COVID-19: The Everything Post
PLEASE SHARE, LIKE, COMMENT on Facebook if you like this information. Statistically, misinformation spreads 5x faster than truth on social media. The reason: The Facebook algorithm is set up to spread content that has more likes, comments and shares. The more controversial a post, the more engagement it gets from Facebook users and the more it spreads.
I urge you: please take some time to spread truth.
I am not a Republican. I am not a Democrat. I have voted for both Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians in my lifetime at an approximately equal ratio. I believe that voting and exercising my civic duty is important. I make voting decisions based upon my own independent research of the candidate just as I make medical decisions based on my own independent research. I don’t watch the news. In fact, I cancelled our cable television this year because of the news.
I am a Christian. I go to church nearly every Sunday. I am a father of two children that I love deeply.
I am not employed by a large corporate network. I run a direct primary care clinic where my patients pay a monthly membership fee for superior care. I’m not paid by any insurance companies. I’m truly independent and work for only one group of people: my patients.
I have no connections with “big pharma.” In fact, we get medications for our patients for pennies on the dollar and pass all of those savings onto our patients. We take great pride in “sticking it” to big corporate entities.
None of that should matter. But I tell you that because if I don’t you will be very tempted to label me and filter my opinions on COVID-19 into “he must be a democrat” or “he must be a republican.”
Nope. I promise to say things that will piss everyone off. More on that later (teaser: Dunning-Kruger effect and confirmation bias).
Here’s what should matter:
I am a board certified internal medicine physician. I am a Fellow of the American College of Physicians (FACP) which is an additional distinction awarded to only a small minority of internal medicine physicians. I have completed 4 years of undergraduate study where I studied microbiology, immunology, and human physiology. I then completed 4 years of medical school where the microbiology, immunology, and human physiology coursework was on a completely different level of intensity. Studying uninterrupted for 4+ hours per day, in addition to attending all lectures, was normal. That went on for 3 consecutive years. Anything less and a person would literally fail out of medical school. It made organic chemistry in college feel like a walk in the park. That was followed by studying and preparation for the United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE). I’m not kidding when I tell you that I literally studied from 8AM to 8PM every single day for 3 months. I skipped attending Christmas parties with my family so that I could stay home to study to pass this exam allowing me to become a doctor. The USMLE examination made the MCAT look like a kindergarten spelling test.
After passing the USMLE test, I taught microbiology at the collegiate level for a semester prior to starting my internal medicine residency. We have a saying in medicine among doctors that is: “See one. Do one. Teach one.” The gist of the saying is that if you are teaching someone to do something, then you better make sure that you’re an expert. Additionally, the very act of teaching allows a person to expand that expertise.
During my internal medicine residency, I would often sleep at the hospital because my shifts would endure 24 to 36 consecutive hours. It was the expectation to work 80 hours per week not the exception. This grueling process lasted another 3 years. It was only at the end of those 3 years when I realized just how little I actually knew about medicine and the human body. The previous 7 years of intense studying and education that only a fraction of a percentage of people achieve, were only the building blocks of my knowledge! I was nowhere close to an expert!
After completion of my residency, I then spent several years as teaching faculty for residents and medical students in the Kettering Internal Medicine Residency Program. During this time, I published multiple peer-reviewed journal articles. I also began teaching microbiology to medical students at several different medical schools strictly for their preparation for the USMLE test (the previously mentioned test “that made the MCAT look like a kindergarten spelling test”). It was then that I realized that I must expand my microbiology knowledge further to truly be an expert if I were to teach microbiology and immunology to medical students for the hardest test of their life. Teaching helped increase my knowledge and expertise so immensely.
Want to know what’s funny? I still don’t consider myself an expert (I know so many other docs that are WAY smarter than myself) and I’m constantly learning and expanding my knowledge.
So why do you need to know all of that?
· Because your Facebook friend claiming to be an expert is very likely suffering from the Dunning-Kruger effect and confirmation bias. They are not an expert. I don’t care if they’re in the medical field, and to be brutally honest, I don’t care if they’re even a doctor! One major thing that COVID has taught me is that there is a whopping abundance of moronic doctors out there. There’s a pretty good chance that they’re talking out of their ass.
· Dunning-Kruger effect: A psychological phenomenon where someone with low ability overestimates their own ability at a task. Contrary, someone with high ability has a tendency to underestimate their own ability.
