The moment President Trump hailed the healing effects of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) as a prophylactic regimen for COVID-19, the drug became politicized and quickly disregarded. Hindsight now reveals that the explicit focus of whizzes like Dr. Anthony Fauci was to get an mRNA shot into the arms of the masses so a large-scale clinical trial of the decades-old DARPA-funded research could get underway. Remember, the rules dictate that any existing safe and effective alternative treatment for COVID-19 would negate the emergency use authorization (EUA) of the soon-to-be-ready mRNA jabs. A safe alternative would foil the plan to experiment on the American people. Thus, it is not surprising that a study published Monday uncovers that key decisions not to use HCQ as an early treatment for COVID-19 were based on insufficient evidence.
A significant study published on August 9, 2022, in the European Journal of Epidemiology established that up to 30 studies investigating HCQ as an early preventative treatment for COVID-19 were halted based on the results of just two clinical trials with an inconclusive assessment of the drug. According to the study authors, the two trials conducted in the summer of 2020 found a lower risk of COVID-19 in the HCQ group, though they were too small to rule out either benefit or harm of HCQ. From that vague and "not statistically significant" data, the medical community was instructed to view HCQ as ineffective for COVID-19 prevention. Noting this incredible oversight, the study authors wrote:
"A timely completion of the remaining trials would have generated precise estimates of the potential effectiveness of HCQ to prevent COVID-19 among those at high risk of infection or complications. However, the widespread conviction about HCQ's lack of effectiveness dramatically slowed down the recruitment into ongoing trials of HCQ prophylaxis. As a result, key decisions were made based on insufficient evidence during the pre-vaccine period of the pandemic."
With the mass COVID-19 mRNA "vaccine" experiment well underway, the obviously rushed decision that HCQ must be discredited guaranteed that no clear hypothesis about the drug's potential role in saving lives during the pandemic was ever reached. Because of this and the subsequent widespread belief that HCQ is ineffective in preventing COVID-19, in-depth studies were disrupted and even suspended, and recruitment into randomized drug trials was adversely influenced. With that in mind, the study authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials that investigated the effectiveness of HCQ in either preventing COVID-19 before exposure or after known exposure or post-exposure prophylaxis.
After gathering their findings, the study authors concluded that the "available pre-exposure prophylaxis randomized trials yield a point estimate of an approximately 28% lower risk of COVID-19 for assignment to HCQ compared with no HCQ among PCR-negative individuals at randomization." The authors determined that the recruitment for most trials of HCQ prophylaxis was "severely impeded by incorrect interpretations of the evidence from the early, mostly post-exposure prophylaxis, trials."
Emphasizing the inaccurate concerns over potentially harmful effects of treatment with HCQ and backlash against baseless claims in the lay media, the authors believe their study offers an important lesson for future research on drug repurposing. While not mentioned in the study, remember, well-respected physicians like Dr. Paul E. Marik have been repeatedly discredited for prescribing HCQ to save patients' lives. It seems clear the attack against Dr. Marik is because of the intentional government and media-led (and big pharma-funded) campaign to eradicate HCQ as a safe treatment for COVID-19. Still, Marik persisted and put his patients first. Not surprisingly, those pushing the agenda of tyranny blatantly disregard the triumphs of Dr. Marik and others.
Following their study, the authors (with ties to Harvard T.H. Chan, Harvard-MIT, and Ministry of Health, Madrid) proclaim the evidence that existed before mRNA and other "vaccines" were available was consistent with HCQ being viable as prophylaxis. Troubled by their findings, the authors warn that before the next public health emergency arrives (as Joe Biden and others have foretold), there must be an improvement in the medical community's process of generating and interpreting evidence.
While an improvement is indeed paramount, the authors' final suggestion that "national regulators and international health organizations can play a key role" in the effort for truth in medicine and, ultimately, our individual health is troubling. After all, if nothing else, the COVID-19 pandemic has exposed the coordinated international effort between global elites, NGOs, and certain government leaders, including Joe Biden, to push the Great Reset agenda towards totalitarianism using any means necessary—including a campaign to destroy safe and effective drugs like HCQ that save lives.