Part 1: The Real Anthony Fauci....Mismanaging a Pandemic...

The Real Anthony Fauci

by Robert Kennedy Jr.

CHAPTER 1 

MISMANAGING A PANDEMIC 

“My friend, have you ever been in a quarantined city? Then you cannot realize what you are asking me to do. To place such a curse on San Francisco would be worse than a hundred fires and earthquakes and I love this city too well to do her such a frightful hurt.” 

—Rupert Blue, Public Health Service Officer 

in charge of dealing with the 1907 plague outbreak. 

Blue subsequently served as fourth Surgeon General of 

the US and President of the American Medical Association. 

I: ARBITRARY DECREES: SCIENCE-FREE MEDICINE 

Dr. Fauci’s strategy for managing the COVID-19 pandemic was to suppress viral spread by mandatory masking, social distancing, quarantining the healthy (also known as lockdowns), while instructing COVID patients to return home and do nothing—receive no treatment whatsoever— until difficulties breathing sent them back to the hospital to submit to intravenous remdesivir and ventilation. This approach to ending an infectious disease contagion had no public health precedent and anemic scientific support. Predictably, it was grossly ineffective; America racked up the world’s highest body counts. 

Medicines were available against COVID—inexpensive, safe medicines—that would have prevented hundreds of thousands of hospitalizations and saved as many lives if only we’d used them in this country. But Dr. Fauci and his Pharma collaborators deliberately suppressed those treatments in service to their single-minded objective— making America await salvation from their novel, multibillion dollar vaccines. Americans’ native idealism will make them reluctant to believe that their government’s COVID policies were so grotesquely ill-conceived, so unfounded in science, so tethered to financial interests, that they caused hundreds of thousands of wholly unnecessary deaths. But, as you will see below, the evidence speaks for itself. [my emphasis d.c.]

Peer-reviewed science offered anemic if any support for masking, quarantines, and social distancing, and Dr. Fauci offered no citations or justifications to support his diktats. Both common sense and the weight of scientific evidence suggest that all these strategies, and unquestionably shutting down the global economy, caused far more injuries and deaths than they averted. 

Dr. Fauci was clearly aware that his mask decrees were contrary to overwhelming science. In July 2020, after switching course to recommend national mask mandates, Dr. Fauci told Norah O’Donnell with InStyle magazine that his earlier dismissal of mask efficacy was correct “in the context of the time in which I said it,” and that he intended to prevent a consumer run on masks that might jeopardize their availability for front-line responders.1 

But Dr. Fauci’s emails reveal that he was giving the same advice privately. Moreover, his detailed explanations to the public and to high-level health regulators indicate he genuinely believed that ordinary masks had little to no efficacy against viral infection. In a February 5, 2020 email, for example, he advised his putative former boss, President Obama’s Health and Human Services Secretary, Sylvia Burwell, on the futility of masking the healthy. 2 On February 17, he invoked the same rationale in an interview with USA Today: [thats early on in this, so tell me again why the masks were called for after the 'pro' said "absolutely no reason" below? d.c ]

A mask is much more appropriate for someone who is infected and you’re trying to prevent them from infecting other people than it is in protecting you against infection. If you look at the masks that you buy in a drug store, the leakage around that doesn’t really do much to protect you. Now, in the United States, there is absolutely no reason whatsoever to wear a mask.3 

During a January 28 speech to HHS regulators, he explained the fruitlessness of masking asymptomatic people. 

The one thing historically people need to realize, that even if there is some asymptomatic transmission, in all the history of respiratory borne viruses of any type, asymptomatic transmission has never been the driver of outbreaks. The driver of outbreaks is always a symptomatic person. Even if there’s a rare asymptomatic person that might transmit, an epidemic is not driven by asymptomatic carriers.4 

Consistent with Dr. Fauci’s earlier statements, the peer reviewed scientific literature has steadfastly refused to support masking the healthy as an effective barrier to viral spread, and Dr. Fauci offered a citation to justify his change of heart. A December 2020 comprehensive study of 10 million Wuhan residents confirmed Fauci’s January 28, 2020 assertion that asymptomatic transmission of COVID19 is infinitesimally rare.5 Furthermore, some 52 studies— all available on NIH’s website—find that ordinary masking (using less than an N95 respirator) doesn’t reduce viral infection rates, even—surprisingly—in institutional settings like hospitals and surgical theaters.6,7 

Moreover, some 25 additional studies attribute to masking a grim retinue of harms, including respiratory and immune system illnesses, as well as dermatological, dental, gastrointestinal, and psychological injuries.8 Fourteen of these studies are randomized, peer-reviewed placebo studies. There is no well-constructed study that persuasively suggests masks have convincing efficacy against COVID-19 that would justify accepting the harms associated with masks. Finally, retrospective studies on Dr. Fauci’s mask mandates confirm that they were bootless. “Regional analysis in the United States does not show that [mask] mandates had any effect on case rates, despite 93 percent compliance. Moreover, according to CDC data, 85 percent of people who contracted COVID-19 reported wearing a mask,”9 according to Gutentag. 

Dr. Fauci observed in March 2020 that a mask’s only real efficacy may be in “making people feel a little better.”10 Perhaps he recognized that what masking lacked in efficacy against contagion, it compensated for with powerful psychological effects. These symbolic powers demonstrated strategic benefits for the larger enterprise of encouraging public compliance with draconian medical mandates. Dr. Fauci’s switch to endorsing masks after first recommending against them came at a time of increasing political polarization, and masks quickly became important tribal badges—signals of rectitude for those who embraced Dr. Fauci, and the stigmata of blind obedience to undeserving authority among those who balked. Moreover, masking, by amplifying everyone’s fear, helped inoculate the public against critical thinking. By serving as persistent reminders that each of our fellow citizens was a potentially dangerous and germ-infected threat to us, masks increased social isolation and fostered divisions and fractionalization —thereby impeding organized political resistance. 

The impact of masking on the national psyche reminded me of the subtle contribution of the “duck and cover drills” of my youth, drills that sustained and cemented the militaristic ideology of the Cold War. Those futile exercises reinforced what my uncle John F. Kennedy’s Defense Secretary, Robert McNamara, called “National Mass Psychosis.” By suggesting to Americans that full-scale nuclear war was possible, but also survivable, ruinous investments in that project were justified. For the government and mandarins of the Military Industrial Complex, this absurd narrative yielded trillions in appropriations. 

Social distancing mandates also rested on a dubious scientific footing. In September 2021, former FDA Commissioner Dr. Scott Gottlieb admitted that the six-foot distancing rule that Dr. Fauci and his HHS colleagues imposed upon Americans was “arbitrary,” and not, after all, science backed. The process for making that policy choice, Gottlieb continued, “Is a perfect example of the lack of rigor around how CDC made recommendations.”11,12 

Finally, the lockdowns of the healthy were so unprecedented that WHO’s official pandemic protocols recommended against them. Some WHO officials were passionate on the topic, among them Professor David Nabarro, Senior Envoy on COVID-19, a position reporting to the Director General. On October 8, 2020, he said: 

We in the World Health Organization do not advocate lockdowns as a primary means of controlling this virus. We may well have a doubling of world poverty by next year. We’ll have at least a doubling of child malnutrition because children are not getting meals at school and their parents in poor families are not able to afford it. This is a terrible, ghastly, global catastrophe, actually, and so we really do appeal to all world leaders: Stop using lockdown as your primary control method . . . lockdowns just have one consequence that you must never ever belittle—and that is making poor people an awful lot poorer.13 

As discussed above, Dr. Fauci and other officials made no inquiry or claims as to whether lockdowns would cause more harm and death than they averted. Subsequent studies have strongly suggested that lockdowns had no impact in reducing infection rates. There is no convincing difference in COVID infections and deaths between laissez faire jurisdictions and those that enforced rigid lockdowns and masks.14 

Noble Lies and Bad Data 

Dr. Fauci’s mask deceptions were among several “noble lies” that, his critics complained, revealed a manipulative and deceptive disposition undesirable in an evenhanded public health official. Dr. Fauci explained to the New York Times that he had upgraded his estimate of the vaccine coverage needed to insure “herd immunity” from 70 percent in March to 80–90 percent in September not based on science, but rather in response to polling that indicated rising rates of vaccine acceptance.15 He regularly expressed his belief that post-infection immunity was highly likely (with occasional waffling on this topic) although he took the public position that natural immunity did not contribute to protecting the population. He supported COVID jabs for previously infected Americans, defying overwhelming scientific evidence that post-COVID inoculations were both unnecessary and dangerous.16,17 

Under questioning on September 9, 2021, Dr. Fauci conceded he could cite no scientific justification for this policy. 18 In September 2021, in a statement justifying COVID vaccine mandates to school children, Dr. Fauci dreamily recounted his own grade school measles and mumps vaccines—an unlikely memory, since those vaccines weren’t available until 1963 and 1967, and Dr. Fauci attended grade school in the 1940s.19 Dr. Fauci’s little perjuries about masks, measles, mumps, herd immunity, and natural immunity attest to his dismaying willingness to manipulate facts to serve a political agenda. If the COVID19 pandemic has revealed anything, it is that public health officials have based their many calamitous directives for managing COVID-19 on vacillating and science-free beliefs about masks, lockdowns, infection and fatality rates, asymptomatic transmission, and vaccine safety and efficacy, which took every direction and sowed confusion, division, and polarization among the public and medical experts. 

