Connect with us

U.S.

Twitter Removes Trump Tweet of Doctor Promoting “Cure” for COVID-19 After that Video Goes Viral

Published

on

  • A video of Dr. Stella Immanuel went viral on Monday on multiple platforms after she claimed that hydroxychloroquine was a cure for COVID-19.
  • Immanuel also claimed that people should not be wearing masks and suggested that lockdowns are unnecessary.
  • Her claims fly in the face of warnings and recommendations from the broader medical community, and she has made even bolder claims in the past, including that alien DNA is being used in medical treatments and that the government is run by inhuman beings, among other things.
  • Facebook, YouTube, and Twitter have all worked to scrub the video from their platforms; however, it received further attention when President Donald Trump retweeted the video before Twitter took it down.

#HydroxychloroquineWorks Video Trends

Social media sites like Facebook, Youtube, and Twitter have all moved to delete a viral video that shows a doctor touting hydroxychloroquine as a “cure” for COVID-19, claiming that people should not wear masks, and suggesting that lockdowns are unnecessary.

The video was ultimately seen more than 13 million times on Facebook alone and trended under #HydroxychloroquineWorks on Twitter. Before Twitter deleted it on Tuesday morning, the video had already been shared by President Donald Trump on his personal account.

In that video, a group of physicians can be seen standing outside of the Supreme Court’s steps in Washington D.C. Reportedly, they are part of a conference known as the America’s Frontline Doctors Summit, which started Monday and goes through Tuesday.

“…there is no way I can treat 350 patients and counting, and nobody is dead, and they all did better,” Houston-based Dr. Stella Immanuel says in the video. “And then you’re going to tell me that you did it on 20 people, 40 people, and it didn’t work. I’m a true testament. So I came here to Washington D.C. to tell America nobody has to get sick. This virus has a cure. It’s called hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and Zithromax.”

Despite Immanuel’s claims, both the Food and Drug Administration and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention currently state that there is no known cure or effective treatment option for COVID-19.

Immanuel also continues by making more statements that are at odds with the recommendations of the broader medical community. 

“I know you people want to talk about masks,” she said. “Hello, you don’t need masks. There is a cure. I know they don’t want to open schools. No, you don’t need for people to be locked down. There is prevention and there is a cure.” 

Despite arguing that Americans don’t need to wear masks, current CDC guidance states:

“Cloth face coverings may help prevent people who have COVID-19 from spreading the virus to others. Wearing a cloth face covering will help protect people around you, including those at higher risk of severe illness from COVID-19 and workers who frequently come into close contact with other people.”

Immanuel’s suggestion that there shouldn’t be lockdowns also conflicts with many health professionals’ recommendations and seemingly doesn’t take into account states like Florida and California, where COVID-19 cases have spiked following partial reopenings. 

Who is Dr. Stella Immanuel?

Dr. Stella Immanul is a general practitioner from Houston and has reportedly been at the Rehoboth Medical Center since October 2019. She is also the founder of Fire Power Ministries, a church she founded in 2002.

However, she’s made a number of bold — to say the least — claims in the past. For example, she has claimed that gynecological problems like cysts, endometriosis, and infertility can be caused by people having sex in their dreams with demons and witches, which she refers to as “spirit husbands” and “spirit wives.” 

She has also claimed that alien DNA is currently being used in medical treatments and suggested that scientists are using vaccines to prevent people from being religious. She has also suggested that the government is run by inhuman beings. 

“There are people that are ruling this nation that are not even human,” Immanuel said in a 2015 sermon, before saying she had a conversation with a “reptilian spirit” that was “half-human, half-E.T.”

Video Taken Down on Social Media, Shared by Trump on Twitter

Facebook has said it took down the clip of Immanuel on Monday night because it shared “false information about cures and treatments for COVID-19.”

“We’re showing messages in News Feed to people who have reacted to, commented on or shared harmful COVID-19-related misinformation that we have removed, connecting them to myths debunked by the WHO,” a Facebook spokesperson added.

After that, YouTube removed the video from its platform.

Tuesday morning, Twitter followed suit. While in many cases, it only removed the video embedded into tweets, not the tweets themselves, it did go further in two notable cases. 

For example, Twitter has completely removed a retweet of that clip from the president’s personal account, even though that tweet still exists outside of his account (albeit just without the embedded clip). Notably, that tweet calls Immanuel a “fearless warrior of truth.”

Source: @realdonaldtrump

The president’s son,  Donald Trump Jr., also caught Twitter’s attention for uploading a clip of Immanuel’s speech. Because of that, Twitter then restricted his ability to tweet for 12 hours.

