The Corona Virus Hoax of 2020

Relax in southern comfort on the east bank of the Mississippi. You're just around the corner from Beale Street and Sun Records. Watch the ducks, throw back a few and tell us what's on your mind.
User avatar
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas

Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19

Post by mediatechnology » Sun Aug 16, 2020 4:56 am

Doctors Pen Open Letter To Fauci Regarding The Use Of Hydroxychloroquine for Treating COVID-19
Authored by George C. Fareed, MD Brawley, California Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH Pensacola, Florida Donald C. Pompan, MD Salinas, California,

August 12, 2020

Anthony Fauci, MD
National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases
Washington, D.C.

Dear Dr. Fauci:

You were placed into the most high-profile role regarding America’s response to the Coronavirus pandemic. Americans have relied on your medical expertise concerning the wearing of masks, resuming employment, returning to school, and of course medical treatment.

You are largely unchallenged in terms of your medical opinions. You are the de facto “COVID-19 Czar”. This is unusual in the medical profession in which doctors’ opinions are challenged by other physicians in the form of exchanges between doctors at hospitals, medical conferences, as well as debate in medical journals. You render your opinions unchallenged, without formal public opposition from physicians who passionately disagree with you. It is incontestable that the public is best served when opinions and policy are based on the prevailing evidence and science, and able to withstand the scrutiny of medical professionals.

As experience accrued in treating COVID-19 infections, physicians worldwide discovered that high-risk patients can be treated successfully as an outpatient, within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature detail the efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment.

Dr. Harvey Risch, the renowned Yale epidemiologist, published an article in May 2020 in the American Journal of Epidemiology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis”. He further published an article in Newsweek in July 2020 for the general public expressing the same conclusions and opinions. Dr. Risch is an expert at evaluating research data and study designs, publishing over 300 articles. Dr Risch’s assessment is that there is unequivocal evidence for the early and safe use of the “HCQ cocktail.” If there are Q-T interval concerns, doxycycline can be substituted for azithromycin as it has activity against RNA viruses without any cardiac effects.

Yet, you continue to reject the use of hydroxychloroquine, except in a hospital setting in the form of clinical trials, repeatedly emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting its use. Hydroxychloroquine, despite 65 years of use for malaria, and over 40 years for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, with a well-established safety profile, has been deemed by you and the FDA as unsafe for use in the treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infections. Your opinions have influenced the thinking of physicians and their patients, medical boards, state and federal agencies, pharmacists, hospitals, and just about everyone involved in medical decision making.

Indeed, your opinions impacted the health of Americans, and many aspects of our day-to-day lives including employment and school. Those of us who prescribe hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin/doxycycline believe fervently that early outpatient use would save tens of thousands of lives and enable our country to dramatically alter the response to COVID-19. We advocate for an approach that will reduce fear and allow Americans to get their lives back.

We hope that our questions compel you to reconsider your current approach to COVID-19 infection.

Questions regarding early outpatient treatment

There are generally two stages of COVID-19 symptomatic infection; initial flu like symptoms with progression to cytokine storm and respiratory failure, correct?

When people are admitted to a hospital, they generally are in worse condition, correct?

There are no specific medications currently recommended for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 infection, correct?

Remdesivir and Dexamethasone are used for hospitalized patients, correct?

There is currently no recommended pharmacologic early outpatient treatment for individuals in the flu stage of the illness, correct?

It is true that COVID-19 is much more lethal than the flu for high-risk individuals such as older patients and those with significant comorbidities, correct?

Individuals with signs of early COVID-19 infection typically have a runny nose, fever, cough, shortness of breath, loss of smell, etc., and physicians send them home to rest, eat chicken soup etc., but offer no specific, targeted medications, correct?

These high-risk individuals are at high risk of death, on the order of 15% or higher, correct?

So just so we are clear—the current standard of care now is to send clinically stable symptomatic patients home, “with a wait and see” approach?

Are you aware that physicians are successfully using Hydroxychloroquine combined with Zinc and Azithromycin as a “cocktail” for early outpatient treatment of symptomatic, high-risk, individuals?

Have you heard of the “Zelenko Protocol,” for treating high-risk patients with COVID 19 as an outpatient?

Have you read Dr. Risch’s article in the American Journal of Epidemiology of the early outpatient treatment of COVID-19?

Are you aware that physicians using the medication combination or “cocktail” recommend use within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms, before the illness impacts the lungs, or cytokine storm evolves?

Again, to be clear, your recommendation is no pharmacologic treatment as an outpatient for the flu—like symptoms in patients that are stable, regardless of their risk factors, correct?

Would you advocate for early pharmacologic outpatient treatment of symptomatic COVID-19 patients if you were confident that it was beneficial?

Are you aware that there are hundreds of physicians in the United States and thousands across the globe who have had dramatic success treating high-risk individuals as outpatients with this “cocktail?”

Are you aware that there are at least 10 studies demonstrating the efficacy of early outpatient treatment with the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail for high-risk patients — so this is beyond anecdotal, correct?

If one of your loved ones had diabetes or asthma, or any potentially complicating comorbidity, and tested positive for COVID-19, would you recommend “wait and see how they do” and go to the hospital if symptoms progress?

Even with multiple studies documenting remarkable outpatient efficacy and safety of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail,” you believe the risks of the medication combination outweigh the benefits?

Is it true that with regard to Hydroxychloroquine and treatment of COVID-19 infection, you have said repeatedly that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)?”

But NONE of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms- correct?

All of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer were done on hospitalized patients, correct?

