Paul Marik: COVID Quack or Pandemic Hero?

Dr. Paul Marik

by James A. Bacon

Across the state of Virginia, the fatality rate for COVID-19 patients entering hospitals has been 37.7%. Put another way, nearly two of every five patients died, according to Virginia Department of Health data. But in Norfolk, only 25.8% died. What accounts for that disparity? One possibility is that the dominant hospital in Norfolk is Sentara General Hospital… which is affiliated with the Eastern Virginia Medical School… where Dr. Paul Marik, an EVMS professsor, may have co-developed an inexpensive but highly effective treatment for COVID-19.

Marik is virtually unknown to Virginians. The only local news story I could find about him, dated about a week ago, tells how he was reprimanded by the Virginia Board of Medicine for prescribing controlled substances to five people who were not his patients. That article noted only in passing that Marik has written more than 400 peer-reviewed journal articles, 50 book chapters, and four books about critical care, and that he has developed a new treatment for sepsis.

You will get a very different picture of the 63-year-old South African native by reading, “The Drug that Cracked COVID,” written by Michael Capuzzo and published in Mountain Home, a Pennsylvania magazine. Other than to say that Capuzzo obviously did an enormous amount of research for the article, I cannot testify to its fairness, balance or accuracy. But from a surface reading, the reporting seems credible enough that Marik’s story at least warrants telling.

Marik and four U.S. colleagues who are experts in critical care developed an early treatment protocol for COVID-19 centered on the generic drug Ivermectin they dubbed I-MASK. If the article is to be believed, the protocol has saved millions of lives in poor, developing countries desperate for affordable ways to respond to the pandemic. But the protocol, developed through trial and error in front lines of hospital treatment, did not meet the gold standard of randomized clinical trials demanded by COVID guru Anthony Fauci, the Centers for Disease Control, the World Health Organization, and Big Pharma. With the active cooperation of the masters of the media/social media universe, the “follow the science” crowd has worked to suppress the findings of Marik and his colleagues.

I reproduce lengthy passages from the article, but they tell only part of the tale. I I urge you to read the full article — be warned, it is lengthy — and decide for yourself if Marik, a Virginian, is a huckster of the highest order or one of modern medical science’s greatest heroes.

Capuzzo commences the article by telling the story of an elderly Buffalo, N.Y. resident, Judy Smentkiewicz: how she contracted COVID in March 2020, deteriorated, and entered the hospital with the bleakest of prospects.

As Judy lay dying in the small hospital eight miles northeast of Buffalo, almost six hundred miles south in Norfolk, Virginia, Dr. Paul Marik, sixty-three, the endowed professor at the Eastern Virginia Medical School and a world-renowned clinician-researcher, was unknowingly preparing to save her life with a “wonder drug” that obliterates COVID-19. Discovering the drug was one thing, but getting it to Judy’s doctors in time to save her, getting it to the many thousands of people who needed it, would be a harrowing journey. …

Marik was accustomed to beating the odds. The legendary professor, a 6-foot, 230-pound, balding, barrel-chested, bear of a man with a crisp native South African accent touched with the South after thirty years, is the second most published critical care doctor in the history of medicine, with more than 500 peer-reviewed papers and books, 43,000 scholarly citations of his work, and a research “H” rating higher than many Nobel Prize winners. Marik is world famous as creator of the “Marik Cocktail,” a revolutionary cocktail of cheap, safe, generic, FDA-approved drugs that dramatically reduces death rates from sepsis by 20 to 50 percent anywhere in the world—whether you’re in a hospital in Zurich or Zimbabwe, Chicago or Chengdu—down to near zero, when given soon after presentation to hospitals. Since he published what he calls the “HAT Therapy” (Hydrocortisone, Ascorbic Acid [intravenous Vitamin C] and Thiamine) in 2016 in the most prestigious peer-reviewed journal in the field, Marik has received worldwide publicity, is celebrated in James Bond Internet memes with the “Marik Cocktail” shaken, not stirred, and is seen in ICUs around the globe as a historic figure in medicine for improving care of sepsis, which last year passed cancer and heart disease as the world’s number one killer, according to Lancet. Marik, known as a quirky genius and an exceptionally kind-hearted doctor (his most published peer in the annals of medicine doesn’t see patients), has been searching for an effective treatment for COVID-19 since it began.

