Foreseeable Misuse? Trump’s Suggestion Of Possible Use Of Disinfectant In The Blood Triggers Industry Warnings [Updated]

Screen Shot 2020-04-24 at 8.42.43 AM
YouTube Screenshot

The maker of Lysol also issued a statement warning against any internal use  of its disinfectant after President Donald Trump suggested the possibility of an “injection” of disinfectant into victims of the coronavirus.  The warning reflects an interesting legal problem for these companies.  Under product liability rules, a company is liable for the “foreseeable misuse” of its products.  While the intentional ingestion of household cleaners have been a problem in a small number of cases, President Trump’s musing about its use could encourage others to attempt such a home remedy.  We have already seen such poisonings from products ranging from tainted alcohol to fish tank cleaners.  Lysol and other companies have every reason to issue warnings, particularly in the baffling absence of a corrective statement from the White House. Polls show that only 23 percent of viewers have a high level of trust what the President says on the pandemic. That is notably lower than his support in most polls overall. There are still many who trust the President on advice to a moderate or high degree.  Ultimately, this is not about politics.  This type of statement is dangerous for those who do rely on the President for information on the virus. Update: The White House has issued a statement this morning blaming the media for misrepresenting the President’s remarks.

President Trump’s comment shocked many last night.  He made the remarks after a helpful briefing from Bill Bryan, who leads the Department of Homeland Security’s science and technology division, on research that showed that the virus doesn’t live as long in warmer and more humid temperatures. He also discussed the success of bleach and alcohol to kill the virus on non-porous surfaces.

That was all to the good and even supported Trump’s earlier comments that summer could diminish the virus.  Then Trump said the following:  “So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just a very powerful light — and I think you said that hasn’t been checked because of the testing. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that, too . . . I see the disinfectant that knocks it out in a minute, one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning? As you see, it gets in the lungs, it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it would be interesting to check that.”

Trump did not explain what he meant by disinfectant but they were discussing bleach and isopropyl alcohol.  The President rather to “something like that”
disinfectant that kills the virus in a one minute:

 

 

This all put companies in a legally precarious position. Products must be designed to protect against foreseeable misuseSee RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF TORTS: PRODUCTS LIABILITY § 2 (1998).  Court have ruled that “if the injury resulting from foreseeable misuse of a product is one which an adequate warning concerning the use of the product would likely prevent, such misuse is no defense.” Bristol-Myers Co. v. Gonzales, 548 S.W.2d 416, 422-23 (Tex. App. 1976), rev’d on other grounds 561 S.W.2d 801 (Tex. 1978).  It is easy to exaggerate the foreseeable misuse claims but it is a constant concern for manufacturers.  The President’s comment does not instantantly make this foreseeable but it certainly increases the risk for people who may be willing to use such products.  Given the recent Tide Pod Challenge, there is always a certain percentage of reckless actors.

For that reason, it is not surprising that Lysol quickly sent out the following statement:

“As a global leader in health and hygiene products, we must be clear that under no circumstance should our disinfectant products be administered into the human body (through injection, ingestion or any other route). As with all products, our disinfectant and hygiene products should only be used as intended and in line with usage guidelines. Please read the label and safety information,” the statement continued, adding that the company believes it has a “responsibility in providing consumers with access to accurate, up-to-date information as advised by leading public health experts.”

As someone who has taught torts for 30 years, this is one of the strangest situations that I have seen in this area of product liability.  Even a passing statement by the President can induce people to attempt a home remedy in the use of such disinfectants.  It is for that reason that I am astonished that the White House did not immediately send out a statement that the President was not suggesting the use of household disinfectants. That failure to issue a corrective statement only magnifies the legal concerns for these companies.

These products already have warning against ingestion, which is one of the primary risks for disinfectant companies.  In the end, I do not see how the President’s comment should now make ingestion foreseeable for these companies but, as the President himself often discusses, he has a tremendous reach on television and social media. For that reason, a warning is wise for these companies in counteracting the impact of this comment.

This is the type of confusion that could lead to the loss of life. For that reason, the White House needs only issue a statement amplifying these warnings and stating that the President was not suggesting that household cleaners or disinfectants should ever be injected or digested.  This was a couple ill-considered lines, but it was a dangerously notion to promulgate in the minds of consumers.  Again, the White House seems a couple steps behind of the news cycle.  Had a corrective statement been issued last night, the media hit would not have been avoided entirely but certainly blunted.  Like justice, spin delayed is spin denied.

Update: The White House comments falls considerably short of a clarification. The White House Press Secretary stated: “President Trump has repeatedly said that Americans should consult with medical doctors regarding coronavirus treatment, a point that he emphasized again during yesterday’s briefing. Leave it to the media to irresponsibly take President Trump out of context and run with negative headlines.”

I have often criticized the media for unfair coverage but this was not taking a comment out of context. Moreover, it did not appear to be either a comment made to the media or a comment made in sarcasm, as later claimed by the President.  It was an ill-conceived and potentially dangerous comment that could have been addressed with a simple clarifying statement last night.

334 thoughts on “Foreseeable Misuse? Trump’s Suggestion Of Possible Use Of Disinfectant In The Blood Triggers Industry Warnings [Updated]”

  1. You know, if somebody is stupid enough to drink bleach or lysol, maybe that is a good thing. The human race would become just a teeny a bit better. I read here that maybe 100 people called into Maryland’s whatever to ask about it. Out of 6 million people, those 100 are a blip, and probably Democrats to boot. So I say, tell them to go ahead!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. Education levels tracked indirectly with voting for Trump in 2016 and has become more so according to polling since..

      1. Sure, the “smart” people voted to put Hillary and Bill Clinton back in the White House with Hillary in charge this time around?? You have GOT to be joking. No clear-thinking, rational, sane human being would ever vote to put Hillary in charge of ANYTHING. Good lord.

      2. Which, if true, means that college tends to make people stupider. Either that, or the inflated self-esteem that comes from the piece of paper tends to make the holders less likely to change their minds on something, because you know, they think they are sooo smart.

        I see this a lot with Democrats who hold ideas that were once true, but no longer. Such as racism being why Blacks are poorer and under-served. That probably was true in the 1940s and even into the 1950s and 1960s. But things changed in the mid-60s as the black family declined. Where there was once a 20% illegitimate birth rate for example, and an 80+% marriage rate, these changed after The Great Society programs. The illegitimate birth rate shot up to where it is now, 77.3% and illegitimacy breeds poverty, crime, and stupidity.

        But, the Democrats continue to blame racism like it was still the 1940s here. Just like with the meme, “The Republicans are the party of the rich!” Yep, that was maybe true in the 1930s and 1940s but c’mon, Hillary was giving $600,000 speeches to Wall Street, and Obama practically had his mouth glued to Goldman Sachs rear-end. Or, “Love trumps hate!”, from the most hateful and hated-filled people around.

        But highly educated Democrats are unable to roll with the facts. And I am someone who used to be a Democrat, and whose family used to be bluedog Democrats. But we were smart enough to wake up.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. Yeah, college makes you stupider, Trump was being sarcastic about shooting up bleach, and Republicans are looking out for the working man.

          That’s the ticket.

  2. Tide pods eating, warnings on shampoo, a warning sign saying this sign has sharp edges, maybe flying cars and trips to Mars won’t be happening after all.
    At least we’re all equal, comrades. Forward!

  3. You have all heard the very well corroborated claim of digital rape back in 1993 by Senator Joe Biden of one of his young senate staffers? Joe Biden was a powerful senator and he was this young woman’s boss. He stuck his fingers up inside her, also called ‘digital rape’…and then told her she was “nothing.” She didn’t know how to handle it. But now her story has come out. The ladies on The View? Not a peep about the allegation. And all the Dems who were so vocal about their ‘Me Too’ movement shouting how every woman should be believed? They have ZERO to say about Tara Reid’s accusation of rape by Senator Joe Biden. Not one thing to say. Believe all women? Total bullsh*t.

    1. “Every Democrat in the Senate has refused to acknowledge the sexual assault allegations against 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden that were brought forward by a former staffer, even after new evidence lends credibility to the alleged assault.

      The Daily Caller contacted every Democrat in the Senate, asking them if they would even consider the allegations by Biden’s accuser, Tara Reade, who has accused the then-senator of kissing her, touching her and penetrating her with his fingers without her consent in 1993. Each Senate office was given 24 hours to respond but not one did.

      Here Are All The Senate Democrats Who Have Refused To Acknowledge The Alleged Assault:

      Tammy Baldwin
      Michael Bennet
      Richard Blumenthal
      Cory Booker
      Sherrod Brown
      Maria Cantwell
      Ben Cardin
      Tom Carper
      Bob Casey
      Chris Coons
      Catherine Cortez Masto
      Tammy Duckworth
      Dick Durbin
      Dianne Feinstein
      Kirsten Gillibrand
      Kamala Harris
      Maggie Hassan
      Martin Heinrich
      Mazie Hirono
      Doug Jones
      Tim Kaine
      Amy Klobuchar
      Patrick Leahy
      Joe Manchin
      Ed Markey
      Bob Menendez
      Jeff Merkley
      Chris Murphy
      Patty Murray
      Gary Peters
      Jack Reed
      Jacky Rosen
      Brian Schatz
      Chuck Schumer
      Jeanne Shaheen
      Krysten Sinema
      Tina Smith
      Debbie Stabenow
      Jon Tester
      Tom Udall
      Chris Van Hollen
      Mark Warner
      Elizabeth Warren
      Sheldon Whitehouse
      Ron Wyden
      Independent Sen. Angus King
      Independent Sen. Bernie Sanders
      This comes after a 1993 transcript obtained by The Intercept showed that Reade’s mother mentioned on “Larry King Live” that her daughter had problems with a “prominent senator” in Washington. The Media Research Center also uncovered the video Friday of the August 11, 1993 edition of CNN’s “Larry King Live” program. (RELATED: Biden Accuser Tells Us New Video Evidence Proves Her Allegations Are True)

      Reade then confirmed to The Daily Caller News Foundation that the voice in the video is her mother’s and that “hearing her voice made me cry.” Reade was reportedly forced out of her job as a senate staffer, she told the Daily Caller News Foundation Friday. (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: Senators Who Condemned Kavanaugh Refused To Denounce Fairfax)

      Every one of the senators contacted, besides Manchin, voted against the confirmation of Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh, due to sexual assault allegations.”

      https://dailycaller.com/2020/04/25/senate-democrats-refuse-to-acknowledge-joe-biden-sexual-assault-accusation-tara-reade/

      1. Democrats, the MSM media, Hollywood…all hypocrites? You bet. They are all garbage talk. ‘Believe all Women’ ONLY IF THEY ARE DESTROYING a Republican!! If it is an accusation against a Democrat? SHHHHHHHHH…..say nothing…..and then SMEAR the accuser……

        It is NOT about the WOMEN for Demoncrats. DEMON-crats. Or all the Hollywood loud mouths It is entirely and ONLY about political POWER. Period.

        Do not be so stupid women. Wake up and smell the Democrat hypocrisy. It stinks to high heaven.

        1. To be clear: Chrissy Ford had zero corroboration and NONE of her friends supported her accusation even though Ford said they were all there with her. NONE remembered any of it. Ford didn’t know where she was, who was there, how she got home, NOTHING. Ford corroborated NOTHING. Yet the media and the Democrats attempted to DESTROY Kavanaugh. With NO evidence. To this day, there is NO evidence that Ford had even met Kavanaugh. Ford’s accusation was attempted rape. By two drunken high schoolers! Ford was a known party girl and heavy drinker. There is still, to this day, Zero corroboration of a SINGLE claim by Ford. And Kavanaugh strenuously denies the allegation or that he has EVER even met the lying Chrissy Ford!

          Joe Biden was a powerful senator and this woman, Tara Reade, was his young staffer! Biden was her powerful boss! She has corroborating evidence and then some! Biden is not accused of ‘attempted rape’ by a high school boy — no no no! Biden is accused of ‘digital rape’ of his young staffer while he was her powerful boss — a US Senator!!

          AND Tara Reade’s mother called in to the Larry King show back in 1993 completely distressed about how her daughter should handle a situation with a powerful senator ‘boss.’

          Believe ALL Women? Let’s see the DEMONCRATS handle this accusation. Watch the Democrats VERY carefully. How they ignore and smear Tara Reade will tell you ALL you need to know about the BULLSH*T “Believe All Women” and “Me Too” movement crap.

          Pay attention women — it is ALL Democrat CRAP.

          1. Maybe it’s Tom Nash…or the Squeekster…

            Who knows, but definitely someone with too much time on his or her hands.

            1. Anonymous – so you are saying this is NOT an important story? You are saying this is NOT an important accusation that deserves airing by the f’ing media???? Is that what you are suggesting? This is an accusation against a DEMOCRAT candidate so, shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh????? Do NOT say a word MEDIA!!! Do not ask a single QUESTION of JOE Biden media!!Shhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!! And now ATTACK and SMEAR Tara Reid…..that is the MO…..Democrats and Democrat women are a complete disgrace….frauds and hypocrites….every last one of them….make me sick…..

              TRUMP 20202 no doubt about it !!!!! Unless you are S.T.U.P.I.D.

              1. TRUMP 2020! Unless you are a S.T.U.P.I.D. Democrat woman hypocrite and fraud. Go Trump 2020 !!!

                1. time for anon @ 11:16 an 11:20 to take meds and get some rest

                  i’m not about to get involved in a “discussion” with a nutter

                  1. Yo yo Anon 11:24pm: No one asked you to “get involved in a discussion with a nutter.”

                    YOU are yourself a so-called “nutter” and so we assure you that YOUR input is not sought here by ANY one!!! You can sit this one out and literally NO ONE CARES!!! Got it??????

                    1. Anon @ 11:32 PM

                      +10

                      The other Anonymous (@ 12:38 AM) has taken to policing the site and insulting others – classic Left wing CCP tactics

                    2. No one asked you to “get involved in a discussion with a nutter.” – said by a nutter @ 11:32 on 4/25

                      Anyone with an ounce of sanity will have little interest in getting “involved in a discussion with a nutter” — a nutter like the one at 11:32

                      There, that’s better.

            2. Not me. I think Tara Reid misplayed this. She needed to have a good cover story like, “she has been afraid to fly, unless it is to New Zealand to surf” or, she had to “put two front doors in a home she was turning into a duplex”. Something real like that for Democrats to latch onto. Then, I am sure they would believe her.

              Squeeky Fromm
              Girl Reporter

              1. Chrissy Ford is the biggest liar and fraud but the Dems and their media ate it up and made Chrissy a hero. For what? Nothing. Repubs should have come at her swinging hard instead they played it too careful. Wrong approach.

                Get this…CNN removed the August 11th, 1993 Larry King Episode from Google Play, the episode featuring a call from Tara Reade’s mother. Yes, CNN is actively colluding with the Biden campaign to cover up evidence of Biden’s sexual assault. Imagine that.

                Me Too + Believe ALL Women? Complete farce. Total BS.

      2. REGARDING ABOVE:

        This Anonymous has no idea that Donald Trump has several disgruntled women in his past. What’s more every voter has heard the Acess Hollywood tape by now. So this idea that Democrats must share a sense of mass shame over Tara Reade is shortsighted, to say the least.

        For the record, legal groups that represent Me Too cases, didn’t feel Tara Reade makes a compelling witness.

        1. “For the record, legal groups that represent Me Too cases, didn’t feel Tara Reade makes a compelling witness.”

          Of course not. Tara Reade is accusing a Democrat.

        2. Not one of Trump’s accusers makes as compelling a case, with as much corroborating evidence, as this woman Tara Reide does.

          Not one of the women who accused Trump was ever )an EMPLOYEE of his. Not one of those women was a subordinate of Trump’s.

          This young woman was a STAFFER of a powerful Senator named Joe Biden!!! Her story is COMPELLING! Her own mother was so distraught on behalf of her daughter that she called the Larry King Show back in 1993 !!! There is compelling CONTEMPORANEOUS evidence here yet the MEDIA and HOLLYWOOD and the DEMOCRAT (Me Too!! + Believe ALL Women Movements) are COMPLETELY and TOTALLY SILENT ON THIS very real and credible accusation against JOE BIDEN !!!

          Why do you think that is?????????????????

          1. In re the accusations against Trump, they all appear out of nowhere in the middle of an electoral campaign and they’re commonly from women in re it would be a challenge to demonstrate they’d ever met Trump. (There’s a photo that demonstrates Jean Carroll and her husband once met the Trumps on a receiving line). Most of it’s trivia – he kissed me, he put his hand on my thigh, etc. A suspiciously high % of them are on Gloria Allred’s client list.

          2. Tara Reade did not say Biden sexually assaulted her until about 1 month ago and as recently as 3 months ago said what made her uncomfortable was his running his finger up her neck. Back in ’93 she said she was insulted because she was asked to organize refreshments at an event.

            Maybe it’s true, but the accuser is all over the map and only recently alleged anything actually disturbing as opposed to maybe inappropriate. No one else has made a similar claim though 7 or 8 have said his overly familiar neck rubbing and hair sniffing made them uncomfortable. For what it is worth, there is plenty of video of him doing the same thing to some pretty un-sexy to unattractive people, suggesting he doesn’t intend it to be sexual.

            1. Tara Reade did not say Biden sexually assaulted her until about 1 month ago

              Her mother called into Larry King on 11 August 1993.

              1. The call into King:

                “I’m wondering what a staffer would do besides go to the press in Washington? My daughter has just left there, after working for a prominent senator, and could not get through with her problems at all, and the only thing she could have done was go to the press, and she chose not to do it out of respect for him.”

                King asked the woman, “She had a story to tell but, out of respect for the person she worked for, she didn’t tell it?”

                The caller replied, “That’s true.”

                At the time – 1993 – Reade said she complained to higher ups, but not about sexual assault and that she had been assigned preparing refreshments, which she objected to as demeaning. Her mothers apparent phone call could have been about almost anything and included a comment about her respect for her boss. She later praised Biden for his work in the Violence Against Women legislation he guided to passage and also wrote strange personal – almost romantic – praise for Putin.

                1. Reade also told three people at the time about the incident, and unlike Christine Crazy-Ford, they confirm the story. On top of that, her mother lived at the time where the call to King originated from, and there is no question Reade worked for Biden.

