Aletho News


WHO (Accidentally) Confirms Covid is No More Dangerous Than Flu

By Kit Knightly | OffGuardian | October 8, 2020

The World Health Organization has finally confirmed what we (and many experts and studies) have been saying for months – the coronavirus is no more deadly or dangerous than seasonal flu.

The WHO’s top brass made this announcement during a special session of the WHO’s 34-member executive board on Monday October 5th, it’s just nobody seemed to really understand it.

In fact, they didn’t seem to completely understand it themselves.

At the session, Dr Michael Ryan, the WHO’s Head of Emergencies revealed that they believe roughly 10% of the world has been infected with Sars-Cov-2. This is their “best estimate”, and a huge increase over the number of officially recognised cases (around 35 million).

Dr. Margaret Harris, a WHO spokeswoman, later confirmed the figure, stating it was based on the average results of all the broad seroprevalence studies done around the world.

As much as the WHO were attempting to spin this as a bad thing – Dr Ryan even said it means “the vast majority of the world remains at risk.” – it’s actually good news. And confirms, once more, that the virus is nothing like as deadly as everyone predicted.

The global population is roughly 7.8 billion people, if 10% have been infected that is 780 million cases. The global death toll currently attributed to Sars-Cov-2 infections is 1,061,539.

That’s an infection fatality rate of roughly or 0.14%. Right in line with seasonal flu and the predictions of many experts from all around the world.

0.14% is over 24 times LOWER than the WHO’s “provisional figure” of 3.4% back in March. This figure was used in the models which were used to justify lockdowns and other draconian policies.

In fact, given the over-reporting of alleged Covid deaths, the IFR is likely even lower than 0.14%, and could show Covid to be much less dangerous than flu.

None of the mainstream press picked up on this. Though many outlets reported Dr Ryan’s words, they all attempted to make it a scary headline and spread more panic.

Apparently neither they, nor the WHO, were capable of doing the simple maths that shows us this is good news. And that the Covid sceptics have been right all along.

October 9, 2020 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science | , | 6 Comments

RFK Jr. Sues Facebook, Zuckerberg and So-Called ‘Fact-Checkers’ for Vaccine Censorship

Children’s Health Defense | August 18, 2020

Washington, DC — Children’s Health Defense (CHD) filed a lawsuit on Monday in San Francisco Federal Court charging Facebook, Mark Zuckerberg, and three fact-checking outfits with censoring truthful public health posts and for fraudulently misrepresenting and defaming CHD. CHD is a non-profit watchdog group that roots out corruption in federal agencies, including Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the World Health Organization (WHO), and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and exposes wrongdoings in the Pharmaceutical and Telecom industries. CHD has been a frequent critic of WiFi and 5G Network safety and of certain vaccine policies that CHD claims put Big Pharma profits ahead of public health. CHD has fiercely criticized agency corruption at WHO, CDC and FCC.

According to CHD’s Complaint, Facebook has insidious conflicts with the Pharmaceutical industry and its captive health agencies and has economic stakes in telecom and 5G. Facebook currently censors CHD’s page, targeting its purge against factual information about vaccines, 5G and public health agencies.

Facebook acknowledges that it coordinates its censorship campaign with the WHO and the CDC. While earlier court decisions have upheld Facebook’s right to censor its pages, CHD argues that Facebook’s pervasive government collaborations make its censorship of CHD a First Amendment violation. The government’s role in Facebook’s censorship goes deeper than its close coordination with CDC and WHO. The Facebook censorship began at the suggestion of powerful Democratic Congressman and Intelligence Committee Chairman Representative Adam Schiff, who in March 2019 asked Facebook to suppress and purge internet content critical of government vaccine policies. Facebook and Schiff use the term “misinformation” as a euphemism for any statement, whether truthful or not, that contradicts official government pronouncements. The WHO issued a press release commending Facebook for coordinating its ongoing censorship campaign with public health officials. That same day, Facebook published a “warning label” on CHD’s page, which implies that CHD’s content is inaccurate, and directs CHD followers to turn to the CDC for “reliable, up to date information.” This is an important First Amendment case that tests the boundaries of government authority to openly censor unwanted critique of government

Attorneys Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Roger Teich, and Mary Holland represent Children’s Health Defense in the litigation.

The lawsuit also challenges Facebook’s use of so-called “independent fact-checkers” – which, in truth, are neither independent nor fact-based – to create oppositional content on CHD’s page, literally superimposed over CHD’s original content, about open matters of scientific controversy. To further silence CHD’s dissent against important government policies and its critique of Pharmaceutical products, Facebook deactivated CHD’s donate button, and uses a variety of deceptive technology (i.e. shadow banning) to minimize the reach and visibility of CHD’s content.  In short, Facebook and the government colluded to silence CHD and its followers. Such tactics are fundamentally at odds with the First Amendment, which guarantees the American public the benefits to democracy from free flow of information in the marketplace of ideas. It forbids the government from censoring private speech—particularly speech that criticizes government policies or officials. As Justice Holmes famously said, “the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” The current COVID pandemic makes the need for open and fierce public debate on health issues more critical than ever.

Mark Zuckerberg publicly claims that social media platforms shouldn’t be “the arbiters of truth.” This case exposes Zuckerberg for working with the government to suppress and purge unwanted critiques of government officials and policies.

The court will decide whether Facebook’s new government-directed business model of false and misleading “warning labels,” deceptive “fact-checks,” and disabling a non-profit’s donate button, passes muster under the First and Fifth Amendments, the Lanham Act, and RICO. Those statutes protect CHD against online wire-fraud, false disparagement, and knowingly false statements.

CHD asks the Court to declare Facebook’s actions unconstitutional and fraudulent, and award injunctive relief and damages.

August 20, 2020 Posted by | Civil Liberties | , , , , | Leave a comment

How To Deal With Vocal Vaccine Deniers – #PropagandaWatch

Corbett • 08/18/2020

Watch on BitChute / LBRY / Minds / YouTube

The WHO has made a handy-dandy guide on how to debate vaccine deniers. Today on #PropagandaWatch, James delves into the document and examines its ideas.

Episode 382 – Your Body, Their Choice

Counselling the Public –

About Immunize Canada

Best practice guidance: How to respond to vocal vaccine deniers in public (2017)

Moral reflections on vaccines prepared from cells derived from aborted human foetuses

Addressing Fluoride Hesitancy Using Immunization Approaches

August 19, 2020 Posted by | Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular, Video | , | Leave a comment

Hydroxychloroquine and fake news

Fake news is keeping us away from the treatment to end the coronavirus crisis

By Jeremy Gordon | The Duran | July 8, 2020

The anti-hydroxychloroquine media has been full of the supposed dangers of hydroxychloroquine and its failure as a treatment for the virus. Does hydroxychloroquine work or does it not, is it safe or dangerous, and should we be using it as a treatment for the virus? Here we examine the evidence for and against it.

A New York doctor Vladimir Zelenko looked at treatments being used in China and Korea and gave it to 405 patients over 60 or with high-risk problems such as diabetes, asthma, obesity, hypertension or shortness of breath. In this high risk group he claimed to have cut hospital admission and mortality rates compared to what could be expected without treatment by 80 to 90%.

Dr Zelenko sent a letter to President Trump urging him to issue an executive order to roll out the treatment which the FDA was blocking. Trump announced that hydroxychloroquine looked like it could be a “game-changer”, and thus the politicization of hydroxychloroquine began.

Dr Fauci the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases who was supposed to be advising Trump disagreed with him and backed Gilead’s rival treatment Remdesivir. YouTube deleted a video of Dr. Zelenko talking about the treatment on his Rabbi’s channel and despite objections that there was nothing wrong with the video YouTube never reinstated it.

In this YouTube video interview with Rudy Giulliani from July 1, which hopefully will not be deleted by the time you read this, Dr. Zelenko claims 99,3% survival rate for the high-risk patients he has treated.

Professor Didier Raoult of Marseilles used a similar protocol to Dr. Zelenko without the zinc. His study with a small group using hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin showed a fifty-fold benefit. He then went on to get similar results with a much larger group of 1,061 patients. Contrary to the warnings the media had been running that hydroxychloroquine would cause heart problems, no cardiac toxicity was observed and he achieved a mortality rate of only 0.5%.

The media quickly found critics who claimed that the only valid proof any treatment worked was a “gold-standard” double-blind clinical trial and dismissed Dr. Zelenko’s and Raoult’s results. Dr. Zelenko and Prof. Raoult both refused on ethical grounds to give placebos to half the patients in clinical trials and they defended their data as sufficient to show the treatment did work. They both stressed that the urgency of the situation made it necessary to act on available evidence, not clinical trials which would take months to produce results and be verified. There have subsequently been over a dozen studies which confirm that Dr. Zelenko’s and Prof. Raoult’s protocols do work.

A study from the New York University Grossman school of Medicine published in May found patients given hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin at an early stage had a lower need for hospitalization than those who were not. The addition of zinc improved the results even more.

I’ll tell you what. If this is me, and I am me, and I end up getting this thing, I am going to want Zinc plus Hydroxychloroquine plus Azithromycin. I would want that treatment.” Commented Chris Martenson, PhD, in his video series about COVID-19 where he talks about this study.

Yale Professor Harvey Risch submitted a report of five trials and studies using hydroxychloroquine in the American Journal of Epistemology titled “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis.

Prof. Risch agreed that, in an ideal world, randomized double-blinded controlled clinical trials would be preferable but in the meantime “for the great majority I conclude that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin, preferably with zinc can be this outpatient treatment, at least until we find or add something better. It is our obligation not to stand by as the old and infirm are killed by this disease and our economy is destroyed by it and we have nothing to offer except high-mortality hospital treatment. Available evidence of efficacy of HCQ+AZ has been repeatedly described in the media as anecdotal, but most certainly is not

A Brazilian study found 4.6 times less hospitalization in patients who took hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin within seven days of infection. Professor Paolo Zanotto reported that there were “41% of deaths among those who did not choose therapy and were hospitalized against 0% among those who chose by therapy.”

A retrospective study of 2,541 Detroit cases showed up to 71% reduction in mortality in early treatment with hydroxychloroquine azithromycin.

A retrospective study of 3,737 cases in Marseille showed a reduction of 50% in mortality without any adverse effects in the Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin group.

A meta-analysis of 105,040 cases from 20 studies in 9 countries found a reduction in mortality by up to three times in groups treated early with Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin:

A study of 6,493 patients with COVID-19 at Mount Sinai Hospital, New York, showed that hydroxychloroquine helped to reduce mortality in hospitalized patients.

On July 3 a study by a Michigan team at Henry Ford Health System found that 13 percent of patients who were given the drug early on died while 26 percent of patients who were not given the drug died. The study which included 2,541 patients was published in the International Journal of Infectious Diseases and determined that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin provided a 71% hazard ratio reduction. “Our results do differ from some other studies. What we think was important in ours … is that patients were treated early. For hydroxychloroquine to have a benefit, it needs to begin before the patients begin to suffer some of the severe immune reactions that patients can have with COVID” said Dr. Marcus Zervos, head of infectious disease for Henry Ford Health System.

A statement from the Trump campaign hailed the study as fantastic news. “Fortunately, the Trump Administration secured a massive supply of hydroxychloroquine for the national stockpile months ago, yet this is the same drug that the media and the Biden campaign spent weeks trying to discredit and spread fear and doubt around because President Trump dared to mention it as a potential treatment for coronavirus. The new study from the Henry Ford Health System should be a clear message to the media and the Democrats: stop the bizarre attempts to discredit hydroxychloroquine to satisfy your own anti-Trump agenda. It may be costing lives.”

Also on July 3 results from another study by Dr. Takahisa Mikami and his team at Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai in New York, was published in the Journal of General Internal Medicine. The study analyzed the outcomes of 6,493 patients who had laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 in the New York City metropolitan area and found that hydroxychloroquine decreased mortality hazard ratio by 47% percent.

Many more studies in addition to those above also show that treating early with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin and preferably also zinc is the key to ending hospitalization and death.
The trials that confirm Dr. Zelenko’s and Prof. Raoult’s finding have been mostly ignored or dismissed by the anti-hydroxychloroquine media. The trials that they have given attention to are those that supposedly show that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t help or even increases the death rate.

Statistics from the US Veterans hospital study (Magagnoli, 2020) showed patients who were given hydroxychloroquine died more frequently than those who did not.

