Tim M

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

1/15
SEC Complaint #17634-148-236-774 filed 11/17/2025
Alleging multi-year MARKET MANIPULATION, NAKED SHORT SELLING & COLLUSIVE MEDIA SUPPRESSION of $NVAX
98% of market cap destroyed despite superior protein vaccine data

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@humanspective @delbigtree The call for true inert placebo-controlled trials is critically important for vaccine safety and public trust.
The claim that “no vaccine placebo study was ever done” is FALSE.
Novavax actually did exactly that. Its pivotal Phase 3 trials (PREVENT-19 in the US/Mexico and the UK trial) were randomized, observer-blinded, and used normal saline placebo — a true inert control.
• NEJM PREVENT-19: https://t.co/mUANZ78AUT
• NEJM UK Phase 3: https://t.co/hIQOzMbjzW
This stands in stark contrast to aspects of some mRNA trial designs. Novavax’s protein-based platform with genuine placebo data deserves far more attention — especially as former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield now recommends it over mRNA due to its fixed-dose, non-intracellular spike production.
True placebo studies matter. When one major vaccine platform actually used them and demonstrates a cleaner safety profile, we should be highlighting and studying it more — not sidelining it.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

Former CDC Director Dr. Robert Redfield now says he no longer recommends mRNA COVID vaccines — even for the vulnerable.
“When I give you an mRNA vaccine, I turn your body into a spike protein production factory… I don’t know how much you make, and I don’t know how long you make it.”
He calls spike “very immunotoxic” and points to Novavax (protein-based, fixed dose, known decay) as the better option.
This matches what many of us have been saying for years.
@epochhealth

[Epoch Health @epochhealth]

“I don’t really recommend the mRNA vaccines at all anymore, even for the vulnerable.”

That’s Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC director from 2018 to 2021.

He was once an advocate, but now he says: “When I give you an mRNA vaccine, what I do is I turn your body into a spike protein production factory.”

“And spike protein is a very immunotoxic protein. I don’t know how much you make, and I don’t know how long you make it.”

Dr. Redfield now recommends the protein-based Novavax vaccine instead because it has a fixed dose with a known decay curve.

[Epoch Health @epochhealth]

“I don’t really recommend the mRNA vaccines at all anymore, even for the vulnerable.”

That’s Dr. Robert Redfield, CDC director from 2018 to 2021.

He was once an advocate, but now he says: “When I give you an mRNA vaccine, what I do is I turn your body into a spike protein production factory.”

“And spike protein is a very immunotoxic protein. I don’t know how much you make, and I don’t know how long you make it.”

