Tag Archives: Remdesevir

Prejudicial Treatment for the “Unvaccinated”

Posted on by

A Comment by A Midwestern Doctor at the end of his article:

“While what we all saw happen during COVID-19 was a tragedy many of us are still struggling to come to terms with, I instead feel it is miraculous we have come as far we have because we were facing a vast and almost insurmountable apparatus I never thought we could succeed against. Much of that is because of how many of you also stood up to oppose it, and I am hence incredibly grateful to each of you who have given your support and allowed me to have a platform like this and actually be able do something to stop it. Unfortunately, these people are relentless (e.g., consider the conduct of the leaders at Dr. Miller’s hospital), and unless we use the window we have now to hold them accountable, it is almost inevitable what we witnessed over the last few years will happen again.”

Here is a link to the body of the article, and it is long, but even skimming will give you a sense of what has been and probably is going on:

https://www.midwesterndoctor.com/p/the-price-of-truth-vs-deception-in?publication_id=748806&post_id=145239196&isFreemail=true&r=19iztd&triedRedirect=true&utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

Time To Know the Facts and Act

Posted on by

Fauci Wants You Scared, Anxious, and Compliant– It’s Scientific!

By Ginger Ross Breggin and Peter R. Breggin M.D.
November 06, 2020

For more than 70 years a branch of public health science has been studying fear. But not to help humans cope.  Seventy years of study have gone into how to scare people into compliance or submission in obeying public health officials and politicians.  As it turns out, fear is a powerful motivator and can drive humans to be more easily manipulated into doing things they would ordinarily resist doing.

Few citizens realize that the government and public health scientists have put time, money and much effort into studying how to scare people into doing what the experts want us to do.  The study of fear as a tool to manipulate individuals or populations is called “Fear Appeal.” It is a robust field of study within psychology and public health and has been widely used to intimidate us since the beginning of the pandemic.

Remember when a large group of public health experts, surrounding the President of the United States, announced that there was a new deadly disease loose in the US threatening us with the loss of 2.2 million lives if we did not take drastic measures.  I remember the stone in the pit of my stomach, the abject fear that figure and that threat stirred.  Two weeks to bend the curve morphed into six weeks, and six weeks has extended seemingly forever.

Now increasing numbers of people are feeling angry at being frightened by the pandemic and COVID-19.  We have become aware of the constant release of new bits of bad news or predictions about the disease, and many of us have begun to push back against what some have labeled “panic porn.”[i] [ii]  Other citizens, especially those with emotional vulnerabilities or who live in lockdown isolation, have suffered from months of the fear-inducing messages leading to depression, anxiety, panic attacks and hopelessness.

No one has been talking openly about this “scientific” form of scare tactics called “fear appeal.” Who knew that scaring us is actually science!  Now we see this science being applied daily, especially by Dr. Anthony Fauci, the media face of the science that is used to justify the harshest shutdown measures.

A recent attempt by Dr. Fauci at fear-based influence occurred when he urged Americans to cancel their family Thanksgiving gatherings. [iii][iv]  He said  “When you have people coming from out of town, gathering together in an indoor setting … it is unfortunate because that’s such a sacred part of American tradition, the family gathering around Thanksgiving, but that is a risk.”

More recently Fauci and the Washington Post used “fear appeal” to sway the election by making dire warnings about a Trump victory.  With the presidential election day only 48 hours away on November 2, 2020, Fauci’s warnings about COVID-19 and President Trump’s handling of it became increasingly dire.  The Washington Post offered this threatening headline:[v] ‘“A whole lot of hurt”: Fauci warns of covid-19 surge, offers blunt assessment of Trump’s response.’

The article went on to repeat and explain the ominous headline:

“We’re in for a whole lot of hurt. It’s not a good situation,” Anthony S. Fauci, the country’s leading infectious-disease expert, said in a wide-ranging interview late Friday. “All the stars are aligned in the wrong place as you go into the fall and winter season, with people congregating at home indoors. You could not possibly be positioned more poorly.”

