Coronavirus Response, March 29 – 2

On Thursday, March 19th, Governor Newsom announced his intention to expand the deployment of wireless infrastructure in schools, during the COVID-19 quarantine. We understand this is during a time when there will be the least resistance to this harmful technology. While we all appreciate Governor Newsom’s leadership on COVID-19, deploying further wireless infrastructure in our schools and neighborhood especially at this time is taking the wrong path.

Children’s Health Defense is launching a campaign together with Moms Across America and 5G Free California, to have Governor Newsom reconsider his decision and to encourage him to take leadership in protecting the health of our children from the proven harms of wireless radiation, and lead the way with safer and faster wired technology.

Governor Newsom’s office statement:

“With schools closed across the state and teachers struggling to implement online and alternative learning programs, the governor also asked for an expansion of technology investments for schools, an increase in Title I funding for schools with a high concentration of poverty, broadband internet upgrades, grants for teachers to adapt to digital-age instruction…”

To clarify, “Broadband” includes wireless and wired infrastructure. Unfortunately, CA schools have been using wireless rather than safe wired networks and therefore we have a good basis to suspect that the announcement refers to wireless systems.

Children’s Health Defense, Moms Across America, 5G Free California ask for your partnership to protect our children’s health!

PLEASE TAKE THESE 2 ACTIONS:

ACTION 1 – TODAY: WRITE A LETTER TO GOVERNOR NEWSOM

Please Do Not Deploy 5G / Intensify Wireless Installations in Our Schools During Quarantine and anytime thereafter.

Governor Newsom’s Email: [email protected]

Please CC us on the email: [email protected]

SAMPLE LETTER

Dear Governor Newsom,

Please Do Not Deploy 5G / Intensify Wireless Installations in Our Schools During Quarantine and at any time thereafter.

While I appreciate your leadership on COVID-19, I am writing to express my objection to your intention to intensify the wireless infrastructure in schools using the COVID-19 quarantine as the basis for your request, as was announced last week by your office. Further deployment of harmful wireless infrastructure in our schools is taking the wrong leadership path and will cause further and even irreparable harm to our children.

As Mayor of San-Francisco, you have shown rare leadership when you called out the telecom companies’ fraud. Since then, the evidence of harm has become clearer. Most recently, The recent Federal government’s National Toxicology Program study found CLEAR EVIDENCE that this radiation causes cancer and breaks DNA. Thousands more studies proved profound harms from wireless technology radiation.

In 2018 the CA Dept of Public Health published guidelines admitting that peer reviewed scientific studies show evidence that this radiation may cause DNA damage, reproduction harms, cancer and learning disabilities among other effects. How come you deploy more wireless in school to improve learning when the evidence is showing it is harming learning?

In 2014, the CA Medical Association passed a resolution calling on the FCC to update its health guidelines as the scientific evidence shows profound harms. On February 2, 2020 the Children Health Defense submitted a lawsuit in the US Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit, against the FCC, challenging its decades’ obsolete health guidelines. Among the petitioners are parents of children from CA who have become sick from cell towers and wi-fi in their schools and doctors attesting to the epidemic they see in their clinics including among children.

Government Code Sec. 659641.1(f) gave a special exemption from mandatory approval of wireless siting applications for wireless telecommunications facilities on fire department facilities. This was passed out of concern regarding firefighters’ exposure to harmful radiation. Why are we protecting firefighters but harming our children?

Further, peer reviewed scientific studies have shown that the radiation emitted by wireless technology, adversely affects the immune system. In a time when we try to prevent pan-epidemic and need to strengthen our immune system, we should encourage the population, and especially our children who are a vulnerable population, to reduce their exposure to this harmful radiation rather than force more of it.

We asked you not to allow any further deployment of harmful wireless infrastructure during the schools’ shutdowns or over Spring Break on school campuses across our state. We ask you to prevent telecom companies from deploying 5G “small cell” antennas or “Hot-Spots” under the false pretense of improving technology for learning. Any further upgrades should be with wired ethernet cables, which provide faster, safer, more secure and more reliable service.

Considering the clear evidence of potential harm to our children from this radiation, we do not consent to any further expansion of wireless emitting devices in our California schools. Education Code Sec. 51101(a)(7) grants the right for parents to ensure that the school environment for their child is safe. Exposing children to this radiation, especially over the objection of the parents and children, directly violates the schools’ duty to provide a safe environment and our right to ensure they do. We ask for you to cease and desist any further installations. The radiation batters the children and violates their civil rights and our parental rights.

