by Iain Davis
“Results from more than 100 patients have demonstrated that chloroquine phosphate is superior to the control treatment in inhibiting the exacerbation of [COVID 19 induced] pneumonia, improving lung imaging findings, promoting a virus negative conversion, and shortening the disease course.”
Ideally science and medicine should be free from the influence of multinational corporations and the GPPP. However, the British Medical Journal reported that it is not [26]:
"Politicians and governments are suppressing science.. Science is being suppressed for political and financial gain. Covid-19 has unleashed state corruption on a grand scale, and it is harmful to public health. The pandemic has revealed how the medical-political complex can be manipulated."
Just because something is labelled medical science we shouldn't assume it is based upon the objective examination of scientific or medical evidence. We must consider who funds the research, what their goals are and what lengths they may be willing to go to in order to achieve them.
As we have already discussed, despite the obvious need to trial Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, high dose VitD and other potential treatments, the WHO were perfectly prepared to cite fraudulent science to discredit treatment protocols. In their efforts to stop adoption of hydroxychloroquine it is now clear that they, and their partners, were willing to put lives at risk.
Among the COVID 19 myths debunked by the WHO was the considerable body of scientific and medical evidence demonstrating the potential efficacy and safety of a Hydroxychloroquine based treatment protocol. The WHO managed to debunk this by simply refusing to trial it. Instead they worked with their partners to create HCQ trials that were so dangerous it is a wonder anyone survived.
The WHO mythbusted the study by researchers at the New York Grossman School of Medicine [27] who reduced COVID 19 mortality rates by 44% using the protocol; they tore Brazilian clinician's evidence that the protocol reduced hospital admissions by 300% [28] to shreds; they eviscerated Chinese doctor's reports of reduced fever severity and duration, improving clinical outcomes using chloroquine [29]; Spanish doctors, who used Hydroxychloroquine to increase patient survival rates [30], were fantasists; US researchers who discovered the addition of zinc improved the effective treatment protocol [31] were full of it and both the systemic review by Indian researchers [32] and the analysis of available studies by US scientists [33], who both found consistent evidence of treatment efficacy and safety, was baseless anti-science. According to the WHO.
The social media giants were tasked with clamping down on anyone who highlighted the scientific and medical evidence which questioned the WHO's edicts. It was common knowledge among content creators that they could not mention the "H" word, as that would result in the automatic removal of their videos, podcasts and articles. Criticism of the pseudopandemic has now effectively been outlawed in our free and open democracies which value free speech, freedom of expression and evidence based inquiry.
A team of qualified doctors formed a group called "American Frontline Doctors." They held a press conference questioning the medical evidence supposedly underpinning the pseudopandemic. Their video garnered 17 million views in 8 hours before being banned [34] from Facebook and YouTube.
Some of their statements seemed politically motivated but these were qualified doctors expressing their views and giving their account of treating COVID 19 patients. Their motivation should not be our primary concern. It is the fact that their medical opinions were censored that should worry us. None of us have any hope of exercising critical thinking or exploring the evidence if our access to it is effectively barred.
The treatment protocol called the Marseilles Treatment (hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin - HCQ+AZ - plus zinc to aid absorption) was recommended for use in the early stages of COVID-19, or even prior to developing the disease, as a prophylaxis. This cheap, over the counter treatment protocol, if found effective, could have been widely used to save lives.
Clinicians around the world had to fight the authorities to be allowed to use it. In the US the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) launched an appeal against an FDA injunction [35] stopping them prescribing HCQ for their COVID 19 patients. In France, as the pseudopandemic was emerging in China, HCQ was reclassified in all its forms [36] as a poisonous substance. Thus ending more than 50 years of the public's free access to the drug from high street pharmacies across the country.
The case fatality rate (CFR) for the oldest COVID-19 patients was reported by the MSM to rise to more than 14% [37]. Professor Didier Raoult's largest field study of the Marseilles Treatment, evaluating more than one thousand patients, showed that the CFR for the oldest patients dropped to 0.5% [38].
Experienced practitioners and senior physicians could not understand the fierce resistance to trialling the Marseilles Treatment. Prof. Harvey Risch, MD, from Yale University, wrote that that it should be used immediately [39] as an early therapy for COVID-19 patients:
"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......These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe."
Relenting to public pressure the WHO finally authorised global trials. However the trials were carefully designed not to test the possible prophylactic properties and early onset efficacy. Instead they were constructed to make sure HCQ would never threaten the planned COVID 19 vaccines.
The WHO announced their "Solidarity trials" [40] on March 18th. "Solidarity" is an interesting word we will discuss later, but the trials were designed to look at a range of treatments including HCQ and vaccines.