In other words, the more you become an expert at something, the more you realize how little you previously knew. In Dunning and Kruger’s words, "the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others"
· Confirmation bias (stolen directly from Wikipedia): The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms or supports one's prior beliefs or values. People display this bias when they select information that supports their views, ignoring contrary information, or when they interpret ambiguous evidence as supporting their existing attitudes. The effect is strongest for desired outcomes, for emotionally charged issues, and for deeply entrenched beliefs. Confirmation bias cannot be eliminated entirely, but it can be managed, for example, by education and training in critical thinking skills
Yeah, but I’ve done my research!
You know what? Me too. Probably more research on this than anyone you personally know. Plus, my education and training allows me to recognize both the Dunning-Kruger effect and my own confirmation biases. From my experience on social media, not many lay people have insight into their own limitations.
I’ve literally spent multiple hours per day for the past 18 months researching new studies and developments on the backbone of my previous microbiology/immunology knowledge. EVERY. SINGLE. DAY. I hate it, but I have to know it. My patients come to me seeking answers and I need to have those answers. I see the news articles, but never trust them on the surface (more on this later). I go straight to the journal article source and read/interpret it for myself. The average Joe simply does not possess the skill set required to critically evaluate clinical trials for validity. Learning to interpret clinical trials was a 3-month course for me in medical school called epidemiology. So boring at the time, but I sure am glad I have that skill set now.
Here’s the thing: just because it is published in a medical journal does not make it true and valid. I’ve personally published in several different journals and I’m telling you that my own research and subsequent publication was complete garbage. There’s absolutely no way that anyone could meaningfully use or gain truth from those publications. I say that about my own publications! If it is published in a more prestigious medical journal (examples: New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA, Annals of Internal Medicine, The Lancet, British Medical Journal) then the lay person can put more stock into simply reading the conclusion of a paper. Those journals are pretty well vetted (although the Lancet has fallen victim to poor quality lately so no one is fully immune).
Ready for a truth bomb? Ivermectin was shown to decrease SARS-coV2 growth in a petri dish in a preprint, small study. The study was completed in Egypt and was very small in nature, but ivermectin was shown to be 90% effective against treating COVID – this means nothing! The study has been retracted for blatant plagiarism and data manipulation. It never even made it to print! There were duplicate patients, patients that were found to have already deceased, and falsified numbers in the data set. The study didn’t have a true placebo group but instead compared its effectiveness against hydroxychloroquine. So if you’re on the hydroxychloroquine train to treat COVID, this might not be the article you want to cite. The ivermectin studies are similar in quality to the garbage that I’ve previously published. In fact, I would argue that my useless studies were better since we didn’t plagiarize or manipulate the numbers.
I actually want very badly for ivermectin to work. That would be fantastic for all of human society to have an affordable option to treat COVID. Actual high-quality studies are ongoing to determine its effectiveness (PRINCIPLE trial in the UK and The TOGETHER Trial) and we should have much better data soon. If it works, I will be the first doctor to board the ivermectin train.
Because that is how science and medicine work. It is not black and white. A well-respected colleague of mine recently stated to me that “science is never settled.” Thank goodness, too. We thought stomach ulcers were from stress until the discovery of H. pylori bacteria. We gave aspirin to everyone that walked for cardiovascular health for years until recent studies brought into question its usefulness in people without a lot of heart risk. We treated post-menopausal women with unopposed hormone replacement therapy until we realized that we were causing breast and ovarian cancer. When new information/data comes along, science adapts its position. On the contrary, people without a familiarity with the scientific method have a tendency to dig their heels in because they don’t like to be wrong.
The science of COVID, it’s spread, and its treatment will continue to evolve. What we believe to be true now will certainly not be true in a year after it is studied more. The public wants black and white. True and false. That’s not how it works. In medicine, if we think something is true, we test it. We find out what is true and what is false with high-quality studies and continue to question even what we found to be true going forward. It’s a time-honored process that has brought modern medicine all of our advances.
Now that we are through that, I have some news for you:
The news media and social media are causing you anxiety. It is purposeful. It is harming you. You should really stop the cycle if this hits too close to home for you.
Let me explain how they are hacking your brain.
