MISMANAGING A PANDEMIC
“My friend, have you ever been in a quarantined city? Then you cannot realize what you are asking me to do. To place such a curse on San Francisco would be worse than a hundred fires and earthquakes and I love this city too well to do her such a frightful hurt.”
—Rupert Blue, Public Health Service Officer in charge of dealing with the 1907 plague outbreak. Blue subsequently served as fourth Surgeon General of the US and President of the American Medical Association.
I: ARBITRARY DECREES: SCIENCE-FREE MEDICINE
Dr. Fauci’s strategy for managing the COVID-19 pandemic was to suppress viral spread by mandatory masking, social distancing, quarantining the healthy (also known as lockdowns), while instructing COVID patients to return home and do nothing—receive no treatment whatsoever—until difficulties breathing sent them back to the hospital to submit to intravenous remdesivir and ventilation. This approach to ending an infectious disease contagion had no public health precedent and anemic scientific support. Predictably, it was grossly ineffective; America racked up the world’s highest body counts.
Medicines were available against COVID—inexpensive, safe medicines—that would have prevented hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and saved as many lives if only we’d used them in this country. But Dr. Fauci and his Pharma collaborators deliberately suppressed those treatments in service to their single-minded objective—making America await salvation from their novel, multi-billion dollar vaccines. Americans’ native idealism will make them reluctant to believe that their government’s COVID policies were so grotesquely ill-conceived, so unfounded in science, so tethered to financial interests, that they caused hundreds of thousands of wholly unnecessary deaths. But, as you will see below, the evidence speaks for itself.
Peer-reviewed science offered anemic if any support for masking, quarantines, and social distancing, and Dr. Fauci offered no citations or justifications to support his diktats. Both common sense and the weight of scientific evidence suggest that all these strategies, and unquestionably shutting down the global economy, caused far more injuries and deaths than they averted.
Dr. Fauci was clearly aware that his mask decrees were contrary to overwhelming science. In July 2020, after switching course to recommend national mask mandates, Dr. Fauci told Norah O’Donnell with InStyle magazine that his earlier dismissal of mask efficacy was correct “in the context of the time in which I said it,” and that he intended to prevent a consumer run on masks that might jeopardize their availability for front-line responders.1 But Dr. Fauci’s emails reveal that he was giving the same advice privately. Moreover, his detailed explanations to the public and to high-level health regulators indicate he genuinely believed that ordinary masks had little to no efficacy against viral infection. In a February 5, 2020 email, for example, he advised his putative former boss, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Sylvia Burwell, on the futility of masking the healthy.2 On February 17, he invoked the same rationale in an interview with USA Today:
A mask is much more appropriate for someone who is infected and you’re trying to prevent them from infecting other people than it is in protecting you against infection. If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn’t really do much to protect you. Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.3
During a January 28 speech to HHS regulators, he explained the fruitlessness of masking asymptomatic people.
The one thing historically people need to realize, that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.4
Consistent with Dr. Fauci’s earlier statements, the peer-reviewed scientific literature has steadfastly refused to support masking the healthy as an effective barrier to viral spread, and Dr. Fauci offered a citation to justify his change of heart. A December 2020 comprehensive study of 10 million Wuhan residents confirmed Fauci’s January 28, 2020 assertion that asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19 is infinitesimally rare.5 Furthermore, some 52 studies—all available on NIH’s website—find that ordinary masking (using less than an N95 respirator) doesn’t reduce viral infection rates, even—surprisingly—in institutional settings like hospitals and surgical theaters.6,7 Moreover, some 25 additional studies attribute to masking a grim retinue of harms, including respiratory and immune system illnesses, as well as dermatological, dental, gastrointestinal, and psychological injuries.8 Fourteen of these studies are randomized, peer-reviewed placebo studies. There is no well-constructed study that persuasively suggests masks have convincing efficacy against COVID-19 that would justify accepting the harms associated with masks. Finally, retrospective studies on Dr. Fauci’s mask mandates confirm that they were bootless. “Regional analysis in the United States does not show that [mask] mandates had any effect on case rates, despite 93 percent compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data, 85 percent of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask,”9 according to Gutentag.
Dr. Fauci observed in March 2020 that a mask’s only real efficacy may be in “making people feel a little better.”10 Perhaps he recognized that what masking lacked in efficacy against contagion, it compensated for with powerful psychological effects. These symbolic powers demonstrated strategic benefits for the larger enterprise of encouraging public compliance with draconian medical mandates. Dr. Fauci’s switch to endorsing masks after first recommending against them came at a time of increasing political polarization, and masks quickly became important tribal badges—signals of rectitude for those who embraced Dr. Fauci, and the stigmata of blind obedience to undeserving authority among those who balked. Moreover, masking, by amplifying everyone’s fear, helped inoculate the public against critical thinking. By serving as persistent reminders that each of our fellow citizens was a potentially dangerous and germ-infected threat to us, masks increased social isolation and fostered divisions and fractionalization—thereby impeding organized political resistance. The impact of masking on the national psyche reminded me of the subtle contribution of the “duck and cover drills” of my youth, drills that sustained and cemented the militaristic ideology of the Cold War. Those futile exercises reinforced what my uncle John F. Kennedy’s Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, called “National Mass Psychosis.” By suggesting to Americans that full-scale nuclear war was possible, but also survivable, ruinous investments in that project were justified. For the government and mandarins of the Military Industrial Complex, this absurd narrative yielded trillions in appropriations.
Social distancing mandates also rested on a dubious scientific footing. In September 2021, former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gotleib admitted that the six-foot distancing rule that Dr. Fauci and his HHS colleagues imposed upon Americans was “arbitrary,” and not, after all, science backed. The process for making that policy choice, Gotleib continued, “Is a perfect example of the lack of rigor around how CDC made recommendations.”11,12
Finally, the lockdowns of the healthy were so unprecedented that WHO’s official pandemic protocols recommended against them. Some WHO officials were passionate on the topic, among them Professor David Nabarro, Senior Envoy on COVID-19, a position reporting to the Director General. On October 8, 2020, he said:
We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of controlling this virus. We may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We’ll have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents in poor families are not able to afford it. This is a terrible, ghastly, global catastrophe, actually, and so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method . . . lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle—and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.13
As discussed above, Dr. Fauci and other officials made no inquiry or claims as to whether lockdowns would cause more harm and death than they averted. Subsequent studies have strongly suggested that lockdowns had no impact in reducing infection rates. There is no convincing difference in COVID infections and deaths between laissez-faire jurisdictions and those that enforced rigid lockdowns and masks.14
Noble Lies and Bad Data
Dr. Fauci’s mask deceptions were among several “noble lies” that, his critics complained, revealed a manipulative and deceptive disposition undesirable in an evenhanded public health official. Dr. Fauci explained to the New York Times that he had upgraded his estimate of the vaccine coverage needed to insure “herd immunity” from 70 percent in March to 80–90 percent in September not based on science, but rather in response to polling that indicated rising rates of vaccine acceptance.15 He regularly expressed his belief that post-infection immunity was highly likely (with occasional waffling on this topic) although he took the public position that natural immunity did not contribute to protecting the population. He supported COVID jabs for previously infected Americans, defying overwhelming scientific evidence that post-COVID inoculations were both unnecessary and dangerous.16,17 Under questioning on September 9, 2021, Dr. Fauci conceded he could cite no scientific justification for this policy.18 In September 2021, in a statement justifying COVID vaccine mandates to school children, Dr. Fauci dreamily recounted his own grade school measles and mumps vaccines—an unlikely memory, since those vaccines weren’t available until 1963 and 1967, and Dr. Fauci attended grade school in the 1940s.19 Dr. Fauci’s little perjuries about masks, measles, mumps, herd immunity, and natural immunity attest to his dismaying willingness to manipulate facts to serve a political agenda. If the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed anything, it is that public health officials have based their many calamitous directives for managing COVID-19 on vacillating and science-free beliefs about masks, lockdowns, infection and fatality rates, asymptomatic transmission, and vaccine safety and efficacy, which took every direction and sowed confusion, division, and polarization among the public and medical experts.
Dr. Fauci’s libertine approach to facts may have contributed to what, for me, was the most troubling and infuriating feature of all the public health responses to COVID. The blatant and relentless manipulation of data to serve the vaccine agenda became the apogee of a year of stunning regulatory malpractice. High-quality and transparent data, clearly documented, timely rendered, and publicly available are the sine qua non of competent public health management. During a pandemic, reliable and comprehensive data are critical for determining the behavior of the pathogen, identifying vulnerable populations, rapidly measuring the effectiveness of interventions, mobilizing the medical community around cutting-edge disease management, and inspiring cooperation from the public. The shockingly low quality of virtually all relevant data pertinent to COVID-19, and the quackery, the obfuscation, the cherrypicking and blatant perversion would have scandalized, offended, and humiliated every prior generation of American public health officials. Too often, Dr. Fauci was at the center of these systemic deceptions. The “mistakes” were always in the same direction—inflating the risks of coronavirus and the safety and efficacy of vaccines in order to stoke public fear of COVID and provoke mass compliance. The excuses for his mistakes range from blaming the public (now blaming the unvaccinated), blaming politics, and explaining his gyrations by saying, “You’ve got to evolve with the science.”20
At the outset of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci used wildly inaccurate modeling that overestimated US deaths by 525 percent.21,22 Scammer and pandemic fabricator Neal Ferguson of Imperial College London was their author, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) of $148.8 million.23 Dr. Fauci used this model as justification for his lockdowns.
Dr. Fauci acquiesced to CDC’s selective protocol changes for completing death certificates in a way that inflated the claimed deaths from COVID, and thus inflated its infection mortality rate. CDC later admitted that only 6 percent of COVID deaths occurred in entirely healthy individuals. The remaining 94 percent suffered from an average of 3.8 potentially fatal comorbidities.24
Regulators misused PCR tests that CDC belatedly admitted in August 2021 were incapable of distinguishing COVID from other viral illnesses. Dr. Fauci tolerated their use at inappropriately high amplitudes of 37 and up to 45, even though Fauci had told Vince Racaniello that tests employing cycle thresholds of 35 and above were very unlikely to indicate the presence of live virus that could replicate.25 In July 2020, Fauci remarked that at these levels, a positive result is “just dead nucleotides, period,”26 yet did nothing to modify testing so it might be more accurate. As America’s COVID czar, Dr. Fauci never complained about CDC’s decision to skip autopsies from deaths attributed to vaccines. This practice allowed CDC to persistently claim that all deaths following vaccination were “unrelated to vaccination.” CDC also refused to conduct follow-up medical inquiries among people claiming vaccine injuries. Inspired by rich incentives to classify every patient as a COVID-19 victim—Medicare paid hospitals $39,000 per ventilator27 when treating COVID-19 and only $13,000 for garden variety respiratory infections28—hospitals contributed to the deception. Once more, Dr. Fauci winked at the fraud.
Dr. Fauci’s refusal to fix the HHS’s notoriously dysfunctional vaccine injury surveillance system (VAERS) constituted inexcusable negligence. HHS’s own studies indicate that VAERS may be understating vaccine injuries by OVER 99 percent.29
The public never received facts about infection fatality rates or age-stratified risks for COVID with the kind of clarity that might have allowed them and their physicians to make evidence-based personal risk assessments. Instead, federal officials relied on vagueness and deception to recklessly overestimate the dangers from COVID in every age group. All of these deceptions riddled virtually every mainstream media report— particularly those by CNN and the New York Times—leaving the public with a vastly inflated and cataclysmically inaccurate impression of its lethality. Public surveys showed that, just as Fox News audiences were shockingly misinformed following the 9/11 bombings, CNN viewers and New York Times readers were catastrophically misinformed about the facts of COVID-19 during 2020. Successive Gallup polling showed that the average Democrat believed that 50 percent of COVID infections resulted in hospitalizations. The real number was less than one percent.30
Trust the Experts
Instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open, and responsible debate on the science, badly compromised government health officials charged with managing the COVID-19 pandemic collaborated with mainstream and social media to shut down discussion on key public health questions. They silenced doctors who offered any early treatments that might compete with vaccines or who refused to pledge unquestioning faith in zero liability, shoddily tested, experimental vaccines.
The chaotic and confusing data collection and interpretation allowed regulators to justify their arbitrary diktats under the cloak of “scientific consensus.” Instead of citing scientific studies or clear data to justify mandates for masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, our medical rulers cited Dr. Fauci or WHO, CDC, FDA, and NIH—captive agencies—to legitimize the medical technocracy’s assumption of dangerous new powers.
Dr. Fauci’s aficionados, including President Biden and the cable and network news anchors, counseled Americans to “trust the experts.” Such advice is both anti-democratic and anti-science. Science is dynamic. “Experts” frequently differ on scientific questions and their opinions can vary in accordance with and demands of politics, power, and financial self-interest. Nearly every lawsuit I have ever litigated pitted highly credentialed experts from opposite sides against each other, with all of them swearing under oath to diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative—or both.
All of Dr. Fauci’s intrusive mandates and his deceptive use of data tended to stoke fear and amplify public desperation for the anticipated arrival of vaccines that would transfer billions of dollars from taxpayers to pharmaceutical executives and shareholders. Some of America’s most accomplished scientists, and the physicians leading the battle against COVID in the trenches, came to believe that Anthony Fauci’s do-or-die obsession with novel mRNA vaccines—and Gilead’s expensive patented antiviral, remdesivir—prompted him to ignore or even suppress effective early treatments, causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths while also prolonging the pandemic.
