Many states have more federal virus cash than they know what to do with. $150 billion fed. virus windfall must be spent by Dec. 30. States such as Arizona are converting unused virus dollars to general funds-Arizona Capitol News, 11/26/20

"Federal [virus] funding must also be spent between March 1 and December 30….“Many states have more money than they know what to do with in the coronavirus relief fund, but at the same time they’re looking at shortfalls in their operating budget,” he said. “It’s very tempting to reach into this one pot to fill a hole in another, but that’s not what the money’s for””…said “Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation’s Center for State Tax Policy.”

11/26/20, “Ducey sends $400M of CARES money to state agencies,” Arizona Capitol News, Julia Shumway

“Gov. Doug Ducey is using hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds earmarked for COVID-19 relief to pay for state operations, such as salaries, which some say contravenes the intention of Congress….

Arizona received more than $4 billion [US taxpayer dollars] from the CARES Act, and Ducey holds wide latitude in how to spend $1.86 billion of it. Ducey...funneled nearly a quarter of it to state agencies, which, in turn, plan to send portions of their original budget allocations back to the state.

The Governor’s Office touted his move as an example of prudent budgeting that is helping the state elude a dire fiscal crunch, but observers argue that Arizona could be stretching, if not outright breaking, rules on how states can use funds they received under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act, and that the state might be compelled to pay back the federal government.

Congress didn’t allow states to use CARES Act money to replace revenue lost because of the pandemic. All of the roughly $150 billion divided among states must be used directly to address the effects of the virus, and any unspent money reverts back to the federal government at the end of the year. But Arizona effectively allocated nearly $400 million to state coffers by using the federal funds to pay for already-budgeted salaries and some other expenses across several state agencies.

The agencies, in turn, plan to return money originally allocated to them by the Legislature back to the state treasury.

Ducey’s office is confident that it used the money properly, said Matt Gress, the governor’s budget director.

“There’s always a chance that the auditors come back and say, ‘We need a little bit more clarification on X, Y and Z,’” Gress said. “But I don’t see a scenario in which they say, ‘Return this money,’ because we followed the guidance as clearly as we could.”…

As of November 18, he [Ducey] has allocated $1.48 billion, according to the most recent date for which legislative budget analysts have updates on CARES Act spending.

About $396 million of that was used for “state agency public health and public safety expenses,” according to tracking documents. Eleven agencies — the departments of Agriculture, Corrections, Economic Security, Health Services, Insurance and Financial Institutions, Juvenile Corrections, Liquor Licenses and Control, Public Safety, Revenue and Transportation, as well as Arizona Parks & Trails — that received CARES Act funding will deposit $300 million back into the state’s General Fund and $96 million into other funds.

Some agencies, like the Department of Health Services, have a clear connection to the pandemic. For others, Ducey’s office relied on guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department that says payroll for public health and public safety employees could be presumed to be related to the pandemic and therefore eligible to be funded by the CARES Act.

Ducey’s office determined that all state workers who are certified peace officers could count as public safety employees for the purposes of using CARES Act funds to pay their salaries.

The Department of Liquor Licenses and Control, for instance, plans to transfer a total of $126,738 back to the state’s General Fund. In his FY2022 budget request, agency director John Cocca wrote that the CARES Act funds were used to pay for operating expenses in the fourth quarter of FY2020.

Cocca, like several other agency heads, praised the governor in explaining why his agency is returning cash to the state treasury.

“The Department of Liquor Licenses and Control recognizes that the Governor is focused on maintaining the fiscal integrity of the State’s General Fund in light of the COVID-19 Public Health Pandemic,” he wrote. “Further, the Governor is uniquely positioned to collaborate across all departments, identifying and crafting the best solution that is appropriate for each.”

Using federal money to pay for expenses that otherwise would have been covered by the state boosts Arizona’s state coffers. Ducey spokesman Patrick Ptak said it has helped stabilize the state’s budget so Arizona doesn’t have to cut spending from key programs, such as education and public safety.

“I would add that we know the pandemic isn’t just about the public health response,” Ptak said. “It’s about the long-term recovery and the decisions we’re making with these dollars, while prioritizing public health, will help us in years to come to avoid the tough decisions that many other states are going through right now.”

