With the onset of the COVID 19 pandemic, there is an intense international effort to find effective treatments for those afflicted by the bio-weapon ["they" don't admit that it's bio-engineered publicly].
Those doing medical research may have purely altruistic motivations but others who are "in the pocket" of big Pharma may have "dual loyalties" -- one to the patient but a more prevailing motivation to create a huge revenue producer for their corporate benefactors.
We are aware that some directors of many hospital medical departments sit on the boards of directors for specific drug manufacturers or specific drug-focused committees. These physician directors often push the use of their own "chosen" remedy to the detriment of other promising remedies, and revenue for themselves privately or for their medical institution are definitely considerations (anyone who wants more information about such situations can write me for more on that).
This is how the medical "mafia" works to protect big Pharma.
Some financially-prejudiced medical directors make sure that "scientific research studies" are designed in a way that presents their preferred remedy in a glowing light while also doing research that impugns the reputation of other scientists with different views and destroys the credibility of other treatment options.
The Philip Morris corporation knew for decades that tobacco devastated the health of users, but funded tobacco industry research that was infamous for long claiming that tobacco products presented no risk at all to the health of the consumer. They claimed that tobacco usage actually offered a health benefit!
The Monsanto Corporation has marketed its glyphosate-based Roundup weedkiller products for decades even though it is very harmful, very likely carcinogenic, and cause other health problems, yet they have published research showing that there is no risk to the public from using these products!
We can still buy tobacco, but due to governmental pressure, there is now a warning label on the product. There is no such warning label on Monsanto's glyphosate products (or other products that are likely very harmful)! See:
Tobacco industry manipulation of research
Lisa A. Bero Public Health Rep. 2005 Mar-Apr; 120(2): 200–208. doi: 10.1177/003335490512000215 PMCID: PMC1497700 PMID: 15842123
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497700/
The Monsanto Corporation denies any harm from its product but "in March, 2015, 17 experts from 11 countries met at the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC; Lyon, France) to assess the carcinogenicity of the organophosphate pesticides tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate [found in Roundup weedkiller]." They concluded:
"Glyphosate has been detected in the blood and urine of agricultural workers, indicating absorption. Soil microbes degrade glyphosate to aminomethylphosphoric acid (AMPA). Blood AMPA detection after poisonings suggests intestinal microbial metabolism in humans. Glyphosate and glyphosate formulations induced DNA and chromosomal damage in mammals, and in human and animal cells in vitro. One study reported increases in blood markers of chromosomal damage (micronuclei) in residents of several communities after spraying of glyphosate formulations. Bacterial mutagenesis tests were negative. Glyphosate, glyphosate formulations, and AMPA induced oxidative stress in rodents and in vitro. The Working Group classified glyphosate as “probably carcinogenic to humans” (Group 2A)...."
from the following article:
Carcinogenicity of tetrachlorvinphos, parathion, malathion, diazinon, and glyphosate
Kathryn Z Guyton, et al May 1, 2015 The Lancet; Vol 16, ISSUE 5, P490-491
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)70134-8
https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_comments/2016/11/00854-130441.pdf
Should we be cautious about using tobacco or Roundup with glyphosate in it even though the manufacturers assured us these were or are safe? Of course!
Research that is supposedly "peer-reviewed" and abides by the "highest standards of science" are often later found to be total nonsense and based upon either fabricated data, distorted interpretations, and completely unfounded conclusions!
On the other hand, accurate studies that are not "politically correct" or profitable to big Pharma and the vaccine industry are forced to retract their study findings or they are targeted for destruction and the scientists blackballed!
This actually happened to a brilliant scientist named Judy Mikovits, PhD. See the following exposé and video showing just some of the corrupt actions that Dr Fauci is widely reported to have done!
The Truth About Fauci—Featuring Dr. Judy Mikovits
By Robert F Kennedy, Jr, Chairman, Children’s Health Defense APRIL 20, 2020
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/the-truth-about-fauci-featuring-dr-judy-mikovits/
also see extensive coverage with an interview with Dr. Mikovits about Fauci's acts here:
TOP Scientist & HIV/AIDS Research Pioneer Dr. Judy Mikovits Blows Whistle on Dr. Fauci; DISTURBING Details of Threats; Research Theft; Tainted Vaccines; Fraud; Cover-Ups; Pay to Play
Mike Moore ("Thomas Paine") Truepundit.com April 22, 2020
https://truepundit.com/exclusive-top-scientist-disturbing-details-of-threats-research-theft-tainted-vaccines-fraud-cover-ups-pay-to-play/
This is must read and must listen material if you wish to understand what type of person Dr Fauci is.
