NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label maskholes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label maskholes. Show all posts

06 December 2021

Marcus Lamb died of covid-19 after his network discouraged vaccines. But some Christian leaders don’t want to talk about it. 3DEZ21

 


HOW very sad both for him, his family and the families of all those who died of Covid because they listened to his false information. At least Franklin Graham is doing the right thing and encouraging people to get vaccinated. From the Washington Post.....

Marcus Lamb died of covid-19 after his network discouraged vaccines. But some Christian leaders don’t want to talk about it.

December 3, 2021|Updated December 3, 2021 at 6:45 p.m. EST

When famed televangelist Marcus Lamb died this week at 64 after contracting covid-19, a who’s who of conservative Christian leaders sent out regrets. Evangelist Franklin Graham said Lamb is now “experiencing heaven.” National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference head Samuel Rodriguez called him a “faithful follower of Jesus ... with a heart for the lost and broken.”

Absent was a painful truth: Lamb had led his global Christian network, Daystar, for months in spreading inaccurate information about coronavirus vaccines and instead promoting treatments that are not proven remedies. The vaccines, a May segment on Daystar said, falsely, are “killing your immune system.”

But the silence and unanswered questions by some Christian leaders, as well as Lamb’s family and network, sit atop what some experts say is a deep base of politics, conspiratorial thinking and a skepticism of anything that appears secular.

And that makes frank discussion of Daystar’s activism against vaccines, even in the face of death, unlikely.

Robert Morris, the Dallas-area pastor whose Gateway Church will host Lamb’s funeral Monday, declined to comment on the topic. He “has not and will not engage in the medical debate or dialogue regarding vaccines,” Morris spokesman Lawrence Swicegood told The Washington Post in an email. “Those are personal choices, and one should consult medical advice from their doctor to make their own choice. As a church pastor his sermons at Gateway Church address spiritual issues and biblical content.”

Daystar for months has hosted conspiracy theorists pressing unproven treatments for the virus, including some who framed vaccines and mandates as ungodly and satanic. Lamb and others featured on Daystar described the virus, vaccines and vaccine mandates as evidence of the devil trying to attack followers of a true God.

“There’s no doubt in my mind that this is a spiritual attack from the enemy,” Lamb’s son, Jonathan, said on the network last month about his father’s covid-19 bout, Relevant magazine reported this week. “The enemy,” he said, is angered by the promotion of vaccine alternatives. “And he’s doing everything he can to take down my dad.”

Pollsters say the religious group most reluctant to get vaccinated are White evangelicals. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, 25 percent of that group said in November that they “definitely won’t” get vaccinateda number that’s stayed steady since March. However, the percentage who said they have received at least one shot has gone in that period from 35 percent to 63 percent, Kaiser found. About 14.5 percent of Americans are White evangelicals, according to the Public Religion Research Institute.

Curtis Chang, a divinity school professor who last year launched the Christians and the Vaccine project, said the repulsion among evangelicals to vaccines is multilayered — and in some ways new.

“Built into conservative evangelical Christianity, at its best, is a critical stance towards all institutions. There is this belief: ‘Look, we follow Jesus, and all other loyalties have to be critically evaluated.’ Anything secular is held in immediate suspicion,” Chang said. “That impulse in evangelicalism has gotten so weaponized by a bunch of influences in politics, media and movements like the anti-vaccine movement. It adds a spiritualization of that suspicion, such that they see demonic forces. It’s so entangled.”

Graham, the son of Christian icon Billy Graham and president of Samaritan’s Purse, the huge humanitarian aid group, was slammed by some evangelicals in the spring after he urged people to get vaccinated and called the vaccines “pro-life.” Criticism came from people distrustful of medical institutions and those calling the vaccines “devilish” — or both.

Asked this week why he did not mention the vaccine issue in his tributes to Lamb, Franklin Graham wrote to The Post that he had noted that Lamb died of complications from the virus.

“I have been very clear about my support for vaccines. As a Christian, I am pro-life, and I believe vaccines are tools that are being used to save lives,” Graham wrote. “Of course, Daystar Television Network and millions of others have a different opinion, and even though we may disagree, I respect them. Like all medical treatments, vaccines are a personal choice.”

The issue can be explosive for businesses that serve vaccine skeptics. Some Christian media executives say they hear from many angry customers when they promote vaccines.

Dan Darling lost his job as spokesman for the National Religious Broadcasters in August after he publicly endorsed vaccines from an evangelical perspective. The NRB is a conservative-leaning group of Christian media professionals.

