TYB!
Just the Tip…
ALREADY DONE
CBD OIL STOPS THE CYTOKINE STORM IN IT'S TRACKS. THE STORM IS WHAT IS DEADLY.
In severe cases of COVID-19, the body's immune system overreacts and releases too many Cytokines, which is called a "Cytokine storm." That is when Covid patients have symptoms of a high fever, inflammation, cough and muscle pain.
SAUCE: https://www.cbs46.com/news/researchers-study-cannabis-as-a-treatment-for-covid-19/article_860f28d2-ce00-11ea-afb3-53fbccde9501.html
LET THE REEEEEEEEE FLOW!
This really pissed off my Chemistry Professor…
EVALUATING SOURCES
1 of 3
Hello Class,
I am choosing to discuss the controversial substance Hydroxychloroquine for my evaluating sources topic, primarily because it is timely due to the current affairs, which concern each of us in regards to public safety with the Covid-19 outbreak. There is as much, if not more, disinformation than there is regarding this issue than there is legitimate information. For example, you can go to Google and choose a number from 1-999 and add the phrase “Covid-19 New Cases” to the chosen number. What occurs you may ask. Well it is very interesting, that without fail, there are search results returned en masse regardless of the number entered. I first came across this interesting anomaly in late March/early April, which at the time piqued my curiosity, since testing was still in development. While random numbers such as 358, 457, 798 seem disparate enough, it wades into extreme improbability when you try repeating numbers such as 111, 222, 333, 444, 555, 666, 777, 888, and 999. Try this little experiment out for yourself. What conclusions do you draw? Scroll through the search results, then look deeper into the source information of randomly chosen articles. Specifically, look at the published dates versus the updated dates on articles. Then notice, as you look at more and more articles that many of them get sloppy, and the search returns on the Google’s crawler, stop matching the updated articles.
This I bring to light because Google is a commonly used starting point for many people worldwide to garner information on the topic of Covid-19, which leads me to my chosen topic of discussion relating to the Chemical Substance known as Hydroxychloroquine. I was first introduced to Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine in 1996, upon my first rotation to South Korea. I received a medical intelligence briefing from U.S. Air Force Medical Doctors regarding this drug, in the unclassified environmental vectors and diseases portion of the briefing. The doctors minced no words in stating that this drug cured most foreign diseases both as a preventative and treatment. I’ve never forgotten that. So, when it came back into the forefront of this volatile and highly publicized issue, I took extreme interest in the subject. Particularly, I took note of the public statements of Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding this drug. My first example of a source regarding this topic is from 3 April 2020 from the website Best Life.
https://bestlifeonline.com/fauci-hydroxychloroquine-report/ In the embedded video of a Fox News interview, at 3:35 Dr. Fauci provides his response to the effects of Hydroxychloroquine in relation to its uses against the Coronavirus. He states that on a scale of evidence it is “Not Overwhelmingly Strong”. Later in the video from 4:20-4:43 Dr Fauci speaks to the need for studies into the effectiveness of these drugs. Then at 4:45 he states, “When you don’t have that information…” parsing his words to make a person reasonably assume that there were no previous studies done regarding this drug in relation to coronaviruses.
2 of 3
As things evolved, this drug became a highly controversial and politicized issue with many arguments and counter arguments, leading to much confusion about this topic. What I do know is that oddly, the date of the first confirmed coronavirus case in the United States was 15 January 2020, as stated from the Centers for Disease Control website: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2020/p0121-novel-coronavirus-travel-case.html (Released: 21 January 2020) However, when you search for the date of this first confirmed case’s date the search returns are almost all differing from this date. Search, “first day of confirmed case coronavirus USA 2020”. Why the differing dates? look at the first return and how this differed from the first release from the CDC? Unless you know the first date, and were paying attention knowing this date and entering it into the search criteria, you can easily be led astray to the facts. Why is the lion’s share of information leading people away from the 15th of January 2020? Any reasonable researcher would look to this date and see what other significant events occurred on 15 January 2020. Search “significant events 15 January 2020” and assess the search results. Note anything Historic? Well, in-case you weren’t paying attention, and based on the returned results, something of Great significance in U.S. History DID occur on 15 January 2020. The Speaker of the House of Representative sent the Articles of Impeachment to the U.S. Senate. https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/trump-impeachment-01-15 However, a cursory search will not reveal this, and objectively would appear to be made obscure given the search results. In Law Enforcement one of the most utilized form of Lying is called “Lying by Omission”, which is used due to the perception of non-attribution on the part of the person. The keyword in that sentence being, perception.