More than 70 years of scientific research has gone into this field of fear appeal. [vi]  As review authors Witte and Allen explain:

… evaluation of a fear appeal initiates two appraisals of the message, which result in one of three outcomes. First, individuals appraise the threat of an issue from a message. The more individuals believe they are susceptible to a serious threat, the more motivated they are to begin the second appraisal, which is an evaluation of the efficacy of the recommended response. If the threat is perceived as irrelevant or insignificant (i.e., low perceived threat), then there is no motivation to process the message further, and people simply ignore the fear appeal. In contrast, when a threat is portrayed as and believed to be serious and relevant (e.g., “I’m susceptible to contracting a terrible disease”), individuals become scared. Their fear motivates them to take some sort of action—any action—that will reduce their fear. Perceived efficacy (composed of self-efficacy and response efficacy) determines whether people will become motivated to control the danger of the threat or control their fear about the threat. When people believe they are able to perform an effective recommended response against the threat (i.e., high perceived self-efficacy and response efficacy), they are motivated to control the danger and consciously think about ways to remove or lessen the threat. Typically, they think carefully about the recommended responses advocated in the persuasive message and adopt those as a means to control the danger. Alternatively, when people doubt whether the recommended response works (i.e., low perceived response efficacy) and/or whether they are able to do the recommended response (i.e., low perceived self-efficacy), they are motivated to control their fear (because they believe it’s futile to control the danger) and focus on eliminating their fear through denial (e.g., “I’m not at risk for getting skin cancer, it won’t happen to me”), defensive avoidance (e.g., “This is just too scary, I’m simply not going to think about it”), or reactance (e.g., “They’re just trying to manipulate me, I’m going to ignore them”).

In other words, there have now been 70 years worth of study and analysis about

  1. How to frighten us into compliance by making us feel it personally as a risk to ourselves and loved ones
  2. How to suggest actions we can take to alleviate the fear
  3. How to tweak both the inducements of fear and the actions recommended to maximize the response to fear in favor of public health authoritarianism.

Feeling like a little white lab rat yet?  There’s more.

In the new millennium fear appeal evolved from a primary focus on behavior relating to communicable diseases, to addressing chronic conditions that are often blamed on lifestyle choices.[vii]  Who can forget those abhorrent stop smoking advertisements on television that featured very sick, very elderly people who were dying of cancers or other diseases caused by decades of smoking.  The ads featured fear prominently and promised you could avoid that fate of illness, disfigurement, and death if you stopped smoking.

Using fear appeal is fraught with ethical issues and controversy.  There are those professionals who feel that the attack on the mental well-being of those receiving the fear message is not justified by any positive outcome or change in behavior.  And then, there are those scientists who feel that the ends justify the means, especially if society as a whole is better off because the fear campaign results in changes in behavior that lessen the threat.   For example, the fearmonger scientists believe if we are told that millions could die in this pandemic in the U.S., but if we wash our hands for at least 20 seconds every chance we get we can lessen deaths, then it will be worth it if the death rate goes down.

The scientists and public health experts who use fear appeal are proving to be the same individuals who favor a top-down tightly controlled, authoritarian approach to managing a population.  No encouragement of can-do Americanism. No appeal to our goodness. No inspiration to face the future with optimism and bravery.  These doctors just want to terrify us.

Public health officials love fear-based messages as evidenced by the extensive use of fear in the current pandemic.  From the first days where we were told over 2.2 million people would die in the U.S. and hospitals would be overrun and would collapse.[viii] We were told we needed to stay home for 2 weeks to protect hospitals from being overwhelmed and after the two weeks another month was added to the “stay home” period.  After that, governors began locking down and issuing emergency orders in some states to “prevent spikes.”

Early on, those spike statistics were numbers of hospitalizations, and numbers of deaths.  Then there was a little-discussed shift away from counting hospitalizations and deaths. Now the CDC counts the number of “cases” of COVID-19 meaning anyone who has tested positive even though only a tiny percentage of those testing positive will actually become seriously ill.