“While most evangelicals have seen the prudence and safety of the vaccines, there are many who are hesitant,” Darling wrote to The Post. “Part of the reason for this skepticism is a deep distrust of American institutions, many of which have failed in recent years. And part of the reason is misinformation. I’m saddened by the passing of Marcus Lamb. His ministry was very influential and was felt by millions around the world. We should mourn every death from COVID and pray for an end to this pandemic.”

Even Daystar, which devotes prominent space on its network and webpage to doubt about the vaccines, declined to comment when asked about this topic. A spokesperson declined to say whether Lamb was vaccinated.

Sarah Posner, a journalist who has written two books about the Christian right, said “the predominant theology” for watchers of networks such as Daystar — the second-biggest Christian network in the world, according to its competitor CBN — centers on life as a spiritual battle in which faith healing is possible.

“Marcus Lamb was seen by his audience as a very godly Christian figure who is telling them that the vaccines are bad and these [alternative treatments] are good and to do these things instead,” Posner said. “So how could he get covid? Because satanic forces are against his truth-telling and are trying to bring him down.” She added that secular politics is also an essential part of the picture for White evangelicals, who are overwhelmingly politically conservative. “If vaccines are being promoted by Democrats or a government controlled by Democrats, they must be bad.”

Chang, a former evangelical pastor, cites Pew Research polling showing that White evangelicals as recently as 2016 overwhelmingly favored vaccine mandates, at rates around 76 percent.

“It’s this extreme hijacking of the evangelical movement by these forces,” he said, adding that he does not expect Lamb’s death to change the segment of the vaccine-resistant. “It’s like a cult — you just revise and tweak the belief system to accommodate the new fact.”

On social media, vaccine misinformation mixes with extreme faith

New survey: Most U.S. churchgoers trust their clergy for covid vaccine guidance, but clergy aren’t really offering it

A pastor’s life depends on a coronavirus vaccine. Now he faces skeptics in his church.

Michelle Boorstein has been a religion reporter since 2006. She has covered the shifting blend of religion and politics under four U.S. presidents, chronicled the rise of secularism in the United States, and broken financial and sexual scandals from the synagogue down the street to the Mormon Church in Utah to the Vatican.  Twitter


12 September 2021

Howard Stern to anti-vaxxers: 'You had the cure and you wouldn't take it' 10SEP21


BRAVO Howard Stern for speaking out and speaking the truth. And to be honest, though I know it is wrong, I have a really hard time feeling sorry for  those who get sick because they are not vaccinated , I have a hard time feeling sorry for those who die from Covid-19 or the  Delta Variant and their families and friends. AND I have had my fill of maskholes and anti-vaxxers ranting about their right to risk illness and risk exposing the rest of us to getting sick too. By the by, I filled in the blanks in the swear words in Howard's comments and I do not care if anyone is offended because maskholes and anti-vaxxers actions are much more offensive. From CNN.....

Updated 11:39 AM ET, Fri September 10, 2021


(CNN)Howard Stern is over the Covid-19 pandemic and is taking on anti-vaxxers who refuse to get the shot.

Speaking on his SiriusXM satellite radio show about the recent deaths of several anti-vaxxer radio hosts, Stern said people who won't get vaccinated are "idiots" and called for vaccinations to be mandatory.
"When are we gonna stop putting up with the idiots in this country and just say it's mandatory to get vaccinated? FUCK 'em. FUCK their freedom. I want my freedom to live," he said. "I want to get out of the house already. I want to go next door and play chess. I want to go take some pictures. This is bullshit."
    Stern, who is vaccinated, is also frustrated over Covid patients who chose not to get vaccinated causing hospitals to be overwhelmed.
      "If you have a heart attack or any kind of problem, you can't even get into the E.R. And I'm really of mind to say, 'Look, if you didn't get vaccinated and you got Covid, you don't get into a hospital.'"
          For emphasis, he added, "You had the cure and you wouldn't take it."
          On Thursday, President Joe Biden announced a new vaccine mandates in certain sectors, saying, "We've been patient, but our patience is wearing thin."



          31 August 2021

          Americans Are Poisoning Themselves With This Unapproved COVID Drug & He Was Just Trying to Study COVID Treatments. Ivermectin Zealots Sent Hate Mail Calling Him a Nazi. 27AUG21

           COVID-19. I do not understand how people can be so stupid. It is just like the PSA from the FDA says


          Americans Are Poisoning Themselves With This Unapproved COVID Drug

          Feed stores in low-vaccine states are selling out of livestock de-wormer Ivermectin.

