Sign In
0 Items (
Search
Comments (20)
The discipline of medicine has changed. Its traditional cohesion and leadership have fractured into multiple disconnected specialty groups, allowing powerful commercial and political forces to increase control over both structure and function of medical practice. The COVID era burst through boundaries long taken for granted.
A major driver of opinion about COVID has been the World Health Organisation (WHO). Its Health Emergencies Programme in its proposed form, designed to strengthen disease-specific systems and capacities, including for vaccines, pharmaceuticals and other public health interventions, may be a serious threat to independent local health systems. Given it is an unelected body responsive to powerful lobbies, and a with a performance short of wide approval in its overarching role in the recent pandemic, there is reason to tread carefully.
I have practised as a physician in Australia for half a century. I recall when we knew (and revered) the name of the President of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, while living in fear of their Chief Examiner as we sought qualification! They were great men and women and were the exemplars for ethical practice. Today they only occasionally question imperfect narratives or challenge the ethics of prevailing medical practice, risking being part of the problem rather than a solution.
Recently I was invited to speak at a symposium “Medicine at the Crossroads in the COVID Era”. I sought a topic that illustrates contemporary challenges to Western medicine. Few topics could be more relevant than threats to the doctor-patient relationship, and to science-based medicine seen in the COVID-19 pandemic. So I chose “The curious tale of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)” as a metaphor for the distortion COVID imposed on clinical practise, driven by misinformation aimed at supporting a flawed narrative originating from the highest sources of medical influence.
I am a clinical immunologist. I have a special interest in chronic inflammatory disease and the immunology of the airway. Among the valuable drugs in my clinical practice was HCQ, for which I wrote approximately 20,000 prescriptions without any observed major side effect. It proved to be a safe and effective medication that blocked antigen-promoting pathogenic immune responses in patients with autoimmune or hypersensitivity diseases.
COVID made HCQ a household name. No medication attracted more brutal and remorseless assault. It was subjected to derision and negativity by medical professionals and the public alike. HCQ presents the dilemma that embodies the extremes of the narrative and science of COVID. In this context and over the last three years, popular narrative and science have gone down quite different paths.
First, a little about hydroxychloroquine. At the molecular level, the drug retains the quinoline ring structure of its parent, quinine, an alkaloid secondary metabolite derived from bark of the cinchona tree, native to Peru. Known as an allelochemical, meaning that it interacts with other organisms, quinine is a highly evolved anti-oxidant and free radical scavenger component of the defence network of host plants. Quinine shares with other allelochemicals multiple intracellular targets. Advantages for allelochemicals used as therapeutics in treating disease include modification of the cell response to infection in order to dampen the hijacking of its metabolic machinery to produce pathogen.
Quinine differs from synthetic antivirals that block specific biochemical steps essential for viral replication. Advantages that come with multiple cell targets include resilience to mutant escape, protection against mutated variants resistant to both natural and vaccine-induced immunity, long biological half-lives, and activity over a wider disease cycle, with value in both prevention and therapy. Quinine and its derivatives have a long track record in treating infectious disease, most notably malaria. Chloroquine was effective in vitro against SARS-CoV-1. So it was no surprise that Chinese scientists included chloroquine in a panel of repurposed drugs testing for anti-Covid activity within weeks of the pandemic being announced. In vitro anti-viral activity in micromolar concentrations was confirmed in several centres.
Numerous small clinical studies appeared through the first half of 2020, supporting drug benefit. Two studies were influential, shaping the immediate future for HCQ, but in unintended ways. First came reports from the infectious disease group in Marseille, led by the controversial Professor Didier Raoult. A successful trial including 24 patients, published in mid-March, that combined the antibiotic azithromycin with HCQ gained attention with Sanofi, a French multinational pharmaceutical and healthcare company, offering large supplies, and President Macron consulting Raoult.
The second was a family doctor Vlad Zelenko, in 2020 in upstate New York who noted in an open letter to President Trump a dramatic change in outcomes from COVID-19 infection when early disease was treated with HCQ, azithromycin and zinc. His data were later published as a case series of 2,200 patients, claiming 95 per cent protection against both admission to hospital and death. Trump’s enthusiasm for Zelenko’s approach led to worldwide publicity and controversy.
Blowback against HCQ was immediate and without precedent.