Still, even though these platforms have “taken down” the clip, it’s not really gone. A simple search on Twitter easily yields the clip within the first few results.

What Is Hydroxychloroquine?

Hydroxychloroquine has been touted repeatedly by Trump as a treatment for COVID-19, despite there being major concerns around it.

While hydroxychloroquine is approved by the FDA, it is only approved for use in malaria patients, as well as patients with lupus and rheumatoid arthritis; however, doctors are still able to prescribe it “off-label.”

Early in the pandemic, several small studies indicated that maybe hydroxychloroquine could be used to effectively treat COVID patients. From there, Trump began describing the drug as a “game-changer.”

In late March, the FDA gave emergency approval to the Trump administration to distribute millions of hydroxychloroquine pills to hospitals in an attempt to treat COVID patients. At the time, the FDA said that the benefit of trying the still unproven use of the drug outweighed the risks.

In April, the FDA issued a warning for hydroxychloroquine, saying it should only be used in hospital settings or clinical trials, this because studies have shown it to cause heart arrhythmias. In fact, in one study looking at Veterans Affairs patients who had contracted COVID-19, it was even linked to higher rates of death. In June, the FDA rescinded its emergency approval, saying that hydroxychloroquine is “unlikely to be effective.” 

The administration also then flipped its original statement, saying any potential benefits are outweighed by safety risks.

There, the FDA cited 400 reports of adverse events—including 109 serious cardiac episodes, 25 of which resulted in death. For most cases, the FDA said affected patients were also taking other drugs that also raised risks of heart problems.

Earlier this month, the journal Annals of Internal Medicine reported that hydroxychloroquine as an early treatment for COVID-19 did not work better than a placebo at reducing patients’ severity of symptoms over 14 days. 

See what others are saying: (The Washington Post) (Heavy) (Daily Beast)

U.S.

SCOTUS Rules in Favor of Police in Two Qualified Immunity Cases

Published

on

The move further solidifies the contentious legal doctrine that protects officers who commit alleged constitutional violations.


SCOTUS Hears Qualified Immunity Cases 

The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of police in two separate cases involving qualified immunity, the controversial legal doctrine that shields officers accused of violating constitutional rights from lawsuits.

The topic has become a major flashpoint in debates over police reform and curbing police violence since the protests against racial injustice and police brutality in the summer of 2020.

On one side, supporters of qualified immunity claim it is necessary to ensure that police can do their jobs without worrying about frivolous lawsuits. 

However, opponents argue that judicial interpretations of the doctrine over time have given police incredibly broad legal immunity for misconduct and use of excessive force. Under a previous Supreme Court ruling, in order for officers to be held liable, plaintiffs have to show that they violated rights “clearly established” by a previous ruling.

In other words, officers cannot be held liable unless there is another case that involves almost identical circumstances.

As a result, many argue the doctrine creates a Catch-22: Officers are shielded from liability because there is no past precedent, but the reason there is no past precedent is because officers are shielded from liability in the first place.

An Ongoing Debate

Critics argue that the two cases the Supreme Court saw Monday illustrate that double bind, as both involved accusations of excessive force commonly levied against police.

In one case, officers used non-lethal bean bag rounds against a suspect and knelt on his back to subdue him. In the other, police shot and killed a suspect after he threatened them with a hammer.

The justices overturned both lower-court rulings without ordering full briefing and argument because of the lack of precedent. The court issued the decisions in unsigned orders with no dissent, signaling they did not even see the cases as close calls. 

Advocates for qualified immunity claim the decisions signal that the current Supreme Court is not open to changing qualified immunity, and the most likely path for opponents of the doctrine is legislation.

While Democrats in Congress have made numerous efforts to limit qualified immunity, including most recently in the George Floyd Justice In Policing Act passed by the House earlier this year, all those attempts have been blocked by Republicans.

At the state level, dozens of bills have been killed after heavy lobbying from police unions. As a result, it remains unclear what path proponents for reform have at this juncture.

See what others are saying: (NPR) (The New York Times) (The Washington Post)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Florida School Says Students Vaccinated Against COVID-19 Must Stay Home for 30 Days

Published

on

The school falsely claimed that people who have just been vaccinated risk “shedding” the coronavirus and could infect others.


Centner Academy Vaccination Policy

A private school in Florida is now requiring all students who get vaccinated against COVID-19 to quarantine for 30 days before returning to class.

According to the local Miami outlet WSVN, Centner Academy wrote a letter to parents last week describing COVID vaccines as “experimental” and citing anti-vaccine misinformation.

