by Arjun Walia, Collective Evolution:

We are living in an era of ‘fake news,’ no doubt about it. But we are also living in an era where some news and information is clearly not ‘fake’ at all, but is still being flagged as fake news. A great example would the the coronavirus, and information emerging providing evidence that vitamin C may be a possible treatment to help ward off and even reverse its symptoms. In the West, this is simply not possible and is considered fake news, but in China, for example, clinical trials for intravenous vitamin C are already underway because doctors and scientists believe there is efficacy to this claim, and some have even seen success.

Last month, the US National Library of Medicine posted the information about their clinical trials on their website. The title of one of the trials is “Vitamin C Infusion for the Treatment of Severe 2019-nCoV Infected Pneumonia.” The sponsor is ZhiYong Peng, and the responsible party is Zhongnan Hospital in Wuhan University (ZNWU). Dr. Richard Cheng, MD, PhD, a US board-certified anti-aging specialist from Shanghai, China is currently in China providing updates on the situation as well as potential treatments via his YouTube channel if you want to look more into that.

For anyone looking for a high-quality vitamin C, we have been using and recommending liposomal vitamin C. There are many brands out there. We are using this one from PuraThrive as it is very high quality and has an incredible clinically proven absorption rate.

Flagging Dr. Ron Paul

Not only is information being censored and flagged as ‘fake’ despite evidence and credible sources showing the contrary, in today’s day in age, somebody simply giving their opinion can also be flagged as fake news and punished by social media giants in the form of censorship and limited reach. One of the latest examples was Dr. Ron Paul, an American author, physician, and retired politician as well as a former presidential candidate.

As you can see, he posted an article on his website titled, “The Coronavirus Hoax.” Perhaps this is what set the fact-checkers off, understandably so, as the virus is clearly not a hoax. In fact, some so-called mild or common-cold-type coronaviruses have been known for decades. They can have case fatality rates as high as 8% when they infect elderly people in nursing homes. Such “mild” coronaviruses infect tens of millions of people every year, and account for 3% to 11% of those hospitalized in the U.S. with lower respiratory infections each winter.

These “mild” coronaviruses may be implicated in several thousands of deaths every year worldwide, though the vast majority of them are not documented with precise testing. Instead, they are lost in the noise of the 60 million deaths from various causes every year.

Title Troubles?

Ron Paul should not have titled his article ‘the coronavirus “hoax,”‘ especially as he knows it’s clearly not a hoax and he makes that quite clear in his article by stating, “That is not to say the disease is harmless. Without question people will die from coronavirus. Those in vulnerable categories should take precautions to limit their risk of exposure.”

But this brings me to my next point, are fact-checkers even reading articles? This was clearly an opinion piece, and Ron Paul did not imply “hoax” as the word is commonly used, he was using a clever play on words. If you read his article, he simply means that the virus is being used and capitalized on by those who wish to profit off of it.

At the end of the day, again, the title should have been thought through a little more clearly. But at the same time, it’s not right, in my opinion,  for a fact checker to put a strike on an article written by a prominent physician, academic and politician when it is simply an opinion piece.

What He Said

Regardless of the title used, I think Dr. Paul makes some very interesting points that can give us all something to think about. His full article can be sourced below.

Governments love crises because when the people are fearful they are more willing to give up freedoms for promises that the government will take care of them. After 9/11, for example, Americans accepted the near-total destruction of their civil liberties in the PATRIOT Act’s hollow promises of security.

Read More @ Collective-Evolution.com