among those who failed to disclose such links are 2 out of 3 of its co-chairs.
Despite all the attempts by certain authorities to prevent COVID-19 treatment with HCQ and HCQ+AZ, both components are approved by FDA, and doctors can prescribe them for COVID-19.3
Clearly out of all the current options the HCQ protocol shows the most promise.
Remdesivir
One remedy being pushed by Dr. Fauci and others at NIH, is Remdesivir ®, one of the more expensive experimental medicines. The fact that massive conflicts of interest exist between the NIH, NIAID and their researchers with Gilead (the manufacturer) notwithstanding, the highly-touted drug just doesn’t work.
“All of which raises a significant number of questions and Acute Care Surgeon (and Asst Professor of Surgery at Wash U.) Mark Hoofnagle warns ‘I am truly sorry to say, Remdesivir is probably worthless…’”4
The reason given is that:
“Antivirals usually target some aspect of viral replication/assembly/transmission. Remdesivir is a clever pharmacologic prodrug that inhibits a key piece of RNA viruses that mammals don’t have – the RNA-dependent RNA polymerase, and inhibits viral replication.”
“Unfortunately, by the time you are symptomatic with a virus, you are usually already high/peak viral load. So, when you give an antiviral to someone who is already ill, the damage from the virus is largely done.”5
In the world of “political science” the narrative — in this case “HCQ doesn’t work because Orangeman bad” — along with financial incentives, invariably take precedence over finding a cure. If this wasn’t so, protocols such as Dr. DePena’s, that we discussed in Part 3 of Mandatory Vaccinations: Trump and the Deep State, would be explored and implemented. The vaccine industry has no interest in a cure that works effectively, only in the most expensive treatment possible.
“ZeroHedge wondered if Gilead, which had been developing a rival treatment, Remdesivir, might have had a hand in this negative campaign against HCQ, following a reading of an extensive report from the respected climate-skeptic blog WattsUpWithThat, which featured this post by Leo Goldstein.” [Goldstein’s findings can be seen by clicking on his name. For purposes of brevity, suffice it to say that it showed that the HCQ protocol works.]6
As a matter of fact, virtually all of the peer-reviewed material has shown that the HCQ treatment is the safest and most effective treatment currently available. It’s only those with financial or political motives that say otherwise.
More Truth About HCQ — The Science
Contrary to Gilead’s lobbying efforts on behalf of their “miracle drug,” that have nothing to back them up other than wishful thinking, the corrupt NIH, and lots of money, HCQ is and has been the most effective treatment of CV-19. Gilead’s push has led to their having invested record amounts of money on lobbying.
“Gilead Sciences, the drugmaker behind the experimental COVID-19 treatment remdesivir, spent more on lobbying Congress and the administration in the first quarter of 2020 than it ever has before, according to federal filings.”
“The pharmaceutical company spent $2.45 million on lobbying in the first three months of the year, a 32% increase over the $1.86 million it spent in the first quarter of 2019.”7
“Meanwhile, one Harvard medical professor, Dr. William Haseltine, wrote in a column in Forbes that he found reason for skepticism about that effusive praise for Gilead’s newly developed treatment.”
“Enthusiasm for remsdesivir as a treatment for COVID-19 has escalated since the NIH announcement of results. But as I wrote yesterday, the data for the NIH study has not been publicly released or peer reviewed, meaning that we should continue to exercise extreme caution when considering its use against COVID-19.”8
This is “political science” at its best and unfortunately the way that the scientific establishment works. Contrast that to ten pages of peer-reviewed studies beginning in 2005 on the efficacy of the HCQ protocol on SARS-CoV and SARS-CoV-2 (CV-19) entitled Sequential CQ / HCQ Research Papers and Reports January to April 20, 2020.9
It should be evident that the legitimate science is clearly on the side of the HCQ protocol, in the absence of Dr. DePena’s protocol, that works against all bacterial and viral diseases. The pushback against the HCQ protocol by Democrats, the corrupt “scientists” at the NIH, CDC, and WHO, along with their allies in the MSM, is politically and financially motivated. The tragedy is that people around the world have given up their freedom to perpetuate this hoax.
America’s economy is lying in ruin, people, mostly elderly, are still dying, and the vast majority of our liberties have been stripped away… all so that corrupt politicians, bureaucrats, Big Pharma, and people like Bill Gates can profit while forcing us to live in a surveillance state where we can be tracked 24/7 like animals. Petty dictators (governors and mayors) are issuing unconstitutional and illegal edicts. People are going to jail for exercising their God-given rights, when the only thing that needs to be done is issuing the HCQ protocol to the most vulnerable to the disease. The survival rate is over 99% for everyone else.
This is no longer about treating a disease — the treatment is there and proven to work — this is about tyranny. We all know what the vaccines contain — Zenith News and this author have gone to great lengths to make that clear. If we all fail to claim our rights, we won’t have any left. Call your representatives and senators and tell them enough is enough. Remind these petty tyrants that they work for us, they don’t own us.
The job of all elected officials is to represent the will of the people.
We did not elect them to rule us.
@tipu curate
Upvoted 👌 (Mana: 15/20)