Current Events, Guest Column, Media & Press, Politics, What's New

Anatomy of Subtle Propaganda

No Comments

Guest column by Aharon Hertzberg

The purpose of this essay is to show how someone can write an article that appears to be, and feels like, an even and balanced depiction of an issue while in reality being full-on gaslighting propaganda. Therefore, I am not trying to prove my factual assertions here, as it would double or triple the length and distract from what I’m trying to illustrate; and even if I am dead wrong factually, it is still aptly illustrated, for the reader can see the tactics and methods by which one can subtly distort facts and arguments. The following article was published by MSN:

“Can ivermectin be used to treat COVID-19? What you should know” 

Early on in the pandemic, doctors desperate for an answer for COVID-19 began reviewing whether any drugs already available could be used as an effective treatment. Ivermectin, an anti-parasitic, was administered to some patients across the globe with seemingly positive effects. However, some health officials have challenged the effectiveness of the drug to treat COVID-19, creating controversy in both the medical and political spheres. 

On one side, there are doctors who say ivermectin can help end the pandemic if used globally. On the other are public health officials who have reviewed the data and say the drug’s effectiveness against COVID-19 isn’t conclusive. 

This is an accurate and fair depiction of the basic contours of the Ivermectin debate. 

Here’s everything you need to know about ivermectin and its use for COVID-19. 

This implants I the mind of the reader that what follows is sufficiently comprehensive to understand all of the salient points and arguments relevant to Ivermectin. This sense of ‘broad comprehensiveness’ is further driven home by the length of this article, which implies comprehensiveness. 

What is ivermectin? 

Ivermectin is an anti-parasitic medicine “that works by altering cellular channels,” said Dr. Soumi Eachempati, CEO of Cleared4 and former professor of surgery and public health at Weill Cornell Medical College. The drug inhibits some viruses from infecting cells, thus preventing the virus from spreading. Ivermectin is usually given to treat parasitic infections like lice and Strongyloides, according to Eachempati. 

Scientists at pharmaceuticals giant Merck discovered ivermectin in 1975 and began to use it to treat scabies, river blindness and other parasitic diseases carried by worms and lice starting in 1981. It’s on the World Health Organization’s list of essential medicines for a basic health care system. More than 250 million people take the drug across the globe each year, and it’s effective for animals as well. 

Although they could have done a better job explaining the background, it is immaterial to understanding Ivermectin vis a vis covid, and doesn’t give any misleading impressions. 

The drug is considered safe when taken in appropriate dosages. 

This is a bit misleading, because there is a subtle implication that there is very little room between the normal dosing range and an unsafe dose, which is not true, as Ivermectin is safe even at very high doses. 

Side effects for the ivermectin vary depending on whether it’s taken orally to treat intestinal infections or topically for skin infections. Oral tablets can cause drowsiness, nausea, vomiting and, in very rare cases, an increase in heart rate and seizures. Side effects for the topical ivermectin can include skin rash and irritation, while dry skin and stinging pain are severe and rare. 

Ivermectin is safer than Tylenol, so ask yourself: If you saw this about Tylenol, would you think that this is a fair assessment of potential side effects? Does it convey an exaggerated sense of risk? Ivermectin is one of the safest drugs ever made, dispensed >4 billion times over the past 50 years or so. Also, the vast majority of Ivermectin side effects are specific to its interactions with either river blindness or parasitic worms, neither of which is relevant to covid. 

Can ivermectin be used to treat COVID-19? 

This is where things get complicated. Public health agencies, including the Federal Drug Administration, the National Institutes of Health and the World Health Organization, don’t suggest ivermectin’s use to treat COVID-19. They cite the lack of data from large, randomized trials confirming the drug’s effectiveness to treat the disease. 

True in the sense that they said it. This, however, gaslights the reader into believing that these agencies are acting on the basis of their unbiased, expert judgement, which is emphatically delusional – these agencies are as political as any govt agency. Also, there are many RCT’s, that collectively cover well over 10,000 subjects, which is definitely enough to qualify as “large”. Furthermore, the author neglects to inform the reader that these same agencies approved other interventions, such as facemasks or Remdesivir, on the basis of far less data/studies, which proves that their excuse of “lack of large RCT’s” is baloney. 

Doctors who cited multiple smaller studies and firsthand experience say otherwise. 

Credit for acknowledging clinical (firsthand) experience. But this is still very misleading. Doctors are not citing only ‘smaller studies’, they are also citing large studies, some of which are RCT’s. This gives a distinct impression that there exist no robust studies in favor of Ivermectin at all, which is emphatically untrue. 

They claim ivermectin does work to prevent people from developing symptoms from COVID-19 and can shorten recovery time for those already infected. 

This is straight up lying by omission, because the author leaves out the most important claim – the massive reduction in mortality – which is the primary benefit and the one that is most strongly demonstrative of Ivermectin’s efficacy!! The fact that mortality reduction is mentioned later almost in passing does not excuse its absence here, where the reader’s first impression of the pro-Ivermectin arguments is formed. 

What do the public health agencies say about ivermectin use for COVID-19 treatment? 

