Dr. Anthony Fauci’s opinions and proclamations have been omnipresent in American media, and some people might assume his ideas and actions are universally supported by scientists or that he somehow represents science and medicine.

To the contrary, many leading scientists and scholars around the world oppose lockdowns and other aspects of Dr. Fauci’s pandemic management. They include Nobel laureates and other distinguished, accomplished, widely published, and internationally celebrated scientists. I dedicate this book to that battle-hardened cadre of heroic scientists and physicians who have risked their careers, their livelihoods, and their reputations to champion evidence-based science and ethical medicine. By steadfastly prioritizing truth, the welfare of their patients, and the cause of public health above their own career ambitions, these brave men and women have succeeded, at great cost, in preserving their own integrity.

They may one day restore from shame the shattered souls of the medical profession and the scientific establishment. Each of these individuals has emerged as a voice of sanity and a symbol of clarity and truth to those idealists across the globe who love democracy and resist the rising medical authoritarianism. Thanks to all of you for inspiring me with your character, your courage, your brilliant insights, and your passion for empiricism and critical thinking.

Dr. Harvey Risch, Yale University Professor of Epidemiology, Editor, Journal of the National Cancer Institute, Board of Editors, American Journal of Epidemiology (2014-2020), biostatistician

Dr. Robert Malone, original inventor mRNA and DNA vaccination technologies, NIH Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) Clinical Working Group (2020), Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Immune Based Therapies and Vaccines (2007-2012), Salk Institute (1986-1989)

Dr. Geert Vanden Bossche, Senior Ebola Program Manager, Global Alliance for Vaccines & Immunization (2015), Head of Vaccine Development for Germany’s Center for Infection Research (2017), vaccine developer at GSK (1995-2006), Novartis (2006), virologist

Dr. Michael Yeadon, Chief Scientist and vice-president of Pfizer’s allergy and respiratory research division (1995-2011), respiratory pharmacologist

Dr. Luc Montagnier, Virologist, 2008 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine

Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, Chair of the Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe Heath Committee (1998-2010), member of German Parliament (1994-2009), pulmonologist

Dr. Peter McCullough, clinical cardiologist, vice chief of internal medicine at Baylor University Medical Center (2014-2021)

Peter Doshi, University of Maryland School of Pharmacy associate professor pharmaceutical health services, and Associate Editor at The British Medical Journal

Dr. Paul E. Marik, Founder, Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, Professor of Medicine, Chief of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine, Eastern Virginia Medical School

Dr. Pierre Kory, President and Chief Medical Officer of the Front-Line Covid-19 Critical Care Alliance, Former Associate Professor, Chief of Critical Care Service, Medical Director of Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin (2015-2020)

Dr. Byram Bridle, University of Guelph associate professor of Viral Immunology

Dr. Tess Lawrie, World Health Organization consultant, physician

Dr. Didier Raoult, Director, Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases Research Unit (France), physician and microbiologist

Dr. Peter Breggin, National Institute of Mental Health (1966-1968), Harvard Medical School (1963-1964), doctor of psychiatry, author of more than 40 books

Dr. Meryl Nass, physician, vaccine-induced illnesses, toxicology, expert delegate to the US Director of National Intelligence bio-threat study program (2008)

Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, Medical Director Monsey Family Medical Center, physician

Dr. Charles Hoffe, physician

Dr. James Todaro, physician

Dr. Scott Jensen, University of Minnesota Medical School Clinical Associate Professor, Minnesota State Senator (2016-2020), physician

Dr. Ryan Cole, pathologist

Dr. Jacob Puliyel, Director Department of Pediatrics and Neonatology, St. Stephen’s Hospital (India), past member of India’s National Technical Advisory Group on Immunization

Dr. Christiane Northrup, University of Vermont College of Medicine Assistant Clinical Professor of Obstetrics & Gynecology (1982-2001), physician, three-time New York Times bestselling author

Dr. Richard Urso, MD Anderson Cancer Center assistant professor (1993-2005), Chief of Orbital Oncology, scientist

Dr. Joseph Ladapo, Surgeon General of Florida, professor University of Florida College of Medicine, associate professor at UCLA’s David Geffen School of Medicine, assistant professor of Population Health and Medicine at NYU School of Medicine

Dr. Martin Kulldorff, Harvard University professor of medicine, biostatistician, epidemiologist, expert in vaccine safety evaluations and monitoring infectious disease outbreaks

Dr. Michael Levitt, Stanford University biophysicist and professor of structural biology, 2013 Nobel Prize in Chemistry

Dr. Satoshi Ōmura, biochemist, 2015 Nobel Prize in Physiology/Medicine

Dr. Paul E. Alexander, US Department of Health & Human Services Senior Covid Pandemic Advisor (2020), WHO Pan American Health Organization (2020)

Dr. Clare Craig, UK National Health Service (2000-2015), pathologist, Oxford University and Cambridge University trained

Dr. Lee Merritt, US Navy physician and surgeon (1980-1989), past president Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

Dr. Sucharit Bhakdi, Microbiologist, head of the Institute of Medical Microbiology and Hygiene at University of Mainz (1991-2012)

Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Stanford University Medical School professor, physician, epidemiologist, health economist, and public health policy expert focusing on infectious diseases

Dr. David Katz, Yale University, founder of Yale’s Prevention Research Center, physician

John P.A. Ioannidis, Stanford University Professor of Medicine, Epidemiology and Population Health, physician-scientist

Dr. Sunetra Gupta, Oxford University epidemiologist, immunology expert, vaccine development, infectious disease mathematical modeling

Dr. Catherine L. Lawson, Rutgers University research professor, Institute for Quantitative Biomedicine

Dr. Salmaan Keshavjee, Harvard Medical School professor of Global Health and Social Medicine

Dr. Laura Lazzeroni, Stanford University professor of biomedical data science, professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences

Dr. Cody Meissner, Tufts University professor of pediatrics, expert on vaccine development, efficacy, and safety

Dr. Lisa White, Oxford University professor of epidemiology and modeling

Dr. Ariel Munitz, Tel Aviv University professor of clinical microbiology and immunology

Dr. Motti Gerlic, Tel Aviv University, clinical microbiology and immunology

Dr. Angus Dalgleish, University of London professor of infectious disease,

Dr. Helen Colhoun, University of Edinburg professor of medical informatics and epidemiology, public health physician

Dr. Simon Thornley, University of Auckland epidemiologist and biostatistician

Dr. Stephanie Seneff, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Senior research scientist

There is a much larger retinue of thousands of lesser-known front-line medical professionals and PhD. researchers who have also chosen to wager everything on their commitment to their patients, to uncorrupted scientific inquiry, and to the opposition to authoritarian COVID policies. Many of them have battled unheralded in the trenches for decades. Each one of them has endured various intensities of vilification, excommunication, delicensing, and censorship by the Pharma cartel’s captive regulators, its corrupt medical associations, its media and social media allies and medical journals, and its government-sponsored fact checkers. They have weathered derision, gaslighting, scapegoating, retractions, career and reputational injuries, and financial ruin, to protect their patients, and nurture truth. My apologies to all of you whom I have necessarily omitted due to space restrictions but who belong on this Honor Roll. I regret that the only consolation for your sacrifices may be a clear conscience.

And to truth-tellers everywhere who reject propaganda, defy censorship, and who live and die for freedom and human dignity.

Our ferocious fact checker, Katie Weisman, died while I wrote this book. During the day, Katie was a devoted wife and mom to three vaccine-injured children. At night, even during the worst periods of her chemotherapy, Katie became the most fearsome (and intractable) fact checker. She helped lay the groundwork upon which we built our organization into a vessel for the reckless pursuit of existential truth. Her reckless integrity inspired our movement and ensured the accuracy of many of my projects. I am grateful also for her friendship.

Dr. Valerie Kennedy Chamberlain was a retired paleontologist and university professor who typed and fact-checked most of my handwritten drafts of Thimerosal: Let the Science Speak, and played a key role as a writer, editor, and typist at World Mercury Project from its inception, and later at Children’s Health Defense. She was a wonderful friend.

Judith Conley and Nancy Hokkanen deciphered my chicken-scratch scrawl, typed my handwritten manuscript, and helped me fact-check, spell-check, and edit with reliable insight, humor, and patience. Their advice was always invaluable.

Dr. Robert Malone, Celia Farber, Dr. Meryl Nass, GDB, Ken McCarthy, Charles Ortleb, and John Lauritsen read sections of this manuscript and provided criticism, citations, and insightful commentary. I am grateful to all for your corrections and recommendations, and for broadening my understanding of innumerable scientific and historic issues.

Laura Bono, Rita Shreffler, Brian Hooker, Ph.D., Lyn Redwood, R.N., Liz Mumper, M.D., Jackie Hines, and Cari Shagena were part of the Children’s Health Defense team of researchers and fact checkers who sourced, cited, and fact-checked this manuscript with energy, diligence, patience, idealism, and perseverance. I’m indebted to all of them for their devotion to children’s health, to democratic principles, to precision, and to the noble search for existential truth and accuracy.

Mary Holland, Esq., Rolf Hazlehurst, Esq., Heidi Kidd, Lynne Arnold, Kari Bundy, Angela Braden, Katrina Boudreau, Polly Tommey, Joyce Ghen, Karen McDonough, Cornelia Tucker Mazzan, Aimee Villella McBride, Stephanie Locricchio, Katherine Paul, Aerowenn Hunter, Janet McLean, John Stone, Divyanshi Dwivedi, Esq., Megan Redshaw, Brian Burrowes, Dr. Aaron Lewis, Curtis Cost, Wayne Rohde, Alix Mayer, Kristina Kristen and Karen Kuntz are the Children’s Health Defense warriors who give their lives selflessly to the battle for democracy, justice, and public health. All of them contributed directly and indirectly to this book.

Robyn Ross, Esq., Eileen Iorio, Dr. Kristine Severyn, Dr. James Lyons-Weiler, Joel Smalley, Dr. Jessica Rose and Sofia Karstens contributed to the work with their invaluable and resourceful support and talent in quick responses 24/7 on critical research questions.

To David Whiteside for his reliability, hard work and for never turning off his phone.

Thanks also go to Tony Lyons and his team at Skyhorse Publishing, including Hector Carosso, Mark Gompertz, Kirsten Dalley, and Louis Conte. Their vigilance and their congenial harassment ensured that this book came out on time.

Finally, I could not have written this book without the patience and wisdom of my wife, Cheryl Hines, whose reliable love fills all my empty spaces and makes me impervious to the furies of the world. I’m grateful for her generous humor, wisdom, support, and love, even when she disagrees with me. To my children, Bobby, Kick, Conor, Kyra, Finn, Aiden, and Cat, who bear the burdens I place upon them with laughter and stoicism, and whose love I always feel.

Though this book appears to end here, it cannot end here—since the story is far from over. Every day brings new information, new data, new revelations, and new whistleblowers. Accordingly, I will continue writing chapters and making them available via the URL and QR Code below. On behalf of everyone with Children’s Health Defense, thank you for reading this book and for continuing to follow the crucial topics addressed within its pages.

Complex scientific and moral problems are not resolved through censorship of dissenting opinions, deleting content from the Internet, or defaming scientists and authors who present information challenging to those in power. Censorship leads instead to greater distrust of both government institutions and large corporations.

There is no ideology or politics in pointing out the obvious: scientific errors and public policy errors do occur—and can have devastating consequences. Errors might result from flawed analysis, haste, arrogance, and sometimes, corruption. Whatever the cause, the solutions come from open-minded exploration, introspection, and constant review.

Ideally, science and public policy are never static. They are a process, a collaboration, a debate and a partnership. If powerful people challenged by this book claim it contains misinformation, our response is simply this: Tell us where you believe something is incorrect, make your best arguments, and offer the best available support for those arguments. We encourage and invite dialogue, criticism, engagement—and every suggestion will be heard and considered.

Since The Real Anthony Fauci is being published in the middle of rapidly unfolding events, and since censorship and suppression of information is underway, it’s best to approach this book as a living document. When new information emerges that can add to or improve the thousands of references and citations in this book, updates, additional notes, and new references will be provided via the QR code below, and the QR codes that appear throughout the book.

We’ve published authors with views on all sides of many controversies. That’s what we do, because at its best, publishing is a town square that lets everyone be heard—and lets everyone else listen, if they choose to. As Alan Dershowitz says, “I always learn when I read or hear Bobby’s take.” I can go several steps further, knowing from my inside view how principled and careful Bobby is as an author—and how painstakingly this book was researched.

We look forward to taking this important journey with you.
Tony Lyons
Skyhorse Publishing

For updates, new citations and references, and new information:
ChildrensHealthDefense.org/fauci-book
childrenshd.org/fauci-book

Editor’s note:
For ease of reference and reading, throughout this manuscript, both the virus SARS CoV-2 and the disease Covid-19 are referred to as COVID-19.

“The first step is to give up the illusion that the primary purpose of modern medical research is to improve Americans’ health most effectively and efficiently. In our opinion, the primary purpose of commercially funded clinical research is to maximize financial return on investment, not health.”
—John Abramson, M.D., Harvard Medical School

I wrote this book to help Americans—and citizens across the globe—understand the historical underpinnings of the bewildering cataclysm that began in 2020. In that single annus horribilis, liberal democracy effectively collapsed worldwide. The very governmental health regulators, social media eminences, and media companies that idealistic populations relied upon as champions of freedom, health, democracy, civil rights, and evidence-based public policy seemed to collectively pivot in a lockstep assault against free speech and personal freedoms.

Suddenly, those trusted institutions seemed to be acting in concert to generate fear, promote obedience, discourage critical thinking, and herd seven billion people to march to a single tune, culminating in mass public health experiments with a novel, shoddily tested and improperly licensed technology so risky that manufacturers refused to produce it unless every government on Earth shielded them from liability.

Across Western nations, shell-shocked citizens experienced all the well-worn tactics of rising totalitarianism—mass propaganda and censorship, the orchestrated promotion of terror, the manipulation of science, the suppression of debate, the vilification of dissent, and use of force to prevent protest. Conscientious objectors who resisted these unwanted, experimental, zero-liability medical interventions faced orchestrated gaslighting, marginalization, and scapegoating.

American lives and livelihoods were shattered by a bewildering array of draconian diktats imposed without legislative approval or judicial review, risk assessment, or scientific citation. So-called Emergency Orders closed our businesses, schools and churches, made unprecedented intrusions into privacy, and disrupted our most treasured social and family relationships. Citizens the world over were ordered to stay in their homes.

Standing in the center of all the mayhem, with his confident hand on the helm, was one dominating figure. As the trusted public face of the United States government response to COVID, Dr. Anthony Fauci set this perilous course and sold the American public on a new destination for our democracy.

This book is a product of my own struggle to understand how the idealistic institutions our country built to safeguard both public health and democracy suddenly turned against our citizens and our values with such violence. I am a lifelong Democrat, whose family has had eighty years of deep engagement with America’s public health bureaucracy and long friendships with key federal regulators, including Anthony Fauci, Francis Collins, and Robert Gallo. Members of my family wrote many of the statutes under which these men govern, nurtured the growth of equitable and effective public health policies, and defended that regulatory bulwark against ferocious attacks funded by industry—and often executed by Republican-controlled congressional committees intent on defunding and defanging these agencies to make them more “industry friendly.” I built alliances with these individuals and their agencies during my years of environmental and public health advocacy. I watched them, often with admiration. But I also watched how the industry, supposedly being regulated, used its indentured servants on Capitol Hill to systematically hollow out those agencies beginning in 1980, disabling their regulatory functions and transforming them, finally, into sock-puppets for the very industry Congress charged them with regulating.

My 40-year career as an environmental and public health advocate gave me a unique understanding of the corrupting mechanisms of “regulatory capture,” the process by which the regulator becomes beholden to the industry it’s meant to regulate. I spent four decades suing the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and other environmental agencies to expose and remedy the corrupt sweetheart relationship that so often put regulators in bed with the polluting industries they regulated. Among the hundreds of lawsuits I filed, perhaps a quarter were against regulatory officials making illegal concessions to Big Oil, King Coal, and the chemical and agricultural polluters that had captured their loyalties. I thought I knew everything about regulatory capture and that I had armored myself with an appropriate shield of cynicism.

But I was wrong about that. From the moment of my reluctant entrance into the vaccine debate in 2005, I was astonished to realize that the pervasive web of deep financial entanglements between Pharma and the government health agencies had put regulatory capture on steroids. The CDC, for example, owns 57 vaccine patents¹ and spends $4.9 of its $12.0 billion-dollar annual budget (as of 2019) buying and distributing vaccines.^2,3 NIH owns hundreds of vaccine patents and often profits from the sale of products it supposedly regulates. High level officials, including Dr. Fauci, receive yearly emoluments of up to $150,000 in royalty payments on products that they help develop and then usher through the approval process.⁴ The FDA receives 45 percent of its budget from the pharmaceutical industry, through what are euphemistically called “user fees.”⁵ When I learned that extraordinary fact, the disastrous health of the American people was no longer a mystery; I wondered what the environment would look like if the EPA received 45 percent of its budget from the coal industry!

Today many of my liberal chums are still crouched in a knee jerk posture defending “our” agencies against Republican slanders and budget cuts, never quite realizing how thoroughly the decades of attacks succeeded in transforming those agencies into subsidiaries of Big Pharma.

In this book, I track the rise of Anthony Fauci from his start as a young public health researcher and physician through his metamorphosis into the powerful technocrat who helped orchestrate and execute 2020’s historic coup d’état against Western democracy. I explore the carefully planned militarization and monetization of medicine that has left American health ailing and its democracy shattered. I chronicle the troubling role of the dangerous concentrated mainstream media, Big Tech robber barons, the military and intelligence communities and their deep historical alliances with Big Pharma and public health agencies. The disturbing story that unfolds here has never been told, and many in power have worked hard to prevent the public from learning it. The main character is Anthony Fauci.

During the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, Dr. Fauci, who turned 80 that year, occupied center stage in a global drama unprecedented in human history. At the contagion’s beginnings, the US still enjoyed its reputation as the universal standard-bearer in public health. As the world’s faith in American leadership dwindled during the Trump era, the singular US institutions that were seemingly immune from international disillusionment were our public health regulators; HHS—and its subsidiary agencies CDC, FDA, and NIH—persisted as role models for global health policies and gold standard scientific research. Other nations looked to Dr. Fauci, America’s most powerful and enduring public health bureaucrat, to competently direct US health policies, and rapidly develop countermeasures that would serve as state-of-the-art templates for the rest of the world.

Dr. Anthony Fauci spent half a century as America’s reigning health commissar, ever preparing for his final role as Commander of history’s biggest war against a global pandemic. Beginning in 1968, he occupied various posts at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), serving as that agency’s Director since November 1984.⁶ His $417,608 annual salary makes him the highest paid of all four million federal employees, including the President.⁷ His experiences surviving 50 years as the panjandrum of a key federal bureaucracy, having advised six Presidents, the Pentagon, intelligence agencies, foreign governments, and the WHO, seasoned him exquisitely for a crisis that would allow him to wield power enjoyed by few rulers and no doctor in history.

During the epidemic’s early months, Dr. Fauci’s calm, authoritative, and avuncular manner was Prozac for Americans besieged by two existential crises: the Trump Presidency, and COVID-19. Democrats and idealistic liberals around the globe, traumatized by President Trump’s chaotic governing style, took heart from Dr. Fauci’s serene, solid presence on the White House stage. He seemed to offer a rational, straight-talking, science-based counterweight to President Trump’s desultory, narcissistic bombast. Navigating the hazardous waters between an erratic President and a deadly contagion, Dr. Fauci initially cut a heroic figure, like Homer’s Ulysses steering his ship between Scylla and Charybdis. Turning their backs to the foreboding horizon, trusting Americans manned the oars and blindly obeyed his commands—little realizing they were propelling our country toward the desolate destination where democracy goes to die.

Throughout the first year of the crisis, Dr. Fauci’s personal charisma and authoritative voice inspired confidence in his prescriptions and won him substantial—though not universal—affection. Many Americans, dutifully locked in their homes in compliance with Dr. Fauci’s quarantine, took consolation in their capacity to join a Tony Fauci fan club, chillax on an “I heart Fauci” throw pillow, sip from an “In Fauci We Trust” coffee mug, warm cold feet in Fauci socks and booties, gorge on Fauci donuts, post a “Honk for Dr. Fauci” yard sign, or genuflect before a Dr. Fauci prayer candle. Fauci aficionados could choose from a variety of Fauci browser games and a squadron of Fauci action figures and bobbleheads, and could read his hagiography to their offspring from a worshipful children’s book. At the height of the lockdown, Brad Pitt performed a reverential homage to Dr. Fauci on Saturday Night Live,⁸ and Barbara Streisand surprised him with a recorded message during a live Zoom birthday party in his honor.⁹ The New Yorker dubbed him “America’s Doctor.”¹⁰

Dr. Fauci encouraged his own canonization and the disturbing inquisition against his blasphemous critics. In a June 9, 2021 je suis l’état interview, he pronounced that Americans who questioned his statements were, per se, anti-science. “Attacks on me,” he explained, “quite frankly, are attacks on science.”¹¹ The sentiment he expressed reminds us that blind faith in authority is a function of religion, not science. Science, like democracy, flourishes on skepticism toward official orthodoxies. Dr. Fauci’s schoolboy scorn for citation and his acknowledgement to the New York Times that he had twice lied to Americans to promote his agendas—on masks and herd immunity—raised the prospect that some of his other “scientific” assertions were, likewise, noble lies to a credulous public he believes is unworthy of self-determination.^12,13

In August 2021, Dr. Fauci’s acolyte—CNN’s television doctor, Peter Hotez—published an article in a scientific journal calling for legislation to “expand federal hate crime protections” to make criticism of Dr. Fauci a felony.¹⁴ In declaring that he had no conflicts, Dr. Hotez, who says that vaccine skeptics should be snuffed out,¹⁵ evidently forgot the millions of dollars in grants he has taken from Dr. Fauci’s NIAID since 1993,¹⁶ and more than $15 million from Dr. Fauci’s partner, Bill Gates, for his Baylor University Tropical Medicine Institute.^17,18 As we shall see, Dr. Fauci’s direct and indirect control—through NIH, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust of some 57 percent of global biomedical research funding¹⁹—guarantees him this sort of obsequious homage from leading medical researchers, allows him to craft and perpetuate the reigning global medical narratives, and can fortify the canon that he, himself, is science incarnate.

High-visibility henchmen like Hotez—and Pharma’s financial control over the media through advertising dollars—have made Dr. Fauci’s pronouncements impervious to debate and endowed the NIAID Director with personal virtues and medical gravitas supported by neither science nor his public health record. By the latter metric, his 50-year regime has been calamitous for public health and for democracy. His administration of the COVID pandemic was, likewise, a disaster.

As the world watched, Tony Fauci dictated a series of policies that resulted in by far the most deaths, and one of the highest percentage COVID-19 body counts of any nation on the planet. Only relentless propaganda and wall-to-wall censorship could conceal his disastrous mismanagement during COVID-19’s first year. The US, with 4 percent of the world’s population, suffered 14.5 percent of total COVID deaths. By September 30, 2021, mortality rates in the US had climbed to 2,107/1,000,000, compared to 139/1,000,000 in Japan.

1. Google Patents, Assignee: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,
https://www.google.com/search?tbo=p&tbm=pts&hl=en&q=vaccine+inassignee:centers+inassignee:for+inassignee:disease+inassignee:control&tbs=,ptss:g&num=100

2. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, President’s Budget FY 2020, 2019 Enacted Column, 2020,
https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2020/fy-2020-detail-table.pdf

3. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dept. of HHS FY 2020 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention-Justification of Estimates for Appropriation Committees-FY 2019 Enacted, 2020, p. 42-43,
https://www.cdc.gov/budget/documents/fy2020/fy-2020-cdc-congressional-justification.pdf

4. Cornell Law School, Legal Information Institute, 15 U.S. Code § 3710c—Distribution of royalties received by Federal agencies,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c

5. FDA, Fact Sheet: FDA at a Glance, FDA (Nov. 18, 2020),
https://www.fda.gov/about-fda/fda-basics/fact-sheet-fda-glance

6. Anthony S. Fauci, MD, Biography, NIAID
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/about/anthony-s-fauci-md-bio

7. Adam Andrezejewski, “Dr. Anthony Fauci: The Highest Paid Employee in the Entire U.S. Federal Government,” FORBES (Jan. 25, 2021),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/adamandrzejewski/2021/01/25/dr-anthony-fauci-the-highest-paid-employee-in-the-entire-us-federal-government/?sh=5ed2512386f0

8. Saturday Night Live, “Dr. Anthony Fauci Cold Open—SNL, YOUTUBE” (Apr. 25, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uW56CL0pk0g

9. Zack Budryk, “AIDS activists recruit Barbra Streisand for surprise Fauci birthday party on Zoom,” THE HILL (Dec. 24, 2020, 5:36 PM),
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/531636-aids-activists-recruit-barbra-streisand-for-surprise-zoom-birthday-party

10. Michael Specter, “How Anthony Fauci Became America’s Doctor,” The New Yorker (Apr. 10, 2020),
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/how-anthony-fauci-became-americas-doctor

11. Peter Sullivan, “Fauci: Attacks on me are really also ‘attacks on science,’” The Hill (Jun. 9, 2021),
https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/557602-fauci-attacks-on-me-are-really-also-attacks-on-science

12.  Donald G. McNeil Jr., “How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?” New York Times (Dec. 24, 2020, updated Apr. 2, 2021),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covidcoronavirus.html

13. Tiana Lowe, “Fauci lies about lying about the efficacy of masks,” MSN (Jun. 21, 2021),
https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/fauci-lies-about-lying-about-the-efficacy-of-masks/ar-AALhCrp

14. Peter Hotez, “Mounting antiscience aggression in the United States,” PLOS BIOLOGY (Jul. 28, 2021),
https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3001369

15. Peter Hotez, “Will an American-Led Anti-Vaccine Movement Subvert Global Health?” Scientific American (Mar. 3, 2017),
https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/will-an-american-led-anti-vaccine-movement-subvert-global-health/

16. National Institutes of Health, National Institutes of Health Awards by Location and Organization, (2021),
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/citation/niaid-grants-to-baylor-by-year-since-1993/

17. Philanthropy News Digest, “Sabin Institute Receives $12 Million From Gates Foundation to Develop Hookworm Vaccine” (Jul 1, 2011),
https://philanthropynewsdigest.org/news/sabin-institute-receives-12-million-from-gates-foundation-to-develop-hookworm-vaccine

18. Vipul Naik, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation donations made to Baylor College of Medicine,”
https://donations.vipulnaik.com/donorDonee.php?donor=Bill+and+Melinda+Gates+Foundation&donee=Baylor+College+of+Medicine

19. Rebecca G. Baker, “Bill Gates Asks NIH Scientists for Help in Saving Lives And Explains Why the Future Depends on Biomedical Innovation,” THE NIH CATALYST (Jan-Feb, 2014),
https://irp.nih.gov/catalyst/v22i1/bill-gates-asks-nih-scientists-for-help-in-saving-lives

Death Rates from COVID per million population, as of September 30, 2021²⁰:

After achieving these cataclysmicly awful results, “Teflon Tony’s” media savvy and his skills for deft maneuvering beguiled incoming President Joe Biden into appointing him as the new administration’s COVID Response Director.

Blinded by generously stoked fear of deadly disease against which Dr. Fauci seemed the only reliable bulwark, Americans failed to see the mounting evidence that Dr. Fauci’s strategies were consistently failing to achieve promised results, as he doggedly elevated Pharma profits and bureaucratic powers over waning public health.

As we shall see from this 50-year saga, Dr. Fauci’s remedies are often more lethal than the diseases they pretend to treat. His COVID prescriptions were no exception. With his narrow focus on the solution of mass vaccination, Dr. Fauci never mentioned any of the many other costs associated with his policy directives.

Anthony Fauci seems to have not considered that his unprecedented quarantine of the healthy would kill far more people than COVID, obliterate the global economy, plunge millions into poverty and bankruptcy, and grievously wound constitutional democracy globally. We have no way of knowing how many people died from isolation, unemployment, deferred medical care, depression, mental illness, obesity, stress, overdoses, suicide, addiction, alcoholism, and the accidents that so often accompany despair. We cannot dismiss the accusations that his lockdowns proved more deadly than the contagion. A June 24, 2021 BMJ study²² showed that US life expectancy decreased by 1.9 years during the quarantine. Since COVID mortalities were mainly among the elderly, and the average age of death from COVID in the UK was 82.4, which was above the average lifespan,²³ the virus could not by itself cause the astonishing decline. As we shall see, Hispanic and Black Americans often shoulder the heaviest burden of Dr. Fauci’s public health adventures. In this respect, his COVID-19 countermeasures proved no exception. Between 2018 and 2020, the average Hispanic American lost around 3.9 years in longevity, while the average lifespan of a Black American dropped by 3.25 years.²⁴

This dramatic culling was unique to America. Between 2018 and 2020, the 1.9 year decrease in average life expectancy at birth in the US was roughly 8.5 times the average decrease in 16 comparable countries, all of which were measured in months, not years.²⁵

“I naïvely thought the pandemic would not make a big difference in the gap because my thinking was that it’s a global pandemic, so every country is going to take a hit,” said Steven Woolf, Director Emeritus of the Center on Society and Health at Virginia Commonwealth University. “What I didn’t anticipate was how badly the US would handle the pandemic. These are numbers we aren’t at all used to seeing in this research; 0.1 years is something that normally gets attention in the field, so 3.9 years and 3.25 years and even 1.4 years is just horrible,” Woolf continued. “We haven’t had a decrease of that magnitude since World War II.”²⁶

20. Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population as of September 30, 2021, by country (Oct. 6, 2021),
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

21. Reported Cases and Deaths by Country or Territory, WORLDOMETER (Oct. 4, 2021),
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

22.  S H Woolf, et al, “Effect of the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 on life expectancy across populations in the USA and other high income countries: simulations of provisional mortality data,” BMJ 2021;373:n1343 (June 24, 2021),
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1343

23. Jemima Kelly, “Covid kills, but do we overestimate the risk?” Financial Times (Nov. 20, 2020),
https://www.ft.com/content/879f2a2b-e366-47ac-b67a-8d1326d40b5e

24. S H Woolf et al, “Effect of the covid-19 pandemic in 2020 on life expectancy across populations in the USA and other high income countries: simulations of provisional mortality data,” BMJ 2021;373:n1343 (June 24, 2021)
https://www.bmj.com/content/373/bmj.n1343

25. Kaitlin Sullivan, “U.S. Life Expectancy Decreased by an ‘alarming’ amount during pandemic,” NBC NEWS (Jun. 23, 2021),
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/u-s-life-expectancy-decreased-alarming-amount-during-pandemic-n1272206

26. Ibid.

As Dr. Fauci’s policies took hold globally, 300 million humans fell into dire poverty, food insecurity, and starvation. “Globally, the impact of lockdowns on health programs, food production, and supply chains plunged millions of people into severe hunger and malnutrition,” said Alex Gutentag in Tablet Magazine.²⁷ According to the Associated Press (AP), during 2020, 10,000 children died each month due to virus-linked hunger from global lockdowns. In addition, 500,000 children per month experienced wasting and stunting from malnutrition—up 6.7 million from last year’s total of 47 million—which can “permanently damage children physically and mentally, transforming individual tragedies into a generational catastrophe.”²⁸ In 2020, disruptions to health and nutrition services killed 228,000 children in South Asia.²⁹ Deferred medical treatments for cancers, kidney failure, and diabetes killed hundreds of thousands of people and created epidemics of cardiovascular disease and undiagnosed cancer. Unemployment shock is expected to cause 890,000 additional deaths over the next 15 years.^30,31

The lockdown disintegrated vital food chains, dramatically increased rates of child abuse, suicide, addiction, alcoholism, obesity, mental illness, as well as debilitating developmental delays, isolation, depression, and severe educational deficits in young children. One-third of teens and young adults reported worsening mental health during the pandemic. According to an Ohio State University study,³² suicide rates among children rose 50 percent.³³ An August 11, 2021 study by Brown University found that infants born during the quarantine were short, on average, 22 IQ points as measured by Baylor scale tests.³⁴ Some 93,000 Americans died of overdoses in 2020—a 30 percent rise over 2019.³⁵ “Overdoses from synthetic opioids increased by 38.4 percent,³⁶ and 11 percent of US adults considered suicide in June 2020.³⁷ Three million children disappeared from public school systems, and ERs saw a 31 percent increase in adolescent mental health visits,”^38,39 according to Gutentag. Record numbers of young children failed to reach crucial developmental milestones.^40,41 Millions of hospital and nursing home patients died alone without comfort or a final goodbye from their families. Dr. Fauci admitted that he never assessed the costs of desolation, poverty, unhealthy isolation, and depression fostered by his countermeasures. “I don’t give advice about economic things,”⁴² Dr. Fauci explained. “I don’t give advice about anything other than public health,” he continued, even though he was so clearly among those responsible for the economic and social costs.

27. Alex Gutentag, “The War on Reality,” TABLET MAGAZINE (June 28, 2021),
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-war-on-reality-gutentag

28. Lori Hinnant and Sam Mednick, “Virus-linked hunger tied to 10,000 child deaths each month,” AP (Jul. 27, 2020),
https://apnews.com/article/virus-outbreak-africa-ap-top-news-understanding-the-outbreak-hunger-5cbee9693c52728a3808f4e7b4965cbd

29. BBC News, “Covid-19 disruptions killed 228,000 children in South Asia, says UN report, BBC (Mar. 17, 2021),
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-56425115

30. Megan Henney, “COVID’s economic fallout could elevate US mortality rate for years, study shows,” FOX BUSINESS (Jan. 5, 2021),
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/economic-fallout-from-coronavirus-pandemic-could-elevate-us-mortality-rate-for-years

31. Francesco Bianchi, Giada Bianchi, and Dongho Song, “The Long-term Impact Of The Covid-19 Unemployment Shock On Life Expectancy And Mortality Rates,” National Bureau of Economic Research (Dec. 2020, rev. Sep. 2021),
https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w28304/w28304.pdf

32. Ohio State University, “A third of teens, young adults reported worsening mental health during pandemic,” OSU Press Release (Jul 12, 2021),
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/545757

33. CDC, Emergency Department Visits for Suspected Suicide Attempts Among Persons Aged 12-25 Years Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic—United States, January 2019-May 2021, (Jun. 18, 2021),
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7024e1.htm

34. Sean CL Deoni et al, Impact of the COVID-19 Pandemic on Early Child Cognitive Development: Initial Findings in a Longitudinal Observational Study of Child Health, medRxiv 2021.08.10.21261846; doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.10.21261846

35. Bill Chappell, Drug Overdoses Killed A Record Number Of Americans In 2020, Jumping By Nearly 30%, NPR (Jul. 14, 2021),
https://www.npr.org/2021/07/14/1016029270/drug-overdoses-killed-a-record-number-of-americans-in-2020-jumping-by-nearly-30

36. CDC Health Alert Network, Increase in Fatal Drug Overdoses Across the United States Driven by Synthetic Opioids Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic, CDC (Dec. 20, 2020),
https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2020/han00438.asp

37. Andrea Petersen, Amid Pandemic, More U.S. Adults Say They Considered Suicide, (Aug. 13, 2020 7:42 pm),
https://www.wsj.com/articles/amid-pandemic-more-u-s-adults-say-they-considered-suicide-11597362131

38. Rebecca T. Leeb et al, Mental Health-Related Emergency Department Visits Among Children Aged <18 Years During the COVID-19 Pandemic — United States, January 1-October 17, 2020, CDC (Nov. 13, 2020),
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6945a3.htm

39. Alex Gutentag, The War on Reality, TABLET MAGAZINE (June 28, 2021),
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-war-on-reality-gutentag

40. Id.

41. Amarica Rafanelli, Growing Up in a Pandemic: How Covid is Affecting Children’s Development, DIRECT RELIEF (Jan. 19, 2021, 10:41 AM),
https://www.directrelief.org/2021/01/growing-up-in-the-midst-of-a-pandemic-how-covid-is-affecting-childrens-development/

42. James Freeman, The Limits of Anthony Fauci’s Expertise, WALL STREET JOURNAL (May 13, 2020 1:52 pm)
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-limits-of-anthony-faucis-expertise-11589392347

During the COVID pandemic, Dr. Fauci served as ringmaster in the engineered demolition of America’s economy. His lockdown predictably shattered the nation’s once-booming economic engine, putting 58 million Americans out of work,⁴³ and permanently bankrupting small businesses, including 41 percent of Black-owned businesses, some of which took generations of investment to build.⁴⁴ The business closures contributed to a run-up in the national deficit—the interest payments alone will cost almost $1 trillion annually.⁴⁵ That ruinous debt will likely permanently bankrupt the New Deal programs—the social safety net that, since 1945, fortified, nurtured, and sustained America’s envied middle-class. Government officials have already begun liquidating the almost 100-year legacies of the New Deal, New Frontier, the Great Society, and Obamacare to pay the accumulated lockdown debts. Will we find ourselves saying goodbye to school lunches, healthcare, WIC, Medicaid, Medicare, university scholarships, and other long standing assistance programs?

