New Covid-19 Thread

[jk]

Re: 60% of people naturally resistant to SARS-COV2

Thanks JK for this sobering story. Here in Uruguay 3 or 5 weeks ago we had 4 or 5 days with no new cases. We began to think we were out of the woods. Suddenly 2 hotspots appeared near the Brazilian frontier. They were controlled.
Few days ago several hotspots arised en private hospitals.
Our numbers are still very low (relative to population, as well as in absolute terms).
Economy is opening, but we are all the time under the threat of having to close again. This thing is dangerous indeed.

do you know the game "whack a mole"?

[Southernguy]

Re: 60% of people naturally resistant to SARS-COV2

do you know the game "whack a mole"?

Had to "google" it, and yes, it seems the game we are at in Uruguay. Let's see if the player is faster than the machine. So far we are ahead of the machine, but the latter is running faster. Maybe a new, partial at least, close up must be done.
I understand we are now "dancing" as Tomas Pueyo calls it

[shiny!]

Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

This short video shows how masks prevent the spread of droplets:

This short video shows (to my mind at least) that paper and cloth masks are practically useless:

So, do N95 masks work?

FACT CHECK: No, N95 filters are not too large to stop COVID-19 particles

The claim: "N95 masks block few, if any" COVID-19 particles due to their size

As many states and communities ease restrictions related to the COVID-19 pandemic, the debate over mask usage has intensified.

Businesses, churches and governments have implemented all manner of policies — some requiring masks, some leaving it up to each person, some even banning masks. And that has spurred many armchair epidemiologists to weigh in, including a Facebook page with nearly 1 million followers.

A June 4 post from Why don’t you try this? went a step beyond the homemade mask debate to claim that even the N95 masks used by health care workers are pointless in the face of COVID-19.

“COVID 19 virus particle size is 125 nanometers (0.125 microns); the range is 0.06 microns to .14 microns,” the post said. “The N95 mask filters down to 0.3 microns. So, N95 masks block few, if any, virions (virus particles).”

In other words, the post asserts the virus is smaller than the filter on the N95 mask, so the N95 mask doesn’t work.

Experts say this claim flies in the face of numerous studies and reflects a failure to grasp fundamental principles of how viruses behave and how face masks work.

Here’s what we found.

Virus particles don’t exist alone

The science of mask functionality gets really small, really fast. The unit of measurement here is microns — 1/1000th of a millimeter.

The size-based argument against N95 laid out in this claim assumes mask filtering works something like water flowing through a net — particles in the water smaller than the net opening pass through, while larger items don’t.

But the physics involved don’t work like that at all.

The COVID-19 particle is indeed around 0.1 microns in size, but it is always bonded to something larger.

“There is never a naked virus floating in the air or released by people,” said Linsey Marr, a professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech who specializes in airborne transmission of viruses.

The virus attaches to water droplets or aerosols (i.e. really small droplets) that are generated by breathing, talking, coughing, etc. These consist of water, mucus protein and other biological material and are all larger than 1 micron.

“Breathing and talking generate particles around 1 micron in size, which will be collected by N95 respirator filters with very high efficiency,” said Lisa Brosseau, a retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences who spent her career researching respiratory protection.

Health care precautions for COVID-19 are built around stopping the droplets, since “there’s not a lot of evidence for aerosol spread of COVID-19,” said Patrick Remington, a former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Size matters, but not how you think

But that’s not the only logical flaw in this claim.

The N95 filter indeed is physically around the 0.3 micron size. But that doesn’t mean it can only stop particles larger than that. The masks are actually best for particles either larger or smaller than that 0.3 micron threshold.

“N95 have the worst filtration efficiency for particles around 0.3,” Marr said. “If you’re smaller than that those are actually collected even better. It’s counterintuitive because masks do not work like sieving out larger particles. It’s not like pasta in a colander, and small ones don’t get through.”

N95 masks actually have that name because they are 95% efficient at stopping particles in their least efficient particle size range — in this case those around 0.3 microns.

Why do they work better for smaller ones? There are a number of factors at play, but here are two main ones noted by experts:

The first is something called “Brownian motion,” the name given to a physical phenomenon in which particles smaller than 0.3 microns move in an erratic, zig-zagging kind of motion. This motion greatly increases the chance they will be snared by the mask fibers.

