Hydroxychloroquine use during COVID pandemic may have induced 17,000 deaths

a reply to: WaESN

Wow, the BS Hits, just keep coming and coming with no end in sight. They'll blame everyone and everything except the actual cause, the mRNA/spike protein/line 1 reverse transcription, endothelial cell attack/micro-clots/etc. It's quite the clown show, shame the purveyors of the poison didn't take it. I was in pharmacy the other day, they are still pushing this crap. Stupid people never learn, oh well, what can one do...

Cheers - Dave

a reply to: v1rtu0s0


Well that is a way to get a result that allows you to spout some bull# like it's truth.

This from a previous post concerning how the WHO turned off the supply of HCQ to the western world while places in mexico and central america it was being sold in vending machines:

I keep going back to early on in this CF when they started saying that HCQ was a stone cold killer and would stop your heart, and was completely ineffective. That was all based on a completely fabricated study, a total fraud.

Questions raised over hydroxychloroquine study which caused WHO to halt trials for Covid-19
The gist of the article is this: The “study” that "concluded" that Hydroxychlorquine is unsafe, and responsible for increasing mortality rates in Covid-19 positive patients treated with that drug is very possibly a complete fabrication.

From the article:


"The study, led by the Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Disease in Boston, examined patients in hospitals around the world, including in Australia. It said researchers gained access to data from five hospitals recording 600 Australian Covid-19 patients and 73 Australian deaths as of 21 April.

But data from Johns Hopkins University shows only 67 deaths from Covid-19 had been recorded in Australia by 21 April. The number did not rise to 73 until 23 April. The data relied upon by researchers to draw their conclusions in the Lancet is not readily available in Australian clinical databases, leading many to ask where it came from.

The federal health department confirmed to Guardian Australia that the data collected on notifications of Covid-19 in the National Notifiable Diseases Surveillance System was not the source for informing the trial."


So in short, those who put this study out there as valid drew on imaginary data. The dates are wrong, and the reporting system used officially by Australia was NOT the source of this information. The Health ministries of New South Wales, and Victoria provinces, which had the highest numbers of Covid-19 infections, deaths, and hospitalizations said the data in the study was off in every category.

Furthermore, the lead author claimed to take the data from a medical website called Surgisphere, which one doctor said he had never heard of, and the data does not have "Ethics Approval."


“Ethical approval is needed for any research that involves human participants; their tissue and /or data to ensure that the dignity, rights, safety and well-being of all participants are the primary consideration of the research project.” " Why you must apply for ethical approval | Research and ...


www.imperial.ac.uk › what-is-ethics- › why-you-mus

Another glaring problem with the results of the study is that there was apparently no one involved from any of the hospitals cited that would have given the site "Surgisphere" access to the data.


Dr Allen Cheng, an epidemiologist and infectious disease doctor with Alfred Health in Melbourne, said the Australian hospitals involved in the study should be named. He said he had never heard of Surgisphere, and no one from his hospital, The Alfred, had provided Surgisphere with data.

“Usually to submit to a database like Surgisphere you need ethics approval, and someone from the hospital will be involved in that process to get it to a database,” he said. He said the dataset should be made public, or at least open to an independent statistical reviewer.

“If they got this wrong, what else could be wrong?” Cheng said. It was also a “red flag” to him that the paper listed only four authors.

“Usually with studies that report on findings from thousands of patients, you would see a large list of authors on the paper,” he said. “Multiple sources are needed to collect and analyse the data for large studies and you usually see that acknowledged in the list of authors.”


Even more confounding, that shining pillar of leadership and solid information (sarcasm off) the W.H.O. claimed that the negative results of the study cited is the reason that they stopped their own HCQ trials.

Here's where it gets even weirder.

It is pretty easy to explain why the doctors had not heard of Surgisphere, the company that allegedly provided the data for the seemingly fabricated study.

Up until March of 2020, Surgisphere was seemingly a NOBODY. I checked their twitter feed, and they had almost zero activity up until March of this year, when they got a predictive model for the treatment of Covid-19 approved, since which time it has been instituted for use in over 1000 hospitals. Things that make you go hmmmm.

I made some screen captures of their twitter feed, which was kind of a ghost town for a long time. There were several posts in 2011, a few in 2012, two posts in 2013, one in 2014, two in 2016, two in 2017, then nothing till March of 2020, when their twitter feed blew up as they brought their cash cow predictive treatment model online, now being referenced by over 1k hospitals, just in time to "save us" and provide good data for treatment of Covid -19. Data which just happens to start out claiming HCQ is dangerous and causes higher mortality in Covid-19 patients.

Perhaps stranger still, when you search when Surgisphere was founded, you get some very conflicting information in the same screen shot. Google says 1998, their Linkedin intro says 2007.

The hell of it is, NOTHING happened to the people who perpetrated this fraud, besides getting really rich for doing the bidding of the Pharma overlords. Did anyone go back and correct their assertions about HCQ? Not on your life. Not a word from the WHO, CDC, NIH, or any other health governing body that is supposed to watch out for people, not a word.

In a general sense, if the papers, articles, or whatever else is out there say something is good or positive having to do with vaccines, protocols, treatment models, or specialty drugs, it's probably a Goddamned lie.