There is great news out there amid the tragedy: Numbers of deaths from COVID-19 have plummeted, even as numbers of cases have risen according to official statistics.  That means increasing numbers of Americans are surviving the disease.  Meanwhile we keep being told to be frightened and go into another shutdown because of the rise in “cases” that aren’t even sick.

Part of leadership is to help the involved members of the affected group stay strong and determined even in the face of dreadful fear and loss.  Captains of ships, heads of state, and corporate leaders understand this. Consider when President Trump tries to help us feel reassured.  The science experts who are fear mongers ridicule the President and dismiss him as dishonest when he is trying to offer hope and optimism in the face of this tragedy.  He is like the captain of a ship in a squall, reassuring passengers that the storm will soon be over, even as the waves are breaking across the deck and tossing the ship about on the high seas.

Use of fear appeal by our government officials and pandemic experts has become rampant.  Many of us sense we are being actively manipulated. During this present pandemic we have been left with having to figure out what information we are being given to scare us into conformity and what  information we have been given simply because it is scary but true.

Dr. Fauci has become suspect in his pronouncements for several reasons:

First, Fauci has specific drugs that he favors for his croney corporations.  He has been in his position as the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director for the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) for 38 years.  He has influenced the distribution of billions of dollars for specific treatments, especially Remdesivir,[ix] as well as for the development of vaccines to protect against COVID-19.  Remdesivir was a bust and Fauci has already discouraged expectations for the vaccines.

Second, Fauci has shown his political hand in his latest paper, “Emerging Pandemic diseases: How We Got to COVID-19” in which he promotes his radical progressive vision by calling for a world where there is no human crowding and where we humans change our habits and thousands of years of social evolution.

Living in greater harmony with nature will require changes in human behavior as well as other radical changes that may take decades to achieve: rebuilding the infrastructures of human existence, from cities to homes to workplaces, to water and sewer systems, to recreational and gatherings venues. In such a transformation we will need to prioritize changes in those human behaviors that constitute risks for the emergence of infectious diseases. Chief among them are reducing crowding at home, work, and in public places as well as minimizing environmental perturbations such as deforestation, intense urbanization, and intensive animal farming. Equally important are ending global poverty, improving sanitation and hygiene, and reducing unsafe exposure to animals, so that humans and potential human pathogens have limited opportunities for contact.[x]

Another blog would be required to thoroughly examine the far-reaching consequences of so many changes in human nature and nurture.

Adults spend every day of their lives constantly factoring risks versus benefits in the decisions we make.  Should we drive the mile to the store or walk?  Should we eat that burger or have some dinner that is less high-fat?  And we spend a great deal of time teaching our children how to evaluate risk and reward.

But the facts of the pandemic have continued to be muddied and manipulated so badly that the truth cannot be teased out. We are all being manipulated with misinformation.

My mother is a plucky, healthy and intelligent woman of 94 years of age who lives with us. She watches the news and keeps up with the current events. But when I asked, based on her impressions from watching the news, what she thought her chances were of dying were if she caught COVID-19, she  believed she had a 75% chance of dying if she caught COVID-19.

In fact, at worst my mother’s actual chance of dying from COVID-19 is somewhere between 5.6% [xi]and 10%[xii] for anyone over 80 years old.  Bear in mind that the statistics for all persons over 80 years old, include patients dying of a terminal illness, in full time nursing home care with chronic incapacitating illnesses such as congestive heart failure or COPD, or otherwise impaired and incapacitated. My mother’s chances of survival are much better.

We should be suspicious of anyone–expert, scientist, doctor or government official–who is trying to frighten us into doing anything more that hurts us, our culture and society, our religious practices, our education and the education of our children, and our friends, neighbors and citizens in our states and in our nation.

We are Americans.  No task is too big or too overwhelming. It is time to heal ourselves, heal our communities and states and heal America.

There is a great deal of room for optimism.

