Gallery: America’s Frontline Doctors say physicians are being silenced!

America’s Frontline Doctors say Physicians are Being Silenced; HCQ Works; Nobody Needs to Die

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Events are happening again faster than we can write articles on, so we’re switching back to a summary format for some articles.

Twitter is banning all videos that discuss HCQ as a cure for Covid-19 even though success stories are piling up.

Here are America’s Frontline Doctors saying they as a group are being silenced, that HCQ works to cure CDovid-19 and it’s being suppressed as a cure.

WATCH– Texas Doctor: Studies Claiming Hydroxychloroquine Does Not Work Are ‘Fake Science’

Amy Furr, Breitbart, July 27, 2020

Video Player







WATCH– Texas Doctor: Studies Claiming Hydroxychloroquine Does Not Work Are ‘Fake Science’

Hannah Bleau, Breitbart News, July 27, 2020


Over 185,000 viewers were concurrently watching the stream when it aired live Monday afternoon.

The event, hosted by the organization America’s Frontline Doctors, a group founded by Dr. Simone Gold, a board-certified physician and attorney, and made up of medical doctors, came together to address what the group calls a “massive disinformation campaign” about the coronavirus. Norman also spoke at the event.

“If Americans continue to let so-called experts and media personalities make their decisions, the great American experiment of a Constitutional Republic with Representative Democracy, will cease,” reads the event’s information page.

The event was organized and sponsored by the Tea Party Patriots.

“We’ve removed this video for sharing false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19,” a Facebook company spokesman, Andy Stone, told Breitbart News. The company did not specify what portion of the video it ruled to be “false information,” who it consulted to make that ruling, and on what basis it was made.

Stone replied to New York Times tech columnist Kevin Roose on Twitter regarding the video:

Stone then added that the platform would direct users who had interacted with the post to information on “myths debunked by the WHO.”

Facebook’s decision to censor the livestream was quickly followed by YouTube, the Google-owned video-sharing platform. The video had over 80,000 views on YouTube prior to its removal.

Following Facebook and YouTube’s removal of the video, Twitter followed suit, removing Breitbart News’s Periscope livestream of the press conference. Jack Dorsey’s platform also then limited the Breitbart News official account, indicating that tweets containing links to multiple stories about the press conference violate the platform’s COVID-19 policies.

Twitter limits Breitbart News account

The Hydroxychloroquine Scandal

From the outset of the Coronavirus pandemic, and the lockdown regimes that followed, we have been repeatedly told, by all the usual suspects, institutions and the mainstream media, that the only way to get back to normal is with a vaccine; precisely echoing the calls of the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Certainly, the UK government was quick to invest in vaccine development. In their Coronavirus Action Plan, published on 3 March, the focus was overwhelmingly on vaccines. The Action Plan noted that a vaccine may not prevent infection from SARS-Cov-2 but could rather manage symptoms of the potentially resultant syndrome, COVID-19:

Given that there is currently neither a vaccine against COVID-19 nor any specific, proven, antiviral medication, most treatment will therefore be towards managing symptomsinnovate responses including diagnostics, drugs and vaccines

This notion that a proposed vaccine may not actually stop SARS-CoV-2 infections, but rather manage symptoms of COVID-19, was clearly signalled by Pascal Soriot (CEO of AstraZeneca), who are partnering with Oxford University to develop a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine. Speaking on the BBC’s Andrew Marr Show on 24 May, Soriot stated:

We are quite confident the vaccine will work, actually. The question is, will it completely clear the virus or stop people being sick … This is what happens with the flu vaccine, for instance … It simply stops people from being sick … Being protected against being sick would already be a big plus.

UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson has, so far, held a number of discussions with Bill and Melinda Gates about the COVID-19 crisis. On 4 June, the UK government hosted the GAVI vaccine alliance Replenishment Summit in London. The Gates Foundation gave GAVI $1.2 billion in 2019 and was among its founding partners. It has contributed more than $4.1Bn to GAVI during its two-decade-long mission to create “healthy markets for vaccines.”

Bill Gates and Boris Johnson were the keynote speakers at the summit. In his address, Johnson stated:

I want to say a particular thank you to Bill and Melinda Gates for their generosity, their philanthropy, yet again, and their continued leadership in humanity’s battle against disease … Just as we have great military alliances like NATO … so we now need that same spirit of collaboration and collective defence against the common enemy of disease … It will require a new international effort to co-operate on the surveillance and sharing of information that can underpin a global alert system … it will need a radical scaling-up of our global capacity to respond, exactly as Bill [Gates] has set out.

As Johnson’s comments reveal, there is much more than just healthcare riding on the back of Coronavirus vaccine development. The vaccine itself sits at the centre of a web of surveillance, restricted freedom of movement and restricted access to employment and services based upon your allocated immunity status.