In this study hydroxychloroquine was only given to patients who were already seriously ill and those who were getting better without any treatment were not given it. Predictably those given hydroxychloroquine did worse than the untreated group but those conducting the study claimed it as proof that hydroxychloroquine did not work. Professor Raoult commented “In the current period, it seems that passion dominates rigorous and balanced scientific analysis and may lead to scientific misconduct. The study by Magagnoli et al is an absolutely spectacular example of this,

One of the collaborators in the trial reportedly received a $260 million grant from Gilead Sciences Inc. which produces the rival treatment Remdesivir.

The US Secretary of Veteran Affairs Robert Wilkie, acknowledged that the drug was given to veterans at their last stages of life and added “We know the drug has been working on middle-age and young veterans … it is working in stopping the progression of the disease.”

Another study that supposedly showed that hydroxychloroquine was dangerous and didn’t work came from a group that claimed to have data on hydroxychloroquine use for Covid-19 from hospitals around the world  The study was published on 22 May in the Lancet medical journal. The results were immediately disputed by one of the Australian hospitals from which Surgisphere, the company which supplied the data claimed to have obtained it.

Following this a group of 140 scientists, researchers, and statisticians wrote an open letter to the Lancet and the authors of the study questioning the data used. A Guardian investigation revealed that Surgisphere was run by employees who lacked any scientific background. One was a science fiction author and fantasy artist and another was an “adult model and events hostess.” The Lancet conducted an independent investigation, retracted the study and in an interview with The New York Times, Dr. Richard Horton, the editor in chief admitted that the study should never have appeared in his journal.

On the basis of the flawed Lancet study the WHO suspended the hydroxychloroquine trials it was sponsoring. When the study was retracted they resumed them briefly but soon after suspended them again on the results of another faulty study, the Oxford University’s “RECOVERY Trial”.

The researchers in this trial gave patients massive doses of hydroxychloroquine without the necessary addition of azithromycin and they started treatment too late. That the RECOVERY Trial was never going to work was pointed out on the Covexit website two months before it started.

Prof. Raoult compared the Oxford academics who carried out the hydroxychloroquine section of the RECOVERY trial to the Marx Brothers in a video interview titled “The Marx Brothers are Doing Science – the Example of RECOVERY”

Prof. Raoult sarcastically commented that the good news that came out of the trial was that hydroxychloroquine is not toxic. The RECOVERY trial used a 2,400 mg dose on the first day compared to Dr.Raoult’s 600 mg. Even with such high dosage there were no cardiac side effects with any of the participants. Prof. Raoult recalled that “two weeks ago one was told everybody was dying because of cardiac issues. At least, this trial is good to assess the toxicity of hydroxychloroquine as they did not announce any toxicity, even at such high dosage”.

Although by now it should have been abundantly clear that hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin only worked in combination and if given early, not to patients in hospital more than seven days after infection, in April the US National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) started hydroxychloroquine trials on hospitalized patients too late, some already in emergency wards, and then abandoned the trials with the conclusion that “hydroxychloroquine does no harm but provides no benefit”. The FDA cancelled its emergency use authorization and the NIH halted their clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine

The media hostile to hydroxychloroquine successfully whipped up hysteria about its supposed dangers although it has an excellent safety record and it is not even alongside aspirin on the WHO list of the 100 most dangerous drugs. Specialists and doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine for Rheumatoid Arthritis and Lupus have confirmed that thousands of patients are being prescribed the same dose Dr. Zelenko is giving for five days for years on end without problems.

Were the failed studies faulty because of ignorance or by design? Who gains from them? The drug companies can’t make much money on a generic drug, and they found in the media and the scientific community willing accomplices to stop its use. Gilead Sciences Inc. gives grants in addition to those mentioned above to Oxford University and the WHO. Is it possible that people in these prestigious institutions may have their integrity compromised by money, or is it mere coincidence that Gilead with their rival treatment is funding them?

Some of the media will do anything to make Trump look like a fool and these faulty trials were the perfect opportunity. The media hostile to hydroxychloroquine downplayed or cast doubt on the many successful studies and trials with hydroxychloroquine and made the most of the faulty trials as proof that the drug Trump had touted didn’t work.

For the media it seems to have been more about scoring political points and increasing their audience ratings rather than investigative reporting which uncovers the truth. For those who are dying and their families and friends as a result of this treatment not being used because of media misinformation it is lives tragically lost, and for the rest of us it is our economies sinking, businesses failing, and unemployment, poverty and suffering rising.

Hundreds of thousands of lives could be saved, and loss ruin, suffering and devastation to our economies and societies avoided if we simply started using this safe, cheap and readily available treatment. It is a ludicrous and tragic farce that because of the massive misinformation on behalf of corporate greed and political point scoring that we are not.

July 12, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , , | 2 Comments

WHO’s Conflict of Interest?

US Secretary of State Michael Pompeo and WHO Director General Dr. Tedros Ghebreyesus, in Bern, Switzerland, on June 3, 2019.  (State Dept. Photo by Ron Przysucha/ Public Domain)
By David Macilwain | American Herald Tribune | June 30, 2020

Last week the French National Assembly convened an inquiry into the “genealogy and chronology” of the Coronavirus crisis to examine the evident failures in its handling and will interview government ministers, experts and health advisors over the next six months. While we in the English-speaking world may have heard endless arguments over the failures of the UK or US governments to properly prepare for and cope with the health-care emergency, the crisis and problems in the French health system and bureaucracy have been similar and equally serious. Given the global cooperation and collaboration of health authorities and industry, the inquiry has global significance.

Judging by the attention paid by French media to the inquiry, which comes just as France is loosening the lock-downs and restarting normal government activities, it is set to be controversial and upsetting, exposing both incompetence and corruption.

Leading the criticism of the Macron government’s handling of the crisis are the most serious accusations that its prohibition of an effective drug treatment has cost many lives, a criticism put directly to the inquiry by Professor Didier Raoult, the most vocal proponent of the drug – Hydroxychloroquine. At his institute in Marseilles, early treatment with the drug of people infected with Sars-CoV-2 has been conclusively demonstrated to reduce hospitalization rates and shorten recovery times when given along with the antibiotic Azithromycin, and consequently to cut death rates by at least half.

Raoult has pointed to the low death rate in the Marseilles region of 140 per million inhabitants compared with that in Paris of 759 per million as at least partly due to the very different treatment of the epidemic in Marseilles under his instruction. The policies pursued by local health services there included early widespread testing for the virus and isolation and quarantining of cases, aimed both at protecting those in aged care and in keeping people from needing hospitalization with the help of drug treatments.

It incidentally seems quite bizarre that some countries – notably the US, UK and Australia, are only now embarking on large testing programs – and claiming a “second wave” in cases – which Raoult calls a “fantasme journalistique”. The consequent reimposition of severe lock-downs in some suburbs of Melbourne, and in Leicester in the UK is a very worrying development.

The efficacy of HCQ and Azithromycin is well illustrated – one should say proven – by this most recent review of its use on 3120 out of a total of 3700 patients treated at the Marseilles hospitals during March, April and the first half of May. Unlike the fraudulent study published and then retracted by the Lancet in May, the analysis in this review is exemplary, along with the battery of tests performed on patients to determine the exact nature of their infection and estimate the effectiveness of the drug treatment. The overall final mortality rate of 1.1% obscures the huge discrepancy in numbers between treated and untreated patients. Hospitalization, ICU, and death rates averaged five times greater in those receiving the “other” treatment – being normal care without HCQ-AZM treatment – equivalent to a placebo.

The IHU Marseilles study and its discussion points deserve close scrutiny, because they cannot be dismissed as unsubstantiated or biased, or somehow political, just because Professor Raoult is a “controversial figure”. There is a controversy, and it was well expressed by Raoult in his three hour presentation to the inquiry. His criticisms of health advisors to government include conflicts of interest and policy driven by politics rather than science. Raoult has been vindicated in his success, and can now say to those health authorities “if you had accepted my advice and approved this drug treatment, thousands of lives would have been saved.”

This is quite unlike similar statements in the UK and elsewhere, where claims an earlier imposition of lock-down would have cut the death toll in half are entirely hypothetical. As Prof. Raoult has also observed, the progress of this epidemic of a new and unknown virus was quite speculative, and its handling by authorities has failed to reflect that. In fact, one feels more and more that the “response” of governments all around the world has followed a strangely similar and inappropriately rigid scheme, of which certain aspects were de rigueur, particularly “social distancing”.

There seems little evidence that would justify this most damaging and extreme of measures to control an epidemic whose seriousness could be ameliorated by other measures – such as those advocated by Raoult’s Institute – which would have avoided the devastating “collateral damage” inflicted on the economy and society in the name of “staying safe”.

Prof. Raoult’s vocal and consistent criticism of the political manipulation of the Coronavirus crisis is hardly trivial however, to be finally excused as a “failure”- to impose lockdowns sooner, to have sufficient supplies of masks or ventilators, or to use more testing and effective contact tracing. What lies beneath appears to be, for want of a better word, a conspiracy.

As previously and famously noted by Pepe Escobar, French officials seemed to have foresight on the potential use of Hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19 infection, with its cheapness and availability being a likely hindrance to pharmaceutical companies looking to make big profits from new drug treatments or vaccines. Of even greater significance perhaps, was the possibility – or danger – that the vast bulk of the population might become infected with the virus and recover quickly with the help of this cheap drug treatment, while bypassing the need, and possibly interminable wait for a vaccine.

Now it can be seen that in Western countries the demand for a vaccine is acute, and the market cut-throat, despite assurances from many quarters that “vaccines must be available to all” and that “manufacturers won’t seek to profit” from their winning product. (the profit will naturally be included in what their governments choose to pay them) The clear conflicts of interest between health officials, public and private interests make such brave pronouncements particularly hollow. Just one case is sufficient to illustrate this, as despite its unconvincing performance in combatting the novel Coronavirus, the drug developed and promoted by Dr Anthony Fauci and company Gilead, Remdesevir, was rapidly approved for use following a research trial sponsored by the White House.

More concerning however is what appears to be a conflict of interest in the WHO itself, possibly related to the WHO’s largest source of funding in the Gates organization. While the WHO has not actively opposed the use of Hydroxychloroquine against the virus infection for most of the pandemic, neither has it voiced any support for its use, such as might be suggested by its obvious benefits, and particularly in countries with poor health facilities and resources.

Had the WHO taken at least a mildly supportive role, acknowledging that the drug was already in widespread use and there was little to lose from trying it against COVID-19, then it is hard to imagine that those behind the recent fabricated Lancet paper would have pursued such a project. Without claiming that the WHO had some hand in the alleged study that set out to debunk HCQ treatment, it should be noted that the WHO was very quick to jump on the non-peer-reviewed “results” and to declare a world-wide cancellation of its research projects on the drug. And while it had to rescind this direction shortly afterward when the fraud was exposed, the dog now has a bad name – as apparently intended.

This stands in sharp contrast to the WHO’s sudden enthusiasm for the steroidal drug Dexamethasone, recently discovered by a UK research team to have had a mildly positive benefit on seriously ill COVID19 patients:

“The World Health Organization (WHO) plans to update its guidelines on treating people stricken with coronavirus to reflect results of a clinical trial that showed a cheap, common steroid could help save critically ill patients.

The benefit was only seen in patients seriously ill with COVID-19 and was not observed in patients with milder disease, the WHO said in a statement late Tuesday.

British researchers estimated 5,000 lives could have been saved had the drug been used to treat patients in the United Kingdom at the start of the pandemic.

“This is great news and I congratulate the government of the UK, the University of Oxford, and the many hospitals and patients in the UK who have contributed to this lifesaving scientific breakthrough,” said WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus in the press release.”

There is something more than ironic in the WHO’s interest in a different cheap and available drug that has also been widely used for decades, but which is no use in protecting those people in the target market for the vaccine. To me, and surely to Professor Raoult and his colleagues, this looks more like protecting ones business interests and investor profits, at the expense of public health and lives.


It has just been announced that GILEAD will start charging for its drug Remdesevir from next week at $US 2340 for a five-day course, or $US 4860 for private patients. Generic equivalents manufactured in poorer countries will sell for $US 934 per treatment course. Announcing the prices, chief executive Dan O’Day noted that the drug was priced “to ensure wide access rather than based solely on the value to patients”.

It seems hardly worth pointing out that six days treatment with Hydroxychloroquine costs around $US 7, so for the same cost as treating one patient with Remdesevir, roughly four hundred could be given Hydroxychloroquine. If this is compounded by the effective cure rate, Remdesevir treatment costs closer to one thousand times that of HCQ. The addition of Azithromycin and Zinc doubles the cost of HCQ treatment, but also increases its efficacy considerably.