The FDA said in March it hasn’t approved the use of ivermectin to treat COVID-19. It warned that large doses of the drug are “dangerous and can cause serious harm.” The agency also advised against human use of ivermectin produced for animals, such as cows and horses, as the doses aren’t the same and could contain ingredients intended only for animals. 

All true – the FDA indeed made these claims (although the decision to not approve is preposterous). 

There has been a growing number of people taking ivermectin for animals as word spread on social media about its possible use to cure COVID-19. This has resulted in some people calling state poison centers after taking the incorrect dosage since the medication is intended for animals. 

This is a slanted depiction of the people who take horse Ivermectin. The reason people have done so is simply out of desperation when faced with doctor’s refusal to use it, and their pharmacy’s refusal to fill Ivermectin prescriptions, and government bans on it. This is not some wild conspiracy theory trafficked by crackpots. 

In April, the FDA reaffirmed in a post on its website that ivermectin isn’t approved to treat COVID-19 nor has it been given emergency use authorization. 

Factually true statement. However, constantly quoting the FDA and other health agencies as institutions possessing unimpeachable expertise is itself highly misleading, because it conveys to people that there is a legitimate expert opinion out there that legitimately holds that Ivermectin doesn’t work, which is profoundly wrong – there is no rational basis in fact or logic to doubt Ivermectin’s efficacy at this point, and there is considerable corruption within these highly political government health agencies.

The NIH said in February there was insufficient data to “recommend either for or against the use of ivermectin for the treatment of COVID-19.” 

They said it. It is still a misleading presentation, however - i.e., an objective description of the facts is “The NIH lied in February when they said there was insufficient data etc.”

It did say lab tests found the drug stopped the reproduction of the SARS-CoV-2 virus that cause the disease. However, to be effective, the dosages would need to be “100-fold higher than those approved for use in humans.” 

They did say that. This is very dishonest though. The claim about the dosage requirement is sheer scientific illiteracy. Not only does the author present this as an unchallenged scientific finding, he doesn’t ever cite the counter arguments (refutation) of the pro-Ivermectin doctors. He also fails to point out the obvious, which is that real-world observation of efficacy would completely disprove this, something that the average reader won’t think of by themselves. All in all, this claim gives a false impression that it is highly unlikely that Ivermectin could be used effectively based on the prior background clinical knowledge we have for Ivermectin. 

While some clinical studies showed ivermectin to have no benefit, the NIH said others saw a lower mortality rate among patients. However, those studies were incomplete or had methodological limitations such as small sample sizes or patients receiving additional medicine along with ivermectin, according to the NIH. 

The claim that some studies showed no benefit is false, because no legitimate studies found no benefit – there were a few corrupt, fraudulent studies that purported to show no benefit, which don’t count (these will be addressed later). This is like saying, “while some studies showed that the Earth is round, NASA said that others showed that the Earth is actually kind of flat”. 

The claim that all the studies showing benefits suffered from “methodological limitations” that are implied to be disqualifying is likewise false. Furthermore, a sufficient number of low-power studies all finding the same results is itself powerful evidence of efficacy, because the odds of running 50 small studies that show the same thing are insignificant if it’s just a fluke. 

The WHO said in March the current evidence on the use of ivermectin for treatment of COVID-19 was “inconclusive.” 

The WHO said it. The WHO lied. 

Who says ivermectin is a treatment, and what information do they have? 

Ivermectin’s potential use as a COVID-19 therapeutic made headway last December during a Senate Homeland Security Committee meeting called Focus on Early Treatment of COVID-19. Dr. Pierre Kory, a pulmonary and critical care specialist, testified about the drug’s usage for treatment of the disease. 

“Ivermectin is highly safe, widely available, and low cost,” Kory said in the Senate meeting. “We now have data from over 20 well-designed clinical studies, 10 of them randomized, controlled trials, with every study consistently reporting large magnitude and statistically significant benefits in decreasing transmission rates, shortening recovery times, decreasing hospitalizations, or large reductions in deaths. These data show that ivermectin is effectively a ‘miracle drug’ against COVID-19.” 

During his testimony, Kory referred to a paper he authored — Review of the Emerging Evidence Demonstrating the Efficacy of Ivermectin in the Prophylaxis and Treatment of COVID-19 — that was published in the May edition of the American Journal of Therapeutics. 

True! And I would add, ask yourself: does this sound remotely like how the author of this article presented the general case for Ivermectin earlier?? 

However, the author again left out the most compelling argument made, which in this case is that Dr. Kory himself had successfully treated thousands of Covid patients with Ivermectin. The clinical experience of a doctor using a treatment repeatedly on thousands of patients is far stronger evidence than any trial, for sure during a crisis. It is obvious to anyone with a brain that “Dr. Kory testified that he had used Ivermectin to successfully treat thousands of covid patients” resonates powerfully to the reader in a way that no ‘study’ ever can. 

The paper was also included in the Frontiers of Pharmacology journal in January but was then removed in March. 

They folded under immense political pressure, which is misleading by omission of the possibility that its retraction may have been the result of political influence. 

Dr. Frederick Fenter, chief executive editor of the journal, said the paper was removed due to “strong, unsupported claims based on studies with insufficient statistical significance, and at times, without the use of control groups.” 

Every element of Dr. Fenter’s statement is a bold, audacious lie. 

