In the 21^st century, government knows it does not need to beat people bloody in front of cameras to destroy their lives. First, it’s very bad press. Second, it is unnecessary. Government need only make laws so unjust and lacking in due process, that people cannot defend themselves.

The citizens of the U.S. can learn a lesson from Canada’s recent use of its Emergencies Act. During the truckers’ protest in Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau invoked the  1988 Emergencies Act, claiming the protest is an illegal blockade endangering public safety. The Act is to be used in situations that “seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians.” The types of situations it is to address include espionage, foreign influence activities, serious threats of political violence, or acts intended to undermine or overthrow a constitutionally established government. None of these situations apply to peaceful protests whose offense is blocking streets and making noise.

The Emergencies Act allows the government to force banks to freeze the social media accounts that collect money to support the protesters, freeze the bank accounts of the protesters, seize their [300] trucks, revoke their driver’s licenses, deny them insurance on their trucks, and of imprisoning them for years. It also authorizes the government to deny citizens the right to assemble and prohibit travel in certain areas of the country.  By cutting off the ability of truckers to make a living, Trudeau is executing their ability to live a normal life. Trudeau was the first prime minister in the thirty-four years since its enactment, to invoke the Emergencies Act. Trudeau finds peaceful resistance to be so extreme as to be a threat to the state.

In the U.S., our federal government does everything “bigger and better” than any other country. If at any time, the president of the U.S. feels, thinks, or worries about an emergency, he has the power to declare it through an emergency proclamation. While the U.S. has only one law designated “National Emergencies,” NYU’s Brennan Center identifies 136 laws or other authorities that allow the president to establish a national emergency. Ninety-six of these laws require nothing more than the signature of the president on an emergency proclamation. Fifteen of these emergency laws have restrictions such as involving a specific subject matter or the need for armed forces. Only thirteen of these emergency laws require a congressional declaration of emergency.

These 136 emergency laws are part of a massive legal framework that contains over 3000 separate criminal offenses in 50 titles of the U.S. Code and 23,000 pages of federal law and over 200,000 regulations that have the same effect as a law. More troublesome, the National Emergencies Act “…does not define what constitutes a national emergency.”

Without a legal definition, determining the statutory meaning of the term falls into the common meaning found in a dictionary. Merriam Webster defines a national emergency as “a state of emergency (an unforeseen circumstance needing immediate action) resulting from a danger or threat of danger to a nation from foreign or domestic sources and usually declared to be in existence by a governmental authority.” A very subjective definition.

Historically, emergency powers were limited to wartime. But today, non-war-time presidents want war powers to control citizens in a domestic setting. The Covid pandemic is the most recent use of emergency powers. Relying on emergency public health powers, the federal government-imposed mask and vaccine requirements on the nation’s entire population while keeping the science supporting its proclamation secret. It locked up the entire nation for almost two years. Another recent example, on inauguration day, Joe Biden, without the involvement of Congress, terminated all authorities requiring the construction of the Southern border wall which was being built to keep drug cartels, sex traffickers, and criminals out of the U.S.

The troubling use of both proclamations is that they were invoked without any direct factual findings to support the actions of the government. The public health emergency law referenced a waiver of liability law for those assisting the federal government address Covid, i.e., protecting the pharmaceutical companies from being sued. As for revoking authority to construct the Southern border wall, president Biden proclaimed the wall “is not a serious policy solution.” So much for the rule of law.

The only requirement to implement emergency power is that the president must specify the provision of law under which he will act. The provision cited does not need to relate to the actions taken.

The emergency law terminates on the anniversary of its declaration unless the President notifies Congress of its continuation. The other option for terminating an emergency is for Congress, by joint resolution to terminate it. Since joint resolutions must be signed by the president, Congress needs a two-thirds majority to override a presidential veto. Otherwise, these emergency powers are continuously available to the president. President Biden has stated he will veto any repeal of the Covid emergency powers.