July 1, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , | Leave a comment

Philanthropists, British politicians and international organizations unite for new global project after pandemic

By Lucas Leiroz | June 29, 2020

The new coronavirus brought a fierce dispute of narratives about the measures necessary to contain the infection and to build a new world after the end of the global pandemic. There are two main narratives, one calling for the strengthening of National States, for the delay of globalization and for the end of the process of dissolving borders; another, in an absolutely opposite sense, calling for the strengthening of international organizations, for the advancement of the globalist project and for the reduction or even dissolution of States in favor of a global governance system of open borders. Both speeches grow and clash in a great race that seems to be far from over.

The defense of National States and the discourse against political and economic globalization seemed to be winning the race, with the closure of borders and airports in the largest countries, however, recent events demonstrate a turn in this race, pointing to a possible victory for globalism. A group formed by organizations and individuals from around the world for 20 years now appears to be gaining more and more prominence. This is the case of GAVI – Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization.

GAVI has been around for many years, having been founded in 2000 by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The group emerged with the goal of starting a global mass vaccination campaign, mainly on the African continent, due to the accelerating decrease in access to vaccines by poor children in emerging countries. The Alliance brings together governments from developed and developing countries, in addition to WHO, the World Bank and UNICEF. The group was responsible for creating the International Funding Mechanism for Immunization, a project that brings together donations from several countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, France and Norway, and which has already raised billions of dollars for global vaccination campaigns.

Although it has existed for a long time, it is only now that GAVI has taken on a truly outstanding role on the international stage, becoming a major player in global governance. Bill Gates, founder of GAVI and one of the biggest names in global philanthropy, has been gaining great attention from the global media for his recent campaigns to create a vaccine against the new coronavirus. In 2020, Gates’ donations reached the $ 1,560 million mark, raising him to the level of the world’s greatest medical philanthropist. Its philanthropic crusade against the new coronavirus pandemic has turned into a true industry, moving a gigantic amount of capital, materials and people in an unprecedented global campaign.

In fact, there are currently two international organizations leading efforts to create the coronavirus vaccine, GAVI and WHO. Considering that WHO is one of the entities that make up GAVI, it can even be said that GAVI leads the world in the fight against coronavirus. Obviously, there is apparently no harm in a philanthropic entity initiating research campaigns for a major medical discovery. The problem lies in all the other factors surrounding the issue. GAVI is an organization politically committed to unrestricted globalization. Its theory and praxis are all based on the liberal globalist ideal. All its members are equally fully committed to the establishment of a rigid regime of global governance where National States are reduced to a minimum and public-private management partnerships assume a major role in civil society.

An interesting point with GAVI and its plans for the post-pandemic world is the British participation. One of the main players in all these projects is Gordon Brown, a former British “socialist” prime minister and representative of GAVI. Brown recently made a controversial speech at a virtual G-20 meeting calling for the creation of a provisional world government to tackle the coronavirus, asking for help from the G-20 members for the realization of his – and GAVI’s – project to overcome the crisis generated by the pandemic, valued at more than 2.5 billion dollars. In a similar tone, Tony Blair, also a former prime minister and associated with GAVI, on the pandemic of the new coronavirus, has spoken out several times in favor of using high technology to establish a new global surveillance system.

Another point in this link between the globalist philanthropists of GAVI and the United Kingdom is the World Economic Forum and the controversial project of the “2021 Great Reset”, which intends to realize a series of changes in the structure of international society to face the crisis generated by the pandemic – interestingly, a plan announced by the Prince of Wales, once again showing the British prominence. In summary, at the next international meeting in Davos, the main globalist leaders will discuss the direction of a major project to restructure the world economic and political order, with projects focused on recovering from the effects of the pandemic and on the “green agenda”, with a strong insertion of the sustainability issue.

Finally, what do all these maneuvers mean? What unites the interests of globalist billionaires like Bill Gates with the main UN bodies, British politicians and the World Economic Forum? Many other questions can arise from there. We see yet another chapter in the complex war of agendas and civilizational projects in the contemporary world. The United Kingdom is designing its new worldwide projection outside the European Union. What will be the role of the UK in a new and more multipolar geopolitics? Apparently, it will be trying to regress the axis of global capitalism to the Old World and lead a new globalism, based on an agenda committed to the vital points of globalism: control of epidemics and environmentalism – masked under the farce of “green capitalism”.

What we can see is that the world is still far from contemplating the return of States or the establishment of a new multipolar world order. Globalism is a complex project, with several aspects and different authors and agents, which can be reinvented at any time. In the same way that globalization has never been so threatened, the project of a World State was never so close. We are currently at a zero point whose distance to both destinations is the same.

Lucas Leiroz is a research fellow in international law at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

June 29, 2020 Posted by | Timeless or most popular | , , | Leave a comment

“Deadly” Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid 19: How the World’s Top Medical Journals, The Lancet and NEJM, Were Cynically Exploited by Big Pharma

By Elizabeth Woodworth | Global Research | June 14, 2020

Abstract and Background

A publishing scandal recently erupted around the use of the anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) to treat Covid 19. It is also known as quinine and chloroquine, and is on the WHO list of essential medicines.[i]

The bark of the South American quina-quina tree has been used to treat malaria for 400 years.[ii] Quinine, a generic drug costing pennies a dose, is available for purchase online. In rare cases it can cause dizziness and irregular heartbeat.[iii]

In late May, 2020, The Lancet published a four-author study claiming that HCQ used in hospitals to treat Covid-19 had been shown conclusively to be a hazard for heart death. The data allegedly covered 96,000 patients in 671 hospitals on six continents.[iv]

After the article had spent 13 days in the headlines, dogged by scientific objections, three of the authors retracted it on June 5.[v]

Meanwhile, during an expert closed-door meeting leaked May 24 in France, The Lancet and NEJM editors explained how financially powerful pharmaceutical players were “criminally” corrupting medical science to advance their interests.


On May 22, 2020, the time-honoured Lancet [vi]– one of the world’s two top medical journals – published the stunning claim that 671 hospitals on six continents were reporting life-threatening heart rhythms in patients taking hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) for Covid-19.

The headlines that followed were breath-taking.

Although wider access to the drug had recently been urged in a petition signed by nearly 500,000 French doctors and citizens,[vii] WHO and other agencies responded to the article by immediately suspending the clinical trials that may have cleared it for use.

North American headlines did not mention that HCQ has been on the WHO list of essential drugs since the list began in 1977. Nor did they mention an investigative report on the bad press that hydroxychloroquine had been getting prior to May 22, and how financial interests had been intersecting with medicine to favour Gilead’s new, more expensive drug, Remdesivir.[viii]

The statistics behind the headlines

As a Canadian health sciences librarian who delivered statistics to a large public health agency for 25 years, I sensed almost immediately that the article had to be flawed.

Why? Because health statistics are developed for different purposes and in different contexts, causing them to exist in isolated data “stovepipes.”[ix] Many health databases, even within a single region or country, are not standardized and are thus virtually useless for comparative research.

How, I wondered, could 671 hospitals worldwide, including Asia and Africa, report comparable treatment outcomes for 96,000 Covid patients? And so quickly?

The Lancet is strong in public health and surely suspected this. Its award-winning editor-in-chief, Dr. Richard Horton, has been in his job since 1995.[x]

So how could the damning HCQ claims have been accepted?  Here is what I discovered.

The honour system in medical publishing

To some extent, authors submitting articles to medical journals are on the honour system, in which cited databases are trusted by the editors, yet are available for inspection if questioned.[xi]

On May 28, an open letter from 200 scientists to the authors and The Lancet requested details of the data and an independent audit. The letter was “signed by clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists from across the world.”[xii]

The authors declined to supply the data, or even the hospital names. Meanwhile, investigative analysis was showing the statistics to be deeply flawed.[xiii][xiv]

If this were not enough, the lead author was found to be in a conflict of interest with HCQ’s rival drug, Remdesivir:

“Dr. Mandeep Mehra, the lead co-author is a director at Brigham & Women’s Hospital, which is credited with funding the study. Dr. Mehra and The Lancet failed to disclose that Brigham Hospital has a partnership with Gilead and is currently conducting two trials testing Remdesivir, the prime competitor of hydroxychloroquine for the treatment of COVID-19, the focus of the study.”[xv]

In view of the foregoing, the article was retracted by three of its authors on June 5.

How did this fraud get past The Lancet reviewers in the first place?

The answer emerges from what has remained an obscure French interview, although it has been quoted in the alternative media.[xvi]

On May 24, a closed-door Chatham House expert meeting about Covid included the editors-in-chief of The Lancet and the NEJM. Comments regarding the article were leaked to the French press by a well-known health figure, Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy,[xvii] who felt compelled to blow the whistle.

His resulting BFM TV interview was posted to YouTube with English subtitles on May 31,[xviii] but it was not picked up by the English-speaking media.

These were The Lancet editor Dr. Richard Horton’s words, as reported by Dr. Douste-Blazy:

“If this continues, we are not going to be able to publish any more clinical research data because pharmaceutical companies are so financially powerful today, and are able to use such methodologies as to have us accept papers which are apparently methodologically perfect, but which, in reality, manage to conclude what they want to conclude.” [xix]

Doust-Blazy made his own comments on Horton’s words:

“I never thought the boss of The Lancet could say that. And the boss of the New England Journal of Medicine too. He even said it was ‘criminal’. The word was used by them.”[xx]

The final words in Doust-Blazy’s interview were:

“When there is an outbreak like Covid, in reality, there are people like us – doctors – who see mortality and suffering. And there are people who see dollars. That’s it.”[xxi]

The scientific process of building a trustworthy knowledge base is one of the foundations of our civilization. Violating this process is a crime against both truth and humanity.

Evidently the North American media does not consider this extraordinary crime to be worth reporting.


[i] World Health Organization. “World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines, 21st ed.”, WHO, 2019, pp. 24, 25, 53 (

[ii] Jane Achan, et al., “Quinine, an old anti-malarial drug in a modern world: role in the treatment of malaria,” Malaria Journal,  24 May 2011 (

[iii] WebMD, “Quinine Sulfate” (

[iv] The Lancet, “RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, by Mandeep R. Mehra et al,” Lancet, 5 June 2010 (

[v] Ibid.

[vi] Famous weekly British medical journal, founded in 1823.

[vii] Lee Mclaughlan, “Covid-19 France: petition for wider chloroquine access,” 6 April 2020 (

[viii] Sharyl Attkisson, “Hydroxychloroquine,” Full Measure, 18 May 2020 ( Attkisson is a five-time Emmy Award winner (

[ix] See “Stovepiping,” ( (accessed June 12, 2020).

[x] Dr. Horton’s career, professionalism, and awards are shown at June 12, 2020).

[xi] The Lancet and NEJM editors could not be expected to comb through data from 671 hospitals to verify their accuracy – especially when submitted by four doctors.

[xii] The full-text letter and signatories appear  at

[xiii] Melissa Davey, “Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19,” The Guardian, 28 May 2020 (

[xiv] Melissa Davey et al, “Surgisphere: governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company,” The Guardian, 3 June 2020 (

[xv] 1. Alliance for Human Research Protection, “The Lancet Published a Fraudulent Covid-19 Study,” 2 June 2020 (

  1. Brigham Health, “Two Remdesivir Clinical Trials Underway at Brigham and Women’s Hospital,” 30 March 2020 (

[xvi] Vera Sharav, “Editors of The Lancetand the New England Journal of Medicine: Pharmaceutical Companies are so Financially Powerful They Pressure us to Accept Papers,” Health Impact News, 5 June 2020


[xvii] Dr. Philippe Douste-Blazy, MD, is a cardiologist, former French Health Minister; 2017 candidate for Director at WHO; and former Under-Secretary-General of the United Nations.  See also:

[xviii] “(Eng Subs) Hydroxychloroquine Lancet Study: Former France Health Minister blows the whistle,” BFM TV, 31 May 2020 (

[xix] Ibid.

[xx] Ibid.

[xxi] Ibid.

