April 24, 2020

Many of the same shadowy organizations that pay people to promote male erectile dysfunction drugs via spam and hacked websites recently have enjoyed a surge in demand for medicines used to fight malaria, lupus and arthritis, thanks largely to unfounded suggestions that these therapies can help combat the COVID-19 pandemic.

A review of the sales figures from some of the top pharmacy affiliate programs suggests sales of drugs containing hydroxychloroquine rivaled that of their primary product — generic Viagra and Cialis — and that this as-yet-unproven Coronavirus treatment accounted for as much as 25 to 30 percent of all sales over the past month.

A Google Trends graph depicting the incidence of Web searches for “chloroquine” over the past 90 days.

KrebsOnSecurity reviewed a number of the most popular online pharmacy enterprises, in part by turning to some of the same accounts at these invite-only affiliate programs I relied upon for researching my 2014 book, Spam Nation: The Inside Story of Organized Cybercrime, from Global Epidemic to Your Front Door.

Many of these affiliate programs — going by names such as EvaPharmacy, Rx-Partners and Mailien/Alientarget — have been around for more than a decade, and were major, early catalysts for the creation of large-scale botnets and malicious software designed to enslave computers for the sending of junk email.

Their products do not require a prescription, are largely sourced directly from pharmaceutical production facilities in India and China, and are shipped via international parcel post to customers around the world.

In mid-March, two influential figures — President Trump and Tesla CEO Elon Muskbegan suggesting that hydroxychloroquine should be more strongly considered as a treatment for COVID-19.

The pharmacy affiliate programs immediately took notice of a major moneymaking opportunity, noting that keyword searches for terms related to chloroquine suddenly were many times more popular than for the other mainstays of their business.

“Everyone is hysterical,” wrote one member of the Russian language affiliate forum gofuckbiz[.]com on Mar. 17. “Time to make extra money. Do any [pharmacy affiliate] programs sell drugs for Coronavirus or flu?”

The larger affiliate programs quickly pounced on the opportunity, which turned out to be a major — albeit short-lived — moneymaker. Below is a screenshot of the overall product sales statistics for the previous 30 days from all affiliates of PharmCash. As we can see, Aralen — a chloroquine drug used to treat and prevent malaria — was the third biggest seller behind Viagra and Cialis.

Recent 30-day sales figures from the pharmacy affiliate program PharmCash.

In mid-March, the affiliate program Rx-Partners saw a huge spike in demand for Aralen and other drugs containing chloroquine phosphate, and began encouraging affiliates to promote a new set of product teasers targeting people anxiously seeking remedies for COVID-19.

Their main promotion page — still online at about-coronavirus2019[.]com — touts the potential of Aralen, generic hydroxychloroquine, and generic Kaletra/Lopinavir, a drug used to treat HIV/AIDS.

An ad promoting various unproven remedies for COVID-19, from the pharmacy affiliate program Rx-Partners.

On Mar. 18, a manager for Rx-Partners said that like PharmCash, drugs which included chloroquine phosphate had already risen to the top of sales for non-erectile dysfunction drugs across the program.

But the boost in sales from the global chloroquine frenzy would be short-lived. Demand for chloroquine phosphate became so acute worldwide that India — the world’s largest producer of hydroxychloroquine — announced it would ban exports of the drug. On Mar. 25, India also began shutting down its major international shipping ports, leaving the pharmacy affiliate programs scrambling to source their products from other countries.

A Mar. 31 message to affiliates working with the Union Pharm program, noting that supplies of Aralen had dried up due to the shipping closures in India.

India recently said it would resume exports of the drug, and judging from recent posts at the aforementioned affiliate site gofuckbiz[.]com, denizens of various pharmacy affiliate programs are anxiously awaiting news of exactly when shipments of chloroquine drugs will continue.

“As soon as India opens and starts mail, then we will start everything, so get ready,” wrote one of Rx-Partners’ senior recruiters. “I am sure that there will still be demand for pills.”

Global demand for these pills, combined with India’s recent ban on exports, have conspired to create shortages of the drug for patients who rely on it to treat chronic autoimmune diseases, including lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

While hydroxychloroquine has long been considered a relatively safe drug, some people have been so anxious to secure their own stash of the drug that they’ve turned to unorthodox sources.

On March 19, Fox News ran a story about how demand for hydroxychloroquine had driven up prices on eBay for bottles of chloroquine phosphate designed for removing parasites from fish tanks. A week later, an Arizona man died and his wife was hospitalized after the couple ingested one such fish tank product in hopes of girding their immune systems against the Coronavirus.

Despite many claims that hydroxychloroquine can be effective at fighting COVID-19, there is little real data showing how it benefits patients stricken with the disease. The largest test of the drug’s efficacy against Coronavirus showed no benefit in a large analysis of its use in U.S. veterans hospitals. On the contrary, there were more deaths among those given hydroxychloroquine versus standard care, researchers reported.

In an advisory released today, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) cautioned against use of hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine for COVID-19 outside of the hospital setting or a clinical trial due to risk of heart rhythm problems.

117 thoughts on “Unproven Coronavirus Therapy Proves Cash Cow for Shadow Pharmacies

  1. AI-Age

    In these days of AI saturation and smart devices, there is nothing but the truth on the net as things are repeated millions times.

    1. JimV

      Just as “might” does NOT equate to “right” (i.e. ‘correct’), repetition alone does not equate to any degree of real validity whatsoever.

  2. dcm

    Use of Hydroxychloroquine requires concomitant use of Zinc. Apparently, Hydroxychloroquine is an ionophore for Zinc, and it’s Zinc that stops the virus replication in the cell.
    That VA study did NOT use any Zinc, and so was flawed from the beginning. The correct conclusion is that Hydroxychloroquine alone isn’t sufficient. Essentially, the study demonstrated a treatment failure mode, not a success mode. And I’m pretty sure there are lots of ways to fail when treating this virus, so this isn’t big news especially since we ALREADY KNOW that Zinc is required. Whoever designed this study is ignorant, possibly stupid, or has an agenda. Maybe all three?
    Time to move on, nothing to see here…
    And I completely agree with AI-Age’s comment.

    1. BvR

      Can you point to a medical journal pointing out that zinc was needed? Or iron? Or Vit C?

      1. Quid

        There will be no Phase 1 to 3 double-blind placebo studies for drug treatments for a new disease (Covid-19) in the short term. Such studies typically take 10+ years.

        So do we just wait for such, frozen with analysis paralysis?

        Typically doctors would use the best available data, including the the success or failure of others.

        First do no harm, then proceed.

        The video below explains why Zinc and chloroquine may work as treatment of COVID-19.


        1. Joe

          Compassionate Use programs are always available to doctors. They aren’t bothering, because these treatments aren’t even that promising.

          Doctors don’t have to wait years to prescribe an experimental treatment… but they do usually wait until something positive is shown AND independently validated.
          HCQ has not, so doctors aren’t really gonna prescribe it, even though they can.

        2. Ginger

          If testing on Hydroxychloriquine and Zinc takes 10 years then the testing should have results by now since they started testing it during SARS 15 years ago !!

      2. Mark Giles

        Zinc and Hydrochloroquin https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4182877/
        In short it is not the chloroquin that is the cure. In simple terms it merely acts as a gateway to allow human cells to be penetrated by Zinc, which is the curative element.

        Any hospital that uses the chloroquin as a cure has not read the science.

      3. Mark Giles


        Hydroxychloroquin or chloroquin acts as the gateway to allow zinc into the cells. The zinc is the curative agent.
        Any treatment that uses hydroxychloroquin or chloroquin as the curative treatment without also administering zinc is demonstrating medical incompetence.

  3. qka

    From your screenshot – #9 Zithromax is another name for azithromycin, an antibiotic that has been mentioned as a possible treatment, particularly in conjunction with hydroxychloroquine, by Trump and his sycophants.

    1. Chip Douglas

      So much for computer security…

      “Despite many claims that hydroxychloroquine can be effective at fighting COVID-19, there is little real data showing how it benefits patients stricken with the disease.”
      How about a testimonial from a doctor who says he prescribed it and it works in combination with other therapies because of its ability to allow zinc (A known antiviral) to penetrate cell walls?
      I agree with dem above.


