Sunday, February 28, 2021

Solzhenitsyn's Damning History of the Jews in Russia

Solzhenitsyn's Damning History of the Jews in Russia - a Review

"The Jews accumulated wealth by cooperating with each other. (p. 31)."

"They made profits by taking the peasants’ grain to the point of impoverishing them (and causing famine), turning it into brandy, and then encouraging drunkenness. (p. 21, 24)."

"Jews forced peasants into lifelong debt and crushing poverty by requiring payment, in cattle and tools, for liquor. (p. 31)."

The translation of Solzhenitsyn's book appears to have been done without permission from his family, and this might be why this lengthy and detailed review is no longer available on the page of the book on Amazon.com, where it originally appeared.

The book might disappear altogether from Amazon, so if you want to get your Kindle copy, act now. Otherwise you can find it on many sources on the internet.


The translator, Columbus Falco, describes the censorship of this book when it appeared in 2002:

"Published in the original Russian in 2002, the book was received with a firestorm of rage and denunciation from the literary and media world, from the Jews, and from almost the entire intelligentsia of the established order in the West…

Immense efforts have been made by the Russian authorities and also by the Western liberal democratic power structure to ignore 200 YEARS TOGETHER, to suppress it as much as possible, and above all to prevent and interdict the book’s translation into foreign languages, most especially into English, which has become essentially the worldwide language of our epoch…

The Russian authorities have to this date refused to allow any official English translation of the book to be published". (p. 2).

JEWS IN 19TH CENTURY TSARIST RUSSIA

CHARACTERISTICS OF SOLZHENITSYN’S MAGNUM OPUS

So what is so naughty, naughty about this book?

Most of it consists of unremarkable information that can be found in standard, non-censored texts. [For details, see comments.]

Agree with author Solzhenitsyn or not, but recognize the fact that he is no lightweight. Solzhenitsyn goes into considerable detail about many different historical epochs, and clearly has a deep knowledge of the issues that he raises. His approach is balanced. He is sympathetic towards Jews as well as critical of Jews.

The latter evidently does not sit well with many, because it does not comply with the standard Judeocentric narrative, in which Jews are just victims and can do no wrong. Worse yet, a famous writer is bringing sometimes-unflattering information about Jews to light, and this is threatening. Hence the censorship.

Far from living in oppression, Russia’s Jews not only had more freedom than the serfs, but also more than the Russian traders and merchants. (pp. 16-17), and this was also true of more recent times. (p. 45). Soon after the Partitions of Poland, Derzhavin visited the area and reported on the Jews in the then-current manorial society. The Polish nobility had turned over the management of their estates to the Jews (p. 21), and the Jews engaged in conduct that brought them short-term profits and long-term antagonisms.

Consider the PROPINACJA. The Jews accumulated wealth by cooperating with each other. (p. 31). They made profits by taking the peasants’ grain to the point of impoverishing them (and causing famine), turning it into brandy, and then encouraging drunkenness. (p. 21, 24). Jews forced peasants into lifelong debt and crushing poverty by requiring payment, in cattle and tools, for liquor. (p. 31).

In addition, a system of bribery protected this arrangement. Thus, the Polish magnates were on the “take” of part of the wealth squeezed by Jews out of the peasantry, and, without the Jews and their inventiveness, this system of exploitation could not have functioned, and would have ended. (p. 22). Solzhenitsyn adds that, “…the Jewish business class derived enormous benefit from the helplessness, wastefulness, and impracticality of landowners…” (p. 54).

The Jews kept moving around in order to prevent an accurate count of their numbers—in order to evade taxes. (p. 25). A delegation of Jews travelled to St. Petersburg to try to bribe Russian officials to suppress Derzhavin’s report. (p. 28). In 1824, Tsar Alexander I noticed that Jews were corrupting local inhabitants to the detriment of the treasury and private investors. (p. 32).

Jews were not forced into “parasitic” occupations: They chose them. (p. 31). By the late 19th century (the time of the pogroms), Russian anger had boiled over, focusing on such things as Jews not making their own bread, massive overpricing and profiteering, enriching themselves while impoverishing the muzhik, and taking control of forests, lands, and taverns. (pp. 78-80).

Nor is it true that the Jews were kept out of “productive” occupations. To the contrary. A concerted 50-year tsarist effort to turn Jews into farmers attracted few participants (p. 33), and ended in failure. (p. 58). None of the rationalizations for its failure are valid: Other newcomers to Russian agriculture (Mennonites, Bulgarian and German colonists, etc.), facing the same challenges as the Jews, did quite well. (p. 36). Jewish farmers neglected farm work (pp. 34-35), and kept drifting back into selling goods and leasing of their property to others to farm. (pp. 56-57). The century-later efforts by the Communists, to get Jews into farming, fared no better. (p. 208, 251).

Jewish resistance to assimilation is usually framed in terms of the GOY excluding the Jew. It was the other way around. For the first half of the 19th century, rabbis and kahals strenuously resisted enlightenment, including the proffered Russian education to Jews. (p. 38).

Jews have always tended to exaggerate the wrongs they have experienced from others. (p. 42). This applies to such things as double taxation, forced military service, expulsion from villages, etc. (p. 42, 46, 50).

The Jews of the Vilnius (Wilno), Kaunas, and Grodno regions sided with the Russians during the Poles’ ill-fated January 1863 Insurrection. (p. 69). This confirms Polish sources.