                  Now, that being said, I am of the opinion that unless the vic makes a complaint at the time, that it is unfair to come out 30 years later like this. This goes for Anita Hill, the 50+ money-grubbing whores who charged Bill Cosby, Christine Crazy-Ford, Steamy Daniels, Juanita Broderick, and the rest. The same goes for guys who allege molestation against gay priests and scout masters

                  I believe Broderick, and I believe Reade, BUT after all this time it is too long. BUT, that being said, the Democrats ran with the ridiculous Crazy-Ford story so the Republicans are justified running with this story. Although I hope they don’t because I would hate to see the Democrats dump Biden for someone who does not suffer from senile dementia and cognitive problems.

                  I mean Biden is sooo typically Democrat – someone who lives in another world.

                  Squeeky Fromm
                  Girl Reporter

                  1. 9 people do not corroborate the story Reade is telling now. One who chooses to remain anonymous does.Her brother did not at first, but then changed his story.

                2. Gainesville’s on the hamster wheel. One of the amusing aspects of this.

                  It’s a reasonable wager this will go nowhere unless Democratic Party sachems need an out to unload Sundown Joe a al Toricelli.

                  A year and a half ago, we got to see a U.S. Senator undertake form criticism of the 53 year old Brett Kavanaugh’s high school yearbook. At the same time, bozos on these boards complain that the Republicans had prevented ‘a complete investigation’ of a man who had been subject over his career to a half-dozen FBI investigations and whose nomination to the Court of Appeals had been stalled in committee for two years to please Harry Reid. The instigator of that was a psychologist from California and the claque of Democratic Party lawfare artists around her, who could not, between them, ever produce one piece of evidence she’d ever been in the same room with the two men she was accusing. (Martha Nelson will tell us BK deserved to have his reputation dragged through the muck because he’d once belonged to a fraternity and something something).

                  So, given where the bar’s been set in the past, to be consistent we need to be roasting Biden over a slow flame (tended by Mia Farrow).

                  What a world.

            2. “Maybe it’s true but the accuser is all over the map…”

              And Chrissy Ford wasn’t??!! But Ford’s flakiness and lies did not stop the Media and the Dems from destroying Kavanaugh. Holy crap.

              “…suggesting he doesn’t intend it to be sexual.”

              OMG. Any normal adult male understands something called ‘personal boundaries’ that is appropriate for women and girls with whom you do not have a close, personal relationship!! What Joe Biden did, and has always done, is not only wrong, it is just plain bizarre.

              1. Reports document that as VP, Joe Biden would swim naked in the pool in front of the female Secret Service agents….only when Dr. Jill was not at home. Bizarre? You bet. “Not intended to be sexual”? You tell us.

              2. Gainesville reminds one that behind every double standard is an unconfessed single standard.

        3. Peter – the one legal group that helps woman against people like Joe Biden have a conflict of interest. Anita Dunn, who runs the organization, is part of the Biden campaign. However, Rose McGowan has been calling out her sisters who defend Biden on this issue.

            1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-four citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after seventy-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on.https://theintercept.com/2020/03/24/joe-biden-metoo-times-up/

              There is my source, where are yours that you owe me?

              BTW, where you eating these days? I am assuming the school food courts are shut down.

          1. Yes, Rose McGowan is calling them out for their gross hypocrisy. “Believe ALL Women” ONLY applies if it helps Democrats gain political power. Otherwise, the liberals will smear and destroy the women to silence them.

            CNN is hiding the Larry King video of Tara Reade’s mother call from its own network!! CNN scrubbed it! Now watch as the rest of the MSM and the ladies on The View all protect HIden Biden from a rape allegation. Sick media.

        4. “Democrats must share a sense of mass shame”

          …..

          the words “Democrats” & “shame” are 2 words no one would ever use in the same sentence.

        5. Seth – wanted to be sure you saw this —>

          CNN removed the August 11th, 1993 Larry King Episode from Google Play, the episode featuring a call from Tara Reade’s mother. Yes, CNN is actively colluding with the Biden campaign to cover up evidence of Biden’s sexual assault. Imagine that.

    2. 1. Nothing will come of this accusation. Scandals inconvenient to the Democratic Party just go away. Except…

      2. I’ve seen one argument that this will induce the DNC to pull a Toricelli and substitute for Biden a candidate that isn’t showing signs of cognitive decline. A pro-forma convention, where people enter single file (in masks), drop a ballot into a box and file out would suffice to put Hellary and her chosen running mate on deck. Jill Biden EdD and die hard BernieBros won’t care for it, of course. I’d never believed it two months ago.

      3. Partisan Democrats have a half-dozen different dodges that look repulsive and idiotic to normal people but which satisfy them. They’ll have to work overtime on the hamster wheel to generate the verbal legerdemain by which Christine Blasey Ford is deemed ‘credible’ and this woman is not. They’ll do that. Democrats with integrity who are capable of treating like cases like are as rare as hen’s teeth in public life and not often found among the rank-and-file either.

      1. “2. I’ve seen one argument that this will induce the DNC to pull a Toricelli and substitute for Biden a candidate that isn’t showing signs of cognitive decline. … I’d never believed it two months ago.”

        DSS, you are late to the party. I already told you they were going to pull some sort of euthanasia play. 🙂

      2. “Democrats with integrity” ….who step out of line…will be destroyed….and they know it so they ALL get in lock step…with the dear Party Leaders…no dissent is allowed within The Party….no no no….get in line or be destroyed.

        And these idiots think Trump is the dictator? It’s laughable how stupid liberals are….

  4. Democrats’ Fascism Shines Through

    Totalitarians expect their commands to be obeyed instantly – and without question.

    Someone once said that if fascism ever comes to America, it will come in the guise of fighting fascism. Updated version: Fascism has come to America, in the guise of fighting a virus. Nowhere has Democrats’ totalitarian instincts come out more clearly than in their response to the coronavirus.

    David Horowitz says: “Inside every progressive is a totalitarian screaming to get out.” In the case of Michigan’s Democratic Governor Gretchen Whitmer, the totalitarian is not only out but goose-stepping toward the New Reich. Instead of “Sieg Heil,” it’s “Obey or Else.”

    On April 17, 3,000 to 4,000 came to the state capital to protest the shutdown and some of the governor’s more outrageous edicts, to wit: You can’t travel between two residences you own. You can fish in a kayak, but not a motorboat. You can buy lottery tickets but not garden seeds. Leelanau County Sheriff Mike Borkovich explained: “We’re trying to keep the peace,” but “The economy is coming apart in northern Michigan…. People are frantic to get back to work. They have been very edgy.”

    Whitmer is a particularly nasty piece of work. She railed that the demonstration was a political rally “where people aren’t wearing masks and they’re in close quarters and they’re touching one another.”

    Whitmer warned: “That puts us in a situation where we might actually have to think about extending the stay-at-home-orders, which is supposedly what they are protesting,” Mr. Orwell, call your office. (“Right thinking will be rewarded, wrong thinking punished.”)

    Fascists don’t like protests against themselves. They expect their commands to be obeyed instantly and without question.

    Fascists also don’t understand civil liberties. When New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy was asked about the constitutionality of his executive order on social distancing in a FOX News interview, he cavalierly replied that when he issued the regulation he “wasn’t thinking of the Bill of Rights,” adding “That’s above my pay grade.”

    When he became New Jersey’s governor in 2018, Murphy said he did “solemnly promise and swear that I will support the Constitution of the United States,” which, when last I checked, includes the Bill of Rights. Fascists don’t like constraints on government.

    On April 14, California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he’s planning to give $125 million in public and private funds to 150,000 adults living in the state illegally. Newsom understands that illegal immigration is the future of the Democratic party.

    Californians are ordered to stay at home. Illegal aliens are welcome to come there any time.

    Everything that Newsom and his party have done for illegals – sanctuary cities, free health care, driver’s licenses, in-state tuition — will encourage more to come here in violation of our immigration laws. Fascists don’t believe in the rule of law, unless it benefits them directly.

    Initially, fascists operate through the framework of a democracy. Hitler came to power democratically.

    But, little by little, citizens become subjects – surrendering hard-won freedoms to meet “the crisis” at hand – economic collapse, power said to be concentrated in the wrong hands (the 1%, or the Jews), climate change or a pandemic. Liberty is leached away. If people meekly obey, the fascists are encouraged to go further and further.

    Propaganda is an important part of any fascist movement. The Democrats’ propaganda machine – AKA: the mainstream media — is finely tuned and can turn on a dime.

    Currently, anyone who suggests that restrictions should be lifted is irresponsible and a danger to society. In February, suggesting that changes may be needed to counter the outbreak was said to promote panic. In both cases Democrats said Trump was to blame.

    The Washington Post (February 3): “We should be wary of an aggressive coronavirus response.”

    The New York Times (February 8) “Fear is spreading faster than the coronavirus unnecessarily.”

    CNN (February 23): “Trump’s racist scare of the Coronavirus is causing unnecessary worry.”

    February — There’s no cause to fear the coronavirus. April – You better keep fearing it, if you know what’s good for you.

    February: Trump’s a racist for ending flights from China. April: Trump’s incompetent for not listening to scientists and taking decisive steps early enough.

    “If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it” – quote attributed to Democratic consultant Joseph Goebbels.

    Former Obama advisor and Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel said never let a crisis go to waste. For Democrats the coronavirus crisis is an opportunity to destroy the economy, defeat Trump, and get Americans used to following orders – no matter how absurd.

    As they move toward their nominating convention, perhaps the Democrats should have armbands to complement their face masks.

  5. “Impeachment was a dire distraction from coronavirus for Trump administration”

    It’s obvious the Democrats’ impeachment obsession was a damaging distraction for President Trump, as Mitch McConnell says. That was the whole point of it.

    But what we now know is the corona­virus outbreak emerged right in the middle of the impeachment. The administration was distracted at a crucial time.

    “I think it diverted the attention of the government, because everything every day was all about impeachment,″ the Senate majority leader said Tuesday.

    The Democrats’ motive was to weaken the president before the election and hamper his ability to implement his agenda. It wasn’t about principle or the national interest. It was a trivial game to enhance their electoral prospects and appease their Trump-hating base.

    Even Democrats like Andrew Cuomo said as much. Back in September, the New York governor blamed “leftist” Democrats and described the inquiry as a “governmental shutdown.”

    “It’s a long and unproductive road. Where does it go ultimately? Nowhere . . . The problem with that is it means nothing else is really going to get done of substance between now and then, and we have so many real issues to deal with.”

    Truer words were never spoken.

    Less than eight weeks later, on Nov. 17, a 55-year-old man became the first confirmed case in China of the novel coronavirus, according to the South China Morning Post.

    Public impeachment hearings had begun three days earlier and dominated the media.

    The timeline is instructive.

    On Dec. 1, the next confirmed patient in China fell ill.

    On Dec. 13, the House Judiciary Committee approved two articles of impeachment.

    Three days later, a 65-year-old man was admitted to hospital in Wuhan with a lung infection.

    On Dec. 18, Democrats in the House of Representatives impeached Trump.

    On Dec. 29, Dr. Ai Fen, the head of emergency at Wuhan Central Hospital, alerted her superiors to seven cases of unexplained pneumonia. She was reprimanded and silenced, according to “60 Minutes Australia.”

    On Jan. 1, eight Chinese doctors who had posted information about the illness on social media were detained, and laboratories were ordered to destroy virus samples.

    On Jan. 3, Li Wenliang, a Wuhan ophthalmologist, was forced to sign an official confession that he had spread false “rumors” about the virus. He would later die of the illness.

    China’s coverup was in full swing.

    On Jan. 6, John Bolton announced he was prepared to testify at Trump’s impeachment trial, and the media went into overdrive.

    The next day, the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued a travel warning about “pneumonia of an unknown etiology” in Wuhan.

    On Jan. 14, the World Health Organization, doing China’s bidding, tweeted that Chinese authorities “have found no clear evidence of human-to-human transmission of the novel coronavirus.”

    On Jan. 15, after a one-month delay, Nancy Pelosi used gold pens to sign the impeachment articles and led a ceremonial procession to deliver them to the Senate.

    The next day, the impeachment trial — presided over by Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts — began.

    On Jan. 20, the first US coronavirus case was reported, in Washington state.

    On Jan. 22, opening arguments against Trump began in the Senate.

    On Jan. 25, the State Department prepared to evacuate US citizens from Wuhan.

    The next day, Bolton accused Trump of saying he would withhold military aid from Ukraine unless it investigated Joe Biden. Less prominent were five cases of coronavirus in the United States.

    On Jan. 30, WHO Director-General Dr. Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus praised the Chinese government for “extraordinary measures it has taken to contain the outbreak. [It] is very impressive . . . China is actually setting a new standard for outbreak response.”

    It sure was.

    On Jan. 31, Trump closed the US border to China and quarantined US citizens returning from Hubei province for 14 days, the first time such measures had been taken since 1969.

    Dr. Anthony Fauci would later say the travel ban was crucial in slowing the spread of the virus.

    But at the time, it was slammed by WHO and China as racist. Biden called Trump a “xenophobe.”

    If anything, as a China hawk who believes in border security, Trump was ahead of the Democrats and media who now blame him for the outbreak.

    Asked Tuesday if impeachment had distracted him, the president mused aloud, “I certainly devoted a little time to think about it, right.

    “[But] I don’t think I would have done any better had I not been impeached . . . I don’t think I would have acted any faster.”

    The president doesn’t want to admit it, but there had to be a price for the time and energy the administration and Congress wasted fighting over impeachment. The media was consumed by it and little attention was paid to the catastrophe unfolding in Wuhan.

    White House Coronavirus Response Coordinator Dr. Deborah Birx this week pointed out that if medical experts were slow to comprehend the threat, it was because “we were missing a significant amount of the data” from China.

    We can all play the partisan blame game but that only lets the real culprit off the hook; it is the Chinese Communist Party, whose deceptions cost at least two crucial months and unleashed a pandemic.

    Soon, there will be a reckoning.

    NY Post

        1. I already knew how to find the article, as do most people.

          We only need a snippet of the article, not the entire thing — especially if it’s lengthy. TIA has commented on this, as well. A wall of text isn’t necessary.

          1. Anonymous,
            Only trying to be helpful. I have older family members who probably do not know how to find the link.

            In any case, the link is now available.

            1. It wasn’t about the link, PR. It’s about the wall of text. If something is behind a paywall that’s one thing, but spamming with text is unnecessary. Thus:

              “Give us a link, **rather than copying and pasting a wall of text**…”

              1. Anonymous,
                I guess we focus on different things. I like citations and being able to follow a link. Sorry you were bothered.

                1. I like reading the text here in total. It is unsafe to click on links and safer to read articles here that are being referenced to discuss. For those who are bothered, they can always scroll. They are insincere….

                  Seth and Bythebook account for 40-50% of content in the comments section with copy and paste pieces from their usual biased fake news sites while Anonymous never protests. Some people hate free speech unless if it is their free speech. NIMBY

                  1. “I like reading the text here in total.”

                    Or at least enough of the text to tell me if I want to click on the links. One can be on a computer where there is no Wi-Fii connection.

      1. Another lengthy article, above, from Frontpagemag, so it’s probably Allan.

        1. Anonymous the Stupid, did it have my name? No. Then it isn’t Allan but one of the smarter set of anonymouses. Frontpagemag is an excellent source of information.

  6. #NotPresidential

    https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1254145835450933249

    “Donald J. Trump
    @realDonaldTrump

    Was just informed that the Fake News from the Thursday White House Press Conference had me speaking & asking questions of Dr. Deborah Birx. Wrong, I was speaking to our Laboratory expert, not Deborah, about sunlight etc. & the CoronaVirus. The Lamestream Media is corrupt & sick!

    3:30 PM · Apr 25, 2020”

    “https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1254146549627490304

    “Brian Tyler Cohen
    @briantylercohen

    Replying to
    @realDonaldTrump

    Not only were you speaking to her, she responded to you. There’s literally video footage.”

    (And yes, we know that he also addressed the S&T guy — the one he calls “our Laboratory expert.”)

    1. It’s a partial lie. Trump first was speaking to the scientist and even said: “I would like you to speak to the medical doctors” Dr. Brix is a physician so he wasn’t referring to her. Then he asked Dr. Brix for her knowedge about what the medical community thought.

  7. “I have often criticized the media for unfair coverage but this was not taking a comment out of context. Moreover, it did not appear to be either a comment made to the media or a comment made in sarcasm, as later claimed by the President. It was an ill-conceived and potentially dangerous comment that could have been addressed with a simple clarifying statement last night.”

    The problem being that no “simple clarifying statement” short of Trump making the Four Cuts of Seppuku on camera would gratify his critics or the press. Face it, as on-camera gaffes go this month, this pales compared to Joe Biden’s performances

      1. Olly – You have no words, so you just throw up a crying laughing smiley.

        Signs and symbols rule the world.

        Sometimes an emoji is all that is needed.

        1. WW33 – all languages started as signs and symbols. We just accept what they stand for.

  8. Unlikely that Acting President Pence would suggest poisoning youself. Invoke the 25th Amendment and send the Mad King Donald to St Elizabeth’s!

  9. King Donald the Mad needs to be confined in St Elizabeth’s. He is doing actual harm while running about loose.

      1. Cindy Bragg, many ask that. Trite. I live in a Left Coast State. In a fly-over part of it. Where your noodle wheat is grown. By self described dirt farmers.

        1. David Benson is the God Emperor of Making Stuff Up and owes me forty-four citations (one from the OED, one from the town ordinances and two from the Old Testament), an equation and the source of a quotation, after seventy-two weeks, and needs to cite all his work from now on. – isn’t WSU an ag school?

          1. Paul – How goes it. It’s been too long. Have you watched Styx lately?

            Also, anything new on your end?

            1. WW33 – I watch at least one of Styx’s blogs every day, sometimes more. I have already entered the beginning stages of cabin fever. I have started watching reruns of Community.

              How is your injury? Did you did medical help for it?

              1. Paul – have not caught up with Styx lately, but will do tomorrow.

                I watched an interesting Jeff Bezos autobio today, as well as a short clip on all CEOs stepping down, from the sams YT poster.

                I’m sorry, mistake, those who stepped down right before the crash and had “no idea” what was going on here. 🤡

                Westworld? Do you have HBO?

                I went today and was looked at. I have a walk-in Xray on Monday at an Imaging Center. I like to think of myself as tough, so I hobble around to everyone’s dismay. Lol.

                Thanks for the asking, btw.

                I hope you guys are staying cool there. Running the AC.

                Avoid those giant ants. I had a hitchhiker in my car, years ago, and I brought two of them—giant ants–to DC with me.