Fortifying Immune Systems
I was struck, during COVID-19’s early months, that America’s Doctor, apparently preoccupied with his single vaccine solution, did little in the way of telling Americans how to bolster their immune response. He never took time during his daily White House briefings from March to May 2020 to instruct Americans to avoid tobacco (smoking and e-cigarettes/vaping double death rates from COVID);31 to get plenty of sunlight and to maintain adequate vitamin D levels (“Nearly 60 percent of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient upon hospitalization, with men in the advanced stages of COVID-19 pneumonia showing the greatest deficit”);32 or to diet, exercise, and lose weight (78 percent of Americans hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese).33 Quite the contrary, Dr. Fauci’s lockdowns caused Americans to gain an average of two pounds per month and to reduce their daily steps by 27 percent.34 He didn’t recommend avoiding sugar and soft drinks, processed foods, and chemical residues, all of which amplify inflammation, compromise immune response, and disrupt the gut biome which governs the immune system. During the centuries that science has fruitlessly sought remedies against coronavirus (aka the common cold), only zinc has repeatedly proven its efficacy in peer-reviewed studies. Zinc impedes viral replication, prophylaxing against colds and abbreviating their duration.35 The groaning shelves that commercial pharmacies devote to zinc-based cold remedies attest to its extraordinary efficacy. Yet Anthony Fauci never advised Americans to increase zinc uptake following exposure to infection.
Dr. Fauci’s neglect of natural immune response was consistent with the pervasive hostility towards any non-vaccine intervention that characterized the federal regulatory gestalt. On April 30, 2021, Canadian Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons threatened to delicense any doctor who prescribed non-vaccine health strategies including Vitamin D.36 “They are trying to erase any notion of natural immunity,” says Canadian vaccine researcher Dr. Jessica Rose, Ph.D., MSc, BSc. “Pretty soon the incessant lies and propaganda will have successfully instilled in the masses that the only hope for staying alive is via injection, pill-popping, so in sum, no natural immunity.” In a podcast interview on October 1, 2021, Washington Post reporter Ashley Fetters Maloy pretended to expose “misinformation” about COVID-19 by broadcasting misinformation:
There’s a pervasive idea that your body and your immune system can be healthy enough to ward off COVID-19, which, of course, we know it’s a novel coronavirus. No one’s body can. No one’s body is healthy enough to recognize and just totally ward this off without a vaccine.37
Clearly, this is false information. Throughout 2020, before vaccines were available, some 99.9 percent of people’s natural immune systems protected their owners from severe illness and death. The CDC and World Health Organization, indeed all global health authorities, have recognized that healthy people, with healthy immune systems, bear minimal risk from COVID. Indeed, many people, according to our health authorities, have an immune response sufficient that they don’t even know they have COVID. Maloy’s pronouncement that humans cannot fight off COVID-19 without a vaccine is misinformation in its purest form.
Instead of urging calm and telling us, as FDR did during the depths of the Depression, that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” all of Dr. Fauci’s prescriptions and communications seemed intended to maximize stress and trauma: enforced isolation, mandated masking, business closures, evictions and bankruptcies, lockdowns, and separating children from parents and parents from grandparents.38,39 We now know that fear, stress, and trauma wreak havoc on our immune systems.
His critics argue that Dr. Fauci’s “slow the spread, flatten the curve, wait for the jab” strategy—all in support of a long-term bet on unproven vaccines—represented a profound and unprecedented departure from accepted public health practice. But most troubling were Dr. Fauci’s policies of ignoring and outright suppressing the early treatment of infected patients who were often terrified. “The Best Practices for defeating an infectious disease epidemic,” says Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, “dictate that you quarantine and treat the sick, protect the most vulnerable, and aggressively develop repurposed therapeutic drugs, and use early treatment protocols to avoid hospitalizations.”
Risch is one of the leading global authorities in clinical treatment protocols. He is the editor of two high-gravitas journals and the author of over 350 peer-reviewed publications. Other researchers have cited those studies over 44,000 times.40 Risch points out a hard truth that should have informed our COVID control strategy: “Unless you are an island nation prepared to shut out the world, you can’t stop a global viral pandemic, but you can make it less deadly. Our objective should have been to devise treatments that would reduce hospitalization and death. We could have easily defanged COVID-19 so that it was less lethal than a seasonal flu. We could have done this very quickly. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.”
Dr. Peter McCullough concurs: “Once a highly transmissible virus like COVID has a beachhead in a population, it is inevitable that it will spread to every individual who lacks immunity. You can slow the spread, but you cannot prevent it—any more than you can prevent the tide from rising.” McCullough was an internist and cardiologist on staff at the Baylor University Medical Center and the Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital in Dallas, Texas. His 600 peer-reviewed articles in the National Library of Medicine make McCullough the most published physician in history in the field of kidney disease related to heart disease, a lethal sequela of COVID-19. Before COVID-19, he was editor of two major journals. His recent publications include over 40 on COVID-19, including two landmark studies on critical care of the disease. His two breakthrough papers on the early treatment of COVID-19 in The American Journal of Medicine41 and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine42 in 2020 are, by far, the most downloaded documents on the subject. “I’ve had COVID-19 myself with pulmonary involvement,” he told me. “My wife has had it. On my wife’s side of the family, we’ve had a fatality . . . I believe I have as much or more medical authority to give my opinion as anybody in the world.”
McCullough observes that, “We could have dramatically reduced COVID fatalities and hospitalizations using early treatment protocols and repurposed drugs including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and many, many others.” Dr. McCullough has treated some 2,000 COVID patients with these therapies. McCullough points out that hundreds of peer-reviewed studies now show that early treatment could have averted some 80 percent of deaths attributed to COVID. “The strategy from the outset should have been implementing protocols to stop hospitalizations through early treatment of Americans who tested positive for COVID but were still asymptomatic. If we had done that, we could have pushed case fatality rates below those we see with seasonal flu, and ended the bottlenecks in our hospitals. We should have rapidly deployed off-the-shelf medications with proven safety records and subjected them to rigorous risk/benefit decision-making,” McCullough continues. “Using repurposed drugs, we could have ended this pandemic by May 2020 and saved 500,000 American lives, but for Dr. Fauci’s hard-headed, tunnel vision on new vaccines and remdesivir.”
Pulmonary and critical care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory agrees with McCullough’s estimate. “The efficacy of some of these drugs as prophylaxis is almost miraculous, plus early intervention in the week after exposure stops viral replication and prevents development of cytokine storm and entrance into the pulmonary phase,” says Dr. Kory. “We could have stopped the pandemic in its tracks in the spring of 2020.”
Risch, McCullough, and Kory are among the large chorus of experts (including Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier) who argue that, by treating infected patients at home during the early stages of the illness, we could have averted cataclysmic lockdowns and found medicine resources for protecting vulnerable populations while encouraging the spread of the disease in age groups with extremely low-risk, in order to achieve permanent herd immunity. They point out that natural immunity, in all known cases, is superior to vaccine-induced immunity, being both more durable (it often lasts a lifetime) and broader spectrum—meaning it provides a shield against subsequent variants. “Vaccinating citizens with natural immunity should never have been our public health policy,” says Dr. Kory.
Dr. Fauci’s strategy committed hundreds of billions of societal resources on a high-risk gambit to develop novel technology vaccines, and virtually nothing toward developing repurposed medications that are effective against COVID. “That strategy kept the medical treatment on hold globally for an entire year as a readily treatable respiratory virus ravaged populations,” says Kory. “It is absolutely shocking that he recommended no outpatient care, not even Vitamin D despite the fact he takes it himself and much of the country is Vitamin D deficient.”
Dr. Kory43 is president of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a former associate professor, and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin Medical School Hospital, and the Critical Care Service Chief at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee. His milestone work on critical care ultrasonography won him the British Medical Association’s President’s Choice Award in 2015.
Risch, McCullough, and Kory are also among the hundreds of scientists and physicians who express shock that Dr. Fauci made no effort to identify repurposed medicines. Says Kory, “I find it appalling that there was no consultation process with treating physicians. Medicine is about consultation. You had Birx, Fauci, and Redfield doing press conferences every day and handing down these arbitrary diktats and not one of them ever treated a COVID patient or worked in an emergency room or ICU. They knew nothing.”
“As I watched the White House Task Force on T.V.,” recalls Dr. McCullough, “no one even said that hospitalizations and deaths were the bad outcome of COVID-19, and that they were going to put together a team of doctors to identify protocols and therapeutics to stop these hospitalizations and deaths.”
Dr. McCullough argues that, as COVID czar, Dr. Fauci should have created an international communications network linking the world’s 11 million front-line doctors to gather real-time tips, innovative safety protocols, and to develop the best prophylactic and early treatment practices. “He should have created hotlines and dedicated websites for medical professionals to call in with treatment questions and to consult, collect, catalogue, and propagate the latest innovations for prophylaxing vulnerable and exposed individuals, and treating early infections, so as to avert hospitalizations.” Dr. Kory agrees: “The outcome we should have been trying to prevent is hospitalizations. You don’t just sit around and wait for an infected patient to become ill. Dr. Fauci’s treatment strategies all began once all these under-medicated patients were hospitalized. By that time, it was too late for many of them. It was insane. It was perverse. It was unethical.”
Dr. McCullough says that Dr. Fauci should have created treatment centers for ambulatory patients and field clinics specializing in treating asymptomatic or early-stage COVID. “He should have been encouraging doctors to use satellite clinics to conduct small outpatient clinical trials to quickly identify the most effective protocols, drugs, and therapeutics.”
Professor Risch concurs: “We should have deployed teams of doctors all over the world doing short-term clinical trials and testing promising drugs and reporting successful protocols. The endpoints were obvious: preventing hospitalizations and deaths. In addition to rapidly developing and continuously updating protocols and remedies, McCullough and Kory say that the government failed to perform the essential duty of a public health regulator during modern pandemics—to publish the best early treatment protocols on NIH’s website and then establish communication lines call centers to foster consultation and information sharing and webpages to share, broadcast and update the latest remedies and continually escalate public knowledge about the most successful strategies.
Dr. McCullough adds, “We should have created information and communication centers where treating physicians and hospitals could get round-the-clock, up-to-date bulletins with data. Instead, doctors who wanted to provide their infected patients with early treatment were out of luck.”
Nursing Homes and Quarantine Facilities
Dr. Risch says that in addition to developing early treatment protocols, public health officials should have made sure that elderly patients remained in quarantine hospitals until no longer contagious. “It’s obvious that we should have had quarantine facilities so we wouldn’t be sending infected patients to crowded nursing homes. Instead, we should have housed them in safe facilities and protected them with cutting-edge care.” Risch points out that taxpayers spent $660 million building field hospitals across the country.44 Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and other Democratic governors kept these facilities empty to maintain bed inventories in anticipation of the flood of patients inaccurately predicted by the fear-mongering models, ginned up by two Gates-funded organizations, IMHE and Royal College of London, and then anointed as gospel by Dr. Fauci—seemingly as part of the crusade to generate public panic. With those quarantine centers standing empty, those governors sent infected elderly back to crowded nursing homes, where they spread the disease to the most vulnerable population with lethal effect. Risch points out that, “Half the deaths, in New York, and one-third nationally,45 were among elder care facility residents.”
Dr. Fauci made another inexplicable policy choice of not supplying the nursing homes with monoclonal antibodies where they might have saved thousands of lives. “With Operation Warp Speed, we had monoclonal antibodies that were high tech and fully FDA-approved by November 2020—long before the vaccines,” says Dr. McCullough.
“Monoclonal antibodies work great, but they’re not suitable for outpatients because they are administered IV It’s therefore perfect for nursing homes. About one-third of COVID deaths occurred in the nursing homes and ALFs across the US during the pandemic.46 Dr. Fauci should have equipped both nursing homes and quarantine hospitals with monoclonal antibodies,” said Risch. Instead, he obstructed these institutions from administering that medicine. “It was a kind of staggering savage act of malpractice and negligence to deny this remedy to elder care facilities at a time when the elderly were dying at a rate of 10,000 per week.”
“You need, in short, to do the opposite of everything they did. It’s difficult to identify anything they did that was right,” says McCullough.
Independent Doctors into the Breach
Early in the pandemic, Kory and his mentor, Dr. Paul Marik, Professor of Medicine and Chief of Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, began assembling the world’s most highly published and accomplished critical care specialists to rapidly develop functional COVID treatments. Each of the core five founders of FLCCC is globally renowned for having made significant pre-COVID contributions to the science of critical care and pulmonary illnesses. Some 1,693 front-line physicians globally now belong to their alliance.47 Early in the pandemic, these doctors stepped into the breach left by the government agencies and pandemic centers and began coordinating the development of early treatments with repurposed drugs. They quickly proved that they could drastically reduce COVID’s lethality. Instead of winning applause as medical healers, their success at treating COVID made them enemies of the State.