      1. Diane

        Chip: A single doctor’s note is not science, or proof of any efficacy. It’s anecdotal, and by itself it doesn’t add anything we can rely on toward finding that proof. There are real, randomized and controlled studies going on right to find out, but we just don’t know, and no amount of the president’s constant harping on hydroxychloroquine as some kind of miracle cure is going to help that along. It’s irresponsible and dangerous.

        1. Chip Douglas

          I understand, but the fact remains that it is being prescribed around the world and people are adamant that the drug saved their lives. The doctor is merely giving his learned opinion that that is what made the difference in his patients lives, and they agree. You can call them liars if you want but that does not change the results of his treatment plan.
          Now, because we don’t have a FDA proven drug yet should we allow thousands of people to die because ‘science’ has not caught up with the factual results that this drug is effective? Essentially that is what you are saying.

          1. Joe

            That’s exactly why anecdotal evidence is NOT SCIENCE. Especially if the vast majority would get better on their own. There is no way to derive evidence of a cure, from anecdotes of “getting better after X”, when 80% of people would recover without anything.
            That is why REAL studies are the only valid evidence.

            Many medical doctors are not practicing research, not for many years. They are in the field, where things get very muddy, and the anecdotes of their patients have no bearing on the public at large.

            Immunologists are the experts, not your family practitioner. It’s like a garage mechanic trying to design a car. No, talk to an actual engineer.

        2. Quid


          Look up “off label” use for drugs. It’s a thing.

        1. Chip Douglas

          Your article is a rehash and a distraction of what the naysayers have been saying from the beginning. It does not change the fact that this drug is effective and has been used since the 50’s safely. It has no more risks associated with it than modern drugs – many of which have more risks but they are used anyway.
          This is all political. If you were dying with no hope you would be begging for this therapy instead of showing me FDA studies that show it might cause “heart rhythm problems”.

        2. Quid

          @David S.

          Look up how many problems are associated with aspirin and other OTC NSAIDs, including organ damage, ulcers, and other complications.

          Shouldn’t those all be banned?

          1. Joe

            Severity and probability matter. Having taken this stuff before, for malaria… I can attest that the side effects are sever and most of my company experienced them. A few had suicidal thoughts and depression.

          2. Joe

            Also, “banned” is a ridiculous straw man argument. How do you go from “cautioned against use” to “banned”?

    2. Chip Douglas

      Antibiotics don’t work against a virus but they do work for some secondary complications brought on by the virus, which is why they are prescribed together.

      1. qka

        I was hoping to just add context to why Zithromax was generating enough traffic to appear on the list Brian included in his article.

  4. Richard Thalhammer

    One doctor’s anecdotal letter is not scientific evidence of a Covid-19 therapy. If you rely on that kind of story, why not just take the President’s word. He always tells you the truth.

    1. Chip Douglas

      Why not take the word of the doctor AND his patients that were dying before being treated with this therapy?
      If you were dying I believe you would want to try it as opposed to waiting on the glacial speed of science to come up with an approved drug before you expired. But then again, maybe not.

      1. Joe

        Because most family practitioners, ER doctors, and your local urgent care physicians… ARE NOT “researchers”. They have their own patients and their anecdotes. They should never, never prescribe a theoretical treatment for other people they have not personally seen.

        The vast majority of people recover without any treatment. This means that anecdotes of “was dying” and “now recovered”… is completely unscientific. These doctors don’t know what is happening and their guessing is going to harm others.

        1. Chip Douglas

          ““was dying” and “now recovered”… is completely unscientific.”
          This is a no-brainer. If continuing to die instead of trying remedies that worked with other patients I will take my chance. If you were honest I believe you would too. No one’s life should be held hostage by bureaucrats that don’t approve of a drug if there is no reasonable alternative.
          When you are about to die with no other real possibilities of recovery I think trying this therapy is quite reasonable and that is what has happened in many cases successfully.

          1. Joe

            “Compassionate Use or Expanded Access is the use of an unapproved drug or medical device under special forms of investigational new drug applications (IND) or IDE application for devices, outside of a clinical trial, by people with serious or life-threatening conditions who do not meet the enrollment criteria for the clinical trial in progress”
            This is something I do believe is a good thing to have, yes of course.

            But the huge difference here is… these are people who are “self medicating” and are not diagnosed as “dying” by a doctor. These people want to buy the stuff themselves and use experimental treatments without going through the medical process. This whole article is about “Shadow Pharmacies”.

            The couple who listened to Trump and Fox News about chloroquine (he died, she was hospitalized)… they were NOT “dying”.
            Even when COVID-19 symptoms get severe… it’s not the same as “dying”, as the vast majority will recover.

            So compassionate use isn’t for the masses. It is for the very, very few who absolutely have no other choice, because they have tried everything else. And the people buying this stuff on the Internet are not being diagnosed as “dying” by any medical professional.. just their own fear.

            1. Chip Douglas

              I am not advocating for treating yourself or buying from dodgy online pharmacies, only that if the status quo is not working you be given the option to try something that is, even if the entire medical community is not in agreement. After all, its your life at stake not some power trip mad bureaucrat.
              About that guy that drank fish tank cleaner…

              1. Joe

                Then you agree with Brian Krebs on the core theme of this article… which is about shadow pharmacies and letting the masses have access to dangerous drugs without doctors or any medical professionals involved in determining need.

                Trump’s power trip is going on 4 years now…. and it doesn’t make sense that the wife would be investigated for murder, after all, she took the same dose. So maybe involuntary manslaughter at best.

                Also, I don’t follow politicalhotwire, which seems to be some kind of open source “news” where anyone can anonymously write articles. That’s not credible… so as far as I know, the reality is the opposite of what you are quoting. I did notice it links to a Free Beacon article, a far right opinion rag. I would not trust it as a source either. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-free-beacon/

                1. Chip Douglas

                  I don’t see that as the main theme of the article at all. I see it as most of his writings, scammers and computer security but this one seemed to be punctuated with a political side to it.

                  Trump is not on a power trip. He is the president of the United States elected to reverse the actions of the communist community organizer before him. As for the investigation, maybe she didn’t take the same dose but said she did. I will wait on the conclusion before forming an opinion but she was a long time democrat, so…

                  I don’t follow politicalhotwire either but there were many links to choose from with the same info so I tried to pick something random so as not to appear political but I see that did not go unpunished. Apparently you feel the same way about the Free Beacon that I feel about ALL of the MSM.

                  1. BrianKrebs Post author

                    Punctuated with a political side? The story was not about Trump. It was about spammers and what people are buying from them lately. It mentioned Trump and Elon Musk as examples of high-profile people who have been touting the drug as an explanation of why so many people may be seeking it. It was a statement of fact. How is that political?

                    1. Chip Douglas

                      It was not necessary for the story. Being that everything turns political almost immediately anymore it was like throwing gas on a smoldering fire. Hydroxychloroquine has become political because the president advocated using it. Immediately the opposition formed on the opposite side of the political spectrum. I may share some blame but the vast majority of comments have nothing to do with the security side of the article even though that was the intended theme.

                    2. Joe

                      Yes, when a politician in power with no scientific reasoning, advocates for a specific drug…. he made it political.
                      If it were an objectively good recommendation, it would have come from one of the many institutions of medical science… and not a politician.

                      It was the politician (Trump) who politicized this treatment.

                  2. Joe

                    The executive branch is a co-equal branch sharing power with 2 others. Being president doesn’t give him absolute/total power, regardless of what your Führer tells you. So yes, he can and does go on a power trip. It should have clued you in when he fired Pelosi (in his mind).

                    She was hospitalized, and sent to the ICU. Its not based on her word… she was just as critical as her husband before he died.

                    This is the problem with “picking at random” for news. It is random from your curated and preselected group. You are in your own echo chamber and wouldn’t even know how to spot objective news stories.

                    “Arizona cops deny investigating death of man who drank fish tank cleaner as homicide” “Mesa Police Department: Reports that Mesa chloroquine phosphate death is homicide investigation are ‘not true'”.
                    “Please do not confuse this fact with what is currently being reported that this case is now a homicide investigation.”
                    – Detective Jason Flam, Mesa Police Department

                    I would not trust Freebeacon to be accurate in research when they emphasize that they are democrats or how much (if) they donated. All these claims come from Freebeacon… and they know it would be months, if ever, before someone corrects the record. By then, you will simply forget about being wrong…. just like you didn’t think critically about the politicalhotwire claim, and took it at face value. Remember, they aren’t required to print retractions, or even acknowledge when they make mistakes. So the propaganda spreads and the damage is done by the time the truth is known.