Fenter also said the authors promoted their own specific ivermectin-based treatment, which goes against editorial policies. 

Selective application of a standard which they didn’t actually run afoul of. 

A study listed in Kory’s paper gave ivermectin to 234 uninfected health care workers in Argentina and found those who received the drug were far less likely to be diagnosed with COVID. For mildly ill patients, an Iraq study saw a quicker recovery time. A trial for 400 hospitalized patients in Egypt showed a decrease in mortality in one group that received the drug along with standard care in comparison to a group with the same care that was given hydroxychloroquine. 

This is cherry picking that also avoids spelling out the clear results of the quoted studies. He could’ve cited, for example, this Argentina study, which gives a far more powerful impression of efficacy: 

Carvallo et al, RCT Prophylaxis, 1195 health care workers (HCW’s), 2 groups, 788 given 1x/week prophylaxis, control of 407 HCW’s. Results: 237/407 (58.2%) lab-confirmed covid infections in control vs 0/788 – ZERO!! - in Ivermectin arm. 

I wonder why he didn’t… 

There are also studies that show otherwise. A clinical trial of 476 patients found ivermectin didn’t improve the recovery time in patients who had COVID-19. A review of 10 random clinical trials, with more than 1,000 participants, also didn’t find improvements with ivermectin. 

Both of these studies are, literally, fraudulent junk science. The first one, Medina-Lopez, suffered from issues such as the control arm also taking Ivermectin(!!!), among other significant failings; the second, the Roman et al meta-analysis of Ivermectin RCT’s, suffered from issues such as falsely reporting results from some of the studies in a way that SWAPPED THEIR RESULTS from showing efficacy to doing worse than the control, as well as arbitrarily excluding all the RCT’s that had they included, they would have been forced to conclude that Ivermectin was, indeed, effective. 

Furthermore, there are 2 recently published meta-analyses of Ivermectin RCT’s using the highest statistical standard (Cochrane protocol), both by professional WHO expert consultants who specifically do these sorts of meta-analyses for all sorts of topics, that found that Ivermectin has a massive statistical impact by moderate quality evidence (which in layperson language means that it is a virtual lock that the effect is real, ‘moderate’ is a very technical term that refers to having specific types of evidence). 

Merck, the company that discovered ivermectin, released a statement in February saying there was “no scientific basis for a potential therapeutic effect against COVID-19 from pre-clinical studies” and “no meaningful evidence for clinical activity or clinical efficacy in patients with COVID-19 disease.” It also cited a lack of safety data from major studies. 

Merck lied. Merck also just signed a gov’t contract for a new anti-viral covid treatment drug they’re developing for $1.3 billion, which is an obvious conflict of interest relevant to their credibility to denounce a competing drug which if effective would mean there is no market at all for their expensive new anti-viral covid drug. The failure to acknowledge this by the author is at best indefensibly negligent. This gives the misleading impression of an authoritative source that has unique credibility to speak on the issue (because it’s their drug) saying that there’s no evidence that Ivermectin works. 

Why is there controversy over ivermectin? 

This question is inherently misleading, because anyone reading until now would intuit that of course there is a ‘controversy’ about a drug where according to one side, the other side are murderers, corrupt, and engaging in flat-put censorship. Such a question, especially after explaining the dispute, implies that it is not so clear why there would be a controversy at all, which in light of how they have portrayed Ivermectin so far is unambiguously pushing – however subtly - that Ivermectin really doesn’t have legitimate evidence backing it up. 

The debate about ivermectin’s usage to treat COVID-19 has gone from the hospital to social media, exacerbating the discourse as well as the vitriol. 

True. 

While those in support of the drug appear to want an end to the pandemic, their arguments in favor of ivermectin have become fodder for anti-vaxxers and conspiracy theorists. 

“Appear to want an end to the pandemic”??? Notice how the author will question the motives of the pro-Ivermectin doctors, despite them having no documented conflicts of interest, yet will not question the motives of health agencies and political doctors, despite the numerous and powerful conflicts of interest. This is subtle, but powerful, propaganda that gets the reader to associate the pro-Ivermectin doctors, but not the anti-Ivermectin health agencies, with nefarious motives (and conspiracy theorists, to whom a connection is alleged even though the author then says that it’s not the conscious objective of the pro-Ivermectin docs) without really realizing the manipulation inducing the reader to make this association. 

Groups that have spread misinformation about COVID-19 throughout the pandemic latched onto ivermectin’s usage following Kory’s Senate testimony. 

Notice also how the author doesn’t ever mention how government policies and claims have led to groups spreading misinformation about covid, such as there being no effective covid treatments as an alternate to getting a vaccine (and also such as that everyone is at significant risk from covid, facemask efficacy (which led to such cultish insanity like people wearing facemasks alone while driving), the 6-foot fairy tale, distorted vaccine risk/benefit analysis, ‘9% of US died from covid’, 50% of covid cases result in hospitalization, etc, etc, etc). Even if this is merely reflecting the prior assumptions of the author, the propaganda effect is just as real, as the reader is induced to associate only the pro-Ivermectin doctors with enabling crackpots and malicious people spreading lies, but not the government, who has been infinitely worse in this regard, as they have been the most aggressive purveyor of scientific quackery throughout the pandemic. 

