A military whistleblower, using the pseudonym “Daniel LeMay,” has released significant findings contained in the controversial “Remdesivir Papers,” which reveal that hundreds of U.S. military servicemen suffered severe injuries or even death during clinical trials of the antiviral drug originally developed to treat the Wuhan coronavirus (COVID-19).
According to the findings, the individuals who participated in these trials did not receive appropriate informed consent prior to being administered remdesivir, raising ethical concerns about the conduct of the experiments. The methodologies employed in testing the drug on military personnel have also been called into question, suggesting potential biases that could have influenced the outcomes.
The papers pose a staggering question: “Are U.S. military treatment facilities and others hiding, or manipulating, the deadly results of clinical trials and other data regarding this highly controversial drug purported to treat COVID-19?” This inquiry highlights the pressing need for transparency in medical research, especially when it involves life-threatening treatments.
In a dialogue featured in a segment of “Defender In-Depth,” Brad Miller engaged with Dr. Michael Nevradakis to dissect the intricate details and implications of the Remdesivir Papers, shedding light on a subject that has ignited considerable public concern.
Hydroxychloroquine is better than remdesivir
It has been acknowledged since the onset of the pandemic in March 2020 that remdesivir poses significant risks and does not deliver the efficacy that was originally promised. Gilead Sciences Inc., the pharmaceutical firm behind remdesivir, was led by the controversial Donald Rumsfeld, who served as Secretary of Defense under President George W. Bush.
During the pivotal period when Gilead was aggressively promoting remdesivir, influential figures like Dr. Anthony Fauci and former President Donald Trump were raising awareness about hydroxychloroquine, a treatment that has proven to be not only safer but more effective against COVID-19. Despite the superior profile of hydroxychloroquine, the significant financial interests tied to remdesivir have led to a preference for the latter within certain circles of power.
This ongoing debate has unfolded as a fierce battle between proponents of remdesivir and advocates of hydroxychloroquine, along with other safer treatment options.
The Remdesivir Papers elucidate that the campaign against hydroxychloroquine was not merely scientific but politically charged, involving defamatory statements and media distortions. A significant turning point occurred with the publication of a high-profile article in The Lancet on May 22, which relied on fraudulent data to discredit hydroxychloroquine’s efficacy. This paper claimed to analyze the outcomes of 96,032 hospitalized COVID-19 patients across 671 global hospitals, but the dataset was ultimately revealed to be fabricated, suggesting ulterior motives to undermine hydroxychloroquine for the benefit of Big Pharma.
Subsequent investigations unveiled that Brigham and Women’s Hospital, in collaboration with Harvard Medical School, was behind the now-retracted Lancet paper. Under intense scrutiny, Harvard professor Mandeep Mehra expressed regret for the lapse in verifying the integrity of the data enlisted for their study, stating, “I have always performed my research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines,” reflecting the heavy responsibility researchers bear in maintaining rigorous ethical standards.
The implications of the Remdesivir Papers go far beyond mere academic findings; they expose a convoluted narrative suggesting that remdesivir was leveraged for financial gain while effectively silencing discussions about viable treatments like hydroxychloroquine. As awareness of the true nature of remdesivir expands, the quest for accountability continues in the realm of public health and medical ethics.
The latest news regarding COVID-related misconduct can be accessed at Plague.info.
NaturalNews.com
Interview with Dr. Michael Nevradakis: Unpacking the “Remdesivir Papers”
Interviewer (Brad Miller): Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Nevradakis. The recent release of the “Remdesivir Papers” by the whistleblower known as Daniel LeMay has certainly raised eyebrows. Can you summarize the key findings regarding the clinical trials conducted on military personnel?
Dr. Michael Nevradakis: Thank you for having me, Brad. The “Remdesivir Papers” reveal alarming details about the clinical trials of remdesivir, particularly that many military servicemen experienced severe adverse effects and even fatalities. Crucially, these individuals reportedly did not provide informed consent, which raises serious ethical questions regarding the conduct of these trials.
Interviewer: That’s deeply concerning. The documents suggest potential hiding or manipulation of trial results. What implications does this have for transparency in medical research?
Dr. Nevradakis: It’s a stark call for accountability in medical research, especially when it involves life-threatening treatments. If the findings of these trials are being obscured or misrepresented, it undermines public trust in both the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare institutions. Transparency is vital for informed decision-making and for maintaining the integrity of medical science.
Interviewer: Shifting gears a bit, there is an ongoing debate regarding remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine. Can you elaborate on why hydroxychloroquine is being presented as a potentially safer alternative?