Arizona’s revenues appear to be in good shape. Legislative forecasters went from anticipating a potential deficit of $1.1 billion to predicting the state could have as much as $800 million extra in the bank by July 2022, as higher-than-expected sales tax revenue, lottery sales and job losses concentrated in lower-wage fields abated concerns about an extended economic downturn.

While the CARES Act gives states broad parameters in which to spend their share, it requires spending to be directly related to the public health emergency caused by COVID-19 and only for expenses that “were not accounted for in the budget most recently approved as of the date of enactment” of the CARES Act on March 27. The federal funding must also be spent between March 1 and December 30.

Ducey waited to sign the FY2021 budget, which lawmakers passed on March 23 and which contained $50 million in state funding to help with the response to COVID-19, until March 28, ensuring that he could use federal money before dipping into the state’s own allocations.

There is no complete centralized record of how states are using their CARES Act funds, but incomplete databases maintained by organizations, such as the National Conference of State Legislatures, show that Arizona’s approach of reimbursing the General Fund is uncommon.

Across the nation, much of the money has been spent on coronavirus tests, medical equipment and relief for small businesses and renters who could face bankruptcy or eviction because of the pandemic. Many states, including Arizona, also set up programs to provide grants to cities and towns that are too small to qualify for direct funding under the CARES Act.

Some states have chosen to liberally interpret the guidance provided by the U.S. Treasury Department, said Jared Walczak, vice president of state projects at the Tax Foundation’s Center for State Tax Policy

A handful used millions of dollars to invest in broadband infrastructure, reasoning that it’s an important economic development as many employees and students are expected to work remotely. West Virginia, for example, planned to use about $50 million to repair rural roads it designated as “medical access highways.”

“Most states have avoided what might be interpreted as directly disregarding the guidance, but many have been flexible in the interpretation of that guidance in hopes that ultimately the Treasury will be similarly flexible in the accountability standards,” Walczak said. “Nonetheless, what’s being proposed in Arizona is a very aggressive interpretation.”

States are on the hook for paying back federal money if audits next year show that they spent it in a manner that doesn’t align with the law. In Idaho, fears of an audit prompted several cities to decline their governor’s offers of CARES Act money to pay police officers’ salaries.

States that weren’t hit hard early by the pandemic have struggled with how to use their share of the federal money because they may be barred from using it in areas where the money could be most useful, Walczak said.

“Many states have more money than they know what to do with in the coronavirus relief fund, but at the same time they’re looking at shortfalls in their operating budget,” he said. “It’s very tempting to reach into this one pot to fill a hole in another, but that’s not what the money’s for. Getting too creative could create a worse situation down the road where the money has already been spent, and now you need to reimburse the federal government.””

 

 

..............

Star of Bethlehem, Christmas Eve

 

 

 

 

........................

On Jan. 4, 2021, UK may decide to extradite Julian Assange to US to stand trial for publishing alleged US state secrets, something US “national security” reporters do routinely-Columbia Journalism Review, Bruce D. Brown, opinion

“Julian Assange is the only person with direct knowledge of how Wikileaks gained custody of the DNC emails; and Assange has claimed he has evidence it was not from a hack. This Russian “hacking” claim was ultimately so important to the CIA, FBI, DOJ, ODNI and U.K intelligence apparatus…right there is the obvious motive to shut Assange down as soon as intelligence officials knew the Mueller report was going to be public. This is why Julian Assange deserves a pardon, so he can tell his story.” 12/22/2020, “A Reason To Pardon Julian Assange,” tcth, sundance. Image, Crossfire Hurricane incompetents via tcth

………………………..

Added: Publishing state secrets is “something that national security reporters do with some regularity,” but until Assange, US has never sought to prosecute a journalist for such an alleged act. “The US is uniquely committed to the idea that popular government requires popular information about government….The charges against the WikiLeaks founder, brought under the Espionage Act, are alive and as dangerous as ever.”