In France, Raoult was an easy target. By November 2020 he faced a disciplinary hearing for “spreading false information” and eventually lost his job. The mainstream press aimed to quell “disinformation”. It had meshed gears to continue an attack on Raoult which pre-dated COVID and centred on studies in tuberculosis. Opposition became focussed around complaints made by a Dr Bik, identifying procedural problems, ethics irregularities and methodology variations (but never fraudulent HCQ claims). Legal proceedings brought by Raoult made him a public talking point. The science of HCQ was lost in the fray.
The ongoing furore ensured the rejection of HCQ as a COVID therapy in France. In the US, Zelenko suffered a similar fate – incomplete patient data combined with the curse of support from President Trump generated widespread condemnation. Comments such as “where a jumble of facts, falsehoods, and rumours—-collides with our fragile information ecosystem” characterised the public and medical response.
Several events in late 2020 combined to stifle any chance of HCQ survival. Three large randomised controlled trials (RCT) failed to support HCQ, causing the WHO to distance itself from the drug. In its place the narrative became “support vaccines at any cost”. Trials of a second repurposed drug with anti-Covid activity and the imminent launch of the genetic vaccines further shaped the narrative.
The Surgisphere Trial was published in The Lancet (22/5/20), the Solidarity Trial, sponsored by the WHO, in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM:15/10/20), and the Recovery Trial involving a collaborative UK group (5/6/20) in the NEJM. Each study included thousands of hospitalised patients with late and serious disease, with high mortality of 10-25% in both study and control arms. The Surgisphere Study was withdrawn by The Lancet, with claims of fraud because of data manipulation, while numerous inconsistencies were noted in the other studies. High doses used in sick patients were linked to cardiac arrhythmias. The results of these studies stopped further research. The WHO withdrew support for HCQ, and the Cochrane Review (considered an arbiter of “best practice”) advised against further studies.
The demonstration from Monash University in June of 2020 that ivermectin had anti-viral activity in vitro followed by positive clinical studies, immediately shifted disinformation claims from HCQ to another repurposed drug that threatened the imminent release of the COVID vaccines. Results from phase 3 trials for a series of genetic vaccines appeared in late 2020 amongst a fanfare of support, with political, media and medical commitment combining to suppress any treatment option that may hinder vaccine uptake.
FAST forward to 2023. Six discoveries have changed the playing field to give a better understanding of HCQ in management of Covid-19.
The first is identification of a target for HCQ early in viral replication. It was known that HCQ increased pH within lysosomes to reduce lysosomal protein degradation and early autophagy, key events in later aspects of viral replication. However, recent proteomic studies using cloned and tagged viral proteins identified specific protein-protein interaction on cell surfaces that required a Sigma1R molecule as a chaperone to enable viral entry across the cell membrane. Many drugs were assessed for their capacity to block the action of Sigma1R. HCQ was the most potent of this group, signalling its potential for effective early treatment.
The second insight came from an analysis of clinical studies concentrating on high-risk subjects with early disease. Despite clear evidence from early 2020 that HCQ had maximum benefit early in disease (as was the case with most anti-viral therapies) and in high-risk patients, detractors of HCQ continued to include hospitalised patients with advanced disease in meta-analyses. It was these inappropriate assessments that influenced official advice.
Professor Harvey Risch, in an evidence-brief of June 2021, included a meta-analysis of nine controlled outpatient studies in high-risk subjects. Every study showed protection with the meta-analyses revealing highly significant protection against hospitalisation (at 44%, and death at 75%). Regional studies in India and Brazil found a close temporal relationship between dosing and a reduction in mortality.
The third insight came from a concern over conflict of interest (COI) created by grants and payments from pharmaceutical companies to investigators. Where authors had no COI, success for HCQ treatment was 86 per cent, while in those with a COI, only 5% had positive outcomes.
Fourth, was a retrospective analysis of the experience of the Marseille group, previously directed by Professor Raoul. Data on 30,400 subjects treated to the end of 2021 were included. Sensitivity to earlier criticism about accuracy and objectivity led to the study including an external judicial officer in the study. Amongst this treated group, subjects treated with HCQ had a mortality of 0.1%. When those treated with HCQ were compared with those not treated with HCQ, the HCQ-treated subjects had a significant advantage with respect to mortality (70% protection in outpatients, and 45% in in-patients), providing strong support for the inclusion of HCQ in early therapeutic regimens.
Fifth, was the registration of the specific antiviral drugs molnupiravir and Paxlovid based on scanty and controversial data. Molnupiravir is a powerful mutagen with untested toxicity in humans and little evidence of clinical value. Paxlovid reduces both admission to hospital and mortality, but to a lesser extent than does HCQ. It has age restrictions, drug incompatibilities and a high relapse rate.