Dr. Nevradakis: Certainly. Hydroxychloroquine has been touted for its safety profile and has shown effectiveness in treating COVID-19. In contrast, remdesivir has not lived up to the promises made about its efficacy and has associated risks, particularly highlighted in the “Remdesivir Papers.” There are suggestions that financial motivations have contributed to the preferential promotion of remdesivir over hydroxychloroquine, despite the latter’s favorable characteristics.
Interviewer: There have been accusations that the campaign against hydroxychloroquine was politically charged. What evidence supports this claim?
Dr. Nevradakis: The evidence suggests there were attempts to discredit hydroxychloroquine through unfounded allegations, which could be viewed as politically motivated rather than based on a genuine evaluation of its therapeutic potential. The dialogue around these treatments often became polarized, clouded by both financial interests and political affiliations.
Interviewer: As we unpack these issues, what do you believe is the next step for both military personnel involved in the trials and the broader public?
Dr. Nevradakis: A thorough investigation is essential. Military personnel who were affected must receive appropriate support and attention. For the public, there should be a call for transparency and a re-evaluation of how clinical trials are conducted, particularly those involving vulnerable populations. It’s vital that we prioritize ethical standards and public health over profit.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Nevradakis, for your insights. This dialogue is critical as we strive to ensure safety and ethics in medical research.
Dr. Michael Nevradakis: Thank you, Brad. It’s essential to keep these conversations alive as we navigate these complex issues.
Interview with Dr. Michael Nevradakis: Unpacking the “Remdesivir Papers”
Interviewer (Brad Miller): Thank you for joining us today, Dr. Nevradakis. The recent release of the “Remdesivir Papers” by the whistleblower known as Daniel LeMay has certainly raised eyebrows. Can you summarize the key findings regarding the clinical trials conducted on military personnel?
Dr. Michael Nevradakis: Thank you for having me, Brad. The “Remdesivir Papers” reveal alarming details about the clinical trials of remdesivir, particularly that many military servicemen experienced severe adverse effects and even fatalities. Crucially, these individuals reportedly did not provide informed consent, which raises serious ethical questions regarding the conduct of these trials.
Interviewer: That’s deeply concerning. The documents suggest potential hiding or manipulation of trial results. What implications does this have for transparency in medical research?
Dr. Nevradakis: It’s a stark call for accountability in medical research, especially when it involves life-threatening treatments. If the findings of these trials are being obscured or misrepresented, it undermines public trust in both the pharmaceutical industry and healthcare institutions. Transparency is vital for informed decision-making and for maintaining the integrity of medical science.
Interviewer: Shifting gears a bit, there is an ongoing debate regarding remdesivir versus hydroxychloroquine. Can you elaborate on why hydroxychloroquine is being presented as a potentially safer alternative?
Dr. Nevradakis: Certainly. Hydroxychloroquine has been touted for its safety profile and has shown effectiveness in treating COVID-19. In contrast, remdesivir has not lived up to the promises made about its efficacy and has associated risks, particularly highlighted in the “Remdesivir Papers.” There are suggestions that financial motivations have contributed to the preferential promotion of remdesivir over hydroxychloroquine, despite the latter’s favorable characteristics.
Interviewer: There have been accusations that the campaign against hydroxychloroquine was politically charged. Can you shed some light on that?
Dr. Nevradakis: Yes, the campaign against hydroxychloroquine appears to have been influenced by more than just scientific debate. Allegations of media distortion and defamation suggest that this was a battle framed by financial interests, particularly from pharmaceutical companies promoting remdesivir. The case of the retracted Lancet paper underscores this, as it relied on fraudulent data to discredit hydroxychloroquine. This shows how powerful interests can manipulate narratives in public health.
Interviewer: With all that you’ve shared, what should be the next steps in addressing these issues?
Dr. Nevradakis: The immediate need is for an independent and thorough investigation into the findings presented in the “Remdesivir Papers.” We require a commitment to transparency and rigorous ethical standards in clinical trials. Public health authorities must be accountable to the people they serve, ensuring that medical decisions are truly in the best interest of patients rather than influenced by financial or political motivations.
Interviewer: Thank you, Dr. Nevradakis, for your insights on this crucial matter. This conversation raises significant concerns that demand the attention of both the public and our policymakers.
Dr. Nevradakis: Thank you for having me, Brad. It’s important that we keep these discussions alive as we navigate these challenging times.