###
When it comes to ethical reseach, Professor Dianne N Irving, MA, PhD reminds us that:
"the protections proclaimed in the international research ethics standard known as the Nuremberg Code for researchers to follow when using human subjects in research have been slowly diluted over the years with the various Declarations of Helsinki and the "birth of BIOethics" (the Congressionally mandated 1979 Belmont Report;
... The Nuremberg Code was the final declaration of the international Nuremberg Trials that investigated the Nazi medical research war criminals who had so horrifically abused human subjects in their research -- such research designated by the Nuremberg Trials as "crimes against humanity".
Professor Irving lists the Nuremberg Code's main guidelines:
1. The voluntary consent of the human subject is essential.
2. The experiment must be necessary for the good of society unattainable by other means, not random or unnecessary
3. The experiment should be designed based on results of animal experimentation and knowledge of the disease, and that results will justify the performance of the experiment.
4. The experiment should avoid all unnecessary physical and mental suffering and injury.
5. If reason exists that death or disabling injury will occur the experiment should not be conducted -- except perhaps when the physician researchers themselves are the subjects.
6. The degree of risk should never exceed the humanitarian importance of the problem to be solved.
7. Proper preparations and adequate facilities should be provided to protect the human subject against even remote possibilities of injury, disability or death.
8. The experiment should be conducted only by scientifically qualified and skilled persons.
9. The human subject should be free to bring the experiment to an end if he/she determines the continuation of the experiment is impossible.
10. The scientist in charge must be prepared to end the experiment at any stage if he/she has probably cause to believe that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability or death to the human subject.
Professor Irving continues:
" Since informed consent was considered so ethically fundamental, research on children and others not capable of deciding for themselves (e.g., the mentally ill) is prohibited.
"In 1964 the Nuremberg Code was followed by the voluntary international Declaration of Helsinki guidelines issued by the World Medical Association and have been revised multiple times since then.
"In 1991 the United States Department of Health and Human Services issued its own guidelines for the Protection of Human Subjects in research involving federal funding, also revised over time. Critics warn that the latter two efforts have seriously diluted the Nuremberg Code's protection of human subjects in research and are thus unethical.
"Given that there is an inherent tension between the search for scientific answers and concern for the rights and welfare of human subjects, they note the shift of focus from the protection of human subjects to the interests of governments, organizations and industry -- often justified by the utilitarian-based bioethics created by Congress in the 1978 Belmont Report.
"As many critics point out, including Dr. Marcia Angell, a member of the faculty of Global Health and Social Medicine at Harvard Medical School and former Editor-in-Chief of The New England Journal of Medicine, the long history of blatantly unethical research in clinical trials on human subjects by the government and private organizations since World War II to the recent past is testament to their concerns." See:
How the "ethics" of research using human subjects has changed since the Nuremberg Code
Dianne N. Irving, MA, PhD March 28, 2018
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_238nurembergcodeethics.html
and
The Bioethics Mess
Dianne N Irving, MA, PhD May 2001 LifeIssues.net
http://www.lifeissues.net/writers/irv/irv_37bioethicsmess.html
###
So, what should our physicians who are on the front line do when treating COVID 19 patients? Can they ethically do studies with "control groups" who receive no treatment at all, knowing that these patients will likely or certainly die? Would you do such "research?" The Nazi doctors did that type of research all the time.
According to the Nuremberg Code point 9 and 10:
"The human subject should be free to bring the experiment to an end if he/she determines the continuation of the experiment is impossible."
and
"The scientist in charge must be prepared to end the experiment at any stage if he/she has probably cause to believe that a continuation of the experiment is likely to result in injury, disability or death to the human subject."
Well, if you were the physician and you knew that hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin (and zinc used by many physicians' treatment protocols) would cure your patients in 98% of the cases (when treated before they're already in the final stages of imminently dying with irreversible damage to major organs), would you treat them this way or would you withhold that treatment and let them die to do your study?
Ethical physicians who are also researchers seeking a cure would not do studies where some patients would certainly die without proper treatment, especially when they already had strong case evidence that a remedy was available!
