I’ve never been quite sure about Trump’s role in the Covid scam: whether he was a good guy, a bad guy or just an unwitting accomplice, manipulated by the likes of Fauci and other medical ‘experts’ and government advisers into locking down America and then instigating the run-up to the mass injection campaign which has killed hundreds of thousands, maybe even millions of Americans. I’m aghast at his continued bragging about operation Warp Speed and his idiotic insistence that the ‘vaccines’ have saved 100 million lives worldwide. But history, rather than his current egotistical, ill-informed carnival barking shows Trump in a much more favourable light. It is a fact that Trump publicly promoted hydroxychloroquine, a safe, effective, cheap drug, as an early intervention preventative treatment for Covid-19 before he signed Operation Warp Speed into being. He was rounded upon by the medical establishment for doing so, ridiculed in fact, but to his credit, he stuck to his guns and continued to promote HCQ. This is significant history, given what we now know.
Twitter deleted his tweets supporting HCQ - then they deleted the President. We know all about Twitter censorship now. We can say 100% that Trump was not tweeting ‘misinformation’; like countless others he was censored on Twitter for stating politically inconvenient medical facts. The fact is, HCQ was an effective treatment for Covid-19 which was deliberately suppressed by the establishment and their lackeys in the legacy media. It was deliberately suppressed in order to promote the ‘vaccines’ and certain other expensive Big Pharma ‘remedies’ which were not as safe and not as effective. Trump went against the narrative and he was attacked viciously and relentlessly for doing so. But he did at least successfully lobby the FDA to put HCQ on the emergency use authorisation list, even though they later revoked the authorisation. Trump did that and he undoubtedly imperilled the vaccine agenda by doing so. Trump was the good guy. It’s a shame they seem to have ‘got’ to him.
Trump was right. Didier Raoult was right. Zev Zelenko was right. HCQ does work. Numerous subsequent studies proved it.
But Trump was ridiculed and persecuted by the fake news media at the time, even criticised by his own medical team, notably Fauci. The suppression of HCQ as an effective treatment protocol reached its sinister apex in June 2020, with the British Recovery trials and the WHO Solidarity trials. They were deliberately set up to fail by enrolling subjects who were far too late in the progression of the disease and by ‘treating’ those patients with lethal doses of hydroxychloroquine.
The UK “Recovery” trial was very similar to, but not part of, the international Solidarity conglomeration of clinical trials. The Recovery trial ended its HCQ arm on June 4, reporting no benefit. In-hospital mortality of the 1542 patients receiving hydroxychloroquine was 25.7%, or 396 deaths, about 10% higher than those receiving standard care, a non-significant difference.
The UK Recovery trial Study Protocol notes it is funded in part by the Wellcome Trust and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, and by UK government agencies. The Protocol provides the doses of hydroxychloroquine used, on page 22. Twitter users began to notice a dosing problem, with hashtag #RecoveryGate.
The HCQ dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 12 tablets during the first 24 hours (800mg initial dose, 800 mg six hours later, 400 mg 6 hrs later, 400 mg 6 hours later), then 400 mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. This is 2.4 grams during the first 24 hours, and a cumulative dose of 9.2 grams over 10 days.
Those are potentially fatal doses. Compare Recovery’s results with Didier Raoult’s:
Professor Didier Raoult’s group in Marseille used 600 mg daily for up to ten days in 1061 Covid-19 patients, and reported 8 deaths, a mortality rate of 0.75%, all over 74 years of age. The mortality rate reported by Landray and Horby in the Recovery trial is 34 times higher.
The article, written in June 2020, just months into the pandemic, concludes thus:
The high dose regimen being used in these trials has no medical justification. The trial design, with its limited collection of safety data, makes it difficult or impossible to identify toxic drug effects, compared to a standard drug trial. This is completely unethical.
Excessive dosing makes it impossible to assess therapeutic benefit, if any, of HCQ. Furthermore, because there are over 400 trial sites, and relatively few subjects in each, unexpectedly high trends in mortality are likely to be missed at individual trial sites.
Finally, testing the drug only in hospitalized patients means that the window of time during which HCQ would be expected to provide the most benefit, early in the illness when viral titers are rising, has passed.
Didier Raoult’s group has recently published on the major differences in treatment and outcomes patients receive when placed in “big data” studies vs. receiving individualized care for Covid-19.
As I was completing this article, the FDA announced it was withdrawing its Emergency Use Authorization for hydroxychloroquine in Covid-19, because the “known and potential benefits” no longer outweigh the risks of the drug. The FDA cited data from the Recovery trial in its announcement. I discuss the implications here.
To sum up:
1. In the UK Recovery trial, and in WHO Solidarity trials, HCQ is used in a non-therapeutic, toxic and potentially lethal dose.
