Gates Funded Hydroxychloroquine Studies are Designed to Kill People

by | Jun 19, 2020 | Corruption, Health, Pandemic, Science, Vaccines, Video Picks of the Week, World News | 9 comments

I’m sure expecting a damning headline like this to be little more than an ‘exaggeration of the facts’ piece of click-bait. Unfortunately, it is not, in-fact the use of the word ‘murder’ in the headline would be more accurate.

I’ll try to break this down as simply as possible, as it is essential that this information is understood, taken seriously and shared with as many people as possible.

The Solidarity Trial

The first study we need to run through is a WHO-led conglomeration, which includes multiple trials in the use of HCQ treatments for COVID-19.

The Solidarity Trial[1] is a WHO-led conglomeration of many national trials of treatments for Covid-19[2]:

As of 3 June 2020, more than 3500 patients have been recruited in 35 countries, with over 400 hospitals actively recruiting patients. Overall, over 100 countries have joined or expressed an interest in joining the trial, and WHO is actively supporting 60 of them…

The WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus halted the Solidarity hydroxychloroquine studies on May 25th, but restarted them on June 3rd[2], only to then halt them again on June 17th.

The studies were halted due to the release of the Lancet publication which claimed patients being treated with the drug had a 35% higher death rate. However, this study was retracted just 13 days after its release after it was exposed for the circus science[3] it was.

Something that was not clear in any of the data coming out of these trials though was the dosages being administered of Hydroxychloroquine, but it is now become clear that the doses are significantly higher than what is deemed safe usage of the drug.

ICMR, which is India’s official medical research agency raised concerns of the dosages being used in the trials in a letter to the WHO[4]:

Currently, as per protocols set by the Indian government to treat severe coronavirus patients requiring ICU management, HCQ dosages are administered in the following way- 1st day a heavy dose of 400mg HCQ dose once in the morning and one at night, followed by 200 mg HCQ one in the morning and one at night to be followed for the next four days. The total dosage administered to a patient in 5 days, therefore, amounts to 2400 mg.

Internationally in Solidarity trial COVID-19 patients are being administered with–800 mg x 2 loading doses 6 hours apart followed by 400 mg x 2 doses per day for 10 days. The total dosage given to a patient over 11 days is about 9600 mg which is four times higher than the dose we are giving to our patients.[4]

Recovery Trials

The recovery trial is a UK based study which, while not part of the Solidarity trials, is very similar. The trial, which ended on June 4th, reported no benefit[5], in fact there was 10% more deaths compared to those receiving standard care.

The dosing regimen used in the Recovery trial was 2400mg in the first 24 hours followed by 400mg every 12 hours for 9 more days. Giving a total of 9200 grams over the 10 days[6].

This major over dosing in the trials caused a twitter storm with the hashtag #RecoveryGate.

But it gets better, babies weighing 5kg could be given a dose of 300mg in the first 24 hours, which is again 4 times the recommended maximum[7]. It is stated that 200-400mg is ‘potentially fatal to a toddler’[8] (yes toddler, not baby!)

Authors of a paper out of George Washington University stated[9]:

“Ingestion of 1-2 tablets of chloroquine or hydroxychloroquine is thought to predispose children under 6 years of age to serious morbidity and mortality…ingestions of greater than 10 mg/kg of chloroquine base or unknown amounts require triage to the nearest health care facility for 4-6 h of observation.

There is very limited data on pediatric hydroxychloroquine overdoses and no reports of toxicity from 1-2 pills, but given its similarity to chloroquine, it also should be considered potentially toxic at small doses. Thus, similar recommendations should be followed for triage after accidental hydroxychloroquine overdose.”[9]

Known Toxic Dose

So what do we know about the toxicity of HCQ from previous trials and research, well, quite a lot it turns out.