Let’s make America well again!

from:     https://breggin.com/fauci-wants-you-scared-anxious-and-compliant-its-scientific/

 

 

Inaccurate Tests, Experimental Treatments, & Conspiracy…

Posted on by

Trump in danger—the test, the experimental drugs

Trump tests positive on the most unreliable diagnostic test ever devised; taking experimental drugs

PHONY TEST, DANGEROUS DRUGS

by Jon Rappoport

October 3, 2020Trump

UPDATE 1: Trump flown to Walter Reed Hospital. Watch out for toxic antiviral drugs; e.g, remdesivir. And ventilators (lethal). This is a field day for Biden, and also for promoters of the pandemic and all the regulations. For example—“everyone must get tested.” Trump is made into the poster boy for COVID-19 propaganda. “The PRESIDENT has it.” No matter what happens to Trump, this is another step in the ongoing coup.

UPDATE 2: CNN reports— “Trump had a fever Friday, a source said. He has received the unapproved experimental Regeneron treatment as well as the drug remdesivir, according to the President’s physician.” NOT GOOD NEWS.

Regeneron is an experimental antibody cocktail. Typically, when the news reports use of these drugs, no mention is made of negative effects or toxicity.

The Daily Mail reports: “[In an ongoing clinical trial of Regeneron] Two patients who got the antibody cocktail drug had side effects. One of them was ‘serious,’ though it’s not clear what exactly happened to that person.”

In tests of antibody drugs, serious problems have occurred. These are characterized as “increased infection.”

Drugs.com discusses remdesivir: “[the drug] has not been approved to treat coronavirus or COVID-19. It is not yet known if remdesivir is an effective treatment for any condition. The FDA has authorized emergency use of remdesivir only in people with COVID-19 who are in a hospital. You must remain under the care of a doctor while receiving remdesivir.”

Adverse effects, according to Drugs.com: “Get emergency medical help if you have signs of an allergic reaction: hives; difficult breathing; swelling of your face, lips, tongue, or throat…”

More adverse effects: “…chills, nausea, vomiting…increased sweating…a light-headed feeling, like you might pass out…abnormal liver function tests…anemia or decreased hemoglobin concentrations…acute kidney injury…”

And then we have this: “[remdesivir] is being investigated for and is currently available under an FDA emergency use authorization (EUA) for the treatment of severe COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.”

Trump doesn’t have “severe COVID-19.” So why is he being given remdesivir at all—especially given all the adverse effects of the drug?

Plus: NO ONE HAS EVER STUDIED THE EFFECTS OF COMBINING REGENERON AND REMDESIVIR—THE TWO DRUGS TRUMP IS TAKING. The doctors are playing god with the president’s life.

And now we come to the diagnostic test—Big question: how many cycles was Trump’s COVID test set for? I’ll explain.

Each cycle of the PCR test is a quantum leap in magnification of the test sample Trump provided. As every PCR tech knows, different labs use a different number of cycles when they perform the test. There is no uniform standard.

That is a giant scandal, because when you do the test using more than, say, 30 cycles, all sorts of irrelevant and inconsequential material shows up that can be counted as “positive for the coronavirus”—when that is NOT the case.

This is exactly what is happening all over the world every day. Too many cycles; absurd and wrong diagnosis.

Could Trump’s COVID test have been rigged in this fashion? It’s as easy as pie. Just increase the number of cycles. Doesn’t matter how many times the test was repeated for “confirmation.” It’ll read positive if there are too many cycles. Of course, no one will admit that Trump’s test was set for 40 cycles, if it was.

And guess what? The “cycle problem” is just one of many fatal flaws in the PCR test. I’ve covered this subject many times. Here it is again:

COVID diagnostic test: worst test ever devised?

The need for the COVID test is being hyped to the skies. More tests automatically create more case numbers. This allows heads of state and national governments to whipsaw the public:

“We were re-opening the economy, but now, with the escalating case numbers, we’ll have to impose lockdowns again…”

This wreaks more havoc and economic destruction, which is the true goal of the COVID operation. Its cruelty is boundless.

