The dangerous, unapproved drug from government-linked pharma company Gilead Sciences is reportedly being given to U.S. President Donald Trump, along with another experimental drug, Regeneron. Will he survive the treatment?
*UPDATE* Oct. 7: Obviously Trump is not ill in any way, so we stand by our statements below: We know he can’t have contracted a fake disease. And we now suspect he hasn’t been given any of the new drugs. Otherwise he would be in some sort of substandard state. He looks fine and has not even stopped campaigning. Looks like a push to sell some drugs to people who they will damage or kill when they actually take them.
Most immediately, Trump is proving that COVAIDS is a complete scam.
First, we don’t know whether Trump has actually been given these drugs, or if we are just being told he had received them. We do know he can’t possibly have contracted a fake disease. In any event, we sketch two scenarios:
Scenario 1: Trump recovers quickly, boosting the reputation and sales of these drugs, possibly resulting in their FDA approval. As Remdesivir costs $2,340 on average and hospital treatment is required for its use, it won’t threaten the vaccine play too much.
Scenario 2: Trump dies, proving that the alleged virus is life-threatening, dealing a stunning blow to the growing opposition who point out that the official COVAIDS figures show it is not lethal, that the science shows it is non-existent and that a swift return to normal is in order. Instead, the U.S. stays on lockdown and draconian measures get new justification: “Well, Trump died from it, so I guess it’s deadly.” Not to mention the electoral and un-civil consequences.
But press on we must with skeptical opposition, because we know the score. We need to ask how many cycles was Trump’s PCR test run at? Tests run above 30 cycles will likely show a false positive, according to PCR experts consulted and reported on by Torsten Engelbrecht, and according to statements made by PCR inventor Kary Mullis himself. Those who follow this blog and the work of others such as Jon Rappoport and Torsten Engelbrecht know that a PCR test does not prove anything other than that a person contains genetic material, and is for clinical purposes meaningless.
(In fact, here is a newly uncovered Kary Mullis clip saying just that.)
As Jon Rappoport has pointed out: Remdesivir is said to be considered for use in “severe” cases of alleged COVID only, and we add, as per below, in a hospital setting, intravenously. Is this what is occurring now? Why are doctors using this “treatment” if Trump’s “case” is mild? Further, the effects of two drugs together, Remdesivir plus Regeneron, an alleged “antibody-drug” combination alleged to have “successfully prevented and treated” COVID in rhesus macaques and hamsters, are not known.
And, why isn’t Trump taking the purportedly safer hydroxychloroquine, as he was alleged to be taking this earlier in the year, or the reportedly successful combination of hydroxychloroquine, zinc and azithromycin? Perhaps Trump’s alleged “case” is meant to prove the uselessness of taking such a drug prophylactically? What is Melania taking?
Trump is reported by MarketWatch to be also taking zinc, vitamin D, an acid reducer, melatonin and aspirin. It is unclear if this is Trump’s normal regimen, but certainly the acid reducer and aspirin are not helpful in a healthy individual, as they basically destroy gut function.
That Trump is now taken off the campaign trail, together with his substandard performance in the first U.S. presidential debate, makes it appear at the very least as if Trump is being told to throw the fight. We understand that the markets are in favor of a Biden presidency, according to analyst Greg Mannarino.
Would the opposition resort to killing Trump with deadly drugs right before the election, rendering a scenario Cyberreason and John Podesta did not game?
With regard to the dangers of Remdesivir particularly, we share below an excerpt from the Ohio Stands Up lawsuit attachments. It is a report authored by psychiatrist Dr. Peter Breggin, on NAIAD head Dr. Anthony Fauci’s clinical trials for use of Remdesivir in treating alleged COVID.
