Elisabeth
Woodworth schreef een artikel op Global Research (door mij
overgenomen van Information Clearing House) over het middel
Remdesivir, leidend tot de conclusie dat dit medicijn amper of niet werkt.
De
Yale School of Public Health heeft in een recente uitgave van
de American Journal of Epidemiology (AJE) een dringende oproep gedaan om COVID-19 patiënten te behandelen met een combinatie van hydroxychloroquine
(HCQ) + azithromycine (te geven in de beginfase van de ziekte). Ook de
beroemde Franse microbioloog Didier Raoult staat achter deze behandeling, vreemd dan ook dat de VS zoveel geld heeft ingezet op het
middel Remdesivir, terwijl het zoals in de kop gesteld amper werkt (het verkort
hooguit de periode die patiënten doorbrengen in het ziekenhuis…)
Over
de kosten voor Remdevisir valt ook nog wel wat te zeggen, de
productie van dit product kost per kilo rond de $ 4,000.– (zo bleek uit een
eerder onderzoek dat op de BBC werd gemeld), terwijl men in de VS
per dosis voor een patiënt, maar liefst $ 3,200.– rekent, bevat één dosis in totaal 1 gram werkzame stof, wat de totale kosten op rond de $ 10.– per patiënt brengt….. Ongelofelijk maar
het is overduidelijk dat het lid van de farmaceutische maffia, in dit geval Gilead
Sciences een enorme bak geld verdient aan dit niet werkende middel……..
Overigens
wordt het steeds duidelijker dat de arts die stelde COVID-19
patiënten te behandelen als mensen met hoogteziekte meer en meer
zijn gelijk haalt, er wordt intussen meer zuurstof therapie gegeven
aan Coronapatiënten dan dat men hen middels een gevaarlijke ingreep
gaat beademen, waarvan velen nog jaren last zullen hebben, althans
als ze de ziekte overleven……..
Beste
bezoeker, weet niet wat te denken van de combinatie HCQ +
azithromycine, het zal wel werken, maar de opmerking dat het vooral
aan patiënten moet worden gegeven die in het
beginstadium van de ziekte zitten, doet je wel twijfelen aan de werkzaamheid, immers veel mensen die de ziekte onder de leden hebben gaan met grote regelmaat te laat naar een arts, daar men in eerste instantie niet doorheeft dat men besmet is met COVID-19, dit ofwel daar de symptomen te zwak zijn ‘om de patient te waarschuwen’ voor deze besmetting, dan wel daar een paar van de symptomen niet kloppen met wat men de bevolking heeft laten weten…… Voor die patienten is de gecombineerde behandeling met HCQ en
azithromycine dus zinloos…..
Intussen
wordt er gesteld dat COVID-19 een andere naam zou passen: SARS-2,
ofwel een gemuteerd SARS virus. Volgens zeggen zou dit virus al in
maart 2019 zijn gesignaleerd in de Catalaanse hoofdstad
Barcelona…….. E.e.a. bleek uit monsters die men destijds uit het
riool had gehaald en die onlangs nog eens werden bekeken, voorts
bleek daar dat er al veel mensen moeten zijn die immuun zijn voor
COVID-19……
Een groot voorstander van de behandeling met Remdesivir is ‘dr’ Fauci, een figuur die verantwoordelijk is voor een groot aantal aids doden. Woodworth vraagt zich af of deze man onder grote druk staat van bovenaf of van de farmaceutische maffia, die zij niet als zodanig aanduidt……. ha! ha! ha! ha! ha! Het is gezien zijn historie wel duidelijk dat Fauci als ‘onze’ viroloog Osterhaus, grootlobbyist is van de farmaceutische industrie!!
Lees
het volgende artikel en bedenk dat sinds de uitbraak van het
Coronavirus veel van wat zogenaamd betrouwbare wetenschappers hebben
gezegd over dit virus niet kloppen, neem de adviezen van ‘wetenschappers’ als die
van het RIVM, die het ene na het andere tegenstrijdige advies gaven en geven!!
