It’s Now Clearer Than Ever Before, Science Bends Itself To Fit Left Wing Politics

By  MICHAEL BASTASCH, DAILY CALLER

TOPSHOT-NETHERLANDS-ENVIRONMENT-CLIMATE

I don’t know if you heard, but according to the head of the International Energy Agency (IEA), we only have six months left to prevent total climate change disaster.

“This year is the last time we have, if we are not to see a carbon rebound,” IEA executive director Fatih Birol told the Guardian on Thursday in an article with the headline: “World has six months to avert climate crisis, says energy expert.”

Birol continued: “If emissions rebound, it is very difficult to see how they will be brought down in future. This is why we are urging governments to have sustainable recovery packages.”

I’m old enough to remember when we still had 12 years left to save the planet just two years ago. That dire prediction was just as laughable as what Birol is saying today. The scientific “consensus” we used to hear so much about doesn’t support this alarmist claim at all.

What’s really going on is that Birol is using his cachet as a prominent “expert” to push bogus claims to further his political agenda. Those goals also rather conveniently align with the wishes of Democrats and the liberal media.

We’ve recently seen a lot of this type of weaponizing of science for political purposes. A couple weeks ago, we learned of one of the most egregious examples of this to date.

Late last month, one of the world’s most prestigious medical journals, the Lancet, published a huge study purporting to find that the decades-old anti-malarial drug hydroxychloroquine increased the risk of death in COVID patients.

To sum it all up, this observational study of 96,000 patients around the world found that treating COVID patients with hydroxychloroquine increased their risk of death by 34 percent, and there was a 137 percent increased risk for heart arrhythmias.

Since President Trump came out as supportive of using hydroxychloroquine to treat the coronavirus, the liberal media quickly pounced. The study’s release also conveniently came after the Lancet put out a shockingly unusual editorial statement opposing Trump’s reelection.

“Americans must put a president in the White House come January, 2021, who will understand that public health should not be guided by partisan politics,” the journal editorial board wrote.

All the pieces were in place for the media and medical establishment to set a new narrative — hydroxychloroquine kills! And President Trump is responsible for those deaths.

Amid all the alarm, the World Health Organization and National Institutes of Health temporarily halted clinical trials into hydroxychloroquine. The hype also made it harder for doctors and researchers to recruit volunteers for hydroxy studies.

Given the real world consequences, we have to ask, did anyone in the media or medical community really take the time to read the Lancet’s new bombshell study?

Thankfully, curious reporters at the Guardian (yes, the same Guardian that published the climate drivel I mentioned earlier) did take the time to read it and found what they called “glaring errors” in the study’s data on Australia.

But that wasn’t all — the Guardian found more problems with the data, and then they raised serious questions about the U.S.-based company that provided it.

The Guardian reported: “[T]he US-based company Surgisphere, whose handful of employees appear to include a science fiction writer and an adult-content model … has so far failed to adequately explain its data or methodology.”

After Surgisphere’s CEO refused to hand over his data to independent investigators, the Lancet, to its credit, withdrew the study. Lancet editor Richard Horton called these revelations “a shocking example of research misconduct in the middle of a global health emergency.”

What’s really shocking is that the Lancet’s crack team of peer-reviewers missed all of this! Hydroxychloroquine was approved by the FDA decades ago, and has a long record of safety. Doctors around the world are also using the drug to treat thousands of COVID patients, mostly reporting positive results.

One has to wonder if the journal’s clear political bias and contempt for President Trump played a role. And if it did, will they and the media lackeys who peddled this study apologize to the patients who may have been denied this potentially life-saving drug?

Unfortunately, the scientific misconduct didn’t end there. After months of telling us the science demanded strict lockdown policies, which meant no large gatherings of any kind were safe, the scientific consensus all of the sudden shifted from pro-social distancing to pro-social justice.

“White supremacy is a lethal public health issue that predates and contributes to COVID-19,” over 1,200 experts wrote in an open letter released in the wake of the protesting, rioting and looting sparked by the tragic death of George Floyd, an African American man, while in the custody of police.

“Protests against systemic racism, which fosters the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 on Black communities and also perpetuates police violence, must be supported,” the letter continued.

Apparently, racism is the real public health crisis and the “science” demands that people march (or loot or riot) in support of the Black Lives Matter movement and its radical leftist political goals, which include defunding the police.

Somehow those types of protests are scientifically sound, but according to those same scientists, protesting the crushing lockdown policies of blue state governors is not just dangerous, but evil!

“Those actions not only oppose public health interventions, but are also rooted in white nationalism and run contrary to respect for Black lives,” they wrote.

