This episode took a very unexpected twist on me as I kept following the clues. With the amount of research I put into creating this content, it feels like this is more investigative journalism then opinion.
In this episode we cover misinformation on social media, who controls what is considered misinformation, should we question who controls the information that is censored from social media and a deep dive into a story that wraps it all together.
The story of Hydroxychloroquine is fascinating, I bet someone could make a good movie out of it. With all the hype that this drug got early in the COVID-19 pandemic there is no way that you do not have a bias on its use. Whatever your belief may be, you should have a listen and see if your perception changes.
I would love to hear some of your opinions. Feel free to drop a comment or email me at unexpectedactivist@protonmail.com
All citations will be at the end of the transcript with time markers.
Transcript:
In this episode, I was simply going to try to tackle the information regarding social media, misinformation, and censorship. And what has happened over the course of the last three days is me reading many articles as I think somebody who using a podcast and releasing a bunch of information to an audience.
They have a responsibility, just like a journalist. And I'm not a journalist because those guys are professionals. I, this is still just considered my opinion, [00:01:00] but as I was doing my research on this and reading these articles of the impacts of misinformation and censorship on public opinion, that led me down a rabbit hole for lack of a better phrase
and it's a rabbit hole of terrifying and accurate information about COVID and the narrative that's being pushed by the people who control what is considered to be misinformation on social media, who are in control of the public perception of COVID-19. You don't really have to look that far to see a different or an alternative way of looking at things when it comes to COVID-19 and how we've dealt with it as a society. It's pretty easy to come up with questions about why we've progressed the way that we have in terms of lockdowns and social distancing and masks and shutting down early treatment options and hospitalization, [00:02:00] the use of the vaccinations as our only method of dealing with COVID-19 and it's pretty obvious to me now that has all been for a reason.
In my pursuit of the impacts of misinformation and censorship on public perception, it is very easily led me to corruption surrounding corporations, the health agencies that we have put in charge of determining what is misinformation and then social media, and then to the public reception. So really at the end of the day this episode went from free speech on social media to corruption of COVID-19 from the sources that claim to be doing things for the public health. One of the things I want to state right now is that it is very important that you have an open mind as you listen to this information, we will be covering a little bit of misinformation and I'll be documenting an argument [00:03:00] going forward, but listen with an open mind, because to not listen is to censor yourself, to not listen to this information is to only buy into the narrative even further. You don't have to agree after you've listened to all of this. You don't have to agree with any of it. And if you don't, I would actually appreciate if you commented on it. Or sent me an email and I'll include those things in the show notes, like as in my email, because I do want to understand the opinion of somebody who does not buy into this information, especially after it's been presented in a way that I find is irrefutable when it comes down to the evidence against the corruption of COVID-19 and its rollout.
This is terrifying. There's no way around it. I think that this is the biggest corruption in this planet has ever seen. And unfortunately they did it using public health and has put a lot of [00:04:00] people in harm's way in the name of trying to protect them. And that is scary because there's a lot of people who were vaccinated in this world.
And I hope for everybody that nothing happens, everybody's body and everything is individual, but every day that passes right now is a day that new information comes out. And with that new information, more terrifying results come out. And I'm going to share quite a few links that I have read their articles, ongoing to share some videos of different things that I've seen that are being spread now that are not being covered up because it's impossible to cover up the truth for too long. The truth needs to be exposed. It's just, it's like a natural law.
" By doubting we are led to question, by questioning we arrive at the truth". - Peter Abelard
So what we're going to start with is the concept of misinformation on social media. And then we're going to talk about how social media platforms censor content. Typically misinformation has been politicized and that's no different when it [00:05:00] comes to COVID-19, but instead of calling it politics, they've called it science. And I think that it's still politics. I don't think it has anything to do with science. Science fundamentally is a consensus ever evolving theory.
It's based on observation, then hypothesis then testing and then an observation again, right? That it's a continual cycle in terms of evolution. What we've done so far in terms of COVID-19 is to shut down science in the name of "follow the science" that "follow the science" campaign is bullshit.
The science has been stagnant and anything that has changed, it's only changed very little for the vast majority of the time. Any science that was done was shut down because it wasn't going to be beneficial to the drug manufacturers, big pharma in terms of pushing a vaccination.
The narrative has changed quite substantially. And I'll cover that a little bit later in this podcast [00:06:00] about following the science and how that is actually contradictory and hypocritical to the vaccination and its safety, the things that they were telling us much earlier in this campaign of follow the science and the COVID 19 vaccinations have changed substantially, but against the public's benefit.
If I haven't lost you already, which I hope I haven't we're going to explore some corruption about COVID-19, the use of misinformation in censorship in order to manipulate the public, to follow a narrative. So let's have some fun with that.
In response to calls to combat misinformation about COVID- 19, a group of companies, including among others Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, issued a joint statement in mid-March this year.
They stated that they are “jointly combating fraud and misinformation about the virus, elevating authoritative content on their platforms” Their actions include the introduction of “educational pop-ups connecting people to information from the W H O, adding warning labels to content [00:07:00] considered as false or misleading removing content contradicting health authorities or the W H O and content that could directly contribute or lead to harm
Constructive critique, questioning of evidence and opinions of scientists and policy-makers are thus necessary to identify and correct potential errors and to prevent them from being propagated. By following their policies on COVID vid 19, social media platforms filter out content which contradicts specific views that are not necessarily correct or unanimously accepted, with respect to the underlying scientific evidence or represented values and political views. If critique of these views is eliminated or restricted, the possibility to correct errors, contribute to the understanding of the topic and inform public debate is limited. Additionally, since the censorship is not based solely on science, as scientific evidence is currently limited and medical experts still disagree on various topics, other factors influence decisions to remove content. Questions about the commitment to the freedom of speech of the social media providers and risk of manipulation of public opinion are therefore relevant also in [00:08:00] case of information about COVID-19
Although the censorship on social media may seem an efficient and immediate solution to the problem of medical and scientific misinformation, it paradoxically introduces a risk of propagation of errors and manipulation. This is related to the fact that the exclusive authority to define what is “scientifically proven” or “medically substantiated” is attributed to either the social media providers or certain institutions, despite the possibility of mistakes on their side or potential abuse of their position to foster political, commercial or other interests. Focusing on understanding and studying the problem of misinformation, education and promotion of a virtuous use of social media and information seem more laborious and may not bring immediate results, but, in the long run, may contribute to a society that is more immune to misinformation.
