The “Gold Standard” for Science
Is Gold for the Drug Companies
Peter R. Breggin MD and Ginger Ross Breggin
August 3, 2020
Science! We have been told that science must be relied upon to make our decisions when dealing with the pandemic called COVID-19. We must in effect bow down to science, no matter how humiliating and painful it may feel.
But science has an Achilles heel—a fatal flaw that can completely ruin it and frequently does.
What is the fatal flaw of science? It is conducted by human beings. Where serious science controversies exist, science is no more reliable than politics…or heaven forbid…no more reliable than religion. Science is only as dependable as the people who conduct and disseminate it. The adage for judging opinions still holds true—consider the source!
When Anthony Fauci announced the rollout of his initial clinical trial for remdesivir as the great hope for knocking out the coronavirus epidemic, he boasted about the clinical trial’s importance: “A randomized, placebo-controlled trial is the gold standard for determining if an experimental treatment can benefit patients.”
Since controlled clinical trials involving drugs and vaccines are very expensive, require access to sick and often highly infectious patients, and must be approved by the Institutional Review Boards (IRBs) and the FDA—they can only be conducted with funding from Big Pharma and Big Government or occasional other large institutions. We will see that the tragic result of this hegemony was remarkably demonstrated in Fauci’s government trial on behalf of his favorite drug company, Gilead.
Meanwhile, the People’s Drug Is Running Ahead
As we have documented in earlier reports, here and here and on our Coronavirus Resource Center, hydroxychloroquine and zinc as a prophylactic, and hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin and zinc for patients developing COVID-19 could right now greatly improve the treatment of patients in the US, as it has done elsewhere.
Doctors and entire nations have been and are continuing to use this drug successfully, especially in combination with azithromycin and zinc. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons has shown that the countries which actively use hydroxychloroquine have significantly lower death rates than those that do not.
Meanwhile, the so-called “gold standard” of controlled clinical trials has been vastly ramped up by the pharmaceutical industry and we can expect a deluge of supposedly scientific studies pouring from them. This report warns the world not to trust the Pharmaceutical Empire’s forthcoming tsunami of evidence for the safety and effectiveness of their products.
Bias Already Controls Ongoing and Planned Clinical Trials
You can see the drug company bias in a recent list of all current and planned registered trials of remdesivir for the treatment of Covid-19. Many of the trials have “arms” or comparator studies for chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine. There are fourteen of these chloroquine and/or hydroxychloroquine trial arms; but all of them are set up so that they are doomed to fail. Only one adds azithromycin to the hydroxychloroquine and none adds zinc. Yet, the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc is considered the most successful treatment for COVID-19 by experienced clinicians. In addition, several studies compare remdesivir to the older drug chloroquine rather than to hydroxychloroquine which is considered safer. Put simply, every single registered remdesivir clinical trial has been rigged to make hydroxychloroquine fail in comparison.
We cannot take seriously any of the in-progress or planned remdesivir studies!
Meanwhile, a search of ClinicalTrials.gov shows only three ongoing or proposed trials for the combination of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin and zinc. Their outcome will probably be determined by whether or not they are intended to show that the medication works. Meanwhile, it is likely that some clinical trials of “Trump’s Wonder Drug” will be conducted by researchers who are hostile toward the President. Almost all clinical trials are conducted by researchers with vested interests in the pharmaceutical industry, what we call The Pharmaceutical Empire. Nearly all will be conducted by experienced researchers with long histories of working for drug companies. They are likely to be interested in knocking hydroxychloroquine out of the competition in favor of more financially rewarding drugs and vaccines or simply to please those in the Pharmaceutical Empire who have been paying their salaries and giving them bonuses for years.
Perhaps in the crucible of the epidemic, some institutions will courageously conduct genuinely scientific studies of the hydroxychloroquine’s rug’s safety and effectiveness in combination with azithromycin and zinc; but that is an idealistic longshot. The world that awaits the clinical trial results should be warned that most of the trials will be showcase trials for those who sponsor them.
Science is a process. To develop genuine or more lasting scientific validity often takes many trustworthy and honest scientists and institutions working independently and separately in many settings, publishing numerous papers, over a long period of time. I doubt that “Trump’s Wonder Drug” will ever be given a fair scientific review, at least in the United States. It is more likely to occur in other countries where the Pharmaceutical Empire has somewhat less influence. And when that happens, the research will get scant airing in the US.