43. Nigel Chiwaya & Jiachuan Wu, Unemployment claims by state: See how COVID-19 has destroyed the job market, NBC NEWS (Apr. 14, 2020, updated Aug.27, 2020),
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/unemployment-claims-state-see-how-covid-19-has-destroyed-job-n1183686

44. Anne Sraders & Lance Lambert, Nearly 100,000 establishments that temporarily shut down due to the pandemic are now out of business, FORTUNE (Sep. 28, 2020),
https://fortune.com/2020/09/28/covid-buisnesses-shut-down-closed/

45. Deficit Tracker, BIPARTISAN POLICY (Sept. 20, 2021),
https://bipartisanpolicy.org/report/deficit-tracker/

Dr. Fauci’s business closures pulverized America’s middle class and engineered the largest upward transfer of wealth in human history. In 2020, workers lost $3.7 trillion while billionaires gained $3.9 trillion.⁴⁶ Some 493 individuals became new billionaires,⁴⁷ and an additional 8 million Americans dropped below the poverty line.⁴⁸ The biggest winners were the robber barons—the very companies that were cheerleading Dr. Fauci’s lockdown and censoring his critics: Big Technology, Big Data, Big Telecom, Big Finance, Big Media behemoths (Michael Bloomberg, Rupert Murdoch, Viacom, and Disney), and Silicon Valley Internet titans like Jeff Bezos, Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, Eric Schmidt, Sergey Brin, Larry Page, Larry Ellison, and Jack Dorsey.

The very Internet companies that snookered us all with the promise of democratizing communications made it impermissible for Americans to criticize their government or question the safety of pharmaceutical products; these companies propped up all official pronouncements while scrubbing all dissent. The same Tech/Data and Telecom robber barons, gorging themselves on the corpses of our obliterated middle class, rapidly transformed America’s once-proud democracy into a censorship and surveillance police state from which they profit at every turn.

CEO Satya Nadella boasted that Microsoft, by working with the CDC and the Gates-funded Johns Hopkins Center for Biosecurity, had used the COVID pandemic to achieve “two years of digital transformation in two months.”⁴⁹ Microsoft Teams users ballooned to 200 million meeting participants in a single day, averaged more than 75 million active users, compared to 20 million users in November 2019,⁵⁰ and the company’s stock value skyrocketed. Larry Ellison’s company, Oracle, which partnered with the CIA to build new cloud services, won the contract to process all CDC vaccination data.⁵¹ Ellison’s wealth increased by $34 billion in 2020; Mark Zuckerberg’s wealth grew by $35 billion; Google’s Sergey Brin by $41 billion; Jeff Bezos by $86 billion; Bill Gates by $22 billion⁵² and Michael Bloomberg by nearly $7 billion.⁵³

Ellison, Gates, and the other members of this government/industry collaboration used the lockdown to accelerate construction of their 5G network⁵⁴ of satellites, antennae, biometric facial recognition, and “track and trace” infrastructure that they, and their government and intelligence agency partners, can use to mine and monetize our data, further suppress dissent, to compel obedience to arbitrary dictates, and to manage the rage that comes as Americans finally wake up to the fact that this outlaw gang has stolen our democracy, our civil rights, our country, and our way of life—while we huddled in orchestrated fear from a flu-like virus.

With fears of COVID generously stoked, the dramatic and steady erosion of constitutional rights and fomenting of a global coup d’état against democracy, the demolition of our economy, the obliteration of a million small businesses, the collapsing of the middle class, the evisceration of our Bill of Rights, the tidal wave of surveillance capitalism and the rising bio-security state, and the stunning shifts in wealth and power going to a burgeoning oligarchy of high-tech Silicon Valley robber barons seemed, to a dazed and uncritical America, like it might be a reasonable price to pay for safety. And anyway, we were told, it’s just for 15 days, or maybe 15 months, or however long it takes for Dr. Fauci to “follow the data” to his answer.

46. Viral Inequity: Billionaires Gained $3.9tn, Workers Lost $3.7tn in 2020, TRT WORLD (Jan. 28, 2021),
https://www.trtworld.com/magazine/viral-inequality-billionaires-gained-3-9tn-workers-lost-3-7tn-in-2020-43674

47. Chase Peterson-Withorn, Nearly 500 People Became Billionaires During The Pandemic Year, FORBES (Apr. 6, 2021),
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kerryadolan/2021/04/06/forbes-35th-annual-worlds-billionaires-list-facts-and-figures-2021/?sh=4c7b81775e58

48. Heather Long, Nearly 8 million Americans have fallen into poverty since the summer, WASHINGTON POST (Dec. 16, 2020),
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/12/16/poverty-rising/

49. Jared Spataro, 2 Years of Digital Transformation in 2 Months, MICROSOFT (Apr. 30, 2020),
https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/microsoft-365/blog/2020/04/30/2-years-digital-transformation-2-months/

50. Id.

51. Oracle Cloud Manages COVID-19 Vaccination Program in the United States, ORACLE PRESS RELEASE (Dec. 15, 2020),
https://www.oracle.com/news/announcement/oracle-cloud-manages-covid-19-vaccination-program-121520.html

52. Chase Petersen-Withorn, How Much Money America’s Billionaires Have Made During The Covid-19 Pandemic, FORBES (Apr. 30, 2021),|
https://www.forbes.com/sites/chasewithorn/2021/04/30/american-billionaires-have-gotten-12-trillion-richer-during-the-pandemic/?sh=461b1067f557

53. Samuel Stebbins and Grant Suneson, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk among US billionaires getting richer during coronavirus pandemic, USA TODAY, (Dec 1, 2020).
https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/2020/12/01/american-billionaires-that-got-richer-during-covid/43205617/

54. Sue Halpern, The Terrifying Potential of the 5G Network, THE NEW YORKER (Apr. 26, 2019),
https://www.newyorker.com/news/annals-of-communications/the-terrifying-potential-of-the-5g-network

Dr. Fauci’s catastrophic failure to achieve beneficial health outcomes during the COVID-19 crisis is consistent with the disastrous declines in public health during his half-century running NIAID. For anyone who might have assumed that federal and public health bureaucrats survive and flourish by achieving improvements in public health, Dr. Fauci’s durability at NIAID is a disheartening wake-up call. By any measure, he has consistently failed upward.

The “J. Edgar Hoover of public health” has presided over cataclysmic declines in public health, including an exploding chronic disease epidemic that has made the “Fauci generation”—children born after his elevation to NIAID kingpin in 1984—the sickest generation in American history, and has made Americans among the least healthy citizens on the planet. His obsequious subservience to the Big Ag, Big Food, and pharmaceutical companies has left our children drowning in a toxic soup of pesticide residues, corn syrup, and processed foods, while also serving as pincushions for 69 mandated vaccine doses by age 18—none of them properly safety tested.⁵⁵

When Dr. Fauci took office, America was still ranked among the world’s healthiest populations. An August 2021 study by the Commonwealth Fund ranked America’s health care system dead last among industrialized nations, with the highest infant mortality and the lowest life expectancy. “If health care were an Olympic sport, the US might not qualify in a competition with other high-income nations,”⁵⁶ laments the study’s lead author, Eric Schneider, who serves as Senior Vice President for Policy and Research at the Commonwealth Fund.

Following WWII, life expectancy in the US climbed for five decades, making Americans among the longest-lived people in the developed world. IQ also grew steadily by three points each decade since 1900. But as Tony Fauci spent the 1990s expanding the pharmaceutical and chemical paradigm—instead of public health—the pace of both longevity and intelligence slowed. The life expectancy decrease widened the gap between the US and its peers to nearly five years,⁵⁷ and American children have lost seven IQ points since 2000.⁵⁸

Under Dr. Fauci’s leadership, the allergic, autoimmune, and chronic illnesses which Congress specifically charged NIAID to investigate and prevent, have mushroomed to afflict 54 percent of children, up from 12.8 percent when he took over NIAID in 1984.⁵⁹ Dr. Fauci has offered no explanation as to why allergic diseases like asthma, eczema, food allergies, allergic rhinitis, and anaphylaxis suddenly exploded beginning in 1989, five years after he came to power. On its website, NIAID boasts that autoimmune disease is one of the agency’s top priorities. Some 80 autoimmune diseases, including juvenile diabetes and rheumatoid arthritis, Graves’ disease, and Crohn’s disease, which were practically unknown prior to 1984, suddenly became epidemic under his watch.^60,61,62 Autism, which many scientists now consider an autoimmune disease,^63,64,65 exploded from between 2/10,000 and 4/10,000 Americans⁶⁶ when Tony Fauci joined NIAID, to one in thirty-four today. Neurological diseases like ADD/ADHD, speech and sleep disorders, narcolepsy, facial tics, and Tourette’s syndrome have become commonplace in American children.⁶⁷ The human, health, and economic costs of chronic disease dwarf the costs of all infectious diseases in the United States. By this decade’s end, obesity, diabetes, and pre-diabetes are on track to debilitate 85 percent of America’s citizens.⁶⁸ America is among the ten most over-weight countries on Earth. The health impacts of these epidemics—which fall mainly on the young—eclipse even the most exaggerated health impacts of COVID-19.

What is causing this cataclysm? Since genes don’t cause epidemics, it must be environmental toxins. Many of these illnesses became epidemic in the late 1980s, after vaccine manufacturers were granted government protection from liability, and consequently accelerated their introduction of new vaccines.⁶⁹ The manufacturer’s inserts of the 69 vaccine doses list each of the now-common illnesses—some 170 in total—as vaccine side effects.⁷⁰ So vaccines are a potential culprit, but not the only one. Other possible perpetrators—or accomplices—that fit the applicable criterion—a sudden epidemic across all demographics beginning in 1989—are corn syrup, PFOA flame retardants, processed foods, cell phones and EMF radiation, chlorpyrifos, ultrasound, and neonicotinoid pesticides.

The list is finite, and it would be a simple thing to design studies that give us these answers. Tracing the etiology of these diseases through epidemiological research, observational and bench studies, and animal research is exactly what Congress charged Dr. Fauci to perform. But Tony Fauci controls the public health bankbook and has shown little interest in funding basic science to answer those questions.

Is this because any serious investigation into the sources of the chronic disease epidemic would certainly implicate the powerful pharmaceutical companies and the chemical, agricultural, and processed food multinationals that Dr. Fauci and his twenty-year business partner, Bill Gates, have devoted their careers to promoting? As we shall see, his capacity to curry favor with these merchants of pills, powders, potions, poisons, pesticides, pollutants, and pricks has been the key to Dr. Fauci’s longevity at HHS.

Is it fair to blame Dr. Fauci for a crisis that, of course, has many authors? Due to his vast budgetary discretion, his unique political access, his power over HHS and its various agencies, his moral authority, his moral flexibility, and his bully pulpit, Tony Fauci has more power than any other individual to direct public energies toward solutions. He has done the opposite. Instead of striving to identify the etiologies of the chronic disease pandemic, we shall see that Dr. Fauci has deliberately and systematically used his staggering power over Federal scientific research, medical schools, medical journals, and the careers of individual scientists, to derail inquiry and obstruct research that might provide the answers.

55. Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2021, CDC,
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/hcp/imz/child-adolescent.html

56. Joseph Guzman, Stunning new report ranks US dead last in health care among richest countries-despite spending the most, THE HILL (Aug. 6, 2021),
https://thehill.com/changing-america/well-being/longevity/566715-stunning-new-report-ranks-us-dead-last-in-healthcare

57. Kaitlin Sullivan, U.S. Life Expectancy Decreased by an ‘alarming’ amount during pandemic, NBC NEWS (Jun. 23, 2021),
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/u-s-life-expectancy-decreased-alarming-amount-during-pandemic-n1272206

58. Dr. Robert Gorter, Dr. Joseph Mercola, et al., “Why are IQ scores declining over the previous 20 years?,” The Gorter Model, (Jul. 1, 2018),
http://www.gorter-model.org/iq-scores-declining-previous-20-years/

59. Could Goldman Sachs Report Be Exposing Pharma’s Real End Game of Drug Dependency vs. Curing Disease, CHD (Apr. 18, 2018),
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/could-goldman-sachs-report-be-exposing-pharmas-real-end-game-of-drug-dependency-vs-curing-disease/

60. Lana Andelane, Autism may be an autoimmune disorder - study, NEWSHUB, (Oct 20, 2019).
https://www.newshub.co.nz/home/lifestyle/2019/10/autism-may-be-an-autoimmune-disorder-study.html

61. Children’s Health Defense, Campaign to Restore Child Health, CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, (2018).
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/campaign-restore-child-health/

62. Gianna Melillo, Study Highlights Prevalence of Comorbid Autoimmune Diseases, T1D in Pediatric Populations, AJMC, (Sep 9, 2020).
https://www.ajmc.com/view/study-highlights-prevalence-of-comorbid-autoimmune-diseases-t1d-in-pediatric-populations

63. J.B. HANDLEY, HOW TO END THE AUTISM EPIDEMIC, (Chelsea Green Publishing, 2018).

64. Elizabeth Edmiston, et al, Autoimmunity, Autoantibodies, and Autism Spectrum Disorder, BIOLOGICAL PSYCHIATRY, (Mar 1, 2017).
https://www.biologicalpsychiatryjournal.com/article/S0006-3223(16)32739-1/fulltext

65. Heather K. Hughes et al, Immune Dysfunction and Autoimmunity as Pathological Mechanisms in Autism Spectrum Disorders, FRONTIERS IN CELLULAR NEUROSCIENCE, (Nov 13, 2018).
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fncel.2018.00405/full

66. THOMAS F. BOAT & JOE T. WU, ED., MENTAL DISORDERS AND DISABILITIES AMONG LOW-INCOME CHILDREN, 241 National Academies Press, (Oct. 28, 2015),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332896/

67. Elizabeth Mumper, MD, Increasing Rates of Childhood Neurological Illness, THE INSTITUTE FOR FUNCTIONAL MEDICINE, (2017).
https://www.ifm.org/news-insights/increasing-rates-childhood-neurological-illness/

68. Adela Hruby and Frank B. Hu, The Epidemiology of Obesity: A Big Picture, PHARMACOECONOMICS, (Jul 1, 2016).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4859313/

69. Michael E. McDonald and John F. Paul, Timing of Increased Autistic Disorder Cumulative Incidence, ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY, (Feb 16, 2010).
https://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es902057k

70. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Table 1. Recommended Child and Adolescent Immunization Schedule for ages 18 years or younger, United States, 2021, (2021),
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/schedules/downloads/child/0-18yrs-child-combined-schedule.pdf

While some Republicans bridled warily at Dr. Fauci’s accumulating power and seemingly arbitrary pronouncements, the alchemies of political tribalism and the relentlessly stoked terror of COVID-19 persuaded spellbound Democrats to close their eyes to the damning evidence that his COVID-19 policies were a catastrophic and dangerous failure.

As an advocate for public health, robust science, and independent regulatory agencies—free from corruption and financial entanglements with Pharma—I have battled Dr. Fauci for many years. I know him personally, and my impression of him is very different from my fellow Democrats, who first encountered him as the polished, humble, earnest, endearing, and long-suffering star of the televised White House COVID press conferences. Dr. Fauci played a historic role as the leading architect of “agency capture”—the corporate seizure of America’s public health agencies by the pharmaceutical industry.

Lamentably, Dr. Fauci’s failure to achieve public health goals during the COVID pandemic are not anomalous errors, but consistent with a recurrent pattern of sacrificing public health and safety on the altar of pharmaceutical profits and self-interest. He consistently priortized pharmaceutical industry profits over public health. Readers of these pages will learn how in exalting patented medicine Dr. Fauci has, throughout his long career, routinely falsified science, deceived the public and physicians, and lied about safety and efficacy. Dr. Fauci’s malefactions detailed in this volume include his crimes against the hundreds of Black and Hispanic orphan and foster children whom he subjected to cruel and deadly medical experiments and his role, with Bill Gates, in transforming hundreds of thousands of Africans into lab rats for low-cost clinical trials of dangerous experimental drugs that, once approved, remain financially out of reach for most Africans. You will learn how Dr. Fauci and Mr. Gates have turned the African continent into a dumping ground for expired, dangerous, and ineffective drugs, many of them discontinued for safety reasons in the US and Europe.

You will read how Dr. Fauci’s strange fascination with, and generous investments in, so-called “gain of function” experiments to engineer pandemic superbugs, give rise to the ironic possibility that Dr. Fauci may have played a role in triggering the global contagion that two US presidents entrusted him to manage. You will also read about his two-decade strategy of promoting false pandemics as a scheme for promoting novel vaccines, drugs and Pharma profits. You will learn of his actions to conceal widespread contamination in blood and vaccines, his destructive vendettas against scientists who challenge the Pharma paradigm, his deliberate sabotaging of patent-expired remedies against infectious diseases, from HIV to COVID-19, to grease the skids for less effective, but more profitable, remedies. You will learn of the grotesque body counts that have accumulated in the wake of his cold-blooded focus on industry profits over public health. All his strategies during COVID—falsifying science to bring dangerous and ineffective drugs to market, suppressing and sabotaging competitive products that have lower profit margins even if the cost is prolonging pandemics and losing thousands of lives—all of these share a common purpose: the myopic devotion to Pharma. This book will show you that Tony Fauci does not do public health; he is a businessman, who has used his office to enrich his pharmaceutical partners and expand the reach of influence that has made him the most powerful—and despotic—doctor in human history. For some readers, reaching that conclusion will require crossing some new bridges; many readers, however, intuitively know the real Anthony Fauci, and need only to see the facts illuminated and organized.

I wrote this book so that Americans—both Democrat and Republican—can understand Dr. Fauci’s pernicious role in allowing pharmaceutical companies to dominate our government and subvert our democracy, and to chronicle the key role Dr. Fauci has played in the current coup d’état against democracy.

“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.

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

1 Norah McDonnell, Dr. Fauci Says, “With All Due Modesty, I Think I’m Pretty Effective.” InStyle. (July 15, 2020).
https://www.instyle.com/news/dr-fauci-says-with-all-due-modesty-i-think-im-pretty-effective

2 Darragh Roche, “Fauci Said Masks ‘Not Really Effective in Keeping Out Virus,’ Email Reveals,” Newsweek (Jun. 2, 2021),
https://www.newsweek.com/fauci-said-masks-not-really-effective-keeping-out-virus-email-reveals-1596703

3 USA Today, ‘Danger of getting coronavirus now is just minisculely low’, USA Today Video (Feb. 17, 2020),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/02/17/new-coronavirus-what-dont-we-know-dr-anthony-fauci-q-a-opinion/4790996002/

4 US Dept HHS, 00:44:12, “Update on the New Coronavirus Outbreak First Identified in Wuhan, China | January 28, 2020,” YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w6koHkBCoNQ&t=2605s

5 Shaun Griffin, Covid-19: Asymptomatic cases may not be infectious, Wuhan study indicates, BMJ, (Dec. 1, 2020).
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4695

6 Children’s Health Defense, The Science of Masks, (2020-2021).
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/the-science-of-masks/

7 Jeffrey D. Smith et al, Effectiveness of N95 respirators versus surgical masks in protecting health care workers from acute respiratory infection: a systematic review and meta-analysis, CMAJ. (May 17, 2016).
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/Effectiveness-of-N95-respirators-versus-surgical-masks-in-protecting-health-care-workers-from-acute-respiratory-infection-a-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis.pdf

8 Ibid.

9 Alex Gutentag, “The War on Reality,” Tablet (Jun. 28, 2021),
https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/the-war-on-reality-gutentag

10 Edmund DeMarche, Fauci’s controversial ‘60 Minutes’ interview about mask-wearing was one year ago, FOX News, (Mar 8, 2021).
https://www.foxnews.com/health/faucis-controversial-60-minutes-interview-about-mask-wearing-was-one-year-ago

11 Graison Dangor, “CDC’s Six-Foot Social Distancing Rule Was ‘Arbitrary’, Says Former FDA Commissioner,” Forbes (Sept. 19, 2021), https://www.forbes.com/sites/graisondangor/2021/09/19/cdcs-six-foot-social-distancing-rule-was-arbitrary-says-former-fda-commissioner/?sh=238cdd32e8e6

12 Face The Nation, “Gottlieb calls CDC’s six-foot distancing recommendation ‘arbitrary’,” Twitter (Sept. 19, 2021),
https://twitter.com/FaceTheNation/status/1439582587173941248

13 Spectator TV, “WHO Special Envoy on COVID - Dr David Nabarro on Lockdowns (Oct. 8, 2020),” YouTube ...of Record, 00:09:39,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YdSpiLBQWV0

14 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Association of State-Issued Mask Mandates and Allowing On-Premises Restaurant Dining with County-Level COVID-19 Case and Death Growth Rates — United States, March 1-December 31, 2020, MMWR, (Mar 12, 2021).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7010e3.htm

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

15 Donald G. McNeil, Jr., “How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?,” New York Times (Dec. 24, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/12/24/health/herd-immunity-covid-coronavirus.html?searchResultPosition=2

16 Wen Shi Li, et al, Antibody-dependent enhancement and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines and therapies, Nature Microbiology, (Sep 9, 2020).
https://sci-hubtw.hkvisa.net/10.1038/s41564-020-00789-5

17 Nouara Yahi et al, Infection-enhancing anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies recognize both the original Wuhan/D614G strain and Delta variants. A potential risk for mass vaccination?, Journal of Infection, (Aug 9, 2021).
https://www.journalofinfection.com/article/S0163-4453(21)00392-3/fulltext

18 Jordan Lancaster, Fauci Doesn’t Have An Answer To Why Those Who Recovered From Covid Are Required To Take Vaccine, The Daily Caller, (Sep 10, 2021).
https://dailycaller.com/2021/09/10/fauci-doesnt-answer-recovered-covid-required-take-vaccine/ne/

19 Disclose.tv, Dr. Fauci calls for unvaccinated Americans to be banned from air travel and to mandate #COVID19 vaccines for school children, Twitter, (Sep 13, 2021).
https://twitter.com/disclosetv/status/1437382113548980232

20 Nieman Foundation, “Dr. Anthony Fauci: ‘You’ve Got to Evolve with the Science. Science Is a Self-Correcting Process’,” Nieman Reports (Jun. 30, 2021),
https://niemanreports.org/articles/dr-anthony-fauci-youve-got-to-evolve-with-the-science/

21 Alan Reynolds, “How One Model Simulated 2.2 Million U.S. Deaths from COVID-19,” Cato Institute (Apr. 21, 2020, 3:05 p.m.),
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19
Ryan Chatelain, “U.S. COVID deaths in 2021 surpass 2020 total,” Spectrum News

22 NY1 (Oct. 06, 2021), *Models predicted 2.2 million deaths, 352,000 deaths were reported in 2020, the difference was 1.848 million deaths or a 525% overestimation of deaths related to COVID-19 based on models used to determine lockdowns.
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/health/2021/10/06/u-s--covid-deaths-in-2021-top-2020-total

23 BMGF Committed Grants, “Imperial College London 2016-2020,” BMGF Grants Database,
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=imperial%20college&yearAwardedEnd=2020&yearAwardedStart=2016ollege&yearAwardedEnd=2020&yearAwardedStart=2016

24 Centers for Control and Prevention, Weekly Updates by Select Demographic and Geographic Characteristics, (Oct 6, 2021).
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/nvss/vsrr/covid_weekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Qweekly/index.htm?fbclid=IwAR3-wrg3tTKK5-9tOHPGAHWFVO3DfslkJ0KsDEPQWmPbKtp6EsoVV2Qs1Q

25 Vincent Racaniello & Rich Condit, “COVID-19 with Dr. Anthony Fauci-Episode 641” TWiV (Jul. 17, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_Vy6fgaBPE&t=27s

26 Daniel Payne, In little noticed July interview, Fauci warned that widely used COVID tests may pick up ‘dead’ virus, Just the News, (Dec 10, 2020).
https://justthenews.com/politics-policy/coronavirus/newly-surfaced-video-july-fauci-tests-dead-virusm/politics-policy/coronavirus/newly-surfaced-video-july-fauci-tests-dead-virus

27 Michelle Rogers, “Fact check: Hospitals get paid more if patients listed as COVID-19, on ventilators- Senator Scott Jensen video,” USA Today, (Apr. 24, 2020),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/04/24/fact-check-medicare-hospitals-paid-more-covid-19-patients-coronavirus/3000638001/

28 Ibid. USA Today

29 Ross Lazarus et al, Medicare paid hospitals $39,000 per deaths from treating COVID-19, The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), (2010).
https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

30 Jonathan Rothwell, “U.S. Adults’ Estimates of COVID-19 Hospitalization Risk,” GALLUP, (Sep 27, 2021).
https://news.gallup.com/opinion/gallup/354938/adults-estimates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspxmates-covid-hospitalization-risk.aspx

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 naïve 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.

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.

31 Elizabeth Fernandez, “Smoking Nearly Doubles the Rate of COVID-19 Progression,” UCSF (May 12, 2020),
https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2020/05/417411/smoking-nearly-doubles-rate-covid-19-progressionoubles-rate-covid-19-progression

32 Becky McCall, “Vitamin D Deficiency in COVID-19 Quadrupled Death Rate,” Medscape (Dec. 11, 2020),
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/942497

33 Berkeley Lovelace, Jr., “CDC study finds about 78% of people hospitalized for Covid were overweight or obese,” CNBC (Mar. 8, 2021),
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/08/covid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.htmlcovid-cdc-study-finds-roughly-78percent-of-people-hospitalized-were-overweight-or-obese.html

34 Carolyn Crist, “Study: In U.S., Lockdowns Added 2 Pounds per Month,” WebMD, (Mar. 23, 2021)
https://www.webmd.com/lung/news/20210323/lockdown-weight-gain-study-study

35 M. Science, J. Johnstone, et al, “Zinc for the treatment of the common cold: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” CMAJ. 2012;184(10):E551-E561. doi:10.1503/ cmaj.111990
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3394849/mc/articles/PMC3394849/

36 College of Physicians and Surgeons, Statement on Public Health Information, (Apr 30, 2021).
https://www.cpso.on.ca/News/Key-Updates/Key-Updates/COVID-misinformationmation

37 Emma Talkoff & Ashley Fetters Maloy, “The anti-vax wellness influencers,” Post Reports-Podcast (Oct. 1, 2021) 00:10:11,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/podcasts/post-reports/the-antivax-wellness-influencers/https://open.spotify.com/episode/2N9m96jw8o9QtrMHPoI5Aa
(00:10:25)

38 Gabby Landsverk,“Long-term quarantines can weaken your immune system due to loneliness and stress. Here’s how to cope,” Insider (May 12, 2020),
https://www.insider.com/staying-inside-could-weaken-the-immune-system-from-stress-loneliness-2020-5er.com/staying-inside-could-weaken-the-immune-system-from-stress-loneliness-2020-5

39 “Stress Weakens the Immune System,” APA (Feb. 26, 2006),
https://www.apa.org/research/action/immuneearch/action/immune

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.”

40 Yale, “Harvey Risch, MD, PhD Biography,” Yale School of Public Health (Jul. 15, 2019),
https://ysph.yale.edu/profile/harvey_risch/

41 Peter A. McCullough, et al., The Pathophysiologic Basic and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19, V:134 I:1 The American Journal of Medicine P16-22, (Jan 1, 2021,) DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.07.003
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

42 Peter A. McCullough, et al., Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), 30;21(4):517-530 Rev Cardiovasc Med. (Dec. 2020), doi:10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/

43 FLCCC, “Dr. Pierre Kory, M.P.A., M.D. curriculum vitae,” FLCCC Alliance,
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-member-CV-Kory.pdfovid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-Alliance-member-CV-Kory.pdf

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.

44 Joel Rose, U.S. Field Hospitals Stand Down, Most Without Treating Any COVID-19 Patients, NPR, (May 7, 2020).
https://www.npr.org/2020/05/07/851712311/u-s-field-hospitals-stand-down-most-without-treating-any-covid-19-patientsospitals-stand-down-most-without-treating-any-covid-19-patients

45 New York Times staff, Nearly One-Third of U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Are Linked to Nursing Homes, (Jun 1, 2021). New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html

46 New York Times staff, Nearly One-Third of U.S. Coronavirus Deaths Are Linked to Nursing Homes, (Jun 1, 2021). New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.htmle/2020/us/coronavirus-nursing-homes.html

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

47 The FLCCC Alliance, FLCCC (2021),
https://covid19criticalcare.com/network-support/the-flccc-alliance/rt/the-flccc-alliance/

48 Paul G. Harch, Hyperbaric oxygen treatment of novel coronavirus (COVID-19) respiratory failure, Medical Gas Research, (Apr-Jun, 2020).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC7885706/

49 Scott A Gorenstein et al, Hyperbaric oxygen therapy for COVID-19 patients with respiratory distress: treated cases versus propensity-matched controls, Undersea & Hyperbaric Medical Society, (Third-quarter, 2020).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32931666/2931666/

50 Saikiran Kannan, Did nasal rinsing help ASEAN control pandemic or swift action?, India Today, (jul 24, 2020).
https://www.indiatoday.in/news-analysis/story/did-nasal-rinsing-help-asean-control-pandemic-or-swift-action-1703801-2020-07-24nsing-help-asean-control-pandemic-or-swift-action-1703801-2020-07-24

51 Peter A. McCullough et al., The Pathophysiologic Basic and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19, V:134 I:1 The American Journal of Medicine P16-22, (Jan 1, 2021,) DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjmed.2020.07.003
https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext

52 Jianjun Gao et al, Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies, BioScience Trends, (Mar 26, 2020). Breakthrough: Chloroquine phosphate has shown apparent efficacy in treatment of COVID-19 associated pneumonia in clinical studies

53 National Health Commission & State Administration of Traditional Chinese Medicine, Diagnosis and Treatment Protocol for Novel Coronavirus Pneumonia, (Mar 3, 2020).
https://www.chinalawtranslate.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Who-translation.pdfation.pdf

54 Aimee Quin, Interview with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., (Oct. 1, 2021).

55 AAPS, “Physician List & Guide to Home-Based COVID Treatment,” AAPS (Aug. 28, 2021),
https://aapsonline.org/covidpatientguide/

56 The WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group, Association Between Administration of Systemic Corticosteroids and Mortality Among Critically Ill Patients With COVID-19 A Meta-analysis, (Sep 22, 2020).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2770279

57 Univesity of Oxford, Common asthma treatment reduces need for hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients, study suggests, (Feb 9, 2021). Common asthma treatment reduces need for hospitalisation in COVID-19 patients, study suggests

58 Ly-Mee Yu, DPhil et al, Inhaled budesonide for COVID-19 in people at high risk of complications in the community in the UK (PRINCIPLE): a randomised, controlled, open-label, adaptive platform trial, The Lancet, (Aug 10, 2021).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01744-X/fulltextt.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)01744-X/fulltext

59 Aaron Z. Reyes et al, Anti-inflammatory therapy for COVID-19 infection: the case for colchicine, Annals of the Rheumatic Diseases, (May, 2021).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33293273/lm.nih.gov/33293273/

60 Peter A. McCullough et al, Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, (2020).
https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml

61 R. Derwanda, M. Scholzb, & V. Zelenko, “COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study,” International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents, Volume 56, Issue 6, Dec 2020, 106214,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2020.106214,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920304258

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.”

62 McMaster University, Antidepressant fluvoxamine can save COVID-19 patients, McMaster-led research shows, (Aug 17, 2021).
https://brighterworld.mcmaster.ca/articles/antidepressant-fluvoxamine-can-save-covid-19-patients-mcmaster-led-research-shows/

63 Gilmar Reis, et al., “Effect of Early Treatment With Hydroxychloroquine or Lopinavir and Ritonavir on Risk of Hospitalization Among Patients With COVID-19: The TOGETHER Randomized Clinical Trial,” JAMA Netw. Open, 4(4):e216468 (Apr. 22, 2021), doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.6468.
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2779044

64 Paul E. Alexander, et al., Early multidrug treatment of SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19) and reduced mortality among nursing home (or outpatient/ambulatory) residents, V: 153 ISSN: 0306-9877 (Aug. 2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mehy.2021.110622.

65 Juan IgnacioMorán Blanco, et al., Antihistamines and azithromycin as a treatment for COVID-19 on primary health care - A retrospective observational study in elderly patients, V: 67 ISSN 1094-5539 (Apr. 2021),
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pupt.2021.101989.

66 Peter A. McCullough, et al., Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), 30;21(4):517-530 Rev Cardiovasc Med. (Dec. 2020), doi:10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/

67 The New York Times, “See How the Vaccine Rollout Is Going in Your State,” NYT (Jan. 31, 2021),
https://web.archive.org/web/20210201124039/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/us/covid-19-vaccine-doses.html

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.

1 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2018 Form 990, Attachment C, page 4, (2018).
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/view_990/911663695/011be856013f829aa3c948c35c2aa163

2 U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Emergency Use Authorization of Medical Products and Related Authorities, (Jan 2017).
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/emergency-use-authorization-medical-products-and-related-authorities#preeua

3 Jonathan Saltzman, US Government Has Invested $6 Billion In Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine, STAT News, (April 30th 2021).
https://www.statnews.com/2021/04/30/u-s-government-has-invested-6-billion-in-modernas-covid-19-vaccine/

4 Bob Herman, NIH-Moderna Confidential Disclosure Agreement, AXIOS, (Nov 6, 2015)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6935295-NIH-Moderna-Confidential-Agreements.html

5 Zain Rizvi, The NIH Vaccine, PUBLIC CITIZEN, (Jun 25, 2020).
https://www.citizen.org/article/the-nih-vaccine/#_ftn2

6 Legal Information Institute, 15 U.S. Code § 3710c - Distribution of royalties received by Federal agencies, CORNELL LAW SCHOOL,
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/3710c

7 Marisa Taylor and Aram Roston, Pressed by Trump, U.S. pushed unproven coronavirus treatment guidance, REUTERS, (Apr 4, 2020).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-usa-guidance-exclu/exclusive-pressed-by-trump-u-s-pushed-unproven-coronavirus-treatment-guidance-idUSKBN21M0R2

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

8 World Health Organization, Unedited Report of the 18th Expert Committee on the Selection and Use of Essential Medicines, (Mar 21-25, 2011).
https://www.who.int/selection_medicines/Complete_UNEDITED_TRS_18th.pdf?ua=1

9 Concordia Pharmaceuticals Inc, PLAQUENIL® HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE SULFATE TABLETS, USP, (Jan, 2017).
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2017/009768s037s045s047lbl.pdf

10 STELLA IMMANUEL, MD, LET AMERICA LIVE: EXPOSING THE HIDDEN AGENDA BEHIND THE 2020 PANDEMIC: MY JOURNEY, CH 1 (Charisma House 2021)

11 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Medicines for the Prevention of Malaria While Traveling Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil™),
https://www.cdc.gov/malaria/resources/pdf/fsp/drugs/hydroxychloroquine.pdf

12 Peter A. McCullough, MD, Why doctors and researchers need access to hydroxychloroquine, THE HILL, (Aug 7, 2020).
https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/510700-why-doctors-and-researchers-need-access-to-hydroxychloroquine

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 opposite 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 5× efficacy.³⁹ And national studies in Canada and Saudi Arabia showed 3× 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?

13 Els Keyaerts et al, In vitro inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus by chloroquine, BIOCHEMICAL AND BIOPHYSICAL RESEARCH COMMUNICATIONS, (Oct 8, 2004).

