{"id":26121,"date":"2020-08-25T12:47:13","date_gmt":"2020-08-25T16:47:13","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=26121"},"modified":"2020-08-25T12:47:13","modified_gmt":"2020-08-25T16:47:13","slug":"this-is-how-the-totally-false-hcq-narrative-was-fabricated","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stateofthenation.co\/?p=26121","title":{"rendered":"This is how the totally false HCQ narrative was fabricated."},"content":{"rendered":"

How a false hydroxychloroquine narrative was created, and more<\/h1>\n

posted by Meryl Nass, M.D.<\/p>\n

It is remarkable that a large series of events taking place over the past 3 months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine, and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, NZ and western Europe.\u00a0 The message is that generic,\u00a0inexpensive hydroxychloroquine<\/a>\u00a0is dangerous and should not be used to treat a potentially fatal disease, Covid-19, for which there are no (other) reliable treatments.<\/p>\n

Hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in many millions of patients.\u00a0\u00a0And so the message was crafted that\u00a0the drug is safe for its other uses, but dangerous when used for Covid-19<\/a><\/strong>.\u00a0 It doesn’t make sense, but it seems to have worked.<\/p>\n

In the US, “Never Trump” morphed into “Never Hydroxychloroquine,” and the result for the pandemic is “Never Over.” \u00a0But while anti-Trump spin is what characterized suppression strategies in the US, the frauds perpetrated about hydroxychloroquine and the pandemic include most western countries.<\/p>\n

Were these acts carefully orchestrated?\u00a0 You decide.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Might these events have been planned to keep the pandemic going?\u00a0 To sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population? \u00a0 Could these acts result in prolonged economic and social hardship, eventually transferring wealth from the middle class to the very rich?\u00a0 Are these events evidence of a conspiracy?<\/p>\n

Here is a list of what happened, in no special order. Please help add to this list if you know of other actions I should include.\u00a0 This will be a living document, added to as new information becomes available.<\/p>\n

I have penned this as if it is the\u00a0“To Do” list<\/strong>\u00a0of items to be accomplished by those who pull the strings.\u00a0 The items on the list have already been carried out.\u00a0 One wonders what else might be on their list, yet to be carried out, for this pandemic.<\/p>\n

———————<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. You stop doctors from using the drug in ways it is most likely to be effective (in outpatients at onset of illness).\u00a0 You prohibit use outside of situations you can control.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    Situations that were controlled to show no benefit included 3 large, randomized, multi-center clinical trials (Recovery<\/a>,\u00a0Solidarity<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0REMAP-Covid<\/a>), the kind of trials that are generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence. However, each of them used excessive hydroxychloroquine doses that were known to be toxic and may have been fatal in some cases; see my previous articles\u00a0here<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0here<\/a>. And a 4th Chinese study<\/a> that also used excessive doses (3.6 g HCQ in the first three days and 800mg\/day thereafter, comparable to the above studies) also found no benefit from HCQ.<\/p>\n

      \n
    1. You prevent or limit use in outpatients by controlling the supply of the drug, using different methods in different countries andstates<\/a>.\u00a0 For example, in New York state, by\u00a0order of the governor<\/a>, hydroxychloroquine could only be prescribed for hospitalized patients.\u00a0 In Nevada, the governor outright prohibited<\/a> both<\/em> prescribing and dispensing chloroquine drugs for a Covid-19 diagnosis. In New Jersey, the Department of Consumer Affairs required a positive test result<\/a> before a chloroquine prescription could be dispensed or prescribed.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      France has issued a series of different regulations to limit prescribers from using it.\u00a0 France’s Health Minister also changed the drugs’ status<\/a> from over-the-counter (OTC) to a drug requiring a prescription on January 13.<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. You play up the danger of the drug, emphasizing side effects that are very rare when the drug is used correctly. You make sure everyone has heard about theman who died<\/a>\u00a0after consuming hydroxychloroquine in the form of fish tank cleaner.\u00a0Yet its toxicity at approved doses is minimal. Chloroquine was\u00a0added to table salt<\/a><\/em>\u00a0in some regions in the 1950s as a malaria preventive, according to Professor Nicholas White in his\u00a0study<\/a>\u00a0for the Recovery trial.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
          \n
        1. You limit clinical trials to hospitalized patients, instead of testing the drug in outpatients, early in the illness, when it is predicted to be most effective<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Finally, but not until May, you have Fauci’s NIAID conduct a\u00a0trial<\/a>\u00a0in outpatients, using hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin, but you only enroll 20 patients, after\u00a0planning for 2,000<\/a>. You\u00a0reduce the duration of followup<\/a>\u00a0from 24 weeks to 13 days post treatment. You cancel the study after only 5 weeks<\/a>, claiming inadequate enrollments.<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. You design clinical trials to givemuch too high a dose<\/a>, ensuring the drug will cause harm in some subjects, sufficient to mask any possible beneficial effect.\u00a0 You make sure that trials in\u00a0400 hospitals in 35 countries<\/a>\u00a0(Solidarity) plus most hospitals in the UK (Recovery) use these dangerous doses, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (REMAP-Covid trial).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
              \n
            1. You design clinical trials tocollect almost no safety data<\/a>, so any cause of death due to drug toxicity will be attributed to the disease instead of the drug.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                \n
              1. You issue rules for use of the drug based on theresults<\/a>\u00a0of the UK\u00a0Recovery<\/a>\u00a0study, which overdosed patients. Of course the Recovery results showed more deaths in the hydroxychloroquine arm, since they gave patients 2.4 g in the first 24 hrs, 800 mg\/day thereafter. Furthermore, the UK has the 2nd highest death rate in the world for Covid-19 (Belgium is 1st), so simply conducting the trial in the UK may have contributed to the poor results.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                  \n
                1. You publish, in the world’s most-read medical journal, the\u00a0Lancet<\/em>, an observationalstudy<\/a>\u00a0from a massive worldwide database (96,000 Covid cases) that says use of chloroquine drugs caused significantly increased <\/u>mortality.\u00a0 This was said to be the paper to end all controversy about HCQ and Covid-19.\u00a0 You make sure that\u00a0all major media report\u00a0on this result. This was said to be the nail in the coffin for hydroxychloroquine. Then you have\u00a03 European countries announce they will not allow doctors to prescribe the drug<\/a>.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                    \n
                  1. You do your best to ride out any controversy, never admitting culpability. Even after hundreds of people renounced the Lancet’s <\/em>observational study due to easily identified fabrications–the database used in the study did not exist, and the claimed numbers did not agree with known numbers of cases–the Lancet<\/em> held firm for two weeks, serving to muddy the waters about the trial, until finally 3 of the 4 coauthors (but not the Lancet<\/em>)retracted the study<\/a>. Neither the authors nor the journal have admitted responsibility, let alone explained what it was that induced them to coauthor and publish such a fraud.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                    You made sure very few media reported that the data were\u00a0fabricated<\/a>, the “study” was fraudulent, and the drugs were actually safe. Even though the story of the database company, Surgisphere, was full of\u00a0scandalous details<\/a>, the story of the study’s retraction went largely unnoticed by the public.\u00a0 You made sure most people remember the original story: that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine frequently kill patients.<\/p>\n

