fbpx

1. The virology journal isn’t the official publication of the NIH. The NIH publishes its work here: publicaccess.NIH.gov

2. The NIH (yes, Dr. Fauci’s NIH) did not conduct, publish or fund the 2005 study mentioned here. The study was conducted and funded by Special Pathogens Brach, Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Laboratory of Biochemical Neuroendocrinology, Clinical Research Institute of Montreal you can verify that in the submission, found here:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/#__ffn_sectitle

3. This referenced study did show, that in a dish , the drug chloroquine stopped the infection of African green monkey kidney cells from becoming or continuing to be infected with the original SARS virus. So this study didn’t look at human cells, didn’t look at hydroxychloroquine and didn’t look at SARS-COV2. It looked at monkey kidneys, chloroquine and SARS. Interesting that people want to use it as proof for effectiveness on a different host, with a different drug, on a different virus.

4. This study decided to see if the same results could be replicated in human lung cells. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2575-3 you can probably guess from the title: “Chloroquine does not inhibit infection of human lung cells with SARS-CoV-2” , that the results were unable to be duplicated.

5. But just to make sure that living hosts didn’t change that, another study was conducted in mice. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/095632020601700505 and again, “chloroquine and amodiaquine, which have been suggested by many who have reviewed the field of SARS antiviral therapy to be promising antiviral agents for treating SARS, were not active in the mouse model. The anti-inflammatory agents such as the chloro- quines and PTX are therefore presumed not to be likely to be effective alone against a SARS infection.”

Beyond all of this, hydroxychloroqine was STILL, on a prayer, used robustly for the treatment and prevention of SARS-COV2 in humans all over the globe during the beginning of the pandemic with no good evidence to suggest that it played any role in mitigating the transmission or severity of disease. Study after study has shown that it, at best, probably doesn’t do anything at all, and at worst may cause harmful side effects. Studies continue to this day.

If a screenshot of an article starts out with two easily verifiable lies about the study in question, isn’t it worth asking why there is such a push to believe the basis of the overall claim (which is that hydroxychloroquine is a cure for COVID)? After all, why would you need to lie about the origin of a study if it’s ultimate result was relevant? I’ll answer that. The origin of the study is fabricated because it signals what the reader wants to believe; which is that the NIH and Dr. Fauci are conspiring to hide a treatment/cure from the American public, and once the reader desires to believe that, the rest of the article can claim whatever it wants to claim with the full support of the reader’s bias- and THAT is how we are influenced to believe false news.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this:
Close Bitnami banner
Bitnami