Why does Fauci insist on an unethical, immoral placebo-controlled study for HCQ?

[admin]

Why does Fauci insist on randomized controlled trials for a proven safe 65-year old drug that is taken by millions of Americans day after day, year after year for Lupus and arthritis, in the same dosage that the Zelenko Protocol prescribes over just 5 days, when such a trial would be tantamount to mass murder of the patients in the placebo group?

Any study of early outpatient treatment of elderly and high risk patients, would be sentencing about 5-15% of those in the placebo control group that didn't receive the HCQ+AZ+Z to death, while the HCQ+AZ+Z group could enjoy a 99+% chance of survival.
https://www.bitchute.com/video/zBZn9AtctNnC/

It would obviously be unethical and immoral to operate such a study - indeed tantamount to homicide/manslaughter - and there should be little doubt that Fauci is well aware that no ethical doctor or scientist would be a part of such a study. If potential study participants were fully informed of the odds (would it be premeditated murder if they weren't?) nobody in their right mind would ever agree to be an included patient in such a study.

We need only to look to the 200,000 dead in the U.S., that did not receive a 99+% effective protocol on a timely outpatient basis, to recognize we already have a 200,000 member control group of dead Americans.
As measured against the hundreds of thousands of lives that have been saved all around the world, by this protocol, as the treated group of patients in the study. Indeed entire countries have adopted this protocol, as the U.S. should have done back in March.

But then it might seem that we may be able to lay the whole pandemic at Fauci's feet to begin with.
https://www.newsweek.com/dr-fauci-backed-controversial-wuhan-lab-millions-us-dollars-risky-coronavirus-research-1500741

Video of Fauci testifying before congress as he shills for Big Pharma by stalling efforts to save Americans with HCQ, as we continue to die on the alter of he and Bill Gates vaccine, which would otherwise be made irrelevant and relegated to the dustbin of history, by the simple, cheap, 99% effective Zelenko Protocol:
https://www.bitchute.com/video/60QjXKf1oCnF/

"The media quickly found critics who claimed that the only valid proof any treatment worked was a “gold-standard” double-blind clinical trial and dismissed Dr. Zelenko’s and Raoult’s results. Dr. Zelenko and Prof. Raoult both refused on ethical grounds to give placebos to half the patients in clinical trials and they defended their data as sufficient to show the treatment did work. They both stressed that the urgency of the situation made it necessary to act on available evidence, not clinical trials which would take months to produce results and be verified. There have subsequently been over a dozen studies which confirm that Dr. Zelenko’s and Prof. Raoult’s protocols do work."

Many drugs were never run through a double blind studies, like penicillin and amoxicillin. Much less make such a ridiculous demand of a drug that has a 65-year proven safety track record that demonstrates it to be safer than aspirin, Tylenol or Benadryl according to the AAPS, that is taken in the same dosage that the Zelenko Protocol prescribes over just 5 days, by millions of Americans for Lupus and RA, day after day, year after year, for decades on end.

[admin]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3600702/

"N Engl J Med
. 1987 Jul 16;317(3):141-5.
doi: 10.1056/NEJM198707163170304.

Equipoise and the ethics of clinical research
B Freedman

    PMID: 3600702 DOI: 10.1056/NEJM198707163170304

Abstract

The ethics of clinical research requires equipoise--a state of genuine uncertainty on the part of the clinical investigator regarding the comparative therapeutic merits of each arm in a trial. Should the investigator discover that one treatment is of superior therapeutic merit, he or she is ethically obliged to offer that treatment. The current understanding of this requirement, which entails that the investigator have no "treatment preference" throughout the course of the trial, presents nearly insuperable obstacles to the ethical commencement or completion of a controlled trial and may also contribute to the termination of trials because of the failure to enroll enough patients. I suggest an alternative concept of equipoise, which would be based on present or imminent controversy in the clinical community over the preferred treatment. According to this concept of "clinical equipoise," the requirement is satisfied if there is genuine uncertainty within the expert medical community--not necessarily on the part of the individual investigator--about the preferred treatment."

In the case of the Zelenko Protocol when administered immediately upon suspicion of COVID-19, with elderly and high-risk patients, the above bolded print is obviously the case.
Established over many months now, by many doctors, it is a certainty that around 99% of the treated group would survive. It is also a certainty that 15% of elderly and high risk patients, that would be deprived of this life saving protocol in the placebo-controlled group, would die. That's tantamount to Nazi doctor style experiments on humans.

