Corrupt Media Now Working Hard to Demonize Potential Coronavirus Cure

They don’t want this thing cured too early. – Thursday evening, a spokesman for Stanford University Medical Center appeared on Tucker Carlson’s Fox News program to tout a long-used prescription drug called hydroxycholoroquine (HC) as a safe and effective cure for the coronavirus:

Michael Coudrey ✔ @MichaelCoudrey NEW DATA: A French study has demonstrated evidence that the combination of Hydroxychloroquine & Azithromycin are highly effective in treating Covid-19.

The patients enrolled in the study showed complete viral eradication around the 5th day of treatment. https://twitter.com/michaelcoudrey/status/1240143162510893058 …

View image on Twitter Michael Coudrey ✔ @MichaelCoudrey BREAKING: There is an anti-malaria drug called Hydroxychloroquine that looks to be highly effective at treating Coronavirus.

Initial tests show that on a dose of 600mg, 90% of infected COVID-19 patients tested negative in just 6 days.

Subsequent to that announcement, detailed in Friday’s Campaign Update, the public was informed of other successful trials and use of this treatment in China and South Korea. The President himself talked about the potential for HC to be a game-changer in fighting the Chinese virus.

Presto! A new corrupt media narrative is born. Trump likes something, it must be bad. If it’s good for the American people, it’s got to be hella bad for the corrupt news media and their Democrat masters. Thus, now we are seeing pieces like this one from Bloomberg pop up all over the corrupt media complex:

Virus Drug Touted by Trump, Musk Can Kill With Just Two Gram Dose The drug touted by the U.S. President Donald Trump as a possible line of treatment against the coronavirus comes with severe warnings in China and can kill in dosages as little as two grams.

China, where the deadly pathogen first emerged in December, recommended the decades-old malaria drug chloroquine to treat infected patients in guidelines issued in February after seeing encouraging results in clinical trials. But within days, it cautioned doctors and health officials about the drug’s lethal side effects and rolled back its usage.

This came after local media reported that a Wuhan Institute of Virology study found that the drug can kill an adult just dosed at twice the daily amount recommended for treatment, which is one gram.

As the drug hasn’t been approved by the U.S. Food And Drug Administration to treat the disease known as Covid-19, the Chinese experience may be useful as the American regulator studies the medication which has been endorsed by Trump as well as Tesla Inc. chief executive officer Elon Musk.

It isn’t until the 9th and 10th paragraphs in the piece that we see that an honest news organization would have focused on the undeniable fact that HC has in fact been highly effective in China in treating the virus, just as it has been in other parts of the world:

Chloroquine was among the first group of therapies Chinese scientists identified as being effective in curbing the new coronavirus. Clinical trials on about 130 patients demonstrated the drug’s ability to reduce the severity of the illness and speed up virus clearance, according to China’s Ministry of Sciences and Technology.

Chroloquine phosphate was officially recommended on Feb. 19 in the Covid-19 treatment guidelines published by China’s National Health Commission, along with a few other drugs such as AbbVie Inc.’s Kaletra and flu drug arbidol as antiviral treatments for patients. The commission recommended no more than a 10-day course of chloroquine for adult patients at 500mg — half a gram — twice a day.

Oh, you don’t say. So, what is the basis for the irresponsibly sensationalist and misleading headline? Why the final paragraph, of course:

A woman in Wuhan proved how lethal chloroquine can be when it’s taken beyond the recommended dose. On Feb. 25, Shanghai-based The Paper reported that she took 1.8 grams of the drug she ordered online after suspecting she had the coronavirus. She did not, but the drug caused her to develop malignant cardiac arrhythmic, which can cause sudden death, and she was admitted to the intensive care unit.

So, here we have a woman who took almost FOUR TIMES THE RECOMMENDED DOSE of HC who developed a heart arrhythmia as a result. Go figure.

Folks, ANY drug taken in massive quantities far above the recommended dosage can be lethal.