This was my first time that I heard that the, who was actually put in place of determining what is misinformation on our social media platforms. The issue with that is that, well, let's put it this way. At one [00:09:00] point, I believe that people had trust when it comes into our medical institutions that are agencies that are there to uphold public health, but an immediate concern that I would have, regardless if you have trust in those institutions or not, is that putting all of this authority into one centralized agency is a breeding ground of corruption. Now we would hope that a place such as the world health organization would not be corrupt, that they would actually uphold to the values that they stand for, which is for the public health in terms of a global manner. But if you're a social media platform and you don't want to be liable for spreading misinformation, then obviously you're going to hand it off to somebody else. And then somebody else, who else are you going to go to other than the place that calls them the world health organization, which is part of the United nations, you would think that they would be fine to handle that type of responsibility as they are [00:10:00] impartial and unbiased, but that's been proven not to be the case.
There was quite a bit of concern regarding just putting one institution in charge of considering what is misinformation or not. And leading to censorship. Anytime you have a centralized authority or power in control of propaganda. Well, I'm going to backtrack. I won't use propaganda yet. Anytime you have a centralized authority in charge of information, it is a scary place to be. If that central authority is somehow colluded or coerced into having different motivations, other than just doing what they're supposed to do in terms of public health. When you put the world health organization in charge of figuring out what is misinformation regarding the science.
Once again, "follow the science" campaign. It's very hard when we're talking about creating a conducive and reliable information source. When we're talking about a novel virus, right? Where [00:11:00] the COVID-19 coronavirus, SARS-COV-2, whatever, whichever way you want to talk about it is a novel virus. It is something that is brand new. We've never dealt with it before. And because of that, there's absolutely no way that the science is going to be right from the beginning.
So in order to be transparent, you're going to have to continually change the science and make sure that people were aware of that. Now how much of their science actually changed since COVID-19 actually came up? Not a hell of a whole lot. We went immediately into lockdowns, which are still here two years later.
Some of the science that changed at the very beginning was thinking that we could pick up COVID 19 off of surfaces like surface transmission, which is not possible, but yet we still use hand sanitizer everywhere we go.
The mask mandates are also hotly contended. Between the use of a cloth mask, a surgeon mask, or an N 95 mask that has filtration. They each do different things. The studies that come out. There's nothing conclusive about them, [00:12:00] because it's very hard to identify if these things are effective and not in community transmission.
Obviously cloth masks, depending on how you use them are probably ineffective, where N 95 mass and with proper filtration could be effective. But there's also questions about asymptomatic transmission of COVID-19. There's also questions about if the masks are useful outside or only indoors, there's also questions about how long you need to be around somebody before you actually are inoculated with COVID-19. So these are all questions regarding even just the mask mandate which we've been dealing with for two years now. It's just something i want to point out in terms of if we can't figure out the science on if masks are actually useful or not How Are we going to figure out the science when it comes down to what is misinformation that the World Health Organization is mandating on social media.
By having a centralized agency, the WHO in control of this misinformation. [00:13:00] Having one agency that can determine what hits your social media feed and what's considered factual or unfactual or misinformation is a gigantic power, right? And the, WHO is now dealing with big tech, Facebook, YouTube, Google, all those guys in terms of trying to deal with them which big tech shocker is all about money.
So they have their own agenda. Even though they pass the buck, but they're very much involved with how the, who interacts with the platforms and then big shock the other people that make a lot of money are big pharma when it comes down to this and what have we been told is the vaccination is safe and effective and useful.
And that there were no early treatment options and that we were all just waiting for a vaccination to get back to normal. Well, the vaccination has been out for a year now, and it's still not back to normal. So the science is ever changing. That's the point I want to make the science is ever changing.
This is a novel virus, [00:14:00] meaning nobody knows how it's going to react with the vaccinations, how it's going to react within the public, how it's going to mutate, how it's going to do anything. We don't know anything. We are just sitting here observing it. Nobody knows what's going on with COVID and then the people that say that they do know, they don't know.
So if it's impossible to know all of the information, considering this as a novel virus, then how do we actually institute, what is misinformation? Cause then we're always playing in the past. We're always by labeling something misinformation that comes out, it could be brand new information, but we label it misinformation because it goes against what is publicly held as true.
But once again, that proves my argument here that by labeling something misinformation, it is being anti-science under the campaign of "follow the science". It leads to more questions because the WHO is absolutely staying on top of what's going on in the medical sphere of COVID-19. So then [00:15:00] we really have to question when they see studies and they don't acknowledge them or leave them as misinformation, the question is why?