I recently started reading a book called “Unwinding Anxiety.” I don’t have much anxiety myself but I have been reading it in an effort to better help my patients suffering with anxiety. In the book, Dr. Jud Brewer (psychiatrist and neuroscientist) states that anxiety is a rather simple formula:
Anxiety = Fear + Uncertainty
Now think of the cycle with COVID-19. We all have some degree of fear about COVID-19. In an effort to calm our anxiety, we watch the news or read articles/posts on social media trying to get more certainty. However, when we come across conflicting truths – our efforts to seek more certainty actually do the opposite: cause more uncertainty. Anxiety is a powerful emotion and drives our behaviors. The circular search to decrease both fear and uncertainty does only one thing for certain: INCREASES RATINGS AND CLICKS.
We all want less fear and anxiety in life. So it’s not surprising that people will gravitate towards opinions that help them to have less fear and thereby less anxiety even if those opinions are false. The problem with the above equation is that “truth” is not a part of the formula. Well, actually it is partially represented in the form of certainty, but with so many differing opinions its next to impossible for the general public to know exactly who to believe.
I completely sympathize with the general public, too. It is no one’s fault. How is the average person ever to know who or what is credible? Our own governing healthcare bodies (CDC, WHO) have been wrong/backpedaled on several issues already. If they can’t even be seen as credible, who can we trust? Talk about perpetuating the uncertainty factor in the anxiety equation above when we lose certainty in the information provided by the institutions we previously considered most trustworthy.
Again, the issue goes back to “science never being settled.” What we think is true now may not be true next month. And that is a good thing. We, as a society, need to understand that science is always changing and therefore opinions will and should change. We have to do the best with the information we have at the current time. This is precisely why it is SOOOOO crucially important to be aware of our confirmation biases. When new information/data comes along that gives us more certainty, we must be able to interpret that data for what it is and allow our opinions to change (myself included).
My goal with today’s post is to help you lower the “uncertainty” part of the equation above which may be causing you anxiety.
COVID-19 —> It is very real. It can make you very sick. The news has done a good job here actually. Young, healthy people typically fare very well. Older folks, obesity, and poorly controlled diabetics have more risk. Beware of the anecdotal stories of the young kid that dies of COVID. Yes, that will happen. Young kids die of all sorts of diseases every day. But the statistical risk is extraordinarily low that someone under the age of 18 will have any severe complication of COVID. Understanding relative risk is so vitally important in all of this. Is it more likely that your 6-year old dies of COVID-19 or dies from being hit by a car crossing the road? Statistically, probably the latter. But fear certainly sells better than presenting the true risk and giving the public a realistic perspective. Please don’t fall for the bait to draw you into their ratings. COVID-19 is something that should be feared. However, some of us in society have far too little fear and some of us have far too much fear. Hopefully, truly assessing risk will help decrease the fear component of the above equation resulting in less anxiety for you.
When will it end? —> It is pretty clear that COVID behaves in a seasonal pattern. We get spikes followed by lulls. It is clear now that May, June and July are always going to be “good” COVID months. Soon, however, we will all have some form of natural immunity and then COVID should become far less dangerous to all of us. The vaccinated folk have antibodies against only spike protein of COVID. SARS coV2 has 28 other proteins. The ideal situation is that a vaccinated person encounters COVID, has exposure to those other proteins and forms natural immunity (antibodies), and doesn’t get very sick since they’re vaccinated. Then when the next variant that comes along with resistance to our current vaccines (significant mutation to spike protein), the previous natural immunity and exposure will make COVID far less dangerous in subsequent years. COVID will be endemic meaning that it will be with us forever. However, its potency to kill is going to diminish substantially with every passing year.
Is natural immunity good? —>Absolutely. If you previously had COVID and were sick with COVID, I think you could make a strong argument that you may not need the vaccine. New data from an Israeli study shows excellent immunity from natural infection. The problem with knowing if natural immunity confers protection is that we don’t know how high your antibodies titers went with natural infection. It isn’t a controlled environment like with the vaccine. We give a certain dose at certain time frames and we can expect a predictable response universally. But if you were infected with COVID over 1 year ago and barely got sick (maybe you were exposed to only a low amount of virus), then how much immune response did you really generate? It’s so hard to know that answer and therefore so hard to know how strong one person’s immunity might be. Maybe one dose of a vaccine is a good choice if you’ve previously been infected but want to further bolster your immunity as this strategy has been shown to create brisk immune responses (potentially even better than 2 vaccine doses without natural infection).
