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:
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.”