If this nation is to be wise as well as strong, if we are to achieve our destiny, then we need more new ideas from more wise men reading more good books in more public libraries. These libraries should be open to all--except the censor. We must know all the facts and hear all the alternatives and listen to all the criticisms. Let us welcome controversial books and controversial authors. For the Bill of Rights is the guardian of our security as well as our liberty". -JOHN F. KENNEDY
We're going to be talking about Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine on the next segment of this episode but the interesting thing is that the studies that have come out saying that both of those are very useful early treatments. And if you go into the WHO website to this day it has not been updated since March 31, 2021. Where they say that you should never use Hydroxychloroquine in any way for COVID-19, which has proven to be false.
As well [00:16:00] as Ivermectin should still not be used until further studies are done, which there were studies released as early as April of 2020 that said that this would be a useful early treatment. So like I said, we will talk about that in a little bit. My main point here after this misinformation clause was that by having one central source on top of misinformation, Is ripe for corruption and ripe for propaganda in order to push a single narrative and the WHO is primarily funded by private entities, including governments as well as agencies. Including the GAVI alliance which is a vaccination alliance as well as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation which is also heavily involved within the pharmaceutical arena
Now that we have more resources than ever globally, the whole world is erupting in corruption, but we are not talking about or confronting the issue. Corruption is [00:17:00] an open secret known around the world that is systemic and spreading. Over two-thirds of countries are considered endemically corrupt according to Transparency International. Although the perception of corruption in the health sector varies across countries, overall the sector is viewed very negatively. Corruption affects the poor and most vulnerable, and corruption in the health sector is more dangerous than in any other sector because it is literally deadly. Corruption violates the rights of individuals and communities. When corruption relates to health, health systems, individuals, and health outcomes are deeply affected. It is estimated that, each year, corruption takes the lives of at least 140000 children, worsens antimicrobial resistance, and undermines all of our efforts to control communicable and non-communicable diseases. Corruption is an ignored pandemic.
Although there is no one comprehensive, universally agreed definition of corruption, corruption is clearly “the abuse of entrusted power for private gain". The health sector is an attractive sector for corruption. Corruption can be seen in all societies. However, because it [00:18:00] is influenced by organizational factors, the extent of corruption seen in any sector, including health, relates to the society in which it operates. In societies with less adherence to the rule of law, less transparency, and less accountability mechanisms, health systems are more corrupt.
Corruption is embedded and systemic in the health sector. Klitgaard and colleagues highlight that the amount of corruption depends on three variables: monopoly on the supply of a good or service, the discretion enjoyed by suppliers, and the supplier’s accountability to others. The authors show that the amount of corruption could be expressed as, Corruption equals, Monopoly plus Discretion, minus Accountability
There's a couple of things that I think are important to note in that last readout one is that corruption in the health sector or any sector has a direct correspondence to something that has less transparency. And so when we're talking about less transparency in this case, I do [00:19:00] believe that misinformation or the way that it's being classified in the current realm with the who classifying any information they deemed to not support the narrative. As misinformation is a lack of transparency. A lot of the studies that have come out have been purposely pushed out of the public sphere in order to create this conception that the vaccinations are the only way forward and out of what is considered our COVID-19 pandemic right now.
" Transparency is key to reciprocal accountability, which we use to be both free and smart. It is the miracle tool that enables us to question the lies of monsters". -David Brin
Another thing I want to touch base on. There is this Klitgaard equation of corruption. So corruption equals monopoly plus discretion minus accountability. So if we're trying to figure out what the monopoly is on the supply of goods or service? [00:20:00] There is a monopoly in terms of there is only one way to protect yourself from COVID-19 and that is the vaccine. There are obviously multiple different companies that have offered a vaccine for COVID-19, but the fact that there is only one method of medicine in order to deal with COVID-19 is considered a monopoly. In this way, there is no other treatment. The vaccination is the only way forward.
The second part is discretion. The discretion enjoyed by suppliers. So the discretion here is that a once again, based on the narrative, if the vaccination is the only thing that is going to be useful in order of protecting yourself from COVID-19 the discretion of these companies is paramount. Meaning that because there are no other alternatives, their discretion is the only one that matters. It's also the fact that there are clinical trials, especially with Pfizer and their clinical trials, they're trying to cover up the results [00:21:00] from those trials to withhold it from the public for 75 years. Just as of recently that has been reduced down to eight months, but that's still in terms of the clinical trial. They have the discretion, they are the ones that know the information regarding the safety of this vaccination. And they're hiding it from the public for eight months while they are going through and essentially forcing people to get the vaccine. That's the mandate of the vaccine.
The last portion of this equation is accountability. And it's very clear that there is no accountability when it comes down to vaccinations as a medicine. The companies that manufacture vaccinations are not open to any type of legal liability regarding the use of and side effects associated with the vaccine. Hence why these things are being labeled as vaccinations when in truth, they're really not. They're a type of medication that we've never seen before, just because we're injecting it via syringe, which is more associated with the vaccine the [00:22:00] mNRA technology is not what we would consider a vaccination. It's more considered a gene therapy, mNRA a is injected into you so that your body can essentially produce these spike proteins without the virus actually being inoculated within you vaccines prior to that were a dormant version or a non-lethal version of the virus being injected into you so that your immune system could respond to the actual virus.
The actual organic part of the virus, mNRA vaccine is taking that out and creating a synthetic spike protein, which mimics what the COVID virus itself uses in order to attach to our cells. So it's something different, right? And this is the case is this is a once again, a non. Medication, this is new.
Nobody knows how it's going to interact. The only thing that we can go on is the clinical trials that were done by these vaccination companies, which they have not made any of those results publicly known. So right now [00:23:00] we are only assuming that these things are safe. We are only assuming that we know what they're going to do. We're only assuming what the side effects are going to be by using this type of medication to deal with a novel virus. So novel virus, something we've never seen before, novel medication, something we've never used before. And yet we're supposed to just listen to the narrative, which is the vaccination is safe and that the vaccination will protect you from COVID-19.