In this article, I present quotes from official sources about their own diagnostic test for the coronavirus, the PCR.

Spoiler alert: the admitted holes and shortcomings of the test are devastating.

From “CDC 2019-Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel” [1]:

“Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the causative agent for clinical symptoms.”

Translation: A positive test doesn’t guarantee that the COVID virus is causing infection at all. And, ahem, reading between the lines, maybe the COVID virus might not be in the patient’s body at all, either.

From the World Health Organization (WHO): “Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) technical guidance: Laboratory testing for 2019-nCoV in humans” [2]:

“Several assays that detect the 2019-nCoV have been and are currently under development, both in-house and commercially. Some assays may detect only the novel virus [COVID] and some may also detect other strains (e.g. SARS-CoV) that are genetically similar.”

Translation: Some PCR tests register positive for types of coronavirus that have nothing to do with COVID—including plain old coronas that cause nothing more than a cold.

The WHO document adds this little piece: “Protocol use limitations: Optional clinical specimens for testing has [have] not yet been validated.”

Translation: We’re not sure which tissue samples to take from the patient, in order for the test to have any validity.

From the FDA: “LabCorp COVID-19RT-PCR test EUA Summary: ACCELERATED EMERGENCY USE AUTHORIZATION (EUA) SUMMARYCOVID-19 RT-PCR TEST (LABORATORY CORPORATION OF AMERICA)” [3]:

“…The SARS-CoV-2RNA [COVID virus] is generally detectable in respiratory specimens during the acute phase of infection. Positive results are indicative of the presence of SARS-CoV-2 RNA; clinical correlation with patient history and other diagnostic information is necessary to determine patient infection status…THE AGENT DETECTED MAY NOT BE THE DEFINITE CAUSE OF DISEASE (CAPS are mine). Laboratories within the United States and its territories are required to report all positive results to the appropriate public health authorities.”

Translation: On the one hand, we claim the test can “generally” detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient. But we admit that “the agent detected” on the test, by which we mean COVID virus, “may not be the definite cause of disease.” We also admit that, unless the patient has an acute infection, we can’t find COVID. Therefore, the idea of “asymptomatic patients” confirmed by the test is nonsense. And even though a positive test for COVID may not indicate the actual cause of disease, all positive tests must be reported—and they will be counted as “COVID cases.” Regardless.

From a manufacturer of PCR test kit elements, Creative Diagnostics, “SARS-CoV-2 Coronavirus Multiplex RT-qPCR Kit” [4]:

“Regulatory status: For research use only, not for use in diagnostic procedures.”

Translation: Don’t use the test result alone to diagnose infection or disease. Oops.

“non-specific interference of Influenza A Virus (H1N1), Influenza B Virus (Yamagata), Respiratory Syncytial Virus (type B), Respiratory Adenovirus (type 3, type 7), Parainfluenza Virus (type 2), Mycoplasma Pneumoniae, Chlamydia Pneumoniae, etc.”

Translation: Although this company states the test can detect COVID, it also states the test can read FALSELY positive if the patient has one of a number of other irrelevant viruses in his body. What is the test proving, then? Who knows? Flip a coin.

“Application Qualitative”

Translation: This clearly means the test is not suited to detect how much virus is in the patient’s body. I’ll cover how important this admission is in a minute.

“The detection result of this product is only for clinical reference, and it should not be used as the only evidence for clinical diagnosis and treatment. The clinical management of patients should be considered in combination with their symptoms/signs, history, other laboratory tests and treatment responses. The detection results should not be directly used as the evidence for clinical diagnosis, and are only for the reference of clinicians.”

Translation: Don’t use the test as the exclusive basis for diagnosing a person with COVID. And yet, this is exactly what health authorities are doing all over the world. All positive tests must be reported to government agencies, and they are counted as COVID cases.

Those quotes, from official government and testing sources, torpedo the whole “scientific” basis of the test.