Anti-vax groups on Telegram share misinformation about the vaccine while asking where they can buy the drug. Rumble, an alternative video platform to YouTube, has pages of videos falsely saying vaccines are ineffective while advising people to also take ivermectin. 

Anti-vax posts and videos can also be found on YouTube, Facebook and Twitter, although the companies are attempting to take these posts down or make them harder to find. 

This is, at minimum, a clever bait and switch – the author is conflating in the reader’s mind the claim of ZERO vaccine efficacy (“ineffective” implies that it simply doesn’t work) with the claim of Ivermectin efficacy, which leads the reader to project – to some degree - the sense of obvious falseness of the zero-vaccine efficacy claim onto the claim of Ivermectin efficacy. This also propagandizes the reader to subtly project this sense of outright falseness onto all negative claims about the vaccines. 

This is also shameless propaganda maligning alternative platforms to those controlled by “Big Tech” – in other words, those that aren’t engaging in rampant communist-style censorship – as the platforms of choice for the conspiracy quacks, while whitewashing the outrageous censorship of these platforms as an appropriate tactic to stop disinformation. 

Kory was a guest on the Dark Horse Podcast hosted by Bret Weinstein, a former professor at Evergreen State College, on June 1 to talk about ivermectin. That video was eventually demonetized on YouTube and Weinstein’s channel received a strike, which prevented him from posting content for one week and could lead to its removal if he receives two more strikes within 90 days. 

YouTube says its actions on Weinstein’s videos were part of its policies. 

“While we welcome open discussions of potential treatments and clinical trials related to COVID-19 on YouTube, based on guidance from the CDC, FDA and other local health authorities, we don’t currently allow content that recommends ivermectin as an effective treatment or prevention method for the virus,” said Ivy Choi, a YouTube spokesperson. “We craft our policies to prevent the risk of egregious real-world harm, and update them as official guidance evolves. We do allow exceptions to our policy about ivermectin, including content that also gives viewers the full context of the FDA’s current position.” 

Despite being a factually accurate depiction of YouTube’s claims regarding their own policies, this presents YouTube’s propaganda in a favorable light, which implies to the reader a presumptive degree of legitimacy that is emphatically divorced from reality – this is like citing Pravda in a way that makes Pravda look like a legitimate news source. 

Because of YouTube’s decision, the controversy over ivermectin grew and became tied to what some claim to be “big tech censorship.” 

“What some claim to be “big tech censorship””??? This is selectively disparaging the pro-Ivermectin side, as well as the government skeptics. Notice how the author never remarked the same way about the anti-Ivermectin proponents, such as “YouTube’s policies, what some claim are an attempt to combat misinformation”, etc. 

In any event, the controversy over Ivermectin became tied to the controversy about censorship BECAUSE YOUTUBE, GOOGLE, FACEBOOK, ET AL CENSORED INFORMATION ABOUT IVERMECTIN, INCLUDING WORLD-RENOWNED DOCTORS AND SCIENTISTS!!!! This sentence is blatant gaslighting to obscure a simple, obvious, self-evident, objective fact. 

What is required for ivermectin to get approved for COVID-19 treatment? 

For the public health agencies, it’s going to come down to the results of large clinical studies being conducted around the world. 

This refers to a few ongoing trials, all of which are designed corruptly in a manner almost guaranteed to undermine and sabotage the potential for Ivermectin to help (ie, comically low dosing, too few doses, using it on patients weeks after symptom presentation, etc). This also neglects to mention that this is an absurd standard to use. Facemasks, for example, had no evidence of efficacy when they were mandated by every health agency, despite the massive disruption and myriad harms they caused. 

The WHO’s lead investigator tasked with reviewing the Ivermectin studies concluded in a massive Meta-Analysis study that it is demonstrably effective, with massive statistically significant effects established by moderate certainty evidence. The public health agencies are trying to destroy Ivermectin, something that this author is flipping on its head trying to imply that the health agencies are just trying to do their due diligence. 

This author avoids every truly devastating argument the pro-Ivermectin doctors have against the anti-Ivermectin forces. 

“In the UK, it was announced that ivermectin will be added to the Principle Trial, a large clinical study designed to assess potential COVID therapies for non-hospitalized therapies for patients at higher risk for severe disease,” said Dr. David Shafran, head of pediatrics at telehealth app K Health. “This should demonstrate more definitively the efficacy of ivermectin in early-stage COVID infections. Fingers crossed because it’s a cheap medication with a good safety profile. It would be great to add this to the armament of medication to fight COVID.” 

The Oxford University Principle Trial has more than 5,000 participants and will give a three-day course of oral ivermectin treatment to individuals randomly and compare their results to individuals who will receive standard care. 

The corrupt Oxford trial. 

In the US, the NIH is evaluating therapeutics for COVID-19 with its Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and Vaccines (ACTIV) master protocol. ivermectin was added in phase three of ACTIV-6, which will test the effectiveness of repurposed drugs. 

“The ACTIV prioritization group, trial team and trial oversight groups continuously track new data on any agent we are studying in our trials and evaluate that data for how it might influence our testing of that agent and the safety/well being of the participants in the trial,” said Dr. Sarah Dunsmore, a program director at the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences that is part of the NIH. 