Long before he heard of Pierre Kory or FLCCC, Dr. Peter McCullough reached the same conclusions about the futility and immorality of the federal effort, and felt the same indignation and determination to change things. “By April and May, I noticed a disturbing trend,” recalls McCullough. “The trend was, no effort to treat patients who are infected with COVID-19 at home or in nursing homes. And it almost seemed as if patients were intentionally not being treated, allowed to sit at home and get to the point where they couldn’t breathe and then be admitted to the hospital.”
Dr. Fauci adopted this unprecedented protocol of telling doctors to let patients diagnosed with a positive COVID test go home, untreated—leaving them in terror, and spreading the disease—until breathing difficulties forced their return to hospitals. There they faced two deadly remedies: remdesivir and ventilators.
I experienced my own personal frustrations with this bewildering policy. When, in December 2020, I asked my 93-year-old mother’s physician to describe her treatment plan if she got a positive PCR, he told me, “There is really nothing we can do unless she starts having trouble breathing. Then we will send her up to Mass General for ventilation.” When I asked him about using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, he shrugged his shoulders. He had never heard of their use in COVID patients. “There is no early treatment for COVID,” he assured me.
Dr. Fauci’s choice to deny infected Americans early treatment was not just a bad public health strategy; it was, McCullough avows, “Cruelty at a population level.” Says McCullough, “Never in history have doctors deliberately treated patients with this kind of barbarism.”
“I told myself, ‘I am not going to tolerate that—in my practice, or on a national level or worldwide,’” Dr. McCullough told me. Realizing that COVID had to be fought on multiple fronts, McCullough began contacting physicians in other nations who were reporting success against the disease, including doctors in Italy, Greece, Canada, across Europe, and in Bangladesh and South Africa.
McCullough continues, “If this had been any other form of pneumonia, a respiratory illness, or any other infectious illness in the human body, we know that if we start early, we can actually treat much more easily than wait until patients are very sick.” McCullough says that the rule holds true for COVID-19: “We learned quickly that it takes about two weeks for someone infected with COVID to get sick enough at home to require hospitalization.”
Front-line clinical doctors quickly recognized that the disease was operating through multiple pathways, each requiring their own treatment protocol. “There were three major parts of the illness,” says McCullough: “1) the virus was replicating for as long as two weeks, 2) there was incredible inflammation in the body, and 3) that was followed by blood clotting.” He adds, “By April 2020, most doctors understood a single drug was not going to be enough to treat this illness. We had to use drugs in combination.”
“We quickly developed three principles,” says McCullough; his three-step protocol was as follows:
• Use medications to slow down the virus;
• Use medications to attenuate or reduce inflammation;
• Address blood clotting.
McCullough and his global partners quickly identified a pharmacopoeia of off-the-shelf treatments demonstrating extraordinary efficacy against each stage of COVID when administered early in the course of the disease.
McCullough chronicles the rapid pace with which front-line doctors uncovered rich apothecaries of effective COVID remedies. HHS’s early studies supported hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy against coronavirus since 2005, and by March 2020, doctors from New York to Asia were using it against COVID with extraordinary effect. That month, McCullough and other physicians at his medical center organized, with the FDA, one of the first prophylactic protocols using hydroxychloroquine. “We had terrific data on ivermectin, from the medical teams in Bangladesh and elsewhere by early summer 2020. So now we had two cheap generics.” McCullough and his growing team of 50+ front-line doctors discovered that while HCQ and IVM work well against COVID, adding other medications boosts outcomes drastically. These included azithromycin or doxycycline, zinc, vitamin D, Celebrex, bromhexine, NAC, IV vitamin C, and quercetin. McCullough’s team realized that, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, quercetin—that ubiquitous health store nutraceutical—is an ionophore—meaning that it facilitates zinc uptake in the cells, destroying the capacity of coronavirus to replicate. “The Canadians came on with Colchicine in a high-quality trial based on an initial Greek trial,” McCullough continued. “We learned more from experts at UCLA and elsewhere with respect to blood clotting and the need for aspirin and blood thinners. We got early approval for monoclonal antibodies. It was later learned that both fluvoxamine and famotidine could play roles in multidrug treatment.” LSU Medical School professor Paul Harch discovered peer-reviewed papers from China where researchers there had been using hyperbaric chambers (HBOT) with stunning success.48 Between April and May, a group of NYU researchers reproduced that success by getting patients off ventilators and quickly recovering 18 of 20 ventilator cases using HBOT.49 (Yale is currently conducting Phase 3 with stellar early results.)
There were many other promising treatments. Asian nations were using saline nasal lavages to great effect to reduce viral loads and transmission.50 McCullough discovered he could prophylax patients and drop viral load and prevent transmission with a variety of other oral/nasal rinses and dilute virucidal agents, including povidone iodine, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, and Listerine or mouthwash with cetylpyridinium chloride. Mass General’s infectious disease maven Dr. Michael Callahan had seen hundreds of patients in Wuhan in January 2020, and assessed the impressive efficacy of Pepcid, an over-the-counter indigestion medicine. The Japanese were already using Prednisone, Budesonide, and Famotidine with extraordinary results.
By July 1, McCullough and his team had developed the first protocol based on signals of benefit and acceptable safety. They submitted the protocol to the American Journal of Medicine. That study, titled “The Pathophysiologic Basis and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19,”51 quickly became the world’s most-downloaded paper to help doctors treat COVID-19.
“It is extraordinary that Dr. Fauci never published a single treatment protocol before that,” says McCullough, “and that ‘America’s Doctor’ has never, to date, published anything on how to treat a COVID patient. It shocks the conscience that there is still no official protocol. Anyone who tries to publish a new treatment protocol will find themselves airtight blocked by the journals that are all under Fauci’s control.”
The Chinese published their own early treatment protocol on March 3, 2020,52,53 using many of the same categories of prophylactic and early treatment drugs uncovered by McCullough—chloroquine (a cousin of hydroxychloroquine), antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines, a variety of steroids, and probiotics to stabilize and fortify the immune system and apothecaries of traditional Chinese medicines, vitamins, and minerals, including a variety of compounds containing quercetin, zinc, and glutathione precursors.54 The Chinese made early treatment the central priority of their COVID strategy. They used intense—and intrusive—track-and-trace surveillance to identify and then immediately hospitalize and treat every COVID-infected Chinese. Early treatment helped the Chinese to end their pandemic by April 2020. “We could have done the same,” says McCullough.
Though now he is often censored, the AMA still lists Dr. McCullough’s study as the most frequently downloaded paper for 2020. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) downloaded and turned McCullough’s AMA article into its official treatment guide.55 AAPS Director Dr. Jeremy Snavely told me in August 2021 that the Guide had 122,000 downloads: “We figure it has been seen by over a million people. It’s the only trusted guide. Our phone never stops ringing. Mostly the calls are from physicians and patients desperate for the help they cannot get from any HHS website.”
By autumn, front-line physicians had assembled a pharmacopeia of repurposed drugs, all of which were effective against COVID.
By that time, more than 200 studies supported treatment with hydroxychloroquine, and 60 studies supported ivermectin. “We combined these medicines with doxycycline, azithromycin to suppress infection,” says McCullough. Another meta-analysis supported the use of prednisone and hydrocortisone and other widely available steroids to combat inflammation.56 Three studies supported the use of inhaled budesonide against COVID; an Oxford University study published in February 2021 demonstrated that that treatment could reduce hospitalizations by 90 percent in low-risk patients,57 and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high-risk patients, too.58 Furthermore, a very large study supported colchicine as an anti-inflammatory.59 Finally, McCullough’s growing array of physicians had observational data from late-stage treatment of hospitalized patients with full-dose aspirin and antithrombotics, including Enoxaparin, Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and full-dose anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin for blood clots.60
“We were able to show that doctors can work with four to six drugs in combination, supplemented by vitamins and nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamins D and C, and Quercetin. And they can guide patients at home, even the highest-risk seniors, and avoid a dreaded outcome of hospitalization and death,” said McCullough.
Working with a large practice in the Plano/Frisco area north of Dallas, McCullough and his team administered this protocol to some eight hundred patients and demonstrated an 85 percent reduction in hospitalization and death. Another practice led by the legendary Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in Monroe, New York showed similar astonishing results.61
Independent physicians unaffiliated with the government or the universities that are so dependent on Dr. Fauci’s good favor were discovering new COVID treatments by the day. Researchers treated 738 randomly selected Brazilian COVID-19 patients with another adjuvant, fluvoxamine, identified early in the pandemic for its potential to reduce cytokine storms.62 Another 733 received a placebo between Jan. 20 and Aug. 6 of 2021. The researchers tracked every patient receiving fluvoxamine during the trial for 28 days and found about a 30-percent reduction in events among those receiving fluvoxamine compared to those who did not. Like almost all the other remedies, it is cheap and proven safe by long use. Fluvoxamine costs about $4 per 10-day course. Fluvoxamine has been used since the 1990s, and its safety profile is well known.63
“Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are not necessary nor sufficient on their own—there are plenty of molecules that treat COVID,” says McCullough. “Even if hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had become so politicized that no one wanted to allow these drugs to be used, we could use other drugs, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines, as well as anti-coagulants and actually stop the illness and again, treat it to reduce hospitalization and death.”
When the pandemic started, most of the other medical practices in the Detroit area shut down, Dr. David Brownstein told me. “I had a meeting with my staff and my six partners. I told them, ‘We are going to stay open and treat COVID.’ They wanted to know how. I said, ‘We’ve been treating viral diseases here for twenty-five years. COVID can’t be any different.’ In all that time, our office had never lost a single patient to flu or flu-like illness. We treated people in their cars with oral vitamins A, C, and D, and iodine. We administered IV solution outside all winter with IV hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C. We’d have them put their butts out the car window and shot them up with intramuscular ozone. We nebulized them with hydrogen peroxide and Lugol’s iodine. We only rarely used ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. We treated 715 patients and had ten hospitalizations and no deaths. Early treatment was the key. We weren’t allowed to talk about it. The whole medical establishment was trying to shut down early treatment and silence all the doctors who talked about successes. A whole generation of doctors just stopped practicing medicine. When we talked about it, the whole cartel came for us. I’ve been in litigation with the Medical Board for a year. When we posted videos from some of our recovered patients, they went viral. One of the videos had a million views. FTC filed a motion against us, and we had to take everything down.” In July 2020, Brownstein and his seven colleagues published a peer-reviewed article describing their stellar success with early treatment. FTC sent him a letter warning him to take it down. “No one wanted Americans to know that you didn’t have to die from COVID. It’s 100 percent treatable,” says Dr. Brownstein. “We proved it. No one had to die.”
“Meanwhile,” adds Dr. Brownstein, “we’ve seen lots of really bad vaccine side effects in our patients. We’ve had seven strokes—some ending in severe paralysis. We had three cases of pulmonary embolism, two blood clots, two cases of Graves’ disease, and one death.”
Repurposed medicines, the record shows, could also have drastically reduced death among hospitalized patients. One of Dr. Kory’s cofounders of FLCCC, Houston Memorial Medical Center’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Joe Varon, worked 400 days in a row, seeing between 20–30 patients/day. Using ivermectin and a cocktail of anti-inflammatories, steroids, and anticoagulants since Spring 2020, Dr. Varon lowered hospital mortality among ICU COVID patients to about 4.1 percent, compared to well over 23 percent nationally. “Even in the ICUs where patients were coming in undertreated, we were able to dramatically reduce mortality,” says Dr. Kory.
“Almost anything you do in the nursing homes—basically, any combination of the various components of these protocols—reduces mortalities by at least 60 percent,” McCullough told me. A 2021 paper in Medical Hypotheses supports McCullough’s claim.64 That study by twelve physician co-authors shows that diverse combinations of many of these and similar medications dramatically lower death rates in a variety of nursing homes. The study concludes that even the most modest early medical therapy combinations were associated with 60 percent reductions in mortality. Says Dr. McCullough, “Therapeutic nihilism was the real killer of America’s seniors.”
McCullough’s findings may be conservative. Early in the pandemic, two Spanish nursing homes simultaneously experimented with early treatment with cheap, available repurposed drugs and achieved 100 percent survival among infected residents and staff. Between March and April 2020, COVID-19 struck two elder care facilities in Yepes, Toledo, Spain. The mean age of residents in those locations was 85, and 48 percent were over 80 years old. Within three months, 100 percent of the residents at both locations had caught the virus. By the end of June, 100 percent of residents and half the workers were seropositive for COVID, meaning they had endured infection and recovered. None of them went to the hospital and none died. None had adverse drug effects. Local doctors rapidly discovered early treatment with the same sort of remedies that McCullough was championing: antihistamines, steroids, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, aspirin, nasal washes, bronchodilators, and blood thinners. In pooled data, 28 percent of the residents in similar nursing homes in the same region over the same time period died. That study supports the experience of front-line physicians that cheap available, repurposed drugs can easily prevent hospitalizations and deaths.65
Dr. McCullough and 57 colleagues published a second study in December of 2020 in a dedicated issue of Reviews In Cardiovascular Medicine. The article, “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19),” described a marvelous breadth of effective drugs that these physicians had, by then, developed.66
By collecting data from the vast network of doctors across the globe, they added dozens of new compounds to the arsenal—all proven effective against COVID-19. Dr. Kory told me that he was deeply troubled that the extremely successful efforts by scores of front-line doctors to develop repurposed medicines to treat COVID received no support from any government in the entire world—only hostility—much of it orchestrated by Dr. Fauci and the US health agencies. The large universities that rely on hundreds of millions in annual funding from NIH were also antagonistic. “We didn’t have a single academic institution come up with a single protocol,” said Dr. McCullough. “They didn’t even try. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Duke, you name it. Not a single medical center set up even a tent to try to treat patients and prevent hospitalization and death. There wasn’t an ounce of original research coming out of America available to fight COVID—other than vaccines.” All of these universities are deeply dependent on billions of dollars that they receive from NIH. As we shall see, these institutions live in terror of offending Anthony Fauci, and that fear paralyzed them in the midst of the pandemic.