          Reports of poisonings have been pouring out of a handful of states hard-hit by the COVID surge, as desperate people attempt to self-medicate with a livestock de-wormer called Ivermectin.

          The medicine is approved for human use by prescription, for certain other things, but the FDA is warning people against using it—the veterinary version especially—to try and treat or thwart COVID. 

          Texas Public Radio reports that ranch and feed stores are sold out of the drug, and the state poison control hotline has been burning up with people worried about the effects they are experiencing from taking it. “Nausea, vomiting, and abdominal pain,” the director of the Texas Poison Center told TPR. “However, you can have further problems, including mental status changes, coma, even seizures… I haven’t seen any deaths here in Texas, but these are things that are reported by the manufacturer with people who use large doses.”

          The Mississippi Health Department put out an alert late last week warning people to avoid Ivermectin: “At least 70% of the recent calls [to the state poison control center] have been related to ingestion of livestock or animal formulations of ivermectin purchased at livestock supply centers. 85% of the callers had mild symptoms, but one individual was instructed to seek further evaluation due to the amount of ivermectin reportedly ingested.”

          The statement also noted that “animal drugs are highly concentrated for large animals and can be highly toxic in humans. Some of the symptoms associated with ivermectin toxicity include rash, nausea, vomiting, abdominal pain, neurologic disorders, and potentially severe hepatitis requiring hospitalization.” 

          At least one person who took Ivermectin was hospitalized recently, according to the Mississippi Free Press.

          On Thursday, The Oklahoman reported brisk sales of Ivermectin at ranch and feed stores across the state. Steve Cook, owner of the Cook Feed & Outdoor stores in central Oklahoma, told the paper he’s had difficulty meeting the high demand: “We’ve started selling out left and right… It tends to happen whenever a surge like this goes on.”

          Similar scenarios are playing out in Alabama, where a CBS radio affiliate reports that calls to the state poison control center are on track to triple over the previous year. And in Florida, where the poison control center had just two Ivermectin calls in March, but 33 so far this month, reports the Tallahassee Democrat: “There’s a level of fear out there right now that is making people feel a little bit desperate about a lot of things,” one feed store owner told the paper. Ditto Georgia and Missouri.

          With the exception of Florida, all of these states have vaccination rates below the national average, from 37 percent in Alabama and Mississippi to 47 percent in Texas. (Florida is at 52 percent, which is also the national average.)

          Ivermectin, whose use as a COVID treatment has been championed by an outlier group of physicians and amplified by right-wing grifters and media outlets, has not been proven effective—certainly not to FDA standards. Zain Chagla, a Canadian infectious disease specialist who has examined the existing studies of Ivermectin called the evidence “very low grade.”

          “I want it to work, but at the same time, this whole thing feels like déjà vu of the first two months of the pandemic when we weren’t decided about hydroxychloroquine,” he told medical news outlet MedPage Today. “We don’t want to come around a year later saying it didn’t help and it may have hurt.”

          He Was Just Trying to Study COVID Treatments. Ivermectin Zealots Sent Hate Mail Calling Him a Nazi.

          “I just don’t understand why these things turn into polarized political issues.”

          hen David Boulware read in 2020 that a cheap and plentiful drug called ivermectin had shown some promise in treating COVID-19, he was eager to study it. Vaccines were slowly being rolled out in the United States, but COVID scientists knew it would be a while before they were available in the rest of the world, where worrisome variants were already beginning to circulate. The University of Minnesota physician and infectious disease researcher had seen a few small but encouraging studies on the drug, which was most often used by vets to treat parasites in horses and sheep (and sometimes lice and scabies in people). Boulware, who specializes in running clinical trials, set up the study early in 2021 with a methodology considered to be the gold standard: the randomized controlled trial, where one group of patients receives the drug, and the other gets a placebo.

          In May, Boulware’s team put the word out about the study, aiming to recruit 1,100 volunteers. But then something strange happened: He began receiving hostile emails and messages on Twitter from people who fervently believed that ivermectin was a miracle cure for COVID-19 and that administering a placebo to some trial participants was therefore unethical. “Are you a reembodied NAZI Josef Mengele?” wrote one in an email. “WHAT ARE YOU THINKING? Eliminate your plan to abuse people as needless controls. You have a duty of care.”