Hier
het artikel van Woodworth, dat wordt onderbouwd met een fiks aantal noten:
Remdesivir
for Covid-19: $1.6 Billion for a “Modestly Beneficial” Drug?
By
Elizabeth Woodworth
July 04, 2020
“Information
Clearing House”
– The
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services has recently “bought”
all of Gilead Science’s Remdesivir for $1.6 billion. “500,000
doses at $3,200 per patient
– to be available to American hospitals but not for other
countries”[6]
That’s
$1.6
billion tax dollars
for a virtually untested drug showing only marginal efficacy in the
hospital setting.
How
could such a thing happen?
Introduction
If you believe an
urgent call from the Yale School of Public Health that was recently
published in the American
Journal of Epidemiology—
the top epidemiology journal in America — hydroxychloroquine (HCQ)
+ azithromycin is the quickest and most effective way to halt the
Covid-19 pandemic.[1]
According to this Yale
statement, hydroxychloroquine – a cheap, natural anti-malarial
tree-bark known as quinine for 400 years – is highly effective
during Phase 1 of Covid-19, while the virus is loading into the body.
As the first line of
defense, it should be immediately, freely, and widely available to
symptomatic high-risk patients – through doctors’ offices,
outpatient clinics, and hospitals across the land.
Indeed, under the
directorship of Dr.
Anthony Fauci,
a National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) a
clinical trial had been launched on May 14 to look into it.[2]
The HCQ + azithromycin
protocol is being used successfully by France’s top, award-winning
microbiologist, Dr.
Didier Raoult.
He is director of the Infectious and Tropical Emergent Diseases
Research Unit in Marseille (Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire) (IHU),
with 200 staff.
Raoult, now almost a celebrity in France, has
recently published his protocol and results, showing an overall 1.1%
case fatality rate.[3]
The same protocol has
also been highly successful in China, India, Senegal, and Brazil.[4]
So why suddenly is the
U.S. government and the media ignoring recommendations from these top
specialists,[5] and waiting, instead, until people get very sick
and hospitalized to treat them with the relatively untested drug,
Remdesivir, which is administered intravenously?
Why has the U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) just bought up all the
Remdesivir it could order – 500,000 doses at $3,200 per patient –
to be available to American hospitals but not for other countries?[6]
To put Remdesivir’s
cost in perspective, the CDC reports that the flu vaccine costs from
$12-$18 a dose.[7]
The government, in
order to justify its mind-boggling price, would need to show
exceptional efficacy in saving lives. Efficacy, that is, once the
disease has been allowed, through failure to use the HCQ +
azithromycinearly preventive approach, to advance to Phase 2 (the
dangerous inflammatory period) and Phase 3 (ICU ventilator
intubation, often leading to death).[8]
What do
studies say about the efficacy of remdesivir?
There are three main
studies that have examined remdesivir as a treatment for Covid-19:
- The first, a
study of seriously ill patients, was originally reported in the New
England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) on
April 10, 2020. Treated with “compassionate-use” remdesivir,
clinical improvement was observed in 36 of 53 patients (68%).
The article was
co-authored by 56 people, some of whom were on the staff of
remdesivir’s producer, Gilead Sciences.[9] The study was
funded by Gilead, and writing assistance was provided by
David McNeel,
also of Gilead.[10]
The following day,
April 11, the Science Media Centre published expert reactions to the
compassionate study from five British university professors. These
assessments were not encouraging: “the research doesn’t prove
anything at this point;” “the data is almost uninterpretable;”
the research should be treated “with extreme caution.”[11]
- A Wuhan, China
randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 237 patients
was accidentally leaked by the World Health Organization (WHO) and
published in The
Lancet. It
showed no statistically significant clinical benefits from
remdesivir:
“The antiviral
medicine remdesivir from Gilead Sciences failed to speed the
improvement of patients with Covid-19 or prevent them from dying,
according to results from a long-awaited clinical trial conducted in
China.” [12]
This Lancet
study
also found that some 14% of patients in the treatment group died
after 28 days, compared to 13% in the group that did not receive the
treatment.