A whole new tech industry, combining global corporations and intelligence agencies, is springing up to monitor, control and surveil populations. Perhaps we could call this the “disease intelligence industrial complex.”

A Vaccine That Doesn’t Need To Work

Johnson’s Coronavirus Action Plan announcement followed the World Health Organisation’s February summit with the Global Research Collaboration for Infectious Disease Preparedness and Response (GLOPID-R).

GLOPID-R’s list of funding organisations, with significant financial interests in vaccine sales, is notable. For example, there is the Gates Foundation, the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovation (CEPI), the Wellcome Trust, and the French medical research agency Inserm (Institut national de la santé et de la recherche médicale).

The two-day WHO / GLOPID-R summit took place on 11-12 February. One month later, on 11 March, the WHO declared a global coronavirus pandemic. The summit produced the Target Product Profile (TPP) which needs to be met in order for the WHO to approve any proposed COVID-19 vaccine.

The WHO would prefer that the vaccine prevent SARS-CoV-2 infections, but it doesn’t have to, so long as it reduces the worst effects of COVID-19. It doesn’t need to be 100% effective either; 70% is fine.

Since, at the time of writing, COVID-19 is said to have impacted 0.1% of the global population, allegedly killing less than 0.006%, the WHO’s measure of success for a global vaccine being that it protect 70% of the global population from a disease that doesn’t affect 99.9% of the population, the chances of WHO approval for anything look pretty good — an inert saline solution should do the job. It is not surprising, then, that vaccine developers are so confidently looking forward to a global market and global profits.

A cheap, widely available off-patent drug that achieves exactly the same thing as the vaccine must, therefore, be seen as a problem.

Why Not Hydroxychloroquine?

When the world is presented with a virus which is claimed to cause a potentially fatal disease for which there is no known treatment, and if our only claimed wish is to “save lives,” trialling any and all potential treatments makes obvious sense.

Resistance to trials would suggest that saving life may not be the priority. If the evidence shows that powerful public health bodies and foundations have apparently colluded to stop trials, there can be little doubt another agenda has taken precedence over saving lives.

When the WHO declared a global pandemic, chloroquine, and its modern form hydroxychloroquine, were the most obvious candidates for investigative clinical trials. Its possible effectiveness had, after all, been noted since at least 2005.

Scientists and doctors around the world took note of early promising clinical trials in China. In France, Prof. Didier Raoult, one of the world’s most published microbiologists, announced his own trials. He stated that he thought it would be foolish not to trial chloroquine more widely.

Didier Raoult

Prof. Didier Raoult

Scientists at Stanford University agreed, reporting apparent treatment success in both China and South Korea. The Stanford team also advocated more thorough clinical trials of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

Yet resistance to trialling hydroxychloroquine was immediately evident. Raoult was attacked in France for suggesting hydroxychloroquine could work to prevent the most severe, life-threatening, symptoms of COVID-19. These attacks, which we would characterise as a disinformation campaign, came from the mainstream media, other scientists who worked for Inserm, and politicians.

The persistent claim, repeated ad nauseam by the mainstream media, that hydroxychloroquine presents some sort of severe heart risk, simply isn’t true.

The cardiovascular risks for hydroxychloroquine are overwhelmingly associated with acute poisoning, often intentional, when used in combination with other antiviral drugs, or with prolonged high-dosage use.

There is virtually no cardiovascular risk at all to taking it, as recommended, for short-course treatments — as you would if you took it as a prophylaxis for COVID-19.

The case fatality rate (CFR) for the oldest COVID-19 patients has been reported to rise to more than 14%. Raoult’s largest field study, of more than one thousand patients treated with hydroxychloroquine, showed that the CFR for the oldest patients dropped to 0.5%.

Raoult is by no means the only scientist or doctor to have seemingly proven the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19; especially as a prophylactic.

Doctors in New York found that hydroxychloroquine treatment increased survival rates; Brazilian doctors discovered that treating patients with hydroxychloroquine reduced their chances of requiring hospital treatment by nearly 300%, with no notable adverse events; Chinese doctors reduced fever duration and improved the clinical outcomes for patients treated with chloroquine; doctors in Spain used hydroxychloroquine to increase patient survival rates; researchers in the U.S. found that the addition of zinc further improved outcomes; doctors treating Chinese patients with hydroxychloroquine found no increase in adverse events for their patients; and a systemic review of the available evidence by Indian researchers concluded:

There is theoretical, experimental, preclinical and clinical evidence of the effectiveness of chloroquine in patients affected with COVID-19. There is adequate evidence of drug safety from the long-time clinical use of chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

However, if we were to rely on the MSM for our information, we would not know any of this. Why are they apparently so eager to convince us that hydroxychloroquine is harmful? Why are the WHO, Inserm and the UK’s Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) determined that hydroxychloroquine trials won’t proceed?