“Dr. Fauci refused to promote any of these interventions,” says Kory. “It’s not just that he made no effort to find effective off-the-shelf cures—he aggressively suppressed them.”
Instead of supporting McCullough’s work, NIH and the other federal regulators began actively censoring information on this range of effective remedies. Doctors who attempted merely to open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID found themselves heavily and inexplicably censored. Dr. Fauci worked with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and other social media sites to muzzle discussion of any remedies. FDA sent a letter of warning that N-acetyle-L-cysteine (NAC) cannot be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement, after decades of free access on health food shelves, and suppressed IV vitamin C, which the Chinese were using with extreme effectiveness.
In September, Dr. McCullough used his own money to create a YouTube video showing four slides from his peer-reviewed American Medical Association articles to teach doctors the miraculous benefits of early treatment with HCQ and other remedies. His video went viral, with hundreds of thousands of downloads; YouTube pulled it two days later.
Leading doctors and scientists, including some of the nation’s most highly published and experienced physicians and front-line COVID specialists like McCullough, Kory, Ryan Cole, David Brownstein, and Risch believe that Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatment and off-patent remedies was responsible for up to 80 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID. All five doctors independently told me the same thing. The relentless malpractice of deliberately withholding early effective COVID treatments, of forcing the use of toxic remdesivir, may have unnecessarily killed up to 500,000 Americans in hospitals.
Dr. Kory says so plainly: “Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatments will go down in history as having caused the death of a half a million Americans in the ICU.”
Ryan Cole is one of the doctors who adopted McCullough’s protocols early in the pandemic. Dr. Cole is a Mayo Clinic and Columbia University-trained Board Certified Anatomic/Clinical Pathologist and the CEO/Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, the largest independent lab in Idaho. He has diagnosed more than 350,000 patients in his career. Dr. Cole discovered McCullough’s research during his own investigation of early treatment remedies when his overweight brother called Dr. Cole from a neighboring state on his way to the ER with a positive PCR test, labored breathing, blood oxygen at 86, and chest discomfort that he rated nine out of ten. “He has Type 1 diabetes,” explains Dr. Cole. Dr. Cole redirected his sibling to a local pharmacy and called in an ivermectin prescription. “Within six hours, my brother’s chest pain was down to two out of ten due to the interferon effect of ivermectin, and within 24 hours after taking ivermectin, his oxygen was 98, and he then fully recovered.” Cole told me, “A light bulb went off.”
Dr. Cole has overseen or helped perform over 125,000 COVID tests during the pandemic. Since rescuing his brother, he has encountered many patients in early stages of the disease. “Almost none of them could find doctors in the community to treat them,” he told me. “I intervened to provide early treatment to over 300 positive patients, half of whom were comorbid and high risk.” Of this cohort, none were hospitalized and none died. “Early treatment of COVID-19, plain and simple, saves lives. If the medical profession had been forward thinking and hands-on, and focused on this disease, with an early outpatient multi-drug approach, knowing that COVID-19 is an inflammatory clotting disease, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved in the US.”
“Never in the history of medicine,” says Dr. Cole, “has early treatment, of any patient with any disease, been so overtly neglected by the medical profession on such a massive scale.”
Cole adds, “To not treat, especially in the midst of a highly transmissible, deadly disease, is to do harm.”
Cole says that the only truly deadly pandemic is “the pandemic of under treatment.” He says, “The sacred doctor–patient relationship needs to be wrenched away from Anthony Fauci and the government/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex. Doctors need to return to their oaths. Patients need to demand from medicine their right to be treated. This year has revealed the countless flaws of a medical system that has lost its direction and soul.”
Cole points out that, “If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced. . . . And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness,” he adds, “as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are miraculously effective medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80 percent, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever. That’s a huge threat to the vaccine cartel and to remdesivir.”
It was only the independent doctors like Ryan Cole, who were not reliant on Dr. Fauci’s largesse and who threw themselves into hand-to-hand combat against COVID-19, who discovered readily available treatment modes: “We had hero doctors that really had to break with the academic ivory tower,” says McCullough. Finally, a group of independent organizations, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Front-Line Critical Care Consortium, and America’s Front-line Doctors, galvanized to organize the country into four national telemedicine services, and three regional telemedicine services. Following Dr. Kory’s explosive Senate testimony, thousands of doctors and frightened COVID patients began calling the hotlines for treatment. “We took over health care,” says McCullough.
“In numerous countries and regions around the world, repeated, striking temporally associated reductions in both cases and deaths occurred very soon after either ivermectin was distributed or health ministry ivermectin recommendations were announced.” said Dr. Kory. It could be argued that a similar association occurred in the US.
Dr. Fauci and the industry propagandists later attributed the January decline in COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to their vaccines, which began their rollout in mid-December 2020.
However, even mainstream media doctors reluctantly acknowledged that the drop could not possibly be a vaccine effect. By February 1, only 25.2 million, or 7.6 percent of Americans, had received a single vaccine dose.67 The CDC acknowledges that there is no effect until many weeks after the second COVID jab.
Tony Fauci’s decision to deny early treatments undoubtedly prolonged and intensified the pandemic. McCullough points out that early treatment does not just prevent hospitalization; it quickly starves pandemics to death by stopping their spread. “Early treatment reduces the infectivity period from 14 days to about four days,” he explains. “It also allows someone to stay in the home so they don’t contaminate people outside the home. And then it has this remarkable effect in reducing the intensity and duration of symptoms so patients don’t get so short of breath, they don’t get into this panic where they feel they have to break containment and go to the hospital.” McCullough says that those hospital trips are tinder for pandemics, especially since, at that point, the patient is at the height of infectivity, with teeming viral loads. “Every hospitalization in America—and there’s been millions of them—has been a super-spreader event. Sick patients contaminate their loved ones, paramedics, Uber drivers, people in the clinic and offices. It becomes a total mess.” McCullough says that by treating COVID-19 at home, doctors actually can extinguish the pandemic.
“So this has been a story of American heroes. It’s been a story of worldwide success.” McCullough’s group is now part of a worldwide network of front-line physicians using repurposed drugs to save lives around the globe. These doctors have built networks and information banks outside of the government agency and university hegemony allowing doctors to actually practice the art of healing. Their network includes the BIRD medical coalition in the UK and Treatment Domiciliare COVID-19 group in Italy, which conducts rallies to celebrate zero hospitalizations from this multidrug approach. “We have PANDA in South Africa, the Covid Medical Network in Australia. And so on,” says McCullough. “Despite the various government agencies and the ivory tower medical institutions literally not lifting a finger, COVID-19 independent doctors and hero organizations kicked in.”
“And to this day, we’re in the middle of the Delta outbreak. Guess who’s treating the Delta patients? It’s again not the academic medical centers or the government or even the large group practices. They’re not touching these patients. Once again, it is independent physicians.” It’s independent doctors who are actually compassionately reaching out and using what we call the precautionary principle. They are using their best medical judgment and scientific data to apply therapy now and to practice the art of healing. For any of our academic colleagues that have said, ‘Dr. McCullough, we need to wait for large, randomized trials,’ what I’ve always said is, ‘Listen, this is a mass casualty event.’ People are dying now. They’re being hospitalized now. We can’t wait for large, randomized trials. We need to be doctors. We need to start healing people.”
II: KILLING HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE
Most of my fellow Democrats understand that Dr. Fauci led an effort to deliberately derail America’s access to lifesaving drugs and medicines that might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives and dramatically shortened the pandemic. There is no other aspect of the COVID crisis that more clearly reveals the malicious intentions of a powerful vaccine cartel—led by Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates—to prolong the pandemic and amplify its mortal effects in order to promote their mischievous inoculations.
From the outset, hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and other therapeutics posed an existential threat to Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates’ $48 billion COVID vaccine project, and particularly to their vanity drug remdesivir, in which Gates has a large stake.1 Under federal law, new vaccines and medicines cannot quality for Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) if any existing FDA-approved drug proves effective against the same malady:
For FDA to issue an EUA (emergency use authorization), there must be no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the candidate product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition. . . .2
Thus, if any FDA-approved drug like hydroxychloroquine (or ivermectin) proved effective against COVID, pharmaceutical companies would no longer be legally allowed to fast-track their billion-dollar vaccines to market under Emergency Use Authorization. Instead, vaccines would have to endure the years-long delays that have always accompanied methodical safety and efficacy testing, and that would mean less profits, more uncertainty, longer runways to market, and a disappointing end to the lucrative COVID-19 vaccine gold rush. Dr. Fauci has invested $6 billion in taxpayer lucre in the Moderna vaccine alone.3 His agency is co-owner4 of the patent and stands to collect a fortune in royalties. At least four of Fauci’s hand-picked deputies are in line to collect royalties of $150,000/year based on Moderna’s success, and that’s on top of the salaries already paid by the American public.5,6
So there was good reason that very powerful potentates of the medical cartel were already targeting HCQ long before President Trump began his infamous romance with the malaria remedy. President Trump’s endorsement of HCQ on March 19, 20207 hyper-politicized the debate and gave Dr. Fauci’s defamation campaign against HCQ a soft landing among Democrats and the media. Trump’s critics relegated any further claims of HCQ efficacy to the same anti-science waste bin as Trump’s notorious recommendation for bleach to cure COVID and his denial of climate change. But HCQ had a long history of safe medical use that got lost in the politics and propaganda.
HCQ Before Dr. Fauci’s Smear Campaign
Dr. Fauci’s challenge—to prove that HCQ is dangerous—was daunting because hydroxychloroquine is a 65-year-old formula that regulators around the globe long ago approved as both safe and effective against a variety of illnesses. HCQ is an analog of the quinine found in the bark of the cinchona tree that George Washington used to protect his troops from malaria. For decades, WHO has listed HCQ as an “essential medicine,” proven effective against a long list of ailments.8 It is a generally benign prescription medicine, far safer—according to the manufacturer’s package inserts9—than many popular over-the-counter drugs.
Generations have used HCQ billions of times throughout the world, practically without restriction. During my many childhood trips to Africa, I took HCQ daily as a preventive against malaria, a ritual that millions of other African visitors and residents embrace. Long use has thoroughly established HCQ’s safety and efficacy such that most African countries authorize HCQ as an over-the-counter medication. Africans call the drug “Sunday-Sunday”10 because millions of them take it religiously, once a week, as a malaria prophylaxis. It’s probably not a coincidence that these nations enjoyed some of the world’s lowest mortality rates from COVID. HCQ is the #1 most used medication in India, the second-most populous nation on the planet, with 1.3 billion people. Prior to the COVID pandemic, HCQ and its progenitor, chloroquine (CQ), were freely available over the counter in most of the world, including France, Canada, Iran, Mexico, Costa Rica, Panama, and many other countries.
In the United States, the FDA has approved HCQ without limitation for 65 years, meaning that physicians can prescribe it for any off-label use. CDC’s information sheet deems hydroxychloroquine safe for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, infants, elderly and immune-compromised patients and healthy persons of all ages.11 The CDC sets no limits on the lengthy and indefinite use of hydroxychloroquine for the prevention of malaria. Many people in Africa and India take it for a lifetime. Since its recommended protocol as a remedy for COVID requires only one week’s use, Dr. Fauci’s sudden revelation that the drug is dangerous was specious at best.
According to Dr. Peter McCullough, “To date, there has not been a single credible report that the medication increases the risk of death in COVID-19 patients when prescribed by competent physicians who understand its safety profile.”12
Efficacy Against Coronavirus with Early Intervention HCQ Protocol
Some 200 peer-reviewed studies (C19Study.com) by government and independent researchers deem HCQ safe and effective against Coronavirus, especially when taken prophylactically or when taken in the initial stages of illness along with zinc and Zithromax.
The chart below lists 32 studies of early outpatient treatment of COVID using hydroxychloroquine. Thirty-one of the studies showed benefit, and only one study showed harm. The study showing harm resulted from a single patient in the treatment group requiring hospitalization. When all the studies are collected together, despite having different outcome measures, the average benefit is 64 percent. This means that subjects who received hydroxychloroquine were only 36 percent as likely to reach the negative outcomes as subjects in the control groups.
