Anti-hydroxychloroquine conspiracy? — Trump may be correct

30 July 2020

The United States' greed-based Establishment is . . .

. . . evidence suggests, trying to suppress the cheap generic drug, hydroxychloroquine, as a very early COVID infection treatment.

Hydroxychloroquine is often used with an macrolide (like azithromycin) and sometimes zinc in other parts of the world.

The key to this intervention is to do it very early in the infection process, before SARS-CoV-2 gains much hold.

Two significant studies in hydroxychloroquine's favor have been repressed out of the news.

A fraudulent study — since retracted because it was indeed a lie — has been enthusiastically cited by hydroxychloroquine's misleading critics.

And another (honorably done) overview from Brazil — which reached the same negative conclusion as the fraudulent one — is also cited.

Those pointing to either, miss the fact that both — and all the other hydroxychloroquine-rejecting reviews — did not imitate the methods that success-claiming practitioners have been using the drug for COVID treatment.

Following are some facts, with pertinent medical paper citations, to set the record straight.

Initially — no studies, but lots of unwarranted opinions — followed by a fraudulent review

The hydroxychloroquine tumult began on 20 March 2020, when President Trump claimed that the (inexpensive generic) drug worked in treating COVID-19.

At that time, the evidence in hydroxychloroquine's favor was anecdotal. Those favorable reports came, as I recall, primarily from working physicians in Italy, France and China.

The American Greed Establishment pushed back against the embattled President's comment, taking advantage of the fact that he has little credibility among his political opponents and the Deep State.

Even (National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases Director) Anthony Fauci distorted the truth. He overtly contradicted favorable anecdotal reports about hydroxychloroquine's utility in treating early COVID infections.

Dr. Fauci claimed — along with the rest of the Big Pharma mob and on the basis of literally no decent medical study evidence at the time — that hydroxychloroquine was both dangerous and ineffective in treating SARS-CoV-2.

Equally surprisingly, the American FDA published a grossly slanted and experientially unmerited warning about hydroxychloroquine's danger to patients.

This FDA-sponsored propaganda contradicted roughly 65-70 years of hydroxychloroquine's consistently safe use in malaria, arthritis, lupus and other illnesses. That's billions and billions of doses.

The FDA hazard-warning blurb also contradicted the CDC's (much more experienced) recommendation in favor of using hydroxychloroquine routinely — in non-hospital settings — to prevent malaria infection.

In short, if one were to take Dr. Fauci, the Big Pharma Mob and the FDA at their warning words — one would have to assume that COVID itself magically changed the way hydroxychloroquine had previously acted, billions of times.

Anyone with a scientifically minded and medically experienced brain would label these — 'it-will-kill-you' — type warnings as being statistically unsupported bullshit.

Indeed, the World Health Organization admits that:

The use of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine are accepted as generally safe for use in patients with autoimmune diseases or malaria.

© 2020 World Health Organization, Q&A : Hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 — What will happen to the people who were already enrolled in the hydroxychloroquine arm of the trial? who.int/news-room (visited 29 July 2020)

Then, in late May 2020, a fraudulent study claiming the same (previously spouted) hydroxychloroquine ineffectiveness showed up in The Lancet.

As a result of that study's alleged findings, the World Health Organization and France reflexively banned hydroxychloroquine's use in the COVID context. It was clear to me, even then, that neither of those Authorities had bothered to read and think about the study's clearly unrealistic data sets.

Medical doctors and research scientists were suspicious of the Lancet study's obviously rigged data tables. An unprecedented mass-signed letter from them, saying so, went to the journal.

Within weeks, the study was retracted.

The Lancet-published excuse was that three of the purported chart review's primary four authors could not confirm the veracity of their purported results. Because, we are told, they could not get access to them. Supposedly on privacy grounds.

How laughable is that?

You write a paper based on individual patient and hospital records that you never saw or bothered to verify?

Is that incredibly sloppy mindset supposed to pass for scientific integrity?

The fourth author, Sapan Desai, of the retracted paper is CEO of the company (Surgisphere) that apparently obtained or sponsored the data-distortion.