June 23, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , | 1 Comment


By Larry Romanoff | Moon of Shanghai | June 12, 2020

The ZIKA virus is named after the ZIKA forest in Uganda, where it was first discovered, and is a type of flavivirus, closely related to those which cause more serious diseases like dengue and yellow fever. ZIKA normally produces symptoms such as fever or conjunctivitis and sometimes joint pain, but typically so mild that the symptoms last for only a few days and most people don’t even know they have it. The ZIKA is not contagious but is transmitted by mosquitoes, which means you must be bitten by an infected mosquito to contract it. Africans have developed antibodies to the virus and are mostly immune, but Westerners have no such immunity and for them there is no vaccine or cure for the ZIKA virus, though none is generally necessary.

The virus was first isolated from a rhesus monkey in Uganda in 1947, was discovered in a few humans in Uganda and Tanzania some years later, and in humans in Nigeria in 1968. (1) (2) There was never any indication that the virus “traveled well”, and it remained an obscure and unremarkable illness with only a handful of reported cases for 40 years until it suddenly appeared on a South Pacific island in Micronesia in 2007, which was the first time it had been seen outside its original home, but where it apparently did nothing of consequence. (3) Some six or seven years later, there was a outbreak in French Polynesia, also in the South Pacific, that affected about 10% of the population, but this time with the added feature of apparently causing Guillain-Barré syndrome, a rare autoimmune disorder in which the body’s immune system attacks itself, or at least the body’s nerves, and can be paralysing or even fatal. Then after a hiatus of seven or so years ZIKA appeared abruptly in Brazil, with a virtually simultaneous spread to more than 20 other countries. On this occasion, ZIKA was now linked to a severe birth defect called microcephaly and possibly other birth defects and neurological disorders. Those are the basic facts.

There was substantial controversy about the links between ZIKA and microcephaly, the official narrative being that ZIKA was suspected – and indeed was strongly promoted – as the cause, but always with caveats suggesting the links might have been coincidental or opportunistic rather than causal. (4) (5) One group of medical practitioners in Brazil wrote a paper suggesting microcephaly was either caused by, or linked to, the dispersal of the chemical pyroxiprophen, an insecticide recommended by the WHO, which was heavily sprayed in drinking water reservoirs in the areas exhibiting the highest incidences of the condition, a theory that appeared to have at least a solid circumstantial basis. The physicians stated that pyriproxifen was a hormone disruptor and growth inhibitor that altered the development process of mosquitoes, generating malformations and causing their death or incapacity to reproduce. They wrote, “Malformations detected in thousands of children from pregnant women living in areas where the Brazilian state added pyriproxifen to drinking water is not a coincidence, even though the Ministry of Health [rules out] the hypothesis of direct and cumulative chemical damage.” (6) A German epidemiologist, Dr. Christoph Zink, had been studying and charting the timing and geographic distribution of both ZIKA and microcephaly, and wrote “I soon got the idea that blaming the ZIKA virus for this epidemic does not really get to the point”, stating a suspicion there had been under-reporting of cases for years. (7) But, according to a CBC report, he also suspected a chemical explanation for the heavy concentration in Northeastern Brazil, stating, “I would ask my toxicological colleagues in Brazil to please look very closely into the practical application of agrochemicals”. Others discounted this hypothesis on the basis of an inconsistent time-line and some conflicting data. Be this as it may, the links between ZIKA and the birth defects appeared at the time of writing (and later) to be only coincidental at best, with no evidence of direct causality.

It was interesting that this debate conducted itself with more heat than light, exhibiting the kind of characteristics we associate with the pros and cons of 5G communication, that is to say more ideological and emotional than scientific. It was also interesting that the American CDC and the UN’s WHO acted fervently to lay the blame for birth defects directly on ZIKA while simultaneously building an exit for possible later use with what I thought were rather cleverly-worded suggestions that the link was “not entirely proven”. This clearly coordinated campaign, with its vast international media support, carried with it a powerful scent of an intent to deflect the main issue into a desired channel and thereby discourage active investigation or discussion of topics outside the official approved list. Evidence of this seemed apparent in the unwarranted eagerness with which officials and the many elements of the media literally trashed anyone suggesting a story line that differed from the official version. As I wrote in the Introduction, a clear warning sign that a desired official story is being crafted is when those presenting contrary facts and theories are not only immediately and widely denounced as biased ideologues but derided as conspiracy theorists. ZIKA fit this template very well.

Whatever the totality of truths may be about this viral outbreak, the media coverage – the official narrative – about ZIKA quickly focused entirely on the statistically insignificant numbers of birth defects in relation to the total infected populations, and the simultaneous initiation of a concentrated debate about the cause of such defects, while dismissing in a single careless phrase the origin of the ZIKA outbreak itself. While it is the origin and cause of the outbreak that should have been the main story, the official narrative pushed this aspect into the background where the media buried it. And it is primarily this that contained the scent of an attempt to deflect the main issue not only into a desired channel but away from other, perhaps politically dangerous, aspects of the event. So let’s take a few minutes to examine the curious origin of this outbreak.

As already noted, ZIKA was never predisposed to travel, considering that it sat in Uganda since 1947 and went nowhere. Surely it had multiple opportunities to attach itself to a person or mosquito and land on another continent. But no. It stayed at home, and for almost 60 years was not a public menace, had never been associated with birth or other physical defects, and attracted no attention. So, if this ZIKA virus could stay at home and remain more or less localised for 60 years, why would it suddenly begin travelling the world? And, if the virus had never spread explosively at home in Africa in that 60 years, how could it suddenly become so active and virulent as to have infected almost the entirety of South and Central America in only a few months?

Let’s review the path. One day in 2007, ZIKA traveled by means unknown, 15,000 kilometers from Africa to land on a tiny Micronesian island named Yap, where it rested for six or seven years doing nothing remarkable, then continued its voyage of several thousand kilometers to French Polynesia where it landed to infect a large percentage of the population and do rather more harm. After another lengthy pause of six or seven years it began another voyage, this time traveling 12,000 kilometers or so, crossing much of the Pacific Ocean, the US and Mexico, all of Central America and the Caribbean, and finally traversing all of South America to land on the Atlantic side in Rio and São Paulo. From there, it almost instantaneously radiated outward 4,000 or 5,000 kilometers in all directions to cover most of Brazil (the fifth-largest country in the world). ZIKA then spread to all of South and Central America and the Caribbean, flooding more than 20 countries within a few months, then embarked on journeys of 8,000 kilometers or more, voyaging as far as Mexico and Puerto Rico. It then quickly headed Northeast on another journey of 8,000 kilometers to land in Spain where it was predicted to become a calamity.

Now let’s think about the journey. Viruses can’t fly, and they don’t travel on airplanes. They travel by mosquito, and mosquitoes don’t travel either. They live their entire short lives within maybe one kilometer of wherever they were hatched. It’s true they are sometimes blown around by prevailing winds and could potentially end up almost anywhere, but these wind-blown insects tend to number in the tens or hundreds rather than the hundreds of millions necessary to infect millions of people in a vast country like Brazil. Some news media published deliberately misleading and unforgivably uninformed reports referring to the “migration patterns” of mosquitoes, but mosquitoes do not migrate, not in any sense of the meaning of that word. Birds migrate, caribou migrate, locusts and lemmings migrate. Monarch butterflies migrate. Ducks, geese and hummingbirds migrate. Mosquitoes do not migrate. They cannot.

As one entomologist wrote, “mosquitoes live within a mile or two of their breeding grounds their entire life, with little evidence they make purposeful long distance flights that can be classified zoologically as migration. It is better to regard all mosquito flights as dispersal.” In other words, we cannot have tens of millions of mosquitoes, infected or otherwise, filling their tiny luggage with mini-viruses and flying 15,000 kilometers to take up residence in another country. We are told that mosquitoes will sometimes breed in pools of water, in old auto tires and other odd places, and can by this method be transported around the world, but again the numbers of insects traveling this way would be exceedingly low for our purposes since no country – and certainly not Brazil – is importing sufficient numbers of old tires to bring us the hundreds of millions of insects we need to create an epidemic. And yes, mosquitoes breed, but to burgeon in only weeks from a few infected mating pairs in one location to a few hundred million scattered over millions of square kilometers is beyond the ability even of mosquitoes.

  • The Infected World Cup Visitor

And it was here that the WHO and the Western media began crafting their tale. The official narrative was that the mosquitoes never did travel. Instead, the virus found itself a means of long-distance transport and was “believed to have been brought to Brazil by an infected visitor to the World Cup”. Thus, according to the WHO and the compliant media, a lone traveler infected millions of people in Rio and within a few months the disease had spread to Colombia, Paraguay, Venezuela, Panama, the Honduras, Guyana, Martinique, Puerto Rico and Mexico, and altogether more than 20 countries. We need only think for a moment to realise this proposition is a ridiculous impossibility. I wrote above that the origin of the ZIKA outbreak was dismissed in a single careless phrase, that phrase being “believed to have been brought to Brazil by an infected visitor to the World Cup”, a statement tossed out with no evidential support, one that appears superficially credible but which constitutes logical rubbish. And, as we will see, ZIKA was in Brazil long before the World Cup. Remember, ZIKA is not a contagious disease spread by coughing or sneezing or even extended social contact. It is a virus infection carried by mosquitoes, and one must be bitten to contract it. The traveling of infected people from Polynesia to Brazil is of no consequence in itself since the only way to transmit their disease is by being bitten by mosquitoes, which might in turn become infected then spread the infection by biting others. (8)

Let’s take a moment to think about the supposedly-infected (and surely imaginary) World Cup visitor, and consider the astonishingly-rapid spread of the infection. The official narrative was that the virus came to Brazil from French Polynesia, but how many people, infected or otherwise, would be likely to travel from the tiny population of French Polynesia to Brazil just to watch a football game? Two? Ten? So how could clean, uninfected Brazilian mosquitoes find those few infected Polynesian people, bite them and become infected in turn, then spread the infection to at least tens of millions of insects in a few months so as to bite and infect many millions of people throughout the entirety of Latin America? The sheer volume of the outbreak coupled with its virtually instantaneous spread, dismisses any possibility of this infection originating with a foreign traveler. One mosquito biting one person does not constitute an epidemic. If we want to have an “explosive spread” of a mosquito-borne virus like the ZIKA, which infected millions of people in only a very short time, we need at least tens of millions of mosquitoes but more reasonably we need hundreds of millions of them. This is especially true when the mosquitoes seem determined to infect the enormous land areas of South and Central America, passing over vast unpopulated areas in the process. Not every mosquito is infected, not every infected mosquito will find someone to bite, not everyone will be bitten, and not everyone bitten will be infected. And a mosquito’s life is very short indeed, about ten days.

With only a handful of infected people, such a widespread epidemic is impossible by this method of transmission. The number of travelers is statistically insignificant, so even if they were all bitten many times by different insects, the totality of those insects could not have in turn bitten and infected millions of people in 20 countries within a few months, especially countries many thousands of kilometers away, considering that mosquitoes do not travel. It’s true the infected mosquitoes would breed and perhaps contaminate their young, but this would by definition be a localised outbreak with no natural possibility of traveling even tens, much less thousands of kilometers to cover a continent. One infected mosquito cannot breed millions of offspring and cover millions of square kilometers in a few months. And, if one person traveled to Rio or São Paulo for a football game, how does that explain the disease exploding in a dozen other cities in Brazil, all at approximately the same time? How does that explain the disease spreading to Colombia and a dozen other nearby countries, and 8,000 Kms away in Mexico and Puerto Rico, very shortly thereafter? Even if infected travelers from Brazil went to Mexico, how many would be bitten by clean mosquitoes there, and be able to pass on the virus? Statistically zero, or thereabouts.

Millions of mosquitoes cannot bite the same ten travelers, become infected, then bite millions of other people and cause an epidemic. You don’t have to be a statistician to know that’s not possible. If millions of people are infected, there had to have been at least many millions of infected mosquitoes in the area. So, the most important question in this entire saga is: how did at least tens, and more likely, hundreds, of millions of insects become infected? The virus did not exist in Brazil. Native mosquitoes were not infected with ZIKA, and could have become infected only by either biting countless thousands of infected people, or else being the offspring from millions of matings with infected insects, but where would those come from? A few infected travelers cannot account for such a massive geographical outbreak within weeks, which means vast numbers of infected mosquitoes must have been introduced in those locations. There is no other possible explanation.