12/23/20, “Assange, and the critical threat to publishing state secrets," Columbia Journalism Review, Bruce D. Brown, opinion

“REMEMBER THAT LITTLE SPYING CASE against Julian Assange? The Department of Justice indicted him last year [2019] for publishing classified US military and State Department documents leaked in 2010 by Chelsea Manning, who was then a soldier in Iraq. While Attorney General William Barr is now on his way out the door, the charges against the WikiLeaks founder, brought under the Espionage Act, are alive and as dangerous as ever.

New leadership at the Justice Department traditionally sticks with most of the cases initiated by the prior administration, so it seems unlikely that the Biden team will abandon the Assange prosecution. Any precedent it sets, therefore, may be with us for a long time.

[Image of Assange arrest, Brennan and Strzok inset, via thth]

On January 4, Vanessa Baraitser, a district judge in the UK, will decide whether to grant the DOJ request for Assange’s extradition to the US for trial. In presenting its arguments to the English court, counsel for the Justice Department framed the case as due comeuppance for endangering lives by publishing “documents which contain the names of informants.”

Don’t let the misdirection around “blown informants” fool you – this case is nothing less than the first time in American history that the US government has sought to prosecute the act of publishing state secrets, something that national security reporters do with some regularity.

While many of the charges involve conspiracy or aiding and abetting, three counts are based on “pure publication”—the argument that Assange broke the law just by posting classified documents on the internet.  

Read literally, the Espionage Act criminalizes the solicitation, receipt, and publication of any government secret, not just the names of informants. The Justice Department has long taken the position that it can prosecute the act of publishing classified information. But it has not done so, until now, because of concerns that it would open a Pandora’s box of media censorship….

There is another disturbing element to the Assange case: the extradition request itself. Under many US extradition treaties, we can’t extradite someone for espionage. While it may seem counterintuitive, the political offense exception, as it is known, dates back to the years after the American and French revolutions and the growing concern that offenses such as espionage, treason, or sedition could be misused to persecute failed rebels and political dissidents. (Note that espionage charges are often used today against journalists in other countries). It also reflects the belief that crimes solely against the state are less bad than common crimes against people….

In 1975, for instance, Seymour Hersh published a front-page New York Times article on “Operation Holystone,” a highly classified submarine-based eavesdropping program against the Soviet Union. Following several accidents—including one in which a submarine surfaced underneath a Soviet ship during a fleet exercise—Hersh reported the concerns of internal critics of the program, who feared blowback from the program in a time of detente.

The Ford administration considered seeking indictments of Hersh and the Times. Attorney General Edward Levi went so far as to draft a memorandum asserting that the Espionage Act applies to the publication of government secrets by the press. But Levi suggested that prosecuting a journalist or newspaper would be unwise. The “most promising course of action,” he wrote, would be “to discuss the problem of publication of material detrimental to the national security with leading publishers.” Ultimately, the Ford administration declined to prosecute….

Assange is a self-made lightning rod, and the journalism world is divided about his case, but his prosecution is about much more than him.

The US’s aggressive efforts to extradite Assange under spying charges for publicly disclosing classified information—in contravention of the political offense exception—could create precedent that impacts the US press. If the UK grants the request to deliver Assange to the US, UK prosecutors could make similar arguments in an effort to extradite a journalist in the US for violations of its Official Secrets Act, which explicitly criminalizes the publication of leaked military or intelligence information. Whether those arguments would be successful in front of a US court is an open question, but the concern is not merely hypothetical. In the 1990s, the UK tried to extradite a leaker from France, which denied the request because of the political offense exception. In 2018, authorities in the UK threatened the US filmmaker Alex Gibney, who is a member of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press steering committee, with arrest for using a leaked police report in a documentary.

Such precedent may not be limited to the UK. Australia, for instance, has been notably aggressive of late in investigating and prosecuting national security reporting. In 2019, a military whistleblower leaked the “Afghan Files,” which detailed possible war crimes by Australian special forces troops in Afghanistan. The Australian Federal Police raided the offices of the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and recommended charges under Australian spying laws against a journalist. Fortunately, Australian prosecutors declined to prosecute;late this year, the Australian military released the Brereton report, which found evidence confirming some of the reporting, as well as indications of a cover-up.”…

[Ed. note: 12/22/20, “Trump awards [Australia Prime Minister] Morrison with top military honour," news.com.au, Finn McHugh…”Donald Trump has awarded Scott Morrison a top military honour, a year after describing him as a ‘great friend of the United States.'”…10/27/20, US nuclear weapons “protect” Australia: “For Australia, it is feasible to join the TPNW [UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons] and still maintain ties to the US, but it will have to renounce any idea of being “protected” by US nuclear weapons.”]

(continuing): “As with the UK, the Australia/US treaty bars extradition for political offenses. However, were Judge Baraitser to order Assange’s extradition, Australian prosecutors may be able to cite that order in a case involving journalists in the US.

Assange is a self-made lightning rod, and the journalism world is divided about his case, but his prosecution is about much more than him. The US is uniquely committed to the idea that popular government requires popular information about government, particularly in cases involving war, intelligence gathering, and foreign affairs—where government secrecy reaches its zenith. The primary conduit of that information to the public is an independent and adversarial press, a role that the founders enshrined in the First Amendment.

To be clear, Assange’s extradition to—and even his conviction in—the US would not be the last word on whether the government could use the Espionage Act to prosecute reporting on government secrets by established news outlets. A bruising First Amendment battle would await.

But the legal theory in the three pure publication counts is applicable to core journalistic activities. If Judge Baraitser does not see through the “blown informant” smokescreen to the true breadth of the government’s case, the normalization of prosecutions based solely on the publication of official secrets could get a toehold in the US.”

“Bruce D. Brown is the Executive Director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press.”

………………………….

Added:

Image: June 3, 2019, Trump and his pal the Queen during dinner at Buckingham Palace, getty

 

 

......................

Covid is not only the greatest heist in history, it's also the first where those of us being robbed have to wear a mask-commenter

“This is not about health-this is a heist-the biggest heist in history. So stop wasting time debating health-it’s meaningless. This is the first robbery in history where all the people being robbed have to wear a mask, and none of the crooks have to.” commenter

12/21/20, ““Reckless Betrayal Of Public Trust” – Birx Violated Own Travel Advisory During Thanksgiving,” zero hedge, durden

“While in Delaware, she was bold enough to interview with CBS’ “Face the Nation,“ in which she said some Americans “went across the country or even into the next state” for Thanksgiving.

………..

“Some people may have made mistakes over the Thanksgiving time period,” Birx said.

She also said those who traveled over the holidays should assume they were infected…

AP reported that one of her extended family members blew the whistle on Birx’s travels. AP cited Kathleen Flynn, whose brother is Birx’s daughter’s husband, revealed Birx’s trip “out of concern for her [Ms. Flynn’s] own parents.”

“She cavalierly violated her own guidance,” Flynn told AP.

Birx later admitted she spent two days at the beach town and dined with her family but explained her purpose behind the trip was to prepare her beach home for sale.

“I did not go to Delaware for the purpose of celebrating Thanksgiving,” Birx said in her statement, adding that her family shared a meal together while in Delaware.”…

……………………………………..

Among comments

………………………………………

 

“Atanoi

……..

I walk all over Manhattan for acoupla hours every day and talk to dozens of people of all types, and from all kinds of places (even some tourists from several different places, which surprised the hell out of me!). The conclusion I reached several months ago, and which is being reinforced more and more every day, is that this is not about health – this is a heist – the biggest heist in history. So stop wasting time debating health – it’s meaningless.

…..

This is the first robbery in history where

………

*all the people being robbed have to wear a mask, and none of the crooks have to.”

……………………………………

Comment: It must be thrilling to overthrow a country of 300 million people without firing a single shot. It merely took Donald Trump declaring a national emergency based on an unverified computer model of a foreign citizen in foreign country thousands of miles away from the US.

...............

Washington Post use of rat imagery to depict Trump supporters is defined as one of “Ten Stages of Genocide:” The powerful group equates the victim group “with animals, vermin, insects or diseases”

From “Ten Stages of Genocide:" “Classification and symbolization are universally human and do not necessarily result in genocide unless they lead to dehumanization….Dehumanization: One group denies the humanity of the other group. Members of it are equated with animals, vermin, insects or diseases.…Hate propaganda in print…is used to vilify the victim group…Polarization: Extremists drive the groups apart. Hate groups broadcast polarizing propaganda. Motivations for targeting a group are indoctrinated through mass media….Acts of genocide demonstrate how dehumanized the victims have become....Destruction of cultural and religious property is employed to annihilate the group’s existence from history….DENIAL is the final stage that lasts throughout and always follows genocide….They deny that they committed any crimes, and often blame what happened on the victims. They block investigations of the crimes, and continue to govern.”…GenocideWatch, Gregory H. Stanton, Pres.