                    1. Chip Douglas

                      So I’m in my own echo chamber? Have you considered that you are completely conditioned to believe everything you are being spoonfed by your preferred “news sources”? You really should. I believe the correct term for your brand of news consumption would be “useful idiot”.

                      If you read the Free Beacon article you know that their reporter interviewed the woman that survived. The police department decided to contact the reporter and ask for a transcript of the interview which they did and she provided. It is an investigation that could turn into an indictment. After all they are not reviewing this interview for their health. Perhaps they had doubts originally but not enough to pursue at the time.

                      I like the Free Beacon. They report on things your preferred news sources decide is not worthy of attention. Typically stories they don’t cover have a downside for democrats and their party. Are you not interested in all the news or just what makes you smile politically?

                    2. Joe

                      Of course I am not immune to selection bias and I do have preferred sources of news. But I make sure I perform due diligence in news provider selection, check their record for previous bias using mediabiasfactcheck, and always get objective confirmation from multiple sources. It’s pretty easy to confirm something just by checking multiple websites. Learn about lateral reading.

                      Now think about how you get your news. All of your sources cite back to a single source without independent confirmation.
                      Now read the article critically. Yes there was an interview, but all of the claims and conjecture about political donations were not confirmed or even discussed in the interview. It’s very possible that Wanda denied making those donations, and FreeBeacon editors cut out that part.
                      Confidence in their editorial integrity is shattered when the Police Department officially denies their claim.
                      The police had to clarify that homicide detectives are notified as normal protocol… even though there is no homicide investigation.
                      FreeBeacon was told over the phone by some admin person that they’re investigating it ( probably to put that reporters mind at ease that they are doing something .

    2. Quid


      Look up “off label use” for medications. It existed BT (Before Trump)

  5. Brian Fiori (AKA The Dean)

    So, fake pharmacies using the Internet to market and sell unproven/bogus/possibly dangerous cures isn’t an Internet security issue?

    I can quickly think of at least two kinds of posters who would make this argument:

    Those sent/influenced by some group to post comments further confusing the public. (There are several groups committed to this and it isn’t too hard to figure out the likely source of many of these.)

    Scammers themselves. Krebs always attracts various miscreants and ne’er do wells, who defend their RIGHT to con and swindle unsuspecting rubes.

    I’m guessing there are others posting this nonsense, too.

    1. Chip Douglas

      So you think it is important for the computer security aspect of the article to reference the president, the drug being unrecognized as a treatment and a goofball in Arizona who drank fish tank cleaner thinking it was the same thing?

      Let me refer you to poster dcm above. He has already said it much better than I.

      1. Brian Fiori (AKA The Dean)

        Yes I do.

        It’s just an example of much of the bunk that is being passed along at these sites. No reason to be upset, one way or another, about WHO made the nonsense suggestion. I suppose pointing out that it ISN’T a good idea to inject household disinfectants, is somehow political too?

        Do you think Krebs wouldn’t have used that as an example if Nancy Pelosi said it? If so, where is your evidence?

        This is about science and medicine. Anecdotal reports don’t have much of a place in the discussion. At best, they are “food for thought and further research”. But it’s clear there aren’t many scientists among the posters who think this is “political”.

        1. Chip Douglas

          Naming famous people is not necessary to report on the computer security side of this article unless they are the perpetrators of the scam. In the hyper-political world we live in this presents a problem and is perceived as a stealth political comment. The comment section here prove what I am saying. No one has anything to say about the computer security angle, NOT ONE. The comments are about the the drug, the president and the opinionated backstory of why this became a thing. Your last comment about injecting household disinfectants demonstrates that very well. No one seriously believes anyone was suggesting you inject household disinfectants, but that has become “the news”. The media is supposed to be unbiased and report hard news but they focus on gotcha’ questions and comments they can misrepresent in their zeal to take-down a politician they don’t like.

        2. Chip Doublas

          One more thing Brian
          Ask yourself why there is so much resistance to using a drug that has saved people around the world when they had no hope for anything else. It is almost like they want people to die. This is what’s going on in NYC as of Saturday the 25th.


          1. AJ

            Chip, are you defending the drug because you’re convinced of its efficacy, or are you defending it because you’re a Trump supporter? Unless you’re medical doctor or biochemist, I strongly suspect the latter.

            Read the article again, but this time remove all references to Trump and hydroxychloroquine and tell me which part do you object to?

            You Trump supporters always become blinded by rage when someone even remotely suggests your dear leader may have made a mistake. Do you also rant on articles about spammers selling viagra in defence of viagra? I bet you would if Trump had recommended it.

            1. Chip Douglas

              As many times as I have seen the media go off half cocked about anything related to the president I can no longer trust them for the unvarnished truth, but lest you think that is the real reason I will tell you that I know of a man locally that gives the credit for his life to his doctor (just a plain old dumb MD) who asked him if he wanted to try this therapy because he was dying and they had nothing left to offer him. If this is a free country that is the way it should be. My life, my choice as the abortion promoters like to say. The difference is, the “choice people” are taking a life instead of saving one and they are denying their unborn child that same choice they advocate.
              Just to be clear, there are many leftist loons that get far more tore up than Trump supporters and a good percentage of them appear as reporters on channels that claim they report the news.

              1. Joe

                I doubt you ever trusted the news media. You were likely always suspicious. And just like any cult following, very eager to jump on the bandwagon of dismantling the institution of a free press, just as soon as a maniac came to power and started to call them “fake news” for even the most basic of criticism.

                Now, you get your “news” from bloggers without any journalism credential, and from people who don’t even pretend to be objective. So it is funny and sad that all that distrust of the media, made you run into the arms of even less trustworthy people. But I suppose that is the point of anti-journalist propaganda, to get blind followers.

                Also, I really don’t believe anecdotes from people with such obvious agendas. I don’t think you “know of a man”. And anecdotal stories are almost always exaggerated, so I also doubt “he was dying”.

                But where I agree, is that medical choices (whether COVID or pregnancy) is between patients and their doctors. So I think its good that a local doctor could prescribe hydrochloroquine for COVID-19 if they really are out of options. Nobody is stopping “compassionate use” though, so I don’t know what you are upset about.

                1. Chip Douglas

                  I’m all for a free press but not for a press with a political agenda. You are free to think what you want of course but you don’t know me, at all. I read what the MSM says and I also read what other lesser known but every bit as much journalists say. The idea that CNN, MSNBC and the like are not biased is ridiculous. They bill themselves as journalists presenting the news and then pepper it throughout with their nasty opinions. The agenda is obvious with the MSM and they are the ones telling you that the lesser known journalists are not to be trusted. You seem like an intelligent guy and yet you have let yourself be taken in by these people.

                  I took politics in stride for a long time knowing things would balance out because politics was about compromise, that is until Obama was elected and I saw the media fawn all over this “clean black man” (Joe Biden’s words not mine) There was no compromise by Obama and the media loved it and I knew something had changed. The country put up with 4 years of the community organizer that just about destroyed the country. Then the country elected Trump and the media reversed their love for the president to act as the propaganda arm of the democratic party. The press had been conquered and no longer was interested in truth but shilled almost constantly for democrats. Trump didn’t like it and called them out. Not only did the press not change the error of their ways but they got even more aggressive throwing away what little respect they had left. I believe the alliance democrats have with the press may come to the surface shortly as Obama’s FBI is about to be exposed for their dirty tricks and the leaking to the press concerning Michael Flynn. Stay tuned. You won’t want to miss this.

                  I do indeed know of this man I mentioned. There was an article in my local paper where he gave his story but it does not matter to me whether you believe me or not.

                  As far as compassionate use we are in agreement then, but unfortunately many on here are not and are speaking against it. Abortion is legalized murder and their is no excuse for killing another human being.

                  1. Joe

                    You are confusing free speech with free press. It would be fine if these bloggers with absolutely no journalistic credential, were to present themselves as just citizens with opinions. But no, they put on a show and act like journalists. They are not “every bit as much journalists” just be they tell you they are credible and work for a network. Most news networks bill themselves as political opinion, editorial and entertainment most of the time, and have shrinking hard news departments. This is most prevalent in Fox News as real journalists there are far and few between… and still leaving.

                    There are a few real journalists among them and you can see their credentials. They are usually the ones that don’t have a TV “personality” and often bounce between many networks/papers even between conservative and liberal organizations.