Naturally, he did not retract. Doing so, presumably, would have been a legal admission that his company had concocted the materials that his three co-authors were not allowed to access for verification.

Pertinent here, for those who do not know, retraction of a paper in the scientific community is a big deal. Retraction generally means that the authors methodologically screwed up, let unwarranted bias creep in during their data-analysis, or were simply and obviously scientifically incompetent.

Retraction, at its best, is an enormous professional embarrassment. It is can be career-ender.

In spite of all this — hydroxychloroquine's critics are (reportedly still occasionally) citing this made-up, retracted paper in their rejection of President Trump's enthusiasm for the inexpensive generic drug.

The Lancet-published fraud was followed by a scientifically sound (retrospective) study favoring hydroxychloroquine use

This French review supported hydroxychloroquine's efficacy, when implemented under suitable (early COVID infection) circumstances:

Jean-Christophe Lagier, Matthieu Million, Philippe Gautret, Philippe Colson, Sébastien Cortaredona, Audrey Giraud-Gatineau, Stéphane Honoré, Jean-Yves Gauberth, Pierre-Edouard Fournier, Hervé Tissot-Dupont, Eric Chabrière, Andreas Stein, Jean-Claude Deharoi, Florence Fenollar, Jean-MarcRolain, Yolande Obadia, Alexis Jacquier, Bernard La Scola . . . Christine Zandotti, Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis, Travel Medicine and Infectious Disease, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tmaid.2020.101791 (25 June 2020)

I have not seen a word about this postive finding anywhere in the Establishment's Lamestream.

It is as if the French study does not exist.

Why?

For the answer to that, see here.

In early July 2020, a second (also retrospective) hydroxychloroquine-supporting study was published

This one from Michigan (USA):

Samia Arshad, Paul Kilgore, Zohra S. Chaudhry, Gordon Jacobsen, Dee Dee Wang, Kylie Huitsing, Indira Brar, George J. Alangaden, Mayur S. Ramesh, John E. McKinnon, William O’Neill, Marcus Zervos and Henry Ford COVID-19 Task Force, Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, International Journal of Infectious Diseases, DOI:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099 (01 July 2020)

The Michigan study's methodology is arguably somewhat less persuasive than the French one.

Nevertheless, it is sounder than the scientifically atrocious studies that the anti-hydroxychloroquine crew had previously been depending on.

Suspiciously again, not a peep emerged in the Lamestream about these Michigan-based findings.

Toward the end of July, a competing study refuted hydroxychloroquine's claimed effectiveness

This one took place in Brazil — and apparently because it purports to disprove hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness (and thus disagrees with President Trump), it is referred to by the Lamestream:

Alexandre B. Cavalcanti, Fernando G. Zampieri, Regis G. Rosa, Luciano C.P. Azevedo, Viviane C. Veiga, Alvaro Avezum, Lucas P. Damiani, Aline Marcadenti, Letícia Kawano-Dourado, Thiago Lisboa, Debora L. M. Junqueira, Pedro G.M. de Barros e Silva, Lucas Tramujas, Erlon O. Abreu-Silva, Ligia N. Laranjeira, Aline T. Soares, Leandro S. Echenique, Adriano J. Pereira, Flávio G.R. Freitas, Otávio C.E. Gebara, Vicente C.S. Dantas, Remo H.M. Furtado, Eveline P. Milan, Nicole A. Golin, Fábio F. Cardoso, Israel S. Maia, Conrado R. Hoffmann Filho, Adrian P.M. Kormann, Roberto B. Amazonas, Monalisa F. Bocchi de Oliveira, Ary Serpa-Neto, Maicon Falavigna, Renato D. Lopes, Flávia R. Machado and Otavio Berwanger, Hydroxychloroquine with or without Azithromycin in Mild-to-Moderate Covid-19, New England Journal of Medicine, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2019014 (23 July 2020)

The Brazil study's obvious medical protocol shortcoming is that it waited until patients were already exhibiting COVID symptoms to begin hydroxychloroquine intervention.

That is not how hydroxychloroquine's most adamant COVID practitioners say that it should be employed.