The scientific literature first suggested that HCQ or CQ might be effective treatments for Coronavirus in 2004.13 In that era, following an outbreak, Chinese and Western governments were pouring millions of dollars into an effort to identify existing, a.k.a. “repurposed,” medicines that were effective against coronaviruses. With HCQ, they had stumbled across the Holy Grail. In 2004, Belgian researchers found that chloroquine was effective at viral killing at doses equivalent to those used to treat malaria, i.e., doses that are safe.14 A CDC study published in 2005 in the Virology Journal, “Chloroquine is a Potent Inhibitor of SARS Coronavirus Infection and Spread” demonstrated that CQ quickly eliminated coronavirus in primate cell culture during the SARS outbreak. That study concludes: “We report . . . that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-Coronavirus infection of primate cells . . . [both] before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”15
This conclusion was particularly threatening to vaccine makers since it implies that chloroquine functions both as a preventive “vaccine” as well as a cure for SARS coronavirus. Common sense would presume it to be effective against other coronavirus strains. Worse still for Dr. Fauci and his vaccine-making friends, a NIAID study16 and a Dutch paper,17 both in 2014, confirmed chloroquine was effective against MERS—still another coronavirus.
In response to their studies, physicians worldwide discovered early in the pandemic that they could successfully treat high-risk COVID-19 patients as outpatients, within the first five to seven days of the onset of symptoms, with a chloroquine drug alone or with a “cocktail” consisting of hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin (or doxycycline). Multiple scholarly contributions to the literature quickly confirmed the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine and hydroxychloroquine-based combination treatment when administered within days of COVID symptoms. Studies confirming this occurred in China,18 France,19 Saudi Arabia,20 Iran,21 Italy,22 India,23 New York City,24 upstate New York,25 Michigan,26 and Brazil.27
HCQ’s first prominent champion was Dr. Didier Raoult, the iconic French infectious disease professor, who has published more than 2,700 papers and is famous for having discovered 100 microorganisms, including the pathogen that causes Whipple’s Disease. On March 17, 2020, Dr. Raoult provided a preliminary report on 36 patients treated successfully with hydroxychloroquine and sometimes azithromycin at his institution in Marseille.28
In April, Dr. Vladimir (Zev) Zelenko, M.D., an upstate New York physician and early HCQ adopter, reproduced Dr. Didier Raoult’s “startling successes” by dramatically reducing expected mortalities among 800 patients Zelenko treated with the HCQ cocktail.29
By late April of 2020, US doctors were widely prescribing HCQ to patients and family members, reporting outstanding results, and taking it themselves prophylactically.
In May 2020, Dr. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D. published the most comprehensive study, to date, on HCQ’s efficacy against COVID. Risch is Yale University’s super-eminent Professor of Epidemiology, an illustrious world authority on the analysis of aggregate clinical data. Dr. Risch concluded that evidence is unequivocal for early and safe use of the HCQ cocktail. Dr. Risch published his work—a meta-analysis reviewing five outpatient studies—in affiliation with the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in the American Journal of Epidemiology, under the urgent title, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to Pandemic Crisis.”30
He further demonstrated, with specificity, how HCQ’s critics—largely funded by Bill Gates and Dr. Tony Fauci31—had misinterpreted, misstated, and misreported negative results by employing faulty protocols, most of which showed HCQ efficacy administered without zinc and Zithromax which were known to be helpful. But their main trick for ensuring the protocols failed was to wait until late in the disease process before administering HCQ—when it is known to be ineffective. Dr. Risch noted that evidence against HCQ used late in the course of the disease is irrelevant. While acknowledging that Dr. Didier Raoult’s powerful French studies favoring HCQ efficacy were not randomized, Risch argued that the results were, nevertheless, so stunning as to far outweigh that deficit: “The first study of HCQ + AZ [ . . . ] showed a 50-fold benefit of HCQ + AZ vs. standard of care . . . This is such an enormous difference that it cannot be ignored despite lack of randomization.”32 Risch has pointed out that the supposed need for randomized placebo-controlled trials is a shibboleth. In 2014 the Cochrane Collaboration proved in a landmark meta-analysis of 10,000 studies, that observational studies of the kind produced by Didier Raoult are equal in predictive ability to randomized placebo-controlled trials.33 Furthermore, Risch observed that it is highly unethical to deny patients promising medications during a pandemic—particularly those which, like HCQ, have long-standing safety records.
So, against all that I’ve shared here, Dr. Fauci offered up one answer: hydroxychloroquine should not be used because we don’t understand the mechanism it uses to defeat COVID—another shibboleth transparently invoked to defeat common sense. Regulators do not understand the mechanism of action of many drugs, but they nonetheless license those that are effective and safe. The fact is that we know more about how HCQ beats COVID than we know about the actions of many other medicines, including—notably—Dr. Fauci’s darlings, mRNA vaccines and remdesivir.
Furthermore, an August 2020 paper from Baylor University by Dr. Peter McCullough et al. described mechanisms by which the components of the “HCQ cocktail” exert antiviral effects.34 McCullough shows that the efficacy of the HCQ cocktail is based on the pharmacology of the hydroxychloroquine ionophore acting as the “gun” and zinc as the “bullet,” while azithromycin potentiates the anti-viral effect.
An even more expansive September 30, 2020 meta-review summarizes more recent research, concluding that ALL the studies on early administration of HCQ within a week following infection demonstrate efficacy, while studies of HCQ administered later in the illness show mixed results.35
In March, 2020 Nature published a paper demonstrating the specific mechanisms in tissue culture by which chloroquine stops viral reproduction.36
In April, 2020, a team of Chinese scientists published a preprint of a 62-patient placebo-controlled trial of hydroxychloroquine, resulting in demonstrably improved time to recovery and less progression to severe disease in the treated group.37
In May, 2020, a Chinese expert consensus group recommended doctors use chloroquine routinely for mild, moderate, and severe cases of COVID-19 pneumonia.38
A national study in Finland in May 2021 showed a 5x efficacy.39 And national studies in Canada and Saudi Arabia showed 3x efficacy.40
I’ll stop gilding the lily here and ask the reader: Was hydroxychloroquine some crazy baseless idea, or ought regulators to have honestly investigated it as a potential remedy during a raging pandemic?
Pharma’s War on HCQ
The prospect of an existing therapeutic drug (with an expired patent) that could outperform any vaccine in the war against COVID posed a momentous threat to the pharmaceutical cartel. Among the features pharma companies most detest is low cost, and HCQ is about $10 per course.41 Compare that to more than $3000 per course for Dr. Fauci’s beloved remdesivir.42
No surprise, pharmaceutical interests launched their multinational preemptive crusade to restrict and discredit HCQ starting way back in January 2020, months before the WHO declared a pandemic and even longer before President Trump’s controversial March 19 endorsement. On January 13, when rumors of Wuhan flu COVID-19 began to circulate, the French government took the bizarre, inexplicable, unprecedented, and highly suspicious step of reassigning HCQ from an over-the-counter to a prescription medicine.43 Without citing any studies, French health officials quietly changed the status of HCQ to “List II poisonous substance” and banned its over-the-counter sales.44 This absolutely remarkable coincidence repeated itself a few weeks later when Canadian health officials did the exact same thing, quietly removing the drug from pharmacy shelves.45
A physician from Zambia reported to Dr. Harvey Risch that in some villages and cities, organized groups of buyers emptied drugstores of HCQ and then burned the medication in bonfires outside the towns. South Africa destroyed two tons of life-saving hydroxychloroquine in late 2020, supposedly due to violation of an import regulation.46 The US government in 2021 ordered the destruction of more than a thousand pounds of HCQ, because it was improperly imported.47 “The Feds are insisting that all of it be destroyed, and not be used to save a single life anywhere in the world,” said a lawyer seeking to resist the senseless order.
By March, front-line doctors around the world were spontaneously reporting miraculous results following early treatment with HCQ, and this prompted growing anxiety for Pharma. On March 13, a Michigan doctor and trader, Dr. James Todaro, M.D., tweeted his review of HCQ as an effective COVID treatment, including a link to a public Google doc.48,49 Google quietly scrubbed Dr. Todaro’s memo. This was six days before the President endorsed HCQ. Google apparently didn’t want users to think Todaro’s message was missing; rather, the Big Tech platform wanted the public to believe that Todaro’s memo never even existed. Google has a long history of suppressing information that challenges vaccine industry profits. Google’s parent company Alphabet owns several vaccine companies, including Verily, as well as Vaccitech, a company banking on flu, prostate cancer, and COVID vaccines.50,51 Google has lucrative partnerships with all the large vaccine manufacturers, including a $715 million partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.52 Verily also owns a business that tests for COVID infection.53 Google was not the only social media platform to ban content that contradicts the official HCQ narrative. Facebook, Pinterest, Instagram, YouTube, MailChimp, and virtually every other Big Tech platform began scrubbing information demonstrating HCQ’s efficacy, replacing it with industry propaganda generated by one of the Dr. Fauci/Gates-controlled public health agencies: HHS, NIH and WHO. When President Trump later suggested that Dr. Fauci was not being truthful about hydroxychloroquine, social media responded by removing his posts.
It was a March 2020 news conference where Dr. Fauci launched his concerted attack on HCQ. Asked whether HCQ might be used as a prophylaxis for COVID, he shouted back: “The answer is No, and the evidence that you’re talking about is anecdotal evidence.”54 His reliable allies at the New York Times then launched a campaign to defame Dr. Raoult.55
In the midst of a deadly pandemic, somebody very powerful wanted a medication that had been available over the counter for decades, and known to be effective against coronaviruses, to be suddenly but silently pulled from the shelves—from Canada to Zambia.
In March, at HHS’s request, several large pharmaceutical companies—Novartis, Bayer, Sanofi, and others—donated their inventory, a total of 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine and 2 million of chloroquine, to the Strategic National Stockpile, managed by BARDA, an agency under the DHHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response.56 BARDA’s Director, Dr. Rick Bright, later claimed the chloroquine drugs were deadly, and he needed to protect the American public from them.57 Bright colluded with FDA to restrict use of the donated pills to hospitalized patients. FDA publicized the authorization using language that led most physicians to believe that prescribing the drug for any purpose was off-limits.
But at the beginning of June, based on clinical trials that intentionally gave unreasonably high doses to hospitalized patients and failed to start the drug until too late, FDA took the unprecedented step of revoking HCQ’s emergency authorization,58 rendering that enormous stockpile of valuable pills off limits to Americans while conveniently indemnifying the pharmaceutical companies for their inventory losses by allowing them a tax break for the donations.
After widespread use of the drug for 65 years, without warning, FDA somehow felt the need to send out an alert on June 15, 2020 that HCQ is dangerous, and that it required a level of monitoring only available at hospitals.59 In a bit of twisted logic, Federal officials continued to encourage doctors to use the suddenly-dangerous drug without restriction for lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, Lyme and malaria. Just not for COVID. With the encouragement of Dr. Fauci and other HHS officials, many states simultaneously imposed restrictions on HCQ’s use.
The Fraudulent Industry Studies
Prior to COVID-19, not a single study had provided evidence against the use of HCQ based on safety concerns.
In response to the mounting tsunami that HCQ was safe and effective against COVID, Gates, Dr. Fauci and their Pharma allies deployed an army of industry-linked researchers to gin up contrived evidence of its dangers.
By 2020, we shall see, Bill Gates exercised firm control over WHO and deployed the agency in his effort to discredit HCQ.60
Dr. Fauci, Bill Gates, and WHO financed a cadre of research mercenaries to concoct a series of nearly twenty studies—all employing fraudulent protocols deliberately designed to discredit HCQ as unsafe. Instead of using the standard treatment dose of 400 mg/day, the 17 WHO studies administered a borderline lethal daily dose starting with 2,400 mg.61 on Day 1, and using 800 mg/day thereafter. In a cynical, sinister, and literally homicidal crusade against HCQ, a team of BMGF operatives played a key role in devising and pushing through the exceptionally high dosing. They made sure that UK government “Recovery” trials on 1,000 elderly patients in over a dozen British, Welsh, Irish and Scottish hospitals, and the U.N. “Solidarity” study of 3,500 patients in 400 hospitals in 35 countries, as well as additional sites in 13 countries (the “REMAP-COVID” trial), all used those unprecedented and dangerous doses.62 This was a brassy enterprise to “prove” chloroquine dangerous, and sure enough, it proved that elderly patients can die from deadly overdoses. “The purpose seemed, very clearly, to poison the patients and blame the deaths on HCQ,” says Dr. Meryl Nass, a physician, medical historian, and biowarfare expert.
In each of these two trials, SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY, the hydroxychloroquine arm predictably had 10–20 percent more deaths than the control arm (the control arm being those patients lucky enough to receive standard supportive care).63
The UK government and Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) jointly financed the Recovery Trial.64 The principal investigator (PI), Peter Horby, is a member of SAGE and is the chairman of NERVTAG, the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group, both important committees that give the UK government advice on mitigating the pandemic.65,66 Horby’s willingness to risk death of patients given toxic doses of HCQ fueled his subsequent rise in the UK medical hierarchy. Horby received a parade of extraordinary promotions after he orchestrated the mass poisonings of senior citizens. Queen Elizabeth recently knighted him.67
Gates’s fingerprints are all over this sanguinary project. Despite suspiciously missing pages, the published minutes of WHO’s part-secret March and April meetings show these medical alchemists establishing the lethal dosing of chloroquines (CQ and HCQ) for WHO’s Solidarity clinical trial. Only four participants attended the second WHO meeting to determine the dose of HCQ and CQ for the Solidarity trial. One was Scott Miller, the BMGF’s Senior Program Officer. The report admits that the Solidarity trial was using the highest dose of any recent trial.68
The report acknowledges that, “The BMGF developed a model of chloroquine penetration into tissues for malaria.”69 BMGF’s unique dosing model for the studies deliberately overestimated the amount of HCQ that necessary to achieve adequate lung tissue concentrations. The WHO report confesses that, “This model is however not validated.” Gates’s deadly deception allowed FDA to wrongly declare that HCQ would be ineffective at safe levels.
