Trump's Retweet of Video Puts American Lives In Danger

Donald Trump retweeted a video from Brietbart the other day. The video showed Stella Immanuel (and several other dubious people in doctor coats) claiming that masks are not necessary because hydoxychloroquine, with zinc and Zithromax, are a cure for COVID-19. I'm sure Trump retweeted that video because it says what he wants to believe. The problem is the video (and the claims in it) are NOT true. And the video, and Trump's retweet of it, did nothing but give false hope to those who still believe him -- and could very likely put their lives in danger!

Politifact investigated the claims, and found them to be FALSE. Here is what they had to say:

Millions of people, including the president of the United States, have seen or shared a video in which a doctor falsely claims there is a cure for the coronavirus, and it’s a medley starring hydroxychloroquine.

The video shows several doctors in white coats giving a press conference outside the Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. It persists on social media despite bans from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, and it was published by Breitbart, a conservative news site. 

The July 27 event was organized by Tea Party Patriots, a conservative group backed by Republican donors, and attended by U.S. Rep. Ralph Norman, R-S.C.

In the video, members of a new group called America’s Frontline Doctors touch on several unproven conspiracy theories about the coronavirus pandemic. One of the most inaccurate claims comes from Dr. Stella Immanuel, a Houston-based primary care physician and minister with a track record of making bizarre medical claims, such as believing in alien DNA.

"This virus has a cure. It is called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax," Immanuel said. "I know you people want to talk about a mask. Hello? You don’t need a mask. There is a cure."

As of July 27, nearly 150,000 Americans had died because of the coronavirus. Could those deaths have been prevented by a drug that’s used to treat lupus and arthritis?

No. Immanuel’s statement is wrong on several points.

‘This virus has a cure’

There is no known cure for COVID-19. 

According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, there is no specific antiviral treatment for the virus. Supportive care, such as rest, fluids and fever relievers, can assuage symptoms.

"There is currently no licensed medication to cure COVID-19," according to the World Health Organization.

The cure is ‘hydroxychloroquine, zinc and Zithromax’

In spite of Immanuel’s anecdotal evidence, hydroxychloroquine alone or in combination with other drugs is not a proven treatment (or cure) for COVID-19. 

The Food and Drug Administration has not approved hydroxychloroquine for the prevention or treatment of COVID-19. In mid-June, the FDA revoked its emergency authorization for the use of hydroxychloroquine and the related drug chloroquine in treating hospitalized COVID-19 patients.

"It is no longer reasonable to believe that oral formulations of HCQ and CQ may be effective in treating COVID-19, nor is it reasonable to believe that the known and potential benefits of these products outweigh their known and potential risks," FDA Chief Scientist Denise M. Hinton wrote.

The WHO and the National Institutes of Health have also stopped their hydroxychloroquine studies. Among the safety issues associated with treating COVID-19 patients with hydroxychloroquine include heart rhythm problems, kidney injuries, and liver problems. 

While some studies have found that the drug could help alleviate symptoms associated with COVID-19, the research is not conclusive. Few studies have been accepted into peer-reviewed journals. And large, randomized trials — the gold standard for clinical trials — are still needed to confirm the findings of studies conducted since the pandemic began.

In the video, Immanuel cited a 2005 study that found chloroquine — not hydroxychloroquine — was "effective in inhibiting the infection and spread of SARS CoV," the official name for Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome. But the drug was not tested on humans, the authors wrote that more research was needed to make any conclusions, and SARS is different from COVID-19.

‘You don’t need a mask’

Health officials advise everyone to wear masks in public.

The reason why has to do with how the coronavirus spreads. When an infected person coughs or sneezes, they expel respiratory droplets containing the virus. Those droplets can then land in the mouths or noses of people nearby.

Since some people infected with the coronavirus may exhibit no symptoms, public health officials say everyone should cover their faces in public — even if they feel well.

"The spread of COVID-19 can be reduced when cloth face coverings are used along with other preventive measures, including social distancing, frequent handwashing, and cleaning and disinfecting frequently touched surfaces," according to the CDC.

Our ruling

In a viral video, Immanuel said there is a cure for COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine can treat it and people don’t need to wear masks to prevent the spread of the virus.

All of those claims are inaccurate. There is no known cure for COVID-19, hydroxychloroquine is not a proven treatment, and public health officials advise everyone to wear face masks in public.

Immanuel’s statement is False.

New Cancer Breakthrough Stops Growth Of Cancer Cells

(This image of differing types of cancer cells is from MedicineNet.com.)

