Source: Beyond the Climate Author: THOMAÏE

While we learn in this article by Spiegel of September 25, 2020 that Hydroxychloroquine was in fact prescribed overwhelmingly by German doctors during the epidemic, with results in Germany much better than at home, Didier Raoult wrote in his report official given to the Senators that his results at the IHU were impossible to exceed, and that the mortality in the EHPAD was two times lower when they treated with Hydroxychloroquine. 

He writes: “As for our experience, which is verifiable and verified by the Ministry of Health, by the ARS, it shows in the patients treated a mortality of 0.4%, which is one of the lowest ever seen in the world. world in the treatment of this disease, and we were able to get in touch with the home hospitalization services in EHPADs, and to show that the treatment saved half of the deaths in this situation. (…)

The ban on use in nursing homes, and on the other hand the release of the prescription of Rivotril for euthanasia, represents a question which from an ethical standpoint will probably have to be investigated ”. If these data were false, there is no doubt that Didier Raoult would already be found guilty of serious fraud. 

Failing that, Craig Kelly, Member of the Australian Parliament, said on Sunday September 27, 2020 on SkyNews that the refusal to treat Covid-19 with Hydroxychloroquine violated the Hippocratic Oath and that those who continue to ban it are “involved in crimes against humanity ”and must“ be brought to criminal justice in The Hague ”. This is what FranceSoir reports in this article of September 27, 2020 .

Finally, in her interview of September 9, 2020 for Plantètes360 , geneticist Alexandra Henrion-Caude questioned: “Some colleagues attack Didier Raoult, very personally. Why didn’t we make this hay on Merah, the author of The Lancet, who scientifically planned the deaths of patients who should not have died (by administering unreasonable doses of hydroxychloroquine to patients) ? (…) So, instead of criticizing Didier Raoult, whose results of the study are there, which show that ultimately, he rather helped and saved lives, rather than precipitating the death of patients who should not have died, it would be better to be concerned about the lack of ethics of certain studies, and certain behaviors of scientists ”.

We can continue to pretend to believe that Didier Raoult and half of the countries in the world that recommend hydroxychloroquine with much better results than us are crazy, that our leaders are just incompetent, but we all know the reality: there is in France, and in other countries, a will to harm, to lie and to manipulate, to create a false pandemic, and to economically collapse the country. 

And it will continue as long as we do nothing!

Related: HCQ is effective for COVID-19 when used early: analysis of 132 studies

Hydroxychloroquine is effective, and consistently so used early, for Covid-19: A systematic review

Professor Raoult Sues the French Health Authorities: Could Hydroxychloroquine be Rehabilitated in Court?

France: Philippe Douste-Blazy shoots red bullets on the State and relaunches the debate on hydroxychloroquine

Didier Raoult and the IHU will contest the refusal of the National Medicines Safety Agency to authorize the use of hydroxychloroquine against Covid-19.

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 »