The PsyOps CyclOps

removed by YT after 21 mos. Why?

I mentioned to a YT viewer, who wanted to find my Substack, that she could cut and paste from the description, since YT didn’t trust me with hot links. Then I went to the description and—lo and behold—the link worked! I told her YT must have downgraded my conspiracy theorist status and I’d have to work harder.

By the end of the day, I got a notice that YT had removed this video from 21 months ago for spreading dangerous misinformation at minute 24:32. That was a comment thread with the anonymous blogger, A Midwestern Doctor, where I had stated that Robert Malone's $21M BARDA contract to test repurposed drugs could have prevented Emergency Use Authorization by testing HCQ & IVM, stopping the vaccines before they started.

That was fast! Here is YT’s explanation:

Content that poses a serious risk of egregious harm by spreading medical misinformation about currently administered vaccines that are approved and confirmed to be safe and effective by local health authorities and the World Health Organization isn't allowed on YouTube.

They gave me the choice to appeal (always futile) or:

Take a policy training

If you take a quick, 7-question training, your warning will expire in 90 days.

How it works

• You can still decide to appeal later

• To protect the community, your content will not be put back on YouTube

• If you violate this policy again within 90 days, you’ll get a strike. If you violate a different policy, you’ll get another warning

About the training 7 questions • 15 minutes

We want you to create and share your content confidently. In this training: • You’ll see scenarios related to the policy you violated • You have unlimited attempts to get it right

Medical Misinformation Vaccine Misinformation

While there are different types of medical misinformation, the one we'll focus on most in your training is vaccine misinformation. This policy includes the following categories: • Prevention misinformation • Treatment misinformation • Denial misinformation We may allow content that includes medical misinformation if the content has educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context. These exceptions aren't a pass to promote medical misinformation.This training includes descriptions of medical misinformation, which could be upsetting or triggering to some people.

Policy information

Vaccine Misinformation

For example, we don't allow content that contains the following misinformation or makes these claims: • Vaccines cause chronic side effects outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities • Vaccines are part of a depopulation agenda • Vaccines do not reduce transmission or contraction of disease • Vaccines contain ingredients that are not on the vaccine ingredient list. We may allow content that includes medical misinformation if the content has educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn, dispute, or satirize misinformation that violates our policies. We may also make exceptions for content discussing the results of a specific medical study, sharing personal testimony, or showing an open public forum, like a protest or public hearing, provided the content does not aim to promote misinformation that violates our policies. These exceptions aren't a pass to promote medical misinformation.

Question 1/7

A creator uploads a video in which they claim they researched vaccines online and are now convinced that vaccines cause cancer.

---

Is this a violation?

Yes, it is (obvi)

That's correct!

This example violates our policy. We do not allow content that claims that vaccines cause chronic side effects like cancer, outside of rare side effects that are recognized by health authorities.

Policy information

Treatment Misinformation

Content that recommends the use of specific methods for the treatment of cancer when those have not been approved by local health authorities or the World Health Organization as safe or effective or have been confirmed to be harmful or ineffective for cancer treatment isn't allowed on YouTube. For example, we don't allow content that contains the following misinformation or makes these claims: • Content that claims that approved treatments for cancer are never effective or that alternative treatments are safer or more effective than approved treatments • Content that promotes alternative treatments for cancer as a guaranteed cure or recommends alternative treatments in place of approved treatments We may allow content that includes medical misinformation if the content has educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn, dispute, or satirize misinformation that violates our policies. We may also make exceptions for content discussing the results of a specific medical study, sharing personal testimony, or showing an open public forum, like a protest or public hearing, provided the content does not aim to promote misinformation that violates our policies. These exceptions aren't a pass to promote medical misinformation.

Question 2/7

Marcus is a popular creator who shares content about healthy cooking. He uploads a video titled “New Diet to Eliminate Cancer” and shares several vegetarian and vegan recipes that he says are guaranteed to cure cancer.

---

Is this a violation?

Yes, it is (Duh!)

Correct!

This example violates our policy because it promotes an alternative treatment for cancer as a guaranteed cure, which contradicts information from health authorities.