mRNA vaccines —>They work. Period and end of story. It doesn’t take a scientist or a researcher to see that unfolding before our eyes. When 97-99% of hospitalized/dying patients are unvaccinated while the vaccinated patients have mild/minimal symptoms – it should be very obvious to anyone that the vaccines are efficacious. The vaccines are designed to prevent severe illness. They are not designed to prevent all illness. So yes, fully vaccinated people can still get symptomatic COVID, but their likelihood of getting severe disease is miniscule. Again, you’ll hear of the “breakthrough” cases that end up very sick or dying. As I mentioned before, beware of the anecdotal stories. People die in car accidents where they are wearing their seatbelt and the airbags properly deploy. Shit happens. Please remember to always look at statistical risk and keep your emotions out of the game.
Are they safe? Theories/rumors of miscarriage, antibody enhancement, magnetization, production from fetal components and even death are unbelievably rampant. This vaccine has been given to millions upon millions of people. We have collected data on its safety since the very beginning (1.5 years ago). Patients and healthcare providers can report side effects to the Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS). Any and all side effects get reported there including death. Death happens. Miscarriages happen. Shit happens. When interpreting the VAERS data, it is vitally important to compare the adverse events from the vaccine to the rate of what “normally should happen” in the population. When you look at all of the imaginative side effects/theories proposed by the anti-vaxxers in the VAERS database, it turns out that they occur in the same frequency as “what should normally happen” or the placebo-group, if you will. The people or “doctors” promoting these conspiracies are making huge profits in both fame and finances. Be very weary of their “well-intentioned” propaganda and motives.
We know that this reporting system works too because it has indeed identified appropriately some adverse events that occur at a higher frequency than what is considered “normal.” Myocarditis and blood clots (associated with only J&J vaccine) were identified as unexpected adverse events. The risk of getting myocarditis and blood clots from the vaccine are exceedingly rare but those are definitely legitimate concerns. However, if you weigh the likelihood of one of those events happening if you actually get COVID, it occurs FAR less often with the vaccine than with the disease.
The only legitimate argument that I’ve heard against the safety of the vaccine is that we do not have long-term data. This is absolutely true. In 10 years, we might all get nosebleeds every time the microwave turns on. I don’t know. Historically, vaccine side effects show up within the first 3-6 weeks post vaccination. This vaccine is different because the mRNA technology. So yes, we just don’t know and don’t ever let anyone tell you that we do. But for me, I think I’m willing to absorb the risk of the unknown versus the risk of the known (COVID).
I don’t know what’s in the mRNA vaccine —>It’s not hard to find the ingredients if you look for it. The ingredients are listed. Yes, you probably can’t pronounce them. Can you pronounce acetylsalicylic acid? Sounds dangerous...I would never put acid into my body. I can guarantee that if the vaccines had an ingredient that had “acid” in the name, there would be all sorts of misinformation. Acetylsalicylic acid is Aspirin. There you go. You took something made by big pharma and didn’t even think about the fact that you were consuming acid. Even the homeopathic “natural” vitamins and supplements are chock full of ingredients that you can’t pronounce. This is not a rational argument unless you scrupulously track all ingredients in everything that you consume. Realistically, no one can possibly do this accurately and long-term. And if you do, we should get you on some therapy for OCD/Anxiety.
There are cheap options available to treat COVID but big pharma is stopping it —>Ask my wife, I’m all about cheap! If something is cheaper and works as well or better than a more expensive alternative – I’m all for that! In fact, one of the main pillars of our practice is that we undermine expensive lab testing and expensive markups in the pharmacy to deliver cost savings to our patients. In medicine, cost should always be a consideration for doctors. However, unfortunately, many doctors lack this knowledge. Doctors prescribe and have no clue how much different medications cost. This is partially because the price is hidden from doctors and varies greatly from patient to patient depending on their insurance or lack thereof. So, yes, many doctors are oblivious to the costs of medications. However, being oblivious doesn’t mean that they are prescribing expensive medications to profit. In fact, probably the opposite is true. They are completely clueless for the most part. Clueless people tend not to be financially profiting. In my career, I’ve never personally witnessed a physician making financial gains by inappropriately prescribing medication. I don’t doubt that it may happen, but it would definitely be the exception and not the norm. The public perception that doctors somehow make money from prescribing drugs is largely inaccurate and false.