In addition to health emergencies and the Southern border wall, other powers available to the president include the ability to control airports, industrial facilities, and any device capable of emitting electromagnetic radiation, i.e., our communications system. The authority most used is the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (“IEEPA”). It authorizes the president to invoke emergency powers relating to U.S. national security, foreign policy, or the economy, including financial and commercial transactions. Sanctions can be imposed on individuals as well as countries, including the freezing of bank accounts and the seizure of assets. While there is a requirement that the threat is related to an activity in whole or part outside of the U.S., it is easy for a president to assert a foreign connection merely by accusation. The IEEPA has been invoked 55 times.

Literally, Congress, through the enactment of the National Emergencies Act, gives presidents the ability to convert our Republic into an authoritarian state. Unless Congress limits the use of such powers to foreign situations, it is only a matter of time until these emergency powers are invoked to create an authoritarian state.

The post Emergency Laws Can Convert a Republic into an Authoritarian State appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Last December, Karyn Lewis and Megan Kuhfeld, two researchers at NWEA, a research organization, reported that student achievement at the start of the current school year was lower than for a typical year. There was a 3–7 percentage point decline in reading and a 9–11 percentage point decline in mathematics. That same month, education researchers Dan Goldhaber of the University of Washington, Thomas J. Kane of Harvard, and Andrew McEachin of NWEA plugged the Lewis/Kuhfeld data into a model to estimate how much those declines in learning would cause their lifetime income to decline. Their answer: $43,800. This number was broadly consistent with a separate study by McKinsey & Company that found an average lifetime earnings loss of between $49,000–$61,000 per student. Aggregated across all US K-12 students, these studies show more than $2 trillion in lost lifetime earnings for our youngest generation.

A recent report released by the World Bank paints a more dire picture. In that report, it estimates that the school closures could cause a loss of between 0.3 and 1.1 years of schooling, adjusted for quality. In its most pessimistic scenario, the World Bank estimates that worldwide cumulative losses could total between $16 and $20 trillion in present value terms.

A National Bureau of Economic Research study released in November 2021 analyzed recent test score data across 12 states in comparison to previous years and found passing rates declined by 14.2 percentage points on average in mathematics and 6.3 percentage points in English Language Arts. The authors found that much of the decline was due to the closing down of schools.

Historical evidence suggests that these learning losses are likely to be permanent. A 2019 article published in the Journal of Labor Economics analyzed the effect of teacher strikes in Argentina on students’ long-term outcomes in that country. The authors found that experiencing the average number of days of strikes during primary school reduced labor earnings of males and females by 3.2 percent and 1.9 percent, respectively.

In another study, researchers from the IZA Institute of Labor Economics analyzed long-term outcomes from one of the most extreme examples of learning disruptions – war. In that study, the authors compared Austrians and Germans who were 10 years old during World War II with their counterparts in neutral countries such as Switzerland and Sweden. The authors found that earning losses persisted into the 1980s. They estimated the earning losses to be about 0.8 percent of GDP.

Once these earning losses take hold, they lead to lower life expectancies. This connection was highlighted most prominently in a paper published in the Journal of the American Medical Association that analyzed data on school shutdowns early in the pandemic. The authors found that missed instruction in the United States could be associated with an estimated 13.8 million years of life lost.

What makes these outcomes even more tragic is that they were experienced by children who, as was known early on, never had a significant risk of dying from COVID-19. As of the first week of March 2022, out of the nearly 950,000 Covid-19 deaths, only 865 were children under the age of 18. That amounts to about 433 children annually. This is comparable to a bad flu season in the US. For example, the CDC estimates that the actual number of flu deaths for children in the 2017-18 flu season was about 600.

Moreover, the school closings and lockdowns have led to a noticeable loss in children’s mental health. This was apparent early in the pandemic. In a CDC report released in November 2020, researchers reported that the proportion of mental health-related visits from April to October 2020 for children aged 5-11 and 12-17 years had increased by approximately 24 percent and 31 percent, respectively in comparison to 2019 data. In a follow-up CDC report, researchers found that emergency department visits due to suspected suicide attempts were 51 percent higher among girls aged 12-17 years during early 2021 in comparison to the same period in 2019; among boys aged 12-17 years, suspected suicide attempt emergency department visits increased 4 percent.