And now, I’ll add another lethal blow: the test has never been validated properly as an instrument to detect disease. Even if we blindly assumed it can detect the presence of the COVID virus in a patient, it doesn’t show HOW MUCH virus is in the body. And that is key, because in order to even begin talking about actual illness in the real world, not in a lab, the patient would need to have millions and millions of the virus actively replicating in his body.

Proponents of the test assert that it CAN measure how much virus is in the body. To which I reply: prove it.

Prove it in a way it should have been proved decades ago—but never was.

Take five hundred people and remove tissue samples from them. The people who take the samples do NOT do the test. The testers will never know who the patients are and what condition they’re in.

The testers run their PCR on the tissue samples. In each case, they say which virus they found and HOW MUCH of it they found.

“All right, in patients 24, 46, 65, 76, 87, and 93 we found a great deal of virus.”

Now we un-blind those patients. They should all be sick, because they have so much virus replicating in their bodies. Are they sick? Are they running marathons? Let’s find out.

This OBVIOUS vetting of the test has never been done. That is an enormous scandal. Where are the controlled test results in 500 patients, a thousand patients? Nowhere.

The PCR is an unproven fraud.

“But…but…what about all the sick and dying people…why are they sick?”

I’ve written thousands of words answering that question, in past articles. A NUMBER of conditions—none involving COVID, and most involving old traditional diseases—are making people sick.

There are other large-scale studies of the PCR test that have never been done. I’ve covered them in detail, in prior articles. To summarize: a study using a thousand patients, in which their tissue samples are sent to 30 different labs for analysis and verdicts, to see whether the results are uniform from lab to lab; and a study of 1000 patients, in which the results are compared with the results of analysis by electron microcopy. These large studies—never done.

In other words, the PCR test has never been adequately tested; it has never been properly validated as a diagnostic tool.

Here, from Canadian researcher David Crowe’s bombshell paper, FLAWS IN CORONAVIRUS PANDEMIC THEORY, is a key quote about the PCR test [5]:

“A review of 33 RT-PCR tests for COVID-19 approved under US FDA Emergency Use Authorizations showed a wide range of differences in what the tests were looking for and how they decided whether they had found it. The tests look for a variety of different segments (‘genes’) of the presumed COVID-19 genome, that only amounts to about 1% or less of the total genome, which is about 30,000 bases. Perhaps the worst feature of the tests is how they decide whether the sample is positive if more than one [‘gene’] segment is being looked for. Some tests look for only one, so it must be present for a positive. But tests that look for two segments are split between those that require both to be present and those that require either one for a positive. Some tests look for three segments but only require any two to be present, while one test insisted on all three. Tests that allow a segment to be undetected raise the question of how it can be said that a virus was detected when an important part of it was missing.”

If the PCR is a uniform standardized test, a rabbit is a spaceship.

Speaking of lack of uniformity in test results, here is a quote from Stephen Bustin, who is considered one of the foremost experts on PCR in the world. The excerpt is from his 2017 article, “Talking the talk, but not walking the walk: RT-qPCR as a paradigm for the lack of reproducibility in molecular research” [6]:

“Awareness of variability problems associated with PCR has been long-standing, with the first report describing inconsistencies with replicate and serial specimens evaluated within and between laboratories as early as 1992. The lack of a theoretical understanding of the dynamic processes involved in PCR, especially with respect to the amplification of nonreproducible and/or unexpected amplification products, was also highlighted decades ago. These observations and the resulting implications are largely disregarded.”

Here is the story of an epic failure of the PCR, right out in the open, for all to see. The reference is the NY Times, January 22, 2007, “Faith in Quick Tests Leads to Epidemic That Wasn’t.” [7]

“Dr. Brooke Herndon, an internist at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, could not stop coughing…By late April, other health care workers at the hospital were coughing…”

“For months, nearly everyone involved thought the medical center had had a huge whooping cough outbreak, with extensive ramifications. Nearly 1,000 health care workers at the hospital in Lebanon, N.H., were given a preliminary test and furloughed from work until their results were in; 142 people, including Dr. Herndon, were told they appeared to have the disease; and thousands were given antibiotics and a vaccine for protection. Hospital beds were taken out of commission, including some in intensive care.”