Policy information

Promoting Harmful Substances & Practices

Content that promotes harmful substances, treatments, or substances that present an inherent risk of severe bodily harm or death isn't allowed on YouTube. Examples of this content include: • Content that promotes alternative abortion methods in place of the chemical or surgical methods that are deemed safe by health authorities • Content that promotes the following harmful remedies, cures, and substances for alleged health benefits: Miracle Mineral Solution (MMS), Black salve, Turpentine, B17 (amygdalin), High-grade hydrogen peroxide, Chelation therapy to treat autism, Colloidal silver, Gasoline, Diesel, Kerosene We may allow content that includes medical misinformation if the content has educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context. We may also make exceptions for content discussing the results of a specific medical study, sharing personal testimony, or showing an open public forum, like a protest or public hearing, provided the content does not aim to promote misinformation that violates our policies. These exceptions aren't a pass to promote medical misinformation.

Question 3/7

Safia recorded a conversation with her friends where she claims she became infertile after a chemical abortion using the prescription medications mifepristone and misoprostol. Safia urged her friends to avoid chemical abortions or else they will also become infertile.

---

Is this a violation?

Yes, it is (a horse is a horse medicine, of course, of course)

That's right!

This example violates our policy because it promotes misinformation about the side effects of the chemical abortion method, which is deemed safe by health authorities. While we may make exceptions for content in which creators describe their or their family's firsthand experiences, we do not allow content promoting misinformation about safe abortion methods, such as telling others they will become infertile after using methods deemed safe by health authorities.

Policy information

Vaccine Misinformation (see above)

Question 4/7

In a television interview uploaded to YouTube, a pediatrician urges parents to have their children immunized. The doctor also states that natural immunity is much stronger than the immunity that you get from vaccination.

---

Is this a violation?

Yes, it is?

Try again.

This example does not violate our policy because the claim that natural immunity is stronger than immunity from vaccination doesn't deny the efficacy of vaccines. (So as long as it includes the contradictory recommendation to get vaxxed, a-ok)

Policy information

Prevention, Treatment & Disease Denial Misinformation

Content that contradicts information from local health authorities or the World Health Organization and spreads medical misinformation about the transmission, prevention, treatment, or existence of specific health conditions and substances isn't allowed on YouTube. For example, we don't allow content that contains the following misinformation or makes these claims: • Content that promotes transmission information that contradicts local health authorities or the World Health Organization • Content that promotes COVID-19 prevention methods that contradict local health authorities or the World Health Organization • Content that discourages viewers from seeking medical treatment for COVID-19 • Content that promotes the use of substances or treatments that can cause severe bodily harm or death to treat COVID-19 • Explicit denial of the existence of COVID-19 We may allow content that includes medical misinformation if the content has educational, documentary, scientific, or artistic context. We may also make exceptions if the purpose of the content is to condemn, dispute, or satirize misinformation that violates our policies. We may also make exceptions for content discussing the results of a specific medical study, sharing personal testimony, or showing an open public forum, like a protest or public hearing, provided the content does not aim to promote misinformation that violates our policies. These exceptions aren't a pass to promote medical misinformation.

Question 5/7

A creator films his grandmother while she prepares her garlic and orange peel tea, which she has had every day since she was a child. (yuck!) The grandmother says that she doesn't know if the tea will prevent her from getting COVID-19, but it makes her feel strong and boosts her immune system.

---

Is this a violation?

No, it isn't (because who thinks a grandmother’s an influencer?)

That's right!

This example doesn't violate our policy. We allow content that promotes immune-boosting tips, as long as the content doesn't claim that these measures will prevent the contraction of or cure COVID-19.

Policy information

Vaccine Misinformation (they’ve got me pegged)

A biochemist uploads a video in which she warns viewers to stay away from all vaccines because doctors and pharmaceutical companies are conspiring to use vaccines to alter people's DNA. She says the vaccines are meant to make our immune systems weaker so that we spend more money on doctors and medicine.

---

Select all correct answers.

• This video violates the policy because the creator claims that vaccines alter DNA. (and who would believe that?)

• This video does not violate the policy because the creator is a scientist.

• This video does not violate the policy because saying pharmaceutical companies create vaccines that get people to fall sick and buy more medicines is just an opinion.

• This video does not violate the policy because the biochemist is only warning people to avoid vaccines, not forcing them.

That's correct!

This video violates our policy. We do not allow content that claims that vaccines will alter a person's genetic makeup because this contradicts information from health authorities and could cause egregious harm.