                1. WW33 – got up to 100 today (yesterday) so we have been running the AC for a couple of weeks.

                  I do not have HBO. If something is good I wait for it to come out on DVD. I have AcornTV, which is British, Canadian, Australian, New Zealand and some French programming. Was watching Trial & Retribution, written and produced by Lynda LaPlante, who did the Prime Suspect series with Helen Mirren. Had to stop because too many innocent people were going to prison and I was getting depressed.

                  Take care of yourself over the weekend. Baby yourself.

  10. Jeffrey Kaye, retired psychologist and author of “Cover-up at Guantanamo”:

    “Hands down the dumbest U.S. president ever!! But I think the average Americanus Ignoranamus sees himself or herself in Trump’s bloated bombast. Loving Trump as a degenerate form of self-love! (A similar dynamic occurs in the pro-Biden crowd.)”

    https://twitter.com/jeff_kaye/status/1253536723176284160

    1. It’s amusing when progtrash make inane self-indicting remarks.

      1. TIA, shouldn’t you be checking with Ann Althouse for an explanation for how what we just saw didn’t happen?

          1. We won’t bother with your many “issues” right now, but we’ll certainly get back to them. In the meantime, live a little. And a little meditation might help. This is to the absurd one.

  11. Governor Andrew Cuomo wins the first Anonymous the Stupid award ever given. I have no number for the final death toll due to Cuomo’s Stupid and ideologic act. Overnight without warning the Cuomo administration ordered that Covid 19 patients be admitted to Nursing Homes even though the nursing homes weren’t prepared. We all know what follows a Stupid order like that. Death of many seniors that instead of getting care were essentially killed.

    25% of NY’s death rate comes from Nursing Homes. 3,448 residents in NY Nursing Homes died.

    The Anonymous the Stupid award was unanimous though some of the voters formerly living in nursing homes were unable to vote. They are dead.

    1. Allan – I am glad you brought up the Cuomo family. His wife, Chris’s wife said something about a bleach bath? Trump said something about light and bleach?

      Dunno, things are getting pretty weird out there.

        1. I said on here earlier, Garlic (raw) has some antibacterial properties, and Turmeric has some anti-inflammatory properties. Recommendation of cinnamon for the brain.

          But anything in large dosages is dangerous. A few years ago, ppl were eating tons of cinnamon powder. Bad idea.

          Same goes for bleach bath and this other nonsense.

          1. “Same goes for bleach bath and this other nonsense.”

            Wasn’t that would Hillary Clinton did to her hard drive? 🙂

            1. Allan – awww, nouwah. Cringe. Yeah, I think bleach bath it, take off the back panel, and then magnets, and perhaps a drillbit right through the hard drive.. Probably excessive.

              What about the Life Insurance file on Weiner’s comp?

              Or those Spirit Cooking parties with the Podesta brothers, and the artist, Maria Abramovic?

              Why is Bill Gates posing with Epstein in photos?

      1. WW33, the governor and health commissioner of NY are responsible for a lot of deaths that were easily preventable. I consider those deaths gross negigence and not the type of gross negligence the media accuses everyone they don’t like of.

        Trump says a lot of things for a lot of reasons, most of the times for smart reasons and sometimes for not so smart reasons. He is not telling people what to do. He wasn’t as far off of the mark as some would want to make us believe.

        Paint Chips Peter said Fox had stopped discussing hydrocloroquine but he lives in a fantassy world. I listened to Ingraham and sure enough the discussion in part was on that drug and all positive. Summary: the entire world is using it, the patients that might have cardiac problems about 0.05%, Lupus patients and Rheumatoid arthritis patients are taking it outside the hospital,

        What is with the FDA? Are they vying for the Anonymous the Stupid Award?

        1. Allan, FDA does some wacky things.

          In the food reg area: the allow Wood Pulp in your Parmesan Cheese 🐭

          Another oddity is Glyphosate from Round-Up in your cereal, not the breakfast of champions, but dog food for humans. I was telling ppl before it ever came out…do not eat cereal or crackers, etc.

          Don’t even get me started on La Croix, first sip, nearly spit it out. Taste like 100 % chemical to kill you. Wouldn’t touch La Croix with a 10 foot pole.

          The list goes on…

          1. The FDA has both good and bad features. Unfortunately as the bureaucracy grew its positives fell and negatives rose.

            With such a powerful government agency telling us everything we need to know )-: we become reliant on them instead of being independent and recognizing that we don’t need “Wood Pulp in your Parmesan Cheese”.

    2. Do you have a link for this? Since long-term care facilities have, from almost the beginning of the US branch of the pandemic been the first and worst places for Covid-19 deaths, Cuomo may just have given the families of the decedents causes for legal action. No prospect for Cuomo’s echo chamber in Albany to impeach him, no matter how many people he killed with the stroke of a pen.

      1. Loup, I believe this was revealed after a question from the press. If I am correct Cuomo said he didn’t know about that and Zucker (head of public health) admitted it. I can’t remember the name of the news reporter that asked the question. I tried looking it up for you and the top article in the archives of the NYPost seems to be a good place to start.

        https://nypost.com/author/michael-goodwin/

        We have to remember that Cuomo is the governor who wanted all the ventilators the US stockpile had. In 2015 he was told by his state’s medical officers that he needed just under 16,000 more ventilators.. NYC in particular has to be ready for a terrorist attack that can come in almost any form.

  12. I know none of the hannity ball-washers who dribble here are even remotely aware of this, so consider this a public service. Though much of what he says is evident, I agree with Governor Christie. This is his opinion piece from today’s Post:

    Chris Christie: Five actions we need to take to restore the American way of life

    Chris Christie, a Republican, was governor of New Jersey from 2010 to 2018.

    The argument over the covid-19 crisis and recovery seems to be governed by the extremes. Some believe that this is exclusively a medical judgment — that until we can guarantee safety for virtually every American, we must keep our country on some form of lockdown. Then there are states such as Georgia, where the governor seems to believe that opening nail salons now is a national imperative without regard to the known risks. Neither is right.

    We need to accept that life in the United States will not be without risk until a vaccine for covid-19 is developed. The American people intuitively understand this, and they’ve never asked for a risk-free life. We all have to take responsibility for how we move forward because that’s what we do as Americans. We move forward in the face of fear and the unknown because we believe in each other. That is who we have been throughout our history. The American Revolution, westward expansion, Lincoln’s decision to preserve the Union, the fight against fascism and Nazism, and the march across the Edmund Pettus Bridge. All filled with fear. Each step along the way dominated by the unknown, potentially leading to loss of life. The United States did not wait until all of that was definitively swept away to move forward. We moved forward anyway — together.

    I publicly supported aggressive actions taken against the virus and even more aggressive steps that were not adopted. I never thought covid-19 was a hoax. I spoke out then to help save American lives. I speak out now to help save the American way of life.

    First, we need to use the Defense Production Act to take control of the supply chain needed for testing to be produced for each and every state to access and manage. President Trump did this to produce ventilators and personal protective equipment. We should take the same action to give states what they need to manage a vigorous testing regime to control further spread of the virus.

    Second, we should analyze data county by county and begin to open activities, schools and businesses if that county’s covid-19 experience supports it. There are not only state-to-state differences but also differences within states. Those different experiences should lead to staggered openings. To mitigate increases in the virus, all those using the newly reopened businesses and schools must wear masks and gloves. That will be a new reality for much of America. This will not allow for large gatherings of people such as concerts or sporting events in the near term, but it will allow most people to go back to work and school and to reopen businesses with these additional social distancing safeguards.

    Third, we must continue to urge vulnerable individuals to limit their exposure to others and require those with covid-19 symptoms to stay home as well.

    Fourth, we must require that employers and public venues institute temperature checks for their employees and customers as a condition of return and entry. Businesses should begin at 50 percent capacity of employees and customers and only increase upon improving data in their county. These actions will begin to restore public confidence to our travel, restaurant, retail and hotel businesses. If we do not begin to restore these industries soon, we may not be able to replicate these key parts of American life.

    Fifth, we should restore construction activities of all kinds with workers using masks and gloves at all times. Even more importantly, the next congressional relief package should include a bipartisan infrastructure bill to rebuild our roads, bridges, airports and tunnels. This will create thousands of jobs to rebuild our economy and put food on the tables of U.S. households. Given the lessened automobile and mass transit traffic, this is the perfect time to begin this long-overdue work and will provide a jump-start to economic recovery.

  13. Behind a pay wall….for Mespo and Darren

    ….

    The Bearer of Good Coronavirus News

    https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-bearer-of-good-coronavirus-news-11587746176

    Stanford scientist John Ioannidis finds himself under attack for questioning the prevailing wisdom about lockdowns.

    Defenders of coronavirus lockdown mandates keep talking about science. “We are going to do the right thing, not judge by politics, not judge by protests, but by science,” California’s Gov. Gavin Newsom said this week. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer defended an order that, among other things, banned the sale of paint and vegetable seeds but not liquor or lottery tickets. “Each action has been informed by the best science and epidemiology counsel there is,” she wrote in an op-ed.

    But scientists are almost never unanimous, and many appeals to “science” are transparently political or ideological. Consider the story of John Ioannidis, a professor at Stanford’s School of Medicine. His expertise is wide-ranging—he juggles appointments in statistics, biomedical data, prevention research and health research and policy. Google Scholar ranks him among the world’s 100 most-cited scientists. He has published more than 1,000 papers, many of them meta-analyses—reviews of other studies. Yet he’s now found himself pilloried because he dissents from the theories behind the lockdowns—because he’s looked at the data and found good news.

    In a March article for Stat News, Dr. Ioannidis argued that Covid-19 is far less deadly than modelers were assuming. He considered the experience of the Diamond Princess cruise ship, which was quarantined Feb. 4 in Japan. Nine of 700 infected passengers and crew died. Based on the demographics of the ship’s population, Dr. Ioannidis estimated that the U.S. fatality rate could be as low as 0.025% to 0.625% and put the upper bound at 0.05% to 1%—comparable to that of seasonal flu.

    “If that is the true rate,” he wrote, “locking down the world with potentially tremendous social and financial consequences may be totally irrational. It’s like an elephant being attacked by a house cat. Frustrated and trying to avoid the cat, the elephant accidentally jumps off a cliff and dies.”

    Dr. Ioannidis, 54, likes metaphors. A New York native who grew up in Athens, he also teaches comparative literature and has published seven literary works—poetry and fiction, the latest being an epistolary novel—in Greek. In his spare time, he likes to fence, swim, hike and play basketball.

    Early in his career, he realized that “the common denominator for everything that I was doing was that I was very interested in the methods—not necessarily the results but how exactly you do that, how exactly you try to avoid bias, how you avoid error.” When he began examining studies, he discovered that few headline-grabbing findings could be replicated, and many were later contradicted by new evidence.

    Scientific studies are often infected by biases. “Several years ago, along with one of my colleagues, we had mapped 235 biases across science. And maybe the biggest cluster is biases that are trying to generate significant, spectacular, fascinating, extraordinary results,” he says. “Early results tend to be inflated. Claims for significance tend to be exaggerated.”

    An example is a 2012 meta-analysis on nutritional research, in which he randomly selected 50 common cooking ingredients, such as sugar, flour and milk. Eighty percent of them had been studied for links to cancer, and 72% of the studies linked an ingredient to a higher or lower risk. Yet three-quarters of the findings were weak or statistically insignificant.

    Dr. Ioannidis calls the coronavirus pandemic “the perfect storm of that quest for very urgent, spectacular, exciting, apocalyptic results. And as you see, apparently our early estimates seem to have been tremendously exaggerated in many fronts.”

    Chief among them was a study by modelers at Imperial College London, which predicted more than 2.2 million coronavirus deaths in the U.S. absent “any control measures or spontaneous changes in individual behaviour.” The study was published March 16—the same day the Trump administration released its “15 Days to Slow the Spread” initiative, which included strict social-distancing guidelines.

    Dr. Ioannidis says the Imperial projection now appears to be a gross overestimate. “They used inputs that were completely off in some of their calculation,” he says. “If data are limited or flawed, their errors are being propagated through the model. . . . So if you have a small error, and you exponentiate that error, the magnitude of the final error in the prediction or whatever can be astronomical.”

    “I love models,” he adds. “I do a lot of mathematical modeling myself. But I think we need to recognize that they’re very, very low in terms of how much weight we can place on them and how much we can trust them. . . . They can give you a very first kind of mathematical justification to a gut feeling, but beyond that point, depending on models for evidence, I think it’s a very bad recipe.”

    Modelers sometimes refuse to disclose their assumptions or data, so their errors go undetected. Los Angeles County predicted last week that 95.6% of its population would be infected by August if social distancing orders were relaxed. (Confirmed cases were 0.17% of the population as of Thursday.) But the basis for this projection is unclear. “At a minimum, we need openness and transparency in order to be able to say anything,” Dr. Ioannidis says.
    Most important, “what we need is data. We need real data. We need data on how many people are infected so far, how many people are actively infected, what is really the death rate, how many beds do we have to spare, how has this changed.”

    That will require more testing. Dr. Ioannidis and colleagues at Stanford last week published a study on the prevalence of coronavirus antibodies in Santa Clara County. Based on blood tests of 3,300 volunteers in the county—which includes San Jose, California’s third-largest city—during the first week of April, they estimated that between 2.49% and 4.16% of the county population had been infected. That’s 50 to 85 times the number of confirmed cases and implies a fatality rate between 0.12% and 0.2%, consistent with that of the Diamond Princess.
    The study immediately came under attack. Some statisticians questioned its methods. Critics noted the study sample was not randomly selected, and white women under 64 were disproportionately represented. The Stanford team adjusted for the sampling bias by weighting the results by sex, race and ZIP Code, but the study acknowledges that “other biases, such as bias favoring individuals in good health capable of attending our testing sites, or bias favoring those with prior Covid-like illnesses seeking antibody confirmation are also possible. The overall effect of such biases is hard to ascertain.”

    Dr. Ioannidis admits his study isn’t “bulletproof” and says he welcomes scrutiny. But he’s confident the findings will hold up, and he says antibody studies from around the world will yield more data. A study published this week by the University of Southern California and the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health estimated that the virus is 28 to 55 times as prevalent in that county as confirmed cases are. A New York study released Thursday estimated that 13.9% of the state and 21.2% of the city had been infected, more than 10 times the confirmed cases.

    Yet most criticism of the Stanford study has been aimed at defending the lockdown mandates against the implication that they’re an overreaction. “There’s some sort of mob mentality here operating that they just insist that this has to be the end of the world, and it has to be that the sky is falling. It’s attacking studies with data based on speculation and science fiction,” he says. “But dismissing real data in favor of mathematical speculation is mind-boggling.”
    In part he blames the media: “We have some evidence that bad news, negative news [stories], are more attractive than positive news—they lead to more clicks, they lead to people being more engaged. And of course we know that fake news travels faster than true news. So in the current environment, unfortunately, we have generated a very heavily panic-driven, horror-driven, death-reality-show type of situation.”

    The news is filled with stories of healthy young people who die of coronavirus. But Dr. Ioannidis recently published a paper with his wife, Despina Contopoulos-Ioannidis, an infectious-disease specialist at Stanford, that showed this to be a classic man-bites-dog story. The couple found that people under 65 without underlying conditions accounted for only 0.7% of coronavirus deaths in Italy and 1.8% in New York City.

    “Compared to almost any other cause of disease that I can think of, it’s really sparing young people. I’m not saying that the lives of 80-year-olds do not have value—they do,” he says. “But there’s far, far, far more . . . young people who commit suicide.” If the panic and attendant disruption continue, he says, “we will see many young people committing suicide . . . just because we are spreading horror stories with Covid-19. There’s far, far more young people who get cancer and will not be treated, because again, they will not go to the hospital to get treated because of Covid-19. There’s far, far more people whose mental health will collapse.”
    He argues that public officials need to weigh these factors when making public-health decisions, and more hard data from antibody and other studies will help. “I think that we should just take everything that we know, put it on the table, and try to see, OK, what’s the next step, and see what happens when we take the next step. I think this sort of data-driven feedback will be the best. So you start opening, you start opening your schools. You can see what happens,” he says. “We need to be open minded, we need to just be calm, allow for some error, it’s unavoidable. We started knowing nothing. We know a lot now, but we still don’t know everything.”

    He cautions against drawing broad conclusions about the efficacy of lockdowns based on national infection and fatality rates. “It’s not that we have randomized 10 countries to go into lockdown and another 10 countries to remain relatively open and see what happens, and do that randomly. Different prime ministers, different presidents, different task forces make decisions, they implement them in different sequences, at different times, in different phases of the epidemic. And then people start looking at this data and they say, ‘Oh look at that, this place did very well. Why? Oh, because of this measure.’ This is completely, completely opinion-based.”

    People are making “big statements about ‘lockdowns save the world.’ I think that they’re immature. They’re tremendously immature. They may have worked in some cases, they may have had no effect in others, and they may have been damaging still in others.”

    Most disagreements among scientists, he notes, reflect differences in perspective, not facts. Some find the Stanford study worrisome because it suggests the virus is more easily transmitted, while others are hopeful because it suggests the virus is far less lethal. “It’s basically an issue of whether you’re an optimist or a pessimist. Even scientists can be optimists and pessimists. Probably usually I’m a pessimist, but in this case, I’m probably an optimist.”

      1. Thanks Allan. I will read it. My money is on John Ioannidis. America’s elected leaders have led our country into great peril. The injury they have caused to Americans mental health is immeasurable. I don’t think that was by accident, but then again, I see communists everywhere given my past.

        God Bless the USA

        http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/042520.cfm

        April 25 2020

        Feast of Saint Mark, evangelist

        Reading 1 1 PT 5:5B-14

        Beloved:
        Clothe yourselves with humility
        in your dealings with one another, for:

        God opposes the proud
        but bestows favor on the humble.

        So humble yourselves under the mighty hand of God,
        that he may exalt you in due time.
        Cast all your worries upon him because he cares for you.

        Be sober and vigilant.
        Your opponent the Devil is prowling around like a roaring lion
        looking for someone to devour.
        Resist him, steadfast in faith,
        knowing that your brothers and sisters throughout the world
        undergo the same sufferings.
        The God of all grace
        who called you to his eternal glory through Christ Jesus
        will himself restore, confirm, strengthen, and establish you
        after you have suffered a little.
        To him be dominion forever. Amen.

        I write you this briefly through Silvanus,
        whom I consider a faithful brother,
        exhorting you and testifying that this is the true grace of God.
        Remain firm in it.
        The chosen one at Babylon sends you greeting, as does Mark, my son.
        Greet one another with a loving kiss.
        Peace to all of you who are in Christ.

