COVID-19: A Five Year Retrospective Who Determines 'The Science' and the Censoring of Alternative Voices
BY TOM HACH
While conducting research for this series, it was quickly evident that unbiased sources and data on the origins of COVID-19 are difficult to find. Also apparent from the research is that medical-related research at universities, hospitals and elsewhere is a big business. From 2018 to 2024, a search showed research funding went from about $95 billion to around $150 billion, with the largest portion coming from the federal government, followed by institutional money - including hospitals and non-academic research institutions and last but not least from private or nonprofit sources, including pharmaceutical companies and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Why are these observations important? Most readers are familiar with the Bible's 'Golden Rule;' however, there is an alternative, non-biblical 'Golden Rule' which states that “He who has the gold makes the rules.” When there is a convergence of power, money, control and profit it is not unreasonable to consider that those who have the medical research funding “gold” might have predetermined desired outcomes and narratives consistent with the convergences listed above.
Looking at possible convergence-effects, several search strategies were used to find a significant amount of pre-2020 research on the anti-viral properties of ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, samples of which can be found here, here, here and here. Both of these drugs have been utilized world-wide for decades, are no longer under patent and are generally recognized as safe. In fact, ivermectin is now sold over-the-counter without a prescription in several states.
During times of medical emergence, like COVID-19, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is able to issue Emergency Use Authorizations (EUA) for experimental treatments, when “there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives.” Despite the significant body of evidence for ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine having anti-viral properties, time and again senior government medical leaders warned against using ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 because they were not fully tested.
Yet in October 2022 at a European Parliament hearing, Janine Small, Pfizer’s President of International Developed Markets, said that Pfizer did not conduct specific tests to determine if the vaccine stopped transmission despite this fact, that did not prevent government agencies from airing ads which promoted the idea the vaccines would protect others. It is interesting that the same leaders who said ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine should not be used because they were not fully tested, supported the FDAs EUA for the COVID-19 mRNA vaccines, which by definition would not have needed an EUA if they had been fully tested.
Had ivermectin, hydroxychloroquine or another existing drug been found to be effective in treating COVID-19, there would have been no EUA and the pharmaceutical companies would not have been able to charge the US government over $31 billion for their use. Add to this the amount of money pharmaceutical companies spend on media advertising, over $19 billion in 2024 for digital ads alone, and it is not hard to imagine a convergence of power, money, control and profits to dictate the approach to handling the COVID-19 pandemic.
Another aspect of COVID-19 narrative control was the active role the federal government played in censoring and de-platforming Twitter (now X) and social media accounts, which were contrary to the official government policies and medical recommendations. This comprehensive and wide-ranging effort, scrubbed social media platforms of disfavored COVID-related views regardless of whether the posts were true. As case in point, epidemiologist Martin Kulldorff responded “No” to the question of whether young people and people who already had COVID-19 should be vaccinated. Despite being an expert in his field, Twitter deemed this to be false information simply because it was inconsistent with CDC guidelines.
In Ohio, Gov. DeWine fully supported the official narratives from the FDC and other government agencies, even going so far as to create a free $5 million state lottery open only to residents who had received a COVID-19 vaccine. Eventually, the governor was pressured by other state leaders to ease up on COVID-19-related restrictions. And as was mentioned in an earlier article, this culminated in Senate Bill 22, which was passed over a DeWine veto and limited the emergency powers of the governor and ensures the General Assembly has to approve ongoing emergency actions on a periodic basis.
As this series on COVID-19 five years later continues, several other aspects of the pandemic response will be investigated and alternative perspectives COVID-19 discussed.
