Please disable your Ad Blocker to better interact with this website.

Physicians Association Issues White Paper Questioning Withholding Of Hydroxychloroquine For COVID-19, The Unproven Illness From Coronavirus

Written by:

Published on: September 24, 2020

One has to ask one’s self daily, will the propaganda surrounding CON-VID-19 ever end? And, yes, we can call COVID-19 the CON-VID-19 because this “illness” is either contrived, a ruse, a confidence trick, or all of the above. Considering that China first announced it, the World Health Organization (WHO) parroted the Chinese narrative, and Italy was hit hard early on due to its monetary dealings with China, there has not been one scientist or scientific publication that has reported the isolation of the microorganism and its responsibility for causing COVID-19. Yet, here we all are in the united States dealing with “forced house arrest”, mask mandates, social distancing recommendations, and limited gatherings (except for Antifa, BLM, etc. riots), along with continually changing recommendations from organizations and “infectious disease experts” that have totally lost credibility.

While the CDC, the “infectious disease experts”, government officials, and the lamestream government-controlled propaganda entertainment enemedia (LGCPEE) continues to spout the number of “over 200,000 deaths in the US from CON-VID-19” while the CDC’s own website touts the number of deaths from CON-VID-19 alone at 6 %, nations that have utilized the malaria drug Hydroxychloroquine have experienced 75 % less deaths from coronavirus.

Have you wondered why? You would not be alone; a physicians’ association is asking the same question.

WND reported:

Trending: I Hunt Pedophiles To Bring Them To Justice – Now I’m The One Targeted

With media solemnly spotlighting the passing of the 200,000 mark in deaths attributed to COVID-19 in the United States, a physicians association has a question.

“Why is the death rate about 75 percent lower in many countries?” asked Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.

The reference is to a country-based analysis updated Sept. 20 that shows a gap between countries that treat COVID-19 early or prophylactically with hydroxychloroquine and those that, like the U.S., discourage or prohibit its use.

The answer to Orient’s question can be found in a white paper published by the Economic Standard this month titled “Hydroxychloroquine and the Burden of Proof: An Urgent Call to Depoliticize Medicine in the COVID-19 Pandemic.”

In the above referenced white paper, the Editor-in-Chief, Erik Sass, wrote:

The COVID-19 pandemic struck America nine months before a presidential election, turning basic medical activities like testing and treatment into partisan battlegrounds. No subject has been more distorted than hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), a safe, versatile medicine that has treated hundreds of millions of people for numerous diseases for seven decades.

HCQ was adopted as a COVID-19 treatment in Asia in January 2020 without fanfare, based on lab tests with the related coronavirus SARS-1. But when President Trump stated in March that the U.S. would also begin studying the drug’s potential against the virus, political opponents defied longstanding scientific and medical consensus to portray HCQ as harmful and Trump as a mortal danger to public health. Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump, while positive studies were impugned or ignored.

Sass went on to say this campaign against the use of Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) persists even with evidence of the benefit of use against COVID-19 growing, “including scores of observational controlled trials showing therapeutic effect when administered early in disease progression.”

The entire overview by Sass continued:

Hundreds of drugs have been approved for both indication-specific and general usage on the basis of similar observational trials, especially when conducted in large numbers and subject to careful meta-analysis. As a matter of medical practice and especially in a pandemic emergency, it is flatly not the case that only randomized controlled trials can justify adopting a treatment, as HCQ detractors have insisted while publicizing randomized controlled trials results that are themselves deeply flawed.

The U.S. is an international outlier on HCQ. Right now, doctors around the world are prescribing HCQ to treat COVID-19 outside of hospitals, as well as prophylactically to prevent infection among healthcare workers and vulnerable populations. This paper argues that HCQ has met the appropriate burden of proof and urges members of the U.S. news media, public health community, and regulatory agencies to stop politicizing the use of this medicine.

Tens of thousand of lives still hang in the balance.

If there is such a thing as COVID-19 and there is an acceptable treatment for it, why are individuals like Fauci, Birx, Gates, Redfield, and a host of others pushing a vaccine that is planned to be mandatory? Simple. These individuals will profit handsomely from a vaccine, but would not from the treatment with readily available medications. Remember, Dr. Carrie Modej referenced the Emergency Preparedness Act whereby vaccines cannot be mandated or forced when there is an effective treatment regime or prevention for the particular illness the vaccine targets. Scientists have not isolated the microorganism claimed to cause COVID-19. In fact, the scientific experiments have not followed the gold standard for microorganism isolation and cannot meet Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates. So, what are we dealing with here? No one knows. And someone knows if this is a nothing burger as well.

WND highlighted some lessons from this paper.