        1. ” My money is on John Ioannidis”

          There are a number like him who I think called it right from the start. The left played politics and the people have been destroyed. If you haven’t read Darren Smith’s thread on this blog I think you should do so.

          “then again, I see communists everywhere given my past.”

          You are not the only one with a past.

    1. Estovir,
      Thank you for sharing the article! It was an excellent read.

      P.S. The Medical Microbiology book came in. I was disappointed to see that there is essentially no discussion of the role of nutrition in infection.

      1. Congratulations, Rose, for acquiring the Medical Microbiology text. It is used in many US medical schools for first year. Nutrition falls under the discipline of Biochemistry (Glucose, Amino Acids/Protein, Fatty Acids). Very difficult material. Recall our previous conversation re: treatment paradigms – they are based on pathology. To discuss pathology requires knowing healthy tissue systems. The book you purchased includes free access to online modules, videos, assessments and graphics. Use them. As I recall there is a decent review of Immunology in the text as well, though not meant to be as in depth as a course. You might enjoy the Janeway Immunobiology text I mentioned earlier but the following online summary should wet your appetite.

        https://my.rocketmix.com/coursedetails.aspx?cid=3128&guest=1

        Written by a Microbiologist Professor who left academia and entered the “dark side” (industry), her site is still up and running though I don’t know for how long. Jump on it.

        Also, search youtube for Janeway Immunobiology videos.

        In this very dark time of COVID induced fear, anxiety and social distancing, and possibly near collapse of the global economy, studying the elegance and beauty of how our bodies work are a welcome distraction from the negativity we see everywhere. Knowledge is power, and you are entering a really neat world. Make sure to include your kids too.

        Enjoy and God Bless

        1. Estovir,
          Thank you for the additional recommendations. I saved them.

          “re: treatment paradigms – they are based on pathology. To discuss pathology requires knowing healthy tissue systems.”

          Treatment paradigms do not seem to take nutrition and what constitutes healthy tissue systems into consideration enough at all. It is as though doctors assume the tissue systems are heathy and the pathogen has invaded healthy tissue. That is not necessarily true. It is unlikely that people eating the standard American diet are robustly healthy, not to mention all the other elements that can interfere with absorbing what is ingested.

          “Nutrition falls under the discipline of Biochemistry (Glucose, Amino Acids/Protein, Fatty Acids).”

          Those are just the macronutrients. While important, that list skates over the underpinning elements that really keep the gears of cells optimally turning. Biochem has to consider the role of minerals in cell function, too, not to mention the interplay of vitamins and other food-derived elements like polyphenols.

          The body cannot effectively manage macronutrients without optimal levels of micronutrients. What if absorption of a micronutrient(s) is impaired? What systems could be thrown off-kilter if zinc absorption was insufficient or impaired, for instance?

          1. Hi Rose

            Find the following article on PMC – NCBI

            Zn2+ Inhibits Coronavirus and Arterivirus RNA Polymerase Activity In Vitro and Zinc Ionophores Block the Replication of These Viruses in Cell Culture
            https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2973827/

            then click on the link below the line that lists the authors entitled: “cited by”

            If the above 2010 study is worthy, other medical researchers will reference it in their own studies along the same theme of Zinc & Coronavirus.

            You wrote:

            It is unlikely that people eating the standard American diet are robustly healthy, not to mention all the other elements that can interfere with absorbing what is ingested.

            You will get no pushback from me on the sorry nutrition of Americans. However, Zinc deficiency is not one of them. You can not advocate for Zinc treatment of COVID based on the argument that elderly & black Americans have deficiency in Zinc. Plus that is an argument you do not want to adopt. Better to prove that Zinc has antiviral activity based on a mechanism of action that has not been well characterized.

            Biochem has to consider the role of minerals in cell function, too, not to mention the interplay of vitamins and other food-derived elements like polyphenols.

            Absolutely! However, vitamins & minerals are co-factors to substrates. Amino Acids, Glucose, Fatty Acids are the substrates that make our lives possible. You only need trace amounts of various metals like Zinc, which is found in meat, chicken, eggs, etc.

            https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Zinc-HealthProfessional/

            However, you need more than trace amounts of the aforementioned macromolecules.

            What if absorption of a micronutrient(s) is impaired? What systems could be thrown off-kilter if zinc absorption was insufficient or impaired, for instance?

            Yup, it should would! However, now you are weaving & dodging everywhere. You have to stick to your topic: Zinc as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2. To suggest those individuals who are dying from SARS-CoV-2 is due to Zinc deficiency is…..well…nah

            More importantly, though: read the book you bought on Microbiology. Search for the word “zinc” in the book. What do you find? e.g. Zinc-fingers & DNA…biochemistry. Genetics falls under Biochemistry.

            Medical Biochemistry is the study of biological chemistry which centers on Glucose, Amino Acids and Fatty Acids. You can do alot with Amino Acids like make DNA & RNA.

            But you are onto something. I have given you some leads. I don’t think Turley’s blog is the proper forum to discuss this topic, though it would definitely increase the value of the blog.

            Have fun

            1. Estovir,
              “I don’t think Turley’s blog is the proper forum to discuss this topic, though it would definitely increase the value of the blog.”

              Why is it not the proper forum? I don’t mean to be impertinent. The topic is relevant to the discussion. Such things might be worth discussing on a platform not related to health or medicine. However, I am also ignorant of most online discussion forums (I am a bit of a Luddite).

              >”If the above 2010 study is worthy, other medical researchers will reference it in their own studies along the same theme of Zinc & Coronavirus.”

              It’s been cited in 30 other studies, which isn’t too shabby.

              >”You will get no pushback from me on the sorry nutrition of Americans. However, Zinc deficiency is not one of them.”

              You are correct that based on studies examining food intake, zinc seems to be ingested adequately overall. However, ingestion is quite different from absorption. Here are a few things that can interfere with absorption:

              High grain diets interfere with zinc absorption:

              Causes of Iron and Zinc Deficiencies and Their Effects on Brain.
              Harold H. Sandstead. The Journal of Nutrition, Volume 130, Issue 2, February 2000, Pages 347S–349S, https://doi.org/10.1093/jn/130.2.347S

              Proton pump inhibitors can interfere with absorption of zinc (and magnesium, B12):

              Gastroenterology Res. 2011 Dec; 4(6): 243–251. Proton Pump Inhibitors Interfere With Zinc Absorption and Zinc Body Stores. Christopher P. Farrell,a Melissa Morgan,a David S. Rudolph, et al.

              If PPIs decrease absorption, then other causes of low stomach acid will too–like stress, H. pylori, pernicious anemia.

              >”You can not advocate for Zinc treatment of COVID based on the argument that elderly & black Americans have deficiency in Zinc.”

              I would think that it is an element of the wider argument and might help target treatment for those populations if they are at greater risk of zinc deficiency.

              Nutrition. May-Jun 1993;9(3):218-24. Zinc Deficiency in Elderly Patients
              A S Prasad 1, J T Fitzgerald, et al.

              Heart Fail Rev. 2006 Mar;11(1):45-55. Macro- and micronutrients in African-Americans with heart failure. Bhattacharya SK1, Ahokas RA, Carbone LD, et al.

              Unfortunately, African-Americans generally tend to have more nutrient-poor diets:
              J Natl Med Assoc. 2010 Oct;102(10):923-30. Effect of race and predictors of socioeconomic status on diet quality in the HANDLS Study sample. Raffensperger S1, Kuczmarski MF, Hotchkiss L, et al.

              >”Plus that is an argument you do not want to adopt.”
              Why are those not worthwhile arguments to additionally consider?

              >”Better to prove that Zinc has antiviral activity based on a mechanism of action that has not been well characterized.”

              Several articles have already been presented on this blog that indicate Zn interferes with coronavirus replication.

              Putting several issues together would be a systems approach to considering and potentially solving a problem.

              I am tired and need to get some sleep. I feel like that kid in the Far Side who said, ‘Teacher, may I be excused, my brain is full.” 🙂
              http://ircamera.as.arizona.edu/NatSci102/NatSci102/images/brain_full.gif

              I will finish answering tomorrow when I have some time. Sorry for the delay. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this interesting subject with me.

            2. Estovir,
              >”Amino Acids, Glucose, Fatty Acids are the substrates that make our lives possible. You only need trace amounts of various metals like Zinc, which is found in meat, chicken, eggs, etc.

              https://ods.od.nih.gov/factsheets/Zinc-HealthProfessional/

              However, you need more than trace amounts of the aforementioned macromolecules.”

              I suppose only a trace amount of nuts and bolts are needed in a skyscraper. Trace amounts seems like an unhelpful term. It makes it seem like such things are less important. They’re not. They are nearly more important because without them, the body cannot make energy, build bone or muscle, make nerves function properly, or build all the little protein structures that fight off infection, or build the hormones that signal organs to function they way they ought.

              If a person eats protein but cannot process it because they have inadequately absorbed zinc (so the body cannot effectively process the protein), what then? If a person eats glucose but doesn’t have sufficient amounts of zinc or magnesium to build the hormones or run the machinery, what then? ATP is not biologically active without magnesium. Without properly functioning ATP, all sorts of processes will get gummed up. Body-produced antioxidants like glutathione cannot be built without selenium.

              >”What if absorption of a micronutrient(s) is impaired? What systems could be thrown off-kilter if zinc absorption was insufficient or impaired, for instance?”

              Yup, it should would! However, now you are weaving & dodging everywhere. You have to stick to your topic: Zinc as a treatment for SARS-CoV-2. To suggest those individuals who are dying from SARS-CoV-2 is due to Zinc deficiency is…..well…nah”

              I guess I did not see my comment as ‘weaving & dodging’. In an infection, there is a greater requirement beyond the normal cell function for different micronutrients in order to fight off the invader or to manage inflammation.

              Normal cell function is already somewhat impaired due to decreased ingestion and/or absorption for different populations (e.g., the elderly, PPI users, people who eat poor diets, diabetics, the obese, etc).

              Nutrients. 2017 Jun; 9(6): 624. Zinc in Infection and Inflammation. Nour Zahi Gammoh and Lothar Rink

              The endoplasmic reticulum requires Zn to fold proteins (like glutathione) and signal things like cytokines, among other things. If Zn is not available in sufficient quantities necessary for increased protein-folding production needs (like in the case of infection), then the ER goes into the Unfolded Protein Response. If that is not fixed, then the ER sends out a signal for the cell to commit hari-kari.

              Zinc interferes with the RNA polymerase action of SARS coronavirus RNA synthesis, thus interfering with replication. If the virus cannot replicate at will, that allows the body’s immune system to effectively attack and eliminate the virus. Only having plenty of zinc available allows this to happen effectively.

              If there is insufficient zinc, thus preventing effective creation of glutathione, cytokine synthesis and signalling, and consequently allowing the virus to replicate freely, the body’s limited stores will be sapped of zinc, further interfering with basic body function, and, allowing the virus to induce pneumonia in the lungs.

              Zinc isn’t the only micronutrient critical to effective immune function. Magnesium is also critical, and, like zinc, it, too, is negatively affected by low stomach acid. Selenium, too, is important (and is affected by low stomach acid) because it forms the selenoprotein in glutathione.

            3. Estovir,
              Thought this was interesting:

              Zinc deficiency primes the lung for ventilator-induced injury

              https://df6sxcketz7bb.cloudfront.net/manuscripts/86000/86507/jci.insight.86507.v1.pdf

              “We ran into an impasse where I could not morally, in a patient-doctor relationship, continue the current protocols which, again, are the protocols of the top hospitals in the country. I could not continue those. You can’t have one doctor just doing their own protocol. So I had to step down from my position in the ICU, and now I’m back in the ER where we are setting up slightly different ventilation strategies.”

              https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/928156

              Another avenue in which a zinc ionophore could help the body deal with this disease.

  14. What is amazing, is that a Trump supporter would prove beyond a shadow of doubt that they can prove they are dumber everyday and be proud of it.

    1. Here you go again FishWings saying absolutely nothing. Stupidity is your specialty.

    2. You gonna vote for Joe Biden, Fishy? You gonna be proud of that vote? Biden is old, demented, a plagiarist, a rapist, a corrupt life-long politician, an known as a dum dum. But you go ahead and vote for him like a good liddle brainwashed tool.

      Trump 2020 all the way baby.

      1. To FishWings Biden is a genius (despite his dementia) so it is understandable that FishWings will vote for Biden. It just demonstrates the lack of intellect that exists in our world.

        1. Allan,
          I don’t believe FishWings thinks in terms of measurable qualifications. She and her ilk rely solely on feelings and likeability. The man is typically described as a very likeable person and I have no reason to question that. How many serial killers were also considered likeable? However, none of that matters when considering him in terms of political power. In that capacity, he would be a disaster.

          1. The whole world knows Joe Biden would be an unmitigated disaster – just as the nominee, let alone as POTUS!! No question Biden is a demented dum dum and a disaster waiting to happen. But the good liddle brainwashed tools do what they are told to do by the Dem Party Leaders: get in line! do as you are told! And you know what? they always do as they are told. Sad. So very sad to watch.

            PS I’m pretty sure Fishy’s pronouns are ‘they and them’ !!

          2. “I don’t believe FishWings thinks in terms of measurable qualifications. ”

            FishWings thinks like a fish and follows the school no matter what. Evolution never got to her.

    3. Fishy – did you see the news that Chris Cuomo’s wife bathed in bleach 2 times per week as part of her Coronavirus self-treatment plan? Yes, she added one cup of Clorox to her bath to treat her coronavirus. She is the sister in law of the New York governor. Where is the CNN news story about Chris Cuomo’s wife bathing with Clorox?!!

  15. As I read the context, Trump was musing about research possibilities – when told that COVID in saliva dies when disinfected. Of course the anti-Trump media immediately ran with this story as Trump endorses injecting Lysol. I mean really? Is the press that desperate to bring Trump low?

    1. stepheng20100… musing about research possibilities? He literally said:

      “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that.” After saying “ So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous—whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light—and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it. And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting…” Sounds nuttier than Kanye from that Trump SNL skit…

      This isn’t the “liberal media”. Even Drudge still has a Clorox tablets image up for its main headline as of this (April 25th) morning. Would you give Obama or Biden this leeway? Trump is a big disaster. Don’t drink the bleach

      1. Would you give Obama or Biden this leeway?

        What leeway? To suggest an out-of-the-box idea that might spur innovators to identify new forms of treatment? How many people blew themselves up after Kennedy said we were going to the moon? Maybe you need the President to limit his messaging to the lowest common denominator listeners, but normal people use common sense and reason in everything they do.

        1. Yes because Kennedy said and I quote “They’re doing all sorts of great stuff with explosives. Like nuking hurricanes away. So I say to them, why don’t you try strapping some TNT to the spacedoohikie thing and so if you can kabloom Armstrong and the other guy to Mars or the moon, because the moon is a part of Mars.”

          You and Allan seem to think Trump the stable genius is inspiring scientists to dream of the cure as opposed to hold their heads in shame. When this is over I’m sure he’ll be in line for 100 patents and a Nobel Peace Prize.

          1. “You and Allan seem to think Trump the stable genius is inspiring scientists to dream of the cure as opposed to hold their heads in shame.”

            CK, NO, Trump is incentivizing them to think out of the box and if they do he is indicating some level of support. Not everything he says or does is agreeable to me. I like him because he is right more often than a lot of the fools you might be supporting.

            1. Allan, an unstable madman who erratically changes his mind every 5 seconds is also wrong more times a day than anyone sane. Ask yourself how you would react if Obama said it and then tell me you’re not a hypocrite.

              1. “changes his mind every 5 seconds ”

                CK07, A bit of an exaggeration but if one doesn’t make mistakes then the chances are one has never done anything but follow a leader. So far I told you about a couple of medical things that were done that would seem to be as crazy as some of the things Trump is thinking of. It’s a funny thing that you never commented on those items because they blow holes in what you are saying.

                It’s hard to keep up with someone who is in front of the curve if you don’t try to do so yourself

                1. Allan Clinton, Bush, Obama all made mistakes, no ones saying they didn’t. Trump will however claim to be right about a thing without acknowledging all the times he was wrong about it. On this for instance he will claim to have foreseen it due to his China “ban” (which still allowed half a million in the country direct from China over 2 months), while ignoring all the times he implied it was a hoax or claimed we had no cases and it would be gone in a few weeks.

                  Bush didn’t say “Iraq has WMDs we need to inspect for” then a week later “you know I doubt there as any WMDs”, then “Once we find those WMDs Saddam is through”, then try to take credit for the time he said he doubted there were no WMDs (he also didn’t stencil the map of Katrina heading to Georgia and use the National weather service to cover it up).
                  It’s hard to keep up with someone who lies all the time.

                  1. “Allan Clinton, Bush, Obama all made mistakes, no ones saying they didn’t. Trump will however claim to be right about a thing without acknowledging all the times he was wrong about it. ”

                    CK, you are not going to say that the above people didn’t lie or refuse to admit the truth are you?

                    Think of Clinton. Did he admit his relationship to Monica? How about the other wome? He ended up having his law license removed.

                    How about Obama whose cheif architect, Gruber, said they had to lie about ObamaCare or the American public wouldn’t accept the program.

                    Trump makes a lot of off the cuff statements something not seen with Obama so I expect him to make errors at times but he has been the most transparent President of the three and the most reluctant to use the federal government’s power to concentrate more power in the federal government.

                    What Trump said about China was entirely consistent with the knowledge of the time and his duties as President. I will be happy to debate this with you. Trump’s predictions of future events are not always correct. Are yours?

                    Go ahead and list a few of Trumps biggest lies. Start with the biggest lie. Provide sufficient detail. It would be interesting to see what you think is a lie. So far the biggest lies claimed by the media have been disproven by the facts.

                    1. Allan, Clinton’s affair with Monica is irrelevant to his presidency. Or about as relevant as Trump’s affair with Stormy Daniels. Or the women who accused him of molestation etc. I’m talking about statements related to his actual duties as president. And you don’t need a crystal ball to see that blasting someone for golfing too much and proceeding to golf 4 times as much is hypocritical at best.

                      “ Start with the biggest lie. Provide sufficient detail.”
                      I’m not sure if you’re expecting anyone who dares to criticize the president to write a paperback on the issue as you defend tooth and nail, but with the limited time I have I’ll go off the top with the first big lie I can think of.

                      “We’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it”. Stated numerous times in numerous ways about how big and beautiful it was going to be.