Mainstream Judaism did not conduct ritual murder. However, it is possible that some Jewish cults did so. (p. 40). [For more, see my review of BLOOD PASSOVER]. As for the PROTOCOLS, their authenticity was rejected early-on by the tsarist government. However, this did not erase legitimate grievances about Jewish influence. (p. 174).

JEWS IN COMMUNISM: THE USUAL EXCUSES

We often hear that Communist Jews were “not real Jews”. This nonsense is equivalent to saying that Lenin and other Russian Communists were “not real Russians”—a contrived distinction that Solzhenitsyn refuses to make. (p. 117). [For more, see comments].

One common exculpation for Jews supporting revolutionary movements, and then Communism, is that of the tsarist system preventing Jews from improving their lot. This is nonsense. Once the Jews accepted the Russian education system, their numbers increased, to such a spectacular extent (by about 1870: p. 63, 71), in Russian higher education, that quotas (numerus clausus) had to be imposed upon them. This nowadays-called affirmative action became necessary because Jews were wealthier and thus unfairly advantaged in schooling-related matters. (p. 88).

Hungary is instructive. There, Jewish grievances were the least valid. Hungarian Jews had enjoyed atypical freedoms and a high standard of living, and there had been no pogroms. Yet the 1919 Hungarian Communism was especially dominated by Jews, and was odiously cruel. (pp. 153-154). 

Another exculpation for Jews in Communism was the alleged need for defense against pogroms conducted by the Whites. Not so. The massive influx of Jews into the Soviet apparatus occurred in late 1917 and 1918, but the White pogroms did not begin until 1919. (p. 121).

THE CRUCIAL ROLE OF JEWS IN COMMUNISM

One can easily make lists of Jews in high positions in the Soviet Union. Influential Jews commonly occurred at a rate 10 or more times the abundance of Jews in the USSR. (e. g, pp. 143-on, 225-on). [For more, see comments]. Whether or not motivated by "ethnic solidarity", Jews in authority tended to promote other Jews to high positions. (p. 138).

However, the Jewish role in Communism goes far beyond what is apparent in any such “grocery list”. For instance, consider what some call the Judaization of academia, and its impact on the bloody events of 1917. Solzhenitsyn comments, “The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews had. So the Russian intelligentsia too had adopted this view.” (p. 98).

Now consider the October Revolution. Lenin contended that the Bolshevik success in the revolution had been made possible by the role of the large Jewish intelligentsia in several Russian cities. (p. 119). Furthermore, according to Lenin, the October Revolution was preserved by the actions of Jews against the attempted sabotage by government officials. (p. 128).

The energy and high intelligence of the Jews made them indispensable. (p. 129, 189). In fact, Solzhenitsyn suggests that Soviet Communism lost its ideological fervor, and began slowly to die of “Russian laziness”, already in the late 1960s, all because the Jews were largely gone. (p. 317).

SOME INTERESTING FACTS

Dekulakization was not just an economic measure. It was a tool to uproot peoples and destroy their traditions and culture. For this reason, Stalin’s dictatorship can in no sense be accepted as a nationalist (Russian) phenomenon. (p. 221).

Religious Judaism was never persecuted as intensely by the Communists, in the 1920s and 1930s, as was Russian Orthodox Christianity. (p. 306). High-level Jew Lazar Kaganovich directed the destruction of the Church of the Redeemer. He also wanted to destroy St. Basil's Cathedral. (p. 223).

The famous mobile gas chambers were not invented by the Nazis. They were developed, in 1937, by Isai Davidovich Berg, a leading Jew in the NKVD. (p. 237).

COMMUNISM IS OK—UNTIL IT NO LONGER SERVES JEWISH INTERESTS

Solzhenitsyn notes the irony that, in the West, there was little effective concern about the victims of Communism until it turned on the Jews. He quips,

“15 million peasants were destroyed in the ‘dekulakisation’, 6 million peasants were starved to death in 1932, not even to mention the mass executions and millions who died in the camps, and at the same time it was fine to politely sign agreements with Soviet leaders, to lend them money, to shake their ‘honest hands’, to seek their support, and to boast of all this in front of your parliaments.

But once it was specifically JEWS that became the target, then a spark of sympathy ran through the West and it became clear what sort of regime this was.” (p. 346; Emphasis is Solzhenitsyn’s).

NOWADAYS JEWS DODGE THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND BLAME THE RUSSIANS

Alexander Solzhenitsyn describes the standard double-standard (one which Poles are all too familiar with), as he describes current Jewish attitudes,

“There are so many such confident voices ready to judge Russia’s many crimes and failings, her inexhaustible guilt towards the Jews—and they so sincerely believe this guilt to be inexhaustible almost all of them believe it! Meanwhile, their own people are coyly cleared of any responsibility for their participation in Cheka shootings, for sinking the barges and their doomed human cargo in the White and Caspian seas, for their role in collectivization, the Ukrainian famine and in all the abominations of the Soviet administration, for their talented zeal in brainwashing the ‘natives’. This is not contrition.” (p. 335).

Of course, Solzhenitsyn is not insinuating that Jews are collectively guilty for Communism. However, Jews should accept collective liability for Communism and its crimes in much the same way that Germans accept collective liability for Nazism and its crimes. (p. 141, 321). Until they do so, this issue of the Zydokomuna (Judeo-Bolshevism) will not go away.