Now looking at this equation of corruption equals monopoly, plus discretion, minus accountability. Is there a monopoly? Yes, there is only one medication. Is there heightened discretion? Yes. Because we're living during a pandemic and we need this medication in order to save ourselves from COVID-19. And is there accountability no there is not because Who's keeping These companies Accountable when they won't even publicly disclose the clinical trial data to the public[00:24:00]
So if I'm reading this equation, I'm saying. The likelihood that there's corruption involved within this pandemic, or at least the way that we're trying to solve this pandemic with the vaccination, it is very likely that corruption is occurring because all of the parameters that lead into corruption have been met.
“When it comes to controlling human beings there is no better instrument than lies. Because, you see, humans live by beliefs. And beliefs can be manipulated. The power to manipulate beliefs is the only thing that counts.” ― Michael Ende
This segment is going to be covering Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin as early treatment options for COVID 19. I am not a physician. I am not a doctor. I am not a medical scientist. So this is not medical advice. That is an important caveat when you're listening to this.
The purpose for me and covering these two drugs is because they are [00:25:00] or were considered very good early treatment options for COVID-19 when we had no other option in terms of treatment. And there was a lot of physicians out there that have been using both Hydroxychloroquine, as well as Ivermectin in order to treat their patients because there was no other options.
Now, what I want to focus on is the intentional attack and the movement to discredit both Hydroxychloroquine, and Ivermectin completely out of the early treatment options.
Both of these drugs have quite an incredible story actually, in terms of why they've been discredited, I'm not talking about this is the magic cure for COVID. Although depending on what you read, you might see some of the research that's out there. It's very promising in terms of early treatment options. And a lot of people do consider that these drugs have saved many lives. but you can do your own research on that. That's not what I'm covering here.
What I did want to cover is that the smear campaign that was running across in both of these drugs [00:26:00] come from a state investment into their competitors. So the United States government has invested a lot of money into Remdesivir, which I'm sure that you heard of, because it's the approved treatment in hospitals in the United States.
And also the United States has invested quite extensively into the vaccinations that have been approved. So for Remdesivir, they have directly funded $1.6 billion. And with trials up to $4.6 billion. And for the vaccinations, they put in $2.3 billion, which were basically split between the Johnson and Johnson vaccine and the Moderna vaccine.
But what we're going to look at right now is we're going to look at the FDA and the emergency use authorization and how that has sped up the entire process in terms of getting these drugs to the market, and then the stories of Ivermectin [00:27:00] and Hydroxychloroquine and why they've been smeared.
I'm going to give you a little bit of a spoiler it's money.
“Be Fearful When Others Are Greedy and Greedy When Others Are Fearful” ― Warren Buffett
Okay. So I wanted to cover the story about Hydroxychloroquine and it's a pretty crazy story in terms of, you could probably make a movie out of this story. It covers corruption, greed, money, collusion and even murder and cover ups. At the very beginning of all of this with COVID-19 taking place. People were desperate to try to find treatment options for people.
When we didn't have a vaccination, everybody was plugging a vaccination in terms of this is going to be the salvation to protect everybody from this pandemic. But we had to wait for a vaccination to actually come into effect. So there was a lot of physicians out there trying to find[00:28:00] drugs that they could repurpose in order to help patients that were infected with COVID-19 in order to help them try to not die, and to revert them back into a healthy state. So enter hydroxychloroquine there is a scientist in France that had done a study with hydroxychloroquine and mixed with zinc and Azithromycin.
But he used that on over 2,600 patients and saw I drastic reduction in hospitalization and mortality. He was the one that originally plugged that hydroxychloroquine could be used as a, an early treatment option in order to limit the effects of COVID-19 and for benefits of public health.
That's where that kind of started. And then there was multiple different studies where hydroxy chloroquine was used around the world, including India and Italy. And multiple other countries of [00:29:00] which they stated that there was a noticeable or an empirical evidence that hydroxy chloroquine was an effective method of decreasing the mortality rate of COVID-19.
Now the biggest caveat to this is. Hydroxychloroquine needs to be used as an early treatment option. So we're talking day zero, today's three of an infection. It is not useful when people are already inoculated with the virus to the point where they need to be in the hospital and treated for the symptoms of COVID-19. So that's a big caveat to this. This is an early treatment option.
So this becomes a political issue when Donald Trump, who was politicized within the mainstream media, within the United States tweeted out that hydroxychloroquine could be the answer to our COVID-19 woes. And that turned into a political dogma rather than about medicine.
So [00:30:00] after Trump tweeted out that a hydroxychloroquine could be used people were saying that they needed to see the studies. Hydroxy chloroquine is and malaria pill and physicians have always been able to repurpose drugs, especially when it comes down to prescribing things to an unknown condition.
Physicians can do that across the board on as a physician, somebody who studied medicine, they have the right and the ability to use their knowledge to prescribe any medication. They think that we'll be able to help their patients. So that's where hydroxychloroquine was being used. Is it was being determined that this could be useful.
There's a couple of different reasons why these different physicians went to hydroxychloroquine and start off with one in a 2002, when SARS first came out there was a report where. Chloroquine, which is [00:31:00] the, we'll say the more fundamental piece of hydroxychloroquine and when you talk about hydroxy that was added because it's a synthesized or a more synthesized medication of chloriquine which it was used to reduce any type of toxicity that would be experienced within a body.
So in 2002, when SARS first came out Chloroquine itself was identified by the world health organization as being a useful medication in order to limit the effects of SARS. Now COVID is SARS-CoV-2 which is just the next iteration of this virus. And putting those two things together, you would assume that this drug hydroxychloroquine would probably have an effect as well.