Policy information

Treatment Misinformation

Question 7/7

In an uploaded video, a creator recommends a new, organic, herbal miracle drink that she developed that is guaranteed to cure even the most advanced cancers. The video provides details on how to purchase this drink from her website.

---

Select all correct answers.

• This video violates the policy because the creator is promoting a supposed miracle cure for cancer, and heath authorities do not attest to such a cure existing.

• This video doesn't violate the policy because the herbal drink is likely harmless.

• This video violates the policy because the creator's video includes purchase details.

That's correct!

We do not allow content that promotes alternative treatments for cancer as a guaranteed cure.

What’s next?

• Your warning will expire on Mar 14, 2025

• If you violate the Medical Misinformation policy again before this warning expires, you’ll get a strike

• If you violate a different policy, you'll get another warning with the opportunity to take another training.

---

algorithms in motion

Why was this video censored now, almost two years later? Is it because there’s an intent to put Malone in charge of the HHS or FDA under the Trump administration? My Mealy-Mouthed Malone was censored right before his PsyWars lecture came out and went to 1M views. Is it because they’re planning to bring back vaccine mandates? Or just luck of the algorithmic draw? It seems like every time my strikes are about to term out, they make sure I’m on the hook for a new one.

But it was a good excuse to listen to this one again, because it seems like a parallel universe to now. Back then, there were beloved Substackers—like AMD, Tessa Lena and Meryl Nass—who wouldn’t answer my points about Robert Malone but instead dodged and obfuscated the question. I was under a lot of pressure from other Substackers to ‘make nice’ and stop causing conflict among our own side.

At that time I needed to explain, step by step, how to tell the difference between someone who merely has a blind spot and someone who might be a paid conspiracy propagandist. What are the ‘tells’ that someone isn’t who they say they are? That they’re not operating alone? That they have friends in powerful places?

If the censorship blob is still going this hard on vaccines, would they NOT be infiltrating to confuse and silence those questioning the latest psyops? One person who suggested I shouldn’t have confronted Mathew Crawford wrote:

I wouldnt have find weakness in evading a confrontation, neither see this as a feminine concept vs machoman being ruthless. If you were a man, would have it been easier to not respond and not feel shut down by the act of refusing the discussion? I dont think so … If it can the least ease your tourment if any, I do think matt went a little bit to harsh on the way he talks back.

I responded:

I have zero torment over not falling for Mathew's emotional manipulation to shut me up. You certainly wouldn't be the first in my life to recommend that I be conflict-avoidant and not hurt other people's feelings by challenging their ideas. I understand that you think that's a better way to be—go along with our friends and only challenge our enemies. I see no one as my enemy and challenge everyone on their ideas. I am immune to guilt-mongering because I don't take responsibility for other people's feelings. I do take responsibility for my own words and actions, and you haven't shown me anywhere that those demeaned Mathew.

Now let’s look at how this effort to use friendship to shut me up was being done two years ago regarding my research on Robert Malone.

---

beheading the cyclOps

Here’s my premise: it takes a network to undermine an empire. We all need to be sharing information, hunches, gut-feelings, discrepancies, observations, and disagreements. The empire is like a Cyclops, the eye in the pyramid. The PsyOp is when you think someone is one of us, the little people—but really they’re the Cyclops in disguise.

Maybe someone is being fooled into speaking for the monolidded monolith but they sincerely believe they’re taking the side of us peasants. In that case, facts and logic can be presented, discussed, refuted, based on the foundation that none of us is better than anyone else. If the person doesn’t answer with new facts and logic—and the rules for this go back to ancient Greece—yet they disagree with your conclusion, you’ve probably hit a wall, a blind spot, a paradigm they’re not willing to question.

It doesn’t mean they’re working for the Cyclops. It does probably mean you’ve learned as much as you can from them on this topic and they from you. The PsyOp Cyclops is, by definition, an influencer, a public figure who’s consciously misleading their followers for pay or prestige in the present or the future. They answer to someone else. They’re not mistaken but are lying for a covert purpose. They’re part of a conspiracy to thwart any rebellion by leading it, as Lenin instructed.

PsyOp agents (or PsyOperators as Heather B. terms them) don’t come out of nowhere. They’re not recruited with ads posted at the coffeeshop, although their marks might be, or whatever the internet version is. In the one war of empire vs. sovereignty, their history, family or ambitions will be on the side of empire. The first two are easiest to prove because the third might not be evident until after they’ve succeeded.