Science in the Public Arena
Whenever science has huge financial, political, and social impacts—that is, when science becomes especially important to us human beings—it is instantly seized upon by unscrupulous human beings and industries for their own purposes. Often the science becomes wholly corrupted and at other times it is vastly distorted and misinterpreted as it passes through the media to the unwitting people.
I will never forget Neil Cavuto self-righteously attacking President Trump’s personal use and support of hydroxychloroquine. The Fox News anchor cited a ridiculously flawed, unofficial and still unpublished study of VA patients which purportedly showed hydroxychloroquine increased the death rate, when a more accurate analysis showed that in combination with azithromycin it was saving lives. The study itself was rejected by the VA as unauthorized and misleading.
Cavuto accused Trump of killing people! One of the doctors that Cavuto later interviewed disappointed him by saying he had been using the drug for 40 years to treat other diseases, and he had never seen a single death. The media rarely slips up like that but Cavuto was in a rush that day to use science to prove Trump was not only wrong, but dangerous.
Recently, Stella Emmanuel MD, a black African doctor who immigrated to the US and practices medicine in Texas, defended hydroxychloroquine as part of a group presentation by American doctors assembled for that purpose. The major media picked her to ridicule for her Christian beliefs and social media cancelled her enormously popular video. Her clinical experience treating hundreds of COVID-19 patients without a single death was uniformly ridiculed by the conventional media, while similar opinions by other doctors in the group were ignored. Only occasional media gave her a chance to express her well-informed views.
What Are Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials?
But what about placebo-controlled clinical trials? In a placebo-controlled double-blind randomized clinical trial, the drug is randomly given to one group of people while a harmless inert pill or saline injection is randomly given to the other group, called the placebo control. If a portion of the drug group develop encephalitis, for example, and none of the placebo group contract the disease, then the study may generate statistically significant data indicating the drug or vaccine causes encephalitis.
To eliminate doctor or patient bias in evaluating the trials, they are double-blind. That is, neither the patient nor the doctor, or anyone evaluating the trials, know who are the subjects getting the treatment and who are the placebo controls.
Despite how it sounds, controlled clinical trials are not science. Pure science is a search for objective truth or improved theories about reality based on observation and empirical facts. At their best, clinical trials are applied science—the use of the scientific method for achieving certain ends, such as convincing the FDA to approve the next blockbuster drug to make the company even wealthier.
Clinical trials are not in search of truth or improved theories—they are the application of a superficially scientific method toward a specific goal. In this, they are more like engineering—applying science to achieve practical goals—in this instance, getting the FDA to approve a potentially valuable product.
If We Lived in Utopia
In theory, it might be possible to create and to conduct a clinical trial more in search of the truth than in the interest of creating wealth. In practice, it is not possible. Placebo-controlled randomized double-blind clinical trials are extremely expensive to conduct. They need an institutional base and an Institutional Review Board (IRB) to approve it. They require recruiters and managers, along with scientists, statisticians and healthcare providers. If they are intended to gain FDA approval, the process becomes bureaucratically overwhelming, requiring years and tens of millions of dollars. Most drug or vaccine clinical trials are sponsored (paid for and controlled) by the pharmaceutical industry. Clinical trials are like music and art in the Renaissance—they needed wealthy sponsors like a king or prince—so they rarely challenged the monarchy.
Fauci and his NIH Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases collaborated with his favorite corporation, Gilead, to get expedited approval for Remdesivir. Gilead is estimated to have spent one billion dollars on developing and promoting Remdesivir on its own and Fauci’s institute is estimated to have contributed 70 million more dollars to implementing the NIH clinical trial of the drug.
When so much time, effort and money are being spent on a project, can we expect the sponsors to admit they have come up empty-handed—or worse, that they have created a monster that will do far more harm than good? Can we expect Tony Fauci to tell us, “Oops, I’ve been completely wrong in touting this drug long before we had clinical trials and now I have to confess I’ve wasted a fortune, untold man hours, and a lot of precious time on promoting it, and it is making many patients worse. Oh, yes, and I was wrong about hydroxychloroquine, too, because it is a very good drug with sixty years of safe prescribing behind it, it costs almost nothing, and should be given very early to every suspected COVID-19 patient and used as prophylaxis, too. Even the World Health Organization says they know of no deaths associated with it. And, yes, in addition, I apologize to President Trump for undermining his support for hydroxychloroquine.”
