Time for a media bias check Association of American Physicians and Surgeons A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be very untrustworthy and should be fact checked on a per article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources. Overall, we rate the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) an extreme right Questionable source based on the promotion of quackery level pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, use of poor sources, a lack of transparency with funding as well as numerous false claims and failed fact checks. History Founded in 1944, the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is an ultra-conservative political advocacy group that frequently publishes misinformation and pseudoscience. According to their about page “The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons – AAPS – is a non-partisan professional association of physicians in all types of practices and specialties across the country.” The current President is Melinda Woofter and the Executive director is Jane M. Orient. AAPS also publish a medical journal since 1996, called the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (JPandS). This journal is not listed in academic literature databases such as MEDLINE/PubMed due to the publication of information that lacks scientific validity. Further, the U.S. National Library of Medicine declined repeated requests from AAPS to index the journal. Finally, JPandS was listed on Beall’s list of potential or probable predatory open-access journals, with Chemical and Engineering News describing the journal as a “purveyor of utter nonsense.” Read our profile on United States government and media. Funded by / Ownership AAPS is a 501(c)(6) organization that is funded through donations as well as membership fees. The website lacks transparency as they do not disclose funding information. According to Open Secrets they contribute 100% to Republican candidates and causes. Analysis / Bias In review, AAPS is a hyperpartisan conservative association that advocates for policy that aligns with conservative positions. Some of the issues they advocate are as follows: Opposition to Medicare and Medicaid Opposition to the Affordable Care Act Opposition to Abortion Opposition to Gun Control Human Influenced Climate Change Denial Anti-LGBTQ AAPS has also advanced numerous questionable claims related to science and health such as these: Promotion of Autism-Vaccine connection HIV does not cause AIDS President Barack Obama was covertly hypnotizing people with his speeches, and that this might explain why Jews voted for him. AAPS has also promoted that abortion increases breast cancer risk, which according to the American Cancer Society, the consensus of studies indicates that “induced abortion is not linked to an increase in breast cancer risk.” Further, AAPS is listed on Quackwatch as a source that is “untrustworthy and non-recommended.” Editorially, all information promotes a far-right conservative agenda. When reporting on politics they routinely have a favorable view of the Trump administration Physicians Thank Trump, Say More Freedom Needed to Fight COVID-19, while advancing right-wing conspiracy theories directed at Democrats such as this: Is Hillary Clinton Medically Unfit to Serve?. Further, during the Coronavirus outbreak of 2020, they have frequently promoted misinformation such as the promotion of Hydroxychloroquine, which has been proven to be ineffective against Covid-19. They have also published an article titled Mask Facts that points to cherry-picked information demonstrating that masks are not effective in preventing the transmission of Covid-19. While a mask may not be 100% effective in stopping the transmission of Covid-19, or any virus for that matter, extensive research, over many years has demonstrated that masks significantly reduce the transmission of disease. In general, AAPS is a quackery level pseudoscience source that promotes conspiracy theories and medical misinformation to support a conservative agenda. Failed Fact Checks Say “71 percent of doctors say Hillary’s health concerns are ‘serious’ and ‘could be disqualifying.’ “ – False Do 90 Percent of COVID-19 Patients Treated With Hydroxychloroquine Recover Successfully? – False ACA Hurts ‘Struggling Families’? – Misleading The FDA has ruled that homeopathic drugs are now illegal. – False Overall, we rate the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) an extreme right Questionable source based on the promotion of quackery level pseudoscience, conspiracy theories, use of poor sources, a lack of transparency with funding as well as numerous false claims and failed fact checks. (D. Van Zandt 7/1/2020) Source: https://aapsonline.org/
No wonder the evil bribe-able left is so against this organization. They can't be bought. Association of American Physicians and Surgeons ... https://www.conservapedia.com/Association_of_American_Physicians_and_Surgeons The Association of American Physicians and Surgeons (AAPS) is the oldest active conservative and libertarian group in the world. Founded in 1943, AAPS is a membership-based physician organization that does not accept funding by corporations or government, thereby ensuring AAPS's independence and nonpartisanship.
