“Follow the Science” has been the mantra used by the Left to browbeat people into submission. The idea has been that the only way to end the pandemic is to get jabbed with an experimental therapy based on Dr. Robert Malone’s mRNA therapy model. As many people have come to realize the real three-word saying should be “Follow the Money.”
When a new illness shows up on the scene such as COVID-19, there are no gold-plated, double blind studies to support any treatment that might be tried. Good frontline doctors go to work at figuring out what might be effective against the disease. When they find something, they are quick to share their knowledge. It is not terribly uncommon to find an existing drug that can be repurposed for the new disease.
Such has been the case with COVID-19. Early in 2020 multiple doctors uncovered treatment protocols that appeared to be effective. How effective is always a matter of debate. Dr. Zelenko from New York was one of the first doctors to go public in a big way with a treatment that he developed. He offered his knowledge to PDJT. It was about hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) which was part of a protocol that included azithromycin and zinc supplements.
As soon as the announcement was made, the media entered into a feeding frenzy in their attempts to discredit HCQ. One bobblehead on the national media stage even went as far as to say that HCQ would kill you. Others tried to liken HCQ to an aquarium cleaning product that is deadly if ingested.
Was HCQ effective? Absolutely if given during the early stages of the illness. This is what frontline doctors were seeing. Dr. Zelenko treated more than a thousand, older patients and only lost four of them. Other doctors reported similar results from carefully documented reports of their treatments.
HCQ is a cheap, effective drug, FDA-approved and in use worldwide since 1955. It certainly seemed that HCQ given within specific protocols would be worthy of an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) from the FDA. Did that happen? Yes, it did. However, its use was restricted to inside a hospital. How did that happen?
The spotlight falls on one Rick Bright, an FDA bureaucrat, and vaccine researcher. Bright was appointed by President Obama on November 15, 2016 to head BARDA (Biomedical Advance Research and Development Authority, a sub-agency of the FDA).
Bright actually bragged about blocking use of HCQ in outpatient situations. As Elizabeth Lee Vilet, MD, noted:
In an appalling admission, Bright said: “Specifically, and contrary to misguided directives, I limited the broad use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine, promoted by the administration as a panacea, but which clearly lack scientific merit.” Meanwhile, he promoted both remdesivir, a never-approved experimental antiviral in development by Gilead Sciences, and a vaccine for COVID-19. Early effective use of the older, safe, and available hydroxychloroquine, whose patents had expired decades ago, would decrease demand for these new products.
The idea that HCQ lacked scientific merit is ludicrous. Dr. Fauci himself had noted the successes of HCQ in combatting the original SARS outbreak some 18 years ago. And there are many worldwide clinical studies demonstrating the efficacy of HCQ. Early use changed the life-and-death equation by reducing severity and spread of COVID. It greatly reduced the need for hospitalization and ventilators and markedly reduced the deaths.
Data from May, 2020 show the obvious effects.
Vilet asked the following questions:
- How does ONE person, by his own admission, block directives from his superiors to expand availability of HCQ for outpatients and nursing home patients in the U.S.?
- What is the cost in lives and economic damage resulting from one person’s decision to restrict physicians’ independent medical decision-making?
- How many nursing home deaths could have been prevented if physicians had been allowed early access to HCQ?
- Why are U.S. doctors and nurses prevented from using HCQ prophylactically when workers in China, South Korea, India, Brazil, Argentina, Israel, Australia, Turkey, France, and other countries can be protected?
- Why does the U.S. with its a much more sophisticated medical infrastructure have a much higher mortality rate than poor countries?
My question is more simple. Who benefitted from Bright’s unilateral actions?
Bright’s actions within the FDA should be remembered as leading to one of the worst, preventable medical disasters in history. His actions certainly did not benefit patients.
I think following the money will provide the answers.