14 Keyaerts, Els et al., In vitro inhibition of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus by chloroquine, Biochemical and biophysical research communications vol. 323,1 (2004): 264-8. doi:10.1016/j. bbrc.2004.08.085,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7092815/pdf/main.pdf

15 Martin J. Vincent et al, Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread, (Aug 22, 2005).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/

16 Julie Dyall, et al, Repurposing of clinically developed drugs for treatment of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus infection, Volume 58 Issue 8, ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 4885-93 (2014),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4136000/

17 Adriaan H. de Wilde et al., Screening of an FDA-Approved Compound Library Identifies Four Small-Molecule Inhibitors of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Replication in Cell Culture, VOL 58 ISSUE 8, ASM JOURNALS ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS AND CHEMOTHERAPY, 4875-4884 (2014),
https://doi.org/10.1128/AAC.03011-14

18 Yi Su et al, Efficacy of early hydroxychloroquine treatment in preventing COVID-19 pneumonia aggravation, the experience from Shanghai, China, BIOSCIENCE TRENDS, (Jan 23, 2021).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33342929/

19 Jean-Christophe Lagier et al, Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille, France: A retrospective analysis, TRAVEL MEDICINE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, (Jul-Aug, 2020).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7315163/

20 Saja H. Almazrou et al, Comparing the impact of Hydroxychloroquine based regimens and standard treatment on COVID-19 patient outcomes: A retrospective cohort study, SAUDI PHARMACEUTICAL JOURNAL, (Dec 2020).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7527306/

21 Majid Mokhtaria et al, Clinical outcomes of patients with mild COVID-19 following treatment with hydroxychloroquine in an outpatient setting, INTERNATIONAL IMMUNOPHARMACOLOGY, (July, 2021).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1567576921002721

22 The COVID-19 RISK and Treatments (CORIST) Collaboration, Use of hydroxychloroquine in hospitalised COVID-19 patients is associated with reduced mortality: Findings from the observational multicentre Italian CORIST study, EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, (Dec 1, 2020).
https://www.ejinme.com/article/S0953-6205(20)30335-6/fulltext

23 Awadhesh Kumar Singh et al, Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of COVID-19 with or without diabetes: A systematic search and a narrative review with a special reference to India and other developing countries, DIABETES & METABOLIC SYNDROME: CLINICAL RESEARCH AND REVIEWS, (May-Jun, 2020).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1871402120300515#!

24 Alyssa Paolicelli, Drug Combo with Hydroxychloroquine Promising: NYU Study, SPECTRUM NEWS NY1 (May 20, 2021, 7:18 AM),
https://www.ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/news/2020/05/12/nyu-study-looks-at-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-azithromycin-combo-on-decreasing-covid-19-deaths

25 Roland Derwand, Martin Scholz and Vladimir Zelenko, COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, (Dec 2020).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33122096/

26 Samia Arshad, Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASES, (Aug 2020).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/

27 Fabricio Souza Neves, Correlation of the rise and fall in COVID-19 cases with the social isolation index and early outpatient treatment with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine in the state of Santa Catarina, southern Brazil: A retrospective analysis, TRAVEL MEDICINE AND INFECTIOUS DISEASE, (May-Jun, 2021).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33667717/

28 Didier Raoult et al, Hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin as a treatment of COVID-19: results of an open-label non-randomized clinical trial, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, (Jul 2020).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7102549/

29 Roland Derwand, Martin Scholz and Vladimir Zelenko, COVID-19 outpatients: early risk-stratified treatment with zinc plus low-dose hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin: a retrospective case series study, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ANTIMICROBIAL AGENTS, (Dec 2020).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33122096/

30 Harvey A. Risch, Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients That Should Be Ramped Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, (Nov 2, 2020).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32458969/

31 Wesley H. Self et al, Effect of Hydroxychloroquine on Clinical Status at 14 Days in Hospitalized Patients With COVID-19, JAMA, (Nov 9, 2020).
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2772922?utm_campaign=articlePDF&utm_medium=articlePDFlink&utm_source=articlePDF&utm_content=jama.2020.22240

32 Harvey A. Risch, Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk COVID-19 Patients That Should Be Ramped Up Immediately as Key to the Pandemic Crisis, AMERICAN JOURNAL OF EPIDEMIOLOGY, (Nov 2, 2020).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32458969/

33 A Anglemyer, HT Horvath, L. Bero, “Healthcare outcomes assessed with observational study designs compared with those assessed in randomized trials,” Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014, Issue 4. Art. No.: MR000034. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2. Accessed 11 October 2021,
https://www.cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/doi/10.1002/14651858.MR000034.pub2/full

34 Peter A. McCullough et al, Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19), REVIEWS IN CARDIOVASCULAR MEDICINE, (2020).
https://rcm.imrpress.com/article/2020/2153-8174/RCM2020264.shtml

35 Joseph A. Ladapo, et al, Randomized Controlled Trials of Early Ambulatory Hydroxychloroquine in the Prevention of COVID-19 Infection, Hospitalization, and Death: Meta-Analysis, MEDRXIV (Sep. 30, 2020),
https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.30.20204693

36 Jia Liu, et al, Hydroxychloroquine, a less toxic derivative of chloroquine, is effective in inhibiting SARS-CoV-2 infection in vitro, Nature, (Mar 18, 2020).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41421-020-0156-0#citeas

37 Zhaowei Chen et al, Efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in patients with COVID-19: results of a randomized clinical trial, MEDRXIV, (Apr 10, 2020).
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.22.20040758v3

38 Wei Tang et al, Hydroxychloroquine in patients with mainly mild to moderate coronavirus disease 2019: open label, randomised controlled trial, BMJ, (May 14, 2020).
https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1849

39 Lotta Ulander, et al., Hydroxychloroquine reduces interleukin-6 levels after myocardial infarction: The randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled OXI pilot trial, 15;337:21-27 Int J Cardiol (May 4, 2021), doi: 10.1016/j.ijcard.2021.04.062.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33961943/

40 Abdulrhman Mohana et al, Hydroxychloroquine safety outcome with an approved therapeutic protocol for COVID-19 outpatients in Saudi Arabia, INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INFECTIOUS DISEASE, (2021).
https://www.ijidonline.com/article/S1201-9712(20)32235-9/pdf

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.

41 Drugs.com, Hydroxychloroquine Prices, Coupons and Patient Assistance Programs, DRUGS.COM (Sept. 1, 2021),
https://www.drugs.com/price-guide/hydroxychloroquine

42 Allison Inserro, Gilead Sciences Sets US Price for COVID-19 Drug at $2340 to $3120 Based on Insurance, AJMC (Jun. 29, 2020),
https://www.ajmc.com/view/gilead-sciences-sets-us-price-for-covid19-drug-at-2340-to-3120-based-on-insurance

43 and Nathalie Boudet-Gizardin, Can Hydroxychloroquine Be Legally Prescribed in France for Patients with COVID-19?, Ginestié Magellan Paley-Vincent, (July 4, 2020).
https://www.ginestie.com/en/covid-19-can-hydroxychloroquine-be-legally-prescribed-in-France-for-patients-with-covid-19/

44 Id.

45 Public Health Agency of Canada, Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine can have serious side effects. These drugs should be used only under the supervision of a physician, (Apr 25, 2020).
https://healthycanadians.gc.ca/recall-alert-rappel-avis/hc-sc/2020/72885a-eng.php

46 Barry Bateman, Illegally imported chloroquine destroyed, ENCA.COM, (Sep 23, 2020).
https://www.enca.com/news/illegally-imported-chloroquine-destroyed

47 Bethany Rodgers, Feds want a Utah pharmacist who illegally imported malaria drugs to destroy them. He’s pitching a different plan, THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE, (Apr 24, 2021). https://www.sltrib.com/news/2021/04/24/feds-want-utah-pharmacist/

48 Joan Donovan, et al, Trading Up the Chain: The Hydroxychloroquine Rumor, MEDIA MANIPULATION, (March, 2020).
https://mediamanipulation.org/case-studies/trading-chain-hydroxychloroquine-rumor

49 James Todaro, MD, HCQ Tweet, Twitter, (Mar 13, 2020).
https://twitter.com/JamesTodaroMD/status/1238553266369318914?s=20

50 Ben Hirschler, Google venture arm backs UK universal flu vaccine company, Reuters (Jan. 14, 2018),
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-flu-vaccine/google-venture-arm-backs-uk-universal-fluvaccine-company-idUSKBN1F400H

51 Project Vaseline by Verily, Building a research community of engaged participants to aid scientists in the fight against COVID-19,
https://verily.com/solutions/covid-19-research/

52 Ben Hirschler, GSK and Google parent forge $715 million bioelectronic medicines firm, REUTERS, (Aug 1, 2016).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gsk-alphabet/gsk-and-google-parent-forge-715-million-bioelectronic-medicines-firm-idUSKCN10C1K8

53 Christina Farr, Alphabet’s Verily builds its own lab to speed up coronavirus test results, CNBC,
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/11/alphabets-verily-builds-its-own-coronavirus-testing-lab.html

54 Kayla Epstein, Trump keeps touting a decades-old malaria pill as a coronavirus ‘game changer’, undercutting his top infectious-disease expert, BUSINESS INSIDER, (Mar 21, 2020).
https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-undercuts-fauci-on-whether-chloroquine-can-treat-coronavirus-2020-3

55 Scott Sayare, He was a Science Star. Then He Promoted a Questionable Cure for COVID-19, New York Times Magazine, (May 21, 2020).
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/12/magazine/didier-raoult-hydroxychloroquine.html

56 Elizabeth Cohen & Wesley Bruer, US stockpile stuck with 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, CNN (Jun. 17, 2020),
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/health/hydroxychloroquine-national-stockpile/index.html

57 BBC News, ‘Ousted’ US vaccine expert Rick Bright to file whistleblower complaint, BBC NEWS, (Apr 24, 2020).
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52400721

58 FDA News Release, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, FDA (Jun. 15, 2020),
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and

59 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Coronavirus (COVID-19) Update: FDA Revokes Emergency Use Authorization for Chloroquine and Hydroxychloroquine, (Jun 15, 2020).
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-revokes-emergency-use-authorization-chloroquine-and

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!

60 World Health Organization, WHO discontinues hydroxychloroquine and lopinavir/ritonavir treatment arms for COVID-19, (July 4, 2020).
https://www.who.int/news/item/04-07-2020-who-discontinues-hydroxychloroquine-and-lopinavir-ritonavir-treatment-arms-for-covid-19

61 Meryl Nass, MD, Covid-19 Has Turned Public Health Into a Lethal, Patient-Killing Experimental Endeavor, ALLIANCE FOR HUMAN RESEARCH PROTECTION, (Jun 20, 2020).
https://ahrp.org/covid-19-has-turned-public-health-into-a-lethal-patient-killing-experimental-endeavor/

62 Id.

63 Meryl Nass, WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose--according to WHO consultant, ANTHRAX VACCINE-POSTS BY MERYL NASS, M.D. (Jun. 14, 2020),
http://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/who-trial-using-potentially-fatal.html

64 RECOVERY: Randomized Evaluation of COVID-19 Therapy, (2021). https://www.recoverytrial.net/

65 Transparency data: List of participants of SAGE and related sub-groups, GOV.UK (Jun. 18, 2021),
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/scientific-advisory-group-for-emergencies-sage-coronavirus-covid-19-response-membership/list-of-participants-of-sage-and-related-sub-groups

66 Member Bios Update, NERVTAG (Nov. 2018),
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/756256/NERVTAG_Member_Bios_update_November2018.pdf

67 Tess de la Mare, Zoonotic disease needs to be stopped at source, top scientist warns, (Jun 11, 2021).
https://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/zoonotic-disease-needs-to-be-stopped-at-source-top-scientist-warns-40529238.html

68 World Health Organization, WHO R&D Blueprint COVID-19 Informal consultation on the dose of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine for the SOLIDARITY Clinical Trial, 5-6 (Apr. 8, 2020).
https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/documents/r-d-blueprint-meetings/rd-blueprint-expert-group-oncq-dose-call-apr8.pdf

69 World Health Organization, WHO R&D Blueprint COVID-1 Informal consultation on the potential role of chloroquine in the clinical management of COVID 19 infection, (Mar 13, 2020).
https://www.who.int/blueprint/priority-diseases/key-action/RD-Blueprint-expert-group-on-CQ-call-Mar-13-2020.pdf

70 Mayla G.S. Borba, et al. Effect of High vs Low Doses of Chloroquine Diphosphate as Adjunctive Therapy for Patients Hospitalized With Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) Infection: A Randomized Clinical Trial, 3(4):e208857 JAMA (Apr. 24, 2020),
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2765499

71 Id.

72 Marcus Vinicius Guimarães de Lacerda, ESCAVADOR,
https://www.escavador.com/sobre/3931344/marcus-vinicius-guimaraes-de-lacerda

73 Ruanne V. Barnabas et al, Hydroxychloroquine as Postexposure Prophylaxis to Prevent Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 Infection, ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, (Dec 8, 2020).
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7732017/

74 Christine Johnston et al, Hydroxychloroquine with or without azithromycin for treatment of early SARS-CoV-2 infection among high-risk outpatient adults: A randomized clinical trial, ECLINICAL MEDICINE (published by The Lancet). (Feb 26, 2021).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33681731/

75 Researchers Overdosing COVID-19 Patients on Hydroxychloroquine, States Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), CISION PR NEWSWIRE (Jun. 17, 2020),
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/researchers-overdosing-covid-19-patients-on-hydroxychloroquine-states-association-of-american-physicians--surgeons-aaps-301078986.html

76 Lindzi Wessel, ‘It’s a nightmare.’ How Brazilian scientists became ensnared in chloroquine politics, SCIENCE, (Jun 22, 2020).
https://www.science.org/news/2020/06/it-s-nightmare-how-brazilian-scientists-became-ensnared-chloroquine-politics

77 Bill Gates, Opinion: Bill Gates: Here’s how to make up for lost time on covid-19, WASHINGTON POST, (Mar 31, 2020).
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/bill-gates-heres-how-to-makeup-for-lost-time-on-covid-19/2020/03/31/ab5c3cf2-738c-11ea-85cb-8670579b863d_story.html

78 Ibid.

79 Elizabeth Cohen & Wesley Bruer, US stockpile stuck with 63 million doses of hydroxychloroquine, CNN (Jun. 17, 2020),
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/17/health/hydroxychloroquine-national-stockpile/index.html

80 America’s Front Line Doctors, This Virus Has a Cure, (Jul 27 2020).
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x7vbtzf

81 Max Zahn, Bill Gates: Spread of ‘Outrageous” Coronavirus Video Shows Flaw in Social Media Platforms, YAHOO, (Jul 29, 2020).
https://www.yahoo.com/now/bill-gates-spread-of-outrageous-coronavirus-video-shows-flaw-in-social-media-platforms-124710983.html

82 Dina Bass and Candy Cheng, Bill Gates on Covid Vaccine Timing, Hydroxychloroquine, and That 5G Conspiracy Theory, BLOOMBERG, (Aug 13, 2020).
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-bill-gates-covid-vaccine/

83 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, 2018 Form 990, Attachment C, page 4, (2018).
https://www.causeiq.com/organizations/view_990/911663695/011be856013f829aa3c948c35c2aa163

84 Dina Bass and Candy Cheng, Bill Gates on Covid Vaccine Timing, Hydroxychloroquine, and That 5G Conspiracy Theory, BLOOMBERG, (Aug 13, 2020).
https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2020-bill-gates-covid-vaccine/

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 research^95,96 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

85 Mandeep Mehra, et al., RETRACTED: Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis, The Lancet (May 22, 2020),
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext

86 Mandeep Mehra, et al, RETRACTED: Cardiovascular Disease, Drug Therapy, and Mortality in Covid-19, 382:e102 NEJM (May 2020),
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007621

87 Melissa Davey and Stephanie Kirchgaessner, Surgisphere: governments and WHO changed Covid-19 policy based on suspect data from tiny US company, THE GUARDIAN, (Jun 3, 2020).
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/03/covid-19-surgisphere-who-world-health-organization-hydroxychloroquine

88 Denise M. Hinton, Letter revoking EUA for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, (Jun 15, 2020).
https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download

89 BBC, Coronavirus: WHO halts trials of hydroxychloroquine over safety fears, (May 25, 2020).
https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52799120

90 Jacqueline Howard, UK Covid-19 trial ends hydroxychloroquine study because there’s no evidence the drug benefits patients,

91 Matthias Blamont, Alistair Smout and Emilio Parodi, EU governments ban malaria drug for COVID-19, trial paused as safety fears grow, REUTERS, (May 27, 2020).
https://www.reuters.com/article/health-coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine-fr/eu-governments-ban-malaria-drug-for-covid-19-trial-paused-as-safety-fears-grow-idUSKBN2340A6

92 Kelly Servick & Martin Enserink, A mysterious company’s coronavirus papers in top medical journals may be unraveling, SCIENCE (Jun. 2, 2020),
https://www.science.org/news/2020/06/mysterious-company-s-coronavirus-papers-top-medical-journals-may-be-unraveling

93 Roni Caryn Rabin, Scientists Question Validity of Major Hydroxychloroquine Study, NYT (May 29, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/29/health/coronavirus-hydroxychloroquine.html

94 James Heathers, The Lancet has made one of the biggest retractions in modern history. How could this happen?, THE GUARDIAN (Jun. 5, 2020),
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jun/05/lancet-had-to-do-one-of-the-biggest-retractions-in-modern-history-how-could-this-happen

95 WHO Solidarity Consortium, Repurposed Antiviral Drugs for Covid-19 — Interim WHO Solidarity Trial Results, 384:497-511 NEJM (Dec. 2, 2020), DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2023184.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2023184

96 The RECOVERY Collaborative Group, Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19, 383:2030-2040 NEJM (Oct. 8, 2020), DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2022926.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2022926

97 Richard Smith, Medical journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies, 2.5 PLOS MEDICINE e138 (May 2005). doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020138. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1140949/

98 Id.

99 Id.

100 Horton, R. [2004], The dawn of McScience. New York Rev Books 51(4): 7-9. Angell, M. (2005), The Truth About Drug Companies: How They Deceive Us And What To Do About It. New York: Random House.

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 heart-related 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

101 Devan Cole, Fauci: Science shows hydroxychloroquine is not effective as a coronavirus treatment, CNN (May 27, 2020),
https://www.cnn.com/2020/05/27/politics/anthony-fauci-hydroxychloroquine-trump-cnntv/index.html

102 Christopher M. Wittich, et al., Ten common questions (and their answers) about off-label drug use, 87(10), MAYO CLINIC PROCEEDINGS, 982-990,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mayocp.2012.04.017

103 FDA, FDA cautions against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems, FDA (Jul. 1, 2020),
https://www.fda.gov/drugs/drug-safety-and-availability/fda-cautions-against-use-hydroxychloroquine-orchloroquine-covid-19-outside-hospital-setting-or

104 George C. Fareed, MD et al, Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19, THE DESERT REVIEW, (Aug 13, 2020),
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/open-letter-to-dr-anthony-fauci-regarding-the-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-for-treating-covid-19/article_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

105 Id.

106 Samia Arshad, et al., Treatment with hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and combination in patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 97 IJID (Aug. 2020) 396-403, doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2020.06.099.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7330574/

107 Beth LeBlanc, Fauci: Henry Ford Health’s hydroxychloroquine study ‘flawed’, THE DETROIT NEWS (Aug. 1, 2020),
https://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2020/07/31/anthony-fauci-henry-ford-health-hydroxychloroquine-study-flawed/5559367002/

108 Boards of pharmacy and other actions relating to COVID-19 prescribing, AMA (2020),
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharmacy-covid-19-prescribing.pdf

109 Valerie Richardson, Rudy Giuliani urges Andrew Cuomo to lift hydroxychloroquine restrictions for coronavirus, THE WASHINGTON TIMES, (Apr 5, 2020).
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/5/rudy-giuliani-urges-andrew-cuomo-lift-hydroxychlor/

110 News 4 and FOX 11 Digital Team, Gov. Sisolak signs emergency regulation restricting drug distribution during COVID-19, (Mar 24, 2020).
https://mynews4.com/news/local/gov-sisolak-signs-emergency-regulation-restricting-drug-distribution-during-covid-19

111 American Medical Association, Boards of pharmacy and other actions relating to COVID-19 prescribing, AMA ADVOCACY RESOURCE CENTER, (Apr 27, 2020).
https://www.ama-assn.org/system/files/2020-04/board-of-pharmacy-covid-19-prescribing.pdf

112 Free Republic, Is HCQ banned in your state? (probably not), (Aug 18, 2020).
https://freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3875427/posts?q=1&;page=1

113 FDA FAQ, Frequently Asked Questions on the Revocation of the Emergency Use Authorization for Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate and Chloroquine Phosphate, FDA (Jun. 15, 2021),
https://www.fda.gov/media/138946/download

114 National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, BULLETIN—NIH Clinical Trial Evaluating Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin for COVID-19 Closes Early, (Jun 20, 2020).
https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/bulletin-nih-clinical-trial-evaluating-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycincovid-19

115 Denise M. Hinton, Letter revoking EUA for chloroquine phosphate and hydroxychloroquine sulfate, U.S. FOOD AND DRUG ADMINISTRATION, (Jun 15, 2020).
https://www.fda.gov/media/138945/download

116 World Health Organization, Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): Solidarity Trial and hydroxychloroquine, (Jun 19, 2020).
https://www.who.int/news-room/q-a-detail/coronavirus-disease-covid-19-hydroxychloroquine

117 Natasha Donn, Covid-19: Portugal becomes 4th country to suspend use of hydroxychloroquine, PORTUGAL RESIDENT, (May 29, 2020).
https://www.portugalresident.com/covid-19-portugal-becomes-4th-country-to-suspend-use-of-hydroxychloroquine/

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

118 Michel Jullian and Xavier Azalbert, Covid-19: hydroxychloroquine works, a proof ?, FRANCE SOIR, (Jul 13, 2020).
https://www.francesoir.fr/societe-sante/covid-19-hydroxychloroquine-works-irrefutable-proof

119 Catherine Perea, Doctor Sánchez Cárdenas believes that the use of hydroxychloroquine in Panama has yielded results, TELEMETRO, (Aug 26, 2020).
https://www.telemetro.com/nacionales/2020/08/26/doctor-sanchez-cardenas-dice-hidroxicloroquina/3169570.html

120 Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), AAPS vs. Food & Drug Administration et al, (Jun 2, 2020).
https://aapsonline.org/judicial/aaps-v-fda-hcq-6-2-2020.pdf

121 Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, More Evidence Presented for Why Hydroxychloroquine Should be Made Available, in a New Court Filing by AAPS, AAPS ONLINE, (Jul 22, 2020).
https://aapsonline.org/more-evidence-presented-for-why-hydroxychloroquine-should-be-made-available-in-a-new-court-filing-by-aaps/

122 Jo Nova, Countries that use Hydroxychloroquine may have 80% lower Covid death rates, JONOVA (Aug. 8, 2020),
https://joannenova.com.au/2020/08/countries-that-use-hydroxychloroquine-may-have-80-lower-covid-death-rates/

123 C19Study.com, COVID-19 treatment studies for Hydroxychloroquine, (Sep 20, 2020). https://c19hcq.com/

124 C19Study.com, Countries based on current HCQ/CQ usage,
https://c19hcq.com/countries.html

125 Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population as of September 21, 2021, by country, (Sep 21, 2121)
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

126 George C. Fareed, MD et al, Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19, THE DESERT REVIEW, (Aug 13, 2020),
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/columnists/open-letter-to-dr-anthony-fauci-regarding-the-use-of-hydroxychloroquine-for-treating-covid-19/article_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html

127 Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population as of September 24, 2021, by country, (Sep 24, 2021).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

128 Id.

129 Id.

130 Id.

131 Reported Cases and Deaths by Country or Territory, WORLDOMETER (Sept. 24, 2021),
https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/

132 The Global Economy, Netherlands: Covid new deaths per million, (2021).
https://www.theglobaleconomy.com/Netherlands/covid_new_deaths_per_million/

133 Marine Strauss, Belgium, once hard-hit, reports zero coronavirus deaths for first time since March, REUTERS, (Jul 14, 2020).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-belgium/belgium-once-hard-hit-reports-zero-coronavirus-deaths-for-first-time-since-march-idUSKCN24F0U7

134 Statista, Coronavirus (COVID-19) deaths worldwide per one million population as of September 24, 2021, by country, (Sep 24, 2021).
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1104709/coronavirus-deaths-worldwide-per-million-inhabitants/

135 More Evidence Presented for Why Hydroxychloroquine Should be Made Available, in a New Court Filing by the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons (AAPS), CISION PR NEWSWIRE (Jul. 22, 2020),
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/more-evidence-presented-for-why-hydroxychloroquine-should-be-made-available-in-a-new-court-filing-by-the-association-of-american-physicians--surgeons-aaps-301098030.html

136 Harvey Risch, The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists. We Need to Start Using It, Newsweek (Jul. 23, 2020),
https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

137 Meryl Nass, How a False Hydroxychloroquine Narrative was created, and more, ANTHRAX VACCINE-POST BY MERYL NASS, M.D. (Jun. 27, 2020),
https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/how-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative.html

138 Id.

139 Id.

140 Id.

141 Id.

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

142 Ronald L. Trowbridge, Anthony Fauci: A Product of His Training, THE INDEPENDENT (Apr. 27, 2020),
https://www.independent.org/news/article.asp?id=13129

143 NIH ends key COVID-19 studies of hydroxychloroquine, BIOPHARMADIVE (Jun. 22, 2020),
https://www.biopharmadive.com/news/nih-hydroxychloroquine-coronavirus-trial-halt/580270/

144 Meryl Nass, Fauci the Hypocrite. Do NIAID royalties cloud his thinking?, TRUTH IN THE AGE OF COVID, (Apr 19, 2020).
https://merylnassmd.com/fauci-hypocrite-do-niaid-royalties/

145 Darryl Falzarano, Emmie de Wit, et al., Treatment with interferon-a2b and ribavirin improves outcome in MERS-CoV-infected rhesus macaques, 19(10) NAT MED 1313-1317, (2013), doi:10.1038/ nm.3362
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24013700/

146 Liz Szabo, Scientists fight deadly new coronavirus, USA Today (Apr. 18, 2013),
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/04/18/scientists-develop-possible-treatment-for-new-sars-like-virus/2091443/

147 Id.

148 Id.

149 Id.

150 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Package Insert, PEG-IntronTM (Peginterferon alfa-2b) Powder for Injection, Schering Corporation, (Oct 3, 2001).
https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2001/pegsche080701LB.htm#warn

151 Pfizer and BioNTech, FDA Briefing Document Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, (Dec 10, 2020).
https://www.fda.gov/media/144245/download

152 ModernaTX, Inc., FDA Briefing Document Moderna COVID-19 Vaccine, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, (Dec 17. 2020).
https://www.fda.gov/media/144434/download

153 Janssen, Ad26.COV2.S Vaccine for the Prevention of COVID-19, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, (Feb 26, 2021).
https://www.fda.gov/media/146217/download

154 Christopher J. Boggs, Insurance Implications of Required Vaccines, INSURANCE JOURNAL, (Feb 22, 2021).
https://www.insurancejournal.com/blogs/big-i-insights/2021/02/22/602123.htm

155 Kevin J. Hickey, The PREP Act and COVID-19: Limiting Liability for Medical Countermeasures, CONGRESSIONAL RESEARCH SERVICE (Updated Mar. 19, 2021),
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443

156 Children’s Health Defense Team, Here’s why Bill Gates wants indemnity… Are you willing to take the risk?, CHILDREN’S HEALTH DEFENSE, (Apr. 11, 2020),
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/heres-why-bill-gates-wants-indemnity-are-you-willing-to-take-the-risk/

157 Dr. Anthony Fauci: No placebo-controlled trial has shown hydroxychloroquine is effective, 1:17 YouTube CNBC (Jul. 31, 2020),
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDjVwXM8ESE

158 WHO, WHO recommends against the use of remdesivir in COVID-19 patients, WHO NEWSROOM (Nov. 20, 2020)
https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-recommends-against-the-use-of-remdesivir-in-covid-19-patients

159 Charan, Jaykaran et al. Rapid review of suspected adverse drug events due to remdesivir in the WHO database; findings and implications, 14,1 EXPERT REVIEW OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY 95-103 (2021), PMID: 33252992 doi:10.1080/17512433.2021.1856655

160 Real-World Evidence, Real-world data (RWD) and real-world evidence (RWE) are playing an increasing role in health care decisions, FDA (Jul. 16, 2021),
https://www.fda.gov/science-research/science-and-research-special-topics/real-world-evidence

161 FDA, 21st Century Cures Act, US FOOD & DRUG ADMINISTRATION (Jan. 31, 2020),
https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/selected-amendments-fdc-act/21st-century-cures-act

162 Michael Thau, COVID19: Top Yale Professor Says ‘Decisions Not Based On Science’, PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC, (Oct 14, 2020).
https://principia-scientific.com/covid19-top-yale-professor-says-decisions-not-based-on-science/

163 Id.

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.

1 The Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine 2015, The Nobel Prize Press Release (Oct. 5, 2015),
https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/press-release/

2 World Health Organization, “Executive summary: the selection and use of essential medicines 2021: report of the 23rd WHO Expert Committee on the selection and use of essential medicines,” WHO (Sep. 30, 2021),
https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/WHO-MHP-HPS-EML-2021.01

3 World Health Organization Model List of Essential Medicines—22nd List, WHO (2021),
https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/345533/WHO-MHP-HPS-EML-2021.02-eng.pdf

4 Andy Crump and Satoshi Ōmura, “Ivermectin, ‘Wonder drug’ from Japan: the human use perspective,” Proceedings of the Japan Academy, Series B, (Feb 10, 2011),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC3043740/

5 Fatemeh Heidary and Reza Gharebaghi, Ivermectin: a systematic review from antiviral effects to COVID-19 complementary regimen, The Journal of Antibiotics (June 12, 2020),
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41429-020-0336-z

6 “Lab experiments show anti-parasitic drug, Ivermectin, eliminates SARS-CoV-2 in cells in 48 hours.” Monash Biomedicine Discovery Institute (April 3, 2020),
https://www.monash.edu/discovery-institute/news-and-events/news/2020-articles/Lab-experiments-show-anti-parasitic-drug,-Ivermectin,-eliminates-SARS-CoV-2-in-cells-in-48-hours

7 Ibid.

8 Juan Chamie-Quintero et al., “Ivermectin for COVID in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p<0.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted,” OSF Preprints (March 8, 2021),
https://osf.io/9egh4/

9 Hector Carvallo, et al., “Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Topical Ivermectin + IotaCarrageenan in the Prophylaxis against COVID-19 in Health Personnel,” Journal of Biomedical Research and Clinical Investigation V. 2 I 1 at 1007 (Nov. 17, 2020),
https://www.medicalpressopenaccess.com/single_article.php?refid=82

10 Alam et al., “Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka—An Observational Study,” European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 6 (Published December 15, 2020).

11 AD Santin, et al., “Ivermectin: a multifaceted drug of Nobel prize-honoured distinction with indicated efficacy against a new global scourge,” 43:100924 New Microbes New Infect (Aug. 3, 2021) doi: 10.1016/j.nmni.2021.100924,
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34466270/

12 Statement to U.S. Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs: “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of the COVID-19 Solution, Part II.” THE ICON STUDY: Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter Reviews Ivermectin, Hope Pressworks (January 18, 2021),
https://hopepressworks.org/f/the-icon-study-dr-jean-jacques-rajter-reviews-ivermectin

13 Alam et al., “Ivermectin as Pre-exposure Prophylaxis for COVID-19 among Healthcare Providers in a Selected Tertiary Hospital in Dhaka—An Observational Study,” Alam et al., European Journal of Medical & Health Sciences, Vol. 2 No. 6 (Published December 15, 2020),
https://www.ejmed.org/index.php/ejmed/article/view/599

14 Peter A. McCullough et al., “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19),” Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine, 2020, Vol. 21 Issue (4): 517-530
https://rcm.imrpress.com/EN/10.31083/j.rcm.2020.04.264

15 Ivermectineforcovid.com , “A Letter to NIH and Dr. Anthony Fauci. Is Anybody Home?,” Ivermectin for COVID (Mar. 4, 2021),
https://ivermectinforcovid.com/a-letter-to-nih-and-dr-anthony-fauci-is-anybody-home/

16 C. Bernigaud et al., “Bénéfice de l’ivermectine: de la gale à la COVID-19, un exemple de sérendipité,” Annales de Dermatologie et de Vénéréologie (December, 2020),
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S015196382030627X?via%3Dihub

17 C. Bernigaud et al., “Ivermectin benefit: from scabies to COVID-19, an example of serendipity,” Annals of Dermatology and Venereology (December, 2020),
https://c19ivermectin.com/bernigaud.html

18 Choudhury, Abhigyan et al.,“Exploring the Binding Efficacy of Ivermectin against the Key Proteins of SARS-CoV-2 Pathogenesis: An in Silico Approach,” Future Virology (March 25, 2021),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7996102/

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. Opposite 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

Kory testified that “IVM could reduce hospitalizations by almost 90 percent and deaths by almost 75 percent.” Kory is one of a multitude of leading front-line physicians, including McCullough, Florida’s Surgeon General Joe Ladopo, Professor Paul Marik, Dr. Joseph Varone, and mRNA vaccine inventor, Dr. Robert Malone, and many, many others, who believe that early treatment with ivermectin would have avoided 75 percent of deaths and saved our country a trillion dollars in treasure.

“COVID resulted in ~6 million hospitalizations and 700,000+ deaths in America,” says Dr. Kory. “If HCQ and IVM had been widely used instead of systematically suppressed, we could have prevented 75 percent, or at least 500,000 deaths, and 80 percent of hospitalizations, or 4.8 million. We could have spared the states hundreds of billions of dollars.”

Ten days after the FLCCC presentation, on January 14, the NIH’s COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel changed its previously negative recommendation to doctors regarding ivermectin to “neither for nor against,” cracking open the door just a little for physicians to use IVM as a therapeutic option. That is the same neutral recommendation the NIH committee members gave for monoclonal antibody and convalescent plasma treatments. Although the hopes were that both of these latter treatments would be effective when used early, convalescent plasma, “a favorite of nearly all academic medical centers in the country, failed miserably to show efficacy in numerous clinical trials” said Dr. Kory, while monoclonal antibodies did prove effective in preventing hospitalization.

NIH’s neutral January 14, 2021³⁰ “non-recommendation,”³¹ issued in the face of strong evidence of ivermectin’s safety and efficacy for COVID-19, was the first obvious signal of the agency’s determination to suppress IVM. NIH claimed that there was “Insufficient evidence … to recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.”

NIH shrouded its process for reaching that non-recommendation in secrecy, refusing to disclose the panel members who took part in the ivermectin deliberations, and redacting their names from the documents that various Freedom of Information Act requests compelled the agency to produce. For a time, only Dr. Fauci, Francis Collins, and the panelists themselves knew their identities. NIH took extreme measures to keep the names secret, fighting all the way into federal court to shield the proceedings from transparency.^32,33

As Collins and Dr. Fauci maneuvered to shade the process from sunlight, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), in response to a separate FOIA request, disclosed the group’s nine members.³⁴ Three members of the working group, Adaora Adimora, Roger Bedimo, and David V. Glidden, had disclosed financial relationships with Merck.

A fourth member of the NIH Guidelines Committee, Susanna Naggie, received a $155 million grant³⁵ to conduct further studies of ivermectin following the NIH non-recommendation. NIAID’s windfall payoff to Naggie would have been unlikely to go forward if the committee voted to approve IVM.

Today, as Dr. Fauci moves the US to eliminate all use of ivermectin, other countries are using more of it.