Furthering the deployment of more wireless when the scientific and human evidence of harm are clear, is being on the wrong side of history. We know that considering the power of the Telecom industry, leading on this issue takes courage. You have shown you have the courage – and there is no more important time to continue to show this courage than with protecting the health of our children, including your own.

California parents, and parents across the country, will remember that Governor Newsom stood up to the corporations and put the safety of our children before corporate profits.

Thank you for your time and dedication.

Sincerely,

(Your name)

ACTION 2 – TODAY: Find out if your school is installing 4/5G!

Please call and/or email your school district superintendent Monday, March 23, 2020, and ask them:

“Is our school district intending to do any wireless technology upgrades during this school shutdown? Specifically, will our school have any upgraded Wi-Fi systems and/or any new antennas, or ‘small’ cell facilities installed during the break? If so, which schools and which types of technology changes?”

Also inform them that you are interested in being kept informed should the school decide to introduce such installations.

Please also state the following:

Considering the clear evidence of potential harm to our children from this radiation, we do not consent to any further expansion of wireless emitting devices in our California schools. Education Code Sec. 51101(a)(7) grants the right for parents to ensure that the school environment for their child is safe. Exposing children to this radiation, especially over the objection of the parents and children, directly violates the schools’ duty to provide a safe environment and our right to ensure they do. We ask for you to cease and desist any further installations. The radiation batters the children and violates their civil rights and our parental rights.

Please cc us in your email to your school with [email protected] so we will be aware of your communication with them. If they do not cc us in their response, please forward us their response.

Please respond to us by email with California school responses, school name, city and state to: [email protected] within 48 hours, preferably, to have your school district be supported by our teams. The timing is urgent! Technology upgrades have been planned for Spring Break!

If you do not live in California, but have friends in California, please share this information with them. Also please take action in your state and find out what their plans are! Now is the time!

Stay tuned for further updates, petitions and information on how you can protect your child and all school children!

With Unity,

Children’s Health Defense
Moms Across America
5G Free California

You can also donate to support CHD’s efforts to stop 5G.

Is CV19 “a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity” for Big Pharma?

As the new coronavirus spreads illness, death, and catastrophe around the world, virtually no economic sector has been spared from harm. Yet amid the mayhem from the global pandemic, one industry is not only surviving, it is profiting handsomely.

“Pharmaceutical companies view Covid-19 as a once-in-a-lifetime business opportunity,” said Gerald Posner, author of “Pharma: Greed, Lies, and the Poisoning of America.” The world needs pharmaceutical products, of course. For the new coronavirus outbreak, in particular, we need treatments and vaccines and, in the U.S., tests. Dozens of companies are now vying to make them.

“They’re all in that race,” said Posner, who described the potential payoffs for winning the race as huge. The global crisis “will potentially be a blockbuster for the industry in terms of sales and profits,” he said, adding that “the worse the pandemic gets, the higher their eventual profit.”

The ability to make money off of pharmaceuticals is already uniquely large in the U.S., which lacks the basic price controls other countries have, giving drug companies more freedom over setting prices for their products than anywhere else in the world. During the current crisis, pharmaceutical makers may have even more leeway than usual because of language industry lobbyists inserted into an $8.3 billion coronavirus spending package, passed last week, to maximize their profits from the pandemic.

Initially, some lawmakers had tried to ensure that the federal government would limit how much pharmaceutical companies could reap from vaccines and treatments for the new coronavirus that they developed with the use of public funding. In February, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, D-Ill., and other House members wrote to Trump pleading that he “ensure that any vaccine or treatment developed with U.S. taxpayer dollars be accessible, available and affordable,” a goal they said couldn’t be met “if pharmaceutical corporations are given authority to set prices and determine distribution, putting profit-making interests ahead of health priorities.”

Read Our Complete CoverageThe Coronavirus Crisis

When the coronavirus funding was being negotiated, Schakowsky tried again, writing to Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar on March 2 that it would be “unacceptable if the rights to produce and market that vaccine were subsequently handed over to a pharmaceutical manufacturer through an exclusive license with no conditions on pricing or access, allowing the company to charge whatever it would like and essentially selling the vaccine back to the public who paid for its development.”