The WHO’s official statement said ZIKA appeared to be spreading so rapidly for two reasons: One, because it was a new disease to the region and so the population had no immunity, and two, because ZIKA is primarily transmitted by a mosquito species known as A. aegypti, which lives in every country in North and South America except Canada and Chile. These statements are deliberate misinformation and unforgivably dishonest for what they neglect to say. The portion about the lack of immunity is true, but that lack of immunity exists only because, as the WHO itself pointed out, ZIKA is a new disease to the region, meaning it didn’t exist in Brazil or South-Central America prior to this time. The second portion of the statement is even more dishonest. The WHO tells us the disease spread so rapidly because it is transmitted by a species of mosquito which exists locally, but the reason the disease was new to the region in the first instance is that domestic mosquitoes had never been infected and therefore could not possibly have been responsible for the dispersion of the virus.

It is worth noting the cleverness of the WHO’s statement. It does not say the disease was spread by local mosquitoes (and could not have been, since they weren’t infected), but spread by the same species that lives in South America. That’s not exactly the same thing. The fact that this strain of mosquito lives in South and Central America is entirely irrelevant to the ZIKA outbreak because these local mosquitoes were not infected. The statement appears to blame local insects – by family association, and we would normally draw this inference from a casual reading, but if we examine the words, the statement tells us absolutely nothing and is fraudulent because it leads us to a false conclusion. The WHO glossed over the most important question in this entire issue, which is how tens or hundreds of millions of a local variety of clean mosquitoes suddenly became infected by a foreign virus and in a few months caused an epidemic covering nearly 20 million square kilometers.

It is of course theoretically possible for a single infected person to initiate an eventual epidemic, but consider the circumstances necessary. One infected person traveling to a new location is bitten by one or more mosquitoes who become infected and who bite a few other persons who become infected in turn. The infected mosquitoes breed and die, leaving potentially infected offspring who can gradually spread the disease. At the beginning, this would be tightly localised, not only in one city but likely in one area of one city since we have very few infected mosquitoes that do not travel. Then gradually, infected persons would move to other areas of the city and to other cities, and slowly spread the infection to other areas. But it should be obvious that this method would require years to create an epidemic, and would still not account for an explosive spread in the new locations. By definition, a natural introduction and spread of a mosquito-borne virus would require years to develop. The only physical way to have an explosive spread of an insect-borne disease is to have hundreds of millions of infected insects. And, since Latin America did indeed experience precisely such an explosive spread, the fundamental question is the source of those infected insects.

  • Oxitec’s GM “Terminator” Mosquitoes

There is one additional fact in this story, a fact that was heavily suppressed by the media. It involves a company named Oxitec, which bills itself as “a British biotech company pioneering an environmentally friendly [i.e. genetically-modified] way to control insect pests that spread disease and damage crops”. Oxitec was conducting genetically-modified “transgenic mosquito trials” in Brazil and many other locations, trials that, according to Science Magazine, “have not been without controversy in the past”. (9) It will not be a surprise that one of Oxitec’s “collaborators” is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, as well as other non-surprises that include the WHO, the CIA, the Pentagon, the Rockefeller Foundation, Fort Detrick, and other luminaries of the world of genetically-modified pathogens. In particular, one article that appeared to be credible, claimed that the equity owners of Oxitec had strong links to the CIA. Other Oxitec funders are the WHO, who provide research grants, and apparently a Hong Kong investment fund called Asia Pacific Capital, which is controlled by GE Capital of the US.

Oxitec was conducting “experiments in the suppression of mosquitoes”, experiments which involved the release of countless millions of genetically-modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes (the same species that spread the ZIKA virus) that had been bio-engineered for male insterility. Oliver Tickell wrote an interesting article published in The Ecologist on February 1, 2016, titled, “Pandora’s Box: how GM mosquitoes could have caused Brazil’s microcephaly disaster”. (10) In it, he wrote, “The idea of the Oxitec mosquitoes is simple enough: the males produce non-viable offspring which all die. So the GM mosquitoes are ‘self-extinguishing’ and the altered genes cannot survive in the wild population.” The theory is that these GM-modified ‘terminator’ mosquitoes will breed with native females to produce non-viable larvae, thereby eradicating the entire mosquito population. Unfortunately, the truth, even according to Oxitec’s own information, is that a large percentage of their mosquitoes are not sterile after all, that many do survive and thrive, and that apparently a large percentage of native female insects refuse to breed with these introduced GM terminators, rendering some part of the experiment useless.

According to Tickell’s research, the insect dispersions occurred between May of 2011 and early 2012 and, in some locations alone, involved millions per month. I do not know the total number of locations in which mosquitoes were dispersed nor the total number of insects dispersed, but for the disease to spread the way it did, the dispersion was certainly carried out in many locations and likely involved tens of millions of insects in each case and, with several years to breed, gives us the hundreds of millions we needed. Certainly the dispersals in some instances contained massive volumes. In the Cayman Islands, Oxitec “liberated” 3.3 million of their “transgenic mosquitoes” in 80 separate releases that covered only about 16 hectares of land, and the same a bit later in Malaysia. (11) With 100 hectares in a square kilometer, how many mosquitoes would have been released in 20 million square kilometers? At this point, we can perhaps assume it was a micro-biologist from Oxitec who traveled to Brazil, but not for the World Cup. This assumption explains many things, but apparently not to the converted. Soon after, the world media were actively promoting the theory that Oxitec’s “mutant” GM mosquitoes were instead being used to battle ZIKA. (12) (13)

Tickell discussed the potential survival of the GM insects and how they could spread the ZIKA infection, but ignored the much more important question of how they became infected in the first place. Let’s try a direct analogy: You do not get rabies from a dog bite; you get rabies when bitten by a rabid dog. If the dog doesn’t have rabies, all you get is a dog bite. And dispersing thousands of non-rabid dogs into a clean environment will give you only thousands of non-rabid dogs in a still-clean environment. You may get bitten much more often, but you still won’t get rabies. By this analogy, the vast dispersal of genetically modified Aedes aegypti mosquitoes is of no consequence unless the mosquitoes are already infected with the ZIKA virus. If they do not carry the virus, their bites will do nothing to their victims, leaving us with no way to spread a foreign virus.

The important point, so studiously avoided by the CDC, the WHO and the media, is that since ZIKA was not endemic to Brazil or indeed to South-Central America, it had to be introduced from somewhere, and on a massive scale. One infected visitor to the World Cup cannot do that, but importing and dispersing hundreds of millions of infected mosquitoes can do that. It is not possible to disperse millions of uninfected mosquitoes into a clean environment then have them magically become self-infected by a virus whose nearest proximity is 18,000 kilometers distant, which means the insects dispersed by Oxitec had to have been infected before their dispersal because there is no other credible explanation for the comparatively instantaneous explosion of ZIKA in so many millions of square kilometers, events that appeared to coincide with the dispersion of Oxitec’s insects. The question then is how a company like Oxitec could disperse millions of insects without knowing they were infected. After all, they engineered the mosquitoes, they surely were aware of the dangers, and certainly had the ability to do testing. The only possible conclusion I see, is that they did know. If there is an alternative explanation, I cannot imagine what it would be.

I am reminded of Dr. David Heymann of the WHO who, when speaking of the identical issue of the origin and spread of HIV, claimed, “The origin of the AIDS virus is of no importance … speculation on how it arose is of no importance.” I disagreed then, and I disagree now. The WHO took enormous pains to obscure investigation into the origin and spread of that virus, and appeared to be doing the same with ZIKA. In the Scientific Method, we try to form a theory to explain the phenomena we witness. Then, if we can, we test our assumptions and hypotheses to see if they correlate with the known facts. In this case, we have unknowns and unanswered questions in a situation where the official explanation doesn’t appear plausible, and where confusion exists in some facts. But if we theorise that Oxitec carried out its field trials in these locations with infected mosquitoes our theory explains almost everything we know about ZIKA. But this isn’t quite the end of the story.

  • Back to the Future

Many virologists and media sources inform us that the ZIKA virus was first isolated from a monkey in the ZIKA Forest in Africa (Uganda) in 1947 while scientists were researching Yellow Fever, but the more interesting parts of ZIKA’s story occurred in labs rather than forests. The virus was isolated in a laboratory by a microbiologist named Jordi Casals (14) (15), whose entire career (but for two years after graduation) was funded by the Rockefeller Foundation, mostly working in labs at Yale University. Casals was a specialist in ticks and virus-borne diseases (of the kind produced by the US Military at Fort Detrick and Plum Island), as well as the viruses that cause encephalitis and the kind of hemorrhagic fever the US dispersed in North Korea during the war and later in Cuba. He was for years a consultant to the WHO and to the US Army Research Institute in Bethseda, Maryland, where he was performing concurrent work in what appeared to be related to bioweapons research.

The media and the medical history books tell us that after its discovery, ZIKA remained an “obscure and unremarkable illness” that caused no trouble and was of no apparent interest to anybody, but that’s not entirely correct. After Casals isolated ZIKA from Rockefeller Foundation monkey number 766, a quiet interest apparently emerged in this ‘obscure’ virus, with both the WHO and America’s CDC establishing “virus research laboratories” very near the same forest where ZIKA was discovered, and in 2008 the Wellcome Trust – who are coincidentally one of Oxitec’s sources of funds – also became involved in microbiology programs at the same location. (16) (17) The Rockefeller Foundation established its East African Virus Research Institute in Entebbe, Uganda, in 1936, the UVRI forming at the same time (with whom the CDC began working in 1991, the WHO joining the affiliation in 1996). (18)

More recently, when the ZIKA outbreak occurred in 2007 on the Micronesian island of Yap, the US military was reported to have sent what was described as “a large research presence” to that island, consisting of individuals from both the CDC labs at the University of Colorado and from the military, all experts in insect-vector bio-pathogens. (19) (20) (21) Perhaps coincidentally and perhaps not, Yap Island is only about 800 Kms. from Guam, the original site of the US military’s NAMRU-2 biowarfare lab which depended primarily on researchers from the Rockefeller Institute. And to bring us up to date with Brazil, one media report informed us that two American researchers from the University of Wisconsin, one a professor of pathobiological sciences named Jorge Osorio (22) (23), the other his assistant named Matthew Aliota, were the first to identify ZIKA virus in South America. Osorio’s assistant, Aliota, had a long history with the US Army’s bio-warfare lab, USAMRIID, located at Fort Detrick, Maryland, and was also a professor at Colorado State University, the source of the CDC’s virological staff originally sent to Yap to examine the first ZIKA outbreak. (24) (25)

  • The Microcephaly Problem

There had for many months been a flurry of media activity with reports containing an utter confusion of claims about the incidence of this condition, a multitude of false alarms causing misunderstandings and creating excessive caution. One report in the New York Times claimed that fears of the virus resulted in “massive over-reporting”. In early February of 2016, Brazil’s Health Ministry accounted for about 5,000 reported cases, but in fact only a few hundred had actually been confirmed, an insignificant number that would normally be buried within the statistical averages. Interestingly, the WHO was guilty of laying most of the fuel onto this fire, announcing an “international health emergency”, appearing primarily motivated to strongly focus public attention onto the birth defects and away from other considerations. Indeed, virtually all of the media attention appeared to focus on a few hundreds of potentially damaged fetuses and a few thousands of symptomatic mothers rather than on the millions of civilians inexplicably infected by a foreign virus of (so far) unknown provenance. In any case, the clear intent was to establish a link in the public mind between ZIKA and birth defects, going so far as to advise all mothers in South and Central America to delay planned pregnancies for several years. Much of this was alarmist and unjustified. The New England Journal of Medicine claimed that “29 percent of women who had ultrasound examinations after testing positive for infection with the ZIKA virus had fetuses that suffered [undocumented] “grave outcomes”.” (26) (27) But they neglected to mention that the total number of women in this sample was only about 40, if memory serves me correctly.

The media reports on this problem, virtually without exception and certainly including all those from the WHO, consisted mostly of dramatic attention-getting headlines. An article would quote an apparently prominent virologist claiming his research “strongly indicated” that “the ZIKA virus, and nothing else” was responsible for the rash of birth defects. Other scientists were quoted as saying ZIKA targeted the brain cortex, leaving readers to worry that every pregnant mother in all of Latin America would give birth to a brain-damaged baby. A website calling itself the Virology Blog, run by a virologist and professor at Columbia University in the US, stated that published reports made “a compelling case that ZIKA virus is causing microcephaly in Brazil”, quoting from studies with such small samples they were statistically invalid, and even admitting no confirmations were available of ZIKA infections in the microcephaly cases studied. He even went so far as to write, “Here is the clincher – the entire ZIKA virus genome was identified in brain tissue” of an infant born with this condition. (28) Another virologist promptly informed this writer that he had all his facts wrong, and that only small sections of the virus had in fact been identified. Virology Blog – ZIKA virus is causing microcephaly in Brazil.