JEWISH INFLUENCE IN COMMUNISM WAS FAR GREATER THAN ANY “GROCERY LIST” OF JEWISH COMMUNISTS 

We keep hearing that Jews at no time constituted a majority of the leadership in Communism. This is technically true, but it does not tell the whole story. 

Refer to: Esau's Tears: Modern Anti-Semitism and the Rise of the Jews, by Albert S. Lindemann:

To begin with, Jewish Communists were noted for their high intelligence, verbal skills, assertiveness, ideological fervor, etc. (p. 429).

Not surprisingly, few non-Jewish Communist leaders approached the caliber of the Jewish Communist leaders. For example, Lindemann reminds us that, “Jewish or gentilized, Trotsky was a man of unusual talents.” (p. 447). In addition, “Trotsky’s paramount role in the revolution cannot be denied…” (p. 448). This can be generalized, “Other non-Jews might be mentioned but almost certainly do not quite measure up to Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Yoffe, Sverdlov, Uritsky, or Radek in visibility inside Russia and abroad, especially not in the crucial years from 1917 to 1921.” (p. 432).

Finally, influential Jews did not have to act alone. In fact, Jews had the skill of influencing non-Jews to think in Jewish ways. Lenin can validly be understood as a “Jewified gentile” (pp. 432-433). The same can be said for the renegade-Pole Dzerzhinsky (p. 442, 446), as well as the Russian Kalinin, who was called by Jewish Bolsheviks “more Jewish than the Jews”. (p. 433).

I. JEWISH COMMUNISTS INFLUENCED NON-JEWS TO GO ALONG WITH THEIR THINKING

Let us elaborate on Feliks Dzerzhinsky. Refer to: The Cheka: Lenin's Political Police:

Author Leggett describes how Dzerzhinsky grew up in Vilna [Wilno, Vilnius], which he describes as a cosmopolitan city with a strong Jewish element and a focal point of socialist ferment in Tsarist Russia. (p. 34). He adds that, “Dzerzhinsky came under the influence of Martov, future leader of the Menshevik Party, by whom he was introduced into Jewish circles, both proletarian and of the intelligentsia; he made many Jewish friends and zealously learned Yiddish. The Bund—Jewish social democratic workers’ organization in Lithuania, Poland, and Russia, founded in 1897—helped Dzerzhinsky in his political activity, for instance in late 1899. Dzerzhinsky’s close friend and schoolmate in Vilna was Mikhail Goldman…” (pp. 24-25).

The strong Jewish influence very much extended to Dzerzhinsky’s personal life. Leggett continues, “Goldman’s sister, Julia, was for several years Dzerzhinsky’s romantic love…formed a deeply romantic attachment, lasting from 1905 to early 1910, for another Jewish woman, Sabina Feinstein, sister of a prominent SDKPiL member. Very soon afterwards, in November 1910, Dzerzhinsky married Sofia Sigizmundovna nee Mushkat, who was likewise Jewish…” (p. 25).

As if to underscore the fact that Jewish influence in Communism is much greater than just the "grocery list" of Jewish Communists, Leggett writes of "Rosa Luxemburg [Luksemburg], celebrated for her intellectual brilliance and her political passion." (p. 24). So intoxicated had "Bloody Feliks" ("KRWAWE FELEK") Dzierzinski become of Luksemburg's ideas that he actually clashed with Lenin on the resurrection of the Polish state. Only that it was the non-Pole Lenin supporting the restoration of the Polish nation and renegade-Pole Dzerzhinsky opposing it, in accordance with Luxemburg. (pp. 23-24).

The foregoing can be generalized. Refer to: The Crucifixion of Russia: A History of the Russians and the Jews A new English translation of Solzhenitsyn’s 200 Years Together

Alexander Solzhenitsyn comments,

“The February Revolution was carried out by Russian hands and Russian foolishness. Yet at the same time, its ideology was permeated and dominated by the intransigent hostility to the historical Russian state that ordinary Russians didn’t have, but the Jews had. So the Russian intelligentsia too had adopted this view.” (p. 98).

II. JEWS AS THE “BRAINS” BEHIND THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AND THE EARLY SOVIET UNION

See my review of: The Rulers of Russia

III. THE SIGNIFICANCE OF JEWS IN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION AS NOTED BY SOME JEWS

See my review of: The new Poland,

IV. DECADES BEFORE THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION, JEWS HAD PLAYED AN INDISPENSABLE ROLE IN KEEPING REVOLUTIONARY MOVEMENTS GOING IN THE FACE OF ADVERSITY, AND IN MAKING RADICAL MOVEMENTS EVEN MORE RADICAL:

See my review of: Jews and Revolution in Nineteenth-Century Russia

V. COMMUNISM PERMEATED MUCH OF PRE-WWII JEWISH THINKING, NOTABLY IN POLAND

Refer to: Flags Over the Warsaw Ghetto

(My Review was Feb 12, 2012)

Moshe Arens wrote: "The years preceding World War II were a time when Socialists throughout the world were preaching the `class struggle' and `solidarity of the proletariat.' Many of them, not only avowed Communists, saw the Soviet Union as the pioneer and leader of this `struggle.' This was also true in Palestine, where the Socialist Zionists had achieved a dominant position in the Jewish community." (p. 7). The so-called "proletarian" camp included the Socialist Zionists and the non-Socialist Bund. (p. 9). Arens notes: "The Socialist Zionist movements, attached to Marxist ideology..." (p. 44). ZOB leader Anielewicz was a member of Hashomer Hatzair with its "Marxist approach to Zionism". (p. 113). Hashomer Hatzair and Left Po'alei Zion showed their true colors (pardon the pun) in preferring that the red flag be hoisted over the fighting Ghetto instead of the blue-white Zionist flag. (p. 287).

