Early Treatment Coverup

Nov 28, 2022

^Dr. Andrew Hill hemming & hawing about his roll in the ivermectin coverup

Using known safe agents for experimental purposes as a priority has always been an established ethical medical practice and is known as “off-label prescribing.” By December, 2020, we had clear and convincing evidence that early treatment was working to reduce hospitalization and death. Known safe agents useful as effective early treatment of C19 have been available almost from the beginning of the pandemic, and 90% of fatalities could’ve been prevented had doctors not been blocked from using them—this includes hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin, fluvoxamine, steroids, antihistamines, nasal rinses, vitamin D, [2], sweet wormwood (artemisin), curcumin, and more. (There is no question that senior advisors to a range of governments knew that zinc ionophores—compounds which open channels to allow certain dissolved minerals to cross cell membranes—were useful in severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) in 2003 and should be expected also to be therapeutically useful in SARS-CoV-2 infection.)

Keep in mind there can be no legal enforcement of an EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for an experimental medical treatment (the C19 “vaccines”) if any early treatment is known and available. The EUA shields pharmaceutical companies from liability for the millions of injuries and tens of thousands of deaths that have been reported since the rollout, which is why Big Pharma pulled out all the stops to suppress the truth of early treatment. And without bothering to research a single one of the many (hundreds now) studies proving otherwise, Americans just shrugged their shoulders and let them.

Hydroxychloroquine

Four weeks after SARS-CoV-2 had been formerly identified and long before most were even aware of a brewing pandemic, a research team from China had already submitted a study to Nature showing “Hydroxychloroquine can efficiently inhibit SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro.” Four weeks later, a study in France was ready and registered, and by the 18th of March 2020, they had results showing that as time went on, C19 patients taking hydroxychloroquine therapy were recovering significantly faster. All over the world, dozens of studies were rolling in that showed hydroxychloroquine was effective. So our governments and Big Pharma already knew of options for treating C19 before it appeared, but instead of immediately trying these already identified, safe, cheap, and available repurposed drugs, and offering early treatments, they did everything they could to smear them (including publishing fraudulent studies) and stop people obtaining the chloroquine drugs.

Switzerland banned it for 2 weeks but when their death rates tripled they started using it again (and their death rates immediately dropped to baseline). The exact same thing happened in Panama. A study by Nova demonstrated that nations using HCQ have death rates 80% lower than those that banned it. In 2023, a French study of 30,423 COVID-19 patients showed that HCQ + azithromycin consistently reduced the risk of hospitalization and death, and that if hospitalized, those pre-treated with HCQ+AZM at home had a greater chance of survival. Other studies show it as one tenth the rate of nations not using HCQ. In October, 2021, Nebraska Attorney General protected doctors and pharmacists in Nebraska from their Boards, explicitly allowing them to prescribe HCQ and IVM. His opinion is a tour de force, which goes into detail about why the CDC, FDA and NIH guidelines are contradictory, unscientific and should not be followed.

Ivermectin

The story behind Ivermectin is similar (see links below for more extensive details). In short, Dr. Andrew Hill was hired by a Bill Gates funded non-profit (Unitaid) to investigate the effectiveness of Ivermectin against C19. His study was extremely positive, but at the last minute the paper’s conclusions were altered (not the “results" of the paper, but the “conclusions”) to state that “more RCT studies are needed,” effectively preventing the widespread use of ivermectin during the peak of the pandemic. Pressed by Dr. Tess Lawrie as to why his conclusions defied his own findings, he admitted to intentionally altering his paper to obscure the fact that ivermectin can reduce C19 fatalities by up to 80%. He said his sponsors had final say in the paper’s conclusions and that they had revised his paper, after the fact, to hide ivermectin’s effectiveness. Dr. Hill refused to state why he wouldn’t go public with the situation (a clear cut case of scientific fraud), but within a week he received a separate $40M research grant by Unitaid, quite likely to buy his silence. Because this is what corruption looks like.

Meanwhile, well over 100 non-pharma funded studies have proven the effectiveness of ivermectin against C19, while pharma funded studies supposedly showing the opposite are repeatedly proven to be severely biased, designed to fail, and full of contradictory & manipulated data and design protocol changes. (The TOGETHER Trial has been called by Dr. Pierre Kory, “the most fraudulent trial in history.") They’ve been fully debunked by numerous physician leaders and science experts. Mainstream media hasn’t covered a word of it (though there’s this). Furthermore, the notion that Ivermectin overdoses are common or that they happen at all has been fully discredited.