Because of this horrendous partnership—the most power-hungry in the government in combination with the greediest in industry—Fauci’s remdesivir “gold standard” clinical trial became a monstrous demonstration of political corruption masquerading as science.
But before I go into more detail about the undisclosed failure of Fauci’s long-expected clinical trial for Remdesivir, let me tell you more about my professional background and the origins of my disillusionment about clinical trials. In the early 1990s, I was the one doctor in the world who threatened the success of the blockbuster drug, Prozac, and here’s what happened.
The Prozac Clinical Trials
Prozac (fluoxetine) changed the world of psychiatry and medicine, promoting a false theory of biochemical imbalances causing mental disorders and paving the way for multiple new psychiatric drugs with revenues in the multiple billions of dollars.
As a clinical and forensic psychiatrist and the author of many scientific articles and medical books, I have considerable experience in independently evaluating clinical trials.
In the early 1990s, I was chosen by a consortium of several dozen attorneys and approved by a federal judge to become the sole scientific investigator for approximately 150 lawsuits against Eli Lilly for the allegedly fraudulent development and marketing of its drug, Prozac (fluoxetine). My first task was to determine if there was a scientific basis for the lawsuits, and if there was, my next task was to develop that scientific basis for the all cases against the company. I got started by taking the courses that drug company executives take to learn about making drug applications to the FDA. I went to relevant conferences put on by the FDA and other organizations. I interviewed key FDA officials on the phone and in person. I read a great deal and I began to evaluate the first case given to me. Then I prepared to give a deposition and to testify in court against Eli Lilly.
Early in my research as the forensic psychiatric expert for the combined Prozac cases, I began by focusing on “the gold standard” upon which all drug companies are said to rely—the placebo-controlled randomized controlled clinical trials used by Elli Lilly to gain approval for Prozac from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Among many allegations in the 150 lawsuits, Lilly was charged with knowingly marketing a dangerous drug while hiding that it caused violence, suicide, and mania. When I evaluated the company’s clinical trials used for FDA approval, I added additional allegations including collusion with the FDA to conduct fraudulent clinical trials that exaggerated the drug’s effectiveness and hid the drug’s worst adverse effects. The adverse effects include a cocaine-like activation or overstimulation of the brain that leads to agitation, irritability, insomnia, mania, and even psychosis, too often resulting in violence and suicide in children and adults.
Yes, the Prozac trials were gold…a golden calf for Eli Lilly. The clinical trials were fabricated science
A Model for Drug Company Malfeasance
Here are just a few of the major deceptions surrounding Eli Lilly’s clinical trials, which I documented in detail Talking Back to Prozac (with Ginger Ross Breggin, 1994) and in later sources, including Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, Second Edition (2008). I also urged the reader to look at my free Antidepressant Resource Center at www.123antidepressants.org. Because documentation is needed and readily available for such strong accusations, I have indicated page numbers from the St. Martin’s Paperbacks edition of Talking Back to Prozac:
(1) Eli Lilly claimed to the public and to doctors that their approval data was based on 11,000 subjects (pp. 45-6). When I did a laborious hand count of the total number of people who actually finished their clinical trials, it was a mere 286 patients. Eli Lilly never challenged this analysis, or any of my scientific accusations, in deposition or in court.
(2) The studies were very short, lasting only 4-6 weeks, when patients end up taking antidepressants for months and years, so they were literally too short to be meaningful. But as short as they were, many patients could not finish because of adverse effects.
(3) Any improvements in patients were so marginal they were difficult to prove, even with outrageous statistical manipulations (pp.52 ff).
(4) Patients were dropping out like flies from the trials due to distressing overstimulation with agitation, anxiety, insomnia, irritability, and other amphetamine-like symptoms. Rather than let the trials fail, Eli Lilly secretly broke the rules of the studies, previously agreed upon with the FDA, by giving addictive sedatives and tranquilizers to calm the patients enough to stay in the trials (p. 55, pp. 62 ff).
(5) When the FDA later discovered the fraud, they also discovered that Prozac could not be approved without using the corrupted, illegal trials. Faced with disappointing the drug company and its political supporters, including President George Bush who had been on Lilly’s Board of Directors, the FDA agreed to use these intentionally corrupted studies to approve the antidepressant. The FDA then hid these facts, so that doctors, patients, and scientists throughout the world had no idea that it required addictive sleeping pills and tranquilizers to keep patients from dropping out of the Prozac trials.