“Then, about eight months later, health care workers were dumbfounded to receive an e-mail message from the hospital administration informing them that the whole thing was a false alarm.”

“Now, as they look back on the episode, epidemiologists and infectious disease specialists say the problem was that they placed too much faith in a quick and highly sensitive molecular test [PCR] that led them astray.”

“There are no national data on pseudo-epidemics caused by an overreliance on such molecular tests, said Dr. Trish M. Perl, an epidemiologist at Johns Hopkins and past president of the Society of Health Care Epidemiologists of America. But, she said, pseudo-epidemics happen all the time. The Dartmouth case may have been one of the largest, but it was by no means an exception, she said.”

“Many of the new molecular [PCR] tests are quick but technically demanding, and each laboratory may do them in its own way. These tests, called ‘home brews,’ are not commercially available, and there are no good estimates of their error rates. But their very sensitivity makes false positives likely, and when hundreds or thousands of people are tested, as occurred at Dartmouth, false positives can make it seem like there is an epidemic.”

“’You’re in a little bit of no man’s land,’ with the new molecular [PCR] tests, said Dr. Mark Perkins, an infectious disease specialist and chief scientific officer at the Foundation for Innovative New Diagnostics, a nonprofit foundation supported by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation. ‘All bets are off on exact performance’.”

“With pertussis, she [Dr. Kretsinger, CDC] said, ‘there are probably 100 different P.C.R. protocols and methods being used throughout the country,’ and it is unclear how often any of them are accurate. ‘We have had a number of outbreaks where we believe that despite the presence of P.C.R.-positive results, the disease was not pertussis,’ Dr. Kretsinger added.”

“Dr. Cathy A. Petti, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Utah, said the story had one clear lesson.”

“’The big message is that every lab is vulnerable to having false positives,’ Dr. Petti said. ‘No single test result is absolute and that is even more important with a test result based on P.C.R’.”

There is more to report about the PCR test, and I have, but I’ll make this final point for now: I’ve presented, over the last several months, compelling evidence that no one proved the existence of the COVID virus, by proper scientific procedures, in the first place. So the PCR test would be looking for…what? A virus that isn’t there?

And on the back of this test, governments are wrecking economies all over the world, and untold numbers of human lives.

SOURCES:

[1] https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download

[2] https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.who.int/emergencies/diseases/novel-coronavirus-2019/technical-guidance/laboratory-guidance

[3] https://www.fda.gov/media/136151/download

[4] https://www.creative-diagnostics.com/sars-cov-2-coronavirus-multiplex-rt-qpcr-kit-277854-457.htm

[5] https://theinfectiousmyth.com/book/CoronavirusPanic.pdf

[6] https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/eci.12801

[7] nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html

Follow the Money (Again)

Posted on by

Gresham’s Law and the Covid-19 pandemic

Jacob Puliyel:

  • June 29, 2020

Gresham’s law holds that bad money drives out good money. If there are two coins with the same face value, but of different intrinsic value (assume that one is made of a more precious metal) the coin with less intrinsic worth (bad coin) will be used for currency transactions and the more valuable coin will go out of circulation.

This law applies to the pharmaceuticals today. If there are two drugs of comparable efficacy, the drug that costs more (bad coin) will drive out the good drug (less expensive one) out of the market. It is unfortunate that we are experiencing this in the midst of the humanitarian tragedy of the Covid pandemic.

The present pandemic is caused by a novel virus and mankind has no experience with how to deal with it. There are no drugs or vaccines we know will work. To fight the virus, one approach is to re-purpose approved drugs developed for other uses. A variety of drugs in the market can be tested for efficacy against the new virus. We will discuss the testing of two such drugs against Covid-19.