ZOB leader Hersh Berlinski exhibited undisguised disloyalty to Poland as he said that his support was to the USSR over Poland. (p. 142). As for the Warsaw Ghetto rank-and-file soldiers, Arens refers to them as: "...younger generation, their orthodox Marxist thinking giving rigidity to their arguments." (p. 106). Who can blame Poles for their reluctance to support the Uprising owing to its taint of Communism? (p. 71; 200-201; 226)

VI. A RATHER CANDID DISCUSSION, ABOUT JEWS IN COMMUNISM, BY LEADING JEWISH COMMUNISTS

See my review of: "Them": Stalin's Polish puppets

VII JEWISH COMMUNISM AS A FORM OF JEWISH NIHILISM

See my review of: Why the Jews? The Reason for Antisemitism

--------

CONCLUSION: Since Jews Take Collective Credit for Their Albert Einsteins and Jonas Salks, Should They Not Also Assume Collective Liability for Jewish Mass-Murderers Such as Genrikh Yagoda and Lazar Kaganovich? 


HOW THE MASSIVE OVER-INVOLVEMENT OF JEWS IN COMMUNISM LONG INFLAMED POLISH-JEWISH RELATIONS

The ZYDOKOMUNA (Judeo-Bolshevism) cannot be wished away. In addition, the Jewish share of blame for Communism is not erased just because there were non-Communist Jews. Finally, since Jews regularly call on Poles to “come to terms with the past”, in a collective sense, for the actions of only SOME Poles, the Jews should be held to the same standard.

To learn of the dominance of Jews in the leadership of the early decades of the Soviet Union, please click on, and read my detailed review of, The Jews of the Soviet Union: The History of a National Minority (Cambridge Russian, Soviet and Post-Soviet Studies).

See also THE RULERS OF RUSSIA, by Denis Fahey. (1940). Condon Printing Company, Detroit.

For details on the massive long-term Jewish overrepresentation in the leadership of the Soviet Communist Secret Police (the NKVD), responsible for the murder of millions of innocent people, please click on, and read my detailed review, of Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Volume 26: Jews and Ukrainians.

Also see THE JEWISH CENTURY. My Amazon review is dated October 29, 2010.

For a scholarly Russian-language primary source on the Jewish leadership that had dominated the NKVD, please click on, and read my detailed English-language review, of Kto Rukovodil NKVD, 1934-1941: Spravochnik.

Source: https://russia-insider.com/en/solzhenitsyns-damning-history-jews-russia-review/ri22354?fbclid=IwAR0v251HlQ_x4ovRCGlu4YCEsS9AGKwSURAFi8DQQjlLyNfEG8FExD1VwO0

Friday, February 26, 2021

Killing the cure: The strange war against hydroxychloroquine & A look at B12

Killing the cure: The strange war against hydroxychloroquine

The following is a deep dive into what appears to have been a concerted attempt to ensure that hydroxychloroquine would not be viewed as an effective treatment for COVID-19.
By Meryl Nass, M.D.  and       
By Belinda Brown    















Featured Image

PART ONE

The UK has had the ignominious triumph of having one of the world’s highest death rates. Some see the solution in continuing lockdowns, more testing and ultimately the vaccine. We argue that the solution lies in medical treatments, such as hydroxychloroquine or ivermectin rather than in vaccination.  But hydroxychloroquine was ruled out as a potential treatment for covid19 quite early on. This is despite the fact that, when used correctly, it is a highly efficacious treatment. Had it been readily available as a prophylactic or early stage treatment we would need neither lockdowns nor vaccinations and dramatically fewer people would have died. However this didn’t happen. Here we intend to explore why.

Hydroxychloroquine had repeatedly been found to be an effective treatment for Covid19. Didier Raoult was one of the earliest to discover its usefulness. He treated over 1000 patients  with azithromycin and hydroxychloroquine and almost 99% recovered. Other studies found its efficacy was increased when zinc was added into the protocol; there were fewer fatalities and patients were discharged home earlier. Harvey Risch, a Yale professor conducted a meta-analysis showing the key role it could play in an outpatient setting. This was recently confirmed by McCullough who showed how when started earlier it may reduce the progression of disease, prevent hospitalization, and is associated with reduced mortality. Most recently Zelenko has written on the dramatic improvements hydroxychloroquine can bring about in a nebulized form. A groups of scientists and phd researchers put together a ‘living review’, a database of all the papers on hydroxychloroquine which can be viewed here: https://c19study.com/ They suggest that had it been used over 1,344,703 lives could have been saved

Safety was also never an issue when used correctly. It had been used for 65 years by hundreds of millions of people in tens of billions of doses, prescribed without routine screening and given to adults, children, pregnant women and nursing mothers.  It is derived from the bark of the cinchona tree, which has been used for hundreds or thousands of years to treat malaria.

