Hydroxychloroquine: Another Victim of Fake News and Political Suppression

There were two studies, actually three I think, done earlier this year that purpoted to show that the drug was either harmful or ineffective or both.   Both studies were based on bad science and one of them had to be pulled from the prestigious journal that had published it without careful review.  

Better studies have been coming out, such as the Henry Ford study:   .
https://www.henryford.com/news/2020/07/hydro-treatment-study  \

 Here's onet by Dr. Harvey A. Risch of the Yale School of Public Health:
The Key to Defeating COVID-19 Already Exists:  We Just Need to Start Using It

https://www.newsweek.com/key-defeating-covid-19-already-exists-we-need-start-using-it-opinion-1519535

(see interview with him linked below)

.  But the first thing that needs to be said is that the drug has been used for 65 years for malaria and lupus, entirely safely for hundreds of thousands of patients.    Dr. Daniel Wallace has treated lupus patients for decades with no problems.   Dr. Raoul Didier has had positive results with 4000 COVID-19 patients, saying only 20 didn't do well. And clinical experience of many MDs with the COVID-19 virus has been very positive.  If it is used early in the disease in the right dose, and especially with azithromycin and zinc it retards the growth of the virus in the cells.

The bogus study done by the VA a few months ago was based on using it with people who had serious conditions besides the virus and it was used late in their infection with the virus.  Such a study should not ever have been published and along with another similar bogus tudy it has done nothing but poison people's minds against a therapeutic drug that could be a powerful help against this virus.

Anyway, Hydroxychloroquine has a solid reputation with a great many MDs for its effectiveness against the COVID-19 virus.  We need an effective antidote to the poisoning of the public mind against it, but since the Left dominates every form of public information that's a tall order.  Golly gosh, here we are in the  USSRA lready, hey?
=========================================
* Here's the Gold-Wohlgelernter video again:
.
.
Added 10/19   The discussion of Hydroxychloroquine starts about 13:00.    She discusses how three prestigious journals published faulty studies and then had to retract them.  The New England Journal of Medicine, Lancet, and the Journal of the American Medical Association.   The JAMA study was done in Brazil using not Hydroxychlorowuine but Chloroquine, a precursor to HCQ that has a known lethal dosage limit which was exceeeded with many of the patients in that study.  About 24:45 Dr. Gold starts talking about the VA study and how it went wrong in the first place by studying people in the late stages of the virus, that HCQ especially with zinc, works best in the vert early stage to prevent the virus from replicating in the cells, but that later there is too much viral load in the body, with a high inflammatory condition and organ failure as the immune system overreacts, and it's too late for the drug to do any good.  So of course people died in that study.

==========
And here's a segment of a pocast by Bret Weinstein and Heather Heying in which they discuss the Yale study of the drug among other things related to the virus.   They are liberals who definitely dislike Trump, but they are good at exposing the politicization of this pandemic as well as other things going on these days.

/

==============================================================

Added 9/4:  DR. HARVEY RISCH, EPIDEMIOLOGIST AT YALE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH INTERVIEWED BY MARK LEVIN

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d6lNoFBTlfI

OCTOBER 19 added:  In the first three minutes Levin covers the basics.  Quoted one virologist  who said there have been 53 studies showing the benefits of HCQ for COVID, which we need to know more about, and only 14 with a negative conclusion, which were badly done as science.

============================================

More news from 9/4          Dr. Simone Gold who was fired from her job after the video I posted above:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oSGIC_irVs

-============\

Another update:   Update from a few weeks ago:  Interview of Twila Blase, RN, who runs the Citizens Council for Health Freedom, on a Christian radio program, Stand In the Gap:  https://standinthegapmedia.org/radio/?sapurl=Lys5MmE0L2xiL21pLytubTk3anBkP2F1dG9wbGF5PXRydWUmYnJhbmRpbmc9dHJ1ZSZlbWJlZD10cnVl

The discussion of HCQ begins about 13:20 and i've put the counter there but don't know if it will hold.  Before that they discussed masks and went on after it to other issues involving COVID- 19.

Seeking Revival

I've given up on revival and come back to it many times over the last few years,  It's easy to think God would not give us revival in our present condition, our many disobedient churches, our personal sins, the sins of the nation and the churches.   And without repentance there is no doubt that is true.  Yet there is no other help for us but God so what else can we do but seek revival? 

tart with personal repentance, ask God to show us our sins and grant us repentance, ask God to purge the churches of sin, of false doctrines, of fear of man, of fearfulness in the face of the growing threat from the world,  that He would give us the love that casts out fear, that we would become characterized by a self-sacrificial spirit, a spirit of dying to self, of becoming nothing that He may increase and guide us. 

False doctrine in so many churches is a barrier, the liberalism that pursues a false love is a barrier, and many other things we need the Lord to show us, which He will if we ask.  I alwaqys think of the abandonment of the head covering for women, which is the subject of one of my blogs, but I also know I have to start with confessing my own mountain of sins to God and seeking repentance.

I found this video about a revival in Scotland back in 1638, when a church was to vote on a National Covenant to embrace the principles of the Protestant Reformation.  The need for repentance and reformation is emphasized if we also want revival:

Is the Communist Revolution underway in America now?

I'm again watching the two films I mentioned earlier, Agenda: Grinding America Down and Agenda 2: Masters of Deceit, put together by Curtis Bowers.  You can rent or buy them at Amazon, or get them on DVD at Jan Markell's "Understqanding the Times" website.  The first one won awards, think the second one did too but not sure.  The first one has a rather antiquated feel because he uses so many clips from earlier decades.  I know liberals would dislike a lot of it because it is overtly Republican and overtly Christian, but I sorely wish liberals would come to see at least how we on the right see these things, with at least a modicum of respect if not belief.  

It isn't about current events because they were made in 2009 I think and 2017, and the current focus of that time was the Obama administration, but the overall content is how the Communist Party and Marxism in its many forms has been working behind the scenes for a hundred years to undermine America.  I' ve been very aware for many yeas of the Sixties contribution to the effort and how successful it has been in that most of our political terminology from the Left is easily traceable to that influence.  Political Correctness was invented by Marxism   and Social Justice was invented by Marxism.   And my impression is that the rioting we are seeing today in major cities has to have been promoted by forces organized by Marxists, which they may very well see as their hoped-for revolution finally getting the kickstart they've been waiting for through the last few  decades.  They've succeeded in getting enough radicals into local office to oppose efforts to quell the rioting, stifling the usual forces of law and order, much of it through their most effective weapon of lying propaganda.  It ls really amazingt to see how well they are pulling off their agenda.  And then it's amazing to see how radical are the platforms of the current Democratic Party, even by the formerly middle of the road Biden.  Stuff that most Democrats wouldn't have supported a decade ago.

Well-meaning liberals don't seem to know that the liberal Demcratic Party they may think they support is no longer that party and that they are actually supporting the Communist overthrow of America.  I fell for it myself for many years.  Most of us never learned enough about the principles that govern America to be able to object to any of it, and in the sixties the Left succeeded in getting the universities to throw out their required courses in American History and Institutions and Western Civilization, and the effort to vilify both has continued relentlessly while revisionist histories are being taught in their place.   Which is why today's generation is so willing to destroy our entire heritage, the good with the bad.

I'm certainly aware of how such an idea is going to be scorned and dismissed by most nice well meaning liberals.  You'll be able to find all kinds of criticism of these films and various of its concepts just about anywhere you look these days, much of it given a respectable academic framework, very persuasive of course.  At the same time the conservative point of view is being suppressed by major sources of news and information, including social media.  Hard to combat such an organized propaganda effort, and the sad truth is that they have become very very organized in recent years.  Yes I know it must be hard to believe. 

In the context of my recent end-times posts I am guessing that all this is setting the stage for the Tribulation period's world government after the Christian Church has left the planet.  

Quick Sketch of What's Going On (Hint: The Marxist Agenda)

A sketchy catch-all post is all I'm up to at the moment but it seems necesary to do that much.  I just got Jan Markell's most recent e-newsletter with her article titled  "Weary Remnant Watch" in which she talks about recent events as biblical signs of the closeness of the Rapture.  I wanted to link it but my bad eyes kept defeating my efforts.  I'm sure it's at her site "Olive Tree Ministries" so it should be easy enough to find with better eyes than mine.    Her theme is her usual of course, emphaasiziong the importance of watching as events unfold in order to be ready for the Rapture, as well as the odd fact that so few Christians and Christian churches are interested in these things these days.  So many of use who take it seriously and try to understand the times do feel like we are all alone in our concern.  I'm happy I have Jan's ministry to read, and John MacArthur's preaching as well, and I do know of Christians and churches that keep up with these things, although there are certainly many others that don't.

Her most recent radio show is also there, at Understqandinbg the Times Radio, which I plan to listen to, about how the current rioting isn't about George Floyd but merely makes an opportuity for the Marxists to tear down the country, which seems pretty clear to be the case to me too.  Here, I found that link:  "The One Hundred Year Agenda (Part1):   https://www.oneplace.com/ministries/understanding-the-times/custom-player/
(NOTE:  This radio broadcast is important.  Curtis Bowers spells out the Marxist agenda to take down America.  His movies on this subject are available on DVDs at Jan Markell's site, and I also found them for sale and for rent to watch online at Amazon.  Titles:  1. Agenda:  Grinding Down America, and 2.  Agenda:  Masters of Deceit.)


Recently I've discovered a group of people who consider themselves to be liberals but who nevertheless see the political situation very much as conservatives do.  They aren't Christians but they are honest thinkers and I enjoy listening to them.  Jordan Peterson is one of them, who has the Bible series I criticize in a recent post, and others more or less in the group or on its fringes are also rather aggressive atheists.  Nevertheless they are able to see the problems in the current uprising.  They don't much like Trump, or most of them don't, but those of us who do support Trump may find ourselves in agreement with many of their current political analyses.

I just watched for instance Coleman Hughes, a very young black man who does a fine job on the racism excuse for burning down the country.  "Is BLM Right" is the title of that video.

Other blacks who are not conservatives but have a similar perspedtive on these things are Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, and at least half a dozen others whose names are escaping me.  And there are also the conservative blacks such as Thomas Sowell, Larry Elder and Candace Owens who need to be mentioned, and i can't even remember more of them at the moment.    Of course they shouldn't have to be black to speck on these things but in the current political climate it may add some credibility that would help.  Maybe not too since the Left very aggressively dismisses anyone who disagrees with them, doesn't matter who they may be. \

Anotner theme I've been following is how the pandemic has been distorted by politics so that finding out what is really going on is difficult to put it mildly.   there is a video about the politicizstion of the drug hydroxychloroquine by a coupld of MDs who say it's completely safe, has been used for decades after all, but wsas badly misused in the  recent studies that found it to be harmful or at least of no benefit.  Dr. Simone Gold is one of them and I can't remember the man, I'll have to come back later to give that reference.   At the moment  I just want at least to point to some resources in case anyone might want to pursue them.  Again, better eyes than mine, or better memory for that matter, should be able to find these things with such scant clues.  I hope so anyway.

Found it (July 30):
Dr. Daniel Wohlgelernter is the other whose name I couldn't remember before:

Answering another religion-debunker

So I answered one unbeliever in a post below and then listened to another:  Sam Harris who is rather famously known for his arguments against "religion."   His main argument is that God isn't loving but unjust and cruel because so many "innocent" people die terrible deaths in this world, including millions of young children.  And for some reason it seems most Christians don't have good answers to this.  Perhaps I don't either and perhaps no answer would suffice for these moralists, but it does seem to me that the usual answers fail to get across the fallenness of this world.  It was the "original" sin of our first parents that brought death and disease and misery into the world in the first place, and it is our ongoing sins that keep producing these sufferings.  What is being blamed on God is in fact our own fault, the fault of the human race as a whole that is since normally we have no way of knowing the particular causal chain that leads to any given suffering or death.   Except sometimes our own suffering if we've been paying attention to events in our lives as we should, especially taking note of our own violations of God's Law. 

