We rational people are inclined to dismiss conspiracy
theories. But what does that do for us when we come up against an actual
conspiracy?
I don’t know, exactly. I’m just asking questions. Because I
have lots of questions.
I’ve seen multiple videos this week of doctors, on the front
lines, treating patients who come in with COVID-19 and testing positive. These
doctors are having overwhelming—near 100%—success using the generic
anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), typically in combination with zinc
(the mineral, taken as a supplement) and Z-pak (azithromycin, an antibiotic, in
a convenient dosage-divided package called a Z-pak). Here’s a starting list:
·
America’s Frontline Doctors video, that was taken
down from YouTube, made available on The BlazeTV.
HCQ has been used, safely, for around 80 years, for malaria
as well as lupus and a couple of other conditions. While no drug is entirely
without side effects, this one has few. One is listed as coronary problems.
However, in standard dosages and usages, it is possible that no one has seen
that side effect in many decades. In many countries HCQ is sold over-the-counter,
so people can have some on hand in case they travel to places with malaria, as
a preventative. It is inexpensive and widely available.
Back in 2005, studies showed chloroquine, a derivative of quinine, of which HCQ is a refined
type, was found to be beneficial in treating SARS-type viruses. The current coronavirus,
COVID-19, is a SARS-type virus (official name SARS-CoV-2), with something like
78% similarity to the last major SARS outbreak. It would seem obvious, then,
that HCQ would be a first go-to drug for finding ways to treat the novel
coronavirus we’re facing this year. And it was. Korea, Japan, and many African
countries used it right away.
This chart shows the results of controlling the virus in
countries that used HCQ early, as compared to countries that didn’t.
 |
| Comparison of countries using HCQ early to those who did not. Image found here. |
Oddly, in many major countries, there has been tremendous
prejudice against using HCQ for COVID-19. To those of us in the US, it looked
like yet another backlash against President Trump, because he mentioned it as a
possible solution to the virus on March 19th in his daily pandemic
briefing.
But that doesn’t explain the huge backlash to the drug in
many other countries. I’m trying to figure out what’s going on. Why is there
this prejudice against a drug that has been known to be safe, has been found to
be effective against this virus, and could provide a solution that would allow
the panic over the spread of the virus to recede so we could get back to
something like normal life?
My first awareness of the drug came the day before President
Trump’s mention on March 19th. The announcement I heard came out of
a lab in France. This was one week into the shutdown of businesses here in
Houston—which we were told would be only two to three weeks to prevent
overwhelming the healthcare system (but are still hanging over us). Great news!I thought. I hope we learn more. The next day President Trump mentioned it,
among other possibilities, and this sounded hopeful too.
Soon after, I heard an interview with a New York doctor, Dr.
Vladimir Zelenko, who had had 100% success with, at that time, nearly 700
patients. He treated them early, as outpatients, using the combination of HCQ,
zinc, and Z-pak. Zero deaths. None ever even needed hospitalization or
ventilator.
I also heard a report from Dr. Robin Armstrong, in the
Galveston area, a doctor I knew of, who had had dozens of nursing home residents
test positive for the disease. They treated with HCQ (he didn’t mention the combination
with zinc and Z-pak), and they had no deaths or hospitalizations. That’s with the
most high-risk population. Backlash came against him because he is active in
the Republican Party, and that supposedly made him lie for Trump’s sake? Even
though any journalist could follow up with that nursing home and get
corroboration.
In late May a study was published in The Lancet, supposedly
debunking any and all reports of success with HCQ. That was big news, because
it was a prestigious peer-reviewed journal. However, it wasn’t what it
purported to be. In fact, the data could not be corroborated, and turned out to be simply a fraud, an embarrassment to major journals such as The Lancet and The New
England Journal of Medicine. Three of the four doctors signed onto the
study withdrew their names, completely discrediting the report. The Lancet’s
editor answered that the journal is prepared to examine methodology, but isn’t
equipped to investigate the possibility that entire articles and associated
data are fabricated; that kind of deception is unfortunately too easy to do.
The media narrative is still that HCQ has been discredited.
There’s a Dr. Didier Raoult, in France, who began showing
HCQ’s effectiveness against the coronavirus as early as February. He reported in late May that he was finding HCQ with Z-pak helpful in the vast majority of over 1000
cases. He has so far treated over 4,000 using this protocol. It was his work
that got the attention of the WHO to start a study, and yet they didn’t study
what he reported.
The WHO study was first halted in late May, when The
Lancet published its report. But, with its retraction, the WHO picked up
again June 3rd, studying HCQ, Remdesivir, and two other drugs. In
this study HCQ was withheld until patients were hospitalized, possibly on
ventilators, and likely to die. At this point HCQ was given—not in the trio
combination, usually not in combination with either zinc or Z-pak. And HCQ was
given in high doses, possibly harmful doses, in fact four times the amount India
was using in their HCQ study. And then the WHO reported the shocking news that,
while using HCQ to treat, a third of patients had died, and they recommended against
its use entirely.