Hospitalized patients are typically sicker that outpatients, correct?

None of the randomized controlled trials to which you refer used the full cocktail consisting of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin, correct?

While the University of Minnesota study is referred to as disproving the cocktail, the meds were not given within the first 5 to 7 days of illness, the test group was not high risk (death rates were 3%), and no zinc was given, correct?

Again, for clarity, the trials upon which you base your opinion regarding the efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, assessed neither the full cocktail (to include Zinc + Azithromycin or doxycycline) nor administered treatment within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, nor focused on the high-risk group, correct?

Therefore, you have no basis to conclude that the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail when used early in the outpatient setting, within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms, in high risk patients, is not effective, correct?

It is thus false and misleading to say that the effective and safe use of Hydroxychloroquine, Zinc, and Azithromycin has been “debunked,” correct? How could it be “debunked” if there is not a single study that contradicts its use?

Should it not be an absolute priority for the NIH and CDC to look at ways to treat Americans with symptomatic COVID-19 infections early to prevent disease progression?

The SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19 virus is an RNA virus. It is well-established that Zinc interferes with RNA viral replication, correct?

Moreover, is it not true that hydroxychloroquine facilitates the entry of zinc into the cell, is a “ionophore,” correct?

Isn’t also it true that Azithromycin has established anti-viral properties?

Are you aware of the paper from Baylor by Dr. McCullough et. al. describing established mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert anti-viral effects?

So- the use of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin (or doxycycline) and zinc, the “HCQ cocktail,” is based on science, correct?

Questions regarding safety

The FDA writes the following: “in light of on-going serious cardiac adverse events and their serious side effects, the known and potential benefits of CQ and HCQ no longer outweigh the known and potential risks for authorized use.”So not only is the FDA saying that Hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, they are also saying that it is a very dangerous drug. Yet, is it not true the drug has been used as an anti-malarial drug for over 65 years?

Isn’t true that the drug has been used for lupus and rheumatoid arthritis for many years at similar doses?

Do you know of even a single study prior to COVID -19 that has provided definitive evidence against the use of the drug based on safety concerns?

Are you aware that chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine has many approved uses for hydroxychloroquine including steroid-dependent asthma (1988 study), Advanced pulmonary sarcoidosis (1988 study), sensitizing breast cancer cells for chemotherapy (2012 study), the attenuation of renal ischemia (2018 study), lupus nephritis (2006 study), epithelial ovarian cancer (2020 study, just to name a few)? Where are the cardiotoxicity concerns ever mentioned?

Risch estimates the risk of cardiac death from hydroxychloroquine to be 9/100,000 using the data provided by the FDA. That does not seem to be a high risk, considering the risk of death in an older patient with co-morbidities can be 15% or more. Do you consider 9/100,000 to be a high risk when weighed against the risk of death in older patient with co-morbidities?

To put this in perspective, the drug is used for 65 years, without warnings (aside for the need for periodic retinal checks), but the FDA somehow feels the need to send out an alert on June 15, 2020 that the drug is dangerous. Does that make any logical sense to you Dr. Fauci based on “science”?

Moreover, consider that the protocols for usage in early treatment are for 5 to 7 days at relatively low doses of hydroxychloroquine similar to what is being given in other diseases (RA, SLE) over many years- does it make any sense to you logically that a 5 to 7 day dose of hydroxychloroquine when not given in high doses could be considered dangerous?

You are also aware that articles published in the New England Journal of Medicine and Lancet, one out of Harvard University, regarding the dangers of hydroxychloroquine had to be retracted based on the fact that the data was fabricated. Are you aware of that?

If there was such good data on the risks of hydroxychloroquine, one would not have to use fake data, correct?

After all, 65 years is a long-time to determine whether or not a drug is safe, do you agree?

In the clinical trials that you have referenced (e.g., the Minnesota and the Brazil studies), there was not a single death attributed directly to hydroxychloroquine, correct?

According to Dr. Risch, there is no evidence based on the data to conclude that hydroxychloroquine is a dangerous drug. Are you aware of any published report that rebuts Dr. Risch’s findings?

Are you aware that the FDA ruling along with your statements have led to Governors in a number of states to restrict the use of hydroxychloroquine?

Are you aware that pharmacies are not filling prescriptions for this medication based on your and the FDA’s restrictions?

Are you aware that doctors are being punished by state medical boards for prescribing the medication based on your comments as well as the FDA’s?

Are you aware that people who want the medication sometimes need to call physicians in other states pleading for it?

And yet you opined in March that while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patient a week, hydroxychloroquine could only be used in an inpatient setting as part of a clinical trial- correct?

So, people who want to be treated in that critical 5-to-7-day period and avoid being hospitalized are basically out of luck in your view, correct?

So, again, for clarity, without a shred of evidence that the Hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail is dangerous in the doses currently recommend for early outpatient treatment, you and the FDA have made it very difficult if not impossible in some cases to get this treatment, correct?

Questions regarding methodology

The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It

In regards to the use of hydroxychloroquine, you have repeatedly made the same statement: “The Overwhelming Evidence from Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate no Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine.” Is that correct?

In Dr. Risch’s article regarding the early use of hydroxychloroquine, he disputes your opinion. He scientifically evaluated the data from the studies to support his opinions. Have you published any articles to support your opinions?

You repeatedly state that randomized clinical trials are needed to make conclusions regarding treatments, correct?

The FDA has approved many medications (especially in the area of cancer treatment) without randomized clinical trials, correct?