Other scientists expressed their amazement that a flavivirus like ZIKA could cause birth defects when no strain or variety of flavivirus had ever done so before. They noted too that the Brazilian strain of the virus was a 99.75% match, indicating it was the same virus from other areas of the world, and that birth defects existed in none of those places. Many virologists stated that historically no flavivirus had ever been implicated in birth defects, claiming the conditions pointed to a “localised environmental factor” or some other cause. Dr. Ahmed Kalebi, Director of the Lancet Pathology Research Group, echoed a similar sentiment, stating the possibility that “ZIKA is just a red herring and there is something else . . . that makes those babies get microcephaly”. And a published study posted on the WHO website stated, “ZIKV has been identified in Africa over 50 years ago, and neither there nor in the outbreaks outside Africa, has such an association with microcephaly [ever] been reported.” Another virologist wrote that there was no proof of a cause-effect relationship, that the ZIKA virus might just have been “infecting opportunistically, and that these are cases that would have developed birth defects even without it”. Others noted that the apparent surge in these cases occurred only in Northeastern Brazil, primarily in Pernambuco in and near Recife (where the WHO-recommended insecticide pyroxiprophen was being sprayed), and many noted that there was no actual proof of correlation between ZIKA and microcephaly, other than the fact that the virus had been found in some infants with the condition. Unfortunately, none of these other voices were ever able to reach the microphone.

And there is more. I downloaded a study from the WHO’s own website, titled “Microcephaly in northeastern Brazil: a review of 16,208 births between 2012 and 2015” (29) that states in part, “However, if the ZIKV were indeed introduced in Brazil at the World Cup in mid 2014, the outbreak of microcephaly would have preceded it.” In case this isn’t clear, the authors of this paper documented that microcephaly began appearing in Brazil in 2011 and 2012, well prior to the appearance of the claimed “visitor from Polynesia”, which by itself would seem irrefutable proof that the ZIKA virus cannot be responsible for the birth defects in Latin America. Not only that, according to this same paper, the initial appearances of microcephaly would have coincided perfectly with the spraying of pyroxiprophen and the timing of Oxitec’s GM mosquito dispersal program. Certainly the WHO was fully aware of this information, and the media pundits either were aware or should have been aware, but these crucial facts were entirely censored by all the media. In March of 2016, Canada’s CBC reported on another study in Paraíba State in Brazil, which lies next to Perambuco, and which also discovered cases of microcephaly prior to 2012, a full two years before the appearance of the supposed Polynesian visitor, and which confirmed as well that these cases have been concentrated in Brazil’s Northeast where the bulk of the chemical spraying was done. (30) (31) (32) (33) Nevertheless, the New York Times was telling us “There is no longer any doubt that Zika causes microcephaly”, quoting a study of ZIKA at estimated a “1 in 100” risk of microcephaly. (34) (35)

  • The Media Focus

In the extensive media coverage of the ZIKA epidemic, several elements were not only unusual but were so uniformly focused they had a distinct appearance of having been coordinated as part of plan. The first of these I have already discussed: the apparent absence of any interest whatever in the source of the ZIKA infection. Aside from the almost-flippant attribution of a sudden and massive international outbreak of ZIKA to a single traveler from Polynesia, I was unable to find any reference, question or investigation by any part of the Western mainstream media as to alternative explanations. It seems that no scientist or reporter in the Western world had any apparent interest in this critical matter, a circumstance I find almost bizarre. Every newspaper, TV station, publication, that I could monitor, studiously avoided any mention of alternative explanations of the source of millions of infected mosquitoes. With every other disease outbreak in the recent past, we have had various theories and consequent debates as to source and origin, but not this time. This is exceedingly curious, since the officially-attributed source is clearly impossible.

The second element was a persistent coordinated focus on the relatively few instances of microcephaly to the neglect of almost every other aspect, leading one to conclude the outbreak might consist of millions of microcephaly cases instead of instances of a minor virus infection. This was true not only with the Western mass media but also with internet searches. In repeated searches for the incidence of total ZIKA infections in Brazil and other South American nations, Google repeatedly produced only information on births with apparent ZIKA-related defects. I will note here that Google’s searches are often highly selective in a manner not entirely explained by an autonomous algorithm. When repeated and diligent searches on one topic produce only results on another topic, it is safe for us to conclude that someone is pulling the strings. In broad searches for rates of ZIKA infection, Google’s entire emphasis was on supposedly ZIKA-related microcephaly cases, and searches for percentages produced more of the same “reported but unconfirmed” statistics misleadingly quoted to infer that a very high percentage of births were defective – which was absolutely not the case. Let’s look at some statistics.

The total population of South and Central America is almost 450 million, with reported ZIKA infections projected to total perhaps 4 million overall. This means that less than 1% of the total populations of these countries will be infected with the ZIKA virus, of which a very small portion (perhaps only 1% or 2% at any given time) will be pregnant mothers. Remember too, that there were only a few hundred confirmed microcephaly cases and only about 1% of those contained any link with ZIKA. This means that of all the pregnancies in Brazil, perhaps one ten-thousandth will result in microcephaly and, as noted above, only about 1% of these would exhibit a ZIKA infection. I by no means wish to trivialise individual tragedies but, with confirmed cases measured as a percentage of the population or by the incidence of all other primary causes of diseases and deaths, the incidence of microcephaly in Brazil was statistically zero, whether ZIKA-induced or not.

The next concern was what appeared to be a widespread and deliberate program of fear-mongering, with a coordinated focus that I anticipated but found disturbing nonetheless. Even the adjuncts were designed to be unsettling and frightening. For one article on ZIKA, the Washington Post employed a photographic setting of a statue guarding a tomb in a cemetery, with the caption, “Flower urns at many graves are breeding grounds for the disease-carrying mosquitoes.” Why a cemetery setting? Why the photo of graves? How many people had died from contracting ZIKA? Approximately none. The Washington Post screamed that “The more we learn, the worse things seem to get”. It told us of the virus “sweeping through the hemisphere” and wrote of the “growing links to birth defects and neurological disorders” which were even “worse than originally suspected”, and warning of the “increasing the risk for devastating harm” during pregnancy. The Washington Post told us, “Brazilians panic as mosquito linked to brain damage in thousands of babies” (36) (37), and Canada’s Globe and Mail told us that “As the virus ravages Brazil”, several hundred babies were left “with devastated brains” (38), while failing to mention that Canada’s House of Parliament has suffered the same condition for decades.

Thomas Frieden, Director of the US-based CDC, said he expected cases to increase “dramatically” (39), and that “The cost of caring for one child with birth defects can be $10 million or more”. He tearfully told us, according to the Washington Post, of one woman “who was fearful of what would happen to her baby. To quote, “She said, ‘I will be worried for my whole life, and even after I die, who is going to take care of the baby’.” We were further informed that “studies showed” ZIKA was “likely behind more birth defects and problems than researchers realised”, and was linked to “a broad array of birth defects and neurological disorders”. As an aside, WHO Director-General Dr Margaret Chan said ZIKA had gone “from a mild threat to one of alarming proportions”, and that she had set up a ZIKA “emergency team” after the “explosive” spread of the virus. (40) But as you will read elsewhere, Margaret Chan apparently wasn’t concerned about Ebola that was killing by the tens of thousands, to the extent that the WHO stopped answering their phones so people wouldn’t continue to bother them with updates. It took years for Ebola – and other serious outbreaks, including the H5N1 flu and SARS in Hong Kong – to become “alarming” and explosive” and require Margaret Chan to establish an “emergency team”, so why all the fuss about ZIKA that killed nobody? To continue, the Washington Post further informed us:

A growing concern among pediatricians is that ZIKA could inflict harm to developing brain tissue in other, less obvious ways than microcephaly. That condition could be the “tip of the iceberg” of a series of neurological problems, some of which might not show up in the brain scans used to spot microcephaly, and it might not even show up for years to come. These could include epilepsy, behavioral problems and mental retardation, “It could be that these children are born with a normal head size but manifest other problems later in life.”

From this, we must gather that now even those babies appearing normal at birth are by no means safe or healthy, that they might appear normal today but may very well become delinquent, epileptic and mentally retarded at undetermined points in the future. So we have not only a strong focus on the relatively few cases of confirmed birth defects, but solemn and somber warnings that all births in the entirety of Latin America are suspect far into the indefinite future.

In such a case, what does one do? Fortunately, the WHO, Western medical “experts”, and the Washington Post, all reading from the same page, had the ready answer: legalised abortions. And this was the final, and extraordinarily vocal, thrust of the media coverage. And I have to say, I found this to be suspicious as hell. Reading from beginning to end, it was difficult to avoid concluding that the purpose of the exaggerated focus on the birth defects to the exclusion of all else, coupled with the intense fear-mongering that followed, were simply the prelude to the main act which was to force a change in South America’s abortion laws. The fear-mongering paid off to some extent: The governments of many countries in South and Central America, aided immeasurably by some elements of the media and countless NGOs, advised all women to delay any planned pregnancies until 2018.

The New York Times, Bloomberg, Canada’s Public Health Service and others were instructing Latin American women to avoid pregnancy (41) (42) (43) (44), while the Washington Post ran an article on January 22, 2016 in which it informed that Latin American countries were advising women to not only postpone pregnancies but to avoid sex altogether. (45) But then it launched into what I thought was an extraordinary propaganda piece on abortion in Latin America. It told us that the topic is “Taboo in election campaigns”, then “estimated” the total number of induced abortions at well over 850,000 per year, stating that perhaps ten million women had obtained illegal abortions in Brazil alone during the prior ten years. In other words, roughly a third of all pregnancies in Brazil had been aborted. And a group known as the Pan American Health Organization, a sister to Margaret Chan’s WHO, produced a study claiming the numbers were well over one million per year. (46) And not only that, but more than 20% of all women in Brazil have had “at least one abortion” – this in a country where abortions are illegal. But, according to these “experts”, it is clear that such a prohibition “does not prevent women resorting to abortion.” I guess not. These “experts” even admitted their figures were “ridiculously high”, but used this as proof that abortions would not increase if they were legalised – which was the thrust of the entire argument and the purpose of the almost certainly fabricated facts. The fear-mongering further reared its ugly head with an (undocumented and certainly false) tale of one woman who “disappeared after entering an illegal abortion clinic,” the article confiding to us that “She would have died during the procedure and police suspect that her body was burned and dismembered.” With risks like this, we should conclude that Brazilian women are nothing if not courageous, though I would have thought the more common procedure would be to dismember first and burn later. But then maybe things are different in Brazil.

The Washington Post ran another article on February 8, 2016, titled, “ZIKA prompts urgent debate about abortion in Latin America” (47), in which they stated (much too gleefully, I thought) that calls to loosen restrictive abortion laws were “gaining momentum”, and that “activists” were “pressing lawmakers” to act swiftly in removing these laws. According to the Post, the pro-abortion lobby was “taking advantage of this to liberalize the legislation”, and one spokesman for a pro-abortion NGO named ‘Bureau for the Life and Health of Women’ hoped that “ZIKA would change the debate”. (48) (49) We were also informed of another Canadian NGO named ‘Women on Web’, who specialise in shipping abortion-inducing drugs through the mail (for a “donation” of $100) into countries where abortions are prohibited by law. The article informed us that, sadly, “Often, government customs inspectors seize the pills.” No idea why. And a columnist named Hélio Schwartsman wrote that he has interviewed a woman that said if she were pregnant and discovered she’d been infected by ZIKA, “I would not hesitate an instant to abort”, dismemberment and subsequent incineration apparently being an insufficient disincentive. (50) (51)  I should note here that the Washington Post and all other Western media, while positively glowing about the prospects of abortion being legalised in South and Central America, neglected to mention that all the “activists,” the NGOs, and the “pro-abortion lobbies” were all US-based or US-funded, as well as often being US-managed, many or most closely connected to USAID and US-based Planned Parenthood, who are in turn the Great-Grandfather and Great-Grandmother of eugenics, abortion, forced sterilisation, and population reduction.

Then the New York Times, not one to be left out of the excitement, ran an article by a Simon Romero, informing that “ZIKA Virus Has Brazilians Re-examining Strict Abortion Laws,” and that “the surging reports” of babies with microcephaly “are igniting a fierce debate” over the country’s abortion laws. Romero also noted that (American) “abortion rights activists are seizing on the crisis” to change the country’s laws. (52)”Pregnant women across Brazil are now in a panic”, he tells us, which is no great surprise given “the surging reports” and the extraordinary amount of fear-mongering the media contributed to aid their momentum. After reading all the Western media stories, I’d be in a panic too. He noted that “some activists”, American as usual, compare this to the US debate on abortion following measles infections in that country, a situation that “paved the way” for abortion in California and then most states in the US. “The fears over the ZIKA virus are giving us a rare opening to challenge the religious fundamentalists who put the lives of thousands of women at risk in Brazil each year to maintain laws belonging in the dark ages.”

