Álvaro Avezum: Your Role in Covering up the life saving part Hydroxychloroquine has to play in Multi-Drug Covid-19 Treatments
The below is content from a recent email sent by “Watchful Eye” to Álvaro Avezum, who is a Professor at São Paulo University, Research Director at Oswaldo Cruz Hospital International Research Center and International Research Associate at Population Health Research Institute, McMaster University.
In it, “Watchful Eye” critiques the article by Álvaro et al - Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE – Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial.
Álvaro Avezum,
I refer to the paper:
Hydroxychloroquine versus placebo in the treatment of non-hospitalised patients with COVID-19 (COPE – Coalition V): A double-blind, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial
Found here in the Lancet
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanam/article/PIIS2667-193X(22)00060-6/fulltext#%20
And here
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35378952/
Note the Lancet has previously published fraudulent and misleading papers on Hydroxychloroquine
See: https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31180-6/fulltext
YOUR paper was published March 31,2022
By this time it was common knowledge that Hydroxychloroquine was being used in Multi-Drug Protocols in the US in combination with Zinc and Azithromycin
See: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(20)30673-2/fulltext A Publication AUG 06, 2020
See: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33122096/ A Publication OCT 26, 2020
See a published Clinical Guide from back in November 2021
https://tribeqr.com/v/c19osguides
It would be highly questionable for a study that did not include Zinc with Hydroxychloroquine given the choice of Hydroxychloroquine was one made with a HEAVY EMPHASIS on its role as a Zinc Ionophore to allow Zinc to stop the RNA replication of the Corona Virus.
On the Contribution you have made to this misleading paper, YOU are listed as the Author that “conceived the trial and wrote the initial proposal, contributed to the literature search, study design, selecting participating sites, data interpretation, obtaining funding and drafting of the manuscript”
I cite the METHOD you “devised” perhaps it should read the method you “Devilised”
“Methods
We conducted a multicenter, double-blind, RCT in 56 Brazilian sites. Adults with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 presenting with mild or moderate symptoms with ≤ 07 days prior to enrollment and at least one risk factor for clinical deterioration were randomised (1:1) to receive hydroxychloroquine 400 mg twice a day (BID) in the first day, 400 mg once daily (OD) thereafter for a total of seven days, or matching placebo. The primary outcome was hospitalisation due to COVID-19 at 30 days, which was assessed by an adjudication committee masked to treatment allocation and following the intention-to-treat (ITT) principle“
This method is clearly designed contrary to WELL KNOWN life-saving Multi-Drug Protocols, using hydroxychloroquine, (already in place for well over a 14 months) and has the following reckless* design floors.
*Reckless:
Before bringing the design flaws to light, I will elaborate on the context of the word “reckless” in the preceding sentence.
IF there is a medication being used in multi-drug protocols that is preventing death and hospitalisation from Covid-19, and a paper (yours) designed (by you) and submitted on a world stage that concludes the medication has no impact on the treatment of Covid-19 AND that same paper does not overtly state that the medication is KNOWN to be used as part of multidrug protocols that reported (in peer reviewed studies) high levels of success in the treatment of Covid-19, then that paper (yours) could – with reckless abandon, mislead health providers around the globe to dismiss life-saving protocols with that Medication;
i) that paper could recklessly contributing to unnecessary hospitalisations and death.
ii) that paper could be recklessly contributing to negative recommendations and even bans on the use of that medication in life saving protocols; such as bans put in place in Australia
iii) that paper could be recklessly contributing to the fear of world populations that there is no effective treatments with this medication; when clearly there are
iv) that paper could be recklessly contributing to reduced hesitancy of high risk (Big Pharmacy Lucrative) alternatives such as Lipid Nano Particle, Synthetic messenger RNA Genetic products with unknown medium or long term safety data AND with a known uncontrolled Biodistribution that leads to the production of spike proteins by critical cell types, throughout the recipients body, for an unknown and uncontrolled length of time.
See:
YOUR clear protocol flaws, where it might be said this was a protocol designed to fail (given the time-line of YOUR study and the known much earlier work with Hydroxychloroquine in Multi-Drug Protocols in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19) include:
a) No attempt to treat patients diagnosed within the first 5 days of treatment
b) No use of Zinc with the Zinc Ionophore (Hydroxychloroquine) in your protocol
c) No use of Azithromycin in your protocol
d) Participants as young as 18 into the study when it was well known by the time of your study the average age of death with or from Covid-19 was over 80 years old and with at least 2 Co-morbidities
Choosing/Allowing younger participants will SIGNIFICANTLY dilute any possible observations of reduced hospitalization (or death) to what might be claimed as statistically insignificant numbers.
With a mortality rate of a fraction of a percent in the younger age groups without 2 co-morbidities a samples size under 10,000 will never show a “statistically” significant number of better outcomes.
While the Hydroxychloroquine study was flawed in so many ways it still did consistently show better results and yet you wrote the reckless interpretation:
“In outpatients with mild or moderate forms of COVID-19, the use of hydroxychloroquine did not reduce the risk of hospitalisation compared to the placebo control. Our findings do not support the routine use of hydroxychloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 in the outpatient setting.”
So lets look at why such a flawed design might have been designed and funded:
YOUR Primary affiliation listed “International Research Center, Hospital Alemão Oswaldo Cruz”
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/hospital-alemao-oswaldo-cruz-joins-the-trinetx-network-to-expand-clinical-research-capabilities-in-brazil-and-latin-america-301248298.html
Your Flawed design would assist in the promotion and uptake of Pfizer Products for Covid-19
https://trinetx.com/pfizer-joins-the-trinetx-global-health-research-network/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_Brazil
“On March 4, 2021, in a final meeting for contractual arrangements with Pfizer, the Ministry of Health ended up giving in and accepted the clauses imposed by the pharmaceutical company and that blocked the negotiations for Brazil to acquire Pfizer's vaccines. Among the clauses is that Pfizer will not be held responsible for the costs of eventual side effects of its immunizer.”
Where you will be placed in History:
So Álvaro Avezum, what have you done!!!?
Either way you look at it; whether Brazil’s excess deaths, post the Vaccine Roll out ,numbering in the hundreds of thousands are attributed to the spike proteins of Covid-19 or those of the experimental Lipid nano Particle Synthetic mRNA Genetic Instruction vaccines that flooded your nation; YOUR flawed (Possibly intentionally flawed) study has contributed to
Hesitancy for Brazil to adopt multi-drug protocols that include Hydroxychloroquine, protocols proven to reduce Covid-19 related death and hospitalisation for at-risk patients
Funnelled Brazil’s population into taking up experimental Lipid nano Particle Synthetic mRNA Genetic Instruction vaccines for which Pfizer the manufacturer forced your Government to accept the liability for the costs of eventual side effects of its “immunizer”
And your paper has had an influence around the globe where similar excess deaths are recorded in Countries hesitant to use Hydroxychloroquine in multi-drug protocols proven to be effective and in Countries that gave their citizens little or no choice but to take experimental Lipid nano Particle Synthetic mRNA Genetic Instruction vaccines from a manufacturer who would not supply unless they did not have to accept the liability for the costs of eventual side effects of its “immunizer”.
Many will say this work you carried out should haunt you for the rest of your days and every time you hear of a Covid-19 Spike protein related death (that is with/from Covid 19 infection or SARS-CoV-2 spike protein created from Genetic code in mRNA and adenovector DNA "vaccines").
Many will doubt you will ever be able to rest in peace
Watchful Eye