Are you aware that Dr. Thomas Frieden, the previous head of the CDC wrote an article in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2017 called “Evidence for Health Decision Making – Beyond Randomized Clinical Trials (RCT)”? Have you read that article?

In it Dr. Frieden states that “many data sources can provide valid evidence for clinical and public health action, including “analysis of aggregate clinical or epidemiological data”-do you disagree with that?

Frieden discusses “practiced-based evidence” as being essential in many discoveries, such SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome)-do you disagree with that?

Frieden writes the following: “Current evidence-grading systems are biased toward randomized clinical trials, which may lead to inadequate consideration of non-RCT data.” Dr. Fauci, have you considered all the non-RCT data in coming to your opinions?

Risch, who is a leading world authority in the analysis of aggregate clinical data, has done a rigorous analysis that he published regarding the early treatment of COVID 19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He cites 5 or 6 studies, and in an updated article there are 5 or 6 more-a total of 10 to 12 clinical studies with formally collected data specifically regarding the early treatment of COVID. Have you analyzed the aggregate data regarding early treatment of high-risk patients with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin?

Is there any document that you can produce for the American people of your analysis of the aggregate data that would rebut Dr. Risch’s analysis?

Yet, despite what Dr. Risch believes is overwhelming evidence in support of the early use of hydroxychloroquine, you dismiss the treatment insisting on randomized controlled trials even in the midst of a pandemic?

Would you want a loved one with high-risk comorbidities placed in the control group of a randomized clinical trial when a number of studies demonstrate safety and dramatic efficacy of the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail?”

Are you aware that the FDA approved a number of cancer chemotherapy drugs without randomized control trials based solely on epidemiological evidence. The trials came later as confirmation. Are you aware of that?

You are well aware that there were no randomized clinical trials in the case of penicillin that saved thousands of lives in World War II? Was not this in the best interest of our soldiers?

You would agree that many lives were saved with the use of cancer drugs and penicillin that were used before any randomized clinical trials–correct?

You have referred to evidence for hydroxychloroquine as “anecdotal”- which is defined as “evidence collected in a casual or informal manner and relying heavily or entirely on personal testimony”- correct?

But there are many studies supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine in which evidence was collected formally and not on personal testimony, has there not been?

So it would be false to conclude that the evidence supporting the early use of hydroxychloroquine is anecdotal, correct?

Comparison between the US and other countries regarding case fatality rate

(It would be very helpful to have the graphs comparing our case fatality rates to other countries)

Are you aware that countries like Senegal and Nigeria that use Hydroxychloroquine have much lower case-fatality rates than the United States?

Have you pondered the relationship between the use of Hydroxychloroquine by a given country and their case mortality rate and why there is a strong correlation between the use of HCQ and the reduction of the case mortality rate.?

Have you considered consulting with a country such as India that has had great success treating COVID-19 prophylactically?

Why shouldn’t our first responders and front-line workers who are at high risk at least have an option of HCQ/zinc prophylaxis?

We should all agree that countries with far inferior healthcare delivery systems should not have lower case fatality rates. Reducing our case fatality rate from near 5% to 2.5%, in line with many countries who use HCQ early would have cut our total number of deaths in half, correct?

Why not consult with countries who have lower case-fatality rates, even without expensive medicines such as remdesivir and far less advanced intensive care capabilities?

Giving Americans the option to use HCQ for COVID-19

Harvey Risch, the pre-eminent Epidemiologist from Yale, wrote a Newsweek Article titled: “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.” Did you read the article?

Are you aware that the cost of the Hydroxychloroquine “cocktail” including the Z-pack and zinc is about $50?

You are aware the cost of Remdesivir is about $3,200?

So that’s about 60 doses of HCQ “cocktail,” correct?

In fact, President Trump had the foresight to amass 60 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, and yet you continue to stand in the way of doctors who want to use that medication for their infected patients, correct?

Those are a lot of doses of medication that potentially could be used to treat our poor, especially our minority populations and people of color that have a difficult time accessing healthcare. They die more frequently of COVID-19, do they not?

But because of your obstinance blocking the use of HCQ, this stockpile has remained largely unused, correct?

Would you acknowledge that your strategy of telling Americans to restrict their behavior, wear masks, and distance, and put their lives on hold indefinitely until there is a vaccine is not working?

So, 160,000 deaths later, an economy in shambles, kids out of school, suicides and drug overdoses at a record high, people neglecting and dying from other medical conditions, and America reacting to every outbreak with another lockdown- is it not time to re-think your strategy that is fully dependent on an effective vaccine?

Why not consider a strategy that protects the most vulnerable and allows Americans back to living their lives and not wait for a vaccine panacea that may never come?

Why not consider the approach that thousands of doctors around the world are using, supported by a number of studies in the literature, with early outpatient treatment of high-risk patients for typically one week with HCQ + Zinc + Azithromycin?

You don’t see a problem with the fact that the government, due to your position, in some cases interferes with the choice of using HCQ. Should not that be a choice between the doctor and the patient?

While some doctors may not want to use the drug, should not doctors who believe that it is indicated be able to offer it to their patients?

Are you aware that doctors who are publicly advocating for such a strategy with the early use of the HCQ cocktail are being silenced with removal of content on the internet and even censorship in the medical community?

You are aware of the 20 or so physicians who came to the Supreme Court steps advocating for the early use of the Hydroxychloroquine cocktail.In fact, you said these were “a bunch of people spouting out something that isn’t true.”Dr. Fauci, these are not just “people”- these are doctors who actually treat patients, unlike you, correct?

Do you know that the video they made went viral with 17 million views in just a few hours, and was then removed from the internet?

