The #LancetGateEffect Is Taking Names Before Kicking Ass – Please Contribute To The List

Things are happening faster than I expected.

Check this out.

We need to contribute to this effort.

Please dig up EVERY LINK that you can find of anti-HCQ and post it here. Be sure to include a description, including WHO exactly is referenced, to save people time when they go through comments.

Also, I highly recommend SCREENSHOTS, ARCHIVES, etc., and please provide LINKS to any screenshots or archives.

I would love for this blog to be a major contributor to the list of WHO (pun NOW intended) is responsible for anti-HCQ treachery.

Even if somebody is just repeating propaganda, it may help lead back to the source.

Leads are fine, as well as PROOFS.


113 thoughts on “The #LancetGateEffect Is Taking Names Before Kicking Ass – Please Contribute To The List

  1. This is good by Todaro. Gilead influenced Lancet article, is behind squashing HCQ, in order to promote remdecivir.


    Gilead’s influence over the process of clinical investigation and approval of therapeutics is undeniable. A direct threat to remdesivir, hydroxychloroquine has likely been in Gilead’s crosshairs for months.

    Gilead: Twenty-one billion reasons to discredit hydroxychloroquine

    Liked by 7 people

  2. Washington Examiner article about Dr. Harvey Risch and how Fauci and others have derided him for his pro-HCQ position.

    Link in this tweet:

    Liked by 5 people

    1. DC Examiner article:
      Hydroxychloroquine works in high-risk patients, and saying otherwise is dangerous – by Harvey Risch | August 12, 2020 10:29 AM

      In the article, Dr Hirsch mentions the FDA gets 1/3 of its funding from drug companies….

      The fact that the FDA – a government agency – gets 1/3 of its funding from drug companies is wrong and dangerous to the public – because it means private interests/profits may influence FDA decisions on approvals of drugs.

      Liked by 6 people

    2. GA/FL the rest of your posts on this are worth repeating here…

      Dr. Harvey Risch from the Washington Examiner article linked above:
      “I reiterate: If doctors, including any of my Yale colleagues, tell you that scientific data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work in outpatients, they are revealing that they can’t tell the difference between low-risk patients who are not generally treated and high-risk patients who need to be treated as quickly as possible. Doctors who do not understand this difference should not be treating COVID-19 patients.”

      Dr. Risch continues:
      “What about medication safety? On July 1, the FDA posted a “black-letter warning” cautioning against using hydroxychloroquine “outside of the hospital setting,” meaning in outpatients. But on its website just below this warning, the FDA stated that the warning was based on data from hospitalized patients. To generalize and compare severely ill patients with COVID-induced pneumonia and possibly heart problems to outpatients is entirely improper.

      In fact, the FDA has no information about adverse events in early outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine. The only available systematic information about adverse events among outpatients is discussed in my article in the American Journal of Epidemiology, where I show that hydroxychloroquine has been extremely safe in more than a million users.

      It is a serious and unconscionable mistake that the FDA has used inpatient data to block emergency use petitions for outpatient use. Further, already back in March, the FDA approved the emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients, for whom it is demonstrably less effective than for outpatients. If hydroxychloroquine satisfied the FDA criteria for emergency inpatient use in March, it should more than satisfy those criteria now for outpatient use, where the evidence is much stronger.

      I can only speculate about the cause of the FDA’s recalcitrance. Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive, generic medication. Unlike certain profit-generating, patented medications, which have been promiscuously touted on the slimmest of evidence, hydroxychloroquine has no natural financial constituency. No one will get rich from it.

      Further, it seems quite possible that the FDA, a third of whose funding comes from drug companies, is under intense pressure from those companies to be extremely conservative in its handling of hydroxychloroquine. If hydroxychloroquine is used widely and comes to be recognized as highly effective, the markets for expensive and patented COVID-19 medications, including intravenous drugs that can only be used in the hospital, will shrink substantially.”

      Liked by 3 people

      1. You know what just JUMPS OUT at me here? That line about using it only in a hospital setting – THAT is the primary RUB with remdesivir. So what they’re essentially doing is cutting the safer drug off at its knees so that the moneymaker can compete better.

        Just such amazingly transparent BIAS.

        Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s