Fauci wanted the EUA, and to get that he had to claim no existing treatments worked

Most Americans are sick of hearing about Fauci, since a) "You can't change the past"; and b) "It's clear that as long as the Democrat party insists on protecting him, he'll never be punished for his crimes against humanity, so why waste time trying?" 

I get it.  Really.  And I *really* wanna change that.  I want you to be as furious as his many crimes deserve, so that maybe our useless congress will send this monster to prison. 

SO...you probably think you have an idea about what a ghastly monster, liar, murderer Fauci is.  But you've barely scratched the surface.  It takes a bit of background to understand how carefully plotted the entire covid thing was.

The so-called "vaccine" was approved under a section of U.S. LAW (yeah, I know, law ain't shit to Democrats) called "Emergency Use Authorization" (EUA).  As the name implies, if a new epidemic were to hit, this emergency provision allows developers to cut corners to rush a *possible* treatment to the public--but ONLY if there's no existing treatment for the disease.

Since Fauci got the EUA approved, by LAW that must mean no known, approved treatment was effective against covid.  But was that true?

In 2005 Asia was struggling with a coronavirus closely related to Covid-19, called "SARS-CoV."  It used the same type of spike protein to bind to the same target cells in the human airway ("ACE-2 receptors").  

The NIH has a publication called "Virology Journal," described as "an official publication of the National Institutes of Health.  In August of 2005 that journal published an article titled "Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread."  

Chloroquine was field-tested by the U.S. Army around 1943 and has been used for decades.  It's safe when used at recommended dosages, and astonishingly inexpensive.  It was tested "in-vitro" against SARS-CoV at various concentrations, and found to kill the virus's ability to infect the ACE-2 receptor cells.  At micro-molar levels it killed all the virus.  Nice!  

And if that wasn't impressive enough (and this is a really big deal), it was treat not only effective in treating cells after infection, when given before infection it was found to *prevent* infection entirely! 

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC1232869/

[If you click on the link to read the 2005 paper, don't be misled by the first sentence, which says "No effective prophylactic or post-exposure therapy is currently available."  The authors mean that chloroquine had not been approved for use against SARS-CoV *at that time.*
  This is confirmed in the conclusion: "Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection."]

Hydroxychloroquine ("HCQ") is a less-toxic derivative of chloroquine.  It was first used in 1955.  It's widely used to treat lupus and rheumatoid arthritis, and the VA dispenses roughly *a million pills of it a month for those conditions.*

On March 28, 2020, the FDA gave "Emergency Use Authorization" to both chloroquine and HCQ for use in treating Covid-19.  Interestingly, AI says "No, the FDA did NOT *formally approve* HCQ."  But if you keep reading, the FDA did grant EUA.  That's sure as hell an approval ("Authorization"), even if with restrictions.

During February, March and April of 2020 the VA purchased more than 6.3 million tablets of HCQ.  But if the "normal" use for lupus and arthritis was a million tabs a month, why did the VA buy more than twice the normal use during that three-month period?

And IF the VA gave HCQ to patients with Covid-19, are there any records of the outcome?

On June 15 of 2020 the FDA rescinded the EUA "after clinical data showed the drugs were unlikely to be effective."  I've read a couple of papers reporting the results, and they're FULL of crap.  It's as if they wrote the "no help" conclusion first and plugged in numbers to support it. 

In any case, as the head of one of the five divisions of NIH for decades, Fauci had to know that BOTH CQ and HCQ were known to be effective "in vitro," BOTH in preventing infection AND in treating existing infection.  And yet he repeatedly claimed--during daily news conferences--that both were dangerous and didn't help.  And of course no Dem-fellating "journalist" ever asked him what papers supported his claim.

That would have exposed Fauci as a liar.  Ooohh, can't have dat, eh?  Even though his diary shows he lied *constantly,* about *everything.*

Fauci was determined to get the "vaccine" approved--though carefully AFTER the election that saddled us with the vegetable bribem.  To get it done without taking another year to do all the long, costly, normal trials meant an EUA.  And to get the EUA required showing that no other effective treatment existed.

That obviously meant discrediting the two drugs above, plus ivermectin.  So the question to ask Fauci is "What studies do you cite as support for your claim that none of those three totally safe, already approved, low-cost drugs were NOT effective?"

Having been given federal immunity, Fauci should be forced to testify.  And since the DOJ will have time to review the "studies" Fauci is likely to cite, their flaws can be easily shown.