What’s unclear is how long the whole process will take. The studies need time to be completed, and then the agencies will require additional time to come up with decisions based on the data. 

This whole section is propaganda suggesting that there simply isn’t any robust data supporting Ivermectin, which is about as credible as flat-Earth theories, as well as falsely implying to the reader that the medical community is making genuine, good-faith attempts to study Ivermectin. 

As you saw, it is remarkably easy to masquerade and disguise propaganda in the language and tone of “fair and balanced”. This is exactly how gaslighting and propaganda work and why they’re so effective. 

Guest columns represent the opinion of the column’s author. The author’s analysis of the quoted article are in red/italicized font.

COVID-19, Culture & Society, Current Events, Featured, Op-eds, Politics, Uncategorized, What's New

The New Wasteland: COVID-19’s Shameful Legacy

No Comments

Discarded surgical masks strewn along the sidewalk aptly represent COVID-19’s lasting legacy. The federal medical bureaucracy’s response to the pandemic has resulted in a wasteland of lost economic and educational opportunities, psychologically damaged children, terminally lonely nursing home residents, and lives lost to suicide, illicit drug overdoses, and missed diagnoses. 

Thanks to the lockdowns, 140,104 businesses were temporarily closed and 97,966 were permanently closed by September 2020 according to a Yelp survey. Significantly, more than half of these were local small businesses—and small businesses employ nearly half of all American workers. Predictably, the workers who were most affected were not the professionals pulling in a paycheck while working from home. They were the working-class folks whose jobs the bureaucrats considered non-essential.

The disruption of children’s education and socialization will haunt us for years to come in terms of earning potential and mental health. The central planners punished children for months although the mortality in children from COVID-19 is roughly equivalent to that of influenza year to year. Moreover, CDC data shows that attending school or child care was not associated with having positive SARS-CoV-2 test results. 

So why were children barred from attending school? To protect Grandma. Even if children were found to be transmitters of disease—they haven’t been, a sensible alternative to depriving all students of a proper education and social life would have been to ask children whether elders lived in their homes. If so, that group could have been provided with educational accommodations. But the way of bureaucracy is all or none with no room for individual considerations.

Typical of blanket decrees, the most vulnerable fared the worst. Thirty percent of parents from low-income homes reported that their children never logged on to the computer for virtual schooling. And almost half of special needs children received no support. Worse yet, insurance claims for pediatric mental health visits as well as teen overdoses doubled in March and April 2020 compared to the same period in 2019.  

Adults fell prey to the dangers of lockdowns. There was an increase in alcohol sales, use of prescription anti-anxiety medications, and domestic violence, Additionally, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationreported a 24 percent increase in traffic deaths in 2020. Almost two-thirds of the seriously or fatally injured tested positive for alcohol, marijuana, or opioids. According to the CDC, the 12 months ending May 2020 had the highest number of U.S. overdose deaths ever recorded in a 12-month period (more than 81,000). This increase was mainly due to illicitly obtained fentanyl. 

Anyone who isn’t hidden away in an ivory tower could predict that isolated people deprived indefinitely of their livelihoods, recreational outlets, and family relationships would sink into depression. The CDC reportedin late June, that 40 percent of U.S. adults surveyed were struggling with mental health or substance abuse. And 11% say they seriously considered suicide. These unintended consequences were foreseeable yet Americans were subjected to social isolation in the face of no evidence that lockdowns were a useful COVID mitigation strategy. Ironically, according to CDC data, “masking”, a symbol of our isolation, has made no difference in COVID infections.

With the media’s help, the public health gurus waged a campaign of fear to keep us in line while we waited for Dr. Fauci’s solution: vaccines. One of the medical bureaucracy’s biggest (intentional) missteps was the failure to support early treatment of COVID. They told us to stay home until we couldn’t breathe. Of course, at that point the virus has overwhelmed the body. The scientific elite maligned study after study and thousands of clinical successes with early treatment with hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin in favor of unproven high priced drugs. Despite the CDC and FDA previously acknowledging the 60-year safety record of hydroxychloroquine, it miraculously became harmful in 2020. 

It is as if the medical bureaucrats are making up the ever-changing rules as they go along. They claimed they were “following the science.” Why haven’t we heard from these politically driven experts as hundreds of illegal migrants are released into the United States without COVID tests while U.S. citizens are being fined for not wearing useless masks?

Shameless non-clinician bureaucrats have stolen our lives, stolen the smiles from children’s faces, and bullied a segment of the population into paralyzing fear. Those hiding behind masks (including our precious children) no longer see people as people, but as 170-pound nests of germs and certain death.

Dr. Fauci remains the highest paid federal government employee, and Dr. Birx has moved on to her private air purifier consulting job. Meanwhile, we are left in the wasteland with their legacy: boarded up shops; needless lost lives; and the death of common sense, scientific discourse, and medical freedom that we may never regain. And why?

COVID-19, Current Events, Featured, Health Policy, Medical Ethics, Op-eds, What's New

COVID-19: Black Americans Need Action, Not Navel-gazing

No Comments

On Martin Luther King, Jr.’s holiday, I’m reminded that Rev. King was not only a thinker but a man of action. 