Secondly, the N95 mask itself uses electrostatic absorption, meaning particles are drawn to the fiber and trapped, instead of just passing through.

“Although these particles are smaller than the pores, they can be pulled over by the charged fibers and get stuck,” said Professor Jiaxing Huang, a materials scientist at Northwestern University working to develop a new type of medical face mask. “When the charges are dissipated during usage or storage, the capability of stopping virus-sized particles diminishes. This is the main reason of not recommending the reuse of N95 masks.”

Our ruling: False

We rate this claim FALSE because it is not supported by our research. The COVID-19 virus itself is indeed smaller than the N95 filter size, but the virus always travels attached to larger particles that are consistently snared by the filter. And even if the particles were smaller than the N95 filter size, the erratic motion of particles that size and the electrostatic attraction generated by the mask means they would be consistently caught as well.
Our fact-check sources:

• Interview with Patrick Remington, former CDC epidemiologist and director of the Preventive Medicine Residency Program at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, June 9, 2020
• Interview with Linsey Marr, professor of civil and environmental engineering at Virginia Tech, June 9, 2020
• Email exchange with Lisa Brosseau, retired professor of environmental and occupational health sciences, June 9, 2020
• Email exchange with Jiaxing Huang, materials scientist at Northwestern University, June 9, 2020
• Email exchange with Bill Hanage, associate professor of epidemiology at Harvard University’s School of Public Health, June 9, 2020
• Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy, COMMENTARY: Masks-for-all for COVID-19 not based on sound data, April 1, 2020
• Email exchange with Nancy Leung, post-doctoral researcher in infectious disease epidemiology at the University of Hong Kong, June 9, 2020
• Email exchange with Yang Wang, assistant professor of civil, architectural and environmental engineering at the Missouri University of Science and Technology, June 9, 2020

To bad that N95s are essentially unavailable. Something that costs pennies to make. Something our countries could have stockpiled in case of a pandemic, if only priorities were different.

[jk]

Re: Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

This short video shows (to my mind at least) that paper and cloth masks are practically useless:

i don't think it shows that. what it is he's exhaling? is that a vape/smoke he's using? if so the average particle size is 0.4microns, pretty small, and less is expelled and with less force. so of some benefit, esp. catching medium size particles, i.e. larger than aerosol, smaller than the big ones that drop immediately.

To bad that N95s are essentially unavailable. Something that costs pennies to make. Something our countries could have stockpiled in case of a pandemic, if only priorities were different.

kn-95 are korean or japanese, not quite as good as n-95 because not as snug, but fairly widely available. and i have found n-95's available at some sellers.

[shiny!]

Re: Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

i don't think it shows that. what it is he's exhaling? is that a vape/smoke he's using? if so the average particle size is 0.4microns, pretty small, and less is expelled and with less force. so of some benefit, esp. catching medium size particles, i.e. larger than aerosol, smaller than the big ones that drop immediately.

kn-95 are korean or japanese, not quite as good as n-95 because not as snug, but fairly widely available. and i have found n-95's available at some sellers.

He's testing with vape aerosols, yes. But from what I've heard, Covid-19 floats on aerosol "micro-droplets" that stay airborne for 3-4 hours. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[jk]

Re: Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

He's testing with vape aerosols, yes. But from what I've heard, Covid-19 floats on aerosol "micro-droplets" that stay airborne for 3-4 hours. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

i don't hink there's a standardized size for aerosol particles: they will vary. bottom line, though, the countries that have imposed mandatory, widespread masking, widespread testing and contact tracing, are controlling the disease a lot better than the u.s., which is basically not controlling the disease at all except in the northeast, which has strong masking rules.

if you look at where the cases and deaths are spiking, it's in the areas that re-opened early and have weak or non-existent masking rules. i don't think that's a coincidence. anyone can upload a youtube video, but hospitalization and death rates tell a story that can't be denied. the states with strong masking regulations are doing better, and the people in those states are using all kinds of masks. i think the states that take the pandemic seriously do better, those that think it's a joke or a hoax have rising death rates.

[GRG55]

Re: Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks...e-7de897b517b7

[shiny!]