19 Peter A. McCullough et al., “Early Ambulatory Multidrug Therapy Reduces Hospitalization and Death in High-Risk Patients with SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19),” Vol. 6 No. 03 (March, 2021) | Page No.: 219-221

20 “FLCCC Alliance Invited to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to Present Latest Data on Ivermectin,” Press Release, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (January 7, 2021),
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-PressRelease-NIH-C19-Panel-FollowUp-Jan7-2021.pdf

21 Dr. Andrew Hill, “Covid-19: WHO-sponsored preliminary review indicates Ivermectin effectiveness,” Dr. Andrew Hill, Swiss Policy Research (December 31, 2020),
https://swprs.org/who-preliminary-review-confirms-Ivermectin-effectiveness/

22 Carlos Chaccour, “The effect of early treatment with ivermectin on viral load, symptoms and humoral response in patients with non-severe COVID-19: A pilot, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial,” EClinical Medicine Published by the Lancet, (Jan 19, 2021),
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(20)30464-8/fulltext

23 Pierre Kory, et al., “Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19,” Front Line COVID-10 Critical Care Alliance (Jan 16, 2021),
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/FLCCC-Ivermectin-in-the-prophylaxis-and-treatment-of-COVID-19.pdf

24 “Dr. Pierre Kory, president of the FLCCC Alliance testifies before Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs looking into early outpatient COVID-19 treatment,” Press release, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (December 8, 2020),
https://www.newswise.com/coronavirus/dr-pierre-kory-president-of-the-flccc-alliance-testifies-before-senate-committee-on-homeland-security-and-governmental-affairs-looking-into-early-outpatient-covid-19-treatment

25 Pierre Kory et al., “Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19,” Journal of Intensive Care Medicine (December 15, 2020),
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0885066620973585

26 “One Page Summary of the Clinical Trials Evidence for Ivermectin in COVID-19,” Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (January 11, 2021),
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/One-Page-Summary-of-the-Clinical-Trials-Evidence-for-Ivermectin-in-COVID-19.pdf

27 Testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory to the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs (2020), Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC),
https://covid19criticalcare.com/senate-testimony/

28 “FLCCC Alliance Invited to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel to Present Latest Data on Ivermectin,” Press Release, Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (FLCCC) (January 7, 2021),
https://covid19criticalcare.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/FLCCC-PressRelease-NIH-C19-Panel-FollowUp-Jan7-2021.pdf

29 Donato Paolo Mancini, “Cheap antiparasitic could cut chance of Covid-19 deaths by up to 75%,” The Financial Times (January 19, 2021),
https://www.ft.com/content/e7cb76fc-da98-4a31-9c1f-926c58349c84

30 “NIH Updates its Position on Ivermectin,” COVEXIT: COVID-19 News & Policy Analysis (January 14, 2021),
https://covexit.com/nih-updates-its-position-on-ivermectin/

31 “Ivermectin is not approved by the FDA for the treatment of any viral infection,” National Institutes of Health COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines (Last Updated: February 11, 2021),
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/therapies/antiviral-therapy/ivermectin/

32 Peter Yim, “Federal Judge Allows NIH Ivermectin Deception Case to Proceed.” Trial Site News (August 28, 2021),
https://trialsitenews.com/federal-judge-allows-nih-ivermectin-deception-case-to-proceed/

33 National Institutes of Health email from Safia Kuruiakose, PharmD to partially redacted list of recipients (January 5, 2021). Email was obtained via Freedom of Information Act.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qh9U0FvrF-lNnNyuZ9_ljPS8PCXpAdzR/view?usp=sharing

34 National Institutes of Health email from Andy Pavia to Dr. Susanna Naggie, M.D., and Cc: Safia Kuruiakose, PharmD and partially redacted list of recipients (January 6, 2021). Email was obtained via the Freedom of Information Act.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/18OfEy2byeYQBxY_xRuQjgmwtRS8m23zu/view?usp=sharing

35 “Large clinical trial to study repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19 symptoms,” National Institutes of Health news release (April 19, 2021),
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/large-clinical-trial-study-repurposed-drugs-treat-covid-19-symptoms

In February 2021, the head of the Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association held a press conference to call for adding ivermectin to its outpatient treatment protocol. Several Indian states had added ivermectin to their list of essential medicines to fight COVID-19.³⁶ Indonesia’s government not only authorized the use of the drug but also created a website showing its real-time availability.³⁷ After giving out 3rd booster doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine, but still seeing high rates of COVID-19 hospitalizations and deaths, Israel started using ivermectin officially in September 2021, with the health insurance companies distributing ivermectin to high-risk citizens. El Salvador distributes IVM for free to all of its citizens.³⁸

Nations whose residents have easy access to ivermectin invariably see immediate and dramatic declines in COVID deaths. Hospitals in Indonesia started using ivermectin on July 22, 2021. By the first week of August, cases and deaths were plummeting.³⁹

A December 2020 study showed that African and Asian countries that widely used ivermectin to treat and prevent various parasitic diseases enjoy some of the world’s lowest-reported COVID case and mortality rates.⁴⁰ After controlling for confounding factors, including the Human Development Index (HDI), the eleven African nations with membership in the African Programme for Onchocerciasis (aka “river blindness,” for which ivermectin is standard of care) APOC show 28 percent lower mortality than non-APOC African countries, and an 8 percent lower rate of COVID-19 infection.

On April 20, 2021, India’s medical societies added ivermectin to the national protocol. According to Indian and international news, an aggressive campaign by the government of the Indian state of New Delhi, where COVID was raging, showed stunning success. The Desert Review reported that in April 2021, New Delhi was experiencing a COVID epidemic crisis. The state government obliterated 97 percent of Delhi cases by distributing ivermectin.⁴¹ “IVM Crushed COVID in New Delhi,” wrote Dr. Justus R. Hope, M.D.⁴² Following IVM’s introduction, according to TrialSite News, cases dropped dramatically. “At the national level, the massive surge that overtook the country at the beginning of April slowed exponentially after the new COVID-19 protocol was introduced, which includes the use of ivermectin and budesonide.”⁴³ India showed that early combination therapy—budesonide, ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc, costing between two and five dollars—made COVID symptoms disappear within three to five days. By January 2021, a country of more than 1.3 billion people and a vaccine uptake of almost 7.6 percent nationally⁴⁴ had witnessed only 150,000 COVID deaths.⁴⁵ By comparison, the US, with a population of 331 million, had recorded 357,000 deaths.⁴⁶ Many Indian officials and doctors consider ivermectin a miracle drug for controlling the outbreak. A natural experiment involving two Indian states—Uttar Pradesh and Tamil Nadu—with opposite COVID strategies helped cement that impression.

With 241 million people, Uttar Pradesh has the equivalent of two-thirds of the United States population. According to the Indian Express:⁴⁷ “Uttar Pradesh was the first state in the country to introduce large-scale prophylactic and therapeutic use of ivermectin. In May-June 2020, a team at Agra [Uttar Pradesh’s fourth largest city], led by Dr. Anshul Pareek, administered ivermectin to all RRT team members in the district on an experimental basis. None of them developed Covid-19 despite being in daily contact with patients who had tested positive for the virus.⁴⁸ Uttar Pradesh State Surveillance Officer Vikssendu Agrawal added that, based on the findings from Agra, the state government sanctioned the use of ivermectin as a prophylactic for all the contacts of COVID patients and began administering doses to infected persons.

By September, the Uttar Pradesh government announced that the state’s 33 districts are virtually devoid of active cases, despite having a vaccination rate of only 5.8 percent.⁴⁹ The Hindustan Times reported, “Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01 per cent. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7 per cent.”⁵⁰ When America’s vaccination rate was at 54 percent, cases were still rising and governments were still imposing draconian restrictions. As of August 10, 2021, the United States saw 161,990 new cases and 1,049 new deaths.⁵¹ Uttar Pradesh, in contrast, saw only 19 new cases and one death—more than 1,000 times lower than the US.⁵²

Dr. Agrawal attributes the timely introduction of ivermectin to ending the first COVID wave: “Despite being the state with the largest population base and a high population density, we have maintained a relatively low positivity rate and cases per million of population.”⁵³

According to TrialSite News, despite the Indian government’s success in using ivermectin and budesonide, “the media hasn’t shown interest in sharing this news. Instead, the comments continue to promote remdesivir as an effective drug, and the few media outlets that do refer to ivermectin call it an ‘unproven medicine’ or an ‘outdated treatment.’ It is as if there are two different treatment realities, one on the ground and one in the local health systems. Millions of patients are now receiving ivermectin, yet one would never know by the media topics.”⁵⁴

Meanwhile, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu continued using Anthony Fauci’s protocol of administering remdesivir, outlawing ivermectin, and discouraging early treatment. According to the Indian Times, Tamil Nadu continues to experience cases and fatalities that perfectly match the US catastrophe.⁵⁵

The massive and overwhelming evidence in favor of ivermectin includes scientist Dr. Tess Lawrie’s highly regarded, peer-reviewed meta-analysis. Dr. Lawrie assessed 15 trials, finding a cumulative benefit of IVM in reducing deaths of 62 percent. Although the data quality of the ivermectin for prevention studies was less strong, they showed that ivermectin prophylaxis reduced COVID infections by 86 percent.⁵⁶

Dr. Lawrie, a world-renowned data researcher and scientific consultant, is an iconic eminence among global public health scientists and agencies. The Desert Review has deemed her “The Conscience of Medicine”⁵⁷ because of her reputation for competence, precision, and integrity. Lawrie’s consulting group, the Evidence-Based Medicine Consultancy, Ltd. performs the scientific reviews that develop and support guidelines for global public health agencies, including the WHO and European governments, as well as international scientific and health consortia like the Cochrane Collaboration. Her clients have included a retinue of virtually all the larger government regulators now involved in the suppression of IVM and other repurposed drugs.

At the end of December 2000, Dr. Lawrie happened on a YouTube video of Pierre Kory’s Senate testimony on ivermectin. Her interest piqued, Dr. Lawrie conducted a “pragmatic rapid review” between Christmas and New Year’s to validate the 27 studies from the medical literature that Kory cited, assessing each of them for quality and power.

“After a week, I realized it was a go. IVM’s safety was well-established as a widely used dewormer,” she told me. “I was startled by the magnitude of its benefits. Its efficacy against COVID was consistently clear in multiple studies. I thought that all these people were dying and this was a moral obligation—this drug should have been rolled out.” Dr. Lawrie dispatched an urgent letter to British Health Minister Matt Hancock on January 4 with her Rapid Review attached. She never heard back from Hancock. But in a suspicious coincidence, someone leaked a meta-review by WHO researcher Andrew Hill to the Daily Mail.⁵⁸ Three days later, Hill posted a preprint of his study. In the one month since he testified enthusiastically beside Dr. Kory in favor of ivermectin before the January 13 NIH panel, Hill had made a neck-wrenching volte face. Cumulatively, the seven studies in Hill’s original meta-review still showed a dramatic reduction in hospitalizations and deaths among patients receiving IVM. The leaked version of Hill’s meta-review included all the same papers that formerly supported his gung-ho promotion of IVM as a miraculous cure for COVID. Hill had altered only his conclusions. Now he claimed that those studies comprised a low quality of evidence, and so although they yielded a highly positive result, Hill assigned the result a “low certainty.” He could then declare that WHO should not recommend IVM without first performing long-term, randomized placebo-controlled studies that would require many months if not longer. “Someone got to him,” suggests Kory. “Someone sent him the memo. Andrew Hill has been captured by some really dark forces.”

On January 7, Dr. Lawrie summarized the overwhelming evidence from her Rapid Review in a video directed at British Prime Minister Boris Johnson, urging him to break the logjam and roll out IVM immediately. Her video, says Dr. Kory, was “absolutely convincing.” She forwarded the video appeal to the British and South African Prime Ministers on January 7. She heard nothing from either.

On January 13, 2021, Dr. Lawrie used her convening power to assemble an invitation-only symposium of twenty of the world’s leading experts, including researchers, physicians, patient advocates, and government consultancy advisers, to review her meta-analysis and make evidence-based recommendations on the use of ivermectin to prevent and treat COVID-19. She called the conference the British ivermectin Recommendation Development (BIRD) study.

“Tess Lawrie did exactly what WHO should have done,” says Dr. Kory. “She made a thorough, open, and transparent review of all the scientific evidence.”

During the daylong conference, the conferees reviewed each study in Dr. Lawrie’s rapid meta-review, agreeing that the evidence supported an immediate rollout. Before adjourning, Dr. Lawrie and the scientific panel committed to conducting a full-scale Cochrane-style meta-review of all the scientific literature. Due to the mortal urgencies, they pledged to reconvene in a much larger group on January 14.

In the meantime, Dr. Lawrie managed to reach Andrew Hill by phone on January 6, two days after the Daily Mail leaked his meta-review. She informed him that some of the leading lights of science had agreed to collaborate on the Cochrane-style meta-review, and she proposed that Hill should join the effort as a collaborator. She offered to share her data with Hill and, after the call, she sent him her spreadsheets. Dr. Lawrie had coordinated many Cochrane Reviews for WHO and was indisputably among the world’s ranking experts in systematically reviewing study data. Dr. Lawrie invited Hill to co-author the Cochrane Review and to attend the next BIRD meeting on January 13.⁵⁹ It was an exciting opportunity. Under normal circumstances, Hill should have pounced on this chance to serve as lead author with some of the world’s most prestigious researchers in creating a professional, bulletproof Evidence-to-Decision framework for the WHO. He was nevertheless noncommittal. He did agree to review Dr. Lawrie’s spreadsheet.

Dr. Lawrie and her colleagues launched a marathon effort to conduct a brand new review of all published studies in the medical literature from scratch, assessing each for power and bias. She presented her draft to the exclusive BIRD group in mid-January. All agreed that the common-sense approach was to release ivermectin. She submitted the protocol to Cochrane for external scientific review.

British and Scandinavian scientists founded the Cochrane Collaboration in 1993 to address pharmaceutical industry corruption that had become pervasive in clinical trials for new drugs. Today, the Cochrane Collaboration is a coalition of 30,000 independent scientists and 53 large research institutions who volunteer to routinely review industry data using evidence-based science to advise regulatory agencies.⁶⁰ Cochrane seeks to restore integrity and standardized scientific methodologies to the crooked realm of drug development trials. Cochrane uses standardized parameters and rigorous methodologies for evaluating evidence. Cochrane reviewers systematically assess the power of each individual study within the meta-review, interpreting data to identify and discount for bias, and to score each study as “high,” “moderate,” or “low” certainty evidence and to determine whether it’s acceptable to pool the data in a single meta-review.

Dr. Lawrie knew that to make its ivermectin determination, WHO would rely on Hill’s study and another study from McMaster University known as the “Together Trial.” McMaster was hopelessly and irredeemably conflicted. NIH gave McMaster $1,081,541 in 2020 and 2021.⁶¹ A separate group of McMaster University scientists was, at that time, engaged in developing their own COVID vaccine—an effort that would never pay dividends if WHO recommended ivermectin as Standard of Care. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation was funding the massive “Together Trial” testing ivermectin, HCQ, and other potential drugs against COVID, in Brazil and other locations. Critics accused Gates and the McMaster researchers of designing that study to make ivermectin fail. Among other factors, the study targeted a population that was already heavily utilizing ivermectin, creating a confounding variable (placebo recipients could obtain over the counter ivermectin) that would clearly hide efficacy. McMaster University researchers would certainly know that a positive recommendation for IVM would cost their university hundreds of millions. The Together Trial organizer was Gates’ trial designer, Ed Mills, a scientist with heavy conflicts with Pharma and a reputation as a notorious industry biostitute.

Dr. Lawrie knew that the only way to salvage the WHO Guidelines and produce a high-quality scientific study was to persuade Mills to do a full-scale Cochrane Collaboration meta-analysis. The following week, she spoke to Hill again, this time by Zoom.

The Zoom call was recorded.

During her first conversation with Hill, Dr. Lawrie had concluded that the techniques that Hill employed throughout his meta-review were “deeply flawed,” and that Hill lacked the experience to perform a systematic review or a meta-analysis: “I was surprised he had been given the job.”

In fact, the transcript of her January 13 conversation suggests that Hill was completely unfamiliar with the requirements of a systematic review, which requires researchers to evaluate and score each study using uniform criteria to assess power and the risk of bias, and to conduct a “sensitivity analysis” to exclude studies with high risk of bias. This kind of review necessarily judges the reliability of the authors of each participating study. The Cochrane reviewers must be prepared to make harsh judgments about the work quality, integrity, and potential prejudices of each listed co-author of all the studies included in their review, based in part on their individual competence, and the financial conflicts of interest potentially affecting each researcher. But Hill, bizarrely, had included the names of all the authors of all of his seven accumulated studies on the list of the co-authors of his meta-review. “That’s the equivalent of asking the catcher in a baseball team to also play the umpire,” says Dr. Kory. “No one with any familiarity with the game would make that mistake. Hill was supposed to be judging these authors. Instead, he treated them as his collaborators.”

Dr. Lawrie gently informed Hill that that was “irregular for a meta-analysis,” adding, “When you do a systematic review, you usually don’t include the authors of the studies because that inherently biases your conclusions. It’s got to be independent.”

Dr. Lawrie explained that Hill’s paper, in addition to listing as co-authors the researchers whose work he was supposed to be evaluating, makes no pretense of systematically grading evidence according to standardized protocols. Those deficiencies make it utterly useless, she explained, for providing “clinical guidelines to the WHO.” Furthermore, Hill’s meta-review looked at only one outcome, the deaths of COVID patients, which was only a small subset of the criteria and endpoints in the studies he had analyzed. She told Hill: “You don’t just do a meta-analysis … when there’s all those other outcomes that you didn’t even meta-analyze. You just meta-analyzed the death outcome [using only a fraction of the available evidence], and then [said], ‘Oh, we need more studies.’”

Dr. Lawrie asked Hill to explain his U-turn on ivermectin, which his own analysis found overwhelmingly effective. “How can you do this?” she inquired politely. “You are causing irreparable harm.”

Hill explained that he was in a “tricky situation,” because his sponsors had put pressure on him. Hill is a University of Liverpool virologist who serves as an advisor to Bill Gates and the Clinton Foundation. “He told me his sponsor was Unitaid.” Unitaid is a quasi-governmental advocacy organization funded by the BMGF and several European countries—France, the United Kingdom, Norway, Brazil, Spain, the Republic of Korea, and Chile—to lobby governments to finance the purchase of medicines from pharmaceutical multinationals for distribution to the African poor. Its primary purpose seems to be protecting the patent and intellectual property rights of pharmaceutical companies—which, as we shall see, is the priority passion for Bill Gates—and to insure their prompt and full payment. About 63 percent of its funding comes from a surtax on airline tickets. The Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation holds a board seat and chairs Unitaid’s Executive Committee, and the BMGF has given Unitaid $150 million since 2005.⁶² Various Gates-funded surrogate and front organizations, like Global Fund, Gavi, and UNICEF also contribute, as does the pharmaceutical industry. The BMGF and Gates personally own large stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that profit from this boondoggle. Gates also uses Unitaid to fund corrupt science by tame and compromised researchers like Hill that legitimizes his policy directives to the WHO. Unitaid gave $40 million to Andrew Hill’s employer, the University of Liverpool, four days before the publication of Hill’s study.

36 TrialSite News staff, “Chairman of Tokyo Metropolitan Medical Association Declares During Surge, Time for Ivermectin is Now,” TrialSite News (August 16, 2021),
https://trialsitenews.com/chairman-of-tokyo-metropolitan-medical-association-declares-during-surge-time-for-ivermectin-is-now/

37 TrialSite News staff, “Ivermectin Authorized in Indonesia as Pharma Issued License for Production to Battle COVID-19,” TrialSite News (June 24, 2021),
https://trialsitenews.com/ivermectin-authorized-in-indonesia-as-pharma-issued-license-for-production-to-battle-covid-19/

38 World Tribune staff, “Media mum on India’s Ivermectin success story; El Salvador offers it free to citizens,” World Tribune (Sept. 19, 2021),
https://www.worldtribune.com/media-mum-on-indiasivermectin-success-story-el-salvador-offers-it-free-to-citizens/

39 Nick Corbishley, “As US Prepares to Ban Ivermectin for Covid-19, More Countries in Asia Begin Using It,” Naked Capitalism (September 7, 2021),
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2021/09/as-us-prepares-to-ban-ivermectin-for-covid-19-more-countries-in-asia-begin-using-it.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

40 Rodrigo Guerrero et al., “COVID-19: The Ivermectin African Enigma,” Europe PMC, doi: 10.25100/cm.v51i4.4613 (December 30, 2020),
https://europepmc.org/article/PMC/PMC7968425

41 Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Ivermectin obliterates 97 percent of Delhi cases,” The Desert Review (Jun 1, 2021 Updated Jun 7, 2021),
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/ivermectin-obliterates-97-percent-of-delhi-cases/article_6a3be6b2-c31f-11eb-836d-2722d2325a08.html

42 Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Ivermectin crushes Delhi cases,” The Desert Review (May 18, 2021; updated September 8, 2021),
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/ivermectin-crushes-delhi-cases/article_31f3afcc-b7fa-11eb-9585-0f6a290ee105.html

43 See video at 6:58. However, the video is unavailable as of 9/25/2021.
https://youtu.be/pko4LIdUQCI

44 Bhuma Shrivastava and Malavika Kaur Makol, “Forecaster who predicted India’s COVID peak sees new wave coming,” Boston Globe (Aug 1, 2021),
https://www.bostonglobe.com/2021/08/01/business/forecaster-who-predicted-indias-covid-peak-sees-new-wave-coming/

45 The Hindu Net Desk, “Coronavirus updates | January 1, 2021,” The Hindu (Jan 1, 2021),
https://www.thehindu.com/news/national/coronavirus-updates-january-1-2021/article33469047.ece

46 Maria Caspani and Peter Szekely, “U.S. tops 21 million COVID-19 cases with record hospitalizations as states ramp up vaccinations,” Reuters (Jan 6, 2021),
https://ph.news.yahoo.com/u-sets-covid-19-hospitalization-161111470.html

47 Maulshree Seth, “Uttar Pradesh government says early use of Ivermectin helped to keep positivity, deaths low,” The Indian Express (May 12, 2021),
https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/lucknow/uttar-pradesh-government-says-ivermectin-helped-to-keep-deaths-low-7311786/

48 “Uttar Pradesh government says early use of Ivermectin helped to keep positivity, deaths low,” MSN (May 12, 2021),
https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/uttar-pradesh-government-says-early-use-ofivermectin-helped-to-keep-positivity-deaths-low/ar-BB1gDp5U

49 “India State of 241 MILLION People Declared COVID-Free After Government Promotes Ivermectin,” Infowars.com (September 18, 2021),
https://www.infowars.com/posts/india-province-of-241-million-people-declared-covid-free-after-government-promotes-ivermectin/

50 “33 districts in Uttar Pradesh are now Covid-free: State govt,” Hindustan Times, New Delhi (September 10, 2021),
https://www.hindustantimes.com/cities/lucknow-news/33-districts-in-uttar-pradesh-are-now-covid-free-state-govt-101631267966925.html

51 Justin R. Hope, “Ivermectin A Success In Indian States Where It Is Used,” Peckford 42 (Aug 22, 2021),
https://peckford42.wordpress.com/2021/08/22/ivermectin-a-success-in-indian-states-where-it-is-used/

52 Ibid.

53 Stefan J. Bos, “India’s Largest State Nearly COVID-Free After Using Alternative Drug,” Worthy News (Sept 13, 2012),
https://www.worthynews.com/61607-indias-largest-state-nearly-covid-free-after-using-alternative-drug

54 Justus R. Hope, “India’s Ivermectin Blackout: Part II,” The Desert Review (Aug 13, 2021),
https://www.thedesertreview.com/news/national/indias-ivermectin-blackout-part-ii/article_a0b6c378-fc78-11eb-83c0-93166952f425.html

55 Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Tamil Nadu leads India in new infections, denies citizens ivermectin,” The Desert Review (May 21, 2021/Updated Sep 8, 2021),
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/tamil-nadu-leads-india-in-new-infections-denies-citizens-Ivermectin/article_32634012-ba66-11eb-9211-ab378d521f9a.html

56 https://journals.lww.com/americantherapeutics/fulltext/2021/08000/ivermectin_for_prevention_and_treatment_of.7.aspx

57 Justus R. Hope, M.D., “Dr. Tess Lawrie: The Conscience of Medicine.” The Desert Review (May 4, 2021),
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opinion/letters_to_editor/dr-tess-lawrie-the-conscience-of-medicine/article_ff673eca-ac2d-11eb-adaa-ab952b1d2661.html

58 Luke Andrews, “Cheap hair lice drug may cut the risk of hospitalized Covid patients dying by up to 80%, study finds,” Daily Mail (January 4, 2021),
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9110301/Cheap-hair-lice-drug-cut-risk-hospitalised-Covid-patients-dying-80-study-finds.html

59 Dr. Tess Lawrie, “Who are the BIRD Group?,” BIRD (Jan. 2021),
https://bird-group.org/who-are-bird/

60 TrialSite News staff, “Are the Independent Actually Dependent? Is Cochrane’s Ivermectin Analysis Biased?” TrialSite News (May 6, 2021),
https://trialsitenews.com/are-the-independent-actually-dependent-is-cochranes-ivermectin-analysis-biased/

61 National Institutes of Health, NIH Awards by Location and Organization,
https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2021&state=&ic=&fm=&orgid=4997001&distr=&rfa=&om=y&pid=&view=state

62 Unitaid Press Release, “Unitaid hails new US$ 50 million contribution from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,” Unitaid (Dec. 7, 2017),
https://unitaid.org/news-blog/unitaid-hails-new-us-50-million-contribution-bill-melinda-gates-foundation/#en

Hill, a PhD, confessed that the sponsors were pressuring him to influence his conclusion. When Dr. Lawrie asked who was trying to influence him, Hill said, “I mean, I, I think I’m in a very sensitive position here…”

Dr. Tess Lawrie, MD, PhD: “Lots of people are in sensitive positions; they’re in hospital, in ICUs dying, and they need this medicine.”

Dr. Hill: “Well”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “This is what I don’t get, you know, because you’re not a clinician. You’re not seeing people dying every day. And this medicine prevents deaths by 80 percent. So 80 percent of those people who are dying today don’t need to die because there’s ivermectin.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “There are a lot, as I said, there are a lot of different opinions about this. As I say, some people simply…”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “We are looking at the data; it doesn’t matter what other people say. We are the ones who are tasked with … look[ing] at the data and reassur[ing] everybody that this cheap and effective treatment will save lives. It’s clear. You don’t have to say, well, so-and-so says this, and so-and-so says that. It’s absolutely crystal clear. We can save lives today. If we can get the government to buy ivermectin.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I don’t think it’s as simple as that, because you’ve got trials…”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It is as simple as that. We don’t have to wait for studies … we have enough evidence now that shows that ivermectin saves lives, it prevents hospitalization. It saves the clinical staff going to work every day, [and] being exposed. And frankly, I’m shocked at how you are not taking responsibility for that decision. And you still haven’t told me who is [influencing you]? Who is giving you that opinion? Because you keep saying you’re in a sensitive position. I appreciate you are in a sensitive position, if you’re being paid for something and you’re being told [to support] a certain narrative … that is a sensitive position. So, then you kind of have to decide, well, do I take this payment? Because in actual fact, [you] can see [your false] conclusions … are going to harm people. So maybe you need to say, I’m not going to be paid for this. I can see the evidence, and I will join the Cochrane team as a volunteer, like everybody on the Cochrane team is a volunteer. Nobody’s being paid for this work.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “I think fundamentally, we’re reaching the [same] conclusion about the survival benefit. We’re both finding a significant effect on survival.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, I’m grading my evidence. I’m saying I’m sure of this evidence. I’m saying I’m absolutely sure it prevents deaths. There is nothing as effective as this treatment. What is your reluctance? Whose conclusion is that?” Hill then complains again that outsiders are influencing him.

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You keep referring to other people. It’s like you don’t trust yourself. If you were to trust yourself, you would know that you have made an error and you need to correct it because you know, in your heart, that this treatment prevents death.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I know, I know for a fact that the data right now is not going to get the drug approved.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “But, Andy—know this will come out. … It will come out that there were all these barriers to the truth being told to the public and to the evidence being presented. So please, this is your opportunity just to acknowledge [the truth] in your review, change your conclusions, and come on board with this Cochrane Review, which will be definitive. It will be the review that shows the evidence and gives the proof. This was the consensus on Wednesday night’s meeting with 20 experts.” Hill protests that NIH will not agree to recommend IVM.

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah, because the NIH is owned by the vaccine lobby.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “That’s not something I know about.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, all I’m saying is this smacks of corruption and you are being played.”

Dr. Hill: “I don’t think so.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well then, you have no excuse because your work in that review is flawed. It’s rushed. It is not properly put together.” Dr. Lawrie points out that Hill’s study ignores a host of clinical outcomes that affect patients.

She scolds Hill for ignoring the beneficial effects of IVM as prophylaxis, its effect on speed to PCR negativity, on the need for mechanical ventilation, on reduced admissions to ICUs, and other outcomes that are clinically meaningful.

She adds, “This is bad research … bad research. So, at this point, I don’t know … you seem like a nice guy, but I am really, really worried about you.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Yeah. I mean, it’s, it’s a difficult situation.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “No, you might be in a difficult situation. I’m not, because I have no paymaster. I can tell the truth … How can you deliberately try and mess it up … you know?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s not messing it up. It’s saying that we need, we need a short time to look at some more studies.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long are you going to let people carry on dying unnecessarily—up to you? What is, what is the timeline that you’ve allowed for this, then?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I think … I think that it goes to WHO and the NIH and the FDA and the EMEA. And they’ve got to decide when they think enough’s enough.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How do they decide? Because there’s nobody giving them good evidence synthesis, because yours is certainly not good.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, when yours comes out, which will be in the very near future … at the same time, there’ll be other trials producing results, which will nail it with a bit of luck. And we’ll be there.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “It’s already nailed.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “No, that’s, that’s not the view of the WHO and the FDA.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’d rather… risk loads of people’s lives. Do you know if you and I stood together on this, we could present a united front and we could get this thing. We could make it happen. We could save lives; we could prevent [British National Health Service doctors and nurses] people from getting infected. We could prevent the elderly from dying.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “These are studies conducted around the world in several different countries. And they’re all saying the same thing. Plus there’s all sorts of other evidence to show that it works. Randomized controlled trials do not need to be the be-all and end-all. But [even] based on the randomized controlled trials, it is clear that ivermectin works. … It prevents deaths and it prevents harms and it improves outcomes for people … I can see we’re getting nowhere because you have an agenda, whether you like it or not, whether you admit to it or not, you have an agenda. And the agenda is to kick this down the road as far as you can. So … we are trying to save lives. That’s what we do. I’m a doctor and I’m going to save as many lives as I can. And I’m going to do that through getting the message [out] on ivermectin Okay. Unfortunately, your work is going to impair that, and you seem to be able to bear the burden of many, many deaths, which I cannot do.” Then she asks again.

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Would you tell me? I would like to know who pays you as a consultant through WHO.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “It’s Unitaid.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “All right. So who helped to … ? Whose conclusions are those on the review that you’ve done? Who is not listed as an author? Who’s actually contributed?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, I mean, I don’t really want to get into, I mean, it … Unitaid”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “I think that … It needs to be clear. I would like to know who, who are these other voices that are in your paper that are not acknowledged. Does Unitaid have a say? Do they influence what you write?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Unitaid has a say in the conclusions of the paper. Yeah.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. So, who is it in Unitaid, then? Who is giving you opinions on your evidence?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, it’s just the people there. I don’t”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So they have a say in your conclusions.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Could you please give me a name of someone in Unitaid I could speak to, so that I can share my evidence and hope to try and persuade them to understand it?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, I’ll have a think about who to, to offer you with a name. … But I mean, this is very difficult because I’m, you know, I’ve, I’ve got this role where I’m supposed to produce this paper and we’re in a very difficult, delicate balance. …”

Dr. Lawrie interjects: “Who are these people? Who are these people saying this?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Yeah … it’s a very strong lobby. …”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Okay. Look I think I can see [we’re] kind of [at] a dead end, because you seem to have a whole lot of excuses, but, um, you know, that to, to justify bad research practice. So I’m really, really sorry about this, Andy. I really, really wish, and you’ve explained quite clearly to me, in both what you’ve been saying and in your body language that you’re not entirely comfortable with your conclusions, and that you’re in a tricky position because of whatever influence people are having on you, and including the people who have paid you and who have basically written that conclusion for you.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “You’ve just got to understand I’m in a difficult position. I’m trying to steer a middle ground and it’s extremely hard.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Middle ground. The middle ground is not a middle ground. … [Y]ou’ve taken a position right to the other extreme calling for further trials that are going to kill people. So this will come out, and you will be culpable. And I can’t understand why you don’t see that, because the evidence is there and you are not just denying it, but your work’s actually actively obfuscating the truth. And this will come out. So I’m really sorry. … As I say, you seem like a nice guy, but I think you’ve just kind of been misled somehow.” Hill promised he would do everything in his power to get ivermectin approved if she would give him six weeks.

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Well, what I hope is that this, this stalemate that we’re in doesn’t last very long. It lasts a matter of weeks. And I guarantee I will push for this to last for as short amount of time as possible.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “So, how long do you think the stalemate will go on for? How long do you think you will be paid to [make] the stalemate … go on?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “From my side. Okay … I think end of February, we will be there six weeks.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “How many people die every day?”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Oh, sure. I mean, you know, 15,000 people a day.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Fifteen thousand people a day times six weeks … Because at this rate, all other countries are getting ivermectin except the UK and the USA, because the UK and the USA and Europe are owned by the vaccine lobby.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “My goal is to get the drug approved and to do everything I can to get it approved so that it reaches the maximum”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “You’re not doing everything you can, because everything you can would involve saying to those people who are paying you, ‘I can see this prevents deaths. So I’m not going to support this conclusion anymore, and I’m going to tell the truth.’”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “What, I’ve got to do my responsibilities to get as much support as I can to get this drug approved as quickly as possible.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Well, you’re not going to get it approved the way you’ve written that conclusion. You’ve actually shot yourself in the foot, and you’ve shot us all in the foot. All of … everybody trying to do something good. You have actually completely destroyed it.”

Dr. Andrew Hill: “Okay. Well, that’s where we’ll, I guess we’ll have to agree to differ.”

Dr. Tess Lawrie: “Yeah. Well, I don’t know how you sleep at night, honestly.”

At the conclusion of the January 14 BIRD conference, Dr. Lawrie delivered a monumental closing address that should be recorded among the most important speeches in the annals of medical history. Dr. Lawrie spoke out at considerable personal risk, since her livelihood and career largely rely on the very agencies she targeted for criticism.

Dr. Lawrie began by endorsing the miraculous efficacy of IVM.

Had ivermectin been employed in 2020 when medical colleagues around the world first alerted the authorities to its efficacy, millions of lives could have been saved, and the pandemic with all its associated suffering and loss brought to a rapid and timely end.

Dr. Lawrie told the audience that the suppression of ivermectin was a signal that Pharma’s pervasive corruption had turned a medical cartel against patients and against humanity.

The story of ivermectin has highlighted that we are at a remarkable juncture in medical history. The tools that we use to heal and our connection with our patients are being systematically undermined by relentless disinformation stemming from corporate greed. The story of ivermectin shows that we as a public have misplaced our trust in the authorities and have underestimated the extent to which money and power corrupts.

Dr. Lawrie called for reform of the method used to analyze scientific evidence.

They who design the trials and control the data also control the outcome. So, this system of industry-led trials needs to be put to an end. Data from ongoing and future trials of novel COVID treatments must be independently controlled and analyzed. Anything less than total transparency cannot be trusted.

Dr. Lawrie called out the corruption of modern medicine by Big Pharma and other interests and attributed the barbaric suppression of IVM to the single-minded obsession with more profitable vaccines.

Since then, hundreds of millions of people have been involved in the largest medical experiment in human history. Mass vaccination was an unproven novel therapy. Hundreds of billions will be made by Big Pharma and paid for by the public. With politicians and other nonmedical individuals dictating to us what we are allowed to prescribe to the ill, we as doctors have been put in a position such that our ability to uphold the Hippocratic oath is under attack.

She hinted at Gates’ role in the suppression.

At this fateful juncture, we must therefore choose: will we continue to be held ransom by corrupt organizations, health authorities, Big Pharma, and billionaire sociopaths, or will we do our moral and professional duty to do no harm and always do the best for those in our care? The latter includes urgently reaching out to colleagues around the world to discuss which of our tried and tested safe older medicines can be used against COVID.

Never before has our role as doctors been so important, because never before have we become complicit in causing so much harm.

Finally, Dr. Lawrie suggested that physicians form a new World Health Organization that represents the interests of the people, not corporations and billionaires, a people-centered organization.

* * *

On October 1, 2021, Hill resurfaced on Twitter touting his upcoming lecture, ironically titled, “Effects of Bias and Potential Medical Fraud in the Promotion of Ivermectin.” Says Pierre Kory in disgust, “Andrew is apparently making a living now accusing the doctors and scientists who support ivermectin of medical fraud.” Dr. Kory adds, “Hill and his backers are some of the worst people in human history. They are responsible for the deaths of millions.”