Dr. Redfield now recommends the protein-based Novavax vaccine instead because it has a fixed dose with a known decay curve.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@Groovenuts Novavax specifically mutated the furin cleavage site (RRAR → QQAQ) and added the 2P proline stabilizations (K986P/V987P) to lock the spike in its prefusion conformation. This prevents the S1/S2 cleavage that occurs with the wild-type viral spike. The protein is produced as a stable trimer in insect cells and delivered extracellularly in a controlled ~5 μg dose.
See:
• Tian et al. (Nature Comm 2021): https://t.co/uZHZEwB9AX
• Bangaru et al. (Science 2021): https://t.co/q6AGMVDlTq
• UK MHRA Public Assessment Report: https://t.co/hfBFIObVfM
That’s why the platform difference matters: mRNA vaccines drive intracellular spike production, while Novavax presents a pre-formed, stabilized antigen externally without turning cells into spike factories.
Peer-reviewed studies on general spike biology are useful, but when platforms differ so significantly in delivery and exposure, targeted investigation — including potential microbiome effects in the context of Dr. Hazan’s work — is reasonable and worthwhile science.
The original post was simply asking @SabinehazanMD to consider studying Novavax alongside her mRNA findings. If you have specific evidence that Novavax’s stabilized spike raises unique concerns, I’d be glad to review the studies.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@SabineHazanMD Dr. Hazan, thank you for your groundbreaking work on the gut microbiome, Bifidobacteria depletion, and its links to mRNA COVID vaccines, Long COVID, and broader health impacts. Your research through Progenabiome has been invaluable.
As a licensed and approved COVID vaccine, Novavax (protein-based recombinant spike + Matrix-M adjuvant) was largely buried by captured regulators and pharma influence despite consistent data showing it as the safest option with lower reactogenicity and fewer mechanistic risks than mRNA platforms.
Given your focus on microbiome effects from spike exposure and mRNA, would studying the gut bacteria of Novavax-vaccinated individuals be a valuable and appropriate next step? No one wants repeated COVID infections, and if Novavax proves microbiome-friendly (as its external antigen mechanism suggests), that data could offer a much-needed safer path for protection.
Appreciate your thoughts and continued commitment to rigorous, independent science.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@Groovenuts Thanks for engaging. My post was a straightforward suggestion to @SabineHazanMD to study the gut microbiome effects of Novavax — building directly on her important work showing mRNA-related Bifidobacteria depletion.
Novavax is a licensed protein subunit vaccine: it delivers a stabilized recombinant prefusion SARS-CoV-2 spike protein (produced in insect cells) plus Matrix-M adjuvant. It does not use mRNA or lipid nanoparticles, so it doesn’t instruct your cells to produce the spike protein internally.
Of course the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein is pathogenic — that’s precisely why it’s the primary target in any COVID vaccine. Novavax uses a finite amount (~5 micrograms per dose) of recombinant spike protein grown in insect cells. This protein is structurally similar enough to the viral spike to train the immune system to recognize and respond effectively to the real coronavirus, without the risks of ongoing intracellular production.
The virus itself is highly pathogenic. But the key differences are in delivery and exposure: Novavax presents the antigen externally in a controlled dose without turning your cells into spike factories.