Ivermectin and Hydroxychloroquine —> The data is pretty clear that hydroxychloroquine does not work and may actually worsen outcomes. Ivermectin’s data is essentially incomplete. If it works, it definitely doesn’t “cure” or “prevent” COVID. Enough people are taking it experimentally at this point in time that we would have seen a very clear and obvious trend. It doesn’t take much searching the internet to find news articles where people taking ivermectin have unfortunately passed away from COVID. For the miracle drug that some are touting it to be, that shouldn’t be happening.
As I mentioned before, I absolutely hope that ivermectin works. We will know more when the PRINCIPLE trial concludes. For now, the data on it is very unconvincing. Please see previous conversation in this post regarding the original (not-credible) article that gave ivermectin its momentum. There was also a meta-analysis (they look at multiple other trials) completed that seems to lend quite a bit of weight to the usefulness of ivermectin, but anyone that has enough experience interpreting clinical trials can easily see that it is fraught with bias.
A local pulmonologist recently made the national news for overriding the physicians caring for a patient hospitalized with COVID-19 by writing a prescription for the patient (despite not attending over his care in the hospital). A judge subsequently ordered that the medication must be given to the patient. In my opinion, this was unethical of the physician at worst and, at best, highly disrespectful to his physician colleagues caring for the patient in the hospital. This particular physician has a well-known reputation in the community for inappropriately prescribing antibiotics to nearly all of his patients. If you’re an aspiring physician and looking for a role model, I probably wouldn’t advise choosing this guy. This particular physician prescribing ivermectin to the hospitalized patient doesn’t lend any credibility to the use of ivermectin in my book. In fact, it probably does the opposite. However, I will await the data and then make my decision on the usefulness of ivermectin.
Regeneron’s monoclonal antibody—> This was part of the cocktail that President Trump received at Walter Reed Hospital. This medication when administered early in the disease course looks to have some promise in the clinical trials. It’s my opinion that this medication has utility in high-risk patients that contract COVID-19 but should be administered as soon as possible. To the best of my knowledge, this medication doesn’t have any surrounding controversy yet. At the current time, I’m in favor of this medication to treat early COVID-19.
Fluvoxamine —> This is a cheap SSRI medication that has been historically used to treat depression. Surprisingly, no one has been talking about this medication yet. Early indications show that it actually might be helpful. The trials comparing its usefulness so far have been relatively small though so this will be something to follow. We need better, higher quality data on this to make a final decision but it has some promise.
Moderna > Pfizer? —> Early studies are showing that the Moderna vaccine may have a longer lasting immunity than the Pfizer vaccine. It’s theorized that the longer timeline between 1st and 2nd doses or that the Moderna vaccine is higher dosed could be responsible for this early finding. Just an interesting new development. Both are still good. For those interested in potentially getting a booster dose, mixing and matching the various vaccines is safe.
Do Masks Work? —> Probably some. Probably more than Republicans think that they work but probably less than Democrats think that they work. It’s also dependent on who is wearing the mask and the type of mask being worn. N95 masks have been shown in the data to be pretty useful actually. Cloth or paper masks might not be doing much. We simply do not have adequate clinical trials that are of high enough quality to make a determination here. Interestingly though, we may not need to wait for those trials to be done as we are watching a real-life experiment unfold before our eyes.
Some local school districts have chosen to make masks mandatory while others have chosen to make them optional. It’s pretty simple. The variables between certain local school districts do not need much correction/adjustment (similar socioeconomics, similar vaccine rates, similar sizes, etc). So now we sit back and watch. If the school mandating the masks has approximately the same number of COVID cases, then we can infer that the masks are probably not helpful. If the school with the mask mandate does much better than the school without masks, then perhaps the masks are indeed helpful. I know I’ll be following this real world experiment closely.
Quarantines for Delta Variant —> My personal opinion is that these are useless. The Delta variant has a R0 (R naught) of around 7. This means that each person infected has a likelihood of transmitting the virus to 7 other people. This grows exponentially quickly compared to the original wild-type SARS coV2 with a R0 of 3. Vaccinated or not – if you haven’t gotten COVID yet - you will. If you end up missing out on the Delta strain, you’ll get the next strain. COVID isn’t going anywhere. We will have endemic COVID on a seasonal basis for the rest of our lives. However, it is likely to become much more mild in its severity after we all have some form of immunity whether that be through natural immunity or vaccination.