Goldfrank’s Toxicologic Emergencies stated “… chloroquine has a small toxic to therapeutic margin,“.  When used properly with the correct dosing it is exceptionally effective, however a little over the correct dosing can result in death.[10]

In 1979 the WHO explored the toxicity of Chloroquine, the consultant hired to carry out this task, H. Weniger looked at 335 episodes of adult poisoning by chloroquine drugs and found that 1500-2000mg in a single dose can be fatal[11]

From  excellent blog on this scandal[12]:

The Recovery trial used 1.86 grams hydroxychloroquine base (equal to 2400 mg of hydroxychloroquine) in the first 24 hours for treatment of already very ill, hospitalized Covid-19 patients. 

The Canadian and Norwegian Solidarity trials used 2,000 mg of HCQ, or 1.55 grams of HCQ base in the first 24 hours. Each trial gave patients a cumulative dose during the first 24 hours that, when given as a single dose, has been documented to be lethal. (The drug’s half-life is about a month, so the cumulative amount is important.)  

She goes on to conclude:

The high dose regimen being used in these trials has no medical justification.  The trial design, with its limited collection of safety data, makes it difficult or impossible to identify toxic drug effects, compared to a standard drug trial.  This is completely unethical.

Excessive dosing makes it impossible to assess therapeutic benefit, if any, of HCQ. Furthermore, because there are over 400 trial sites, and relatively few subjects in each, unexpectedly high trends in mortality are likely to be missed at individual trial sites.

Finally, testing the drug only in hospitalized patients means that the window of time during which HCQ would be expected to provide the most benefit, early in the illness when viral titers are rising, has passed.

Designed to Fail at the Expense of Life

Both the WHO and the Recovery Trials are largely funded by the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the same entity that is also funding multiple Vaccine trials, with its frontman and founder Bill Gates pushing the Vaccine gospel any chance he gets.

So does it come as any surprise that both the studies he heavily funded on a drug that could potentially eliminate any necessity for a Vaccine, were rigged to fail?

However, what is most shocking is that this is being done at the expense of human life, with up to four times the deadly dose being given to some of those in the test group.

It is also at the expense of the potentially hundreds of thousands of lives that could be saved if the drug was given a fair study and thus endorsed across the World as an effective treatment. Which by the way, it is.

Is this Murder?,  that’s a question we’ll leave you to ponder on.

Please let us know your thoughts on this in the comments section below.

James Allard

James Allard

James has been with OYE NEWS from the start, with extensive knowledge across a wide range of subjects his work is diverse. He is essentially an Anarchist and believes in individual freedom and sovereignty.


  1. sarah crafter

    I cannot believe major news outlets have been silent on this, shocking!

    • Isotope

      Not a whisper

  2. Humble Harry

    I find this topic rather interesting. However, what I just can’t get past, after reading several related “Oye News” articles, including this one, is just how poorly written they are, to say the least.

    The grammatical errors are quite egregious and not only detract away from the main points being made, but also make me, as the reader, less inclined to believe the subject matter being discussed.

    From the overall general lack of proper punctuation to the blatant disregard for a naturally flowing sentence structure with grammatically correct phrasing and pausing, it’s any wonder why “Oye News” articles such as this one, gain as much traction as it might have if it had been properly edited before being published in the first place.

    There is no substitution for good editing, which also includes evaluating grammatical context for errors, among many other things. It is a crucial aspect of creating a well-written document that any good author, worth their salt, would take the time to do before permitting the publication of their words.

    It is a common reaction, that when most people read an article that is replete with grammatical errors, more often than not, the reader not only loses interest quickly, but in turn, also begins to doubt the legitimacy of the very source of the article itself.

    I’m all for letting the facts on the ground really speak for themselves, but when it comes to sharing this information in a published format, to be read by the masses, if you are going to present such information in a specific language, it is simply common sense to follow the grammatical rules of that language. It also shows respect to those whom are expected to read the information in that same language.

    Why some author’s, these days, refrain from paying that much attention to this very important aspect of meaningful journalism and writing, is beyond me!

    One thing I can tell you for sure, is that I dismiss articles like this one far more readily, due to them containing such errors. It is a waste of my time to re-read an article over again, to try to decipher the main points being made, because the sentence structure is all over the place.