Researchers at Florida's Mayo Clinic has made an astounding discovery. They have discovered a way to stop the growth of cancer cells and turn them into harmless benign cells. Here is how Sarah Knapton, science editor of The Telegraph, describes the new discovery:

Cancer cells have been programmed back to normal by scientists in a breakthrough which could lead to new treatments and even reverse tumour growth. 

For the first time aggressive breast, lung and bladder cancer cells have been turned back into harmless benign cells by restoring the function which prevents them from multiplying excessively and forming dangerous growths. 

Scientists at the Mayo Clinic in Florida, US, said it was like applying the brakes to a speeding car. 

So far it has only been tested on human cells in the lab, but the researchers are hopeful that the technique could one day be used to target tumours so that cancer could be ‘switched off’ without the need for harsh chemotherapy or surgery. 

"We should be able to re-establish the brakes and restore normal cell function,” said Profesor Panos Anastasiadis, of the Department for Cancer Biology. 

“Initial experiments in some aggressive types of cancer are indeed very promising. 

“It represents an unexpected new biology that provides the code, the software for turning off cancer." 

Cells need to divide constantly to replace themselves. But in cancer the cells do not stop dividing leading to huge cell reproduction and tumour growth. 

The scientists discovered that the glue which holds cells together is regulated by biological microprocessors called microRNAs. When everything is working normally the microRNAs instruct the cells to stop dividing when they have replicated sufficiently. They do this by triggering production of a protein called PLEKHA7 which breaks the cell bonds. But in cancer that process does not work. 

Scientists discovered they could switch on cancer in cells by removing the microRNAs from cells and preventing them from producing the protein. 

And, crucially they found that they could reverse the process switching the brakes back on and stopping cancer. MicroRNAs are small molecules which can be delivered directly to cells or tumours so an injection to increase levels could switch off disease.

“We have now done this in very aggressive human cell lines from breast and bladder cancer,” added Dr Anastasiadis. 

“These cells are already missing PLEKHA7. Restoring either PLEKHA7 levels, or the levels of microRNAs in these cells turns them back to a benign state. We are now working on better delivery options.” 

Cancer experts in Britain said the research solved a riddle that biologists had puzzled over for decades, why cells did not naturally prevent the proliferation of cancer. 

“This is an unexpected finding,” said Dr Chris Bakal, a specialist in how cells change shape to become cancerous, at the Institute for Cancer Research in London. 

“We have been trying to work out how normal cells might be suppressing cancer, and stopping dividing when they form contacts with each other, which has been a big mystery. 

“Normal cells touch each other and form junctions then they shut down proliferation. If there is a way to turn that back on then that would be a way to stop tumours from growing. 

“I think in reality it is unlikely that you could reverse tumours by reversing just one mechanism, but it’s a very interesting finding.” 

Henry Scowcroft, Cancer Research UK’s senior science information manager, said: “This important study solves a long-standing biological mystery, but we mustn’t get ahead of ourselves. 

“There’s a long way to go before we know whether these findings, in cells grown in a laboratory, will help treat people with cancer. But it’s a significant step forward in understanding how certain cells in our body know when to grow, and when to stop. Understanding these key concepts is crucial to help continue the encouraging progress against cancer we’ve seen in recent years.” 

The research was published in the journal Nature Cell Biology.

Fixing Education In The United States

The above chart is from a new survey done by the YouGov Poll (done on December 3rd and 4th of a nationwide sample of 1,000 adults). It seems that around half of the American public understands that the United States is starting to fall behind many other rich countries in education. Only 10% of the public believes the American education system is the best in the world.

This is unfortunate, because a few decades ago there was little doubt that this country outshines nearly everyone in educating its youth. But now, while some schools still offer an excellent education (those located in rich school districts), many others simply don't make the grade -- and the dropout rate is far too high in many states (like Texas, where more than one out of four students don't finish high school).

What can be done about this? The right-wing wants to blame teachers. They would base teacher pay on test scores, close schools that test poorly on standardized tests, cut funding for schools (thus increasing class sizes), and issue vouchers to drive students into private schools. Personally, I think these things are exactly the wrong things to do. They will just destroy our system of public education and penalize good teachers doing their best under bad conditions.

So, what can be done? The best answer I have seen comes from education historian Diane Ravitch at New York University. She has written a book on the subject called Reign of Error: The Hoax of the Privatization Movement and the Dangers to America's Public Schools, and she has condensed some of her arguments into an article at Talking Points Memo. The whole article is well worth reading, but I give you just a taste of what Ms. Ravitch has to say below:

Public education is not broken. It is not failing or declining. The diagnosis is wrong, and the solutions of the corporate reformers are wrong. Our urban schools are in trouble because of concentrated poverty and racial segregation. But public education as such is not “broken.”

I have no silver bullets—because none exist—but I have proposals based on evidence and experience.