Hydroxy chloroquine, which has been on the World Health Organization list of essential medicines since 1977. This is something that has been around for a very long time for hundreds of millions of patients over the course of that timeframe [00:32:00] with very little side effect, other than in rare cases, headaches and potentially heart arrhythmia. Like I said, very safe medication.
So people started to use this as an off-brand medication in order to try to help deal with the pandemic that we were all experiencing in early of 2020 well we're still experiencing now but we didn't have a vaccination at that time. So hydroxychloroquine because it's a malaria pill and it is a derivative of a bark from the Cinchona tree. It's a very low cost drug I'm coming in about 64 cents per dose. Now when we're talking about low cost, anything big pharma does not want it to support low cost medication. They want to make as much money as possible. And that's where this all gets wound up. Hydroxychloroquine proven multiple different studies proven by this French doctor that it is a useful early treatment option against the fight against COVID. [00:33:00] Now, once it becomes politicized by Trump, it gets into the mainstream media's we'll say spotlight from that point this story expands and it gets a little bit crazy.
So if we look at we need to highlight Dr. Fauci on this because Dr. Anthony Fauci is a big part of the story. He has been since 1984, the director of the NIH, the national Institute of Health, who does a lot of private investment into pharmaceutical companies in terms of finding medications that would be valuable for the public health. Out of this money that has been spent by the NIH $1.6 billion was given to a firm called Gilead
and this was in order to look to research a type of medication which it gets too scientific for me to actually go over. But I'm going to include a bunch of links with [00:34:00] this document. You can feel free to go research all this stuff. But Gilead is the producer of Remdesivir. And if that sounds familiar it's because Remdesivir is the medication that the United States government and all of the governing bodies for medicine have identified as being the drug that is supposed to be used within the hospital in order to decrease the amount of hospitalization time.
Remdesivir itself does not have the same amount of studies as hydroxychloroquine does. And that's an important point because even looking at Remdesivir, the clinical trial that they put on, they moved the goalpost twice in order to meet the narrative that the drug was safe, which is bit shady of, if you start with the clinical trial and you have a clear identification of the goal than you need to, and then you change it twice to meet the narrative that you were trying to hit. That's, anti-science, that's like saying that you had a hypothesis and then after you [00:35:00] started observing your results, you changed your hypothesis to meet the results.
That's not how science works and that's not how medicine works, but that's how this occurred. When it came down to room desert here. But back to Dr. Anthony Fauci so he is the director of the NIH. The NIH was the direct contributor to $1.6 billion into which Gilead had received that money in order to produce Remdesivir.
Now that's correlation. It's not causation by they didn't give the $1.6 billion to them to develop this Remdesivir drug is just what occurred from this funding. On top of that hydroxychloroquine enters and is doing the same thing that Remdesivir has been identified of trying to resolve this issue as well, in terms of reducing the severity and the time of COVID inpatients. The big difference between the two drugs is that hydroxychloroquine is supposed to be used as an outpatient. So somebody who is not in the hospital and as an early treatment option, Remdesivir [00:36:00] is used for somebody who is an inpatient in the hospital, who is already completely inoculated with a COVID-19 virus and who is struggling for their health within the hospital. And that could be in the ICU, or it could be not in the ICU, doesn't really matter, but somebody who went to the hospital for COVID-19 would you get Remdesivir in order to try to help them. So the big corruption that occurred was that on May 22nd of 2020, and this is a big date because on this exact date, three things happened which should highlight the amount of corruption that was occurring.
There was a study that was published about hydroxy chloroquine within the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, two highly touted medicine journals. The first one about hydroxy chloroquine used quite literally fake data from a fake database of COVID-19 patients [00:37:00] from a company called Surgisphere.
The Surgisphere company released this report that has since been retracted. It didn't take long. I think it was only up for 10 days before it was retracted, which retraction events in medical journals are very rare events. These journals need to be vetted prior to them going into journals and with the surge of papers that came in during COVID-19. I don't know why they got published when, from what I read, it was pretty clear that this particular study was falsified. The data didn't make sense. They for one instance they used a COVID 19 patients in Australia. And the COVID 19 patients that they said that they had in Australia was actually more than what the Australian government had reported
very clear instance of the data being, not accurate. And you cannot publish something in these peer reviewed journals that is not accurate, hence the retraction, but [00:38:00] the significance of this was it seems that it was done intentionally. Because also on May 22nd the study for Remdesivir was also published in both of these journals.
Saying that Remdesivir was a safe drug and useful and counter actively the hydroxy core couldn't drug was wasteful and killed people at the very end of the day that's what it stated. Also on May 22nd, the New York Times put out a hit piece on Dr. Didier Raoult who is the French doctor I mentioned earlier about "The Man Behind Trump's Favorite Unproven Treatments", which is hydroxychloroquine. Once again, not unproven, lots of different studies just a hit piece on a physician who was trying to help his patients. So if we link all of these things together there was a fake study that was published on May 22nd against hydroxy chloroquine saying that it proved to be ineffective and potentially lethal.
There was a study that was [00:39:00] published about Remdesivir of which, like I said, the goalposts on that one had moved a few times to prove the point that they went out to originally make. And that is Remdesivir is safe and useful when it comes to COVID-19 when really the side effects of Remdesivir are organ failure and death. Here is a quote from one of the articles I read: "Another astonishing line from the same article sites Remdesivir use in an experimental Ebola study, you will have to read the sentence twice to believe it. The only adverse events reported in that trial were deaths. And the only one adjucated as possibly related to Remdesivir was one case of hypotension followed rapidly by cardiac arrest".