How did a cheap, safe, and highly effective drug, come to be seen as a potentially fatal medication, which you could lose your license for prescribing, your credibility for advocating and every time someone tried to talk about it, they would be banned, humiliated or described as ‘fake news’.

How did this happen? And more ominously, why?

The stage was set when the WHO Director General, Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus at a media briefing (18th March last year) made it clear that the controlled trials which had produced the initial findings were going to be overridden by the WHO’s far more expensively produced results:

Multiple small trials with different methodologies may not give us the clear, strong evidence we need about which treatments help to save lives. WHO and its partners are therefore organizing a study in many countries in which some of these untested treatments are compared with each other. This large, international study is designed to generate the robust data we need, to show which treatments are the most effective. We have called this study the SOLIDARITY trial.

The idea that multiple small trials are not able to generate strong evidence is false. The Cochrane Library Consortium, the gold standard  in the research world, examined tens of thousands of comparisons between randomized trials and their non-randomized counterparts and found the two types of studies arrived at virtually identical conclusions.   

But WHO appeared determined to control the narrative and set up a $108 million dollar study with 12,000 patients at 500 hospital sites across 30 countries. They trialled hydroxychloroquine on 954 late stage patients. 64% of these were already on oxygen or ventilation. 

Using this study they were able to achieve very different results.

To understand how, you need to know covid 19 has three stages: viral replication which can develop into florid pneumonia and then multi-organ attack. Hydroxychloroquine tackles early-stage viral replication rather than late stage inflammation which requires a different approach. It is most valuable as an outpatient treatment preventing covid19 developing to a later stage.

By giving hydroxychloroquine to late-stage patients SOLIDARITY was setting up a trial which would be bound to have negative results.

However, more egregious was the dosage. While hydroxychloroquine is very safe when used correctly, like paracetamol it has a narrow toxic to therapeutic margin. In 1979 the WHO calculated that 1.5 -2 g of the “base” drug could be a potentially fatal dose. In the Solidarity trial patients were administered a dosage of 2.4 g (equivalent of 1.9 base) in the first 24 hours or 9.6 g in total over ten days

The only ‘safety’ information collected during the trial was whether patients required oxygen, required a ventilator, or died. This effectively masked the adverse effects of the drugs tested, obscuring whether mortality was due to drug toxicity as opposed to death due to Covid 19.

This toxic dosage was quickly identified by India’s official medical research agency, the Indian Council of Medical Research. They wrote to the WHO to alert them to the fact they were using doses 4 times higher than in India. Dr. Soumya Swaminathan, the WHO’s chief scientist and previous head of the Indian medical research agency should have been able to identify this herself. A previous trial in Brazil in March-April with a slightly higher dosage (12 g in ten days) had been stopped prematurely due to excess deaths and is currently being investigated. But the Solidarity trial's HCQ arm was only permanently stopped after one of the authors of this blog post, on finding out these doses, threatened them with a manslaughter charge. Was there a connection? You can decide.

A similar strategy in the fight against hydroxychloroquine was the Oxford based RECOVERY (Randomised Evaluation of COVid-19 thERapY) clinical trials run by two Professors from the University of Oxford Peter Horby and Martin Landray. This was a large British multi-centre clinical trial of the sort generally believed to yield the most reliable evidence.

It also used 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients, a potentially lethal dose

Horby and Landry presented a number of arguments to reassure that the dosages were not toxic, not all of which stood up to further investigation. For example, they suggest that as no extra deaths had occurred in the first couple of days when the dosage was highest this was evidence that the dose was not fatal (see line 284). They ignored the crucial fact that hydroxychloroquine has a particularly long half-life, and cumulative dosing was the more relevant measure.  

FranceSoir concluded from their extremely detailed investigation of RECOVERY that many patients died of toxic overdoses of hydroxychloroquine rather than covid 19.  You can read more about it here and here.

While the hydroxychloroquine arm has been shut down  doctors are strongly encouraged to enrol all COVID19 patients onto the RECOVERY trial. In fact they recently recruited over just over 10,000 patients in January alone. They are also maintaining  the same minimalist approach towards safety which we saw earlier on: “trials are being run as simply as they can to reduce the burden on the NHS”. 

As Chair of  the New and Emerging Respiratory Virus Threats Advisory Group (NERVTAG) and a committee member of The Scientific Advisory Group for Emergencies (SAGE), Peter Horby is an extremely influential man.

 A third mysterious event in pushing hydroxychloroquine out of the picture was the publication in the Lancet of a large international observational study based on 96 000 Covid cases (15,000 of whom received a chloroquine drug) which appeared to show that hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were of no benefit and caused considerable harm. This was reported on here. The flaws in the study were so blatant that one of us critiqued it on the day it was published. Within days 146 researchers wrote to the British Medical Journal with concerns about its methodology and data integrity. It took two weeks for the Lancet to retract the study but by then the damage was done.

PART TWO

In part one we showed how the trials designed to test hydroxychloroquine appear to have been manipulated in a direction which was bound to produce negative results. In part two we look at the influence of these studies.

Large studies have a significant impact on medical knowledge even where they are seriously misleading. They are more likely to be published and to shape meta-analyses. The fraudulent Lancet study mentioned in part one is still extensively cited.

 But in the case of hydroxychloroquine there has been a determination to influence the way that hydroxychloroquine was viewed and used throughout the world in fundamental ways. 

