by Dr. Eric Snyder and Dr. Amy Cerato
Despite the overwhelming effectiveness in treating SARS-CoV-2 with early treatments, there have been colossal censorship, cancellation, and smear campaigns against any effective repurposed drugs prescribed by healthcare professionals. The campaigns involve our federal agencies, state boards, television media, social media, medical facilities, and academia. Is that everyone?
We know that as early as 2020, the FDA and Federal Trade Commission (FTC) started sending letters to healthcare practitioners warning them about prescribing or selling unapproved products that may violate federal law by making deceptive or scientifically unsupported claims about the ability to treat or cure Covid-19. The FTC interprets “making deceptive or scientifically unsupported claims” to mean that all drugs need a randomized control trial (RCT) as “competent and reliable scientific evidence” to substantiate any claim. But this is a near-impossible standard because of costs, especially for the unpatentable natural products, like Vitamin D. FTC letters went after doctors, naturopaths, and health food stores who were touting natural products to help clients fight and survive COVID-19. These folks were providing their clients with scientific studies showing, for example, that 85.5% of Covid-19 positive patients with normal Vitamin D above 30 ng/mL, had mild symptoms and recovered.
How is information like this harmful?
How is removing this information from public consumption healthy?
In this specific example, the scientific studies were provided to the patients/clients who could then take it upon themselves to read the research and decide if what was being discussed was true or not. Empowering people with information about health options that they consume supports the notion of informed consent. Suppressing health-related information robs individuals of their freedom to accept or reject the best course of action for themselves or their families. This is exactly why therapeutic tents should be set up alongside vaccine tents/clinics at every location in America. We selected Vitamin D as an example because it is one of the more ludicrous attempts at censorship. But be forewarned. This type of censorship occurred with fervor and it continues to take place for any drug, nutraceutical, or treatment protocol that threatens to beat Covid-19 without the need for an mRNA gene therapy.
But it is not only the FDA and FTC that have acted scurrilously. Untrustworthy peer-reviewed papers (e.g., increased risk of in-hospital death using HCQ) have been published in “premier” academic journals, and false news stories have been broadcast on television media and taxpayer-funded outlets like National Public Radio (NPR). This was the case when Oklahoma made national news because our citizens were allegedly overdosing on ivermectin and overcrowding a Sallisaw hospital. While it was refreshing to witness a retraction of the article and news, the damage had already been done as most individuals do not follow up on peer-reviewed articles and news stories to see if the information has been retracted.
And what about other agencies who have literally scared our doctors? The Federation of State Medical Boards published the following on July 29th2021:
Physicians who generate and spread COVID-19 vaccine misinformation or disinformation are risking disciplinary action by state medical boards, including the suspension or revocation of their medical license. Due to their specialized knowledge and training, licensed physicians possess a high degree of public trust and therefore have a powerful platform in society, whether they recognize it or not. They also have an ethical and professional responsibility to practice medicine in the best interests of their patients and must share information that is factual, scientifically grounded, and consensus-driven for the betterment of public health. Spreading inaccurate COVID-19 vaccine information contradicts that responsibility threatens to further erode public trust in the medical profession and puts all patients at risk.”
In other words, if physicians do not recommend the vaccination for everyone, regardless of medical history, they could lose their license to practice. But do the board members of the Federation of State Medical Boards investigate their own inaccurate Covid-19 “vaccine” information? If so, would calling the mRNA gene therapy a “vaccine” warrants an investigation and disciplinary action? We are asking for our physician friends who may not have agreed to the definitional changes made by the world’s health authorities over the past few years.
Is it logical to assume we can trust our doctors to provide us the best care knowing that by contradicting a specific narrative they may lose their career and livelihood? This includes researchers at major universities who are fearful of losing their jobs and research funding for publishing certain data. To think that freedom, let alone academic freedom, exists today seems farcical. Every individual should unite to publicly denounce this type of bureaucratic grandiloquence, especially considering a portion of the medical profession is refusing vaccinations and boosters. To add salt to the wounds from the July 29th, 2021 statement, the American Board of Emergency Medicine (ABEM) followed suit on August 26, 2021, issuing a similar warning stating that if physicians publicly spread misinformation about the Covid-19 pandemic they risk losing their board certification.
What exactly constitutes misinformation and who decides?
By using fear mongering to socially engineer an agenda, Americans have been duped. Those in power know that engagement in fear works best and their goal is for individuals to continue to wear masks, isolate themselves from society, and blindly accept an unknown and untested medical “solution” so that individuals can “return to normal.”
How does censoring medical professionals’ judgment regarding how to best treat their individual patients uphold patients’ rights and the legal requirements of informed consent? For example, if a patient wants to try an alternative medicine rather than the mRNA gene therapy, informed consent would require the doctor to discuss the risks and benefits of the alternative (off-label drug use) in addressing Covid-19. Would a tending doctor risk their license if they informed their patient about the drop in Covid-19 case counts in South American cities that instituted massive, prophylactic, ivermectin distribution campaigns compared to cities that didn’t? Despite this compelling evidence, the doctor could also inform their patient that the FDA recommends against using ivermectin for Covid-19, even though Ivermectin is listed as “an approved or under evaluation” drug on the NIH website. In return, one would assume the patient with incredible critical thinking skills would ask the following:
Why would individuals want to suppress and censor the use of incredibly successful early therapeutic treatments?
