ER Editor: We’re following this story with a short summary of 13 influential, ‘top’ French doctors who have almost all ended up on Gilead’s payroll, as well as government advisory committees. In relation to some of these doctors, pharmaceutical company Abbvie is also involved. The 13 make a real hit team against Prof. Didier Raoult and the success of Hydroxychloroquine in France and elsewhere.
“Discovery” is mentioned in the French article below, along with the city of Montpellier in the south of France. It is a clinical study, ostensibly involving 3,000 patients using 4 drugs to treat covid-19. It hasn’t been conducted outside of France yet, but is supposed to comprise patients from Belgium, Luxembourg, Germany, Spain, the UK and the Netherlands in addition to France. It is the project of INSERM, an institute of health belonging to the French government. Some trials have been taking place in Montpellier, just up the road from Marseille where Raoult works. The four drugs in the trial are:
- Remdesivir (Gilead)
- Lopinavir/Ritonavir (Abbvie)
- Lopinavir/Ritonavir with Interferon Beta
HCQ was pulled from the trials following the critical study by The Lancet. When that article was retracted, HCQ was re-introduced, but then pulled again. The list of Big Pharma-sponsored doctors in France (see below) gives us an idea of why HCQ was pulled.
We came across a petition to fire the members of the Scientific Advisory Board of France who are sponsored by Big Pharma, with the petition appearing on MesOpinions.com: Une pétition lancée pour “Virer du conseil scientifique les membres sponsorisés par des labos”.
What Is Gilead’s Role In The War On Hydroxychloroquine?
Is Gilead, the maker of Remdesivir, waging war on HCQ (hydroxychloroquine)?
Attacks on the drug have been continuous ever since Dr. Didier Raoult used this quinine derivative to save the lives of COVID-19 patients last March.
The first attempt to discredit HCQ was a hastily compiled Veterans Administration hospital system study last April. Notably, one of the study’s authors had in the past received numerous grants from Gilead, with one grant in 2018 totaling nearly a quarter of a million dollars.
This strategy succeeded: Following its publication in the Lancet and the NEJM, all outpatient use of HCQ was severely restricted in the U.S., Australia, and most of Europe.
When the Surgisphere scam was exposed, both articles were quietly retracted and the editor-in-chief of the Lancet tried to wash his hands of this embarrassing incident by denouncing Surgisphere’s “monumental fraud.”
However only a few days earlier, Lancet editors played a major role in persuading WHO to suspend all trials for HCQ. Who put them up to it?
The study’s main author, Mandeep Mehra, also apologized for his reliance on a third party for the data. He may not have known the data was fabricated, but the hospital he directed was conducting two trials for Remdesivir. Was he under pressure from his sponsors?
These are the stakes:
A five-day treatment with Remdesivir costs around $3,000.
A five-day supply of generic HCQ costs around $10.
Drug companies have every right to recoup their cost of research and development, but lobbying to suppress access to a lifesaving treatment that is both cheaper and more effective is a crime against humanity.
Progressives mistakenly believe that socialized medicine protects patients from the abuses of big pharma, but the first nation to severely restrict access to HCQ was France. (ER: We are in total agreement that socialized medicine does NOT protect patients in this way at all. But a word about France: Surprisingly, it has an insurance system of healthcare where the ones with the best plans get the most from it. The poorer people with no plans or poor plans usually end up contributing more into the system relatively speaking. Perhaps France was first because it is the home country of Professor Didier Raoult, who is influential and capable of standing his ground.)
This policy compelled Dr. Raoult to testify against Gilead’s disproportionate leverage over the medical community during a meeting of the French National Assembly last June.
Notably in the U.S., a third of the FDA’s budget comes from pharmaceutical user fees, and according to the NIH’s website, eight out of 55 members of the panel responsible for COVID-19 treatment guidelines are currently affiliated with Gilead. These government ties to Gilead more than triple when you include panel members with past associations. (ER: so that is more than 24/55 members!)
Paradoxically, most opposition to HCQ in the U.S. comes from the left, but conservatives who know the ways of crony capitalism regard this as par for the course. After all, big pharma has given more to Democrats ever since the passage of Obamacare and up to now, Gilead employees donated three times more to the Biden campaign.
Sooner or later there will be a reckoning for everyone who colluded in this disinformation campaign. If you are among the policymakers or physicians participating in this charade, you may want to dissociate yourself while you can credibly plead ignorance for tens of thousands of preventable deaths.
* * *
Access to HCQ varies by state. If you cannot get this drug from your doctor, America’s Frontline Doctors has kindly provided contact information for telemedicine physicians that are HCQ-knowledgeable. You can find these doctors by clicking on any state in their website and scrolling down to the bottom of the description.
Revenues paid by BigPharma. With more than 12 doctors involved, don’t you have an epidemic outbreak of conflicts of interest?
The recent crisis has highlighted the polarities and sometimes surprising decisions of doctors who also have advisory or executive roles in high authorities (the Scientific Council, the High Council of Public Health).
Professor Perronne recalled having set up a system for declaring conflicts of interest before any decisions are taken, going so far as to exclude people from decisions or debates if necessary.