While today’s social justice omphaloskeptics are pondering white privilege, Marxist critical race theory, and “the intersectionality of health equity,” COVID-19 is busy killing black and brown Americans.

Black Americans continue to get infected and die from COVID-19 at rates more than 1.5 times their share of the population. Hispanic and Native Americans face similar disparities. Black Americans are twice as likely to be hospitalized as whites. Moreover, when admitted to the hospital, people from racial and ethnic minority groups were in worse shape than their white counterparts. Consequently, they were more likely to die. 

No need to worry, President-elect Biden has promised a racial disparities task force in response to COVID. Gee, 35 years ago, the Health and Human Services’ seminal Heckler Report on health disparities found that minorities had a lower life expectancy and a higher death rate from heart disease and diabetes, among other things. Just what we need: another task force to ruminate about disparities.

It is well known that black Americans have persistently higher rates of hypertension compared to whites. Indeed, 75 percent of black people in the United States develop high blood pressure by the age 55 compared to 55 percent of white men and 40 percent of white women. To make matters worse, fewer black than white Americans have their blood pressure controlled. Additionally, black American adults are 60 percent more likely than non-Hispanic white adults to have diabetes as well as more complications, such as amputations and kidney failure. 

Early in the COVID journey, clinicians found that hypertension and obesity were key predictors of COVID mortality. Not surprisingly, black patients hospitalized with COVID-19 were more likely to have high blood pressure and diabetes compared with all other racial and ethnic groups combined. And the obesehospitalized patients were more likely to die. Further, people with darker skin—63 percent of Hispanic people and 82 percent of black people have low vitamin D levels. And vitamin D may lessen the severity of COVID disease.

In one study, compared with other racial groups, black people were less likely to have been tested for COVID prior to being seen at the hospital. The researchers noted that the key advantage to earlier diagnosis is the decrease in community spread. The study fails to acknowledge that early diagnosis would lead to early treatment. Why? The party line is that there is no early treatment. Not true. Early treatment works.

Given the severity of the COVID illness in black Americans, one gets the feeling that withholding treatment is a familiar tune. In the disgraceful 40-year Tuskegee experiment, treatment was withheld from black men so scientists could learn the natural history of the disease. The control group continued to receive placebos, despite the fact that penicillin became the recommended treatment for syphilis several years into the experiment. Praise the Lord for randomized controlled studies.

Do Dr. Fauci and his pharma cronies care about black folks? (He didn’t seem to care about the AIDS patients). He exhorts about the need for controlled studies and dismisses vast clinical experience. But as Tom Frieden, former director of the CDC noted, “waiting for more data is often an implicit decision not to act, or to act on the basis of past practice rather than on the best available evidence.” 

Nations with plenty of black and brown folks, such as Cuba, India, Algeria, and Costa Rica are achieving lower overall death rates with early treatment with hydroxychloroquine, an antimalarial drug with an over 50-year safety record. Other countries are using ivermectin, a safe antiparasitic used to treat scabies. Perhaps because these drugs are inexpensive as compared to the new expensive potential wonder drugs and the cost of ICU care, poorer countries were eager to try something that worked, rather than wait for a piece of pie in the sky. 

Repurposing of FDA-approved drugs that have been used safely on millions of patients is not new. Amazingly, a combination of an antibiotic (doxycycline), a diabetes drug (metformin), a treatment for intestinal worms (mebendazole), and the cholesterol-lowering statin, Lipitor was found to extend the survival of people with glioblastoma, a type of brain cancer! The authors of the innovative study noted that “it is well recognized that high-cost randomized controlled trials may not be an economically viable option for studying patent-expired off-label drugs. In some cases, randomized trials could also be considered as ethically controversial.” Money talks, helping patients walks.

While hand-wringing over the tragic COVID patient deaths, the “chosen ones” silence discussion about preventive and early treatment. Senate hearings on the subject were ignored, even mocked. There’s no need for early treatment with safe medications because the (experimental) vaccine has arrived.Meanwhile people continue to needlessly die.

Let’s not repeat Tuskegee. When there is a low risk and reasonable likelihood of helping, let the patient and doctor choose between doing nothing or actively treating. Positive clinical results and the morality of life and death matter more than crowing about scientific purity.

COVID-19, Current Events, Featured, Op-eds, Politics, What's New

Censorship Kills

No Comments

Election irregularities, Chinese spies seducing a congressman, and the shocking revelation that “Dr.” Jill Biden was not a real doctor briefly let us turn our attention away from COVID-19. Unfortunately, COVID is still here and has made it to Antarctica. COVID continues to directly or indirectly hasten deaths. Along with the arrival of two much anticipated vaccines is a new active variant. The effects of both remain to be seen.

For months we’ve heard that COVID is not like the flu. It is a different animal. It may leave the infected person with long term aftereffects. Given the potential problems, the FDA, CDC, NIH, HHS and the alphabet health agencies should be advocating for early pharmacological treatment and prevention. Instead, we are told to wash our hands, wear masks—which may or may not help—and to stay away from one another. Indeed, as California’s Health and Human Services Secretary admitted, the state’s order banning outdoor dining and closing playgrounds was “not a comment on the relative safety” of the activity but a tactic for keeping people at home. 