They indicate that hydroxychloroquine treatment must start no later than the first 3 to 4 days after the infection begins. This is before most people show identifiable symptoms. It is certainly before anyone is so ill, that they have to go to the hospital.

Waiting until patients display symptoms, or show up the hospital, is too late.

This drawback, these hydroxychloroquine-using physicians claim, parallels the narrow-timeline method of action of some prominently used anti-viral drugs.

In short, the Brazilian study did not follow hydroxychloroquine-proponents' actual treatment protocol:

We conducted a multicenter, randomized, open-label, three-group, controlled trial involving hospitalized patients with suspected or confirmed Covid-19 who were receiving either no supplemental oxygen or a maximum of 4 liters per minute of supplemental oxygen.

Among patients hospitalized with mild-to-moderate Covid-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine, alone or with azithromycin, did not improve clinical status at 15 days as compared with standard care.

[Italics added, see the above-cited study at Methods and Conclusions]

The Brazilian retrospective cannot refute a method and intervention timeline that it did not try.

Why does anyone think otherwise?

I emphasize here that there is a difference between . . .

. . . a drug failing under:

(a) heavy viral-load and debilitating physiological conditions

that it is not biochemically suited to tackle

and

(b) succeeding under the less burdensome (initial) viral circumstances

at which

its mechanism of biological action is aimed.

Irritation

I am intolerant of intentionally indulged, scientific and medical beside-the-point-ness.

With regard to the ostensibly hydroxychloroquine-refuting Brazilian study, people already knew that hydroxychloroquine does not work by the time patients are noticeably ill with COVID.

That is exactly what all the other anti-hydroxychloroquine studies have been saying.

Those studies themselves having similarly gathered data that expressly did not reflect the early timing, dosages and means that hydroxychloroquine-supporters say work in their medical practices.

The continuing hydroxychloroquine-disproving fiasco is exactly analogous to . . .

. . . deliberately using the following anti-viral drugs:

oseltamivir phosphate (Tamiflu)

zanamivir (Relenza)

peramivir (Rapivab)

baloxavir marboxil (Xofluza)

. . . long after their timeline windows (for successful virus-replicating suppression) have passed.

And then, inaccurately and preposterously, claiming that they do not ever work.

It is not as if this early intervention phenomenon . . .

. . . especially with regard to drugs that suppress viral replication — is unknown.

The above methodological distortions, with regard to hydroxychloroquine and COVID, are (we can now reasonably conclude) not ignorance at work.

Something else is going on.

Information distortion about hydroxychloroquine continues today

Twitter has taken to banning people and posts that are favorable to using hydroxychloroquine in the COVID context.

Facebook and YouTube have been doing the same thing.

Every day, I see videos from intellectually respect-worthy people, who have had their informational videos removed from a media platform, simply because they run counter to the prevailing Party Line.

Group Think is in deep vogue.

The FDA has not removed its falsely framed, essentially CDC-contradicting hydroxychloroquine caveat.

And WHO — noted for its spectacular early incompetence in dealing with the pandemic's onset — implicitly continues to stand by its unnuanced, negative take on hydroxychloroquine and COVID:

The Solidarity Trial is an international clinical trial to help find an effective treatment for COVID-19, launched by WHO and partners.

It is hoped that one or more of the treatments under trial will result in improving clinical outcomes in COVID-19 patients and save lives. Other trials are on-going around the world in addition to the Solidarity Trial.

The treatment options are: Remdesivir; Lopinavir/Ritonavir; and Lopinavir/Ritonavir with Interferon beta-1a.

The treatment options were originally selected based on evidence from laboratory, animal and clinical studies.

Hydroxychloroquine was originally included in the trial but this arm was stopped, as of 17 June 2020, as evidence showed it did not result in the reduction of mortality of hospitalised COVID-19 patients, when compared with standard of care.

There is no mention, in this most pertinent section of WHO's website, regarding hydroxychloroquine's potential effectiveness before people are so sick that they have to go to the hospital.

One would assume that an ideal pandemic drug would be both cheap and one that efficiently prevents lots of infected people from having to make a hospital trip in the first place.