Are you aware that their website, American Frontline Doctors, was taken down the next day?

Did you see the way that Nigerian immigrant physician, Dr. Stella Immanuel, was mocked in the media for her religious views and called a “witch doctor”?

Are you aware that Dr. Simone Gold, the leader of the group, was fired from her job as an Emergency Room physician the following day?

Are you aware that physicians advocating for this treatment that has by now probably saved millions of lives around the globe are harassed by local health departments, state agencies and medical boards, and even at their own hospitals? Are you aware of that?

Don’t you think doctors should have the right to speak out on behalf of their patients without the threat of retribution?

Are you aware that videos and other educational information are removed off the internet and labeled, in the words of Mark Zuckerberg, as “misinformation.”?

Is it not misinformation to characterize Hydroxychloroquine, in the doses used for early outpatient treatment of COVID-19 infections, as a dangerous drug?

Is it not misleading for you to repeatedly state to the American public that randomized clinical trials are the sole source of information to confirm the efficacy of a treatment?

Was it not misinformation when on CNN you cited the Lancet study based on false data from Surgisphere as evidence of the lack of efficacy of hydroxychloroquine?

Is it not misinformation as is repeated in the MSM as a result of your comments that a randomized clinical trial is required by the FDA for a drug approval?

Don’t you realize how much damage this falsehood perpetuates?

How is it not misinformation for you and the FDA to keep telling the American public that hydroxychloroquine is dangerous when you know that there is nothing more than anecdotal evidence of that?

Fauci, if you or a loved one were infected with COVID-19, and had flu-like symptoms, and you knew as you do now that there is a safe and effective cocktail that you could take to prevent worsening and the possibility of hospitalization, can you honestly tell us that you would refuse the medication?

Why not give our healthcare workers and first responders, who even with the necessary PPE are contracting the virus at a 3 to 4 times greater rate than the general public, the right to choose along with their doctor if they want use the medicine prophylactically?

Why is the government inserting itself in a way that is unprecedented in regard to a historically safe medication and not allowing patients the right to choose along with their doctor?

Why not give the American people the right to decide along with their physician whether or not they want outpatient treatment in the first 5 to 7 days of the disease with a cocktail that is safe and costs around $50?

Final questions

Fauci, please explain how a randomized clinical trial, to which you repeatedly make reference, for testing the HCQ cocktail (hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc) administered within 5-7 days of the onset of symptoms is even possible now given the declining case numbers in so many states?

For example, if the NIH were now to direct a study to begin September 15, where would such a study be done?

Please explain how a randomized study on the early treatment (within the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms) of high-risk, symptomatic COVID-19 infections could be done during the influenza season and be valid?

Please explain how multiple observational studies arrive at the same outcomes using the same formulation of hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin + Zinc given in the same time frame for the same study population (high risk patients) is not evidence that the cocktail works?

In fact, how is it not significant evidence, during a pandemic, for hundreds of non-academic private practice physicians to achieve the same outcomes with the early use of the HCQ cocktail?

What is your recommendation for the medical management of a 75-year-old diabetic with fever, cough, and loss of smell, but not yet hypoxic, who Emergency Room providers do not feel warrants admission? We know that hundreds of U.S. physicians (and thousands more around the world) would manage this case with the HCQ cocktail with predictable success.

If you were in charge in 1940, would you have advised the mass production of penicillin based primarily on lab evidence and one case series on 5 patients in England or would you have stated that a randomized clinical trial was needed?

Why would any physician put their medical license, professional reputation, and job on the line to recommend the HCQ cocktail (that does not make them any money) unless they knew the treatment could significantly help their patient?

Why would a physician take the medication themselves and prescribe it to family members (for treatment or prophylaxis) unless they felt strongly that the medication was beneficial?

How is it informed and ethical medical practice to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is inexpensive, safe, and dramatically effective treatment with the HCQ cocktail, which the science indicates interferes with coronavirus replication?

How is your approach to “wait and see” in the early stages of COVID-19 infection, especially in high-risk patients, following the science?

While previous questions are related to hydroxychloroquine-based treatment, we have two questions addressing masks.

As you recall, you stated on March 8th, just a few weeks before the devastation in the Northeast, that masks weren’t needed. You later said that you made this statement to prevent a hoarding of masks that would disrupt availability to healthcare workers. Why did you not make a recommendation for people to wear any face covering to protect themselves, as we are doing now?

Rather, you issued no such warning and people were riding in subways and visiting their relatives in nursing homes without any face covering. Currently, your position is that face coverings are essential. Please explain whether or not you made a mistake in early March, and how would you go about it differently now.


Since the start of the pandemic, physicians have used hydroxychloroquine to treat symptomatic COVID-19 infections, as well as for prophylaxis. Initial results were mixed as indications and doses were explored to maximize outcomes and minimize risks. What emerged was that hydroxychloroquine appeared to work best when coupled with azithromycin. In fact, it was the President of the United States who recommended to you publicly at the beginning of the pandemic, in early March, that you should consider early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and a “Z-Pack.” Additional studies showed that patients did not seem to benefit when COVID-19 infections were treated with hydroxychloroquine late in the course of the illness, typically in a hospital setting, but treatment was consistently effective, even in high-risk patients, when hydroxychloroquine was given in a “cocktail” with azithromycin and, critically, zinc in the first 5 to 7 days after the onset of symptoms. The outcomes are, in fact, dramatic.