All this was interesting given the heavy focus in the media on the coronaviruses’ disproportionate impact on minorities, particularly African Americans. Of course, this too was chalked up to racism.

Most notably, the media and the medical class completely dismiss any concerns that weeks of mass protesting in the streets — with many people crowded together and many not wearing masks — will cause a spike in COVID cases.

Meanwhile, these same experts have no problem helping the media hype the rise in coronavirus cases in Trump country. It was also quite amusing to watch the liberal media trip over itself condemning planned Trump campaign rallies as dangerous.

Is it any wonder why American’s trust in the media has plummeted over the last few years? And the scientists, doctors and health experts will soon suffer the same fate if they continue skewing the science for partisan and ideological reasons.

Doctor Anthony Fauci, who’s on the White House COVID task force, lamented the lost faith in science, but he doesn’t blame the scientists, he blames the American people.

“One of the problems we face in the United States is that unfortunately, there is a combination of an anti-science bias … they just don’t believe science and they don’t believe authority,” Fauci said in a Department of health and Human Services podcast.

“When they see someone up in the White House, which has an air of authority to it, who’s talking about science, that there are some people who just don’t believe that — and that’s unfortunate because, you know, science is truth,” Fauci added.

Is it the “truth” that white supremacy is a public health crisis? Well, scientists said it, so according to Fauci, it must be. And going back to my first point, should we really be worried that we only have six months left to prevent catastrophic global warming? We’re told that’s what the “science” says, and as we know, science is the truth.

People understand that science is a process and as we learn more it can change, but that’s not what we’ve seen play out over the past few weeks. Instead we’ve seen the experts and media figures we’re supposed to trust invoke the word “science” to further their political ends — actual facts and evidence be damned.

June 21, 2020 | 1 Comment » | 310 views

Subscribe to Israpundit Daily Digest

1 Comment / 1 Comment

  1. Subject: Hydroxychloroquine ….Additional information that you should include any future articles… + my questioning The Lancet as a “reliable source”
    WITH SOME UPDATED REVISIONS

    1. @ Jared Hopkins For more than 50 years I and my associates have relied upon the Wall Street Journal for responsible reporting. I am submitting to you additional information that you should include in your future articles [ a. my previous communication to you on May 22, 2020; b. my interaction with the Lancet ; Scientists challenge study… published in The Lancet that showed Hydroxychloroquine Didn’t Work”]

    2. On May 22, 2020 I sent to you an extensive communication stating that “Hydroxychloroquine …..Everyone that I deal with says the secret of success is early use… yet all the negative reports that I’ve seen are based on relatively late use”. I attached, for your information, extensive worldwide documentation including my communication with RAND and background materials on my activities to assist you in evaluating my communication.

    3. Questioning Lancet as a source: On the basis of overwhelming evidence [which I submitted to them, I determined that they were in error. [Since then, the Lancet has withdrawn the article that I questioned. Thus, my communication with you on the Lancet article is moot. See:
    https://www.newsmax.com/us/scientists-hydroxycloroquine-study-research/2020/05/31/id/969821/?ns_mail_uid=3ad9e824-f245-4f23-a61f-efd18c731702&ns_mail_job=DM114767_06012020&s=acs&dkt_nbr=01050281z0v8 ]
    The omission of zinc in the HCQ argument is glaring, particularly as critics take aim at the president for using something with no scientific backing, while making an argument that equally had no scientific backing.The media and the study failed to acknowledge zinc as vital to the efficacy of the HCQ treatment cocktail. Zinc is an over-the-counter supplement long seen as an immune-system booster, developing immune cells, or antibodies, to aid the body’s response to a virus.In fact, it is zinc that “does the heavy lifting and is the primary substance attacking the pathogen” with HCQ as the delivery system, according to American infectious disease specialist Joseph Rahimian.
    For a subset of frontline physicians some sort of Hydroxychloroquine cocktail with zinc appears to work .
    RAND Is deeply involved in the medical and economic aspects of Covid-19. Natalie Crawford was the former senior vice president for Air Force programs [the overwhelming proportion of Rand’s research efforts . Currently, Natalie is president of the Rand alumni Association.

    Communication follows:

    We as humans are embedded in a sea of viruses, bacteria , fungi, etc. There will always emerge something new to us and threatening to us . Our body is constantly fighting for survival in a hostile environment. As an aside, our body is also a very a hostile environment to many materials. Anyone who has worked on artificial inserts such as hip replacements discovers how corrosive our body is to most materials. The best line of defense is a strong immune system. Every day when we are outdoors we are subject to attack from a large number of sources and our body reactions to these attacks strengthens our immunity. Proper diet and other lifestyle considerations play a major role as whether as an individual we will be robust enough to withstand any specific attack. In other words, nutrition, exercise, sanitation, etc. are our first line of individual defense.

