HCQ has been known for decades to cure and prevent some viruses. Some question it, but before the propaganda started, there actually were diligent scientists and doctors. This was before the corruption and propaganda started. 2005 timeframe.
(media.greatawakening.win)
ℹ️ ⚔️ Information Warfare ⚔️ ℹ️
I found this interesting I've been sending things like this to my brother who believes 100% the covid narrative that said he is more versed in the matters like this than I am here is his responce:
"Yeah thats an older article, I remember reading it a while back.. They make an awfully bold claim that HCQ is affective against the virus but there are two issues. Theyre using primate (chimpanzee most likely) cells. And the cells are introduced to the virus and HCQ "en-vitro" ( in a test tube). If it was an ev-vivo (direct Injection into the host) the the study would be much more comprehensive. En-vitro studies are in perfect optimal and sterile environments which its not realistic compared to a drug being introduced to the chaos of a human body where a drug is broken down and has to go through various metabolic processes. It takes time for the antibiotic to get to where its suppose to go and even when it gets there it has to be present at a specific concentration to properly inhibit the binding of sars-cov to bind to ACE receptors. This article was essentially the equivalent of placing a few drops of bleach on the virus as proof that it can be killed by bleach. There are a handful of antibiotics and antivirals that, en-vitro, can kill sars-cov, but its a completly different ballgame when its introduced to a live environment"
What he said is true, but if he goes to the source document there are a number of further studies linked to it. There are also a huge number of studies outside the US that are clinically tested in vivo. The point is that this was known decades ago and was tested extensively after the 2002 outbreak of the first big Corona type virus that became a pandemic. The study in Oxford (that was used to justify banning the use of HCQ) in May 2020 that was cited for heart complications and death was by a doctor's trial where he exceeded the maximum recommended dose of 200mg per day and delivered a fatal dose of 2500mg. Severe side effects were established at 1500mg. The dosing and side effects have been well documented for over 70 years. Looking at one study and not further researching is very narrow minded, because it is being used in multiple countries throughout the world and their numbers are substantially lower than ours. I understand this is classified as anecdotal evidence, however anecdotal evidence becomes overwhelming evidence. The problem of trained scientists today, is that they have been rigidly trained to have an inflexible protocol that is simply ridiculous. They are lost in their own dogma. When you see something happening all the time, you don't say it isnt really happening because science hasn't tested it in laboratory conditions, you test it in controlled laboratory conditions to figure out all the how's and why's. I work in a laboratory. I know test protocol, just not medical. The protocols are universal for testing. Controlling variables to isolate the characteristics that are of concern.
The point is, when you do an en vitro test with positive results, you continue to the next stage of testing. Funding becomes an issue, however interest in corona viruses was high due to SARS and subsequently Swine Flu and Avian Flu. Why subsequent testing wasn't performed becomes an interesting question. Typically any natural substance that is found to have therapeutic effects are tested initially in a published paper. Subsequent further testing to determine the active ingredient is performed. The chemical composition is then synthesized and tested. If the tests replicate the therapeutic effect, the new drug is patented and undergoes clinical trials. Most synthesized replicants typically have adverse side effects not found in the natural remedy. This is thought to be because of mitigating "inactive" ingredients in the original natural sourced substance. This requires further analysis to determine what other compounds are needed to minimize side effects and then retry clinical trials. The original naturally occurring substance is rarely tested further, at least not with any published papers. This is due to the lack of monetary compensation for the extremely expensive and arduous process of developing, testing and approving any RX grade substance. HCQ could possibly have many off label uses. At this time only Lupus and RA are regularly prescribed. These were anecdotal, but the massive amounts of documented cases of positive results were substantial enough for it to be mainstream and accepted. During an emergency, the use for treating with HCQ was done, but with far higher doses than were known to be safe were utilized. The Oxford study should have posted the dosages given. If it did, no one flagged the fact it was over 12 times the recommended dosages.
https://www.ratical.org/PandemicParallaxView/PotenLethalHCQdoesInWHO+RecTrials.pdf