Well, of course. You didn’t give it at the right time. You
didn’t give it in a safe dosage. And you didn’t give it in the combination
shown to be working.
Imagine, if you had the regular flu, which kills large
numbers of people annually. Instead of taking Tamiflu at the outset, you have
that withheld until you are in the hospital with pneumonia or whatever other
symptoms people get when the flu kills them. And at that point you are given
Tamiflu in very large, possibly toxic, doses. That is essentially what the WHO did,
rather than study whether HCQ in combination could become the Tamiflu for COVID-19.
Why did they do that?
The WHO is a worldwide organization. Trump Derangement
Syndrome doesn’t explain this worldwide patient-killing study. Nor does it
explain the prejudice against HCQ in France—from which I first heard the success
story—and other countries.
Dr. Rob Elens, a general practitioner in The Netherlands, began
using HCQ + zinc with his patients and had them fully recovering within four
days—much faster than the 15-21 days for patients without the treatment. Then
the government threatened to remove his medical license if he didn’t stop using
the treatment. Dr. Elens was censored in a similar way to Drs. Ericksen and Massihi, from California.
Their videos get scrubbed, and no one is allowed to reference them on social
media.
As we saw this week, with the doctors in Washington, DC,
that continues to happen. One of the main ideas in the Frontline Doctors’ video
was that HCQ could be used as a preventative. It could be a way for schools to
reopen; at-risk teachers or students with underlying conditions could take a
low preventative dose. Front-line caregivers have been doing that.
Wednesday night Glenn Beck interviewed one of the Frontline
Doctors, Dr. Simone Gold. She mentioned that, in France, where HCQ had been considered safe and sold
over-the-counter for decades, they announced a change in status on January 2020,
making it available by prescription only. So I looked into that. It was true.
From a two-part story from Life Site on Dr. Raoult
and hydroxychloroquine, there’s this:
When Raoult announced “game over” for the Chinese coronavirus
on February 25, it came to public attention that hydroxychloroquine, a safer
and better tolerated derivate of chloroquine which is itself a pharmaceutical
drug derived from quinine, was no longer available over-the-counter in France
since January 13, following a regulation published by delegation for Health
Minister Agnès Buzyn by the General Director of Health, Jérôme Salomon.
Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), known as “Plaquénil” in France, was
developed in Germany roughly at the same time as chloroquine in the 1930s and
has been efficiently used as an anti-malaria drug since then until resistant
forms of malaria appeared. It is currently used to treat lupus and rheumatoid
arthritis. Doctors have more than 80 years experience with prescribing this
cheap molecule that was never considered to be a dangerous medication—until the
beginning of this year.
The surprising inscription of HCQ on the list of poisonous
substances, only dispensable with a prescription, only weeks before the
coronavirus was identified as having entered into France, led many to wonder
whether the move had been deliberate in this context.
It was underscored in particular that Buzyn’s husband, Yves
Lévy, until recently head of the INSERM (National Institute for health and
medical research) was a member of the French delegation present at the opening
of the Wuhan P4 “high security” laboratory that conducts research on dangerous
viruses, and that he also had a personal axe to grind against Didier Raoult who
was one of the first to complain about a conflict of interests when Buzyn was
named Health Minister and became supervisor of the INSERM—and of her own
husband. These accusations were brushed aside by the mainstream press.
The timing does seem suspicious. With further looking I
learned that France had actually made the status change to HCQ some months earlier,
in late 2019, and just hadn’t made a formal announcement until January. But I
can’t find an explanation for the change in status in the first place.
A drug being sold over-the-counter is considered safe under
recommended use and dosage. That doesn’t mean that such drugs aren’t poisonous
in the wrong amounts. In fact, most are. The one time I had to contact poison
control was when my toddler got into a bathroom medicine cabinet (where she had
previously been unable to reach) and got into some Sudafed, a decongestant. They
looked like little red candies. And I had to use Ipecac to get the poison out.
Another common poison is the very safe acetaminophen, brand name Tylenol. It’s
one of the most common accidental and purposeful poisons.
The fact that it can be consumed in poisonous amounts does
not mean it isn’t considered safe for over-the-counter sales. What evidence was
used to push for the change in France? And why then? Why just before it’s
needed worldwide, when it had been used safely for eight decades?
I’m sure there’s an explanation. But I don’t think it’s
science based.
Here in the US, HCQ has been by prescription all along,
although considered quite safe. Using it in an off-label manner should be a
decision between patient and doctor. But it has gotten so that doctors are
pressured not to prescribe it, pharmacists are pressured to inquire as the to
purpose and not dispense it for the coronavirus, and some states have outlawed
its use in treating the coronavirus. Ohio’s State Board of Pharmacy made a rule
earlier this week banning the use HCQ for coronavirus, but at Governor Mike
DeWine’s insistence they backtracked today and called for more data before
enforcing such a rule.