In 2021, FAIR Health released a report that analyzed data from over 32 billion private health care claim records tracking data from 2019 and 2020. Claims for intentional self-harm as a percentage of all medical claims in the 13-18 age group were 90.7 percent higher early in the pandemic in 2020 than in the same time period in 2019. Furthermore, the authors noted, claims for generalized anxiety disorder increased by 93.6 percent over that same time.

Not much can be done about this now, other than to end the remaining restrictions on children. But there is a lesson for future pandemics: follow the science. If the data say that young people are at very low risk, then treat them as if they are at very low risk. Maybe we’re all in this together, as the propaganda goes, but we are not equally in this together. Treating children the way government officials did was morally wrong.

David R. Henderson

Ryan Sullivan

This article is republished with permission from the American Institute for Economic Research.

The post The Kids Aren’t Alright appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Anyone who claims that Ivermectin is simply horse dewormer or horse paste can take a hike into the ocean and their opinions can be discarded. Before it was called those things, it was called The Wonder Drug From Japan. Satoshi Ōmura and William Campbell were awarded a Nobel Prize in 2015 for their discoveries in the development of the drug, discovered in the 1970s. It was found to be beneficial to humans in 1988 for treating Onchocerciasis, but has since been used for humans to treat Strongyloidiasis, Ascariasis, cutaneous larva migrans, filariases, Gnathostomiasis and Trichuriasis, as well as for oral treatment of ectoparasitic infections, such as Pediculosis (lice infestation) and scabies (mite infestation).

Per the research paper housed on NCBI.NLM.NIH.GOV, 

“Today, ivermectin is being increasingly used worldwide to combat other diseases in humans, such as c (which infects some 35 million each year), scabies (which causes 300 million cases annually), Pediculosis, Gnathostomiasis and Myiasis—and new and promising properties and uses for ivermectin and other avermectin derivatives are continuing to be found.58) These include activity against another neglected tropical disease, Leishmaniasis.59,60) Of perhaps even greater significance is the evidence that the use of ivermectin has both direct and indirect beneficial impact on improving community health.”

But horse paste.

Kitasato University in Japan, where Ivermectin was first developed, has been conducting a clinical trial of Ivermectin to treat symptoms of COVID. 

Japan is a country that has seen far lower COVID rates, along with South Korea. As the New York Times reported in December this year, COVID very specifically targets fat cells, so perhaps Japan’s 3% obesity rate has been a significant factor.

The study consists of 240 participants, half who will receive Ivermectin and half who will receive a placebo. The study actually began in September of 2020, with data collection taking place in October of 2021. It is now in Phase 2 of the study phase, with an estimated study completion date of May of 2022. 

Participants must be aged 20 or older, weigh at least 40kg, have been diagnosed with COVID-19, and may be male or female. 

The brief summary reads: “investigating the negative rate of SARS-CoV-2 PCR by a randomized controlled trial. Subjects are assigned to two groups, the placebo group, and the ivermectin group. The target number of each treatment arm is 120, a total of 240 cases. A single oral administration of 200 ㎍/kg of ivermectin or an ivermectin-free placebo will be administered on an empty stomach. Time to negativization of SARS-CoV-2 PCR as the primary endpoint with additional efficacy and safety of the process will be investigated.”

The study is being conducted by Kunihiro Yamaoka, Professor and Chairman of the Department of Rheumatology and Infectious Diseases.

While Ivermectin is a relatively recent hot topic in America, this has apparently been on Japan’s radar for quite a bit longer.

The post Japan Studying Ivermectin As COVID Treatment appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

The tweet read: “Natural immunity >> vaccine immunity

So why force or coerce those with natural immunity from prior infection into taking the vaccine?”

Twitter labeled the tweet as misleading. Twitter disabled the ability to favorite or comment on the tweet, leaving Retweeting or Quote Tweeting as the only option.