And it further
reported that “remdesivir was stopped early because of adverse
events in 18 (12%) patients versus four (5%) patients who stopped
placebo early.”[13]
- The preliminary
results of a NIAID remdesivir trial of 1063 patients showed a
“modest” benefit in a controlled clinical trial:
“The infected people
who received remdesivir, an experimental drug made by Gilead Sciences
that cripples an enzyme several viruses use to copy their RNA,
recovered in an average of 11 days versus 15 in patients who received
a placebo. ‘Although a 31% improvement doesn’t seem like a
knockout, 100% [success], it is a very important proof of concept,’
said Anthony Fauci, head of the National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (NIAID).”[14]
Health
Policy Watch reported
that “the death rate was 8% in the group that received remdesivir
compared to 11.6% in the control group, although this result was not
statistically significant.” Dr. Fauci told reporters that “what
[this trial] has proven is that a drug can block the virus.”[15]
The excerpt below from
a June 24 article in the British
Medical Journal assesses
the problems in the foregoing studies. (One of the four co-authors,
Fiona Godlee, is the editor-in-chief of the British Medical Journal [BMJ]):
“A serious
imbalance in covid-19 research strongly favours the study of drug
treatments over non-drug interventions, with many studies too small
or too weak to produce reliable results. Equally concerning is
the release of partial or preliminary findings before peer
review—often through commercial press releases—that is distorting
public perceptions, ongoing evaluations efforts, and political
responses to the pandemic.
Remdesivir is
a key example. The antiviral drug, made by US company Gilead, was
unapproved at the start of the pandemic, but in early April the New
England Journal of Medicine published
a small descriptive study of a compassionate use scheme for patients
with covid-19. Gilead funded the study, a third of the authors were
Gilead employees, and Gilead’s press release reported “clinical
improvement in 68% of patients in this limited dataset.” Despite
being a non-randomised, uncontrolled, company funded study of just 53
patients, media headlines described “hopeful” signs and reported
“two thirds” of patients showing improvement.[16]
Two weeks
later, the Lancet published
a randomised placebo controlled trial of remdesivir from China,
finding no statistically significant clinical benefit in the primary
outcome of time to clinical improvement. Twelve per cent of
participants taking remdesivir stopped treatment early because of
adverse events, compared with 5% taking placebo. The trial was
stopped before meeting recruitment targets.”[17]
To summarize, the only
study demonstrating even marginal efficacy for remdesivir shows it to
reduce hospital recovery times 31%, from 15 days to 11 days.
What is the
justification for spending $3,200 tax dollars per Covid-19 patient to
save four days in hospital, unless it is to shorten hospital stays,
thereby saving the average U.S. bed cost of approximately $2000 per
day, while delaying hospital saturation that could leave some people
untreated to die?
Leaving people
untreated to die could cause civil unrest, which may be the covert
political reason for spending the $1.6 trillion.
None of the studies
mention side effects of the drug. In the China study, kidney injury
led to discontinuation for one patient, and in its use for ebola,
liver risks were identified.[18]
How much does
it cost to produce remdesivir?
The Institute for
Clinical and Economic Review (ICER) is a non-profit organization
seeking to improve healthcare value through clinical and
cost-effective analyses.[19]
In a May 1, 2020
study, the ICER calculated that the cost of producing the remdesivir
“final finished product,” including the pharmaceutical
ingredients, formulation, packaging, and a small profit margin, was
$9.32 US for a 10-day course of treatment. They rounded this up
to $10.[20]
Dr. Fauci’s
NIAID Clinical Trial Evaluating Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin
Closes Early
On June 20, 2020, nine
days before the Department of Health and Human Services announced its
$1.6 trillion purchase of remdesivir on June 29, its NIAID branch
closed a clinical trial that had been launched May 14 to investigate
whether the inexpensive combination, hydroxychloroquine plus
azithromycin, might be an effective treatment when given early in the
course of the disease.[21]
The Department of
Health and Human Services knew that hydroxychloroquine (aka
chloroquine) was effective against coronavirus because chloroquine
was tested against the SARS-1 virus during the outbreak in 2002. This
work was written up in 2005, under the auspices of the U.S. Centers
for Disease Control in Atlanta, which reports to the Department of
Human Health and Services.[22]
Truth, as the saying
goes, is stranger than fiction.