The answer is simple; you must “follow the money.” Off-patent drugs, like Ivermectin (developed in 1975) and Hydroxychloroquine (developed in 1946) are exceptionally inexpensive and widely available. These were two of the safe and effective antivirals made public by practicing physicians in early 2020 to treat Covid-19. They have been clinically shown to have a great effect on reducing the viral load of patients and keeping them out of the hospital. However, their usage limits profit margins even though the antivirals have been saving thousands of lives for decades. Instead of utilizing these safe and effective antivirals to save those suffering from serious cases of COVID-19, those dictating public policies have worked tirelessly to eliminate these therapeutics and cancel the prescribing doctors in order to obtain approval for a new mRNA gene therapy through a EUA. This is not surprising given that vaccines are a primary profit driver for the drug industry. Case in point, in 2022 Pfizer expects COVID-19 vaccine sales of $29 billion. In 2021, sales are estimated at $36 billion.
In conjunction with the incredible profits, one must add into the equation the federal statutory requirement below and it becomes clearer why safe and effective early treatment protocols were squashed. The FDA statutory regulation for Covid-19 EUA approval required that:
There is no adequate, approved, and available alternative to the product for diagnosing, preventing, or treating the disease or condition.”
The media, government, most major medical institutions, and practicing physicians parroted the narrative that there was nothing that could be prescribed in early symptomatic sickness, despite the implicit, common sense understanding that the earlier we treat sickness and the lower we keep the viral load, the better the patient outcome.
The following was a response to a Covid-19 patient who visited an Urgent Care and tested positive for Covid-19: “I am/we are not allowed to prescribe you anything. If you have trouble breathing or your lips turn blue, go to the hospital.” This quote is actually real. Since when are doctors/nurse practitioners or physician assistants “not allowed” to use their best medical judgment and prescribe a treatment protocol for their patient based on individual medical history and symptomatic presentation? Not treating Covid-19 patients early, and then treating them incorrectly by the time they were sick enough to have to go to the hospital (e.g., Remdesivir and ventilators, for example), has resulted in unnecessary harm. Were the treatment protocols created to exacerbate the illness or cure the illness? Did our medical experts not realize the importance of early treatment?
By now, Americans have heard countless stories from physicians who have treated thousands of patients with early treatments, with some boasting to have not lost a single patient. In Oklahoma, two brave doctors recently treated outbreaks at two nursing homes with ivermectin and monoclonal antibodies, and out of 131 patients, two died (1.5% mortality rate). While we wish the mortality rate was non-existent, we should celebrate the success of these doctors given that many nursing homes are still averaging around 11-20% mortality when COVID-19 breaks out. As these doctors revealed, and we will discuss in detail below, early treatment works and should be implemented immediately population-wide.
In order to understand the magnitude of the deception worldwide, it is instructive to see how government agencies attempted to control the narrative and how far they were willing to go to hide the positive effects of using repurposed drugs, like hydroxychloroquine, for early treatment. As early as March 6, 2020, Dr. Raoult, a renowned French microbiologist, began researching the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat Covid-19.
Hydroxychloroquine is efficient in clearing viral nasopharyngeal carriage of SARS-CoV-2 in Covid-19 patients in only three to six days, in most patients.”
At around the same time, in the United States, Dr. Zelenko, an early adopter of using repurposed antiviral drugs to save his patients’ lives, informed President Trump of the benefits of using HCQ for early treatment. On March 21st, 2020, President Trump insisted that the FDA consider authorizing HCQ and the antibiotic azithromycin for off-label use to treat SARS-Cov-2. President Trump suggested the therapeutics be put into use “immediately” and that their use could “be one of the biggest game-changers in the history of medicine.”
Is it not peculiar that the American Medical Association President Patrice A. Harris released this statement three days later, on March 24, 2020:
The A.M.A. is calling for a stop to any inappropriate prescribing and ordering of medications, including chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine, and appealing to physicians and all health care professionals to follow the highest standards of professionalism and ethics.”
Subsequently, State boards of pharmacy began releasing policy guidance on the drug’s use with states like New York, Nevada, Ohio, Michigan, and Minnesota banning preventative use to stop the spread of Covid-19 (see this document). In Oklahoma, the prescription of HCQ for outpatient COVID-19 patients was limited on March 21, 2020, despite the state having plenty of inventory. Oklahoma Governor Stitt issued an executive order (Section 16) that limited the healthcare system’s ability to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine for early out-patient treatment of COVID, and instead, the state returned 1.2 million doses of the medicine in early 2021. What information was the Governor given by the federal agencies that would make him issue an executive order to PREVENT the use of HCQ for early out-patient treatment of COVID-19?
On March 28, 2020, one week after Oklahoma limited its health care providers in prescribing HCQ, the EUA of Hydroxychloroquine Sulfate for Treatment of Covid-19 in Certain Hospitalized Patients was approved. It is important to articulate that the EUA was for HOSPITALIZATIONS, not early outpatient treatment, despite the research that revealed HCQ was exceptional for prophylaxis and early treatment, but much less effective when used late in disease. (see here and view Table 1)
Given the seriousness associated with Covid-19, why did our medical establishment wait to launch clinical trials of HCQ until April 9, 2020, after 33,000 people had already died? This is especially problematic given that medical experts knew, since at least 2005 (fifteen years prior), that chloroquine (a derivative of HCQ) was an effective remedy against coronaviruses. The researchers report in Virology Journal found:
that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”
Fast forward to 2013 and one will find that the use of HCQ was effective in the treatment of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS), another type of coronavirus similar to SARS-CoV-1 and SARS-CoV-2. Knowing the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in treating prior coronavirus infections, would it not be advantageous to immediately explore the drug’s ability to prevent and limit infection?
Why did the state of Oklahoma, prior to the EUA being approved for hospital treatment, limit our healthcare workers’ ability to prescribe HCQ for out-patient Covid-19 care when the science was there to prove that it could be effective when used early? Who informed and instructed the Governor to issue that particular executive order targeting HCQ?