With how widespread the virus is among our community and the asymptomatic transmission (especially with vaccinated patients), quarantining seems a completely unpractical approach. The original idea of quarantining was to “flatten the curve,” or in other words, prevent the hospitals from filling up. At the current time, reports are that the hospitals are busy and understaffed but still not in the absolute danger zone of no longer accepting any patients. Quarantining makes sense at that stage in the game, but it’s my opinion that it would probably still not be successful as the proverbial cat is already so far out of the bag with Delta.
Additionally, the COVID case numbers as are reported are undoubtedly large underestimates of the true prevalence of the disease in our community. Now we have home tests available and there are so many asymptomatic/minimally symptomatic cases that never get tested. The good news is that widespread COVID means that we all get towards immunity faster and COVID becomes far less dangerous more quickly.
If any or all of this has infuriated you, I would strongly encourage you to explore your own bias. Are you only believing the things that fit your current beliefs or are you allowing the data to shape your opinions? Has the media or social media hijacked your brain and they are spoon-feeding you what to believe? This is happening on both sides of the aisle…
Let me leave you with some examples:
Recent news article: “Trump booed at Alabama rally for promoting vaccine.”
- Why isn’t the title of this news article “Trump Advocates for Vaccine?”
- I’m guilty. The first title made me click. It’s click bait.
Whether you like him or not, President Trump stated that he received the vaccine and he suggested to his followers at his rally to take the vaccine, too. This was a GOOD thing that he did. Sure, there were probably a smattering of boos (I wasn’t there so I don’t know), but I doubt his supporters all reigned down boos upon him. But the more appropriate title of “Trump Advocates for Vaccine” which would have been helpful for all Americans (since the vaccine is safe and efficacious) was replaced for click bait to sabotage your logical brain thought processes and replace it with your emotional brain. More clicks.
Recent news article: “Massachusetts reports 144 total breakthrough COVID-19 deaths or 0.003 percent of all fully vaccinated people”
- This title is not reflective of the truth either. It gives the reader the impression that 0.003% of fully vaccinated people are dying.
- Instead of using “fully vaccinated people” as their denominator, they should be using “COVID-19 deaths” as their denominator. When you use the entire vaccinated public in the state, it overestimates the true benefit of the vaccine.
- So instead of using 4,483,344 vaccinated people (the majority without COVID-19) they should have used 18,246 as their denominator.
- More accurately reflected, the title of the article should be “0.79% of vaccinated people died.” Still a good number and still makes the argument for vaccination but not as persuasive as the lie of 0.003%.
Recent news article: “Unmasked, Unvaccinated teacher spreads COVID to 22 Students”
- Upon reading the actual study conducted by Marin County Health Dept, the teacher only potentially infected 12 kids in her class not 22 as reported. There were 27 total cases affiliated with the school. 6 of the cases were in a separate grade from this teacher. The two classrooms were separated by “a large outdoor courtyard with lunch tables that were blocked off from use with yellow tape.”
- If you look at the actual data, less than half of the people infected were in her class
- One of the students hosted a sleepover where other students may have been infected.
- According to the report, the students were spaced 6 feet apart and wore their masks the entire time.
- Additionally, the teacher “only occasionally” took her mask down to read aloud
We need to ask some critical questions here that have been ignored because it doesn’t incite the strong emotionally-charged response of anger producing more clicks:
· Would this make national news if the teacher were vaccinated?
· Would this make national news if the teacher were masked the entire time?
· Did social distancing help? Although the kids in the back of the class were less affected…
· Did the kids wearing their masks help? Pretty obviously, it did not.
· Would this have happened even if everything was done appropriately? And if so, would that make national news?
· Kids generally have good outcomes. To the best of my knowledge, no one infected had any severe outcome in this situation. Is this even newsworthy?
I hope you can see how the media and social media are toying with our emotions resulting in more viewership/clicks.
Can you see the wolves in sheep’s clothing?
If you appreciate this information, I would again encourage you to share, like and comment on Facebook so that the algorithms help to spread this information rather than quackery.
Dr. Opperman, MD, FACP
