« Calling an Election | Main | Who (and What) Is Stirring Revolution? »



Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Summing up... drive small business to the point of no return and then raise taxes on those left standing AND property owners

The public and the press are incurious and ignore voices of sanity like Scott Atlas.

This pandemic is like Orson Wells' War of the Worlds infamous 1938 radio broadcast on steroids.

Part of the problem, Fred, is that citizens are acting like sheep. Cooper and Vaughan and all the other autocratic socialists issue their edicts, and the populace does nothing.

(TC: Your thoughts on Quinn's essay )

The Greatest Scandal Of Our Lifetime

Elites have ignored practical scientific approaches to the virus in favor of totalitarian lockdowns which rob us of our humanity and our health.

NOVEMBER 23, 2020|12:01 AM

What if I told you that thousands of lives could be saved during this pandemic if we followed the science?

Instead of following the science, governments around the world are implementing the exact opposite of effective measures to combat the pandemic. Governments and health officials from first world countries are pursuing lockdowns and advising patients to wait until their symptoms worsen before going to the hospital seeking treatment. Sadly, this is the approach many countries have taken for the COVID-19 virus. Lockdowns are destroying lives economically, mentally, and physically, while the elites are becoming richer and profiting off of the destruction of the middle class and the poor.

Also egregious is the lack of an outpatient treatment plan for people who come down with Covid. In the NIH’s recommended treatment protocol, there is no recommended treatment for non-hospitalized patients. ‘Isolate in your home and wait until your condition gets so bad you have to go to the hospital’ is the NIH’s position. A patient’s treatment only begins once they are hospitalized. This is akin to using dial-up internet compared to today’s high-speed internet. It does not have to be this way. We can effectively provide outpatient treatment care to patients with the virus in a safe and cheap manner.

Many heroic doctors are focusing on the vital task of fighting COVID-19 in the early stages of the illness. Since March, there have been copious amounts of research, studies, and treatment of patients that have shown success against the illness. Antivirals, vitamins, existing vaccines, aspirin, exercise, sleep, and proper air filtration all play a pivotal role in preventing severe cases of Coronavirus in mild to moderate patients. Prestigious doctors such as Dr. Peter McCullough of Baylor University Medical Center in Texas, and Dr. Paul Marik of the Eastern Virginia Medical School, among many others, have devised home
treatment or outpatient care regimens for mild cases and prophylaxis. There have been numerous (many peer-reviewed) studies which have shown that antivirals like Hydroxychloroquine and Ivermectin are effective in combatting the illness in mild to moderate stages. Simply strengthening your immune system with vitamin D, vitamin C, Zinc, and a Zinc ionosphere (Quercetin and EGCG) along with proper exercise and rest goes a long way in preparing the body to effective combat Covid-19. Also, the MMR vaccine could provide protection from the most severe effects of Covid as well, according to doctors. While we wait for antibody cocktail treatments and a potential vaccine, these other treatments must be strongly recommended and pursued by the general public, especially those most susceptible to the illness.

Masks, social distancing, and early effective treatments are the best tools we have to combat this illness. However, this is not the case in many first world nations, including the United States. Lockdowns are considered the most important way to slow the spread of the virus. This lockdown mindset is a totalitarian mindset. It is a mindset that rejects humanity. The more humane approach is that espoused in the Great Barrington Declaration. Protect the elderly and sick in their homes while the young and healthy return to society through measured social distancing. However, the elites in most governments hate this plan because they deny that early effective treatments and strengthening of the immune system can effectively combat the virus. Lockdowns show a disregard for humanity, and the unintended consequences will be felt for decades. There is a better approach than destroying our society and our humanity. It is the approach of the Great Barrington Declaration paired with the promoting of outpatient treatments for the virus. This is the only way for society to regain its humanity and stop the totalitarian mindset of our elites.

We are in a war with the virus. In war, urgency is a necessity. We cannot wait years for a double-blind randomized study of antivirals while thousands are being infected and being told to isolate at home until they can’t breathe and only go to the hospital when it is possibly too late. While businesses and jobs are being lost and lives are being destroyed, there is no excuse for government health organizations like the NIH to not recommend early treatment care. Dr. Peter McCullough said, “Medicine is both an art and a science. In this pandemic, we have focused on the science, in randomized trials, in a new drug development, and the body count has been through the roof. [What is needed is] clinical judgement, careful observation, being able to quickly adapt to new concepts.”