As clearly presented in the McCullough article from Baylor, and described by Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect. Undeniably, the hydroxychloroquine combination treatment is supported by science. Yet, you continue to ignore the “science” behind the disease. Viral replication occurs rapidly in the first 5 to 7 days of symptoms and can be treated at that point with the HCQ cocktail. Rather, your actions have denied patients treatment in that early stage. Without such treatment, some patients, especially those at high risk with co-morbidities, deteriorate and require hospitalization for evolving cytokine storm resulting in pneumonia, respiratory failure, and intubation with 50% mortality. Dismissal of the science results in bad medicine, and the outcome is over 160,000 dead Americans. Countries that have followed the science and treated the disease in the early stages have far better results, a fact that has been concealed from the American Public.

Despite mounting evidence and impassioned pleas from hundreds of frontline physicians, your position was and continues to be that randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have not shown there to be benefit. However, not a single randomized control trial has tested what is being recommended: use of the full cocktail (especially zinc), in high-risk patients, initiated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. Using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin late in the disease process, with or without zinc, does not produce the same, unequivocally positive results.

Dr. Thomas Frieden, in a 2017 New England Journal of Medicine article regarding randomized clinical trials, emphasized there are situations in which it is entirely appropriate to use other forms of evidence to scientifically validate a treatment. Such is the case during a pandemic that moves like a brushfire jumping to different parts of the country. Insisting on randomized clinical trials in the midst of a pandemic is simply foolish. Dr. Harvey Risch, a world-renowned Yale epidemiologist, analyzed all the data regarding the use of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail and concluded that the evidence of its efficacy when used early in COVID-19 infection is unequivocal.

Curiously, despite a 65+ years safety record, the FDA suddenly deemed hydroxychloroquine a dangerous drug, especially with regard to cardiotoxicity. Dr. Risch analyzed data provided by the FDA and concluded that the risk of a significant cardiac event from hydroxychloroquine is extremely low, especially when compared to the mortality rate of COVID-19 patients with high-risk co-morbidities. How do you reconcile that for forty years rheumatoid arthritis and lupus patients have been treated over long periods, often for years, with hydroxychloroquine and now there are suddenly concerns about a 5 to 7-day course of hydroxychloroquine at similar or slightly increased doses? The FDA statement regarding hydroxychloroquine and cardiac risk is patently false and alarmingly misleading to physicians, pharmacists, patients, and other health professionals. The benefits of the early use of hydroxychloroquine to prevent hospitalization in high-risk patients with COVID-19 infection far outweigh the risks. Physicians are not able to obtain the medication for their patients, and in some cases are restricted by their state from prescribing hydroxychloroquine. The government’s obstruction of the early treatment of symptomatic high-risk COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine, a medication used extensively and safely for so long, is unprecedented.

It is essential that you tell the truth to the American public regarding the safety and efficacy of the hydroxychloroquine/HCQ cocktail. The government must protect and facilitate the sacred and revered physician-patient relationship by permitting physicians to treat their patients. Governmental obfuscation and obstruction are as lethal as cytokine storm.

Americans must not continue to die unnecessarily. Adults must resume employment and our youth return to school. Locking down America while awaiting an imperfect vaccine has done far more damage to Americans than the coronavirus. We are confident that thousands of lives would be saved with early treatment of high-risk individuals with a cocktail of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. Americans must not live in fear. As Dr. Harvey Risch’s Newsweek article declares, “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”

Very Respectfully,

George C. Fareed, MD, Brawley, California

Michael M. Jacobs, MD, MPH, Pensacola, Florida

Donald C. Pompan, MD, Salinas, California ... g-covid-19
Dr. Fauci seeks to maximize death, loss of liberty and income from his many financial ties to the Gates Foundation and Big Pharma.
To hell with the rest of you.
And yes "Dr. Death" would likely sacrifice a family member or loved one...

Americas Frontline Doctors Lawsuit Motion For Preliminary Injunction Of Covid-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization: ... zation.pdf

User avatar
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas

FDA: Risk of Inaccurate Results with Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit

Post by mediatechnology » Tue Aug 18, 2020 6:05 pm

You may recall the large number of false positives detected by Connecticut's Department of Public Health for tests run on Thermo Fisher equipment...
mediatechnology wrote:
Tue Jul 21, 2020 6:00 pm
Connecticut Reports Dozens of False Positive Coronavirus Tests
Connecticut’s Department of Public Health (DPH) announced on Monday the discovery of dozens of false-positive coronavirus tests, attributing the error to a “flaw” in a testing system.

The Thermo Fisher system’s error was discovered when public health lab director Dr. Jafar Razeq and his team were working to validate pool testing, which is the process of testing a large number of specimens at one time. In order to validate that process, the team had to use specimens that were already known to be positive.

But the validation process also required the team to determine the strength or weakness of the positive specimens, and that information isn’t readily available from the Thermo Fisher system. So Razeq and his team went into the raw data to pull out the information they needed — and discovered that some of the test results weren’t actually positive.

Dr. Razeq called the discovery “alarming.”

“When we started looking at the background information on these specimens, we realized that these specimens should have not been reported as positives,” he said.

After retesting 161 positive samples associated with 144 patients, the team found that only 54 patients actually tested positive for the virus.

“If it had not been for us looking into the pool testing to use some of these previously known positive samples, there were no indications that any of these reported positive results would have been questioned,” Razeq said. ... rus-tests/
So out of 161 "positive" tests 107 were actually negative.
That's an error rate of 66%...
Now this from the FDA:

Risk of Inaccurate Results with Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit - Letter to Clinical Laboratory Staff and Health Care Providers
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is alerting clinical laboratory staff and health care providers of a risk of false results with Thermo Fisher Scientific TaqPath COVID-19 Combo Kit based on two issues related to the test kit and the associated Applied Biosystems COVID-19 Interpretive Software. The test is a molecular assay for the detection of COVID-19 from respiratory specimens.