Who was
responsible for this debacle?
Dr. Fauci has served
in the National Institutes of Health under six presidents.
Were these bizarre
decisions carried out under his authority? Or were they forced upon
him from higher up? Or has he become a victim of regulatory
capture[23] by the drug industry?
Whatever the answer,
this unprecedented fleecing of the American public should have been
shouted from the rooftops, had there been a functioning US media.
Notes
[1] Harvey
A. Risch, “Early Outpatient Treatment of Symptomatic, High-Risk
Covid-19 Patients that Should be Ramped-Up Immediately as Key to the
Pandemic Crisis,” Amer.
J. Epid, 27
May 2020
(https://academic.oup.com/aje/advance-article/doi/10.1093/aje/kwaa093/5847586).
Risch is Professor at the Yale Schools of both Medicine and Public
Health.
[2] National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “NIH Begins Clinical
Trial of Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin to Treat COVID-19,” 14
May 2020
(https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/nih-begins-clinical-trial-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-treat-covid-19).
[3] Jean-Christophe
Lagier, et al, “Outcomes of 3,737 COVID-19 patients treated with
hydroxychloroquine/azithromycin and other regimens in Marseille,
France: A retrospective analysis,” Travel
Medicine and Infectious Disease,
25 June 2020
(https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1477893920302817).
Rault has 2,300 indexed medical journals in print.
[4] The
group “COVEXIT.com – News About Hydroxychloroquine & Other
COVID-19 Treatments,” was founded March 29, 2020 by Jean-Pierre
Kiekens. It keeps daily track of successful Covid treatments
worldwide (https://www.facebook.com/groups/covexit)
[5] Elizabeth
Woodworth, “The Media Sabotage of Hydroxychloroquine Use for
COVID-19: Doctors Worldwide Protest the Disaster,” Global
Research,
30 June 2020
(https://www.globalresearch.ca/media-sabotage-hydroxychloroquine-covid-19-doctors-worldwide-protest-disaster/5717382).
[6] US
Department of Health and Human Services, “Trump Administration
Secures New Supplies of Remdesivir for the United States,” June 29,
2010
(https://www.hhs.gov/about/news/2020/06/29/trump-administration-secures-new-supplies-remdesivir-united-states.html).
[7] Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention, Vaccines for Children Program,
“CDC Vaccine Price List,” updated 1 July 2020
(https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/programs/vfc/awardees/vaccine-management/price-list/index.html#adflu).
[8] Dr.
Raoult identified the three stages of Covid-19 while treating 3,737
patients with HCQ+azithromycin at his own clinic: “At the first
viral stage, one must give medicines against the virus, in the second
inflammatory phase, one needs to give medications against that
[inflammatory] reaction, and then in the third phase, it’s work to
be done in intensive care units.” Summarized from Didier Raoult,
at: “The Marx Brothers are Doing Science: the Example of RECOVERY,”
9 June 2020
(http://covexit.com/professor-raoult-compares-the-oxford-recovery-trial-academics-to-the-marx-brothers/).
[9] Jonathan
Grein, and 55 other authors, “Compassionate Use of Remdesivir for
Patients with Severe Covid-19,” New
England Journal of Medicine,
11 June 2020 (https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2007016),
“Editor’s
Note: This article was published on April 10, 2020, at NEJM.org.”
[10] Jason
D. Goldman, et al., “Remdesivir for 5 or 10 days in Patients with
Severe Covid,” New
England Journal of Medicine,
no date in header
(https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2015301?articleTools=true).
Sidebar:“This
article was published on May 27, 2020, at NEJM.org.”
[11] Prof.
Duncan Richards et al., “Expert reaction to a study about
compassionate use of remdesivir for patients with severe COVID-19,”
Science
Media Centre,
11 April 2020
(https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/expert-reaction-to-a-study-about-compassionate-use-of-remdesivir-for-patients-with-severe-covid-19/).