Treating COVID-19 too late is part of the lockdown mindset. By denying early outpatient treatment care, the elites are chipping away at our liberties, forming us into a submissive society where we follow everything the government says. The only problem is that the elites in these governments have been dreadfully wrong with lockdowns and not recommending outpatient treatment. Their denial of humanity and freedom to choose during this pandemic has been criminal, and we must never forget what they want and plan to do with their authoritarian mindset of complete ineptitude. This sordid tale is the greatest scandal of our lifetime.

Fred, the man is precisely right. Preventive treatment might be helpful for many folks, but it has been made illegal in many jurisdictions, including North Carolina. Aggressive outpatient treatment might be helpful for many folks, but government has also made this much more difficult in various ways. And the lockdowns and restrictions have been an absolute farce. That once again raises the question of motive(s).

The evidence continues to accrue that the dominant policies sold to mitigate the COVID-19 outbreak were catastrophically wrong, yet those who pointed this out early on continue to be reputationally crucified by media and Democrat elites. A premiere case in point is White House Coronavirus Task Force member Dr. Scott Atlas, who has been making science-based arguments against locking down healthy people since the earliest months of the pandemic.

Because he has courageously presented evidence that gums up the media’s goal of ending Trump’s presidency by using coronavirus to punish Americans, the knives have been out for the views Atlas represents since the beginning.

Atlas is not at all alone in professional skepticism about the value of extended lockdowns, cloth masks, and obsessing about case counts as opposed to hospitalizations and deaths. So far, more than 12,000 medical and public health scientists and more than 35,000 medical professionals from around the world have signed the Great Barrington Declaration that summarizes this advocacy of “focused protection.”

Atlas is just a prominent face for this view that the power-hungry elites need to crush to avoid responsibility for their horrifically bad leadership during the COVID outbreak, as well as to get Trump. So they seek to destroy him because he and the scientific coalition he represents makes it clear that these public health emperors may have plenty of masks, but no clothes.

Thus YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook have repeatedly banned or slapped warnings on Atlas’s statements and all scientific evidence that might support the Great Barrington view. This week a former Obama official called for Atlas’s medical license to be revoked for the crime of practicing science.

Things like this are not only anti-science, they are anti-public health. Yanking Atlas’s license because he participated in the scientific process by challenging interpretations of evidence with more evidence will not only end scientific advancement, it will legitimize the growing anti-vaccine movement by providing a legitimate martyr to rally around instead of a fake one.

Anyone who cares about public health should not be giving people more reasons to distrust the people who stamp their foreheads with “public health expert.” That is what all this suppression of research and of discourse does. It is also what all the personal attacks on people like Atlas do. Refusing to engage with the evidence he cites and instead attacking his professional background — “he’s only a radiologist, not an epidemiologist”– or smearing him — “he’s a grandma killer” — makes the people doing this look like the real hacks.

The only way to legitimately destroy Atlas’s credibility would be to engage with him on the science, to point out where his arguments are wrong or weak or what they are missing. This is called the scientific process, and it is essential to the advancement of knowledge. Since very little of that has been forthcoming, the thinking public is left to assume his coalition’s stance is legitimate and the people who use dirty tactics are attempting to avoid facing that their policies have devastated the world while possibly causing additional deaths.

Evidence Mounts that Focused Protection Is Right
Indeed, the evidence continues to mount that those who advocate for focused protection have been right about their interpretation of the science for months. Like other public health experts including the World Health Organization and Dr. Anthony Fauci before he reversed himself, Atlas has long pointed out that the preponderance of better-quality evidence about masks shows mandates for the general public to wear them accomplish no significant public health value.

Just this week a large-scale Danish study was finally released. This randomized controlled trial, the highest-quality scientific study available, found that those who wore masks were not statistically less likely to contract COVID-19 than those who did not wear masks.

As The Spectator UK pointed out, “The results of the Danmask-19 trial mirror other reviews into influenza-like illnesses. Nine other trials looking at the efficacy of masks (two looking at healthcare workers and seven at community transmission) have found that masks make little or no difference to whether you get influenza or not.”

Those who say these results are because “my mask protects you, and your mask protects me” need to take a long and hard look at the fact that countries, states, and cities with near-universal mask-wearing have the same patterns of COVID spread. “No matter how strictly mask laws are enforced nor the level of mask compliance the population follows, cases all fall and rise around the same time,” notes a recent Federalist roundup of such examples. This is likely why Fauci, who criticizes Atlas’s statements publicly, doesn’t wear masks when the cameras aren’t on.

Atlas Was Right About Immune Response

Atlas has consistently stood against depictions of data that encouraged a hysterical response to COVID. In a widely publicized exchange in September, for example, Atlas pointed out that Dr. Robert Redfield, head of the Centers for Disease Control, exaggerated how many Americans were still threatened by the Wuhan virus.