                    Enough with the straw man. Nobody is claiming CNN and MSNBC aren’t biased. I don’t even watch them. But your argument is ridiculous because you label them as MainStream Media, yet you consume Fox News and don’t label them as such. The right has their mainstream as well. It may present itself more as a lot more talk radio, websites, and fewer TV networks… but it is mainstream to you. The radio and internet are mainstream now.

                    It’s not that you are listening to “lesser known” journalists. They are not journalists at all.
                    Actually read their biographies. They don’t have journalism degrees or anything equivalent. Of course they would argue they don’t need a formal education/training to be a journalist, with some generalized definition… but that is BS. The schools of journalism teach the ethics they lack. It’s not all about gathering information, but honest and objective reporting.
                    They’ve completely trashed the integrity of journalism to be so inclusive, anyone with a green screen and a desk can fake it now.

                    The real tragedy is that these non-journalist have been promoting this anti-journalism propaganda, and you’ve been eating it up. They do this because it serves their own interest, as it elevates their own influence and power to dismantle the institution of real journalism.

                    Your “Blame Obama” rant is a reflection of your blind bias. Since you support Trump and oppose Obama… how you perceive media coverage merely reflects on you. “just about destroyed” is subjective to your own political alignment.
                    Moderates near the center see plenty of compromise, while those on the left saw Obama as nowhere near as liberal as they wanted.

                    History will filter out a lot of the partisan nonsense from both sides. And I think will show Trump’s legacy as a significant negative stain on American culture. Much worse than Clinton and a bit worse than Nixon. Obama might wind up being the equivalent to Reagan for liberals. Reagan had his scandals too. History judges him kindly though.

                    Link to the newspaper article? It is always convenient to make anecdotal claims when nobody can check.

                    You are misreading a lot of what people are saying here… in order to craft a straw man argument. So you’ll have to quote someone specifically.

                    Just as the very real medical condition of “dying” is up to the doctor to define before prescribing a compassionate use drug… whether an embryo or fetus is classified as a “human being” should also be up to the medical professionals.

                    Curious, as you claim to be a libertarian, do you consider capitol punishment to be “legalized murder”? What about Euthanasia? Is that “legalized murder”.
                    My point is that reality has lots of gray area…. and I am glad I don’t have to make such choices. And it should be trained medical professionals that make such determinations, not the state.

                    1. Chip Douglas

                      I agree with some of what you’re saying but certainly not all. You seem to have a skepticism gene but it leans left with a bit of naiveté thrown in. Do you really believe your news sources are above reproach? Because they have “credentials” you believe they are unimpeachable sources? The next thing you will tell me is their reporting can not be influenced by money or raw power. Even worse, if they are straight arrows but those above them are corrupt and tell them they will report as they are told or lose their job, they decide to keep their job!
                      Ever heard of Sharyl Attkisson? https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/cbs-news-reporter-sharyl-attkisson-745982
                      How about Amy Robach? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjwf9F_v5cI
                      Did you forget these reporters? They were actually trying to get the truth out and were told NO by your professional, credentialed and trained journalists who control the content mere mortals are allowed to view. How about James Rosen? https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2017/05/24/james_rosen_new_evidence_obamas_nsa_conducted_illegal_searches.html Sharyl Attkisson had to quit and get her own show to publish the truth and then youtube decided to try and silence her. https://twitchy.com/brettt-3136/2015/12/14/youtube-suspends-investigative-reporter-sharyl-attkissons-full-measure-news/? Why do you suppose that is?
                      The fix is in and has been for a long time but you don’t see that.

                    2. Joe

                      No, have not heard of these people because I don’t believe someone is credible just because they are antiestablishment.
                      People can claim they are being suppressed all they like, it does not make them credible.

                      There is a fine line between healthy skepticism and a conspiratorial mindset. You, and many on the right are conspiracy theory nuts because conspiracy theories scratch an itch in your ego. It’s a psychological reward system that makes you feel good that you know something that most people don’t understand. Of course it’s not based in reality, it’s all in your own head.

                      I don’t trust a single new source. I always perform lateral reading in order to get consensus and objectivity as best I can. Yes, reporters do have agendas and can often go astray. That is why there are editorial review processes to service checks and balances.

                      Of course, when you throw the baby out with the bathwater as you have. You completely go in the opposite direction of integrity and objectivity. now, you follow news media with absolutely no intent or premise of objectivity. No editorial checks and balances, and no fact checking.
                      Vecause maybe 2% of legitimate journalists have become bad apples, you decided to burn the entire barrel down and start eating rotten bananas.

                    3. Chip Douglas

                      “You are confusing free speech with free press. ”

                      I don’t think I am, but even if I were does that mean I have to take the word of someone with a degree for what constitutes an authentic journalist? There are many people in IT that work rings around the guys with degrees because they are not only smart but talented. They didn’t take the typical route to a career in IT but are hired anyway because they can do the job. The same is true of journalism. Your argument is an elitist attitude that means nothing. If you add to that the checkered past of the MSM media it smacks of an agenda and not a legitimate reason to discount other news sources.
                      Here is a fun article you will enjoy, from a democrat no less and what her party did to her after the fact.

                    4. Joe

                      You think you are clever, using MSN link aggregator to disquise your Fox News article. The same Mainstream Fox News media that you subscribe to while pretending they are not MSM and doesn’t “smack of an agenda”. Really?

                      I did read it critically. No mention of a doctor verifying any claim. I don’t care who the person is, democrat or republican. Science and evidence doesn’t care either. There was no evidence that this person would have “died without it”, which completely invalidates the whole claim.

                      Journalism is way more important to democracy than IT. IT fields don’t typically require formal education mostly because the industry moves so fast, that a degree would be obsolete by graduation. There are, on the other hand, certifications, that are valuable credentials, and do a much better job at keeping up. And yes, in IT, certifications are often required. Journalism doesn’t change every 6 months like IT… so a degree is still the best way to know that someone was properly educated in objective and rational thinking as well as ethics.
                      Valid experience is also appreciated in IT. Someone “could” be a rock star, but they need prior work to show it objectively. Nobody is simply taking their word for it, that they are as good as they say.

                      But your “independent journalists” have nothing of the sort. No history of working for accredited institutions of journalism, no certification, no degree. They don’t study ethics and all the other facets of journalism that distinguish them from just another person with a microphone and an opinion.

          2. Joe

            You are confused about this drug and its history.
            It has not been used around the world whenever there is an outbreak of some new virus that has no vaccine or treatment. It is a drug that has a very specific purpose for specific diseases. I’ve taken it as an anti-malarial… and it does mess you up pretty badly.

            There is no scientific proof that it would even help for COVID-19, just some evidence for, and evidence against. The only thing everyone agrees on, is that further study is warranted.

            It is not like there is no risk to letting people just try it. There are cardiopulmonary risks as well as the possibility of making COVID-19 worse.

            1. Chip Douglas

              Again, if nothing else has worked give the patient the option if only because it has worked for others. It is the patients life at stake. I have yet to see a story that said this drug therapy killed a Covid19 patient or even made them worse so this is a distraction from the truth.

              1. AJ

                You’re wrong about there being no cases where chloroquine made things worse. In US they tested the drug on vets and the group who received it had higher mortality rate of COVID-19 than the group who didn’t. Now of course the sample size are small, but the chance of any existing drugs being effective here were slim to none to begin with.

                Also worth noting here is that Trump administration and his minions at FOX already stopped advertising the drug. Even they got the news that it simply doesn’t work.

                1. Chip Douglas

                  “the sample size are small, but the chance of any existing drugs being effective here were slim to none to begin with.”

                  You said that well. This is the same argument being used by those that want to ban the use of the drug because there have not been extensive medical trials and studies on Covid 19 patients. There is no proof that the drug was responsible for making them worse and it could be that they were beyond help at that point or something else. Stalemate.
                  Concerning FOX: You are making an assumption here. That information has already completed the news cycle and it never was about promoting it but reporting it. “News” changes everyday. Now we wait for further information on the effectiveness of this and 70 other drugs in testing stages.

                  1. AJ

                    “That information has already completed the news cycle and it never was about promoting it but reporting it.”

                    I don’t buy that for one moment. If there really was known effective drug against the virus, it should be news of the day every day until this damn thing has been eradicated. The sudden change in their tone has everything to do with the fact that the supposed miracle drug doesn’t really seem to be doing anything.