* * *

Andrew Hill’s emergence is only one front in the war by NIH and the medical/media cartel to block doctors from using IVM. FDA issued its first warning about IVM on April 10, 2020, in reaction to ivermectin studies by Australia’s Monash University and American physician Dr. Jean-Jacques Rajter, claiming on its website “Additional testing is needed to determine whether ivermectin might be safe or effective to prevent or treat coronavirus or COVID-19.”

When Dr. Kory’s explosive December 8, 2020 Senate testimony⁶³ describing the peer-reviewed science supporting ivermectin went viral, prescriptions for ivermectin from US doctors exploded. Americans were getting legitimate prescriptions filled at pharmacies, up to 88,000 scripts in a single week.

The truth of the drug’s benefits was going viral, and the last thing Dr. Fauci et al. could tolerate was an effective treatment for COVID. Something needed to be done.

The government moved aggressively to block its use. On December 24, in what seemed like a trial balloon, the South African government quietly banned the importation of ivermectin. YouTube soon scrubbed Kory’s video⁶⁴ and Facebook blocked him. Then in March 2021 the US FDA, the European Medicines Association (EMA), and the WHO issued statements advising against the use of ivermectin for COVID-19. The EMA said it should not be used at all. The WHO, echoing its strategy for tanking hydroxychloroquine, said ivermectin’s use should be limited to clinical trials (the high costs of running a clinical trial and their reliance on NIH, NIAID, Gates, or pharma funding means that their results may be easily controlled). FDA issued a much firmer directive: “You should not use ivermectin to treat or prevent COVID-19.”⁶⁵

Here are the FDA guidelines:

The FDA has not authorized or approved ivermectin for use in preventing or treating COVID-19 in humans or animals. Ivermectin is approved for human use to treat infections caused by some parasitic worms and head lice and skin conditions like rosacea.

Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19. Clinical trials⁶⁶ assessing ivermectin tablets for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19 in people are ongoing.

Taking large doses of ivermectin is dangerous.

If your health care provider writes you an ivermectin prescription, fill it through a legitimate source such as a pharmacy, and take it exactly as prescribed.

On July 28, 2021, a front-page Wall Street Journal headline asked, “Why is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?”⁶⁷

On August 16, 2021, two weeks after the Wall Street Journal article, CDC ordered doctors to stop prescribing IVM. On August 17, 2020, the NIAID recommended against ivermectin’s use to combat the novel coronavirus. On August 26, 2021, CDC sent out an emergency warning using its Health Alert Network.⁶⁸

In early September 2021, following the FDA/CDC/NIAID’s lead, the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Pharmacists Association (APhA), and the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists (ASHP) called on doctors to immediately stop prescribing ivermectin for COVID outside of clinical trials.⁶⁹ These influential organizations are largely dependent on pharmaceutical industry largesse.

On September 2, 2021 on MSNBC Tonight, Chris Hayes interviewed the president of the AMA, Dr. Gerald Harmon, who said that the AMA now advises doctors against prescribing ivermectin except in clinical trials. He explained that the AMA is taking this unprecedented step because ivermectin isn’t “approved” by the FDA for treatment of COVID-19. He failed to mention that up to 30 percent of prescriptions written by America’s doctors are for off-label uses not approved by the FDA. The AMA, meanwhile, ignored the cascading toll of injuries and deaths from Big Pharma’s injections, while endorsing the revolutionary notion that FDA should be the arbiter of what doctors can and cannot use to heal their patients. Physicians traditionally have had unlimited authority to prescribe FDA-approved medications for any purpose as long as they explain the risks and benefits to their patients. Suddenly, the AMA and its industry patrons and captive regulators moved to limit the doctor’s authority to treat patients. FDA has no authority to regulate the practice of medicine. As Stephen Hahn, FDA’s last Commissioner (no one has been appointed to the role since he left) pointed out in October 2020, off-label prescribing is between a doctor and his/her patient.

The sad episode, still ongoing, raises questions one expects doctors to be asking:

• Is ivermectin a safe drug?
• Will it do harm?
• Are we in a situation in which authorities have not provided a proven therapeutic for COVID-19?
• Do treating physicians have the freedom to try medicines they have reason to believe might be helpful, particularly when there is no reason to believe the medicine will be hurtful?

Doctors who answered those questions for themselves and prescribed ivermectin after early September faced growing scrutiny and heavy-handed tactics including censorship, threats to their license and board certification, and other repressive policies from governments and medical boards. Pharmacists, including the large chains like CVS and Walmart, refused to fill prescriptions. “For the first time in history, pharmacies were telling doctors what they can and cannot prescribe,” says Dr. McCullough. The directives shattered the traditional sacred relationship between doctors and patients that the profession had nurtured and protected since Hippocrates. The medical profession has long told doctors that their single obligation is to their patients. The AMA’s declaration helped march doctors into their new role as agents of state policy. The state policy is to prescribe treatments, not based upon the health interests of the individual patient but based upon the perceived best interests of the state.

“The suppression of HCQ and IVM is one of the greatest tragedies and crimes of the modern era,” Dr. Peter Breggin told me. Dr. Breggin, who has been called “The Conscience of Psychiatry,” by author Candace Pert, is the author of Talking Back to Prozac and COVID-19 and the Global Predators.⁷⁰

Estimated number of outpatient ivermectin prescriptions dispensed from retail pharmacies. United States, March 16, 2019–August 13, 2021*

In Florida and South Carolina, Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) sent mass mailings to physicians notifying them that BCBS would no longer pay insurance claims for IVM, and threatened audits of any physician who wrote prescriptions for the drug.

In January 2021, Syracuse, New York attorney Ralph Lorigo filed for an injunction on behalf of a critically ill hospital patient—the mother of one of his clients—against a local hospital that was resisting family requests to treat her with ivermectin. A State Superior Court judge immediately granted Lorigo’s request. Within 12 hours of taking ivermectin, the dying woman miraculously began to recover. Two weeks later, Lorigo obtained a second injunction for a similarly situated client, who also made a preternatural recovery. When local news organizations reported Lorigo’s IVM victories, his law office telephone began ringing off the hook. Within a few weeks, he was working twenty-hour days struggling to keep up with a new cottage industry filing injunctions in New York and Ohio courts to help dying patients get access to ivermectin. To date, Lorigo has been in thirty courts. “The people who I’ve been able to get the ivermectin to on time have all lived; the others have died.” He has obtained dozens of injunctions for patients, precipitating a host of sudden recoveries. “The hospitals are so arrogant. They are letting the people die. They get $37,000 to put them on the vent, and they just let them die.”

63 “Early Outpatient Treatment: An Essential Part of a COVID-19 Solution, Part II.” Testimony by Dr. Pierre Kory to U.S. Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (December 8, 2020),
https://www.hsgac.senate.gov/early-outpatient-treatment-an-essential-part-of-a-covid-19-solution-part-ii

64 U.S. Sen. Ron Johnson, “Google/YouTube censor Senate hearing on ivermectin and early treatment of Covid-19,” Wall Street Journal (February 4, 2021),
https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/02/googleyoutube-censor-senate-hearing-on.html

65 “Currently available data do not show ivermectin is effective against COVID-19,” “Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent COVID-19.” U.S. Food and Drug Administration (September 3, 2021),
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

66 ClinicalTrials.gov, “Ivermectin COVID-19 Search Results,” ClinicalTrials.gov,
https://www.clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/results?cond=COVID-19&term=ivermectin&cntry=&state=&city=&dist=&Search=Search

67 David R. Henderson and Charles L. Hooper, “Why Is the FDA Attacking a Safe, Effective Drug?” Wall Street Journal (Jul 28, 2021)

68 Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Aug 26, 2021),
https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp

69 “AMA, APhA, ASHP statement on ending use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19.” Press Release, American Medical Association (September 1, 2021).
https://www.ama-assn.org/press-center/press-releases/ama-apha-ashp-statement-ending-use-ivermectin-treat-covid-19

70 “Psychiatric Drug Facts: What your doctor may not know,” COVID-19 and Coronavirus Resource Center, with Peter R. Breggin MD,
https://breggin.com/coronavirus-resource-center/

During the early industry offensive against HCQ, one of the drug’s principal manufacturers, Sanofi, suddenly detected “safety concerns” with HCQ that it had never noticed during decades of profitable pre-pandemic production. In a remarkable coincidence, on February 4, 2021, Merck similarly discovered “a concerning lack of safety data in the majority of studies” regarding IVM.⁷¹ Merck was ivermectin’s original manufacturer and had formerly boasted of ivermectin as its “wonder drug.”

During the 40 years that it marketed the drug worldwide, Merck had never spoken of these worrisome safety signals. Since 1987, Merck has given billions of doses to the developing world for scabies, river blindness,⁷² lymphatic filariasis, elephantiasis, and assorted parasites without any safety alarms. In 2016, Merck distributed 900 million doses in Africa alone. “The drug is safe and has minor side effects,” a Merck spokesman said at the time.

Unlike previous treatments, which had serious—sometimes fatal—side effects, ivermectin is safe and can be used on a wide scale. It is also a very effective treatment, and has single-handedly transformed the lives of millions of people.…

What prompted Merck’s sudden safety concerns?

Merck’s exclusive ivermectin patent rights expired in 1996,⁷³ and dozens of generic drug companies now produce IVM, for about 40¢/dose, badly diminishing ivermectin’s profit profile for Merck. Furthermore, only ten days before Merck discovered its concerns about IVM, Merck signed a manufacturing partnership for the Novavax and Emergent BioSolutions COVID vaccine as it moved into final trials.

Furthermore, in December 2020, Merck had announced a $356 million supply deal by which NIAID agreed to purchase 60,000 to 100,000 doses of an experimental COVID pill called MK 7110. Merck paid $425 million to buy the Oncoimmune company which developed the drug as part of the deal. Bill Gates’s quasi-governmental organization, the International AIDS Vaccine Initiative (IAVI), agreed to distribute the product in developing nations.

But most importantly, ivermectin is also a low-profit competitor for another new Merck product for COVID-19—a high-cost antiviral drug, molnupiravir, for which Merck had the highest financial ambitions. Ironically, molnupiravir, a copycat formula, utilized an identical mechanism of action as ivermectin.⁷⁴ That drug will retail at around $700 per course⁷⁵ but only if Merck can kill its cheap rival.

It’s worth a moment to consider molnupiravir’s pedigree, because the drug emerged from a shadowy black market of spies, pharmaceutical mountebanks, biosecurity profiteers, and Pentagon contractors who played key roles in militarizing and monetizing the COVID pandemic, and whom you will meet later in this book. The CIA officer and bioweapons developer, Michael Callahan, one of molnupiravir’s key patrons, has dubbed this group of shady bioweapons operators as his “Secret Handshake Club.” Molnupiravir is a protease inhibitor that mimics the antiviral properties of ivermectin. Unlike ivermectin, molnupiravir showed safety signals so alarming that some of its codevelopers at Emory University protested its introduction into human Phase I trials. Among other problems, they cite the possibility that it will cause birth defects.

Callahan’s boss, bioweapons enthusiast and former DHHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response Robert Kadlec, MD—an unabashed “gain-of-function” promoter with military and intelligence agency pedigrees, who built his career profiting from hyped pandemics—almost single-handedly created the $7 billion National Strategic Stockpile and runs it as a private fiefdom to enrich his friends and connections. Kadlec also runs the super-secretive P3CO Committee inside of NIH, which greenlights—and never denies—Tony Fauci’s gain-of-function bioweapons research projects. Gain-of-function refers to experiments that intentionally modify a pathogen to create the ability to cause or worsen disease, enhance transmissibility, and/or create novel strains with potential to cause global spread in humans.⁷⁶ One of Kadlec’s many dodgy business partners is John Clerici,⁷⁷ a Washington lawyer, lobbyist, and artful rogue who almost single-handedly created The Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (BARDA), a new agency formed after 9/11 under the HHS Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response (ASPR) of which Kadlec was director during the Trump administration. BARDA is a taxpayer-infused investment fund that purchases and develops technology for Kadlec’s Strategic Stockpile and postulated future threats. Clerici boasts that, “If someone wants to get BARDA money, they’ve gotta go through me.” His LinkedIn profile crows that “John has assisted over three dozen companies in obtaining nearly $3 billion in funding and research for development and procurement of public health countermeasures for the federal government, including the majority of the awards made under Project BioShield, the US government’s initiative for preparing the nation against biological attacks.”

Clerici brandishes, also, his innovative authorship of the PREP Act, a corporate welfare boondoggle that bestows protection against liability upon manufacturers and providers of vaccines and all other pandemic countermeasures to shield them from lawsuits. Under the PREP Act, no matter how negligently or reprehensibly the company behaves and no matter how grievous the injuries to their victims, the companies cannot be held liable—unless the injured party can prove willful misconduct. Even then, a lawsuit can commence only with the approval of the Secretary of HHS.

The Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA),⁷⁸ another Pentagon bioweapons agency and corporate welfare program for military contractors, provided $10 million in 2013 and 2015 to Emory University to develop molnupiravir as a veterinary drug for horses (against equine encephalitis). NIAID contributed $19 million⁷⁹ then transferred the toxic drug in a golden handoff to Merck and another drug company, Ridgeback Biotherapeutics, along with a guaranteed market and rich returns. As we shall see in later chapters, DTRA was a major funder of EcoHealth Alliance, Peter Daszak’s “charity” that sought out lethal animal viruses around the world, retrieving the most deadly for the Pentagon.

In June 2021, as FDA and NIAID were cranking up the medical cartel’s opposition against IVM, the HHS agreed to purchase 1.7 million 5-day treatment courses of molnupiravir from Merck for 1.2 billion dollars⁸⁰—when the drug wins FDA approval, a contingency that can be virtually guaranteed while Anthony Fauci is Washington’s drug kingmaker.

On June 9, 2021 President Biden dutifully reiterated the US government’s commitment to procure approximately 1.7 million courses of the NIAID-funded drug from Merck.⁸¹ BARDA collaborated with a confederacy of other shady Defense Department operatives, including the DoD Joint Program Executive Office for Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear Defense (JPEO-CBRND) and the Army Contracting Command, on the $1.2 billion purchase. Not only was the drug developed with taxpayer money, but its $712 per dose price to the taxpayer is forty times more than Merck’s $17.64 cost of production. Merck, which expects to make $7 billion per year on the new blockbuster, saw its stock price spike on news of the government contract and after President Biden’s televised plug.

With so many powerful and important godfathers and the United States president fully committed, it would be unprecedented for FDA to deny authorization to molnupiravir, no matter how disastrous the clinical trial results may be. Merck is so certain of FDA’s approval that by September 2020, it was already scaling up manufacturing, even though its clinical trials are still underway.

Merck announced in October 2021 that molnupiravir had shown “game-changing” results against COVID in clinical trials, reducing hospitalizations and deaths by 50 percent against a placebo. “The news of the efficacy of this particular antiviral is obviously very good news,” trumpeted the White House’s Chief Medical Advisor and Pharma spokesperson, Anthony Fauci. “The FDA will look at the data and in the usual very efficient, very effective way, will evaluate the data as quickly as they possibly can, and then it will be taken from there.”

71 Merck, “Merck Statement on Ivermectin use During the COVID-19 Pandemic,” Merck (Feb. 4, 2021),
https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/

72 Special to The New York Times, “Merck Offers Free Distribution of New River Blindness Drug,” New York Times (Oct. 22, 1987),
https://www.nytimes.com/1987/10/22/world/merck-offers-free-distribution-of-new-river-blindness-drug.html

73 Rick Speare and David Durrheim, “Mass treatment with ivermectin: an underutilized public health strategy,” Bulletin of the World Health Organization (Aug. 2004),
https://www.who.int/bulletin/volumes/82/8/562.pdf

74 Staff reporter, “Merck and AstraZeneca to start COVID-19 drug trials in Japan,” The Japan Times (Mar. 13, 2021),
https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2021/03/13/national/science-health/merck-astrazeneca-clinical-trials/

75 Annalisa Merelli, “Merck’s new Covid-19 drug could be one of the most lucrative drugs ever,” Quartz (Oct 1, 2021),
https://qz.com/2068247/merck-could-make-up-to-7-billion-from-its-covid-19-drugs-in-2021/

76 Marc Lipsitch, “Why Do Exceptionally Dangerous Gain-of-Function Experiments in Influenza?”
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30151594/

77 Jon Cohen and Charles Piller, “Emails Offer Look Into Whistleblower Charges of Cronyism Behind Potential COVID-19 Drug,” Science Insider (May 13, 2020),
https://www.science.org/news/2020/05/emails-offer-look-whistleblower-charges-cronyism-behind-potential-covid-19-drug

78 U.S. Government Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), https://www.dtra.mil/

79 Sharon Lerner, “Merck Sells Federally Financed COVID Pill to U.S. for 40 Times What it Costs to Make,” The Intercept (Oct 5, 2021),
https://theintercept.com/2021/10/05/covid-pill-drug-pricing-merck-ridgeback/

80 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, “Biden Administration announces U.S. government procurement of Merck’s investigational antiviral medicine for COVID-19 treatment” (June 9, 2021),
https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2021/06/09/biden-administration-announces-us-government-procurement-mercks-investigational-antiviral-medicine-covid-19-treatment.html

81 Ibid.

As Merck stood poised to release its new horse drug molnupiravir onto the market, the other US behemoth, Pfizer, was racing Merck neck and neck with its own anti-viral pill, PF-07321332,⁸² an ivermectin knockoff that is so similar to IVM (except, of course, in price point) that critics call it “Pfizermectin.”⁸³ Like IVM, it is also a protease-inhibiting anti-parasitic. With these two new drugs teed up for a simultaneous FDA approval, the entire medical/media cartel launched a final coordinated coup de grâce against IVM—branding it a dangerous horse drug. Mainstream media outlets across the US and overseas obediently ran stories promoting the horse medicine propaganda scam.

In late August 2021, NIH, FDA, and CDC launched an innovative new campaign to slander ivermectin as a “horse dewormer” that only deluded foolhardy nincompoops would consume. Picking up on those themes, The Independent asked, “Ivermectin: Why Are US Anti-Vaxxers Touting a Horse Dewormer as a Cure for COVID?”

Business Insider warned that people were “poisoning themselves trying to treat or prevent COVID-19 with a horse de-worming drug.”

Associated Press assures readers that, “No Evidence Ivermectin is a Miracle Drug Against COVID-19.”

On August 15, the FDA instructed, on its website: “You are not a horse.” In an August 21, 2021 Twitter post,⁸⁴ the FDA expanded the theme: “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” The White House and CNN also urged listeners that they should avoid veterinary products. CDC joined the chorus, warning Americans to not risk their health consuming a “horse de-wormer.” Elsewhere on its website, the CDC urged black and brown human immigrants to load up on ivermectin. “All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with: ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for two days before departure to the United States.⁸⁵ Whether this was intended to deworm them or to prevent COVID transmission during travel to the US is unclear.

Only Green Med Info, a health news and information site, saw through the chicanery: “A Media Smear Campaign Timed to Clear Market for Pfizer’s Ivermectin Clone Drug, Which Will Be Hailed as a ‘Miracle.’”

Demonizing IVM as a “horse drug” was, of course, ironic, given that NIAID initially developed Merck’s replacement therapy, molnupiravir, as a horse drug. Furthermore, calling ivermectin a horse drug is like calling antibiotics a horse drug. Many long-established basic drugs are, of course, effective in all mammals because they work on our shared biology. But facts be damned, media companies called all hands on deck to push these stories. Ivermectin’s devastating effectiveness against infections from parasites and solid 40-year history of proven safety have made it, also, the world’s most prescribed veterinary medicine—but the Nobel Prize was for those billions of times it helped humans, and the government’s silly safety warnings were, of course, specious.

Compare ivermectin’s safety record to Dr. Fauci’s two chosen COVID remedies, remdesivir (which hospital nurses have dubbed “Run-death-is-near”), and the COVID vaccines. Over 30 years, ivermectin has been associated with only 379 reported deaths, an impressive death/dose reporting ratio of 1/10,584,408. In contrast, over the 18 months since remdesivir received an EUA, about 1.5 million patients have received remdesivir, with 1,499 deaths reported (a dire 1/1,000 D/D ratio). Meanwhile, among recipients of COVID jabs in the US during the ten months following their rollout, some 17,000 deaths have occurred following vaccination, a reported D/D ratio of 1/13,250. Ivermectin, therefore, is thousands of times safer than remdesivir and COVID vaccines. The science also indicates that it is far more effective than either.

Dr. Fauci himself took early charge of spreading the rumor that ivermectin was poisoning deluded Americans. “Don’t do it,” he told pharma propagandist Jake Tapper of CNN in an August 29, 2021 interview. “There’s no evidence whatsoever that that works, and it could potentially have toxicity … with people who have gone to poison control centers because they’ve taken the drug at a ridiculous dose and wind up getting sick. There’s no clinical evidence that indicates that this works.”

Jake Tapper, who has sounded progressively more like a pharma rep than a journalist as the lockdown dragged on, slavishly parroted Dr. Fauci’s new talking point:⁸⁶ “Poison control centers are reporting that their calls are spiking in places like Mississippi and Oklahoma, because some Americans are trying to use an anti-parasite horse drug called ivermectin to treat coronavirus, to prevent contracting coronavirus.” It mattered not that both Mississippi and Oklahoma officials quickly denied that anyone in their state had been hospitalized for IVM poisoning.

An AP story claimed that 70 percent of calls to the Mississippi poison control center were for ivermectin overdoses; it turned out perhaps 2 percent of calls were. Barely anyone saw the grudging retractions.⁸⁷

Additional news articles reported alleged rises in ivermectin-related overdoses in other states. These, too, were exaggerated. Kentucky poison control acknowledged a slight uptick in calls about veterinary ivermectin overdose—about six per year compared to an average of one per year. Despite claims of mass poisoning, the media could not find a single case of IVM leading to death or hospitalization. People were not dying from horse ivermectin overdoses. They were certainly not dying from appropriately dosed and prescribed oral ivermectin. But many were dying from untreated COVID-19.

Bill Gates’s surrogate group GAVI asked in a press release: “How did a drug many used to treat parasites in cows come to be of interest to doctors treating humans with COVID-19?” The characterization was especially insincere. Gates’ foundation and GAVI were, at that moment, distributing millions of doses of ivermectin annually to Indian children for filariasis, and to Africans for river blindness and filariasis.

It wasn’t just the safe drug and caring physicians that were under attack. When, in September 2021, the popular comedian and podcast host Joe Rogan announced he’d kicked COVID in just a few days using a cocktail of drugs, including ivermectin, the global press, government, and pharmaceutical interests coalesced to denounce, vilify, and gaslight him. NPR, which has taken $3 million from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, jumped on the dogpile and deceptively insinuated that Rogan took horse-level doses:⁸⁸

Joe Rogan has told his Instagram followers he has been taking ivermectin, a deworming veterinary drug formulated for use in cows and horses, to help fight the coronavirus. The Food and Drug Administration has warned against taking the medication, saying animal doses of the drug can cause nausea, vomiting and in some cases severe hepatitis.

But Rogan never took veterinary ivermectin paste. Rogan said he had talked with “multiple doctors” who advised him to take the drug. He followed their advice and he got well, remarkably quickly.

Rolling Stone, the onetime banner of the counterculture, had by 2021 devolved into a reliable mouthpiece for medical cartel orthodoxies.⁸⁹ In October 2021, Rolling Stone announced that it had removed from its website a 2005 article linking mercury in vaccines to brain injuries in children. Rolling Stone also reported that Oklahomans overdosing on ivermectin horse dewormer were causing emergency rooms to be “so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting” access to health facilities. An accompanying photo purported to depict a long line of ambulatory gunshot casualties seeking hospital admission to an Oklahoma emergency room already filled to capacity with dingbats poisoned by horse wormer.⁹⁰

The Rolling Stone story⁹¹ spread like wildfire among the world’s reigning media outlets, including the Daily Mail,⁹² Business Insider, Newsweek,⁹³ Yahoo News, The Guardian,⁹⁴ and The Independent,⁹⁵ many of which rely on Gates Foundation largesse. MSNBC’s news host, Rachel Maddow, told her audience that “Patients are overdosing on ivermectin backing up rural Oklahoma hospitals, ambulances.”⁹⁶

“Ivermectin is meant for a full-size horse,” she explained. She repeated that the victims first gullibly swallowed the false claims of antivaxxers before guzzling down horse dewormer. “The ERs are so backed up that gunshot victims were having hard times getting to facilities where they can get definitive care and be treated.”

The story, of course, was fraud. Days later, Oklahoma’s Sequoyah Northeastern Health System posted a categorical denial on its website, dismissing the entire story as mere fabrication. That Rolling Stone picture of the long lines was an Associated Press stock photo from the previous January, a photo of people waiting in line to get vaccines. As it turns out, not a single patient has been treated in Oklahoma for ivermectin overdose.

Instead of retracting the article, Rolling Stone simply posted an attention-dodging “update” at the top of the article reporting the hospital’s denial.⁹⁷ The Guardian similarly published a nondescript update at the bottom of its article.⁹⁸

The FDA doubled down with the claim that IVM may cause “serious harm,” is “highly toxic” and may cause “seizures,” “coma and even death.”⁹⁹

As we shall see, these kinds of warnings are far more applicable to COVID shots. The CDC issued an emergency memo on August 26, 2021 warning doctors and pharmacists not to prescribe ivermectin.¹⁰⁰

As molnupiravir’s debut approached, the war against IVM escalated. On September 23, the Colorado Department of Law issued a cease-and-desist order and fined a Loveland medical clinic $40,000 for “marketing and overstating the effectiveness of ivermectin.” And pharmacists still willing to dispense ivermectin faced a new problem. The wholesalers began dribbling out a few pills at a time, but not enough for even one prescription per week. All their diabolical tricks seemed the work of winks and nods and a powerful hidden hand, with no corporation or federal agency taking clear responsibility for carrying out a deliberate policy to suppress a life-saving drug.

On September 28, the New York Times introduced a new tactic: reporting that the demand for ivermectin among the crackpots trying to treat COVID had created a shortage for veterinary purposes, warning that—any day now—animals might begin to suffer.¹⁰¹

Peter McCullough laughs at the propaganda: “Ivermectin is a molecule that is miraculously effective against parasites and viral infections along multiple pathways and mechanisms of action. It’s a molecule. It doesn’t care if it’s used in a horse, or a cow, or a human. The rules of physics and chemistry are the same across species.”

Pierre Kory concurs. “Ivermectin has multiple properties. It operates against COVID along a multitude of separate pathways. In addition to being antiparasitic, it also has potent antiviral properties and even “protects against SARS-CoV-2 spike protein damage.”

The osteopath Dr. Joseph Mercola observed,¹⁰² “This idea that ivermectin is a horse dewormer that poses a lethal risk to humans is pure horse manure, shoveled at us in an effort to dissuade people from using a safe and effective drug against COVID-19 The intent is clear. What our so-called health agencies and the media are trying to do is confuse people into thinking of ivermectin as a ‘veterinary drug,’ which simply isn’t true. Ultimately, what they’re trying to do is back up the Big Pharma narrative that the only thing at your disposal is the COVID shot.”

82 Manojna Maddipatla and Amruta Khandekar, Bengaluru, “Pfizer begins study of oral drug for prevention of COVID-19,” Reuters (September 27, 2021),
https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/pfizer-begins-study-covid-19-antiviral-drug-2021-09-27/

83 Tyler Durden, “Pfizer Launches Final Study For COVID Drug That’s Suspiciously Similar to ‘Horse Paste,’” Zero Hedge (September 28, 2021),
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/pfizer-launches-final-study-covid-drug-thats-suspiciously-similar-ivermectin

84 “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.” U.S. FDA @US_FDA Twitter post (August 21, 2021 at 6:57 a.m.),
https://twitter.com/us_fda/status/1429050070243192839

85 “Intestinal Parasite Guidance: Summary of Recommendations. All Middle Eastern, Asian, North African, Latin American, and Caribbean refugees should receive presumptive therapy with: Albendazole, single dose of 400 mg (200 mg for children 12-23 months) AND Ivermectin, two doses 200 mcg/Kg orally once a day for 2 days before departure to the United States.” CDC Immigrant, Refugee, and Migrant Health website (as of September 26, 2021),
https://www.cdc.gov/immigrantrefugeehealth/guidelines/overseas-guidelines.html

86 Jake Tapper, “‘Don’t do it’: Dr. Fauci warns against taking Ivermectin to fight Covid-19,” CNN video (August 29, 2021),
https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/08/29/dr-anthony-fauci-ivermectincovid-19-sotu-vpx.cnn

87 Leah Willingham, “Livestock medicine doesn’t work against COVID, doctors warn,” AP News (August 25, 2021),
https://apnews.com/article/health-coronavirus-pandemic-69c5f6d4476ca9b25bc7038e99a4a075

88 Vanessa Romo, “Joe Rogan Says He Has COVID-19 And Has Taken The Drug Ivermectin,” NPR (September 1, 2021),
https://www.npr.org/2021/09/01/1033485152/joe-rogan-covid-ivermectin

89 Tyler Durden, “Rolling Stone Issues ‘Update’ After Horse Dewormer Hit-Piece Debunked,” Zero Hedge (September 5, 2021),
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/rolling-stone-horse-dewormer-hit-piece-debunked-after-hospital-says-no-ivermectin

90 Ken Miller, “Dozens line up at Oklahoma City church for COVID vaccine,” Associated Press (January 26, 2021),
https://apnews.com/article/race-and-ethnicity-baptist-oklahoma-city-oklahoma-coronavirus-pandemic-ec6293de7e118079141e90b8874533a8

91 Peter Wade, “One Hospital Denies Oklahoma Doctor’s Story of Ivermectin Overdoses Causing ER Delays for Gunshot Victims: The hospital says it hasn’t experienced any care backlog due to patients overdosing on a drug that’s been falsely peddled as a covid cure,” Rolling Stone (Updated September 5, 2021, 8:55 pm ET),
https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/gunshot-victims-horse-dewormer-ivermectin-oklahoma-hospitals-covid-1220608/

92 “Video: Livestock feed stores are reporting shortages of ivermectin as many Americans buy up the anti-parasite drug and misuse it to treat Covid,” The Daily Mail (September 17, 2021),
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/video/health/video-2504931/Ivermectin-Explained-Anti-Parasite-Drug-Emerged.html

93 Jon Jackson, “Patients Overdosing on Ivermectin Are Clogging Oklahoma ERs: Doctor,” Newsweek (September 2, 2021),
https://www.newsweek.com/patients-overdosing-ivermectin-are-clogging-oklahoma-ers-doctor-1625631

94 Martin Pengelly and agencies, “Ivermectin misuse adding to Covid pressures at Oklahoma hospitals, doctor says: Jason McElyea says people overdosing on anti-parasitic drug that some people believe without evidence can cure or treat Covid,” The Guardian (September 13, 2021),
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/sep/04/oklahoma-doctor-ivermectin-covid-coronavirus

95 Graig Graziosi, “Doctor says gunshot victims forced to wait for treatment as Oklahoma hospitals overwhelmed by coronavirus patients. (First paragraph: “People poisoning themselves with a drug most commonly used as a horse dewormer are turning up hospitals in rural Oklahoma, a doctor has claimed”), The Independent (September 4, 2021),
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/gunshot-oklahoma-hospitals-ivermectin-overdose-b1914322.html

96 “Patients overdosing on ivermectin backing up rural Oklahoma hospitals, ambulances”: “‘The scariest one I’ve heard of and seen is people coming in with vision loss,’ he said.” Twitter repost by Rachel Maddow, MSNBC @maddow (September 2, 2021),
https://twitter.com/maddow/status/1433521336282976256

97 Tyler Durden, “Rolling Stone Issues ‘Update’ After Horse Dewormer Hit-Piece Debunked,” Zero Hedge (September 5, 2021),
https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/rolling-stone-horse-dewormerhit-piece-debunked-after-hospital-says-no-ivermectin

98 Martin Pengelly, “Oklahoma hospitals deluged by ivermectin overdoses, doctor says,” Guardian (Sep. 4, 2021),
https://archive.is/iIYB7

99 U.S. Food & Drug Administration, "Why You Should Not Use Ivermectin to Treat or Prevent Covid-19,”
https://www.fda.gov/consumers/consumer-updates/why-you-should-not-use-ivermectin-treat-or-prevent-covid-19

100 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Rapid Increase in Ivermectin Prescriptions and Reports of Severe Illness Associated with Use of Products Containing Ivermectin to Prevent or Treat COVID-19, (Aug 26, 2021).
https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/han00449.asp

101 Erin Woo, “How Covid Misinformation Created a Run on Animal Medicine,” The New York Times (September 28, 2021),
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/28/technology/ivermectin-animal-medicine-shortage.html?searchResultPosition=1

102 Dr. Eddy Bettermann, MD, “Massive ‘horse’ lies about Nobel prize winning treatment,” (September 27, 2021),
https://dreddymd.com/2021/09/27/massive-horse-lies-about-nobel-prize-winning-treatment/

Anthony Fauci needed to use all his moxie and all his esoteric bureaucratic maneuvers—mastered during his half-century at NIH—to win FDA’s approval for his vanity drug, remdesivir. Remdesivir has no clinical efficacy against COVID, according to every legitimate study. Worse, it is deadly poisonous, and expensive poison at $3,000 for treatment.¹ In fact, remdesivir’s wholesale cost is roughly 1,000× more costly than hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The challenge required Dr. Fauci to first sabotage HCQ and IVM. Under federal rules discussed earlier, FDA’s recognition of HCQ and IVM efficacy would automatically kill remdesivir’s ambitions for EUA designation. And even if Dr. Fauci somehow finagled an FDA license for remdesivir, demand for the product, which doctors were administering late in the disease, as it had to be given through an IV in the hospital, would plummet if either HCQ or IVM stopped the COVID-19 infections early.

Why would Dr. Fauci care to undermine any medicine that might compete with remdesivir? Might it have something to with NIAID and CDC having just spent $79 million² developing remdesivir for Gilead, a company in which the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation owns a $6.5 million stake?^3,4 The BMGF is engaged in other large drug development deals with the company, including a cofunded $55 million investment in a malaria treatment being developed by Lyndra Therapeutics. Gates has also funded the promotion of Gilead’s Truvada in Kenya.^5,6 Another Gilead partner, the US Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases at Ft. Detrick, Maryland (USAMRIID), where the drug was studied in monkeys, also contributed millions to remdesivir’s development.⁷ At the outset of the coronavirus plague, remdesivir was just another pharma-owned molecule that FDA had never approved as safe and efficacious for any purpose. In 2016, remdesivir demonstrated middling antiviral properties against Zika, but the disease disappeared before the expensive non-remedy got traction.⁸ After the Zika threat vanished, NIAID put some $6.9 million into identifying a new pandemic against which to deploy remdesivir. In 2018, Gilead entered remdesivir in a NIAID-funded clinical trial against Ebola in Africa.⁹

This is how we know that Anthony Fauci was well aware of remdesivir’s toxicity when he orchestrated its approval for COVID patients. NIAID sponsored that project. Dr. Fauci had another NIAID-incubated drug, ZMapp, in the same clinical trial, testing efficacy against Ebola alongside two experimental monoclonal antibody drugs. Researchers planned to administer all four drugs to Ebola patients across Africa over a period of four to eight months.^10,11

However, six months into the Ebola study, the trial’s Safety Review Board suddenly pulled both remdesivir and ZMapp from the trial.¹² Remdesivir, it turned out, was hideously dangerous. Within 28 days, subjects taking remdesivir had lethal side effects including multiple organ failure, acute kidney failure, septic shock, and hypotension, and 54 percent of the remdesivir group died—the highest mortality rate among the four experimental drugs.¹³ Anthony Fauci’s drug, ZMapp, ran up the second-highest body count at 44 percent. NIAID was the primary funder of this study, and its researchers published the bad news about remdesivir in the New England Journal of Medicine in December 2019.¹⁴ By then, COVID-19 was already circulating in Wuhan. But two months later, on February 25, 2020, Dr. Fauci announced, with great fanfare, that he was enrolling hospitalized COVID patients in a clinical trial to study remdesivir’s efficacy.¹⁵ For important context, this was a month before the WHO declared the new pandemic, a time that there were only fourteen confirmed COVID cases in the United States, most from the Diamond Princess cruise ship. These individuals were among the first wave of COVID-19 hospitalizations from whom NIAID recruited the 400 US volunteers for Dr. Fauci’s remdesivir trial.¹⁶ Dr. Fauci’s press release said only that remdesivir “has shown promise in animal models for treating Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS).”¹⁷ It’s unclear, then, if NIAID informed these frightened souls that, less than a year earlier, a safety review board had deemed remdesivir unacceptably toxic.

