Questioning Fauci on remdesivir
One of the outrages of our time is that remdesivir for COVID-19 sailed through the approval process despite all the warning signs, leaving a trail of death. A further outrage is that while former COVID officials are falling all over themselves to put distance between themselves and the follow-the-science edicts now proved utterly false, remdesivir is still here. You can check out the current NIH remdesivir guidelines for the nonhospitalized and hospitalized, last updated February 29, 2024.
Anthony Fauci is scheduled to testify in a public hearing before the House Select Subcommittee on the Coronavirus Pandemic on June 3. While as of this writing the notes from Fauci’s previous closed-door testimony have not yet been released, the key takeaways from it do not mention remdesivir. While members of Congress are itching to nail Fauci on the well-known and well-worn COVID issues such as distancing, mask efficacy, gain-of-function funding, the proximal-origins narrative, oversold vaccines, and now possibly illegal use of a private email address to avoid FOIA embarrassment, I am asking the members to spend some time grilling him on remdesivir in the hope of getting it withdrawn pronto. Here are some questions to consider asking him:
1. The remdesivir trial for Ebola had such an alarmingly high rate of deaths and organ failure it had to be pulled mid-trial. Why did you expect a different outcome when used for COVID-19? In other words, why would high toxicity be unique to Ebola sufferers?
2. Why did you allow Gilead to change the trial’s endpoint from deaths to time to discharge in the middle of the trial when such practice violates clinical trial guidelines?
3. On April 29, 2020, the same day that the Lancet announced that a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multi-center, peer-reviewed study found remdesivir for COVID-19 ineffective in reducing either mortality or time to recovery, and the trial was stopped early due to 12% serious side effects for the treatment group as compared to 5% for placebo, you rushed over to the White House to announce that remdesivir showed a median time of recovery of 11 days for the treatment group as compared to 15 days for placebo, and therefore you’re unblinding and ending the Gilead study and making remdesivir the COVID “standard of care.” Same day. Was that just a coincidence?
4. On May 1, 2020, just two days later, the FDA granted emergency use authorization for remdesivir for COVID inpatients who need extra oxygen, apparently not taking into consideration the Lancet study. Did the FDA just rubberstamp everything you recommended?
5. Most of the members of the FDA panel voting for approval had competing interests, namely with the pharmaceutical industry. Is that in the best interests of our citizens?
6. Hospital nurses have attested that remdesivir was killing patients and that hospital officials knew that but didn’t want to lose the $3,000 reimbursement, as well as risk being blacklisted for not following public health policy guidelines. Do you have any comment?
7. Is remdesivir worth the risk of death and organ failure just to get discharged a few days earlier?
8. Do you still think remdesivir is safe and effective for COVID-19? Are there any safer alternatives?
9. Do you still maintain that generic therapeutics such as ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine are completely ineffective against COVID? How do you explain the numerous trials and data showing effectiveness for these drugs, including in crowded regions in India and elsewhere with poor medical care yet with much lower death rates than in the West? Why did you have to effectively ban these therapeutics instead of letting doctors prescribe them off-label as always and see how they work?
10. Did you personally gain financially in any way due to remdesivir EUA and approval? If yes, what was your remuneration?
11. Your track record through the years, whether it’s AZT for HIV or vaccines and remdesivir for COVID-19, was to ban cheap generic therapeutics in favor of Big Pharma drugs that often didn’t live up to their billing. Why is that?
12. Do you have any remorse for the unnecessary COVID deaths caused by remdesivir toxicity?
13. Do you have any remorse for the unnecessary COVID deaths caused by restricted access to ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine?
14. Now that COVID variants are milder and with lower death rates, shouldn’t remdesivir be withdrawn immediately because the risk-reward ratio has shifted unfavorably against remdesivir?
15. Do you expect remdesivir to be recommended by NIH for the next coronavirus pandemic?
Unlike the other officials, I don’t expect Fauci to admit anything or show any remorse. But there is value in pinning him down in case contrary evidence arises later, and the exposure might help in getting remdesivir withdrawn.
W.A. Eliot is a pseudonym
<img alt captext="Defense Visual Information Distribution Service” src=”https://conspiracyresource.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/06/questioning-fauci-on-remdesivir.jpg” width=”450″>
Image: Defense Visual Information Distribution Service