In the religions that teach "karma" this is maybe more appreciated than it is in Christianity, but karma always seems to me to be a partial intuition of God's Law as we are taught it in the Bible.  Buddhism teaches refraining from at least four actions that lead to suffering, that are roughly the same as four of the biblical Ten Commandments:  Not stealing, not lying, not committing sexual misbehavior, not committing murder.  Obeying these principles prevents suffering, and the same is true of obedience to the Ten Commandments.  One differences is that according to the Bible we inherit the consequqnces of the sins of our ancestors, as well as the propensity to those same sins, which in, say, Buddhism, seems to be explained in terms of sins committed in the supposed past lives of the individual rather than inherited from ancestors.

Asked about how Buddhism explains something like genocide, one teacher refers to the millions of people on the planet with their millions of past lives to explain how the accumulated earned suffering of them all could come together in such an event.   Biblical thinking would find the explanation in the inherited sins of ancestors.  Nevertheless Jesus taught that we err by imputing causes to such sufferings when we are all sinners who may deserve worse and eventually reap worse.

But the point I want to keep in mind is that it is sin that brings about suffering.  You can speak of God's judgments and mean the same thing but the judgment is calibrated to the sin, it's not some whimsical or inexplicable pain inflicted on innocent people, it is prfect justice.  We can only know this by believing the Bible of course, since the specific causdes are not usually evident to us.  In the case of the "genocides" unbelievers often complain about as described in the Old Testament, all that is said is that the sins have accumulated over time, often centuries, until a tribe has reached the point where this sort of punishment is the inevitable just result.  And it is just, though to an unbeliever like Sam Harris it is unjust and cruel murder of innocent people.   What may be known about a particular people that are subjected to such slaughter is that they practiced idolatry or worship of demons by human sacrifice, even the sacrifice of babies.   If you don't know that about them you may be inclined to think of them as innocent.  And of course if their babies are included in the punitive slaughter anunbeliever is liketly to be outraged that such innocents are punished along with their guilty parents, havintg no knowledge of the slaughtering of their own babies as sacrifice to the demon gods has over time accumulated the sins that deserve this kind of punishment.   You can still object to God's ways according to your own offended human nature, or really your inabiltiy to understand how God's Laws work, but anyone who trusts the Bible as revelation of how God's Law works, horrified though we may be because of our frail flesh, has to take it as something we need to learn about how sin and justice work in this world.

That's one kind of objection someone like Sam Harris has to "religion."  Another he rought up in the video I listened to was that believers are lying when we say that there is no contradiction between our supernatural beliefs and science.   The virgin birth of Jesus supposedly proves we are lying, as does His resurrection from the dead, and the miracles Jesus and others did.   You'd think he could ansswer this himself, it's not all that ifficult to understand.  The whole point is that these events are exceptions to the scientific rules.  Those rules hold up for all physical events in the universe, which is why science is possible at all (and in fact it really took the Bible's law-giving God to teach people that science was possible in the first place.  If we didn't know the physical universe operated by law and order we'd never have attempted to discover the laws that have led to the enormous knowledge we've accumulated about how things work.)  The point is that the supernatural events that are reported are one-time exceptions to the normal rules.  There was only one virgin birth, of God Himself taking on human flesh.  Everybody else is born according to the scientific rules.  So far only Jesus Himself has come back permanently from the dead.  Others were brought back to life in the Bible, but only to live out the rest of their lives until they die again.  None of this violates the rule that sinners die, that "the wages of sin is death."  (And by the way, Hell is the NORMAL end of the entire human race because we are ALL sinners. ) But Jesus does offer us eternal life through His own resurrection after paying the price for our sins, the price exacted by God's Law.  The physical laws reliably persist through all these supernatural exceptions.