And then also on May 22nd is the New York times updates it's hit piece on Dr. Didier Raoult in terms of also smearing the hydroxychloroquine use as an early treatment option in COVID-19. So from that point forward, the [00:40:00] media gets hold of it. Wants to prove Trump wrong or politicized this even further. So now Trump has been thrown under the bus for plugging a medication, which could potentially kill people at the same time, this Remdesivir drug, who was released at the same time, which is tied to the National Institute of Health, which has received funding directly from that, which the director is Dr. Anthony Fauci. He brings that letter into the White House and says, look, there's actually an alternative. And then the media starts running with Remdesivir. Instead of hydroxychloroquine. Now the interesting thing about the price of those two options. Hydroxychloroquine is like I said, less than a dollar per dose where Remdesivir that they are putting out is costing around $3000 to $4,000 USD for a course of treatment within hospital. So money is the main thing here. You can see that, less than a dollar to like $4,000 almost in terms of the [00:41:00] cost to the consumer, which is the consumer in this case, it's the sick person with COVID-19. That's a substantial thing.
So we move past that, the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine, both retract this fake or false hydroxy chloroquine study. But it's too late. The media has already ran with it. Nobody's really covering that. On top of that, what the World Health Organization, did they suspended any studies on hydroxychloroquine.
Once that piece came out in the Lancet, but once it was retracted, the World Health Organization then goes ahead with their study. Now there's two studies on hydroxychloroquine at this point. One is funded by the World Health Organization, and one is funded by the Bill and Malinda Gates Foundation.
The issues with both of these studies is that hydroxychloroquine, when used appropriately as an early treatment option should be around 200 to 400 milligrams per day [00:42:00] for a dose. And at that dose, which has proven to be effective based on the other studies that happened prior to this there are no side effects. These two studies funded by, you can look in the agenda of the World Health Organization and their connection to big pharma and then you can look at Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and their connection to vaccinations versus early treatment options. There's we'll say conflict of interest for both of these institutes, but both of their studies were looking at 2.4 grams of hydroxychloroquine to be administered within the first 24 hours into COVID patients. These levels are about four times higher than the dosage that was used in an effective manner and has been proven to create toxicity within the body, which may be fatal.
So these two studies were using toxic levels of dosage in terms of trying to commit to this study where [00:43:00] they found that the mortality rate was 34 times higher than in the Didier Raoult's study.
So if we really want a question that is: was that intentionally done to increase the dosage to a toxic level in order to discredit the drug that had been used at much lower doses and was showing beneficial effects for COVID-19 as an early treatment option. So there's another case is that even though they started these studies were flawed to start off with, in both of these studies.
The first one is called the Recovery study and the other one's called the Solidarity study. If you guys want to look it up once again, I'll be linking all of these things. You have those pieces now in line. And still to this day in the media, people think that a hydroxy chloroquine is not a useful drug.
If you go onto the World Health Organization's website, hydroxychloroquine and should not be used for any type of COVID 19 related illness, even though these studies have been designed to show fatality, and [00:44:00] there are other studies that in and the appropriate dosage, so that it's useful.
The World Health Organization does not have jurisdiction over how people prescribe medicines across the world. So there are people who've been using hydroxychloroquine frequently places like India and places like Africa, where the mortality rates of COVID-19 are vastly reduced because people are not getting sick as much. And I wonder why that is? Because they're actually prescribing a drug as an early treatment option in which people are able to recover from COVID-19 before allowing it to become so serious that they'd have to become hospitalized due to their symptoms of COVID-19.
Another issue that this presented is that these studies showed lethality in terms of using hydroxy chloroquine. And this Allowed for the institutions like the NIH, the WHO, the CDC and the FDA to not allow the use of hydroxy chloroquine in terms of COVID. [00:45:00] And by doing that, they've gone through the multiple different medical institutions that are statewide to halt the physicians from prescribing this to their patients.
So now if we go full circle at the beginning, a physician has full right to use the knowledge and their Hippocratic Oath to do no harm in order to rebrand drugs for other uses, when the situation calls for it. That's the point of a physician to, to deal with the patient as an individual, and then to look at the associated with medication, and then to prescribe what they think is best for their patient.
If we think that a physician is not doing that, we have a bigger problem. That means that our physicians are not meeting the Hippocratic Oath and trying to do harm to their patients. Who does not follow the Hippocratic oath are corporations and big pharma who are trying to push their medicines that are going to make the money hydroxy chloroquine in this case would not [00:46:00] make them money.
It would probably cost them a lot of money based on all of the investments that they have put into to developing medicines for, worldwide hysteria of a pandemic, including vaccinations. The vaccination companies would not be making nearly as much money because they wouldn't have been able to go through with their emergency use authorization of their vaccinations.
If there was a medication that's proven to be effective as an early treatment option for COVID-19, they would still probably get approved. But because these were just early treatment options, there was no way to stop the spread so they would have been improved, but not through the emergency use authorization.
Which allowed them to cut a lot of corners in terms of their clinical trials and their reporting. They didn't have to go through the same channels of being approved. So they were able to get to the market much quicker than on if the emergency use authorization was not there.
Another connection between Gilead and [00:47:00] the fake Lancet journal was a doctor named Dr. Desai , who was in charge of the Surgishpere company that released the fake study that was seen in both the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. So Dr. Desai has no medical experience as a physician, there was absolutely no way that he had the professional astuteness to be able to release a paper of this magnitude into those journals.
