Jump to content

Trump’s musings prompt social-media censorship of information about an experimental treatment.

Recommended Posts

Excerpted from the opinion section of today's the Wall Street Journal. @Mel Hopkins are there any standards for truth and accuracy in opinion pieces. If the following is true that's crazy.


On April 20 we put out a press release titled “Aytu BioScience Signs Exclusive Global License with Cedars-Sinai for Potential Coronavirus Treatment.” The treatment is called Healight, and it was developed by research physicians at the hospital’s Medically Associated Science and Technology Program. The technology, which has been in development since 2016, uses ultraviolet light as an antimicrobial and is a promising potential treatment for Covid-19.


Aytu and Cedars-Sinai have engaged with the Food and Drug Administration to pursue a rapid path to human use through an Emergency Use Authorization. But hardly anyone noticed—until Thursday, when President Trump mused, “. . . supposing you brought the light inside the body . . .”


My team and I knew the president’s comments could trigger a backlash against the idea of UV light as a treatment, which might hinder our ability to get the word out. We decided to create a YouTube account, upload a video animation we had created, and tweet it out. It received some 50,000 views in 24 hours.

Then YouTube took it down. So did Vimeo. Twitter suspended our account. The narrative changed from whether UV light can be used to treat Covid-19 to “Aytu is being censored.”


These days, politics seems to dictate that if one party says, “The sky is blue,” the other party is obligated to reply, “No, it’s not, and you’re a terrible human being for thinking that.” That leaves no room for science, in which the data speak for themselves, regardless of ideology, and only when they’re ready. Unfortunately, the visceral excitement of political conflict draws far more clicks and better ratings than the methodical world of science.


Technologies like Healight, which if borne out through clinical studies may represent a viable way to kill coronaviruses, aren’t provided the clear-headed consideration they deserve but are instead flushed into the political mosh-pit of “us vs. them.”

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@Troy  I put the WSJ in the same box as FOX news.  The WSJ is listed as owned by News Corp a publicly traded company with Rupert Murdoch at the helm.  Paul Gigot is the op-ed editor - he's listed as a pulitzer prize winning journalist and  conservative who served as a fellow under Reagan.  All that to say, this company, Aytu BioScience seems to have used the controversy to promote their latest product. It appears their first attempt into the coronavirus market was testing kits that one report indicates returned false positives. I also went to seekingalpha and read the transcript of their call - and the comments and analysis doesn't seem favorable.  The company is trading at under two dollars today.  So, it appears that mainstream media doesn't trust Aytu based on its track record but WSJ may feel the need to support 45 in his controversy because those right wing boards are going crazy over the news release from this company. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @Mel Hopkins I always view opinion pieces as opinions. But some opinions are more valuable than others.


This particular opinion seemed suspect, things simply were not adding up. If anything this CEO was saying was true then it is newsworthy and the WSJ  should be reporting on it.  I kept asking myself why is in the opinion section and not a news story? And if it is not newsworthy why put this stuff on the paper at all?!


If you read the entire piece it clearly bolsters 45 position.


Up until this point I had not put Fox News in the same category as the WSJ. 


With this type of propganda out there 45's chances at a 2nd term are not as bad as thought. We could be looking at a 2nd trump term followed by two years of pence 





Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Troy said:

Up until this point I had not put Fox News in the same category as the WSJ. 

@Troy Propaganda is sneaky like that - but I don’t “trust” most things I read or hear in the mainstream.  It is all leads to me - I’ve been chasing down stories for so long - it’s second nature for me to follow up each claim.  Check out my story “Guess Who” when you get a chance.  It’s all theories as far as I’m concern - I just look for angles on how we can use the “news” to our benefit. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...