Commentary: The latest obscene treatment guidelines out of NIH

Exclusive: Joel S. Hirschhorn takes sharp aim at'this evil and criminal Fauci organization.'

Exclusive: Joel S. Hirschhorn takes sharp aim at ‘this evil and criminal Fauci organization’

Joel S. Hirschhorn
WND News Center

What our government is telling physicians is just plain idiotic. Read the following from a publication aimed at doctors.

This was reported:

“Due to the Omicron variant and the short supply of COVID therapeutics, NIH [National Institutes of Health] recommends certain therapies over others for patients at high risk of progressing to severe COVID, said federal officials on a call with clinicians Wednesday [Jan. 12].

“In order of preference, clinicians should use the oral antiviral nirmatrelvir-ritonavir (Paxlovid), the monoclonal antibody sotrovimab, the IV antiviral remdesivir (Veklury) and finally, the oral antiviral molnupiravir, said Alice Pau, PharmD, of the NIH COVID-19 Treatment Guidelines panel.

“While the drugs were ranked from 1 to 4, she noted that nirmatrelvir-ritonavir, sotrovimab, and IV remdesivir three times a day all had similar clinical efficacy, with a relative risk reduction of 88%, 85%, and 87% in hospitalizations and deaths, respectively, versus placebo. However, molnupiravir, with its 30% efficacy, should be used only if the other three choices are not available, Pau noted.”

Here are the main reasons why the NIH list of preferred COVID treatments should not reassure the public:

  1. The first preferred action, using the Pfizer drug Paxlovid, makes little sense because there is nearly no availability of it. And even if people could get prescriptions filled, would they be acting fast enough to get benefits? In the clinical trials people had to start the drug within three days of symptoms; even though they now talk of starting within five days, that too is totally impractical and unrealistic. Few people would be able to distinguish symptoms being COVID and not the flu or a bad cold quickly, getting an appointment with the doctor quickly and getting a prescription filled quickly. And the safety has not been adequately assessed. A new article written for physicians details concerns about interactions with commonly used medicines.
  2. The monoclonal antibody sotrovimab is nearly impossible to get because of extremely limited supply. And here, too, a sick person would have to get medical attention quickly, which is extremely difficult. Even your local hospital might not have it.
  3. The very expensive drug remdesivir has a terrible history of being both ineffective and having terrible side effects. It is mostly given to very ill patients in hospitals.
  4. Then you get to the absolutely ludicrous fourth option, the new Merck antiviral that has a terrible level of effectiveness and that has not been proven safe. An absolutely awful choice.

What is most obscene about what NIH tells doctors is that it still refuses to include ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine as treatment options. It ignores the extremely successful treatment protocols of front-line doctors like Dr. Fareed and Dr. Zelenko that do not include any of the four NIH preferences.

Of special importance is that NIH has ignored a recent detailed study of ivermectin that reached these conclusions: “… [L]arge reductions in COVID-19 deaths are possible using ivermectin. Using ivermectin early in the clinical course may reduce numbers progressing to severe disease. The apparent safety and low cost suggest that ivermectin is likely to have a significant impact on the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic globally.” An even newer study found remarkable benefits of using ivermectin, including a 68% reduction in mortality and 56% reduction in hospitalization. NIH is not respecting positive results for ivermectin, and the agency’s guidelines could make it difficult for states trying to make ivermectin easily available.

What a waste of U.S. taxpayer money is this evil and criminal Fauci organization.

The real message for the public: Do not trust the government to effectively protect your life. Public health protection in the U.S. is a disgrace. What NIH is saying is really insulting disinformation.

Dr. Joel S. Hirschhorn, as a full professor at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, directed a medical research program between the colleges of engineering and medicine. At the Congressional Office of Technology Assessment and the National Governors Association, he directed major health-related studies. He has testified at over 50 U.S. Senate and House hearings and authored hundreds of articles in journals and on websites, plus op-ed articles in major newspapers. He has been an executive volunteer at a major hospital for more than 10 years. His newest book is “PandemicBlunder.”

Also read:


  1. Scott Hooper

    That is odd. Although HCQ has not been shown effective, Ivermectin has, although not as effective as the 3 other drugs mentioned here, and like many, must be given early to be effective.

    It’s not clear why they didn’t add that to this list, but I’m sure there’s a reason. You not understanding their reasoning does not amount to a criminal conspiracy. Why don’t you go find out and then tell us why they left it off the list?

    1. Nichol Northrup

      Just a suggestion, Senator Ron Johnson just held a “Second opinion” round table with Doctors, scientists, nurses etc. Its on you tube. You owe it to yourself to clear your own bias clear your mind and watch and listen to what these experts are saying. The hardest thing in life is swallowing our own pride and being able actually listen and learn. If you can do that you will be glad you did.

  2. Melissa

    HCQ and Ivermectin are older, off-patent drugs. There is no money to be made pushing these tried-and-true treatments, when new and unproven drugs with lucrative bottom lines can be promoted instead. I didn’t realize until I started paying attention during Covid, but our public health agencies don’t give health advice; they give pharmaceutical advice. They tell us “follow the science” but a more honest statement would be “follow the money.”

      1. Wolfie

        HQ, despite Mr. Hoopers assertion, has been show extremely effective as has ivermectin. To Melissa’s point, there is no money to be made in these and they are vilified because they absolutely do not fit the narrative. Those behind all of us this do not want folks well or cured. Sick people make them money.. well people do not.

  3. Margaret

    I listened to most of the Jan. 26 Clark County Board of Health meeting. An MD from SW Peace Health Medical Center encouraged the use of Pfizer’s new Covid drug, Paxlovid, yet noted that it wasn’t available yet. Both the PeaceHealth and Legacy representatives emphasized that neither ivermectin, nor HCQ are available treatments at local hospitals, although patients and families have requested them.
    Monoclonal antibody treatment in the first 10 days of illness is an available option in Clark County for some residents who are not hospitalized.

    In countries like Mexico, Argentina, Peru, and India, inexpensive ivermectin therapy appears to have been effective with a good safety profile. Hopefully, inexpensive anti-viral treatments will remain available to patients who want them. If members of congress have access to ivermectin, lowly residents should too.

    1. Melissa

      I also watched the 1-26-22 BOH meeting. One of the doctors/hospital administrators said that at the beginning of the pandemic, the administrators from each area hospital and clinic got together weekly with the public health director to “coordinate their messaging.” This coordination was evident as they spoke. They each said that HCQ and Ivermectin are not “evidence-based treatments.” It was shocking and sad to watch. Especially, as you say, because both drugs have such a proven safety profile.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *