RUTHFULLY YOURS

https://www.city-journal.org/science-of-covid-19-policy-choices

When doctors meet a patient for a new complaint, we make a list of different possible explanations for the problem—a differential diagnosis—and try to determine the correct diagnosis, while starting treatment for the most likely one. After this initial assessment, as test and imaging results come in, we may alter the differential diagnosis and treatments.

Public-health officials dealing with a new pathogen, like the coronavirus that causes Covid-19, go through a similar process. They must recommend policies with incomplete information and adjust them over time. But unlike physicians, they do so in public, and sometimes under intense scrutiny.

Dr. Anthony Fauci—and this is not meant as criticism—has epitomized the public-health diagnostic process with multiple, incorrect, early pronouncements: In January and February, he downplayed the risk of person-to-person spread; he expressed doubt that asymptomatic people could transmit the virus; in late February, he reassured the public that, “at this moment, there is no need to change anything that you’re doing on a day-by-day basis”; and in March, like many other public-health officials here and abroad, he said that, outside of health-care personnel, ordinary people should not wear masks. In fact, both Fauci and Surgeon General Jerome Adams suggested that mask-wearing could increase a person’s risk of being infected. All these assertions proved wrong.

We know a lot more about the virus—how it’s transmitted and how to treat it—than we did a few months ago. For instance, the coronavirus can spread person-to-person from both symptomatic and asymptomatic people. Dr. Fauci now espouses the opposite of each of his earlier statements, but there is nothing wrong with that. As economist John Maynard Keynes purportedly said, “When the facts change, I change my mind—what do you do, sir?”

https://www.wnd.com/2020/07/yale-epidemiologist-trump-drug-save-100000-lives/

The highly politicized anti-malaria drug hydroxychloroquine could save up to 100,000 lives, according to a Yale epidemiologist, yet access to it continues to be restricted.

“If a drug could save 100,000 lives, then government agencies that block its use are responsible for 100,000 needless deaths,” charges Dr. Jane Orient, executive director of the Association of American Physicians & Surgeons.

AAPS has filed for an injunction to force the Food and Drug Administration to stop obstructing use of the drug, she pointed out, “while it hoards and wastes the millions of doses that manufacturers donated to the Strategic National Stockpile.”

Hydroxychloroquine was approved by the FDA in 1955 and has been taken safely by hundreds of millions of people, noted Orient.

“High government officials who are determining federal policy insist in private that doctors have the legal authority to prescribe HCQ or other FDA-approved drugs for ‘off-label’ uses,” she said. “However, the FDA has refused to reverse statements that state and local authorities cite to threaten doctors or pharmacists who provide you with this cheap remedy.”

She pointed to studies showing poor countries that allow free use of hydroxychloroquine have far lower death rates than rich countries that hinder itA summary of the evidence for the use of hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 is here.

The Yale epidemiologist, Harvey Risch, said Tuesday in an interview with Fox News’ Laura Ingraham he thinks hydroxychloroquine could save 75,000 to 100,000 lives if the drug was widely used to treat coronavirus.

“There are many doctors that I’ve gotten hostile remarks about saying that all the evidence is bad for it and, in fact, that is not true at all,” he said.

He believes the drug can be used as a “prophylactic,” or preventative, for front-line workers, as other countries such as India have done.

https://amgreatness.com/2020/07/23/brookings-institution-a-key-collusion-collaborator/

In December 2018, a well-regarded left-leaning think tank published a 4,500-word defense of the Steele dossier, the document central to the government’s charge that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign colluded with the Kremlin to influence the outcome of the presidential election.

Lawfare, a project of the Brookings Institution, defended the dossier as “a collection of raw intelligence” that was similar to forms used by the FBI and other law enforcement agencies to transcribe information obtained by witnesses. 