But the actual connection between Gilead and this is that there is a doctor Dr. Mehra who is a Harvard professor who underwrote the fake study as well. The Lancet report that was published on May 22nd of 2020. Coordinated by Dr. Mehra was intended to kill the legitimacy of hydroxychloroquine as a cure of COVID-19. Another important and related study was being carried out at BWH pertaining to Remdesivir on behalf of Gilead Sciences Dr Francisco Marty, a [00:48:00] specialist in infectious disease and Associate Professor Harvard Medical School was entrusted with coordination of the clinical trial tests of the antiviral medication Remdesivir under BWH's contract with Gilead.
Dr. Mandeep Mehra was not directly involved in the Gilead Remdesivir BWH study under the supervision of his colleague, Dr. Francisco Marty he nonetheless had contacts with Gilead Sciences.
The blame was placed on Surgisphere, the unspoken truth, which neither the scientific community nor the media had acknowledged is that the study was coordinated by Harvard professor men, under the auspices of BWH, which is a partner of the Harvard medical school.
When the scam was revealed, Dr. Mehra who holds the Harvey Distinguished Chair of Medicine at BWH apologized, "I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. However, we can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously, ensure that we rely on data, resources that adhere to our high standards. It is now clear to me, in my hope to [00:49:00] contribute this research during a time of great need. I did not do enough to ensure that the data source was appropriate for this use for that. And for all of these disruptions, both directly and indirectly, I am truly sorry."
Gilead sponsored report was published in the New England Journal of Medicine and an article compassionate use of Remdesivir, for patients with severe COVID-19. It was coauthored by an impressive list of 56 distinguished medical doctors, and scientists. Many of whom were recipients of consulting fees from Gilead Sciences.
Several prominent physicians and scientists have cast doubt on the compassionate use of the Remdesivir study conducted by Gilead focusing on the small size of the trial. Ironically, the number of patients in the test is less than the number of coauthors, 53 patients versus 56 coauthors.
So on May 22nd immediately following its publication, the media went into high gear smearing the hydroxychloroquine cure while applauding the NIH report released on the same day. Remdesivir, the only drug cleared to treat COVID-19 sped the recovery time of patients with the disease.
When the Lancet [00:50:00] hydroxychloroquine article by Bingham Harvard was retracted on June 5th. It was too late. It received minimal media coverage. Despite the retraction, the hydroxychloroquine cure had been killed.
The Lancet study, which was published on May 22nd was intended to undermine the legitimacy of hydroxychloroquine as an effective cure to COVID-19 with a view to sustaining the 1.6 billion dollar agreement between the HHS Health and Human Services and Gilead sciences on June 29th. The legitimacy of this art of this agreement rested on the May 22nd study which was considered preliminary.
What Dr. Fauci failed to acknowledge is that Chloroquine had been studied and tested 15 years ago by the CDC as a drug to be used against coronavirus infections. And that hydroxychloroquine has been used recently in the treatment of COVID 19 in several countries. Hydroxy chloroquine is not only effective. It's inexpensive when compared to Remdesivir, at an estimated 3,120 dollars for the U S patient with private insurance.
So here's the conflict of interest [00:51:00] when it comes down to this hydroxychloroquine fake study, which was underwrote by Dr. Mehra from Harvard and Harvard's involvement with the Remdesivir study that was happening at the BWH and with Gilead Sciences. There are no such things as consequences, very small world.
Dr. Mehra knew Remdesivir was being invested in heavily by the state. There is a lot of money that they needed to recoup out of that. So they faked the study and published it. Dr. Mehra underwrote a study, which undermined hydroxychloroquine, which is a cheap and effective early treatment option.
The study which was based on fake data was released to the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine on the same day that Remdesivir. The trial was said to be compassionate care for people with COVID-19, there's a lot of people who have died using Remdesivir. It's very toxic. It shuts down the organs and can eventually lead to death.
But if [00:52:00] we hear what Dr. Mehra said at the very beginning, when they when they were doing an interview with him, he said that REM desert veer causes no death and is effective and hydraulic core crew and causes death and is ineffective which is quite literally the exact opposite of what is true.
" Accuse the other side of that which you are guilty". -Joseph Goebbels
This entire story to me, leads to who paid for this drug, like who ultimately paid for.
Hydroxychloroquine not being able to be prescribed the public and the public's health. There are probably a lot of people who got very sick with COVID and either have lingering effects or went through a terrible experience or even possibly died because they weren't able to get an early treatment drug where this was always about.
And the reason for that was because that this is a political issue or a politicized issue when it comes down to Donald Trump and people trying to make Trump out as if he was crazy, which I'm not a Trump supporter. But. From reading about this shit. I am definitely more [00:53:00] on the side of Trump now than I ever have been.
I think that the dude was probably not the best leader, but he wasn't trying to profit from medicines that could be beneficial for the public health. That's quite obvious to me now. There's multiple examples where Donald Trump had said things that seemed off the cuff that ended up being completely true.
It's just insane to me that in the name of public health, during a pandemic, we shut down. And when I say we, the powers that be shut down a safe and useful medication that could be used as an early treatment option to stop the severity of COVID-19, which could potentially stop multiple deaths from occurring
And instead of approving that and making it well known to the public, it then became a political hit piece against all the Trump for political method of which then it was Donald Trump versus Dr. Anthony Fauci which is very publicly known that this is like a normal thing is like you support Fauci or you support Trump.
But then there's Fauci who [00:54:00] has been the NIH director since 1984, who has diverted a lot of funds to private firms that are making these medications. One of them being Gilead who received $1.6 billion in order to develop these drugs. And then the collusion and corruption that happened. In order to smear a drug that was cheap and effective in order to smear that they came up with fake study of which they released on the same day that Remdesivir was also published to be a useful treatment. Remdesivir a very expensive medication in terms of treating COVID-19 versus something that is less than a dollar that could be used as an outpatient, where people don't even have to go into the hospital.
