My submission to the Slovakian investigation of the COVID pandemic and response

Since the investigation has been completed, I can now publish what I sent on July 14, 2024

Submission to the Government of Slovakia on the COVID Response

In order to understand the COVID pandemic and the responses taken by most governments to it, I suggest asking some basic questions and citing evidence to answer them.

1. Where did SARS-CoV-2 come from? Was there a cover-up of its origin?

On February 1, 2020, Drs. Tony Fauci, Jeremy Farrar, Francis Collins and about 10 scientists had a teleconference at which they discussed reasons why the SARS-CoV-2 virus did not appear to have come from nature. Virologist Ron Fouchier of Erasmus University summarized the conference call in an email, listing six separate regions of the genome that suggested a lab origin, and providing a cover story for each of them.

One result of the teleconference was the plan to create the Nature Medicine journal article "Proximal Origins," which both Tony Fauci and Jeremy Farrar reviewed before publication. Farrar approached the journal Nature to assist in getting it published. The purpose of the paper was to create a scientific justification for the false narrative that SARS-CoV-2 had a natural origin. It may be the most downloaded paper in the history of medicine. The paper was illogical and used specious arguments. However, NIH Director Collins and NIAID Director Fauci both referred to the paper as evidence of the virus' natural (zoonotic) origin. I criticized the Proximal Origins paper on March 26, 2020 and April 2, 2020:

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/03/there-are-many-ways-novel-coronavirus.html

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/04/why-are-some-of-us-top-scientists.html

It is now widely acknowledged that SARS-CoV-2's presumptive lab origin was covered up, with a plan conceived at the latest on February 1, 2020. I have suggested a variety of reasons why Dr. Fauci may have desired a coverup:

2. Did the US government knowingly suppress treatments likely to be beneficial for COVID?

What did the US government know and when did they know it?

The US government and other governments suppressed the use of drugs they had every reason to think could be extremely beneficial.

The only explanation that makes sense is that the pandemic needed to be prolonged. Possibly the reason to prolong the pandemic was to impose vaccinations. Social distancing and lockdowns may have been imposed to keep the population from developing widespread immunity.

After the first SARS outbreak that originated in China in 2002, the SARS coronavirus was considered a potential biological warfare agent/ potential pandemic pathogen. Attempts to identify drug treatments or prophylactic medications were made, and 4 papers were published between 2004 and 2014 that identified at least 66 drugs that killed either or both the original SARS virus and a related coronavirus titled MERS (Middle East Respiratory Syndrome) in tissue culture. Among these drugs were chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine.

A 2005 paper authored by US CDC scientists and a 2014 paper authored by NIAID (NIH) scientists revealed that chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine killed SARS in vitro. The other two papers had authors from Belgium and the Netherlands. So top US and European public health officials must have known about these publications and the drugs that had been identified as useful against deadly coronaviruses.

Not only did these government officials hide what they knew, but they also suppressed the ability of patients and doctors to access both of the chloroquine drugs. Also it is worth noting that Chinese scientists informed American scientists as early as February 2020 that chloroquine drugs were yielding the best results in COVID treatment trials.

Here is the CDC paper:

and here is its conclusion:

Chloroquine looked very promising for both prevention and treatment of the first SARS. After all, it has been used for many decades both to prevent and to treat malaria and for other conditions.

Nine years later, in 2014, scientists in Tony Fauci's NIAID showed the same thing. Not only did chloroquine work in vitro against the MERS coronavirus, but 66 existing drugs, which could have been tested in patients as soon as the pandemic started, were also effective against SARS and MERS coronaviruses.

Here is the paper from Fauci's NIAID:

And this is what the NIAID authors wrote:

Here we found that 66 of the screened drugs were effective at inhibiting either MERS-CoV or SARS-CoV infection in vitro and that 27 of these compounds were effective against both MERS-CoV and SARS-CoV. These data demonstrate the efficiency of screening approved or clinically developed drugs for identification of potential therapeutic options for emerging viral diseases, and also provide an expedited approach for supporting off-label use of approved therapeutics.

The 2014 European paper was published back-to-back with the NIAID paper above. The 2004 European paper preceded the CDC publication above.

Ivermectin had not been identified in the studies I mentioned above as a potentially useful coronavirus drug. But some people knew it was likely to work in early 2020, because the French MedInCell company, supported by Bill Gates, was working on an injectable version of ivermectin for COVID early in 2020, which could be patented. The company issued a press release about this on April 6, 2020 and an informational paper on April 23, 2020. There was a brief run on the veterinary drug at this time in the US, according to an FDA warning issued on April 10, 2020, indicating some members of the public knew ivermectin might be an effective COVID treatment and were acquiring veterinary versions. But there was no widespread knowledge about the drug, and sales did not take off at that time.

Here is what FDA wrote on April 10, 2020 in what appears to be an attempt to stop people using the drug for COVID:

FDA is concerned about the health of consumers who may self-medicate by taking ivermectin products intended for animals, thinking they can be a substitute for ivermectin intended for humans...Please help us protect public health by alerting FDA of anyone claiming to have a product to prevent or cure COVID-19 and to help safeguard human and animal health by reporting any of these products.

3. Was the suppression of the chloroquine drugs for COVID premeditated, widespread and hyperaggressive? Clearly YES. It appears that a secret, supranational authority must have given the order to national governments.

The effort to suppress the use of chloroquine drugs for COVID was unprecedented in the annals of medicine, for a drug that was relatively nontoxic and was being employed for a deadly disease, for which no other effective treatments existed in early 2020. Evidence for the drugs' safety is the fact that hydroxychloroquine was sold over-the-counter in most countries.

The effort to stop its use involved what is termed a "whole of government" and "whole of society" approach: the use of government authorities at many levels in many countries, collaboration of the WHO, pharmaceutical corporations, and drugstores to carry out the scheme. I authored an article describing over 50 methods by which use of these drugs was prevented around the world. The article has been widely republished and is very important to your investigation:

https://anthraxvaccine.blogspot.com/2020/06/how-false-hydroxychloroquine-narrative.html

4. Did the US government respond honestly to the COVID emergency? NO. Instead, there were many frauds perpetrated on the citizenry.

The lies told by government were wide-ranging, carefully constructed, and involved virtually every aspect of the pandemic. These lies included information regarding:

1. the severity of the illness: morbidity and mortality rates

2. the original clinical trial data for the COVID vaccines

3. changes in methods of data collection, and in case definitions, to buttress the various COVID narratives

4. post-authorization data on vaccine adverse events

5. trial data on remdesivir

6. advice on treatment

7. advice on the benefits of non-pharmaceutical interventions

8. fraudulent licensure of the COVID vaccines in order to impose mandates

9. suppression of medical professionals for using clinical judgment to improve care of patients

10. retraction of journal articles that did not conform with the narrative.

The lies and obfuscations continue today.

5. I was asked to tell my personal story.

I was a respected internal medical doctor who had published many papers and testified to Congress 6 times, with no patient complaints. I had had a medical license since 1980.

However, I had treated hundreds of patients with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, and warned patients about the dangers of the COVID vaccines. For this I was investigated by my state medical board. I had a long hearing and was found guilty of trumped-up charges that had nothing to do with the medical care of patients. My medical license has been suspended since January 2022. I am now suing the board. My case immediately became national news in the US, which led me to conclude I had been chosen as a "poster child" to frighten other doctors so they would not challenge official COVID narratives and would not provide patients effective treatments. Most doctors fear they will lose their careers if they speak up and so their voices have been effectively suppressed.

____________________________________