Its deadly effect on patients aside, remdesivir was a perfect strategic option for Dr. Fauci. Optics required that NIH devote some resources to antiviral therapeutic drugs; critics would complain if he spent billions on vaccines and nothing on therapeutics. However, any licensed, repurposed antiviral that was effective against COVID for prevention or early treatment (like IVM or HCQ) could kill his entire vaccine program because FDA wouldn’t be able to grant his jabs Emergency Use Authorization. Remdesivir, however, was an IV remedy, appropriate only for use on hospitalized patients in the late stages of illness. It would therefore not compete with vaccines, allowing Dr. Fauci to support it without compromising his core business. Furthermore, while HCQ and IVM were off-patent and available generically, remdesivir was in the sweet spot of still being on patent. The potential profit upside was impressive. Remdesivir cost Gilead $10 per dose to manufacture.^18,19 But by granting Gilead an EUA, regulators could force private insurers, Medicare, and Medicaid to fork over around $3,120.00 per treatment—hundreds of times the cost of the drug.^20,21 Gilead predicted remdesivir would bring in $3.5 billion in 2020 alone.²²

Dr. Fauci did not suddenly get the idea that remdesivir might work against coronavirus in January 2020. In one of his many extraordinary feats of uncanny foresight, beginning in 2017, Dr. Fauci paid $6 million to his gain-of-function guru, Ralph Baric—a University of North Carolina microbiologist—to accelerate remdesivir as a coronavirus remedy at China’s biosecurity laboratory in Wuhan.^23,24 Baric used coronavirus cultures obtained from bat caves by Chinese virologists working with Peter Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance, another recipient of Dr. Fauci’s funding.^25,26 Dr. Fauci demonstrated his personal interest in those experiments by dispatching his most trusted deputies, Hugh Auchincloss in 2018 and then Cliff Lane in 2020, to negotiate with the Chinese government and to supervise Baric’s experiments at the Wuhan lab and elsewhere in China.²⁷ Baric claimed that his mouse studies showed remdesivir impeded SARS replication, suggesting that it might inhibit other coronaviruses. Chinese researchers at the Wuhan Lab and China’s Military Medicine Institute of the People’s Liberation Army Academy of Military Science submitted their own patent application for remdesivir.²⁸ China’s military brass said the joint patent application was “aimed at protecting China’s national interests.”²⁹

Early in March 2020, the Gates Foundation bankrolled $125 million of tax-deductible grants to support drug makers to develop coronavirus treatments.³⁰ Gates and/or his foundation had large equity stakes in many of the pharmaceutical companies that received these funds—including Gilead. On April 24, 2020, Gilead’s volunteer spokesperson Bill Gates declared: “For the novel coronavirus, the leading drug candidate in this category is remdesivir from Gilead.”³¹

For HCQ, Dr. Fauci demanded well-designed randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials^32,33 and he warned against the use of IVM for treatment.³⁴ In contrast, Fauci green-lighted remdesivir following studies in which the control group did not receive a real placebo.³⁵ Instead, Fauci’s researchers used no placebo in the more severely ailing patients and gave the remaining patients an “active comparator” containing the same treatment protocol agents as used in the remdesivir arm except for substituting sulfobutyl for remdesivir as the test agent.³⁶ Utilization of so-called “toxic” or “spiked” placebos—also known as “fauxcebos”—is a fraudulent gimmick that Dr. Fauci and his drug researchers have pioneered over forty years to conceal adverse side effects of toxic drugs for which they seek approval. Dr. Fauci eventually recruited 400 US hospitalized volunteers for NIAID’s remdesivir trials, but despite this fauxcebo chicanery, Dr. Fauci’s researchers just couldn’t get remdesivir to show any improvement in COVID survival.³⁷

Despite its disappointing performance, Dr. Fauci worked hand-in-hand with Gilead’s remdesivir team to guide the trial to a satisfactory outcome. According to Vera Sharav, the President and founder of the Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), “The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) had complete control over the trial and made all decisions regarding trial design and implementation. Gilead Sciences employees participated in discussions about protocol development and in weekly protocol team calls with NIAID.”

Sharav’s organization, Alliance for Human Research Protection (AHRP), monitors the quality and ethical performance of clinical trials. NIAID’s remdesivir trial’s original endpoint made sense: to win approval, the drug would need to demonstrate a “reduction in COVID mortality.” However, the drug didn’t show the hoped-for benefit. While fewer patients receiving remdesivir died, those receiving remdesivir were also a lot less sick than the placebo subjects when they entered the trial. So Dr. Fauci’s team decided to move the goalposts. The researchers, in fact, had changed the trial “endpoints” twice in an effort to create a meager appearance of benefit. Dr. Fauci’s new endpoints allowed the drug to demonstrate a benefit, not by improving the chances of surviving COVID, but by achieving shorter hospital stays.³⁸ Yet this too was a scam, because it turned out that almost twice as many remdesivir subjects as placebo subjects had to be readmitted to the hospital after discharge—suggesting that Fauci’s improved time to recovery was due, at least in part, to discharging remdesivir patients prematurely. Altering protocols in the middle of an ongoing study is an interference commonly known as “scientific fraud” or “falsification.” UCLA Epidemiology Professor Sander Greenland explains, “You’re not supposed to change your endpoint mid-course. That’s frowned upon.” Vera Sharav agrees: “Changing primary outcomes after a study has commenced is considered dubious and suspicious.”³⁹

But Dr. Fauci had little reason to worry that insiders would complain about the corruption of the study, since his trusted deputy, Cliff Lane, chaired the NIH Treatment Guidelines panel.⁴⁰ Lane was doubly conflicted, since he had personally overseen the remdesivir trials in China, and stood, potentially, to share in patent rewards and royalties for the drug.⁴¹ In addition to Lane, seven of the panel members had financial relationships with Gilead—and eight additional panel members had had financial relationships with Gilead prior to the past eleven months, for which they were required to declare a relationship.⁴² “Is it any wonder remdesivir is the only drug recommended for COVID?” asks Vera Sharav, a Holocaust survivor who has devoted her life to advocating for ethics in the notoriously corrupt clinical trial industry.^{43,44,45,46,47}

Before his study was completed or peer-reviewed, much less published, Dr. Fauci learned that The Lancet had just published a placebo-controlled Chinese study that showed remdesivir utterly ineffective at keeping hospitalized patients alive OR reducing the duration of hospitalizations.⁴⁸ Even more importantly, remdesivir did not reduce the presence of the virus in the blood. Worst of all, the Chinese study confirmed remdesivir’s deadly toxicity. The Chinese regulators and researchers shuttered that trial because of potentially lethal side effects. Remdesivir caused serious injuries in 12 percent of the patients, compared to 5 percent of patients in the placebo group.⁴⁹ Unlike Dr. Fauci’s trial, the Chinese study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, peer-reviewed study, published in the world’s premier scientific journal, The Lancet. All the underlying data was available to the incurious press and the uninformed public.

In contrast, Dr. Fauci’s NIAID-Gilead study was at that point, still unpublished, not peer-reviewed, its details undisclosed. It employed a phony placebo and had suffered a sketchy mid-course protocol change. In April, the Chinese cancelled two ongoing clinical trials with NIAID in China because the Chinese had succeeded in ending the COVID epidemic in the country, and researchers could no longer identify enough COVID patients to enroll in the study.⁵⁰

In any event, the Chinese study spelled certain doom for remdesivir. It was now D.O.A. at FDA—a poem title? But Dr. Fauci never accepted this. The inimitable maestro of regulatory combat responded to the crisis with savvy and bold action that would miraculously salvage his sinking product: He appeared at one of his regular White House press conferences, this one in the Oval Office. Seated on the couch next to Deborah Birx and opposite President Trump, Dr. Fauci made a surprise announcement.

From that lofty platform, Dr. Fauci, with great fanfare, declared victory. The data from NIAID’s clinical trial for remdesivir shows “quite good news,” he said, glossing over the drug’s failure to demonstrate any mortality advantage.⁵¹ He boasted that the median time for hospitalization was eleven days for patients taking remdesivir, compared to fifteen days in the placebo group. He told the credulous press: “The data shows that remdesivir has a clear-cut, significant, positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.” He claimed that his study had therefore proven remdesivir so remarkably beneficial to COVID patients that he had decided that it would be unethical to deny Americans benefits of this wonder drug. He was, he declared, unblinding and ending the study and giving remdesivir to the placebo group. Remdesivir would be America’s new “standard of care”⁵² for COVID. It was, of course, all a lie.

On May 1, the FDA granted the pandemic’s first Emergency Use Authorization for a COVID drug, allowing remdesivir treatments for patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19.^53,54

Based on Dr. Fauci’s representation, President Trump purchased the world’s entire stock of remdesivir for Americans.⁵⁵ The European Union signed a “joint procurement agreement” with Gilead to queue up in the pipeline for 500,000 treatment courses.⁵⁶ The day after Dr. Fauci’s announcement at the White House, the University of North Carolina issued a press release headlined: “Remdesivir, developed through a UNC-Chapel Hill partnership, proves effective against COVID-19 in NIAID human clinical trials.”⁵⁷ Dr. Fauci’s gain-of-function wizard, Dr. Ralph Baric, called this “a game changer for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.”⁵⁸

Vera Sharav points out that in a rational universe, a poison like remdesivir would have no hope of winning regulatory approval—unless, of course, the company could somehow distract attention from the overwhelmingly catastrophic scientific evidence by getting the world’s most powerful health official—the man who conducted the clinical trial—to pronounce the drug a “miracle cure” at a globally attended press conference while lounging on an Oval Office divan beside the president of the United States. Says Sharav, “What better free advertisement?”⁵⁹

Sharav adds, “Dr. Fauci had a vested interest in remdesivir. He sponsored the clinical trial whose detailed results were not subject to the peer review he demanded for the drugs he regarded as rivals, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. Instead of showing transparent data and convincing results, he did ‘science’ by fiat. He simply declared the disappointing results to be ‘highly significant,’ and pronounced remdesivir to be the new ‘standard of care.’ Fauci made the promotional pronouncement while sitting on a couch in the White House, without providing a detailed news release, without a briefing at a medical meeting, or peer review for publication in a scientific journal—as is the norm and practice, to allow scientists and researchers to review the data.”

1 Sydney Lupkin, Remdesivir Priced At More Than $3,100 For A Course Of Treatment, NPR, (May 8, 2020).
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2020/05/08/851632704/putting-a-price-on-covid-19-treatment-remdesivir

2 Kathryn Ardizzone, Role of the Federal Government in the Development of Remdesivir, KEI Briefing Note 2020:1., (March 20, 2020).
https://www.keionline.org/wp-content/uploads/KEI-Briefing-Note-2020_1GS-5734-Remdesivir.pdf

3 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Form 990-PF, 2016.
https://docs.gatesfoundation.org/Documents/A-1_2016_Form_990-PF_Signed.pdf

4 United States Securities and Exchange Commission, Gilead Sciences, Inc.. Form 10-K
https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/882095/000119312506045128/d10k.htm

5 Allison DeAngelis, Gilead, Gates Foundation join Watertown biotech’s $55M financing round, Boston Business Journal, (2018).
https://www.bizjournals.com/boston/news/2019/01/29/gilead-gates-foundation-join-watertown-biotechs.html

6 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, University of California San Francisco, (Sept. 2016).
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants/2016/09/opp1159068

7 Christopher Rowland, Taxpayers paid to develop remdesivir but will have no say when Gilead sets the price, Washington Post,
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/26/remdesivircoronavirus-taxpayers/

8 Gilead Sciences, GlobalData offers view on Gilead’s suspension of Covid-19 trials in China, News-Medical Life Sciences, (April 29, 2020),
https://www.globaldata.com/gileads-suspension-of-covid-19-trials-in-china-should-serve-as-bellwether-for-studies-in-other-countries-says-globaldata/https://www.news-medical.net/news/20200429/GlobalData-offers-view-on-Gileade28099s-suspension-of-Covid-19-trials-in-China.aspx

9 ClinicalTrials.gov, Investigational Therapeutics for the Treatment of People With Ebola Virus Disease, (October 28, 2018).
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03719586

10 Ibid.

11 Erika Check Hayden, “Experimental drugs poised for use in Ebola outbreak,” Nature (May 18, 2018),
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-05205-x

12 National Institutes of Health, Investigational Drugs Reduce Risk of Death from Ebola Virus Disease, NIH News Release, (November 27, 2019).
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/investigational-drugs-reduce-risk-death-ebola-virus-disease

13 Sabue Mulangu, “A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics,” New England Journal of Medicine, (December 12, 2019).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993

14 Ibid. at Table 2. Comparison of Death at 28 Days According to Treatment Group.

15 NIH Press Release, “NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins,” NIH, (Feb. 25, 2020),
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-remdesivir-treat-covid-19-begins

16 Ibid. NIH Press Release

17 Ibid. NIH Press Release

18 Andres Hill, et al, “Minimum costs to manufacture new treatments for COVID-19,” ScienceDirect Journal of Virus Eradication Volume 6, Issue 2, April 2020, Pages 61-69,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2055664020300182

19 Angus Liu, “Fair price for Gilead’s COVID-19 med remdesivir? $4,460, cost watchdog says,” FIERCE PHARMA, (May 4, 2020)
https://www.fiercepharma.com/marketing/gilead-s-covid-19-therapy-remdesivir-worth-4-460-per-course-says-pricing-watchdog

20 Matthew Herper, Gilead announces long-awaited price for Covid-19 drug remdesivir, STAT (Jun. 29, 2020),
https://www.statnews.com/2020/06/29/gilead-announces-remdesivir-price-covid-19/

21 Angus Liu, Gilead banks on blockbuster remdesivir with sunnier 2020 outlook, FirecePharma, (July 21, 2020).
https://www.fiercepharma.com/pharma/gilead-buoyed-by-potential-remdesivir-covid-19-sales-elevates-2020-outlook-despite-weak-base

22 Ibid.

23 “Gillings School researchers receive $6M+ grant to fight infectious diseases,” UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health (Aug. 31, 2017),
https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/gillings-researchers-receive-6m-grant-to-fight-infectious-disease/

24 NIH Funding: Awards by Location & Organization, Ralph S. Baric: summary for Fiscal Year 2017,
https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm?ot=&fy=2017&state=NC,46&ic=&fm=&orgid=578206&distr=&rfa=&pid=1885536&om=n#tab5

25 Reality Check Team, “Coronavirus: Was US money used to fund risky research in China?,” BBC (Aug. 2, 2021),
https://www.bbc.com/news/57932699

26 Understanding The Risk Of Bat Coronavirus Emergence, Award No. R01AI110964, US Dept. HHS,
https://taggs.hhs.gov/Detail/AwardDetail?arg_AwardNum=R01AI110964&arg_ProgOfficeCode=104

27 Jon Cohen, “Quarantined at home now, U.S. scientist describes his visit to China’s hot zone,” SCIENCE (Mar. 6, 2020),
https://www.science.org/news/2020/03/quarantined-scientist-reveals-what-it-s-be-china-s-hot-zone

28 Zhang Yan, David Stanway, “China lab seeks patent on use of Gilead’s coronavirus treatment,” Reuters (Feb. 4, 2020),
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-china-health-patent/china-lab-seeks-patent-on-use-of-gileads-coronavirus-treatment-idUSKBN1ZZ0RL

29 Ibid.

30 BMGF Press Release, “Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome, and Mastercard Launch Initiative to Speed Development and Access to Therapies for COVID-19,” BMGF (Mar. 10, 2020),
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/Ideas/Media-Center/Press-Releases/2020/03/COVID-19-Therapeutics-Accelerator

31 Matt Krantz, “Bill Gates’ Coronavirus Manifesto Reveals 5 Forecasts For Investors,” Investor’s Business Daily (Apr. 24, 2020 01:48 PM ET)
https://www.investors.com/etfs-and-funds/sectors/bill-gates-coronavirus-manifesto-reveals-forecasts-investors/

32 Associated Press, Fauci calls Henry Ford study on hydroxychloroquine and COVID-19 ‘flawed’, (July 31, 2020).
https://www.wxyz.com/news/coronavirus/fauci-calls-henry-ford-study-onhydroxychloroquine-and-covid-19-flawed

33 CNBC, Dr. Anthony Fauci: No placebo-controlled trial has shown hydroxychloroquine is effective, (July 31, 2020).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xDjVwXM8ESE

34 CNN, Dr. Fauci warns against taking Ivermectin to fight Covid-19, (August 29, 2021).
https://www.cnn.com/videos/health/2021/08/29/dr-anthony-fauci-ivermectin-covid-19-sotu-vpx.cnn

35 Jason D. Goldman, et al. Remdesivir for 5 or 10 Days in Patients with Severe Covid-19. NEJM, (May 27, 2020).
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2015301

36 European Medicines, Assessment Report: Vaklury, (June 25, 2020).
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/veklury-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf

37 NIAID, “A Multicenter, Adaptive, Randomized Blinded Controlled Trial of the Safety and Efficacy of Investigational Therapeutics for the Treatment of COVID-19 in Hospitalized Adults,” NIH Clinical Trials.GOV (Apr. 2, 2020),
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04280705
(https://clinicaltrials.gov/ProvidedDocs/05/NCT04280705/Prot_001.pdf )

38 John H. Beigel, M.D., et al, “Remdesivir for the Treatment of Covid-19 — Final Report,” N Engl J Med 2020; 383:1813-1826, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007764,
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764

39 Health News Review, “Primary Outcome Measures: Screenshot of ClinicalTrials.gov,” Health NewsReview (Apr. 30, 2020, 3:18 PM),
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Screen-Shot-2020-04-30-at-3.18.42-PM.png
https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/04/what-the-public-didnt-hear-about-the-nih-remdesivir-trial/

40 COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel Members, (Last Updated: August 4, 2021),
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/about-the-guidelines/panel-roster/

41 Jon Cohen, “Quarantined at home now, U.S. scientist describes his visit to China’s hot zone,” SCIENCE (Mar. 6, 2020),
https://www.science.org/news/2020/03/quarantined-scientist-reveals-what-it-s-be-china-s-hot-zone

42 COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel. Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Treatment Guidelines. National Institutes of Health. Available at
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/about-the-guidelines/panel-financial-disclosure/ Accessed October 1, 2021.

43 AHRP, “Brazilian Scientists Speak Out Against Corrupted “Science” & the Use of Inhumane Study Methods,” AHRP (May 27, 2020),
https://ahrp.org/brazilian-scientists-speak-out-against-corrupted-science-the-use-of-inhumane-study-methods/

44 AHRP, “Dissolving Illusions-“Authoritative” Medical Information Sources Are Corrupted,” AHRP (Nov. 26, 2017),
https://ahrp.org/dissolving-illusions-medical-information-sources-are-corrupted/

45 AHRP, “Nobody Should Volunteer for Clinical Trials As Long As Research Data Is Secret,” AHRP (Apr. 12, 2012),
https://ahrp.org/nobody-should-volunteer-for-clinical-trials-as-long-as-research-data-is-secret/

46 AHRP, “Medical Journals Complicit in Corruption of Medicine,” AHRP (Nov. 13, 2010),
https://ahrp.org/medical-journals-complicit-in-corruption-of-medicine/

47 AHRP, “BMJ Demands Raw Data From Pharma Clinical Trials,” AHRP (Dec. 10, 2009),
https://ahrp.org/bmj-demands-raw-data-from-pharma-clinical-trials/

48 Yeming Wang, MD, et al., Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial, VOL 395, I 10236, P1569-1578, (MAY 16, 2020),
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31022-9

49 Ibid.

50 Phil Taylor, “Gilead slides as second Chinese trial of remdesivir is stopped,” PHARMAPHORUM (Apr. 15, 2020),
https://pharmaphorum.com/news/gilead-slides-as-two-chinese-trials-of-remdesivirare-stopped/

51 Erika Edwards, Remdesivir shows promising results for coronavirus, Fauci says, NBC, (April 29, 2020).
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-drug-remdesivir-shows-promise-large-trial-n1195171

52 Gina Kolata, Peter Baker and Noah Weiland, “Remdesivir Shows Modest Benefits in Coronavirus Trial,” New York Times, (April 29, 2020, Updated Oct. 29, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/health/gilead-remdesivir-coronavirus.html

53 FDA, “EUA Letter of Approval Veklury (remdesivir),” RADM Denise M. Hinton-FDA, (May 1, 2020 revised Oct. 22, 2020),
https://www.fda.gov/media/137564/download

54 Veklury (remdesivir), “Information for US Healthcare Professionals”,
https://www.vekluryhcp.com/

55 Sarah Boseley, US secures world stock of key Covid-19 drug remdesivir, The Guardian, (June 30, 2020).
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jun/30/us-buys-up-world-stock-of-key-covid-19-drug

56 Francesco Guarascio, EU makes 1 billion-euro bet on Gilead’s COVID drug before trial results, Reuters, (Oct 13, 2020.)
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-eu-remdesivir/eu-makes-1-billion-euro-bet-on-gileads-covid-drug-before-trial-results-idUSKBN26Y25K

57 Gillings School News, Remdesivir, developed through a UNC-Chapel Hill partnership, proves effective against COVID-19 in NIAID human clinical trials, UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health, (April 29, 2020).
https://sph.unc.edu/sph-news/remdesivir-developed-at-unc-chapel-hill-proves-effective-against-covid-19-in-niaid-human-clinical-trials/

58 Ibid.

59 AHRP, “Fauci’s Promotional Hype Catapults Gilead’s Remdesivir,” AHRP (May 6, 2020),
https://ahrp.org/faucis-promotional-hype-catapults-gileads-remdesivir/

FDA’s recognition of remdesivir as the new “Standard of Care” for COVID meant that Medicaid and insurance companies could not legally deny it to patients and would have to fork over Gilead’s exorbitant price tag on a product US taxpayers had, by then, spent at least $85 million to develop.⁶⁰ Improving Gilead’s business even more, doctors and hospitals that failed to use remdesivir could now be sued for malpractice, leading some medical experts to believe that coercing the use of this worthless and dangerous drug on COVID patients almost certainly cost tens of thousands of Americans their lives.

As we shall see, Dr. Fauci copied the choreographed script for winning remdesivir’s EUA from the worn rabbit-eared playbook that he developed during his early AIDS years, and then used repeatedly across his career to win approvals for deadly and ineffective drugs. Time and again, he has terminated clinical trials of his sweetheart drugs the moment they begin to reveal cataclysmic toxicity. He makes the absurd claim that his drug-du-jour had proven so miraculously effective that it would be unethical to deny it to the public, and then he strong-arms FDA to grant his approvals. This time only, the brazenness of the fraud earned Dr. Fauci some rare criticism even in mainstream science and press, and from academic institutions that customarily maintain silence about his shenanigans, given their addictions to whopping NIH and BMGF funding.

On October 24, 2020, Umair Irfan noted that “The FDA is once again promoting a Covid-19 therapy based on shaky evidence.”⁶¹

The British Medical Journal pointed out, “None of the randomized controlled trials published so far, however, have shown that remdesivir saves significantly more lives than standard medical care.”⁶²

Eric Topol of Scripps Research Translational Institute scolded that, “This is a very, very bad look for the FDA, and the dealings between Gilead and EU make it another layer of badness.”⁶³

Angela Rasmussen, a virologist at Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health, told a reporter: “I was really surprised when I saw that news.”⁶⁴

Science Magazine said Dr. Fauci’s move had, “baffled scientists who have closely watched the clinical trials of remdesivir unfold over the past 6 months—and who have many questions about remdesivir’s worth.”⁶⁵

University of Oxford Professor of Clinical Therapeutics Duncan Richard scathingly observed that, “Research based on this kind of use should be treated with extreme caution because there is no control group or randomization, which are some of the hallmarks of good practice in clinical trials.”⁶⁶

Professor Stephen Evans in Pharmacoepidemiology, at the Gates-funded London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, offered a particularly scathing assessment—“The data from this paper are almost uninterpretable. It is very surprising, perhaps even unethical, that the New England Journal of Medicine has published it. It would be more appropriate to publish the data on the website of the pharmaceutical company that has sponsored and written up the study. At least Gilead has been clear that this has not been done in the way that a high-quality scientific paper would be written.”⁶⁷

Even Bill Gates raised an eyebrow about the audacity of the caper. When Wired magazine in August 2020 asked Gates what therapeutic treatment he’d ask for if hospitalized with COVID-19, he did not hesitate. “Remdesivir,” Gates replied, adding a comment that put daylight between him and the embarrassing clinical trial fiasco. “Sadly the trials in the US have been so chaotic that the actual proven effect is kind of small. Potentially the effect is much larger than that. It’s insane how confused the trials here in the US have been.”⁶⁸

* * *

Then, on October 19, 2020, three days before remdesivir’s FDA approval, the World Health Organization published a definitive study on remdesivir involving 11,266 COVID-19 patients in 405 hospitals and 30 countries.^69,70 The power of this study dwarfed the Fauci/Gilead project, which had recruited 1,062 patients. In the WHO’s trial, remdesivir failed to reduce mortality, and failed to reduce the need for ventilators OR the length of hospital stays. WHO researchers found no detectable benefits from remdesivir and recommended against its use in COVID-19 patients.⁷¹ WHO published its devastating indictment of remdesivir one month after FDA issued the remdesivir EUA for children less than 12 years of age. Dr. Fauci and the FDA knew about the WHO study before the FDA issued the EUA for remdesivir, and almost certainly read the preprints and understood the findings. It appears, in fact, that Dr. Fauci once again hurried the approval through FDA so as to beat the publication of a negative study.

On July 15, 2021, a large Johns Hopkins Study in Original Investigation | Infectious Diseases once again confirmed that “Remdesivir treatment was not associated with improved survival but was associated with longer hospital stays.”⁷² (Emphasis added.)

On October 2, 2020, the European Union released its own safety review of remdesivir. The study reported serious side effects.^73,74

“Every independent randomized controlled trial of remdesivir has shown either a lack of benefit or a clear trend to harm,” says Dr. Pierre Kory. “It’s only those two Pharma studies (with Dr. Fauci) that show any benefits and even then, the benefits are minor.”

“It makes no sense to give an antiviral in late stages of a viral infection,” Dr. Kory adds. “The viral replication mainly takes place prior to day seven. If an antiviral works, that’s when you administer antivirals. Remdesivir might work early on, but we don’t know, because it’s IV administered and you can’t really do that to ambulatory patients.”

60 Public Citizen, “The Public Already Has Paid for Remdesivir,” Public Citizen, (May 7, 2020),
https://www.citizen.org/news/the-public-already-has-paid-for-remdesivir/

61 Umair Irfan, “The FDA approved remdesivir to treat Covid-19. Scientists are questioning the evidence.,” Vox (Oct. 24, 2020),
https://www.vox.com/21530401/remdesivir-approved-by-fda-covid-19-fda-gilead-veklury

62 Jeremy Hsu, “Covid-19: What now for remdesivir?,” 371:m4457 BMJ (Nov. 20, 2020),
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4457

63 Jon Cohen & Kai Kupferschmidt, “The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug,” Science (Oct. 28, 2020),
https://www.science.org/news/2020/10/very-very-bad-look-remdesivir-first-fda-approved-covid-19-drug

64 Umair Irfan, “The FDA approved remdesivir to treat Covid-19. Scientists are questioning the evidence,” Vox (Oct. 24, 2020)
https://www.vox.com/21530401/remdesivir-approved-by-fda-covid-19-fda-gilead-veklury

65 Jon Cohen & Kai Kupferschmidt, “The ‘very, very bad look’ of remdesivir, the first FDA-approved COVID-19 drug,” Science (Oct. 28, 2020),
https://www.science.org/news/2020/10/very-very-bad-look-remdesivir-first-fda-approved-covid-19-drug

66 Science Media Centre, expert reaction to a study about compassionate use of remdesivir for patients with severe COVID-19, (April 11, 2020).
https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-study-about-compassionate-use-of-remdesivir-for-patients-with-severe-covid-19/

67 Ibid.

68 Steven Levy, Bill Gates on Covid: Most US Tests Are ‘Completely Garbage. Wired, (August 7, 2020).
https://www.wired.com/story/bill-gates-on-covid-most-us-tests-are-completely-garbage/

69 Owen Dyer, Covid-19: Remdesivir has little or no impact on survival, WHO trial shows. BMJ 2020;371:m4057 (Published October 19, 2020).
https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4057?ijkey=f9301c3ac0aca0af6e1df53f1c90e72b9dc769cd&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

70 FDA News Release, “FDA Approves First Treatment for COVID-19,” FDA (Oct.22, 2020),
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-treatment-covid-19

71 Kari Oakes, “WHO backs off on remdesivir as FDA issues another EUA.” Regulatory Focus (November 19, 2020).
https://www.raps.org/news-and-articles/news-articles/2020/11/who-backs-offon-remdesivir-as-fda-issues-another

72 Michael E. Ohl, et al., “Association of Remdesivir Treatment With Survival and Length of Hospital Stay Among US Veterans Hospitalized With COVID-19,” JAMA 4(7):e2114741 (2021) doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2021.14741
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2781959

73 PRAC reviews a signal with Veklury, PRAC (Oct. 2, 2020),
https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/meeting-highlights-pharmacovigilance-risk-assessment-committee-prac-28-september-1-october-2020

74 “EU medicines agency studies effect of COVID-19 drug on kidneys,” Euronews (Oct. 2, 2020),
https://www.euronews.com/2020/10/02/eu-medicines-agency-studies-effect-of-covid-19-drug-on-kidneys

From early in May 2020, doctors and hospitals began using remdesivir on hospitalized patients who tested positive for COVID in PCR tests. By November 9, 2021, the publication date of this book, CDC’s website lists only two drugs approved for treating COVID-19, remdesivir and the corticosteroid dexamethasone.^75,76,77 Doctors often use the two drugs in conjunction. Assessing remdesivir’s impact on hospitalized COVID-19 patients is difficult, in part, because—like COVID-19—remdesivir causes extreme toxicity to lungs and kidneys,⁷⁸ and mimics several of the other lethal symptoms of COVID, including multi-organ failure.⁷⁹ Many doctors believe our country’s record COVID-19 fatalities are at least in part due to widespread use of remdesivir in 2020. “We had the most deaths worldwide,” says Dr. Ryan Cole. “It’s a haunting question: How many of these Americans were remdesivir casualties?”

For several months, we were the only country treating people with a drug proven to be lethal. That year, 2020, we had almost double the number of deaths per month compared to most other countries. Brazil, one of the first nations to widely use remdesivir, had the second highest death toll.^80,81

In May of 2020, New York doctors repeatedly marveled at the tendency for COVID-19 to cause kidney failure, something that no other respiratory virus does. Doctors began seeing acute kidney failure on day three, four, and five after admission.⁸² Hospitals short on ventilators also ran out of dialysis machines. Physician and laboratory CEO Dr. Ryan Cole is one of many doctors who believe that many of those cases were attributable to remdesivir. “COVID-19 can affect the kidneys,” he says. “We know this because we can recover the spike protein from urine. But it’s dubious that the sheer magnitude of acute renal failure we saw among hospitalized COVID patients can all be attributed solely to the coronavirus infection.”

Dr. Cole told me that in the animal studies, one-fourth of the animals died from kidney failure. He explains that kidney collapse can lead to fluid accumulations in the lungs and everywhere and results in multi-organ failure and sepsis—all of which are also sequelae of COVID. “Remdesivir shouldn’t be on the market,” he added.

Dr. Fauci’s 2019 Ebola study proved that remdesivir, by day three, four, and five, caused acute kidney failure in upwards of 31 percent of patients. In less than five days of remdesivir treatment, 8 percent of all people died or experienced life-threatening multiple organ failure or kidney failure so severe they had to be taken off the drug. “So it may not be a coincidence that roughly the same number of hospitalized COVID patients—8-10× were dying in the first week,” says Cole.

Dr. McCullough gives us a stark and clear summary: “Remdesivir has two problems. First, it doesn’t work. Second, it is toxic and it kills people.”

75 CDC, “Interim Clinical Guidance for Management of Patients with Confirmed Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Clinical Management and Treatment” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (Feb. 16, 2120),
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/hcp/clinical-guidance-management-patients.html

76 NIH, “COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines:Therapeutic Management of Hospitalized Adults With COVID-19” NIH (Aug 25, 2021),
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/hospitalized-adults--therapeutic-management/

77 NIH, “COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines: General Management of Nonhospitalized Patients With Acute COVID-19” NIH (Jul. 8, 2021),
https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/management/clinical-management/nonhospitalized-adults--therapeutic-management/

78 Sanna Gevers, et al, ‘Remdesivir in COVID-19 Patients with Impaired Renal Function,’ JASN (Feb. 2021) 32 (2) 518-519; DOI:
https://doi.org/10.1681/ASN.2020101535

79 Jonathan Grein, M.D., et al, “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for Patients with Severe Covid-19,” N Engl J Med 2020; 382:2327-2336, DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007016
https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016

80 Tavares, Remdesivir is approved for testing on coronavirus patients in Brazil and Europe,
https://www.tavaresoffice.com.br/en/remdesivir-is-approved-for-testing-on-coronavirus-patients-in-brazil-and-europe/

81 Lisandra Paraguassu, Ricardo Brito, After record COVID-19 deaths, Bolsonaro tells Brazilians to stop ‘whining’, Reuters, (March 5, 2021).
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-coronavirus-brazil/after-record-covid-19-deaths-bolsonaro-tells-brazilians-to-stop-whining-idUSKBN2AX114

82 “Kidney problems more prevalent in NYC COVID-19 patients,” Columbia (Jun. 8, 2020),
https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu/news/kidney-problems-more-prevalent-nyc-covid-19-patients

“The only means to fight a plague is honesty.”
—Albert Camus, The Plague (1947)

During the spring of 2020, Dr. Fauci and Bill Gates carpet-bombed the airwaves, bearishly predicting that a “miraculous vaccine” would stop COVID transmission, prevent illness, end the pandemic, and release humanity from house arrest. Even vaccinology’s most stalwart tub thumpers—true believers like Dr. Peter Hotez and Dr. Paul Offit—regarded those forecasts as far-fetched and foolhardy.^1,2 After all, for decades, two perilous and seemingly insurmountable impediments had thwarted every attempt to craft a coronavirus vaccine.

Leaky Vaccines

The first obstacle was the coronavirus’s tendency to rapidly mutate, producing vaccine-resistant variants. Vaccine developers like Hotez and Offit doubted that, after decades of futile efforts, researchers could suddenly develop a COVID vaccine that would provide “sterilizing immunity,” meaning that it would completely obliterate viral colonies in vaccinated individuals and prevent transmission and mutation.

As if to confirm such fears, in May of that year, Britain’s top vaccinologist, Andrew Pollard, admitted that the Oxford University’s government-funded and patriotically ballyhooed AstraZeneca vaccine had failed to achieve sterilizing immunity in monkeys; the inoculated macaques, even when asymptomatic, continued to support high viral loads in their nasal pharynxes.³ Then in August, Dr. Fauci primped up the dismaying news of similar failures by all the competing candidates with a kind of celebratory bravado. Instead of declaring defeat and retreating to the drawing board, Dr. Fauci cheerfully announced that none of the first-generation COVID vaccines was likely to prevent transmission.⁴ That news should have cratered the entire project. Leading virologists, including Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier, pointed out that a non-sterilizing, or “leaky,” vaccine could not arrest transmission and would therefore fail to stop the pandemic.⁵ Even worse, vaccinated individuals, he warned, would become asymptomatic carriers and “mutant factories” blasting out vaccine-resistant versions of the disease that were likely to lengthen and intensify rather than abbreviate the pandemic.