Dr. Fauci’s libertine approach to facts may have contributed to what, for me, was the most troubling and infuriating feature of all the public health responses to COVID. The blatant and relentless manipulation of data to serve the vaccine agenda became the apogee of a year of stunning regulatory malpractice. High-quality and transparent data, clearly documented, timely rendered, and publicly available are the sine qua non of competent public health management. During a pandemic, reliable and comprehensive data are critical for determining the behavior of the pathogen, identifying vulnerable populations, rapidly measuring the effectiveness of interventions, mobilizing the medical community around cutting-edge disease management, and inspiring cooperation from the public. 

The shockingly low quality of virtually all relevant data pertinent to COVID-19, and the quackery, the obfuscation, the cherry picking and blatant perversion would have scandalized, offended, and humiliated every prior generation of American public health officials. Too often, Dr. Fauci was at the center of these systemic deceptions. The “mistakes” were always in the same direction—inflating the risks of coronavirus and the safety and efficacy of vaccines in order to stoke public fear of COVID and provoke mass compliance. The excuses for his mistakes range from blaming the public (now blaming the unvaccinated), blaming politics, and explaining his gyrations by saying, “You’ve got to evolve with the science.”20 

At the outset of the pandemic, Dr. Fauci used wildly inaccurate modeling that overestimated US deaths by 525 percent.21,22 Scammer and pandemic fabricator Neal Ferguson of Imperial College London was their author, with funding from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (BMGF) of $148.8 million.23 Dr. Fauci used this model as justification for his lockdowns. 

Dr. Fauci acquiesced to CDC’s selective protocol changes for completing death certificates in a way that inflated the claimed deaths from COVID, and thus inflated its infection mortality rate. CDC later admitted that only 6 percent of COVID deaths occurred in entirely healthy individuals. The remaining 94 percent suffered from an average of 3.8 potentially fatal comorbidities.24 

Regulators misused PCR tests that CDC belatedly admitted in August 2021 were incapable of distinguishing COVID from other viral illnesses. Dr. Fauci tolerated their use at inappropriately high amplitudes of 37 and up to 45, even though Fauci had told Vince Racaniello that tests employing cycle thresholds of 35 and above were very unlikely to indicate the presence of live virus that could replicate.25 In July 2020, Fauci remarked that at these levels, a positive result is “just dead nucleotides, period,”26 yet did nothing to modify testing so it might be more accurate. As America’s COVID czar, Dr. Fauci never complained about CDC’s decision to skip autopsies from deaths attributed to vaccines. 

This practice allowed CDC to persistently claim that all deaths following vaccination were “unrelated to vaccination.” CDC also refused to conduct follow-up medical inquiries among people claiming vaccine injuries. Inspired by rich incentives to classify every patient as a COVID-19 victim—Medicare paid hospitals $39,000 per ventilator 27 when treating COVID-19 and only $13,000 for garden variety respiratory infections 28 —hospitals contributed to the deception. Once more, Dr. Fauci winked at the fraud. 

Dr. Fauci’s refusal to fix the HHS’s notoriously dysfunctional vaccine injury surveillance system (VAERS) constituted inexcusable negligence. HHS’s own studies indicate that VAERS may be understating vaccine injuries by OVER 99 percent.29 

The public never received facts about infection fatality rates or age-stratified risks for COVID with the kind of clarity that might have allowed them and their physicians to make evidence-based personal risk assessments. Instead, federal officials relied on vagueness and deception to recklessly overestimate the dangers from COVID in every age group. All of these deceptions riddled virtually every mainstream media report— particularly those by CNN and the New York Times—leaving the public with a vastly inflated and cataclysmically inaccurate impression of its lethality. Public surveys showed that, just as Fox News audiences were shockingly misinformed following the 9/11 bombings, CNN viewers and New York Times readers were catastrophically misinformed about the facts of COVID-19 during 2020. Successive Gallup polling showed that the average Democrat believed that 50 percent of COVID infections resulted in hospitalizations. The real number was less than one percent.30

Trust the Experts 

Instead of demanding blue-ribbon safety science and encouraging honest, open, and responsible debate on the science, badly compromised government health officials charged with managing the COVID-19 pandemic collaborated with mainstream and social media to shut down discussion on key public health questions. They silenced doctors who offered any early treatments that might compete with vaccines or who refused to pledge unquestioning faith in zero liability, shoddily tested, experimental vaccines. 

The chaotic and confusing data collection and interpretation allowed regulators to justify their arbitrary diktats under the cloak of “scientific consensus.” Instead of citing scientific studies or clear data to justify mandates for masks, lockdowns, and vaccines, our medical rulers cited Dr. Fauci or WHO, CDC, FDA, and NIH—captive agencies— to legitimize the medical technocracy’s assumption of dangerous new powers. 

Dr. Fauci’s aficionados, including President Biden and the cable and network news anchors, counseled Americans to “trust the experts.” Such advice is both anti-democratic and anti-science. Science is dynamic. “Experts” frequently differ on scientific questions and their opinions can vary in accordance with and demands of politics, power, and financial self-interest. Nearly every lawsuit I have ever litigated pitted highly credentialed experts from opposite sides against each other, with all of them swearing under oath to diametrically antithetical positions based on the same set of facts. Telling people to “trust the experts” is either naive or manipulative—or both. 

All of Dr. Fauci’s intrusive mandates and his deceptive use of data tended to stoke fear and amplify public desperation for the anticipated arrival of vaccines that would transfer billions of dollars from taxpayers to pharmaceutical executives and shareholders. Some of America’s most accomplished scientists, and the physicians leading the battle against COVID in the trenches, came to believe that Anthony Fauci’s do-or-die obsession with novel mRNA vaccines—and Gilead’s expensive patented antiviral, remdesivir—prompted him to ignore or even suppress effective early treatments, causing hundreds of thousands of unnecessary deaths while also prolonging the pandemic.

Fortifying Immune Systems 

I was struck, during COVID-19’s early months, that America’s Doctor, apparently preoccupied with his single vaccine solution, did little in the way of telling Americans how to bolster their immune response. He never took time during his daily White House briefings from March to May 2020 to instruct Americans to avoid tobacco (smoking and e-cigarettes/vaping double death rates from COVID);31 to get plenty of sunlight and to maintain adequate vitamin D levels (“Nearly 60 percent of patients with COVID-19 were vitamin D deficient upon hospitalization, with men in the advanced stages of COVID-19 pneumonia showing the greatest deficit”);32 or to diet, exercise, and lose weight (78 percent of Americans hospitalized for COVID-19 were overweight or obese).33 

Quite the contrary, Dr. Fauci’s lockdowns caused Americans to gain an average of two pounds per month and to reduce their daily steps by 27 percent.34 He didn’t recommend avoiding sugar and soft drinks, processed foods, and chemical residues, all of which amplify inflammation, compromise immune response, and disrupt the gut biome which governs the immune system. During the centuries that science has fruitlessly sought remedies against coronavirus (aka the common cold), only zinc has repeatedly proven its efficacy in peer-reviewed studies. Zinc impedes viral replication, prophylaxing against colds and abbreviating their duration.35 

The groaning shelves that commercial pharmacies devote to zinc-based cold remedies attest to its extraordinary efficacy. Yet Anthony Fauci never advised Americans to increase zinc uptake following exposure to infection. 