But many Republicans opposed adding language to the bill that would restrict the industry’s ability to profit, arguing that it would stifle research and innovation. And although Azar, who served as the top lobbyist and head of U.S. operations for the pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly before joining the Trump administration, assured Schakowsky that he shared her concerns, the bill went on to enshrine drug companies’ ability to set potentially exorbitant prices for vaccines and drugs they develop with taxpayer dollars.

The final aid package not only omitted language that would have limited drug makers’ intellectual property rights, it also left out language that had been in an earlier draft that would have allowed the federal government to take any action if it has concerns that the treatments or vaccines developed with public funds are priced too high.

“Those lobbyists deserve a medal from their pharma clients because they killed that intellectual property provision,” said Posner, who added that the omission of language allowing the government to respond to price gouging was even worse. “To allow them to have this power during a pandemic is outrageous.”

The truth is that profiting off public investment is also business as usual for the pharmaceutical industry. Since the 1930s, the National Institutes of Health has put some $900 billion into research that drug companies then used to patent brand-name medications, according to Posner’s calculations. Every single drug approved by the Food and Drug Administration between 2010 and 2016 involved science funded with tax dollars through the NIH, according to the advocacy group Patients for Affordable Drugs. Taxpayers spent more than $100 billion on that research.

Among the drugs that were developed with some public funding and went on to be huge earners for private companies are the HIV drug AZT and the cancer treatment Kymriah, which Novartis now sells for $475,000.

In his book “Pharma,” Posner points to another example of private companies making exorbitant profits from drugs produced with public funding. The antiviral drug sofosbuvir, which is used to treat hepatitis C, stemmed from key research funded by the National Institutes of Health. That drug is now owned by Gilead Sciences, which charges $1,000 per pill — more than many people with hepatitis C can afford; Gilead earned $44 billion from the drug during its first three years on the market.

“Wouldn’t it be great to have some of the profits from those drugs go back into public research at the NIH?” asked Posner.

Instead, the profits have funded huge bonuses for drug company executives and aggressive marketing of drugs to consumers. They have also been used to further boost the profitability of the pharmaceutical sector. According to calculations by Axios, drug companies make 63 percent of total health care profits in the U.S. That’s in part because of the success of their lobbying efforts.

In 2019, the pharmaceutical industry spent $295 million on lobbying, far more than any other sector in the U.S. That’s almost twice as much as the next biggest spender — the electronics, manufacturing, and equipment sector — and well more than double what oil and gas companies spent on lobbying. The industry also spends lavishly on campaign contributions to both Democratic and Republican lawmakers. Throughout the Democratic primary, Joe Biden has led the pack among recipients of contributions from the health care and pharmaceutical industries.

Big Pharma’s spending has positioned the industry well for the current pandemic. While stock markets have plummeted in reaction to the Trump administration’s bungling of the crisis, more than 20 companies working on a vaccine and other products related to the new SARS-CoV-2 virus have largely been spared. Stock prices for the biotech company Moderna, which began recruiting participants for a clinical trial of its new candidate for a coronavirus vaccine two weeks ago, have shot up during that time.

On Thursday, a day of general carnage in the stock markets, Eli Lilly’s stock also enjoyed a boost after the company announced that it, too, is joining the effort to come up with a therapy for the new coronavirus. And Gilead Sciences, which is at work on a potential treatment as well, is also thriving. Gilead’s stock price was already up since news that its antiviral drug remdesivir, which was created to treat Ebola, was being given to Covid-19 patients. Today, after Wall Street Journal reported that the drug had a positive effect on a small number of infected cruise ship passengers, the price went up further.

Several companies, including Johnson & Johnson, DiaSorin Molecular, and QIAGEN have made it clear that they are receiving funding from the Department of Health and Human Services for efforts related to the pandemic, but it is unclear whether Eli Lilly and Gilead Sciences are using government money for their work on the virus. To date, HHS has not issued a list of grant recipients. And according to Reuters, the Trump administration has told top health officials to treat their coronavirus discussions as classified and excluded staffers without security clearances from discussions about the virus.