Accusation of undue influence over regulatory assessment of both drugs despite concerns, and costs in excess of $1000 per course, may have contributed to both HCQ and IVM being recently released by the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration for off-label use. Just 12 months ago, a doctor in Queensland could be jailed for prescribing HCQ, while others across Australia faced being deregistered. The data have not changed.
A sixth reason was concern that the vaccine narrative, which drove the suppression of repurposed drugs, had become tarnished with repeated boosters failing to protect – even promoting infection – amidst growing alarm over severe adverse events.
THE curious tale of HCQ is a story of tension between a narrative to protect pharmaceutical interests, and science. It should never have happened because long established clinical practice involves informed consent and decisions based on what may work within the doctor-patient relationship. This includes judicious use of off-label drugs of known safety and mechanism of action.
As a clinical immunologist whose patients often have rare diseases, and are all different, I need to individualise the therapy I prescribe. In the COVID era HCQ came to symbolise a change in the order of medical business — of denying patients best-practice medicine and ridiculing individuals and institutions who promoted it.
The WHO has moved a long way from its founding principles in 1948 to keep the world safe by connecting nations, partners and people to promote health. COVID laid bare an agenda to manipulate world-best practice and centralise its control. Suppressing HCQ was a rehearsal. By controlling major clinical trials and using their influence on regulatory bodies, with supportive propaganda, the WHO and its partners shifted decision-making from grass-roots medicine to international forces driven by power and financial reward.
The WHO is a complex organisation, subject to many political and economic influences. It is vulnerable to manipulation because of chronic underfunding and the crossfire of conflicting national agendas. Its support for expensive, potentially dangerous, and variably effective patented antiviral drugs (Remdesivir, molnupiravir and Paxlovid), alongside its negativity with respect to safe, cheap and effective repurposed drugs such as HCQ and ivermectin, may, regrettably, reflect the influence of massive pharmaceutical companies and their host nations on its fragile agenda.
Things started to go wrong in mid-2020 with the Solidarity Study mentioned above recruiting more than 3,550 hospitalised patients with advanced Covid-19 in 35 countries and 400 hospitals. They were unlikely to respond to any therapy. Unless initiated within 24-48 hours anti-viral treatment is rarely beneficial. On the basis of results from this study, WHO posted on December 31, 2020, a release recommending against HCQ as a dangerous and ineffective drug likely to cause ventricular arrhythmias. That posting remains, supported by “30 trials with more than 10,000 patients”. Again, all were in late-stage infection and, as usual, evidence that HCQ works well in early disease was pointedly ignored.
A review of all studies provides perspective. This web site maintains an updated and annotated compendium of meta-analyses, including every study on every drug tested against COVID. Current data on early treatmentwith HCQ gives 62% protection in 36 studies with 56,000 patients. Mortality following early treatment was 72% less in the treated group, according to a meta-analysis including 15 studies and 52,000 patients. This data source includes a review of 39 published Physician Case Series of early treatment in 237,000 subjects. The mean protection against hospitalisation and mortality, was 94%. While these real-life data sets are subject to bias, include different drug combinations and lack patient details, they are consistent with more formal studies.
This essay has followed the science, arguing that HCQ has a pivotal role in early treatment of high-risk individuals with COVID-19 infection. The argument has had to battle alternative stories, espoused by much of the mainline press, that vaccines and expensive antiviral drugs are the exclusive key to controlling Covid.
The handling of HCQ in COVID has two major elements. First, given that HCQ was an approved pharmaceutical whose safety profile and mechanism of action were well known, it could be argued that the physician operating with informed consent within the doctor-patient relationship should be free to determine whether the off-label use of HCQ would benefit that patient.
Second, the fate of HCQ is a story about switching decision-making in medicine around a core of experienced clinicians familiar with local needs, to powerful global political and commercial interests.
The “Curious Tale of HCQ in the COVID Era” raises questions about how best to make clinical decisions for our patients. Traditional Australian confidence in the doctor-patient relationship, and science, have served us well. We should be careful to defend and strengthen them. The WHO has an important role in monitoring disease, providing advice and coordinating programmes that otherwise are beyond local resources. However, these essential activities must not conflict with sovereign authorities in domains equipped with quality health services based on local knowledge, strong science infrastructure and a tradition of medical practise based on personal responsibility.