Dr. Fauci’s neglect of natural immune response was consistent with the pervasive hostility towards any non-vaccine intervention that characterized the federal regulatory gestalt. On April 30, 2021, Canadian Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons threatened to delicense any doctor who prescribed non-vaccine health strategies including Vitamin D. 36 “They are trying to erase any notion of natural immunity,” says Canadian vaccine researcher Dr. Jessica Rose, Ph.D., MSc, BSc. “Pretty soon the incessant lies and propaganda will have successfully instilled in the masses that the only hope for staying alive is via injection, pill-popping, so in sum, no natural immunity.” In a podcast interview on October 1, 2021, Washington Post reporter Ashley Fetters Maloy pretended to expose “misinformation” about COVID-19 by broadcasting misinformation: 

There’s a pervasive idea that your body and your immune system can be healthy enough to ward off COVID-19, which, of course, we know it’s a novel coronavirus. No one’s body can. No one’s body is healthy enough to recognize and just totally ward this off without a vaccine.37 

[ I am of the opinion that I had natural immunity to these weaponized coronavirus that have been killing and getting folks deadly ill since 2003, they change the names to keep the public unaware of the connection. I got mighty sick in 08/09, doctors after nine months of hell, finally settled on a couple of diseases, but I never really bought into it because of how sudden it came on. At the end of the nine months basically half my lungs were useless. It was not until the events of 20/21 and this outbreak that I started to consider THIS was what got me sick, because some accounts of illness matched my distress to the T. I know I am not the only one who has lived this long. If anyone should have caught it this time according to their narrative it was me. All boxes checked # 1 on their list, unvaxxed, unmasked I sit, thank you Lord dc]

Clearly, this is false information. Throughout 2020, before vaccines were available, some 99.9 percent of people’s natural immune systems protected their owners from severe illness and death. The CDC and World Health Organization, indeed all global health authorities, have recognized that healthy people, with healthy immune systems, bear minimal risk from COVID. Indeed, many people, according to our health authorities, have an immune response sufficient that they don’t even know they have COVID. Maloy’s pronouncement that humans cannot fight off COVID-19 without a vaccine is misinformation in its purest form. 

Instead of urging calm and telling us, as FDR did during the depths of the Depression, that “we have nothing to fear but fear itself,” all of Dr. Fauci’s prescriptions and communications seemed intended to maximize stress and trauma: enforced isolation, mandated masking, business closures, evictions and bankruptcies, lockdowns, and separating children from parents and parents from grandparents.38,39 We now know that fear, stress, and trauma wreak havoc on our immune systems.[sooner or later these liberals are going to have to acknowledge their government tried to kill them in orchestra with certain global elites who seek to kill 14 out of every 15 of us. Wake up! dc ]

Early Treatment 

His critics argue that Dr. Fauci’s “slow the spread, flatten the curve, wait for the jab” strategy—all in support of a long-term bet on unproven vaccines—represented a profound and unprecedented departure from accepted public health practice. But most troubling were Dr. Fauci’s policies of ignoring and outright suppressing the early treatment of infected patients who were often terrified. “The Best Practices for defeating an infectious disease epidemic,” says Yale epidemiologist Harvey Risch, “dictate that you quarantine and treat the sick, protect the most vulnerable, and aggressively develop repurposed therapeutic drugs, and use early treatment protocols to avoid hospitalizations.” 

Risch is one of the leading global authorities in clinical treatment protocols. He is the editor of two high-gravitas journals and the author of over 350 peer-reviewed publications. Other researchers have cited those studies over 44,000 times.40 Risch points out a hard truth that should have informed our COVID control strategy: “Unless you are an island nation prepared to shut out the world, you can’t stop a global viral pandemic, but you can make it less deadly. Our objective should have been to devise treatments that would reduce hospitalization and death. We could have easily defanged COVID-19 so that it was less lethal than a seasonal flu. We could have done this very quickly. We could have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.” 

Dr. Peter McCullough concurs: “Once a highly transmissible virus like COVID has a beachhead in a population, it is inevitable that it will spread to every individual who lacks immunity. You can slow the spread, but you cannot prevent it—any more than you can prevent the tide from rising.” McCullough was an internist and cardiologist on staff at the Baylor University Medical Center and the Baylor Heart and Vascular Hospital in Dallas, Texas. His 600 peer-reviewed articles in the National Library of Medicine make McCullough the most published physician in history in the field of kidney disease related to heart disease, a lethal sequela of COVID-19. 

Before COVID-19, he was editor of two major journals. His recent publications include over 40 on COVID-19, including two landmark studies on critical care of the disease. His two breakthrough papers on the early treatment of COVID19 in The American Journal of Medicine 41 and Reviews in Cardiovascular Medicine 42 in 2020 are, by far, the most downloaded documents on the subject. “I’ve had COVID-19 myself with pulmonary involvement,” he told me. “My wife has had it. On my wife’s side of the family, we’ve had a fatality . . . I believe I have as much or more medical authority to give my opinion as anybody in the world.” 

McCullough observes that, “We could have dramatically reduced COVID fatalities and hospitalizations using early treatment protocols and repurposed drugs including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine and many, many others.” Dr. McCullough has treated some 2,000 COVID patients with these therapies. McCullough points out that hundreds of peer-reviewed studies now show that early treatment could have averted some 80 percent of deaths attributed to COVID. “The strategy from the outset should have been implementing protocols to stop hospitalizations through early treatment of Americans who tested positive for COVID but were still asymptomatic. If we had done that, we could have pushed case fatality rates below those we see with seasonal flu, and ended the bottlenecks in our hospitals. We should have rapidly deployed off-the-shelf medications with proven safety records and subjected them to rigorous risk/benefit decision-making,” McCullough continues. “Using repurposed drugs, we could have ended this pandemic by May 2020 and saved 500,000 American lives, but for Dr. Fauci’s hard-headed, tunnel vision on new vaccines and remdesivir.” 

Pulmonary and critical care specialist Dr. Pierre Kory agrees with McCullough’s estimate. “The efficacy of some of these drugs as prophylaxis is almost miraculous, plus early intervention in the week after exposure stops viral replication and prevents development of cytokine storm and entrance into the pulmonary phase,” says Dr. Kory. “We could have stopped the pandemic in its tracks in the spring of 2020.” 

Risch, McCullough, and Kory are among the large chorus of experts (including Nobel Laureate Luc Montagnier) who argue that, by treating infected patients at home during the early stages of the illness, we could have averted cataclysmic lockdowns and found medicine resources for protecting vulnerable populations while encouraging the spread of the disease in age groups with extremely low-risk, in order to achieve permanent herd immunity. They point out that natural immunity, in all known cases, is superior to vaccine-induced immunity, being both more durable (it often lasts a lifetime) and broader spectrum—meaning it provides a shield against subsequent variants. “Vaccinating citizens with natural immunity should never have been our public health policy,” says Dr. Kory. 

Dr. Fauci’s strategy committed hundreds of billions of societal resources on a high-risk gambit to develop novel technology vaccines, and virtually nothing toward developing repurposed medications that are effective against COVID. “That strategy kept the medical treatment on hold globally for an entire year as a readily treatable respiratory virus ravaged populations,” says Kory. “It is absolutely shocking that he recommended no outpatient care, not even Vitamin D despite the fact he takes it himself and much of the country is Vitamin D deficient.” [almost like it was done on purpose d.c]

Dr. Kory 43 is president of Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance, a former associate professor, and Medical Director of the Trauma and Life Support Center at the University of Wisconsin Medical School Hospital, and the Critical Care Service Chief at Aurora St. Luke’s Medical Center in Milwaukee. His milestone work on critical care ultrasonography won him the British Medical Association’s President’s Choice Award in 2015. [these folks he is citing are top shelf of the profession d.c]

Risch, McCullough, and Kory are also among the hundreds of scientists and physicians who express shock that Dr. Fauci made no effort to identify repurposed medicines. Says Kory, “I find it appalling that there was no consultation process with treating physicians. Medicine is about consultation. You had Birx, Fauci, and Redfield doing press conferences every day and handing down these arbitrary diktats and not one of them ever treated a COVID patient or worked in an emergency room or ICU. They knew nothing.” 

