The Lancet just published a 96,000-patient registry analysis of multinational clinical data from hospitalized patients with COVID-19 comparing outcomes of four non-randomized treatment groups compared to controls: Chloroquine alone, chloroquine with a macrolide, hydroxychloroquine alone, or hydroxychloroquine with a macrolide. The main endpoints were in-hospital mortality and sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation. There was no confirmed benefit of any treatment, and each of these drug regimens were associated with decreased in-hospital survival and an increased frequency of ventricular arrhythmias. Despite the fact this was not a careful randomized trial, it has been widely touted by the press, condemning the use of hydroxychloroquine as not only useless but dangerous for COVID-19 therapy. What is your interpretation of these data?

This study suffers from the same problem as the clinical data recently described in the New England Journal of Medicine drawing similar conclusions about hydroxychloroquine coupled with azithromycin in moderate to severe COVID patients. First of all, because the patients under study were all hospitalized, they were definitely in the moderate to severe, and more likely the latter, and it is more of a challenge for any therapy to rescue patients already severely compromised. Yet hydroxychloroquine can do this very thing and this has been observed thousands of times anecdotally by physicians unconstrained and having free access to this inexpensive therapy of proven value for treating inflammation and parasitic infestation. These data were manipulated in the same way by the Extraterrestrial Alliance seeing to it that enough treated patients died during their hospital stay to get the statistics to show clearly a lack of efficacy. They are simply wanting to spoil the party. They do not want a simple, inexpensive therapy to come to the rescue of humanity and they will be eager to interfere with clinical assessment of anything that holds such promise. There will be a variety of means used, largely through mind control, to discourage interest and to raise unjust criticism and promote bias against any proposed therapeutic interventions. So you will likely see this pattern repeated with small-scale studies showing promise and many glowing accounts, especially in foreign countries and not the large medical centers in the Western nations. They may escape scrutiny for a while but the Extraterrestrial Alliance is less worried about such investigations because they will be easily discounted when a more prestigious body weighs in with a larger patient population showing lack of efficacy when done with care by qualified investigators. Having the large patient numbers will make such studies carry great weight by the opinion leaders, and they are the gatekeepers for publication of research and for grant funding access, and so they can stifle a promising approach very effectively by controlling the data that come forth and then letting the scientific establishment do a hatchet job, so to speak, because the data will seem to warrant that happening.