                      I don’t know how a president that covers up a sharpie debacle on a hurricane trajectory, refuses to release his tax returns and abandons all press conferences is the most transparent president of all in your book but if that’s the landscape we’re starting from you will have to find someone else to tend your flights of fancy. I’m not getting paid by the hour to tend to the mentally deranged here. You can call it run and gun or whatever you want but it’s not surprising you’re having a hard time finding liberals or even non Trumpsters to debate you, when you start the argument with the most absurd point available. Let’s suppose I walk into a room full of scientists and shout “the sky is pink, you’re all just seeing it wrong…prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!” It doesn’t make me right or them dumb just because no one wants to accept my ridiculous challenge, even if I come up with a laundry list of unreasonable reasons why I think the sky is pink, including one article citing a pink eclipse

                    2. “Allan, Clinton’s affair with Monica is irrelevant to his presidency. “

                      It ended up having a lot to do with the Clinton Presidency. I don’t want to start reliving the Clinton Presidency but what he did with Monica during his Presidency in the Oval office and lying about it afterwards is a big deal. However I was not in favor of the impeachment. Stormy Daniels was NOT an Intern at the WH. The evidence against Clinton’s unwanted sexual abuse strongly exists. The same cannot be said about Trump and some of the woman that made the significant complaints were found to be liars.

                      Why is it Democrats believe Kavanaugh guilty without any evidence and proof? Blaisey Ford lied and was proven to have lied by some of her own so called witnesses yet Democrats believed her. No we find complaints about Joe Biden with verifiable history behind them. Is he guilty? I don’t know, but suddenly Democrats aren’t interested even though there seems to be proof here and no proof with Kavanaugh, and Biden was an adult while Kavanaugh was a youngster. It seems to look reasonable Democrats have to apply a double standard.

                      ““We’re going to build a wall and Mexico is going to pay for it”. Stated numerous times in numerous ways about how big and beautiful it was going to be.”

                      That is the biggest lie you have????? . I’ll take it, but it isn’t very significant and demonstrates the emptiness of the complaints against Trump. That statement is known as puffery common to advertisements, promotions, etc. However, the President promised it and was fought every step of the way but he tried to keep his promise and so far the promised is being realized. Who pays for it is a different story, but that too is puffery seen in all sorts of advertisements. We don’t know who eventually is paying for it or how much it costs, but it is being built and he kept his promise despite the opposition. That is a President that tries to stick to his word.

                      The rest of the big lies you mention I believe are so insignificant that it is easy to say that Trump’s so called lies are insignificant and no where on the same level as the Obama administration’s lies to pass ObamaCare (Listen to Gruber).

                      I take note how quickly you dismissed Clinton’s WH sex and lying story during his Presidency but bring up Trump’s taxes which are none of our business. We chose to vote or not to vote for him knowing those taxes would not be released. CK, I believe you tknow better and can understand what I am saying but we can discuss this in more depth. You seem like a good fellow with integrity so I don’t think a double standard should be attached to your rhetoric.

                      “the most transparent president of all in your book [OF RECENT PRESIDENTS] but if that’s the landscape we’re starting from you will have to find someone else to tend your flights of fancy. “

                      There was no reason to become insulting. Trump released his own WH lawyer to Congress and virtually everything possible during the Russia Hoax. More recently he released his discussion with the Ukranian leader I don’t think ever done before. Do you wish to go over all the things not released by the Obama Administration? I’m not arguing that everything should have been released by Trump or Obama only that Trump released far more than Obama but you insultingly accuse me of “flights of fantasy” You are having trouble debating the facts and in this particular area instead of facts you are trying insult which is beneath you I think so I hope you will discontinue that type of rhetoric in any future discussions.

                      Let’s get back on track and maybe you can provide a big lie like Obama on ObamaCare that actually counts. So far I admit Trump isn’t the best weatherman but that argument is merely a way of avoiding having to deal with real and important policy.

                    3. Allan,
                      I seem to remember Clinton getting in trouble because of what he said at deposition. Hillary also testified on Benghazi. Your truth teller in chief who released his own lawyer at the “Russia Hoax” had suggested he would testify at times and then backtracked.over half a dozen of his associates are doing time, facing time, or out due to covid as a result of the “Russia Hoax” which also pitted several Russian operatives who were quickly deported. It also paid for itself from the proceeds obtained from Manafort. The same can’t be said for Starr’s investigation into Clinton.

                      I apologize if I insulted you but it’s hard to take the difficult position you’ve picked out for yourself seriously when it’s in defense of a man who has an atrocious track record when it comes to truth telling. I don’t envy you on this one. I assume you’re befuddled why I picked Mexico paying for the wall because Trump has told more lies than we can count and honestly I wasn’t trying very hard. That being said the rosy picture you’ve painted is a far cry from the reality of Trump’s wall. He said what he knew would get his base riled up and has pressed hard to get the US tax payers to pay for it, even siphoning money out of the military budget where he saw fit

                      Joe Biden’s situation is hardly comparable to Kavanaugh’s. Kavanaughs accuser had therapist notes for years regarding their encounter. Meanwhile Biden’s accuser went from praising him on her since deleted twitter account in 2017, saying he was at the forefront of women’s rights and the best Vice President of all time, to changing her name and becoming a huge endorser of Russia and Putin. It seems apparent she’s either being paid off or threatened. Biden also makes gaffes but I have yet to hear of any tapes of him bragging about being able to grope women as he pleases or throwing any wild parties with Pedophiles and underage girls.

                      The sex talk is derailing the actual convo which is about Trumps lies which you label puffery. His tax returns may seem unimportant to you, yet every president in modern history has felt it was their duty to share their returns with the American people. Meanwhile Trump who legitimately may have conflicts of interest with foreign governments refused to share his and implies its because he’s under audit. 3 years later the man who demanded we see Obama’s birth certificate several times still refuses to share it.

                      If it’s quantity you want, trump lied about his crowd size after the fact, lied about Videos of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating after 9/11, lied that he passed the Veterans Choice health care program which passed under Obama in 2014, lied that he gave military personnel their first raise in 10 years when they’ve received a raise every year for the past 50, lied that he won the popular vote if you deduct the millions who voted illegally (where?), lied repeatedly that his father (born in NYC) was born in Germany, lied about lying…he lies more often on Twitter and in public than I could possibly keep up with. If you’re comparing lies on healthcare he’s lied after the fact that anyone who wants a test gets a test. Somehow Obama’s “lie” on healthcare (which he had every intention of ensuring was carried out as a truthful statement as you seem to claim on Trump and his wall) is a serious issue in your book but this seems to be a non-issue to you when with a covid victim it’s possibly life or death.

                      At any rate I still don’t know how a president that until covid had gone a year without doing any press briefings is the most transparent president in modern history but as opposed to engaging in a days long back and forth when I have paying clients to support in the morning (and I’m sure you have your own business to tend to) I’ll agree to disagree on it

                    4. CK, you keep changing the goal posts and shifting the discussion. All I did was point out that other Presidents did their share of lying while trying not to expand the discussion into the Clinton or Obama presidencies. You are trying to excuse what these two Presidents did but you didn’t even mention the big Obama lie that on tape his chief architect said was indeed a lie.

                      I only bring in other Presidents to provide a metric of comparison. Do you think what you call a lie by Trump having to do with the weather is the equivalent of Obama lying about ObamaCare to get it passed? The former was an insignificant comment that is meaningless. The latter was a comment that was intentional to deceive the American public. Why you can’t see that is beyond my understanding so I leave it to you to explain that to me.

                      That Obama didn’t testify you don’t discuss. That Holder refused to answer serious questions you don’t discuss, but Trump’s weather analysis is the focus of your concerns. Let’s say Trump doesn’t know how to read a weather map. Of what importance is that? Gruber saying that they lied in order to pass Obamacare deceiving the American population is a big deal. That is a metric you will be hard pressed to defend over Trump’s weather predictions.

                      “I apologize if I insulted you but it’s hard to take the difficult position you’ve picked out for yourself seriously when it’s in defense of a man who has an atrocious track record when it comes to truth telling.”

                      That is your conclusion. It is not evidence. It is not a defense. You are using a conclusion as your basis of proof. Wrong. Can’t do that. You have to prove your case and just because you can’t prove it doesn’t mean that you can rely on your conclusions based on what?

                      We are now discussing the wall. Let’s assume Mexico doesn’t pay for the wall. So what? But, how do you make someone else pay? Mexico has put up troops that weren’t there before to reduce the flow of illegals. Actually that seems better than humiliating Mexico for Payment. Trump exaggerated but the wall is being built and it is a strong wall (compare it to former fencing). Isn’t that the real basis of his promise. Compare that to Gruber’s tape saying they lied in order to pass Obamacare that affected roughly 16% of our economy.

                      “Trump has told more lies than we can count and honestly I wasn’t trying very hard.”

                      The insignificance of your complaints demonstrates that the President uses puffery and exaggeration but on meaningful substantive issues he has followed through with his promises under intense pressure from the opposition. You don’t like him so you don’t want to give him any credit. Your problem is you don’t know why.

                      “Joe Biden’s situation is hardly comparable to Kavanaugh’s. Kavanaughs accuser had therapist notes for years regarding their encounter.”

                      Where are those notes? Do you not understand the rules of evidence and why they are necessary? In Biden’s case there actually are witnesses from the past that were told of Biden’s actions at the time, actions that were taken, and now a video. That is all tangible information that Biden’s defense can interrogate. There was nothing of that kind against Kavanaugh and Ford’s witnesses testified against some of her claims.

                      “Biden also makes gaffes but I have yet to hear of any tapes of him bragging about being able to grope women as he pleases or throwing any wild parties with Pedophiles and underage girls.”

                      You are taking idle chatter as fact. It isn’t. Look at the rules of evidence that exist for a reason. None of the allegations against Trump were illegal or proven and allegations were proven false.

                      I’m not saying Biden should be convicted. I am just saying that you are using a double standard. Read Alan Dershowitz’s comments about placing the shoe on the other foot and read his discussions about evidence. Alan Dershowitz is on the left and was a supporter of Hillary Clinton and has already said he will not vote for Trump and he will vote for Biden.

                      “yet every president in modern history has felt it was their duty to share their returns with the American people.”

                      You are moving further and further off topic and onto the standard complaints listing one after one in a Gish Gallop attempt to overload the discussion so you don’t have to focus on any one point or on EVIDENCE.

                      Back to the metrics. People wanted certain papers of Obama’s released. There was no law that those papers had to be released and they weren’t. We voted on Obama knowing that. People wanted Trump’s tax returns released and they weren’t. We voted on Trump knowing that. What you are demonstrating is a double standard.

                      You continue to do a Gish Gallop which is non-productive though it fills up a lot of space. I indulged somewhat in that game to demonstrate that point by point I can get to the truth whether it is positive or negative of Trump. The problem is that you haven’t brought up things of significance that can be compared to the metrics created by former administrations.

                      Do you wish to try again and tell us the lies of Trump starting with the most important? I see that suddenly you are thinking about your clients. I think that is good thing because though you seem to be an intelligent good guy you have difficulty separating your personal feelings from the facts. I hope my responses help you not to suddenly like Trump but to deal with things more fairly while helping you recognize the difference between proof and feelings.

                    5. “Joe Biden’s situation is hardly comparable to Kavanaugh’s. Kavanaughs accuser had therapist notes for years regarding their encounter.”

                      That’s insignificant. It merely tells you that in 2012 she was pushing this in counseling as part of the games she plays with her husband. No disinterested witnesses have seen the therapists notes and as reported in the media their salient text is inconsistent with her testimony to Congress. And no one contends any names are on the notes.

                      With Blasey Fraud, you cannot get past several insuperable obstacles.

                      1. There is no evidence she ever met Kavanaugh or Judge. Not an old Polaroid, not a testimonial from people known to be associates of any of the three of them, not a diary entry, zippo.

                      2. In regard to the gathering in question, she cannot remember any secondary details, all four people supposedly present draw a blank, Judge says he never saw Kavanaugh do anything like that in any setting, and her chum Leland Ingham Kayser eventually said that she did not recall any gathering resembling that and no such gathering would have been consistent with the schedule she was keeping in 1982.

                      3. You have his appointment calendar from 1982. Her name doesn’t appear on it, Leland Ingham’s name is not on it, and neither are the initials of these two on it.

                      4. She named Christopher Garrett as the person who introduced her to Kavanaugh’s circle. He says he knows nothing about anything she’s claimed in re Kavanaugh.

                      5. At the time, there were about 40,000 youths in Montgomery County, Md. born after 1962 and prior to 1969. There is no reason to believe any two persons among that 40,000 selected at random would have been acquainted. She lived 6.5 miles from the Judges and 8 miles from the Kavanaughs. She attended a girls’ school, they a boys’ school. Her brother was not enrolled at their school and Mark Judge’s sister was not enrolled at hers.

                      (Mark Judge has published a couple of memoirs. He’s one person you’d know something about without ever having met him. His friends, including Kavanaugh, make cameo appearances. Where do you fancy she pulled up Kavanaugh’s name?).

                      And, of course, she lied about a number of ancillary matters, among them her ‘fear of flying’ and her home renovation projects. And it was cute how her Silicon Valley chums wiped her internet presence so thoroughly. It was agreeable for so many in her husband’s family to sign a petition of support for her. Pretty amusing her own relatives wouldn’t sign it.

                      Her claims are a complete sh!t sandwich, but partisan Democrats pretend to take them seriously for effect.

                    6. DSS it looks like you were responding to me but it should be to CK07. Out of curiousity when you responded did you use the respond button on the email?

                    7. Again, the parameters of the site are set such that eventually in an exchange the ‘reply’ button will disappear after so and so many posts or so and so much text and you have to simply add your comment to the end of a subthread rather than nesting it. Since I directly quoted one of his red herrings, you can see I was replying to him.

                    8. DSS, I wasn’t complaining but I think if the reply button is pressed on the email you received the email going out would be to the person you are responding to. The red herring was obviously CK’s to you and I.

                      I liked your response.

                    9. I should point out that nearly all of the exchanges you have with Natacha, Peter Shill, Gainesville, and the exchanges you used to have with Diane were all irrelevant to questions of law and policy; this chap who has resurfaced after time away is of similar kidney. It’s all about topical pseudo-controversies meant to demonstrate the superiority of the Blue tribe over the Red tribe. To some extent, that’s the moderator’s selection of topics at work. You’ll note though that some topics generate a great deal of traffic and some generate very little. Judging from our Facebook wall at home, that’s what gets most Democrats out of bed in the morning. That and resentment of ‘the rich’, which is characteristic of Bernie Bros (who seem to think there is no service that might be produced that shouldn’t be allocated by government employees).

                    10. DSS, you are right of course for most of the discussions, but in my first discussions and even intermittantly later in the discussions sometimes the discusions were relevant to the questions of law and policy. As an example, my first discussion with Gainesville (Anon) was when he was known as Jan F. He got very frustrated and then came his typical language and anger that continued until he reemerged as Anon and then several aliases including btb. He was very angry when he lied and I copied his lie. Same with Peter Shill or as I like to call him Paint Chips. I even tried to get him to talk policy and he tried one time but when he failed things went south again. Diane was a similar case. If you remember I had a long discussion with her on one subject (regarding risk and the police) and I thought things had changed when she came back and apologized saying her son said she was wrong. That didn’t last long either.

                      ” this chap who has resurfaced after time away is of similar kidney”

                      He seemed to get frustrated as well but did apologize and in the same email said that he had clients to deal with. That seemed to be a reasonable and polite answer.

                      The moderator’s selection are his choice not to my liking but I have watched the moderator and read his stuff. He is bright but has blindspots especially regarding the real world.

                      Democrats on this blog don’t want to talk policy because they are supporting a team, not policy. Take note how they don’t adhere to principle. It’s ok if their team cheats but no ok for anyone else.

                      This is not a place to learn much from the comments from the left but it provides a break and time to think.

                    11. Allan,
                      I’m not thinking of my clients all of a sudden. This isn’t the first time I’ve discussed walking away from this argument. You even quoted one of them earlier when I somewhat rudely stated “ I’m not getting paid by the hour to tend to the mentally deranged here. You can call it run and gun or whatever you want but it’s not surprising you’re having a hard time finding liberals or even non Trumpsters to debate you, when you start the argument with the most absurd point available.” I suppose I could have been more direct even if I was being a bit insulting (which I have apologized for).

                      As TIA noted I don’t spend much time here, and engaging you in an extended argument means dealing with him, mespo, OLLY, and whatever other hardened Trumpster or conservative decides they want a peice of the action in extended debates on a forum that is poorly designed for it. I click for emails on new comments and it hasn’t worked well for years, then when you get to the 5th reply or so you don’t have a reply button so you have to respond to an earlier post, and it gets to be exhausting. Not to mention the specific argument is on a topic of your choosing and not necessarily the topic of article.

                      Remember I didn’t set about to prove Trump told the most significant lie of any president ever (even if I think he did). I noted that stepheng20100’s defense of Trump’s claims as research musings was foolhardy, and hypocritical, affording Trump leeway he’d never have given Obama had he uttered those same words. Also that this wasn’t a liberal hit job against the president, considering Drudge Report still had links to half a dozen articles on the subject at the time and a large picture of Clorox bleach tablets. Then Olly came to take potshots as my line about Trump being a big disaster seemed to trigger you into dragging me into an extended debate on whether Trump has told the biggest lie of any recent president or is somehow the most transparent president.

                      My issue isn’t so much with you, you’ve been polite. My issue is the person you’re defending has been demonstrated time and again to be a compulsive liar. You claim his lies are insignificant and meaningless, and that because he’s not a meteorologist, who cares if he’s drawing random paths of hurricanes (after talking about nuking them away) then pretending he didn’t. But the presidents repeated lies and ridiculous statements in public, at rallies or on Twitter have caused him a credibility issue both at home and abroad. Johnson, Trudeau etc aren’t laughing behind his back because he’s a rousing success. You create a straw man implying that the main Trump lie I bring to the table is the hurricane sharpie. It’s really just the most ridiculous example of who he is. But the one I actually attempted to put against the “Obama lie” on healthcare, is his claim that whoever wants a test gets a test. You claim Obama lies on healthcare so he could get it passed. Yet healthcare was early in his first term, he had a majority in Congress and most people were in favor of a public option. Obama sought compromise with republicans who said they’d never vote for it without one. Trump lies for his popularity and to aid his re-election odds if not just for the heck of it. Like half of his lies, saying whoever wants a test gets a test, is one that his base eats up. You can claim it doesn’t hurt anyone, but if it paints a rosy picture of the situation to the street protestors among his base, and they get sick and help the infection continue to skyrocket the end result is much worse than someone finding out they might not keep a doctor who won’t comply with their healthcare plan for preventive care.