………………………………………….

12/20/20, “Washington Post uses Nazi anti-semitic rat imagery for Trump supporters in cartoon,” Steve Milloy, Junk Science

“We report. You decide. Compare today’s Washington Post cartoon by Pulitzer Prize-winner Ann Telnaes with the one published on February 2, 1939 in the Viennese newspaper in Das Kleine Blatt.

Here’s the [Dec. 18] WaPo cartoon…

And here’s the Nazi newspaper cartoon…

And [WaPo cartoonist] Telnaes was proud of her work.

Here is the WaPo link for the cartoon.

“Democracy dies in darkness.” Indeed. The WaPo is very dark.”

……………………………………………….

Added: Raphael Lemkin, inventor of the term “genocide” defines it as follows: genocidewatch.net

“Lemkin defined genocide as follows:”

“Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.”

 

 

.............

Millions of voters were unaware of life saving Covid news quietly proposed by Georgia delegation to AMA a few days before election. Full AMA later rejected life saving proposal. First, this is a crime against humanity-Brian Joondeph, MD, 12/18/20

“CLARIFICATION: It was the Georgia delegation to the AMA that introduced a resolution in late October to the full AMA delegation reversing the AMA’s earlier stance against HCQ. There was no further communication from the AMA as to whether or not the resolution was adopted until their November meeting when the AMA declined to consider the HCQ resolution. The non-consideration of the recent resolution left the original earlier resolution against HCQ in place, although in a convoluted manner, much like a court declining to hear a case rather than ruling on the merits of the case. The process was confusing to many media outlets as well as this writer, but the premise of my article still holds, that politicizing a medical issue may have cost countless lives.” update to 12/18/20, “AMA Lied – How Many Died?” by Brian C. Joondeph, MD, American Thinker

.........................

"RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians 4 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine."... “We will never know how many individuals could have been kept out of the hospital, ICU, or morgue if HCQ was used early in the disease course….Meanwhile people died. All to influence an election.” And billions of US tax dollars were spent on rushed vaccines….California physician has 100% success rate treating Covid early. ““We were at the heart of the pandemic due to our large Hispanic and diabetic population.” Dr. Tyson said Imperial Valley shares an international border in the south with Mexicali, Mexico which has a population of 1.5 million residents. He treated 1,900 positive patients….“We treated this virus early….We only had one hospitalization and zero deaths. Zero deaths, because we were not going to stand by and allow people to die without treatment,” Dr. Tyson said.” 10/19/20

Page 16: Nov. 2020, “AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION HOUSE OF DELEGATES Resolution: 509 (November 2020)," ama-assn.org

“Introduced by: Georgia Subject: Hydroxychloroquine and Combination Therapies – Off-Label Use Referred to: Reference Committee E”

page 17: “Whereas, There is no current Federal Drug Administration (FDA) indication for the treatment of 5 Early Coronavirus infection....Whereas, Hydroxychloroquine and Chloroquine are FDA approved medications for over 12 50 years,and these medications are safely prescribed long-term for other indications….

Resolution: 509 (November 2020)…Whereas, A proposed regimen to treat COVID-19 for Stage 1, includes 10 days of 27 hydroxychloroquine, Azithromycin, zinc, and on occasion Vitamin D (6);...This regimen is not being advocated for Stage 2 and Stage 3 COVID therapy;…Whereas, The original studies published in The Lancet and The New England Journal of 32 Medicine (NEJM) initially citing harm due to hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine use were 33 retracted by said journals due to dubious research methodology and incorrect conclusions….Whereas, AMA policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their 37 Physicians,” supports a physician’s autonomy to prescribe medications the physician believes to 38 be in the patient’s best interest, where the benefits outweigh risk and the patient consents;...Whereas, Physicians have used off label medications for years and this use is supported by 41 existing policy; Whereas, Data regarding harm have been limited due to poorly designed studies or studies 44 usually in Stage 2 or later, or stopped without harm but no effect in phase 2 and hypothesis…Whereas, There are many studies that indicate that the use of Hydroxychloroquine, 48 Azithromycin is effective and front-line physicians are using the therapy where permissible.”