Recent head-to-head data (e.g., Sanofi COMPARE study and others) show statistically lower reactogenicity and fewer side effects impacting daily life compared to mRNA vaccines.
Claims about unique “neurodegenerative glycoproteins” specific to Novavax are not supported by its established safety data or regulatory approvals. If you have specific peer-reviewed studies showing otherwise for Novavax, I’d genuinely like to see them.
The goal is simply exploring whether this different platform has a different microbiome profile. Empirical data from experts like Dr. Hazan would help everyone.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

RFK Jr. is right — they had to destroy HCQ and ivermectin to protect the vaccine enterprise.
At the exact same time the fraudulent Surgisphere/Lancet study was rushed out to discredit HCQ globally, India’s ICMR was already issuing evidence-based HCQ prophylaxis guidance for frontline healthcare workers based on real data.
Meanwhile, doctors in Michigan received chilling restrictions on prescribing it. My post below lays out the timeline and the contrast.

https://t.co/Y6dGqZ6Qhy

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@SabinehazanMD
Your post powerfully highlights how the fraudulent Surgisphere/Lancet study — rushed to publication despite the logistical impossibility of conducting a legitimate 96,000-patient trial in just one month — was used to discredit hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and suppress early treatment options. Thank you for roaring the truth in the Senate hearing with @SenRonJohnson.
At the very same time (March 2020), there was credible, non-“dodgy” evidence being acted upon elsewhere. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) — India’s apex national biomedical research body — issued its initial HCQ prophylaxis advisory on March 22, 2020.
It recommended HCQ for:
• Asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients.
• Asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases.
Dosing: 400 mg twice on Day 1, then 400 mg once weekly (with meals). It was grounded in in-vitro antiviral activity, HCQ’s decades-long safety profile for malaria and autoimmune conditions, and early emerging data.
As more Indian data came in, ICMR expanded recommendations in the May 2020 revision.
Key studies they cited (among the best available real-world evidence at the time for protecting frontline workers):
• ICMR Case-Control Study (Chatterjee et al., Indian J Med Res, 2020): Nationwide analysis of HCWs. “Consumption of four or more maintenance doses of HCQ was associated with a significant decline in the odds of getting infected (AOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.88); a dose-response relationship existed…” PPE was also protective.
• AIIMS New Delhi Observational Prospective Study: 334 HCWs (248 on HCQ prophylaxis, median ~6 weeks follow-up). Lower incidence of infection among those taking HCQ. Explicitly cited by ICMR.
Yet in SE Michigan, doctors faced heavy restrictions. My family member (new MD in residency) received the Michigan LARA letter on March 24, 2020, which functioned as a chilling blanket restriction on HCQ prescribing for COVID use — framed with language allowing plausible deniability about “legitimate medical purpose” and potential shortages for approved indications. This occurred even as COVID represented the immediate emergency.
The retracted Lancet paper and similar rushed “evidence” shaped global policy, while solid contemporaneous data like India’s was often ignored or downplayed. Your work exposing these dynamics is critical — patients’ lives were impacted.
Links:
• ICMR Initial Advisory: https://t.co/yOQhUgh6dJ
• ICMR Case-Control Study: https://t.co/acwXtcgRYU
Keep standing strong, Doctor. Science demands we examine all the evidence.
Respectfully,
@TJMeehan1