This is what your corrupt news media does in its zeal to try to damage the hated Trump. It is the kind of thing it does every day in its desperation to attract clicks to its websites. It is incredibly irresponsible and frankly unpatriotic in a time of national emergency.

TheConservativeBanker wrote:

“I have no ill will to anyone who is seriously ill. I hope Lat gets the very best treatment available and recovers to live a full life. My reason to post is that the media publicizes these case and buries crucial clarifying information deep in the article to make us think that we are all equally at risk. There are obvious critical risk factors (some of them deriving from lifestyle choices) and they are important to avoid unnecessary public hysteria.

Contrary to Vermont Lt.’s assertion, my comment was not mean spirited, rather I was simply pointing out that the impression that an otherwise healthy, vibrant young man being on his death bed due solely to Coronavirus could be mistaken. A subsequent poster also mentioned that he also is asthmatic - an obvious critical risk factor.”

The media’s propensity to leave vital info out and sensationalize things —is— a huge problem.

it’s propaganda. period.

True.

it’s not journalism.

It is journalism. Monopoly journalism.
In the founding era and up to the Civil War, newspapers were mostly weeklies, and some had no deadline at all. Prior to the 1844 demo of the Baltimore-Washington telegraph and the 1848 founding of the “New York Associated Press,” newspaper printers got any outside news from sources to which the general public could easily have been privy by the time of the weekly paper’s deadline.
So newspapers were about the opinions of their printers - and thus, newspapers notoriously didn’t agree about much of anything. You bought your newspaper, if you had a choice where you lived, according to your interest in the particular perspective of its printer. The AP changed that. Membership in the AP was expensive, but it gave the printer a cornucopia of news stories from all over. It was magic!
It was also, Adam Smith would have said, a recipe for a journalism cartel. For what the AP is - and the other wire services are - is a virtual meeting of all its members - a continual, ongoing meeting which started before the Civil War and is ongoing even unto this day.
People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. - Adam Smith, Wealth of Nations (1776)
Thus, cartel behavior - a conspiracy against the public - is only to be expected of journalists working for members of the AP or any other wire service. Hence, “the media.”
The problem is exacerbated by the unanimous 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan SCOTUS verdict, which pretty much suppressed libel suits by prominent Republicans (and Democrats, not that it matters - Democrats assiduously go along and get along with the journalism cartel, and thus Democrats don’t get libeled).
But Sullivan, unanimously held or no, is bad law. Scalia pointed out that Sullivan justified itself with the claim that
". . . libel can claim no talismanic immunity from constitutional limitations. It must be measured by standards that satisfy the First Amendment”
but prior to 1964 no court had ever held that 1A modified libel (or pornography, for that matter) law.
Why? For the same reason that nobody in their right mind ever suggested that the Second Amendment changed laws against armed assault. 2A protects “the” right of the people to keep and bear arms. “The” is called a (the?) definite article It is specific, if not fully articulated. “The” RTKBA is no different now than it was in 1778 because the intent of 2A - the intent of the entire Bill of Rights - was to reassure the country that no rights were being changed by the Constitution. That is the specific intent of 9A:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
The fact that the Bill of Rights exists as amendments to the Constitution reflects the fact that the Federalists thought that the unamended Constitution implied all of the Bill of Rights. They might have tried to satisfy the (political) requirement for a bill of rights with 9A alone - but instead they “enumerated” in 1A thru 8A only those rights which tyrants had historically denied. 9A covers the rest - including the right to sue for libel (because “the” freedom of the press as it existed in 1788 did not include the right to libel anyone without penalty.
The output of the journalism cartel is socialist propaganda for the simple reason that it is a cartel, and that the journalism business is the bad news business. The cartel’s claim that journalists are objective is poppycock since all journalists know that in fact journalism is negative. The conceit that “negativity is objectivity” is cynicism.
Journalism is cynical about society, thus naive about society’s opposite, which is government. And you show me a socialist and I’ll show you someone who fits that description.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.