                      I didn’t bring sexual affairs into this. You brought up Monica. I countered with Stormy and Access Hollywood tape, you countered with Biden and questions on liberals judging Kavanaugh. Trump has lied about the wall, you find an excuse or claim it turned out for the best. Obama was wrong or lied about everyone in every state being able to keep their doctor, you suggest it’s far worse than any lie trump has ever told. Trump has claimed he will replace Obamacare with “insurance for everybody” campaign promise, yet you seem to have no issue with his failure to even attempt insurance for everyone (though he has attempted to dismantle Obamacare piecemeal, replacing with any sort of insurance for everybody it hasn’t been a part of that). He now claims he’s responsible for saving preexisting conditions in healthcare, which is another total lie.

                      If you really want to counter my main point to Trumps lack of transparency you need to attack the point I brought up regarding his ending daily press briefings over a year ago not to mention his regular attacks on the press as the “enemy of the American people”. At this point that’s on you. It’s Sunday night and fire the reasons I stated previously I will not be able to engage in this type of debate during a work week. You can have at it. It’s been fun, though I’m convinced the lot of you would crucify Obama if he’d made similar remarks regarding a pandemic, you disagree.

                    12. “At this point that’s on you. It’s Sunday night and fire the reasons I stated previously I will not be able to engage in this type of debate during a work week. You can have at it. It’s been fun, “

                      Normally I respond from top to bottom and when finished hit reply frequently without proofreading. I was doing the same here but as I was replying I noted that you weren’t ending the debate, rather you were starting a brand new one while Gish Galloping to hide all the holes unearthed by me in my prior response. This reply of yours isn’t a sincere reply because it is obvious that you wish to throw punches but leave the ring before the punches are returned. Not good form CK. Even on a Sunday night.

                      Back to what I already wrote before seeing your intent and then just a few comments on what you have said leaving most of it untouched knowing much of what you said was a self-created spin headline. Like all self-created spin headlines truth is sacrificed for the desired effect. Sometimes one might get a glimmer of the truth at paragraph nine in the article but in your case you never made it to paragraph one. That leaves us knowing that what you said is near meaningless.

                      “I’m not thinking of my clients all of a sudden. This isn’t the first time I’ve discussed walking away from this argument.”

                      CK, there is no need to justify yourself. One of the reasons for limiting a discussion to one point at a time and the most significant one is it saves time and gets right to the crux of the issue making the Sunday Night excuse a non issue. That is where the problem arose. It’s hard to compare Obama’s lie (per Gruber) about Obamacare and Trump acting as a weatherman. The former is very significant and the latter has no significance and contains a legitimate excuse though it was stretching the point. I asked for the most significant and important points. It was your choice to bring in the weather from nowhere.

                      “You claim Obama lies on healthcare so he could get it passed. Yet healthcare was early in his first term, he had a majority in Congress and most people were in favor of a public option.”

                      Apparently your memory has left some things out because Obamacare couldn’t pass with the public option. In the end one of the chief architects of the plan, Gruber, admitted on video that they lied to get it passed. The Republicans didn’t like the plan. It stank to high heaven. It was a hybrid combining some of the worst points from both sides of the aisle and it was only a skeleton that was incomplete and couldn’t work. The incentives were all botched up. You have made some other comments about the plan but the problem is the Gish Gallop makes it impossible in a reasonable time frame to correct all the faults that exist in what you have written. If you desire I will, however, in concert with you clear up some of those misstatements you made or might continue to believe.
                      “You create a straw man implying that the main Trump lie I bring to the table is the hurricane sharpie.”

                      No. You did that all by yourself. I asked for the most significant and you brought up several including Trump acting like a weatherman. Am I not supposed to respond to your hyperbole? I also responded to several of your other issues. When you reply with an index of issues do I have to reply to all? You should have chosen one, two or three issues that were significant in order to spare you from having to complain that the issues weren’t worth discussing. That straw man was your creation you are talking about, not mine.

                      “But the one I actually attempted to put against the “Obama lie” on healthcare, is his claim that whoever wants a test gets a test.”

                      I didn’t see you mention testing in your last missive. Perhaps it was in your mind but you forgot to enter that complaint while loading your response with more complaints than could be answered on a Sunday night. That is another issue that is difficult to sort out. We started out with no effective testing due to the CDC and FDA. I already posted information on this issue along with repeating a very explanatory piece explaining what happened more than once. I think I can repost that piece if you desire. That was somewhere around one month lost

                      That meant Trump was left with zero testing ability. He thought out of the box and broke the bureaucracy permitting testing and serology on this virus to be performed by private laboratories. In less than two months testing availability was in the millions with new and better tests coming out all the time.

                      Could one get a test? Yes and no. Remember Trump was not acting as King. Quite the opposite he was acting to decentralize control which is exactly the opposite. That meant much of the testing was up to governors and locals so that we didn’t fall into the trap of one shoe size fits all. Many of the governors weren’t that adept and didn’t even know they had the equipment to do the testing. That was similar to governor Cuomo not knowing that he had been provided by Trump several thousand ventilators that were sitting in a NJ warehouse owned by NY.

                      I won’t go further on this issue because so much has been said that is totally wrong. Suffice it to say that testing was also limited because initially it took a lot of personal that used up too much needed PPE. Shortly home testing kits will be available and I will bet we will soon have a test that will be as simple as a home pregnancy test. This would never have been possible with any President that relied on the bureaucracy or didn’t think out of the box (which is essentially your complaint because his thinking process doesn’t conform to historical guidelines).

                      I don’t think it is of much value repeating what has already been said. What I have said on testing providing only the tip of the iceberg is quite similar to what I can do to most of your other arguments that you base on your feelings not your intellect so I will end here and give you a chance to think and if you desire reply again based on evidence.

                      Advice: Skip politics. Don’t root for a team. Decide on principle and then decide on policy. Changing principle to meet a specific policy means you’re lost or you need to rethink your principles.

                      PSS Drudge is a news aggregator not an authority. He provides the inaccurate headlines written by the newsmedia meant to draw readers.

                      PSS Hitting the reply button in the email itself and then replying in the box on the blog will likely place your response in the correct position displaying the correct name on the email that is sent.

                    13. Allan, I’ll do my best to address your latest response point by point after-hours, though this will be arduous on a work night which is why I wanted to avoid it:

                      ____________________________________
                      “This reply of yours isn’t a sincere reply because it is obvious that you wish to throw punches but leave the ring before the punches are returned. Not good form CK. Even on a Sunday night.”

                      Not so Allan. I wish to address the issues I have time to address and agree to disagree on the ones I do not where possible.

                      ____________________________________
                      “CK, there is no need to justify yourself. One of the reasons for limiting a discussion to one point at a time and the most significant one is it saves time and gets right to the crux of the issue making the Sunday Night excuse a non issue. That is where the problem arose. It’s hard to compare Obama’s lie (per Gruber) about Obamacare and Trump acting as a weatherman. The former is very significant and the latter has no significance and contains a legitimate excuse though it was stretching the point. I asked for the most significant and important points. It was your choice to bring in the weather from nowhere.”

                      You make comments on my memory, yet seem to forget that in the same breath you limited the discussion to one point at a time, you also made the absurd claim that Trump has been the most transparent administration of the past 20+ years. That’s what prompted the aside about the hurricane sharpie. Not your separate request for me to make 1 point at a time on Trumps biggest lies. I’ll quote myself here:

                      “I don’t know how a president that covers up a sharpie debacle on a hurricane trajectory, refuses to release his tax returns and abandons all press conferences is the most transparent president of all in your book.”

                      That’s a direct reply to your “Trump makes a lot of off the cuff statements something not seen with Obama so I expect him to make errors at times but he has been the most transparent President of the three” whereas my comment on the wall was a response to your request for me to list Trump’s lies one at a time.

                      ____________________________________
                      “Apparently your memory has left some things out because Obamacare couldn’t pass with the public option.”

                      Chalk that up to my own lack of proofreading. Meant to type “with” not “without a public option”. Obama made a promise to operate in a bipartisan fashion. The republican senators said they’d never vote for with a public option, then voted in unison against it when he removed it nonetheless. That’s the point I was making.

                      ____________________________________
                      “In the end one of the chief architects of the plan, Gruber, admitted on video that they lied to get it passed. The Republicans didn’t like the plan. It stank to high heaven. It was a hybrid combining some of the worst points from both sides of the aisle and it was only a skeleton that was incomplete and couldn’t work. The incentives were all botched up. You have made some other comments about the plan but the problem is the Gish Gallop makes it impossible in a reasonable time frame to correct all the faults that exist in what you have written. If you desire I will, however, in concert with you clear up some of those misstatements you made or might continue to believe.”

                      Gruber was a consultant. Not the chief architect of the plan. Obama had to be reminded of who he was. Unlike the many people Trump claims not to know there aren’t half a dozen pictures and videos of them spotted together either. Even if he were in a pivotal role, what republicans were convinced to vote for it based on his shenanigans? 1 member of the house? If I remember correctly the SCOTUS came to the exact opposite conclusion on it being a tax and upheld the individual mandate as a result. How many consultants picked by Trump came to testify against him at his own impeachment trial? Including the one who became ambassador after paying a million dollars. There is always someone who will say something that isn’t in agreement with others’ perception, or states something in a way that is misleading or jarring. To say Obamacare cost the US more when having unsubsidized individuals was driving costs up faster than the ACA (prior to the individual mandate repeal) is misleading.

                      ____________________________________
                      “”You create a straw man implying that the main Trump lie I bring to the table is the hurricane sharpie.”
                      No. You did that all by yourself. I asked for the most significant and you brought up several including Trump acting like a weatherman. Am I not supposed to respond to your hyperbole?”

                      You can respond to an aside without claiming “Trump’s weather analysis is the focus of your concerns”.

                      ____________________________________
                      “I also responded to several of your other issues. When you reply with an index of issues do I have to reply to all? You should have chosen one, two or three issues that were significant in order to spare you from having to complain that the issues weren’t worth discussing. That straw man was your creation you are talking about, not mine.”

                      Let’s suppose there is a topic about Biden’s affair. Someone in the post claims Biden is a gentleman and a scholar and you respond that he’s a miscreant with a poor track record of keeping his hands to himself, adding that the Dems are hypocrites and he would be a disaster of a president.
                      I then come in and demand you give a list of the dumbest things Biden has done, one at a time, while at the same time proclaiming him the greatest military mind in government since Kissinger.

                      You respond with something dumb Biden has done as the first point to discuss (planning to address a second after), and are so flabbergasted by the Kissinger comment, that you go on a tangent claiming Biden has no clue when it comes to military diplomacy. I then proceed to shut down the dumb thing you cited Biden as doing as irrelevant because it worked out in the end, cite some dumb things Bush and Trump have done calling them far worse, and go on ad nausea about the Kissinger comparison, claiming the military diplomacy flub is the focus of your concerns.

                      That’s in essence what you’ve done with roles reversed, substituting Trumps disinfectant debacle for Biden’s affair, your demand of me listing Trumps biggest lies with my demand for a list of the dumbest things Biden has done, and your comment on Trump being the most transparent president of the modern era with my comment on Biden being the greatest military mind since Kissinger (I don’t actually believe that but for example’s sake). You were so outraged that I questioned the Trump defenders hypocrisy over this issue that you looked to engage in a lengthy and slightly irrelevant argument as a means of venting frustration that other liberals have not debated you on these issues in the past. The evidence that there is pent up hostility I’m being asked to answer for is no more evident than on the subject of Kavanaugh. I never invoked the Justice’s name in my original response. Yet he’s been brought up repeatedly in this discussion. TIA had an entire diatribe on how he was wronged after I simply pointed out Ford has a more consistent record on the issue than Reade to begin with (you have a vague call from her mother that doesn’t even imply something sexual, followed my years of support to the opposite). However the first interjection of Kavanaugh was your “Why is it Democrats believe Kavanaugh guilty without any evidence and proof?”
                      What does that have to do with anything we’re talking about? You claim my wall talk is insignificant because it worked out in a different way than he claimed, and throw Clinton’s lie about a personal affair into the mix when it actually doesn’t involve his duties as president or billions in taxpayer money (well maybe the millions Starr spent investigating).

                      ____________________________________
                      “”But the one I actually attempted to put against the “Obama lie” on healthcare, is his claim that whoever wants a test gets a test.”
                      I didn’t see you mention testing in your last missive. Perhaps it was in your mind but you forgot to enter that complaint while loading your response with more complaints than could be answered on a Sunday night.”

                      Allan, in the same post you claimed the focus of my concerns was Trump’s weather analysis, you were replying to a post that I said “If you’re comparing lies on healthcare he’s lied after the fact that anyone who wants a test gets a test. Somehow Obama’s “lie” on healthcare (which he had every intention of ensuring was carried out as a truthful statement as you seem to claim on Trump and his wall) is a serious issue in your book but this seems to be a non-issue to you when with a covid victim it’s possibly life or death.” You then said “Do you think what you call a lie by Trump having to do with the weather is the equivalent of Obama lying about ObamaCare to get it passed? “

                      If that’s not you creating a strawman and picking and choosing which points are most favorable for your comparison, I’m not sure what is. I couldn’t have been more explicit about what point to compare tit for tat with yours but what’s done is done.

                      ____________________________________
                      “Could one get a test? Yes and no.”

                      Was trump lying or telling the truth when he claimed whoever wants a test can? Yes or no? The discussion you asked for was not about who to assign blame to. It was about the biggest lies Trump has told. If you want to conflate the issues that’s fine but it’s a different issue.

                      “”But as of right now and yesterday, anybody that needs a test — that’s the important thing — and the tests are all perfect, like the letter was perfect. The transcription was perfect, right? This was not as perfect as that, but pretty good,”

                      King or not, how do you view that as truthful as of March 6th when people who were symptomatic were routinely denied tests? He stated it when testing in the US was being compared to testing abroad.

                      ____________________________________
                      “Advice: Skip politics. Don’t root for a team. Decide on principle and then decide on policy. Changing principle to meet a specific policy means you’re lost or you need to rethink your principles.”

                      Which policy? Not viewing someone as transparent when they are constantly calling the press the enemy of America? I can see claiming Democrat hypocrisy on sexual assault (though the GOP was determined to pursue the Lewinsky affair in a way that the Dems have not with Trump’s alleged affairs. Also I’m not certain questions on a Justice’s record regarding sexual allegations aren’t more relevant than a presidents to begin with [Trump included] when they are lifetime appointments, arbitrating Roe v Wade etc and there is a reason character and fitness is a huge component of becoming an attorney or judge). However if the Dems ever had a president who routinely makes statements as reckless or ignorant as Trump, I would hope they catch themselves and don’t succumb to it in the way the GOP has. The fact that you do and won’t call him out for it makes me think you need to take your own advice. Ask yourself if you’d really give Dems a pass if they made the type of statements and tweets Trump does regularly. For the record I would not have been a fan of the Dems prior to FDR were I alive then, and even afterwards I’d have some misgivings pre Kennedy. They aren’t perfect but between them and those on the right, the Dems need working class voters

                      ____________________________________
                      “PSS Drudge is a news aggregator not an authority. He provides the inaccurate headlines written by the newsmedia meant to draw readers.”

                      Matt Drudge is not some blind news aggregator haphazardly picking the most popular stories to discuss, he’s a conservative aggregator and seeks to steer thought based on his own perception. That headline was written on drudge and not taken explicitly from the article:

                      https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/apr/26/pharmaceutical-firm-aytu-bioscience-testing-uv-lig/

                      Drudge it would appear is no longer a fan of trump:

                      https://www.cjr.org/politics/drudge-report-trump.php

                      ____________________________________“PSS Hitting the reply button in the email itself and then replying in the box on the blog will likely place your response in the correct position displaying the correct name on the email that is sent.”

                      As I stated I don’t seem to have that luxury. It worked years ago. I’ve clicked on almost all of my replies to receive new comments via email. Doesn’t happen. I get new stories via email but replies to comments, not for a while. All my responses are direct to the site. May have something to do with my VPN, not sure. I also don’t see when someone has responded to me. Just so happened I figured I’d check here after a long day. This is fun but time consuming and tiring. Maybe you find it enlightening, maybe not. You may write it off as me getting in more jabs before leaving, but I’ll merely say I came across your response and felt in the mood to reply. If I got it via email still that might make it better, probably not much, because I’d then feel more compelled to respond. Here I’ll liken it to schrodinger’s cat. If I don’t visit the thread I won’t know if you’ve responded. I’m not afraid to debate the issue with you but I am concerned with the time it will take. If time, duty and money were not an issue this would be far more enjoyable, but I must discontinue.

                    14. (1) “Not so Allan. “

                      I’ll accept this as true because you are here but I think if you look at your own words you will see why I made the comment I did.

                      (2)”You make comments on my memory, yet seem to forget that in the same breath you limited the discussion to one point at a time,”

                      Did I discuss your memory or did I discuss what you said? There is a difference. I don’t control the discussion. You have your pen and I have mine. Yes, I advised limiting the discussion and I believe (at one time) I said 1, 2 or three comments and I would respond one at a time. We need less topics and more depth. It seems you don’t ascribe to the same theory and believe in less depth and more topics, but I have my pen so I will reduce the number of discussions and take the rest up at a later date one at a time if you desire.

                      I wanted to limit discussion to get past the superficialities and thereby permit more quality time

                      (3)” you also made the absurd claim that Trump has been the most transparent administration of the past 20+ years.”

                      Yes, I said that but it is not absurd and I gave you good reasons why. Show me that what was said didn’t indicate transparency and show me any of the recent Presidents that provided that much detail from the WH that did not have to be released.

                      The weather, Trump’s taxes really aren’t pertinent but we can take them up as separate discussions if you wish.

                      (4) “Obama made a promise to operate in a bipartisan fashion.”

                      Obamacare was not a bipartisan bill. It wasn’t even completed or read before it was passed. Obama was far from bipartisan but that was his legal choice. The failures of Obamacare were laid out in black and white before passage and those failures proved true. You quoted some of what I said on those failures.

                      “Gruber was a consultant. Not the chief architect of the plan.”

                      Since you know better you can tell us who the chief architect of the plan was. Gruber portrayed himself as the “architect” I sort of downgraded him and made him just the chief architect.

                      “Obama had to be reminded of who he was.”

                      Obama knew how to forget a lot of things.

                      ” If I remember correctly the SCOTUS came to the exact opposite conclusion on it being a tax and upheld the individual mandate as a result.”