                    There have been multiple trials done on hydroxychloroquine and the bulk of them failed to show any benefits. Add the possible negative side effects and that’s why FDA is now warning against use of the drug.

                    For how long should they keep on trying this ineffective drug? Until it produces results that pleases certain political party? That’s not how drugs work and you should probably stop taking medical advice from politicians.

                    1. Chip Douglas

                      The only thing I can tell you is maybe there is an agenda here we don’t understand. The reluctance to use this drug makes no sense considering how deadly it is, especially for the older population. The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons agrees with me.
                      So now what do you say?

                    2. BrianKrebs Post author

                      I couldn’t recall where I’d heard that organization name before, so I Googled it. Seems more like an ultra-conservative lobbying group than a group of doctors or scientists.


                      “Opposes abortion, opposes Medicare and Medicaid, opposes universal health care, and opposes government involvement in health care.

                      The AAPS opposes gun control and does not recognize handgun violence as a public health problem. Instead, the AAPS insists that handguns save lives, and that gun research sponsored by the CDC is politically motivated “junk science”.

                      Articles and commentaries published in the journal have argued a number of non-mainstream or scientifically discredited claims,[1] including:

                      that human activity has not contributed to climate change, and that global warming will be beneficial and thus is not a cause for concern.[30][31]
                      that HIV does not cause AIDS.[32]
                      that the “gay male lifestyle” shortens life expectancy by 20 years.[33]
                      that there is a link between abortion and the risk of breast cancer.[7]
                      that there are possible links between autism and vaccinations.[7]
                      that government efforts to encourage smoking cessation and emphasize the addictiveness of nicotine are misguided

                      A series of articles by anti-abortion authors published in the journal argued for a link between abortion and breast cancer.[35][36] Such a link has been rejected by the scientific community, including the U.S. National Cancer Institute,[37] the American Cancer Society,[38] and the World Health Organization,[39] among other major medical bodies.[40]

                      A 2003 paper published in the journal, claiming that vaccination was harmful, was criticized for poor methodology, lack of scientific rigor, and outright errors by the World Health Organization[41] and the American Academy of Pediatrics.[42] A National Public Radio piece mentioned inaccurate information published in the Journal and said: “The journal itself is not considered a leading publication, as it’s put out by an advocacy group that opposes most government involvement in medical care.”[43]

                      The Journal has also published articles advocating politically and socially conservative policy positions, including:

                      that the Food and Drug Administration and Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are unconstitutional;[44]
                      that “humanists” have conspired to replace the “creation religion of Jehovah” with evolution;[45]
                      that “anchor babies” are valuable to undocumented immigrants, particularly if the babies are disabled.[1]

                    3. AJ

                      “The only thing I can tell you is maybe there is an agenda here we don’t understand.”

                      “So now what do you say?”

                      I’d say AAPS has an agenda which we both understand just fine. Only you won’t see it as a problem because you already agree with their agenda.

                      The last thing I’ll say on this subject is: if you decide to inject/ingest something you see on TV, at least get a second opinion from your doctor before doing it.

            2. Chip Douglas

              Joe you have revealed yourself now and it is not about the integrity of the news but about whether it serves your political views.
              You say you have never heard of Sharyl Atkinson or Amy Robach? Sharyl Attkisson is a former award winning investigative journalist for CBS and Amy Robach still works at ABC. You have your filter bubble locked down tight if you are not familiar with these reporters. What they have in common is both women were investigative reporters who uncovered crimes that incriminate powerful people who are democrats.
              Then you tell me you always check mediabiasfactcheck. That is laughable. Why don’t you do some research on them instead of swallow the political agenda they are putting out? You really need to take the blinders off and stop submerging yourself in propaganda.

              1. Joe

                It was pretty obvious that you were trying to deflect by mentioning specific reporters as if I am supposed to know the ones you follow. It is a good thing that I am not following specific people like you are doing. Also, Mediabiasfactcheck does not rate individual reporters, but sites.

                It is very revealing that you didn’t hear about these reporters or even care, until you perceived them to be attacking your political enemies. You don’t appear to be looking for objective journalism at all… but looking for sensational stories and strife among your political opponents.

                Keep in mind, I did not ask about the many conservative reporters who similarly turned against the GOP at Fox News. Why? Who cares? Reporters sometimes switch alliances or find themselves becoming more ideologically opposed to the networks that employ them. It happens on both sides when networks at least try to hire political viewpoints on both sides, and people sometimes get jaded and become more polarized wondering why their network isn’t covering the stories they want to cover.

                That is why your accusations of me not knowing specific reporters that you deem heroes, falls flat. The whole point that you need to learn, is that objective/lateral reading is about NOT following these individual people or websites that align to your viewpoint… but rather reading multiple REAL sources of journalism to get the truth.

                1. Chip Douglas

                  I don’t ‘follow’ anyone. On the other hand when you do your “lateral reading” and they all share the same script that is a useless exercise, but you wouldn’t know the difference because of your confirmation bias. I’m sure you probably have not heard the following but then your news sources don’t report anything that reflect badly on themselves or democrats.

                  1. Joe

                    Spare me the conspiracy theory of some grand liberal takeover of the media. You consume mainstream media too, it just happens to be right wing conservative media. You sound like you’re just repeating Alex Jones.
                    And yes, you do follow people. You follow Trump like a lap dog which suppresses any free thought you might have had. You also follow FreeBeacon and probably Breibart too. You cannot deny it, because your words and your conspiracy theories have clear origins.

                    1. Chip Douglas

                      You know very little of what you accuse me of and you are just projecting what you are in fact guilty of. I read many news stories from independent sources as well as FOX, interspersed with NBC, ABC, and CBS “news” EVERY evening. You are the junkie hooked on left wing propaganda disguised as news and one day you may realize that but probably not. You enjoy your confirmation bias too much to challenge the status quo. There are many people who are attempting to get the truth out but the large established MSM has such a choke hold on the influence it is difficult for the less established sources to get a toe hold. The one large media organization going against the grain (FOX) has trounced the ratings of your sources for years. This is an indication that your sources are no longer trusted to provide unbiased information but are in fact acting as the propaganda arm of the democrat party. There is hope for the country but you just continue lapping up the liberal slop as always. You are not required to participate in truth.

                    2. Chip Douglas

                      I know your mind is made up but try to be objective and watch the following video. Don’t blow this off as a “vast right wing conspiracy”. Watch it first and expose yourself to the truth from a talented scientist. This was removed from youtube almost immediately and was posted to google docs but you can’t watch it there either. I would give you a link to a media source of your liking except they censor anything like this. You have to wonder why in the land of the free how it is that they have become the gatekeepers of speech they disagree with…

                  2. Joe

                    Wow… you really are blindly following Trump aren’t you. Right down to your attempted “I know you are, but what am I” rhetoric.

                    It is trivially easy for anyone to read the comments here, and see that it is YOU, not I, posting references to far right media. And I, not you, who first pointed out the bias of your media sources. Look at the comments, what link to media outlets do you see that I posted? You can’t even see one, because I told you, I don’t follow any single source. You on the other hand… quote directly from right wing media sources and ultra conservative special interest groups. And it was your bias and lack of objective thought, that started this whole thread. And only now, do you try to turn it on me. Laughable.
                    But like Trump, you can only think of clever accusations against others, if you yourself are guilty of that very thing. He does this quite often.

                    Your “independent” sources are not journalists. They are bloggers with no expertise or authority to even speak about anything. They are opinionated talking heads, nothing more. And I proved their lack of journalistic integrity from the very first article you posted from FreeBeacon. You don’t watch NBC, ABC or CBS looking for news…. You watch clips that are edited and frame them as the “enemy”. That is not lateral consumption of news media. You already dismiss real journalists as some left wing conspiracy. I bet if I pressed you, I could get you to start on some antisemitic rant about how they control the media. There is always a bit of racism in your kind of conspiracy theory.

                    Fox News “ratings”. “This is an indication that your sources are no longer trusted”. Yeah, because so many people are ideologically manipulated into distrusting the media. It is no indication of how truthful other sources have been. People want get news that tells them what they want to hear. Fox News tells them exactly what they want to hear… regardless of the truth. Their ratings are a great point that you make for my argument. That right wing media is more about invoking an emotion and entertainment, than journalism.

