We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon
Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
(it is mostly about the money and it doesn't matter if people have to die so the crooks can get it--one trillion dollars is at stake)
The suppression of hydroxychloroquine by the media, politicians, and much of the medical business establishment is one of the greatest scandals of all time. Among the first to propose the use of hydroxychloroquine was Dr. Zev Zelenko who established a protocol of hydroxycloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc. Because You-Know-Who recommended this treatment, Dr. Zelenko was smeared in much of the media.
Well, someone who most definitely qualifies as an expert, Dr. Harvey Risch MD, PHD, and Professor of Epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health, just wrote a powerful op-ed in Newsweek blasting the suppression hydroxychloroquine as a treatment for COVID-19.
Kim K
H/T Tornarosa at CTH: With $70 million of taxpayer money, Fauci, NIH, Gilead developed remdesevir to fight SARS. Too bad it didn’t work.Hey! maybe we can get Uncle Sam to buy this stuff to use on Covid-19!
Too bad 25% of the patients given remdesevir had serious side effects. On a 10-day course, 10% developed respiratory failure. Yuch. At least that’s better than the 66% serious side effects found in the Chinese Lancet study.
“The leading communicable disease specialist in France, Professor Didier Raoult, asked about another odd aspect of the remdesivir trial: “Could Anthony Fauci explain why the investigators of the NIAID remdesivir trial did change the primary outcome during the course of the project?”
Death as the primary outcome was moved to a secondary outcome, and days to recovery became the primary trial outcome. Changing the primary outcome before trial results are completed is highly unusual and suggests “p-hacking”—manipulating the data to get a statistically significant “p value.”