To add insult to injury regarding HCQ, researchers falsified data in a May 2020 Lancet paper, (later retracted in August 2020 after the damage was done), to show that HCQ was harmful to our bodies. This is so egregious that it warrants an entire chapter given that (1). “The Lancet” is one of the highest-ranked medical journals in the world, and (2). Harvard University researchers wrote the manuscript.
The outcome of this medical malfeasance is a textbook example of coordinated censorship at work: Step 1. Faculty in academia write fraudulent manuscripts, Step 2. Medical establishment accepts and publishes manuscripts, Step 3. Government representatives (i.e., Dr. Fauci and other officials) share the info with the public on Step 4. Television Media (CNN, NBC, etc.), and Step 5. Social media shares the information to the masses- negatively stigmatizing the drug’s ability to treat Covid-19.
Dr. Fauci actually told CNN in a May 2020 interview that he was “not so sure that it [hydroxychloroquine] should be banned [for use in COVID-19 patients], but clearly, the scientific data is really quite evident now about the lack of efficacy for it and the likelihood that under certain circumstances…. might be rare but you’d see it….. adverse events, particularly with regards to cardiovascular and the arrhythmia that may be associated with it. There have been suspicions of that for a while, but as data comes in, certainly the data are clear right now.” Yet, hydroxychloroquine has been used safely for 65 years in millions of patients. What would Dr. Fauci say regarding the table above and the research showing 97% of studies found positive results during the early treatment stage? In June 2020, the FDA revoked the EUA for HCQ. What changed with the safety profile and efficacy in the early treatment of coronaviruses of HCQ? What changed our medical establishment’s mind on the efficacy of HCQ?
If you are interested in learning more about HCQ and its efficacy in treating COVID-19 when used early in the disease, please see this compilation of all the studies performed at this website and show these materials to your doctor when visiting: https://c19hcq.com/. If you want to encourage Oklahoma’s AG to approve out-patient, “off-label” use of hydroxychloroquine, this example from Nebraska’s AG is mission-critical. The NIH’s website also includes studies supporting HCQ as a therapeutic. This specific study observed suppression of “viral shedding,” meaning those infected and treated with HCQ do not infect others. This type of information is critical for Oklahoma doctors to consider as we continue to navigate all treatment options.
Another wonder drug that has received endless ridicule in the media and has become a divisive political topic, is ivermectin; otherwise known as “horse dewormer.” Dr. Omura’s discovery of the bacterium, combined with Dr. Campbell’s science resulted in Ivermectin winning the Nobel Prize for Medicine in 2015 for its effectiveness against parasitic infections like river blindness. Surprisingly, the drug is listed second in the NIH Approved or Under Evaluation Drugs for Covid-19 treatment (Table 2e). The NIH recognizes Ivermectin as a potential treatment of Covid-19 and doctors worldwide have shown its safety and efficacy in saving hundreds of thousands of lives. Yet, some US doctors and pharmacists are having trouble securing the drug, and/or refusing to prescribe and fill this drug for their patients. The NIH table should be printed out and shown to your doctor and/or pharmacist as proof that Ivermectin is a viable therapeutic in the fight against Covid-19. You can also print the evidence below indicating the safety of the drug, given that Ivermectin has been approved for use in our refugee population (200 mcg/kg orally is provided once a day for two days prior to arrival in the United States). This refugee protocol remains in effect today by the CDC.
There exists an abundance of scientific peer-reviewed data that show the safety and efficacy of Ivermectin. The Desert Review published an excellent article on September 8, 2021, that explains the range and depth of the misinformation campaign raged by the government against ivermectin. The truth is Ivermectin has an outstanding 40-year safety profile, with 67 controlled Covid-19 studies including 49,492 patients, and 31 randomized control trials including 6,858 patients. Within these studies, the researchers found a 67% improvement in early treatment trials and 85% improvement in prophylaxis trials (taken as a preventative). But this positive clinical data is simply not good enough to justify the FDA actually approving the drug for the treatment of Covid-19. Instead, Americans get a “pending” status and on September 3rd, 2021 the FDA released this article telling Americans why they should not take the drug. Negative articles like this, and publications by NPR about ivermectin impact millions of Americans who then believe that (1). Ivermectin overdoses are actually common (2). That ivermectin doesn’t work to treat or prevent Covid-19, and (3). An mRNA gene therapy is the only way to protect against COVID-19.
We noted that our own Oklahoma doctors are using Ivermectin to save lives, but other countries have been using Ivermectin and other drugs successfully to wipe out Covid-19 cases over the past two years. One of the largest case studies of the effectiveness of early antiviral medication use in squashing COVID-19 outbreaks was in India. Figure 3 shows the caseload from India. Coronavirus cases began to plummet in June, July, and August when India’s health ministry started to publicly promote Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine in April of 2021. India’s guidelines recommended that asymptomatic patients “consider Tab Ivermectin (200 mcg/kg once a day, to be taken on an empty stomach) for 3 to 5 days,” with caregivers taking Hydroxychloroquine prophylactically as per protocol and as prescribed by the treating medical officer.
The low cases persisted within India well into September 2021 with data showing that Uttar Pradesh, with a population of 241 MILLION, has essentially ended the “pandemic.” Uttar Pradesh is a large state whose population is roughly ⅔ of the US. From the Hindustan Times reporting on September 10th: “Overall, the state has a total of 199 active cases, while the positivity rate came down to less than 0.01%. The recovery rate, meanwhile, has improved to 98.7%. As per the state’s health bulletin, Uttar Pradesh reported only 11 new Covid-19 cases and zero deaths in the last 24 hours [as of September 10, 2021].” Is this not conclusive proof that their prophylaxis program and early interventions work?
