I request input from subscribers on an NIH Appeal of a FOIA request on Remdesivir

I submitted a FOIA request to the NIH on their 2020 Remdesivir trials, the ones Anthony Fauci shut down early, and said were a success, even though they had high mortality rates. This FOIA request is due in large part to my conversations with Monique Abraham, the daughter of Frank Carter, who was killed in Remdesivir trials at Vanderbilt. Monique had also spoken with a family member of another person who was killed quickly by Remdesivir protocols at Vanderbilt. She had found my 2022 article about Vanderbilt. She is pursuing Justice for her father. So we talked, and I thought, let’s get the data on the trials at Vanderbilt since you’re interested in pursuing this.

I looked at the details of the NIH/ACTT trials. There were 68 individual trial sites with a total of 1062 patients. 47 of the trial sites were in the United States; 21 were in foreign countries. That’s a lot of trials from a diverse set of hospitals spread out all over the United States and the World.

NIAID, April 29, 2020: The first trial participant in the ACTT trial was an American who was repatriated after being quarantined on the Diamond Princess cruise ship that docked in Yokohama, Japan, and volunteered to participate in the study at the first study site, the University of Nebraska Medical Center/Nebraska Medicine, in February 2020. A total of 68 sites ultimately joined the study—47 in the United States and 21 in countries in Europe and Asia. 

So I thought, well let’s get all the data from every trial site and compare them. The NIH published summary statistics, not individual ones. Monique had asked me an intelligent question which got me thinking. She asked, “is there a document that controlled the procedures used in the Remdesivir trials?” I haven’t seen on if there was, I told her.

With my background in stats, I started thinking about what the variance would be in a trial of 68 sites. The Hospital Homicide protocols were designed to kill. They used combination of deadly mix of Remdesivir, ventilators, intubation, and opioids. These hospitals would have had plenty of time to notice that they were killing people. Patients were going into kidney failure, getting pneumonia, dying in front of their eyes. They were crashing the patients. Some of the hospitals may have pulled the patients out of the crash and just said no, we’re not doing it. They may have intervened on behalf of their patients; pulled out the Remdisivir drips, gave them antibiotics or other treatments, or done something to pull them out of the crash. And of course some of the hospitals probably did everything they could to exacerbate the deaths according to procedures. Anyway, there’s a lot you can learn from data.

The public is waking up to the Homicide Protocols. Recently we’ve seen Northwestern admit to killing large numbers of patients with pneumonia, and Tom Renz reported a whistleblower who talked about killing patients with opioids. I think Plandemic 3 is going to talk about it.

The steps I was taught in data analysis were 1. Form a Hypothesis; 2. Get the data. If all the 68 sites had around the same mortality rates, that means they were all going strictly by some governing document. If there is major variance, they were doing things differently, according to their own theories of medicine. Fom there we can try to understand what happened. If there is variance, you can ask Hospital A why there death rates were far superior to Hospital B, and why did you do things differently? Statistics can be a starting point to understand. It will lead to human testimony.

Here’s what I requested:

I request the following information from the Remdesivir (ACCT) trials (by individual site):

1.  The number of patients enrolled in the control (placebo) group at each site;

2.  The number of patients who died in the control (placebo) group at each site;

3.  The number of patients enrolled in the test (Remdesivir) group at each site;

4.  The number of patients who died in the test (Remdesivir) group at each site;

5.  The number of patients who were placed on mechanical ventilation in the control (placebo) group at each site;

6.  The number of patients who were placed on mechanical ventilation and died in the control (placebo) group at each site;

7.  The number of patients who were placed on mechanical ventilation in the test (Remdesivir) group at each site;

8.  The number of patients who were placed on mechanical ventilation and died in the test (Remdesivir) group at each site;

9.  The number of patients who were given opioids in the control (placebo) group at each site;

10.  The number of patients who were given opioids and died in the control (placebo) group at each site;

11.  The number of patients who were given opioids in the test (Remdesivir) group at each site;

12.  The number of patients who were placed given opioids and died in the test (Remdesivir) group at each site.

Should those statistics not be readily available, I would like the relevant data from all of the 1062 patients necessary to compile the statistics myself.  

I further request that the NIH provide any written instructions for clinical site managers on the treatment protocols which governed when a patient was to be placed on mechanical ventilation and/or prescribed opioids.

And to give a bit more background, I was once a GTA in grad school. Part of my duties was data entry for an FOIA request of a professor. They didn’t give him the data he wanted in the format he wanted. They gave him quarterly reports of multiple locations over a period of many years, in paper. There were boxes and boxes of paper to go through. I would pull out the quarterly report, highlight the applicable statistic, then log it into a paper journal by site, date, quantity, etc. If that’s what it takes here that’s what we can do with all 1062 patients- everything that was done to them, if we can just get the data. I’m sure there are people who would volunteer for that.

There was a section in the FOIA request portal for “expedited processing.” It was late at night when I filled it out. The standard that they used to judge whether or not to accept the request for expedited processing was simple: whether or not there was an urgent public need. I didn’t take much time to write it. I admit I could have written it better, but I thought the truth and need were obvious, so I kept it short. I wrote back:

Request for Expedited Processing

I have reason to believe that Remdesivir is a deadly substance that should not be approved for use in humans. The use of Remdesivir and related protocols are well-documented to be associated with the unnecessary deaths of a very large number of humans.

People are dying from the use of Remdesivir as you read this. Perhaps some of the information I request will help to stop the deaths.

It is clear to see the urgent public need to expedite this request.

Sincerely,

Charles Wright

Again it was late, I spent about 2 minutes writing that. They denied the request for expedited processing. Here’s the denial letter:

They said I could Appeal their denial within 90 days. I intend to do so.

I want to open this Substack up for comments from everyone first. I definitely want to hear from Remdesivir victim’s families. It’s not just the families of Remdesivir victims that have been wronged here. If we let them get away with mass murder now, what’s next? So before I write that Appeal, and I may go off on them just to make sure that becomes a part of government correspondence and they know where their place is in history, I would like to hear what you have to say. Please share this on social media. And if there is anyone out there who has experience with FOIA requests, please advise.

Charles Wright