excalibur
Diamond Member
- Mar 19, 2015
- 21,282
- 41,174
- 2,290
Bottom line?
A coordinated attack on HCQ using false science.
Why?
Well, 100% TDS Fueled© hate. And the fact that they wanted the virus to effect the 2020 election.
They sacrificed countless lives to harm Trump.
It is a long but worthwhile article. I include a snippet from the article.
brownstone.org
A coordinated attack on HCQ using false science.
Why?
Well, 100% TDS Fueled© hate. And the fact that they wanted the virus to effect the 2020 election.
They sacrificed countless lives to harm Trump.
It is a long but worthwhile article. I include a snippet from the article.
...
Following Trump’s proposal, HCQ suddenly came under an unwarranted full-scale attack from federal officials, the press, so-called “fact-checkers,” and university professors. Many of the attacks contained outright falsehoods about HCQ’s pharmacology and safety or Trump’s endeavor to make HCQ available to eligible patients.
The FDA initially issued an emergency use authorization (EUA) for HCQ in March 2020, but withdrew authorization on June 15th 2020, stating the drug is “unlikely to be effective in treating COVID-19 for the [EUA] authorized uses.” Around the same time, the FDA also wrote a methodologically questionable report criticizing HCQ’s safety. The FDA’s narrative was based on preliminary and time-compartmentalized findings, and not a reflection of historical safety or based on the appropriate clinical use of HCQ dosing, prescribing, timing, and duration. The FDA then seemed to label its findings as conclusive, figuratively slamming the door shut on the consideration of new findings.
...
In fact, HCQ is considered so safe for non-Covid-19 indications that the CDC states that “HCQ can be prescribed to adults and children of all ages. It can also be safely taken by pregnant women and nursing mothers.” The CDC was referencing the long-term use of HCQ for chronic disease treatments.
If the CDC considers it safe for long-term treatment, it is only logical to assume that it would certainly be safe for short-term use against quickly spreading viral infections like Covid-19.
...
Prior to HCQ’s EUA removal, a seemingly highly coordinated and unquestionably harmonized message came out against HCQ from American’s press, making it appear that Trump’s HCQ recommendation was not only “unsafe” but that it also “didn’t work” for Covid-19. Harvard, Stanford, and Scripps Institute scientists (respectively) warned Americans via a Washington Post article that Trump’s efforts to employ HCQ were “desperate” and “If there was ever hope for [HCQ], this is the death of it” and “It’s one thing not to have benefit, but [HCQ] shows distinct harm.”
The scientists quoted above were referencing Lancet and New England Journal of Medicine articles that were widely referenced as a means to criticize Trump’s proposal for implementation of HCQ for Covid-19. Both publications were later retracted by journal editors due to being fraudulent.
They were retracted by the journals when its authors “refused to give [auditors] access to all the data they asked for” following publication when results were questioned by outside scientists who questioned why HCQ, with such a historical safety record suddenly appeared so unsafe for Covid-19 patients. Questions led to an investigation which eventually revealed that none of the publication’s authors nor journal “peer-reviewers” had likely ever seen the 96,032 patient data in the first place, because it never existed. The critical question is: why did those so-called “peer-reviewers” permit publication of highly incongruent safety findings for HCQ before thoroughly confirming those findings?
Following the redaction, Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, stated he was appalled with the authors, calling the HCQ-lambasting study “a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.” Lancet’s editor did “…apologise to the editors and to readers of the Lancet for the difficulties that this has caused.”
The same press that had no reservations about hysterically labeling the Trump administration as wrong for attempting to advance HCQ and coordinating messaging against him was almost completely silent and of course did not coordinate or harmonize any correction admitting that they had not verified highly questionable data even though people’s lives were at stake.
It is known today that the press and medical journals were not just wrong but outrageously wrong, about both their declaration and the methodology they employed to arrive at their conclusions despite supposedly delivering “real truth,” being “fact-checked” and delivering “real facts,” and/or claiming to be “peer-reviewed research.”
...
Trump’s 63 Million Doses of Hydroxychloroquine Could Have Been Great for America ⋆ Brownstone Institute
HCQ came under attack from federal officials, the press, “fact-checkers,” and university professors. Many contained falsehoods about HCQ.
brownstone.org