“The dossier holds up well over time, and none of it, to our knowledge, has been disproven,” wrote Chuck Rosenberg and Sarah Grant in a judgement that did not hold up well over time. “The Mueller investigation has clearly produced public records that confirm pieces of the dossier. And even where the details are not exact, the general thrust of Steele’s reporting seems credible in light of what we now know about extensive contacts between numerous individuals associated with the Trump campaign and Russian government officials.”

That column was just one of hundreds of collusion propaganda articles disguised as think pieces from a respectable Washington, D.C. public policy center. With the distinguished imprimatur of the Brookings Institution, articles would quickly permeate the media—both social and traditional—to legitimize the concocted Russian collusion storyline. 

For example, prior to the April 2019 release of the Mueller report, Lawfare published a lengthy primer advising the press on how to handle the long-awaited document. The column, authored by Benjamin Wittes, Lawfare’s editor-in-chief, implored the media “not to screw up” its coverage.

Wittes also is a BFF of James Comey, the disgraced former FBI director and chief architect of the collusion hoax. (Comey is a contributor to Lawfare.) Wittes was the anonymous source for a May 2017 New York Times article that disclosed details of Comey’s private dinners with the president prior to his firing. It was part of the Beltway spin to buttress Mueller’s appointment and subsequent two-year persecution of Team Trump; Mueller’s gang of partisan prosecutors, however, could not find evidence of collusion despite Lawfare’s nonstop assurances that such proof existed.

https://issuesinsights.com/2020/07/24/dont-let-lefts-cancel-culture-steal-our-right-to-free-speech/

A new survey shows that most Americans fear expressing their opinions these days. No doubt, they worry about being “canceled” by raving young socialists, losing their jobs or being harassed for their beliefs. It’s time for Americans to take back their First Amendment right to free speech.

The findings of the poll, taken by YouGov and the Cato Institute, are, to put it mildly, disturbing. Some 62% of those queried said they routinely self-censor because “the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive.”

Republicans were most likely to self-censor, at 77%, followed by independents, at 59%. But even 52% of Democrats said they watch their mouths around others.

Not surprisingly, those in one group felt they didn’t feel they had to mind their tongues in public: self-described “strong liberals,” with just 42% saying they have to self-censor. But even that number is up 12 percentage points since 2017, the last time YouGov/Cato took their survey.

It’s not difficult to see why the fear is growing. Newspapers are filled with people and even historical figures being canceled or harassed by braying mobs of far-left activists, who use boycotts, verbal intimidation, official political re-education, doxxing and even threats of violence to silence their opponents.

In such an environment of stifled speech, people give up their precious right to speak openly to avoid being shouted down, intimidated, shunned, harassed and even fired.

https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/2020/07/who-exactly-karen-jason-d-hill/

Last Thursday, Chicago Mayor Lori Lightfoot called White House press secretary Kayleigh McEnany “Karen” after the press secretary referred to the mayor as a “derelict mayor” at a White House briefing.

Lightfoot shot back with a tweet on Twitter: “Hey, Karen, Watch your mouth.”

The term “Karen” has been used routinely and reported in the press by various individuals capturing the often — it is true — obnoxious behavior of certain women who happen to be white. These behaviors have been recorded on cell phone cameras, and, in many cases, they have gone viral.

As an academic philosopher who regularly teaches theories of concepts and philosophy of language, let me say something about the conceptually improper and actually racist use of this term.

“Karen” is a slang and pejorative term used to describe a rude white woman who is exploiting her privilege as a white woman.

Proper names are not concepts like, say, chairs, tables, birds, furniture, democracy, justice, brave, kind, evil and so on. Such terms possess a set of distinguishing characteristics that define them, and hearing those terms will automatically conjure in one’s mind that shared set of characteristics. Any person who is evil or brave or kind, regardless of background, will share a set of attributes (and their attendant behavioral traits) in common with any other person in the world who is evil or brave or kind. These terms are designators that denote specific characteristics tied to a referent (an individuals or individuals) which holds them. That is why we don’t confuse evil people with kind people, and thieves and liars with honest and truthful people. The concepts mark out the defining behaviors of the persons who bear such attributes.