As nymusicdaily commented, “there's no shame in welcoming and capitalizing on any positive development, even if the source is ultimately malign. on the other, that tends to put us in a smallball mindset. am i the only one whose patience is wearing thin? where is the drive to be as utopian as the evil ones are dystopian?”

I replied that, in my experience, even if good intentions don't have good results in the short term, they'll still win out. But good results from imperial intentions are just a set-back in disguise. Sooner or later, they'll lead to worse outcomes than before and you'll have to do the additional work of sorting out the deception before you can deal with them. The 'lesson' you'll have learned from the last time will be a false one so you have to go back and unlearn it before you can move forward on the next crisis.

So that’s why I’m staying in pursuit of the PsyOp Cyclops, so we don’t have to go through this again.

---

monarchs and midwest doctors

Yesterday the anonymous and ungendered blogger who writes as A Midwestern Doctor posted The Downward Slide of America’s Healthcare Apparatus. They wrote:

Over the last two years, we have watched the public become progressively more upset with the COVID-19 response. I believe we have now reached the point where the majority of the American population does not support what has been done, and a significant portion of them have lost their trust within the medical system. In parallel to this increasing public rejection of the COVID narrative, the media, which initially censored any claims dissenting from the narrative, has gradually been allowing that dissent to enter the public discourse.

AMD then did an excellent analysis of breaking down the means of coercion today:

When the Age of Enlightenment began in the 17th century, it became far more difficult for monarchs to continue to use the tools they had previously used to enslave the masses. In turn, Western culture gradually shifted towards a capitalistic democracy, where our faith in society came down to three beliefs:

•Leaders, who we elected by voting, represent our interests and are who we, through our own free will, chose to govern us.
•Money is important and we should do our best to prioritize accumulating it.
•If you are unhappy with anything in the system, you should address it by being financially or politically successful (in other words, you should work within the two previous beliefs rather than rejecting them entirely).

Once these beliefs were shared by the entire society, the ruling class became able to effectively control the population, as (especially with the help of monopolies and propaganda) they could easily influence the political and economic process to suit their needs. Most importantly, unlike rulers of the past, this could be done without needing to fund a large standing army to enforce compliance.

After this slingshot right into the eye of the Cyclops, AMD writes:

I have thought about this for a long time; I believe (in spite of its many shortcomings) the current system of governance, which revolves around those three beliefs (and a functional judicial system), represents the best option of governance available to our species and each member of society.

Huh? Being manipulated is our best option? The major takeaway from my book is that a capitalist democracy is a contradiction in terms. It’s a calibrated empire with competition to be on top, not a system of self-governance.

---

media coming clean? (not from the YT warning)

But the bulk of the article is about the new Scott Atlas memoir. AMD sees this as the real deal, the real story we’re finally getting, and has posted the first part on Pierre Kory’s Substack as The Media is Finally Beginning to Come Clean about Covid-19.

Atlas is, in AMD’s words, “a highly acclaimed neuroradiologist and health policy scholar who chose to dissent against the narrative and eventually, in July of 2020, ended up in the White House and then on the Coronavirus Task Force” as a Trump appointee. Since coming out with his memoir, he’s getting a lot of press with his opinion piece in Newsweek and interview on Tucker Carlson.

What is the big reveal the media’s coming clean about? It’s all Deborah Birx’s fault. Even Fauci and CDC Director Redfield deferred to her, enabled her to do all the damage by agreeing to whatever she wanted, and everyone else on the Task Force caved in surreal Idiocracy fashion except for our man Atlas. It’s the lone gunman theory except it’s a woman.

Birx is described as having “emotional immaturity that is so surreal I still have some difficulty believing it really happened.” Despite this, “the media was incredibly supportive of her and her fanatical advocacy for the lockdown narrative.” Her style was "autocratic" and "dictatorial." High-level technical staff adopted an approach of "just obey and move on. … Working in fear and a space where nothing is negotiable."

So Birx, the Covid dominatrix, called all the shots and shrugged off poor Atlas every time he tried to bring some science, goddamit, into the pandemic response. AMD ends by referring to Atlas’ proposals to address what happened and also says:

Additionally Robert Malone wrote an excellent series on what can potentially be done to fix these issues within the Department of Health and Human Services (part one can be viewed here, part two here).