“If you are considering the vaccine for your Centner Academy student(s), we ask that you hold off until the Summer when there will be time for the potential transmission or shedding onto others to decrease,” the letter reportedly stated.

“Because of the potential impact on other students and our school community, vaccinated students will need to stay at home for 30 days post-vaccination for each dose and booster they receive and may return to school after 30 days as long as the student is healthy and symptom-free.”

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has debunked the false claim that those newly vaccinated against COVID-19 can “shed” the virus.

According to the agency’s COVID myths page, vaccine shedding “can only occur when a vaccine contains a weakened version of the virus,” but “none of the authorized COVID-19 vaccines in the United States contain the live virus that causes COVID-19. This means that a COVID-19 vaccine cannot make you sick with COVID-19.”

In fact, early research has suggested that vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus than unvaccinated people.

Beyond that, unvaccinated people are more likely to spread COVID in general because they are much more likely to get the virus than vaccinated people. According to recently published CDC data, as of August, unvaccinated people were six times more likely to get COVID than vaccinated people and 11 times more likely to die from the virus.

Centner Academy Continues Spread of Misinformation

In a statement to The Washington Post Monday, Centner Academy co-founder David Centner doubled down on the school’s new policy, which he described as a “precautionary measure” based on “numerous anecdotal cases that have been in circulation.”

“The school is not opining as to whether unexplained phenomena have a basis in fact, however we prefer to err on the side of caution when making decisions that impact the health of the school community,” he added.

The new rule echoes similar efforts Centner Academy has made that run counter to public health guidance and scientific knowledge.

In April, the school made headlines when its leadership told vaccinated school employees that they were not allowed to be in contact with any students “until more information is known” and encouraged employees to wait until summer to get the jab.

According to The New York Times, the following week, a math and science teacher allegedly told students not to hug their vaccinated parents for more than five seconds.

The outlet also reported that the school’s other co-founder, Leila Centner, discouraged masking, but when state health officials came for routine inspections, teachers said they were directed in a WhatsApp group to put masks on.

See what others are saying: (WSVN) (The Washington Post) (Business Insider)

Continue Reading

U.S.

Katie Couric Says She Edited Ruth Bader Ginsburg Quote About Athletes Kneeling During National Anthem

Published

on

Couric said she omitted part of a 2016 interview in order to “protect” the justice.


Kate Couric Edited Quote From Justice Ginsburg

In her upcoming book, journalist Katie Couric admitted to editing a quote from Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg in 2016 in order to “protect” Ginsberg from potential criticism. 

Couric interviewed the late justice for an article in Yahoo News. During their discussion, she asked Ginsburg about her thoughts on athletes like Colin Kaepernick kneeling for the national anthem to protest racial inequality.

“I think it’s really dumb of them,” Ginsburg is quoted saying in the piece. “Would I arrest them for doing it? No. I think it’s dumb and disrespectful. I would have the same answer if you asked me about flag burning. I think it’s a terrible thing to do, but I wouldn’t lock a person up for doing it. I would point out how ridiculous it seems to me to do such an act.”

According to The Daily Mail and The New York Post, which obtained advance copies of Couric’s book “Going There,” there was more to Ginsburg’s response. Couric wrote that she omitted a portion where Ginsburg said the form of protest showed a “contempt for a government that has made it possible for their parents and grandparents to live a decent life…Which they probably could not have lived in the places they came from.

Couric Says She Lost Sleep Making Choice

“As they became older they realize that this was youthful folly,” Ginsberg reportedly continued. “And that’s why education is important.

According to The Daily Mail, Couric wrote that the Supreme Court’s head of public affairs sent an email asking to remove comments about kneeling because Ginsburg had misspoken. Couric reportedly added that she felt a need to “protect” the justice, thinking she may not have understood the question. Couric reached out to her friend, New York Times reporter David Brooks, regarding the matter and he allegedly likewise believed she may have been confused by the subject. 

Couric also wrote that she was a “big RBG fan” and felt her comments were “unworthy of a crusader for equality.” Because she knew the remarks could land Ginsburg in hot water, she said she “lost a lot of sleep” and felt “conflicted” about whether or not to edit them out. 

Couric was trending on Twitter Wednesday and Thursday as people questioned the ethics behind her choice to ultimately cut part of the quote. Some thought the move showed a lack of journalistic integrity while others thought revealing the story now harmed Ginsburg’s legacy.

See what others are saying: (New York Post) (The Daily Mail) (Insider)

Continue Reading