Firstly, the WHO put pressure on governments and professional bodies to stop doctors prescribing hydroxychloroquine. Belgium, France, Italy were just some of the countries which banned its use for treatment of Covid-19. The Jakarta Post/Reuters reported on May 27 that WHO had instructed Indonesia's health ministry to suspend the use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of Covid-19.  Indonesia, the world's 4th most populous country, had been using the drug early for all cases, independent of severity, with good results. Fortunately, Indonesia refused to comply.

Similarly, Costa Rica, which had a particularly low fatality rate, and was said to be the only country in Central America using HCQ for early treatment, considered stopping hydroxychloroquine as a result of pronouncements by the WHO

The FDA at first issued an Emergency Use Authorization for chloroquine drugs, and then suspended  this. Each of these moves served to restrict use of the drug in different ways.

The clamp down in the use of hydroxychloroquine in Switzerland created a natural experiment. For about 2 weeks after hydroxychloroquine use was halted, death rates approximately tripled, for about 15 days. Then, after its use was allowed again, two weeks later death rates from Covid fell back to their baseline. But this did not receive the attention which it deserved. 

Large outpatient studies were also suspended in response to these studies. 

For example, COPCOV, a large global clinical trial which aimed to enrol 40,000 healthcare workers in an outpatient setting, appears to have been temporarily halted after recruiting 226 participants. Investigators involved in the study argue that HCQ had the potential to save tens of thousands of lives. They attributed this suspension to ‘the fraudulent data [in the Lancet-published, later retracted study], unjustified extrapolation and exaggerated safety concerns’.

Similarly, another trial described as ‘The largest and most systematic outpatient trial leveraged by the US National Institutes of Health’ which planned to include an estimated 2000 outpatients with early covid-19 was stopped for good after only 20 had been enrolled in a month.

This was particularly damaging to the potential use of hydroxychloroquine, as it is in an outpatient context that it has its most valuable role to play

And so the systematic exclusion of hydroxychloroquine from the COVID19 medical landscape progressed.

The most-consulted US medical encyclopedia, UptoDate, advised physicians to restrict hydroxychloroquine to only clinical trials, citing the FDA.

Sanofi announced it would no longer supply the drug for use with Covid, and cancelled its clinical trials  including one for outpatients, which should have been a key area of research.

Sanofi also began acting like a regulator, writing to health professionals in Australia to remind them that hydroxychloroquine was not approved for use outside a clinical trial. Sanofi also started collecting information on all off-label use of hydroxychloroquine in New Zealand and Australia, providing mechanisms for people to make anonymous reports.  

If anyone should wonder why Sanofi, a drug manufacturing company, should become a surveillance/ enforcement mechanism to frighten medical providers from using the drug for COVID19, it is worth noting that Sanofi, partnering with GSK, subsequently received a potential 2.1 billion dollars from the US government for 100 million doses of coronavirus vaccine. Perhaps that is where the answer lies.

And in what appeared to be a strange war against hydroxychloroquine, in Taiwan, a country which fared remarkably well in the battle against covid19, a factory essential to the production of hydroxychloroquine was burnt down

The barrage of negative publicity which the studies on hydroxychloroquine precipitated influenced what was published. When publishing empirical research, it is easier to publish positive findings. But when it came to hydroxychloroquine there was a bias towards publishing negative results. Studies from North America were almost four times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined.

Richard Smith, former editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal (BMJ) helps us understand why: ‘Medical Journals are an extension of the marketing arm of pharmaceutical companies,’. He was backed up by Richard Horton: ‘Journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry’.

Richard Horton was the editor in chief when the Lancet published the fraudulent research on hydroxychloroquine. He should know.

The treatment of hydroxychloroquine by social media companies provided a study on the operation of ‘fake news’.  YouTube CEO Susan Wojcicki said: ‘YouTube will ban any content containing medical advice that contradicts the World Health Organisation (WHO) coronavirus recommendations’. While this sounds reasonable on the face of it, the fact remains that the WHO’s pronouncements were not reliable. When those with power control the narrative it is more difficult to decipher the truth.

An example of this censorship occurred when a group calling themselves "America's Frontline Doctors" gave a press conference and livestream talks about the Covid-19 pandemic and the need for physicians to be able to prescribe HCQ freely.  While the media sparsely attended the press conference, the livestream got millions of views. Within hours, their livestream was banned by Google, YouTube, Facebook and Twitter. While they can be found again on YouTube, they have been subject to character assassinations, and accused of having a political agenda. It is hard to see what they gain from exposing themselves to criticism and public humiliation except the knowledge that they have done their best to save other people’s lives.

There was a pattern of targeting doctors who spoke out in favour of hydroxychloroquine. Professor Didier Raoult, an authoritative microbiologist and one of the world’s most published scientists, wrote the original paper which put hydroxychloroquine on the map. As a result, he was subject to a significant level of attack. For example, when the New York Times Magazine did a feature on him, what they ultimately produced was a detailed hit piece. In the US, Raoult is now considered an unreliable crank

Vinay Prasad MD explained how ‘Over the last few months, I have seen academic articles and op-eds by professors retracted or labelled “fake news” by social media platforms. Often, no explanation is provided. I am concerned about this heavy-handedness and, at times, outright censorship’. 

PART THREE

In part one we looked at how trials of hydroxychloroquine appeared to have been designed to achieve negative results. In part two we looked at how these trials influenced strategies in the treatment of COVID19. Today we consider why hydroxychloroquine was subject to such an unprecedented attack?