(I thank Professor Stephen Leeder AO for his editorial skills)
Robert Clancy is Emeritus Professor of Pathology at the University of Newcastle Medical School. He is a member of the Australian Academy of Science’s Covid-19 Expert Database. He also wrote on aspects of the Covid pandemic in Quadrant’s July-August and October issues
Thank you Professor Clancy. I very much appreciate your in depth, carefully explained updates on all of this, as well of course as your preparedness to do so and the work you’ve had to put in to do it.
It is worth mentioning that HCQ is one part of the great saga of the suppression of early treatment for Covid-19. Several doctors with extensive pre-Covid clinical experience reported success with early treatment using repurposed drugs (including but not restricted to HCQ and Ivermectin) that were readily available and cheap. Dr Chetty in South Africa, and Drs Tyson and Fareed in California are examples. Early treatment protocols, applicable to about the first week after infection, were published and shared widely.
In addition, Dr. Chetty and others noted a marked changed in symptoms starting on or about the 8th day after infection, and a different course of treatment was required at this point. However, they showed that this predominantly pulmonary phase of the disease could also be treated effectively using rational protocols based on first principles.
The general conclusion by mid-2020 was that Covid-19 was a disease that posed a severe risk mainly to the elderly, and that this risk could effectively be countered with repurposed drugs. On this basis, mass vaccination of entire populations with inadequately untested, novel genetic products was evidently unjustified. Nevertheless, the vaccine lobby, with the lock-step support of ill-informed governments and the media, prevailed over clinical wisdom and established public health practice.
It was the lock step adherence by the MSM to the government (read drug companies) line that is of real concern. The government lied to us and the MSM reinforced that lie so we are wise not to trust either. What happened to the investigative reporter and the paper that would print those reports that I found on the web in the alternative news rooms of the world. The MSM is the master of it’s own demise and the sooner it happens the better. It no longer deserves respect or support.
Apologies for “Inadequately untested” please read “inadequately tested” above.
If anything this essay proves that profits come before patients. It has been long known that the FDA in the US has been bought and paid for by the drug companies. It is not an independent arbiter of what is safe and effective so trust in it’s ability to recommend safe treatments was well and truly destroyed during Covid. Likewise who funds the TGA? We do know it followed the US path of rubbishing treatments that work in favour of expensive vaccines which appear not to work. How many died because they were denied early treatment by re purposed drugs? How many have been adversely affected by the vaccines? How many are now wary of the doctors who were forced to follow the government line? I know that my own doctor nearly had a panic attack when I asked for some Ivermectin because she was that scared of being deregistered.
The WHO which oversaw much of the mayhem now wants complete control over pandemics world wide and socialist governments like the Albanese government are likely to sign up. Handing control over to an organisation which wants a one world government is tantamount to treason.
According to Marianne Demasi in the BMJ, the TGA’s funding is 96% from industry, the highest level in the world.
BMJ 2022;377:o1538
Therapeutic Goods Administration Chief Medical Adviser Robyn Langham, when asked by Nationals senator Matt Canavan in Senate estimates if the TGA should regulate the use of androgen-blocking drugs that are approved for the treatment of prostate cancer but are prescribed off-label to children as young as 10 to halt the progress of puberty, said it was up to individuals doctors to use their clinical judgment in prescribing the drugs and the TGA had no role in the matter.
.
“Where doctors wish to prescribe off-label, we do not regulate doctors’ practice,” she said.
.
This is the same TGA that would have a doctor de-registered for using his clinical judgement in prescribing Ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine to a fully informed competent 70yo.
In other words, the TGA are perfectly happy for off-label prescribing as long as it doesn’t interfere with the capacity of pharmaceutical companies to maximise profits.
The global campaign to discredit and even to outlaw effective Covid treatment was intended to support the enforcement of the genetic ‘vaccine’ strategy. Robert Malone and others have shown that ‘military grade’ psychological operations we used to deceive and coerce entire populations, with extensive CIA involvement. See rwmalonemd.substack.com.
‘Operation Warp Speed’ was masterminded in the US by the military-industrial complex. The documentary evidence, including patent trails, has been unearthed by David Martin, Sasha Latypova and others. The Covid ‘vaccine’ was legally defined as a military ‘countermeasure’ not a vaccine. It was produced for the US Department of Defense by Pfizer and Moderna, although the manufacturing and the clinical trials were farmed out to other companies. See sashalatypova.substack.com.