page 18: “Whereas, The COVID-19 pandemic is a serious medical issue, people are dying, and 1 physicians must be able to perform as sagacious prescribers; therefore be it2 3 RESOLVED, That our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians 4 to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes 5 available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in 6 the disease course. Implying that such treatment is inappropriate contradicts AMA Policy 7 H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” that addresses off 8 label prescriptions as appropriate in the judgement of the prescribing physician (Directive to 9 Take Action); and be it further10 11 RESOLVED, That our AMA rescind its joint statement with the American Pharmacists 12 Association and American Society of Health System Pharmacists, and update it with a joint 13 statement notifying patients that further studies are ongoing to clarify any potential benefit of 14 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of COVID-19 (Directive to Take 15 Action); and be it further16 17 RESOLVED, That our AMA reassure the patients whose physicians are prescribing 18 hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for their early-stage COVID-19 diagnosis by 19 issuing an updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-20 approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific 21 reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the 22 earliest stage of COVID-19 (Directive to Take Action); and be it further23 24 RESOLVED, That our AMA take the actions necessary to require local pharmacies to fill valid 25 prescriptions that are issued by physicians and consistent with AMA principles articulated in 26 AMA Policy H-120.988, “Patient Access to Treatments Prescribed by Their Physicians,” 27 including working with the American Pharmacists Association and American Society of Health 28 System Pharmacists. (Directive to Take Action) 29 Fiscal Note: Modest – between $1,000 – $5,000 Received: 10/23/20″…

…………………………………………………..

Added: Crimes against humanity are protected in the US as long as your victims are millions of defenseless, inconvenient Americans:

12/18/20, “AMA Lied – How Many Died?” Brian C. Joondeph, MD

“The American Medical Association has been adamantly against hydroxychloroquine as a therapeutic for COVID for the past year. Just a few days before the presidential election they reversed course, reversing their opposition. Did they suddenly realize HCQ might have benefit in certain patient groups or were they lying for the past year? How many individuals died as a result of being denied potential lifesaving treatment?

The AMA is synonymous with organized medicine, despite myriad specialty societies that may better represent the needs of its member physicians. In fact, only 12 percent of practicing physicians belong to the AMA due to concerns that the AMA is more interested in its own finances and politics than the concerns of doctors.

When the AMA talks, media and the public listen, due to their perceived clout. Last spring, the AMA issued a statement critical of hydroxychloroquine as it was being used off-label in the treatment of COVID, not FDA-approved for this purpose with supposed “dangerous side effects.”

Quietly at the end of October, the AMA issued a new statement, conveniently overlooked by the media, giving the green light to doctors prescribing HCQ to their COVID patients.

“RESOLVED, that our American Medical Association rescind its statement calling for physicians to stop prescribing hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine until sufficient evidence becomes available to conclusively illustrate that the harm associated with use outweighs benefit early in the disease course.

An updated statement clarifying our support for a physician’s ability to prescribe an FDA-approved medication for off label use, if it is in her/his best clinical judgement, with specific reference to the use of hydroxychloroquine and combination therapies for the treatment of the earliest stage of COVID-19.”

What changed since last spring? How many COVID deaths could have been prevented if doctors, using their professional and clinical judgement, could have prescribed HCQ without fear of ostracization or loss of their jobs?

HCQ has been around since the 1950s, approved as a malarial preventative and for treatment of lupus and rheumatoid arthritis. It is relatively safe, except for the one in a thousand with a rare cardiac arrhythmia, easily identified by a pretreatment EKG. In many African countries, HCQ is available without a prescription for malaria prevention.

The problem arose when President Trump touted HCQ as a “potential therapeutic,” based on early reports of doctors prescribing it with good results. He did not tell anyone to take it but held it out as hope to a country suffering under a pandemic with lockdowns, quarantines, hospitalizations, and deaths.