We know what works. What works are the very opportunities that advantaged families provide for their children. In homes with adequate resources, children get advantages that enable them to arrive in school healthy and ready to learn.

Pregnant women should see a doctor early in their pregnancies and have regular care and good nutrition. Poor women who do not receive early and regular medical care are likely to have babies with developmental and cognitive problems.

Children need prekindergarten classes that teach them how to socialize with others, how to listen and learn, how to communicate well, and how to care for themselves, while engaging in the joyful pursuit of play and learning that is appropriate to their age and development and that builds their background knowledge and vocabulary.

Children in the early elementary grades need teachers who set age-appropriate goals. They should learn to read, write, calculate, and explore nature, and they should have plenty of time to sing and dance and draw and play and giggle. Classes in these grades should be small enough—ideally fewer than twenty—so that students get the individual attention they need. Testing in the early grades should be used sparingly, not to rank students, but diagnostically, to help determine what they know and what they still need to learn. Test scores should remain a private matter between parents and teachers, not shared with the district or the state for any individual student. The district or state may aggregate scores for entire schools but should not judge teachers or schools on the basis of these scores.

As students enter the upper elementary grades and middle school and high school, they should have a balanced curriculum that includes not only reading, writing, and mathematics but the sciences, literature, history, geography, civics, and foreign languages. Their school should have a rich arts program, where students learn to sing, dance, play an instrument, join an orchestra or a band, perform in a play, sculpt, or use technology to design structures, conduct research, or create artworks. Every student should have time for physical education every day. Every school should have a library with librarians and media specialists. Every school should have a nurse, a psychologist, a guidance counselor, and a social worker. And every school should have after-school programs where students may explore their interests, whether in athletics, chess, robotics, history club, dramatics, science club, nature study, Scouting, or other activities. Teachers should write their own tests and use standardized tests only for diagnostic purposes. Classes should be small enough to ensure that every teacher knows his or her students and can provide the sort of feedback to strengthen their ability to write, their noncognitive skills, their critical thinking, and their mathematical and scientific acumen.

Our society should commit to building a strong education profession. Public policy should aim to raise the standards for entry into teaching. Teachers should be well-educated and well-prepared for their profession. Principals and superintendents should be experienced educators.

Schools should have the resources they need for the students they enroll.

As a society, we must establish goals, strategies, and programs to reduce poverty and racial segregation. Only by eliminating opportunity gaps can we eliminate achievement gaps. Poor and immigrant children need the same sorts of schools that wealthy children have, only more so. Those who start life with the fewest advantages need even smaller classes, even more art, science, and music to engage them, to spark their creativity, and to fulfill their potential.

There is a solid research base for my recommendations. If you want a society organized to promote the survival of the fittest and the triumph of the most advantaged, then you will prefer the current course of action, where children and teachers and schools are “racing to the top.” But if you believe the goal of our society should be equality of opportunity for all children and that we should seek to reduce the alarming inequalities children now experience, then my program should win your support.

My premise is straightforward: you can’t do the right things until you stop doing the wrong things. If you insist on driving that train right over the cliff, you will never reach your hoped-for destination of excellence for all. Instead, you will inflict harm on millions of children and reduce the quality of their educations. You will squander billions of dollars on failed schemes that should have been spent on realistic, evidence-based ways of improving our public schools, our society, and the lives of children.

Stop doing the wrong things.

Diabetes Reversed In Mice By Researchers

U.S. and Canadian researchers believe they have made a breakthrough in researching the cause and possible cure of diabetes. They have known for quite a while now that sufferers of diabetes have damaged nerve ends in the pancreas. It has been thought that the damage was the result of the diabetes, but these researchers think the damaged nerve ends may actually be the cause of the disease.

They believe the defective nerve endings may attract proteins from the body's immune system which attack the pancreas and destroy it's ability to produce insulin, thus causing diabetes.

The researchers have taken mice with type-1 diabetes [also known as juvenile diabetes], and injected a peptide into the defective nerve endings. According to Dr. Hans Michael Dosch of the University of Toronto, the mice were cured of their diabetes "overnight". He said, "It is very effective in reversing diabetes."

Dosch said the nerve endings in the diabetic mice were not secreting enough of the peptides to keep the insulin flowing. According to the researchers, injecting the peptides lowered the body's resistance to insulin, allowing it to carry glucose to the cells.

The next step is for researchers to study people whose family history shows them to be at high risk for type-1 diabetes. If they are found to have the defective nerve endings, then tests will be conducted on the at-risk group and on diabetics. The study and testing will take several years.

The procedure may also be of help to those with type-2 diabetes [also known as adult-onset diabetes], but the reaction in mice so far has not been as strong as with the type-1 diabetic mice.