COVID 19 – Is it a “conspiracy” to claim that we are being denied effective treatments?

Statement by Prof Perronne: “There are serious studies that show that if you take vitamin D, you halve the risk of mortality from Covid. There are studies that show that people who are zinc deficient die more.”

Efficacy of Hydroxychloroquine, Ivermectin and Artemisia

Live: Pr Perronne also confirms the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin and even the plant Artemisia Annua.

The journalist Pascal Praud is dumbfounded:

“But what would be the interest of a government to plunge us (into containment) – that’s what I don’t understand!”

Robert Menard, on the set, adds:

“I don’t mind criticising the power, but i think there’s no conspiracy – If it would be simple to treat, I suppose we would have been told!”

We understand their reaction.

If there are effective treatments for Covid-19, why shouldn’t they be recommended by the authorities?

That’s the killer question!

And it needs to be answered.

Take ivermectin: thanks to more than 20 randomized studies, we know with certainty that this molecule has a very high efficacy against Covid-19 – in prevention, early treatment and in hospital [1].

And yet, in recent weeks:

  • The European Medicines Authority (EMA) has advised against this drug (“available data do not support its use for Covid-19 outside of clinical trials”);
  • The World Health Organization (WHO) concluded that the evidence of efficacy was “inconclusive” and advised against its use outside clinical trials;
  • And the French Medicines Agency (ANSM) has refused to grant ivermectin a “temporary recommendation for use”, considering that “a favorable benefit/risk cannot be assumed”.

This is all the more astonishing since the risk of ivermectin is zero: there is strictly no serious risk at the recommended doses, which is very rare for a drug.

Unlike the AstraZeneca vaccine, for example (which killed a healthy medical student, among others), ivermectin does not cause any serious side effects. We know this with certainty, thanks to thirty years of experience and several billion doses prescribed, including to children and the elderly.

So there is no risk in trying it (risk = 0), and more than 20 randomized studies that show that ivermectin reduces viral load, avoids hospitalizations and saves lives (benefit = +++). [2]

And we are not even talking about its use in India, Zimbabwe or Mexico, where ivermectin has shown impressive results on hospitalizations and mortality.

There is NO Scientific Consensus

But if all this is true…

…it would mean that the ANSM, the EMA and the WHO are either fools or great criminals. Because if this were true, these agencies would be advising against a life-saving treatment. For most people, this is a bit hard to swallow.

How can we believe – unless we are “conspiracy theorists” – that the great experts of the ANSM or the WHO could be wrong… or deceive us so much? I will try to answer this central question, with several arguments.

First, it is important to understand that Prof. Perronne is not isolated, far from it.

First argument: do not believe in the pseudo “scientific consensus”.

When one is not a professional, it is normal to believe that the Drug Agencies or the World Health Organization embody the “scientific consensus”.

But this is not the case.

They only reflect the opinion of a small group of scientists, who are themselves under enormous pressure from political and financial influences.

At the same time, there are many independent scientists and physicians around the world who support ivermectin, such as:

  • The FLCCC Alliance in the United States, led by Dr. Kory, testified last December to the outstanding efficacy of ivermectin before the US Senate [3] ;
  • The BIRD group in Great Britain, led by Dr. Tess Lawrie, published a 105-page expert report in favor of ivermectin[4] ;
  • Dr. Andrew Hill, a consultant to the World Health Organization, conducted a review of studies concluding that there was a probable 75% reduction in mortality [5];
  • In Japan, the Tokyo Medical Association publicly recommended the drug [6], followed by the Nobel Prize winner who discovered ivermectin.
  • In France, it is the courageous Dr. Gérard Maudrux who has written a relentless synthesis of all the evidence for the efficacy of ivermectin [7].

We should also mention the thousands of physicians in the field who have been convinced by the published studies and prescribe ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine on a daily basis – such as the physicians of the “Laissons les médecins prescrire” network in France.

And then there are several states that officially recommend ivermectin for Covid-19, including the Czech Republic and Slovakia.