According to Twitter, they’ve purposefully limited the ways in which people can interact with the tweet in order to diminish its reach.

However, prior to Thomas Massie authoring this Tweet, Bloomberg released a Tweet effectively making the same statement, based on a study.

The only difference between the Tweet from Thomas Massie and Bloomberg, is that Massie asked the logical follow up question. 

If a prior COVID infection provides better resistance against Coronavirus than vaccines do, then what incentive does a previously infected person have to get vaccinated?

The answer to that question is that there is clearly no benefit.  There is no scientific benefit, nor is there a moral argument to be had. This demographic of previously infected is also a threat to the idea of vaccine passports, if people who clearly do not need a vaccine opt not to do it, which is their right.

Yet Twitter, being the arbiters of whatever truth to whatever narrative they fancy, has censored an actual sitting Congressman who posted absolutely nothing misleading. His post was forthright and truthful, and the question he posed was logical.

The post Twitter Censors Rep Thomas Massie Over (Not) Misleading Tweet appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

A regular, low-information individual who relies on information being digested for them might look at Fauci, The CDC, The WHO, The Mainstream Media and Big Tech being on the same page, and conclude (or concluded for them) that a legitimate consensus exists and accept it. What they don’t consider is that this was a coordinated, lockstep propaganda arm aimed at protecting China and attacking President Trump.

Many gave credence to the idea that COVID came from a bat at a wet market which didn’t sell bats, let alone the horseshoe bat which COVID originated from that wasn’t native within hundreds of miles of Wuhan in order to make bat soup (a meme). Meanwhile, the Wuhan lab, which studied coronaviruses and gain of function, had documented safety and containment measure violations. Yet, the idea it could have escaped from the lab was deemed a fringe, right-wing conspiracy theory.

We reported when Japan’s Vice Prime Minister Tarō Asō labeled the WHO as the CHO (China Health Organization), when it appeared The WHO’s clear goal was to save face for China rather than investigate the pandemic. The WHO ignored Taiwan who handled the pandemic well from the beginning, in order to not offend China by giving Taiwan legitimacy.

We reported when Facebook’s “fact checkers” were connected to the Wuhan Lab and provided mere anecdotes for the basis of fact checking.

From our piece Facebook Fact Checkers Connected To Wuhan Lab:

“The claim that the Wuhan Lab had no biosecurity failures was written by the Wuhan Lab connected Danielle E. Anderson. In her reviewer response, she states:

‘I have worked in this exact laboratory at various times for the past two years,’ she said. ‘I can personally attest to the strict control and containment measures implemented while working there. The staff at WIV are incredibly competent, hardworking, and are excellent scientists with superb track records.’”

Yet, such an anecdote was in direct contrast with a Washington Post piece from 2018, which published cables detailing poor security and containment protocol, and raised concern for the potential of a new SARS outbreak. 

From the Washington Post article:

“What the U.S. officials learned during their visits concerned them so much that they dispatched two diplomatic cables categorized as Sensitive But Unclassified back to Washington. The cables warned about safety and management weaknesses at the WIV lab and proposed more attention and help. The first cable, which I obtained, also warns that the lab’s work on bat coronaviruses and their potential human transmission represented a risk of a new SARS-like pandemic.”

Once this outbreak did occur, the Washington Post abandoned this earlier reporting entirely, to focus on placing blame on the Trump Administration.

Now, the Washington Post is being forced to confront what has always been inescapably true; that a leak from the Wuhan Lab is the most likely source of COVID-19. And yet, their motives in obfuscating that reality all this time remain transparent, front and center, even in their new reporting: They wanted Trump to be wrong.

In the new piece from the Washington Post:

“The laboratory leak theory also deserves more careful scrutiny. This is not to stigmatize Asians or to bash China, nor to embrace the Trump administration’s use of the laboratory leak theory to divert attention from its failures. The reason to investigate is the persistence of unanswered questions about research being carried out at the Wuhan institute under Shi Zhengli to modify viral genomes to give them new properties, such as the ability to infect a new host species or transmit from one host to another more easily.”