Now, while Judy’s doctors were stumped, he was spending long days and nights at the Sentara Norfolk General Hospital, a large, 563-bed teaching hospital on the EVMS campus, where Marik, head of pulmonology and critical care, was treating hundreds of critically ill COVID-19 patients, many referred to him from all over the 1.8-million population Hampton Roads region.

The pandemic had pushed him to nights doing Zoom grand rounds and making YouTube videos instructing doctors and hospitals all over the world on treating COVID-19, sending out a daily EVMS COVID-19 Management Protocol online for doctors worldwide, and hunting the literature for the “wonder drug” that would save Judy Smentkiewicz and bring the pandemic to an end.

[Marik] was startled and appalled that all the national and international public health agencies recommended that the most well-trained, well-equipped doctors in history stand down and wait on big pharma’s lab scientists while the worst pandemic in a century devastated the world. “It’s therapeutic nihilism to say that doctors can do nothing,” Marik said. “Supportive care is no care at all.” What Marik did was assemble four of his closest friends, who also happen to be four of the top academic critical care doctors in the world. He challenged them to join him in an expert panel to continually review the literature while treating their COVID-19 patients and developing treatment protocols—low-cost generic therapies that countless black and brown and poor people all over the world would need, he saw from the beginning, or face a coming catastrophe without treatments or vaccines.

Marik’s collaborators included Pierre Kory, a critical care service chief at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, Gianfranco Umberto Meduri with the University of Tennessee Health Science Center in Memphis, Jose Iglesia at the Hackensack Meredian School of Medicine in New Jersey, and Joseph Varon at the University of Texas Health Science Center. They quickly established that it wasn’t the COVID-19 virus that was killing people but a hyper-immune response that unleashed multi-organ inflammation and clotting.

From the beginning of the pandemic, the hospitals that Marik and Varon led had COVID-19 beat. They achieved remarkably high survival rates at their hospitals at a time when 40 to 80 percent of patients in the U.S. and Europe were dying from the disease. Their success was achieved with the group’s now-famous MATH+ protocol for hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

The cocktail of safe, cheap, FDA-approved generic drugs—the steroid Methylprednisolone, Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C), Thiamine (Vitamin B1), and the blood thinner Heparin—was the first comprehensive treatment using aggressive corticosteroid and anti-coagulant treatments to stop COVID-19 deaths. Both were novel approaches strongly recommended against by all national and international health care agencies throughout the world, but later studies made both therapies the global standard of hospital care. In addition, Kory, Marik, et. al published the first comprehensive COVID-19 prevention and early treatment protocol (which they would eventually call I-MASK). It is centered around the drug Ivermectin, which President Trump used at Walter Reed hospital, unreported by the press, though it may well have saved the president’s life while he was instead touting new big pharma drugs.

Invermectin, an FDA-approved anti-parasitic drug, had been repurposed for use against COVID-19 and showed remarkable anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties.

Well-designed university trials … showed amazing anti-COVID-19 activity at the normal doses used to treat parasites. Though small and endlessly diverse by large, Western big pharma “one-size-fits all” random control trials, the Ivermectin studies were a mosaic of hundreds of scientists and many thousands of patients in trials all over the world, all showing the same remarkable efficacy against all phases of COVID-19 no matter what dose or age or severity of the patient. “Penicillin never was randomized,” Marik says. “It just obviously worked. Ivermectin obviously works.”

Marik was astonished. “If you were to say, tell me the characteristics of a perfect drug to treat COVID-19, what would you ask for?” he said. “I think you would ask firstly for something that’s safe, that’s cheap, that’s readily available, and has anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties. People would say, “That’s ridiculous. There could not possibly be a drug that has all of those characteristics. That’s just unreasonable. But we do have such a drug. The drug is called Ivermectin.”

If it was universally distributed at a dose that costs ten American cents in India and about the cost of a Big Mac in the United States, he said, Ivermectin would save countless lives, crush variants, eliminate the need for endless big pharma booster shots, and end the pandemic all over the world. …

The data from twenty-seven studies, sixteen of them randomized controlled trials, demonstrated, with highly statistically significant, overwhelmingly positive, consistent, and reproducible rates, that people who got sick with COVID-19 were far more likely to quickly get better at home when they took Ivermectin. They didn’t go to the hospital. Housemates of people with COVID-19 who took Ivermectin didn’t get infected. People who got moderately ill in hospitals didn’t go to the ICU; they got better quicker and went home faster. Hospitals didn’t get overrun. The drug even saved elderly, critically ill COVID-19 patients from dying compared to those routinely dying elsewhere. Six prevention studies showed Ivermectin reduced the risk of getting COVID-19 by 92.5 percent, superior to many vaccines.