Re: Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks...e-7de897b517b7

Good find, GRG55. The math is largely above my head but I get the gist of it.

I think the big rise in cases in the sunbelt states is coming from several factors:
People not taking it seriously, yes. And I hope this board doesn't interpret my questioning to mean that I don't take it seriously, because I do.
Problems with how cases are being counted and reported.
Air conditioning. Heat and sunlight kill this virus but when it's so hot out we stay indoors, in sealed buildings. Air conditioners are circulating the virus.

When I saw that N95 masks were in short supply I stocked up on N95 filters and cartridges for an old 3M dual cartridge respirator sitting in my closet. So that's what I wear to the grocery store. I feel like a total freak wearing it. An old woman in a muumuu wearing a gas mask. Get the picture? It ain't pretty.

I stay home because I can't stand being around people who have their faces covered. 80% or more of life is visual and non-verbal. I feel tremendous stress being around people when I can't see their faces, can't read their expressions. And they can't read mine, either. It's a recipe for misunderstandings, or worse.

This is at the root of the resistance to wearing masks. It's not solely about hedonism. People are trying to avoid the anxiety they feel when they can't see one another's faces. Primeval instincts -vs- invisible germs.

How Masks Affect the Way We Interact

[Techdread]

Re: Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

https://medium.com/incerto/the-masks...e-7de897b517b7

You guys are so late, three months ago the AI guys were analysing this and recommending the wearing of masks as part of a strategy to control covid.

[jk]

Re: Some Masks work / Most Masks DON'T work

Universal masking lowers SARS-CoV-2 infection in health care workers



“Perhaps some people were unwilling to wear a mask during this COVID-19 pandemic due to lack of data. Well, now we have strong data from Mass General Brigham that support masking. While our study was in health care workers, the results should apply in other situations where social distancing is not possible. So, at this point, there is no longer any excuse not to wear a mask,” Cardiology Today Intervention Section Editor Deepak L. Bhatt, MD, MPH, executive director of interventional cardiovascular programs at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School, told Healio.
https://www.healio.com/news/cardiology/20200715/universal-masking-lowers-sarscov2-infection-in-health-care-workers

-------------------------
the "freedom" to not wear a mask is like the "freedom" to drive drunk.

---------------------------

from an accompanying editorial in jama:

In this issue of JAMA, Wang et al present evidence that universal masking of health care workers (HCWs) and patients can help reduce transmission of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections.¹ In the largest health care system in Massachusetts with more than 75 000 employees, in tandem with routine symptom screening and diagnostic testing of symptomatic HCWs for SARS-CoV-2 infection, leadership mandated a policy of universal masking for all HCWs as well as for all patients. The authors present data that prior to implementation of universal masking in late March 2020, new infections among HCWs with direct or indirect patient contact were increasing exponentially, from 0% to 21.3% (a mean increase of 1.16% per day). However, after the universal masking policy was in place, the proportion of symptomatic HCWs with positive test results steadily declined, from 14.7% to 11.5% (a mean decrease of 0.49% per day). Although not a randomized clinical trial, this study provides critically important data to emphasize that masking helps prevent transmission of SARS-CoV-2.
This change and its association with universal masking is unlikely to be artifactual; throughout the intervention, the number of symptomatic HCWs tested per day appears to have remained steady, while at the same time the daily number of new SARS-CoV-2 infections in the greater Massachusetts community was continuing to increase or had plateaued.² An artifactual flattening or decline in the rate of newly diagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infections when the rates were actually unchanged by the intervention could have occurred if, during the intervention period, a competing etiology for the symptoms that prompted SARS-CoV-2 testing among HCWs, such as influenza, had been trending more rapidly upward; however, weekly rates of diagnosed influenza in Massachusetts were low and approaching zero during this time.³

[shiny!]

Mask Double Standard

Not practicing what they preach.

Cuomo & Fauci Agree: Masks for Thee but Not for Me

A maskless Governor Cuomo, who has advised against unnecessary air travel, was spotted earlier this week in Atlanta abusing social distancing, and even taking to *hugging* local officials in the process.