The minutes of that March 13, 2020 meeting suggest that BMGF knew the proper drug dosing and the need for early administration. Yet their same researchers then participated in deliberately providing a potentially lethal dose, failing to dose by weight, missing the early window during which treatment was known to be effective, and giving the drug to subjects who were already critically ill with comorbidities that made it more likely they would not tolerate the high dose. The Solidarity trial design also departed from standard protocols by collecting no safety data: only whether the patient died, or how many days they were hospitalized. Researchers collected no information on in-hospital complications. This strategy shielded the WHO from gathering information that could pin adverse reactions on the dose.
The report of WHO’s HCQ trial notes that WHO researchers did not retain any consent forms from the elderly patients they were overdosing, as the law in most countries requires, and makes the bewildering claim that some patients signed consent forms “in retrospect”—a stunning procedure that is unethical on its face. The WHO’s researchers noted in their interim report on the trial, “Consent forms were signed and retained by the patients; [An extremely unorthodox and suspicious procedure that suggests that there may have been no formal consents] but noted for record that, consent was generally prospective, but could (where locally approved) be retrospective.” One wonders if researchers notified their families of the high dose they were giving to their elderly parents and grandparents in locked COVID wards to which they denied family members access.
The researchers evinced their guilty knowledge by concealing the research records of the doses they used in Solidarity when they filed their trial reports. They also omitted dosing numbers from the report of WHO’s meeting to determine the dose, and omitted details of dosing from the WHO’s Solidarity trial registration.
Another group of researchers using overdose concentrations of chloroquine published their study as a preprint in mid-April 2020 (and quickly brought to print) in the preeminent journal, JAMA (The Journal of the American Medical Association) In this murder-for-hire scheme, Brazilian researchers used a dose of 1,200 mg/day for up to ten days of CQ.70 According to a 2020 review of CQ and HCQ toxicity, “As little as 2–3 g of chloroquine may be fatal in adult patients, though the most commonly reported lethal dose in adults is 3–4 g.” Predictably, so many subjects died in the Brazilian high dose study (39 percent, 16 of 41 of the subjects who took this dose) that the researchers had to halt the study. The subjects’ mean age was only 55.71 Their medical records revealed EKG changes characteristic of CQ toxicity.
The WHO and UK trial coordinators must have known this information, but they made no efforts to stop their own overdose trials, nor to lower the doses.
Although Gates did not fund the JAMA study directly (it’s very possible he funded it indirectly through a nebulous list of funders), the senior and last author, Marcus Vinícius Guimarães Lacerda, has been a Gates-funded researcher on numerous projects. Further, the BMGF has funded multiple projects at the same medical foundation where he and the first, or “lead” author, Borba, work in Manaus, Brazil.72 (Traditionally, the first listed author is generally seen as the senior and accountable author.)
Gates and his cabal used an arsenal of other deceptive gimmickry to assure that HCQ would appear not just deadly, but ineffective. Each of the studies that Gates funded failed to incorporate Zithromax and zinc—important components of HCQ protocols. All of the Fauci, Gates, WHO, Solidarity, Recovery and Remap-COVID studies administered HCQ at late stages of COVID infection, in contravention of the prevailing recommendations that deem HCQ effective only when doctors administer it early.73,74 Viewing this orchestrated sabotage with frustration, critics accused the Gates grantees of purposefully designing these studies, at best, to fail and, at worst, to murder.75 Brazilian prosecutors have accused the authors of the study of committing homicide by purposefully poisoning the elderly subjects in their study with high doses of chloroquine.76
All through 2020, Bill Gates and Fauci lashed out against HCQ every chance they got. During the early stages of the pandemic in March, Bill Gates penned an op-ed in The Washington Post.77 Besides calling for a complete lockdown in every state, along with accelerated testing and vaccine development, Gates warned that: “Leaders can help by not stoking rumors or panic buying. Long before the drug hydroxychloroquine was approved as an emergency treatment for COVID-19, people started hoarding it, making it hard for lupus patients who need it to survive.”78
This, of course, was a lie. The only ones hoarding HCQ were Dr. Fauci and Rick Bright, who had padlocked 63 million doses in the Strategic National Stockpile79—more than enough to supply virtually every gerontology-ward patient in America. Despite such efforts to create a shortage, none existed. HCQ is cheap, quick, and easy to manufacture, and since its patent is expired, dozens of manufacturers around the world can quickly ramp up production to meet escalating demand.
In July, Gates endorsed censorship of HCQ recommendations after a video touting its efficacy against coronavirus accumulated tens of millions of views.80 Gates called the video “outrageous,” and praised Facebook and YouTube for hastily removing it. He nevertheless complained “You can’t find it directly on those services, but everybody’s sending the link around because it’s still out there on the internet.”81 This, Gates told Yahoo News, revealed a persistent shortcoming of the platforms. “Their ability to stop things before they become widespread, they probably should have improved that,” Gates scolded.
Asked by Bloomberg News in mid-August about how the Trump White House had promoted HCQ “despite its repeatedly being shown to be ineffective and, in fact, to cause heart problems in some patients,” Gates happily responded: “This is an age of science, but sometimes it doesn’t feel that way. In the test tube, hydroxychloroquine looked good. On the other hand, there are lots of good therapeutic drugs coming that are proven to work without the severe side effects.”82 Gates went on to promote Gilead’s remdesivir as the best alternative, despite its lackluster track record compared to HCQ. He didn’t mention having a large stake in Gilead,83 which stood to make billions if Dr. Fauci was able to run remdesivir through the regulatory traps.
Obsequious reporters consistently encouraged Gates to portray himself as an objective expert, and Gates used that interview to discredit HCQ, and also me. His Bloomberg questioner opened the door with a typical softball: “For years, people have said if anti-vaxxers had lived through a pandemic, the way their grandparents did, they’d think differently.” Gates replied: “The two times I’ve been to the White House [since 2016], I was told I had to go listen to anti-vaxxers like Robert Kennedy, Jr. So, yes, it’s ironic that people are questioning vaccines and we’re actually having to say, ‘Oh, my God, how else can you get out of a tragic pandemic?’”84
If he had only asked me, I could have told him!
It remains an enduring mystery just which powerful figure(s) caused the world’s two most prestigious scientific journals, The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM), to publish overtly fraudulent studies from a nonexistent database owned by a previously unknown company. Anthony Fauci and the vaccine cartel celebrated the Lancet and NEJM papers on May 22, 2020 as the final nail in hydroxychloroquine’s coffin.85,86
Both studies in these respected publications relied on data from the Surgisphere Corporation, an obscure Illinois-based “medical education” company that claimed to somehow control an extraordinary global database boasting access to medical information from 96,000 patients in more than 600 hospitals.87 Founded in 2008, this sketchy enterprise had eleven employees, including a middling science fiction writer and a porn star/events hostess. Surgisphere claimed to have analyzed data from six continents and hundreds of hospitals that had treated patients with HCQ or CQ in real time. Someone persuaded the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine to publish two Surgisphere studies in separate articles on May 1 and 22. Like the other Gates-supported studies, the Lancet article portrayed HCQ as ineffective and dangerous. The Lancet study said that the Surgisphere data proved that HCQ increased cardiac mortality in COVID-19 patients. Based on this study, the FDA withdrew its EUA recommendation on June 15, 2020,88 the WHO and UK suspended their hydroxychloroquine clinical trials on May 25.89 Each resumed briefly, then stopped for good in June declaring HCQ unhelpful.90 Three European nations immediately banned use of HCQ, and others followed within weeks.91
That would normally have been the end of it, if not for the 200 independent scientists who quickly exposed the Lancet and NEJM studies as shockingly clumsy con jobs.92 The Surgisphere datasets that formed the foundation of the studies were so ridiculously erroneous that they could only have been a rank invention. To cite only one of many discrepancies, the number of reported deaths among patients taking hydroxychloroquine in one Australian hospital exceeded the total number of deaths for the entire country. An international brouhaha quickly revealed that the Surgisphere database did not exist, and soon enough, Surgisphere itself vanished from the Internet. The University of Utah terminated the faculty appointment of one of the article’s authors, Amit Patel. Surgisphere’s founder, Sapan S. Desai, disappeared from his job at a Chicago hospital.
Even the New York Times reported that “More than 100 scientists and clinicians have questioned the authenticity” of the database, as well as the study’s integrity.93 Despite the barrage of astonished criticism, the Lancet held firm for two weeks before relenting to the remonstrances. Finally, three of the four Lancet coauthors requested the paper be retracted. Both The Lancet and NEJM finally withdrew their studies in shame. Somebody at the very pinnacle of the medical cartel had twisted arms, kicked groins, and stoved in kneecaps to force these periodicals to abandon their policies, shred their ethics, and spend down their centuries of hard-won credibility in a desperate bid to torpedo HCQ. To date, neither the authors nor the journals have explained who induced them to coauthor and publish the most momentous fraud in the history of scientific publishing.
The headline of a comprehensive exposé in The Guardian expressed the global shock among the scientific community at the rank corruption by scientific publishing’s most formidable pillars: “The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen?”94 The Guardian writers openly accused The Lancet of promoting fraud: “The sheer number and magnitude of the things that went wrong or missing are too enormous to attribute to mere incompetence.” The Guardian commented, “What’s incredible is that the editors of these esteemed journals still have a job—that is how utterly incredible the supposed data underlying the studies was.”
The capacity of their Pharma overlords to strong-arm the world’s top two medical journals, the NEJM and The Lancet, into condoning deadly research95,96 and to simultaneously publish blatantly fraudulent articles in the middle of a pandemic, attests to the cartel’s breathtaking power and ruthlessness. It is no longer controversial to acknowledge that drug makers rigorously control medical publishing and that The Lancet, NEJM, and JAMA are utterly corrupted instruments of Pharma. The Lancet editor, Richard Horton, confirms, “Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry.”97 Dr. Marcia Angell, who served as an NEJM editor for 20 years, says journals are “primarily a marketing machine.”98 Pharma, she says, has co-opted “every institution that might stand in its way.”99,100
Cracking Down on HCQ to Keep Case Fatalities High
Referring to the Lancet Surgisphere study during a May 27 CNN interview, Dr. Fauci stated on CNN about hydroxychloroquine, “The scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy.”101 And even after the scandal lay exposed and the journals retracted their articles, Dr. Fauci let his lie stand. Instead of launching an investigation of this momentous and enormously consequential fraud by the world’s two leading medical journals and publicly apologizing, Dr. Fauci and the medical establishment simply ignored the wrongful conduct and persevered in their plan to deny global populations access to lifesaving HCQ.
The historic journal retractions went practically unnoticed in the slavish, scientifically illiterate mainstream press, which persisted in fortifying the COVID propaganda. Headlines continued to blame HCQ for the deaths instead of the deliberately treacherous researchers who gave sick, elderly, and compromised patients toxic drug dosages. And most remarkable of all, the FDA made no effort to change the recommendation it made against HCQ. Other countries persisted in demonizing the life-saving drug.
Once the FDA approves a prescription medication, federal laws allow any US physician to prescribe the duly approved drug for any reason. Twenty-one percent of all prescriptions written by American doctors, exercising their medical judgment, are for off-label uses.102
Even after the FDA withdrew its Emergency Use Authorization and posted the fraudulent warning on its website,103 many front-line doctors across the country continued to prescribe and report strong benefits with appropriate doses of HCQ. In response, Dr. Fauci took even more unprecedented steps to derail doctors from prescribing HCQ.
In March, while people were dying at the rate of 10,000 patients a week, Dr. Fauci declared that hydroxychloroquine should only be used as part of a clinical trial.104 For the first time in American history, a government official was overruling the medical judgment of thousands of treating physicians, and ordering doctors to stop practicing medicine as they saw fit. Boldly and relentlessly, Dr. Fauci kept declaring that “The Overwhelming Evidence of Properly Conducted Randomized Clinical Trials Indicate No Therapeutic Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ).”105 Dr. Fauci failed to disclose that NONE of the trials he had used as the basis for that pronouncement involved medication given in the first five to seven days after onset of symptoms. Instead, all of those randomized controlled trials targeted patients who were already sick enough to be hospitalized.
People wanting to be treated in that first critical week of illness and avoid being hospitalized were basically out of luck as Dr. Fauci moved to foreclose patients from receiving the lifesaving remedy during the treatment window when science and previous experience showed it to be effective.