“As I watched the White House Task Force on T.V.,” recalls Dr. McCullough, “no one even said that hospitalizations and deaths were the bad outcome of COVID-19, and that they were going to put together a team of doctors to identify protocols and therapeutics to stop these hospitalizations and deaths.” 

Dr. McCullough argues that, as COVID czar, Dr. Fauci should have created an international communications network linking the world’s 11 million front-line doctors to gather real-time tips, innovative safety protocols, and to develop the best prophylactic and early treatment practices. “He should have created hotlines and dedicated websites for medical professionals to call in with treatment questions and to consult, collect, catalogue, and propagate the latest innovations for prophylaxing vulnerable and exposed individuals, and treating early infections, so as to avert hospitalizations.” 

Dr. Kory agrees: “The outcome we should have been trying to prevent is hospitalizations. You don’t just sit around and wait for an infected patient to become ill. Dr. Fauci’s treatment strategies all began once all these under-medicated patients were hospitalized. By that time, it was too late for many of them. It was insane. It was perverse. It was unethical.” 

Dr. McCullough says that Dr. Fauci should have created treatment centers for ambulatory patients and field clinics specializing in treating asymptomatic or early-stage COVID. “He should have been encouraging doctors to use satellite clinics to conduct small outpatient clinical trials to quickly identify the most effective protocols, drugs, and therapeutics.” 

Professor Risch concurs: “We should have deployed teams of doctors all over the world doing short-term clinical trials and testing promising drugs and reporting successful protocols." The endpoints were obvious: preventing hospitalizations and deaths. In addition to rapidly developing and continuously updating protocols and remedies, McCullough and Kory say that the government failed to perform the essential duty of a public health regulator during modern pandemics—to publish the best early treatment protocols on NIH’s website and then establish communication lines call centers to foster consultation and information sharing and web pages to share, broadcast and update the latest remedies and continually escalate public knowledge about the most successful strategies. 

Dr. McCullough adds, “We should have created information and communication centers where treating physicians and hospitals could get round-the-clock, up-to-date bulletins with data. Instead, doctors who wanted to provide their infected patients with early treatment were out of luck.” 

Nursing Homes and Quarantine Facilities 

Dr. Risch says that in addition to developing early treatment protocols, public health officials should have made sure that elderly patients remained in quarantine hospitals until no longer contagious. “It’s obvious that we should have had quarantine facilities so we wouldn’t be sending infected patients to crowded nursing homes. Instead, we should have housed them in safe facilities and protected them with cutting-edge care.” 

Risch points out that taxpayers spent $660 million building field hospitals across the country. 44 Democratic Governor Andrew Cuomo and other Democratic governors kept these facilities empty to maintain bed inventories in anticipation of the flood of patients inaccurately predicted by the fear-mongering models, ginned up by two Gates-funded organizations, IMHE and Royal College of London, and then anointed as gospel by Dr. Fauci—seemingly as part of the crusade to generate public panic. With those quarantine centers standing empty, those governors sent infected elderly back to crowded nursing homes, where they spread the disease to the most vulnerable population with lethal effect. Risch points out that, “Half the deaths, in New York, and one third nationally, 45 were among elder care facility residents.” 

Dr. Fauci made another inexplicable policy choice of not supplying the nursing homes with monoclonal antibodies where they might have saved thousands of lives. “With Operation Warp Speed, we had monoclonal antibodies that were high tech and fully FDA-approved by November 2020 —long before the vaccines,” says Dr. McCullough. 

“Monoclonal antibodies work great, but they’re not suitable for outpatients because they are administered IV It’s therefore perfect for nursing homes. About one-third of COVID deaths occurred in the nursing homes and ALFs across the US during the pandemic.46 Dr. Fauci should have equipped both nursing homes and quarantine hospitals with monoclonal antibodies,” said Risch. Instead, he obstructed these institutions from administering that medicine. “It was a kind of staggering savage act of malpractice and negligence to deny this remedy to elder care facilities at a time when the elderly were dying at a rate of 10,000 per week.”

“You need, in short, to do the opposite of everything they did. It’s difficult to identify anything they did that was right,” says McCullough.

Independent Doctors into the Breach 

Early in the pandemic, Kory and his mentor, Dr. Paul Marik, Professor of Medicine and Chief of Division of Pulmonary and Critical Care Medicine at Eastern Virginia Medical School, began assembling the world’s most highly published and accomplished critical care specialists to rapidly develop functional COVID treatments. Each of the core five founders of FLCCC is globally renowned for having made significant pre-COVID contributions to the science of critical care and pulmonary illnesses. Some 1,693 front-line physicians globally now belong to their alliance.47 Early in the pandemic, these doctors stepped into the breach left by the government agencies and pandemic centers and began coordinating the development of early treatments with repurposed drugs. They quickly proved that they could drastically reduce COVID’s lethality. Instead of winning applause as medical healers, their success at treating COVID made them enemies of the State. [ if you are new to this, right here is where you stop and ask yourself why the State treated these doctors as they did d.c ]

Long before he heard of Pierre Kory or FLCCC, Dr. Peter McCullough reached the same conclusions about the futility and immorality of the federal effort, and felt the same indignation and determination to change things. “By April and May, I noticed a disturbing trend,” recalls McCullough. “The trend was, no effort to treat patients who are infected with COVID-19 at home or in nursing homes. And it almost seemed as if patients were intentionally not being treated, allowed to sit at home and get to the point where they couldn’t breathe and then be admitted to the hospital.” 

Dr. Fauci adopted this unprecedented protocol of telling doctors to let patients diagnosed with a positive COVID test go home, untreated—leaving them in terror, and spreading the disease—until breathing difficulties forced their return to hospitals. There they faced two deadly remedies: remdesivir and ventilators. 

I experienced my own personal frustrations with this bewildering policy. When, in December 2020, I asked my 93-year-old mother’s physician to describe her treatment plan if she got a positive PCR, he told me, “There is really nothing we can do unless she starts having trouble breathing. Then we will send her up to Mass General for ventilation.” When I asked him about using ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine, he shrugged his shoulders. He had never heard of their use in COVID patients. “There is no early treatment for COVID,” he assured me. 

Dr. Fauci’s choice to deny infected Americans early treatment was not just a bad public health strategy; it was, McCullough avows, “Cruelty at a population level.” Says McCullough, “Never in history have doctors deliberately treated patients with this kind of barbarism.” [ no wonder he is in witness protection , I think that is supposed to be a joke, but no longer sure after reading some of this. d.c ]

“I told myself, ‘I am not going to tolerate that—in my practice, or on a national level or worldwide,’” Dr. McCullough told me. Realizing that COVID had to be fought on multiple fronts, McCullough began contacting physicians in other nations who were reporting success against the disease, including doctors in Italy, Greece, Canada, across Europe, and in Bangladesh and South Africa.  

McCullough continues, “If this had been any other form of pneumonia, a respiratory illness, or any other infectious illness in the human body, we know that if we start early, we can actually treat much more easily than wait until patients are very sick.” McCullough says that the rule holds true for COVID-19: “We learned quickly that it takes about two weeks for someone infected with COVID to get sick enough at home to require hospitalization.” 

Front-line clinical doctors quickly recognized that the disease was operating through multiple pathways, each requiring their own treatment protocol. “There were three major parts of the illness,” says McCullough: “1) the virus was replicating for as long as two weeks, 2) there was incredible inflammation in the body, and 3) that was followed by blood clotting.” He adds, “By April 2020, most doctors understood a single drug was not going to be enough to treat this illness. We had to use drugs in combination.” 

“We quickly developed three principles,” says McCullough; his three-step protocol was as follows: 

• Use medications to slow down the virus; 
• Use medications to attenuate or reduce inflammation; 
• Address blood clotting. 

McCullough and his global partners quickly identified a pharmacopoeia of off-the-shelf treatments demonstrating extraordinary efficacy against each stage of COVID when administered early in the course of the disease. 

