Source: Liberty Nation

by Pennel Bird

Suddenly, the FDA revoked its emergency use authorization for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), hard on the heels of the Lancet’s retraction of a significant study on HCQ that turned out to be a complete fraud – the handiwork of science hucksters in lab coats. The fake study shook the medical world internationally and hoisted a red flag of caution over the “science” represented in prestigious journals like The Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine going forward. All of which makes the FDA’s timing on withdrawing hydroxychloroquine highly conspicuous, based, as it was, on two more very suspect HCQ studies.

The clinical trials in question were initiated and designed by the World Health Organization (WHO) and Oxford University in the UK. They were named Solidarity and Recovery, respectively. The Recovery trials were funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, which has a mission directive to deliver the coronavirus vaccine to 7.5 billion people as soon as next year. The clinical trial for a drug that would make a coronavirus vaccine unnecessary is being funded by the very billionaire who has a vested interest in HCQ’s failure, which provokes unsettling questions. And unpacking the specifics of the studies is more discomfiting still.

Lethal Overdose?

French doctor Didier Raoult, who has treated over 3,000 patients with HCQ – with a 99.25% success rate and a case fatality rate of .75%, all of whom were over age 74 – used 600 mg of hydroxychloroquine with his patients daily. But the dosing protocol for the Recovery Study recommended that 2.4 grams of hydroxychloroquine be administered in the first 24 hours to patients with COVID-19.

These levels – four times (4X) what Didier Raoult used – were set by the WHO. They were used in both the Recovery and the Solidarity trials. There are no medical conditions for which these doses would be prescribed. Canadian and Norwegian trials also administered 1.55 grams of HCQ in the first 24 hours to COVID-19 patients. At such alarming dosing levels, the Recovery trial’s mortality rates were 34 times higher than those in Didier Raoult’s study.

For context, it’s important to note that the recommended dosage for treating lupus or arthritis with HCQ is 200-400 mg, and for acute malaria, it is 600 mg. The amounts used in the Solidarity, Recovery, Norwegian, and Canadian trials constitute a potentially lethal dose, according to a 1979 study commissioned by the WHO. In that study, consultant, H. Weniger looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs. He determined that a single dose of 1.5-2.0 grams of hydroxychloroquine “may be fatal.”

Why did the WHO establish these massive doses of HCQ for trials around the world when they knew from their own study that it could be lethal?

Studies Designed To Fail

As Doctor Jim Meehan conjectures, these studies are designed to fail. He believes this is being done to contrive a message to manipulate, mislead and deceive the masses, and that public health is being subverted by commercial bias and political agendas. Meehan believes that “fear uncertainty and doubt of low-cost therapeutics” is purposefully sown to advance this agenda for control of world health.

And these excessive doses are not only making it impossible to assess the therapeutic benefits of HCQ for COVID-19 patients accurately. They are clearly hastening the deaths of many in the study who have been unaccountably administered dangerous amounts of a highly effective drug with a 70-year record of safety and efficacy.

A highly salient point made by Del Bigtree of ICAN is that well over 5 million doses of hydroxychloroquine were taken in the United States in 2107 for the treatment of lupus, arthritis, and malaria. If the FDA is so concerned about adverse effects associated with HCQ, why wait until now to revoke its use when it was used so widely and so effectively just a few years ago?

In a Sermo survey from April 2020, 55% of over 6,000 physicians surveyed internationally are using hydroxychloroquine with their patients, and 37% of those doctors rated it the most effective treatment against COVID-19. So why has the mainstream media coverage been so relentlessly negative about the drug? Particularly in the wake of the Lancet debacle, which proved there are bad actors with shadowy agendas willing to promulgate fake science to impugn the drug’s efficacy.


Bill and Melinda Gates can answer that question better than anyone. If cheap, safe therapeutics like hydroxychloroquine are work-horsed into general use, their frenzied attempts to formulate a coronavirus vaccine at “warp speed” and administer to it every person earth are in jeopardy.

According to 200 studies worldwide and the case histories of many thousands of patients, HCQ is an astonishingly effective, life-saving drug with a 99.25% success rate when appropriately administered.

The Lancet‘s retracted study was based on non-existent data sets furnished by disgraced non-company Surgisphere. The Recovery and Solidarity trials were replete with lethal dosing recommendations of HCQ, courtesy of the WHO. Destroying the integrity of scientific research and the reputation of safe, effective treatments like hydroxychloroquine is just business as usual for those who want you to roll up your sleeve unquestioningly for a pricey miracle vaccine.

In concert with manipulative mainstream media messaging, these powerful entities are demonstrating a willingness to withhold potentially life-saving therapies to achieve their ends. That this endgame is only achievable through the deaths of thousands of patients around the world – who might have been saved by HCQ – is but a part of the grim calculus.


WHO “Solidarity” and UK “Recovery” Clinical Trials of Hydroxychloroquine Using Potentially Fatal Doses

Another anti hydroxychloroquine Study Turns out to Be a Joke

Pune: ‘I am 80, but I have defeated coronavirus’

Study: Potential specific therapies in COVID-19 include hydroxychloroquine

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

Dr. Harvey Risch: Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin, and Other Therapeutics Highly Effective in Early COVID Treatment

I’ve railed against this in the media that we are a part of, and the way that the propaganda reacts to this is, “Ignore it. Ignore all of this.” I’m saying this now because the general public has to be the one that gets angry. The general public should be furious at the way people have been treated in the country by suppression of these drugs, by that kind of website that suppresses the ability of doctors to practice medicine.

Read More »

A Judge Stands up to a Hospital: “Step Aside” and Give a Dying Man Ivermectin

The judge’s finest moment may have been when he dashed the most glaring myth about ivermectin—that it is not safe, despite decades of use that shows otherwise. Noting that all drugs have side effects, Judge Fullerton listed ivermectin’s effects from a government website.
“(N)umber one, generally well tolerated; number two, dizziness; number three, pruritus; number four, nausea/diarrhea. These are the side effects for the dosage that’s being asked to be administered,” he said. “The risks of these side effects are so minimal that Mr. Ng’s current situation outweighs that risk by one-hundredfold.”

Read More »