[12] Ed
Silverman, et al, “New data on Gilead’s remdesivir, released by
accident, show no benefit for coronavirus patients. Company still
sees reason for hope,” StatNews,
23 April 2020
(https://www.statnews.com/2020/04/23/data-on-gileads-remdesivir-released-by-accident-show-no-benefit-for-coronavirus-patients/).
[13] Yeming
Wang, et al., “Remdesivir in adults with severe COVID-19: a
randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial,”
The
Lancet,
16 May 2020 (original online publication 29 April 2020)
(https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(20)31022-9/fulltext).
[14] Jon
Cohen, “Large trial yields strongest evidence yet that antiviral
drug can help COVID-19 patients,” Science,
29 April 2020
(https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/04/large-trial-yields-strongest-evidence-yet-antiviral-drug-can-help-covid-19-patients).
[15] Grace
Ren, “Conflicting Remdesivir Trial Results Released; Experts Urge
More Research,” Health
Policy Watch,
29 April 2020
(https://healthpolicy-watch.news/first-remdesivir-rct-shows-no-significant-clinical-benefit-for-severe-covid-19-patients-but-experts-urge-for-more-research/).
[16] Christopher
Rowland, “Gilead’s experimental drug remdesivir shows ‘hopeful’
signs in small group of coronavirus patients,” Washington
Post,
10 April 2020
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/04/10/gileads-experimental-drug-remdesivir-shows-hopeful-signs-small-group-coronavirus-patients/).
[17] Ray
Moynihan et al.,“Commercial influence and covid-19,”
BMJ2020;369:m2456
(Published 24 June 2020) (https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m2456).
[18] Crystal
Phend, “Remdesivir Safety Forecast: Watch the Liver, Kidneys,”
Medpage
Today,
19 May 2020
(https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86582).
[19] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_for_Clinical_and_Economic_Review
[20] Melanie
D. Whittington and Jonathan B. Campbell, “Alternative Pricing
Models for Remdesivir and Other Potential Treatments for COVID-19,”
Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, 1 May 2020
(https://icer-review.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/ICER-COVID_Initial_Abstract_05012020-3.pdf).
[21] National
Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, “BULLETIN—NIH
Clinical Trial Evaluating Hydroxychloroquine and Azithromycin for
COVID-19 Closes Early,” 20 June 2020
(https://www.niaid.nih.gov/news-events/bulletin-nih-clinical-trial-evaluating-hydroxychloroquine-and-azithromycin-covid-19).
[22] Martin
J. Vincent et al., “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS
coronavirus infection and spread,” Journal
of Virology,
22 August 2005
(https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/).
[23] “Regulatory
capture is a theory that regulatory agencies may be dominated by the
interests they regulate and not by the public interest.” In: Will
Kenton, “Regulatory Capture,” Investopedia,
23 October 2019
(https://www.investopedia.com/terms/r/regulatory-capture.asp).
The
original source of this article is Global Research
Copyright
© Elizabeth
Woodworth, Global Research, 2020
Click
for
Spanish,
German,
Dutch,
Danish,
French,
translation- Note- Translation
may take a moment to load.