In order to confirm this method of treatment, we reviewed one of the latest reports from India. The Uttar Pradesh province had reported NINE cases of COVID each day over the past 30 days – with a vaccination rate hovering now around 25% (Positivity rate of ZERO). Contrary to this, Kerala has a positivity rate of 11.5-14%, and their caseloads (8-13K) are high. Unlike Uttar Pradesh, Kerala has a vaccination rate of over 70%. While Kerala included Ivermectin in their state’s guideline in April 2021, they restricted its use to Class B – severe cases or those with the associated disease, which reduced the drug’s effectiveness on population-wide control by excluding mild cases from treatment. This meant it was reserved as a late treatment if used at all. Finally, Kerala abandoned Ivermectin use altogether on August 5, 2021. How else can one explain the variance in outcomes, besides effective early treatment?
As if the India case study wasn’t enough, Mexico City also implemented widespread use of ivermectin resulting in a 76% reduction in hospitalizations. In Brazil, a 220,500-person population level retrospective study (60% ivermectin users and 40% non-users) showed a 7% reduction in infection rate and 48% reduction in mortality rate. A review of the meta-analysis shows how the ivermectin is now being used all over the world in countries with far fewer resources than the US. With the low price point and efficacy, the drug is an incredibly valuable tool to fight Covid-19. What is even more incredible is the plethora of research papers that exist due to the effectiveness of the drug to treat multiple ailments. Many of the studies regarding ivermectin and Covid-19 are housed on the website https://c19ivermectin.com/. While these studies are critical, we also wanted to provide the reader with additional videos, stories, and case histories on the use of Ivermectin more broadly. Having this information should allow you to feel informed on both the strengths and potential weaknesses of the drug while recognizing that it is a piece of the solution, not the entire solution.
According to researchers and physicians, Ivermectin works best when taken prophylactically or in early treatment for Covid-19. It is typically taken in conjunction with other supporting drugs and pharmaceuticals, especially if individuals have comorbidities. We encourage you to look back at the Oklahoma Covid-19 toolbox to find doctors and pharmacists willing to prescribe the drug so you and your family have it on hand.
|Video 1: Kory Senate Visit||Study 3: Broad-spectrum drug 2020||Study 8: RCT Ivermectin for C19 2021||Story 3: Kory Testifies||Story 8: CDC Ivermectin Use|
|Video 2: Story of Ivermectin||Study 4: Antiviral properties useful for C19 2020||Study 9: Meta-Analysis 2021||Story 4: India uses Ivermectin|
|Video 3: Ivermectin Suppression||Study 5: Reduce duration of C19 2021||Study 10: Indicated Efficacy w/ C19||Story 5: Court Order to give Ivermectin|
|Study 1: Wonder Drug 2011||Study 6: Efficacy in Prophylaxis 2021||Story 1: Nobel Prize||Story 6: UK studies Ivermectin|
|Study 2: Repurposed Cancer Drug 2018||Study 7: Evidence of Efficacy in Treatment 2021||Story 2: Botswana Drs. Use Ivermectin||Story 7: Ivermectin Works – Case Histories for C19||
Nutraceuticals and Vitamins
We know that having a sufficient level of Vitamin D in our bodies helps strengthen our immune system and cellular function. We also know that individuals in the United States tend to have deficient levels of Vitamin D. As additional research has been published on Vitamin D and Covid-19, researchers have found that individuals with levels 20 ng/mL or lower, had more negative outcomes than those in the range of 50-70 ng/mL. Knowing this, we would encourage individuals to talk to their doctor about their vitamin D level and whether supplementation is necessary.
If peer-reviewed medical papers are difficult to navigate, we encourage individuals to listen to Dr. Ryan Cole talk about the importance of Vitamin D. This video was released in April of 2021 and censored off of many platforms (i.e., YouTube, Facebook, etc.). We remain fortunate that Bitchute and Rumble have become alternative media options instead of the arbitrators of information as their platforms have been able to house some critical information that should be disseminated to the public.
While Vitamin D remains critical, there are many more studies on other vitamins, minerals, and nutraceuticals known to help boost the immune system and fight off Covid-19. These include melatonin, zinc, vitamin C, quercetin, colloidal silver, dandelion root extract, turmeric, garlic, and NAC. We encourage you to check out the early covid-19 treatment website and review the Vitamin studies. Remember you can toggle between drugs using the left menu. https://c19vitamind.com/. Additionally, we’ve highlighted a few studies specifically on Vitamin D/Calcifediol that we thought were of interest.
Melatonin is another important nutraceutical that has anti-inflammatory action and plays a role within community-based medicine as a therapeutic or preventative measure against the progression of COVID-19. It was first discovered in 1958 by Dr. Aaron Lerner, a dermatologist who isolated it from the pineal gland in a cow. It is a hormone involved in regulating the sleep-wake cycle, blood pressure, and other circadian rhythms. It has been found to be important for the smooth functioning of the immune system, reducing oxidative stress and shows promise as adjunctive therapy in the treatment of infertility, controlling cellular function, and boosting brain function, among other benefits.
Melatonin levels decrease naturally with age, which might be one reason why COVID-19 affects older age-stratified groups more so than children. Because of the benefits of melatonin and other biological functions within the human body, a few studies were performed recently to determine if melatonin could help COVID-19 patients. In a network-based prediction study, melatonin usage was associated with a 28% reduced likelihood of positive laboratory test results for SARS-CoV-2 after adjusting for age, sex, race, smoking history, and various disease comorbidities. The analyses suggest that melatonin usage offers a potential prevention and treatment strategy for COVID-19 and importantly, the study called for randomized controlled trials (RCT) to meaningfully test the effect of melatonin for COVID-19.
