Winners And Losers

Winners And Losers

In the late 1950’s European physicians began prescribing a “miracle drug” to treat morning sickness in pregnant women. In 1960 the pharmaceutical giant Richardson-Merrill applied for authorization to sell this miracle drug known as thalidomide. Thankfully, the application was reviewed and eventually blocked by Frances Oldham Kelsey.


According to The Smithsonian Magazine:

“As a medical reviewer, Kelsey had the power to prevent a drug from going to market if she found the application to be lacking sufficient evidence for safety. After a thorough review, Kelsey rejected the application for thalidomide on the grounds that it lacked sufficient evidence of safety through rigorous clinical trials.”


In 1961 the UK stopped the distribution of the medication. It turned out that Thalidomide, when taken by pregnant women, was the cause of severe deformities and even death to the fetus. Unfortunately, it took several years before the side effect of the medication was discovered. About 10,000 babies were affected and approximately 40% died at birth. This failure to rigorously check the safety of a new medication was a serious error in judgement and the global community learned the importance of extensive clinical trials in protecting the health of patients.


Imagine that instead of insisting on more testing, the FDA had simply granted Emergency Use Authorization for Thalidomide in the USA, allowing many thousands more to be at devastating risk (EAUs became available in 2009). Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act:

“The FDA may allow unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN (Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear threats) threat agents when certain statutory criteria have been met, including that there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.”


The key phrase here, which is relevant today, is “no adequate alternatives.” Hypothetically, if there was any medication that worked to treat or prevent COVID symptoms, the EAU for the experimental vaccines now being pushed on the entire healthy population would not have been approved.


Who benefits from suppressing a treatment regimen that is cheap and safe or promoting an expensive experimental treatment? I will let you draw your own conclusions. To assist you in this endeavor, let me tell you a story.


I saw a patient who had just tested positive for COVID and was quite sick. I placed her on a Hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) regimen. Her husband called a few days later and told me she had just been admitted to the hospital. Her doctors refused to let her take the HCQ I had prescribed, even though she had several doses remaining. When you’re in the hospital you are not allowed to take any medication without your doctor’s approval, even if it’s over the counter. The rules are extremely strict. Her doctors did not prescribe her any treatments for COVID. Instead, their plan was to monitor her and treat her as if she presented with simple pneumonia.


Legally, I was unable to advise her on treatment, as she was no longer my patient. She decided to take the HCQ while in the hospital and fortunately, she recovered without being intubated, and was released. I am unable to say if that was what turned her around. I do not have medical proof of this. However, there is a widespread unwillingness among physicians to treat patients presenting with COVID early. The current standard of care is to send the patient home after advising them to call 911 if they experience shortness of breath, meaning patients do not receive treatment until they are extremely ill. This is not acceptable.


After a year of treating patients, several discredited studies have labeled HCQ as dangerous. We are still being told there are no treatments for non-fatal symptoms of the Covid-19 virus. Why are we playing Russian roulette with people’s lives? There is a Latin phrase: Cui bono? This translates to: “To whom is it an advantage?” We must ask ourselves what is gained from all the controversy surrounding treatments. Who wins and who loses? I can tell you one thing for sure. When a medical professional is not making a treatment decision based solely on the best interests of the patient, humanity loses.





Smithsonian Magazine:



Scroll to Top

Sharing a story can change the world.