The fact that the ‘vaccine’ rollout was really part of a ‘biodefense’ program helps to explain the widespread military-style response, including lockdowns and the use of militarized policing. It also explains the extensive involvement of the Australian Department of Home Affairs (counterpart of the US Department of Homeland Security) in the censorship of Covid information. And it explains in part why Robert Clancy is publishing his invaluable insights in Quadrant.
I do not for one minute doubt that Trump’s enthusiasm for this HQT had a great deal to do with its dismissal. His endorsement meant it *had* to be dismissed as a failure and furphy. This is where the prejudice and interests of the media and the wider intelligentsia coincided with the financial interests of major pharmaceutical companies and the likes of Fauchi who have direct financial links to them.
Today science is trumped by politics, and is used as a purely political tool.
The role of the WHO during COVID and subsequently mirrors a much broader dynamic at play, namely the shift of power to a Global Cabal of Elites who seek to override national sovereignty in their execrable march to global governance by decree. This process has accelerated rapidly in the last decade and COVID along with AGW are the Trojan Horse warfare by which it takes place. Best practice empirical science is trashed in order to lay the way for the narrative of the new’ Science’, which is best described as providing the agenda driven conclusion first then seeking whatever methodology and results to confirm the predetermined conclusion. Under such a pseudo-scientific regime one must simply satisfy internal validity through confirmation bias and external validity be damned. How else could you arrive at a place in our post-modern / post-truth world where peak scientific bodies endorse the validity of a biological man being in all respects a woman. Internal validity is met by satisfying all the vested interests – the peak medical body and peak trans activist bodies agree with each other that their methodology is sound (internal validity), inspite of and despite it being at odds with objective biological reality (external validity). The same pattern can be discerned with COVID interventions. Big Pharma and Big Government concluded that HCQ and Ivermectin were an impediment to the mRNA vaccine ‘revolution’ despite and inspite of the best available evidence or lack thereof. All that was needed to complete their internal validity test was the methodology and results to satisfy their predetermined conclusion which required trashing the likes of Raoult et al’s work. Internal validity test met – to hell with external validity (ie. applied reality). True empirical scientific methodology has an inbuilt corrective mechanism against this – commencing with the null hypothesis, replication, falsifiability and the requirement for both internal and external validity to be satisfied (i.e. its not enough to say that agent X is effective against disease Y because it shows positive results in vitro, it must also replicate those results in vivo.). None of this was met with the mRNA vaccines – hence their emergency status and the waiving of prescribing liability. Not satisfied with this corruption of science, the WHO, health bureaucracies and big Pharma then inverted sound scientific methodology when it came to HCQ and Ivermectin (working from a predetermined conclusion backwards) and weaponsied it against these two agents and those who supported them. We really are living through a retrograde era of human endeavor.
While you read this article (Thank you, Prof Clancy) the United Nations World Health Organisation is reported in several places including the UK Parliament to have nearly completed a significant power grab over the medical services of all counties that support WHO.
The sovereignty that Australia once enjoyed will suffer a loss unless our medical representatives speaking for us to the WHO are instructed not to sign the present documents that would turn Australian medical doctors into puppets of the UN.
If you have any connection with this process, please educate yourself and others, urgently in the next few days, to resist this move. Few mentions of it have been made public in my choice of reading. Stealth is at work. Geoff S
At my dentist the staff were reluctant to engage in conversation.
Thanks, Robert, for yet another concerning report. Having also been a Fellow of the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (now Life Fellow, since retiring), I keep on receiving its email notifications — and have grown most disheartened by how it’s increasingly becoming an advocacy group, pontificating on political matters I’d have thought far outside its remit, or even medical interests. Its Advocacy Council, promotes an official position on climate change, and the indigenous voice (https://www.racp.edu.au/docs/default-source/policy-and-adv/creating-equitable-and-healthier-communities-college-policy-and-advocacy-council-plan-2022-2026.pdf?sfvrsn=141cca1a_6).
Similarly, the WHO has become mainly a political bureaucracy, with all that entails, including susceptibility to corruption. Years ago, working as a WHO consultant provided me with insights that lowered my previously-high opinions of its operations, and nothing seems to have improved since.
And, just to complicate matters, even medical/science journals have taken on the role of advocates, while at the same time being increasingly driven by financial considerations — to the point that many now solicit papers, and ask for payments from authors before they’re even considered for publication (I suspect payment, in some cases, guarantees publication). While academics are driven to boost their CVs, the scope for corruption is enormous.