The French medical research agency Inserm (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale) initially refused to trial HCQ at all. Preferring to run their own parallel Discovery Trials [41], speaking 4 days before the WHO announcement, the head of the REACTing (REsearch and ACTion targeting emerging infectious diseases) Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah said HCQ would not be included [42]
The WHO did include HCQ in their Solidarity trials and Inserm caved in, reluctantly including it in theirs. However, like the WHO, they refused to trial the Marseille Treatment and would only test HCQ, in isolation, with the most severely ill COVID 19 patents. Totally contrary to its recommended use and avoiding any investigation of the protocol used across the world by practising clinicians to actually save people's lives.
The British also elected to run their own trials. They ran three separate experiments. The RECOVERY, PRINCIPLE and COPCOV trials.
The Recovery Trials [43] were funded by partners including the BMGF and Oxford University who were partnered with Astrazeneca in COVID 19 vaccine development. They didn't trial the Marseille Treatment either and insisted upon ignoring the clinical evidence. They too only gave HCQ to the very sickest COVID 19 patients. Of all the Hydroxychloroquine trials, theirs was the most lethal.
The maximum recommended dose of HCQ in the UK is no more than 200 - 400 mg [44] per day. While all of the known risks associated with the drug are encountered either with long term, sustained use or overdose, severe toxicity is possible if used incorrectly. Even before banning it, the French considered 1800 mg per day to be lethal poisoning [45].
Many of the patients unfortunate enough to be subjected to the Recovery Trials were already fighting for their lives against severe respiratory illness. Across 175 UK hospitals, 1542 patient participants were given 2400 mg (six times the recommended maximum dose) on the first day, followed up by ten days at 800 mg.
Unsurprisingly, the mortality rate among HCQ subjects in the deceptively name Recovery Trials was 25.7%. They actually killed more COVID 19 patients [46] than they would have done had they used the standard model of care. As a trial to investigate the effectiveness of a treatment protocol it was absolutely useless. As a showcase to prove Hydroxychloroquine could kill, it was per
fect.
By contrast, the Marseilles Treatment [47], recommended by physicians the world over, administered 200mg of Hydroxychloroquine three times daily (600mg total) in combination with antibiotics (limiting toxicity risks) and zinc (aiding rapid absorption and further limiting toxicity risks.) To this day, neither the WHO, nor the majority of their partner national health authorities, have ever bothered trialling this treatment in any of their "apex trials" for COVID 19.
Not every nation on Earth [48] was convinced by the WHO's antipathy towards HCQ. South Korea, China and India all incorporated Hydroxychloroquine [49] treatments into their COVID 19 response measures. Currently, COVID 19 deaths per million of the population (DPM) in the UK is said to be 1,873. In the US the claimed figure is 1,836. In India (who also widely used Ivermectin) the DPM is 245, it stands at 38 in South Korea and in China it is just 3.
There are other factors, such as population density and age distribution, which could impact COVID 19 mortality rates. Nonetheless, while correlation does not prove causation, the use of both Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin correlates directly with reduced COVID 19 mortality.
Following the WHO's announcement of their Solidarity Trials, most Hydroxychloroquine arms started recruiting in late May. Within days of the starting to recruit, the WHO cited the fraudulent Surgisphere paper published in the Lancet to suspend them.
Once the paper they used had been exposed by real scientists, the WHO announced it would re-instigate trials on the 3rd of June. These took a few weeks to restart before the WHO declared that Hydroxychloroquine would no longer be included in trials on the 4th of July [50] 2020.
The only UK trial investigating the use of HCQ as a potential prophylaxis for public use, was the PRINCIPLE trial. Citing the WHO suspension and the "evidence" produced by the RECOVERY trial, they ceased trialling HCQ [51] on the 22nd June 2020.
The PRINCIPLE research team stated that the UK Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) ordered them to stop HCQ trials based upon the retracted Surgisphere paper. They never recommenced.
The COPCOV trial [52] didn't investigate the Marseilles Treatment either. However, it is ongoing and struggling to make headway, having only secured 236 participants in the UK. Perhaps this is unsurprising given the MSM's unremitting and frequently ridiculous attacks [53] on HCQ. The BBC called it the "Trump drug."
The WHO's approach to proving vaccine efficacy and safety could not have differed more. They created a compliance framework that placed absolutely no demands upon vaccine manufacturers at all. The pharmaceutical corporations could have produced a nothing and it would still have been approved as a COVID 19 vaccine by the WHO.
For a COVID 19 vaccine to be considered effective, the WHO stated it must meet their Target Product Profile [54] (TPP). In order for a vaccine manufacturer to demonstrate efficacy for their vaccine candidate The WHO wanted to see:
"At least 70% efficacy (on population basis, with consistent results in the elderly). Endpoint may be assessed vs. disease, severe disease, and/or shedding/transmission."
Where long term (LT) efficacy is determined by:
"Active immunization of at-risk persons to prevent COVID-19"
As long as the vaccine reduced incidents of COVID 19 to 30% of the target population or below, it had proved its efficacy to the WHO's satisfaction. At the time of writing, with a claimed 173 million COVID 19 cases worldwide, in 18 months, only 2.02% of the global population have ever allegedly contracted COVID 19 which means 98% of the population haven't.