The Problem With Hydroxychloroquine

The leading scientific advocates of hydroxychloroquine recommend that it should primarily be used in the early stages of COVID-19, or even prior to developing the syndrome, as a prophylactic. Should the person develop the symptoms of COVID-19, they could, for example, begin a course of what has become known as the Marseilles Treatment: hydroxychloroquine with the antibiotic azithromycin (HCQ+AZ) plus zinc to aid absorption.

Struggling to comprehend the seemingly inexplicable resistance to trialling HCQ+AZ, Prof. Harvey Risch, MD, from Yale University, argued that HCQ+AZ should immediately be used as an early therapy for COVID-19 patients. He wrote:

Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been widely misrepresented in both clinical reports and public media…..Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials, have demonstrated significant major outpatient treatment efficacy……These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.

His is far from the only eminently qualified opinion questioning the irrational blocking of treatment with hydroxychloroquine. In Michigan, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) have launched an appeal against an FDA injunction to allow them to prescribe hydroxychloroquine for their COVID-19 patients.

The WHO’s Solidarity Trials to test hydroxychloroquine were launched on 18 March. The WHO stated that four hundred hospitals in thirty-five countries had recruited 3,500 patients to take part. At the same time, the WHO launched its Solidarity Trial for potential vaccines.

The UK government did not take part in the WHO’s Solidarity trials, instead running their own Recovery Trial and separate COPCOV and PRINCIPLE trials.

The Recovery Trial’s core funding comes from the Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust and Oxford University, among others. Oxford University is running vaccine trials, in partnership with AstraZeneca. The Recovery Trial was not investigating the prophylactic potential of hydroxychloroquine.

The COPCOV trial was due to assess hydroxychloroquine’s prophylactic efficacy in protecting healthcare workers against contracting COVID-19.

The PRINCIPLE trial was perhaps the most relevant of all. Vulnerable over-fifties, and people over 65, were to be offered hydroxychloroquine in a large-cohort study of patients in primary care (GP practices and community care settings).

In France, Inserm ran its own Discovery Trials in parallel with the WHO’s Solidarity Trials. Again, they were only assessing hydroxychloroquine in isolation, for the most ill patients. Only the UK’s COPCOV and PRINCIPLE trials were assessing potential preventive efficacy. COPCOV also had an international arm.

However, none was trialling the recommended Marseilles Treatment.

Initially Inserm refused point-blank to trial hydroxychloroquine at all. Four days before the launch of the WHO’s Solidarity Trials, Prof. Yazdan Yazdanpanah, head of France’s health emergency rapid response committee (REACTing — REsearch and ACTion targeting emerging infectious diseases) stated that the Discovery Trials would exclude chloroquine (hydroxychloroquine) and would only trial patented drugs:

We have not retained it [hydroxychloroquine] for the moment, in particular because of its undesirable effects. It also has frequent interactions with other drugs. However, intensive care patients are often treated with multiple drugs.

This followed a decision on 15 January, made by the then French Minister of Solidarity and Health, Agnès Buzyn, to reclassify hydroxychloroquine in all its forms as a poisonous substance.

Prior to this decision, for more than fifty years, the French had been able to buy hydroxychloroquine over the counter. Once demand shot through the roof, as the COVID-19 crisis unfolded, they suddenly could no longer get it without a prescription.

With the WHO initially including hydroxychloroquine in their Solidarity Trials, Inserm had little option but to reluctantly include it in their Discovery Trials on Solidarity launch day, 22 March. Inserm stated in its press release:

We analyzed the data from the scientific literature concerning the SARS and MERS coronaviruses as well as the first publications on SARS-COV2 from China to arrive at a list of antiviral molecules to be tested: remdesivir, lopinavir in combination with ritonavir…….and hydroxychloroquine. The list of these potential drugs is also based on the list of experimental treatments classified as priorities by the World Health Organization.

This can be seen as little more than disingenuous back-peddling. The data from the scientific literature hadn’t changed in the space of a few days. If REACTing previously considered the hydroxychloroquine risks too high, no new evidence had emerged to alter that assessment.

Hydroxychloroquine Trials Abandoned for No Reason At All

Within days of the hydroxychloroquine trials starting, on 22 May The Lancet published a study by a team of four U.S. researchers from Brigham and Women’s Hospital Center for Advanced Heart Disease. The paper alleged that hydroxychloroquine presented too high a risk of ventricular arrhythmia and potentially increased mortality for COVID-19 patients.

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

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.