The first issue is related to inadequate vortexing and centrifugation of RT-PCR reaction plates. Thermo Fisher Scientific’s conclusion from investigations of customer complaints indicate that inadequate vortexing or centrifugation can lead to false positive results. Thermo Fisher Scientific has updated these instructions to reduce the risk of inaccurate results. The updated instructions related to vortexing and centrifugation are important for both laboratories performing testing according to the authorized instructions for use and laboratories who are performing validated modifications outside of the authorization. ... r-clinical
The Thermo Fisher tests return +60% false positives...

And they all look for an RNA strand that may not even be indicative of the actual virus. See: ... 220#p15412

Americas Frontline Doctors Lawsuit Motion For Preliminary Injunction Of Covid-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization: ... zation.pdf

User avatar
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: The Corona Virus Hoax of 2020

Post by JR. » Wed Aug 19, 2020 7:53 am

I saw a newspaper article the other day saying that some testing machines required a software upgrade... that some states failed to do.

Cancel the "cancel culture", do not support mob hatred.

User avatar
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas

Welcome To The Global Gulag...

Post by mediatechnology » Wed Aug 19, 2020 8:17 pm

Maund: Welcome To The Global Gulag... ... obal-gulag
In case you haven’t noticed, we now live under tyranny, and over the next several years, thanks to the unquestioning zombielike submission of the masses, it is set to get a whole lot worse.

When this whole bizarre virus plandemic, or scamdemic, started to gather momentum I instinctively knew that something wasn’t right, that the official explanations didn’t add up, and that society at large was “being played” by those in power with an agenda. To anyone with even a modicum of real intelligence, the whole thing stinks of an elaborate plot.

So, driven by natural curiosity, and being a person who would rather know the truth, however awful, than go around with blinders on, I embarked on a quest to find out what was really going on, what was really behind all this, and for what it’s worth I am going to share my findings with you today.

Now I understand that there are those amongst you who are programmed by the system to label anyone who expresses views that deviate from what is portrayed as normal as a “conspiracy theorist”. If you are one of those you may want to click out now, but before you go, I want to point out to you that what I am writing about now, what we are living through, is not conspiracy theory, but conspiracy fact.
How is it possible to paralyze with fear billions of people with fabricated and lurid stories about a killer pandemic into giving up their basic rights en masse and submitting to being treated like farm animals? Simple – you control their inputs via the mainstream media. Ordinary people are not called “the masses” for nothing – they are largely ignorant, stupid and gullible, that’s why, instead of seeking to educate themselves about what is really going on, they fritter their lives away watching soaps, video games and following the lives of celebrities etc. By owning and controlling their favorite media, you control their limited thought processes and they are susceptible to any propaganda. Basically, by the skillful use of propaganda you can get the masses, who are about 70% of the population, to do anything you want, and they can then exert peer group pressure on more thoughtful individuals to conform, a classic and glaring example being the wearing of face masks, which is State sanctioned collective paranoia, and if that doesn’t work they are forced to conform and wear them by means of fines or imprisonment. Here it is worth noting that the most powerful institutions in the world, especially the banks, media and Wall St are heavily peopled by “the race who cannot be criticized”.

Virtually all media – newspapers, TV channels, radio stations, and now most websites are controlled by the same plutocratic forces, which is why you have to be careful what you say on Facebook and Twitter or they flick the switch and banish you. This is why, once the scamdemic started, the masses were bombarded with wall to wall 24-hour scare stories about the virus, involving lies exaggeration and distortions on an epic scale, with nonstop repetition drumming it into them. They foolishly and unquestioningly sucked it all up and submitted to being locked up in their houses for months, and now have to wear diapers on their faces to establish their credentials as dumbed down fearful submissive sheep.

It’s very easy by selective editing and exclusion to control the minds of young people like this, whose literary education largely comes from Facebook and Twitter, many of whom don’t have a thought in their heads that wasn’t put there by someone else…

There are 3 key planks that the New World Order are going to use to impose their planned draconian totalitarian matrix on the peoples of the world:

1) a cashless society,
2) forced vaccination,
3) and forced mask wearing and these plans are already well advanced and already being imposed in the case of the mask.
The mask is the supreme symbol of the triumph of the will of the NWO over the mass of the population. It is rich in symbolism. To start with it doesn’t work, because virus particles are so small they go straight through it. The purpose of the mask is to demonstrate that the iron will of the State prevails – it is at once a symbol of compliance, a symbol of conformity, a symbol of submission, a negation of individual personality, since people can’t see your face, and best of all, through impeding normal respiration it damages your immune system and makes you more susceptible to catching the virus! The few thinking people who try to refuse to go along with this insanity will in time come under increasing attack from the majority, and are already being subjected to fines. CNN is airing pro-mask propaganda which goes something along the lines of “not wearing a mask says something about the person not wearing it” which is clearly an incitement to discrimination and possible violence. Actually they are right in a way – it says that he or she is not a mindless submissive sheep.
More: ... obal-gulag

Americas Frontline Doctors Lawsuit Motion For Preliminary Injunction Of Covid-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization: ... zation.pdf

User avatar
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas

Renowned EU Scientist: COVID-19 Was Engineered In China Lab

Post by mediatechnology » Fri Aug 21, 2020 7:01 am

Renowned EU Scientist: COVID-19 Was Engineered In China Lab, Effective Vaccine "Unlikely"
It will not be possible for the Dr. Fauci’s of the world to dismiss Professor Giuseppe Tritto as a crank.