                    And their rating contradict your point, that Fox News is not mainstream. It proves that they are mainstream. Your conspiratorial mindset thrives and can only exists as contrarian. You have to think of yourself as some repressed minority, fighting some larger power… or else your grand conspiracy falls apart. Well, you are part of a mainstream too… so how do you like that cognitive dissonance?

  6. TheOtherguy

    Connecting the dots… Big Pharma pays affiliate programs, spammers take advantage of those programs, and make $$$s. Big Pharma collects more $$$$$$$s.

    That about sum it up ? or am I misreading the article

  7. Steve

    What the heck is “Kamagra Oral Jelly”? Asking for a friend…

    1. Dan

      Steve — I’ll explain it to you (or your “friend”) when you’re a little older!

  8. The Sunshine State

    I wouldn’t trust anybody from India , they lack morals .

    1. Northerner

      Racist much? There are very smart engineers/managers/people in general of Indian descent! Just a few that make the stereotype from massive call centers/scams.

    2. JCitizen

      I wouldn’t trust anybody who relies on spam to preach the efficacy of so called wonder cures! ….TFTFY

    3. Brian Fiori (AKA The Dean)

      Seriously? That really is horrible bigotry. I know many trustworthy people from India or of Indian heritage.

  9. NaN

    Bleach and captured ultraviolet rays in a bottle could be the next top seller. Go USA! (*not lol)

    1. Tin Sell Town

      only after you’ve mummified yourself with toilet paper. so THAT’S the reason behind the whole TP hoarding. It’s ancient egypt worship all over again.

  10. Dennis

    Hey, I guess it’s a bad sign when your medication comes from Russia that is ordered from gofuckbiz-dot-com.

    Man, I can’t stop being amazed by people’s stupidity.

  11. p

    Take real info from the guy(s) who perfected the treatment with hydroxychloroquine + azithromyzine:

    Didier Raoult in Marseille and his team:

    A lot if it is in french, but there is enough info in english to get real data from these good men.

    Like the treatment protocols, data and responses to slander and scientific fraud.

    Some people treat without respecting the protocols and precautions and then claim loudly it would’t work, others are even more dishonest.

    1. Kevin

      Looks like they confirm that Didier Raoult does NOT recommend hydroxychloroquine + azithromyzine for treatment of COVID-19

      1. p

        I don’t know what you read, but the opposite is true. Raoult et al. perfected the treatment and definitely recommends it as the best treatment available. He also talked about other treatments in his videos (in french) and the papers they publish. Especially this one:
        Find more of them here:
        You can also find his twitter account:
        There is more, like videos (in french), etc.

        1. Kevin

          Read the actual study of this “single-center non-randomized trial”

          Do NOT jump to such a far reaching conclusion that there is a recommendation to use it for actual treatment.

          The conclusion is that more study is needed…. which the medical community does agree with.

          “While this study has been criticized for methodology and statistics and notably the lack of size estimates, a secondary analysis has been performed by an external non-related expert(5). The conclusion of this second statistical analysis was that the study does NOT provide sufficient evidence to support any effect of hydroxy-chloroquine monotherapy for treatment in COVID-19 and larger randomized studies should be considered.”

          Further… taking these studies as evidence to begin treatment… is EXTREMELY DANGEROUS.

          “The authors concluded that the addition of azithromycin may induce cardiovascular mortality, potentially due to synergistic effect on QT prolongation. These conclusions should be taken with caution. First, the prevalence of acute respiratory disease appeared higher in hydroxy-chloroquine + azithromycin group suggesting that patient were more exposed to cardiac events related to respiratory disease.”

          1. p

            You can’t do a double blind randomized study during an ongoing epidemic.
            That’s impossible and unethical.
            If only you actually read what Raoult is publishing, you’d have understood that.

            Instead of commenting, based on a blindfolded read, with unrelated, unethical propaganda, probably based on mere theories from people not actually doing medicine on patients!

            Theorists and mathematicians are not the same as medical doctors treating real patients and doing what they can to save lifes.

            1. Kevin

              I understand we can’t do a double-blind right now. But their own conclusions call for larger random studies, which ARE ethical and possible.

              I actually read it, and am quoting directly:
              Authors: Guillaume Hache1, Pharm D. Jean Marc Rolain PharmD. Philippe Gautret, MD. Jean-Claude Deharo, MD. Philippe Brouqui, MD. Didier Raoult, MD. Stéphane Honoré, PharmD.

              Raoult’s words on twitter are NOT the consensus of the paper that he has co-authored.
              So do NOT fall for the logical fallacy of taking his twitter statements as the same credibility.
              Read the actual scientific paper, and ONLY the scientific paper (stop reading twitter). And even then, make sure you understand that there is a peer review process and that conclusions must be independently verified.
              The conclusions of the study did NOT suggest treating COVID-19 with hydroxy-chloroquine monotherapy. Just that more study was needed. Duh.

              Epidemiologists are medical scientists (not theorists or mathematicians) and have more credibility to speak on the bigger picture, than many doctors in the field who don’t have any data besides the patients they have directly seen.

              I’d take statistics over anecdote any day. Doctors in the field have plenty of anecdotes, are overworked and they only spend a couple of minutes with each patient. They are in positions to save lives by dealing directly with the fatal symptoms of the disease. But cures do NOT come from these field doctors. They come from doctors who haven’t been in the field in years, and work in labs.

              1. Chip Douglas

                Mark twain is given credit for the quote, ‘There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics’

                A wise man will take those statistics with a healthy dose of skepticism.

                Those anecdotes are looking better all the time…

                1. Joe

                  Haha… that is funny.

                  You use a quote from a fiction writer with a fake name, not a scientist, to argue against science and to advocate for the “truthiness” of informal storytelling.

                  Statistics alone is subject to abuse, yes. But anecdote is completely devoid of science.
                  The scientific method at least involves real statistical modeling. While no application of the scientific method relies on anecdote.

                    1. Joe

                      Statistics alone is subject to abuse, yes. But anecdote is completely devoid of science.
                      The scientific method at least involves real statistical modeling. While no application of the scientific method relies on anecdote.

                      Yes, you can lie with statistics,… which is why scientific papers don’t just summarize their statistical analysis. They go through their math and qualify each statement and conclusion. It’s also why there is a peer-reviewed process to call out any abuse of statistical models.

                      Yet, you worship anecdotes as if they were equivalent to real numbers. They are so much worse because not only are they abused to falsify the truth, but they have absolutely no scientific worth at all.

  12. lake

    The most brilliant and selfless among us are wrong while the charlatans and money grubbers are right?
    One would need a good conspiracy theory to back up that notion.

  13. AC

    Grifters gonna grift. Thank you for exposing them, Brian.

  14. lake

    I forgot to mention that there is a good summary of the current research on treatments for covid. There are quite a few actively being studied. Find Soares, Christine on Reuters.

  15. Chip Douglas

    There was no reply button so I’ll post here.
    I agree with you that the AAPS opposes may things liberals support, but nobody has refuted the statistics on their link that I left you. They demonstrate that Hydroxychloroquine is a very effective therapy for Covid 19 in several other countries that are not playing politics with people’s lives. Being that is the case I guess you have no good reasons for opposing it except it has not undergone 18 months of testing and Trump promoted it?

    1. Joe

      If they have good scientific claims… They need to publish papers that can be peer reviewed. Not on blogs or on websites that only their political supporters would see.
      What are they hiding?

      1. Chip Douglas

        Maybe this is what you are looking for – published in 2005.
        The Virology Journal – the official publication of Dr. Fauci’s National Institute of Health published an article on August 22, 2005, under the heading – “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread.” The researchers said, “We report…that chloroquine has strong antiviral effects on SARS-CoV infection of primate cells. These inhibitory effects are observed when the cells are treated with the drug either before or after exposure to the virus, suggesting both prophylactic and therapeutic advantage.”
        So HCQ functions as both a cure and a vaccine. In other words, it’s a wonder drug for coronavirus. Dr. Fauci’s NIH in 2005 said “concentrations of 10 μM completely abolished SARS-CoV infection.” Fauci’s researchers add, “chloroquine can effectively reduce the establishment of infection and spread of SARS-CoV.”
        This means Dr. Fauci has known for 15 years that chloroquine and it’s even milder derivative hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) will not only treat a current case of coronavirus (“therapeutic”) but prevent future cases (“prophylactic”).