Fauci flouted social distancing and masks on the same day that the mayor of Washington, D.C. made it *illegal* to do so and imposed a $1,000 fine for violators of her edict. Given Fauci’s cult hero status on the left, I don’t think he’s going to receive a citation any time soon.

[jk]

Re: Mask Double Standard

Vitamin D deficiency more common among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU

[shiny!]

Re: Mask Double Standard

Vitamin D deficiency more common among COVID-19 patients admitted to ICU

Good find, jk!

The end of the article is just what I've been saying:

The researchers wrote that vitamin D deficiency was more prevalent among patients requiring ICU admission, and that vitamin D deficiency may be an underrecognized determinant of illness-severity in COVID-19.


“These preliminary data provide impetus to the commissioning, design and interpretation of ongoing or future clinical trials to evaluate a potential therapeutic role of vitamin D in COVID-19,” the researchers wrote.

I suspect that if the keep looking, they will also find zinc deficiency in a lot of very ill patients, and if they have cardiomyopathy-type complications, selenium deficiency.

It's really not so far-fetched. Modern diets are highly processed (think empty calories) and even if we do eat right, much of our food is grown on nutrient-depleted soil.

Reasonable daily doses of zinc picolinate, selenomethionine, vitamin D3, C and A can't hurt and just might give us an edge if we get exposed or actually catch it. Might make the difference between feeling lousy and ending up in the ICU- or worse.

[shiny!]

Hydroxychloroquine WORKS

IMO there are only two reasons why Hydroxychloroquine has met so much resistance: Trump supports it, and Big Pharma can't make money from it.
Those who have deliberately steered public policy against this drug have the blood of millions on their hands. It's mass murder.

==================================================

An Effective COVID Treatment the Media Continues to Besmirch

By Steven Hatfill
August 04, 2020

On Friday, July 31, in a column ostensibly dealing with health care “misinformation,” Washington Post media critic Margaret Sullivan opened by lambasting “fringe doctors spouting dangerous falsehoods about hydroxychloroquine as a COVID-19 wonder cure.”

Actually, it was Sullivan who was spouting dangerous falsehoods about this drug, something the Washington Post and much of the rest of the media have been doing for months. On May 15, the Post offered a stark warning to any Americans who may have taken hope in a possible therapy for COVID-19. In the newspaper’s telling, there was nothing unambiguous about the science -- or the politics -- of hydroxychloroquine: “Drug promoted by Trump as coronavirus game-changer increasingly linked to deaths,” blared the headline. Written by three Post staff writers, the story asserted that the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine in treating COVID-19 is scant and that the drug is inherently unsafe. This claim is nonsense.

Biased against the use of hydroxychloroquine for COVID-19 -- and the Washington Post is hardly alone -- the paper described an April 21, 2020, drug study on U.S. Veterans Affairs patients hospitalized with the illness. It found a high death rate in patients taking the drug hydroxychloroquine. But this was a flawed study with a small sample, the main flaw being that the drug was given to the sickest patients who were already dying because of their age and severe pre-existing conditions. This study was quickly debunked. It had been posted on a non-peer-reviewed medical archive that specifically warns that studies posted on its website should not be reported in the media as established information.

Yet, the Post and countless other news outlets did just the opposite, making repeated claims that hydroxychloroquine was ineffective and caused serious cardiac problems. Nowhere was there any mention of the fact that COVID-19 damages the heart during infection, sometimes causing irregular and sometimes fatal heart rhythms in patients not taking the drug.

To a media unrelentingly hostile to Donald Trump, this meant that the president could be portrayed as recklessly promoting the use of a “dangerous” drug. Ignoring the refutation of the VA study in its May 15 article, the Washington Post cited a Brazil study published on April 24 in which a COVID trial using chloroquine (a related but different drug than hydroxychloroquine) was stopped because 11 patients treated with it died. The reporters never mentioned another problem with that study: The Brazilian doctors were giving their patients lethal cumulative doses of the drug.

On and on it has gone since then, in a circle of self-reinforcing commentary. Following the news that Trump was taking the drug himself, opinion hosts on cable news channels launched continual attacks on both hydroxychloroquine and the president. “This will kill you!” Fox News Channel’s Neil Cavuto exclaimed. “The president of the United States just acknowledge that he is taking hydroxychloroquine, a drug that [was] meant really to treat malaria and lupus.”