==================================
Zie ook:
‘Coronavirus spionage door Rusland: een beschuldiging zoals gewoonlijk zonder enig bewijs‘
‘De WHO is bijkans overgenomen door de grote farmaceuten; juist van groot belang door de Coronacrisis‘
‘COVID-19 testen op antilichamen van o.a. Roche, Quest en Abbott zijn waardeloos‘
‘Coronavirus: Fauci een autoriteit op virologisch gebied? Lees en zie dit!‘
‘Coronavirus: Indiase bevolking lijdt honger en gaat daarom zelfs bedreigde wilde dieren te lijf‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht, ouder dan de laatste hieronder weergegeven link)
‘Coronavirus: ‘hoera we mogen weer naar Engeland’, het land met in verhouding de meeste Coronadoden‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht, ouder dan de hieronder laatst getoonde)
‘KLM
krijgt 3,4 milard euro voor vliegtuigoverlast, terwijl zorgmedewerkers
kunnen barsten, een applausje vindt men in Rutte 3 voldoende‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht over de politieke leugens aangaande Schiphol, KLM en Lelystad Airport)
‘Pandemieën zijn het resultaat van natuurvernietiging, een waarschuwing van de VN, de WHO en het WWF‘
‘Corona-angst: psychologische oorlogsvoering tegen de bevolking‘
‘Nederland chanteert alweer Antilliaanse eilanden: nu voor hulp bij Coronacrisis‘
‘Rinke van den Brink (NOS redacteur gezondheidszorg) over EU reactie op Coronavirus en loflied op Rutte en RIVM….‘ Een volkomen ten onrecht loflied (zie ook de links in dat bericht)
‘Rutte steekt vakkenvullers een riem onder het hart, da’s lief….. Deel 2‘ (humor)
‘Rutte
die de vakkenvullers een hart onder de riem steekt en het tegelijk
prima vindt dat ze zwaar worden onderbetaald, da’s lief…..‘ (dit is tevens het hele bericht)
‘Rutte (VVD premier): ‘jongens we kunnen weer op vakantie’, ondanks het Coronavirus‘
‘Veel maatregelen tegen het Coronavirus vernietigen juist levens‘
‘Zeg nee tegen de Corona spoedwet!‘ Een bericht met daaraan verbonden een petitie tegen die ‘nood-spoedwet’, lees en teken deze petitie ajb!)
‘Rutte 3 wil ongrondwettelijke noodmaatregelen legitimeren met spoedwet‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht naar meer zaken over aantasting van burgerrechten ‘in de strijd tegen het Coronavirus’)
‘Leids college van B&W zet ongedocumenteerden op straat tijdens de Coronacrisis….. ‘DASLIEF……..’‘
‘Fooi van € 600,– voor flexwerkers ‘en studenten’: D66 is een inhumane neoliberale partij‘
‘Coronavirus: nog steeds gepruts door RIVM en de ten onrechte de hemel in geprezen Rutte‘ (en zie de links in dat bericht)
‘Kajsa
Ollongren (D66 minister) vindt het bevriezen van de huurprijs
onwenselijk, terwijl huurders al extra worden gepakt………‘ (dit i.v.m. het Coronavirus)
‘Job Cohen (PvdA) prijst Rutte en zijn aanpak van de Coronacrisis…….. Een goed beleid? Lees dit!‘
‘Coronavirus blunders: Nederland heeft bewust 600.000 ‘niet werkende’ mondkapjes aangeschaft‘
‘Broekers-Knol weigert jonge vluchtelingen uit Griekenland op te nemen, een zak geld zou voldoen………‘
‘Intensive care afdelingen zijn mede verantwoordelijk voor verspreiding van het Coronavirus‘
‘Emile Roemer (SP burgemeester Heerlen) vindt de hoogte van de Coronaboete terecht‘
‘Privacy en vrijheid van meningsuiting slachtoffer van het Coronavirus: neem de verplichte volg-app‘
‘Coronavirus: we worden behandeld als een kind met een tere ziel dat niet te veel mag weten‘
‘Coronavirus: Buma Cultuur wil alleen Nederlandse artiesten op de radiostations‘
‘Coronavirus: Rutte’s beleid krijgt steun van 8 op de 10 Nederlanders…….‘
‘Coronavirus-boete € 390,—….. Da’s lief……‘
‘Brekend Coronanieuws: eerste Nederlandse Coronapatiënten naar Duitsland‘ (vanwege tekort aan IC bedden….)
‘Coronavirus doden versus griep- en hongerdoden‘
‘Coronacrisis: afvalverwerkers hebben belang bij een zo groot mogelijke berg afval‘
‘Hugo de Jonge (CDA minister) & het Coronavirus, een drama ‘in wording‘
‘Coronavirus hapsnapbeleid Rutte 3 en RIVM‘
‘‘Samen tegen Corona, da’s lief’ of……‘
‘Coronavirus: RIVM adviezen en daarmee het regeringsbeleid van Rutte 3: onvoldoende en misleidend‘
Voor (nog) meer berichten met/over het Coronavirus, dr. Fauci, Osterhaus en/of het RIVM, klik op het desbetreffende label, direct onder dit bericht.
