Masters of Health Magazine January 2023 | Page 14

and getting jabbed became a biological loyalty oath.  You had to take it or be docked a month's pay, be given extra duties, or even be court-martialed.  Some soldiers were held down and vaccinated.  Nothing was allowed to stop the program, even though the vaccine wasn't safe and probably didn't even work.


My colleagues (some of the most amazing people on this planet) organized a dream team of attorneys, did immense research, worked closely with members of Congress, and eventually brought suit against the vaccine.  In 2004 we won!  DC District Court Judge Emmett Sullivan threw out the anthrax vaccine license, because the vaccine had never met the FDA requirements and had skated through an FDA review, probably as a special favor FDA gave to DOD.  No "Final Rule" had ever been issued for anthrax vaccine.


I learned then that DOD did not care about Congress, public opinion or bad press--and they tried to ignore Judge Sullivan too.  Almost as soon as he pulled the vaccine's license, DOD slapped an Emergency Use Authorization on the vaccine.  And DOD attempted to mandate anthrax vaccinations again.  Our team went back to court, and Judge Sullivan told the Defense Department, in no uncertain terms, that while soldiers may risk their lives fighting for the US, they could not be forced to risk their lives as guinea pigs for an experimental vaccine.


While there were more shenanigans to come, I learned an important lesson:  it is possible to finally end a grievous injustice in the courts.  I also learned the win might not last.  You see, the government has an army of lawyers, and so there is no real cost to them to fight you.  They will fight forever, if necessary.  While you, on the other hand, are spending tons of time and money to try and prosecute your case.  Justice can be achieved sometimes, but the costs are high, and victory may be brief.


In 2005 FDA rubberstamped the anthrax vaccine license.  There was still no evidence of whether it worked, and plenty of evidence it was not safe.  No matter.  The courts, when we appealed, said FDA had deference.  What that meant is even if the vaccine falls far short of FDA's standards for licensure, it doesn't matter.  FDA doesn't have to obey its own rules.  You do.  It doesn't. 


After that I investigated the 2009 swine flu pandemic and the vaccines rushed out for it.  I learned that pandemics are like wars:  when there are a lot of experimental drugs and vaccines or experimental vaccine components sitting on a shelf, you grab the opportunity to try them out when there is an emergency.  This happened during the Gulf War.  2009 Swine Flu.  2014 Ebola.  Zika.


You see, it is very expensive to test a new drug or vaccine in a randomized clinical trial.  It generally costs thousands of dollars per human subject.  You have to test the product in animals first, you need 3 human trial phases, and the entire process takes many years.


Not so in an emergency.  Patients become free human subjects for Pharma's experimental products. Regulation gets condensed to almost nothing.  Billionaires are minted.

First came the Chloroquine

and Hydroxychloroquine suppression


In January 2020 the “Novel Coronavirus,” now named SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19,appeared.  As usual, I looked for solutions for managing it.  I discovered that the chloroquine drugs had already been tested against two deadly coronaviruses: SARS (which appeared in China in 2002) and MERS (which appeared in Saudi Arabia in 2012) and killed the virus in tissue culture!  Chinese doctors told us it was their most successful COVID drug in February 2021.  The history and logic for using these cheap, re-purposed drugs is compelling.


Chloroquine is an interesting drug; it has been used for many decades both to prevent and to treat malaria. It is used as an anti-inflammatory against rheumatoid arthritis, it is used as an anti-parasitic against malaria and other parasitic diseases and it has antiviral properties.  Chloroquine has antiviral effects by increasing the pH of cell's lysosomes and the late endosome, causing the impaired release of viruses from the lysosome or the endosome. This makes the virus unable to Chloroquine also acts as a zinc ionophore that allows extracellular zinc to enter the cell and inhibit viral RNA-dependent RNA polymerase (Zabion 2022). So, it should have come as no surprise that this drug would be a viable anti-viral treatment against beta-coronaviruses such as SARS-CoV-2.


In 2005, five CDC (US government) scientists published a paper, along with three Canadian scientists in the Journal of Virology, showing that chloroquine was an effective drug against SARS coronaviruses (Vincent et al. 2005).  The CDC paper is entitled “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread” and concludes with the following: “chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection… suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”  In other words, it was predicted to both prevent and treat deadly coronaviruses.  A similar study was conducted in 2004 by a group of European scientists (Keyaerts et al. 2004).


In 2014, scientists working under Tony Fauci at the NIH's National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), showed the same results.  Not only did chloroquine work in vitro against the MERS coronavirus, but dozens of existing drugs, which could have been tested in patients as soon as the pandemic started, were also effective against SARS and MERS coronaviruses. The study was published in the journal “Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy” and was called “Repurposing of Clinically Developed Drugs for Treatment of Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus Infection.” (Dyall et al. 2014). The NIAID authors wrote:

Here we found that 66 of the screened drugs were effective at inhibiting either MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection in vitro and that 27 of these compounds were effective against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These data demonstrate the efficiency of screening approved or clinically developed drugs for identification of potential therapeutic options for emerging viral diseases, and also provide an expedited approach for supporting off-label use of approved therapeutics.


Just in case you think these papers were flukes, two unrelated groups of European scientists found essentially the same thing.  The 2014 European paper entitled “Screening of an FDA-approved compound library identifies four small-molecule inhibitors of Middle East respiratory syndrome coronavirus replication in cell culture” was published back-to-back with the NIAID paper above (de Wilde et al. 2014).

I have to repeat myself, because the information is so shocking and I don't want you to miss it:  our governments already knew of options for treating COVID before it appeared, but instead of immediately trying these already identified, safe, cheap, and available repurposed drugs, and offering early treatments, they did everything they could to stop people obtaining the chloroquine drugs. 


I investigated several clinical trials that gave hospitalized patients very high doses of hydroxychloroquine.  One of these reports is called “WHO and UK trials use potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine dose — according to WHO consultant” (Nass 2020c) and the other is “Even worse than ‘Recovery,’ potentially lethal hydroxychloroquine study in patients near death” (Nass 2020a).  They are about how patients were administered extremely high doses of hydroxychloroquine to give the drug a black eye. In my opinion, these are medical crimes against humanity.  Yet this has never been investigated by mainstream media, bio-ethicists nor by regulatory or licensing agencies.