Displaying posts published in

June 2020

Remdesivir Gets a Price Tag of $3,210 Despite Showing No Evidence of Decreasing COVID-19 Deaths By Stacey Lennox

https://pjmedia.com/columns/stacey-lennox/2020/06/29/remdesivir-gets-a-price-tag-of-3210-despite-showing-no-evidence-of-decreasing-covid-19-deaths-n586084

EXCERPT:

Hydroxychloroquine

Another drug that costs a fraction of what remdesivir does is hydroxychloroquine. It is used in combination with azithromycin and zinc. This drug was highly politicized early in the pandemic because the president expressed hope that it could be effective.

At that time, doctors in the United States who were using the drug combination were clear. It should be used early in the infection, especially in those in high-risk groups. However, the emergency use authorization given by the FDA provided the drug to individuals suffering from severe disease. As discussed above, many of these patients are suffering from a complex, multi-system illness that requires more than a drug combination that slows viral replication.

However, Yale researcher Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., has done a review of studies where the drug combination was used in an outpatient setting. Five studies, including two controlled clinical trials in process, convinced him to conclude in his abstract (emphasis mine):

Hydroxychloroquine+azithromycin has been used as standard-of-care in more than 300,000 older adults with multicomorbidities, with estimated proportion diagnosed with cardiac arrhythmias attributable to the medications 47/100,000 users, of which estimated mortality is <20%, 9/100,000 users, compared to the 10,000 Americans now dying each week. These medications need to be widely available and promoted immediately for physicians to prescribe.

Sidney Powell Drops a Bomb or Two on the Glaring Problems With the Flynn Case By Stacey Lennox

https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/stacey-lennox/2020/06/29/sidney-powell-drops-a-bomb-or-two-on-the-glaring-problems-with-the-flynn-case-n588095

Sidney Powell won a significant victory when her writ of mandamus was granted by the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals requiring Judge Sullivan to dismiss the case against General Michael Flynn. At this time, Judge Sullivan has not entered the dismissal. Powell sat down with Jan Jakielek for an extended interview about the case and dropped a few bombs in the process.

Powell began by saying it is extraordinary that Judge Sullivan has not complied with the order. In her experience, this would typically occur within 24-48 hours. The briefing and hearing schedule have both been canceled, but the case has not been formally dismissed. She added the full court could review the case, but in this circumstance, it would be unprecedented.

Her interest in the case was ongoing before she signed on the replace General Flynn’s prior defense team. Powell reports having ongoing concerns about the case, especially related to Andrew Weismann. Referring to him as the “lead villain” in her book “License to Lie,” she explained the prosecutor had a long history of making up crimes, hiding exculpatory evidence, and railroading people with the enormous power of the federal government.

Why no outrage? Atlanta shootings surge, but it’s not the cops by Bill Torpy

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/opinion-hello-outrage-atlanta-shootings-surge-but-not-the-cops/pUYKjFGY8LcxSVlrHZpb4H/

https://www.ajc.com/news/local/opinion-hello-outrage-atlanta-shootings-surge-but-not-the-cops/pUYKjFGY8LcxSVlrHZpb4H/

The exchange was surreal, a sign that the wheels may be falling off public safety in Atlanta.

Fittingly, it happened Monday during the City Council’s Public Safety Committee hearing as council members and interim Police Chief Rodney Bryant were grappling with the unrest plaguing the city.

Councilman Antonio Brown, who represents the district just west of downtown, was getting ready to speak in the virtual meeting when he told the chief: “I was just notified there was a young man who was just shot and killed at 377 Westchester Boulevard. Can you get a unit out there? He’s been on the ground and there’s no police who have come. He’s dead already, he’s on the ground and the residents have put a sheet over him and the police still haven’t arrived.”

It sounds like Afghanistan: Can you please come and pick up the body?

But there’s more.

On June 13, as angry protesters milled around the south Atlanta Wendy’s the day after Rayshard Brooks was shot in the parking lot by a cop — and hours before the restaurant was burned down — there was a wild shootout in the Edgewood neighborhood in east Atlanta. Five people were wounded and two were killed. Residents reported hearing perhaps 40 gunshots.