At the beginning of 2020, the Data+Local collective cross-checked data from the Transparence Santé (Health Transparency) database, set up after the Mediator scandal. (ER: Mediator, a drug for weight loss used with type 2 diabetes sufferers produced by France’s Servier laboratories and prescribed in France only, is said to have caused the death of hundreds of patients.) The 30,000 practitioners in 32 university hospitals across the country shared more than 92 million euros, in addition to some 78 million euros paid out under agreements between university hospitals and laboratories. All this does not of course take into account the aid paid to victims’ and/or patients’ associations.
Here is the Top 13 ranking of recent revenues paid by the pharmaceutical industry
N°1. The Palme d’Or (ER: Oscar) is awarded to Professor François Raffi of Nantes. 541,729 €, including 52,812 € from Gilead. Is it by chance that we are told that the anonymous phone call to threaten Didier Raoult, if he persisted with hydroxychloroquine, came from the cell phone of the infectiology department of the CHU of Nantes, of which François Raffi is head of department? Probably a pure coincidence. (pictured left)
N°2. Professor Jacques Reynes of Montpellier. 291,741 €, including 48,006 € from Gilead and 64,493 € from Abbvie. However, Jacques Reynes was asked by Olivier Véran to lead the Raoult protocol clinical trial in Montpellier while he was also the national coordinator of two Remdesivir studies for Gilead. He certainly did not have the time to send his Public Declaration of Interest (PDI) to the Minister. (pictured centre)
N°3. Pr Karine Lacombe of Paris – Saint Antoine. 212,209 €, including 28,412 € from Gilead. She is on the last step of the podium, but the main thing is to be there. There is not only the podium with the Ministers in Matignon. (pictured right)
N°4. Professor Jean Michel Molina of Paris – Saint Louis. 184,034 €, including 26,950 € from Gilead and 22,864 € from Abbvie. Now Jean-Michel Molina is co-author of an article published in Medicine and Infectious Diseases on a few cases, to say that hydroxychloroquine does not work. Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses is the official journal of the SPILF (Société de Pathologie infectieuse de Langue Française). (pictured left)
N°5. Pr Gilbert Deray from Paris. 160.649€. A nice sum for a nephrologist who is very present on the TV sets. Attention: Remdesivir can be very toxic for the kidneys. (pictured centre)
N°6. Professor Jean-Paul Stahl from Grenoble. 100.358 €, including 4,552 € from Abbvie. Please note that this sum has not been declared on his IPR. However, Jean-Paul Stahl is editor-in-chief of the journal Médecine et Maladies Infectieuses. He is the one who compared Plaquénil* (brand name of HCQ) to toilet paper. (pictured right)
N°7. Pr Christian Chidiac of Lyon. 90,741 €, including 16,563 € from Gilead. However, Christian Chidiac is President of the Communicable Diseases Commission of the High Council of Public Health, which issued the famous Opinion banning hydroxychloroquine, except for the dying(!!), and asking to include patients in official trials (thus Discovery). His assistant, Pr Florence Ader, quoted below, is the principal investigator of Discovery. Pure coincidence.
N°8. Professor Bruno Hoen of the Pasteur Institute. 82,610 €, including 52,012 € from Gilead. Note that on his IPR, he noted having received only €1,000 from Gilead! However, Bruno Hoen attacked the Marseille team in an email dated March 18, 2020, shared with all infectious diseases specialists.
N°9. Pr Pierre Tattevin from Rennes. €79,956, including €15,028 from Gilead. Note that on his IPR, like his predecessor, he noted that he only received €1,000 from Gilead! It must be overwork. But Pierre Tattevin is president of the SPILF. This learned society attacked hydroxychloroquine to encourage inclusions in Discovery, as well as in other studies by drawing lots with groups of untreated patients (randomized studies).
N°10. Pr Vincent Le Moing of Montpellier. 68.435 €, including 4,776 € from Gilead and 9,642 € from Abbvie. Now Vincent Le Moing pilots, with his boss Jacques Reynes quoted above, the clinical trial of Montpellier.
N°11. Dr. Alain Makinson of Montpellier. 63,873 €, including 15,054 € from Gilead. Dr. Alain Makinson is participating in the Montpellier study with Jacques Reynes and Vincent Le Moing. A beautiful trio. Montpellier is very well represented.
N°12. François-Xavier Lescure of Paris – Bichat. 28,929 €, including 8,621 € from Gilead. Now, François-Xavier Lescure is the assistant of our famous Yazdan Yazdanpanah who is in the Scientific Council for Covid-19. He has publicly criticized the Marseille team to discredit hydroxychloroquine. He is co-author of the highly questionable study on Gilead’s remediant, published in the New England Journal of Medicine. However, this study has no methodology.
N°13. Pr Florence Ader from Lyon. 11.842 €, including 3,750 € from Gilead. Florence Ader is the principal investigator of Discovery.
After twelve, it’s starting to be an outbreak of an epidemic!
Published to The Liberty Beacon from EuropeReloaded.com
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.