        Dr. Didier Raoult, the Anthony Fauci of France, had such spectacular success using HCQ to treat victims of SARS-CoV-2 that he said way back on February 25 that “it’s game over” for coronavirus.
        He and a team of researchers reported that the use of HCQ administered with both azithromycin and zinc cured 79 of 80 patients with only “rare and minor” adverse events. “In conclusion,” these researchers write, “we confirm the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine associated with azithromycin in the treatment of COVID-19 and its potential effectiveness in the early impairment of contagiousness.”

        The highly-publicized VA study that purported to show HCQ was ineffective showed nothing of the sort. HCQ wasn’t administered until the patients were virtually on their deathbeds when research indicates it should be prescribed as soon as symptoms are apparent. Plus, HCQ was administered without azithromycin and zinc, which form the cocktail that makes it supremely effective. At-risk individuals need to receive the HCQ cocktail at the first sign of symptoms.
        But Governor Andrew Cuomo banned the use of HCQ in the entire state of New York on March 6, the Democrat governors of Nevada and Michigan soon followed suit, and by March 28 the whole country was under incarceration-in-place.
        On March 23, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko reported that he had treated around 500 coronavirus patients with HCQ and had seen an astonishing 100% success rate. That’s not the “anecdotal” evidence Dr. Fauci sneers at, but actual results with real patients in clinical settings.
        “Since last Thursday, my team has treated approximately 350 patients in Kiryas Joel and another 150 patients in other areas of New York with the above regimen. Of this group and the information provided to me by affiliated medical teams, we have had ZERO deaths, ZERO hospitalizations, and ZERO intubations. In addition, I have not heard of any negative side effects other than approximately 10% of patients with temporary nausea and diarrhea.”
        Said Dr. Zelenko:
        “If you scale this nationally, the economy will rebound much quicker. The country will open again. And let me tell you a very important point. This treatment costs about $20. That’s very important because you can scale that nationally. If every treatment costs $20,000, that’s not so good.
        All I’m doing is repurposing old, available drugs which we know their safety profiles, and using them in a unique combination in an outpatient setting.”
        While the regressive health care establishment wants the HCQ cocktail to only be administered late in the course of the infection, from a medical standpoint, this is stupid. Said one doctor, “As a physician, this baffles me. I can’t think of a single infectious condition — bacterial, fungal, or viral — where the best medical treatment is to delay the use of an anti-bacterial, anti-fungal, or anti-viral until the infection is far advanced.”
        So why has Dr. Fauci minimized and dismissed HCQ instead of pushing this thing? He didn’t even launch clinical trials of HCQ until April 9, by which time 33,000 people had died.
        This may be why: “Chloroquine, a relatively safe, effective and cheap drug used for treating many human diseases…is effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV.” That’s the problem. It is safe, inexpensive, and it works – in other words, there’s nothing sexy or avant-garde about HCQ. It’s been around since 1934.
        It should not be overlooked that there is no money in HCQ for Big Pharma since HCQ is a generic that can be manufactured so cheaply there is little profit margin in it. On the other hand, the payday for a vaccine will literally be off-the-charts. The latest new drug RENDESAVIR is $1,000/ pill and had some limited success (reduced hospital stay) in a percentage of those where it was administered.
        Back on February 15 Dr. Fauci said that the risk from Coronavirus was “minuscule.” How many lives could have been saved if the heads of our multi-billion dollar health care bureaucracy had been advocating for HCQ treatment from day one?

        We are being lied to by Dr. Fauci, Your preferred media sources, and the Democrat party.

        1. Chip Douglas

          The National Institute of Health in connection with the SARS outbreak – caused by a coronavirus dubbed SARS- CoV researched chloroquine and concluded that it was effective at stopping the SARS coronavirus in its tracks. The COVID-19 bug is likewise a coronavirus, labeled SARS-CoV-2. While not exactly the same virus as SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.

          1. Joe

            Stop trying to confuse people. SARS is VERY different from what we are dealing with now.
            The common cold is also caused by a coronavirus. The small differences are actually huge. Stop trying to conflate the two.

            1. Chip Douglas

              No I’m not and no it isn’t.
              SARS-CoV-1, it is genetically related to it, and shares 79% of its genome, as the name SARS-CoV-2 implies. They both use the same host cell receptor, which is what viruses use to gain entry to the cell and infect the victim.
              That is why it is VERY effective against Covid 19 if given EARLY before the patient is beyond hope. That only finishes people off.
              Your problem is you refuse to admit you are wrong which you are consistently.

              1. Joe

                Humans share more genetic code with cows than these 2 viruses. Why are you so impressed with 79%? That is a very low number.
                Also, these two viruses do NOT use the same host cell receptors. If they did, we’d already have antibodies. They have the same “type” of receptors. But that is like saying we both have Kwikset keys on our keychain… the key may even slide it, but it won’t turn. With proteins, it has orders of magnitude more permutations, so its not even close.

                You still haven’t answered the question…
                Why hasn’t Hydrochloroquine cured the original SARS? That outbreak wasn’t stopped with a cure, it burned out. So why didn’t HC save the day, like you claim it can for this new coronavirus?
                “If given early enough” is translation for, “no way to prove it works because the vast majority will recover equally well and fast without any treatment.”

                You have been proven wrong multiple times here. And caught in several lies already. Your conspiracy theories are dangerous to the public, and so are your web links.

        2. Joe

          This paper was ONLY about the SARS virus, not the novel coronavirus we are facing today. Why wasn’t “hydroxychloroquine” prescribed and described as a “cure” back in 2005? Was that a conspiracy too?

          You are still repeating fake news.
          Nobody is “banning” this drug.
          You are literally parroting “Keep America great Trump Pence 2020” propaganda.

          Again, Dr. Didier Raoult’s twitter account is not official medical science. So quoting twitter doesn’t matter to anyone. The actual paper he co-authored, has been commented on here already. The conclusion of that paper is that more study is needed, and NOT that HCQ should be prescribed to all COVID-19 patients.

          Your comment on Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, is literally the definition of anecdote. That is not a clinical study. Just because it took place in a hospital or clinic, does NOT make it a scientific study.

          The single fact that you are still saying that HCQ is “banned”, is enough to suspect that all of your quotes, citations and interpretations are faulty and that the reality is probably the exact opposite.

          1. Chip Douglas

            Banned mayb a poor choice of words but the fact is democrats states are making it difficult to be used and I have posted that information in another response to you.

            1. Joe

              You cannot wave off calling it a “ban” as a “poor choice of words”.
              Words have meaning and words matter.

              You outright lie and try to manipulate using words that are flat out wrong. You’ve been caught in several lies already.

        3. Joe

          Also, your conspiracy theory around Dr. Fauci is being revealed in your claim that Fauci had anything to do with the study you are citing, which is CDC and Clinical Research Institute of Montreal… not NIH.

          With such deliberately misleading comments… do you really expect anyone to believe you?

          What is your c theory that explains why hydroxychloroquine was not called a miracle cure for SARS back in 2005?? Some 15 year conspiracy?

          Could it be that hydroxychloroquine isn’t a miracle cure and that its use as an antiviral treatment is spotty at best.

          1. Chip Douglas

            SARS was a thing for awhile but didn’t take off like Covid 19 did here. According to NHS/UK There have been 2 self-limiting SARS outbreaks, which resulted in a highly contagious and potentially life-threatening form of pneumonia. Both happened between 2002 and 2004.
            Since 2004, there have not been any known cases of SARS reported anywhere in the world.
            During the period of infection, there were 8,098 reported cases of SARS and 774 deaths.

            1. Joe

              And yet, why wasn’t hydroxychloroquine called a cure in 2005? It was touted in papers, just as today. Why wasn’t it heralded as a miracle? Do you think this grand conspiracy to suppress the drug goes back to 2005?

              1. Chip Douglas

                According to the report it was heralded as a cure. If you read what I posted MORE CAREFULLY there were only 2 events and it was self limiting and there have not been any cases since.

                1. Joe

                  Umm.. the report makes absolutely no mention hydroxychloroquine for SARS.

                  What are you talking about?
                  And please, no links to fake/spoofed websites. The last one was NOT the real levant news website, and VT shows it was linked to phishing.

        1. Joe

          This video has been extremely successful at promoting misinformation for three reasons: First, it taps into people’s uncertainty, anxiety and need for answers—common reasons anyone is attracted to a conspiracy theory. Second, it is packaged very professionally and uses common conventions people already associate with factual documentaries. Third, it successfully exploits ancient but extremely effective methods of persuasion.