A number of countries—Bangladesh, Itajai, Brazil, Pakistan, Indonesia, Japan, and Uttar Pradesh, India—went against the instructions of the WHO and mandated the prophylactic usage of Ivermectin. All of them, Uttar Pradesh in particular, have almost completely eradicated C19. In fact the Indian Bar Association of Mumbai has brought criminal charges (for crimes against humanity) against WHO Chief Scientist Dr. Soumya Swaminathan for ignoring the established science behind Ivermectin and recommending against its use. Meanwhile the FDA was guilty of exactly the same. (As of this writing there are at least 88 controlled trials and 33 randomized controlled trials showing an 80% positive benefit for ivermectin against C19 infection.)

In mid-2022, PRINCIPLE, a large, Oxford-led randomized platform trial on early COVID treatments, completed its ivermectin and favipiravir arms. While the results for all the other drugs assessed by the UK trial were published within a short turnaround, as of Dec 2023, no results have been announced, and no study published, for ivermectin and favipiravir. Gee, I wonder why?

Correct hospital treatment

The correct treatment for severe C19 related sepsis is non-invasive ventilation, steroids, and antioxidant infusions. Most of the drugs repurposed for C19 that show any benefit whatsoever in rescuing critically-ill C19 patients are antioxidants. Fluvoxamine, budesonide, famotidine, cimetidine, and ranitidine are all antioxidants. Indomethacin prevents iron-driven oxidation of arachidonic acid to isoprostanes. There are powerful antioxidants such as apocynin that have not even been tested on C19 patients yet which could defang neutrophils, prevent lipid peroxidation, restore endothelial health, and restore oxygenation to the tissues. Scientists who know anything about pulmonary neutrophilia, ARDS, and redox biology have known or surmised much of this since March 2020. In April 2020, Swiss scientists confirmed that C19 was a vascular endotheliitis. By late 2020, experts had already concluded that C19 causes a form of viral sepsis. They also know that sepsis can be effectively treated with antioxidants. None of this information is particularly new, and yet, for the most part, it has not been acted upon.

Mechanical ventilation is rarely appropriate, because C19 is NOT an obstructive lung disorder. Blood oxygen desaturation is best addressed using non-invasive masks with elevated oxygen levels. In Italy, when hospitals tried this, they ceased mechanical ventilation within a week, so stark were the differences in outcomes; that is, most ventilated patients died, while most masked patients survived. Yet US doctors continue to use damaging intubation techniques with high PEEP settings despite high lung compliance and poor oxygenation, killing an untold number of critically ill patients with medical malpractice.

Hospitals are incentivized to treat only with CDC approved ventilators, Molnupiravir, and Remdesivir, despite that we have long known ventilators to cause more harm than good, Remdesivir to be a highly toxic medication (particularly to the kidneys) and Molnupiravir is a carcinogen. One possible reason is that federal compensation to hospitals looks like this:

“prescribe meds & release” = $3,200 per patient
“complex in hospital treatment” = $110,000-550,000 per patient

Doctors’ Licenses Threatened

The idea that a State Medical Board can restrict a licensed physician from using fully licensed medications is not only absurd, it is unprecedented. Until the early days of the pandemic in 2020 a physician could, with informed consent from the patient, prescribe any licensed medication for any condition they see fit. Since the beginning of the pandemic, State Medical Boards have used bogus allegations to threaten doctors all over the US with removal of their licenses for nothing more than prescribing proven effective, off label medications. The FDA has no evidence that these medications, when appropriately administered in an outpatient setting, carry any significant risk.

Neither the FDA nor the CDC can dictate the way a doctor practices medicine. They leave that to the State Medical Boards which have, for the most part, stayed out of the way until recently. We are witnessing an enormous power grab by what has been a bureaucracy for decades. It’s an assault on physicians' autonomy.

KC’s COVID Facts

Early Treatment Coverup

Hydroxychloroquine

Ivermectin

Correct hospital treatment

Doctors’ Licenses Threatened

ARTICLES

VIDEOS

Discussion about this post