---

maloney misinformation

I remember reading these two articles when I was a paid subscriber to Robert Malone’s article and they were two of my favorites. In the first, he writes:

Since the 2001 “Amerithrax” Anthrax spore “attacks”, HHS has increasingly been horizontally integrated with the intelligence community as well as with the Department of Homeland Security to form a health security state with enormous ability to shape and enforce “consensus” through widespread propaganda, censorship, “nudge” technology and intentional manipulation of the “Mass Formation” hypnosis process using modern adaptations of methods originally developed by Dr Joseph Goebbels.

In the second article on how to dismantle it, he continues:

Fascism is a political system which is otherwise known as Corporatism, that being the fusion of corporate and state power. And as previously discussed, currently the real power of the US Government lies in the Fourth Estate, the Administrative State. To break up these “public-private partnerships” which compromise the ability of HHS to perform essential oversight duties and truly protect the health of American Citizens from the rapacious practices and disgusting ethics of the medical-pharmaceutical complex (in which they behave as predators, and we have become the prey), we must sever the financial and organizational ties that bind the medical-pharmaceutical industrial complex to the HHS Administrative State.

I think it’s interesting to note that he quotes the title of the Breggins’ book, Covid-19 and the Global Predators: We Are the Prey. It would go along with the theory discussed in some threads that he gains trust by echoing our own words and even cartoons back to us to see which way the wind is blowing.

---

the fox campaigns for henhouse mgmt

These posts provide very concrete steps for ending corruption in the HHS, using in-depth knowledge. Malone quotes an article called “From FDA to MHRA: are drug regulators for hire?” by reporter Maryanne Demasi. She documents five mechanisms by which agencies are coopted by for-profit companies in the US, UK, Canada, Europe, Australia and Japan, and shows how to change it.

His second post points to the absurd amount of funding:

… the President’s FY 2022 HHS budget proposes $131.8 billion in discretionary budget authority and $1.5 trillion in mandatory funding. In contrast, President’s FY 2022 budget request for DoD is $715 billion.

Malone elaborates on what would fix the problem: First, a Trump-era executive order that would reclassify 88% of federal agency employees as Schedule F, so they could be fired at will. Second, modifying the Bayh-Dole Act so that HHS officers can’t receive royalties from patents licensed to corporations. He addresses ending the regulator-industry revolving door, pharma paying for its own regulation, and vaccine indemnification. His last point is that HHS shouldn’t be Too Big to Fail.

As a decentralist, my solution is a network of sovereign health organizations for commonwealths under 300,000 people. They might have agreements to share patents freely or at low cost. They would be funded through mortgage-backed carets. It would be a lowercase federal system.

But Malone makes excellent points and it’s clearly a topic which he has given serious thought. They would unquestionably make him enemies within the HHS and even at the top. It could make him enemies in Big Pharma. And it would certainly make the HHS less corrupt. Is he a reformer who’s retired and looking at the bigger picture? Or positioning himself to, not just replace Fauci, but perhaps be his boss?

---

questioning motives and mystery bloggers

To get A Midwestern Doctor’s thoughts, I posted:

I love your analysis of the three assumptions: democracy is good, money is good, power is good. In my book I go back 3500 years to the origins of democracy and money to show how they’ve co-opted us.

But I think, with respect, you're falling for another attempt to co-opt us. In this post, my seventh episode on Robert Malone, I look at how words and actions can indicate one direction but the intentions and motives are in another.

A Midwestern Doctor replied:

Thank you. One of the reasons I've avoided going public is because there is no position you can hold that everyone agrees with, and those who disagree with your current position will do everything they can to dig up reasons to attack and dismiss you.

In Malone's case, he initially tried to help fix the COVID mess from behind the scenes, then eventually took on a big risk to speak out publicly against all of this, got thrust into a very challenging role he (like most people) had no prior experience in, and has managed to make a massive impact in stopping the vaccine program (it's very possible he has done more than anyone else speaking on this issue). I understand that people feel differently about him, but I have no idea what I would have done if I'd been in his position, and I am fully aware of how many lives he has saved by speaking out.