A few months later, an RCT study for hospitalized COVID-19 patients was completed with an intervention group of 82 patients and a control group of 76 patients. It was found that compared with the control group, thrombosis developed significantly less frequently in the melatonin group (9/82 melatonin versus 18/76 control) and sepsis developed more frequently in the control group compared with the melatonin group (27/76 control versus 7/82 melatonin) during the second week of infection. Mortality was significantly higher in the control group (13/76 control versus 1/82 melatonin). The melatonin and control groups were provided the same treatment allocation except for the addition of 10 mg of melatonin once daily 20-30 minutes before bedtime for 14 days following diagnosis. The study concluded that “oral melatonin, when added to standard of care, was more effective than standard of care alone in patients hospitalized with severe COVID-19. Improved thrombosis, sepsis, and mortality rates support the adjuvant of melatonin’s efficacy in mitigating this infectious disease. Given melatonin’s superior performance as a cheap, highly safe, and readily available medication, it is strongly recommended that this be addressed in future studies.” Short-term use of melatonin supplements appears to be safe for most individuals, with only mild side effects reported such as headache, dizziness, nausea, and sleepiness, but information on the long-term safety of supplementing with melatonin is lacking.
And last but not least, we were fascinated by a recent Sciencealert.com publication that covered a Virulence journal article on a plant-based antiviral called thapsigargin (TG). Derived from a group of poisonous plants known as “deadly carrots,” thapsigargin appears to be effective against all variants of SARS-CoV-2 in the lab setting. After demonstrating efficacy in the laboratory, researchers are now attempting to find ways to develop treatments for potential clinical trials. It is studies like these, coupled with the freedom to conduct scientific investigations, that resulted in discoveries like Ivermectin. Perhaps, TG will turn out to be another great broad-spectrum antiviral that can be used successfully to treat SARS-CoV-2.
Monoclonal Antibody Treatment
Dr. Anthony Fauci communicated, in August 2021, that “early use of monoclonal antibodies can cut the risk of hospitalization and death up to 85%.” The efficacy of this treatment method has been shown in Florida as Monoclonal Antibody (mAb) treatments were adopted and found to reduce the viral load of SARS-CoV-2. In most cases, a lower viral load correlated with milder symptoms and decreased the need for hospitalization. After Florida’s adoption, state isomorphism occurred, with monoclonal antibodies being provided in Alabama, Texas, and other states where individuals can receive outpatient or in-patient hospital care. As such it seems clear that early monoclonal antibody intervention results in superior outcomes for patients with Covid-19. There are several different types of monoclonal antibodies under EUA for treatment of COVID-19 that have been found to work better than others; some studies have shown that monoclonal antibody therapy is not indicated in severe cases requiring hospitalization. It should be noted that these therapies remain under EUA and that the acute, subacute, and long-term impact of their use is limited.
Unfortunately, on September 3, 2021, there was an update to the C19 monoclonal antibody ordering process for all sites. The US Department of Health and Human Services (HSS) put a LIMIT on immediate orders and shipment to sites to help “promote optimal and equitable use of the available supply of monoclonal antibodies while we continue efforts to procure additional product.” Why? Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) sent a letter to Department of Health and Human Services Secretary Xavier Becerra inquiring about it. On September 17, 2021, the American Hospital Association (AHA) issued a special bulletin that said there was a major change in the distribution of monoclonal antibody therapies prompted by the rapid surge of C19 positive cases across the country which increased the demand. Instead of hospitals ordering directly from the distributors, the weekly distribution would be determined by the HHS based on state case burden and monoclonal antibody utilization. The problem we have with this letter is that it specifically calls out the reason for changing the distribution rules is because there was high demand “particularly in areas of the country with low vaccination rates.” Why should the vaccination status matter when it comes to receiving potentially life-saving therapeutics? This is a dangerous comment that we have seen repeated over and over by government officials and within the media that encourages medical segregation that has nothing to do with science; especially since vaccinated people are getting infected and transmitting the virus at the same, if not higher rates, than the infection-naive unvaccinated people. We should be focused on improving everyone’s health and saving all lives. In 20 months we’ve somehow moved from “two weeks to flatten the curve” to “segregate the unvaccinated.” This is a dangerous precedent that individuals need to confront to prevent medical tyranny.
While the monoclonal antibodies under EUA discussed thus far are for short-term early treatment for COVID-19 positive patients, AstraZeneca has developed an antibody cocktail drug, Evusheld (tixagevimab with cigavimab administered together), that is intended for long-term protection for those immunocompromised Americans who are not adequately protected by their Covid-19 vaccination series. It is currently in Phase III trials with almost 5,200 participants. 3,460 received 300 mg of Evusheld and 1,737 received a saline placebo, and the FDA recently authorized Evusheld for pre-exposure prophylaxis, or PrEP, against Covid-19 from preliminary results. At the six-month mark, no severe cases of COVID-19 or deaths had been recorded among patients given the antibody cocktail. In the placebo group, five participants contracted severe COVID-19 and two died within the six-month window. AstraZeneca states that they will follow all participants for fifteen months and report on their findings. From the FDA website, “Serious cardiac adverse events were infrequent in PROVENT. However, more trial participants had serious cardiac adverse events (such as myocardial infarction and heart failure) after receiving Evusheld compared to placebo. These participants all had risk factors for cardiac disease or a history of cardiovascular disease before participating in the clinical trial. It is not clear if Evusheld caused these cardiac adverse events.” We encourage you to read about monoclonal antibodies and determine what options may be available to you should you need them.