(6) When an in-house re-evaluation of the clinical trials for adults indicated that the drug was producing a massive increase in suicidality, Eli Lilly hid the data from the FDA and from the world. I have since released their analysis, but much too late to matter.
(7) When the FDA’s chief in-house analyst for Prozac’s adverse effects found that Prozac had amphetamine-like effects that were making depressed patients agitated, causing dangerous agitated depressions, he wanted to warn about it the official FDA descriptions of the drug, but his FDA superiors rejected his recommendations (pp. 74-78).
(8) After Prozac came onto the market, my publications and those of other scientists confirmed that Prozac causes suicide and violence. The FDA responded by meeting secretly with Eli Lilly before the agency’s normal working hours to plan how to jointly fight these allegations.
(9) When data from investigators conducting new clinical trials began to show increased suicides among patients taking Prozac compared to those taking placebo, Eli Lilly order the staff to doctor the reports. They were told to change the reports to eliminate words like “completed suicide,” “attempted suicide” or “suicidal ideation” and to replace then with infinitely more innocuous terms like “no drug effect” and “emotional lability.” Some Eli Lilly employees expressed shame in memos they sent up line (pages 2 and 3 of the linked document).i
(10) When it came time for the first trial against Eli Lilly, I was armed with much of this information, and evidence of many other demonstrably fraudulent behaviors by the drug company. Eli Lilly did not have much of chance against so much negative information about them, so they simply fixed the trial. Eli Lilly secretly settled the case in advance in return for the plaintiff’s lawyer, with whom I was working, and he in turn faked a trial for the drug company to win. The faked trial was touted in the unwitting and witless major media as a complete exoneration of Prozac and the drug company’s value took off, while millions of Americans taking Prozac and nearly all the newer antidepressants remain in the dark about its dreadful effects. The judge later figured out that the trial had been fixed and changed the victory to a settlement. Also, the Kentucky Supreme court cited Eli Lilly for possible fraud. But the major media was now overcome with silence. My most detailed write up of these tragic and disillusioning courtroom events is in Chapter 12: “Drug Companies on Trial” in my book Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime.
And on… and on…. as documented in my books and scientific articles. The placebo-controlled clinical trials for Prozac were corrupt from top to bottom and the drug should never have been approved. Then the promotion of the flawed results was equally invalid. Then the media coverage of events surrounding the trial was entirely skewed in favor of the drug company. Sound familiar? This is what Anthony Fauci has in effect been doing with Remdesivir, but so far with less success than Ely Lilly, the Master of Deception. Further, as I much earlier concluded in Talking Back to Prozac, recent studies have confirmed that Prozac and other antidepressants are no more effective than a sugar pill—and of course far more dangerous.
Something I’ve Never Reported Before
Finally, I want to write about something for the first time—what happened to me and my family while I was getting ready to testify against Eli Lilly. During the time when I was preparing to confront Eli Lilly in deposition and then in trial, my wife Ginger and then our daughter became ill with an undiagnosable disorder that involved a dry, hacking cough, shortness of breath, headache, muscle aches, and extreme fatigue. I also became ill but not quite as seriously. My home office where I spent most of my time was an add-on to the house that was above ground and separate from the old basement.
After multiple doctors could find no reason for our illnesses, our plumber was fixing something in the basement when he came upon a dismaying discovery. The exhaust chimneys to our gas hot water heater and to our oil furnace had been removed and placed out of sight in the poorly lit utility portion of the basement. We were being poisoned.
We were so demoralized by this experience that we did not report it to the police, in part because we had previously reported a serious death threat to the FBI, and when we tried to follow up, they had no record of our being visited by two agents. We never found out who was behind the life-threatening poison gas attack or the threats and since I was very much in the public eye at the time in the major media, it could have been any number of vested interests.
Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trials in the Development of Modern Vaccines
More recently, because of COVID-19, I became interested in what kind of clinical trials are conducted for FDA approval of vaccines. I knew it would be easy to conduct placebo-controlled clinical trials, because none of the patients in typical vaccine trials are physically ill or mentally distressed. It would be relatively simple and inexpensive, for example, to test a new vaccine for measles in children by simply giving the vaccine to one group of normal children and giving the placebo to a similar group of normal children.