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@mysteriousrona Fair point — no COVID vaccine (mRNA or protein) fully stops infection or transmission, especially with evolving variants. Natural exposure also delivers massive spike (plus nucleocapsid), and repeated infections carry their own risks.
Novavax is still the logical choice for those wanting COVID protection without mRNA tech. It’s a traditional protein-based vaccine (recombinant spike + Matrix-M adjuvant) that presents antigen externally—no LNPs, no genetic material, no turning cells into spike factories. Head-to-head data shows better tolerability/lower reactogenicity than mRNA, with myocarditis signals near background levels.
It reduces severe disease, hospitalization, and death effectively while avoiding mRNA-specific concerns (persistence, SV40, deep tissue issues). For people avoiding both repeated COVID and mRNA risks, Novavax is the smarter middle path.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@NicHulscher This is damning evidence of mRNA persistence, SV40 promoters, and ongoing spike production years later. Governments and pharma clearly lied about rapid clearance and “stays in the arm.”
But the government also buried the protein-based COVID vaccine (Novavax/Nuvaxovid).
mRNA shots turn cells into spike factories via lipid nanoparticles and modified mRNA — enabling prolonged expression, potential genomic interactions (SV40 elements), and the exact persistence issues shown here. Novavax delivers pre-formed recombinant spike protein + Matrix-M adjuvant externally. No genetic material. No intracellular production. No LNPs. No risk of the same long-term spike or DNA contamination problems.
That’s why Novavax shows markedly better tolerability (lower systemic reactions in head-to-head data) and myocarditis signals at or near background levels — unlike mRNA.
A huge unspoken part of the scandal: the same captured system that fast-tracked and mandated mRNA despite these risks deliberately sidelined and delayed the safer protein alternative. Profits and platform dominance over safety and informed choice.
Ron Johnson and others have rightly hammered mRNA harms — but the burial of Novavax is equally egregious. Real accountability requires exposing the full picture: they didn’t just push the risky option; they suppressed the better one.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@SenRonJohnson @theHFDF Powerful clip. The lies about distancing, mRNA staying in the arm, rapid degradation, and the callous dismissal of VAERS signals (2,900+ deaths brushed off by Collins) are indefensible. “The shot” here clearly means the mRNA platforms—and the data on myocarditis, excess deaths, and adverse events tied to them is damning.
But has Novavax (the protein-based COVID vaccine) been meaningfully associated with those same harms and deaths? Multiple studies and surveillance show it has a markedly different profile: lower reactogenicity, no lipid nanoparticles, external antigen presentation, and myocarditis/pericarditis signals at or near background rates—unlike the clear elevation seen with mRNA (especially in young males post-dose 2).
You knew early in the pandemic that Novavax offered a traditional protein alternative with a stronger safety signal. It was funded under Warp Speed yet delayed and sidelined while mRNA got fast-tracked EUAs and mandates. The same captured regulators and incentives that pushed mRNA (profits, platform dominance, narrative control) also buried the protein option—denying millions real informed choice.
Isn’t suppressing a lower-risk alternative as egregious as promoting the higher-risk one? Both are profits over safety and transparency. The full scandal includes not just the mRNA harms and cover-ups you’ve rightly exposed, but the deliberate deprioritization of safer platforms like Novavax. Why hasn’t that part of the story received the same scrutiny?
America deserves the complete reckoning—including why the protein vaccine was sidelined.