McCullough chronicles the rapid pace with which frontline doctors uncovered rich apothecaries of effective COVID remedies. HHS’s early studies supported hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy against coronavirus since 2005, and by March 2020, doctors from New York to Asia were using it against COVID with extraordinary effect. That month, McCullough and other physicians at his medical center organized, with the FDA, one of the first prophylactic protocols using hydroxychloroquine. “We had terrific data on ivermectin, from the medical teams in Bangladesh and elsewhere by early summer 2020. So now we had two cheap generics.” McCullough and his growing team of 50+ front-line doctors discovered that while HCQ and IVM work well against COVID, adding other medications boosts outcomes drastically. These included azithromycin or doxycycline, zinc, vitamin D, Celebrex, bromhexine, NAC, IV vitamin C, and quercetin. McCullough’s team realized that, like hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, quercetin—that ubiquitous health store nutraceutical—is an ionophore—meaning that it facilitates zinc uptake in the cells, destroying the capacity of coronavirus to replicate. 

“The Canadians came on with Colchicine in a high-quality trial based on an initial Greek trial,” McCullough continued. “We learned more from experts at UCLA and elsewhere with respect to blood clotting and the need for aspirin and blood thinners. We got early approval for monoclonal antibodies. It was later learned that both fluvoxamine and famotidine could play roles in multidrug treatment.” 

LSU Medical School professor Paul Harch discovered peer-reviewed papers from China where researchers there had been using hyperbaric chambers (HBOT) with stunning success.48 Between April and May, a group of NYU researchers reproduced that success by getting patients off ventilators and quickly recovering 18 of 20 ventilator cases using HBOT. 49 (Yale is currently conducting Phase 3 with stellar early results.) 

There were many other promising treatments. Asian nations were using saline nasal lavages to great effect to reduce viral loads and transmission.50 McCullough discovered he could prophylax patients and drop viral load and prevent transmission with a variety of other oral/nasal rinses and dilute virucidal agents, including povidone iodine, hydrogen peroxide, hypochlorite, and Listerine or mouthwash with cetylpyridinium chloride. Mass General’s infectious disease maven Dr. Michael Callahan had seen hundreds of patients in Wuhan in January 2020, and assessed the impressive efficacy of Pepcid, an over-the-counter indigestion medicine. The Japanese were already using Prednisone, Budesonide, and Famotidine with extraordinary results.

By July 1, McCullough and his team had developed the first protocol based on signals of benefit and acceptable safety. They submitted the protocol to the American Journal of Medicine. That study, titled “The Pathophysiologic Basis and Clinical Rationale for Early Ambulatory Treatment of COVID-19,”51 quickly became the world’s most-downloaded paper to help doctors treat COVID-19. 

“It is extraordinary that Dr. Fauci never published a single treatment protocol before that,” says McCullough, “and that ‘America’s Doctor’ has never, to date, published anything on how to treat a COVID patient. It shocks the conscience that there is still no official protocol. Anyone who tries to publish a new treatment protocol will find themselves airtight blocked by the journals that are all under Fauci’s control.” [not for much longer dc]

The Chinese published their own early treatment protocol on March 3, 2020,52,53 using many of the same categories of prophylactic and early treatment drugs uncovered by McCullough—chloroquine (a cousin of hydroxychloroquine), antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines, a variety of steroids, and probiotics to stabilize and fortify the immune system and apothecaries of traditional Chinese medicines, vitamins, and minerals, including a variety of compounds containing quercetin, zinc, and glutathione precursors.54 The Chinese made early treatment the central priority of their COVID strategy. They used intense—and intrusive—track-and-trace surveillance to identify and then immediately hospitalize and treat every COVID-infected Chinese. Early treatment helped the Chinese to end their pandemic by April 2020. “We could have done the same,” says McCullough. 

Though now he is often censored, the AMA still lists Dr. McCullough’s study as the most frequently downloaded paper for 2020. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) downloaded and turned McCullough’s AMA article into its official treatment guide.55 AAPS Director Dr. Jeremy Snavely told me in August 2021 that the Guide had 122,000 downloads: “We figure it has been seen by over a million people. It’s the only trusted guide. Our phone never stops ringing. Mostly the calls are from physicians and patients desperate for the help they cannot get from any HHS website.” 

By autumn, front-line physicians had assembled a pharmacopeia of repurposed drugs, all of which were effective against COVID. 

By that time, more than 200 studies supported treatment with hydroxychloroquine, and 60 studies supported ivermectin. “We combined these medicines with doxycycline, azithromycin to suppress infection,” says McCullough. Another meta-analysis supported the use of prednisone and hydrocortisone and other widely available steroids to combat inflammation.56 Three studies supported the use of inhaled budesonide against COVID; an Oxford University study published in February 2021 demonstrated that that treatment could reduce hospitalizations by 90 percent in low-risk patients,57 and a publication in April 2021 showed that recovery was faster for high-risk patients, too. 58 

Furthermore, a very large study supported colchicine as an anti-inflammatory. 59 Finally, McCullough’s growing array of physicians had observational data from late-stage treatment of hospitalized patients with full-dose aspirin and antithrombotics, including Enoxaparin, Apixaban, Rivaroxaban, Dabigatran, Edoxaban, and full dose anticoagulation with low molecular weight heparin for blood clots.60 

“We were able to show that doctors can work with four to six drugs in combination, supplemented by vitamins and nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamins D and C, and Quercetin. And they can guide patients at home, even the highest-risk seniors, and avoid a dreaded outcome of hospitalization and death,” said McCullough. 

Working with a large practice in the Plano/Frisco area north of Dallas, McCullough and his team administered this protocol to some eight hundred patients and demonstrated an 85 percent reduction in hospitalization and death. Another practice led by the legendary Dr. Vladimir Zelenko in Monroe, New York showed similar astonishing results.61 

Independent physicians unaffiliated with the government or the universities that are so dependent on Dr. Fauci’s good favor were discovering new COVID treatments by the day. Researchers treated 738 randomly selected Brazilian COVID-19 patients with another adjuvant, fluvoxamine, identified early in the pandemic for its potential to reduce cytokine storms.62 Another 733 received a placebo between Jan. 20 and Aug. 6 of 2021. The researchers tracked every patient receiving fluvoxamine during the trial for 28 days and found about a 30-percent reduction in events among those receiving fluvoxamine compared to those who did not. Like almost all the other remedies, it is cheap and proven safe by long use. Fluvoxamine costs about $4 per 10-day course. Fluvoxamine has been used since the 1990s, and its safety profile is well known.63 

“Hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin are not necessary nor sufficient on their own—there are plenty of molecules that treat COVID,” says McCullough. “Even if hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin had become so politicized that no one wanted to allow these drugs to be used, we could use other drugs, anti-inflammatories, antihistamines, as well as anti-coagulants and actually stop the illness and again, treat it to reduce hospitalization and death.” 

When the pandemic started, most of the other medical practices in the Detroit area shut down, Dr. David Brownstein told me. “I had a meeting with my staff and my six partners. I told them, ‘We are going to stay open and treat COVID.’ They wanted to know how. I said, ‘We’ve been treating viral diseases here for twenty-five years. COVID can’t be any different.’ In all that time, our office had never lost a single patient to flu or flu-like illness. We treated people in their cars with oral vitamins A, C, and D, and iodine. We administered IV solution outside all winter with IV hydrogen peroxide and vitamin C. We’d have them put their butts out the car window and shot them up with intramuscular ozone. We nebulized them with hydrogen peroxide and Lugol’s iodine. 

We only rarely used ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. We treated 715 patients and had ten hospitalizations and no deaths. Early treatment was the key. We weren’t allowed to talk about it. The whole medical establishment was trying to shut down early treatment and silence all the doctors who talked about successes. A whole generation of doctors just stopped practicing medicine. When we talked about it, the whole cartel came for us. I’ve been in litigation with the Medical Board for a year. When we posted videos from some of our recovered patients, they went viral. One of the videos had a million views. FTC filed a motion against us, and we had to take everything down.” [the FTC?, all these agencies have to go, who the hell do these people thing they are? d.c]

In July 2020, Brownstein and his seven colleagues published a peer-reviewed article describing their stellar success with early treatment. FTC sent him a letter warning him to take it down. “No one wanted Americans to know that you didn’t have to die from COVID. It’s 100 percent treatable,” says Dr. Brownstein. “We proved it. No one had to die.” 