Not only is he an internationally known expert in biotechnology and nanotechnology who has had a stellar academic career, but he is also the president of the World Academy of Biomedical Sciences and Technologies (WABT), an institution founded under the aegis of UNESCO in 1997.

In other words, he is a man of considerable stature in the global scientific community. Equally important, one of the goals of WABT is to analyze the effect of biotechnologies - like genetic engineering - on humanity.

In his new book, this world-class scientist does exactly that. And what he says is that the China Virus definitely wasn’t a freak of nature that happened to cross the species barrier from bat to man. It was genetically engineered in the Wuhan Institute of Virology’s P4 (high-containment) lab in a program supervised by the Chinese military.

Prof. Tritto’s book, which at present is available only in Italian, is called Cina COVID 19: La Chimera che ha cambiato il Mondo (China COVID 19: The chimera that changed the world). It was published on August 4 by a major Italian press, Edizioni Cantagalli, which coincidentally also published the Italian edition of one of my books, Population Control (Controllo Demografico in Italian) several years ago.

What sets Prof. Tritto’s book apart is the fact that it demonstrates - conclusively, in my view - the pathway by which a PLA-owned coronavirus was genetically modified to become the China Virus now ravaging the world. His account leaves no doubt that it is a “chimera”, an organism created in a lab.


Those of us who, early on, argued for a laboratory origin were dismissed as conspiracy theorists. Our articles were censored as “fake news,” often by American virologists who knew perfectly well what the truth was, but preferred to protect China, and themselves, from scrutiny lest they themselves be implicated.

Dr. Tritto’s 272 pages of names, dates, places, and facts leaves such apologists with no place to hide.


Dr. Shi first solicited help from the French government, which built the P4 lab, and from the country’s Pasteur institute, which showed her how to manipulate HIV genomes. The gene insertion method used is called “reverse genetics system 2.” Using this method, she inserted an HIV segment into a coronavirus discovered in horseshoe bats to make it more infectious and lethal.

The U.S. was involved as well, particularly Prof Ralph S. Baric, of the University of North Carolina, who was on the receiving end of major grants from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Disease. This is, of course, Dr. Anthony Fauci’s shop. Fauci was a big proponent of “gain of function” research, and when this was prohibited at Baric’s lab because it was considered to be too dangerous, the research was shifted to China.

Prof. Tritto believes that, while Dr. Shi’s research began as an effort to develop a vaccine against SARS, it gradually morphed into an effort to use “reverse genetics” to build lethal biological weapons. This was the reason that the Wuhan lab became China’s leading center for virology research in recent years, attracting major funding and support from the central government. ... e-unlikely
I reported that this was a bioweapon that included HIV insertions on February 1, 2020: ... 00&p=14624

I was labeled a "conspiracy theorist"...

Americas Frontline Doctors Lawsuit Motion For Preliminary Injunction Of Covid-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization: ... zation.pdf

User avatar
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas

Are You Ready For The "No One Could Have Known" Routine?

Post by mediatechnology » Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:17 am

Are You Ready For The "No One Could Have Known" Routine? ... wn-routine
Ready for another rendition of the “no one could have known” routine made famous by all the self-proclaimed liberals who shamelessly went along with the Neo-Cons planned and lie-supported destruction of the Middle East nearly two decades ago?

As in “no one could have known” that by shutting down life as we know it to focus obsessively on a virus mostly affecting what is still a relatively small number of people at the end of their lives (yes, oh squeamish ones we must summon the courage to talk about Quality Adjusted Life Years when making public policy) we probably would:

1. Cause economic devastation and hence excess deaths, suicides, divorces depressions in much larger numbers than those killed by the virus.

2. Provide an already monopolistic and predatory online retailing establishment with competitive advantages in terms of capital reserves and market share that will make it virtually impossible at any time in the near or medium future for the country’s and the world’s small and even medium-sized businesses to ever catch up to them. And that this will plunge huge sectors of the world-wide economy into serf-like ruin, with all that this portends in terms of additional death and human suffering.

3. Cause greatly increased misery and countless additional deaths in the so-called Global South where many people, rightly or wrongly, depend on the consumption patterns of us relatively fortunate sit-at-homers to make it through the week.

4. Destroy much of what was attractive about urban life as we know it and lead to a real estate collapse of extraordinary proportions, turning even our few remaining showplace cities into crime-ridden reserves of ever more desperate people.

5. Force state and local governments, already struggling before the crisis, and unable to print at money at will like the Feds, to cut their already insufficient budgets at a time when their broke and stressed constituents need those services more than ever.

6. Push “smart” monitoring of our lives, already intolerable for anyone still clinging to memories of freedom in the pre-September 11th world, to the point where most people will no longer understand what people used to know as privacy, intimacy or the simple dignity of being left alone.

7. Train of a generation of children to be fearful and distrustful of others from day one, and to view bending to diktats “to keep them safe”, (no matter how empirically dubious the actual threat to them might be), rather than the courageous pursuit of joy and human fullness, as the key goal in life.


Repeat after me, “no one could have possibly known these things” and then check your screen to see, as citizens of Oceania, whether you are supposed to be worried this week about the threat from Eurasia or Eastasia.