One of the doctors confirming the efficacy of the Ivermectin-based cocktail was David Chesler in Charlottesville with hundreds of COVID-19 patients in six nursing homes. He wrote Anthony Fauci telling him that he had found the early treatment the nation was looking for.

Dr. Chesler explained that facing the choice with his elderly COVID-19 patients to “either provide my patients with the standard of care, basically first aid, with Tylenol, oxygen and monitoring, until they became sick enough to be sent to the hospital, or to try something more proactive with the hope of the patients not becoming so ill and then losing their lives,” he had since successfully treated “over 200 high-risk COVID patients” with Ivermectin, many over 100 years old, with none dying or needing “heroic” oxygen support. Fauci never replied.

The public health establishment had no interest in the findings.

The WHO, NIH, and other public health agencies were suddenly recommending only COVID-19 therapies proven by the “gold standard” of large randomized controlled trials of treatment and placebo groups, which were powerful but had several limiting flaws, including the fact that they took months to complete and cost ten to twenty million dollars that only big pharmaceutical companies could afford. They had thrown out all the other time-tested forms of clinical and scientific medical investigation still taught in all the medical schools, such as observational trials (which had eliminated widespread crib death), case histories, and anecdotes. They also restricted the use of essential off-label and generic drugs with blatant disinformation campaigns that reminded Kory of big tobacco’s efforts to hide the dangers of smoking. In effect, the public health authorities eliminated the full toolbox of essential scientific methods and drugs that doctors use every day, including the most effective early, prophylactic, and late-stage treatments for COVID-19, which were developed by frontline doctors, not pharmaceutical companies. …

In the new world of medicine, the COVID world, Kory says, “Only big randomized controlled trials by big pharma/big academic medical centers are accepted by big journals, while others are rejected,” while only studies in big journals are accepted by big public health agencies for drug recommendations, and only drugs recommended by big public health agencies “escape media/social media censorship.”

In the hyper-politicized environment of Washington, D.C., Democrats and their media acolytes dismissed the Ivermectin advocates as QAnon-like anti-science kooks promoting “fringe theories.” Even as Ivermectin was saving tens of thousands of lives in South America, the Associated Press proclaimed that “there’s no evidence Ivermectin has been proven a safe or effective treatment against COVID-19.”

Yet… the Ivermectin cocktail did continue spreading to countries that lack the resources to vaccinate their populations and, if Marik and his associates are to be believed, has saved millions of lives. Either Marik is a dangerous quack or he deserves the Nobel Prize. Time will tell.

Share this article


(comments below)


(comments below)


35 responses to “Paul Marik: COVID Quack or Pandemic Hero?”

  1. LarrytheG Avatar

    There are other reports of other anti-inflamatory treatments but the standard approach in science is the randomized trials and I’d not be impugning that process. It’s the same process that got us the vaccinations.

    “science” is not neat and tidy. There are lots of folks with lots of ideas and some of them turn out to be – ultimately – gold standards themselves – but you don’t get there by just making the claim – you need to demonstrate it and that does take time if you want it to be widely recognized and used.

    Doctors are free to use non-standard approaches themselves especially when there is little hope of other approaches but before a new approach can be recognized as a standard – it has to be put through a trial. That’s science.

    1. Stephen Haner Avatar
      Stephen Haner

      Waiting on the well-controlled trials that demonstrate my gas-burning automobile is heating the planet. They ain’t got none, Larry my boy. A system like Earth’s atmosphere and oceans is so complex no such experimentation is even possible, let alone with a control. Thank you for admitting there is no science behind Climate Alarmism.

      1. LarrytheG Avatar

        Whatever, Steve. How the climate thing plays out – like other things – depends not on one study or one guy but a wide variety of scientists – who, over time, reach a consensus.

        Those who are looking for yes/no, black/white answers are like those who want science to state conclusively that cigarette smoking actually causes cancer or artificial sweeteners do, or round-up, etc…

        Steve, you are in a minority on climate. Even major corporations accept it including some fossil fuel companies.

        Ya’ll are modern-day luddites!