Police Investigating Protesters after Confrontation with Armed St. Louis Homeowners By Mairead McArdle

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/police-investigating-protesters-after-confrontation-with-armed-st-louis-homeowners/

A couple pointed guns at protesters who were on private property outside their home Sunday night, as the demonstrators marched past on their way to St. Louis mayor Lyda Krewson’s residence to demand her resignation. Police are now investigating the incident to determine whether the protesters committed trespassing and fourth-degree assault by intimidation.

Mark and Patricia McCloskey stood outside their home on Portland Place, a private street, as hundreds of protesters, some of them armed, marched by and chanted. The McCloskeys had been inside their home when they heard loud activity outside and saw “a large group of subjects forcefully break an iron gate marked with ‘No Trespassing’ and ‘Private Street’ signs,” St. Louis police said.

“The group began yelling obscenities and threats of harm to both victims,” the police said. “When the victims observed multiple subjects who were armed, they then armed themselves and contacted police.”

Law experts have noted that Missouri’s Castle Doctrine allows homeowners to use deadly force to defend their private property from intruders.

ROBERT’S MISRULES

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/supreme-court-abortion-decision-chief-justice-john-roberts-misrules/

“One can only speculate why Chief Justice Roberts has engaged in his contortions. Perhaps he believes that this decision will somehow strengthen the legitimacy of the Supreme Court as an institution above political strife. Instead, he has reinforced the impression, on all sides of our national debates, that he is the most politically calculating of the justices. He has diminished the belief in the impartiality of judges among those Americans who have been most reluctant to give it up. What he has accomplished for his institution is further disgrace.”

The Constitution does not prohibit Louisiana from requiring abortionists to have admitting privileges in hospitals near where they operate. We know this fact from reading it; from the debates over the ratification of its provisions, none of which suggest that anyone believed that it could be used in such a fashion; and from the fact that for many decades states prohibited abortion altogether without anyone’s even alleging that they were violating the Constitution. Now five justices of the Supreme Court have conceded this obvious point.

The Court will not allow Louisiana this regulation anyway. Chief Justice John Roberts is one of the five justices who do not believe the law conflicts with the Constitution, rightly interpreted. He voted in 2016 that an identical Texas law should be upheld, and his opinion in the Louisiana case says that he still agrees with his reasoning then. Nevertheless, he claims to believe that the Louisiana law is too similar to the law that his colleagues in 2016 struck down over his dissent. The force of precedent, he maintains, requires the law to be nullified. Otherwise, Americans would lack confidence in the rule of law. It is, on the other hand, wonderfully inspiring to that confidence for a justice to strike down a law that he concedes the state had the constitutional authority to enact.

One Man’s Supreme Court The Chief Justice relies on an abortion precedent he dissented from.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/one-mans-supreme-court-11593472794?mod=opinion_lead_pos1

So much for all those crocodile fears about the end of abortion rights. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Monday that a state can’t even require abortion providers to have admitting privileges at a hospital. And the logic of the concurring opinion from Chief Justice John Roberts, who provided the fifth vote, suggests not even de minimis regulation of abortion will survive his Court’s scrutiny.

A woman’s right to abortion wasn’t at issue in June Medical Services v. Russo. No woman seeking an abortion was a plaintiff. The case was brought by abortion providers, who claimed that Louisiana’s requirement that they have admitting privileges at a hospital would be an undue burden on the ability of women to obtain an abortion.

Here’s the stunner: Four years ago a different Court majority overturned a similar Texas statute, with then Justice Anthony Kennedy joining the four liberals. Chief Justice Roberts dissented in that case. Yet on Monday the Chief joined the liberals, citing his duty to follow precedent.

China Passes Hong Kong Security Law Aimed at Crushing Protests Beijing rejects criticism that the law will curb people’s freedoms in the financial hub

https://www.wsj.com/articles/china-passes-hong-kong-security-law-aimed-at-crushing-protests-11593488146?mod=hp_lead_pos1

HONG KONG—China’s legislature approved Tuesday a sweeping new law aimed at quashing threats to national security in Hong Kong, rejecting Western criticism that Beijing’s efforts will curb people’s freedoms in the protest-torn city.