“Meanwhile,” adds Dr. Brownstein, “we’ve seen lots of really bad vaccine side effects in our patients. We’ve had seven strokes—some ending in severe paralysis. We had three cases of pulmonary embolism, two blood clots, two cases of Graves’ disease, and one death.” 

Repurposed medicines, the record shows, could also have drastically reduced death among hospitalized patients. One of Dr. Kory’s co-founders of FLCCC, Houston Memorial Medical Center’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. Joe Varon, worked 400 days in a row, seeing between 20–30 patients/day. Using ivermectin and a cocktail of anti-inflammatories, steroids, and anticoagulants since Spring 2020, Dr. Varon lowered hospital mortality among ICU COVID patients to about 4.1 percent, compared to well over 23 percent nationally. “Even in the ICUs where patients were coming in undertreated, we were able to dramatically reduce mortality,” says Dr. Kory. 

“Almost anything you do in the nursing homes— basically, any combination of the various components of these protocols—reduces mortalities by at least 60 percent,” McCullough told me. A 2021 paper in Medical Hypotheses supports McCullough’s claim.64 That study by twelve physician co-authors shows that diverse combinations of many of these and similar medications dramatically lower death rates in a variety of nursing homes. The study concludes that even the most modest early medical therapy combinations were associated with 60 percent reductions in mortality. Says Dr. McCullough, “Therapeutic nihilism was the real killer of America’s seniors.” 

McCullough’s findings may be conservative. Early in the pandemic, two Spanish nursing homes simultaneously experimented with early treatment with cheap, available repurposed drugs and achieved 100 percent survival among infected residents and staff. Between March and April 2020, COVID-19 struck two elder care facilities in Yepes, Toledo, Spain. The mean age of residents in those locations was 85, and 48 percent were over 80 years old. Within three months, 100 percent of the residents at both locations had caught the virus. By the end of June, 100 percent of residents and half the workers were seropositive for COVID, meaning they had endured infection and recovered. None of them went to the hospital and none died. None had adverse drug effects. Local doctors rapidly discovered early treatment with the same sort of remedies that McCullough was championing: antihistamines, steroids, antibiotics, anti-inflammatories, aspirin, nasal washes, bronchodilators, and blood thinners. In pooled data, 28 percent of the residents in similar nursing homes in the same region over the same time period died. That study supports the experience of front-line physicians that cheap available, repurposed drugs can easily prevent hospitalizations and deaths.65 

Dr. McCullough and 57 colleagues published a second study in December of 2020 in a dedicated issue of Reviews In Cardiovascular Medicine. The article, “Multifaceted highly targeted sequential multidrug treatment of early ambulatory high-risk SARS-CoV-2 infection (COVID-19),” described a marvelous breadth of effective drugs that these physicians had, by then, developed.66 

By collecting data from the vast network of doctors across the globe, they added dozens of new compounds to the arsenal—all proven effective against COVID-19. Dr. Kory told me that he was deeply troubled that the extremely successful efforts by scores of front-line doctors to develop repurposed medicines to treat COVID received no support from any government in the entire world—only hostility—much of it orchestrated by Dr. Fauci and the US health agencies. The large universities that rely on hundreds of millions in annual funding from NIH were also antagonistic. 

“We didn’t have a single academic institution come up with a single protocol,” said Dr. McCullough. “They didn’t even try. Harvard, Johns Hopkins, Duke, you name it. Not a single medical center set up even a tent to try to treat patients and prevent hospitalization and death. There wasn’t an ounce of original research coming out of America available to fight COVID—other than vaccines.” All of these universities are deeply dependent on billions of dollars that they receive from NIH. As we shall see, these institutions live in terror of offending Anthony Fauci, and that fear paralyzed them in the midst of the pandemic. 

“Dr. Fauci refused to promote any of these interventions,” says Kory. “It’s not just that he made no effort to find effective off-the-shelf cures—he aggressively suppressed them.” 

Instead of supporting McCullough’s work, NIH and the other federal regulators began actively censoring information on this range of effective remedies. Doctors who attempted merely to open discussion about the potential benefits of early treatments for COVID found themselves heavily and inexplicably censored. Dr. Fauci worked with Facebook’s Mark Zuckerberg and other social media sites to muzzle discussion of any remedies. FDA sent a letter of warning that N-acetyl-L-cysteine (NAC) cannot be lawfully marketed as a dietary supplement, after decades of free access on health food shelves, and suppressed IV vitamin C, which the Chinese were using with extreme effectiveness. 

In September, Dr. McCullough used his own money to create a YouTube video showing four slides from his peer reviewed American Medical Association articles to teach doctors the miraculous benefits of early treatment with HCQ and other remedies. His video went viral, with hundreds of thousands of downloads; YouTube pulled it two days later. [ land of the free huh? d.c ]

Leading doctors and scientists, including some of the nation’s most highly published and experienced physicians and front-line COVID specialists like McCullough, Kory, Ryan Cole, David Brownstein, and Risch believe that Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatment and off-patent remedies was responsible for up to 80 percent of the deaths attributed to COVID. All five doctors independently told me the same thing. The relentless malpractice of deliberately withholding early effective COVID treatments, of forcing the use of toxic remdesivir, may have unnecessarily killed up to 500,000 Americans in hospitals. 

Dr. Kory says so plainly: “Dr. Fauci’s suppression of early treatments will go down in history as having caused the death of a half a million Americans in the ICU.” 

Ryan Cole is one of the doctors who adopted McCullough’s protocols early in the pandemic. Dr. Cole is a Mayo Clinic and Columbia University-trained Board Certified Anatomic/Clinical Pathologist and the CEO/Medical Director of Cole Diagnostics, the largest independent lab in Idaho. He has diagnosed more than 350,000 patients in his career. Dr. Cole discovered McCullough’s research during his own investigation of early treatment remedies when his overweight brother called Dr. Cole from a neighboring state on his way to the ER with a positive PCR test, labored breathing, blood oxygen at 86, and chest discomfort that he rated nine out of ten. “He has Type 1 diabetes,” explains Dr. Cole. Dr. Cole redirected his sibling to a local pharmacy and called in an ivermectin prescription. “Within six hours, my brother’s chest pain was down to two out of ten due to the interferon effect of ivermectin, and within 24 hours after taking ivermectin, his oxygen was 98, and he then fully recovered.” Cole told me, “A light bulb went off.” 

Dr. Cole has overseen or helped perform over 125,000 COVID tests during the pandemic. Since rescuing his brother, he has encountered many patients in early stages of the disease. “Almost none of them could find doctors in the community to treat them,” he told me. “I intervened to provide early treatment to over 300 positive patients, half of whom were comorbid and high risk.” Of this cohort, none were hospitalized and none died. “Early treatment of COVID-19, plain and simple, saves lives. If the medical profession had been forward thinking and hands-on, and focused on this disease, with an early outpatient multi-drug approach, knowing that COVID-19 is an inflammatory clotting disease, hundreds of thousands of lives could have been saved in the US.” 

“Never in the history of medicine,” says Dr. Cole, “has early treatment, of any patient with any disease, been so overtly neglected by the medical profession on such a massive scale.” 

Cole adds, “To not treat, especially in the midst of a highly transmissible, deadly disease, is to do harm.” 

Cole says that the only truly deadly pandemic is “the pandemic of under treatment.” 

He says, “The sacred doctor–patient relationship needs to be wrenched away from Anthony Fauci and the government/medical/pharmaceutical industrial complex. Doctors need to return to their oaths. Patients need to demand from medicine their right to be treated. This year has revealed the countless flaws of a medical system that has lost its direction and soul.” 

Cole points out that, “If you are under 70 years of age and have no severe preexisting illness, you can hardly die [from SARS-CoV-2 infection]. So, there is no fatality rate that can be reduced. . . . And for people who are elderly and have preexisting illness,” he adds, “as we know from Dr. Peter McCullough and his colleagues’ work, there are miraculously effective medicines to treat this virus so that the fatality rates go down another 70 to 80 percent, which means there is no ground for emergency use whatsoever. That’s a huge threat to the vaccine cartel and to remdesivir.” 

