It’s Time for the Truth about Hydroxychloroquine
It’s good news, if we choose to accept the side effects.
July 28 2020
Hydroxychloroquine seems innocent enough for a tongue-twistingly-nomenclatured chemical compound.
It was for a long time known as a cheap and effective treatment for Malaria, along with chronic illnesses such as Lupus and Arthritis. It has, through its derivative Chloroquine, been recognized as a ‘potent inhibitor’ of coronaviruses at least since this peer reviewed article was published in 2005 — a study, it is important to note, that was undertaken by The National Institutes of Health under the leadership of Dr. Anthony Fauci. A related compound — Chloroquine phosphate — showed promising signs as a treatment for COVID-19 in the initial stages of the outbreak in China.
Suddenly, however, it has become one of the most controversial chemical compounds on the planet.
How controversial? On July 27th, a group of Doctors operating under the banner “America’s Frontline Doctors” held a press conference in Washington D.C. to push back against many of the prevailing narratives of the medical response to the COVID-19 pandemic. It focused in particular on Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and how it was being used as a highly effective treatment for at-risk COVID-19 patients. The tone of the Doctors who spoke ranged from measured to fierce — most notably in the later case a female Doctor originally from Nigeria who launched into a fiery lecture to her silent colleagues in the uniquely compelling way that only a black person can.
Regrettably, the news conference was barely covered by the media aside from the right wing outlet Breitbart News. However, this didn’t stop videos of the press conference going hyper-viral immediately, before they were — true to form, as I wrote about the Plandemic documentary — almost immediately taken down by each of the major social media platforms.
Now, I don’t want to have to be sharing an article from a right wing news outlet with undeniable racist tendencies in order for you to understand how this event unfolded. But the only place you are likely to be able to watch the full 45 minutes is on the Breitbart website here, where it can’t be removed; the speech from the aforementioned Dr. Immanuel can be found from the 5 to 12 minute mark. But the fact is, they were the only outlet to cover the event and to report on the actual substance of what the Doctors were saying. So don’t shoot the messenger: or if you do, shoot the ones who chose not to be there.
Luckily, however, there have been other largely lone voices in more credible outlets that have already been blowing the whistle on the HCQ farce.
This article in Newsweek is by a respected Professor of Epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health, Dr. Harvey A. Risch, who has published hundreds of articles in peer-reviewed establishment journals. You should read it for yourself, but these are the key arguments.
HCQ is an effective and safe treatment for COVID-19, when taken orally and ideally in combination with the antibiotics azithromycin or doxycycline, along with the nutritional supplement zinc. This is based on the findings of 12 separate studies from around the world that all found significant benefits from the early treatment of at-risk COVID-19 patients with HCQ.
We have these studies only because HCQ has continued to be used in many countries by courageous Doctors who have risked their reputation and medical licenses in going against the establishment position — including direct threats of reprisal. We will almost certainly look back on these Doctors as some of the true heroes of the pandemic.
What about these potential cardiac side-effects that have been the main reason the drug has been labeled as dangerous?
Firstly, we need to address the academic study that was originally responsible for bringing attention to this risk, and which was the catalyst for World Health Organisation trials of the drug to be halted and for the drug to be pulled from many countries. The dataset used for the study was quickly questioned, including by the mainstream Guardian website, due to obvious case number anomalies. An open letter from experts was written to the study authors and publisher The Lancet pointing out these issues. The Lancet initially offered a minor correction, before eventually retracting it and apologising. A bit late for that, with so much damage already done.
Another notable study appears to have been even worse: patients were deliberately given doses of the drug at what could be considered poisonous levels (2400mg instead of the recommended 490mg). The study was so poorly designed that it was later described as “The Marx Brothers doing Science”.
Dr. Risch acknowledges in his article that these potential adverse effects remain — as we would expect from any pharmaceutical drug. However, he reiterates that heart issues typically occurred in patients subject to high and prolonged doses — a regime that is not necessary for treating COVID-19. Thus, when these potential side effects are understood in their full context, he concludes that “the harms would be minuscule compared to the mortality occurring right now in inadequately treated high-risk COVID-19 patients”.
Dr. Risch is not alone in bringing light to the effectiveness of HCQ. For example, in Michigan, a group of physicians and surgeons have filed a complaint against an injunction by the Food and Drug Administration that prevents them from prescribing HCQ for COVID-19 patients. You can also find the full white paper on HCQ from the America’s Frontline Doctors group at their website.
So, the big question: why are we still not using HCQ as the first treatment for newly infected COVID-19 patients, especially over the clearly less effective yet substantially more expensive drug Remdesivir?
Maybe it is politics: perhaps even as petty as that Donald Trump so famously promoted and even used HCQ, thus kicking in the Orange Man Bad immune response that our society is stuck in.
Although maybe, as with many things, it is as simple as following the money. HCQ is cheap and easy to source, and unlike patented drugs like Remdesivir cannot be charged at exorbitant prices.
If widely distributed, it would undermine the central money making narratives of this pandemic: not just that we don’t need to stay reliant on the pharmaceutical industry when in reality there are cheap over-the-counter drugs capable of treating viruses (not to mention natural therapies as well): but also that we don’t need to remain in a perpetual state of lockdown until a safe, effective and above all patented vaccine can be found; and even that we don’t need to stay fearfully glued to news outlets who see the pandemic as a final hail Mary for economic survival.
Maybe we have been so conditioned in our thoughts as to how bad this virus is, that it doesn’t seem possible that an effective treatment is so readily available. That, against our better nature, we have been conditioned to reject truly good news about this situation.
Perhaps we don’t want to accept this good news, because in turn we then have to accept the rather bad news that elite institutions are prepared to risk peoples lives in order to make money and keep their control over us. This is perhaps the nastiest side-effect of this whole medical debacle, one that might effect our hearts in a much worse way than any reaction to HCQ itself.
But if the truth is the only thing that will finally cure us of this pandemic, even if it is the hardest pill to swallow, what choice do we have but to take it?