          Boulware was stunned. In decades of running similar trials for diseases including HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis, he had never received any feedback from strangers, let alone hate mail. But as all things COVID-19 seem to have become politicized, so too has clinical research. There is a growing divide between people who believe the key to ending the pandemic is in preventive measures—vaccines, masks, and distancing—and those who favor treatments. Clearly, these two public health approaches should not be mutually exclusive, but somehow in the current climate, they are. Angela Reiersen, a clinical researcher who is studying potential COVID treatments at Washington University in St. Louis, has seen this pattern play out on her own Twitter feed. “If I post something about vaccines as positive, then I will have a lot of people jumping on that and attacking me, and it’s these people who are all pro early treatment,” she told me. When she tweets good news about potential treatments, on the other hand, she has noticed that she provokes the ire of vaccine advocates. “They kind of seem to suppress any information about early treatment,” she said, “maybe because they feel like it’s going to make people think they don’t need to be vaccinated.”

          Often, but not always, the divide is partisan, with the left on Team Prevention and the right on Team Treatment. President Trump sowed the seeds for this dynamic with his full-throated endorsement of the malaria drug hydroxychloroquine. Even after it turned out to be a dud, Trump, Fox News, some right-wing physicians, and other right-wing media outlets continued to tout its supposed benefits. As it happened, a raft of studies, including preliminary results from the first large trial, ultimately found that ivermectin was not terribly effective at treating COVID-19. Accordingly, Boulware has since moved on to studying other drugs (including a promising antidepressant called fluvoxamine, which I’ll come back to later). Yet despite the evidence against ivermectin, the same conservative pundits who promoted hydroxychloroquine have now taken up the ivermectin cause, and, with scant scientific evidence, tout both ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as highly effective treatments.

          Naturally, this has become embedded into politics. Last spring, a bill introduced in the Colorado General Assembly led by Rep. Stephanie Luck (R-Colo.) proposed legislation that would preemptively protect doctors who prescribe off-label medications, including ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine, from disciplinary actions for deviating from the standard of care. In June, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wisc.) was suspended from YouTube after he posted a video praising hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The right-wing physicians’ group America’s Frontline Doctors charges patients $90 to be connected with providers willing to prescribe hydroxychloroquine and ivermectin. The group also regularly repeats falsehoods about vaccines; a recent article quoted a doctor saying, “Vaccinated people should be put in quarantine, and should be isolated from the society.” The researchers I spoke with all warned that the conservative zeal for these treatments could have dangerous consequences—their followers might believe so strongly in miracle drugs that they decide not to get vaccinated. Should they become infected, they might take matters into their own hands, attempt to treat themselves with the drugs, and accidentally overdose. So widespread were recent reports of people poisoning themselves with ivermectin that they bought from livestock stores, the FDA issued a warning on Saturday, tweeting, “You are not a horse. You are not a cow. Seriously, y’all. Stop it.”

          Yet researchers also criticized what they see as a knee-jerk reaction by some on the left against COVID treatments. To be sure, progressives’ skepticism of treatments isn’t nearly as pronounced as conservatives’ bias against vaccines, but earlier this summer, when a major study favoring ivermectin was retracted, some left-leaning pundits gloated. And there is one key piece of nuance that has been lost in outlets’ breathless reporting about treatments that don’t seem to work. In some cases, it may be appropriate for a doctor to prescribe a COVID drug for which the evidence is mixed or not robust—say, if a patient is suffering from a condition that disqualifies them from receiving standard treatment. When prescribing drugs, physicians generally follow guidelines from the National Institutes of Health, which are based on an extensive body of studies and clinical trials. But these guidelines aren’t law. Also, because they look at overall evidence of benefit to a population rather than focusing on individual patients, there are legitimate reasons to deviate from them. If doctors think certain drugs might help a patient for specific reasons, they are allowed to—and regularly do—prescribe drugs “off-label,” or for a purpose that’s different from their approved use. Currently, the NIH recommends only a few COVID-19 drugs for outpatients at risk of severe complications—certain kinds of monoclonal antibodies, as well as some steroids.

          The researchers I spoke with all endorsed the idea that physicians should have some latitude to prescribe drugs outside of these recommendations for COVID on a case-by-case basis. “In a pandemic, you don’t really have time to do huge trials,” Reiersen said. “If you want to try to do something that works, then you might have to go with lower-quality evidence, as long as it’s a relatively safe drug.”

          What’s more, over the last few months, it has become clear that while vaccines are our best weapon against the pandemic, they are only one tool in the face of stressed hospitals and ICU units at capacity. Treatments could help people who have health conditions that disqualify them from being vaccinated, or that prevent the vaccine from working well. They could also help children who are too young to be eligible for the vaccine, as well as people with nasty breakthrough infections.