But Tony Fauci and his partner, Bill Gates, seemed to have a strategy for neutralizing the variant threat. The two men had put billions of taxpayer and tax-deducted dollars into developing an mRNA platform for vaccines that, in theory, would allow them to quickly produce new “boosters” to combat each new “escape variant.” This scheme was Big Pharma’s holy grail. Vaccines are one of the rare commercial products that multiply profits by failing. Each new booster doubles the revenues from the initial jab. Since NIAID co-owned the mRNA patent,⁶ the agency stood to make billions from its coronavirus gambit by producing successive boosters for every new variant; the more, the better! The good news for Pharma was that all of humanity would be permanently dependent on biannual or even triannual booster shots. Dr. Peter McCullough warned that mass vaccination with a leaky vaccine during a pandemic “would put the world on a never-ending booster treadmill.”⁷ That kind of talk had Pharma popping champagne corks. In October 2021, Pfizer announced that it was projecting an astonishing $26 billion in revenues from its COVID boosters.⁸

1 Robert Kuznia, “The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that’s risky,” CNN (Apr. 1, 2020),
https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/31/us/coronavirus-vaccine-timetable-concerns-experts-invs/index.html

2 Stuart A. Thompson, “How Long Will a Vaccine Really Take?,” NYT (Apr. 30, 2020),
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-vaccine.html

3 Luke Andrews, ‘It can prevent pneumonia’: Oxford professor running coronavirus vaccine trial comes out in its defence after all of the monkeys given the treatment catch the disease, The Daily Mail, (May 22, 2020).
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-8347391/It-prevents-pneumonia-Oxford-professor-defences-coronavirus-vaccine.html

4 Sara G. Miller, ‘The looming question’: Fauci says studies suggest vaccines slow virus spread, NBC News, (Feb 17, 2021).
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/looming-question-fauci-says-studies-suggest-vaccines-slow-virus-spread-n1258142

5 Veronika Kyrylenko, Nobel Prize Winner Warns Vaccines Facilitate Development of Deadlier COVID Variants, Urges Public to Reject Jabs, The New American, (May 20, 2021).
https://thenewamerican.com/french-nobel-prize-winner-warns-vaccines-facilitate-development-of-deadlier-covid-variants-urges-the-public-to-reject-jabs/

6 Zane Rizvi, “The NIH Vaccine,” The Public Citizen (Jun. 25, 2020),
https://www.citizen.org/article/the-nih-vaccine/#_ftn29

7 Alex Newman, Dr Peter McCullough on Vaccine Death Rate, Raccoon Medicine, (May 29, 2021).
https://raccoonmedicine.com/wp/2021/05/29/dr-peter-mccullough-vaccine-death-rate-ignored/

8 Associated Press, “COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters Could Mean Billions for Drugmakers,” USNews (Sept. 25, 2021),
https://www.usnews.com/news/business/articles/2021-09-25/covid-19-vaccineboosters-could-mean-billions-for-drugmakers

The even more daunting obstacle to coronavirus vaccines was their tendency to induce “pathogenic priming”—also known as “antibody-dependent enhancement” (ADE)—an overstimulation of immune system response that can cause severe injuries and death when vaccinated individuals subsequently encounter the wild viruses. In early experiments, coronavirus vaccines produced a robust immune response in both animals and children—temporarily heartening researchers—but then tragically killing the vaccine recipients upon re-exposure to the wild virus, or making them vulnerable to uniquely debilitating infections. Early in 2020, vaccinology’s most brass-bound commissars warned of this pitfall as Dr. Fauci unleashed the industry, with billions in federal lucre, to gin up COVID inoculations at record pace. In his March 5, 2020 testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Coronavirus, Bill Gates’s paid mouthpiece, Dr. Peter Hotez, cautioned:⁹

One of the things we’re not hearing a lot about is the unique potential safety problem of coronavirus vaccines. With certain types of respiratory virus vaccines you get immunized, and then when you get actually exposed to the virus, you get this kind of paradoxical immune enhancement phenomenon.¹⁰

Dr. Hotez confessed to the committee that his colleagues had killed a number of children from pathogenic priming during experiments with the respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccines in 1966, and recounted that during his own earlier work on coronavirus vaccines, he saw the same effect on ferrets:

We started developing coronavirus vaccines and our colleagues—we noticed in laboratory animals that they started to show some of the same immune pathology. So we said, “Oh my God, this is going to be problematic.”

In an April 26, 2020 interview with Pharma troll Dr. Zubin “ZDogg” Damania, MD, Merck’s top vaccine promoter, Dr. Paul Offit, amplified these concerns:¹¹

[B]inding antibodies can be dangerous and cause something called Antibody Dependent Enhancement. And we’ve seen that. I mean, we saw that with the [Gates-funded] dengue vaccine. But with the dengue vaccine, in children who had never been exposed to dengue before, it actually made them worse when they were then exposed to the natural virus. Much worse. Vaccinated children who were less than nine years of age, who had never been exposed to dengue before, were more likely to die if they’d been vaccinated than if they hadn’t been vaccinated.¹²

And even Dr. Anthony Fauci, during his March 26, 2020, White House coronavirus briefing, acknowledged the perils of pathogenic priming:¹³

The issue of safety is something I want to make sure the American public understands: does the vaccine make you worse? And there are diseases, in which you vaccinate someone, they get infected with what you’re trying to protect them with [sic] and you actually enhance the infection. That’s the worst possible thing you could do—is vaccinate somebody to prevent infection and actually make them worse. (emphasis added)

Dr. Fauci must have recognized that since vaccine makers had immunity from liability [which he had helped arrange] and were playing, as it were, with house money [which he diverted to them through NIH], these companies had little incentive to invest in the kind of long-term studies necessary to eliminate the pathogenic priming hazard. In retrospect, it seems that Dr. Fauci and his confederates had at least six strategies for dealing with this grim risk. All six tactics involved hiding the evidence of ADE if it did occur:

1) Dr. Fauci’s first approach was to abort the three-year clinical trials at six months and then vaccinate the controls—a preemption that would prevent detection of long-term injuries, including pathogenic priming. Regulators initially intended the Pfizer vaccine trial to continue for three full years, until May 2, 2023.¹⁴ Because the FDA allowed Pfizer to unblind and terminate its study after six months—and to offer the vaccine to individuals in the placebo group—we will never know whether vaccinated individuals in the trial suffered long-term injuries, including pathogenic priming, that cancelled out short-term benefits. Science and experience tell us that many vaccines can cause injuries like cancers, autoimmune diseases, allergies, fertility problems, and neurological illnesses with long-term diagnostic horizons or long incubation periods. A six-month study will hide these harms.

2) Second, as COVID czar, Dr. Fauci stubbornly refused to fix HHS’s designed-to-fail vaccine injury surveillance system (VAERS), which systematically suppresses reporting of most vaccine injuries. The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) is a passive, voluntary system, jointly managed by the CDC and FDA, that accepts reports from anyone. A 2010 HHS study of the government’s notoriously dysfunctional VAERS concluded that VAERS detects “fewer than 1 percent of vaccine injuries.”¹⁵ Put another way, VAERS misses OVER 99 percent of vaccine injuries, thereby lending the illusion of safety to even the most deadly inoculations. In 2010, the federal Agency for Health Care Research Quality (AHRQ) designed and field-tested a state-of-the-art machine-counting (AI) system as an efficient alternative to VAERS. By testing the system for several years on the Harvard Pilgrim HMO, AHRQ proved that it could capture most vaccine injuries. AHRQ initially planned to roll out the system to all remaining HMOs, but after seeing the AHRQ’s frightening results—vaccines were causing serious injuries in 1 of every 40 recipients—CDC killed the project and stowed the new system on a dusty shelf. Dr. Fauci left that system safely cached, throughout the pandemic, allowing HHS’s broken voluntary system to continue to conceal vaccine injuries, including any evidence of pathogenic priming.

3) Third, Dr. Fauci’s trump card was his capacity to enlist mainstream and social media companies to make reporting of injuries and deaths disappear from the airwaves, newspapers, and the Internet, and therefore from the public consciousness. Facebook, Google, and the television networks purged doctors and scientists who reported pathogenic priming, and censored reports about the waves of other vaccine injuries. As a federal official sworn for four decades to uphold the Constitution, Dr. Fauci should have been the champion of free speech and vigorous debate during the pandemic. Instead, he worked hand in glove with Bill Gates, Mark Zuckerberg, and other Big Tech titans to censor criticism of his various mandates and suppress information about vaccine injuries, including discussions of pathogenic priming.^16,17 Email traffic shows that Dr. Fauci colluded directly with Mark Zuckerberg and the social media platforms to censor doctors who reported vaccine failures, harms, and deaths, to deplatform public health advocates like myself, and to evict and muzzle patients who reported their own injuries. The science journals, utterly dependent on Pharma advertising, obligingly refused to publish studies on the rash of deadly and debilitating jab reactions. The Bill Gates-funded fact-checking organization, Politifact,¹⁸ worked with Pharma-funded fact-checkers like FactCheck, which receives, funding from the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation, and whose current CEO is Richard Besser, former acting head of the CDC, which owns $1.8 billion in Johnson & Johnson stock^19,20 to “debunk” stories and studies of vaccine injuries.

On October 7, 2021, Dr. Robert Malone, the inventor of the mRNA vaccine, complained in a tweet that America’s people were almost utterly blind to the floods of adverse vaccine events that were killing and debilitating their countrymen: “The real problem here is the damn press and the internet giants. The press and these tech players act to manufacture and reinforce ‘consensus’ around selected and approved narratives. And then this is being weaponized to attack dissenters, including highly qualified physicians.”²¹

4) Fourth, Dr. Fauci allowed CDC to discourage autopsies in deaths following vaccination. CDC refused to recommend autopsies on deaths reported to VAERS. That omission allowed the agency to repeatedly make the audacious, fraudulent declaration that all the 16,000 reported deaths following vaccination by October 2021 were “unrelated to the vaccines.” The regulatory agencies thereby abolished vaccine deaths and injuries by fiat.

Instead of exposing this sort of rank deception by government authorities, media and social media enablers emboldened HHS to new nadirs in regulatory malpractice. In January of 2021, baseball superstar Hank Aaron, whom I knew, died seventeen days after receiving the COVID jab at a CDC-sponsored press conference in Atlanta. I observed, in a Defender article,²² that Aaron’s death was one of a wave of deaths among the elderly following COVID jabs. This was true, but the New York Times nevertheless vilified me for spreading “misinformation” and claimed that the Fulton County Coroner had determined that Aaron’s death was “unrelated to vaccines.” USA Today, Newsweek, TIME, Daily Beast, ABC, CNN, and CBS reported the Times claim.²³ But when I called to verify their claim, the Fulton County Coroner told me that the office has never seen Aaron’s body and that no autopsy was ever performed. Aaron’s family had buried the home-run hero without a postmortem. The Times’ fabrication was part of the systematic campaign of deception, propaganda, and censorship by HHS regulators in partnership with mainstream media—almost unprecedented in the American experience—that helped conceal the tsunami of vaccine injuries and fatalities.

“Anthony Fauci is a great guy in the same way that Harvey Weinstein was a great guy,” says Jeff Hanson, the chairman of a large publicly traded healthcare corporation. “It all changed when widespread private knowledge about him crossed the transom into public knowledge. Weinstein, too, had powerful mainstream media outfits watching his back.

Incidentally, autopsy reports from other nations are revealing exactly the sorts of information that CDC, understandably, wants to protect Americans from learning.

In September 2021, veteran German pathologists and professors Dr. Arne Burkhardt, who served as director of the Institute of Pathology in Reutlingen for 18 years, and Dr. Walter Lang, chief of a leading lung pathology institute for 35 years, performed autopsies on ten cadavers of individuals who died following vaccination, finding that five were very likely, and two more probably, related to the jab.²⁴

In three cases, they found strong evidence of lethal multi-system inflammation and runaway autoimmunity, including rare autoimmune diseases, like Hashimoto’s, an autoimmune-triggered hypothyroidism; leukoclastic vasculitis, an inflammatory reaction in the capillaries that leads to skin bleeding, and Sjögren’s syndrome, an inflammation of the salivary and lacrimal glands. “Three autoimmune diseases in a total of ten is a strikingly high rate,” said Professor Lang. The doctors also found large clusters of endothelial cells detached from the walls of blood vessels, and clumps of red blood cells that cause thrombosis, and giant cells that formed around trapped foreign bodies. Lang said he had not seen anything like these clusters of lymphocytes in hundreds of thousands of pathological studies: “The lymphocytes are running amok in all organs.” Lang faulted government regulators for hindering autopsies on vaccine reactions: “We’re missing out on 90 percent.”

5) Fifth, Dr. Fauci populated the key FDA and CDC committees with NIAID, NIH, and Gates Foundation grantees and loyalists to insure rubber-stamp approvals for his mRNA vaccines, without any long-term injury studies. More than half of FDA’s VRBPAC committee, which approved EUAs for Moderna, Johnson & Johnson, and Pfizer, and granted final licensure to the Pfizer vaccine, were grant recipients from NIH, NIAID, BMGF, and pharmaceutical companies.^25,26 More than half the CDC’s ACIP committee participants were similarly compromised.

6) Sixth, by vaccinating the entire population, Dr. Fauci seems to be striving to eliminate the control group, to hide vaccine injuries. In a 2015 interview, Dr. Fauci said:

I mean, if a parent really feels strongly against [vaccination], that parent can get an exemption. So there’s never a situation where someone is going to tie you down and vaccinate you or say you can’t go to any schools at all if you’re not vaccinated. Nowhere should you force someone to do anything.²⁷

In the run-up to the rollout, Dr. Fauci frequently repeated his ethical antipathy against mandating vaccination. But once the voluntary market reached saturation, those scruples melted away and, following his guidance, the federal policies began treating the vaccine-hesitant as dangerous public enemies. “Our patience is wearing thin,” warned Joe Biden during a national address on September 9, 2021.²⁸

Dr. Fauci presided over a progression of increasingly draconian forms of coercion to compel vaccination of the entire population. With his open encouragement, universities, schools, businesses, hospitals, public employers, and a litany of other societal power centers simultaneously launched numbing waves of strong-arm tactics to compel unwilling Americans to submit to vaccination, including threats of discrimination, job loss, exclusion from schools, parks, sports and entertainment venues, bars, restaurants, military service, public employment, travel, and health care. The unvaccinated experienced exclusion, marginalization, vilification, purges by social media platforms and mainstream media, as well as threats of violence, incarceration, legal reprisals, and deprivation of rights. In October 2021, New York Governor Kathy Hochul promised to deny driver’s licenses and automobile registration to the unvaccinated. New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio threatened to exclude the unvaccinated from subways, gyms, bars, and businesses. A Colorado hospital announced the removal of unvaccinated patients from its lists of those eligible for organ transplants. Observing that some 25 percent of African Americans were unvaccinated, civil rights leader Kevin Jenkins declared, “This is the new Jim Crow.”

Whether intentional or not, the effect of this escalation was, increasingly, to eliminate the control group—which, coincidentally, would permanently hide the evidence of vaccine injuries. This motivation alone explains Dr. Fauci’s reckless and ferocious drive to vaccinate every last American, even those who have natural immunity and nothing to gain from vaccination, Americans below fifty, even kindergarten-age children with zero risk from COVID, and pregnant women, despite a nearly complete lack of information about the jab’s impact on the fetus. Dr. Fauci continued to insist that fully vaccinating the entire population was the only path to ending the pandemic. This assertion ignored the fact that COVID vaccines prevent neither transmission nor infection, nor reductions in viral loads. Overwhelming science has proven that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals are equally likely to spread disease. A September 2021 Israeli study demonstrating that natural immunity provides 27× better protection against COVID than the Pfizer vaccine is just one of 29 recently published peer-reviewed studies that vouch for the superiority of natural immunity.^29,30 What, then, is motivating the fierce campaign to nevertheless coercively vaccinate the vaccine-resistant 25 percent, other than a strategy to eliminate the control group to hide the deaths and injuries?

* * *

By November 2021, that retinue of concerning devices largely succeeded in concealing from Americans the well-established facts that Dr. Fauci’s vaccines neither prevented the disease nor its transmission, and that COVID vaccines were killing and injuring record numbers of Americans. The relentless broadcast of frightening and purposefully inflated COVID death reports stoked fears of the contagion that convinced many Americans to believe the government’s mantra that COVID vaccines were “safe and effective” and that, to the extent they weren’t, “the vaccines cause more good than harm.”

Physicians and scientists complained that Dr. Fauci’s vaccine promotions constituted a vast, unprecedented population-wide experiment, with shady recordkeeping and no control group. Meanwhile, the actual data suggested that the COVID vaccines were causing far more deaths than they were averting.

9 Peter Hotez March 5, 2020 testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Coronavirus. Hotez speaks at around the 25:00 mark.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?470035-1/house-science-space-technology-committee-hearing-coronavirus

10 Peter Hotez March 5, 2020 testimony before the House Science, Space and Technology Committee on Coronavirus. Hotez speaks at around the 25:00 mark.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?470035-1/house-science-space-technology-committee-hearing-coronaviru

11 The Reality About Coronavirus Vaccine (W/Dr. Paul Offit), Dr. Paul Offit interview with Dr. Zubin “ZDogg” Damania, M.D. (Apr. 5, 2020).
https://zdoggmd.com/paul-offit-2/

12 Ibid.

13 Dr. Anthony Fauci, 00:57:48, “White House coronavirus briefing (March 26, 2020),” YouTube,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uOruI8Rs0pg&t=3465s

14 ClinicalTrials.gov, “Study to Describe the Safety, Tolerability, Immunogenicity, and Efficacy of RNA Vaccine Candidates Against COVID-19 in Healthy Individuals,” (April 30, 2020),
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04368728?term=NCT04368728&draw=2&rank=1

15 Ross Lazarus, “Electronic Support for Public Health-Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System” (ESP:VAERS),(Sep 30, 2010),
https://digital.ahrq.gov/sites/default/files/docs/publication/r18hs017045-lazarus-final-report-2011.pdf

16 Jerry Dunleavy, “Republicans press Facebook for documents on COVID-19 origins ‘censorship’ and Fauci emails,” Yahoo News (Jun. 9, 2021),
https://www.yahoo.com/now/republicans-press-facebook-documents-covid-230200549.html

17 Leopold, NIH FOIA: Anthony Fauci Emails, pp. 2065-2068,
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/20793561/leopold-nih-foia-anthony-fauci-emails.pdf

18 Who Pays for Politifact? *Feb, 2021).
https://www.politifact.com/who-pays-for-politifact/

19 Our Funding, FactCheck.org (2021),
https://www.factcheck.org/our-funding/

20 Facebook Fact-Checkers Secretly Funded by Johnson and Johnson,” Vision News (May 6, 2021),
https://www.visionnews.online/post/facebook-fact-checkers-secretly-funded-by-johnson-and-johnson

21 @RWMalone Twitter (Oct. 7, 2021, 9:08 AM),
https://twitter.com/RWMaloneMD/status/1446100124267057160

22 Children’s Health Defense Team, “Home Run King Hank Aaron Dies of ‘Undisclosed Cause’ 18 Days After Receiving Moderna Vaccine,” The Defender-Children’s Health Defense (Jan.22, 2021),
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hank-aaron-dies-days-after-receiving-moderna-vaccine/

23 Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., “National Media Pushes Vaccine Misinformation — Coroner’s Office Never Saw Hank Aaron’s Body,” The Defender-Children’s Health Defense (Feb. 12, 2021),
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/hank-aaron-dies-days-after-receiving-moderna-vaccine/

24 “‘Die Lymphozyten laufen Amok’—Pathologen untersuchen Todesfälle nach COVID-19-Impfung.” RT Question More (September 21, 2021).
https://de.rt.com/inland/124390-lymphozyten-laufen-amok-pathologen-untersuchen-todesfaelle-nach-impfung/

25 National Institutes of Health, NIH Awards by Location and Organization,
https://report.nih.gov/award/index.cfm

26 Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Committed Grants Database,
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants

27 Frontline, Dr. Anthony Fauci: Risks From Vaccines Are “Almost Nonmeasurable”, Frontline, (Mar 23, 2015).
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/anthony-fauci-risks-from-vaccines-are-almost-nonmeasurable/

28 Katie Rogers & Sheryl Gay Stolberg, “Biden Mandates Vaccines for Workers, Saying, ‘Our Patience Is Wearing Thin’,” New York Times,
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/09/09/us/politics/biden-mandates-vaccines.html

29 Sivan Gazit, Roei Shlezinger, et al, “Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections” medRxiv 2021.08.24.21262415; doi:
https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415

30 Brownstone Institute, “Natural Immunity and Covid-19: Twenty-Nine Scientific Studies to Share with Employers, Health Officials, and Politicians,” Brownstone Institute (Oct. 10, 2021),
https://brownstone.org/articles/natural-immunity-and-covid-19-twenty-nine-scientific-studies-to-share-with-employers-health-officials-and-politicians/

At this book’s November 2021 publication date, only Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, known as Comirnaty, had won FDA approval. Although Comirnaty is not yet given in the United States, its counterpart—the Pfizer-BioNTech, the same vaccine under a different name—is, so I will focus on the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine. As of October 6, US health officials had administered more than 230 million doses of Pfizer’s COVID vaccine, compared to 152 million doses of Moderna, and 15 million doses of Johnson & Johnson.³¹

The final summary of the Pfizer’s six-month clinical trial data—the document that Pfizer submitted to FDA to win approval—revealed one key data point that should have killed that intervention forever. Far more people died in the vaccine group than in the placebo group during Pfizer’s clinical trials. The fact that FDA nevertheless granted Pfizer full approval, and that the medical community embraced and prescribed this intervention for their patients, is eloquent testimony to the resilience of even the most deadly and inefficacious products, and the breathtaking power of the pharmaceutical industry and its government allies to control the narrative through captive regulators, compliant physicians, and media manipulation, and to overwhelm the fundamental common sense of much of humanity.

The Pfizer vaccine trial offers a lesson on the perils of ignoring “all-cause mortality” as the governing endpoint for vaccine approval. But before we talk about “all-cause mortality,” let’s look at the evidence that convinced FDA to grant Pfizer its license.

Mathematical Chicanery: Relative Risk vs. Absolute Risk

Below is Pfizer’s table S4 that summarizes death data from Pfizer’s six-month clinical trial. This was Pfizer’s final report to FDA; the study by then was unblinded and over.³² As anyone can see, Pfizer won FDA’s approval despite the rather pathetic showing that its vaccine might prevent one COVID death in every 22,000 vaccine recipients.

So, how did Pfizer transform its unimpressive record of eliminating a single COVID fatality among 22,000 vaccinated subjects into a $5 billion/year success story? By gulling the public with a deceptive measure called “relative risk,” instead of the presumptive and far more useful measure of “absolute risk.”

The table shows that during the six-month trial, two people in the placebo group numbering approximately 22,000 and only one in the similarly sized vaccine group died from COVID. Believe it or not, this data point is the source of Pfizer’s claim that the vaccine is 100 percent efficacious against death. Since only one person died from COVID in the vaccine group and two died in the placebo group, Pfizer can technically represent that the vaccine is a 100 percent improvement over the placebo. After all, the number “2” is 100 percent greater than the number “1,” right? The media winked at this canard, obligingly reporting Pfizer’s extraordinary 100 percent efficacy claim. At least some reporters must have understood that most Americans hearing this statistic would naturally believe that the vaccine would prevent 100 percent of deaths. A more honest—and helpful—way of thinking about the Pfizer vaccine’s efficacy is to consider that 22,000 vaccines must be given to save a single life from COVID. Equally concerning, every virologist and infectious disease expert knew that the true reduction in risk of 1/22,000—or about 0.01 percent, as the BMJ reported—was far too insignificant to make the vaccine even a minor barrier against the spread of COVID. It’s axiomatic that any vaccine that does not prevent transmission and that spares only 1 in 22,000 from death from the target contagion has no ability to stop a pandemic.³³ “Because the clinical trial showed that vaccines reduce absolute risk less than 1 percent (See: Brown R. and colleagues from Waterloo in Canada), those vaccines can’t possibly influence epidemic curves. It’s mathematically impossible,” explains Peter McCullough. Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci continued to promote the vaccine as the ultimate panacea.

The entire justification that Gates and Dr. Fauci had been trumpeting for a year—that their vaccines would end the pandemic—was now so much exploded shrapnel. Nevertheless, Dr. Fauci continued to claim that full vaccination of the entire population was the only way to end the pandemic. He thereby justified his insistence that Americans submit to mass vaccination.

*Pfizer reported five additional deaths in the vaccinated group before unblinding the study that the company failed to tabulate in Table S4.

But the story gets even worse. As table S4 shows, this entire meager advantage of preventing a single COVID death in every 22,000 vaccinated individuals (1/22,000) is entirely cancelled out by a fivefold increase in excess fatal cardiac arrests and congestive heart failures in vaccinated individuals (5/22,000). Pfizer and its regulatory magician, Dr. Fauci, used smoke and mirrors to divert public attention from this all-important question of all-cause mortality.

All-Cause Mortality

“All-cause mortality” should be the key metric in weighing the value of any medical intervention. That measure alone tells us whether vaccinated individuals enjoy better outcomes and longer lives than the unvaccinated. Drugs and vaccines that appear, at first glance, effective against the target disease may, over longer terms, trigger deaths from unexpected causes: accidents, cancers, heart attacks, seizures, even depression and suicide—or from pathogenic priming—which cancel out the short-term benefits of the intervention. As we shall see in the next two chapters, Dr. Fauci learned, at the outset of his career, to find excuses for abbreviating clinical trials of toxic medications to keep long-term mortalities invisible and to cloud overall cost/benefit assessments.

Pfizer’s six-month clinical data for its COVID vaccine trials suggested that, while the vaccine would avert a single death from COVID-19, the vaccinated group suffered 4× the number of lethal heart attacks as the unvaccinated. In other words, there was no mortality benefit from the vaccines; for every life saved from COVID, there were four excess heart attack fatalities.³⁴ Twenty people died of “all-cause mortality” among the 22,000 recipients in Pfizer’s vaccine group, versus only fourteen in the numerically comparable placebo group. (Pfizer was evidently so alarmed by the total number of deaths in its vaccine cohort that it omitted five of them from table S4, and only disclosed them in fine print buried in the body of its report.) That means there were 42.8 percent more deaths in the vaccine than in the placebo groups. Under FDA guidelines, researchers must attribute all injuries and deaths among the study group during clinical trials to the intervention (the vaccine) unless proven otherwise.³⁵ Under this rule, the FDA must assume people who take the vaccine have a 42.8 percent increased risk of dying.

This six-month safety report was so damning that it should have closed the case against this vaccine, but captured FDA officials nevertheless gave Pfizer their approval; the broken VAERS system and the mainstream and social media all conspired to conceal the evidence of the crime when vaccinated Americans began dying in droves, and CDC implemented its own retinue of enshrouding machinations to cloak the real-life carnage.

31 “COVID-19 vaccine doses administered by manufacturer, United States,” Our World in Data,
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/covid-vaccine-doses-by-manufacturer?country=~USA

32 Stephen J. Thomas et al., Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine, medRxiv preprint (July 28, 2021).
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf

33 Ronald B. Brown, Outcome Reporting Bias in COVID-19 mRNA Vaccine Clinical Trials, Medicina, Medicina, (Feb. 26, 2021).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33652582/

34 Stephen J. Thomas et al., Six Month Safety and Efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine, medRxiv preprint (July 28, 2021).
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261159v1.full.pdf

35 U.S. Food & Drug Administration, Good Review Practice: Clinical Review of Investigational New Drug Applications, (Dec, 2013).
https://www.fda.gov/media/87621/download

Dr. Fauci and the vaccine lobby began an opportunistic campaign of deception by claiming credit for their jabs when COVID-19 deaths dropped precipitously in mid-December, 2020, just after the vaccine rollout began. But the first Pfizer jab had reached only 27 million Americans (about 8 percent of the population) by February 1, and—according to the CDC—the jab takes at least sixty days to provide protection, so vaccines had little if anything to do with the drop. By mid-April, only 31 percent of Americans were vaccinated and even by June 15, only 48 percent had been jabbed. The January drop-off was probably from natural herd immunity—thanks to the spread of natural infections over the previous year—and widespread use of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine following Pierre Kory’s December 5 Senate testimony,³⁶ and the proliferation of six nationwide telemedicine clinics and several large networks of independent physicians that began early treatment of about one-fourth to one-third of all new infections in January.

Americans wouldn’t see the true impacts of vaccines on US mortalities until summer. But let’s look, for a moment, at what happened in other countries with faster rollouts, less guileful regulators, and more scrupulous data collection and reporting.

Afghanistan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Burma Cambodia Fiji Ireland Israel Malaysia Mongolia Namibia Nepal Paraguay Portugal Sri Lanka Taiwan Thailand Tunisia Uganda UK Uruguay Vietnam Zambia

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24   Afghanistan Click to view larger image from video   Bahamas Click to view larger image from video   Bahrain Click to view larger image from video   Bangladesh Click to view larger image from video   Burma Click to view larger image from video   Cambodia Click to view larger image from video   Fiji Click to view larger image from video   Ireland Click to view larger image from video   Israel Click to view larger image from video   Malaysia Click to view larger image from video   Mongolia Click to view larger image from video   Namibia Click to view larger image from video   Nepal Click to view larger image from video   Paraguay Click to view larger image from video   Portugal Click to view larger image from video   Sri Lanka Click to view larger image from video   Taiwan Click to view larger image from video   Thailand Click to view larger image from video   Tunisia Click to view larger image from video   Uganda Click to view larger image from video   United Kingdom Click to view larger image from video   Uruguay Click to view larger image from video   Vietnam Click to view larger image from video   Zambia Click to view larger image from video

COVID Deaths Before and After Vaccination Programs (This video was not included in the PDF/book – was added to this publication) Click to view a saved copy of this video in a pop-up window

Virtually all the countries that implemented rapid and aggressive COVID-19 vaccine campaigns experienced dramatic spikes in COVID infections. This documentation of increased susceptibility to COVID among highly vaccinated populations hints at the onset of the dreaded pathogenic priming in the months following mass vaccination.³⁷

Gibraltar

The world’s most vaccinated nation, Gibraltar, aggressively inoculated its 34,000 inhabitants, achieving 115 percent coverage (officials also vaccinated Spanish tourists) by July 2021. In December 2020, prior to the vaccine rollout, Gibraltar’s health agency had experienced only 1,040 confirmed cases and five deaths from COVID-19. After the vaccination blitz, the number of new infections increased fivefold—to 5,314—and the number of deaths increased nineteen-fold.³⁸

Malta

Malta, another of Europe’s vaccine champions, administered 800,000 doses to its 500,000 inhabitants, achieving vaccine coverage of nearly 84 percent over six months. But beginning in July 2021, the epidemic and fatalities surged, forcing the authorities to impose new restrictions and to admit that vaccination cannot shield the population from COVID.³⁹

Iceland

By July 2021, Iceland vaccinated 80 percent of its 360,000 inhabitants with one vaccine and 75 percent with two. But by mid-July, new daily infections had risen from about ten to about 120 before stabilizing at a rate higher than the pre-vaccination period. This sudden recurrence convinced Iceland’s chief epidemiologist, Þórólfur Guðnason, of the impossibility of achieving herd immunity through vaccination.⁴⁰ “It’s a myth,” he publicly declared. “In Iceland, people no longer believe in herd immunity,” according to oncologist and statistician Dr. Gérard Delépine.⁴¹

Belgium

By June 2021, Belgium had vaccinated nearly 75 percent of its 11.5 million population with one jab, and 65 percent with two. However, by the end of June 2021, new daily infections had risen from less than 500 to nearly 2,000. Belgian health officials acknowledged that the current vaccines cannot stop COVID, nor protect Belgium’s citizens.⁴²

Singapore

Singapore vaccinated nearly 80 percent of the population of 5,703,600 with at least one dose by the end of July 2021. But in late August, the country faced an exponential resumption of the epidemic. Daily cases increased from about ten in June to more than 150 at the end of July, and 1,246 cases on September 24.⁴³

Britain

By July 2021, the United Kingdom had inoculated over 70 percent of its 67 million Brits with one shot, and 59 percent with both. Nevertheless, by mid-July Great Britain was suffering 60,000 new cases per day.⁴⁴ Faced with record viral surges, Britain’s leading vaccinologist, Andrew Pollard, leader of the Oxford Vaccine Group, acknowledged before Parliament: collective immunity through vaccination is a myth.⁴⁵

Even more worrying, British data compiled by Will Jones for the Daily Sceptic from August 2020 show a NEGATIVE VACCINE EFFECTIVENESS of -53 percent for the over-40 age group. Reported infections are highest in the double-vaccinated. This means that fully vaccinated individuals from this age group experienced a 53 percent HIGHER reported infection rate than the unvaccinated that month. Rather than preventing cases, the vaccine may be enhancing transmission. This disproportionate number of vaccinated persons who seem to be sickening and dying strongly suggests that the world is beginning to see the predicted expression of pathogenic priming.⁴⁶

Israel

Israel, champion of the Pfizer injection and pioneer of draconian mass vaccination mandates, inoculated 70 percent of its nine million people with at least one shot, and nearly 90 percent of those at risk with two, by June 2021. Israel, which formerly boasted itself the template for ruthless vaccine efficiency, is now the global model for vaccine failure.⁴⁷

The epidemic rebounded in Israel stronger than ever in July, with a national record of 11,000 new cases recorded in a single day (September 14, 2021), surpassing by nearly 50 percent the previous peaks in January 2021 during the outbreak following the first Pfizer injections.⁴⁸

On August 1, 2021, the director of Israel’s Public Health Services, Dr. Sharon Alroy-Preis, announced half of all COVID-19 infections were among the fully vaccinated. Signs of more serious disease among fully vaccinated are also emerging, she said, particularly in those over the age of 60.⁴⁹

68 Nations and 3,000 US Counties

An October 3, 2021 study by scientists at Harvard’s T.H. Chan School of Public Health compared vaccination rates for 68 nations and 2,947 counties across America as of September 21, and compared them to COVID-19 cases per one million people. Their report concludes that nations and counties with higher vaccination rates do not experience lower per capita Sars-CoV-2 cases.^50,51

Pathogenic Priming? COVID Vaccines Are Linked to Increased Deaths and Hospitalizations

By August 2021, Dr. Fauci, the CDC, and White House officials were reluctantly conceding that vaccination would neither stop illness nor transmission, but nevertheless, they told Americans that the jab would, in any case, protect them against severe forms of the disease or death. (It’s worth mentioning that HCQ and ivermectin could have accomplished this same objective at a tiny fraction of its price.) Dr. Fauci and President Biden, presumably with Dr. Fauci’s prompting, told Americans that 98 percent of serious cases, hospitalizations, and deaths were among the unvaccinated. This was a lie. Real-world data from nations with high COVID jab rates show the complete converse of this narrative; the resumption of infections in all those countries accompanied an explosion of hospitalizations, severe cases and deaths among the vaccinated! Mortalities across the globe, in fact, have tracked Pfizer’s deadly clinical trial results, with the vaccinated dying in higher numbers than the non-vaccinated. These data cemented suspicions that the feared phenomenon of pathogenic priming has arrived, and is now wreaking havoc.

Gibraltar

Following its pioneering world-record vaccine rollout, Gibraltar saw an immediate spike in deaths, suffering 2,853 fatalities per million inhabitants, a European per capita mortality record. During the first days of the rollout—which began with senior citizens—some 84 elderly died immediately after vaccination. Gibraltar’s shell-shocked Governor General said it was the largest mortalities ever suffered in the nation, exceeding even those endured during World War II.

England

Over a period of seven months preceding October 2021, some 60 percent of those 2,542 Brits who died from COVID were double vaccinated. Of people hospitalized in the UK for COVID in the last seven months, 157,000 were double-vaccinated.⁵² There were more per capita deaths among the “fully” vaccinated than the unvaccinated.⁵³ The UK government’s latest Office for National Statistics report on mortality rates by COVID vaccination status shows that for age-adjusted mortality rate, the death rate by October 2021 was higher among the vaccinated than the unvaccinated.⁵⁴

Wales

According to October 2021 data from public health officials in Wales, UK, vaccinated individuals accounted for shocking 87 percent of all new COVID hospitalizations.⁵⁵ Only 80 percent of Welsh were then fully vaccinated. In other words, only 13 percent of severe cases that required a trip to the hospital were unvaccinated, suggesting that those who have taken the experimental vaccine are more likely to experience adverse reactions and become hospitalized from COVID-19.