It needs to be noted somewhere that casual abortions as a means of birth control may not necessarily qualify as a “universal value.” People and societies in different countries are entitled to form their own values, especially those values involving human life, without the belligerent assistance of either Planned Parenthood or the Washington Post, and if the countries in Latin America want to restrict abortions or if China wants to restrict pornography, it is nobody else’s business and is a gross violation of sovereignty to attempt to force our Western or other values onto them. We formed our values, such as they are, without interference from others, and they have the right to do the same.

It is a truth in all matters involving foreign affairs, most especially those carrying significant social, political or economic implications, that there are no fortuitous events, no “coincidences”, that all things happen because they are planned, with the final result inevitably being according to expectation and plan. How then do we think about ZIKA? It seems implausible that the intense onslaught by the WHO and the media, wildly exaggerating what appeared to be non-existent dangers, was simply unintelligent and purposeless fear-mongering. This, and the sudden overwhelming push for legalised abortions were too unanimous, too widespread, and too well-orchestrated to have been merely opportunistic. How then do we think about Oxitec’s release of hundreds of millions of mosquitoes that were almost certainly infected with ZIKA? How do we think about the unanimous official narrative of ZIKA packing its bags and traveling halfway around the world to Brazil at the time of the World Cup? A coincidence? How do we think about ZIKA choosing as its new home the one place in the world with concentrated abortion restrictions? How do we think about the media ignoring the logic in these questions and trashing anyone who raised them?

What were the results of the ZIKA outbreak? The most noticeable was an unparalleled opportunity to raise a critical mass clamoring for legalised abortions, but there were others. Media reports estimated South America would lose at least $53 billion in tourism revenue from the widely-advised travel restrictions. (53) (54) Metropole would have to search hard indeed to find a more convenient economic sanction for a recalcitrant socialist periphery. And of course, economic hardship coupled with public fear and panic easily decay into social unrest, and are the precursor of choice as a seedbed for regime change. We have seen all of these, and more.














































(45)  (avoid sex)











Larry Romanoff is a retired management consultant and businessman. He has held senior executive positions in international consulting firms, and owned an international import-export business. He has been a visiting professor at Shanghai’s Fudan University, presenting case studies in international affairs to senior EMBA classes. Mr. Romanoff lives in Shanghai and is currently writing a series of ten books generally related to China and the West. He can be contacted at: He is a frequent contributor to Global Research.

Copyright © Larry Romanoff, Moon of Shanghai, 2020

June 12, 2020 Posted by | Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science, Timeless or most popular | , , | 3 Comments

Big Tech Pandemic

By Leo Goldstein | Watts Up Wth That? | June 8, 2020

Patients in Wuhan, China, are being saved with high-dose vitamin C. In the U.S., you can get your Twitter or Facebook account deleted or your video scrubbed for even talking about it. – American Association of Physicians and Surgeons

The Statistics

Strikingly, the 10 countries with the highest COVID-19 mortality rates are large Western countries, including the US, UK, France, Spain, and Italy. The non-Western country with the highest mortality rate is Ecuador, ranked at #13. Ecuador only has 195 deaths/million, however, compared with the median of around 450 deaths/million in the “top 10”. No Asian countries make the top-20 list despite being close to the epicenter of the epidemic and having high population densities. No African country makes the list despite many having much traffic from China.

Table 1. The 20 countries with the highest COVID-19 mortalities (2020-06-03)

Country Cases/M Deaths/M Population
1 Belgium 5,065 822 11,585,802
2 Spain 6,139 580 46,753,443
3 UK 4,097 580 67,858,826
4 Italy 3,862 555 60,468,295
5 Sweden 4,042 450 10,094,432
6 France 2,319 443 65,262,729
7 Netherlands 2,728 349 17,132,042
8 Ireland 5,081 336 4,933,409
9 USA 5,693 327 330,854,064
10 Channel Islands 3,223 265 173,737
11 Switzerland 3,572 222 8,649,729
12 Canada 2,450 196 37,716,316
13 Ecuador 2,293 195 17,621,217
14 Luxembourg 6,431 176 625,142
15 Brazil 2,628 147 212,442,762
16 Peru 5,310 145 32,934,728
17 Portugal 3,261 142 10,198,850
18 Germany 2,198 104 83,763,806
19 Denmark 2,033 100 5,790,665
20 Iran 1,915 95 83,906,701

Worldometers, 06/03/2020, 9:30 am CT

*Eliminated from the comparison are countries with less than 100k population (San Marino, Sint Maarten, Montserrat, Monaco, Bermuda, Isle of Man, and Andorra).

Possible Explanations

The popular hypotheses, such as the use of anti-malarial drugs in some countries and anti-tuberculosis vaccination of children in others, do not explain these differences.

Chloroquine and similar drugs are not widely used for malaria prevention in India and other malaria-affected countries. Travelers do take anti-malarials for prophylaxis, but locals acquire some immunity from exposure to it in childhood. If they do contract malaria, they are treated with chloroquine or artemisinin combo for a few days. India uses less HCQ per million population than the US.

One observational hypothesis posits that full national anti-tuberculosis vaccination (BCG) correlates with lower COVID-19mortality. BCG is typically given to babies at birth, sometimes with boosters in late childhood. This hypothesis suggests that BCG provides some degree of long-term immunity to COVID-19. Even if there is correlation, however, it is not relevant here. The UK had full BCG from 1953–2005. Belgium had it from about 1953–1995 and France from 1950–2007. Ireland started mandatory BCG vaccination in the 1950s and still has it.

Other factors exist. Less developed countries might not detect and report cases and deaths from COVID-19 as completely as more developed countries. They also have lower ratios of older people and have low urbanization.

Amplifying Factors

On the other hand, population density in the cities of non-Western countries is typically higher than in Western ones. Mumbai has 32 thousand persons per km2, while New York City has just 10,000 persons per km2. People in non-Western countries also tend to have less physical distance between them. There are more persons per area at work and home, and multiple generations often live together in the same households. Even in developed Russia and Ukraine, the typical physical distance between persons is about three times less than in the US, which should translate to a much higher transmission speed, and exponentially higher rates of cases and deaths.

Many non-Western countries also have low hygienic standards. Many suffer from bad nutrition, cold weather, lack of UVB sunlight, and other immunity-compromising factors. Less developed countries also have much lower capacities to hospitalize and treat those who are severely ill.

Google, Facebook, Twitter, etc.

The top dozen Western countries share another distinguishing factor: information flow dominated by Google, Facebook, Twitter, and their accomplices (here, Masters of the Universe or “MOTUs”). The media are downstream of them, depending on information, clicks, and even cash handouts from them. These companies collaborated with the WHO, spread panic (like Google’s SOS Alert), misled government health agencies and the public about coronavirus mortality (e.g., calling COVID-19 a pandemic was wrong). They have been removing helpful medical advice and even opinions simply because they were not endorsed by the WHO or confused government agencies. Notice that this debate ban prevents scientists and clinicians from communicating helpful information to government agencies, and even communicating among themselves. Many governments censor information, such as the Soviet Union. With all the inferiority of such a model, the Soviet government developed and possessed all the anti-epidemic expertise and capacities it wanted. In the US, most expertise and capacity in this and other fields is with its citizens, from whom the government can receive help and advice when needed. Citizens do provide such help and advice, but the MOTU use their physical control of the communications channels to block and remove information helpful to fight the epidemic. For example, Google blocked access to the scientific paper An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (COVID-19) by James Todaro and Gregory Rigano, which made a case for CQ and HCQ on March 13–15.

Effects of COVID-19 Misinformation in the US

In the US, most COVID-19 deaths happened in the New York cluster. NYC also spread COVID-19 nationally and internationally. These are some main mistakes made by NYC in handling the epidemic:

  • It blocked early HCQ treatment of COVID-19 victims.
  • It failed to recommend and, where relevant, implement nutritional and environmental mitigation measures to slow the epidemic.
  • It allowed COVID-19 patients to mix with other patients and unprotected healthcare personnel in hospitals.
  • It sent young COVID-19 patients to nursing homes.

None of these mistakes was caused by material factors or a lack of knowledge in the public domain. None of these are obvious only in hindsight. All were caused by incorrect assumptions about COVID-19 and/or by panic, both of which were spread by the MOTUs (General incompetence and the politics of NYC have just aggravated these mistakes, I hope).

The resistance to recommending vitamin C, which was caused by misinformation spread by the MOTU directly and through their proxy “fact-checkers,” is an example of how much damage they inflicted.

Vitamin C

Vitamin C has always been recommended as safe and helpful for many health conditions, including the prevention and treatment of respiratory infections. An abundance of evidence and studies supports the use of vitamin C to prevent and alleviate respiratory diseases.

Despite this, in February, the WHO published a Q&A on COVID-19 advising against taking vitamin C, even comparing taking vitamin C to smoking:

“The following measures ARE NOT specifically recommended as 2019-nCoV remedies as they are not effective to protect yourself and can be even harmful:
* Taking vitamin C
* Smoking
* Drinking tradition herbal teas
* Wearing multiple masks to maximize protection
* Taking self-medication such as antibiotics

With all the incompetence and power hunger of the WHO, this is bad copywriting rather than bad judgment. An ordinary person can easily recognize that. However, the MOTU “fact-checkers” interpreted it in the worst conceivable way.

Apparently, it started in the article “These are false cures and fake preventative measures against coronavirus. Help fact-checkers spread the word” (February 13) published by the Poynter Institute (the entity that certifies the fact-checkers used by Google, Facebook, and Microsoft):

Aos Fatos reported that the World Health Organization says on its website that taking vitamin C is not recommended as a way to prevent coronavirus. It is actually dangerous, just like smoking and taking antibiotics without a prescription.

The linked Aos Fatos article did not say that. The Poynter Institute omitted the “not specifically recommended” clause. “Fact-checkers” are in the clickbait business, too. This “advice” went beyond Google and Facebook: the New York Times (NYT) article “Coronavirus Myths” (March 17) said:

You might be tempted to bulk order vitamin C or other supposedly immune-boosting supplements, but their effectiveness is a long-standing fallacy. Even in the cases of colds or flus, vitamin C hasn’t shown a consistent benefit.

Unlike Google, the NYT is supposed to have human editors. Where were they? Its other article with the strange title “Supplements for Coronavirus Probably Won’t Help, and May Harm” (March 23) called vitamin C “a purported immune booster.”USA Today was even worse: “We rate the claim that vitamin C can help cure or prevent the novel coronavirus FALSE because it is not supported by our research”—as if it conducted research.

It seems that Google and Facebook forgot that these fact-checkers were intended as proxies to justify their politically motivated editorializing by pretending it was third-party information. They started using them as authoritative sources. By May 20, it was easier to find “stabilized oxygen” than vitamin C in Google searches including the word COVID-19.

The MOTU financially benefited from their misdeeds. More people were forced to use Facebook, Twitter, Google Docs, YouTube, and Microsoft Skype instead of meeting face-to-face.

Facebook and Twitter Examples

The MOTU have been collaborating and colluding with the WHO to misinform the public and government in the US and other countries since early February. The NYT article “W.H.O. Fights a Pandemic Besides Coronavirus: an ‘Infodemic’” (Feb 6) wrote

Google launched what it calls an “SOS Alert,” which directs people who search for “coronavirus” to news and other information from the W.H.O., including to the organization’s Twitter account . . .

The health agency has worked especially closely with Facebook. The company has used human fact-checkers to flag misinformation, which can come to their attention through computer programs that identify suspicious keywords and trends. Such posts can then be moved down in news feeds, or, in rare cases, removed altogether.

These are some results of this close work. “Coronavirus: World leaders’ posts deleted over fake news” (BBC, 2020-03-31),

Facebook and Twitter have deleted posts from world leaders for spreading misinformation about the coronavirus. Facebook deleted a video from Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro that claimed hydroxychloroquine was totally effective in treating the virus.

Brazil is the sixth-largest country of the world by population. By that time, the use of CQ or HCQ for COVID-19 had been endorsed to some degree by the governments of China, India, and the US. Did Facebook and Twitter executives think they knew better?