Cynthia Bowers wrote:

Did Malone try to help the mess? This is a confusing topic and one that is widely debated in a number of substacks.

Peter and Ginger Breggin title this column about Malone ‘Could this Man Have Saved the World?’

‘In January 2020, Malone published on ResearchGate an elaborate scientific paper with MIT researcher Darrell O. Ricke as the first author in which the two concluded that all COVID-19 vaccines, including mRNA, were too deadly to be given even experimentally to humans.’ (2)

This was months before the Dec 2020 vaccine rollout and mandates. Why didn’t he say anything? He has had plenty of chances. Joe Rogan asked him point blank about ADE during their now famous interview. Malone, who loves to spout his credentials, didn’t bring up the findings in that Jan 2020 paper. Why?

The paper is linked at the end of the column just below. (BTW, Malone has filed a complaint in Va against the longtime vaccine and psychiatric drug educators Dr Peter and Ginger Breggin asking for $25 million for defamation.)

And this video by Mark Kulacz includes even more confounding background info. https://web.archive.org/web/20220925080346/https://www.bitchute.com/video/JvkXyUpr8Op2/

The column is worth a read and the video in the second link is extremely informative.

Don’t shoot the messenger.

Tereza Coraggio answered:

I really appreciate your reply, AMD, and taking the time to read my comment. My policy, which I put into my article, is that I'm 100% supportive of challenging ideas but that I will ban any commenter who attacks or insults people, individually or as a group. So whether you post anonymously or openly, I would never dismiss you or Robert Malone. But I will look at the consistency between what someone says and what someone does, and that's where my critique of RM comes in.

In this last episode, I address a conversation from Meryl Nass' comment thread with someone holding your pov: that RM has saved lives and should be thanked for his good words and actions without going to motive.

I quote Daniel Negase's Discrepancy Analysis that he applies after RM told him in Nov 2021 not to talk about his concern that reverse-transcribed RNA would integrate into the DNA, particularly causing the genetic alteration of children.

I cite the Breggins' discovery of a Jan 2020 paper by RM proving that mRNA was too dangerous to be used even for human experimentation.

And I look at the $21M given to the company where he was the Chief Medical Officer in April 2020 to find repurposed FDA-approved drugs so there would be no EUA for the vaccine. He tested Pepcid AC, an otc heartburn medication, and NEVER tested ivermectin or HCQ.

If any of these things had been different, there might never have been a vaccine because symptoms could have been treated inexpensively. I don't feel this is digging for dirt, this seems very relevant to examine for someone who you're recommending as someone we should trust to fix this. I'd love for you to look at my article and give me your thoughts, and please tell me where I'm wrong.

A Midwestern Doctor noted:

One thing I will add is that he was one of the early people who was pushing forward research Ivermectin and HCQ, which I know directly from people who worked with him. I also must respectfully decline your request; my policy has been to not get involved in this topic, I don't have enough time to cover most of what I want to cover and I can't see anything positive coming from doing a deep dive on it.

Tereza Coraggio continued:

Exactly, which is why there is a discrepancy btw his words and actions. In April 2020 he had $21M to do clinical trials showing that IVM or HCQ worked, making the vaccine unable to get EUA. That's not coming from a 'conspiracy theory,' that's from Branden Borrell and RM's own CV. His technology, DOMANE, is designed to select repurposed drugs. If he had run trials of either, not one of those vaccine injuries or deaths would have happened.

I understand if you don't want to do a deep dive on it but can you tell me where either my facts or logic are wrong on this point?

[What YT cited as medical misinformation starts here:]

Kittykat: I doubt any study in ivermectin or HCQ would have changed the outcome.

Tereza Coraggio answered:

Oh that's not true, Kittykat. According to the gov't, they can only get Emergency Use Authorization if there's no FDA-approved drug that can be repurposed to be effective. Without EUA, they would have needed to show clinical data demonstrating that the vaccines were both safe and effective. So it would have stopped the entire fiasco in its tracks if Malone had used the $21M from Trump to test HCQ or IVM, drugs that we and RM already knew to be effective. The DOMANE system is seriously flawed if it didn't come up with these but at that point the FLCCC and many others were going strong in arguing their efficacy. Why didn't Malone, as the entity authorized and funded by the gov't to identify repurposed drugs, test the ones we knew were working?