Former top lobbyists of both Eli Lilly and Gilead now serve on the White House Coronavirus Task Force. Azar served as director of U.S. operations for Eli Lilly and lobbied for the company, while Joe Grogan, now serving as director of the Domestic Policy Council, was the top lobbyist for Gilead Sciences.

COVID-19. Exploring and explaining coronovirus – outbreak of desease that was first reported from Wuhan, China.

Does the Coronavirus Pandemic Serve a Global Agenda?

Senta Depuydt, Children’s Health Defence, March 20, 2020

https://childrenshealthdefense.org/news/does-the-coronavirus-pandemic-serve-a-global-agenda/

Health Authorities Remain Silent on Efficient Covid-19 Treatment

For those who follow the global immunization agenda and its implementation on different continents, the announcement of a new pandemic didn’t come as a surprise.  “Pandemic preparedness” has been well-funded and a buzz word for a long time before becoming a priority at the last G7 summits, the Davos World Economic Forum and other meetings of global governance. The latest simulation for preparedness was Event 201,^[1] a rehearsal of a coronavirus pandemic organized on October 18, 2019 in New York by Johns Hopkins University, the Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum.

The Presidential election campaign in the United States and the controversial mandatory measles vaccination law in Germany provided perfect timing. What better than viral terror to influence public opinion and health policies on vaccine battles raging on both sides of the Atlantic?

To the majority who have never heard about this, one should remember that in 2014, the first Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) meeting ^[2] was held at the White House, a few months after the whistleblower William Thompson raised the alarm on fraud committed by the CDC in the MMR vaccine safety study. That revelation led to increasing distrust in vaccination and public health institutions.

So at the GHSA meeting, the US Health and Human Services Department, the World Health Organization (WHO), the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Global Alliance for Vaccination and Immunization (GAVI) and health officials from dozens of countries  decided to create a “health security” agenda for the world.  Its main goal was to vaccinate the entire population of the planet and drive changes in national legislation to do so. They agreed on the priority to achieve 90% measles vaccination coverage around the globe and to use arguments of “health emergencies” and “security threats” to bypass informed consent laws and constitutional rights.

Soon after that meeting, the big “measles scare” campaign started in Disneyland in December 2014, leading to the removal of vaccine exemption rights in California. Meanwhile, Italy, which had been designated to be the forerunner of this agenda in Europe, set things in motion to mandate eight additional childhood vaccines.

The movie Vaxxed then came out in April 2016, during the Presidential campaign.  Many American families voted for Donald Trump, hoping that he would create a commission to investigate vaccine safety, as he seemed to have a particular interest. Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, repeated that “the science is clear, the earth is round, the sky is blue and vaccines work” throughout her campaign. A few days before the November 2016 vote,^[3] President Obama signed major US funding for the GHSA, together with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

Unfortunately, after the election, the vaccine safety commission that was supposed to be led by Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. never came to pass. On the contrary, draconian vaccine legislation made its way to several states. California, for example, which had already abolished personal belief exemptions, stripped away almost all medical exemptions in 2019, commencing a medical inquisition against doctors who put their patients first.^[4]  Many Californians, realizing that their Eldorado had become a gilded cage, moved to freer states for vaccine choice, like Texas or Idaho.^[5]

A vaccine war

In 2020, vaccines could weigh even more heavily in US elections. In fact, one could almost say that a vaccine war is going on across the US.  After California, states like New Jersey, Maine, Connecticut, Virginia, Hawaii, Colorado and many others are trying to adopt harsher vaccine laws.  But vaccine freedom advocates are getting more organized, too, putting pressure on elected officials and candidates and even introducing their own legislation.

For example, after the New Jersey legislature twice failed to pass a repeal of the religious exemption, even though Speaker Steven Sweeney vowed to “go to war” to get it passed, legislators proposed several vaccine safety bills.^[6] The Maryland legislature refused to allow pharmacists to administer vaccines, and in South Dakota, the legislature considered, although rejected, a bill that would have completely prohibited all medical mandates of any kind.^[7]

Europe too is undergoing a similar wave of coercive legislation and pushback.  In Germany, compulsory measles vaccination has just come into force in early March, even though the country has one of the highest coverage rates — 97% one dose, 93% two doses — and very few cases of illness or death.  This vote comes two years after Chancellor Angela Merkel announced that there would be no mandatory vaccinations in Germany,^[8] as informed consent had “solid historical reasons.”

