This is my seventh entry in my critique of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.'s book, The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. My first entry is here and you can follow the links from there. Why so many entries, why so many words? It is easy to hurl out lies. Truth-telling takes more time.
In previous entries I have posted the cover of Kennedy's book. Here is Fauci's recent autobiography. I haven't read it, but having fought back against so many slings and arrows and trash talk flung his way, he deserves a little promo.
Continuing Chapter One.
I teach antibiotics, including antivirals to my medical students each fall. My first opportunity to teach them about pharmacological COVID interventions came in October 2020. My slides from that time that pointed to working therapies had three salient points. #1. Dexamethasone had been shown to be effective for COVID patients receiving artificial ventilation. #2. Remdesivir essentially sucked. #3. Vitamin D3 had been shown to be effective in reducing COVID cases.
Kennedy is obsessed with people not recommending vitamin D3. This surprises me. I don't agree with virtually anything he says, but decent evidence was available even in 2020, that D3 reduced COVID cases. There are some who ascribe miracle status to D3 and that I would disagree with. Could Fauci have been against vitamin D? What were his statements?
"If you are deficient in vitamin D, that does have an impact on your susceptibility to infection. So I would not mind recommending, and I do it myself taking vitamin D supplements,” Fauci, 79, said." This news story was dated September 14, 2020. So where did Kennedy get his idea that Fauci was against vitamin D? I have no clue.
Kennedy goes on to say "On April 30, 2021, Canadian Ontario College of Physicians and Surgeons threatened to delicense any doctor who prescribed non-vaccine health strategies including Vitamin D." Their statement does not mention vitamin D or delicensing. It does mention that physicians have a responsibility to not promote "unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19." At that time vitamin D was a supported intervention. It said, "Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted." No mention of delicensing. And all but Kennedy would agree that those putting the public at risk should be considered for disciplinary action.
Their full statement is at the bottom of this entry. Following such sensible advice, Canada had a death rate 42% that of the United States.
Kennedy says, "During the centuries that science has fruitlessly sought remedies against coronavirus (aka the common cold), only zinc has repeatedly proved its efficacy in peer reviewed studies."
So many problems with that. Coronaviruses are neither "aka the common cold" nor are they the main cause. From the American Lung Association. "Rhinoviruses are the most common cause of colds in the U.S. Parainfluenza viruses, adenoviruses, enteroviruses, human metapneumovirus and common human coronaviruses also cause colds." This is why lawyers should not write science. Or they should at least know what they're talking about.
Zinc tablets are not a remedy, they are a treatment for colds or a prophylaxis. I have taught zinc as a treatment for colds. The evidence is iffy but leans in favor. (I would argue that the reason the support is iffy is that there are so many viruses and strains that cause colds, zinc may well work against some and not others leading to conflicting reports.) To say that zinc works for COVID just because other coronaviruses cause a small percent of colds is ridiculous.
Kennedy says, "Throughout 2020, before vaccines were available, some 99.9% of people's natural immune systems protected their owners from severe illness and death." No citation is given for this statement. It is nonsensical as written. Did Kennedy mean "the natural immune system of humans protected 99.9% of people who acquired COVID from severe illness and death?" Just the death figures were higher than that. Is he saying worldwide human's natural immune system protected all but 0.1% of people from acquiring COVID [through 2020] thereby not leading to severe illness and death? Or is he advocating for the efficacy of the natural immune system in general and not talking about COVID here? He says before vaccines, so he isn't crediting other interventions including ones he advocates.
From here, Kennedy goes into talking about treatment interventions and early doctors who adopted multidrug therapies. I'll save that for my next entry.
College of Physicians and Surgeons Statement on Public Health Information, April 30, 2021.
The College is aware and concerned about the increase of misinformation circulating on social media and other platforms regarding physicians who are publicly contradicting public health orders and recommendations. Physicians hold a unique position of trust with the public and have a professional responsibility to not communicate anti-vaccine, anti-masking, anti-distancing and anti-lockdown statements and/or promoting unsupported, unproven treatments for COVID-19. Physicians must not make comments or provide advice that encourages the public to act contrary to public health orders and recommendations. Physicians who put the public at risk may face an investigation by the CPSO and disciplinary action, when warranted. When offering opinions, physicians must be guided by the law, regulatory standards, and the code of ethics and professional conduct. The information shared must not be misleading or deceptive and must be supported by available evidence and science.
Continued with entry eight.
Martin Hill Ortiz is the author of several novels including most recently the thriller, Floor 24.
 |
| Floor 24 Oliver-Heber Books |
"From the mob underworld to the tops of new skyscrapers, Floor 24 is a heart-thumping New York 1920's historical mystery!" - Holly Newman, bestselling author of A Chance Inquiry mystery series.
0 comments:
Post a Comment