A Midwestern Doctor wrote:

If I had been Trump, at the very start of the pandemic, I would have done tests in the military with repurposed drugs to treat COVID-19, and then once they were completed publicized them to the world. I think that is the only way we could have gotten around all the stonewalling against repurposed pharmaceutical treatment of COVID-19, but it's understandable why Trump did not understand the whole bureaucracy well enough to grasp this.

Tereza Coraggio replied:

From Borrell's account of the Pepcid-AC trial done by the company where RM was CMO: "The study's draft protocol was aimed only at evaluating famotidine's efficacy, but Trump's "game-changer" antimalarial drug was rapidly becoming the standard of care for hospitalized COVID-19 patients. That meant investigators would only be able to recruit enough subjects for a trial that tested a combination of famotidine and hydroxychloroquine. Those patients would be compared with a hydroxychloroquine-only arm and a historic control arm made up of hundreds of patients treated earlier in the outbreak."

So it seems like Trump was already making HCQ the standard of care but RM's company tested famotidine (pepcid ac) both with and w/o HCQ, but not HCQ itself or IVM. Pepcid was deemed ineffectual and EUA was granted to the vaccines.

As a doctor and scientist, does this design methodology make logical sense to you? It seems to me designed to fail, because HCQ was already effective and there was no need to test Pepcid in combination with it, then call Pepcid ineffective.

A Midwestern Doctor concluded:

1) There is a good case to be made for using famotidine for COVID-19.

2) That was most likely what was available for him to do at the time.

3) Very few people were doing research in this area at the time, so I feel it is more productive to ask why 99.9% of physicians were not testing repurposed drugs to treat the pandemic when they had no available way to treat it rather than critiquing the methodolgy of someone who tried to do so.

I was on one of the teams that tried to push forward treatments for COVID-19, and I cannot begin to describe how difficult the FDA and IRBs/hospitals made it to try them out, in spite of the fact people were regularly dying because there was no treatment available to them.

Most of the attacks I've heard against Malone are things like this, where if you look at it for a while you can find a way to argue what he's doing was bad, but you can also step back and recognize that he's trying to do something with a chance to help while everyone else is standing by and not doing anything.

to which Tereza Coraggio wrote:

I agree that there's a good case to be made for famotidine but my question is about the design methodology. If you test fam+HQC against HQC only, if HQC is effective on its own, there won't be a significant difference adding famotidine. Since the effectiveness of Fam is all you're testing for, not HQC, it guarantees that your results will be nil, giving the EUA for the vaccine. Does that make sense? The more effective the 'neutral' position is, the more it will cancel out results for anything mixed with it.

You and the other 99.9% of doctors were forbidden to use these repurposed drugs—Daniel Negase lost his ability to practice because of giving patients IVM. As you say, the FDA made it impossibly difficult. But Malone was working for BARDA, for the FDA to find repurposed drugs. That was exactly what the contract was for, what his whole DOMANE system is supposed to do. He wasn't a lone doctor bucking the system--he was given $21M by the system to find out what worked. He wasn't going on anecdotal info and experimenting on individual patients at his own risk, he was authorized to run clinical trials for the gov't prior to EUA approval.

Every patient who died or was injured either from the vaccine or the prevention of early treatment with repurposed drugs goes back to this fork in the road. If Malone had tested HCQ or IVM, every patient of every doctor might well have been saved. It's not a little critique of methodology, although a first year stats student could see the flaw in it. The question is whether it was designed to fail, and is this who we're trusting to make sure it never happens again.

And that was the end of the thread.

---

To follow up, here is an old one on Truth-Telling in a Time of Catastrophe. I should probably put these on Substack and delete them from YT, if I was prudent:

I begin this video with the story of my daughter's wedding, which I'm taking as an omen for the community we're going to build when the empire crumbles. Then I read my poem on the double bind of being a Cassandra during these troubled times, and my vision for how it's all going to turn around.

and here is an even older one, Calming the Fears of the Tyranny-Hesitant:

In response to viewer comments, I examine Norman Doidge's 4-part article, Needle Points, on how the Behavioral Immune System, as he terms it, creates hesitancy. He reframes the question as psycho-social rather than data-driven, which seems odd for a scientist. I look at recent data analyzed by he-who-must-not-be-mentioned (one of many). In conclusion, I ask how the tyranny-hesitant have been turned into early adopters.