A drug that was listed on many of the early repurposed drug protocols in 2020 was fluvoxamine. Early research suggests that fluvoxamine, an FDA-approved medication for depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder, can be an effective early treatment for COVID-19. Fluvoxamine was created in 1984 and is off patent (generic). The class of drugs it belongs to is Selective Serotonin-Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), which appear to activate a central nervous system protein that plays a role in regulating inflammatory responses. This drug was first noticed as having an effect in protecting individuals from symptomatic COVID-19 in a psychiatric hospital in Paris, where an associate professor of psychiatry, Dr. Nicolas Hoertel noticed that his patients were coming down with symptomatic COVID at a much lower rate (observational study) than the caregivers in the unit. Around the same time, a psychiatrist at Washington University in St. Louis teamed up with a colleague, Dr. Eric Lenze, to develop a study design for a randomized, double-blind, and fully remote outpatient clinical trial. The trial included 152 symptomatic over-18 years-old individuals randomly assigned to take either Fluvoxamine or a placebo. Participants received a dose of 50 mg of fluvoxamine (or matching placebo) in the evening immediately after the baseline assessment and confirmation of eligibility, then for 2 days at a dose of 100 mg twice daily as tolerated, and then increasing to a dose of 100 mg 3 times daily as tolerated through day 15 then stopped. Of the 80 patients who received the drug, no patients reached a blood oxygen saturation level of less than 92% (endpoint of clinical deterioration), versus six out of 72 who received the placebo.
Another observational study was conducted in California in November of 2020 with 113 individuals. Dr. Seftel offered patients the option to take fluvoxamine and 65 persons opted to take the drug, while 48 opted for observation alone with no therapy. 30% of these patients had one or more chronic medical comorbidities. The dose used was significantly lower than in the Lenze study: 50mg twice a day for fourteen days. The incidence of hospitalization was 0% (0/65) with fluvoxamine and 12.5% (6/48) with observation. Two people required ICU stay and one died. On day 14, ongoing symptoms were present in 0% (0/65) with fluvoxamine compared with 60% (29/48) with observation alone; ten (21%) had more than 5 persisting symptoms.
On January 19, 2021, a new multi-center, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled phase III trial began to confirm these initial results for those within the first 6 days of COVID-19 symptoms. The trial has an estimated completion date of March 1, 2022. The study is using one of the following drugs, including a placebo for each patient: Fluvoxamine 100 mg oral tablets, Doxazosin 2 mg oral tablets, Ivermectin 6 mg oral tablet, one syringe of 180 mcg peginterferon Lambda-1a, or one syringe of 125 mcg Peginterferon Beta-1A. The study screened 9,803 potential participants, with an average age of 50 years. Eligible patients presented to an outpatient care setting with an acute clinical condition consistent with COVID-19 and symptomatic for less than seven days. The patients also had at least one additional criterion for high risk. The primary outcome was an endpoint of medical admission to a hospital. By August 5, 2021, 1497 recruited participants were randomly assigned to fluvoxamine (n = 741) or placebo (n = 756) and 1826 were randomly assigned to other treatment groups. As of August 5, 2021, the study found that administering fluvoxamine to high-risk outpatients with early diagnosed covid-19 reduced the need for hospitalization (79/741 fluvoxamine (11%) versus 119/756 placebo (16%)). The CDC last updated their information on fluvoxamine on April 23, 2021, and states that there is insufficient evidence to recommend either for or against the use.
Chlorine dioxide, a strong oxidant, is a gas that is made by mixing sodium chlorite and an acid activator, that contains one chlorine atom and two oxygen atoms (ClO2). From the scientific literature regarding safety, the methods of introducing this substance to the body typically test oral consumption, inhalation, and ophthalmic. The term “Chlorine dioxide” is misleading because chlorine is not the active element. Chlorine dioxide is an oxidizing, not a chlorinating agent. For chlorine dioxide to be used as a bleaching agent, the solution will be on average 5%, which equals 50,000 ppm. Dosing used for human health typically ranges from 0.00003% – 0.02% solution.
Up until the 1970s, it was used on a small scale for drinking water disinfection. It has since grown in popularity, becoming the gold standard because it is safe for human consumption, non-carcinogenic, and non-mutagenic (e.g., none of the harmful by-products associated with chlorination are produced). Along with municipal water disinfection, it has been used for a wide variety of applications from the food and beverage industry, where it is used as an antimicrobial agent for washing food, cleaning products, and disinfecting liquids. It is used in the pharmaceutical and medical device industry for contamination control and sterility. Hospitals, schools, and daycares use it as a sterilizing disinfectant to prevent dangerous pathogens like MRSA, coronavirus, and model spores. Safety studies performed since the 1970s have shown that chlorine dioxide, when used appropriately, is safe for human consumption (e.g, CDC, drinking water at 5 ppm, ingestion at 5 ppm, etc.). More recent animal studies have also helped to identify safe levels of chlorine dioxide for oral and inhalation use (e.g., honey bees, rats, mice, rabbits).
Chlorine Dioxide has been found to out-perform other hard-surface bacteria disinfectants, having the highest biocidal activity of the ten other disinfectants. Its use inactivated HIV and HPV, decrease e.coli cross-contamination on lettuce when washed in ClO2 infused water, killed staphylococcus aureus and Acinetobacter baumannii (multi-drug resistant bacteria which can cause pneumonia and meningitis), and even killed the bacteria that causes foodborne pathogens like e.coli and salmonella with a 10-minute exposure to 5 ppm aerosolized ClO2. It is a strong disinfectant with many biocidal and virucidal applications. But what about its ability to reduce the transmission and infection of airborne viruses?