Facebook: Combatting COVID-19 Misinformation

We regularly update the claims that we remove based on guidance from the WHO and other health authorities.

Once a post is rated false by a fact-checker, we reduce its distribution so fewer people see it, and we show strong warning labels and notifications to people who still come across it, try to share it or already have.

Facebook: An Update on Our Work

Informing People Who Interacted With Harmful COVID-19 Claims

We’re going to start showing messages in News Feed to people who have liked, reacted or commented on harmful misinformation about COVID-19 that we have since removed. These messages will connect people to COVID-19 myths debunked by the WHO …

Twitter: An update on our continuity strategy during COVID-19

Broadening our definition of harm to address content that goes directly against guidance from authoritative sources of global and local public health information. . . . [W]e will require people to remove tweets that include:

* Denial of global or local health authority recommendations to decrease someone’s likelihood of exposure to COVID-19 . . .

* Description of alleged cures for COVID-19, which are not immediately harmful but are known to be ineffective . . .

* Denial of established scientific facts . . .

* [The list is going on and on]

It is incredible: denial of recommendations … global health authority … alleged cures … denial of established scientific facts. “Require people to remove tweets” means temporary disabling their accounts until they remove the tweets that Twitter dislikes.

The global conversation about COVID-19 and ongoing product improvements are driving up total monetizable DAU (mDAU), with quarter-to-date average total mDAU reaching approximately 164 million, up 23% from 134 million in Q1 2019 . . .

… manufacturing delays in China have compromised the supply chain, resulting in delays in deliveries to our data centers.

Have they de-platformed critics of the Chinese government to avoid “manufacturing delays” or something else?

Most people would think that if Google, Facebook, or Twitter deleted information related to treatment or prevention of the pandemic, they were 100% sure it was false and harmful. Few would believe that they did that on a whim or based on the opinion of entities like Snopes. And they would be branded “conspiracy theorists.”


Other Possible Factors

Anti-tuberculosis vaccines and their administration schedules vary by country, and some countries might have COVID-19 protective effects from them.

Another hypothesis is put forward in the following papers:

“Have the malaria eradication measures been behind the COVID-19 pandemic?” Elnady Hassan M., Sohag Medical Journal, opinion article

“Parasites and their protection against COVID-19—Ecology or Immunology?” Ssebambulidde et al., preprint:

One plausible hypothesis for the comparatively low COVID-19 cases/deaths in parasite-endemic areas is immunomodulation induced by parasites.

I consider these hypotheses too exotic to discuss here and just mention them. Many confounding factors remain when comparison among countries is done.


  • Another commonality among the highest-mortality countries is climate alarmism taking over the scientific community.
  • The “fact-checkers” seem to be the original sources of some of the worst hoaxes on the Internet.
  • Yes, the MOTUs used artificial intelligence to misinform the public and governments about COVID-19.
  • Besides the direct effects of bans, removals, and the deplatforming of information and speakers who knew more about COVID-19 than the WHO, these actions had chilling effects on discussions related to COVID-19.
  • Coughing into one’s elbow is outright harmful advice because it makes the sleeve a virus-spreader.

June 8, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Full Spectrum Dominance, Science and Pseudo-Science | , , , , | 1 Comment

Authors of Hydroxychloroquine Study Retract Publication in Lancet Over Unverifiable Source Data

Sputnik – June 4, 2020

Since the promotion of hydroxychloroquine by US President Donald Trump as a possible treatment for those afflicted with the coronavirus, the drug has been the subject of controversy, as top medical journals rebuked the claim and major drug trials were halted.

Three authors of an article that claimed to have discovered that taking hydroxychloroquine led to an increased fatality risk among COVID-19 patients retracted the study on Thursday over concerns that the primary source data used to support the work was unverifiable.

According to the authors, Surgisphere, a data analytics company said to be responsible for providing the raw data, refused to supply the full dataset to an independent review. The authors then acknowledged that they “can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources”.

“We always aspire to perform our research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources” the authors said in a co-signed retraction letter.

The authors requested that the paper be retracted and apologised “for any embarrassment or inconvenience” they may have caused.

The research was published in the British medical journal The Lancet last month and garnered widespread response after appearing to imply that antimalarial drugs endorsed by US President Donald Trump as a COVID-19 treatment, were not just ineffective but potentially deadly to users.

Conclusions of the study suggested that coronavirus patients taking chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine showed irregular heartbeats and therefore faced a higher chance of dying while undergoing treatment.

Following the publishing of the study, the World Health Organisation (WHO) – which has been defunded by the White House amid the coronavirus pandemic – initially halted their trials of the malaria drug as a coronavirus treatment, but in the wake of the new findings have resumed trials on Wednesday.

The United Kingdom and France also shut down their clinical drug trials in the wake of the report.

Accusations of politically motivated condemnation have been leveled against those responsible for the data used in the study as an attempt to discredit the treatment touted by Trump. Demand for the drug has since skyrocketed.

Despite the retraction of the the study, however, a concurrent study published by the New England Journal of Medicine on Wednesday found there is no evidence that hydroxychloroquine helps prevent those taking the drug from becoming infected with the COVID-19 coronvirus.

June 4, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Deception | , | Leave a comment

Rush to trash hydroxychloroquine exposes fundamental flaws in profit-based medical ‘science’

By Helen Buyniski | RT | June 4, 2020

As the WHO and prestigious medical journal the Lancet back away from questionable data provided by healthcare analytics firm Surgisphere, ulterior motives for the rush to demonize hydroxychloroquine become clear.

The World Health Organization (WHO) sheepishly resumed testing the off-patent malaria drug hydroxychloroquine on coronavirus patients on Wednesday after pausing that arm of its ‘Solidarity’ clinical trial based on data that appeared to show the drug contributed to higher death rates among test subjects. That data, it turned out, came from a tiny US healthcare analytics firm called Surgisphere, and calling it faulty would be excessively charitable.

Not only is Surgisphere a company lacking in medical expertise – its employees included an “adult” entertainer and a science-fiction writer – but its CEO Sapan Desai co-authored two of the damning studies that used the firm’s data to smear hydroxychloroquine, already thoroughly demonized in the media thanks to its promotion by US President Donald Trump, as a killer. All data is sourced to a proprietary database supposedly containing a veritable ocean of real-time, detailed patient information yet curiously absent from existing medical literature.

The Surgisphere-tainted study appeared to show increased risk of in-hospital deaths and heart problems with no disease-fighting benefits, confirming the suspicions of medical-industry naysayers already inclined to hate the off-patent drug due to the lack of profit potential and Trump’s incessant boosterism. Italy, France, and Germany rushed to ban hydroxychloroquine, citing “an increased risk for adverse reactions with little or no benefit.”

But such a shameless character assassination performed against a potentially-lifesaving drug – especially one with a decades-long track record of safety in malaria, lupus, and arthritis patients that came highly recommended by some of the world’s most eminent disease experts, including France’s Didier Raoult – could only be accomplished with help from industry prejudice. It required ignoring numerous existing studies showing hydroxychloroquine was beneficial in treating early-stage Covid-19 patients, as well as anecdotal reports from thousands of doctors who’d successfully used it.

It also required trusting a fly-by-night company with next to no internet or media presence to make decisions that could affect the lives of millions of people. It’s not like there weren’t warning signs Surgisphere was something other than the top-notch medical analytics firm it presented itself as. The company began life as a textbook publisher in 2008 and hired most of its 11 employees two month ago, according to an investigation by the Guardian, yet it claimed ownership of a massive international database of 96,000 patients in 1,200 hospitals worldwide. One expert interviewed by the outlet said it would be difficult for even a national statistics agency to do in years what Surgisphere had supposedly done in weeks, calling the database “almost certainly a scam.” Yet no one at the Lancet or WHO thought to look a gift horse in the mouth – not when that gift drove a stake through the heart of hydroxychloroquine as Covid-19 treatment.

And while Australian researchers found flaws in the Surgisphere data just days after the May 22 publication of the Lancet study, noting that the number of Covid-19 deaths cited by the study as coming from five hospitals exceeded the entirety of Covid-19 deaths recorded in Australia at that time, the Lancet – instead of investigating just who this Surgisphere company really was, and why it had made such a glaring mistake – merely published a minor retraction related to the Australian data and put the controversy to bed.

The full-frontal assault on hydroxychloroquine was instead allowed to continue unchecked in the media, as mainstream outlets focused their energies on fluffing up remdesivir – a costly, untested drug manufactured by drug maker Gilead that has so far produced lackluster results in clinical trials – and stumping for an eventual vaccine. Hydroxychloroquine’s off-patent status meant it was a dead end as far as profits were concerned, while remdesivir and whatever vaccine is ultimately green-lighted will make a lot of people very rich. Perhaps hoping to throw their audiences off the real reason for their hydroxychloroquine hatred, several outlets hinted that Trump stood to make money off the drug (which costs about 60 cents per pill) – but even Snopes, no fan of the ‘Bad Orange Man’, had to pour cold water on that speculation.

The Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine have – belatedly – published “expressions of concern” about the Surgisphere hydroxychloroquine study, and an independent audit is being conducted. But the problem of biased health authorities selectively embracing some trial results while rejecting others is unlikely to stop there.

The Lancet study is hardly the only one to show hydroxychloroquine lacks efficacy in treating Covid-19. Multiple studies conducted by the US National Institutes of Health on hospitalized (i.e. severely-ill) coronavirus patients have yielded poor results, but even the drug’s most ardent evangelists acknowledge it doesn’t help end-stage or very sick patients. Raoult has even claimed France banned the drug’s use in all but the most severely ill patients in order to discredit it as a treatment. The US National Institutes of Health was publishing studies in its journal Virology touting chloroquine as “a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection” as far back as 2005, yet ‘coronavirus czar’ Anthony Fauci throws shade at the drug whenever he gets a chance.

As long as deadly diseases like Covid-19 are seen as profit sources first and human rights issues second (or third, or tenth…), treatments that aren’t profitable will always be marginalized in favor of costly and frequently less-effective pharmaceuticals. Drug industry profiteering has already killed hundreds of thousands – if not millions – of people in the US alone. Taking the profit motive out of healthcare can help ensure its body count stays as low as possible.

Helen Buyniski is an American journalist and political commentator at RT. Follow her on Twitter @velocirapture23

June 4, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Economics | , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Indian Council of Medical Research writes to WHO disagreeing with HCQ assessment

Officials say international trial dosage four times higher than India

ANI | May 29, 2020

NEW DELHI: After the Union Health Ministry expressed reservations about the World Health Organisation’s (WHO) advisory to suspend hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) usage in treating COVID-19 patients, now, India’s nodal government agency ICMR (Indian Council of Medical Research) overseeing the country’s response to the coronavirus pandemic has also written to the WHO citing differences in dosage standards between Indian and international trials that could explain the efficacy issues of HCQ in treating COVID-19 patients.

Currently, as per protocols set by the Indian government to treat severe coronavirus patients requiring ICU management, HCQ dosages are administered in the following way- 1st day a heavy dose of 400mg HCQ dose once in the morning and one at night, followed by 200 mg HCQ one in the morning and one at night to be followed for the next four days. The total dosage administered to a patient in 5 days, therefore, amounts to 2400 mg.

Speaking to ANI on the condition of anonymity, a Health Ministry official explained the context behind the ICMR and Health Ministry disagreeing with WHO’s assessment, the primary point being the wide gap in dosage levels given in India and internationally.”Internationally in Solidarity trial COVID-19 patients are being administered with–800 mg x 2 loading doses 6 hours apart followed by 400 mg x 2 doses per day for 10 days. The total dosage given to a patient over 11 days is about 9600 mg which is four times higher than the dose we are giving to our patients,” informed the official.

“This indicates that in our treatment protocol, the efficacy of HCQ is good and patients are recovering quickly with less amount of dosage being administered,” said the official.

Buoyed by the preliminary success observed in the treatment of COVID-19 patients through these HCQ tablets, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) has written to the WHO.

In a letter via an email, Dr Sheela Godbole, National Coordinator of the WHO-India Solidarity Trial and Head of the Division of Epidemiology, ICMR-National AIDS Research Institute has written to Dr Soumya Swaminathan, Chief Scientist at World Health Organization.

In a letter, Dr Godbole stated: “There was no reason to suspend the trial for safety concern.” … Full article

May 30, 2020 Posted by | Corruption, Deception, Science and Pseudo-Science | | Leave a comment