It’s common knowledge that the Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) of the deadly COVID-19 jabs would not have been possible if any alternative treatments for SARS-CoV-2 were available. With that in mind, the intentional war against repurposed drugs to treat COVID—specifically Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin (IVM)—will no doubt be unending and always deceptive. The latest such attack appears in a February 2024 Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy publication claiming that during the first wave of COVID-19, off-label use of HCQ resulted in an 11 percent increase in the mortality rate, resulting in 16,990 deaths in six countries. Cutting to the core of its objective—which is undoubtedly to ensure affordable drugs like HCQ aren’t used in future pandemics—the study declares:

“These findings illustrate the hazard of drug repurposing with low-level evidence for the management of future pandemics.”

The study, titled “Deaths induced by compassionate use of hydroxychloroquine during the first COVID-19 wave: an estimate,” cites a meta-analysis published in 2021 in Nature, which the study authors used to estimate the number of deaths they claim were caused by HCQ. The recent study reports that “the toxicity of HCQ in patients with COVID-19 is partially due to cardiac side effects,” as referenced in the 2020 RECOVERY trial titled “Effect of Hydroxychloroquine in hospitalized patients with COVID-19.” Not surprisingly, that trial was funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, Wellcome Trust, and Oxford University, among others, all components of the same sinister group profiting from and incessantly promoting the contaminated gene-damaging mRNA jabs while discrediting existing affordable drugs and cautioning of future pandemics. 

Led by Jean-Christophe Lega, a Professor of Therapeutics in the Lyon, France hospital system, the study analyzed research conducted in France, the United States, Belgium, Italy, Spain, and Turkey from March 2020 until July 2020. The authors note their main objective was to estimate the mortality attributed to “compassionate use of HCQ in the context of COVID-19 before the publication of randomized controlled trials (RCTs).” Chock full of the word “estimate,” two of the more eye-opening times the flexible word is used in the researchers’ analysis should make even those who condemn the mRNA-resistors suspicious of the study’s accuracy. Making a mockery of what should absolutely be reliable data, the authors reveal the bogus qualities of the study—which, again, come from the 2021 RECOVERY study funded by Gates, Wellcome, and the other deep state cohorts—stating:

“HCQ-related deaths may be considerably over- or under-estimated. Indeed, the 95% confidence interval of the OR (odds ratio) of all-cause mortality related to HCQ ranged from 2% to 20%. In other words, our results might be overestimated by a factor 5 (i.e. the actual number of deaths related to HCQ would be ≈3000 deaths) or underestimated by a factor 2 (i.e. the actual number of deaths related to HCQ would be ≈30000 deaths).

Thus, the effect of HCQ on mortality was the main source of uncertainty for the proposed estimates.”

The smoke and mirrors theme persists throughout the paper, with the authors proclaiming, “The main finding of the present study is that HCQ might have been associated with an excess of 16990 deaths during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in the six countries for which data were available.” It “might have been.” OK. Remarkably, they swiftly declared their study had a considerable list of limitations, noting that some of the results should be taken cautiously, particularly those obtained in France, Turkey, and Belgium, where “data concerning HCQ was scarce.” In a study limited to six countries, they admit half have non-existent data for their research. Go figure. And for the record, these types of skewed studies are everywhere attempting to steer the false narrative, as noted in the following tweet. 

But the study at hand doesn’t just attempt to discredit HCQ—it screams in favor of haphazard and hustled oversight by those assigned to protect our health. Indeed, in what appears to be an endorsement of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) COVID-era hurried approval process of rapidly developed drugs like the mRNA jabs despite unfavorable and deadly trial results (think the Pfizer/FDA debacle), the study authors argue they are “in favor of tightly regulating access to off-label prescriptions during future pandemics.” The authors wrote:

“Such a structure underscores even less justification for empiricism in off-label prescription. In addition, it is critical that representatives of public authorities should not, on the basis of their personal conviction, promote the prescription of medicines that have not been formally evaluated, thereby falsely raising hopes as to the existence of a solution to a complex health crisis.

In conclusion, the number of HCQ-related deaths is estimated at 16990, even though this number is probably underestimated because of the lack of data from most countries. More importantly, this study illustrates the limitations of treatment-effect extrapolation from chronic to severe conditions without accurate data and the need to produce quickly high-level evidence from RCTs in case of emergent diseases.”

By now, one can quickly see the obvious motive behind inaccurate, peer-reviewed studies such as this one attacking HCQ. Well-loved and esteemed doctors like Dr. Paul Marik saved many lives with HCQ and almost lost their entire practice to do so. In early 2022, as reported by Thomas Lifson, the honored Dr. Ben Carson shared with Maria Bartiromo on Sunday Morning Futures that “we now effectively know that early (off-label) use of the anti-parasite/anti-malarial drugs Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and Ivermectin (IVM) can have a significant effect on reducing COVID mortality.” Pointing out the lack of accurate studies related to repurposed drugs for profitable pandemics, Lifson further remarked:

“The medical establishment and the panic merchants in government, the media, and the tech sector, including social media, refuse to acknowledge the remedies at hand and instead push universal vaccination and expensive patented therapies.

Running a double-blind study requires oodles of money — the kind of money that only a new, patented drug–maker could afford, in hopes of selling a high-priced remedy to millions of consumers. Repurposing off-patent drugs like HCQ and IVM does not yield the kind of profits that would be necessary to pay back the cost of double-blind studies—so they don’t exist.”

Interestingly, the attack on HCQ in Biomedicine and Pharmacotherapy published by Science Direct coincides with a January 8, 2024 article in WhoWhatWhy titled, “How Musk Sold MAGA on HCQ—and Opened the COVID-19 Disinformation Floodgates.” Apparently, the authors of the recent study weren’t the only puppets assigned the task of discrediting HCQ. Indeed, a solid jab at Elon Musk’s platform while discrediting HCQ also appears to be on the agenda. After all, the evildoers are disconcerted with X because they no longer can control and censor the information humanity sees on it. And they certainly can’t scare us into compliance and pocket billions if existing drugs like HCQ do the trick. So, for good measure, they toss in the words MAGA and Trump like they’re poison (to rile up their troops, no doubt), then they praise vaccine fiend Dr. Peter Hotez, and their entire phony rendition of reality is music to the ears of those relentlessly trying to steal our freedoms and shatter our health. Except, we’re on to them now.

Generic avatar

Tracy Beanz & Michelle Edwards

Tracy Beanz is an investigative journalist with a focus on corruption. She is known for her unbiased, in-depth coverage of the COVID-19 pandemic. She hosts the Dark to Light podcast, found on all major video and podcasting platforms. She is a bi-weekly guest on the Joe Pags Radio Show, has been on Steve Bannon’s WarRoom and is a frequent guest on Emerald Robinson’s show. Tracy is Editor-in-chief at