Initially there may have been political motivations.

As it was the year of the US elections there was no shortage of people ready to criticise Trump’s poor handling of the pandemic. Firstly, he was attacked for downplaying the severity of it and then for his over-enthusiastic embracing of a potential cure. This was seen to be a risky strategy which could (and did) lead some people to self-medicate. As a result, Trump’s approach elicited a strong negative reaction from some members of the medical profession.

However, it also seems possible that had Trump been able to successfully promote hydroxychloroquine this would have transformed him into a hero. And there were many forces which wanted the President out.

Even before the WHO got to work on Solidarity, President Trump had, on the basis of findings from smaller clinical trials, obtained free drug donations for the Strategic National Stockpile of hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, which were made available for distribution to state governments. By the end of May pharmaceutical companies had donated more than 150 million doses, enough to fully treat more than 15 million people as part of their efforts for the ‘prevention and treatment of the coronavirus outbreak’.  

However, Rick Bright, an Obama appointed official, personally opposed widespread distribution of the donated hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine, by insisting that it be registered for Emergency Use Authorization only (EUA). This greatly restricted its usage to only hospitalised patients, while preventing distribution to the outpatients with early disease in whom it would be expected to do the most good. This was not necessary as it was a properly licensed drug. This usage particularly discriminated against elderly residents in nursing homes who would no longer be able to access it as a prophylactic treatment.

This was a charade to confuse doctors.  FDA participated in the charade, issuing advice that use of the drug required a level of monitoring that could only be accomplished in a hospital. So, even though doctors could legally prescribe it off-label, they became aware that if they did so, they would likely be sued for malpractice if something went wrong.

However clumsily some may feel that Trump articulated his plan, it would have been able to save thousands of lives.

But perhaps more pertinently the fingerprints of big pharma were all over the decisions made.

One of the earliest studies initiated in response to Trump’s plan found that patients receiving hydroxychloroquine were more likely to die than those receiving regular care. However it was soon acknowledged that this was due to the severe stage of illness, and the fact that those in the group who received the drug were much sicker than those who did not. As The study noted, ‘hydroxychloroquine, with or without azithromycin, was more likely to be prescribed to patients with more severe disease…Thus, as expected, increased mortality was observed in patients treated with hydroxychloroquine both with and without azithromycin’. The study was not peer reviewed, nor did it include azithromycin and zinc although previous studies suggested this combination produced the best outcome. One could argue that the trial appeared to be designed to ensure that hydroxychloroquine would come out badly.

One of the co-authors had been involved with Gilead which was produced remdesivir, a competing covid19 drug.

Perhaps more telling are the various links with vaccine producers. In fact, it is the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF), the byword for vaccines, who were the experts when determining the doses of hydroxychloroquine. It was they who had developed a model of chloroquine penetration into tissues for malaria. At the expert working group they explained that they would have a post-exposure prophylaxis clinical trial protocol for hydroxychloroquine in the coming week, but we have not been able to find this.

Either way the BMGF were influential.  At the first meeting where the WHO working group discussed the potential role of hydroxychloroquine in the treatment of covid19 five out of 25 of the meeting’s participants were from BMGF. When it came to decisions about the dosage for the disastrous SOLIDARITY trials a representative from the foundation was one of only four participants involved

Similarly, BMGF heavily funded the Recovery trial

As advocates of vaccination conflicts of interest were inevitable.  But if the dosage decided on for the hydroxychloroquine trials was a mistake it has cost us very dearly and served BMGF very well.

Big Pharma are extremely heavily invested in the UK public health decision-making system from the top down.  In the light of what we already know it would appear that their financial interest in vaccine production takes priority over a desire to save individual lives.

For example, many might wonder why Neil Ferguson, with his poor record of disease modelling, might be allowed to be so influential. But as someone who consistently over-predicts the scale of danger and is Acting Director of the Vaccine Impact Modelling Group, (funded by BMGF and GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance) he could undoubtedly play a useful role.

The British Government is also the largest funder of GAVI, The Vaccine Alliance. The links between big pharma, the WHO and our health strategies have been documented in detail here and here. When a floundering UK government is so heavily invested in a vaccine industry the potential financial gain from a successful vaccine roll out, rather than health and wellbeing of the people, is shaping  everything which the government chooses to do.

When looking at public health decisions it becomes apparent that these have been shaped by big pharma in a way which will inevitably lead to vaccines. PCR testing has been used to artificially ramp up the rate of infections, lockdown has destroyed the economy, and potential cures such as hydroxychloroquine (and maybe more recently ivermectin) appear to have been strategically removed. As a result, we are pushed into a corner from which vaccines appear to be the only escape.

What can we learn from this sorry saga of hydroxychloroquine?

The WHO and other national health agencies, universities and charities have conducted large clinical trials which appear to have been designed so hydroxychloroquine and its cousin chloroquine would fail to show benefit in the treatment of Covid-19, perhaps to advantage much more expensive competitors and vaccines in development. In so doing, these agencies and charities have de facto conspired to increase the number of deaths in these trials.  In so doing, they have deprived 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.

Big pharma does not work in our interests. Some of those involved in this scandal appear to be financially motivated and these motivations shape policy decisions in ways which, certainly in the case of COVID19, are ultimately destructive of human health. Furthermore, their own agenda, wittingly or not, shapes the decisions and outputs of those further downstream.