The Washington Post now acts as if they’ve always entertained this idea, which has remained in place through a process of elimination. This is the same Washington Post that wrote hit pieces on Senator Tom Cotton for even suggesting it.

The Washington Post last year:

“Now, we don’t have evidence that this disease originated there, but because of China’s duplicity and dishonesty from the beginning, we need to at least ask the question to see what the evidence says,” Cotton said. “And China right now is not giving any evidence on that question at all.”

In response to Cotton’s remarks, as well as in previous interviews with The Washington Post, numerous experts dismissed the possibility the coronavirus may be man-made.”

The Washington Post purposefully conflated the idea of a leak from the Wuhan Lab with the idea of a virus being “man made” in order to dismiss it, when Cotton’s comments implied nothing of the sort.

However, now it is becoming mainstream knowledge that the Wuhan Lab engaged in Gain of Function research, a process of altering viruses to study how they may mutate and spread in the future.

The Libertarian Republic previously reported on Job Listings at the Wuhan Lab specifically for studying Gain of Function, which were posted prior to the outbreak.

Last week, Fauci also changed his tune, stating that he was not convinced that the COVID-19 virus was naturally occurring.

From The New York Post:

‘“No actually. I am not convinced about that. I think we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we continue to find out to the best of our ability what happened,’ Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergies and Infectious Diseases, said, according to Fox News.

‘Certainly, the people who investigated it say it likely was the emergence from an animal reservoir that then infected individuals, but it could have been something else, and we need to find that out. So, you know, that’s the reason why I said I’m perfectly in favor of any investigation that looks into the origin of the virus,’ he added.”

However, this is in direct contrast to comments he made last year regarding the Wuhan Lab Theory when it was raised by President Trump.

From CNN:

“If you look at the evolution of the virus in bats and what’s out there now, [the scientific evidence] is very, very strongly leaning toward this could not have been artificially or deliberately manipulated … Everything about the stepwise evolution over time strongly indicates that [this virus] evolved in nature and then jumped species.”

At the time, he sounded rather convinced—enough so that CNN called it a takedown of President Trump.

It’s important to note that there hasn’t been any new evidence or information in the timeline between Fauci’s opposing takes on the Wuhan Lab. The only thing that has changed, is the presidential administration.

All of these forces worked in unison to protect China and attack Trump. It was never about the truth until it finally cost them no political capital to acknowledge it, and there was no more political capital to be made by denying it.

The post Wuhan Lab Theory Gains Traction, Drags MSM Kicking And Screaming appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Australian Journalist Georgina Smyth, reporting for CBC News Vancouver in Canada tweeted an ill-received video where she staked out churches, filming worshippers entering.

After capturing people on video committing the crime of attending a church service, Smyth weirdly stated that “unfortunately, both religious leaders were unwilling to speak with her on camera.

Check out some of the reply Tweets below:

The post Journo Gets The Twitter Ratio After Snitching On Churches appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

Jake Dima on October 15, 2020

A New Jersey mayor hurled expletives at President Donald Trump’s supporters and said those who voted for Trump seek to “enact the Christian version of Sharia Law” in a private Facebook post that became public earlier in the week.

The New Jersey Republican Party shared the text of the now-deleted post by Flemington Mayor Betsy Driver in the organization’s webpage.

“This is day one of the new SCOTUS term – the religious zealots want to enact the Christian version of Sharia law,” Driver reportedly wrote. “If you voted for the orange monster with COVID, go fuck yourself. If you plan on voting for him again, unfriend me and go fuck yourself again.”

The state GOP also called for an apology from Driver.

“President Trump earned nearly 43% of the vote amongst Mayor Driver’s constituents,” NJGOP Chairman Steinhardt wrote. “I think we all know she will never step down, but is it too much to ask for her to apologize? Her comments are bigoted and hateful and quite frankly the silence on the left speaks to the character of party leaders like Tom Malinowski and Phil Murphy who lack the courage to stand up to people in their own party.”