Redfield said “more than 90 percent” of Americans were still susceptible. Atlas pointed out that much of the data underlying this claim was old, taken from early in the outbreak, and that “about 24 papers at least” had shown that people who haven’t contracted SARS-CoV-2 can have an immune response to it, presumably from having fought off other coronaviruses. This meant that many more Americans than the 9 percent Redfield claimed would have some level of protection against COVID if they chanced to encounter it.

At the time, the NBC reporter questioning Atlas was incredulous, and the exchange set off another round of media and bureaucrat attacks on Atlas, calling his promotion of herd immunity — a goal of any basic public health response to infectious diseases! — “unethical” and “unachievable.” Now that Joe Biden is presumed to soon be president, however, The New York Times saw fit to finally report on the research reinforcing Atlas’s explanation of T-cell, antibody, and other immune responses and protections against COVID.

“How long might immunity to the coronavirus last? Years, maybe even decades, according to a new study … Eight months after infection, most people who have recovered still have enough immune cells to fend off the virus and prevent illness, the new data show. A slow rate of decline in the short term suggests, happily, that these cells may persist in the body for a very, very long time to come,” the Nov. 17 Times article says.

It goes on to cite research on other coronaviruses showing similarly long-lasting protection for many people from the frightful hospital stays corporate media has hyped for eight months. It even cites the exact same study Atlas did on SARS, showing that the protective T-cell immune response lasted at least 17 years. He was attacked for it, and claims like this are flagged by “fact-checkers” for social media like Facebook. Not The New York Times, though, when it says exactly the same thing.

Yes, the Research Supports Keeping Schools Open
Leftist writers like Nicholas Kristof at The New York Times are also now trying to retcon the fact that it was Democrats and their media allies who demanded school shutdowns, due not only to their political need for coronavirus hysteria but also their ties to teachers unions. Biden’s own national school closures plan mimicked the New York City one with arbitrary targets based on conjecture.

Leftist media and politicians brutalized Atlas and others for pointing out early in the outbreak that children are the lowest-risk group for coronavirus contraction and complications. Yet highly influential dual-income parents in blue places like New York City are now in uproar about rolling blackouts and brownouts of their children’s education based on nonsensical metrics like a 3 percent infection rate (if the infection has mild consequences for nearly all children and most teachers, who are also comparatively young, why shut down schools even if there are infections?).

“Trump has been demanding for months that schools reopen, and on that he seems to have been largely right,” Kristof wrote on Nov. 18. “Schools, especially elementary schools, do not appear to have been major sources of coronavirus transmission, and remote learning is proving to be a catastrophe for many low-income children.”

Some of us pointed this out in April, back when much of this damage could have been prevented. We were throttled on Facebook and Twitter, and our children held hostage to these lies for nearly an entire school year now. Education Secretary Betsy DeVos was heckled and cast as a would-be child murderer on grounds a single child might get COVID if kids went back to school. American children’s safety and futures has been sacrificed because too many adults have been cowards more concerned with protecting their egos than acting courageously and prudently.

Herd Immunity Is Not Controversial to Scientists
Let’s all repeat the scientific facts: Most of us are going to get COVID, either through a natural infection or a stimulated immune response from a vaccine. There is no way to prevent that. There are only ways to mitigate it. Lockdowns are one way, but they have extremely high costs concentrated on the poor. Children and other young people — those under age 60 — are the most likely to not only survive a COVID infection, but also the most likely to experience a relatively mild case when they do get it. All this is scientifically indisputable.

The conclusion the Great Barrington types derive from these facts and others is that those under 60 and without comorbidities should thus live normally. Those who are least likely to be harmed by a COVID case should accrue herd immunity as quickly as prudently possible on behalf of the vulnerable.

In response to this charitable view based on scientific evidence and arguments, the left, often using Fauci, Deborah Birx, and Redfield, have crucified the characters and careers of those, like Atlas, who have dared to espouse it. As a consequence, hundreds of millions of Americans are being needlessly forced to suffer with no end in sight. We are caught in the crossfire of a giant ego war between people of cowardly, self-serving, intellectually narrow, and deceitful character.

Those who tell us the truth about all this are publicly shamed while those who lie to us are feted. Societies that punish the good and reward the evil sow the wind.

Joy Pullmann is executive editor of The Federalist, a happy wife, and the mother of six children.

"We are caught in the crossfire of a giant ego war between people of cowardly, self-serving, intellectually narrow, and deceitful character."

That is a great summary, Fred. It is also about seeking power.

The arguments in your excerpt made by Atlas and others are nearly the same as the arguments I have made here nearly from the outset. But the asinine demand otherwise.

The comments to this entry are closed.