Stay home — although 66 percent of new coronavirus hospitalizations in New York were in people who had not routinely left their homes. Stay inside — although there are studies echoing observations during the 1918 flu pandemic finding that people who went outside had better outcomes. A recent Spanish studyshowed that 80 percent of patients with COVID had low levels of vitamin D. Another study found that people with adequate vitamin D levels had a 51 percent lower risk of dying from COVID. People at risk for vitamin D deficiency include those who have dark skin, are elderly or overweight, or stay indoors. Interestingly, these groups are particularly hit hard by COVID.

Simply put, an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Any risk of taking proper doses of vitamins and minerals is dwarfed by the risks associated with COVID. Useful vitamins and minerals include zinc (inhibits viral replication), vitamin D3 and vitamin C, and quercetin (to help drive zinc into the cells). Additionally, melatonin, a hormone found naturally in the body that regulates our sleep cycle, also has significant anti-inflammatory, antioxidant, and mitochondrial protective effects.

What are we to do if we get ill from COVID? While the numinous Dr. Fauci says we urgently need early treatments, existing effective treatments are largely ignored, discouraged, or even prohibited. The party line recommends doing nothing for symptoms of fever, coughing, or breathing problems other than rest, stay home, drink fluids, and monitor. The threshold for calling the doctor is appalling: coughing up blood, trouble breathing, chest pain, confusion, severe drowsiness, or “a blue tint to your lips or face.” Wait until you turn blue?! 

I have a better idea. Don’t just curl up in bed. Call the doctor right away and request pharmacological treatment, backed by evidence. Sadly, most potential patients are unaware of early treatment because Facebook, Twitter, and Google, the de facto arm of government communication, block the information or permanently delete the accounts of physicians who advocate for safe, effective treatments. 

They argue that the use of well-known medications is “off-label,” that is, prescribing a drug for a different condition or dose than the FDA had approved. According to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 20 percent of all prescriptions in the United States are for off-label use. This is often done when the “doctor has seen evidence that a certain drug works well for an off-label use.” For example, using a diuretic to treat acne or a chemotherapy agent as a preferred alternative to surgery for an ectopic pregnancy. Billions of doses of [censored] and [censored] have been safely used for over 50 years. Repurposing anti-parasitics as antivirals certainly is not out of the realm of medical innovation.

Sitting at my Apple computer that could have been built by Uighurs in Communist re-education camps, I received another email from someone lamenting that he was blocked from social media. No, it wasn’t for child porn (like the former political consultant right-hand man of congressperson Barbara Lee), but for advocating early treatment of COVID-19. These “cancelled” physicians are not receiving $37 million innovation grants, but are saving patients’ lives for a few dollars a treatment. 

The COVID horse is out of the barn. We need to tame it. Let’s start by educating patients, influencers, and policymakers about early treatment with [censored] and preventive measures such as [censored] and the proven uselessness, arbitrariness, and social and economic costs of [censored] that serve to make “poor people poorer” and erode trust in public health officials.

We silently watched as a shameless Nancy Pelosi played games with COVID financial relief legislation hoping to influence an election. Physicians and patients must not stand on the sidelines while political vultures feast on the carcasses of terminally lonely and depressed, drug overdosed, or financially ruined Americans.

COVID-19, Guest Column, Uncategorized, What's New

COVID-19: Will the Vaccine Save Prisoners?

No Comments

Jane Orient, MD — Dec. 12, 2020

I hope a loved one is not incarcerated, but all of us need to be concerned about prison health, for humanitarian reasons and also because prisons are breeding grounds for contagious diseases.

The Pfizer vaccine for COVID-19 is expected to arrive in hundreds of sites next week under an Emergency use Authorization (EUA) from the Food and Drug Administration. In Arizona, it will be administered, by appointment only, in centralized drive-thru locations (“pods”) to persons on the 1A allocation list. That includes healthcare workers and nursing home residents—not prisoners.

More than half the inmates at the Arizona State Prison Complex in Yuma test positive for COVID. Staff are getting certified to administer vaccine, when it becomes available, but the vaccine is already too late for more than half. The not-yet-positive inmates are housed separately and required to wear cloth masks when outside their cells. But inside or outside their cells, they are breathing the same air.

Orofecal spread of coronavirus is possible. Virus lives in the GI tract and wastewater for days or weeks. Virus has been isolated from restroom exhaust fans. In one study of environmental contamination, the air sampler had to be quarantined twice despite wearing full protective gear. If virus is aerosolized from flushing toilets, the prison mask policy will be of limited value.

So, what can we do to protect both prisoners and staff? A disproportionate number are minorities, the population most severely affected by the disease.

On Dec 8, the Senate held a second hearing about early treatment for COVID. While none of the witnesses said anything related to politics, or anything critical about vaccination or public health mitigation measures, Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) attacked the hearing, Chairman Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), and witnesses as being political, “anti-science,” and “anti-vaxx”—before a word was said.

There is apparently an Anti-Early-Treatment movement, which confuses being pro-treatment with being “anti-vaxx.” It has specifically discouraged use of hydroxychloroquine (HCQ), but official guidance from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) recommends no treatment for outpatients—except for the recent addition of mostly unavailable new monoclonal antibodies.