                      \n
                    1. You ensure federal agencies like FDA and CDC hew to your desired policies.\u00a0 Some examples:\u00a0 a)FDA advised use only in hospitalized patients<\/a>\u00a0(too late)\u00a0and later advised use restricted to only clinical trials<\/a>\u00a0(which are limited, are difficult to enroll in, have been halted prematurely, or may use excessive doses).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                        \n
                      1. b) you have FDA make unsubstantiated and false claims, such as:\u00a0 “Hospitalized patients were likely to have greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness)<\/em><\/a>“<\/em>and claim the chloroquine drugs have aslow onset of action<\/a>. If that were really true, they would not be used for acute attacks of malaria or in critically ill patients with Covid. (Disclosure:\u00a0 I once dosed myself with chloroquine for an acute attack of\u00a0 vivax<\/em>\u00a0malaria, and it worked very fast.).<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                          \n
                        1. c) although providing treatment advice is a large part of its\u00a0mission<\/a>, CDC instead\u00a0refers clinicians to the NIH guidelines<\/a>, discussed below.<\/li>\n
                        2. \nd) Despite the fact that\u00a0Belgium’s COVID treatment guidelines<\/a>repeatedly mention that the doses of HCQ in the Recovery and Solidarity trials were 4 times the cumulative dose used in Belgium, you make sure the Belgian guidelines, paradoxically, only recommend use of HCQ within clinical trials.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                            \n
                          1. You make sure to avoid funding\/encouraging clinical trials that test drug combinations like hydroxychloroquine with zinc, with azithromycin, or with both, although there is ample clinical evidence that such combinations provide a cumulative benefit to patients. For example,\u00a0one<\/a>study that did look at this combination had no funding.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
                              \n
                            1. You have federal and UN agencies make false, illogical claims based on models (or invention) rather than human data.\u00a0 For example, you have the FDA state on June 15 that the doserequired<\/strong>\u00a0to treat Covid is so high it is toxic, after the\u00a0Recovery<\/a>\u00a0and\u00a0Solidarity<\/a>\u00a0trials have been exposed for toxic dosing.\u00a0 This scientific double-speak gives some legal cover to the clinical trials that overdosed their patients.\u00a0According to Denise Hinton,<\/a>\u00a0RN, the FDA’s Chief Scientist (yes, a registered nurse without scientific qualifications is the\u00a0Chief Scientist at FDA<\/a>), or perhaps a clumsy FDA wordsmith:<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

                              “Under the assumption that in vivo cellular accumulation is similar to that from the in vitro cell-based assays, the calculated free lung concentrations that would result from the EUA suggested dosing regimens are well below the in vitro EC50\/EC90 values, making the antiviral effect against SARS-CoV-2 not likely achievable with the dosing regimens recommended in the EUA. The substantial increase in dosing that would be needed to increase the likelihood of an antiviral effect would not be acceptable due to toxicity concerns.”<\/em><\/p>\n

                              You have a\u00a0WHO report<\/a>\u00a0claim toxic doses are needed. This is nonsense since:<\/p>\n