    The realization that an author would simply glaze over this important step in the writing process, as far as I’m concerned, leaves an indelible stain on good journalism and writing in general. By allowing their work to be published with such errors, they are, in effect, adding to the level of distrust we already see happening in the world of publishing today.

    If one can’t be bothered to follow proper writing techniques in the language they choose to author, especially when publishing articles on important topics, then maybe they should not bother to write at all, and instead, leave it up to those with the desire and proper expertise in that language to be the ones to do so.

    • James Allard

      Thank you for your feedback. I’m sorry you struggle to take anything seriously that isn’t being published on a platform that has millions of dollars behind it and a team of journalists, editors, web designers, developers and tea boys(and girls) to keep the staff happy.

      Here, topics are researched, written and published as quickly as possible and then refined over time when errors arise. All by a huge team of one.

      Meanwhile maintaining the server, developing the website and responding to thousands of emails and comments received through here and via social media.

      All at my own expense of time and money.

      Now, tell me – is information published by a network such as the BBC, who has a team of people to ensure the grammar and literature is up to standard, but also has obscene amounts of money from various donors, more reputable?

      Or just better funded?

      I would argue that information regardless of how it is presented, is no less credible, the quality of grammar can be for a number of reasons. Dyslexia, not ones native language, time frames required to get content out, no funding for proof readers and editors and so on.

      Interestingly, have you checked the quality of well funded mainstream news these days?

      Considering they have various forms of quality control, they still make multiple epic errors on a daily basis.

      ‘The grammatical errors are quite egregious and not only detract away from the main points being made, but also make me, as the reader, less inclined to believe the subject matter being discussed.’ – This is more a statement about yourself than the content, why is it do you think that you correlate language with credibility?

      I would suggest your time maybe wiser spent discussing the topics in hand rather than trying to feel somehow superior by simply criticising something which is irrelevant to the purpose and more importantly the facts.

      But thank you for reaching out, point taken – ‘Must try harder’ – I will :p

      • James Allard

        But please, feel free to help improve the quality of how content is presented by donating at – Every little helps.

      • Juliette Ashmore

        Well said James Allard

        • James Allard

          Thank you 🙂


Submit a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

NHS Nurse Suspended For Speaking Out About The Pandemic

NHS Nurse Tracey McCallum faces losing her career of more than 20 years after sharing he views on the pandemic on social media. The media are...

The Truth About The Moderna & Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Claims

Unless you have been on a quick trip to the moon, you will have seen over the past week the media storm over Pfizer's new claim that their...

Boris Johnson Self-Isolates In Latest Social Programming Exercise

The UK's Prime Minister Boris Johnson is self-isolating as part of the ongoing programming of the public to reinforce this fact-less notion...

UK Government Expecting High Volume of Adverse Reactions From COVID-19 Vaccine

The UK's Medicines & Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) recently secured a new contract to assist in the handling of adverse...

Ticketmaster – No Vaccine, No Ticket!

Concert-goers could be asked to verify their coronavirus vaccination status before allowing admission to future live events, according to...

Vaccine Propaganda Goes Into Overdrive!

Roll up, roll up, ladies and gentlemen, the moment is almost upon us. Please, just hold tight, look up to the sky and await your saviour. The...

Nightingale Hospitals to Become Mass Immunization Centres

Remember those gigantic make-shift hospitals that were built in the UK near the beginning of pandemic to ensure there were enough beds to cope...

England National Lockdown Commences November 5th – What Would Guy Fawkes Do?

Well, it happened. Boris Johnson announced the new 4-week national lockdown, which is to begin on Thursday 5th November. The new rules are as...

UK National Lockdown Likely To Begin Next Week

UK's Prime Minister has caved to pressure from his scientific advisors for a second national lockdown. It's expected the new lockdown will...

France Declares Second National Lockdown Until at Least End of November

French President Emmanuel Macron has announced a second national lockdown until at least the end of November. The new measures, which will...

Stay Connected - Subscribe Today

Thank you for subscribing!

Pin It on Pinterest