        1. Publius Avatar

          Larry – wrong again. Haner and other climate change skeptics are not Luddites. Luddites want to stop technological advancement – in the original case in the textile industry.
          “Science” doesn’t say anything and is not determined by consensus. Consensus was the earth is flat, consensus was the sun orbits the earth. Consensus was a universe. Now, to deny a design inference, we hear talk of a multiverse.
          Science is a process. Since the weather forecast has been wrong the last couple of days for just our little area, I look with a jaundiced eye at “models” predicting doom, and that we can control it (like the virus!), even more so when there is money involved. That is actually good scientific skepticism, wishing to see results replicated. So, I think for you “science” takes on strange religious overtones until it contradicts some other part of Leftist “faith” – like the multiverse of genders, biological males competing in female sports, saying a biological man who transitions to a woman needs menstrual supplies…just goofy. So us “anti-science” types are really doing science better…

          1. LarrytheG Avatar

            Publius – you’re confusing “consensus” of popular non-scientific beliefs and scientific consensus.

            You may recall from history what was done to scientists when mobs of ignorant disagreed with them.

            For instance, the skeptics have “consensus” also but not based on science but instead their beliefs.

            Science is not religious either. Lots of Science violates people’s religious beliefs.

            “Anti-science” is Uber ignorance. It’s picking and choosing what one wants to believe -regardless of what science says.

            Science is always wrong. The process is about getting it right – over time – as multiple scientists and studies sort out what is true and what is not.

            It’s like weather modelling, hurricane tracking. None of the models is “right” but all of them together reveal important information that we rely on for decisions – even though we know it’s not 100% right. Skeptics see something wrong but lose sight of the overwhelming evidence so they choose instead to latch on to some inconsistencies for their denial.

            If we used the same skeptic approach to hurricane tracking – they’d deny that hurricanes are coming – because CLEARLY the models are wrong in terms of precision and predicted intensity. We evacuate towns that are not hit as predicted, right?

            So hurricane models are not science or if they are, bad science, right? People have every reason to doubt hurricane models because so far, not a single one has predicted with 100% accuracy.

            Now Cue Climate Science.

          2. Publius Avatar

            “Scientific consensus”
            Oh…THAT makes it right…
            Science is a neutral process, just like education is supposed to be teaching kids how to think, not what to think.
            Skepticism of climate change is not anti-science – another Leftist tactic of using a pejorative to shut you up – the Alinskyite freezing of the target for ridicule – it is in fact good scientific skepticism because the models are bull. Give me the spreadsheet and let me change a few of the hundreds of variables, which are all estimates anyway, and watch the fun. It is also laughable…there are thousands of variables, maybe millions…we don’t know everything. Get the weather right in Henrico County for the next month before you tell me 50 years from now.
            No, Larry – I ain’t falling for it. When you say anti-science, you are revealing you are anti-knowledge, anti-debate, anti-free speech, anti-scientific inquiry, and that is truly anti-science…
            Go back to Russia stole the election for the science minded, non conspiracy kook Left…
            Go back to the KungFlu did not come from the Corona virus gain of function research facilities located in Wuhan but came from a bat 1000 miles away that transmitted to another animal to a human, you mouth breathing xenophobic Trump supporters…oh…sorry
            Ockham’s Razor. KungFlu came from the labs. Now use science to prove me wrong. I’ll wait…but I won’t hang around!

          3. LarrytheG Avatar

            Scientific consensus IS neutral and is nothing like popular consensus on anything.

            “Anti-Science” is real and apparent, whether it’s about climate or Covid or vaccinations… misinformation, disinformation and conspiracy theories abound on the right.

            You betray yourself when you launch into anti-public education and start blathering about Allinsky and other foolishness.

            Not really worth discussing with you , guy.

            You clearly don’t understand how models work. There is no 100%, They don’t work like that – whether it’s an earth model or a rocket model or a weather model… it’s real world.

            And like Haner, you guys are in the minority these days AND you’re getting smaller and smaller in number as most legitimate organizations – NGOs, Governments and corporations acknowledge climate issues.

            The climate models work like other models. None of them can predict the exact outcome, nor are intended to – there are way too many real world variables in play. We know that on the front but some folks just don’t understand to start with.

          4. Publius Avatar

            Hail SCIENCE! And its High Priest, Larry the G, the omnipotent, the omniscient, the ubiquitous source of all knowledge and goodness.
            Bless all those who agree with him, proving his goodness and mercy, and who, being the mob, will not act like a mob because of his great goodness and mercy.
            Sorry, Larry, no matter how much you try, no matter how much you try say that people in the minority must be wrong (yet another Leftist logical fallacy), 2 + 2 will always equal 4, even though that is white supremacist, patriarchal and systemic racism, it will still equal 4.
            Those of us who can distinguish chicken from chicken $h!+ will continue to choose chicken, and not what you are selling.