The Flemington mayor’s post came up in discussion during a Tuesday city council meeting, and Council Vice President Kim Tilly called for the local government body to censure Driver, New Jersey 101.5 reported.

“It’s time the council take action to hopefully prevent Mayor Driver from bringing the wrong kind of attention to an already struggling borough. I am requesting the council censure Mayor Driver,” Tilly said, according to the local outlet.

A local resident asked the Fleming mayor if she was planning to resign during the Tuesday meeting.

“I am not,” Driver responded to the constituent, according to New Jersey 101.5. She also added that voters have the choice to “not vote for me next time I’m up for election. That is your recourse.”

Driver said the New Jersey GOP unfairly cropped her Facebook post, and Republicans in the area are “triggered and clutching their peals” in a statement released to Tap into Flemington/Raritan, a local outlet.

“That they are that triggered and clutching their pearls over my being upset and angry at the threats to my LGBTQ family by a Supreme Court enabled by their support of a president who is hate-filled and unhinged every day is sad,” Driver wrote.

“It reflects their privilege that refuses to acknowledge America’s diversity and their own intolerance of anyone who disagrees with them,” the mayor continued.

The post ‘Go F*ck Yourself’: New Jersey Mayor Says Trump Supporters Want To Enact ‘Christian Version Of Sharia Law’ appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I appreciate the pressure public officials are under during this crisis. However, I fear we are moving too far in the direction of central planning to carry out containment and mitigation, which could result in more people losing their lives during and after the pandemic passes.

To understand why, it’s instructive to lay out several scenarios in which government efforts could backfire.

Supply chain issues

The economy’s supply chain is so complex, it is impossible for government to accurately determine how a shutdown will affect the fight against the virus. To sketch out one possibility, imagine government shutting down a business that disrupts the manufacturing of N-95 masks. I can’t provide particulars as to how this might occur, but that’s my point. The economy’s interconnectedness is far beyond our comprehension, we can’t anticipate the infinite combination of problems that could lead to a shortage of life-saving resources.

Deaths of despair

Putting people out work has its own costs. Many debating when to return to “normal” are painting this as issue of economic growth or earning more money vs. saving lives. That’s the wrong framework. What we should be debating is whether rebooting the economy, with the proper safety precautions, will save more lives than a blanket shutdown.

For instance, it’s generally acknowledged that suicides rise during periods of economic turmoil, and though suicides likely wouldn’t rise higher than deaths caused by failing to adequately address the pandemic, this is a problem we all need to be mindful of as long as the shutdown lasts. Whether they own up to it or not, officials are making tradeoffs—with life and death implications—in keeping parts of the economy closed.

Government efforts to encourage social distancing may also have unintended consequences. Distancing efforts can easily turn into social isolation, causing negative effects on people dealing with mental health challenges, and those who need in-person interactions to keep them healthy.

Again, it’s difficult to determine the effect social isolation and anxiety-inducing information surrounding the virus will have on the tens of millions of Americans with mental health challenges, but it’s reasonable to assume such isolation is not a viable long-term strategy.

Interactional risks

With the closure of some of society’s most important institutions (schools, universities, businesses, etc.), people are now living together for longer periods of time. This has its own risks. First, more interactions among family members increases the risks of domestic violence, as it gives abusers more opportunities to inflict violence on vulnerable family members.

Another possible problem is that shutdown orders may have sent infected people back home to elderly or immunocompromised family members. New York’s Governor, Andrew Cuomo, admitted as much during a press conference about the state’s response to the coronavirus. In shutting down universities, officials could have sent home its students not knowing they were unintentionally spreading the virus to other parts of the country.

Government’s damaging policy response

This may seem abstract, but another important consideration is how the government’s response will affect economic freedom over the long haul. Unfortunately, with the $2.3 trillion boondoogle Congress recently passed, we are not off to a good start. This historic (and bad) new law is unlikely to be the last intervention into the marketplace. Depending on how things play out, we could see larger relief or stimulus packages—and Federal Reserve interventions—that make the policy responses to the 2008 recession look reasonable.