Is this apparent conspiracy against HCQ because of money?
Maybe in part. Remdesivir, for example, is new and could be lucrative if found
helpful, so there’s no surprise it was favored—including by Dr. Fauci, who was
invested in its producer.
But I don’t think that explains it enough. Why the uproar
over something that could help people, is cheap to try, and has been shown not
only to not cause harm but to bring relief? And why the outcry over other
remedies as well that might be useful immediately? Unless there’s a desire to
keep the pandemic going, the economies of the world shut down, and society
controlled—until a vaccine is developed that can be further used to enforce
control?
Because I have other big questions. This is the first
outbreak in which it became almost immediate policy, in countries around the
world, to quarantine the healthy, rather than the sick and vulnerable. How did
that become such a widespread policy, when it was in contrast to world
experience and history?
It turns out that there has been planning going on for quite
some time. A pandemic respiratory virus was thought to be inevitable.
Bill Gates talked about the possibility in 2018. Coincidentally, he has invested heavily in
vaccines, providing them for different purposes worldwide. Some of his vaccines
have been shown to cause significant vaccine injuries, often to the poor and
underprivileged he has provided them to, such as India. Gates, a financial supporter of the WHO, wants to connect vaccination with
basic freedoms. He has suggested that people who forego an eventual vaccination
for COVID-19 should not be allowed to travel or attend school, meetings, or
work. And he favors a digital ID to verify and track such data on citizens.
Coincidentally, he sent out a tweet on December 19, 2019,
saying, “What’s next for our foundation? I’m particularly excited about what
the next year could mean for one of the best buys in global health: vaccines.”
In September 2019 Gates participated in a “pandemic exercise,”
called Event201, which was specific about response to a coronavirus outbreak—one
month before it appears to have begun in Wuhan.
In 2018 a video called “A Simulation for a Global FluPandemic,” was made by The Institute for Disease Modeling, posted courtesy of
the Gates Foundation, showing a flu virus originating in China and spreading across
the globe, killing millions—eerily similar to what has actually happened.
In 2017, just as the Trump administration was beginning, Dr.
Anthony Fauci spoke at a conference, predicting that sometime during this
administration’s term there was a high likelihood of an infectious disease
outbreak. He was pushing for funding in preparation.
Oddly, fiction appears predictive. A movie called Dead
Plague (I haven’t seen it) mentions use of hydroxychloroquine. HCQ had been
tried on SARS in 2005, so a good researcher probably found that for the script.
The movie Contagion (very popular lately on Netflix, but I haven’t
watched it either) is about a coronavirus, and it shows lockdowns, facemasks,
handwashing—essentially preparing the public’s expectations for our current
reality.
There’s a 2010 document, put out by the Rockefeller
Foundation, called Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International
Development, with a chapter called “Lockstep,” describing a response to a global
pandemic. It’s written as though it were describing a past event, but is
actually predictive. Here’s a quote:
The pandemic also had a deadly effect on economies:
international mobility of both people and goods screeched to a halt,
debilitating industries like tourism and breaking global supply chains.
Even locally, normally bustling shops and office buildings
sat empty for months, devoid of both employees and customers
The report goes on to describe a future even after the
pandemic has been quelled:
Even after the pandemic faded, this more authoritarian
control and oversight of citizens and their activities stuck and even
intensified. Citizens willingly gave up some of their sovereignty—and their
privacy—to more paternalistic states in exchange for greater safety and
stability.
In developed countries, this heightened oversight took many
forms: biometric IDs for all citizens, for example, and tighter regulation of
key industries whose stability was deemed vital to national interests.
Is this the actual plan, laid out a decade ago? I’d be inclined
to believe it was a type of war gaming—playing out scenarios in order to come
up with various plans. Except that so much has actually happened. And we don’t
have a good explanation for why so many governments imposed control over
citizens in otherwise free countries—in unprecedented ways.
I’m not an investigative journalist. I’m just a blogger,
trying to piece together an understanding from what I read and hear and see.
But from where I’m sitting right now, my best guess is that there is an actual
conspiracy, on a large scale, attempting to take away freedoms from free people
and impose tyrannical control over them.
I don’t know whether it’s organized. As “Marty” said in the
movie Sneakers, in reference to organized crime, “It’s not that organized.” That
doesn’t mean there isn’t something that attracts power mongers to act in
concert toward an end that freedom lovers must resist with all our might.
If you want to do more of your own research, you can add
these resources, in addition to what I’ve linked within my post:
·
Two-part story I mentioned above, about Dr.
Raoult, of France: “The “strange” fight by world-leading infectious disease
doctor to continue “spectacular” results saving covid-infected patients”
·
I hesitate to recommend this, because it reads
like a long and involved conspiracy theory, but I did find the citations at the
end, and some of the information, quite useful: “Stop World Control”
No comments:
Post a Comment