In a nutshell, the annoying tale of Hydroxychloroquine

How two doctors almost ruined Big Pharma by helping people recover

by Steve Cook

Once upon a time on a badly run planet far, far away from common sense, there was a quite handy little drug called Hydroxychloroquine.

Hydroxychloroquine, also known as Plaquenil, had been around for a very long time as it had proven very good in treating malaria, rheumatoid arthritis, lupus, and porphyria cutanea tarda.

It was thus generally regarded as a Good Thing, which was more than could be said for many of the drugs peddled by the Big Pharma syndicate.

It was not subject to patent (it had been around so long its patent had expired) and was therefore cheap and plentiful, and whilst, like any drug, it had known side-effects, these had raised no major safety concerns over the decades it had been in broad use and prescribed across the world billions of times.

Then one day, that very same world was struck by a psychological warfare attack known  as “Coronavirus”, in which a fake pandemic was used to bring the world’s myriad kingdoms under the rule of a global crime syndicate.

The crime syndicate had many rackets ongoing and had never been brought to justice on account of its ability to bamboozle, bribe, intimidate or blackmail politicians.

Primary among these lucrative rackets run by various branches of the so-called Big Bucks crime families were money lending (“The Bankers”), drug pushing (“Big Pharma”), counterfeiting (also “The Bankers”), protection rackets (“Governments”) and so forth. The drug pushers in particular were hoping to make a packet from the Coronavirus, their  cohorts, The Bankers, having already done so by cleverly lending strapped governments billions in counterfeits of their own currencies.

Then one day an infectious diseases expert in Marseille (Prof Dider Raoult) discovered that  good old Hydroxychloroquine was very effective in treating people suffering from Coronavirus.

At the same time, another doctor, in New York, Dr. Vladimir Zelenko, quite independently had similar remarkable success with hydroxychloroquine.

These doctors had no vested interest in the drug, stood to make no money from it but thought it worth mentioning that they had tried it in an effort to help their patients and found that it had a high degree of workability on a large number of the cases they treated.

But was “making people well” sufficient to justify broad use of a drug? There were other factors and other criteria much more important than merely curing people. Indeed, the discovery that Hydroxychloroquine was quite successful at treating Coronavirus upset the Big Pharma syndicate because it chucked a ruddy great spanner in their money making plans.

This was on account of the fact that not being subject to patent it could be produced cheaply making little profit for the cartels. On the other hand, if they could successfully “discover” and patent their own drug that they could show by fiddling the tests results did a similar job but much more expensively, they could make pots of dough.

The second problem with these annoying doctors discovering a simple, relatively safe and very inexpensive cure was that it undermined the FEAR of the Coronavirus upon which their scam depended for its success.

They were having enough trouble in that regard already as millions of people were proving not quite so easy to intimidate as they had hoped despite the media going into overdrive with scare stories, wildly inflated stats and so forth.

In fact, the Coronavirus had been a bit of a disappointment as it didn’t kill anywhere near as many people as they had hoped it would.

In terms of pinning their hopes on it as the basis of an entire psyop it had proven a bit of a liability. Besides, people had the annoying habit of (a) not catching it at all or (b) catching it and getting better. The last thing that was needed was a drug that enabled even more people to recover even faster!

Therefore, both Professor Raoult in Marseille and Dr Zelenko in New York were targeted for elimination in the traditional manner. The doctors came under attack as Big Pharma’s assassins went into DefConOne in an effort to murder their reputations as well as the reputation of their cure.

Crime syndicates are known for how they rule their turf with FEAR and Big Pharma was no exception. It was by then well known for the viciousness with which it attacked anyone who threatened its racket, thus discouraging all and sundry from sticking their neck out. The attacks came as no surprise and the two brave doctors must have known what they were in for.

Professor Raoult even received death threats and had to go to the police for protection.

It later transpired that the person making the threats was in the pay of GILEAD a pharmaceutical company in France that operated as a front for transatlantic pharmaceutical interests. Gilead itself was working on a drug for Coronavirus that it was hoping to patent and make lots of money from so long as it could prevent Hydroxychloroquine from getting in its way.

Meanwhile aspersions were cast upon the repute of Hydroxychloroquine and all manner of ways were found to instill in  the hearts of men the idea that it was not all that it had been cracked up to be after all. By way of one example, it was suddenly “discovered” after decades of use and billions of prescriptions that the drug could cause cardiac problems and was unsafe. This, allegedly,had completely escaped the attention of the entire medical profession for many years until the French health authorities did the miraculous discovering almost overnight.

In a short while the Big Pharma cartels managed to get the drug banned in France and ignored almost everywhere else thanks to the valuable assistance of the  proxies and henchmen they had previously placed according to tradition into positions of influence as health ministers and so forth.

Thus was Hydroxychloroquine’s reputation undermined in Washington, Westminster and other crime syndicate strongholds.

And so it came to pass that doubts were sown in the topsoil of credulity, whose cosmetic veneer lay thinly over the substrate of duplicity and governments were able to quietly drop it without raising too much of a hullabaloo.

Thus, the alleged millions of Coronavirus sufferers were denied the help of a cheap and plentiful drug. This did not bother governments at all as they were not particularly interested  in the health of their citizenry beyond bleating and hand-wringing disingenuously about it on TV.

It was considered a Very Good Thing by the governments’ handlers in the drugs cartels because, whilst people lost their lives in the interim, a few dead people was never considered a problem by a crime syndicate that had been making people dead in droves ever since it was set up by Rockefeller in 1913.

Besides, this opened the door to some people maybe, if they were lucky, having the opportunity to be, albeit belatedly, helped by a patented drug a lot more profitably.

The above feature is from UK Reloaded


The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)


Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.


Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.


Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.