Or another wqay to think of it is that they are two different realms, the physical and the spiritual and they both operate by laws.  The spiritual realm is superior to the physical and can set it aside or overcome it, could even presumably completely overcome it and replace it.  But God has no reason to do that though He has had reason to override it in order to teach us about Himself and His plan of redemption.  Jesus'
 miracles were all for the purpose of showing that He is in fact God.  Throughout the Old Testament miracles also validated the God-sent identity of God's prophets and servants.  None of which interfered with the reliable operations of the physical laws.



So there are a couple of explanations for the debunkers.  Sam Harris probably wouldn't be impressed.

So is the Left going to destroy America or will we squeak by for another few years or what?

Watched the Netflix movie "Trumbo," which is about the McCarthy era when Communists in Hollywood were blacklisted for it through Senator McCathy's House Committee on Unamerican Activities hearings. 

The movie is of course sympthetic to Trumbo and all those who were blacklisted and I don't want to suggest that there was anything good about that blacklisting.  But at the same time we now have a nation that is on the verge of being destroyed by the Left, by Marxism, by Communism, and the way the McCarthy era played out no doubt has a lot to do with that.   McCarthy was right about Communists in Hollywood and it is certainly true that Communism is unAmerican, actually AntiAmerican but the problem is that so many of us don't know what's wrong with Communism and how it is such a danger to the nation.

The movie presented the Communists as idealists full of compassion for the downtrodden implying that there is something heartless about the American system that needs to be rectified by Commyunism.  Nowhere in the film was the difference between Communism and the American system even mentioned, let alone discussed.  The character Trumbo seems to consider his Communist belief to be completely American, and his opponents, such as Hedda Hopper, are of course depicted as unlikable people, and none of them ever has anything substantive to say about why they are so adamantly opposed to the Communists.  Just a lot of pattriotic-sounding hot air.   All you'll get from this movie is leftist propaganda you'll learn nothng about the reality of the conflict it's about./

We go on in that same ignorance even today as we are now faced with an election that pits the American system against Communism in such a direct way the contrast is inescapable.  It's never been spelled out so clearly before.  Would the American voters actually choose Communism given such a stark contrast?  I don't know.  It'[s sad to think that many might reject Trump based only on disliking his personality, with no idea that they would be choosing the demise of the country itself.

The problem in the era of McCarthy was that there was no real discussion of why Communism is such a danger, at least that I recall, and I don't think many understand it today either.   The blacklisting in Hollywood didn't make the issues clear to anyone, it caused severe suffering for many people who felt it was completely undeserved.  Those who considered their Communist affiliation to be an expresion of compassion never got challenged about it, and blacklisting only made them bitter.

So th4e blacklisting was finallyl condemned and we never did get the education we needed on these things.  McCarthyism is now a dirty word and.  We aren't getting any better understaing now either.   I hear some good discussions of it on conservative talk radio but those discussions never get a public airing.  Sean Hannity just wrote a book that may address the issues to some extent, and Mark Levin has written many such books and talks about it a great deqal on his talk show, but the people who need to hear it aren't listening.

If the Left wins it will be because of this ignorqance, but if it wins there will be no way ever to return to the real America.

Reducing God to the latest psychological or philosophical theory

Before I became a believer I sometimes encountered writings that purported to explain religious belief, of course mostly Christian belief, in terms of the prevailing theories of philosophy or psychology or whatnot.  It was frustrating and boring though I'm not sure I could have said why, since for all I knew that way of dealing with religion was all that was possible to us. 

But of course such thinking is merely human beings applying their imagination to systems that long preceded our time, as if there's anything persuasive about our mere cogitations.  We want truth, don't we?  But how on earth are we going to find truth by such means? 

Science is something else of coruse, the "hard" sciences that is, the phenomena that can be tested empirically by separate individuals arriving at the same results.  That method can't be applied to questions of the meaning of life, whre we are left with speculatons based on interpretations of history and the minds of other thinkers rather than any kind of objective knowledge.