Washington Post reporters Ariana Cha and Laurie McGinley were back again on May 22, with a new article shouting out the new supposed news: “Antimalarial drug touted by President Trump is linked to increased risk of death in coronavirus patients, study says.” The media uproar this time was based on a large study just published in the Lancet. There was just one problem. The Lancet paper was fraudulent and it was quickly retracted.
However, the damage from the biased media storm was done and it was long-lasting. Continuing patient enrollment needed for early-use clinical trials of hydroxychloroquine dried up within a week. Patients were afraid to take the drug, doctors became afraid to prescribe it, pharmacies refused to fill prescriptions, and in a rush of incompetent analysis and non-existent senior leadership, the FDA revoked its Emergency Use Authorization for the drug.

So what is the real story on hydroxychloroquine? Here, briefly, is what we know:

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, a search was made for suitable antiviral therapies to use as treatment until a vaccine could be produced. One drug, hydroxychloroquine, was found to be the most effective and safe for use against the virus. Federal funds were used for clinical trials of it, but there was no guidance from Dr. Anthony Fauci or the NIH Treatment Guidelines Panel on what role the drug would play in the national pandemic response. Fauci seemed to be unaware that there actually was a national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses.

Following a careful regimen developed by doctors in France, some knowledgeable practicing U.S. physicians began prescribing hydroxychloroquine to patients still in the early phase of COVID infection. Its effects seemed dramatic. Patients still became sick, but for the most part they avoided hospitalization. In contrast --- and in error -- the NIH-funded studies somehow became focused on giving hydroxychloroquine to late-presenting hospitalized patients. This was in spite of the fact that unlike the drug’s early use in ambulatory patients, there was no real data to support the drug’s use in more severe hospitalized patients.

By April, it was clear that roughly seven days from the time of the first onset of symptoms, a COVID-19 infection could sometimes progress into a more radical late phase of severe disease with inflammation of the blood vessels in the body and immune system over-reactions. Many patients developed blood clots in their lungs and needed mechanical ventilation. Some needed kidney dialysis. In light of this pathological carnage, no antiviral drug could be expected to show much of an effect during this severe second stage of COVID.

On April 6, 2020, an international team of medical experts published an extensive study of hydroxychloroquine in more than 130,000 patients with connective tissue disorders. They reaffirmed that hydroxychloroquine was a safe drug with no serious side effects. The drug could safely be given to pregnant women and breast-feeding mothers. Consequently, countries such as China, Turkey, South Korea, India, Morocco, Algeria, and others began to use hydroxychloroquine widely and early in their national pandemic response. Doctors overseas were safely prescribing the drug based on clinical signs and symptoms because widespread testing was not available.

However, the NIH promoted a much different strategy for the United States. The “Fauci Strategy” was to keep early infected patients quarantined at home without treatment until they developed a shortness of breath and had to be admitted to a hospital. Then they would they be given hydroxychloroquine. The Food and Drug Administration cluelessly agreed to this doctrine and it stated in its hydroxychloroquine Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) that “hospitalized patients were likely to have a greater prospect of benefit (compared to ambulatory patients with mild illness).”
In reality just the opposite was true. This was a tragic mistake by Fauci and FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn and it was a mistake that would cost the lives of thousands of Americans in the days to come.

At the same time, accumulating data showed remarkable results if hydroxychloroquine were given to patients early, during a seven-day window from the time of first symptom onset. If given during this window, most infections did not progress into the severe, lethal second stage of the disease. Patients still got sick, but they avoided hospitalization or the later transfer to an intensive care unit. In mid-April a high-level memo was sent to the FDA alerting them to the fact that the best use for hydroxychloroquine was for its early use in still ambulatory COVID patients. These patients were quarantined at home but were not short of breath and did not yet require supplemental oxygen and hospitalization.

Failing to understand that COVID-19 could be a two-stage disease process, the FDA ignored the memo and, as previously mentioned, it withdrew its EUA for hydroxychloroquine based on flawed studies and clinical trials that were applicable only to late-stage COVID patients.