          5. LarrytheG Avatar

            Real science is real science. Sorry Charlie, that’s the way it is.

            When science says a rock is between 2 and 3 million years old – do you believe it ? Do you doubt it? Do you wonder why they said between 2 and 3 million instead of 2.1484 million years?

            Science is not the absolute truth from on high never to change,

            It’s an evolving body of knowledge that informs us on what facts are and not,

            It works that way whether it’s cancer, or genetics, weather or climate.

            It’s the same process.

          6. Publius Avatar

            Finally! We agree!
            Real science is real science.
            “Climate science” is not absolute truth, never to change. It is full of bad assumptions and other great unknowns. Believing it is infallible borders on religiosity, not fidelity to the scientific process. So, we skeptics are better scientists than you religious zealots…
            Glad we got that established…

          7. LarrytheG Avatar

            Make no mistake. Climate Science IS Science – like any other science that does not provide absolute proof.

            You guys kill me.

            The world around you , all of our technology and knowledge about the earth was developed by science.

            All we know about cancer, genetics, the moon, Mars, the oceans, is based on science.

            And you guys pick something and decide it’s not even though the vast majority of scientists and people accept it.

            Ya’ll remind me of people the Doctor tells them they have a terrible or terminal disease and they reject it and keep going to other doctors looking for a better answer!

            If you guys were in charge – science would be set back decades!

      2. Nancy Naive Avatar
        Nancy Naive

        Maybe we’re both wrong.
        You’re wrong and won’t need the control test, and I’m wrong in that we may actually see it…

  2. Dick Hall-Sizemore Avatar
    Dick Hall-Sizemore

    It would not surprise me that Ivermectin, or some other drug, would be effective against COVID. It is common for drugs to be used for “off-label” conditions. I take a medication, in its generic form, for a condition for which the drug was not tested and is not FDA-approved. Although the drug manufacturer cannot advocate this drug to doctors to be used for any condition not approved by the FDA, doctors know that it is effective for other conditions and therefore prescribe it. But, it can have serious side effects, especially if overused. In fact, it has recently been placed on the Controlled Substances list. Fortunately for me, I have not experienced any trouble with it.

    Just a brief internet search reveals the debate raging over the use of Ivermectin for Covid-19 and the FDA reports that there have been instances of persons experiencing serious side effects. The article cited by Jim takes some cheap shots at Fauci and other public health agencies. It would have been irresponsible for them to recommend a drug that had not been tested for effectiveness and safety.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      The first time I’d heard of Botox actually being used medicinally was 20+ years ago for a Navy pilot who had suffered a neck injury as a result of flying and caused debilitating headaches. The Navy doctors injected it in his neck. At the time the FDA approved it only for cosmedic uses. Now, it’s for migraines.

    2. CJBova Avatar

      Another part of the instances of side effects were people using doses intended for horses which were for an animal much larger than a human and the animal product contains other ingredients not meant for human consumption. I looked through the database of the 93 studies, and there definitely have been some positive results. Some had to do with viral replication, some with reducing/preventing symptoms. Some said they showed promise and needed to be followed up with more controlled studies.

    3. LarrytheG Avatar

      Yes, the right loves to cheap-shot Fauci. It’s not hard to understand why but then one realizes that the same folks don’t really understand or accept science to start with.

      I’m betting the folks that diss Fauci are also climate skeptics – hard core anti-science types.

  3. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
    Baconator with extra cheese

    Brett Weinstein has a great recent podcast on Ivermectin and Covid. In the podcast they discuss circumstantial information that compells one to believe this was well known by pharmaceutical companies but supressed to gain emergency use for mRNA vaccines…
    No worries though… Fauci-Man Chu is on the case.

    1. LarrytheG Avatar

      geeze – ALWAYS a conspiracy!

      1. Baconator with extra cheese Avatar
        Baconator with extra cheese

        Just like that lab origin conspiracy theory?

  4. Stephen Haner Avatar
    Stephen Haner

    The way to find out who is correct is…..a randomized control group trial. Certainly steroids became a standard protocol so that part makes perfect sense. But using something aimed at parasitic disease sounds too much like HCQ, which had to be stupid because Trump liked it. Just like the Wuhan lab has to be innocent because Trump suspects it.

    1. Nancy Naive Avatar
      Nancy Naive

      EVMC did indeed use HCQ in a cocktail that they used in the beginning of the pandemic which help some victims. It has some anecdotal effect as an antiviral, but against COVID?

