My husband had a massive heart attack after taking Sovaldi Ribavirin. He had to stop treatment at 5 weeks. One year later after unstable angina he had the massive heart attack. This was 3 years ago.

I have lost 10 friends from the USA treatment and 12 develop Cancers.
I have numerous friends complaining of RA and fibermyalga. They are complaining of Teeth problems, stomach issues. Bone issues.

One friend has lymphoma but her Dr told her that even after her 24 months of Sovaldi Ribavirin trials he promised that the drugs didn’t do this. He said she had lymphoma gene prior to treatment. Don’t know how he knew or could prove it .

These friends did treatment 3 years ago.

I have had 7 people tell me they have Heart problems after Harvoni. I would like to talk to Dr Freedom about this as I believe the USA Sofosbuvir has toxins in it. I know of one person who had a Heart Attack during Harvoni her Doctor told her it was not because of the treatment but she Died and luckily they revived her, or her daughter would not have a mother.

Do you know if I can have him contact me please. We are collecting Data to present to Congress. I would like to have a interview with him for our movie.

Thank you for all your help.

Hi Debbie,

Sorry to hear about your husband but the reality is that in a patient population in the age range 45-65 heart attacks happen at significant rates with or without treatment. Here is part of an email from this morning:

Good Afternoon

I have started the first 3 month Sofosbuvir/Velpatasvir course today.

Now obviously drugs this patient was not taking could not have caused their heart attack, but that heart attack still happened.

It sounds to me as though you think you have found a scandal/cover up. I really don’t think you have, and I’m one of the better-informed doctors in the world. I say that because I personally have well over 1000 patients who have taken DAAs, have collated the results, and have no connections to Big Pharma.

There is nothing much unexpected to be found. Most patients do well, a few don’t. Far more patients do well than with the older treatments. In short, these drugs are much much safer than the disease they are treating and much safer than what we used to use. That is a good as it gets in medicine. Perfect, certainly not. Good enough, absolutely. Would I treat my mother with them? Without hesitation.

Before wasting a large quantity of time and emotional energy on your campaign I suggest you acquaint yourself with statistics like these which document cardiovascular disease in the general population:

https://www.heart.org/idc/groups/heart-public/@wcm/@sop/@smd/documents/downloadable/ucm_449846.pdf

In medicine we say common things happen commonly. Heart attacks are common so they happen commonly. You can only implicate a drug if they happen more commonly than expected. Even if that was the case, and as far as I can see it’s not, then you have to weigh up the risk/benefit. With Vioxx for arthritis, the increased rates of heart attacks were significant not simply because they happened but far more importantly because the disease being treated was mild, and there were/are better alternatives. If Vioxx had been treating cancer it would almost certainly still be on the market because we, as in the medical profession would have gone, ok, so a few extra patients have heart attacks but the risk/benefit still stacks up.

To be frank I’m actually surprised we don’t see more on treatment heart attacks than we do.

With interferon, you were 3 times less likely to die in any given year if you were cured. That 2.93% annual mortality rate is what you get if you don’t treat patients. The 1.01% is what you see if you do and they SVR.

Hep C kills people. By year 10 it has killed nearly 30% of the people that have it. It kills a lot less at SVR, and by 10 years post treatment, the mortality rate has stabilised. It is still higher than the general population, but much lower than the still infected population.

Patients who have Hep C are also observed to have much higher than expected rates of a range of non-liver related diseases. This has nothing to do with treatment, it’s where they are at baseline.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4735500/

• Cardiovascular Disease: 23.6% vs 13%
• Lypmhoma: 2.24-2.47 x as likely
• Diabetes: 23.6% vs 9.4%
• Kidney Disease: 9.3% vs 3.3%
• Depression: 28%
• Fatigue: 50-67%
• Arthralgia: 40-80%

All those risks stay unchanged in the absence of treatment.

It would be sad to see patients scared of taking treatment because of something that looks like a ~1% serious side effect risk profile and continue to suffer from a disease with a very significant mortality rate. This totally ignores the quality of life issues, and the vast majority of patients are much better after treatment.

You will find an analysis of an FOI request to the FDA’s FEARS database here: http://fixhepc.com/forum/experts-corner/786-official-foi-fda-side-effect-reports.html I would strongly suggest you make a new FOI request and then do a statistical analysis of it. If what you believe is true, then it will show up there, unless you wish to believe that every physician in the USA is corrupt and not reporting side effects they are observing in their personal patients. While you are there it would also be useful to get a set of data for, say an HIV/Hep B drug like Tenofovir to provide a reasonable comparator.

From time to time s**t happens for every single drug we have available. Even water, oxygen and carbon dioxide can be fatal. Nothing is 100% safe, so everything needs to be assessed on a risk/benefit basis.

The best outcome I can see from your quest is to scare a whole lot of people out of getting treatment who will then, as a direct result, suffer/die of a disease they could have been cured from.

That is not something I would want to be remembered for, nor something I can support or assist you with.