In contrast to official therapeutic nihilism, testimony at the hearing provided great hope about ivermectin, which has been called “a miracle drug,” having saved millions from terrible parasitic diseases in Africa and other developing areas. In more than 30 studies completed to date, all studies show effectiveness for COVID-19 in early and late disease and for pre-exposure and post-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP and PEP in HIV/AIDS parlance), as the graphic below shows.

There have been no large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for use in COVID-19 because of difficulty in obtaining funding. The research money goes to novel drugs and vaccines with huge profit potential. But safety has been shown with nearly 4 billion doses taken by humans since 1981.

Prisoners could be offered the choice to take one dose of ivermectin today and a follow-up dose in perhaps a week. Or they can wait to get infected soon and vaccinated whenever.

If you would like to discuss these issues, contact me at [email protected] or (520) 323-3110.

Jane M. Orient, M.D., Executive Director, Association of American Physicians and Surgeons

COVID-19, Culture & Society, Current Events, Elections, Featured, Media & Press, Op-eds, Politics, What's New

COVID-19 Won the Presidential Election

No Comments

One is hard-pressed to deny that Joe Biden is a weak, corrupt, pathologically lying, creepy dirty old man who has lived off the government teat for 50 years. And he allegedly won the 2020 presidential election. Are Americans that ignorant? Or has Joseph Stalin’s political philosophy that has been simmering in America for years finally come to fruition? COVID was the not-so-secret agent.

The COVID pandemic was Nancy Pelosi’s stated reason for inserting blanket mail-in voting into a COVID financial relief package several months before the election. This method is a breeding ground for fraud. It is not absentee voting where the voter requests a ballot. With mail-in, a ballot is sent to anyone on the voter rolls—dead or alive. Magically, after all the ballots were mailed out, the CDC announced that people suffering from COVID could vote in person as long as they told the poll workers of their condition.

During his bloody 30-year career, Joseph Stalin (1878-1953) made two immediately pertinent points. First, “Political power does not rest with those who cast votes; political power rests with those who count votes.” 

The second point lays the foundation for the first: “The press is our Party’s sharpest and most powerful weapon.” The Left’s plans for fundamentally changing America were upended by three years of peace and prosperity. Enter the media collaborators. CNN has a permanent sidebar banner with global statistics with no context. There were never stories on recoveries or successful treatments, of which there are many inexpensive, home-based therapies. Many studies demonstrate positive results from the anti-inflammatory antiparasitics hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin, fluvoxasmine (antidepressant), budesonide (inhaled steroid), vitamins D and C, quercetin, and zinc. 

Social media refused to post materials favorable to the President or unfavorable to his opponent. I presume we are supposed to be impressed by Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey testifying that he should not have censored news about Hunter Biden’s internationally sensitive business ventures. Too little, too late. But he knows that. He had a mission to complete: emulate Pravda, censor and manipulate speech, and sway the election. 

We knew this was coming. 60 years ago Nikita Khrushchev predicted of the United States, “your grandchildren will live under communism.” If we didn’t believe Stalin or Khrushchev, maybe we will believe Hollywood. Given the perpetual “2 weeks to flatten the curve” lockdown and the paucity of non-Pravda network news, 50-year-old television shows have become welcome substitutes. The 1967-68 series called The Invaders was premised on aliens from another planet descending upon Earth to “make it their world.” The aliens’ dialogue was eerily familiar to the current authoritarian COVID Great Reset social engineering blather. 

In The Ivy Curtain episode an alien “college” course instructed new alien arrivals that “fear is an emotion that dominates all human behavior.” The aliens would “use fear as a weapon, to twist anxiety into hate, suspicion into violence, cowardice into surrender.” COVID was the convenient vehicle to induce fear. Was The Invaders pure entertainment or allegory? 

On the technical side, 2019’s futuristic Terminator: Dark Fate  is prophetic. When Facebook, Google, Twitter, and big tech hyperbolically propagandizing the coronavirus – excuse me, Skynet’s machines began to overtake humans, the government told the people to hide and isolate for a while. Hiding became the “new normal” until one strong leader inspired humans to fight the machines.

The one-sided news presentation, the post-election fortuitous release of 2 vaccines and revelation of Biden’s lockdown plans, mayors and governors and congresspersons flagrantly attending and planning celebrations—maskless, opened many eyes to the media’s manipulation. Some voters are feeling like someone who got drunk in Las Vegas and woke up in bed married to a stranger or in a bathtub of ice minus a kidney. Stalin has another thought for these folks: “Words are one thing – deeds something entirely different. Fine words are a mask to cover shady deeds.” Sounds a bit like Barack Obama. President Trump’s words did not do justice to his deeds. Everything was for Americans – more jobs, energy independence, improving national parks, medical choice for veterans, prison reform, advancing historically black colleges, opportunity zones in poor neighborhoods, and on and on.

By contrast, the compassionate Congresswoman Ocasio-Cortez launched the Trump Accountability Project. The hit list included individuals who worked for the Trump for President campaign, Republican National Committee, and affiliated PACs in 2016 or 2020, those who staffed his government, individuals who worked in any role as a political appointee in the Trump Administration, and those who funded him, and the millions of Americans who elected him. This hateful website silenced itself but the Stalinesque sentiment runs deep and is certain to resurface.