By now, however, some countries had already implemented early, aggressive, outpatient community treatment with hydroxychloroquine and within weeks were able to minimize their COVID deaths and bring their national pandemic under some degree of control.



In countries such as Great Britain and the United States, where the “Fauci-Hahn Strategy” was followed, there was a much higher death rate and an ever-increasing number of cases. COVID patients in the U.S. would continue to be quarantined at home and left untreated until they developed shortness of breath. Then they would be admitted to the hospital and given hydroxychloroquine outside the narrow window for the drug’s maximum effectiveness.
In further contrast, countries that started out with the “Fauci-Hahn Doctrine” and then later shifted their policy towards aggressive outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, after a brief lag period also saw a stunning rapid reduction in COVID mortality and hospital admissions.

Finally, several nations that had started using an aggressive early-use outpatient policy for hydroxychloroquine, including France and Switzerland, stopped this practice when the WHO temporarily withdrew its support for the drug. Five days after the publication of the fake Lancet study and the resulting media onslaught, Swiss politicians banned hydroxychloroquine use in the country from May27 until June 11, when it was quickly reinstated.



The consequences of suddenly stopping hydroxychloroquine can be seen by examining a graph of the Case Fatality Ratio Index (nrCFR) for Switzerland. This is derived by dividing the number of daily new COVID fatalities by the new cases resolved over a period with a seven-day moving average. Looking at the evolution curve of the CFR it can be seen that during the weeks preceding the ban on hydroxychloroquine, the nrCFR index fluctuated between 3% and 5%.
Following a lag of 13 days after stopping outpatient hydroxychloroquine use, the country’s COVID-19 deaths increased four-fold and the nrCFR index stayed elevated at the highest level it had been since early in the COVID pandemic, oscillating at over 10%-15%. Early outpatient hydroxychloroquine was restarted June 11 but the four-fold “wave of excess lethality” lasted until June 22, after which the nrCFR rapidly returned to its background value.

Here in our country, Fauci continued to ignore the ever accumulating and remarkable early-use data on hydroxychloroquine and he became focused on a new antiviral compound named remdesivir. This was an experimental drug that had to be given intravenously every day for five days. It was never suitable for major widespread outpatient or at-home use as part of a national pandemic plan. We now know now that remdesivir has no effect on overall COVID patient mortality and it costs thousands of dollars per patient.

Hydroxychloroquine, by contrast, costs 60 cents a tablet, it can be taken at home, it fits in with the national pandemic plan for respiratory viruses, and a course of therapy simply requires swallowing three tablets in the first 24 hours followed by one tablet every 12 hours for five days.

There are now 53 studies that show positive results of hydroxychloroquine in COVID infections. There are 14 global studies that show neutral or negative results -- and 10 of them were of patients in very late stages of COVID-19, where no antiviral drug can be expected to have much effect. Of the remaining four studies, two come from the same University of Minnesota author. The other two are from the faulty Brazil paper, which should be retracted, and the fake Lancet paper, which was.

Millions of people are taking or have taken hydroxychloroquine in nations that have managed to get their national pandemic under some degree of control. Two recent, large, early-use clinical trials have been conducted by the Henry Ford Health System and at Mount Sinai showing a 51% and 47% lower mortality, respectively, in hospitalized patients given hydroxychloroquine. A recent study from Spain published on July 29, two days before Margaret Sullivan’s strafing of “fringe doctors,” shows a 66% reduction in COVID mortality in patients taking hydroxychloroquine. No serious side effects were reported in these studies and no epidemic of heartbeat abnormalities.

This is ground-shaking news. Why is it not being widely reported? Why is the American media trying to run the U.S. pandemic response with its own misinformation?

Steven Hatfill is a veteran virologist who helped establish the Rapid Hemorrhagic Fever Response Teams for the National Medical Disaster Unit in Kenya, Africa. He is an adjunct assistant professor in two departments at the George Washington University Medical Center where he teaches mass casualty medicine. He is principle author of the prophetic book “Three Seconds Until Midnight -- Preparing for the Next Pandemic,” published by Amazon in 2019.

[shiny!]

Re: Hydroxychloroquine WORKS

In the meantime... without Hydroxychloroquine. This is Hell:

We are no less American: Deaths pile up on Texas border