      1. Stephen Haner Avatar
        Stephen Haner

        The data ain’t there. It was worth checking out.

        1. Nancy Naive Avatar
          Nancy Naive

          Which? HCQ or voter fraud in Georgia?

          “There is massive voter fraud stealing elections from my fellow Republicans. Vote for me and I’ll end voter fraud.”

          Wait! What?

    2. Just a wild Tiburon Avatar
      Just a wild Tiburon
  5. CJBova Avatar

    A large trial is just getting underway. May 21 2021 Star Tribune in Minnesota:

    Controversial ivermectin added to University of Minnesota COVID-19 drug trial

    The 1,100 patients sought immediately after positive COVID-19 tests to see if common drugs prevent severe illness

    1. CJBova Avatar

      Database of all ivermectin COVID-19 studies. 93 studies, 54 peer reviewed, 56 with results comparing treatment and control groups.

      1. First article in the database link you sent”exclusion sensitivity analysis 56 of 67 studies must be excluded to avoid finding statistically significant efficacy.”
        Then, it goes on to say..
        “While many treatments have some level of efficacy, they do not replace vaccines and other measures to avoid infection.”

        Seriously, did you read what you what you posted?

        Invermectin is a very effective FDA approved drug to treat malaria which is a virus transmitted by mosquitoes. The most positive conclusion to be drawn form these 67 studies regarding Covid is that invermectin does not inhibit the effectiveness of the vaccines!

  6. Nancy Naive Avatar
    Nancy Naive

    Lorenzo’s Oil still ain’t gettin’ FDA approval…

    1. grumpy Avatar

      Propaganda at work! Don’t take this pill because it’s also effective on horses! Lots of Lies on that FDA site.

  7. grumpy Avatar

    There is a huge bias at FDA for profitable meds, and against cheap ones.
    Merck has an alternative to Ivermectin, which taxpayers just bought 1.2 BILLION dollars worth of. So Merck did a study “proving” ivermectin makes no difference on young (30 yo avg) healthy Columbians with no obesity or diabetes. This is called an underpowered study. It also “proved” COVID is no worse than flu because nobody got sick. But because Merck’s PR department spent heavily promoting their flawed study, the world press covered that! And they managed to sell $1.2 billion of their much-worse alternative to taxpayers. The reviewers of Merck’s lies by the way tagged the study “High risk of Bias”.

    The FDA will approve anything highly profitable. They recently approved a placebo infusion for Alzheimer’s “provisionally for a decade” with no evidence that it works and medical scientists saying it cannot possibly work. But at $50,000 per patient/year for 10 years they may steal a half Trillion dollars. So that gets approved. Scientific reviewers resign in protest tagging it as FDA’s worst decision ever.

    FDA relies 100% on for-profit corps to do drug trials.
    What company can spend millions of dollars,
    to potentially make thousands of dollars,
    while taking on billions in potential liability if they are wrong,
    and losing billions in sales of less effective, more profitable meds?
    A corporate exec who spent money proving Ivermectin works, could be sued by the shareholder!
    Capitalism is wonderful and can do great things. But it cannot spend millions to prove a non-profit drug works. Not possible.
    That’s why we need govt. But Congress won’t let the FDA sponsor trials.
    That might cause the industry to make less money.

    1. This man is a quack. He is killing people. Do your research. There are no studies showing positive outcomes to suggest using hydroxychloroquine Prophylactically to ward off Covid! This doctor got Covid while on his own regime!!! As did our president! What’s more, Marik’s work on Sepsis has been discredited. He was also reprimanded for prescribing controlled substance without a license to people who were not his patients. This guy couldn’t get a medical degree in the US so, he went to Africa. He was removed from University of Wisconsin medical school and now he’s at the 80th best research hospital in the US out of 90. Perhaps the only person with less creditability than Merik is the author of this article who had to invent his own website to get this fictional article published. But, if you still think Marik has outsmarted all the doctors at Harvard, Yale, Stanford, the Mayo Clinic, Oxford, UCLA and on and on…you get what you deserve!

    2. Name 1 bit of real evidence to support what your saying rather than spewing off attacks on the FDA. There are zero studies to suggest Hydroxychloroquine has any use beyond the prevention and treatment of malaria. There are only opinion articles written by who has repeatedly been discredited on Covid as well as on his treatment of Sepsis!

    3. No worse than the flu… The flu killed 50 million people!

Leave a Reply