On July 2, following the humiliating journal retractions, Detroit’s Henry Ford Health System published a peer-reviewed study showing that hydroxychloroquine significantly cut death rates even in mid-to-late COVID cases, and without any heartrelated side effects.106 Fauci leapt to the barricades to rescue his vaccine enterprise. On July 30, he testified before Congress that the Michigan results were “flawed.”107
The FDA revocation of the EUA and Dr. Fauci’s withering response to the Michigan trial provided cover for 33 governors whose states moved to restrict prescribing or dispensing of HCQ.108
In New York, Governor Andrew Cuomo drove up record death counts by ordering that physicians prescribe HCQ only for hospitalized patients.109 In Nevada, Governor Steven Sisolak prohibited both prescribing and dispensing chloroquine drugs for COVID-19.110 State medical licensing boards threatened to bring “unprofessional conduct” charges against non-complying doctors (a threat to their license) and to “sanction” doctors if they prescribed the drug.111 Most pharmacists were afraid to dispense HCQ, and on June 15, state pharmacy boards in Arizona, Arkansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New York, Oregon, and Rhode Island began refusing orders from physicians and retailers.112 Hospitals commanded doctors to cease treating their patients with HCQ beginning June 15, 2020.113 The NIAID halted a clinical trial of the drug in outpatients, in June 2020, only a month after it started, having enrolled only 20 of the planned 2,000 enrollees.114 The FDA blocked access to the millions of doses of HCQ and CQ that Sanofi and other drug makers had donated to the Strategic National Stockpile (with appropriate tax benefits).115 Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use treating COVID. Dr. Fauci and his HHS cronies decreed that the medication rot in warehouses while Americans unnecessarily sickened and died from COVID-19.
On June 17, the WHO—for which Mr. Gates is the largest funder after the US, and over which Mr. Gates and Dr. Fauci exercise tight control—called for the halt of HCQ trials in hundreds of hospitals across the world.116 WHO Chief Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus ordered nations to stop using HCQ and CQ. Portugal, France, Italy, and Belgium banned HCQ for COVID-19 treatment.117
In compliance with the WHO recommendation, Switzerland banned the use of HCQ; however, about 2 weeks into the ban, Switzerland’s death rates tripled, for about 15 days, until Switzerland reintroduced HCQ. COVID deaths then fell back to their baseline.118 Switzerland’s “natural experiment” had provided yet another potent argument for HCQ.
Similarly, Panamanian physician and government advisor Sanchez Cardenas notes that when Panama banned HCQ, deaths shot up, until the government relented, at which point deaths dropped back to baseline.119
Seven months into the pandemic, nations that widely used HCQ and made it readily available to their citizens demonstrated overwhelming evidence that HCQ was obliterating COVID-19.
A June 2, 2020 court filing supporting the use of HCQ for COVID included an Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS) comparison of national death rates among countries with varying policies governing access to HCQ. Many countries with underdeveloped health care systems were using HCQ early and achieving far lower mortalities than in the United States, where HHS and the FDA impede access to HCQ.120 AAPS General Counsel Andrew Schlafly observed that “Citizens of the Philippines, Poland, Israel, and Turkey all have greater access to HCQ than American citizens do,” and they have superior morbidity outcomes. He added, “In Venezuela, HCQ is available over the counter without a prescription, while in the United States, pharmacists are prevented from filling prescriptions for HCQ.”121
Other foreign studies support strong claims for HCQ. A study by Nova demonstrated that nations using HCQ have death rates 80 percent lower than those that banned it.122
A meta-review of 58 peer-reviewed observational studies by physician researchers in Spain, Italy, France, and Saudi Arabia found that hydroxychloroquine dramatically reduced mortality from COVID, while additional articles by doctors in Turkey, Canada, and the US found that HCQ’s cardiac toxicity is negligible. (See c19study.com for a compilation of 99 (58 peer-reviewed) studies of the chloroquine drugs in COVID-19.)123
Furthermore, mortality and morbidity data from over six dozen nations indicate a strong relationship between access to HCQ and COVID-19 death rates.124,125 While such a relationship does not prove cause/effect, it would be lunacy to simply ignore the reality and assume no relationship.
Country by country, data consistently links broader access to HCQ to lower mortality. The very poorest countries—if they used HCQ—had far lower case fatality rates than wealthy countries that did not. Even impoverished African nations, where “experts” like Bill Gates predicted the highest death rates, had drastically lower mortalities than in nations that banned HCQ. Senegal and Nigeria, for example, both use hydroxychloroquine and had COVID fatality rates that were significantly lower than those experienced in the United States.126
Similarly, despite the fact that hygiene in those countries is often far inferior, in Ethiopia,127 Mozambique,128 Niger,129 Congo,130 and Ivory Coast,131 there are far fewer per capita deaths than in the US. In those nations, death rates vary between 8 and 47.2 deaths per million inhabitants as of September 24, 2021. In contrast, western countries that denied access to HCQ experienced numbers of coronavirus deaths per million inhabitants between 220 per million in Holland,132 2,000 per million in the US, and 850 deaths per million in Belgium.133 Dr. Meryl Nass observed, “If people in these malaria countries would boost their immune system with zinc, vitamin C and vitamin D, the coronavirus death toll would even further decrease.”
Similarly, Bangladesh CFR, Senegal, Pakistan, Serbia, Nigeria, Turkey, and Ukraine all allow unrestricted use of HCQ and all have miniscule case fatality rates compared to the countries that ban HCQ.134 Wealthier democracies or countries with especially restrictive HCQ protocols—Ireland, Canada, Spain, the Netherlands, UK, Belgium, and France—are comparatively deadly environments.
Andrew Schlafly observed that, “The mortality rate from COVID-19 in countries that allow access to HCQ is only one-tenth the mortality rate in countries where there is interference with this medication, such as the United States. . . . In some areas of Central America, officials are even going door to door to distribute HCQ. . . . These countries have been successful in limiting the mortality from COVID-19 to only a fraction of what it is in wealthier countries.”135
As the industry/government cartel ramped up its campaign to keep HCQ from the masses, many doctors fought back. On July 23, Yale virologist Dr. Harvey Risch persisted, this time with a Newsweek article titled “The key to defeating COVID-19 already exists. We need to start using it.”136 Dr. Risch beseeched the authorities: HCQ saves lives and its use could quickly end the pandemic. By then, Dr. Risch had updated his rigorous analysis of the early treatment of COVID-19 with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and azithromycin. He now cited twelve clinical studies suggesting that the early administration of HCQ could lower death rates by 50 percent. In that case, COVID-19 would have a lower case fatality rate than the seasonal influenza. “We would still have had a pandemic,” Harvey Risch told me, “but we wouldn’t have had the carnage.”
Noting more than fifty HCQ studies, Dr. Meryl Nass, in June 2020, supported Risch’s calculation: “If people were treated prophylactically with this drug (using only 2 tablets weekly) as is done in some areas and some occupational groups in India, there would probably be at least 50 percent fewer cases after exposure.”137 Stopping the pandemic in its tracks seemed to be the last thing Tony Fauci wanted. Thanks to Dr. Fauci, most US states had by then banned treatment with HCQ, including Dr. Nass’s home state of Maine, which banned it for prophylaxis, but did allow it for acute treatment. Dr. Nass suggested that the “acts to suppress the use of HCQ [were] carefully orchestrated” and that “these events [might] have been planned to keep the pandemic going to sell expensive drugs and vaccines to a captive population.”138
In the same article by Dr. Meryl Nass, published on June 27, 2020,139 Nass—who has extensively studied HCQ—pointed out that with prophylactic treatment with HCQ “at the onset of their illness, over 99 percent would quickly resolve the infection, avoiding progression to the late-stage disease characterized by cytokine storm, thrombophilia, and organ failure. Despite claims to the contrary, this treatment is very safe, yet outpatient treatment is banned in the United States.”
Beginning June 27, 2020, Dr. Nass began a list of deceptive strategies that the Fauci/Pharma/Gates cartel used to control the narrative on hydroxychloroquine and deny Americans access to this effective remedy. The list has grown to 58 separate strategies.140 “It is remarkable,” she observed, how “a large series of events taking place over the past months produced a unified message about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and produced similar policies about the drug in the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand and western Europe. The message is that generic, inexpensive hydroxychloroquine (costing only $1.00 to produce a full course) is dangerous.”141
Dr. Fauci’s Hypocritical HCQ Games
In his early AIDS days, Dr. Fauci had thrashed FDA as inhumane for demanding randomized double-blind placebo studies at the height of the pandemic. Now, here he was doing what he had condemned by blocking an effective treatment simply because it would compete with his expensive patent-protected pharmaceutical, remdesivir, and vaccines.
* * *
Dr. Fauci repeatedly insisted he would not allow HCQ for COVID-19 until its efficacy is proven in “randomized, double-blind placebo studies.”142 Dr. Risch calls this position a “transparent sham.” Dr. Fauci knew that neither industry nor its PI’s would ever sponsor trials for a product with expired patents. It’s noteworthy that while Dr. Fauci was bemoaning the lack of evidence of HCQ efficacy, he was refusing to commission his own trials to study early use of the hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax remedy. Dr. Fauci himself, while spending 48 billion dollars on zero-liability vaccines, at first refused to allocate anything for a randomized placebo study of HCQ. Even worse, he cancelled two NIAID-sponsored trials of outpatient HCQ before completion.143
Dr. Fauci’s hypocrisy about HCQ is evident to anyone who looks at his vacillating pronouncements throughout his long career. He has persistently insisted on double-blind randomized placebo trials for medicines he dislikes (those that compete with his patented remedies) and airily fixed the NIAID study of remdesivir by changing the endpoints midstream to favor the drug. Dr. Fauci did not sponsor or encourage randomized trials for masks, lockdowns, or social distancing. And in the decades since he took over NIAID, he has never demanded randomized studies to confirm safety of the combined 69 vaccine doses currently on the childhood schedule. Every one of these vaccines is regarded as so “unavoidably unsafe”—in the words of the 1986 Vaccine Act (NCVIA) and the Supreme Court—that their manufacturers have demanded—and received—immunity from liability.
During a 2013 USA Today interview, Dr. Fauci discussed remedies for another deadly coronavirus, MERS, which was causing an outbreak in Qatar and Saudi Arabia with over 30 percent mortality.144 Dr. Fauci then sang an entirely different tune than he is singing now about hydroxychloroquine. He suggested using a combination of the antiviral drugs ribavirin and interferon-alpha 2b to treat MERS, even though the treatment had never been tested for safety or effectiveness against MERS in humans. In that circumstance, Dr. Fauci’s NIAID had found that the treatment could stop MERS virus from reproducing in lab-grown cells. And, oh yes, NIAID had patented it.145
“We don’t have to start designing new drugs,” Dr. Fauci told journalists.146 “The next time someone comes into an emergency room in Qatar or Saudi Arabia, you would have drugs that are readily available. And at least you would have some data.”147 Even though the treatment hadn’t gone through any trials, Dr. Fauci urged its compassionate use: “If I were a physician in a hospital and someone were dying, rather than do nothing, you can see if these work.”148
He played by all-new rules when it came to COVID, forcing doctors to stand on the sidelines while patients died and prohibiting them from trying combinations of repurposed therapeutics to “see if these work.”149 Back in 2013, when Dr. Fauci endorsed Ribavirin/Interferon for use against MERS, the two-punch hepatitis C remedy was, according to NIH, horrendously dangerous, with harms occurring in literally every patient who took the concoction. It causes hemolytic anemia chronic fatigue syndrome, and a retinue of birth defects and/or death of unborn children. Ribavirin is genotoxic, mutagenic, and a potential carcinogen.150
Nevertheless, in 2013, Dr. Fauci advocated the therapy, despite the total lack of randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials, in fact, the lack of any human data on using the combination against MERS.
The COVID vaccines that qualified for Emergency Use Authorization include novel platforms like mRNA and DNA with no known safety profile. Others use toxic adjuvants like squalene and aluminum or novel adjuvants, with proven risks and potentially high rates of serious injuries. The two-month randomized clinical trials that justified the EUAs for COVID vaccines were far too brief to detect injuries with longer incubation periods.151,152,153 The vaccines are so risky that the insurance industry has refused to underwrite them,154 and the manufacturers refuse to produce them without blanket immunity from liability.155 Bill Gates, who is the principal investor in many of these new COVID vaccines, stipulated that their risk is so great that he would not provide them to people unless every government shielded him from lawsuits.156
Why then should HCQ be the only remedy required to cross this artificially high hurdle? After all, HCQ is less in need of randomized placebo studies than any of these vaccines or remdesivir; the safety of HCQ has been established over more than six decades. While vaccines are given to healthy people who face small risk of catching the disease, HCQ is administered to people who are actually sick, with virtually no risk to the patient. If a drug is safe and might work, if people are dying and there are no other good options, must we not try it?
Dr. Fauci’s on-again-off-again interest in drug safety is situational and self-interested. He claimed on July 31 about HCQ that “If that randomized placebo-controlled trial shows efficacy, I would be the first to admit it and to promote it, but I have not… So I just have to go with the data. I don’t have any horse in the game one way or the other; I just look at the data.”157
In fact, Dr. Fauci always had a stable of horses in the game. One of them is remdesivir, even after the WHO’s randomized placebo trial showed remdesivir ineffective against COVID.158 Furthermore, remdesivir has a catastrophic safety profile.159
His second nag is the Moderna vaccine, in which he invested years and six billion taxpayer dollars. He was thrilled to sponsor a human trial of a Moderna COVID vaccine (partly owned by his agency), before there were any safety and efficacy data from animal studies, which goes against FDA regulations. He then pushed for hundreds of millions of people to get EUA vaccines before the randomized placebo-controlled trials were complete. So much for Dr. Fauci’s requirement for having high-quality evidence before risking use of drugs and vaccines in humans.