  • Flawed and even falsified studies were published and promoted by media outlets eager to discredit Trump, while positive studies were impugned or ignored.
  • HCQ is commonly prescribed for at least 25 indications in addition to malaria.
  • The drug’s prolongation of the QT interval is in the mid-range of 30 commonly used drugs.
  • Hundreds of drugs have been approved without randomized controlled trials, including the tetanus vaccine, insulin, tetracycline, warfarin, heparin, prednisone, Keflex and high-dose penicillin for neurosyphilis.
  • Only 8.5% of the American Heart Association’s guidelines are supported by randomized controlled trials.

On page six of the white paper, there are scores of illnesses listed for which HCQ is effective and has potential for use – it’s not just for malaria. In fact, the paper cites HCQ as a “safe, well-tolerated drug.” As WND pointed out, the drug does prolong the QT electrical interval of the heart; however, it is within acceptable guidelines along with 30 other commonly used medications.

The problem has occurred with randomized clinical trials (RCTs) and observational trials. Page twelve of this report discusses this and lists 24 drugs and treatments that were approved without RCTs. So, why the problem with Hydroxycloroquine?

According to Sass:

Government regulatory agencies in the U.S. and across the world routinely use observational study evidence to make inferences about causal outcomes. The foundational method for such work was laid out in 1965 by Sir Austin Bradford Hill. He identified nine “aspects” of causal reasoning evidence that in sum provide a rationale for deducing causation. To this day the aspects identified by Hill remain the most widely used framework for general causal reasoning across medicine, science and law. One of these aspects is “experiment,” which includes RCTs, but these comprise only a small component of causal evidence. Hill’s main point is that all forms of scientific evidence must be considered and weighed, with no single type considered solely definitive.

It’s particularly unrealistic to demand RCTs confirming HCQ’s efficacy against COVID-19 before using it for that purpose for a number of reasons. Ethical considerations play a role, as some healthcare providers might refuse to carry out RCTs during a pandemic because it requires knowingly giving ill people a placebo or putatively less effective medication. RCTs also face logistical challenges. High-quality randomized studies require intensive preparation, controls and oversight. These expenses are often beyond the limited resources available in many healthcare settings, especially in low- and middle-income countries. And poorly designed and executed RCTs can just as easily produce results that are meaningless or misleading – as has been the case with HCQ and COVID-19, as shown below. In fact, science theorists have argued that “in the end, an observational study with credible corrections and a more relevant and much larger study sample…may provide a better estimate [than small or flawed RCTs].”

Given the ethical and logistical constraints imposed by the COVID-19 pandemic, it would be difficult, if not impossible, to organize and implement high-quality RCTs in the time available. This means that decisions about HCQ and other drugs necessarily have to be based on the results of observational studies, which, again, have yielded hundreds of useful drugs and guided medical decision over many decades.

This process is in line with precedents established in previous epidemic emergencies, including the first SARS epidemic and 2014 Ebola epidemic. There, public health policy makers authorized clinical use of unproven treatments like lopinavir, ritonavir, favipiravir, ribavirin, and interferon – without RCTs – due to urgent need amid insurmountable logistical and time constraints.55,56

Thus, as a matter of medical practice and especially in a pandemic emergency, it is flatly not the case that only RCT demonstration can justify adopting a treatment. Observational trials, meta-analyses and evidential reasoning along Hill’s aspects, properly conducted, can serve to meet the burden of proof appropriate for adoption, as a matter of science and public-health policy. The opposition to HCQ as a treatment for COVID-19 has largely ignored these basic facts.

Sass continued on to expand on the media’s role in politicization of HCQ only because Trump mentioned it. He claimed the media attempted to use science in its political attacks by promoting studies that indicated negative outcomes for HCQ while ignoring the positive ones. “Enabled and supported by low-quality science and scientific malpractice, the new narrative overwhelmingly emphasized the “unproven” nature of the drug because of the lack of RCTs, while dismissing as “anecdotal” the positive findings of observational studies.” Moreover, the lamestream government-controlled propaganda entertainment enemedia (LGCPEE) was quick to reference low-quality observational studies when those studies presented a negative result – a clear double standard.

Sass went on to claim this entire fiasco was a case of scientific malpractice.

The shortcomings of major scientific studies cited by HCQ critics weren’t limited to low numbers, poor study controls, and changing metrics. The politically motivated campaign to discredit the drug extended to what can only be classified as scientific malpractice.” Specifically, Sass pointed to the article in the Lancet that concluded HCQ did not help COVID-19 patients but it increased their chance of death. The problem – independent scientists noted the journal violated its own ethical guidelines by failing to verify the underlying data contained in the article. When the Lancet attempted to obtain a copy of the study authors underlying data during their own investigation, the authors refused to provide it resulting in the Lancet retracting the study – a first for the prestigious publication. Unfortunately, the damage was done. Health officials and public health regulators continued to quote a false scientific narrative.