          And how about the people who simply refuse to get vaccinated? It’s tempting to dismiss them: Don’t want a vaccine? Great! Enjoy COVID! But in public health, there’s a principle called “harm reduction,” where you help people by making a dangerous activity safer, leaving your own biases and judgments out of it. (Perhaps the most famous example of this is needle exchange centers, which aim to prevent the spread of diseases, such as HIV and hepatitis, transmitted by shared needles.) “We should do what is best for people who are sick, or to prevent people from getting sick,” Reiersen said. “I just don’t understand why these things turn into polarized political issues. It’s ridiculous.”

          Once politics is out of the equation, finding an effective treatment for COVID-19 shouldn’t be hard. Many drugs commonly used for other conditions have shown promise in reducing the severity of the disease. The problem is that proving they work is incredibly expensive—a single trial can cost tens of millions of dollars. Pharmaceutical companies have that kind of money, but since generic drugs are so cheap and plentiful already, there’s no financial incentive to run such trials. So, researchers must either rely on limited and fiercely competitive government funding or philanthropy, which can get back to—guess what—politics.

          Case in point: Last year, a Silicon Valley entrepreneur, Steve Kirsch, founded the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund to subsidize studies of promising repurposed drugs. Over the course of several months, Kirsch says he spent more than $6 million of his own money supporting these trials. But somewhere along the way, Kirsch became frustrated with the government’s unwillingness to recommend treatments on the basis of small trials with encouraging results. In a recent Zoom call with me, Kirsch railed against what he saw as a “corrupt” drug approval system. “These guys were twiddling their thumbs and focused on the vaccines and not funding or paying attention to any of these trials,” he said. In the last few months, he has tweeted critically about COVID-19 vaccines and masks,  suggesting that the vaccines have killed more than 25,000 people. (They have not.He promoted tweets by the California chapter of the anti-vaccine group Children’s Health Defense. Some researchers, who requested to remain anonymous, told me that even though Kirsch supported their work early on, recently they have sought to distance themselves from him.

          Politics is also exacerbating a greater barrier to finding COVID treatments, namely that it’s hard to track down enough people to enroll in drug trials. At first, this problem seemed counterintuitive to me: In the midst of a raging pandemic, surely COVID patients would want to try out drugs that could help them. Yet that’s not always true, said Jeffrey Klausner, an epidemiologist and infectious disease scientist at the University of Southern California. Privacy rules make it difficult to enroll patients through testing sites. A COVID-19 diagnosis can be overwhelming, and enrolling in a trial is an extra hurdle for patients already feeling sick. The politicization of COVID treatments may make some potential participants wary of trying a drug they’ve never heard of. Indeed, at the beginning of the pandemic, Boulware’s team struggled to launch a trial to see whether hydroxychloroquine had any benefit at all. Hardly anyone signed up. “Half the population believed that hydroxychloroquine totally worked and that therefore it was unethical to be doing a clinical trial,” he said. “And the other half believe that it totally didn’t work.” Researchers worry that the recent reports of ivermectin self-dosing could scare people off of enrolling in any kind of treatment trials in the future.

          Klausner finds all of this frustrating because he’s seen what can happen when trials to see what new benefits generic drugs might offer go right. During the HIV/AIDS epidemic, gay communities mobilized to spread the word about trials. “The community, through Act Up and other organizations, really was engaged,” Klausner said. “They were pushing community members to join studies.” Those trials paved the way for the generic medication that eventually became the basis for highly effective drug cocktails that made it possible for people who were infected to live long lives.

          Most of the researchers I talked with believed that COVID-19 medications will have a similar trajectory. When we finally do find a treatment, it likely won’t be a single miracle drug but a combination of a few generic drugs, refined over the course of many trials. There is good news on this front. Earlier this month, researchers cleared a major hurdle in COVID treatment research by using an antidepressant called fluvoxamine: A large, randomized controlled trial showed that the drug reduced hospitalization rates by 30 percent. A mix of that drug plus one or two others may yield even better results. Figuring that out—through studies, small trials, and larger ones—will be a massive effort. One that will be a lot easier if politics don’t get in the way.

          This piece has been updated. 


          WEAR A MASK WEAR A MASK 

          PHYSICAL DISTANCING: SIX FEET APART IS BETTER THAN SIX FEET UNDER!

          Coronavirus Updates

          John Hopkins Univ Coronavirus Covid-19 Dashboard

          Avi Schiffmann CORONAVIRUS DASHBOARD