    When this coronavirus pandemic broke out, well before Donald Trump mentioned Hydroxychloroquine , I was familiar with the drug. Emily ,[ who you were so kind to during the Paul Baran visit to RAND ] and her entire team were on a prophylactic regime of Hydroxychloroquine during their assignment to Africa. No one suffered from any side effect.] I contacted my HHS sources and suggested that it would take only several days to determine the result of whether this drug had prophylactic value in terms of the coronavirus. All of the large chains have computerized records of their prescriptions.There is a large class of individuals who take this drug for other medical reasons. These people could be identified and tested for the coronavirus. If this drug was prophylactic there would be a significant finding that these people were not infected compared to a match in the general population. My idea received a lot of compliments…. but it went nowhere in the CDC bureaucracy.

    My extensive contact with local medical groups and with several communication networks of emergency room physicians provided me with the following information on their experience with Hydroxychloroquine.

    A. Torrance California Recently a local physician prescribed it to both of his elderly parents who tested positive for Covid-19 just before both were taken to the hospital in serious condition. [ mother late 80s, father early 90s]. Although the expectations were that one or more would die-both survived and both are now well on the road to recovery. Ironically, the mother was selected for a medical test but received the placebo. Otherwise except for Hydroxychloroquine she had no other medication. The son in a major newspaper article claimed that prescribing Hydroxychloroquine has saved his parents, lives and that an identical conditions he would do exactly the same in the future. [ Carried by 11 newpapers with a combined circulation of more than 8.5 million — Press-Enterprise (Riverside); Pasadena Star-News; Inland Valley Daily Bulletin; The Facts (Redlands); The Sun (San Bernardino); Daily Breeze (Torrance); The Press-Telegram (Long Beach); Whittier Daily News; Orange County Register; Daily News (Los Angeles); San Gabriel Valley Tribune.] As a side note a physician at the hospital later stated that Hydroxychloroquine was ineffective. if any medication report were to be utilized by CDC they would take the hospital position and chalk it up that Hydroxychloroquine was “ineffective.”

    B. Los Angeles California Harvard Medical School MD; board certified in internal medicine and other specialties; UCLA internship and residency and now on the clinical faculty of UCLA; clinic director; in private practice including infectious diseases for more than 30 years has successfully used Hydroxychloroquine with more than 26 patients. He likens its use to a fire extinguisher and says it is effective very early in the game when symptoms first appear before the virus really gets a toe hold. [“So far in my clinical experience, I can tell you that Hydroxychloroquine/Azithromycin combo has been 100% effective for my CoV patients, when used in conjunction with all of the Integrative …. I employ. Needs to be given early enough in the course of the illness to be maximally effective. Much like a fire extinguisher can put out a small kitchen fire, but if a house is engulfed in flames, you need a fire hose. Doesn’t mean fire extinguishers don’t work for house fires, just need to be used early in the event……”]

    C. Phoenix Arizona, Tufts medical school MD; board-certified in anesthesiology and pain management; clinic manager has successfully used Hydroxychloroquine on two shared patients. Physician also states that all of his associates prescribe Hydroxychloroquine and would use it in their own families.

    D. Coronavirus at Texas Nursing Home – Hydroxychloroquine Treatment Saves All But 1 Patient …..
    The Resort at Texas nursing home had an outbreak of coronavirus that infected 56 residents and 33 staff members. “Two of our residents had symptoms and that’s when we tested everybody,” said nursing home Executive Director Jan Piveral. 56 residents and 33 staff members were COVID-19 positive. “Our Goal was to make sure we could shelter them in place so we don’t spread it to other people,” Armstrong said. “Then also at the same time treat them so they would get better.”Dr. Robin Armstrong immediately administered hydroxychloroquine to the residents and staff members along with Zpac and Zinc. Only one nursing home patient died since the doctor prescribed the hydroxychloroquine. 55 made it.

    Armstrong says he knew residents who ended up in the hospital had a higher mortality rate. “Our goal was to keep them here and treat them with the medications we had available,” he said.
    When Armstrong began administering Hydroxychloroquine to it was controversial but appeared promising.“If we didn’t make the decision quickly then we could potentially lose 15 to 20% of the residents which was not an option,” said the Doctor. Armstrong’s approach was to begin administering Hydroxychloroquine a Zpac and Zinc just as soon as a resident first started showing symptoms.

    The patients were being monitored daily. “We did EKGs on each of these patients to make sure they didn’t have the cardiac side effects that everyone talks about,” Armstrong said. “None of our patients did.”