Dr. Peter Breggin: “Fauci Supports an Expensive, Ineffective and Proven Dangerous Drug”
Fauci has called placebo-controlled randomized clinical trials the Gold Standard for
testing drugs. The problem is that science is only as reliable as the scientists who plan, monitor,
and later promote the clinical trials—and Fauci has showed bias from the beginning. He
criticized President Trump for encouraging the use of a very safe and helpful
hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19, and then proceeded to push remdesivir, which had failed in
two earlier trials, one because too many patients were dying and the other because it did not help. (italics ours)
By Fauci’s gold standard of clinical trials, Remdesivir should have been trashed before its
clinical trial began and other more hopeful drugs should have replaced it at the head of line.
Fauci had to know from the beginning that remdesivir was a failed antiviral drug that would
probably do more harm than good. An earlier, famous remdesivir trial for Ebola was stopped
because remdesivir was causing a significantly higher mortality rate than other antiviral drugs in the same trial. 348 As one recent medical source noted, the remdesivir arm of the Ebola trial had to be aborted “because of an increase in death among patients taking it, meaning it did not help those patients.” 349
Then, shortly before Fauci began his remdesivir clinical trial, a strong peer-reviewed
article with a double-blind was published indicating that remdesivir is both useless and
dangerous in treating COVID-19. The Lancet study found remdesivir devoid of any statistically
significant clinical improvements: 350
Interpretation: In this study of adult patients admitted to hospital for severe COVID19, remdesivir was not associated with statistically significant clinical benefits. (p. 1, bold in original).
In addition, the study found no antiviral effect for the drug in human patients:
Remdesivir did not result in significant reductions in SARS-CoV-2 RNA loads or
detectability in upper respiratory tract or sputum specimens in this study. (p. 9)
[We add that PCR tests cannot determine viral loads and are qualitative tests. This only further substantiates their uselessness for clinical purposes.]
More frightening, remdesivir produced very severe adverse reactions in the form of
“respiratory failure” or “acute respiratory distress syndrome” in 5% of patients. In other words,
five of every 100 patients taking remdesivir developed a life-threatening decline in their
condition. This echoes the findings of the disastrous remdesivir Ebola trial.351
Long before his promotion of remdesivir and his corruption of its clinical trial, Fauci
already professionally invested in Gilead, the manufacturer of remdesivir. Fauci’s institute
already had a panel for the purpose of developing treatment guidelines for the pandemic on an
ongoing basis. It is called “NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines.” Hundreds of drugs were
coming up the pipeline seeking federal approval for treating the novel coronavirus.352 On a
government treatment advisory panel, would you expect to find a dominant membership block
that was financially indebted to one drug company with a single drug, while almost every other
drug company and their drugs were left out?
Of the 50 members on Fauci’s committee to set treatment guidelines, only 11 had financial ties to drug companies.353 But nine of the eleven had financial ties to Gilead, remdesivir’s manufacturer. The ties consisted of “Research Support,” “Consultant,” and “Advisory Board.” Put simply, from the beginning, Fauci was stacking his treatment guidelines committee with Gilead, remdesivir’s manufacturer.
The stacked panel, before any clinical trials, came out strongly in favor of the highly
experimental remdesivir and wholly against the commonly used hydroxychloroquine: “On the
basis of preliminary clinical trial data, the Panel recommends the investigational antiviral agent remdesivir for the treatment of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients with severe disease” and “The Panel does not recommend remdesivir for the treatment of mild or moderate COVID19 outside the setting of a clinical trial” (bold in original). Fauci’s outcome was predetermined from the start.354
What did Gilead get from Fauci? The remdesivir clinical trial was “sponsored by
the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID)” and was “the first clinical
trial launched in the United States to evaluate an experimental treatment for COVID-19.”355
NIH organized and funded their trial, saving Gilead in the range of $100,000,000 dollars
and, more importantly, years of time, while Fauci did his best to clean up any messy results.