Dr. Fauci’s ethical flip-flopping about the need for rigid safety testing is particularly troubling since he is championing a competitive product from which his agency and his employees expect a lucrative financial outcome.
In the midst of a pandemic, with hundreds of thousands of deaths attributed to COVID, and the economy in free fall, Dr. Fauci’s suggestion that we withhold promising treatments that have an established safety profile—from patients who have a potentially lethal disease—pending the completion of randomized controlled clinical trials, is highly manipulative and utterly unethical. It is not medically ethical to allow a COVID-19 patient to deteriorate in the early stages of the infection when there is an inexpensive, safe, and demonstrably effective HCQ treatment that CDC’s and NIAID’s own studies show blocks coronavirus replication. It would be equally unethical to enroll sick individuals in such studies—as Dr. Fauci proposes—in which half the infected patients would receive a placebo.
Dr. Fauci’s hypocrisy is particularly acute since the 21st Century Cures Act, which Congress passed in 2016, directs the FDA to accept precisely the type of “real world” evidence reported by treating physicians like Drs. Zelenko, Raoult, Risch, Kory, McCullough, Gold, and Chinese doctors, in lieu of controlled clinical trials, for licensing new products.160
The Cures Act161 recognizes that doctors and scientists can obtain very useful information when treating patients and observing the results outside of a formal trial setting.
For Big Pharma, no milestone was more important during the current pandemic than neutralizing HCQ to prevent its widespread beneficial use.
Dr. Fauci’s shocking inconsistency and ethical breaches are congruent with his long history of promoting Big Pharma’s more profitable patented products and using his power and influence to advance its agenda without regard to public health. Dr. Fauci’s leadership role in this deadly scandal is consistent with his long history of discrediting therapies that compete with vaccines and other patented pharmaceutical products.
Thanks to Dr. Fauci’s strategic campaign, most Americans are still unable to obtain HCQ for early treatment of COVID-19, even fewer Americans are able to access it as preventive medicine, and fewer still are aware of its benefits.
His bizarre and inexplicable actions give credence to the suspicions held by many Americans that Dr. Fauci is working to prolong the epidemic in order to impose expensive patented drugs and vaccines on a captive population, during a pandemic that has crashed the world economy, caused famines, and destroyed lives. While Dr. Fauci held us hostage waiting for what turned out to be imperfect vaccines, his own agency attributed over half a million deaths in America to COVID.
Professor Risch believes that Dr. Fauci knowingly lied about the drug hydroxychloroquine and used his influence to get the FDA to suppress it because he and other bureaucrats are “in bed with other forces that are causing them to make decisions that are not based on the science [and are] killing Americans.”162
Moreover, Dr. Risch specifically claims that Fauci and the FDA have caused “the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans who could have been saved by” HCQ.163
By the summer of 2020, front-line physicians had discovered another COVID remedy that equalled HCQ in its staggering, life-saving efficacy.
Five years earlier, two Merck scientists won the Nobel Prize for developing ivermectin (IVM), a drug with unprecedented firepower against a wide range of human parasites, including roundworm, hookworm, river blindness, and lymphatic filariasis.1 That salute was the Nobel Committee’s only award to an infectious disease medication in 60 years. FDA approved IVM as safe and effective for human use in 1996. WHO includes IVM (along with HCQ) on its inventory of “essential medicines”—its list of remedies so necessary, safe, efficacious, and affordable that WHO deems easy access to them as essential “to satisfy the priority health care needs of the population.”2 WHO has recommended administering ivermectin to entire populations to treat people who might have parasitic infections—meaning they consider it safe enough to give to people who haven’t even been diagnosed.3 Millions of people have consumed billions of IVM doses as an anti-parasitic, with minimal side effects. Ivermectin’s package insert suggests that it is at least as safe as the most popular over-the-counter medications, including Tylenol and aspirin.
Researchers at Japan’s Kitasato Institute published a 2011 paper describing IVM in terms almost never used for any other drug:
There are few drugs that can seriously lay claim to the title of “Wonder drug,” penicillin and aspirin being two that have perhaps had greatest beneficial impact on the health and wellbeing of Mankind. But ivermectin can also be considered alongside those worthy contenders, based on its versatility, safety, and the beneficial impact that it has had, and continues to have, worldwide—especially on hundreds of millions of the world’s poorest people.4
Three statues—at the Carter Center, at the headquarters of the World Bank, and at the headquarters of the World Health Organization—honor the development of ivermectin.
Because since 2012, multiple in-vitro studies have demonstrated that IVM inhibits the replication of a wide range of viruses. Nature Magazine published a 2020 study reviewing 50 years of research finding IVM “highly effective against microorganisms including some viruses,” and reporting the results in animal studies demonstrating “antiviral effects of ivermectin in viruses such as Zika, dengue, yellow fever, West Nile . . .”5
An April 3, 2020 article entitled “Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours,”6 by Australian researchers at Monash and Melbourne Universities and the Royal Melbourne Hospital, first won IVM global attention as a potential treatment for COVID. The international press initially raved that this safe, inexpensive, well-known, and readily available drug had demolished SARS-CoV-2 in cell cultures. “We found that even a single dose could essentially remove all viral RNA by 48 hours and that even at 24 hours there was a really significant reduction in it,” said lead researcher Dr. Kylie Wagstaff.7 Based on this study, on May 8, 2020, Peru—then under siege by a crushing COVID endemic— adopted ivermectin in its national guidelines. “Peruvian doctors already knew the medicine, widely prescribed it for parasites, and health authorities knew it was safe and were comfortable with it,” recalls Dr. Pierre Kory. COVID deaths dropped precipitously—by 14-fold—in the regions where the Peruvian government effectively distributed ivermectin. Reductions in deaths correlated with the extent of IVM distributions in all 25 states. In December 2020, Peru’s new president, under pressure from WHO, severely restricted IVM availability and COVID cases rebounded with deaths increasing 13-fold.8
In prophylaxis studies, ivermectin repeatedly demonstrated far greater efficacy against COVID than vaccines at a fraction of the cost.
In Argentina, for example, in the summer of 2020, Dr. Hector Carvallo conducted a randomized placebo-controlled trial of ivermectin as a preventative, finding 100 percent efficacy against COVID. Carvallo’s team found no infections among the 788 workers who took weekly ivermectin prophylaxis, whereas 58 percent of the 407 controls had become ill with COVID-19.9
A later observational study10 from Bangladesh—also investigating ivermectin as a pre-exposure prophylaxis against COVID-19 among health care workers—found nearly as spectacular results: only four of the 58 volunteers who took a minimal dose of ivermectin (12 mg once per month for four months) developed mild COVID-19 symptoms, compared to 44 of the 60 health care workers who had declined the medication.
Furthermore, a 2021 study suggested that a key biological mechanism of IVM— competitive binding with SARS-CoV-2 spike protein—was not specific to any coronavirus variant and therefore, unlike vaccines, ivermectin would probably be effective against all future variants.11
As early as March 1, 2020, some front-line ICU and ER doctors began using ivermectin in combination with HCQ in early treatment protocols. Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter,12 a Belgian physician working in Miami, began using the drug March 15 and immediately saw an uptick in recoveries. He published an excellent paper on June 9. Meanwhile, two Western physicians using ivermectin in Bangladesh also reported a very high rate of recoveries, even among patients in later states of illness.13
Since March 2020, when doctors first used IVM against COVID-19, more than 20 randomized clinical trials (RCTs) have confirmed its miraculous efficacy against COVID for both inpatient and outpatient treatment. Six of seven meta-analyses of IVM treatment RCTs completed in 2021 found notable reductions in COVID-19 mortality. The relevant studies “all showed significant benefit for high-risk outpatients,” says the eminent Yale epidemiologist Dr. Harvey Risch. The only studies where its performance was anything short of stellar were those that investigated its efficacy in patients in very late stages of COVID.
But even late-stage patients showed benefits in almost all studies, although somewhat less dramatic. According to a 2020 review by McCullough et al., “Numerous clinical studies—including peer-reviewed randomized controlled trials—showed large magnitude benefits of ivermectin in prophylaxis, early treatment, and also in late-stage disease management. Taken together . . . dozens of clinical trials that have now emerged from around the world are substantial enough to reliably assess clinical efficacy and infer a signal of benefit with acceptable safety.”14
Early in January 2021, Dr. David Chesler, a geriatric specialist who had treated 191 infected patients since the previous spring at seven Virginia nursing homes, wrote to Dr. Fauci claiming that he had achieved a mortality rate of 8 percent using ivermectin—half (and 146,000 deaths less than) the US average in elder-care facilities. In his letter to Dr. Fauci, Chesler attached a peer-reviewed case study documenting reports of similar efficacy from other countries. Neither Dr. Fauci nor anyone else from NIAID replied to Dr. Chesler’s letter.15
The Annals of Dermatology and Venereology reported that in a French nursing home, all 69 residents—average age 90—and 52 staff survived a COVID-19 outbreak.16,17 As it turns out, they had all taken ivermectin for a scabies infestation. COVID decimated the surrounding community, but only seven elder home residents and four staff were affected, and all had mild illness. None required oxygen or hospitalization.
Research suggests that ivermectin may work through as many as 20 separate mechanisms. Among them, ivermectin functions as an “ionophore,” facilitating transfer of zinc into the cells, which inhibits viral replication. Ivermectin stops replication of COVID-19, seasonal flu, and many other viruses through this and other mechanisms. For example, a March 2021 study18 by Choudhury et al., found that “Ivermectin was found as a blocker of viral replicase, protease and human TMPRSS2, which could be the biophysical basis behind its antiviral efficiency.” The drug also reduces inflammation via multiple pathways, thereby protecting against organ damage. Ivermectin furthermore impairs the spike protein’s ability to attach to the ACE2 receptor on human cell membranes, preventing viral entry. Moreover, the drug prevents blood clots through binding to spike protein, and also deters the spike protein from binding to CD147 on red blood cells, which would otherwise trigger clumping. When patients take IVM before exposure, the drug prevents infection, which halts onward transmission, and helps protect the entire community.
In March, 2021, a published study by Peter McCullough and 57 other front-line physicians from multiple countries found that “Our early ambulatory treatment regimen was associated with estimated 87.6 percent and 74.9 percent reductions in hospitalization and death.”19
Many other studies echo Dr. McCullough’s results. The average reduction in mortality, based on 18 trials, is 75 percent,20according to a January 2021 meta-analysis presentation to the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. A WHO-sponsored meta-review21 of 11 studies likewise suggests ivermectin can reduce COVID-19 mortality by as much as 83 percent. Below is a compilation of seven meta-analyses looking at ivermectin’s effect on mortality. Each one found a large benefit, ranging between 57 percent and 83 percent reduction in deaths:
Below is a compilation of the studies of ivermectin for COVID prevention. On average, used prophylactically, ivermectin prevented 86 percent of the adverse outcomes. Over all these studies, ivermectin protected 6 of every 7 people who used it to prevent COVID.
And of 29 studies of early treatment of COVID using ivermectin, listed on opposite page, the average benefit was 66 percent. The 3 tables presented here and their adjacent forest plots can be found on the ivmmeta.org website. They are part of a much larger website that has compiled all completed, validated studies for each of 27 different treatments for COVID-19, at c19study.com.
A January 2021 study in The Lancet found that ivermectin dramatically reduced the intensity and duration of symptoms and viral loading.22
In March 2020, Dr. Paul Marik, chief of intensive care medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, began posting treatment guidelines for the care of COVID patients. Dr. Marik, one of the best known and well-published professors of intensive care medicine, recruited a team of the most highly respected and most published leading ICU physicians from across the globe to systematically research all possible approaches to this new virus. Soon, his organization, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC), created a website and posted their first treatment protocols in mid-April 2020. By November 2020, the FLCCC doctors felt there was enough evidence to add ivermectin to their protocols.23 “The data show the ability of the drug ivermectin to prevent COVID-19, to keep those with early symptoms from progressing to the hyper-inflammatory phase of the disease, and even to help critically ill patients recover.”24 Peer-reviewers green-lighted the clinical and scientific rationale for FLCCC’s hospital protocols, and the Journal of Intensive Care Medicine published them in mid-December 2020.25 FLCCC also published on its website a one-page summary (regularly updated) of the clinical trial evidence for ivermectin.26
In December 2020, FLCCC President and Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, testified to the benefits of ivermectin before a number of COVID-19 panels, including the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.27 In riveting testimony, Kory described:
Six studies with a total of over 2,400 patients—all showing near-perfect prevention of transmission of this virus in people exposed to COVID-19 . . . Three RCT’s randomized controlled studies and multiple large case series—involving over 3,000 patients showing stunning recovery among hospitalized patients and four large randomized controlled trials involving 3,000 patients all showing large and statistically significant reductions in mortality when treated with ivermectin.
Two weeks later, on January 6, 2021, Dr. Kory spoke to the National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel.28 Along with Éminence grise Dr. Paul Marik, and other members of the Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance also presented positive data on ivermectin, as did the WHO’s meta-analysis author, Dr. Andrew Hill who they had invited to present with them.
The Financial Times followed with an article citing Hill’s research for the WHO at the University of Liverpool. Hill’s meta-analysis of six ivermectin studies showed a cumulative 75 percent reduction of risk of death in a subset of moderate to severe COVID-19 patients, in whom the drug reduced inflammation and sped up elimination of the virus.29