Source: The Blog of Patrice Gibertie Author: pgibertie

The health scandal is finally unveiled, the most renowned scientists like Ioannidis finally denounce the overdose and poisoning during tests deliberately intended to discredit hydroxychloroquine…

 Many countries are rallying to ivermectin and WHO should officially do the same as well as its owner Bill Gates who feels the tide …

The order of doctors created by Pétain and all the Khmer Blancs criminal disinformers on TV sets will be held to account in a few weeks, when the WHO recommends the use of ivermectin.


Readers of this blog have known about the efficacy of ivermectin for at least six months, it’s the Borody protocol!

Did you know that paracetamol is at least 50 times more dangerous than ivermectin, which is useful against Covid?

Did you know that hydroxychloroquine is associated with four times fewer deaths than doliprane?

The more dangerous the molecule, the less precautions they took, they allowed real poisons and banned well-known and harmless drugs !

A touched thought for Karine LACOMBE and her poison, the treatment from plasma; the American Fda has just banned it; another thought for Yazdan and his Remdesivir, another thought for the patients treated with the combination of the two potions….

On March 11, 2020, a certain Nathan Peiffer-Smadja (NPS) recommended the use of #remdesivir against Covid19. Problem, this molecule having no marketing authorization, its use was criminal and dangerous.

Only fools do not recognize the effectiveness of ivermectin


“I have never seen data like this! “


presenting his meta-analysis on ivermectin during a videoconference.

World Health Organization confirms that in 6 weeks there will be news about the use of Ivermectin in early treatment for Covid19. Media briefing, 15 Feb 2021


Doctor surgeon Gérard MAUDRUX reveals why the doctors of France are silent.

They have orders from the Council of the Order of Physicians and prohibition to open it, prohibition to prescribe otherwise you release! It’s clear to the people behind this Covid19 masquerade.


So I went to the WHO database,  Vigibase , which collects data from pharmacovigilance centers such as ANSM in France, from more than 130 countries. In 30 years, 175,208 adverse effects for Aspirin, 159,824 for Paracetamol and 4,614 for Ivermectin. On more than 4 billion doses prescribed over this period, this makes 0.0001%. Since the beginning of the year if we type Corminaty (Pfizer vaccine) we have 65,188 declarations, against 46 for Ivermectin.

So I went to see the publications of our Medicines Safety Agency. In its  report of January 11  on the side effects of drugs used for Covid, the ANSM reports 0 declarations for Ivermectin, against 271 for Hydroxychloroquine. In the 15,143 specialties reimbursed in France, in the world pharmacopoeia, I believe that we can say that there is no drug that has so few side effects. So why deny it when there is no risk and a presumption of effectiveness, while allowing Aspirin and Paracetamol which have 30 to 50 times more side effects and without desired efficacy?

If you take 10 tablets of Doliprane, recommended by authorities, you may die of liver necrosis. On the other hand, you can take 50 Ivermectin tablets 3 days in a row and continue to go about your daily activities without any problem.

RECOVERY poisoners

Unfortunately the scandal of the sorcerer’s apprentices has only just begun, they want to force-feed us with monoclonal antibodies and ban the old molecules that heal.

The scandal of patients poisoned to discredit hydroxychloroquine is finally demonstrated. In the ranks of the accusers Professor Ioannidis of Stanford.

The Raoult protocol actually reduces mortality by two-thirds: between 50 and 60,000 French people would therefore have died due to conflicts of interest …

To make believe that hydroxychloroquine was not effective three methods were used:

  • Invent numbers or hack (the call girl from the Lancet gate, Nathan and Thomas from the virgin gate)
  • Poison the sick (Recovery and Solidarity)
  • Stop everything and hide the good results of the hcq (Yazdan)

A certain Jimmy Mohamed crossed the wall of the lesson by relying on the study of Ioannidis on hydroxychloroquine to affirm that it would have killed 100,000 people …

The study proves that excess mortality is associated with a high dose of hcq. Reminder: The dose of the first day in recovery is 4 times that of the



He would learn a lot to follow the Ioannidis Raoult conference

IHU SEMINAR by videoconference from Stanford, USA: Thursday February 18 from 5:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. John PA IOANNIDIS: COVID 19 epidemiology: evidence, risks and misconceptions

How to qualify a doctor who gives too high a dose of a molecule knowing that this dose is lethal?

At the beginning of 2020, a study demonstrated the importance of hydroxychloroquine dosages in the treatment of patients severely affected by covid. It was a randomized, double-blind trial conducted in March.

Patients were assigned to receive high doses of CQ (i.e. 600 mg CQ twice daily for 10 days) or low dose CQ (i.e. 450 mg twice daily on day 1 and once a day for 4 days). 

 The lethality through day 13 was 39.0% in the high dose group (16 of 41) and 15.0% in the low dose group (6 of 40). The high dose group had more examples of QTc intervals greater than 500 milliseconds (7 of 37 [18.9%]) compared to the low dose group (4 of 36 [11.1%]). Respiratory secretion on day 4 was negative in only 6 of 27 patients (22.2%). Conclusions and relevance The preliminary results of this study suggest that the higher CQ dosage should not be recommended for critically ill patients with COVID-19 due to its potential safety risks, especially when taken at the same time. time than azithromycin and oseltamivir. These results cannot be extrapolated to patients with non-severe COVID-19.

Everything seems clear: 12g of chloroquine in ten days is too much and dangerous, 4g for ten days and mortality is halved.

How to explain that within the framework of the Recovery and Solidarity trials carried out then, it is the lethal dose which was deliberately chosen? To discredit the molecule by DOUBLING THE EXPECTED MORTALITY.