Shouldn't it be a high bar set before one is allowed to kill patients in a trial? But then it would seem that the author is instructing the clinicians running the study to throw away their consciences. While the WHO "Solidarity" and UK "Recovery" trials took a good shot at killing patients with toxic dosing.
https://www.covid-19forum.org/index.php?topic=105.0

[admin]

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12189059/

" What makes placebo-controlled trials unethical?
Franklin G Miller  1 , Howard Brody
Affiliations

    PMID: 12189059 DOI: 10.1162/152651602317533523

Abstract

The leading ethical position on placebo-controlled clinical trials is that whenever proven effective treatment exists for a given condition, it is unethical to test a new treatment for that condition against placebo. Invoking the principle of clinical equipoise, opponents of placebo-controlled trials in the face of proven effective treatment argue that they (1) violate the therapeutic obligation of physicians to offer optimal medical care and (2) lack both scientific and clinical merit. We contend that both of these arguments are mistaken. Clinical equipoise provides erroneous ethical guidance in the case of placebo-controlled trials, because it ignores the ethically relevant distinction between clinical trials and treatment in the context of clinical medicine and the methodological limitations of active-controlled trials. Placebo controls are ethically justifiable when they are supported by sound methodological considerations and their use does not expose research participants to excessive risks of harm."

Once again, on both accounts bolded, in the case of the Zelenko Protocol when administered immediately upon suspicion of COVID-19, to elderly and high-risk patients, they would enjoy a 99% survival rate. The elderly and high risk patients in the placebo group would suffer a 4-14% greater chance of death which, in any sane and moral person's mind, would definitely constitute "excessive risk of harm". Again, tantamount to Nazi doctor style experiments on humans.

[admin]

Anthony Fauci has been Mass Murdering People for Decades. Prevented AIDS Patients from Receiving Life-saving Cheaper Drug.

12:53 mark:
Levin: "What do you make of this?"

Highly esteemed and heavily published Yale School of Public Health professor of epidemology Dr. Harvey Risch:
"So the FDA is a very strange organization that has a history of not making science based, rational based decisions about its approvals. It, this, was started most noticably in 1987 when people with AIDS in New York City were dying of what is called pneomocystis pneumonia - PCP - and the clinical experience had been amassed of a large number of cases who were prevented from dying by use of the antibiotic bactrum. This is, even then was a generic medication and cheap and activists obtained a meeting with Dr. Fauci and 15 of his selected scientists at FDA at NIH and asked Dr. Fauci just to make guidelines to physicians that they consider using bactrum to treat preventively AIDS people so that they wouldn't die of this pnemonia. Dr. Fauci refused he said "I want randomized blinded controlled trial evidence that's my gold standard, that or nothing." The activists left. The NIH did not fund any randomized trials. They raised money themselves from their own AIDS patients to collect the data to do a randomized trial. It took them two years. They came back to Dr. Fauci. They came back to Dr. Fauci. During those two years the FDA approved AZT as a treatment for AIDS. AZT works, but not completely, it needs other medications as well and during the two years that it took them to get this data to come back to Dr. Fauci to support using bactrum, 17,000 people with AIDS died because of Dr. Fauci's insistence on not allowing even a statement supporting consideration of the use.

This has gone on before. Now we have Dr. Fauci denying that any evidence exists of benefit (of hydroxychloroquine) and that pervaded the FDA. The FDA has relied on Dr. Fauci and his NIH advisory group to make the statement saying that there is no benefit of using hydroxychloroquine in outpatients. And this is counter to the facts of the case, the evidence is overwhelming. The FDA has also said that there is the harm of using these medications in outpatients overweighs the benefit, and in fact they said this with no information, no evidence whatsoever of any harm in outpatient use and this is provable both by the fact that the FDAs webpage says as a warning against outpatient use, but says it relies on inpatient hospital data which means that they don't have any outpatient data. As well as the fact that 90% of the cases of COVID this year have occurred since the time that the FDA restricted usage to inpatients only. So the FDA knows that it has no data for outpatients and no data on harm and yet it denied the Henry Ford petition for outpatient usage. Dr. Fauci and the FDA are doing the same thing that was done in 1987 and that's led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Americans that could have been saved by usage of this drug. And this is the same thing that the FDA has done, it's outrageous, people need to be writing or calling their congressmen, senators and complaining that this is not the way this country should work. That a bureaucracy that is in bed with other forces that are causing them to make decisions that are not based in the science, that is killing Americans is not acceptable."



"Now, AIDS activists — drawn from that older generation, and from a new one — are working again to bring down the prices of HIV medication. This time, the drugmaker is Gilead Sciences, and the drug is Truvada. It's the only FDA-approved version of PrEP, which stands for pre-exposure prophylaxis, currently available commercially in the U.S.

The list price? $1,780 a month, or $21,360 per year — more than 350 times the cost of generic versions of the drug available in most other countries."