2. HCQ is furthermore being given, in clinical trials, too late in the disease course to determine its value against SARS-CoV-2.
3. Collection of limited safety data in the Solidarity trials serves to protect trial investigators and sponsors from disclosures of expected adverse drug effects, including death.
4. It appears that WHO has tried to hide information on the hydroxychloroquine doses used in its Solidarity trial. Fortunately, the information is discoverable from registries of its national trials.
5. The conclusions to be drawn are frightening:
a) WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials that were designed so hydroxychloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development, which have been heavily supported by Solidarity and Recovery trial sponsors and WHO sponsors.
b) In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.
c) In so doing, they have conspired to deprive billions of people from potentially benefiting from a safe and inexpensive drug, when used properly, during a major pandemic. This might contribute to prolongation of the pandemic, massive economic losses and many increased cases and deaths.
The FDA reversed the HCQ emergency use authorisation which Trump was instrumental in putting in place. Their justification for doing so was ‘following the science’, i.e. the completion of fraudulent trials which actually murdered the participants in order to prove that HCQ was ineffective.
Here is the timeline of Trump’s advocacy of HCQ:
He continued to promote the drug well into May. Here is the timeline of Operation Warp Speed:
We now know that scientists at Moderna and Pfizer were working on a ‘vaccine’ even before the pandemic started. The ‘vaccines’ were long in the planning. The approval of HCQ as a treatment protocol was an obstacle to emergency use approval for the ‘vaccines’. Congress passed the CARES Act - which awarded funding to vaccine development - on March 26th and presumably Trump was obliged to sign it into law the next day. It was not until April 29th that Warp Speed was reported in the press and President Trump officially launched Operation Warp Speed on May 15 2020, two months after he first promoted HCQ, which he was still promoting in May, even as he launched the vaccines drive. So it looks to me like Trump was pushed rather more on the ‘vaccines’ in contrast to him enthusiastically promoting them. His promotion of HCQ on the other hand was genuine and enthusiastic. In this respect, Mother Jones only grudgingly gives him credit for the development of the ‘vaccines’:
OWS seems to have been handled well and I’m happy to give Donald Trump credit for it since it happened on his watch. But vaccine development started long before it was a twinkle in his eye; everyone understood from the start that speed was critical; and it was Congress that allocated the funds to make it possible. Only after all that did Trump wrap a bow around everything by giving it a name. It was hardly a stroke of genius that only he could ever have come up with.
In retrospect, I am more than happy to give Trump credit for his early advocacy of a safe and effective treatment protocol for Covid-19 and am willing to concede that he may have been a somewhat less than enthusiastic driving force behind Operation Warp Speed.
This was posted by Mathew Crawford two years ago. It’s very relevant to this post, documenting how the Chloroquine issue started and of course we all know how it went.
On March 13, in the midst of deafening media silence, Dr. James Todaro and Gregory Rigano published a 15-page document entitled, “An Effective Treatment for Coronavirus (COVID-19)” noting the Chinese and South Korean treatment protocols and the historical research suggestive of the HCQ Hypothesis. The paper reads a bit rushed with wholesale parts copied directly from sources suggesting the pair wanted to break the ice just as Raoult’s research was reaching publication. After all, this was a topic clearly worth more discussion than it was receiving.
On March 17, the University of Minnesota posted a press release announcing its own RCT testing HCQ as a post-exposure prophylactic for SARS-CoV-2/COVID-19. The American press did not show the slightest interest in hydroxychloroquine or that trial until March 19.
What happened on March 19, 2020?
During the March 19 Coronavirus Task Force press briefing, President Trump first mentioned hope that hydroxychloroquine "could be a game changer" in the fight against COVID-19.
So, did nobody at all in the medical community communicate the clearly high interest in studying HCQ as the first drug off the shelf to test against SARS-CoV-2? Did not a single journalist do the basic footwork to find out what drug(s) might be on that list? Were the words of the most well-published infectious disease expert not enough to pique one iota of curiosity? Is every last person at every major media outlet completely incompetent?
It gets worse. The day before Trump's now infamous press conference, Google removed the document prepared by Todaro and Rigano from public view. This meant that the sharp spike in Americans using Google (or any other search engine) to learn about HCQ were left hunting through what was only a thin gruel of largely technical medical information. Why did Google want to keep you from reading the one document that laid out the evidence-to-date for a lay audience?
Thanks for summary!! Still think there is more to OWS from Trump. Someday hope to know whole story.
The infamous UK banning of hydroxychloroquine happened on 25 March 2023, two days after the initial lockdown (“3 weeks to flatten the sombrero”, yeah right), paving the way for Emergency Use Authorisation of the vaccines, see https://www.gov.uk/government/news/chloroquine-and-hydroxychloroquine-not-licensed-for-coronavirus-covid-19-treatment.