[Mary B Schanck @MaryBschanck]

$NVAX Nice! 🔥

“The selection of Nuvaxovid marks a significant shift in Sweden’s vaccination strategy, moving toward a vaccine technology with a long-established track record. Unlike mRNA vaccines, which rely on the body to produce viral proteins, protein-based vaccines deliver a pre-made viral protein directly to the immune system. This proven approach has been successfully used for decades in vaccines such as those for hepatitis B and HPV.”

“Back in April, pharmaceutical company Sanofi announced that Sweden had chosen Nuvaxovid as its sole COVID-19 vaccine for the 2027–2028 season. As a result, Sweden will transition from mRNA vaccines to a protein-based platform beginning in 2027. According to the company, Sweden is the first country in the world to make this move on a national level.”

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@MidwesternDoc Excellent deep dive on the RKI leaks, VAERS manipulation, the retracted Lancet HCQ fraud that shaped global policy, and the systematic suppression of safer/repurposed options. The corruption ran deep.
One glaring omission that fits the exact pattern you describe: Novavax — the protein-based recombinant spike vaccine (with Matrix-M adjuvant) that was funded under Operation Warp Speed but deliberately delayed and sidelined.
While mRNA platforms got fast-tracked EUAs in Dec 2020 + mandates despite known signals, Novavax didn’t get EUA until July 2022. Regulators (including Peter Marks at FDA, as noted by former CDC Director Robert Redfield) piled on extra manufacturing/purity hurdles for the protein option while fast-tracking the novel mRNA technology.
Mechanistically, it was the clearer choice for many: external antigen presentation, no lipid nanoparticles, no turning cells into spike factories. Head-to-head data (Sanofi COMPARE Phase 4) showed significantly better tolerability — lower systemic reactions (83.6% vs 91.6% for mRNA comparator), milder and shorter when they occurred. Myocarditis/pericarditis signals stayed near background rates, unlike the documented elevation with mRNA.
The same system that buried HCQ/ivermectin data and ignored internal warnings also buried this traditional platform alternative. It denied millions informed choice and protected the mRNA narrative/profits at the expense of safety and transparency.
The full scandal includes not just what was hidden after rollout, but the safer options that were deprioritized from the start. Novavax should have been prominently offered — especially for those concerned about mRNA-specific risks (IgG4 shift, potential immune dysregulation, etc.).
Great work exposing the corruption. The protein elephant in the room can’t stay ignored forever.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

COMPARE study — first head-to-head, double-blind, randomized Phase 4 study directly comparing tolerability of a protein-based (Nuvaxovid / NVX-CoV2705, Novavax technology) vs mRNA COVID-19 vaccine (Moderna’s mNEXSPIKE / mRNA-1283). @SenRonJohnson

[ColorFuzion Design Studio @colorfuzion_web]

@sanofi Updated data in VAERS passive surveillance (2020–2025): Novavax $nvax has dramatically fewer myo/pericarditis reports per million doses than either mRNA $mrna $pfe vaccine https://t.co/BkTQssVJvG

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@ChildrensHD @SenRonJohnson The FDA cover-up — Peter Marks and senior officials ignoring VAERS signals, sidelining better algorithms, and downplaying risks — is damning. But the unspoken Novavax chapter makes the scandal even bigger.
Senator Johnson, you were contacted early about Novavax’s promising safety and efficacy data. Even Dr. Robert Redfield (former CDC Director) has publicly addressed how Peter Marks and the FDA delayed and disadvantaged the protein vaccine through extra purity/ manufacturing demands while fast-tracking mRNA platforms. This wasn’t neutral regulation.
By mechanism, Novavax was the clearer choice for many: a traditional recombinant spike protein + Matrix-M adjuvant that presents antigen externally. No lipid nanoparticles. No turning cells into spike factories. No intracellular spike production that drives the molecular mimicry, inflammation, IgG4 class switching, or potential p53 interference seen with mRNA.
Early trials and real-world surveillance confirmed it: robust antibodies, better durability in key metrics for some, and myocarditis/pericarditis rates at or near background levels — unlike the documented elevation with mRNA (especially young males post-dose 2).
If the public had been told about these mechanistic and safety differences instead of the monolithic mRNA push, millions would have chosen Novavax. Injuries could have been prevented.
Burying the protein option protected mRNA profits, mandates, and the “safe and effective” narrative. Captured regulators had every incentive to sideline it. You knew early. You’ve exposed the harms and cover-ups powerfully. Yet this protein elephant in the room — the safer alternative deprioritized from the start — stays largely unaddressed.
Omission isn’t neutral. The data and mechanics showed the difference from day one. Why wasn’t Novavax championed as the obvious option for those who wanted it? The full scandal includes what was actively suppressed.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@gorskon @SabinehazanMD @SenRonJohnson https://t.co/FHfX4apMhI