Do not believe that there is a “scientific consensus” against hydroxychloroquine, ivermectin or vitamin D: the appearance of consensus is fabricated!

It is simple: doctors and scientists in favor of early treatment are censored.

Censored by the Order of Physicians, which has formally forbidden doctors to speak openly about it.

Remember Dr. Erbstein, a general practitioner in the East of France, who had successfully treated his patients with azithromycin, zinc and an anticoagulant – as soon as he spoke about his results in the press, the Order of Physicians called him and said: “You do what you want, but you don’t say anything”.

He was then sued by the Order of Physicians and risks being struck off the roll… just like Professor Raoult and 10 other doctors who dared to talk about treatments that work.

In short, don’t be surprised that there are not more doctors who defend these treatments on television: they risk losing their livelihood if they do so! Only when you are close to retirement, with your career behind you (and a good dose of courage!), like Pr Perronne or Dr Maudrux, can you dare to express yourself publicly and freely!

In addition to all this, there is the censorship of the media

It is the journalist Pascal Praud who recognized it:

“I invited you, Pr Perronne, I’ll tell you why: you will not be invited anywhere, in fact. The public service will not invite you. You are considered as a conspiracy theorist, as politically incorrect, as a mal-pensant, etc.” [8]

And this is how a pseudo-consensus is “manufactured”, by inviting on TV and radio only doctors who hold the same views. Like Professor Karine Lacombe, who thinks that “vitamin D is useless”. After hearing her on TV, people think that her opinion represents the scientific consensus.

In reality, the French learned societies are fighting among themselves on vitamin D.

On the one hand, you have the Académie de Médecine itself, and 6 learned societies that are clamoring for the use of vitamin D in the prevention and treatment of Covid-19. [9]

And on the other hand, you have the High Council for Public Health, which issues a report explaining – against all evidence – that vitamin D and zinc are useless. [10]

Then the media pretend that these disagreements do not exist.

They have even managed to discredit, in the eyes of many people, the greatest French expert on infectious diseases, Prof. Didier Raoult!

However, Prof. Raoult has the advantage of having made an immense career without the slightest link with Big Pharma… which makes him a “rare bird” in the profession.

Luckily, this free spirit is also the head of a world-renowned independent research institute (the IHU in Marseille), from which he cannot be “fired” – unlike Prof. Perronne who lost his position as head of department at the Garches hospital.

And to top it all off, Prof. Raoult has his own media, his YouTube channel, on which he can say whatever he wants, in complete independence.

In one of his recent videos, he perfectly explained the current problem:

“There has been a war waged against old drugs. We have a situation that has become completely fantastical: the best known drugs in the world, the least toxic drugs in the world have been deemed to be dangerous poisons – hydroxychloroquine before, and now ivermectin.”

Why? Because, says Prof. Raoult:

“The use of old drugs that cost nothing does not fit into the perspective of programmed obsolescence – that is to say, of wanting at all costs that old molecules are obsolete, so that we pay a lot of money for new drugs.”

He adds, as if to forestall an “easy” objection:

“I don’t know if it’s “conspiracy” to identify that there are networks of lobbies that are absolutely keen to prevent the prescription of drugs that provide relief and cost nothing.”

Once again, do not believe that Professor Raoult is “alone against all”.

Thanks to a survey carried out by the Quotidien du Médecin, we have learned that the majority of French doctors have strongly disapproved of Minister Olivier Véran’s decisions on hydroxychloroquine.[11]

And with good reason: a large retrospective Iranian study, conducted on nearly 30,000 Sars-Cov-2 positive patients, has just provided new evidence of the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine.[12]

In this study, hydroxychloroquine given as early treatment:

  • Reduced the risk of hospitalization by 38% ;
  • And reduced mortality by a significant 73%.

But the authorities and the media have managed to make people believe that Professor Raoult was isolated, the last of the Mohicans to defend his “magic potion”, whereas more than 200 scientific studies carried out by researchers from all over the world have shown its effectiveness in early treatment.[13]

Good day to all!


Xavier BAZIN – Magazine Santé corps esprit