          Uncertainty is uncomfortable. People want answers. Conspiracy theories can be comforting. This video appears to provide answers that fit together, that seem to make sense, that sound credible, or at least “interesting and worth considering.” (That’s the hook. Next is the line.)

          The video looks, sounds and feels like a documentary even though it isn’t

          Plandemic is part of a disturbingly successful trend in which deep-pocketed purveyors of pseudoscience produce slick, professional videos as credible-appearing documentaries. The lighting, narrative structure, the pacing, use of imagery, camera angles, editing techniques—these are all common documentary filmmaking conventions that we’ve come to associate with factual information.

          The people producing this video know what they’re doing, and they’re very good at it. On a subconscious level, no matter what words are being said, this video feels factual simply because of how it was produced. It’s intentionally manipulative. It’s a textbook example of effective propaganda. (That’s the line. Next is the sinker.)

          This video successfully employs “pathos” and “ethos” to persuade people.

          The video doesn’t make a scientific argument or mention COVID-19 yet—the only purpose of the first 8-10 minutes is get the audience to trust Mikovits. The problem is that most people will not have heard of Mikovits before this video. This is their first impression of her, and first impressions are very powerful. When people later hear she is anti-vaccine and that she falsified data, it will be harder for them to believe it. They already know she was accused of those things, but she and the interviewer convincingly make the case that she was innocent and framed. The filmmakers have so strongly invested in ethos that it will be hard for someone watching Mikovits for the first time to disregard their first impression of her as a wronged woman.

          Pathos is an appeal to emotion. The video appeals to viewers’ emotions by portraying Mikovits as a victimized underdog and by repeatedly using stock video of harrowing images, such as patients dying from AIDS and malnourished children in Africa. The video claims people are dying because they cannot get the appropriate treatments they need, appealing to viewers’ sense of injustice. The video even uses stock images of a SWAT team arrest to make it look like she was arrested in a major operation—but that’s stock footage unrelated to her arrest. It’s true she was arrested Nov. 18, 2011 and spent four days in jail, but there is no evidence it involved SWAT, and she makes her time in jail sound much longer. In a separate incident, Mikovits turned herself in.

          Logos is an appeal to facts and logic. This is where the film falls flat—but it doesn’t matter to many people because it so successfully uses ethos and pathos. For logos, the film takes intuitive ideas or those with a kernel of truth to them, and it twists them and amplifies them into exaggerated, false claims that sound reasonable because they’re familiar. (The claim that staying home will weaken our immune systems without enough exposure to microbes is false, but it sounds reasonable because it builds on the hygiene hypothesis, which does have evidence.)

          Instead of reasoned arguments with supportive evidence, the film uses a common debating strategy called the gish gallop. This technique overwhelms the audience with so many assertions and arguments at one time, without regard to how strong or true they are, that it’s impossible to keep up with them or refute them all. It’s usually pointless to try because it’s the nonstop bombardment of statements coming at you that makes it effective. (This is partly why debunking this video isn’t a productive use of time.)

          The video also uses images of sciencey things—labs, cells, scientific experiments, pictures of studies—to substitute for logos. They look credible and factual whether they actually support the argument or not.

          Hook, line, and sinker.

          Conspiracy theories like those in this video are actively, directly harmful and dangerous. They can influence people’s behavior in ways that harm those people and public health—including you personally—in general. We can’t afford to let these ideas run unchecked.

  16. Chip Douglas

    Hi Brian.
    There was no reply button for your post. As I told AJ, the AAPS does oppose many things liberals support but nobody is refuting their information demonstrating that Hydroxychloroquine works well in other countries. Do you have something else I’m unaware of?

    1. Joe

      How do you know that nobody is refuting their claims???
      Because they haven’t posted rebuttals on their website?
      Where is their peer reviewed paper? Oh, they didn’t want peer review? Why? What are they hiding?

      1. Chip Douglas

        That’s a disingenuous argument Joe and you know it. In the middle of a pandemic waiting on a peer reviewed article to satisfy political critiques kills people. As we saw in NY the governor is not allowing the use of Hydroxychloroquine because it has not jumped through all the hoops democrats insist is necessary. https://youtu.be/gptynRvTErI
        Those “anecdotes” are based on science conducted by MD’s and in time will be published, but until then it is better to save lives than quibble about whether it meets some technical criteria for peer reviewed data.Only partisans will argue against saving lives as opposed to a published document.

        1. Joe

          You really don’t listen or read do you.
          Compassionate use is ALWAYS available to patients with doctors willing to try.
          Waiting for peer review does not remove compassionate use applications. That is the whole point of the idea…. that doctors can prescribe it regardless.

          The peer review process is absolutely essential for determining scientific consensus. It exists in part for this very reason… so idiots don’t make claims that the masses take as fact.

          Stop with the nonsense straw man argument. Nobody is “banning” this drug.
          You are literally parroting “Keep America great Trump Pence 2020” propaganda.

          BTW, that YouTube link was taken down because the doctor’s own association disavowed them publicly:

          “The American College of Emergency Physicians (ACEP) and the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (AAEM) jointly and emphatically condemn the recent opinions released by Dr. Daniel Erickson and Dr. Artin Massihi. These reckless and untested musings do not speak for medical societies and are inconsistent with current science and epidemiology regarding COVID-19. As owners of local urgent care clinics, it appears these two individuals are releasing biased, non-peer reviewed data to advance their personal financial interests without regard for the public’s health.

          COVID-19 misinformation is widespread and dangerous. Members of ACEP and AAEM are first-hand witnesses to the human toll that COVID-19 is taking on our communities. ACEP and AAEM strongly advise against using any statements of Drs. Erickson and Massihi as a basis for policy and decision making.

          Most concerning for ACEP, they used their “emergency physician” titles to provide credence to their opinions. In any statement that proports to be based on science, data need to be carefully analyzed and the conclusions limited by the data source and integrity. By presenting themselves as authorities, and without fully disclosing their conflict of interest, they were misleading the public.”

          1. Chip Douglas

            You still don’t get it do you? You are being played like a fiddle by some very powerful people in this country that have a vested interest in the outcome of this plague. At this point no one cares what the ACEP and AAEM are saying because there is a cure that is being suppressed and everyone you cite are in some way (either intentionally or innocently) involved.
            Take the red pill…

            1. Joe

              Wow… you really are a conspiracy theory nutjob.
              It is good that, after so many comments, you’re finally being blatant about it.

              You are literally being anti-science right now, peddling far right propaganda that is debunked as fake news, and trying to push a conspiracy theory that will really harm people.

            2. Joe

              10 types of conspiracy thinking

              1) Proof of the conspiracy supposedly emerges from a pattern of “connecting the dots” between events that need not be causally connected. When no evidence supports these connections except the allegation of the conspiracy or when the evidence fits equally well to other causal connections—or to randomness—the conspiracy theory is likely to be false.

              2) The agents behind the pattern of the conspiracy would need nearly superhuman power to pull it off. People are usually not nearly so powerful as we think they are.

              3) The conspiracy is complex, and its successful completion demands a large number of elements.
              Similarly, the conspiracy involves large numbers of people who would all need to keep silent about their secrets. The more people involved, the less realistic it becomes.

              4) The conspiracy encompasses a grand ambition for control over a nation, economy or political system. If it suggests world domination, the theory is even less likely to be true.

              5) The conspiracy theory ratchets up from small events that might be true to much larger, much less probable events.

              6) The conspiracy theory assigns portentous, sinister meanings to what are most likely innocuous, insignificant events.

              7) The theory tends to commingle facts and speculations without distinguishing between the two and without assigning degrees of probability or of factuality.

              8) The theorist is indiscriminately suspicious of all government agencies or private groups, which suggests an inability to nuance differences between true and false conspiracies.

              9) The conspiracy theorist refuses to consider alternative explanations, rejecting all disconfirming evidence and blatantly seeking only confirmatory evidence to support what he or she has a priori determined to be the truth.

              10) The fact that politicians sometimes lie or that corporations occasionally cheat does not mean that every event is the result of a tortuous conspiracy. Most of the time stuff just happens, and our brains connect the dots into meaningful patterns

  17. satta

    Very interesting and inspiring posts for many people. I hope you continue to provide useful posts for many in the world thanks for you

Comments are closed.