It was only the independent doctors like Ryan Cole, who were not reliant on Dr. Fauci’s largesse and who threw themselves into hand-to-hand combat against COVID-19, who discovered readily available treatment modes: “We had hero doctors that really had to break with the academic ivory tower,” says McCullough. Finally, a group of independent organizations, including the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons, the Front-Line Critical Care Consortium, and America’s Front-line Doctors, galvanized to organize the country into four national telemedicine services, and three regional telemedicine services. Following Dr. Kory’s explosive Senate testimony, thousands of doctors and frightened COVID patients began calling the hotlines for treatment. “We took over health care,” says McCullough. 

“In numerous countries and regions around the world, repeated, striking temporally associated reductions in both cases and deaths occurred very soon after either ivermectin was distributed or health ministry ivermectin recommendations were announced.” said Dr. Kory. It could be argued that a similar association occurred in the US. Dr. Fauci and the industry propagandists later attributed the January decline in COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths to their vaccines, which began their rollout in mid-December 2020.

However, even mainstream media doctors reluctantly acknowledged that the drop could not possibly be a vaccine effect. By February 1, only 25.2 million, or 7.6 percent of Americans, had received a single vaccine dose.67 The CDC acknowledges that there is no effect until many weeks after the second COVID jab. 

Tony Fauci’s decision to deny early treatments undoubtedly prolonged and intensified the pandemic. McCullough points out that early treatment does not just prevent hospitalization; it quickly starves pandemics to death by stopping their spread. “Early treatment reduces the infectivity period from 14 days to about four days,” he explains. “It also allows someone to stay in the home so they don’t contaminate people outside the home. And then it has this remarkable effect in reducing the intensity and duration of symptoms so patients don’t get so short of breath, they don’t get into this panic where they feel they have to break containment and go to the hospital.” McCullough says that those hospital trips are tinder for pandemics, especially since, at that point, the patient is at the height of infectivity, with teeming viral loads. “Every hospitalization in America—and there’s been millions of them—has been a super-spreader event. Sick patients contaminate their loved ones, paramedics, Uber drivers, people in the clinic and offices. It becomes a total mess.” McCullough says that by treating COVID-19 at home, doctors actually can extinguish the pandemic. 

“So this has been a story of American heroes. It’s been a story of worldwide success.” McCullough’s group is now part of a worldwide network of front-line physicians using repurposed drugs to save lives around the globe. These doctors have built networks and information banks outside of the government agency and university hegemony allowing doctors to actually practice the art of healing. Their network includes the BIRD medical coalition in the UK and Treatment Domiciliare COVID-19 group in Italy, which conducts rallies to celebrate zero hospitalizations from this multidrug approach. “We have PANDA in South Africa, the Covid Medical Network in Australia. And so on,” says McCullough. “Despite the various government agencies and the ivory tower medical institutions literally not lifting a finger, COVID-19 independent doctors and hero organizations kicked in.” 

“And to this day, we’re in the middle of the Delta outbreak. Guess who’s treating the Delta patients? It’s again not the academic medical centers or the government or even the large group practices. They’re not touching these patients. Once again, it is independent physicians.” It’s independent doctors who are actually compassionately reaching out and using what we call the precautionary principle. They are using their best medical judgment and scientific data to apply therapy now and to practice the art of healing. For any of our academic colleagues that have said, ‘Dr. McCullough, we need to wait for large, randomized trials,’ what I’ve always said is, ‘Listen, this is a mass casualty event.’ People are dying now. They’re being hospitalized now. We can’t wait for large, randomized trials. We need to be doctors. We need to start healing people.” 

next-96s

KILLING HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

notes

1 Stephen Kinzer, “From mind control to murder? How a deadly fall revealed the CIA’s darkest secrets,” The Guardian (Sep. 6, 2019), theguardian.com/ us-news/2019/sep/06/from-mind-control-to-murder-how-a-deadly-fall-reveal ed-the-cias-darkest-secrets 

2.Michael Ignatieff, “Who Killed Frank Olson?,” The Guardian (Apr. 6, 2001), theguardian.com/books/2001/apr/07/books.guardianreview4 

3.H. P. Albarelli, Jr., “Part One: The Mysterious Death of CIA Scientist Frank Olson,” Crime Magazine (Dec. 14, 2002), crimemagazine.com/part-onemysterious-death-cia-scientist-frank-olson 

4.David Franz, “The Dual Use Dilemma: Crying out for Leadership,” Saint Louis University Journal of Health Law and Policy 6 (Vol. 7:5 2013), slu.edu/law/academics/journals/health-law-policy/pdfs/issues/v7- i1/david_franz_article.pdf 

5.Franz 

6.William Lowther, “Rumsfeld ‘helped Iraq get chemical weapons,’” Daily Mail (Dec. 31, 2002), dailymail.co.uk/news/article-153210/Rumsfeldhelped-Iraq-chemical-weapons.html 

7.Christopher G. Pernin et al., ”Unfolding the Future of the Long War: Motivations, Prospects, and Implications for the U.S. Army,” Rand Corporation (2008), rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG738.pdf 

8.James Sterngold, “Cheney’s grim vision: decades of war / Vice president says Bush policy aimed at long-term world threat,” San Francisco Chronicle (Jan. 15, 2004), sfgate.com/politics/article/Cheneys-grim-visiondecades-of-war-Vice-2812372.php 

9.Wikispooks: Robert Kadlec. https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Robert_Kadlec 

10.Jon Cohen, “Mining coronavirus genomes for clues to the outbreak’s origins,” Science (Jan. 31, 2021), sciencemag.org/news/2020/01/miningcoronavirus-genomes-clues-outbreak-s-origins 

11.Hans Mahncke and Jeff Carlson, “Fauci Team Scrambled in January 2020 to Respond to Lab Leak Allegations, Emails Show,” Epoch Times (Jun. 2, 2021), theepochtimes.com/fauci-team-scrambled-in-january-2020-to-respo nd-to-lab-leak-allegations-emails-show_3842427.html

12.Whitney Webb and Raul Diego, “Head of the Hydra—The Rise of Robert Kadlec,” The Last American Vagabond (May 14, 2020), thelastamericanvagabond.com/head-hydra-rise-robert-kadlec/ 

13.Neville Hodgkinson, “Covid’s Dark Winter: How Biological War Games Stole Our Freedom,” Conservative Woman (June 30, 2021),  conservativewoman.co.uk/covids-dark-winter-how-bio-war-gaming-robbedus-of-our-liberty 

14.Barry R. Schneider and Lawrence E. Grinter, eds., Battlefield of the Future: 21st Century Warfare Issue (Air University Press Rev. Ed. 2008), 261–262 airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/CSDS/Books/battlefield_future2.pdf 

15.Jon Swaine, Robert O’Harrow Jr., and Aaron Davis, “Before pandemic, Trump’s stockpile chief put focus on biodefense. An old client benefited,” Washington Post (May 4, 2020), washingtonpost.com/investigations/before -pandemic-trumps-stockpile-chief-put-focus-on-biodefense-an-old-client-be nefited/2020/05/04/d3c2b010-84dd-11ea-878a-86477a724bdb_story.html 

16.Alexis Baden-Mayer, “Dr. Robert Kadlec: How the Czar of Biowarfare Funnels Billions to Friends in the Vaccine Industry,” Organic Consumers (Aug. 13, 2020), organicconsumers.org/blog/dr-robert-kadlec-how-czar-bio warfare-funnels-billions-friends-vaccine-industry

17.“Gates Foundations Give Johns Hopkins $20 Million Gift to School of Public Health for Population, Reproductive Health Institute,” BMGF (May 1999), gatesfoundation.org/ideas/media-center/press-releases/1999/05/joh ns-hopkins-university-school-of-public-health 

18.NIH Reporter, Johns Hopkins Funding 2001–2021, https://reporter.nih.gov/ search/W2pb_quLtkOEn58czHh1wA/projects/charts?fy=2021;2020;2019;2 018;2017;2016;2015;2013;2014;2012;2011;2010;2009;2008;2007;2006;20 05;2004;2003;2002;2001&org=JOHNS%20HOPKINS%20UNIVERSITY 