The RACGP is equally concerned with unscientific political ideology.
The most recent edition of their “academic journal”, the Australian Journal of General Practice, is the “Climate Change” edition.
The references cited in the articles are pure garbage.
Professor Clancy, your obvious care in composing this important article testifies to the change in power structures in the practice and oversight of medicine in this country, and probably in other western countries. From the point of view of us mere citizens, this development is unsettling, to say the least.
The insight that you, and other brave souls such as Dr. Phillip Altman and others, have provided over the past three years has safely guided many of us in preserving the long term health of ourselves and our loved ones. Sadly, those medical practitioners who have not been aware of the disagreement amongst immunologists across the world, or have been afraid to depart from the narrative, have lost the confidence of many of their patients.
I wish I was confidant that our medical bureaucracy was as concerned about the implications of the proposed WHO TREATY in respect to world health as many of us are. The prospect of future mandated global vaccines and other treatments is an appalling prospect.
I still feel that I have little knowledge or understanding of Wuhan virus infection. I feel doubt about how harmful is the infection, about who is more or less vulnerable, and about the safety and efficacy of the respective vaccines. It is hard to understand the importance of hydroxychloroquine without such knowledge or understanding of the disease itself. It seems to me that the élite have wasted a golden opportunity to find out the facts that I am in doubt about; in that sense, the health authorities have shown themselves to be incompetent. Perhaps someone can enlighten me?
As I read this article — as a non-medical scientist — but as a reasonably educated and intelligent 77-year-old — I am conflicted!
I have also been a paid-up member of the Australian Skeptics for many decades, and as such, I am always alert to pleading that appears to support one point of view, but is so esoteric in its content that the average citizen has no chance of ascertaining truth from untruth!
I know sweet bugger all about CHQ, but once Ivermectin is introduced into the conversation, I take a step back!
Ivermectin has been promoted as a miracle drug by many nutty “out there” politicians who would not know a Bunsen burner from a petri dish. but most of the scientific literature I have read suggests that this drug should be relegated to treating parasites in bovines!
We should maintain a healthy skepticism about what we read on the Web — whether that be on Quadrant or Australian Skeptics!
I think you should ask for a refund of the “paid-up” fees to the Oz Skeptics.
The words that Ivermectin ” should be relegated to treating parasites in bovines!” are proof that more mass-media reports were consulted than “scientific literature”.
There are posts elsewhere – and Professor Clancy has written about Ivermectin see https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/public-health/2021/09/a-sad-and-shameful-day-for-australian-medicine/
with comment links to the God-like TGA studies proving the use of Ivermectin in HU-MANs is at least harmless and at best beneficial in many afflictions including scabies.
and Dr Phillip Altman in Quadrant as well – see
https://quadrant.org.au/opinion/public-health/2021/08/ivermectin-chemists-place-themselves-between-doctor-and-patient/
So it’s NOT just “nutty” politicians (like Trump? Christensen? Kelly? Antic? Rennick?) but immunologists and respected – but retired! – medical scientists who propose these off-label cheap treatments deserve at least some consideration instead of the obscene public money waste we have witnessed associated with the most draconian mandates in history.
Foot-note:
“The extreme of this arrogance was the rejection of several cheap and safe repositioned drugs, notably hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and ivermectin (IVM), both of which have been shown to reduce admission to hospital and death by around 60 to 70 per cent. The role of Big Pharma in denigrating these drugs and supporting the political mantra at a time when they were taking hundreds of millions of dollars in government grants to produce patented and high-profit drugs for early COVID-19 treatment was indefensible.”
Further to my reply to the dismissal of IVM (in the context of half-dismissal of HCQ):
It is more and more abysmally clear that we are sinking in a morass of high-level corrupt political interference in the most critical societal interactions – like doctor-patient relationships and the freedom to oppose a mandated treatment that is highly suspicious instead of early treatment off-label medicine or alternatives like the protein-based Professor Petrovski’s “Vaxine” vaccine that was completely nuked by the TGA. Continuing to this very day, despite a crowd-funding wave of support that raised over 1 million bucks to support an Australian created Covid-19 vaccine. I think it’s unprecedented in history, but NIL effect.
Read and weep at
https://www.gofundme.com/f/Support-for-Vaxines-Covid-19-vaccine-initiative?viewupdates=1&rcid=r01-168660504277-d477d12c096711ee&utm_medium=email&utm_source=customer&utm_campaign=p_email%2B1137-update-supporters-v5b