A 2008 randomized, controlled trial was performed with mice to determine the efficacy of using aerosolized chlorine dioxide at 0.03 ppm to reduce the infection rate and death from exposure to Influenza A. One group of 10 mice was exposed to aerosolized influenza A and aerosolized chlorine dioxide simultaneously for 15 minutes. A control group of mice was exposed to only the aerosolized Influenza A for 15 minutes. Sixteen days after exposure, none of the mice exposed to the chlorine dioxide had died, but 7 of the 10 mice in the influenza-only control group died. The researchers conclude that “ClO2 gas could therefore be useful as a preventive means against influenza in places of human activity without necessitating evacuation.”
In 2009, an observational study was performed in several classrooms in Japan to determine if releasing a very low concentration (0.01-0.03 ppm) of ClO2 would reduce the amount of absenteeism due to common colds and influenza. The study used two cohorts; one diffusing ClO2 and one not and observed them for 38 days. They found that the percentages of absenteeism between these classrooms (20/1272 = 1.5% versus 900/21634 = 4.0%) were significantly different. The researchers conclude that their findings “strongly suggest the use of extremely low-concentration ClO2 gas to prevent respiratory viral diseases in semi-closed areas, such as theaters, hospitals, and aircraft…” In 2010, another researcher found that against influenza (IFV), ClO2produced antiviral activity against 99.99% of the virus with a 1.0 ppm treatment for 15 seconds. To give you a sense of perspective on safety levels, the US Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) limits the concentration of ClO2 gas allowed in workplace air to 0.1 ppm (V/V) time-weighted average (TWA) for an 8-h exposure, and to a temporarily higher 0.3 ppm Short-Term Exposure Limit (STEL) only for a 15-min period.
In March of 2020, a review paper was published explaining how water-based ClO2 might be used in the fight against SARS-CoV-2. The researchers found that disinfection of the mouth and upper respiratory tract with gargling to inactivate the virus may be of use. While data is sparse, additional research on safely introducing ClO2 to the lower respiratory tract in terms of safe dosing (concentration + time) is critical. In June of 2021, two Japanese researchers published a study showing that “ClO2 aqueous solution can inactivate the binding of the variant spike proteins to the human ACE2 receptor protein, indicating that this [disinfectant] strategy may be useful in blocking the transmission of variant SARS-CoV-2 virus.” In Fall 2021, a paper was published touting the efficacy of ClO2against both enveloped and nonenveloped viruses focused on the effectiveness of ClO2 applied in healthcare and community settings in order to eliminate respiratory transmitted, enteric, and bloodborne viruses. From the studies presented on the efficacy of aqueous aerosol ClO2 in reducing the spread and infection of influenza and SARS-CoV-2, along with the decades-long studies on safety and concentration limits, it seems prudent to discuss introducing this mitigation strategy more widely in homes, schools, and workplaces.
Contrary to popular belief, Remdesivir has not been shown to be effective in any studies other than what the NIH/CDC funds and promotes; even the WHO does not support its use. As early as May 2020, published data revealed that “Remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits [and] the numerical reduction in time to clinical improvement in those treated earlier requires confirmation in larger studies.” A large-scale analysis (published February 2021) by the World Health Organization’s Solidarity trial consortium found, based on interim results from studying more than 5000 participants, that Remdesivir “had little or no effect on hospitalized patients with Covid-19, as indicated by overall mortality, initiation of ventilation, and duration of hospital stay.”
As a consequence of being ineffective, the WHO recommended against the use of Remdesivir in Covid-19 patients (November 2020). But yet, one month earlier in October 2020, Remdesivir was granted approval by the FDA based on promising data from a relatively small trial with about 1,090 participants funded by Dr. Fauci’s NIAID. The NIAID study results suggested a reduced recovery time and benefit to patient survival of a 10-day course of Remdesivir with a death rate of 8% for the group receiving Remdesivir versus 11.6% for the placebo group. They started a Phase III trial to study whether the shorter, 5-day course was as effective as the 10-day treatment. Remember, Ivermectin, with almost 10,000 patients taking part in randomized, placebo-controlled trials, showing 67% improvement in early treatment over placebo groups remains in “pending” approval status.
Why? Again, it may be productive to “follow the money.” Who owns Remdesivir and how much does it cost? Remdesivir was developed through an academic– corporate partnership between Dr. Ralph Baric’s UNC Chapel Hill lab and the pharmaceutical company, Gilead Sciences. The academic ownership was transferred to the government and therefore, the CDC and Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Diseases jointly own Remdesivir with the US Pharma company, Gilead Sciences. The drug remains under patent until 2037, granting monopolistic status to the owners who can then charge exorbitant prices, regardless of its efficacy for patient survival. Remdesivir costs several thousand dollars per IV infusion. When deployed for Ebola treatment in a RCT, it was found ineffective (mortality rate of 53%). Even with these high mortality rates in the trial for Ebola, it was approved for use with COVID-19. What few Americans realize is that the CDC co-owns Remdesivir making its recommendation a lucrative venture for the organization. As a matter of sound science, would it not seem prudent to disclose all conflicts of interest to the American public? Would this not be especially relevant when the CDC is heavily depended on by health care providers to make medical recommendations for the United States?
With what oversight do they (e.g., CDC/FDA/NIAID/NIH, etc.) make certain recommendations and are their oversight protocols unbiased? It also seems prudent to continuously monitor and study the outcomes of using these recommended drugs with a clearly defined end-point of clinical deterioration when the drug would be stopped and re-evaluated.
So why are hospitals in the United States still using Remdesivir? Remember the “follow the money” mantra? As pointed out in previous chapters, US Hospitals are getting a 20% payout bonus from Medicare and Medicaid to use Remdesivir instead of other treatments.