    Armstrong doesn’t call the Hydroxychloroquine a cure and is aware of all the recent reports that say the drug shouldn’t be used to treat COVID-19.But he points out only one of the nursing homes COVID-19 patients has died.“Everyone who got on treatment who started on treatment is actually doing really well,” he said.

    E.. Information from Monroe, New York

    Since 3/15/20, my team has seen approximately 1354 patients in Monroe, New York with either
    test proven or clinically suspected coronavirus infection. The majority of the patients were
    treated with only supportive care. The patients with shortness of breath or who are in the high
    risk category were treated with the above regimen (approximately 405 patients at this point)..
    Of this group and the information provided to me by affiliated medical teams, we have had two
    deaths, six hospitalizations for pneumonia, and four intubations (all extubated now). In addition,
    I have not heard of any negative side effects other than approximately 10% of patients with
    temporary nausea and diarrhea.

    In sum, my urgent recommendation is to initiate treatment in the outpatient setting as soon
    as possible in accordance with the above. Based on my direct experience, it prevents acute
    respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS), prevents the need for hospitalization and saves lives.

    Conclusion: TREAT AS EARLY AND AS AGGRESSIVELY AS POSSIBLE IN THE OUTPATIENT SETTING

    1- hydroxychloroquine 200mg twice a day for 5 days

    2- azithromycin 500mg once a day for five days

    3- zinc sulfate 220mg once a day for five days

    F. MORE THAN 2,304 PHYSICIANS WHO ARE CURRENTLY SUCCESSFULLY TREATING PATIENTS INFECTED WITH THE COVID-19 REPORTED THEIR “ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE” OF THEIR SUCCESS WITH THEIR PATIENTS UTILIZING HYDROXYCHLOROQUINE

    An international survey conducted by Sermo, a global health care polling company, of 6,227 physicians in 30 countries found that 37% of those treating COVID-19 patients rated hydroxychloroquine as the “most effective therapy” from a list of 15 options.

    The survey also found that the most commonly prescribed treatments are analgesics (56%), azithromycin (41%) and hydroxychloroquine (33%).

    Azithromycin, known by the brand name Zithromax or Z-Pak, was rated the second-most effective therapy at 32%, followed by “nothing,” analgesics (including acetaminophen), anti-HIV drugs and cough medicine.

    Hydroxychloroquine, which is sold under the brand name Plaquenil, was prescribed mainly in the United States for the most severe cases, but not so in other countries.

    “Outside the U.S., hydroxychloroquine was equally used for diagnosed patients with mild to severe symptoms whereas in the U.S. it was most commonly used for high risk diagnosed patients,” the survey found.

    The 30 nations surveyed included those in Europe, Asia, North America and South America, as well as Australia. No incentives were provided to participate in the poll, conducted March 25-27, according to Sermo.

    Hydroxychloroquine usage was most widespread in Spain, where 72% of physicians surveyed said they had prescribed it, followed by Italy at 49%, and least popular in Japan, where 7% had used it to treat COVID-19.

    The poll found 23% of U.S. medical professionals had prescribed the drug, which has been FDA-approved for malaria, lupus and rheumatoid arthritis.

    Yet Dr. Fauci has gone out of his way to disparage any early use of Hydroxychloroquine labeling large-scale successes as “anecdotal” and referring to small-scale flawed studies such as the so-called VA one as definitive. Also, he has referenced the remarks of Dr. Rick Bright ACCORDING TO THE WASHINGTON POST DR. BRIGHT PUBLICLY MADE THE FOLLOWING REMARKS:“I insisted that these drugs be provided only to hospitalized patients with confirmed COVID-19 while under the supervision of a physician. These drugs have potentially serious risks associated with them, including increased mortality observed in some recent studies in patients with COVID-19.” IN MY MIND, BY HIS OWN ADMISSION, DR. BRIGHT IS UNILATERALLY INFRINGING UPON THE MEDICAL JUDGMENT OF THOUSANDS OF PHYSICIANS.

    Quoting Sermo CEO Peter Kirk [ which would be direct counter to Dr. Bright’s insistence that these medications be only provided to hospitalized patients] “Physicians should have more of a voice in how we deal with this pandemic and be able to quickly share information with one another and the world,” he said. “With censorship of the media and the medical community in some countries, along with biased and poorly designed studies, solutions to the pandemic are being delayed.”

    *****
    PLEASE, Mr. Hopkins… many lives are at stake. Before you widely report to the public that “Hydroxychloroquine Didn’t Work” review the many cases where Hydroxychloroquine did work and that the most successful applications were early in the game [the fire extinguisher] and that the recommendation is to give Hydroxychloroquine immediately when a patient first presents with symptoms. … If you wait for the test results to come in it will be too late.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*