19.“Secret project manufactured mock anthrax,” Washington Times (Oct. 26, 2001), washingtontimes.com/news/2001/oct/26/20011026-030448-2429r/

20.Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. American Values: Lessons I Learned from My Family, (Harper Collins, 2018), 215 

21.Engelbrecht, Köhnlein, et al., 368 

22.Marjorie Censer, “CEO took roundabout path to Emergent,” Washington Post (Jan. 3, 2011). washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2010/12/30/AR2010123003293.html 

23.Tim Reid, “The needle and the damage done,” London Times (Nov. 26, 2002), vaccinetruth.org/gulf-war-syndrome.html 

24.Subcommittee on National Security, Veterans Affairs, and International Relations of the Committee on Government Reform (Jun. 30, 1999), hsdl.org/?view&did=2088 

25.Martin Meyer Weiss, “Anthrax Vaccine and Public Health Policy,” American Journal of Public Health (Nov., 2007), ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2040369/ 

26.Whitney Webb and Raul Diego, “Head of the Hydra—The Rise of Robert Kadlec,” The Last American Vagabond (May 14, 2020), thelastamericanvagabond.com/head-hydra-rise-robert-kadlec/ 

27.Tara O’Toole, MD, MPH, Professional Profile, Center for Health Security, h ttps://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-people/otoole/ 

28.Webb and Diego 

29.Susan Peterson, ”Epidemic disease and national security,” Security Studies vol. 12, no. 2 (2002): 74, DOI: 10.1080/09636410212120009, researchgate.net/publication/232909887_Epidemic_Disease_and_National_ Security 

30.Congressional Record Senate 155, pt. 20 (Nov. 4, 2009), govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CRECB-2009-pt20/html/CRECB-2009-pt20- Pg26672.htm 

31.Jim McElhatten, “Exclusive: Obama Nominee Omitted Ties to Biotech,” Washington Times (Sept. 8, 2009), washingtontimes.com/news/2009/sep/8/obama-nominee-omitted-ties-tobiotech/ 

32.Noah Shachtman, “DHS’s New Chief Geek Is a Bioterror ‘Disaster,’ Critics Charge,” Wired (May 6, 2009), wired.com/2009/05/dhs-new-geek-in-chiefis-a-biodefense-disaster-critics-say/ 

33.Congressional Record Senate 155, pt. 20 

34.Ibid. 

35.Ibid. 

36.Ibid. 

37.Ibid. 

38.Richard Abott, “ANSER Acquires Advanced Technology International,” Defense Daily (Jan. 31, 2017), defensedaily.com/anser-acquires-advancedtechnology-international/business-financial/ 

39.Sydney Lupkin, “How Operation Warp Speed’s Big Vaccine Contracts Could Stay Secret,” NPR (Sept. 29, 2020), npr.org/sections/health-shots/20 20/09/29/917899357/how-operation-warp-speeds-big vaccine-contracts-could-stay-secret 

40.Ibid. 

41.Matt Apuzzo and Selam Gebrekidan, “Governments Sign Secret Vaccine Deals. Here’s What They Hide,” New York Times (Jan. 28, 2021), nytimes.com/2021/01/28/world/europe/vaccine-secret-contractsprices.html?referringSource=articleShare 

42.Kevin Kajiwara and Jerome Hauer, “Teneo Insights Webinar: COVID-19 Pandemic and Vaccines,” TENEO, (Jan 8, 2021), teneo.com/teneo-insightswebinar-covid-19-pandemic-and-vaccines/ 

43.Jim Lobe, “Chicken Hawks as Cheer Leaders,” Foreign Policy in Focus Advisory Committee (2002), globalization.icaap.org/content/v2.2/lobe.html 

44.Matt Duss, “Iraq: Because Rumsfeld Needed Better Targets,” ThinkProgress (Jul. 28, 2009), archive.thinkprogress.org/iraq-becauserumsfeld-needed-better-targets-a4dcb1335c29/ 

45.Washington’s Blog, “The Pentagon’s ‘Operation Dark Winter’: June 2001 Bioterror Exercise Foreshadowed 9/11 and Anthrax Attacks,” Global Research (Oct 12, 2014), globalresearch.ca/the-pentagons-operation-darkwinter-june-2001-bioterror-exercise-foreshadowed-911-and-anthrax-attack s/5407575 

46.Judith Miller, “A National Challenged: Spores; U.S. Agrees To Clean Up Anthrax Site In Uzbekistan,” New York Times (Oct. 23, 2001), nytimes.com/2001/10/23/world/a-nation-challenged-spores-us-agrees-toclean-up-anthrax-site-in-uzbekistan.html 

47.Franklin Foer, “The Source of the Trouble,” New York Magazine (May 28, 2004), nymag.com/nymetro/news/media/features/9226/#print 

48.Reuters Staff, “Bush calls flawed Iraq intelligence biggest regret,” Reuters (Dec. 1, 2008), reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed2/idUSN01511412 

49.Simon Jeffrey, “The slam-dunk intelligence chief,” The Guardian (Jun. 3, 2004), theguardian.com/world/2004/jun/03/usa.simonjeffery 

50.Lindsey A. O’Rourke, “The U.S. tried to change other countries’ governments 72 times during the Cold War,” Washington Post (Dec 23, 2016), washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/12/23/the-cia-say s-russia-hacked-the-u-s-election-here-are-6-things-to-learn-from-cold-war-a ttempts-to-change-regimes/ 

51.CDC, Research—Smallpox (Jan. 22, 2019), cdc.gov/smallpox/research/index.html 

52.Dr. Meryl Nass, “When mass vaccination programs are mounted in a hurry, bad outcomes and liability are invariably big issues,” (Apr.17, 2021), anthr axvaccine.blogspot.com/2021/04/when-mass-vaccination-programs-are.ht ml 

53.Ibid. 

54.John Doe #1 et al., v. Donald H. Rumsfeld, et al., 297 F. SUPP., U.S. Dist., (2003), biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/vaccines/Doe_v_Rumsfeld_I.htm 

55.Yet to this day, the CDC website puts forth a favorable view of the smallpox vaccine, starting with the well-worn assurances of safety: The smallpox vaccine is safe, and it is effective at preventing smallpox disease. 

56.Andrea Germanos, “Big Tech War Profiteers Raked in $44 Billion During ‘Global War on Terror,” THE DEFENDER, (Sep 13, 2021). https://childrens healthdefense.org/defender/big-tech-sells-war-amazon-google-microsoft-44 -billion/ 

57.Rick Weiss and Susan Schmidt, “Capitol Hill Anthrax Matches Army’s Stocks,” Washington Post (Dec. 16, 2001), washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/12/16/capitol-hill-anthrax-matches-armys-stocks/ccc7d65b-9235- 4ccb-84a6-c9d5064ada91/ 

58.Webb and Diego 59.Ibid. 

60.Ibid. 

61.Jerry Markon, “Justice Dept. Takes on Itself in Anthrax Attacks,” Washington Post (Jan. 27, 2012), washingtonpost.com/politics/justice-depttakes-on-itself-in-probe-of-2001-anthraxattacks/2012/01/05/gIQAhGLlVQ_st ory.html 

62.Ian Gurney, “Bin Laden Profits from U.S. Anthrax Vaccine Manufacture?,” What Really Happened (2002), whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/binladenprofits.html 

63.Webb and Diego 

64.Jeffrey Lean and Jonathan Owen, “Donald Rumsfeld makes $5m killing on bird flu drug,” Independent (Mar. 12, 2016), independent.co.uk/news/worl d/americas/donald-rumsfeld-makes-5m-killing-bird-flu-drug-6106843.html 

65.Nelson D. Schwartz, “Rumsfield's Growing Stake in Tamiflu,” CNN Money (October 31, 2005), https://money.cnn.com/2005/10/31/news/newsmakers/f ortune_rumsfeld/ 

66.Ibid. 

67.Jon Cohen and Eliot Marshall, “Vaccines for Biodefense: A System in Distress,” Science (Oct. 19, 2001): 498–501, science.sciencemag.org/content/294/5542/498

FAIR USE NOTICE

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. As a journalist, I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of artistic, cultural, historic, religious and political issues. I believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law.

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Copyrighted material can be removed on the request of the owner.