Sadly, informed consent and the Nuremberg Code may now exist only in the museum of democratic values.  The new German law is particularly restrictive.  There is no option for home schooling, and the measles vaccine obligation applies to adults working in the health and education sectors as well. But German citizens may be ready to fight back.  Families and doctors are fighting the mandates in courts,^[9] and protests were planned all over the country for March 21, including a major event in Munich with Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and activists from all over Europe – until the coronavirus pandemic intervened.^[10]

Everywhere in Europe — in Great Britain, Austria, Belgium, Romania, Slovenia, from Ukraine to Spain — mandatory vaccination bills are being introduced. Faced with the violation of human rights that their Constitutions guarantee, people have filed complaints with the European Court of Human Rights.  The Court, whose jurisdiction covers 49 countries throughout Europe and Eurasia, will hear cases on mandatory vaccination on April 30, 2020 arising from the Czech Republic.

It is undeniable that the coronavirus epidemic has come on the scene at a crucial moment, when people everywhere are in revolt against the power of international financial institutions and multinational pharmaceutical corporations, whose stranglehold on governments is no longer hidden. Many scandals have shaken confidence. The bankruptcy of an aberrant economic system is accelerating, and attempts to start a third world war are multiplying. While it is impossible to know how the “coronavirus pandemic” will influence the redistribution of power, it is certain that many are seeking to have Covid-19 serve the political interests of a global governance project.

Iran

Interestingly, the second largest outbreak started in Iran, a country which, like China, does not bend to the West’s dictates. It is also currently involved with Syria and Russia in a tug-of-war with Turkey, NATO, and its traditional allies.  After having refused all outside help in the management of the pandemic, Iran made a complete about-face by inviting the WHO to its rescue. It seems that the virus had contaminated a number of high-ranking government officials, including those close to Ayatollah Khamenei, and the former Iranian ambassador to Syria, who died in the early days of the epidemic.

Taking an unusual sanitary measure, the Iranian government released  85,000 “uncontaminated” prisoners to avoid contagion in prisons.  At the same time, officials blamed US sanctions, which were reimposed on Tehran after Washington abandoned the Iran 2015 nuclear deal, for “hampering their efforts to fight the coronavirus.”  Iran called again for lifting the ban and asked the International Monetary Fund for a $5 billion loan to fight the outbreak.^[11]

Italy

In Europe, as luck would have it, the pandemic first affected northern Italy, namely Lombardy and Veneto, which have by far the largest number of vaccine hesitant people in Europe and probably the world.  Veneto strongly opposed the expansion of vaccine mandates.  Activists demonstrated for months, with rallies of more than 50,000 people. As a result, the regional government appealed to the Council of State, arguing that the law violated constitutional freedoms and demanded autonomy in health matters. Of note, the WHO then decided to move its European headquarters to Venice, the capital of Veneto.

At the beginning of the disease outbreak, the Italian authorities considered it unnecessary to impose a two-week school quarantine on children returning from a trip to China, in order not to “stigmatize” them. (By contrast, unvaccinated children are stigmatized and prohibited from attending school year round.) Officials disagreed on Covid-19 diagnosis and “crisis measures,” reflecting conflicts between regional parties and medical experts. But the WHO soon managed to take control of the situation^[12] and appointed a special advisor, Dr. Gualtiero Ricciardi, who had been forced to resign earlier from the Italian HHS due to a long list of undeclared conflicts of interest, to steer the coronavirus crisis.

Since then, panic and alarm have escalated continuously, as have the Veneto region’s accusations of “anti-scientific”^[13] management. Although the country has been in a complete lockdown for weeks, cases keep increasing and the estimated number of deaths is now nearing 3,000. This sends a frightening signal, but these numbers need to be seen with caution. First, one of the major reasons why Italy is “overwhelmed,”  is because of the crisis its public hospitals were already facing before the epidemic. The number of intensive care units has dropped by half over the last 20 years, dropping from the highest to the lowest number of beds per capita in Europe to around 230 per 100,000 inhabitants. In other words, the situation was already disastrous.

