New Evidence Reveals Fauci Could Have Prevented THOUSANDS Of Deaths But Did NOTHING!

A year after the WHO declared the coronavirus a pandemic after originally downplaying the viral threat.

It is no secret that both the disease and the response to combat it following this SARS-CoV-2 outbreak in late 2019 have turned our world upside-down. Mandates, lockdowns, and guidelines seem to change every time Dr Fauci opens his mouth. All of these unprecedented rules were put into place, we were told, to stop the spread of a disease that today is linked to the death of over half a million Americans in just over a year.

Eric Junger, 81-years-old died in a nursing home due to COVID-19 that spread in the nursing home that he was staying. Eric was overweight, diabetic, and was suspected of having Parkinson’s Disease. Eric was in poor health and declining before the virus, he was the exact type of person you would want to protect from this virus that is lethal for seniors and less lethal than the seasonal flu with children and young adults.

The nursing home did not give any medications for coronavirus unless the patient starts to experience symptoms.

You would think that a disease that is a death sentence for the elderly, the obese, those with preexisting conditions, and that has forced children to avoid school, mask up, and get vaccinated would have certainly been faced with ramped-up research into prophylactic and therapeutic solutions since its arrival to the United States. One would think that after all this time there would be a consensus in the hospitals, in the nursing homes, and in other treatment centres on how to treat a Covid positive patient or resident. This is not the case.

There still is no agreed-upon treatment plan for elderly patients who catch coronavirus to assist in their recovery.

Cardiologist and Professor of Medicine Peter McCullough testified in Texas earlier this year. Dr McCullough sees COVID patients and says 85% of COVID patients given multi-drug treatment plan recover from the disease with complete immunity. McCullough added, “The pandemic could have been over by now, he says if those who tested positive for covid had been immediately treated before they fell ill enough to be hospitalized. He also says that thousands could have been, and still could be saved if the treatment protocol he and other physicians use were not suppressed.”

Dr Fauci and the CDC and WHO are suppressing his treatment and others.

And now a certain website tracks all of the international studies on hydroxychloroquine and its effects on the coronavirus.

There is now a new study and the results are SHOCKING!

Covid Analysis (Preprint) (meta-analysis – not included in study count)

HCQ for COVID-19: a real-time meta-analysis of 245 studies

• 100% of the 29 early treatment studies report a positive effect (13 statistically significant in isolation).

• Random effects meta-analysis with pooled effects using the most serious outcome reported shows 64% improvement for the 29 early treatment studies (RR 0.36 [0.25-0.50]). Results are similar after exclusion based sensitivity analysis: 66% (RR 0.34 [0.26-0.46]), and after restriction to 21 peer-reviewed studies: 65% (RR 0.35 [0.27-0.47]). Restricting to the 6 RCTs shows 46% improvement (RR 0.54 [0.33-0.86]). Restricting to the 13 mortality results shows 72% lower mortality (RR 0.28 [0.18-0.43]).

• Late treatment is less successful, with only 71% of the 166 studies reporting a positive effect. Very late-stage treatment is not effective and may be harmful, especially when using excessive dosages.

• The probability that an ineffective treatment generated results as positive as the 245 studies to date is estimated to be 1 in 1 quadrillion (p = 0.0000000000000008).

• 87% of Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) for early, PrEP, or PEP treatment report positive effects, the probability of this happening for an ineffective treatment is 0.0037.

• There is substantial evidence of bias towards publishing negative results.
85% of prospective studies report positive effects, and only 72% of retrospective studies do. Studies from North America are 3.4 times more likely to report negative results than studies from the rest of the world combined, p = 0.0000000066.

• Negative meta-analyses of HCQ generally choose a subset of trials, focusing on late treatment, especially trials with very late treatment and excessive dosages.

• While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection. Only 5% of HCQ studies show zero events in the treatment arm.

• Elimination of COVID-19 is a race against viral evolution. No treatment, vaccine, or intervention is 100% available and effective for all current and future variants. All practical, effective, and safe means should be used. Not doing so increases the risk of COVID-19 becoming endemic; and increases mortality, morbidity, and collateral damage.

• All data to reproduce this paper and the sources are in the appendix. See [Ladapo, Prodromos, Risch, Risch (B)] for other meta-analyses showing efficacy when HCQ is used early.

 Source: The Gateway Pundit