Why not educate people on how to fortify their bodies against their likely inevitable exposure to the SARS-CoV-2 virus rather than selling them the false promise of avoiding the virus without any knowledge of how deal with it? Why are the politicians peddling medical advice while the health care industry is selling us politics?
At present, there is no effective way to stop the spread of or somehow hide or run from the coronavirus. There is also no vaccine and there is unlikely to ever be a fully effective one, especially for the most vulnerable people. The best tool we currently have is to effectively treat the symptoms early on with cheap drugs and vitamins, especially when taken as a prophylaxis. Yet, especially as it relates to the anti-malaria drug Hydroxychloroquine, it remains the one thing our government and media will shun, and in some states, even ban rather than promote.
Additionally, it has been proven that vitamin D and zinc fortify the immune system and help ward off serious illness. Every American knows they "need" to wear a mask and isolate themselves, despite the fact that these destructive measures have failed to stop the spread. What they have not been told is to stock up on vitamins that are proven to help against the virus. The reason is because that would empower people rather than scare them into submission. That is why so many medical doctors seem to be ignoring the opportunity to offer medical advice and are seizing the opportunity to offer us political advice and run our lives.
That is why seven months into this virus, people are still in the dark about the best way to fortify their immune system or ward off symptoms early on – or what to even watch for in terms of early symptoms. The formula from our government is essentially this: "shut up, mask up, and avoid getting a virus that 60 million Americans likely already got, and if you get it bad, we will just put you on Remdesivir and a ventilator."
The protocol for pharmacological management of COVID-19 from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) shockingly recommends "no specific antiviral or immunomodulatory therapy" for those who are sick with the virus in the earlier or milder stages, or even hospitalized so long as they don't need supplemental oxygen. It's only once they reach that stage and more critical levels that the NIH recommends treatment. What is the treatment? Remdesivir, Remdesivir, and Remdesivir.
This guidance is problematic on two accounts. It ignores all the promising research behind the use of zinc, vitamin D, and hydroxychloroquine before the illness becomes critical, and then opts for a treatment that has proven ineffective once it's too late. They are either willfully trying to endanger more lives in order to further spread panic or they are bought out by big Pharma.
First, even before getting to hydroxychloroquine as a cheap and effective treatment for early stages of the virus, why is the NIH not educating the public on the use of vitamin D early and often?
A new study conducted at the University Hospital Marques de Valdecilla in Spain, analyzed 216 patients admitted to the hospital for the coronavirus to see if they had vitamin D deficiency. They found that 80% of them showed lower levels of vitamin D compared to a similar demographic used as a control group who were given regular vitamin D supplements. Interestingly enough, the study also found lower levels among men, which might explain why men seem to be more at risk than women for severe illness. An Italian study found that low vitamin D levels also seemed to correlate with more severe cases among those in the hospital.
The role that vitamin D plays in lessening susceptibility to illness is so stark that a U.K. study from May found a remarkable correlation between vitamin D levels of entire population and COVID-19 death rates by country. Belgium, which still has the highest death rate in Europe, has very low vitamin D levels, while all the Scandinavian counties, which fared well against the virus, had the highest levels of vitamin D in Europe.
In May, one New York doctor, Dr. Eric Ascher, in explaining the possible reason why his city was hit so hard, told the media, "I'm more shocked when a patient has a normal vitamin D level."
There are endless studies, nearly uncontradicted, proving the efficacy of vitamin D as a prophylaxis, along with vitamin C, Zinc, and of course, hydroxychloroquine. In fact, 154 studies, 91 of which were peer reviewed, have shown efficacy of hydroxychloroquine in the early stages of COVID-19.
So why wouldn't Dr. Fauci and his buddies at NIH tell people to fortify their bodies with these cheap drugs and vitamins early on and perhaps even preemptively? This is especially salient as his own NIH, while he was the director of the entire agency in 2005, published a paper on the efficacy of this cheap drug against SARS-1.
It wasn't until mid-September that Fauci even mentioned the use of vitamin D, and it was a very feeble, passive endorsement in response to a question by actress Jennifer Garner.
"I would not mind recommending, and I do it myself taking vitamin D supplements," said Fauci of vitamin D in response to Garner's question on a Sept. 10 Instagram live Q&A. And yeah, maybe throw in some vitamin C if you want.
"So if people want to take a gram or two at the most [of] vitamin C, that would be fine," said Fauci. That's not exactly a resounding endorsement of a proactive strategy that is backed by tons of research.
So why the equivocation and reluctance to actively teach the public about fortifying their immune systems?
Well, the answer is precisely because these remedies are so cheap and precisely because they want to push expensive drugs like Remdesivir. So what are the results after charging hospitals (aka the government) $3,000 a pop? Two weeks ago, World Health Organization scientists published a pre-printed study of Remdesivir use in 11,000 patients across 400 hospitals in the world. This was one of the largest clinical trials of a COVID-19 treatment to date. The study found that it neither lowered the mortality rate nor truncated time of stay in the hospital.
According to the U.K. Guardian, Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir, found out about the results of the WHO study 10 days before publication, but still signed an €850m contract with the European Commission for 500,000 doses, even though the recipients were not yet aware of the results of this blockbuster clinical trial.
Although the same WHO study found hydroxychloroquine ineffective in hospitalized patients, a recent Harvard study has already found that it is effective as a prophylaxis in reducing infection by 20%. Yet, the FDA has rescinded its approval of the drug. At the same time, Science Magazine reported this week that the FDA never consulted with the Antimicrobial Drugs Advisory Committee (ADAC) before approving Remdesivir on Oct. 22.
ADAC is a group of infectious disease clinicians, biostatisticians, and pharmacists who review the data on experimental drugs and make recommendations to the FDA regarding their approval. While they are not required to seek the opinion of the committee, it's quite suspicious that the FDA chose to bypass them on something this important.
So, why do our "public health experts" tout failed expensive drugs at critical stages of the disease when there are proven effective ways to reduce the risk of ever getting to that stage, and for dirt cheap? I hate to say it, but corporate cronyism is the least insidious answer to this question.