Trump also took HCQ himself, prescribed by the White House medical team. If Trump claimed drinking water was healthy, the media and medical establishment would have denounced it, citing cases of people dying from drinking too much water.

A perfect example was Fox News crank Neil Cavuto screaming how hydroxy “will kill you.” This was based on a flawed VA study finding no benefit for HCQ in a severely ill cohort of patients, and a higher death rate among those receiving HCQ. This was a retrospective study which did not address the possibility that HCQ was given to sicker patients, who were more likely to die anyway.

Image credit: YouTube screen grab

Prestigious medical journals, Lancet and New England Journal, retracted published studies raising alarms about HCQ due to bogus study data. It seemed there was a jihad against HCQ from the medical establishment, supported by the media, simply because the Orange Man suggested it.

Was the concern solely over off-label use of drugs? In my world, Avastin has been successfully used off-label for 15 years for the treatment of macular degeneration and diabetic retinopathy, despite FDA approval only for cancer and a black box warning about gastrointestinal perforation, wound healing, and hemorrhage.

In relative terms, HCQ is a far safer drug compared to Avastin. Ketamine is another old drug similar to HCQ, FDA-approved in 1970 as a general anesthetic. Yet it is increasingly being used off-label to treat severe depression, anxiety, and PTSD. As a general anesthetic, it certainly can kill you if used improperly, but used under the considered judgment of a physician, it can literally save lives. Neil Cavuto hasn’t yet offered his expert medical opinion on ketamine.

There have been 187 hydroxy studies, 122 of which were peer-reviewed. 100 percent of these studies reported positive effects for early treatment of COVID, meaning, for those not yet in the hospital, and certainly not on a ventilator. These studies were performed and reported this year, while the AMA stayed mum, standing by their admonition against HCQ, until their “oh by the way” report at the end of October.  

The AMA’s about-face is curious in terms of timing. They could have tempered their initial remarks last summer, when the “America’s Frontline Doctors” group was promoting HCQ, azithromycin, and zinc as an effective early treatment for COVID. All three components of their cocktail were off label. In fact, at the time there was no approved therapeutic for COVID and many people could have been treated earlier, potentially keeping them out of the hospital or worse.

Perfect is the enemy of good. Prospective randomized clinical trials would have been great, but they take time. Why not let physicians use their “best clinical judgment” as the recent AMA statement recommends?

Instead, the AMA waited until Oct. 30 to announce a more reasoned position, not coincidently just a few days before the presidential election. Democrats and the media blamed Trump for every COVID illness and death, accusing Trump of “misleading” on HCQ, as a prominent campaign issue.

The timing suggests political scheming by the AMA, withholding important information or opinions in an attempt to influence an election. Will the AMA explain this curious timing? Social and corporate media did something similar with Hunter Biden’s laptop, knowingly suppressing information before the election, which may have swayed voters, glibly reporting on it after the election.

We will never know how many individuals could have been kept out of the hospital, ICU, or morgue if HCQ was used early in the disease course. Most medical miracles are due to outside the box thinking, using an approved drug in a new way. That’s the scientific approach, weighing risks and benefits, marching forward with modifications based on early results.

Instead, the AMA threw cold water on HCQ, joined by a medical establishment and media eager to ruin physicians’ careers if they challenged the dogma and dared promote HCQ.

The AMA played footloose with science and the truth. Some may call that lying and all for political purposes. Meanwhile people died. All to influence an election and depose the tweeting Orange Man in the White House.”

“Brian C. Joondeph, M.D., is a Denver-based physician and freelance writer for American Thinker, Rasmussen Reports, and other publications. Follow him on Facebook,  LinkedIn, Twitter, Parler, and QuodVerum.”

 

 

..........

Thousands attend anti-war rally in Washington, DC, April 17, 1965. In the good old days, people were against US military aggression in foreign hell holes

Above, 4/17/1965, “Thousands attend a rally on the grounds of the Washington Monument in Washington on April 17, 1965, to hear Ernest Gruening, a Democratic senator from Alaska, and other speakers discuss U.S. policy in Vietnam. The rally followed picketing of the White House by students demanding an end to Vietnam fighting. (Charles Tasnadi/AP)”

 

 

....................