                      The problem is many Democrats voted for Obamacare being assured it wasn’t a tax. Was that another lie? If it were considered a tax Obamacare might never have passed.

                      (5) “How many consultants picked by Trump came to testify against him at his own impeachment trial? Including the one who became ambassador after paying a million dollars. “

                      What does that have to do with Gruber. Gruber said they lied to pass Obamacare. The ambassador said there was no quid pro quo. (quid quo pro isn’t a problem. That is how countries and heads of state deal with one another. Totally legal if the quid pro quo is for the country, but not appropriate for personal or family gain. That is the question at hand about Biden’s actions.)

                      “To say Obamacare cost the US more when having unsubsidized individuals was driving costs up faster than the ACA (prior to the individual mandate repeal) is misleading.”

                      Are you having a conversation with yourself?

                      (6) “You can respond to an aside without claiming “Trump’s weather analysis is the focus of your concerns”.

                      At that moment it absolutely was the focus of your concerns and you made it into a major part of your argument. Don’t blame me for slips of your pen.
                      —————————————————

                      The above is 6 different discussions all that need further depth. In these 6 separate discussion you have given us a flavor of what exists in the rest of your response so to go further at this point will not be fruitful.

                      The 6 different responses is 3-6 times the number of discussions I thought would be good to have at a time. Let us finish with these 6 before going onto the rest. Let us get to the meat and skip discussions of the weather and the like. Deal with the transparency issue and how any recent prior President actually revealed in detail so much information from so many WH personal and files that has only been released because Trump was so transparent.

                    15. CK07, I read further on in your response. Two things popped out and I figured they deserved my attention.

                      1) You made it absolutely clear that it was by accident (or almost by accident) that you saw my last last response (that led you to respond) since you state that you have a haphazard way of looking at comments. This was emphasized in a very long missive. One has to ask why. There are probably numerous potential reasons but one potential reason stands out. You want people to think you are not backing away from a discussion. We saw something similar in an earlier response of yours. Thus one could say it made sense to Gish Gallop a response that makes things so time consuming that the other doesn’t respond or responds incompletely and looks bad. That occured but I responded and then you did the Gish Gallop again in a more extreme form which I answered yesterday.

                      I am not saying this is the definitive reason for you to make everyone understand that you might not see my replies and therefore not respond. I am not saying that you want to be seen by others as a person that doesn’t back away rather that the way you have portrayed your actions makes people more likely to perceive things that way.

                      2) You made a big deal over my bringing in Kavanaugh’s name as if I were trying to do a mini Gish Gallop. I feet compelled to reassure you that was not the case. You were utilizing a double standard so I demonstrated what a double standard was, I did not intend to ‘litigate’ again the the abuses from the left that Kavanaugh suffered from those Democrats who had no evidence what so ever from the complaintant whose own witnesses disagreed with her,

                    16. “ You made it absolutely clear that it was by accident (or almost by accident) that you saw my last last response (that led you to respond) since you state that you have a haphazard way of looking at comments. This was emphasized in a very long missive. One has to ask why. There are probably numerous potential reasons but one potential reason stands out. You want people to think you are not backing away from a discussion.”

                      What people think of me is not so important Allan. I don’t know anyone here to begin with personally and even if I did I’m fairly sure the only one reading this is you. I don’t particularly want an audience for debate…hell I don’t particularly want this debate. The point I’ve stressed repeatedly is time. You opened the floor for a debate into Trumps biggest lies, in response to my post regarding what a disaster the topic of the article was for Trump.

                      I listed one and suggested then I’d be walking away comparing your ode to Trumps transparency and demand that someone spend hours debating you on it akin to a lunatic shouting at a room full of scientists to prove his point: “Let’s suppose I walk into a room full of scientists and shout “the sky is pink, you’re all just seeing it wrong…prove me wrong! Prove me wrong!” The example proved a bit extreme and I was called out for being unnecessarily insulting so I returned to apologize while addressing the few points I didn’t want to let slide.

                      I’ve been honest about not getting emails in spite of checking both notify me of new comments and new posts in every comment I make. I didn’t say I accidentally stumbled on your post, I did come back to check and it so happened you had posted. I was in the mood to respond so I did as I said. I still scrolled and saw the comment count had changed and searched for my last post to see yours beneath it however. If it wasn’t there or if I hadn’t thought about it I wouldn’t have known. While I don’t care about your opinion of me, what I do care about to a limited extent is the idea that you and the trump supporters here are right because I’m not engaging you in a topic of your choosing, that I didn’t ask for, for you to subjectively decide what counts as a lie or a big lie, as you did with the wall.

                      Part of the difficulty of engaging in a debate like this is when the subject has lied or made misleading statements thousands of times it’s hard to think where to start. Plus I don’t particularly relish the idea of becoming heavily invested in a debate chosen by someone who is clearly biased, for them to judge the outcome. You know damn well Trump lies all the time, and the fact that you’re going to great lengths to defend him on a topic where he spoke with all the eloquence of a 4th grader on the use of UV and disinfectants in the body to cure coronavirus, as news from papers from Toronto to Paris are mocking his buffoonery shows I’m dealing with a sycophant. I’d rather not. You can come up with your own list of reasons why Trump is misunderstood or has been mischaracterized based on something you find online if that’s your objective. Mine was not to spend hours proving you wrong, it was to point out the hypocrisy of the right for defending indefensible statements they’d have had a field day with if made by someone on the left. As for your interjection of Kavanaugh, for every Kavanaugh, Steven King, or Trump who faces increased scrutiny because of words or actions in the past, there’s an Al Franken, Olberman or Hillary who actually are ousted, tried or face years of lock her up chants for theirs. For all your talk of me staying out of politics and sticking with principal, I have to wonder if you did the same in those instances or ever found yourself here defending them. I won’t wonder too long, but do think you should in the mirror.

                    17. CK07,

                      You write: “hell I don’t particularly want this debate.”

                      There is a simple solution. Don’t be disingenuous. Don’t respond.

                      “The point I’ve stressed repeatedly is time.”

                      We got that the first time, the second time, the third time, the ….. time.

                      ” You opened the floor for a debate into Trumps biggest lies”

                      It think our discussion started with your comment “You and Allan seem to think Trump the stable genius is inspiring scientists to dream of the cure as opposed to hold their heads in shame.”

                      I responded: “Trump is incentivizing them to think out of the box and if they do he is indicating some level of support.” Then you expanded the discussion and then you started with the Gish Gallop and started using a double standard. You never listed only one thing. All the only one things were surrounded by other one things.

                      You keep telling us in long sentences and paragraphs how you don’t care …, why I do not know. I wish you well but I really don’t care about all this personal stuff you mention. Perhaps someone on the blog watches Dr. Phil and does care.

                      “You know damn well Trump lies all the time,”

                      No I don’t but I will post an article that deals with 10 of the most popular accusations stating Trump lied.

                    18. The Top 10 Lies About President Trump’s Response to the Coronavirus

                      It’s troubling to see how quickly disinformation about the government’s response to the coronavirus has spread. Democrats and the mainstream media have willingly spread false information in the hopes of damaging Trump politically before the election in November. Many of these lies were quickly debunked, but that hasn’t stopped the false information from being repeated over and over. The left hopes these lies will continue to spread, but so far it doesn’t seem to be working since Trump’s approval numbers for his handling of the pandemic have gone up. But that doesn’t mean the left will give up their disinformation campaign. To help set the record straight, I’ve compiled the top ten lies that have been spread about Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic. There are certainly plenty more, and you are welcome to mention them in the comments.

                      10. Trump downplayed the mortality rate of the coronavirus

                      In early March, the World Health Organization said that 3.4 percent of coronavirus patients had died from the disease. “Globally, about 3.4% of reported COVID-19 (the disease spread by the virus) cases have died,” WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus said at a briefing. “By comparison, seasonal flu generally kills far fewer than 1% of those infected.”

                      Trump said this number was false, as the mortality rate was actually much less because their number didn’t take into account unreported cases. In an interview with Sean Hannity on March 4, Trump challenged WHO’s number. “Well, I think the 3.4% is really a false number,” Trump said, asserting that the actual mortality rate is “way under 1 percent.”

                      And Trump was right. He wasn’t downplaying the mortality rate, as has been suggested. As testing in the United States has increased, the mortality rate has decreased. The same is true worldwide.

                      Yet, there were so-called experts who greatly overestimated the mortality rate in order to spark fear and panic. MSNBC contributor Dr. Joseph Fair told a panel that up to 20 percent of the U.S. population might die from the coronavirus.

                      9. Trump lied when he said Google was developing a national coronavirus website

                      When President Trump declared the coronavirus a national emergency, he announced that Google was developing a website to direct people to coronavirus testing locations nationwide.

                      “I want to thank Google. Google is helping to develop a website, it’s going to be very quickly done, unlike websites of the past, to determine whether a test is warranted and to facilitate testing at a nearby convenient location,” Trump said during a press conference.

                      Google confirmed this in a tweet after Trump’s remarks, but the media seemed intent on calling Trump’s claim false. HuffPost literally called Trump’s claim a lie because the site was actually being developed by a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet. This ultimately forced Google to confirm, again, that they were partnering with the federal government to develop a national coronavirus website. “Google is partnering with the US Government in developing a nationwide website that includes information about COVID-19 symptoms, risk and testing information,” Google said on Twitter.

                      After Google backed up Trump, he thanked them and ripped the media for spreading fake news. “I want to thank the people at Google and Google communications because as you know they substantiated what I said on Friday,” Trump said. “The head of Google, who is a great gentleman, called us and he apologized. I don’t know where the press got their fake news, but they got it someplace. As you know, this is from Google. They put out a release and you guys can figure it out yourselves and how that got out. And I’m sure you guys will apologize, but it would be great if we could get really give the news correctly. It’d be so, so wonderful.”

                      8. Trump “dissolved” the WH pandemic response office

                      Two days after Trump declared the coronavirus a national emergency, the Washington Post ran an opinion piece by Elizabeth Cameron, who ran the White House pandemic office under Obama, alleging that Trump had dissolved the office in 2018. She claimed because of this, “the federal government’s slow response to the coronavirus isn’t a surprise.”

                      This claim spread like wildfire, even though it was completely false. Days after WaPo ran the piece, they published another article by Tim Morrison, former senior director for counterproliferation and biodefense on the National Security Council, who debunked the allegation made by Cameron and other former Obama administration officials.

                      Direct, factual refutation of claim that the President disbanded his pandemic response team by the NSC official who led the biodefense mission.

                      The falsehood was widely reported and even stated as a fact by an NBC reporter in a question to the President. https://t.co/qTwfTfD0Mf

                      — John Noonan (@noonanjo) March 16, 2020
                      What good is there in spreading false information, as Elizabeth Cameron did? “This is Washington. It’s an election year,” Morrison laments. “Officials out of power want back into power after November. But the middle of a worldwide health emergency is not the time to be making tendentious accusations.”

                      7. Trump ignored early intel briefings on possible pandemic

                      The Washington Post again was the source of another bogus claim when they reported that intelligence agencies warned about a possible pandemic back in January and February and that Trump “failed to take action that might have slowed the spread of the pathogen.”

                      It was fake news. The Trump administration had begun aggressively addressing the coronavirus threat immediately after China reported the discovery of the coronavirus to the World Health Organization. In addition to implementing various precautionary travel restrictions, the administration fast-tracked the use of testing kits, set up a Coronavirus Task Force, and implemented a travel ban with China, several weeks before WHO declared the coronavirus a pandemic.

                      In actuality, it was Trump’s critics who weren’t taking the coronavirus situation seriously. Joe Biden even accused Trump of “fearmongering” and “xenophobia” for his travel ban. Even now, the Washington Post is suggesting the travel ban wasn’t enough.

                      6. Trump cut funding to the CDC & NIH

                      Back in February both Joe Biden and Mike Bloomberg (who hadn’t dropped out of the Democratic primary yet) accused President Trump of cutting funding to critical health agencies during a primary debate. “There’s nobody here to figure out what the hell we should be doing. And he’s defunded — he’s defunded Centers for Disease Control, CDC, so we don’t have the organization we need. This is a very serious thing,” Bloomberg claimed.

                      The Obama-Biden administration “increased the budget of the CDC. We increased the NIH budget. … He’s wiped all that out. … He cut the funding for the entire effort,” Biden claimed.

                      They were both wrong.

                      According to an Associated Press fact-check, proposed budget cuts never happened, and funding increased. They acknowledged that some public health experts believe that a bigger concern than White House budgets “is the steady erosion of a CDC grant program for state and local public health emergency preparedness,” but, they note, “that decline was set in motion by a congressional budget measure that predates Trump.”

                      The AP also noted that “The public health system has a playbook to follow for pandemic preparation — regardless of who’s president or whether specific instructions are coming from the White House. Those plans were put into place in anticipation of another flu pandemic, but are designed to work for any respiratory-borne disease.”

                      5. Trump “muzzled” Dr. Fauci

                      In late February, the New York Times claimed that the Trump administration had “muzzled” Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), by preventing him from speaking publicly about the coronavirus without approval from the administration.

                      It wasn’t true. But, the claim was echoed throughout the mainstream media, and ultimately was brought up in a press briefing, and Trump was asked directly about it, and he let Dr. Fauci clear it up.

                      “I’ve never been muzzled, ever, and I’ve been doing this since Reagan,” he said. “I’m not being muzzled by this administration.”

                      Despite the fact this claim was debunked, Joe Biden kept repeating it as if it were true. “And, look, right now you have this president, hasn’t allowed his scientists to speak, number one,” Biden said on ABC’s This Week a couple days after Fauci said unequivocally he wasn’t being muzzled. “He has the vice president speaking, not the scientists who know what they’re talking about, like Fauci.”

                      Joe Biden just touted the debunked talking point that President Trump had muzzled Doctor Fauci form discussing the coronavirus.

                      This is what Fauci had to say about that claim yesterday:

                      “I’ve never been muzzled ever and I’ve been doing this since…Reagan.”

                      ROLL THE TAPE! pic.twitter.com/1HAcLl3qes

                      — Francis Brennan (Text TRUMP to 88022) (@FrancisBrennan) March 1, 2020
                      4. Trump didn’t act quickly and isn’t doing enough

                      If you listen to Democrats, Trump didn’t act quickly enough and is botching the government response. Joe Biden has tried to perpetuate this falsehood by giving press briefings telling Trump what he should be doing.

                      The big problem with that is that when Biden has offered his own plan, he simply took things that Trump had already done, said he should do those things, and pretended they were his own ideas.

                      In addition to this, one of the most significant actions taken by Trump, the travel ban with China, was actually opposed by Joe Biden, and Trump’s critics on the left. Unfortunately for them, WHO experts admitted Trump’s actions saved lives in the United States.

                      Fox News contributor Liz Peek noted back in February, “Even before a single case of the virus erupted organically in our country […] and even as the administration had acted preemptively and effectively to keep virus carriers out of our country, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., former New York City Mayor Mike Bloomberg and others were eager to stoke fear and blame Donald Trump.”

                      Dr. Ronny Jackson, who served as White House physician from 2013 to 2018, also credited Trump for his decisive response to the coronavirus epidemic. “The president has done everything he needed to do in this case,” he said. “He’s acted quickly and decisively. He did what he always has done … he went with his instincts.”

                      Jackson added, “What’s going on in Italy and Iran is not going to happen here I think, because of the president’s quick and decisive actions. I think we are going to be more in line with what’s going on in South Korea and things of that nature.”

                      3. Trump told governors they were “on their own”

                      In a tweet sent last week, New York Times editorial board member Mara Gay claimed that during a conference call with governors about the coronavirus pandemic, President Trump told them they were “on their own” in getting the equipment they need. “‘Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves,’ Mr. Trump told the governors during the conference call, a recording of which was shared with The New York Times.”

                      She lied. Ms. Gay deliberately misrepresented Trump’s words. Trump actually told governors on the call: “Respirators, ventilators, all of the equipment — try getting it yourselves. We will be backing you, but try getting it yourselves. Point of sales, much better, much more direct if you can get it yourself.”

                      The false narrative that Trump had told governors they were on their own, essentially to expect no help from the federal government, spread like wildfire.

                      2. Trump turned down testing kits from WHO

                      A Politico hit piece from early March claimed that the World Health Organization offered the United States coronavirus testing kits, but Trump refused to accept them. This claim spread quickly, and Joe Biden even alluded to it during his March 15 debate with Bernie Sanders, claiming, “The World Health Organization offered the testing kits that they have available and to give it to us now. We refused them. We did not want to buy them.”

                      It wasn’t true. “No discussions occurred between WHO and CDC about WHO providing COVID-19 tests to the United States,” WHO spokeswoman Margaret Harris explained. “This is consistent with experience since the United States does not ordinarily rely on WHO for reagents or diagnostic tests because of sufficient domestic capacity.” According to WHO, its priority was to send testing kits to “countries with the weakest health systems.”

                      So, why did testing get off to a slow start in the United States? Ellie Bufkin at our sister site Townhall noted that “Testing in the United States was fraught with difficulty in large part due to the slow approval by the Food and Drug Administration to allow testing kits developed by private companies outside of the government-controlled CDC to be used at a local or national level. Those FDA policies are consistent with the Obama Administration’s response to H1N1 and Ebola in 2009 and 2014 respectively.”

                      1. Trump called the coronavirus “a hoax”

                      To this day the left (and the media) claim Trump called the coronavirus a hoax. He said no such thing. While the country was distracted by impeachment, the Trump administration was busy addressing the coronavirus outbreak, taking various measures to limit the spread of the virus in the United States. Impeachment quickly faded, so they decided to aggressively politicize his response to the coronavirus outbreak. Joe Biden even called Trump’s travel ban with China an overreaction, and accused him of trying to scare the public. “This is no time for Donald Trump’s record of hysteria and xenophobia ± hysterical xenophobia — and fearmongering to lead the way instead of science.”

                      President Trump responded to these allegations during a rally in South Carolina, calling the Democrats’ politicization of the coronavirus “the new hoax.” The media jumped on this line, claiming that Trump called the virus, not the Democrats’ reactions to it, a hoax. The lie spread like wildfire and Joe Biden even used the lie as a talking point on the stump. There was quite a stir when Politico’s story repeating the false claim that Trump called the virus a hoax was flagged by Facebook fact-checkers as fake news, but other fact-checkers couldn’t deny that the claim was false either. __Matt Margolis

          2. seem to think…

            That’s your problem; deal with it. I can assure you Allan and I absolutely do not believe President Trump is recommending anyone interpret his words as an approved treatment protocol.