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@gorskon
You wrote: “In March 2020 a lot of hospitals in SE Michigan were recommending HCQ to treat COVID based on dodgy evidence from China and there being nothing else.”
That characterization overlooks a major, credible body of Indian evidence that was available and actively used at the time. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) — India’s apex national biomedical research organization — issued its initial HCQ prophylaxis advisory on March 22, 2020.
The advisory recommended HCQ for:
• Asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients.
• Asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases.
Dosing: 400 mg twice on Day 1, then 400 mg once weekly (with meals). For HCWs it was for up to 7 weeks; for household contacts, 3 weeks. It was grounded in in-vitro data, the drug’s long-established safety profile (decades of use for malaria and autoimmune conditions), and early emerging evidence.
You also stated: “As evidence rolled in, it became apparent by early summer 2020 that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective against COVID, and the recommendation went away—and appropriately so.”
This framing skips over key contemporaneous data and the dynamics of the evidence base. Prominent early publications, such as the Lancet/Surgisphere study (May 2020), claimed massive harm from HCQ and were later retracted due to fabricated data. Those heavily influenced global narratives, including actions by WHO and others.
Meanwhile, Indian observational and case-control data from reputable institutions like AIIMS New Delhi and ICMR itself showed signals of benefit for prophylaxis in high-risk HCWs. These were among the best available real-world data at the time for frontline workers facing high exposure — pragmatic and not “dodgy.” ICMR cited them to support and expand recommendations in the May 2020 revised advisory.
Key Indian evidence:
• ICMR Case-Control Study (Chatterjee et al., Indian J Med Res, 2020): Nationwide analysis of HCWs. “Consumption of four or more maintenance doses of HCQ was associated with a significant decline in the odds of getting infected (AOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.88); a dose-response relationship existed…” PPE use was also protective.
• AIIMS New Delhi Observational Prospective Study: 334 HCWs (248 on HCQ prophylaxis, median ~6 weeks follow-up). Those taking HCQ showed lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was explicitly cited by ICMR.
ICMR Revised Advisory (May 2020) expanded use to more frontline groups while maintaining safeguards (ECG monitoring, contraindications, informed consent).
The Michigan LARA letter (which you and others referenced in context) effectively acted as a chilling blanket restriction on HCQ prescribing for COVID use, framed with language that allowed plausible deniability. It warned against prescriptions without “legitimate medical purpose” amid claims of potential shortages for approved indications like lupus — despite COVID representing the immediate public health emergency and no widespread evidence of actual shortages disrupting standard care at that scale. This fit into a broader pattern of restrictions that aligned with efforts to steer toward vaccination as the primary strategy, with HCQ positioned as a threat to that narrative and associated interests.
@gorskon, as a surgeon and prominent voice for science-based medicine, it’s notable that your recollection did not engage with or reference the contemporaneous ICMR/AIIMS Indian data. ICMR is not fringe — it is a national institution with rigorous processes. Dismissing or omitting it while leaning on certain retracted or selectively emphasized studies distorts the historical record.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@Manin1797
You’re right — the HCQ stockpiling and surge in prescribing did create real shortages for lupus and RA patients in MI and NY in March 2020. That was a legitimate issue.
But the Michigan LARA letter was a heavy-handed overreach that ignored credible Indian data (ICMR’s March 22, 2020 prophylaxis advisory for HCWs) while denying HCQ for COVID as people were dying. Then came the quack Surgisphere/Lancet study — later retracted — used to justify restrictions.
In retrospect, the coordinated effort to kill HCQ for COVID to protect the vaccine mandate narrative is clear. Profit over safety. The government could have simply worked with manufacturers to ramp up supply — far less effort than pushing the “HCQ bad” campaign and phony studies.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@SabinehazanMD
Your post powerfully highlights how the fraudulent Surgisphere/Lancet study — rushed to publication despite the logistical impossibility of conducting a legitimate 96,000-patient trial in just one month — was used to discredit hydroxychloroquine (HCQ) and suppress early treatment options. Thank you for roaring the truth in the Senate hearing with @SenRonJohnson.
At the very same time (March 2020), there was credible, non-“dodgy” evidence being acted upon elsewhere. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) — India’s apex national biomedical research body — issued its initial HCQ prophylaxis advisory on March 22, 2020.
It recommended HCQ for:
• Asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients.
• Asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases.
Dosing: 400 mg twice on Day 1, then 400 mg once weekly (with meals). It was grounded in in-vitro antiviral activity, HCQ’s decades-long safety profile for malaria and autoimmune conditions, and early emerging data.
As more Indian data came in, ICMR expanded recommendations in the May 2020 revision.
Key studies they cited (among the best available real-world evidence at the time for protecting frontline workers):
• ICMR Case-Control Study (Chatterjee et al., Indian J Med Res, 2020): Nationwide analysis of HCWs. “Consumption of four or more maintenance doses of HCQ was associated with a significant decline in the odds of getting infected (AOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.88); a dose-response relationship existed…” PPE was also protective.
• AIIMS New Delhi Observational Prospective Study: 334 HCWs (248 on HCQ prophylaxis, median ~6 weeks follow-up). Lower incidence of infection among those taking HCQ. Explicitly cited by ICMR.
Yet in SE Michigan, doctors faced heavy restrictions. My family member (new MD in residency) received the Michigan LARA letter on March 24, 2020, which functioned as a chilling blanket restriction on HCQ prescribing for COVID use — framed with language allowing plausible deniability about “legitimate medical purpose” and potential shortages for approved indications. This occurred even as COVID represented the immediate emergency.
The retracted Lancet paper and similar rushed “evidence” shaped global policy, while solid contemporaneous data like India’s was often ignored or downplayed. Your work exposing these dynamics is critical — patients’ lives were impacted.
Links:
• ICMR Initial Advisory: https://t.co/yOQhUgh6dJ
• ICMR Case-Control Study: https://t.co/acwXtcgRYU
Keep standing strong, Doctor. Science demands we examine all the evidence.
Respectfully,
@TJMeehan1