NCTAP claims are those that are eligible for the 20% add-on payment under Section 3710 of the CARES Act. Eligible claims have both of the following:
- ICD-10-CM diagnosis code U07.1 (COVID-19)
- ICD-10-PCS codes for Remdesivir (Veklury), COVID-19 convalescent plasma, or baricitinib (Olumiant) in combination with Remdesivir, as described below”
We found this op-ed discussing the differences in cost, safety and efficacy between Ivermectin and Remdesivir, with full citations throughout, an interesting read.
The behavioral patterns of those in powerful positions should result in individuals questioning the narrative. We are quickly approaching two years of efforts to stop the spread with Oklahoma’s Department of Health reporting 3,003 new Covid-19 cases on Friday, December 10th, 2021. Why are there more new Covid-19 cases on December 10th, 2021 than there were on December 10th, 2020 (2,460) given that we have 61.7 percent of Oklahomans fully vaccinated?
Could it be because there is a coordinated effort taking place to silence medical professionals and discredit conclusive scientific data found to treat Covid-19? If you mathematically calculate how the early interventions discussed in this chapter can improve an already high 99.7% overall survivability rate from Covid-19 infection, the result would approach a 99.995% survivability overall, across all demographics. This data proves that Covid-19 has become a pandemic of the untreated and ill-informed. We know clinically that we can treat SARS-CoV-2 with safe and effective antivirals, nutraceuticals and vitamins. We also know that other nations have provided us with concrete evidence that would support the use of these therapeutics in the United States.
Why do we need mRNA gene therapies without any long-term safety data and extremely concerning short term data? How many Americans were killed because we failed to provide early therapeutic intervention? With the growing number of vaccine breakthrough cases (e.g., vaccine failure), how are we as a nation not shifting toward early therapeutic treatments?
Dr. Bhattacharya’s Senate Testimony on December 8, 2020 touches on the government’s single-minded push toward vaccination instead of embracing a multi-prong approach including repurposed drugs with known long-term safety profiles. He discusses why there have been so few randomized evaluations of these early intervention therapies and how the government should have used its resources to help fund randomized evaluations of these drugs for off-label purposes:
The NIH has made comparatively little effort to catalyze randomized evaluations of off-patent drugs for COVID-19 therapeutics. By contrast, the NIH has devoted considerable resources to aid the COVID-19 vaccine randomized trial studies. Even the highest profile randomized evaluation of dexamethasone was not funded by the NIH. The NIH’s relative lack of interest in the rapid randomized evaluation of non-patented drug evaluation represents a government failure that has likely led to worse COVID-19 outcomes than we would have had otherwise.”
If we could have used those off-label, safe and effective treatments early, there wouldn’t have been an EUA for an experimental “vaccine” with no long-term efficacy or safety studies. Those individuals who died “with” Covid-19 in their system may still be alive today. It is imperative that you remain informed and continue to do your own research on any new drugs being considered as treatment protocols for Covid-19. For example, what ingredients are in the new Merck drug, Molnupiravir? What ingredients are in the new Pfizer drug, Paxlovid? These drugs are seeking EUA as oral antivirals for the treatment of mild to moderate Covid-19 in patients at increased risk of hospitalization and death and are in the middle of their trials. Merck has 775 patients in their trial and Pfizer has 2,100 out of their planned 3000 patients enrolled currently. Think about those numbers for a minute and then remember that we have 67 controlled Covid-19 studies including 49,492 patients, with 31 randomized controlled trials including 6,858 patients, reflecting 67% improvement in the Ivermectin group compared to placebo, with an outstanding 40-year safety profile. Yet, we have been told this is insufficient evidence for widespread accepted use as a treatment protocol for Covid-19. So, how is it that the Merck clinical trial data on 775 patients and the Pfizer data on 2,100 patients are enough to possibly approve an EUA? If we use the same standard as was used with Ivermectin, then Merck and Pfizer have many years of data collection remaining. Always ask questions, always ask for data, ask how the drug is supposed to work and please always ask for an ingredient list. If you do not get your questions answered, do not take the drug. It is our sincere hope all new drugs are safe, effective and inexpensive because the “one-size-fits-all” narrative that we are currently living is not even close to working.
Regardless of how our government failed to handle this virus in the past and is failing to handle it currently, we have the local power to change things now. We know more, we can do better. We can stop the fear-mongering and decide on truth and transparency and live by the medical Hippocratic Oath; that we should use medical knowledge to help rather than harm, and that patients are to be treated not as cases or experimental subjects, but as human beings worthy of respect and compassion.
Questions to Consider:
- Why is Ivermectin listed as the number 2 Covid-19 drug protocol (after Remdesivir) on the NIH website, but yet, not more widely prescribed by doctors in out-patient or hospital settings given its safety profile?
- How did Remdesivir get on the approved Covid-19 drug list when it clearly failed in the Ebola trials?
- Who are the players encouraging blatant falsified stories to be published, working to keep life-saving drugs out of patients’ hands and threatening doctors brave enough to prescribe these lifesaving treatments with their medical licenses?
- Why would the government condemn the use of repurposed drugs and physicians who prescribed safe and effective anti-virals for early treatment when doing so led to hundreds of thousands of deaths?
- Why couldn’t the government support physicians and patients in their “right to try” these drugs as they were simultaneously working through vaccine trials and assessing safety data of a technology that has never been used successfully in humans?
- Why haven’t more doctors spoken up and refused to prescribe Remdesivir as in-hospital treatment when it is clearly not working, and may actually be attributed to increased death rates? (e.g., kidney failure)
- Why did the government limit the HCQ EUA to only hospitalization usage when clearly, HCQ’s strength was in early treatment protocols?
“Thousands upon thousands of persons have studied disease but almost no one has studied health” – Adelle Davis