Tyranny
Dr. Aseem Malhotra: "All drug industry trials should be seen as marketing until proven otherwis
10
Referenced article from the British Medical Journal here:
From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538.full
The corruption of the medicines agencies can be seen in the emergency approvals they made of for example remdesivir and the COVID jabs, even though there has not been an emergency since the first half of 2020.
Perhaps even worse are the authorizations that they REFUSED to provide, such as for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin or fluvoxamine.
NB: These authorizations were not strictly required, since (1) the medicines were already authorized, and (2) off-label use is very commonplace and has always been allowed, except for COVID. Still, recommendations in the official guidelines would absolutely have been warranted.
The agencies may say that they "continually monitor the scientific evidence", but they also say that they haven't looked at any scientific evidence for a specific medicine since February of 2021. Of course, both cannot be true at the same time.
The recommendation of off-patent (which means off-profit) medicines and treatments will always be delayed because of "insufficient evidence", regardless of the mountains of evidence of efficacy and the even bigger mountains of evidence of safety due to many decades and billions of doses of use.
Conversely, even the most fraudulent or irrelevant 'study' that does not show statistically significant proof of effectiveness of an off-profit medicine (perhaps because the protocol was wrong and the study was merely underpowered) is used as 'proof' that it doesn't work.
For on-patent (which means highly profitable) medicines, even a press release is regarded as sufficient evidence for a recommendation. See for instance:
Fauci: highly profitable remdesivir to be standard of care based on "proof of concept" 4/29/2020
https://rumble.com/vpqlyq-fauci-toxic-ineffective-remdesivir-to-be-standard-of-care-based-on-proof-of.html
No amount of proof of fraud or further evidence of toxicity or ineffectiveness seems to be sufficient to retract authorizations of highly profitable products. For instance, both remdesivir and the COVID jabs are used almost everywhere, even though there has been strong scientific evidence that they're unnecessary, highly toxic, and ineffective or countereffective respectively.
From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?
https://www.bmj.com/content/377/bmj.o1538.full
The corruption of the medicines agencies can be seen in the emergency approvals they made of for example remdesivir and the COVID jabs, even though there has not been an emergency since the first half of 2020.
Perhaps even worse are the authorizations that they REFUSED to provide, such as for hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), ivermectin or fluvoxamine.
NB: These authorizations were not strictly required, since (1) the medicines were already authorized, and (2) off-label use is very commonplace and has always been allowed, except for COVID. Still, recommendations in the official guidelines would absolutely have been warranted.
The agencies may say that they "continually monitor the scientific evidence", but they also say that they haven't looked at any scientific evidence for a specific medicine since February of 2021. Of course, both cannot be true at the same time.
The recommendation of off-patent (which means off-profit) medicines and treatments will always be delayed because of "insufficient evidence", regardless of the mountains of evidence of efficacy and the even bigger mountains of evidence of safety due to many decades and billions of doses of use.
Conversely, even the most fraudulent or irrelevant 'study' that does not show statistically significant proof of effectiveness of an off-profit medicine (perhaps because the protocol was wrong and the study was merely underpowered) is used as 'proof' that it doesn't work.
For on-patent (which means highly profitable) medicines, even a press release is regarded as sufficient evidence for a recommendation. See for instance:
Fauci: highly profitable remdesivir to be standard of care based on "proof of concept" 4/29/2020
https://rumble.com/vpqlyq-fauci-toxic-ineffective-remdesivir-to-be-standard-of-care-based-on-proof-of.html
No amount of proof of fraud or further evidence of toxicity or ineffectiveness seems to be sufficient to retract authorizations of highly profitable products. For instance, both remdesivir and the COVID jabs are used almost everywhere, even though there has been strong scientific evidence that they're unnecessary, highly toxic, and ineffective or countereffective respectively.
srmgin
7 K