Of course, it is HCQ and not chloroquine, but these choices are dangerous… note that 1.2 g of chloroquine corresponds to 1.55 g of HCQ.

The NJEM published the results of the famous RECOVERY study, scientists have obtained the publication of a more than critical remark on the famous study.

Remember that Professor Raoult treats the first symptoms with hcq, at a moderate dose.

According to Vidal, HCQ overdose begins in adults from 2.5 g. The recommended doses for Europeans to benefit from the treatment were a loading dose of 800 mg (in 2 divided doses of 400 mg) on ​​the first day, followed by a maintenance dose of 400 mg (2×200 mg) on ​​the following days. 

 Recovery opted for the dose of 2 g on the first day (more than in the study demonstrating the dangerousness) then 0.9 g per day. Often cardiac patients received 4g of hcq on the first 3 days against 1g8 in Marseille and against 4g8 for the study showing that there was a lethal dose.

For the following 7 days, Recovery delivers 5g40 and the Brazilian study 8g 40. One will notice the cynicism of the defense of the authors of Recovery: they would not have given lethal doses.

Yes ! they deliberately did it for three days and it was at this precise moment that Recovery recorded a strong excess mortality and that several patients had to stop the treatment.

Critics have had access to the numbers and they are giving them:

In fact,  the Recovery doses for the first and second day combined even exceed those in the Brazilian trial with 3200 mg of HCQ compared to the equivalent of 3100 mg for the Brazilian trial.  

Mortality was concentrated in the first three days, the period during which the overdose was most evident. 77 cumulative deaths after three days for those who were overdosed and 272 patients forced to stop HCQ treatment…

The dose used in the RECOVERY trial, the second highest after that in the trial by Borba et al., Raises concern because it may have been an aggravating factor in the disease canceling out the therapeutic effect. High doses of hydroxychloroquine can therefore not only be toxic and cause serious side effects, engaging the vital process, but paradoxically also adversely affect its antiviral activity. Indeed, high doses of hydroxychloroquine lower the level of interferon, a molecule essential in the fight against the virus (articles have shown the association between low levels of interferon and severe forms of the disease).

The Recovery study therefore has no interest and does not allow us to deduce anything concerning the effect of hydroxychloroquine on COVID-19. This study most certainly killed patients.

For the critics of Recovery more than 80 deaths are due not to the Covid but to this monstrous overdose .

Hopefully, legal consequences will be given to this poisoning.

The consequences are considerable, they totally distorted the study by eliminating the effects of hcq. Taking these deaths into account, we find the reduction in mortality allowed by the HCQ for patients hospitalized in APHP hospitals, however populated by Raoult’s enemy: 18% decrease. The same figure as that of Yazdan Yazdanpannah’s study.

18% reduction in mortality identical to that measured by AP-HP in retrospective univariate analysis. This result was found later (in October) to also be in agreement with the HCQ arm of the Discovery trial which gave a positive evaluation in favor of HCQ with 17% fewer deaths. Discovery was  arrested without valid reason  on June 30 before being able to reach the quota of patients (620) necessary for a significant statistical power. This calculated 18% difference corresponded to a total reduction of 90 deaths, including 85 in the first 7 days, compared to the HCQ arm of Recovery!

The results are much more impressive if there is association with azithromycin and if all the patients are taken into account and not only the severe cases.

Review of a meta-analysis shows that hydroxychloroquine combined with azithromycin may be effective in patients with Covid-19

31 studies were reviewed for critical bias. Combined risk ratios and confidence intervals were calculated for the two treatments using a fixed-effect size model and a random-effects model. A quantitative analysis concerning the toxicity of the HCQ plus AZI combination is carried out.

Results: The meta-analyses carried out on the 11 studies which we consider to be unbiased show a reduction in mortality of 55% for HCQ and of 66% for HCQ plus AZI. For both treatments, our meta-analysis indicates significant efficacy in reducing mortality in hospitalized Covid-19 patients.

 If we follow this study, between 50 and 60,000 French people would have died due to conflicts of interest …

Related: Journal of Medicine Says HCQ + Zinc Reduces COVID Deaths

Shutdowns instead of hydroxychloroquine: The destruction of France is escalating

Hydroxychloroquine & Covid-19: India and France, a cruel comparison


‘I base my comments on science’: Emeritus professor Robert Clancy defends hydroxychloroquine stance

HCQ and Ivermectin included in multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk COVID-19

Share on facebook
Share on twitter
Share on whatsapp
On Trend

Latest Stories

Stark madness to ban ivermectin

Buried in the note is the real reason for making ivermectin inaccessible – the fear that persons taking it ‘may elect not to be vaccinated as part of the national Covid-19 vaccination program’. This is outrageous. When someone is infected with Covid, it is too late to bother with vaccination. They need early treatment. To deny it to coerce them into accepting a vaccine, one of whose side-effects is death, is immoral.

Read More »

Australia’s TGA Bans GPs from Prescribing Ivermectin

Australia’s medicine and therapeutic regulatory, the Therapeutic Good Administration (TGA) recently took the gloves off with Ivermectin, the economical anti-parasitic drug associated with at least 63 completed clinical trials involving SARS-CoV-2, the virus behind COVID-19. Now TGA formally places a national prohibition on off-label prescribing of ivermectin to all general practitioners. A comparable move as to what TGA did with hydroxychloroquine in 2020. Clearly further evidence of tightening encroachment of the critically important doctor-patient treatment relationship allowing consent to medical treatment using off-label medications. Of course, this isn’t occurring in a vacuum—it’s part of an unfolding, integrated and what have the signs of a coordinated and orchestrated government action to stop any and all treatments other than those the government declares acceptable.

Read More »