The paper concluded:

By systematically misrepresenting HCQ’s efficacy and safety for political ends, its opponents have deprived many tens of thousands of Americans of a potentially life-saving treatment and risk even more in the months and years to come. Members of the news media, public health community, and regulatory agencies must stop politicizing the use of this medicine. Properly powered RCTs can and should be conducted to confirm HCQ’s efficacy against COVID-19 and help us better understand both the drug and the disease. But there is sufficient credible, scientific data to demonstrate that HCQ has therapeutic value against COVID-19, and that the theoretical risk of harm absolutely does not compare to the very real threat of this disease left untreated. The burden of proof has been met. HCQ should be more widely recommended, prescribed and promoted to treat COVID-19 right now.

One could conclude this is more than a case of mere “scientific malpractice”; it could be argued this is a case of medical malpractice – the intentional withholding of a treatment regime that has been proven in observational trials to be effective that may have contributed to untold numbers of deaths, increased healthcare costs to individuals, and untold emotional and mental distress of loved ones and sufferers.

Underlying all of this is the indisputable fact that China claimed there was this “new” coronavirus without providing any proof. The WHO, taking China’s claim as fact, declared a “new” coronavirus causing a pandemic. Again, without any proof being provided. The CDC parroted what the WHO and China claimed. Trump appointed a government paper pusher who hasn’t seen a patient or practiced in the field of infectious disease since residency to be the “expert”, who then parroted what the WHO, CDC, and China claimed. In a clear case of hypocrisy, Fauci, Redfield and another colleague authored an article in the March issue of The New England Journal of Medicine claiming this “new” coronavirus was no more dangerous than seasonal influenza while telling the American public something different. As a matter of fact, The New England Journal of Medicine nor any of that article’s authors have retracted the claim or the article.

If the credibility isn’t damaged at this point, these individuals, including Trump, and agencies issued all manner of “measures” to counter the spread of something unproven to exist without even knowing if the measures were effective or not. It seems, again, the model was China – it supposedly worked in China so it was done here. And, the final nails in the coffin of credibility for any of these agencies and people should be the use of low quality science; promotion of scientific and medical malpractice; intentionally inflating the number of cases and deaths caused by whatever is making people sick; intentionally changing the calculations of infection fatality rates, case fatality rates and mortality rates to mixing those rates together to increase fear in the public; intentionally lying to the public to promote an agenda and a poisonous vaccine; declaring a pandemic on the say-so of the WHO without any evidence proving such; irreparable damage to the US economy, individual livelihoods, small business, and the entire American public; attempting to profit from an unnecessary vaccine; and the increase in suicides, domestic abuse and child abuse that has resulted because of their actions.

Let’s get a few things straight. What these people claim is coronavirus is human genome 8: primary assembly. No microorganism has been isolated that scientists can point definitely at as causing COVID-19. Koch’s and Rivers’ postulates have not been met and scientists have deviated from the gold standard procedure to isolate a microorganism in order to identify it. Furthermore, what they report is “genetic material”, which is never mentioned in Koch’s or Rivers’ postulates and therefore, cannot say this “material” causes the illness or reported illness with which people are suffering. The test used to determine whether one has or does not have coronavirus, the RT-PCR, was not developed for diagnostic purposes and has an extraordinarily high false positive rate because it was meant to manufacture growth and sequences of microorganisms already isolated. And, with the CDC revising their website to say that 6% of deaths were attributed to COVID-19 alone, this lowers the threshold to below epidemic and pandemic levels.

Does anymore need to be said? This has been used in order to control the people and strip liberties to usher in a global agenda. Not one individual has provided proof this is something new. What these individuals have done is lie over and over to the public; and, the public has bought it hook, line and sinker. Well, most of the public did. People, you have been scammed, had, conned, and played for fools. As long as you continue buying their lies, these infringements upon your liberties and the control will continue in order to inject you with their snake-oil in the form of a vaccine for a “nothing-burger” that will chip you, change your DNA, put nanobots in your system, input information into you, send information to who knows who, tattoo you, and if that isn’t enough, possibly kill you.

Become an insider!

Sign up to get breaking alerts from Sons of Liberty Media.

Don't forget to like on Facebook, Google+, & Twitter.
The opinions expressed in each article are the opinions of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of


Join the conversation!

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse.

Trending on The Sons of Liberty Media

Send this to a friend