Second, there is a lot of controversy about the number of deaths that can really be ascribed to the epidemic. Testing is not very reliable and suffers many biases. According to Dr. Wolfgang Wodarg, who had chaired the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe Health Committee that called an emergency debate on the influence of the pharmaceutical industry in the declaration of the H1N1 flu pandemic by WHO in 2009,  “the tests are currently not measuring the incidence of coronavirus diseases, but the activity of the specialists searching for them.”^[14]

Many experts also disagree on the mortality rate of Covid-19. While the WHO gives estimates as high as 3.4%, renowned epidemiologists such as John Ioannidis^[15] consider the risk is probably much lower, perhaps 0.125%, for which there are no reasons to take such draconian measures.

France

In France, too, declarations of the Covid-19 pandemic seemed to have a flair for strategic time and place. When Minister of Health Agnes Buzyn suddenly left office to replace a candidate who was running for mayor of Paris (he had to step down after a sex scandal), the coronavirus crisis seemed to be reasonably manageable. But the Covid-19 threat arose again at an opportune time — to ban large protests against a highly unpopular law that slashed pensions and on the eve of local March elections. After the first round of voting, a complete lockdown was announced. The former health minister, who wasn’t elected mayor, expressed her regret for leaving office during the coronavirus crisis, saying that she knew from the start that the epidemic would escalate and soon turn into a major catastrophe…

But a disaster in France is easy to predict, as the situation is very similar to Italy. 1,300 public hospital doctors have been on administrative strike for almost a year. They refused to share the responsibility and decisions of a state that no longer provides minimal funds to run public health services. In the last two decades, the available number of beds has been reduced by 100,000 and the remaining facilities are largely understaffed. Patients who died after waiting endless hours in the emergency room were already frequently reported by the media long before the coronavirus epidemic.

So the former health minister, who had received fierce criticism for her inability to solve this lingering hospital crisis, knew perfectly well that the coronavirus situation would further exacerbate the problem. Recently, when President Macron visited doctors fighting the epidemic to show his support, medical staff took the opportunity to express their anger towards his disastrous health policies in front of the camera.

The silent war in the treatment against Covid-19 

Finally, the Coronavirus epidemic reveals the huge discrepancy between the WHO health strategies and the reality for scientists and doctors who put patients’ lives first.

The current power struggle in France about coronavirus strategies between health officials and the country’s leading expert is truly eye opening.  Professor Didier Raoult, who is one of the world’s top 5 scientists on communicable diseases and leads the high tech research center on infectious diseases,  IHU – mediterranée Marseilles, argued that the approach of mass quarantine is both inefficient and outdated and that large scale testing and treatment of suspected cases achieves far better results.

Early on, Dr. Raoult suggested the use of hydroxychloroquine (Chloroquine or Plaquenil), a well-known, simple, and inexpensive drug that has shown efficacy with previous coronaviruses such as SARS.  By mid-February, clinical trials at his institute and in China already confirmed that the drug could reduce the viral load and bring spectacular improvement. The Chinese scientists published their first trials on more than 100 patients and announced that the Chinese National Health Commission would recommend Chloroquine in their new guidelines to treat Covid-19.^[16]

As a member of a similar French committee, Dr. Raoult immediately shared the great news with health authorities.  But they replied that there was not enough scientific evidence to prove efficacy and warned against potential side effects of the drug, preferring to focus their efforts to find new molecules and develop a new vaccine, with France’s Sanofi Pasteur included in the coronavirus vaccine competition.

But Dr. Raoult and 600 members of his institute continued their work and confirmed similar results in a trial of 24 patients that was published March 3, 2020.^[17] Dr. Raoult has recorded daily videos^[18] to share his research and knowledge, sometimes reaching half a million views in a couple of days. Hospitals and general practitioners started to treat their patients with the drug until it quickly went out of stock.

In fact, for an unknown reason, last October, the French minister of health suddenly decided to put this long used over-the-counter drug on the list of  “controlled substances” and make it a prescription drug.

Now, a month later, under the growing pressure of doctors and the media, the government has finally decided to “consider more trials” of this protocol, and Sanofi Pasteur has announced that it will offer enough doses to potentially treat 300,000 patients.^[19]

Although Chloroquine was cited second on the WHO’s original list of drugs to be evaluated for coronavirus treatment as a drug on its list of “essential medicines,” the WHO has not yet released any information about it and has not even mentioned the four clinical trials that received official European Union approval.  While the WHO has repeatedly praised China and South Korea, for their “efficient response” using draconian quarantine measures, there has been no mention of the fact that those countries are using Chloroquine as an efficient Covid-19 treatment. But having used Chloroquine together with quarantine, China is nearing the end of its epidemic.