Fauci and his institute collaborated with his favorite corporation, Gilead, to get expedited
approval for Remdesivir.356 Gilead is estimated to have spent one billion dollars on developing
and promoting Remdesivir on its own and Fauci’s institute is estimated to have contributed 70
million more dollars to implementing the NIH clinical trial of the drug.357
Once Fauci got the remdesivir study going, he had to start manipulating it. One example
was highlighted by a May 1, 2020 headline in The Washington Post: “Government researchers changed metric to measure coronavirus drug remdesivir during clinical trial.”358 The trial had
changed the primary metric for measuring success, a mere two weeks before Fauci’s
announcement that the drug would be the new “standard of care.”
When clinical trials are begun, the researchers are required to establish the “endpoints,”
including a “primary endpoint,” which is the major measure of outcome and the main criterion
for success. That is what the Washington Post was referring to as the metrics. The endpoints for
remdesivir are listed in the original plan for the trials called the protocols. These initial
endpoints included truly meaningful criteria, such as the all-important lowered fatality rate and complete recovery.359
As the trial continued, it must have become apparent to Fauci that his drug was not going to reduce mortality or even lead a meaningful definition of recovery. The one primary marker for
success became “time to recovery”—two out of three possibilities for being recovered included
patients who remained hospitalized or who were at home requiring limitations on their activities and/or requiring oxygen.360 Here are the three categories for “success”:
1) Hospitalized, not requiring supplemental oxygen – no longer requires
ongoing medical care; 2) Not hospitalized, limitation on activities and/or
requiring home oxygen; 3) Not hospitalized, no limitations on activities.361
Not only did recovery time become the single primary criterion for improvement, “recovery”
was achieved even when the patient remained in the hospital or returned home with limited
activities and/or requiring oxygen. Fauci’s NIH press release estimated that remdesivir shortened the recovery time for the COVID-19 illness by a mere four days (from 15 to 11).362 But as inadequate as that sounds for a wonder drug’s only achievement, it looks ridiculous when realizing that Fauci still had to reinvent the concept of recovery in order to get those limited results.
Also, Fauci or the media told few people that remdesivir must be given intravenously
over a ten-day period. This procedure itself has risks. It also limits its use to patients sick enough to be hospitalized. As a result, it cannot be used as hydroxychloroquine is used around the world, as a prophylaxis and as a treatment to be given at the earliest signs of the disease before any need for hospitalization.
Finally, the remdesivir trials must have been a complete bust because Fauci terminated
them ahead of time by breaking the double-blind. In an interview, Fauci said that the results of
the remdesivir trial were so promising, there was “an ethical obligation to immediately let the
placebo group know so they can have access” to the drug.363 But that was a lie. As noted, the
study at best was going poorly. Furthermore, as described earlier in the section of the report, two earlier clinical trials showed that remdesivir was potentially lethal. By encouraging placebo patients to switch to remdesivir in the NIH clinical trials, Fauci exposed them to potentially lethal adverse effects.
Fauci’s remdesivir was never allowed to meet Fauci’s own gold standard— a finished
placebo-controlled clinical trial. This turned Fauci’s “gold standard” into one of the weakest
kinds of study, an open observational study—one in which highly biased researchers and
analysts, such as Fauci, manipulate the unblinded data and offer their subjective opinions.
Meanwhile, we will never know just how ineffective and damaging the drug had become to bring about this radical, unethical destruction of the clinical trial. What a bizarre ending to the miracle drug that Fauci so highly touted two weeks earlier, declaring “This will be the standard of care.”364
MSM nonetheless reports that Remdesivir reduces COVID deaths by 62%
Amazingly, after what Breggin here describes as a colossal failure, a “new analysis of the existing trial results” reported by Barron’s in July 2020 alleged that Remdesivir reduced COVID deaths by 62%! How this was achieved needs analysis, and certainly appears to involve some “lying with statistics”. The same month, BBC reported that the U.S. had purchased 500,000 doses of Gilead’s Remdesivir for use in hospitals after reports of these “successful” clinical trials. By August, Gilead was seeking FDA approval for the drug. A speedy Trump recovery might enable this.