And, of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t remind you to mask up real tight, especially in light of the CDC numbers — you’ll have to forgive here for breaking with the rich tradition of pure panic-driven narrative and moving to the realm of empirical figures — which tell us that up until this point in our “everything must change” crisis:

0.011% of the US population under 65 have died of COVID

0.005% of the US population under 55 have died of COVID

0.0009% of the US population under 35 have died of COVID

0.0002% of the US population under 25 have died of COVID

0.00008% of the US population under 15 have died of COVID

And as for the most “high risk” people?

0.23% of the US population over 65 have died of COVID

Though they’ve tried to sell it otherwise, this thing has very little, if anything, to do with great-grandma’s Spanish flu of 1918.

Indeed, it not even completely clear if it is cumulatively worse in terms of loss of life than the influenzas outbreaks of 1957-58 or 1968-69 that most everyone slept through. But, I guess that doesn’t matter when there’s a narrative to keep.

Might it be time to ask if there might be something else afoot with all this?

More: ... wn-routine

Americas Frontline Doctors Lawsuit Motion For Preliminary Injunction Of Covid-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization: ... zation.pdf

User avatar
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: The Corona Virus Hoax of 2020

Post by JR. » Sun Aug 23, 2020 7:57 am

Good science fiction (like Orwell's 1984) is part entertainments and part warning.

Cancel the "cancel culture", do not support mob hatred.

User avatar
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas

FDA Gets Tough Questions About Hydroxychloroquine From Republican Senators

Post by mediatechnology » Mon Aug 24, 2020 4:59 pm

The FDA Gets Tough Questions About Hydroxychloroquine From Republican Senators
The debate over hydroxychloroquine has faded from the forefront as big tech has worked to suppress information and silence the voices of doctors and researchers promoting it. However, it appears the controversy over the drug has encouraged some senators to take a closer look, and it seems they are asking the FDA the right questions. ... rs-n829877
Senate Letter to FDA: ... HCQ_CQ.pdf
To better understand the FDA’s actions, the letter requests four specific pieces of information:

1) Studies or data that definitively shows prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine within seven days of COVID-19 symptoms is ineffective or harmful.

2) Produce studies or data on the use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 in outpatient settings under a doctor’s care, including as a preventative. They specifically exclude late-stage studies involving hospitalized patients.

3) Provide any public statements issued by the FDA to clarify the agency does not regulate the practice of medicine and explaining state governments may not regulate or prohibit the sale of the drugs.

4) Information on potential treatments for COVID-19 that have been used internationally and whether the FDA has approved those for use in the United States. If not, the senators want to know what steps are being taken to ensure they are.

Americas Frontline Doctors Lawsuit Motion For Preliminary Injunction Of Covid-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization: ... zation.pdf

User avatar
Posts: 3657
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 7:21 pm

Re: The Corona Virus Hoax of 2020

Post by JR. » Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:32 am

I suspect the studies they cited to demonstrate ineffectiveness were given to late stage patients who were already close to death. :roll:


Speaking of the FDA, I have been taking NSAID anti-inflammatory medication, Naproxen Sodium for years, for my arthritic knee. This is better known as Aleve, but I have been buying the cheaper generic store brand from Wally world, for years. A few months ago my latest batch of Naproxen wasn't working. My knee doesn't tell me when it is going to rain, but it does tell me when the anti-inflammatory isn't working. :lol: The next week shopping I bought a bottle of the name brand Aleve and my knee quieted down. When that small bottle of Aleve ran out I tried the suspect Naproxen again, and once again my knee informed me it was no bueno.

Being cheap, on my next shopping trip I bought another bottle of generic Naproxen, and another bottle of Aleve JIC. The new batch of generic Naproxen worked, proving to me at least that I had one bad batch of generic naproxen. It was probably not worth my time, but I reported the bad batch of OTC medicine to the FDA using their website...The faulty medicine in my case was relatively harmless but it still bothered me.

Yesterday I got a phone call from Perrigo, the generic drug maker that Walmart apparently uses. They asked me a bunch of questions about my usage, pretty much the same information I provided on the FDA form. I told the lady that I still had the bottle of ineffective Naproxen if she wants it back to test. She said to hold onto it for another two weeks. If they want it for testing they will email me a shipping label.

Unclear if it was a serious investigation, or just trying to mitigate a consumer complaint. Probably a little of both. I am a little pleased that my complaint did not get lost in the government bureaucracy's black hole.

Cancel the "cancel culture", do not support mob hatred.

User avatar
Posts: 4753
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 2:34 pm
Location: Oak Cliff, Texas

Re: The Corona Virus Hoax of 2020

Post by mediatechnology » Tue Aug 25, 2020 9:23 am

JR. wrote:
Tue Aug 25, 2020 8:32 am
I suspect the studies they cited to demonstrate ineffectiveness were given to late stage patients who were already close to death. :roll:

I agree.
I'm aware of at least two "designed-to-fail" studies.
The VA study which was administered to late-stage inflammatory cytokine storm patients without Zinc and the Lancet study funded by Gates which was withdrawn due to the use of made-up data.
There might be a third where they gave mega doses of HCQ to "prove" harmful effects but I haven't seen it cited in print.

Zinc is really the active ingredient with HCQ acting as an ionophore.
If the patient is Zn deficient - and most people are - the efficacy is greatly reduced.

Therapeutics get in the way of using the China Virus as a means to advance vaccine-based depopulation.
The whole scam blows up.

Have you tried high quality Turmeric as an anti-inflammatory?

Americas Frontline Doctors Lawsuit Motion For Preliminary Injunction Of Covid-19 Vaccine Emergency Use Authorization: ... zation.pdf

Post Reply