That is the case of the world-renowned French physician, Didier Raoult. Responding to what is obviously a recent biased "study" purporting to show that the inexpensive hydroxychloroquine drug is ineffective in treating COVID 19 patients, Dr Raoult reports that he has now conducted 3 case studies showing an over 98% effectiveness of using hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin for COVID 19 patients. See:
Early treatment of 1061 COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin
Matthieu Million, et al Aix-Marseille University (and others), Marseille, France
and Didier Raoult, IHU - Méditerranée Infection, Marseille, France
https://www.mediterranee-infection.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/MS.pdf
The "study" recently gleefully publicized by all the Leftwing media did not use the same treatment protocols used by Dr Raoult and the control group patients that did not get hydroxychloroquine did not have the high fevers that the hydroxychloroquine group did! What a rigged study!
Proof the critical study is ridiculously biased:
From Figure 2 of the study (document llink shown below), we learn that the group getting hydroxychloroquine alone was:
older by a year or two on average,
had a higher blood pressure on average, making them a higher risk group!
had a higher "BMI" or were more overweight and therefore a higher risk group,
had LOWER pulse oximeter readings on average!!!
All of these factors together make the hydroxychloroqine group more likely to die of COVID 19! Everyone knows this in healthcare!
One couldn't create a more obviously biased study if one wanted to!
Here's the biased study suggesting ineffectiveness and you can look at it (especially "Figure 2 at the bottom, with details about the patients) for yourself:
Outcomes of hydroxychloroquine usage in United States veterans hospitalized with Covid-19
Joseph Magagnoli, et al April 23, 2020 Dorn Research Institute, Columbia VA Health Care System as well as Univ of S Carolina and others, Columbia, South Carolina
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920
full report:
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.16.20065920v2.full.pdf
Information about its effectiveness:
Renowned French Dr. Didier Raoult DESTROYS Liberal Trump-Hating Media on VA Junk Report on Hydroxychloroquine (VIDEO)
By Jim Hoft April 22, 2020
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/devastating-renowned-french-dr-didier-raoult-destroys-liberal-trump-hating-media-va-junk-report-hydroxychloroquine-video/
I would also note that 6,000 physicians around the world prefer the use of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin treatment for their patients. See:
Hydroxychloroquine rated 'most effective therapy' by doctors for coronavirus: Global survey
By Valerie Richardson The Washington Times April 2, 2020
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/2/hydroxychloroquine-rated-most-effective-therapy-do/
I would also note that the Boston Medical Center still is using hydroxychloroquine with azithromycin. See:
Boston Medical Center COVID 19 Treatment Protocols
accessed April 24, 2020
https://www.bmc.org/sites/default/files/documents/covid/Adult%20treatment%20protocol%202020_3_20.pdf
Note that they have two options: the Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin combination, and the expensive experimental drug Remdesivir (made by Gilead corporation backed by Bill Gates):
.jpg)
So, do you think that this remedy (hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin) is worthless if this is physicians' preferred treatment worldwide for COVID 19, over 1,000 of Prof Raoult's patients recovered (98%)
If you were the doctor, what would you do? If you wanted a cheap remedy that could help people all over the world what would you choose?
There are innumerable articles that are relevant to the ongoing pandemic. Here are just a few, but nobody can keep up with them all. I do encourage you to read the following:
Everything we know about coronavirus immunity and antibodies — and plenty we still don’t
By ANDREW JOSEPH APRIL 20, 2020
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/everything-we-know-about-coronavirus-immunity-and-antibodies-and-plenty-we-still-dont/
###
Novartis steps up to study hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19
By MATTHEW HERPER APRIL 20, 2020
https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/20/novartis-study-hydroxychloroquine/
###
If you need more evidence that there is an anti-Christian, anti-conservative movement growing among the elites, we note that homeschooling is being adopted more and more by those conservative parents who are horrified by the Leftist indoctrination, sex education/indoctrination of kindergartners and elementary shcool age children as well as high schoolers, promotion of LGBTQ agendas, abortion and euthanasia. See:
Harvard Professor Wants A ‘Presumptive Ban‘ On Homeschooling, Claims It Promotes White Supremacy
By Emily Zanotti APRIL 19TH, 2020 DailyWire.com
https://www.dailywire.com/news/harvard-professor-wants-a-presumptive-ban-on-homeschooling-claims-it-promotes-white-supremacy
###
MIT Professor: Subways Seeded the Massive Coronavirus Epidemic in NYC
MICHAEL PATRICK LEAHY 20 Apr 2020
https://www.breitbart.com/health/2020/04/20/mit-professor-subways-seeded-the-massive-coronavirus-epidemic-in-nyc/
###
A petition:
Stop ID2020. Investigate bill gates assets , stocks , and companies
Created by R.P. [not Ron Panzer] on April 10, 2020
https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/stop-id2020-investigate-bill-gates-assets-stocks-and-companies
0 comments:
Post a Comment