Here GWB, so you can finally stop promoting TDS leftist garbage. You guys are killing people. Queued:
Ouch. I guess this is not your day... Hydroxychloroquine works in high-risk patients, and saying otherwise is dangerous Get home delivery of the magazine. Subscribe today! As of Wednesday, some 165,000 people in the United States have died from COVID-19. I have made the case in the American Journal of Epidemiology and in Newsweek that people who have a medical need to be treated can be treated early and successfully with hydroxychloroquine, zinc, and antibiotics such as azithromycin or doxycycline. I have also argued that these drugs are safe and have made that case privately to the Food and Drug Administration. The pushback has been furious. Dr. Anthony Fauci has implied that I am incompetent, notwithstanding my hundreds of highly regarded, methodologically relevant publications in peer-reviewed scientific literature. A group of my Yale colleagues has publicly intimated that I am a zealot who is perpetrating a dangerous hoax and conspiracy theory. I have been attacked in news articles by journalists who, ignorant of the full picture, have spun hit pieces from cherry-picked sources. These personal attacks are a dangerous distraction from the real issue of hydroxychloroquine's effectiveness, which is solidly grounded in both substantial evidence and appropriate medical decision-making logic. Much of the evidence is presented in my articles. To date, there are no studies whatsoever, published or in pre-print, that provide scientific evidence against the treatment approach for high-risk outpatients that I have described. None. Assertions to the contrary, whether by Fauci, the FDA, or anyone else, are without foundation. They constitute misleading and toxic disinformation. Story continues below What do you need to know to evaluate these smears against hydroxychloroquine? The first thing to understand is that COVID-19 has two main stages. At the first stage, it is a flu-like illness. That illness will not kill you. If you are a high-risk patient and begin treatment immediately, you will almost certainly be done with it in a few days. When not treated, high-risk patients may progress. The virus then causes severe pneumonia and attacks many organs, including the heart. In this second stage, hydroxychloroquine is not effective. So, if you are told that hydroxychloroquine doesn’t work, ask this question: In which patients? Does it not work in those who have just started to have symptoms, or those sick enough to require hospitalization? The second thing to know is that most low-risk patients survive without treatment. Low risk means you are under age 60 and have no chronic conditions such as diabetes, obesity, and hypertension, have no past treatment for cancer, are not immunocompromised, etc. High risk means you are over 60 or you have one or more of those chronic conditions. High-risk patients need immediate treatment when they first show symptoms. One should not wait for the COVID-19 test result, which can take days and can be wrong. Again, when Fauci and others say that randomized controlled trials show no benefit for hydroxychloroquine, you must ask: In which group of patients? Every randomized controlled trial to date that has looked at early outpatient treatment has involved low-risk patients, patients who are not generally treated. In these studies, so few untreated control patients have required hospitalization that significant differences were not found. There has been only one exception: In a study done in Spain with low-risk patients, a small number of high-risk nursing home patients were included. For those patients, the medications cut the risk of a bad outcome in half. I reiterate: If doctors, including any of my Yale colleagues, tell you that scientific data show that hydroxychloroquine does not work in outpatients, they are revealing that they can’t tell the difference between low-risk patients who are not generally treated and high-risk patients who need to be treated as quickly as possible. Doctors who do not understand this difference should not be treating COVID-19 patients. What about medication safety? On July 1, the FDA posted a “black-letter warning” cautioning against using hydroxychloroquine “outside of the hospital setting,” meaning in outpatients. But on its website just below this warning, the FDA stated that the warning was based on data from hospitalized patients. To generalize and compare severely ill patients with COVID-induced pneumonia and possibly heart problems to outpatients is entirely improper. In fact, the FDA has no information about adverse events in early outpatient use of hydroxychloroquine. The only available systematic information about adverse events among outpatients is discussed in my article in the American Journal of Epidemiology, where I show that hydroxychloroquine has been extremely safe in more than a million users. It is a serious and unconscionable mistake that the FDA has used inpatient data to block emergency use petitions for outpatient use. Further, already back in March, the FDA approved the emergency use of hydroxychloroquine for hospitalized patients, for whom it is demonstrably less effective than for outpatients. If hydroxychloroquine satisfied the FDA criteria for emergency inpatient use in March, it should more than satisfy those criteria now for outpatient use, where the evidence is much stronger. I can only speculate about the cause of the FDA’s recalcitrance. Hydroxychloroquine is an inexpensive, generic medication. Unlike certain profit-generating, patented medications, which have been promiscuously touted on the slimmest of evidence, hydroxychloroquine has no natural financial constituency. No one will get rich from it. Further, it seems quite possible that the FDA, a third of whose funding comes from drug companies, is under intense pressure from those companies to be extremely conservative in its handling of hydroxychloroquine. If hydroxychloroquine is used widely and comes to be recognized as highly effective, the markets for expensive and patented COVID-19 medications, including intravenous drugs that can only be used in the hospital, will shrink substantially. Whatever the reason for the FDA’s stonewalling on hydroxychloroquine, this much is certain: Americans are dying unnecessarily, the economy is in disarray, and the threads that bind our society together have frayed. I am speaking out, but where is everyone else? Where are our elected officials, including those who are themselves physicians? Some, including Rep. Andy Biggs of Arizona, have been discussing evidence of the drug's effectiveness, but where are the rest? This issue should not be a partisan one. If our elected officials are not willing to pry open the FDA, we must elect new officials. Why are we silent? The time to speak is now. Harvey Risch, M.D., Ph.D., is a professor of epidemiology at Yale School of Public Health.
https://www.thedesertreview.com/opi...cle_31d37842-dd8f-11ea-80b5-bf80983bc072.html Open letter to Dr. Anthony Fauci regarding the use of Hydroxychloroquine for treating COVID-19 A great read factually debunking the current anti-hydroxychloroquine narrative.
Nope, my prefrontal cortex is warning me it's rubbish from experienced of things you thought were good in the past.
In this world of republican groups making up their own covid medical experts out of ophthalmologists and pediatric demon wranglers and any piece of shit who somehow has had a medical licence (or in a white coat standing outside a famous medical centre), I took the first name on the open letter and found a year old review. Great guy. You can trust him alright. When my daughter went to his office and asked for my records they reluctantly gave her them. (missing line).