The result may be a permanent ratcheting up of government power which  will reduce economic freedom, leading to more human suffering and even premature death. If this sounds like an exaggeration, look at the evidence on economic freedom’s impact on life expectancy. People in freer countries live longer. Plus, wealth equips countries to more effectively fight future pandemics, saving more lives in the process.

At this moment, we are operating on very little information about coronavirus, but if the governing class is serious about maximizing the number of lives saved, it needs to take into account the many unintended consequences of quarantines and shutdowns—and provide Americans with a path to restarting life.

How the Coronavirus Will Permanently Change Government

Coronavirus Relief Bill: Pelosi’s Identity Politics Pork Barrel

The post The Unintended Consequences of the Coronavirus Response appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.

I honestly can’t think of anything more dangerous during a pandemic, aside from purposeful contamination. That’s right. This is only one notch higher than licking grocery store items while claiming to have the virus. That’s where the Liberals and the media are. Barely above licking things.

So where did this all start?

President Trump, during a press conference, touted the medication Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) as potentially being effective against COVID-19. 

While this has seen anecdotal success, according to Dr. Fauci, there have not been any completed trials or studies to conclude this. New York is currently undergoing such a study with Hydroxychloroquine.

Hydroxychloroquine (Plaquenil) has been traditionally used to treat inflammations, lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, and has proven effective with past SARS viruses.

Now, let’s preface this with the fact that President Trump is not a physician nor a medical professional, and should not be proclaiming any drugs for COVID-19 that have not been properly studied and tested for that condition, despite seemingly anecdotal success.

Meanwhile, there seems to be optimism in the medical community that it will prove to be effective. Dr. Kyle Varner of Washington State wrote:

“There is widespread self-prescribing of plaquenil among doctors, such that various states are trying to ban the practice.
They say there is no evidence that it is effective, and it is taking vital supplies away from patients with RA and Lupus.
They are correct–the evidence for hydroxychloroquine is weak, because we are just beginning to study it.
But, what are the odds that it works?
I love to look at markets to trying [sic] and deduce people’s opinions from their behavior.
Plenty of people are trash talking Plaquenil right now.  But thousands of doctors are prescribing it for themselves and their families.
That’s a whole lot of people rushing to put their money, their health and their medical licenses (they can be disciplined for this in many states) on the line in a bet that Plaquenil works.
If there were a betting market on Plaquenil’s efficacy, what do you think the odds would be?  The people who are most informed are buying it in such quantities that it is threatening supply.  That’s a vote of confidence from people with skin in the game and suggests a high probability of upcoming study results being positive.”

Despite the growing interest and optimism surrounding the drug, all it took was for someone to swallow a fish tank cleaning solution with a similar name (and poisonous additives) to start a misinformation campaign that Hydroxychloroquine (properly dosed medication) and Chloroquine Phosphate (fish tank cleaner) were the exact same thing.

People like me simply read about that and voted for the Darwin Awards. The Liberal Media on the other hand, with their trove of Liberal minions, set out to convince America that Trump recommended a drug that killed killed somebody.

They’ve been purposefully equating a well established and effective medication with fish tank cleaner in an effort to own Trump.

They are actively equating a fish tank cleaning solution that specifically states on the label Not For Human Consumption as being the same thing as a routine medication for Lupus and Rheumatoid Arthritis as well as respiratory infections.

Yes, they are trying to terrify people of a drug that improves the quality of life of people who have certain conditions, because Orange Man Bad. 

And if the drug does prove to be effective in the New York clinical trials, as has been speculated within the medical community, then people will be terrified of taking a drug that could save their lives. 

All because Liberals wanted to stick it to Trump; in a grand moment of dangerous and intellectual dishonesty.

The post The Media (And Liberals) Are Lying About a Potential Coranavirus Treatment appeared first on The Libertarian Republic.