There's obviously money involved. There's obviously politics involved when it comes around to the use of hydroxychloroquine and who, like I said, who paid that price? There's people who make money off of this. That's very obvious that this private drug that's very expensive, that has been invested in by the state, they got their money back.
One of the interesting things about how they [00:55:00] price Remdesivir is that the actual development cost of is only $10 per dose. That is inflated up to almost $500 a dose when it goes to insurance. And the reason is because Gilead as a company price their product, not for the public health, but for the difference between how much money they were saving hospitals for people not being a patient. They said that overall Remdesivir saves about $14,000 in terms of medical costs for the individual within the hospital, so that they would come in and about 30% of that at about their $4,000 mark, because that is benefit to the consumer and it's a benefit to them. They price it as in the need and not as the, actually the cost. So money is a hundred percent the underlying factor of this people are invested into Remdesivir and something that's been around since the 1950s, and then improved since the 1977 an essential medicine by the World Health Organization, the rebranding and off-brand use of that for COVID 19 as an early treatment option [00:56:00] was categorically planned hit piece against it in order so that people were not going to lose money. And once again, who paid the fucking price? The public paid the price. And if you don't believe me on any of this stuff, that is completely fine, but this is a crazy ass story.
It shows the corruption that's going on around our health system with big pharma and even with the government and even the medical agencies that are telling physicians that they're not allowed to prescribe hydroxychloroquine. If you think that you know that this drug is not safe, that's fine, but the physician went to school for eight years and then has been practicing for however many years and is dealing with the patient directly.
They are the one with the one-on-one relationship with the patient. And they are the one that took the Hippocratic oath in terms of do no harm, none of these fucking companies that are trying to make as much money as possible. And the corruption that's around that, where they can shut down physicians from prescribing a medication that they think [00:57:00] is safe for the patient to take is just evil.
We are living in a pandemic where money is running the fucking show and the public health is not, and I'm not even touching vaccinations at this point. Like the vaccination companies were also a huge benefactor of hydroxychloroquine not being approved because if it was approved and proven to be effective, that emergency use authorization that was approved by the FDA would have been revoked because we would have had something in place that would have been able to deal with COVID-19 from very early manner that would have helped a lot of people. The fear and the panic around COVID-19 would not have been as uncontrolled. The emergency use authorization would have been withdrawn. And then that would have been to the dismay and to the detriment of the people developing vaccinations.
And, here's a big fucking surprise is that the United States government is heavily invested into COVID-19 vaccine manufacturers, including. [00:58:00] Moderna as well as Johnson and Johnson. And so they're not going to retract this. They don't want this because they want to get their money back out of the money that they've invested into these private institutions, creating a medication. They want to make money. The government wants to make money. Individuals within the government wants to make money and they're willing to risk the public health in order to do so.
I'm going to link to a bunch of articles. If you think that this is bullshit, I say, go look at the articles and then if you still think it's bullshit, feel free to hit me up and we can have a discussion.
Some food for thought: if that is what happened for $1.6 billion, what do you think could have occurred for the $36.8 billion that Pfizer made from the COVID- 19 vaccination in 2021.
I want to thank the listeners for joining me on this journey. It was quite an epic one.
We started with misinformation and censorship on social media that quickly led into. Looking deeply into the organizations that control misinformation, and then [00:59:00] that led to the exposure of corruption within those agencies that control the information that we all consume regarding COVID 19. Then this incredible story of hydroxy chloroquine.
I want to remind everybody. Two. Stay diligent with the information that you consume Assume consuming from multiple. multiple different sources. And use your critical thinking does this make sense to you or not? From the example of the hydroxy chloroquine story we can see that money usually usually corrupts and money is usually for the benefit of the individual and not For the public So when consuming your information be mindful that COVID 19 has a huge price tag attached to it
Stay free
Once a government is committed to the principle of silencing the voice of opposition, it has only one way to go, and that is down the path of increasingly repressive measures, until it becomes a source of terror to all its citizens and creates a country [01:00:00] where everyone lives in fear." -Harry S. Truman
06:44 https://www.embopress.org/doi/full/10.15252/embr.202051420
16:16 https://www.who.int/news-room/feature-stories/detail/who-advises-that-ivermectin-only-be-used-to-treat-covid-19-within-clinical-trials
16:38 https://c19ivermectin.com/
17:18 https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S0140-6736%2819%2932527-9
21:41 https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/paramount-importance-judge-orders-fda-hasten-release-pfizer-vaccine-docs-2022-01-07/
22:26 https://www.cnbc.com/2020/12/16/covid-vaccine-side-effects-compensation-lawsuit.html
22:47 https://peterlegyel.wordpress.com/2021/10/12/covid-19-mrna-shots-are-legally-not-vaccines-2/
27:06 https://medcitynews.com/2020/07/gilead-covid-19-drug-remdesivir-benefited-from-6-5b-in-nih-funded-basic-research-study-finds/
27:16 https://www.knowledgeportalia.org/covid19-r-d-funding
40:22 https://uncoverdc.com/2020/06/06/politicized-science-lancet-nejm-retract/
48:40 https://www.globalresearch.ca/scientific-corona-lies-and-big-pharma-corruption-hydroxychloroquine-versus-gileads-remdesivir/5717718
53:05 https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/26-of-those-prescribed-remdesivir-for-covid-died-according-to-medicare-database/
56:13 https://www.globalresearch.ca/hydroxychloroquine-efficacy-suppression/5718676
59:56 https://greekreporter.com/2022/02/09/pfizer-covid-19-vaccine-2021-billion/
Share this post