The children on placebo would be in little or no danger of catching measles because of herd immunity in the US. Because they were not sick, they would not be deprived of any necessary treatment. And because they were children, they could easily be followed for many years, instead of a few weeks or months, to give the trial much greater length than most involving drugs. But we’ll never know how easy it might have been to do it right.
When I started reviewing the studies for FDA approval, I was stunned by what I found out: The FDA does not require placebo-controlled clinical trials for new vaccines. The FDA gives the drug companies a pass on conducting a normal clinical trial when they are seeking approval for vaccines. Instead of comparing their new drug’s good and bad effects to a harmless placebo, the vaccine companies get away with comparing their vaccines to other vaccines.
Comparing one vaccine to another vaccine, instead of a harmless placebo, is like comparing one form of dirt to another form of dirt and finding them both dirt-free when they are alike in being dirty. Or, as perhaps an easier analogy, if you were trying to make your poisonous brand of wine look relatively safe, wouldn’t you rather compare to another poisonous wine than to a genuine placebo of flavored water or perhaps normal fresh wine?
Dr. Fauci’s Gold Standard Turns Out to be Fools Gold
The simple truth is that every one of the hundreds of drug-company clinical trials I have evaluated has been rigged to meet the aims of the drug company—which is always to make a killing with a new drug or a variation on an old one. Worse than that, in my area of greatest experience, psychiatric drugs, all the trials are fatally rigged, and even if they turn out badly for the drug company, they are promoted as positive.
So, I wondered, ”What will Fauci’s upcoming clinical trial for the antiviral drug Remdesivir look like? It’s being conducted in broad daylight, so it cannot be entirely corrupted.” Naive me…
Since I have made the details available elsewhere in a heavily documented blog and a video, I will be relatively brief in describing the corruption of Fauci’s clinical trial for Remdesivir in COVID-19 patients.
First, Fauci stacked his Institute’s Covid-19 Advisory Committee with experts in the pay of Gilead, the manufacturer Remdesivir. Even before the clinical trial began, the committee recommended to America’s doctors to use Remdesivir and not to use hydroxychloroquine.
Second, Fauci knew from trials on Ebola that remdesivir did not work as an antiviral agent and was potentially life-threatening. The remdesivir arm of the Ebola trial had to be aborted because more people were dying on remdesivir faster than on other antiviral drugs in the study.
Third, as the trial got started, Lancet published an article indicating that Remdesivir was of no help and was making many patients much sicker. The remdesivir trial showed no good effect whatsoever and created a high risk with 5% of patients showing a marked worsening of their respiratory condition.
Fourth, when the trial started, its main goal was to show it could cure a significant number of Covid-19 patients and reduce the death rate. When it became obvious that the trial was not going to prove any such thing, the goal became limited to proving that the drug reduced the time to recovery. Fauci eventually claimed that the drug was shortening the average length of illness from 15 to 11 days. But to fake even this meager result, he redefined “recovery” to include patients who had not even been discharged from the hospital. Perhaps more stunning, he also included as recovered patients at home who remained on oxygen and patients at home who remained partially disabled on limited activities.
Fifth, that too must have failed to materialize, because Fauci decided to cancel the trial before it was completed, thus making it impossible to make an honest final determination that the drug was of any value whatsoever. His excuse for terminating the trial? The drug was so good he felt it had to be offered to the placebo patients. In reality, he was successfully covering up how bad his drug really was and then foisting it off on the unwitting placebo patients.
And then—in an extraordinary breach of medical and scientific ethics—Fauci and his cohort have never published a scientific analysis of the adverse effects of the drug to determine if, like the Lancet report on the same drug, it was making many people worse. The only publication to date has been the Gilead press release of June 1, 2020 “Gillead Announces Results From Phase 3 Trial of Remdesivir in Patients With Moderate COVID-19.”
So much for the “gold standard.”
FDA Lashes Out Against Hydroxychloroquine
The FDA, the seemingly scientific arbiter of everything pharmacological, has recently issued a report stating that hydroxychloroquine has not been proven in any way to be safe and effective. The FDA has warned doctors to be wary of it, and to use it only in clinical trials. Doctors are not required or compelled to follow this kind of FDA warning, but the agency is acting like they must obey. Many hospitals and doctors have become intimidated, along with pharmacies. State governors have restricted or suppressed the use of hydroxychloroquine.