Gilead Sciences is a firm for which U.S. government biosecurity players have done extensive lobbying over the years, and which was headed by former U.S. Secretary of “Defense” Donald Rumsfeld in the 1990s. Rumsfeld and Gilead profited from the 2005 avian flu hoax via sales of tamiflu, a drug later found to cause narcolepsy.
Health Impact News editor Brian Shilhavy reports on Regeneron here.
Breggin report sources:
348 Mulangu, S., et al, 2019, A Randomized, Controlled Trial of Ebola Virus Disease Therapeutics, The New England Journal of Medicine. N Engl J Med 2019; 381:2293-2303. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa1910993 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1910993
349 MedicineNet, 2020, Remdesivir (RDV): Experimental Antiviral for Coronavirus (COVID-19), MedicineNet. https://www.medicinenet.com/remdesivir_rdv_ebola_covid19_coronavirus_trial/article.htm#what_is_remdesivir_rdv
350 Wang, Y., et al, 2020, Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, placebocontrolled, multicentre trial. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31022-9
351 The authors found that “More patients in the remdesivir group than the placebo group discontinued the study drug because of adverse events or serious adverse events (18 [12%] in the remdesivir group vs four [5%] in the placebo group), among whom seven (5%) were due to respiratory failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome in the remdesivir group. (p. 10)
352 Dunn, A., 2020, There are already 72 drugs in human trials for coronavirus in the US. With hundreds more on the way, a top drug regulator warns we could run out of researches to test them all, Business Insider. https://www.businessinsider.com/fda-woodcock-overwhelming-amount-of-coronavirus-drugs-in-the-works-2020-4
353 NIH, 2019-2020, Appendix A, Table 2. COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel Financial Disclosure for Companies Related to COVID-19 Treatment or Diagnostics, NIH. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/panel-financial-disclosure/
354 NIH, 2020, What’s New in the Guidelines, NIH. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/whats-new/
355 NIH, 2020, NIH clinical trial of remdesivir to treat COVID-19 begins, NIH. https://www.nih.gov/newsevents/news-releases/nih-clinical-trial-remdesivir-treat-covid-19-begins
356 Strauss, D., 2020, FULL INTERVIEW: Houston-area doctor in viral video touting hydroxychloroquine as virus cure doubles down on claims, Click2Houston. https://www.click2houston.com/news/local/2020/07/31/fullinterview-houston-doctor-in-viral-video-touting-hydroxychloroquine-as-virus-cure-doubles-down-on-claims/
357 Brennan, Z., 2020, Remdesivir helps coronavirus patient – but at what cost?, Politico.
358 Rowland, C., 2020, Government researchers changed metric to measure coronavirus drug remdesivir during clinical trial, The Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/05/01/government-researcherschanged-metric-measure-coronavirus-drug-remdesivir-during-clinical-trial/
359 Schwitzer, G., 2020, What the public didn’t hear about the NIH remdesivir trial, Health News Review. https://www.healthnewsreview.org/2020/04/what-the-public-didnt-hear-about-the-nih-remdesivir-trial/
360 Clinical Trials, 2020, History of Changes for Study, Clinical Trials.
361 Clinical Trials, 2020, Adaptive COVID-19 Treatment Trial, Clinical Trials.
362 NIH, 2020, NIH Clinical Trial Shows Remdesivir Accelerates Recovery from Advanced COVID-19, NIH. http://breggin.com/coronavirus/remdesivir/NIH-release-Remdesivir-Accelerates-Recovery-4-29-20.pdf
363 Edwards, E., 2020, Remdesivir shows promising results for coronavirus, Fauci says, NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/coronavirus-drug-remdesivir-shows-promise-large-trial-n1195171
364 Clancy, C.J., 2020, Fauci on remdesivir for COVID-19: ‘This will be the standard of care’, Healio. http://breggin.com/coronavirus/remdesivir/Fauci-on-remdesivir-for-COVID-19-This-will-be-the-standard-of- care.pdf