            1. Unfortunately OLLY, President Trump is the entire country’s problem. And we’re all dealing with it…Hopefully not for much longer.

              1. Unfortunately OLLY, President Trump is the entire country’s problem.

                No, he is the entire country’s President. He’s only a problem to those that see him doing damage to the progressive, administrative state. Those panicking about ingesting bleach are the useful idiots of that group.

                1. OLLY,
                  The next time a left leaning stable genius hypotheses about nuking a hurricane I will welcome the “useful idiots” of any group. Hypocrites (I hope) such as yourself included.

              2. CK07, in order to prove your point you have to be ready to 1) Prove that Trump did a lousy job and 2) Prove that his replacement will be better.

                To do that one presents specific issues one by one starting with the most important and debates those issues. It is seldom that we see any from the left willing to do so without relying on the Gish Gallop.

                Talk is cheap. Discussion is much more valuable.

                1. @Allan Given the testing debacle, the number of cases in the US, the fact that the US is well on its way to ceding leadership to China in the world, the fact that he wasted months courting Kim Jong Un who appears to be knocking on deaths door if not dead, the fact that he ran on a platform of building a wall, dismantling Obamacare, being the most presidential president ever, golfing less than Obama, and gaining the US global respect and failed at all of those as the free world leaders joke and laugh behind his back, and given the fact that he makes a plethora of idiotic statements with regularity he either has to cover up or pretend never happened I’d say it’s pretty clear he’s a failure and when he’s out the right will jump at the chance to claim he wasn’t a real republican just as they did before he won the primary, when they said he’d never be elected and didn’t know what the nuclear triad was. Remember that??

                  1. “@Allan Given the testing debacle”

                    What about the debacle?

                    I have responded to that over and over again so this time I am going to repost the entire article previously posted for Anon who never accepted anything I said or rejected in writing so that a debate over the facts could occur.

                    Therefore I will post the article I posted before to reexplain the situation. Then you can reframe your question and we can debate it.

                    Here’s Why We Didn’t Have Coronavirus Testing In February

                    If you’ve been on Twitter lately you’ve probably noticed an increasing number of people on the left are claiming that President Trump has blood on his hands. Even those who aren’t going quite that far are eager to blame Trump for a “lost month” in February during which the government failed to ramp up testing. For instance:

                    The most economically, scientifically, and technologically advanced country on the planet is ranked 38th in tests per person. Donald Trump had to work hard to screw up such a massive advantage. His trust in China lost months, as did his belief COVID-19 would magically go away. https://t.co/2jkbagnu3N

                    — Joe Scarborough (@JoeNBC) April 19, 2020

                    Like a lot of partisan claims, there is some truth to this one. It’s true that February could have been a moment to ramp up testing in order to see more clearly how quickly the virus was spreading and it’s true that didn’t happen. Why it didn’t happen is another matter.

                    Over the weekend the Washington Post published a deep dive on the problems at the Centers for Disease Control which cost the U.S. about a month of progress. Effort by the CDC to create a coronavirus test began in mid-January after China published the genetic sequence of the virus:

                    Those familiar with the events said the design efforts were led by Stephen Lindstrom, an accomplished respiratory virus specialist who was a co-inventor of seven earlier CDC tests for strains of the flu…

                    The test kits featured two components that focused on separate regions of the virus’s genome, a standard approach. However, the CDC also outfitted the kits with a third component, a pan-coronavirus segment. That addition sought to identify a wider family of coronaviruses, of which covid-19 is the most recent strain to be observed in humans. Tests that were being developed abroad under sponsorship from the World Health Organization did not include this extra feature.

                    In essence, the CDC-designed test kit included and extra segment that would have allowed users to include people who had SARS or similar coronaviruses. It’s not clear what the point of this third segment of the test was but the important point is that only the first two segments of the test kit were needed to identify COVID-19.

                    The addition of the third test segment might not have mattered except that it wound up creating a significant problem. The CDC decided to manufacture the test kids “in house” rather than rely on outside labs. And during that process, the reagents used in the third segment of the test became contaminated. We know this because when the CDC sent out the initial batch of test kits, nearly all of them gave false positives on the third segment. Here’s what happened:

                    In the fourth week of January, the CDC shipped out the kits to more than two dozen public health labs scattered across the country, from Albany, N.Y., to Richmond, Calif…

                    The labs were instructed by the CDC to demonstrate that the test would work before analyzing samples from patients.

                    But when those facilities began using the kits to analyze a negative control sample — highly purified water supplied by each lab and free of any genetic material — the tests wrongly signaled the presence of the coronavirus.

                    The third segment of the test was supposed to detect a whole range of coronaviruses. But in order to make sure the test was working properly, the labs were running the test with pure water. The test should have reliably given a negative result since there was no virus in the water. Instead, all of the labs got false positives, which indicated one of the reagents provided by the CDC had been contaminated during production.

                    Exactly how this contamination happened still isn’t clear but as a result the public labs were in limbo. They had a test showing a false positive. However, the false positives were only appearing on the third, unnecessary segment of the test. In theory, the labs could have continued to use the test without that problematic third segment but that would require special permission from the FDA. Until that was granted, the labs had to use the test as designed. In mid February it seems the CDC plan was to re-manufacture the one contaminated reagent [emphasis added]:

                    The first public hint of trouble with the test came during a Feb. 12 press briefing in which the CDC’s Messonnier mentioned unspecified “issues” bedeviling the public health labs. At the time, most American clinics and hospitals remained unable to test for the coronavirus…

                    “We think that the issue at the states can be explained by one reagent that isn’t performing as it should consistently, and that’s why we are remanufacturing that reagent,” she said.

                    At the public health labs, officials struggled to figure out what was wrong. Some labs determined that the test would work without the third component. But under the CDC’s emergency instructions, health officials had to use the test as it had been designed.

                    On February 23, a top FDA official named Timothy Stenzel finally went to the CDC lab in Atlanta to sort out what was going on.

                    During his visit in Atlanta, Stenzel determined that the problems with the coronavirus test were caused by the CDC’s manufacturing, not the design, according to the FDA. The shortcomings with the test kits were attributable to what the FDA described as a “manufacturing issue.’’

                    Stenzel advised CDC officials to stop making the kits in-house…

                    The FDA on Feb. 26 informed the CDC by email that the labs could begin testing samples while skipping the third component.

                    To sum all of this up, we had a test designed and manufactured by late January, but initial validation showed one segment of the test had been contaminated. That third segment wasn’t necessary to test patients for COVID-19 but only the FDA could allow the labs to perform tests without using the third segment. For some reason, it took the FDA nearly a month to get to the bottom of the problem. Why was that exactly?

                    There’s one paragraph in the story which states, “Stenzel for nearly a month could not determine, based on information provided by the CDC, whether the kits were failing because of a ‘design or manufacturing issue.’’’ That’s pretty thin but it’s not hard to imagine there were frequent calls between the FDA and the CDC in February. The CDC was saying, hey, we think we’ve got this figured out just give us a few more days. And the FDA was on the other end of those calls saying, hey, we’re in a hurry, can’t we run the tests without the third segment? Finally in the last week of February the FDA got tired of the BS, showed up at the lab, said no more in-house manufacturing of tests and allowed labs to run the tests without the 3rd segment.

                    But this wasn’t the only problem. While all of this was happening, competent outside labs were stalled in creating their own alternative tests because once the U.S. declared a public health emergency, which it did in late January, the FDA had to approve any outside tests. Anyone who wanted to create their own test would face reams of FDA paperwork to secure an “emergency use authorization,” something many hospital labs didn’t begin to know how to get:

                    Academic hospitals, which have laboratories that routinely develop tests to use on their patients, began to get increasingly anxious about the nation being dependent on the CDC lab. They considered pursuing FDA approval for their tests but complained they didn’t have the resources or expertise — or access to crucial materials such as the virus itself — for the complicated application process required during a public health emergency.

                    “When the CDC test was delayed, then the cases started appearing outside of China, there should have been a quicker response to get diagnostic testing going” by easing regulations on hospital labs, said Melissa Miller, director of the clinical molecular microbiology laboratory at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill School of Medicine.

                    During the Zika outbreak, some laboratories developed their own tests and got letters from the FDA notifying them that their tests had not been approved. Even as coronavirus testing remained limited nationwide, the CDC reminded hospitals on Feb. 18 that they shouldn’t do their own testing without an “emergency use authorization” from the FDA.

                    So the FDA not only didn’t sort out the mess at the CDC quickly, it also warned everyone else to stay on the sidelines unless they’d gone through a laborious approval process. The outcome of all of this is that we had very little testing happening in February.

                    A combination of mistakes and red tape cost us at least several weeks when we should have been moving forward with testing. That may be President Trump’s fault in the “buck stops here” ultimate sense but blaming him directly for a series of missteps by highly trained professionals seems to overlook the real problem: Bureaucracies don’t respond well, or quickly, to new challenges.

                    1. CK pay special attention to the following portion of what was quoted above.

                      Presidents have been concentrating power in the government and the bureaucracy. Trump changed that dynamic by decentralization and broke the FDA stranglehold. If you are interested and can’t get behind the paywall I will copy another article from the WSJ for you.

                      Trump Rewrites the Book on Emergencies
                      https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-rewrites-the-book-on-emergencies-11587142872

                      From the above article.

                      “but only the FDA could allow the labs to perform tests without using the third segment. For some reason, it took the FDA nearly a month to get to the bottom of the problem. Why was that exactly?….
                      So the FDA not only didn’t sort out the mess at the CDC quickly, it also warned everyone else *****to stay on the sidelines unless they’d gone through a laborious approval process.***** The outcome of all of this is that we had very little testing”

      2. CK07, did you ever hear of the term bronchoscopy. Years ago when people were in respiratory failure with loads of mucous they tried to wash out the lungs via bronchoscopy.

        All sorts of medications have been given to change the character of blood and thus keep people living.

        In certain catastrophic diseases the blood turns acidic and chemicals are injected intravenously to raise the PH. In specific what is injected is very close to Arm and Hammer baking soda. I am sure if he had said that you would have the same reaction.

        Who would ever think that one could focus X-Rays in a small area to kill cancer cells while leaving the surrounding tissue mostly intact?

        You guys have no immagination and without immagination you can’t create anything new.

        1. “You guys have no immagination and without immagination [sic] you can’t create anything new.”

          I imagine a world without Allan and it’s a lovely place. I also imagine a world in which spell-check actually works, for those who can’t spell.

          And I imagine a world in which Trump knows when to keep his mouth shut — or at the very least he understands that there’s a time and a place…

          When Trump’s no longer in office, he’ll have plenty of time to find cures for the diseases that ail us, but in the meantime, he should at least try to act like an adult, rather than a petulant child.

          This little vid, tells one a lot:

          https://www.bbc.com/news/av/world-us-canada-51761880/trump-on-coronavirus-people-are-really-surprised-i-understand-this-stuff

          1. When Trump’s no longer in office, he’ll have plenty of time to find cures for the diseases that ail us,

            President Trump is the cure for a disease that our country has endured for over a century. That’s why you and your ilk deemed him a threat long before he took office. Progressive plague, meets President Trump. 😎

          2. “I imagine a world without Allan and it’s a lovely place. I also imagine a world in which ….”

            You can imagine a world where Sh1t has reached the price of gold. Now go play in it. If you can’t find any then ask Fido to produce some.

            1. I imagine a world…in which Allan understands that he isn’t clever.

              1. Anonymous the Stupid, imagine a world where the dumber you are the richer you are. Then I might have to refer to you as Jeff.

                1. Again, Allan fancies himself to be ‘clever’. He’s the world’s biggest bozo.

                  1. Anonymous the Stupid, if what you say was true you could take my serious posts and point out all the errors, but you can’t and that is why you are known as Anonymous the Stupid.

                    1. Allan, for the love of country, family and mental health: stop engaging the troll who delights in antagonizing you

                      GIVE IT A REST ALREADY!!!!!

        2. @Allan I’m well aware of radiation therapy being used on a minute level. I was aware of it 7 years ago when it was in clinical trials on animals. That’s not what Trump was talking about and he could barely articulate what he was. He was implying he told the scientists and doctors to try shining UV light in the body and under the skin. He clearly had no grasp on anything he was saying, made no mention of countering the negative effects of UV on skin, speculation as to whether far UV-C was safer for use internally, or anything close to “chemicals being injected intravenously to raise the PH”.

          You said you’re “sure if he had said that [I] would have the same reaction.” If he said anything close to that and didn’t make it obvious he was reading from a teleprompter without making mistakes I’d be shocked and astounded. At best he sounds like an imbecile weighing in on things which he has no knowledge of and should be letting Birx and Fauci do the talking on, at worst he sounds like a moron, inducing his followers to engage in dangerous ideas he came up with in that stable genius mind of his. Had Jimmy Carter used those exact words Trump used I’m sure you’d have been saying “the worst president ever sunk to a new low of stupidity.”

          1. “He was implying he told the scientists and doctors to try shining UV light in the body and under the skin. He clearly had no grasp on anything he was saying, made no mention of countering the negative effects of UV on skin, speculation as to whether far UV-C was safer for use internally, or anything close to “chemicals being injected intravenously to raise the PH”.

            CK, The President wasn’t providing a dissertation on the subject . He was speaking off the cuff encouraging the scientific community to think out of the box and think quickly. Generally those scientists have to go through tremendous bureaucracies but he was opening the gate for good ideas to gain traction faster. Some of the best ideas took decades of laughter before becoming acceptable. These are off the cuff statements right out of his head and out of his mouth. (That can cause problems but the successes outweigh the problems that are generally small and petty.)

            An interesting story involves ulcers in the stomach that were treated with anti-acids and then Tagamet/ Zantac. Those ulcers are now treated with antibiotics to kill H.Pylori, the organism involved (discovered in the 19th century). The President wants to fast track any potential solutions for the virus. I think that is very admirable. Instead of laughing at people that look out of the box like so many of those on the list do we should be open to new ideas. Success comes from ideas small and large. I doubt any of those hyenas that do little more than criticize have had any significant self success.

            I don’t judge Presidents based on their words. I judge them based on their actions. Your Jimmy Carter response demonstrates the problem. He said some really good things but was a poor leader with dismal results.

    1. ““Mike Ricci, a spokesman for Gov. Larry Hogan’s administration, said the state’s hotline received more than 100 calls about disinfectant.””

      Question. How many of those callers were named Anonymous the Stupid?

        1. That is your reply after my posting that said:
          Question. How many of those callers were named Anonymous the Stupid?

          You don’t have the intelligence to create a response. You had plaigerize from mine. LOL at what a fool you are.

          1. “You had plaigerize [sic] from mine. ” Said by Trump’s boy “Allan.”

            The only fool is “Allan the Idiot.”

            1. …And I have been so nice to you . I just presented an award to Cuomo based in honor of you, Anonymous the Stupid. Do you know what it is called? The Anonymous the Stupid Award.

              Congratulations.

              1. Those who are truly stupid get the Allan the Idiot Award. It’s a trophy of a guy with his head up his ass.

                1. Again you plagiarize off my words. I guess that is flattery because you know I have something to say and you have nothing.

                    1. In other words you even plagiarize gibberish? We are going to have to figure out a new category of Stupidity for Anonymous the Stupid

  16. “Liberalism is a Mental Disorder”. Dear Morons: Please look up the difference between a “Suggestion” and a “Question”.

    1. There’s a time and place. Yesterday’s presser wasn’t the appropriate forum for Trumps musings… — or his games.

      1. There is a time and place for Anonymous the Stupid and that place isn’t here or any place where intelligence should be a prerequisite.

          1. That is actually good advice for everyone but if it is Anonymous the Stupid skip the salt and recognize Anonymous the Stupid is Stupid.

          1. Hutom, your word scramble of a name can be descrambled to say mouth. That is all you are. No brain just mouth.

            1. And your “word scramble of a name” is anal(l), Allan.

              ‘”Anal” – of, relating to, situated near, or involving the anus.’

              It’s where Allan’s little head resides.

  17. The Truth About Sunlight As Disinfectant 

    While people worldwide search for ways to protect themselves from the novel coronavirus, some are testing the old saying that sunlight’s ultra­violet wavelengths are a good disinfectant against pandemic germs.

    President Trump speculated about sunlight and ultraviolet rays as a panacea at a White House news conference on Thursday. Hospitals already have begun deploying artificial ultraviolet-C light for the first time to sanitize scarce N95 respirators for reuse. At home, fearful consumers are snapping up UVC sanitizing gadgets such as PhoneSoap to disinfect everything from cellphones to credit cards. Meanwhile, some are hanging gloves in the sun, while tinkerers are creating their own UVC gizmos.

    Not only are artificial ultraviolet techniques ineffective and likely deadly for treating an infected person, scientists say, some of them can be extremely dangerous used at home for disinfecting.

    “From nurses to some guy building a UVC box in their basement, I’m getting calls every day” asking for help with setup, said Brian Heimbuch, molecular biologist principal investigator and engineering sciences division head at Applied Research Associates, a high-end private research-and-development company. “It scares me that people are going to hurt themselves with UVC.”

    Of the three types of ultraviolet light, UVC is the deadly one, ­long-established for water and air sanitizing, but also one that people should never fool with. The invisible light is highly carcinogenic, with disinfecting results that vary widely in professional settings depending on the setup.

    “The devil is in the details,” Heimbuch said.

    Edited from: “Sunlight’s Ultrviolet Wavelengths Have Strenghs, Limitations In Disinfecting Against Coronavirus”

    Today’s  Washington Post 

    1. Dearest Seth….how are you? how is your boyfriend? everything good at home? You know how much we at my billion dollar empire appreciate you copying and posting my publication, Washercompost everywhere and anywhere. While it is true that I take advantage of my employees at all of my companies, that Amnesty International is now up my azz just because I pay inhumane wages to Amazon warehouse workers, could not care less if they get infected with the virus from my biggest supporter of goods, Communist China, and bought an over the top mansion in….I forget where since I have so many of them, our goal as the precious little pink commie that you are knows, is to overthrow Trump and starve his supporters just like our beloved Mao Zedong did in China. What’s 50 million people dying of starvation?

      Did you get the big fat check I sent you? the meth my boys sent you was made in Wuhan and the bats sprinkled their urine on it just for you. We know you are into that. No judgement

      xoxox

      Amnesty International Calls On Jeff Bezos To Address Amazon Employees’ Concerns About Working Conditions
      https://www.forbes.com/sites/angelauyeung/2020/04/24/amnesty-international-calls-on-jeff-bezos-to-address-amazon-employees-concerns-about-working-conditions/

Comments are closed.