In another report a few days ago, we pointed out that the FDA has broken its own rules, and subverted established tradition and law, by telling doctors that they cannot prescribe a drug, hydroxychloroquine, off label or outside the narrow limits for which the agency has approved. We have urged President Trump to override the FDA and to declare that it cannot interfere with the off-label use of hydroxychloroquine. He should free doctors, pharmacies, and hospitals to prescribe and dispense hydroxychloroquine within the privacy of the physician-patient relationship.
Fauci’s Inevitable Career on Behalf of the Pharmaceutical Empire
Now we will look at Fauci’s career and how it led him to betray America. Thirty-six years ago, Dr. Anthony Fauci was appointed director of NIH’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). According to his Institute profile, “He oversees an extensive portfolio of basic and applied research to prevent, diagnose, and treat established infectious diseases” and he “has advised six presidents on HIV/AIDS and many other domestic and global health issues.” He is the “author, coauthor, or editor of more than 1,300 scientific publications, including several textbooks.” Dr. Fauci is probably the most influential American in respect to anything that has to do with epidemic diseases, including our current struggle with COVID-19.
Nothing important or controversial happens at NIAID without Director Fauci knowing or learning about it. He determines, oversees, and guides the activities of the Institute, including setting its research priorities. That is his job description.
Unfortunately, we have discovered that Dr. Fauci has enormous responsibility for the pandemic ever beginning in China. Against the advice of others, and perhaps against the law, he continued funding collaborative research between American scientists and Wuhan scientists in developing more deadly coronaviruses. We blew the whistle on this unholy, dangerous alliance, and within days President Trump stopped Fauci from funding it any longer.
It is highly likely that China would not have developed the expertise to work with coronaviruses, eventually setting one free by accident, if it were not for Fauci’s support of the collaborative research and the Wuhan Institute itself. Because Wuhan is a military facility, Fauci is also responsible for enabling China to create biological weaponry that constitutes one of the greatest military threats that America and the free world now faces and will continue to face for the foreseeable future.
In evaluating Dr. Fauci’s motives, keep in mind that it is impossible to remain Director of the NIH Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases for 36 years and a consultant to six presidents without being deeply beholden and obedient to pharmaceutical companies who manufacture and sell antibiotics, antiviral agents, and vaccines. I had a brief two-year career as a Full-time Consultant to the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) with the rank of Commander in the US Public Health Service. It was clear from the beginning that government health officials work as if industry, powerful lobbying groups, and politicians are sitting on their shoulders, pulling strings to make their heads nod.
Fauci’s longevity is a testimonial to his responsiveness to the enormous power wielded by the pharmacological industry. Their influence and control over him explains Fauci’s suppression of a tried-and-true treatment while promoting remdesivir, a very expensive and experimental alternative with known severe adverse effects and no evidence of effectiveness. It accounts for the egregious support he gave to research in collaboration with China that created deadly viruses, which gave the pharmaceutical industry more information about developing vaccines. Most sinister of all, Fauci’s funding and support eventually gave China the SARS-CoV-2 virus that turned into a pandemic. In a bitter irony, that pandemic has already become a multi-billion dollar boondoggle as Fauci pumps huge bundles of money into the coffers of his friends and partners in industry.
A Warning for the Future
When evaluating a “scientific” claim, always consider the source. Science is no better than the people and institutions who conduct it, and the people who interpret it to the public. The new “partnership” between big industry and big government, led by Anthony Fauci, will produce “science” that favors their power and their wealth. It will not be genuine science in pursuit of the objective truth or better theories, it will inevitably be science in the interest of accruing wealth. We already have compelling evidence that hydroxychloroquine in combination with zinc and azithromycin is a very helpful treatment for COVID-19 and that it saves lives.
President Donald Trump, as leader of the Executive Branch, can override the FDA and remind the agency that it has no legal right to forbid doctors from prescribing hydroxychloroquine off label, alone or in combination with zinc or azithromycin. He can override the FDA’s warnings that have vastly reduced the use of the best treatment we have for COVID-19, resulting in considerable loss of life. In doing so, he will save thousands of American lives; and as we suggested in our earlier report, he can liberate America to save itself and to save the world as well by strengthening supply lines and ramping up production of hydroxychloroquine, azithromycin, and zinc.
i. Breggin, P. (2008), Brain-Disabling Treatments in Psychiatry, pp. 238-239. New York: Springer Pub. Co.
|Please see our up-to-date, informative Coronavirus Resource Center with reports by Peter and Ginger Breggin and TV interviews with experts and videos by Dr. Breggin.|