Institutional Funding of Propaganda Against Early Treatment of COVID-19
The Chloroquine Wars Part XXX
Last year the WHO ran a series of trials to test the outcomes of various treatments for COVID-19 patients. At first, they did not plan to test hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) in those trials, despite it being at the top of nearly everyone's list for repurposed drugs with great potential (specifically as an antiviral that demonstrated in vitro efficacy against SARS-CoV-1). When they did finally include HCQ in their trials, they did so in a way that completely skirted the primary HCQ hypothesis in numerous ways:
The treatments were delivered to patients at late stages of disease progression. When 72% of the patients are already on oxygen, you cannot even pretend you are testing a potential antiviral. WHO are they trying to fool?
HCQ was used in high doses similar to the doses of CQ that had already been shown dangerous in a Brazilian trial (after which some of the researchers were arrested!). (Brazilian trial paper here). It certainly appears that the pharmacokinetic data suggesting the doses used were too high was scrubbed. World's largest HCQ manufacturer India (ICMR) wrote to the WHO protesting the dosages used in both the SOLIDARITY and RECOVERY trials, but was ignored.
Instead of providing reasonable answers to these obvious critiques, which would risk creation of a record of dialogue, the WHO moved forward with their charade, even taking out paid ads on Google. Note that the ad misleads the reader by not talking about early treatment, but instead about "deaths among hospitalized patients", and in a way that is vague about whether this is an assessment from a single data pool, or a summary data pool. The phrase "myth busters" gets thrown in, which I'm sure excites the motor neurons of Western geeks who enjoy watching people do science more than actually doing it.
Since I've seen this ad several dozen times, I assume it received hundreds of millions if not billions or impressions over the past year. While largely subliminal, it is likely they have an impact.
Fast forward a few months since the WHO "we'll test the least effective way to use this drug and call it a day" trials, we're seeing this form of propaganda again, and at a time when India's uptick in cases is firmly in the spotlight. With deaths on the rise, more states in India, such as Goa, started giving ivermectin to patients with what appear to be excellent results.
Taken in conjunction with similar outcomes in other Indian states, not to mention other nations and evidence, ivermectin has started to look like the treatment of choice for many. Perhaps that's when those whose interests are not served by such a development jump into action? It doesn't take a clever cat to recognize the pattern…
"Oh, but this is official, like the WHO…"
The best way to hurt people is to capture an organization with built in trust that handles people in communities. That's how we wind up with priests who abuse children, summer camps run by cult-like predators, government departments assigned to help the poor engineering financial boondoggles for bankers, and maybe technocratic-Marxist infiltration of the WHO.
Now, GAVI, which stands for...Gates...Vaccine...something-or-other...it's "the vaccine alliance", which is all friendly and cuddly sounding...is running ads to convince people that all this evidence of ivermectin's efficacy in treating COVID-19 is meaningless, or at least "not recommended" (by WHOm?).
This is pulled straight from the same playbook as the propaganda against HCQ. Even if you're not sure that one or both of these medicines is effective despite uniformly positive results when applied as early treatment, you should at least recognize the pattern, scratch your head, and question whether there is...maybe...just possibly some perverse incentive like power or profit from vaccines driving this absurdity.