As long as the vaccine doesn't increase COVID 19 by more than 28% of the population, it works as far as the WHO's TPP's are concerned. A syringe full of saline solution would easily meet the WHO's exacting vaccine efficacy standards. From a clinical perspective, it doesn't need to do anything at all.
This makes achieving WHO vaccine safety requirements easier than falling off a log. The WHO define their long term vaccine safety requirements as:
"Safety and reactogenicity sufficient to provide a highly favourable benefit/risk profile in the context of observed vaccine efficacy."
As practically anything that doesn't kill more than 30% of the global population will be deemed effective by the WHO, a favourable benefit/risk profile is assured as long as the vaccine doesn't cause serious harm to more than 2 billion people. Obviously, if that were the case, the harm from the vaccine would dwarf the potentially harm caused by COVID 19. However, a vaccine that is considerably more dangerous than COVID 19 would still satisfy the safety standards required by the WHO.
According to the official pseudopandemic story, COVID 19 was a significant threat to life, there were no known treatments and no one was immune. Resistance to trialling promising treatment protocols made no sense if the WHO's intention was to save life.
Nor was it reasonable to design dangerous vaccine efficacy and safety standards, allowing manufacturers wide scope to produce a drug potentially more harmful than the disease it supposedly combats, if the objective was to "keep people safe." What these measures show is that saving life was never a concern for the core conspirators who control the GPPP State.
Sources:
[1] - https://archive.is/dXSme
[2] - https://archive.is/ReEuK
[3] - https://archive.is/bAbjQ
[4] - https://archive.is/C1mtD
[5] - https://www.oxfordreference.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095811145
[6] - https://archive.is/dHSQ4
[7] - https://archive.is/yI0NO
[8] - https://archive.is/hu963
[9] - https://archive.is/jdq7L
[10] - https://archive.is/X8y0f
[11] - https://archive.is/FeaZ8
[12] - https://archive.is/mf08c
[13] - https://archive.is/yBWVq
[14] - https://web.archive.org/web/20110307094146/https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/updates/archive/polio_and_cancer_factsheet.htm
[15] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101161006/https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-serology
[16] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201112201119/https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---12-october-2020
[17] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201112201119/https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---12-october-2020
[18] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200521091942/https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/9891785?hl=en
[19] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201211122637/https://about.fb.com/news/2020/04/covid-19-misinfo-update/
[20] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201216202327/https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/covid19-vaccine.html
[21] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201206161630/https://blog.twitter.com/en_us/topics/company/2020/authoritative-information-about-novel-coronavirus.html
[22] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201212184120/https://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/advice-for-public/myth-busters#:~:text%5Cx3dFACT:%20Most%20people%20who,seek%20medical%20care%20immediately.%5Cx22
[23] - https://archive.is/YobdJ
[24] - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41422-020-0282-0
[25] - https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/bst/advpub/0/advpub_2020.01047/_pdf/-char/en
[26] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201120130417/https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4425?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_term=hootsuite&utm_content=sme&utm_campaign=usage
[27] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200604203454/https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths
[28] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200816123708/https://covexit.com/new-brazilian-study-shows-telemedicine-hydroxychloroquine-treatment-reduce-need-for-hospitalization/
[29] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200722182708/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020
.04.26.20081059v1
[30] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200728053039/https://www.preprints.org/manuscript/202005.0057/v2
[31] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201211211343/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.02.20080036v1
[32] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201023000016/https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.24.20042366v1
[33] - https://archive.is/MNrSd
[34] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201120232018/https://californiaglobe.com/section-2/facebook-google-youtube-twitter-remove-doctors-coronavirus-press-conference/
[35] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200722123338/https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-v-fda-hcq-6-2-2020.pdf
[36] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201101124459/https://www.legifrance.gouv.fr/jorf/id/JORFTEXT000041400024/
[37] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200722114051/https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-death-age-older-people-higher-risk-2020-2?op=1&r=US&IR=T
[38] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200523033927/https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Abstract_Raoult_EarlyTrtCovid19_09042020_vD1v.pdf
[39] - https://archive.is/4PlEG
[40] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201112173805/https://www.who.int/director-general/speeches/detail/who-director-general-s-opening-remarks-at-the-media-briefing-on-covid-19---18-march-2020
[41] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201122125925/https://presse.inserm.fr/en/launch-of-a-european-clinical-trial-against-covid-19/38737/
[42] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200319055413/https://www.larecherche.fr/covid-19-coronavirus-sant%C3%A9/coronavirus-la-riposte-de-la-recherche
[43] - https://archive.is/iT1eS
[44] - https://bnf.nice.org.uk/drug/hydroxychloroquine-sulfate.html#indicationsAndDoses
[45] - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1678465/pdf/bmj00028-0055.pdf
[46] - https://archive.is/9a2ho
[47] - https://web.archive.org/web/20201117132822/https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/COVID-IHU-2-1.pdf