2021-05-05 update is related to Ivermectin, but goes beyond it. Since the Panel purports to speak on behalf of the National Institutes of Health, even when it expresses a neutral stance toward a medication has a negative meaning.
“We must remind the Panel that in the absence of even a weak recommendation, the vast majority of the nation’s health care providers will be unwilling to prescribe ivermectin despite it being far safer than medicines such as aspirin or acetaminophen.” – from FLCCC Alliance Response to the N.I.H. Guideline Committee Recommendation on Ivermectin use in COVID-19, February 11, 2021.
2020-12-27 update: on December 2, the Panel recommended against Regeneron cocktail of two monoclonal antibodies (now called casirivimab and imdevimab), which cured President Trump:
“At this time, there are insufficient data to recommend either for or against the use of casirivimab plus imdevimab for the treatment of outpatients with mild to moderate COVID-19.
The casirivimab plus imdevimab combination should not be considered the standard of care for the treatment of patients with COVID-19.” (emphasis in the source)
“Patients who are hospitalized for COVID-19 should not receive casirivimab plus imdevimab outside of a clinical trial.” (emphasis in the source)
There is sufficient data to investigate its members for malpractice and more serious crimes.
The NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel, more correctly referred to as The NIH COVID-19 Non-treatment panel (“NICHT”), was clandestinely created by Dr. Anthony Fauci in late March, and announced itself when it published its guidelines, on April 21. It is unclear by what authority Dr. Fauci convened it.
This Panel’s guidelines recommend against all effective antiviral treatments, except for Gilead’s Remdesivir, which failed all clinical trials. It is used by hospitals only reluctantly. Despite these failures, the Panel is currently recommending Remdesivir while recommending against all therapeutics with proven efficiency, such as Hydroxychloroquine (with or without Azithromycin), convalescent plasma, and even Ivermectin, after it started to show promise. Famotidine (which President Donald Trump received when he was infected with COVID-19) is not even mentioned in the Panel’s Guidelines, despite its broad use and good outcomes in clinical trials. The Panel also recommended against all prophylaxis, including Vitamin C & Zinc.
By the time the Panel issued recommendations, Hydroxychloroquine-based treatment has been widely and successfully used by physicians in the US and across the globe. Doctors started to hesitate using Hydroxychloroquine only after it was attacked by this Panel, the FDA, and the World Health Organization.
The Panel continues to misinform the public and doctors on all things COVID-19. Below are some facts about this Panel:
- In mid-March, a medical institute headed by Dr. Didier Raoult (Marseille, France) demonstrated that Hydroxychloroquine + Azithromycin clear coronavirus in COVID-19 patients. President Donald Trump tweeted on March 21: HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE & AZITHROMYCIN, taken together, have a real chance to be one of the biggest game changers in the history of medicine. The FDA has moved mountains – Thank You! He was correct. Next, Fauci started assembling NICHT, which would recommend against this treatment.
- The Panel labored out of the public view for about a month and went public on April 21 by publishing its COVID-19 Despite the fact that the Panel’s Guidelines contradicted established medical practice, the Panel’s sudden appearance, motivations, and members were not scrutinized, but simply accepted as the new authority on all COVID-19 treatments.
- Later, the Panel’s Guidelines went further, recommending strongly against Hydroxychloroquine (with or without Azithromycin), and recommending for Remdesivir in severely ill patients. Both recommendations were exactly opposite of the latest clinical results.
- Incredibly, the Panel also recommends against any prophylaxis (emphasis is in the source):
- “The COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines Panel (the Panel) recommends againstthe use of any agents for severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), except in a clinical trial (AIII).
- The Panel recommends against the use of any agents for SARS-CoV-2 post-exposure prophylaxis (PEP), except in a clinical trial (AIII).”
Hydroxychloroquine prophylaxis decreases risk of COVID-19 by five times. But even if it were not so, or the Panel simply wanted to discredit Hydroxychloroquine, how can doctors (or just humans) recommend against ANY PROPHYLAXIS?
- The Panel rejects vitamins and Zinc:
- It recommends against Zinc supplementation “above the recommended dietary allowance,” contrary to the well-known antiviral properties of Zinc, and wide usage of Zinc by COVID-19 treating physicians. Notice also that the recommended dietary allowance is the minimum, not the optimal value.
- It also expresses neutral-negative opinion regarding vitamin C. Relative to the existing public knowledge that vitamin C does help to prevent and treat acute respiratory diseases, it is an implied negative recommendation.
- All authority of the Panel was given to its three Co-Chairs, who were given free rein to recruit other members.
- All three Co-Chairs have links to Gilead; two of them received money from Gilead and one (Clifford Lane, Fauci’s buddy) was performing a clinical trial of Remdesivir within the NIAID. Preliminary results of this trial were used by the Panel to recommend the use of Remdesivir and by FDA to issue an Emergency Use Authorization.
- None of the three Co-Chairs are experts in acute infectious respiratory diseases or the viruses that cause them (coronaviruses, rhinoviruses, or flu viruses).
- A third of the Panel has financial ties to Gilead, which a half of them has not disclosed. Majority of the Panel members with medical, scientific, or pharmaceutical experience specialize in HIV, the main target of Gilead drugs. The second specialization is Hepatitis, the target of the second most important Gilead’s drug line. Finally, some panel members have experience with Remdesivir in the attempts to use it against Ebola and Hepatitis C. None of these diseases is similar to COVID-19. None of the viruses causing these diseases (retroviruses, ebolavirus, hepatic viruses).
- At most 5 (five) out of 56 Panel members have any demonstrated experience with influenza or coronaviruses, despite that the US has recently battled several zoonotic virus pandemics such as 2009 H1N1 (“swine flu”) and H5N1 avian flu, and helped to contain SARS & MERS. A two dozen of randomly selected country doctors would have had more knowledge and experience to write COVID-19 treatment guidelines than the members of this Panel.
- The Panel members’ corruption and lack of relevant experience may explain some of their asinine recommendations. For example, the recommendations of the Panel suggest gaps in basic understanding of the phases of an acute respiratory infection and the urgency to start antiviral treatment as early as possible, immediately upon the symptom onset.
- Of interesting fact, and on obvious conflict of interest, Fauci’s wife, Christine Grady, Ph.D., is the chief of the Department of Bioethics of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is supposed to oversee any conflicts of interest and ethics of Dr. Fauci’s decisions.
This situation is unbelievable. Somehow, the NIH Panel, the World Health Organization, and the Big Tech have blinded this country to all successful prophylaxis and treatments for COVID-19. The US has been forced to suffer 20-30 thousand COVID-19 deaths every month, while enduring physical restrictions without a precedent.
Doctors and public officials have all tools and knowledge needed to end this pandemic (short of eradicating the coronavirus) within weeks. For that to work, it is necessary to remove those who misinform the doctors and public officials and sustain the pandemic, including this Panel, Dr. Fauci, and the FDA Chief Scientist Denise Hinton.
Originally published on October 16.
3 thoughts on “COVID-19 No-Treatment Panel”
While in the army in the 50/60’s we took Hydroxychloroquine every day 200 mg.Not one person became ill because of it.Why IS IT THAT IT WAS TAKEN OFF THE SHELVES OF PHARMACIES back in feb.If it is not all it is cracked up to be why ban it?In a supposed free society we should at least be allowed the privilege of making up our own minds especially while they are trying to better their own cocktails.Sorry,but this system stinks
and the fact that the factory which produces hydrochloroquine was bombed out of production has made many people wonder what sort of a game this is.Perhaps the eugenicists will tell us
How do they get away with it?