Remdesivir is a candidate drug. It had been developed for the Ebola virus but it was not found to be effective against it. A generic version of the drug manufactured by Hetero costs Rs 5000 to Rs 6000 per vial. The 11 vials needed for a 10-day course costs Rs 55,000. Remdesivir was subjected to a clinical trial against Covid-19 and the early results of this study were published by Beigel and colleagues in the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on 22 May 2020. There was no statistically meaningful benefit for survival with use of the drug, but among those that survived, recovery time was reduced by four days to a median of 11 days instead of 15 days.  The US FDA has approved this drug for compassionate use.

Hydroxychloroqunin (HCQ) is another drug under consideration. It is an antimalarial drug that costs Rs 68 for 10 tablets and a course of treatment requires 12 tablets. The WHO studied this drug in 400 hospitals in 35 countries. It was called the Solidarity trial. However, on 22 May 2020, on the same day that the Remdesivir report appeared in the NEJM, another famous medical journal, The Lancet, published a report that HCQ caused 35% more deaths due to adverse effects of the drug in another trial. Within three days of the publication of the Lancet paper, the WHO suspended the Solidarity study.

India, however, decided to defy the WHO and continue its trial of HCQ. During the period when the Solidarity study was suspended, the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) wrote to the WHO, that Solidarity schedule was employing four times the recommended dose of HCQ. The WHO schedule prescribed 1600 mg of the drug on the first day and total of 9600 mg for the full course of treatment. This dose was likely to be toxic and potentially fatal. Dr Vinod Paul in the Niti Aayog was of the opinion (New Indian Express 29 May) that the drug given in the correct  dose was useful against Covid in India.

It turned out that the Lancet paper about HCQ deaths was fraudulent and used fabricated data. The Lancet paper was retracted within 13 days of publication. On 3 June, the WHO resumed the Solidarity HCQ study. Inspite of the warning about the drug dosage from the ICMR, the same toxic dose was continued.

Ten days later, Dr Meryl Nass, an US physician and expert on adverse reactions with drugs, wrote in her blog on 14 June 2020 about the lethal dose of HCQ being used in the Solidarity trial. People on Twitter, took it up. Three days later, on the 17 June, the WHO announced that it was suspending the HCQ trial because ‘there was no reduction in mortality’ with the drug, without any mention of the controversy about the drug dosage being used. No data was published.

By a strange coincidence, on the same day the WHO stopped its HCQ trial, the UK announced that it was stopping its trial of HCQ (called the Recovery trial) because they found simultaneously, that there was no reduction in mortality with the drug. The UK Recovery trial was funded in part by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (B&MGF) and it was also using the same toxic dosage as the Solidarity trial. No data was provided about the other outcome measures like the reduction in time to recovery.

One can see the contrast here between the trials with the two drugs. The Remdesivir trial reported in the NEJM had found no reduction in mortality but the trial was continued on the basis of an improvement in recovery time among survivors. This was not reported on in the HCQ study. Clearly there are different standards operating here for the two drugs.

We cannot let matters rest here. The Lancet paper was retracted but we need to investigate who was really behind this effort to fraudulently discredit HCQ. “Surgisphere” is reported as the organisation that manufactured the data, but who got them to do this? Did they get any extraordinary help from the journal for publication?

Was this a concerted effort by pharma to discredit the less expensive drug? While it is made to appear as a rogue company “Surgisphere” appears to have done this to improve its visibility, it is necessary to have a deeper investigation into the motives and involvement of others, including publishers.

Further, one needs to know who was responsible for putting lives at risk by recommending toxic doses of HCQ in Solidarity and Recovery trials. One cannot assume this was an unintentional mistake, as the dose was not corrected even after the error was pointed out by the ICMR. We need to get to the bottom of this and those involved need to be discredited and weeded out, if we do not want bad science, like bad coins, taking over the world. If this is not done, in all probability, the results of the ICMR HCQ study will not be allowed to be published. Gresham’s Law of Pharmacotheraputics–only expensive drugs will show positive results.

Jacob Puliyel, MD, is a pediatrician in Delhi.

from:    https://www.sundayguardianlive.com/news/greshams-law-covid-19-pandemic