The legislation was passed by senior Chinese lawmakers, according to Lau Siu-kai, a senior adviser to Beijing on Hong Kong policy. Drafted and approved in an unusually rapid and opaque process, the law has stirred fears across pro-democracy groups, businesses, schools and media over its potential impact.

The law is meant to prevent and punish subversive, secessionist and terrorist activities in the former British colony, as well as collusion with foreign forces. Its full text is expected to be released later Tuesday and the law may be put into effect in time for the 23rd anniversary of Hong Kong’s return to Chinese rule on Wednesday.

Since Beijing first announced plans for enacting national-security legislation for Hong Kong in late May, Chinese officials have repeatedly rebuffed criticism from opposition politicians and rights activists in the city, as well as the U.S. and other Western powers, who have decried the law as a tool for suppressing civil liberties in the Asian financial center and undercutting its promised autonomy from Beijing.

Tear it down? It’s all about tearing down freedom. Diane Bederman

https://dianebederman.com/tear-it-down-its-all-about-tearing-down-freedom/

Victor Davis Hanson wrote “Much of the country believes that America is racist, cruel, and incapable of self-correction of its so-called original sins — without a radical erasure of much of its past history, traditions, and customs.”

How sad it that?Americans are tearing down statues across the county.  Almost all of the statues refer to the Civil War and slavery. The Civil War is the most pivotal event in American history next to the Declaration of Independence. How does eradicating the monuments related to the Civil War, the removal of statues of Lincoln, who ended the war and abolished slavery, despite the resistance from the Democrats, help in understanding racism in America?

Or perhaps this is not the point of the “book burning.” Perhaps the point is to eradicate all of America’s history from the day Christopher Columbus arrived. Why else are they removing HIS statue? After all, how dare Europeans come to the New World? How dare anyone go to the moon and beyond?

So attack Betsy Ross, the woman who sewed the first American flag, a flag of freedom, a flag too many disrespect. How about the statue of Wisconsin’s Col. Hans Christian Heg, an anti-slavery activist who fought and died for the Union during the U.S. Civil War? His statue was decapitated and thrown into a Madison lake by protesters. The Theodore Roosevelt statue is to be removed from New York’s Museum of Natural History.

Why was the Clayton Jackson McGhie Memorial in Duluth, Minnesota, defaced? The monument consists of the statues of Elias Clayton, Elmer Jackson and Isaac McGhie, three black men lynched by an angry mob in 1920 and hanged from a lamppost after being accused falsely of raping a white woman. Why would anyone fighting against racism remove that statue that speaks to the attacks on black men for “consorting” with white women? Perhaps these anti-racists have never read or seen To Kill a Mockingbird. Has that been “burned”?

Systemic Racism Inherent in Democrats’ DNA By Joan Swirsky

https://canadafreepress.com/article/systemic-racism-inherent-in-democrats-dna

If the upcoming presidential election on November 3, 2020, were not so serious, it would be downright hilarious just watching the Democrats twist themselves into pretzels in their efforts to project onto President Trump their own lengthy and shameful record of racism.

As Bill Federer of AmericanMinute.com has exhaustively documented:

In 1857, the Supreme Court, with seven of the nine justices being Democrats, decided that Dred Scott, a black slave, was not a citizen, but property. 
After the Civil War, when Republicans enacted the 13th Amendment abolishing slavery in America, southern Democrats reacted by creating the vicious anti-black Jim Crow laws.
In 1866, Republican Rep. Thaddeus Stevens introduced legislation to give former slaves “40 acres and a mule,” but Democrats opposed it.

This lopsided picture continued unabated through the 19th century and into the 20th century. Only space limitations prevent me from providing a doctoral thesis worth of sordid documentation.

In 1953, Republican President Dwight D. Eisenhower (DDE) proposed “to use whatever authority exists in the office of the President to end segregation”…but Southern Democrat governors objected!
In 1964, Democrat senators held the longest filibuster in U.S. history––75 days––to try to prevent the Civil Rights Act from passing. Finally, Democrat President Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ) persuaded the leaders of his party to support a compromised bill, saying: “I’ll have those (N-words) -voting Democratic for the next 200 years.”