Now, to circle back to the topic of Hydroxychloroquine, people reasonably became interested in this drug, due to the fear and confusion related to the death associated with what was being portrayed ad nauseum over mass media networks. One couldn’t escape it, unless they turned off or put down their devices. So many couldn’t do this and began digging deeper into this drug. What was it? How long has it been around? Why is the President of the United States saying one thing and his leading expert saying contradictory statements? Naturally, you investigate the profession and credibility of the Subject-Matter Expert. Dr. Fauci has been over the National Institutes of Health as the Director since 1984, 36-years. So, given what you know now, with the previous statement from the 3 April 2020 Interview, one could reasonably assume that his statements should stand firm, in that we do not have enough information to assert Hydroxychloroquine is effective against coronaviruses. However, on 5 May 2020, True Pundit came out with a story, “COVER UP: Fauci Approved Chloroquine, Hydroxychloroquine 15 Years Ago to Cure Coronaviruses; “Nobody Needed to Die”
https://truepundit.com/cover-up-fauci-approved-chloroquine-hydroxychloroquine-15-years-ago-to-treat-nobody-needed-to-die/
3 of 3
Although, clearly inflammatory and bias given the headline, this article along with others, drew attention to a disparity of the question of the Leader of the Free World’s statements versus Dr. Anthony Fauci, regarding this drug. In looking further into the subject, the following Free PMC Article, titled “Chloroquine is a potent inhibitor of SARS coronavirus infection and spread” (22 August 2005) was found on the National Institutes of Health website. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16115318/ wherein their conclusion stated, “Chloroquine is effective in preventing the spread of SARS CoV in cell culture. Favorable inhibition of virus spread was observed when the cells were either treated with chloroquine prior to or after SARS CoV infection. In addition, the indirect immunofluorescence assay described herein represents a simple and rapid method for screening SARS-CoV antiviral compounds.”
Certainly, this brought doubt into Dr. Fauci’s credibility given the fact that he is the Director of the very institution, which conducted this study. Does it mean that Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine is the cure or treatment for the Covid-19 virus? Absolutely not, however one would expect the Director of the NIH to at least be aware that the results of this study existed, and that he himself would have dug into it. Further, it seems many sources of media sought to debunk these claims. First, let’s examine the term “Debunk” one source at Dictionary.com defines it as, “to expose or excoriate (a claim, assertion, sentiment, etc.) as being pretentious, false, or exaggerated:” https://www.dictionary.com/browse/debunk, while Merriam-Webster defines it as, “to expose the sham (see SHAM entry 1 sense 2) or falseness of”. So, if the very definition of a basic term has multiple definitions, how can extensive research be solidified given the discordant opinions and views of interested parties. One, might as well say “If True” instead of “Debunk”. A common source cited for debunking claims is Snopes.com, it’s even a colloquialism among internet forums, “I checked Snopes, my Research is complete!”, however as an Antiterrorism Expert, I would advise against discovering the sublime tenets of a Religion by going to a Religious Extremist source. Unfortunately, 13+2 people drive the train on what many perceive to be fact.
Snope.com addressed this subject, partially, with it’s Article/Piece titled, “Did Fauci Say in 2005 Virology Journal That Hydroxychloroquine Can Treat SARS?”. https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-quote-hydroxychloroquine/ They addressed a claim of “Did Fauci Say in 2005 Virology Journal That Hydroxychloroquine Can Treat SARS?” Then ironically caveated it with the addition sub-statement “Shockingly, a screenshot of an opinion piece excerpt omitted some important facts.” Yet within the entire article the only reference is to the recommendation against the use of this drug for the treatment of Covid-19, under the paragraph titled, “Is hydroxychloroquine an effective treatment for COVID-19? No.”, with the link titled “effective treatment” pushing to the NIH Article “Chloroquine or Hydroxychloroquine With or Without Azithromycin”. https://www.covid19treatmentguidelines.nih.gov/antiviral-therapy/chloroquine-or-hydroxychloroquine-with-or-without-azithromycin/
It is further ironic that their #2 Reference Citation links back to the 2005 NIH Article. I say ironically, because we are no closer to the Truth after going the long-way around the barn on this topic. Time is the missing ingredient, and in the rush to find solutions to brand-new problem sets, it can be tempting to grasp onto information that confirms or denies what you currently believe to be true. But under this logic, one could say the Governor of New York, Andrew Cuomo is responsible for the death of more U.S. Citizens, 6,600 according to APNews, https://apnews.com/212ccd87924b6906053703a00514647f, than Al Qaeda killed on 911, 2,977 according to Wikipedia, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_September_11_attacks. A difference of 3,623 souls. "Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.", said President John Adams.
The Bottom Line, use the lessons of Week-1 topic of the Scientific Method and Hypothesis formation and revision, to consider the source of information, then evaluate it over time, revise and reattack if needed, the truth eventually bubbles to the surface. Otherwise, you’ll end up in a quagmire of confusion. To bring this back into my personal focus, I cannot talk about the classified portions of the medical intelligence briefing to this day, 24-years later. Some sources cannot be cited publicly, unless the authority is given to do so, of which, I can go “Ne Plus Ultra”.