Interestingly, on February 26, the United Kingdom put Chloroquine on its list^[20] of drugs that can no longer be exported outside the country. In the United States, a white paper,^[21] published on March 13 by researchers from the National Academy of Science and Stanford Medical School, proposes that “the United States of America and other countries should immediately authorize and indemnify medical doctors for prescribing chloroquine to treat COVID-19.”

But so far, the only words we hear from the WHO and Western health officials are “quarantine,” “fast tracking vaccines,” and “the search for new drugs.”  Obviously, there is no real interest in using a generic drug that can provide immediate treatment and prevention for a price around $5. As a financial consultant recently asked in an article, “If a Covid-19 Therapy Doesn’t Benefit A Stock, Does It Even Exist?”^[22] The answer, sadly, is obviously not.

It looks as if the WHO and our Western governments have decided to keep fueling the panic and raising the alert level, pushing the “Global Health Security Threat” narrative to the hilt.  How much longer will we have to wait for effective treatment? How much longer with this global lockdown last? Officials say “until a new vaccine has been developed,” which will probably be in fast track mode by a well-known philanthropist after most courts in the world have ruled that mandatory vaccination does not violate human rights.

Or perhaps until the economy has completely crashed and can be rebuilt on a “healthy basis”? Here is a clue: the European Central Bank has launched a “Pandemic Emergency Purchase Program”^[23] that will last until “the coronavirus Covid-19 crisis phase is over, but in any case not before the end of the year”!

Anything can happen now. No one can know for sure if we will emerge out of the coronavirus crisis as subjects of a techno-communist global government or if a new freedom virus will derail such a program. Certainly the world will not be the same.

* Senta Depuydt is a Belgian freelance journalist with a degree in communications. In 2016, she organized the first European Congress on biomedical treatments in Paris and has hosted debates on the biology of autism and vaccine safety in many French-speaking countries. She arranged for premieres of “Vaxxed” in Brussels, Paris and Cannes and an event at UNESCO. She is a board member of the French League for Free Choice in Vaccination and in the European Forum for Vaccine Vigilance. She works with health freedom organizations across Europe.

REFERENCES

1. Event 201.
2. Global Health Security Agenda (GHSA) meeting.
3. Executive Order — Advancing the Global Health Security Agenda to Achieve a World Safe and Secure from Infectious Disease Threats.
4. California vaccine bill exemption rules agreed to by Newsom and lawmakers.
5. ‘California refugees’ move to Idaho for lax vaccine laws. They want lawmakers to know why.
6. ‘We’re ready to go to war on this’: N.J. lawmakers pledge to reintroduce failed vaccine bill.
7. South Dakota Considers First State Bill To Outlaw All Vaccine AND Medical Mandates.
8. Genèse de l’obligation vaccinale contre la
   rougeole en Allemagne.
9. Erste Verfassungsbeschwerden in Karlsruhe übergeben.
10. Invitation to european protest for medical freedom.
11. Coronavirus: Iran frees 85,000 prisoners to combat spread of infection.
12. Joint WHO and ECDC mission in Italy to support COVID-19 control and prevention efforts.
13. Coronavirus, Ricciardi (OMS): “Il Veneto si è comportato in maniera antiscientifica”.
14. W.Wodarg “Without PCR-Tests There Would Be No Reasons For Special Alarms”, 1.3.20, wodarg.com.
15. A fiasco in the making? As the coronavirus pandemic takes hold, we are making decisions without reliable data.
16. Expert consensus on comprehensive treatment of coronavirus disease in Shanghai 2019.
17. Chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as available weapons to fight COVID-19.
18. mediterranee-infection.com.
19. https://www.connexionfrance.com/French-news/French-lab-Sanofi-hypothetically-offers-millions-of-doses-of-potential-Covid-19-Plaquenil-anti-malaria-drug.
20. Medicines that cannot be parallel exported from the UK.
21. March 13 White Paper
22. If a COVID-19 Therapy Doesn’t Benefit a Stock, Does it Even Exist?.
23. The Governing Council will terminate net asset purchases under PEPP once it judges that the coronavirus Covid-19 crisis phase is over, but in any case not before the end of the year.