Yet, not a word from WHO about this vital public health consideration. Or the hydroxychloroquine-combination's tentatively proven ability to fill it.

Essentially everywhere we look . . .

. . . in the coronavirus context, we see Big Money suppressing evidence that might interfere with extorting anticipated profits from:

expensive remdesivir

(and other non-generics)

and

equally expensive SARS-CoV-2 vaccines

that are still distant on the time horizon.

There's our amorphous, but effective, Global Capitalism plot.

Greed's tentacles negatively affecting scientific research, as well eliminating unbiased reporting thereon.

This does not have to be an actually networked conspiracy . . .

. . . in the conventional legal sense, to have real effects.

Money simply buys influence. Loot frames people's perspectives with its alluring clout.

Money buys a whole lot of propaganda.

We see this every day in the United States. The tide of bullshit and tar-sticky lies is inescapable.

An ethical perspective

I find the Hydroxychloroquine Affair infuriating.

Instead of looking for — and supporting affordably simple ways to assist ill patients — the entirety of the American (and much of the world) Establishment is working to suppress exactly that.

Authorities like Director Fauci and the World Health Organization, who should have scientifically critical and study-appraising eyes, are operating in the arguably complete absence of both.

It is not that I maintain that the hydroxychloroquine, macrolide and zinc combination is a necessarily effective aid in therapeutically treating early COVID-19 infections.

It is (instead) that the System is intentionally concealing what is tentatively true in that context.

Hydroxychloroquine's worth — during very early SARS-CoV-2 infection — has now been tentatively demonstrated. Both anecdotally (in many practicing physicians' personal experience) and further via two reasonably well-conducted retrospective studies.

See — for added instance — the following "Gummi Bear" link

The URL link cited below is to Gummibear737's laboriously constructed national comparison chart.

The graph compares COVID case fatality rates across nations, with a focus on the proportion of these nation's hydroxychloroquine use:

https://twitter.com/gummibear737/status/1283840177497088001/photo/1

Obviously, the graph is only suggestive. Cases, fatalities and rates cannot be reliably compared among and between such disparate nations and healthcare systems.

Nevertheless, Gummi Bear's graphed overview is potentially suggestive. In exactly the same way as the hydroxychloroquine-favoring reports and studies that I have cited above.

Note

I am indebted to Dr. Chris Martenson for providing the public with Gummi Bear's information. See:

Peak Prosperity, What's It Like to Have Covid-19? An Infected Doctor Speaks, YouTube (21 July 2020)

If you are interested in COVID, there is no one I have come across, who takes a sounder Big Picture view of this coronavirus pandemic (and related economic events) than Dr. Martenson and his Peak Prosperity business partner, Adam Taggart, do.

The ongoing suppression of favorable hydroxychloroquine data . . .

. . . is presumably occurring, so as to profit Big Pharma and its many corporate allies.

Instead of allowing a cheap generic to take COVID center stage, they want to sell us and our public health systems — as yet unproven, even un-invented, and predictably much more expensive — purported cures and preventions.

Now, that is morally criminal.

The emotion-inducing semantics elicited by using the word 'conspiracy' . . .

. . . under these circumstances are justified.

Then, there is the added astonishment . . .

. . . presented by President Trump being probably right.

This must infuriate people, who have hated him since the very beginning of his presidential term.

Both points illustrate two themes that being decrepitly old has infused me with:

Even the world's biggest and most consistent Adam Henrys are occasionally right

and

consciously paying attention to competing points of view is important to Wisdom's accumulation.

The moral? — In the United States, some kinds of accurate speech are suppressed . . .

. . . even before they get out.

If one's occupational survival depends on the supporting Robber Barons' lusts for profitable pillage, what else (one asks) can one do?

However, if we are not among those owned or bribed, we should not accept anything Government or Corporatism says at face value.

They are both lying. Almost all the time.

The Purveyors of Raw Greed do not mind killing us, in the process of surreptitiously and expensively draining our wallets.

PeteFree.com

Anti-hydroxychloroquine conspiracy? — Trump may be correct