Scotland

In Scotland, official data on hospitalizations and deaths for October 2021 showed 87 percent of those who had died from COVID-19 in the third wave that began in early July were vaccinated. Only 70 percent of Scots were, at the time, fully vaccinated.⁵⁶

Israel

In Israel, an increase in hospitalizations accompanied the epidemic’s ferocious resumption. The vaccinated represented the majority of those hospitalized. By the end of July, some 71 percent of the 118 seriously and critically ill Israelis were fully vaccinated! This proportion of seriously ill people vaccinated is much higher than the proportion of fully vaccinated people: 61 percent. According to Israel’s official report, August deaths were more frequent among fully vaccinated patients (679) than among non-vaccinated patients (390), belying official claims of a protective effect of the vaccine against dying. On August 5, 2021, Dr. Kobi Haviv, director of the Herzog Hospital in Jerusalem, reported on Channel 13 News that 95 percent of severely ill COVID-19 patients are fully vaccinated, and that vaccinated Israelis make up 85 percent to 90 percent of COVID-related hospitalizations overall.⁵⁷ As the doubly vaccinated overwhelmed Israeli hospitals, the government announced in August a new plan for coping with its “Pandemic of the Vaccinated.” Israel said it will “update” its definition of “full vaccination” to require three, or even four, injections. “We are updating what it means to be vaccinated,” said Israel’s COVID czar, Salman Zarka.

Vermont

Vermont is America’s most vaccinated state. On October 10, 2021, with 86 percent of its citizens fully vaccinated (according to COVID Dashboard), Vermont officials nevertheless reported the largest rate of infections ever—and revealed that more than three-quarters of Vermont’s September COVID-19 deaths occurred in the “fully vaccinated.” Unvaccinated accounted for only eight of the state’s 33 virus deaths that month, and officials declined to reveal whether those eight were partially vaccinated. A department spokesman explained to Lifesite News that the breakthrough cases may reflect failing vaccine efficacy, as those who died were likely “among the very first to be vaccinated.” As hospitalizations approached the pandemic peak, September turned into Vermont’s second-deadliest month during the pandemic, according to the Associated Press.

Cape Cod

In my own hometown in Cape Cod, Massachusetts, a CDC investigation of an outbreak in Barnstable County, between July 6 through July 25, found 74 percent of those who received a diagnosis of COVID-19, and 80 percent of hospitalizations, were among the fully vaccinated.⁵⁸ COVID resurgence and soaring breakthrough cases have plagued most of heavily-vaccinated New England, including Massachusetts, which has a vaccination rate nearly as perfect as Vermont’s. COVID-19 cases were more than four times higher in the Bay State in September 2021 compared to the previous September. Half the deaths were among the fully jabbed and with an unknown number among partially vaxxed.

New England’s COVID vaccine failure reflects an alarming national trend. A September report from the US Department of Defense revealed that 71 percent of recent cases of those hospitalized for COVID-19 in late August were fully vaccinated. DOD did not explain how many of the remainder were partially vaccinated.

Critics suggest that the shocking and predictable rise in COVID death following vaccination is evidence of long-feared pathogenic priming. Officials have offered no other compelling explanation as to why the vaccine consistently precipitates disproportionate injuries and deaths among the jabbed. It is not my intention to resolve this mystery here. Rather, I’m sharing the preceding graphs because the data trends they illustrate clash dramatically with official narratives. For that reason, you will not see reports about this alarming phenomenon on mainstream media. The Johns Hopkins University Coronavirus Resource Center collated the data for these graphs. Johns Hopkins is a central support column of mainstream medicine, and an aggressive promoter of COVID vaccines in particular. Johns Hopkins has received tens of millions of dollars from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and over a billion dollars from Tony Fauci’s NIAID and NIH.^59,60 The Johns Hopkins data, nevertheless, clearly demonstrate that COVID deaths typically spike sharply in many country after country immediately after mass vaccination. The South African physicians group PANDA has assembled the Johns Hopkins data for every nation in an easy-to-view video.⁶¹ PANDA’s graphs illustrate this frightening “dead zone” that immediately followed vaccination drives in most of the world’s nations.

36 Senate Testimony, Dr. Pierre Kory, FLCCC (Dec. 8, 2020)
https://covid19criticalcare.com/senate-testimony/

37 Gérard Delépine, High Recorded Mortality in Countries Categorized as “Covid-19 Vaccine Champions”. Increased Hospitalization, Freedom of Speech, (Oct 1, 2021).
https://fos-sa.org/2021/10/01/high-recorded-mortality-in-countries-categorized-as-covid-19-vaccine-champions-increased-hospitalization/

38 Ibid.

39 Ibid.

40 “COVID-19 in Iceland: Vaccination Has Not Led to Herd Immunity, Says Chief Epidemiologist,” Jelena Ćirić, Iceland Review (August 3, 2021),
https://www.icelandreview.com/society/covid-19-in-iceland-vaccination-has-not-led-to-herd-immunity-says-chief-epidemiologist/

41 Delépine.

42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.

44 Ibid.

45 Holly Ellyatt, “Here’s why herd immunity from Covid is ‘mythical’ with the delta variant,” CNBC (Aug. 12, 2021),
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/12/herd-immunity-is-mythical-with-the-covid-delta-variant-experts-say.html

46 “Vaccine Effectiveness Drops Further in the Over-40s, To as Low as Minus 53%, New PHE Report Shows - And That’s a Fact.” Will Jones, The Daily Sceptic (September 24, 2021).
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/09/24/vaccine-effectiveness-drops-further-in-the-over-40s-as-low-as-minus-53-new-phe-report-shows-and-thats-a-fact/

47 Delépine.

48 Ibid.

49 Ibid.

50 “Population Wide Epidemiological Geography Demonstrates Vaccination Doesn’t Correlate to Reduction in SARS-CoV-2 Infection.” TrialSite News (October 3, 2021).
https://trialsitenews.com/population-wide-epidemiological-geography-demonstrates-vaccination-doesnt-correlate-to-reduction-in-sars-cov-2-infection/

51 S.V. Subramanian, A. Kumar, “Increases in COVID-19 are unrelated to levels of vaccination across 68 countries and 2947 counties in the United States,” European Journal of Epidemiology (September 30, 2021),
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10654-021-00808-7

52 A comparison of age adjusted all-cause mortality rates in England between vaccinated and unvaccinated. Norman Fenton and Martin Neil, Probability and Risk (September 23, 2021).
http://probabilityandlaw.blogspot.com/2021/09/all-cause-mortality-rates-in-england.html

53 SARS-CoV-2 variants of concern and variants under investigation in England. Technical briefing 23, Public Health England (September 17, 2021).
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf

54 Ibid.

55 “Breakthrough Cases Surge: Vaccinated Individuals Accounted for 87% of Covid Hospitalizations Over the Past Week in Wales UK; 99% of All New Cases Were Under 60 Years Old.” Julian Conradson, Gateway Pundit (September 30, 2021).
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2021/09/ready-breakthrough-cases-surge-vaccinated-individuals-accounted-87-covid-hospitalizations-past-week-wales-uk-99-new-cases-60-years-old/

56 Senedd Research, COVID-19 vaccination data, (Jul 10, 2021).
https://research.senedd.wales/research-articles/covid-19-vaccination-data/

57 Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021. Pnina Shitrit et al., Eurosurveillance (Volume 26, Issue 39, 30/Sep/2021).
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822

58 Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention, Outbreak of SARS-CoV-2 Infections, Including COVID-19 Vaccine Breakthrough Infections, Associated with Large Public Gatherings — Barnstable County, Massachusetts, July 2021, MMWR, (Aug 6, 2021

59 Committed Grants Johns Hopkins University, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation,
https://www.gatesfoundation.org/about/committed-grants?q=johns%20hopkins%20university

60 National Institutes of Health, NIH Awards by Location and Organization, Johns Hopkins University,
https://report.nih.gov/award/indexcfm?ot=&fy=2020&state=&ic=&fm=&orgid=4134401&distr=&rfa=&om=y&pid=&view=state

61 World Snapshot, PANDA Pandemics Data & Analytics,
https://rb.gy/vsyfnv

Despite CDC’s efforts to hide the carnage in the US, even the dysfunctional VAERS system has recorded unprecedented waves of documented deaths following COVID vaccines.

In 1976, US regulators pulled the swine flu vaccine after it was linked to 25 deaths.⁶² In contrast, between December 14, 2020 and October 1, 2021, American doctors and bereaved families have reported more than 16,000 deaths and a total of 778,685 injuries to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) following COVID vaccination.^63,64 The Europeans’ surveillance sites tallied 40,000 deaths and 2.2 million adverse reactions. Due to chronic undercounting by VAERS and its European sister system, those numbers are almost certainly only a fraction of the true injuries. To illustrate how unprecedented this harm and death is, look at this “hockey stick” effect in CDC’s own graph of the 30-year history of deaths reported to VAERS from all vaccines.

Health workers have administered many billions of vaccines during the past thirty-two years, yet in just eight months, the COVID vaccines have injured and killed far more Americans than all other vaccines combined over three decades. VAERS data show the huge spikes—69.84 percent⁶⁵—of deaths occurring during the two weeks after vaccination, 39.48 percent within 24 hours of the injections.⁶⁶ According to CDC’s fatality data, a COVID vaccine is 98 times more likely to kill than a flu vaccine.⁶⁷

Other databases have, not surprisingly, yielded much higher projections of COVID vaccine deaths than VAERS.

A recent peer-reviewed study in the high-gravitas Elsevier journal Toxicology Reports found that COVID-19 vaccines kill more people in each age group than they save. According to that study the “best-case scenario” is five times the number of deaths attributable to each vaccination vs. those attributable to COVID-19 in the most vulnerable 65+ demographic.⁶⁸

Similarly, a September 2021 analysis by a team of prominent scientists and mathematicians convened by Silicon Valley entrepreneur Steve Kirsch—of half a dozen population and surveillance system databases, including VAERS—using eight different independent methods, attributes 150,000 deaths to COVID vaccines in the United States since January 2020. Kirsch has offered a million-dollar reward for anyone who finds an error in this calculation.^69,70 Kirsch’s study which found that the vaccines kill more people than they save in every age range was consistent with Pfizer’s six-month clinical trial finding that people who took the vaccine were more likely to die than people who didn’t take the vaccine (there were a total of twenty deaths in the people who took the vaccine vs. fourteen deaths in the people who didn’t take the vaccine).⁷¹

In yet another effort to calculate excess deaths from vaccinations from a non-VAERS database, Ohio-based Attorney Thomas Renz used the Medicare database (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) to calculate that there have been 48,465 deaths among Medicare/Medicaid beneficiaries within fourteen days of a first or second dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.^72,73 There are about 59.4 million Americans covered by Medicare, representing only 18.1 percent of the population, so these staggering numbers are roughly comparable to Steve Kirsch’s population-wide estimate of 150,000.

62 Shari Roan, Swine flu ‘debacle’ of 1976 is recalled, Los Angeles Times, (Apr 27, 2009).
https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2009-apr-27-sci-swine-history27-story.html

63 Found 16,310 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died, NVIC (From Oct. 1, 2021 release of VAERS data),
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes

64 Found 778,685 cases where Vaccine is COVID19, NVIC (From Oct. 1, 2021 release of VAERS data),
https://www.medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=CAT&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19

65 Med Alerts, Found 14,925 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Patient Died (September 10, 2021).
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=O2D&EVENTS=ON&VAX=COVID19&DIED=Yes

66 Id.

67 COVID-19 Vaccinations 98 Times More Deadly Than Flu Vaccines (According to VAERS Reports), TrialSite News, (August 28, 2021). Archived at:
https://web.archive.org/web/20210913051243/ https://trialsitenews.com/covid-19-vaccinations-98-times-more-deadly-than-flu-vaccines-according-to-vaers-reports/

68 Ronald Kostoff, Why Are We Vaccinating Children Against COVID19? Toxicology Reports, Vol 8 2021, pages 1165-1684,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S221475002100161X

69 Steve Kirsch, Vaccine Safety Evidence, (July 20, 2021).
http://www.skirsch.com/covid/Vaccine.pdf

70 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, Steve Kirsch Segment, (Sep 17, 2021). YouTube, 04:20:16,
https://youtu.be/WFph7-6t34M

71 U.S. Food and Drug Administration, Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee Meeting, Steve Kirsch Segment, (Sep 17, 2021). YouTube, 04:21:33,
https://youtu.be/WFph7-6t34M

72 Whistleblower Lawsuit! Government Medicare Data Shows 48,465 DEAD Following COVID Shots—Remdesivir Drug has 25% Death Rate! Brian Shilhavy, Health Impact News (September 28, 2021).
https://medicalkidnap.com/2021/09/28/whistleblower-lawsuit-government-medicare-data-shows-48465-dead-following-covid-shots-remdesivir-drug-has-25-death-rate/

73 Attorney Files Lawsuit Against CDC Based on “Sworn Declaration” from Whistleblower Claiming 45,000 Deaths are Reported to VAERS—All Within 3 Days of COVID-19 Shots. Health Impact News (2021).
https://healthimpactnews.com/2021/attorney-files-lawsuit-against-cdc-based-on-sworn-declaration-from-whistleblower-claiming-45000-deaths-are-reported-to-vaers-all-within-3-days-of-covid-19-shots/

According to Dr. Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the White House, and most mainstream media, we now have a “pandemic of the unvaccinated,”⁷⁴ with 95 percent to 99 percent of COVID-related hospitalizations and deaths being attributed to the unvaccinated. As I mentioned above, these estimates are the product of systematic deception of the public—and presumably of the President—by America’s top regulators. So how did CDC go about fooling President Biden?

One of CDC’s bold deceptions is to hide vaccine mortalities in US data by counting all people as “unvaccinated” unless their deaths occur more than two weeks AFTER the second vaccine.⁷⁵ (Ironically, CDC doubles down on this fraud by counting many of these vaccine deaths as COVID deaths.) In this way, CDC captures that wave of deaths that occurs after vaccination and attributes them all to “unvaccinated.” This is only one of many statistical chicaneries that the CDC employs to hide vaccine injuries and to stoke public fears of COVID.

The CDC utilized an even brassier canard to support President Joe Biden’s claim that 98 percent of vaccine hospitalizations and deaths were among the unvaccinated. In an August 5 video statement, CDC director Dr. Rochelle Walensky inadvertently revealed the agency’s principal gimmick for fabricating that statistic. Walensky sheepishly admitted that CDC included hospitalization and mortality data from January through June 2021 in its calculation.⁷⁶ The vast majority of the US population were, of course, unvaccinated during that time frame, so it makes sense that almost all hospitalizations would therefore be only among the unvaccinated. This is simply because there were almost no vaccinated Americans during that time period! By January 1, only 0.4 percent of the US population had received a COVID shot.⁷⁷ By mid-April, an estimated 37 percent had received one or more shots⁷⁸ and as of June 15, only 43.34 percent were fully “vaccinated.”⁷⁹ Using these data was therefore pretty blatant fraud. Of course, CDC never let on that it was foisting eight-month-old data on Americans, allowing us instead to believe that these were current hospitalization rates as of August. To compound this flimflam, CDC perpetuated an even more audacious hustle. CDC omitted the current (as of August) data related to hospitalizations from the Delta variant, which disproportionately hospitalized vaccinated individuals in those other countries for which we have more reliable data.

CDC’s promotion of this statistical bunko was obviously grossly misleading. Assuming President Biden wasn’t deliberately lying to the American people, it’s clear that CDC was lying to President Biden and using him to dupe the rest of us.

74 “How CDC Manipulated Data to Create ‘Pandemic of the Unvaxxed’ Narrative.” Dr. Joseph Mercola, The Defender (August 16, 2021).
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-manipulated-data-create-pandemic-unvaxxed-narrative/

75 Public health investigations of COVID-19 vaccine breakthrough cases, CDC,
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/downloads/COVID-vaccine-breakthrough-case-investigations-Protocol.pdf

76 Virginia Langmaid, “Data on hospitalizations and deaths in the unvaccinated do not reflect Delta variant, CDC director says,” CNN (Aug. 5, 2021),
https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-vaccine-updates-08-05-21/h_82f976bb0f238323e3e0482af5d2d563

77 Our World in Data, “COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people, Jan 1, 2021,” Our World in Data, (Jan. 1, 2021),
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-01-01&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated+%28by+dose%29&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ARE~PRT~ESP~SGP~URY~DNK~CHL~IRL~CAN~FIN~CHN~IND~USA~IDN~PAK~BRA~NGA~BGD~RUS~MEX~JPN~ETH~PHL~EGY~VNM~TUR~IRN~DEU~THA~GBR~FRA~TZA~ITA~ZAF~KEN~OWID_WRL

78 Our World in Data, “COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people, Apr 15, 2021,” Our World in Data, (Apr. 15, 2021),
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-04-15&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated+%28by+dose%29&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ARE~PRT~ESP~SGP~URY~DNK~CHL~IRL~CAN~FIN~CHN~IND~USA~IDN~PAK~BRA~NGA~BGD~RUS~MEX~JPN~ETH~PHL~EGY~VNM~TUR~IRN~DEU~THA~GBR~FRA~TZA~ITA~ZAF~KEN~OWID_WRL

79 Our World in Data, “COVID-19 vaccination doses administered per 100 people, June 15, 2021,” Our World in Data, (Jun. 15, 2021),
https://ourworldindata.org/explorers/coronavirus-data-explorer?zoomToSelection=true&time=2021-06-15&facet=none&pickerSort=asc&pickerMetric=location&Metric=People+vaccinated+%28by+dose%29&Interval=7-day+rolling+average&Relative+to+Population=true&Align+outbreaks=false&country=ARE~PRT~ESP~SGP~URY~DNK~CHL~IRL~CAN~FIN~CHN~IND~USA~IDN~PAK~BRA~NGA~BGD~RUS~MEX~JPN~ETH~PHL~EGY~VNM~TUR~IRN~DEU~THA~GBR~FRA~TZA~ITA~ZAF~KEN~OWID_WRL

Despite the obstacles to reporting, VAERS recorded nearly 800,000 injuries by the 9½ months between December 14, 2020 and October 2021, with 112,000 classified as “serious.” Pfizer either did not report several severe injuries—short of death—or deceptively deemphasized their severity, during clinical trials, including neurological harm, thrombocytopenia, blood clots, strokes, embolisms, aneurysms, myocarditis, Bell’s palsy, Guillain-Barré syndrome, multi-organ failure, amputation, blindness, paralysis, tinnitus, and menstrual harms. More than 30,000 women in the UK⁸⁰ and 6,000 in the US have complained of the latter.⁸¹

On September 28, a scientific journal, JAMA Neurology, reported a new series of cases of cerebral venous sinus thrombosis (CVST) linked to COVID-19 vaccines,⁸² confirming the severity of the reaction and the associated high mortality rate, and another journal confirmed the resumption of hepatitis C in a patient related to the jab.⁸³

The numbers of and diversity of these serious injuries probably continue to be dramatically underreported. Steve Kirsch has investigated several broad deceptions Pfizer used to conceal injuries to the vaccine group during its clinical trial. We know, for example, due to the courage of Maddie and her parents, that Maddie de Garay, a 14-year-old who participated in the Pfizer trial, suffered severe neurological injuries including seizures and permanent paralysis. However, Pfizer reported only that Maddie suffered a stomach ache.

The Pfizer vaccine only gained emergency authorization for use in children because Pfizer manipulated trial data and committed serious offences, like hiding Maddie de Garay’s injury.

Given that Maddie was only one of 2,300 teenagers in Pfizer’s trial, her injury was potentially very significant. By extrapolating a one in 2,300 injury rate to the 86 million teens who Pfizer and Dr. Fauci have targeted for vaccination, some 36,000 of these potentially debilitating injuries could be expected to develop nationwide. While COVID may kill old people,⁸⁴ the vaccine, in Maddie’s case, shows it also kills and harms the young.

Pfizer’s clinical data predicted potentially fatal myocarditis in one in every 318 teens. Post-marketing data confirm astronomically high rates of myocarditis injuries. On October 1, 2021, a team of medical researchers and statisticians found that myocarditis rates reported in VAERS were significantly higher in teens than Pfizer had reported in its clinical data.

According to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, there have been 7,537 cases of myocarditis and pericarditis reported following COVID vaccines,⁸⁵ with 5,602 cases attributed to Pfizer.⁸⁶ Some 476 of these reports occurred in children from 12 to 17 years old.⁸⁷

According to an article in Current Trends in Cardiology, “Within eight weeks of the public offering of COVID-19 products to the 12-15-year-old age group, we found 19 times the expected number of myocarditis cases in the vaccination volunteers over background myocarditis rates for this age group.”⁸⁸ But even these alarming numbers may underreport myocarditis injuries. Israeli data and US data presented to CDC’s advisory committee on June 23, 2021 similarly found the rate of reported cases of myocarditis in vaccinated teenage boys aged 12-17 is at least twenty-five times greater than expected, and is fifty times greater than the reported rate in vaccinated males over 65.

These astonishing numbers mean myocarditis is far from a “rare” side effect, as Dr. Fauci and Pfizer like to claim. Nor is it harmless. A recent study suggests that myocarditis is associated with a 50 percent mortality within five years.⁸⁹ A teen had effectively zero risk of dying from COVID and a substantial risk of death from vaccination.

In October 2021, Sweden, Denmark, and Finland announced that they will pause the use of Moderna’s COVID vaccine for children under 18 years of age, after increased reports of inflammatory diseases like myocarditis and pericarditis.^90,91 That same week, Iceland banned Moderna’s jab outright due to heart inflammation risk.

Furthermore, the VAERS data may also be dramatically underreporting myocarditis and other injuries.

Just before I published this book, in late October 2021, FDA made an extraordinary admission in a letter to Pfizer⁹² to explain the chronic underreporting of serious but common vaccine-induced injuries and deaths. FDA, at last, admitted that VAERS is worthless for detecting vaccine injuries.

We have determined that an analysis of spontaneous postmarketing adverse events [VAERS reports] reported under section 505(k)(1) of the FDCA [Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act] will not be sufficient to assess known serious risks of myocarditis and pericarditis and identify an unexpected serious risk of subclinical myocarditis. Furthermore, the pharmacovigilance system that FDA is required to maintain under section 505(k)(3) of the FDCA is not sufficient to assess these serious risks.

At best, this letter is a shocking acknowledgement that regulators have no way to assess whether their vaccines are killing and injuring more humans than they are helping. In any rational regulatory environment, FDA’s alarming admission would demand an instantaneous cessation of the vaccine rollout.

Only Dr. Anthony Fauci can answer the question, “Why—given FDA’s stunning confession that America has no functional surveillance system—did HHS not immediately stop the COVID vaccine rollout?” The answer, of course, is that Dr. Fauci knows that America’s bought, brain-dead, and scientifically illiterate media will never force him to answer this query.

80 Victoria Male, “Menstrual changes after covid-19 vaccination” BMJ (2021) 374 doi:
https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n2211

81 MedAlerts, “5,990 cases where Location is U.S., Territories, or Unknown and Vaccine is COVID19 and Symptom is Amenorrhoea or Dysmenorrhoea or Menopausal disorder or Menopausal symptoms or Menopause or Menopause delayed or Menstrual discomfort or Menstrual disorder or Menstruation delayed or Menstruation irregular,” MedAlerts/VAERS, (Oct. 1, 2021),
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Amenorrhoea+%2810001928%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Dysmenorrhoea+%2810013935%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menopausal+disorder+%2810058825%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menopausal+symptoms+%2810027304%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menopause+%2810027308%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menopause+delayed+%2810027310%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menstrual+discomfort+%2810056344%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menstrual+disorder+%2810027327%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menstruation+delayed+%2810027336%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Menstruation+irregular+%2810027339%29&VAX=COVID19&STATE=NOTFR

82 Sue Hughes, “CVST After COVID-19 Vaccine: New Data Confirm High Mortality Rate,” MEDSCAPE, (September 30, 2021)
https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/959992#vp_3

83 Ruud Lensen et al., Hepatitis C Virus Reactivation Following COVID-19 Vaccination—A Case Report. Int Med Case Rep J 2021; 14: 573-576,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8412816/

84 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Severe Outcomes Among Patients with Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) — United States, February 12-March 16, 2020, MMWR, (Mar 27, 2020).
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e2.htm

85 MedAlerts, “Found 7,537 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Symptom is Myocarditis or Myopericarditis or Pericarditis,” MedAlert/VAERS, (Oct. 1, 2021),
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Myocarditis+%2810028606%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Myopericarditis+%2810028650%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Pericarditis+%2810034484%29&VAX=COVID19

86 MedAlerts, “Found 5,602 cases where Vaccine is COVID19 and Manufacturer is PFIZER/BIONTECH and Symptom is Myocarditis or Pericarditis,” MedAlert/VAERS, (Oct. 1, 2021),
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Myocarditis+%2810028606%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Pericarditis+%2810034484%29&VAX=COVID19&VAXMAN=PFIZER/BIONTECH

87 MedAlerts, “Found 476 cases where Age is 12-or-more-and-under-18 and Vaccine is COVID19 and Manufacturer is PFIZER/BIONTECH and Symptom is Myocarditis or Pericarditis,”
https://medalerts.org/vaersdb/findfield.php?TABLE=ON&GROUP1=AGE&EVENTS=ON&SYMPTOMS[]=Myocarditis+%2810028606%29&SYMPTOMS[]=Pericarditis+%2810034484%29&VAX=COVID19&VAXMAN=PFIZER/BIONTECH&WhichAge=range&LOWAGE=12&HIGHAGE=18

88 A Report on Myocarditis Adverse Events in the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System (VAERS) in Association with COVID-19 Injectable Biological Products. Jessica Rose PhD, MSc, BSc1 and Peter A. McCullough MD, MPH, Current Problems in Cardiology. In Press, Journal Pre-proof (October 1, 2021).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0146280621002267#!

89 Michael Kang, Viral Myocarditis, StatPearls (Updated 2021 Aug 11),
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK459259/

90 Megan Redshaw, “Sweden, Denmark Pause Moderna’s COVID Vaccine for Younger Age Groups Citing Reports of Myocarditis,” The Defender (October 6, 2021),
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/sweden-denmark-pause-moderna-covid-vaccine-myocarditis/

91 Essi Lehto, “Finland joins Sweden and Denmark in limiting Moderna COVID-19 vaccine,” Reuters (October 7, 2021),
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/finland-pauses-use-moderna-covid-19-vaccine-young-men-2021-10-07/

92 Letter to Amit Patel, Pfizer Inc., BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH from U.S. Food & Drug Administration (August 23, 2021).
https://www.fda.gov/media/151710/download

Compounding concerns over FDA’s confession that Americans have no way to assess the risks from COVID vaccines is the uncontestable proof that COVID vaccine efficacy drops precipitously almost immediately after vaccination.

Pfizer and FDA may have opted to end the company’s clinical trial after six months (the optional plan was a three-year trial ending in December 2023), after realizing that the vaccine was causing significant harms and that its fast-waning efficacy would make a cost/benefit analysis unsupportable if the study continued. In other words, the injury axis almost immediately crosses the benefits axis.

An October 3, 2021 study in the peer-reviewed journal BioRxiv by Stanford and Emory University scientists suggests that antibody levels generated by the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine can suffer a ten-fold decrease seven months after the second vaccination.⁹³ The scientists warn that the precipitous drop in antibody levels will compromise the body’s ability to defend itself against COVID-19 if the individual is exposed to COVID.

A second study published the same week confirms that the immune protection offered by two doses of Pfizer’s COVID-19 vaccine drops off after only two months!⁹⁴

Another government-funded study in October confirms the decline in vaccine effectiveness in England⁹⁵ finding that the reduction in transmission “declined over time since second vaccination, for Delta reaching similar levels to unvaccinated individuals by 12 weeks for [the AstraZeneca vaccine] and attenuating substantially for [Pfizer].” In other words, within just three months, AstraZeneca did nothing to prevent transmission, and Pfizer was scarcely better.⁹⁶

The study appearing in The Lancet confirms that vaccine effectiveness against infection disappears so fast that it is ephemeral. The heavily powered study involved 3,436,957 Kaiser Permanente Southern California customers and compared infections and COVID-19-related hospital admissions of fully vaccinated to unvaccinated people over the age of twelve for up to six months.⁹⁷

The researchers found that vaccine effectiveness against infection plummeted from 88 percent during the first month after double vaccination to 47 percent after five months. The researchers found vaccine effectiveness against Delta infection was 93 percent during the first month after double vaccination but dropped to 53 percent after four months.⁹⁸

This information should sicken every doctor who has ever given one of these jabs to a trusting patient. It means that these products confer no benefits to individuals or society and their long-term costs are foreboding and largely unknown. How could this have happened?

93 Mehul Suthar et al., “Durability of immune responses to the BNT162b2 mRNA vaccine,” BioRxiv preprint (October 2021),
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.09.30.462488v1

94 Maggie Fox, “Studies confirm waning immunity from Pfizer’s Covid-19 vaccine,” CNN (October 7, 2021),
https://www.cnn.com/2021/10/06/health/pfizer-vaccine-waning-immunity/index.html

95 Sara Y. Tartof, Ph.D. et al., “Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study.” The Lancet (October 04, 2021),
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext

96 Will Jones, New Lancet Study Confirms Plummeting Vaccine Effectiveness, The Daily Sceptic (October 7, 2021),
https://dailysceptic.org/2021/10/06/new-lancet-study-confirms-plummeting-vaccine-effectiveness/

97 Sara Y Tartof, et al, Effectiveness of mRNA BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccine up to 6 months in a large integrated health system in the USA: a retrospective cohort study, (Oct 4, 2021).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(21)02183-8/fulltext

98 Ibid.

Our collective nausea can only amplify when we ask, “Why are we vaccinating children?” Kirsch’s model estimates that 600 children have already died from COVID vaccines as of September 2021. A recent Lancet study shows that a healthy child has zero risk for COVID, suggesting that most of these kids are dying unnecessarily.⁹⁹ Some 86 percent of children suffered an adverse reaction to the Pfizer COVID vaccine in clinical trial. And one in nine children suffered a serious reaction grave enough to leave them unable to perform daily activities. How can we then justify forcing a healthy child to take a vaccine that is dead certain to injure many and kill some while bestowing no benefits? “How can anyone consider it ethical,” asks Kirsch, “to put a child at risk, for the pretext that it might shield an adult? Show me any adult who thinks this is okay, and I’ll show you a monster!”

COVID-19 vaccines have caused cardiac arrest, blindness, and paralysis in American children. British Health Service reports emergency calls for cardiac arrest are at an all-time high since the government began offering teens the COVID-19 vaccine. COVID vaccines do not protect children from hospitalization or death associated with COVID-19 because healthy children are not being hospitalized or dying with COVID-19 [NHS statistics]. Children will not gain anything from having the jab because the vaccines do not prevent infection or transmission, as in three recent studies published by the CDC, UK government, and Oxford University. There is no evidence that the vaccines have prevented a single child’s death.

Troubling statistics from Britain’s Office for National Statistics (ONS) verify the expected: deaths among teenagers during the summer of 2021 increased significantly over the previous year, coinciding with the vaccine rollout. According to an analysis by The Exposé’s Will Jones,¹⁰⁰ between weeks 23 and 37 in 2021—simultaneous with the vaccine rollout—there were 252 deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds in England and Wales, compared to 162 in the same period in 2020, an increase of ninety, or 56 percent—a very high number that deserves some kind of explanation.

Importantly, there is no similar rise among younger children aged one to fourteen, a cohort that was not vaccinated. Instead, 2020 was a low-mortality year for this age group. COVID cannot be blamed for the sudden rise in deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds in summer 2021, as the Office of National Statistics (ONS) data shows that over the period, there were only nine deaths with COVID in that age group. This real-world evidence suggests that over the summer, the vaccines killed nine times as many 15- to 19-year-olds as COVID did—eighty-one versus nine. “If not,” asks Jones, “what are the other possible explanations, and how likely are they?”

Teen deaths among 15- to 19-year-olds have increased by 47 percent in the UK since they started getting the COVID-19 vaccine, according to official ONS data.¹⁰¹

Since the vaccine almost certainly causes more teen deaths and injuries than COVID-19, vaccinating this age group¹⁰² is highly unethical, and any physician who inoculates a healthy child is committing serious medical malpractice.

Nevertheless, Anthony Fauci is urging that kids will be vaccinated in schools without parental consent, despite a mountain of evidence that the COVID-19 vaccines are killing American children and bestow on them no benefit.

99 Sunil S Bhopal, et al, Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19 mortality. (May 1, 2021).
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanchi/article/PIIS2352-4642(21)00066-3/fulltext

100 “Investigation: Deaths among Teenagers have increased by 47% in the UK since they started getting the Covid-19 Vaccine according to official ONS data.” Will Jones, The Exposé (October 2, 2021).
https://theexpose.uk/2021/09/30/deaths-among-teenagers-have-increased-by-47-percent-since-covidvaccination-began/

101 Ibid.

102 Sunil S Bhopal et al., Children and young people remain at low risk of COVID-19 mortality, The Lancet, (May 2021).
https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S2352-4642%2821%2900066-3

Most Americans are unaware of all this carnage because the mainstream and social media companies immediately scrub injuries reported by doctors, victims, and families. Media outlets like CNN and the New York Times ignore the tsunami of vaccine injuries and deaths while reflexively inflating those deaths they can blame on COVID. As part of a broad propaganda agenda, they report—with seeming glee—the occasional COVID death among the unvaccinated. Illustratively, on September 10, 2021, an ABC affiliate in Detroit solicited stories on its Facebook page about unvaccinated people who had died from COVID. Instead, the network got something they did not want: more than 230,000 messages containing heartbreaking stories of injuries and deaths from vaccines. None of these communications were reporting deaths among the unvaccinated. Readers shared the post over two hundred thousand times in ten days.¹⁰³

Vaccinated Are Equally Likely to Spread COVID

Dr. Fauci’s official theology makes “unvaccinated” America’s national scapegoat, holding that they are more likely to spread disease and therefore should not be allowed to participate in civic life. The data across multiple sources and studies depict a very different reality.

In July 2021, the CDC found that fully vaccinated individuals who contract the infection have as high a viral load in their nasal passages as unvaccinated individuals who get infected. This means the vaccinated are just as infectious as the unvaccinated.

Another study from Indonesia supported this observation, noting that vaccinated individuals carry 251× the viral loads of Delta and other mutant variants than they did in the pre-vaccine era. Simply put, as Dr. Peter McCullough observed, “each vaccinated person is now a kind of Typhoid Mary for COVID, spreading concentrated viral loads of vaccine resistant mutants to vaccinated and unvaccinated alike.”¹⁰⁴ CDC acknowledges that vaccinated individuals carry at least as many COVID germs in their noses as the unvaccinated.¹⁰⁵ CDC cited this revelation to justify its August 2021 mask mandate.¹⁰⁶

An October 2021 investigation by Israel’s medical authorities of a COVID-19 outbreak in a highly vaccinated population of health workers at the Meir Medical Center in Sheba recorded 23.3 percent of patients and 10.3 percent of staff infected, despite a 96.2 percent vaccination rate among exposed individuals.¹⁰⁷ Moreover, the researchers recorded multiple transmissions between two fully vaccinated individuals, both wearing surgical masks, and in one instance using full PPE, including N-95 mask, face shield, gown, and gloves.¹⁰⁸

103 Facebook page for WXYZ-TV Channel 7, accessed at September 20, 2021:
https://www.facebook.com/wxyzdetroit/posts/10158207967261135

104 Nguyen Van Vinh Chau et al, Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 Delta Variant Among Vaccinated Healthcare Workers, Vietnam, preprints with The Lancet (Aug 10, 2021).
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3897733

105 Lindsey Tanner, Mike Stobbe and Philip Marcelo, “Study: Vaccinated people can carry as much virus as others,” AP News (July 30, 2021)
https://apnews.com/article/science-health-coronavirus-pandemic-d9504519a8ae081f785ca012b5ef84d1

106 Apoorva Mandavilli, C.D.C. Internal Report Calls Delta Variant as Contagious as Chickenpox.” The New York Times (July 30, 2021, Updates September 1, 2021),
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-masks.html

107 Pnina Shitrit, et al, Nosocomial outbreak caused by the SARS-CoV-2 Delta variant in a highly vaccinated population, Israel, July 2021 (Sep 30, 2021).
https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.ES.2021.26.39.2100822#html_fulltext

108 Ibid.