We need some form of deregulation where as individuals we have greater control over our own health decisions. The risks involved are unlikely to be greater than the risks involved in entrusting ourselves to those who are influenced by financial interests when they make decisions about public health. Their recent track record speaks for itself.

Arbiters of ‘fake news’, wittingly or not, act as advocates for those with the funding and clout to produce the reports, studies and trials which make their case. While there is a great deal of fiction on the internet, fact checkers themselves do not have the authority to determine the ‘truth’ and in fact were recently pulled up for their censorship of a post about hydroxychloroquine. In the case of hydroxychloroquine (and more recently ivermectin) anonymous fact checkers claim more authority for the results of large clinical trials which can produce seriously misleading information.

By preventing the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine for early stage covid19 huge numbers of the elderly and those with co-morbidities, with men disproportionately represented among them, have died. This is genocide by default.

In this strange war against hydroxychloroquine it is not just hydroxychloroquine 'they' are attacking. This is a war against us. 

LifeSiteNews has produced an extensive COVID-19 vaccines resources page.  View it here.

Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/hcq-behe



A promising treatment for COVID you’ve likely never heard of

Dr. Carmen Wheatley calls on doctors to take courage and look to vitamin B12 as a possible treatment for the virus.
Wed Feb 24, 2021 -
Featured Image

February 24, 2021 (LifeSiteNews) — In this episode of The John Henry Westen ShowDr. Carmen Wheatley and I sit down for an interesting conversation on a new and potentially effective treatment against the coronavirus.

Dr. Wheatley is the director of a registered U.K. and overseas cancer charity Orthomolecular Oncology, as well as a medical researcher and specialist in cobalamin (vitamin B12), which she says has been shown to be a promising treatment to combat a significant number of illnesses.

She discovered from more than half a century of largely forgotten and overlooked scientific literature that B12 was used not only in patients who had deficiency in the vitamin in their body, but also to treat polio, rheumatoid arthritis, leprosy, cyanide poisoning, episodes of schizophrenia and psychosis, and more. The doctor discovered that cases where IV B12 is used routinely against cyanide poisoning, which have strong parallels to septic shock. This is applicable to acute COVID with the respiratory distress syndrome.

Wheatley tells me that those who die from coronavirus actually die from this septic shock. In sepsis, “you have serial organ failure and very often the liver, the kidneys and the lungs will fail,” which leads to the entire body and immune system being unable to respond to the virus. She conjectured that since vitamin B12 is able to help those patients with cyanide poisoning, even sometimes without them having to enter the ICU, it could also work against COVID.

Besides this parallel in the studies, Dr. Wheatley also highlights some other properties in cobalamin which counter the coronavirus. For example, she mentions that patients with COVID “have very low numbers of what are known as natural killer cells,” and when B12 deficiency/pernicious anaemia patients, and healthy humans are given B12, these cells are boosted. Moreover, the vitamin also is critical for producing antibodies.

Wheatley says that vaccines may not be effective without good cobalamin status, “since a vaccine is only as good as the immune system it challenges.” So, if a person’s immunity is deficient in vitamin B12, a vaccine will be more likely not to prevent any disease, but may be more likely to cause an adverse reaction.

As noted in our interview, doses in over-the counter B12 vitamins will not work to counter the virus due to their low oral absorption and thus low potency, and Wheatley says that even when you take more doses they will not act against COVID, because with B12, paradoxically, the higher the oral dose the less is absorbed.

She does suggest, though, that those who are healthy enough not to go to the hospital “get some liposomal B12 as methylcobalamin, to begin with.” But for more serious cases, higher doses may need to be given through IV or injection either at home or at the hospital, following doctors’ orders. Dr. Wheatley has a trial protocol that she can share with any interested doctor on request.

In answering why the medical system is not promoting COVID cures such as cobalamin, hydroxychloroquine, and ivermectin, Wheatley notes that we are “dominated by the Big Pharma paradigm.” She says that this monopoly of large pharmaceutical companies inside the healthcare industry has led to the bankruptcy of national healthcare systems everywhere. The doctor gives some history of medicine, which demonstrates that often simple cures, such as vitamin B12, can be effective solutions to difficult problems

Dr. Wheatley calls on “doctors … to take courage” and consider trying this treatment for the virus. She also discovered that cobalamin has not only indirect effects to regulate the immune system, but also historically has been shown to have direct antiviral action, not only against COVID — in recent molecular modelling screens — but other viruses: influenza A and B strains, HIV, polio, shingles, chicken pox, the papilloma cervical cancer causing virus. She calls it a “God given … pan-antiviral.”

Lastly, Wheatley states that one of the things which troubles her the most regarding the reaction to COVID-19 was “that governments were not issuing … general common sense [to] boost your immune system.” She says that “governments seem to act as if they own your immune system and that … you’re not safe unless you have treatments [or] vaccines” promoted by Big Pharma.

Dr. Wheatley concludes that people must take individual steps to fortify their own immunity to the disease “by taking B12 in the right form, taking vitamin C, taking [vitamin] D and other things like selenium and zinc,” as well as other herbal and natural antivirals, which have all shown to be effective antiviral treatments and preventive measures.

Dr. Wheatley can be contacted here.

Source: https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/a-promising-treatment-for-covid-youve-likely-never-heard-of