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

Early 2020 was chaotic with imperfect data everywhere. The Indian recommendations were evidence-driven for protecting HCWs given the options then available, not simply “China + nothing else.” The full picture requires examining all the evidence, including how political and institutional pressures shaped what became the dominant narrative.
(Links for reference:
• ICMR initial advisory: https://t.co/yOQhUggyob
• ICMR case-control study: https://t.co/acwXtcgk9m
• Reporting on AIIMS/ICMR context)
Respectfully,
@TJMeehan1

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@gorskon
You wrote: “In March 2020 a lot of hospitals in SE Michigan were recommending HCQ to treat COVID based on dodgy evidence from China and there being nothing else.”
That characterization overlooks a major, credible body of Indian evidence that was available and actively used at the time. The Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR) — India’s apex national biomedical research organization — issued its initial HCQ prophylaxis advisory on March 22, 2020.
The advisory recommended HCQ for:
• Asymptomatic healthcare workers (HCWs) caring for suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patients.
• Asymptomatic household contacts of laboratory-confirmed cases.
Dosing: 400 mg twice on Day 1, then 400 mg once weekly (with meals). For HCWs it was for up to 7 weeks; for household contacts, 3 weeks. It was grounded in in-vitro data, the drug’s long-established safety profile (decades of use for malaria and autoimmune conditions), and early emerging evidence.
You also stated: “As evidence rolled in, it became apparent by early summer 2020 that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective against COVID, and the recommendation went away—and appropriately so.”
This framing skips over key contemporaneous data and the dynamics of the evidence base. Prominent early publications, such as the Lancet/Surgisphere study (May 2020), claimed massive harm from HCQ and were later retracted due to fabricated data. Those heavily influenced global narratives, including actions by WHO and others.
Meanwhile, Indian observational and case-control data from reputable institutions like AIIMS New Delhi and ICMR itself showed signals of benefit for prophylaxis in high-risk HCWs. These were among the best available real-world data at the time for frontline workers facing high exposure — pragmatic and not “dodgy.” ICMR cited them to support and expand recommendations in the May 2020 revised advisory.
Key Indian evidence:
• ICMR Case-Control Study (Chatterjee et al., Indian J Med Res, 2020): Nationwide analysis of HCWs. “Consumption of four or more maintenance doses of HCQ was associated with a significant decline in the odds of getting infected (AOR: 0.44; 95% CI: 0.22-0.88); a dose-response relationship existed…” PPE use was also protective.
• AIIMS New Delhi Observational Prospective Study: 334 HCWs (248 on HCQ prophylaxis, median ~6 weeks follow-up). Those taking HCQ showed lower incidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This was explicitly cited by ICMR.
ICMR Revised Advisory (May 2020) expanded use to more frontline groups while maintaining safeguards (ECG monitoring, contraindications, informed consent).
The Michigan LARA letter (which you and others referenced in context) effectively acted as a chilling blanket restriction on HCQ prescribing for COVID use, framed with language that allowed plausible deniability. It warned against prescriptions without “legitimate medical purpose” amid claims of potential shortages for approved indications like lupus — despite COVID representing the immediate public health emergency and no widespread evidence of actual shortages disrupting standard care at that scale. This fit into a broader pattern of restrictions that aligned with efforts to steer toward vaccination as the primary strategy, with HCQ positioned as a threat to that narrative and associated interests.
@gorskon, as a surgeon and prominent voice for science-based medicine, it’s notable that your recollection did not engage with or reference the contemporaneous ICMR/AIIMS Indian data. ICMR is not fringe — it is a national institution with rigorous processes. Dismissing or omitting it while leaning on certain retracted or selectively emphasized studies distorts the historical record.

[David Gorski, MD, PhD @gorskon]

@TJMeehan1 @SabinehazanMD @SenRonJohnson That's exacting what the medical profession did in the spring of 2020. Then evidence showed that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective against COVID, and recommendations changed to exclude it. That's how science-based medicine works.

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

@gorskon @SabinehazanMD @SenRonJohnson https://t.co/Emr3Z8IPAp

[Tim M @TJMeehan1]

GRETCHEN WHITMER
GOVERNOR
STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF LICENSING AND REGULATORY AFFAIRS
LANSING
ORLENE HAWKS
DIRECTOR
March 24, 2020
TO: Licensed Prescribers & Dispensers
RE: Reminder of Appropriate Prescribing and Dispensing
Dear Licensed Prescribers and Dispensers:
The Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has received multiple allegations of
Michigan physicians inappropriately prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine to
themselves, family, friends, and/or coworkers without a legitimate medical purpose.
Prescribing hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine without further proof of efficacy for treating
COVID-19 or with the intent to stockpile the drug may create a shortage for patients with lupus,
rheumatoid arthritis, or other ailments for which chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine are proven
treatments. Reports of this conduct will be evaluated and may be further investigated for
administrative action. Prescribing any kind of prescription must also be associated with medical
documentation showing proof of the medical necessity and medical condition for which the
patient is being treated. Again, these are drugs that have not been proven scientifically or
medically to treat COVID-19.
Michigan pharmacists may see an increased volume of prescriptions for hydroxychloroquine
and chloroquine and should take special care to evaluate the prescriptions’ legitimacy. Pursuant
to Michigan Administrative Code, R 338.490(2), a pharmacist shall not fill a prescription if the
pharmacist believes the prescription will be used for other than legitimate medical purposes or if
the prescription could cause harm to a patient.
It is also important to be mindful that licensed health professionals are required to report
inappropriate prescribing practices. LARA appreciates all licensed health professionals for their
service and cooperation in assuring compliance in acting responsibly while continuing to provide
the best possible care for Michigan’s citizens during this unprecedented and very challenging
time.
To stay up to date on the latest information regarding the COVID-19 pandemic please go to
https://t.co/Ch7Ne0vmf3 and the CDC site at https://t.co/N0KCGx1FjS.
Sincerely,
Deb Gagliardi, Director
Bureau of Professional Licensing
Forrest Pasanski, Director
Enforcement Division
BUREAU OF PROFESSIONAL LICENSING
611 W. OTTAWA • P.O. BOX 30670 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909