SpiritualFamily.Net

Hydroxycholoroquine, made from the ancient, cheap, and plentiful anti-malarial drug quinine, had suddenly become highly politicized. Its industry rivals and the media vigorously decried a business president, who, not a doctor, had dashed hopes for a profitable magic-bullet drug by tweeting an almost-free solution.

On May 22, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), which has been on the WHO list of essential medicines since 1977, was sent into further freefall by a deceptive, industry-backed Lancet article claiming that hydroxychloroquine was causing heart problems in hospitalized Covid patients across six continents.[iii] Headlines blared, hydroxychloroquine clinical trials were called off, and the World Health Organization recommended that physicians everywhere stop prescribing HCQ for Covid-19. By May 27, Dr. Harvey Risch, Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale Schools of Public Health and Medicine, had confronted this disaster. He issued an urgent call through the top-ranked American Journal of Epidemiology for hydroxychloroquine + azithromycin “to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.”[iv] “Five studies,” he wrote from Yale, “including two controlled clinical trials, had demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy.” Incredibly, this call for immediate action published in America’s top epidemiology journal did not appear in the mainstream news.[v] Instead, the opposite occurred. Although international protest drove the Lancet to retract its fraudulent May 22 article on June 4, the retraction made few headlines.  In those two short weeks the U.S. media, with one voice, established HCQ as “controversial,” “anecdotal,” and even “dangerous” when paired with Gilead Science’s highly publicized golden goose, remdesivir. On May 21, the day before the Lancet’s HCQ attack appeared, the ever-helpful New York Times had issued a timely update of its massive 7,500-word hit piece against Dr. Didier Raoult, the French microbiologist whose published studies in March and April had preceded Yale’s profit-threatening call for sanity. What was the Covid-HCQ background in China and France? Dr. Didier Raoult, M.D., PhD., age 68, has long been France’s most cited microbiologist. For 35 years he has been professor of infectious diseases at the Aix-Marseille University in Marseille. Twelve years ago he founded, and is director of, the university’s Institute of Emerging Tropical Diseases. Raoult is co-author of 2,300 published, peer-reviewed articles, in which he follows classical research standards by stating plagiarism checks, conflict of interest declarations, and funding declarations. He is married to a psychiatrist and they have three children. In a July 7 BFM-TV interview he said that his philosophy it to treat patients like family.  He also has three laboratories in Senegal, West Africa. A vacation village near Marseille in Carry le Rouet was used to quarantine French citizens returning from Wuhan in case they needed treatment. President Macron visited Raoult on April 9. What had Raoult learned from China? During the early months of the pandemic, Raoult discovered studies from China showing that the repurposed anti-malarial generic drugs chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine were found to be effective in arresting the SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in vitro (in the laboratory).[vi] Further Chinese studies followed, including randomized clinical trials, showing that when administered to patients in combination with the antibiotic azithromycin, during the early days of the infection, their symptoms would most often resolve.[vii] It thus seemed that almost anyone with early symptoms who tested positive could benefit from effective, affordable prophylactic treatment. Raoult welcomed the people of Marseille for HCQ-azithromycin treatment and they lined up (socially distanced) around the block outside his 200-staff clinic. This led to published studies. A first group of 80 patients showed a 50-fold benefit, and a larger group of 1,061 patients showed a similar result while achieving a mortality rate of only 0.5% – and with no cardiac toxicity.[viii] Recent HCQ efficacy studies, unreported by the mainstream media Two new independent U.S. studies have come to similar conclusions as Dr. Rault in Marseille and Dr. Risch at Yale: On July 1, 2020, the Henry Ford Health System in Southeast Michigan reported that a peer-reviewed retrospective study of 2,541 Detroit cases showed up to 71% mortality reduction in early treatment, using HCQ and azithromycin.[ix] In a June 30, 2020 study, Dr. Takahisa Mikami and his team at the Icahn School of Medicine, Mount Sinai, New York, analyzed the outcomes of 6493 patients who had confirmed Covid-19 and found that hydroxychloroquine decreased the mortality in hospitalized patients.[x] The Corporate Profits­ Triad: Big Pharma, Media, Government The Government arm of the triad Conflicts of interest: the corporate fox in the government henhouse During recent decades, the health role of government, which is to serve and protect its citizens, has been muddied by increasing corporate representation and influence in higher education and on government advisory committees and foundations. The drug industry, for example, funds university research, pours millions into medical schools, has personnel appointments to university faculties, and supplies textbooks to students. In 1995 Congress established the private CDC Foundation to support the work of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). In public-private partnerships, there is a thin line between support and conflict of interest. Susan Perry writes of the Gilead Tamiflu scandal in 2015: “Unbeknownst to many, the CDC receives substantial industry funding through the CDC Foundation. A spokesperson said that over the past three years the foundation has received an average of about $6.3 [million] from the industry a year, 21% of the foundation’s overall funding. Since 1995 the foundation has received funding from more than 150 corporate “partners,” including Gilead, which holds the patent on oseltamivir [Tamiflu], as well as Genentech and Roche, the drug’s manufacturers.”[xi] The creation of the CDC Foundation in 1995 altered the make-up of the highly respected CDC as a purely a tax-supported agency belonging to, and financed by, the people it served. Dozens of pharmaceutical companies, including Gilead Sciences Inc., contribute millions of dollars to the CDC Foundation each year.[xii] Anthony Fauci’s strange position on hydroxychloroquine On April 4, a major fight erupted at a meeting of the White House Coronavirus Task Force, when economics advisor Peter Navarro passed around file folders, pointing out that overseas hydroxychloroquine studies showed “clear therapeutic efficacy.” The government’s top infectious diseases specialist, Dr. Anthony Fauci, countered that there was only anecdotal evidence that HCQ works.[xiii] The evidence above shows that Fauci was wrong.  Navarro was furious and a heated argument ensued. As the head of the $5.9 billion National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Fauci should have known better – he should have known about the clinical trials, case reports, and observational studies in the medical literature. And he must certainly have known that it is not ethical to perform placebo-controlled studies during a pandemic:  if the drug saves lives, some of the placebo people will die – a point often made by Professor Raoult. Nor did Fauci mention real-world treatment guidelines. An April 17 article from the “Elsevier Public Health Emergency Collection” shows that government guidelines in Ireland, Saudi Arabia, and Egypt list chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as the first line of defense for mild-to-moderate Covid-19. The U.S. guideline listed only remdesivir as the first-line defense.[xiv] Dr. Fauci should have known about, and mentioned, such national guidelines beyond the United States. But most particularly, Fauci should have known about the two most critical reasoning aspects regarding hydroxychloroquine: It is only recommended with azithromycin or doxycycline, and only in an early illness outpatient setting in order to stop the infection before hospitalization becomes necessary.[xv] The studies above show that this is not rocket science. Why is Dr. Fauci still talking about anecdotal evidence? Why did he not retract what he told CNN on Wednesday, May 27, referring to what became the May 22 Lancet scandal?