The same is true of the theory of evolution, which is often defended as a science but really isn't, at least not in the same way the hard sciences are, since you can't replicate any of it or test any of it, and as in the case of religious or philosophical meaning all you can do is make intepretations based on some principles that were never empirically demonstrated though they are taken for fact. because some thinker in the past argued them persuasively.   Even if boring and frustrating this method is at least justifiable for philosophical questions, but when it is applied to an area of physical reality, i.e. biology, it becomes, in my opinion, pernicious and misleading, a body of pseudo-knowledge that erects a fake reality in the hapless minds of humanity.   It just sounds silly, sophomoridc, fatuous, the way evolutionist thinkers will talk about how the human race acquired this or that attitude or behavior at such and such a time in our history, as if they could possibly know such things.   Sociobiology's "altruism" of decades ago is the sort of thing I'm thinking of.  They don't seem to mind that they can't know such things, they can only speculate, or that it's mindnumbingly simplistic. Evolution is also applied to the attempts to figure out religion of course.

What got me into all this is that I listened to part of a couple of lectures on religion by the psychologist Jordan Peterson, who became known a few years ago for his very trenchant answers to some popular leftist political correctness.  He doesn't consider himself to be a conservative although many of his views are congenial to the conservative positions.  It's interesting that he also has a strong attraction to biblical Christianity, having given many lectures on the Bible, but it's all from the psychological/philosophical perspective.

In a nutshell this could be said to boil it all down to a very complex way human beings learn to aspire to high wisdom in conducting our lives.    That is, he reduces God to such higher wisdom, that some special human beings learned how to access, or something like that.  Which I gu3ess explains why it got written down and preserved for future generations.

Although he considers this to be a noble thing, to my mind it is the same kind of thinking I called silly and fatuous above in relation to evolutionist explanations for human behavior.  And  evolution is certainly part of his framework too, of course, as it's all about how humanity learned this or that, grew over time to develop, say, greater wisdom about life or whatever.

So the story of Abraham is all about how he learned life's lessons, it's got nothing to do with what the Bible actually says, that believers understand it to mean, that there really is an objective God Who really did call the man Abraham for purposes of God's own that have nothing to do with ordinary human life.  Peterson's view would imply that all humanity could learn from this God that is really a reservoir of higher wisdom about life, or perhaps some special people could, but we understand the Bible to be telling us something absolutely unique that God chose to convey through Abraham, for the salvation of fallen humanity.   God chose Abraham for this unique purpose, as He chooses all thos4e through whom He speaks to us in scripture.   God is not just a wisdom by which Abraham can learn to conduct his life, God is teaching Abraham about Himself and His plan of redemption.  He is not teaching Abraham some abstract wisom about, say, sacrificing to gain higher knowledge, He is teaching us through Abrqaham's willingness to sacrifice his son Isaac, about the necessity of trusting God that some day a great sacrifice of His own Son will bring salvation to eternal life for all who believe.

How is it that unbelievers can permit themselves to impose such an alien philosophical system on the Bible?  In one of his lectures Peterson kept referring to what "we" think about the Bible, how "we" used to believe it but no longer do, which of course ignores the millions of us who do believe it even today.  How does he justify reducing God to a sort of faculty of our own minds?  How does he justify gnoring what the Bible actually says about the transcendent objective reality of God?  I wonder if he can answer that question.  It can only come down to the subjective statement, Well I just can't believe what it actually says.    And somehow that is enough for him?  No matter what millions have understood it to mean for thousands of years, his own psychological cogitations are sufficient against all that. 

Much the same thing as the "contemporary biblical scholars" who don't believe in the supernatural so they arbitrarily date the most prophetic books after the prophecies they so clearly state, with no regard for whatever how they destroy the whole fabric of the writing.

Oh well.  Nothing new under the sun there I guess.

It's so simple really.  Just believe it.  That's what it says, just believe it.  It's a simple honest account of things that actually happened, and it's only a deep prejudice embedded in your own mind that gives you the arrogance to think you can make it into something else.  Of course if someone did that to an honest accounting of your own about your own experiences you would be very unhappy, but no matter, you can do it to God's revelation that has taught millions over millennia.   Jung?  Nietsche?  Ugh.