Tolleson, DL. “Texas Doctor Announces Better Covid-19 Protocol and Cure.”
Facebook.com, July 11, 2020.
https://www.facebook.com/dl.tolleson/posts/10157112419671373.
Tolleson, DL. “Texas Doctor Announces Better Covid-19 Protocol and Cure.”
DLTolleson.com, July 22, 2020.
http://www.dltolleson.com/commentary/bartlett.php.
Tolleson, DL. “Texas Doctor Announces Better Covid-19 Protocol and Cure.”
TheLighthousePress.com, July 22, 2020.
http://www.thelighthousepress.com/dltolleson.com/commentary/bartlett.php.
On July 20, 2020, Facebook restricted my account on their platform for 24 hours and removed the article—citing the previously mentioned community standards.
The article reports on a licensed and practicing Texas medical doctor who devised a COVID-19 treatment protocol that demonstrates a 100% success rate in the patients he treated. Further still this doctor noted the nation-wide implementation of a similar treatment overseas; That implementation yielded a success of less than 500 COVID-19-related deaths in a nation of 651 inhabitants per 3,280.83 square feet of space (meaning it is a country with the tightly packed population density of 23.57 million people).
The article is thoroughly footnoted in the reference section and links to the actual case study that is freely available for reading online and for free download in PDF format. Reference footnote 4 also links to the website at which is found the doctor’s letter to Texas State Senator Bob Hall, explaining the treatment in layman’s language.
In the video on that website—linked from the reference section and the body of this article—Dr. Bartlett reports that on June 29 Senator Ted Cruz’s office discussed this treatment with him (at timestamp 13:24). And Bartlett follows that news by saying that he expects his paper to be in the hands of the President by, “next week.”
All this, combined with the medical publication in which Bartlett indicates his Case Study is to be published, supports the contention that this is a well-documented and truthful story faithfully reported.
So what is it about the “truthfulness” of this article that Facebook calls into question? Facebook will not respond to why this article violates their alleged community standards. In order to fully grasp what is at work here, we must look to their intent as can be divined from their pleadings in a lawsuit filed against them.
Facebook has long represented that they are only a social media outlet. However, in the exercising of their alleged “fact verifying” they have acted in the role of a publisher. And indeed, in defense of itself against a lawsuit by activist and congressional candidate Laura Loomer, Facebook’s motion to dismiss cited its first amendment rights as a “publisher.”*
Why is there this courtroom admission as a “publisher” in contradiction to public claims of being a social media tech service?
It is because of section 230 of the Communications Decency Act. A platform such as Facebook—if a social media or tech platform—has immunity from lawsuits arising out of their decisions to host (or not to host) user-generated content, whereas a publisher under this law is liable if their writers defame someone.
Now the layman would ask, “If Facebook wants to avoid liability, in a court of law wouldn’t it claim to be a social media platform—as they have claimed in public—instead of claiming to be a publisher that can be targeted for liability?”
The caveat-laden answer is, Yes—that is if they don’t want to restrict the free expression of political speech on their website. But since they DO want to restrict the expression of political speech, then they MUST be a publisher in order to justify what equates to censorship.
In other words, by claiming to be a publisher they are asserting justification to protect themselves from liability by censoring constitutional/conservative political speech that is adverse to their ideology. This is a stated “legal” reason for their censorship that would not be available to them as merely a social media tech platform that would have no justification or reason to censor content.
Now of course this is a dangerous, two-edged sword for Facebook: It means they could actually miss catching a real instance of defamation and thus be liable. But that is the risk they are willing to run (and can financially afford) in order to prevent conservative politics from ruining their restructuring of civil society in their image.
And so, in summation, that is why the following article about a COVID-19 cure is not permitted on the pages of Facebook.
* Defendant Facebook, Inc.’s Motion To Dismiss Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure....
https://docs.reclaimthenet.org/Loomer-v-Facebook-fb-response.pdf
I’ve written at length about Coronavirus (Covid-19) and on at least five occasions about reported and hypothesized cures.1 In fact, I’ve now written more about this than any other topic.2 The reason, of course, is that it is a matter of contention, dispute, politics, freedom and health.
For some the aspect of health is a matter of life and death. And now comes a Texas doctor with a treatment protocol and cure better than that of the CDC recommendations. (For bringing this to my attention, another tip of the ‘ol Fedora to Terry of the Tonda Alexander Guess Facebook page.)
The source of the cure is a Dr. Richard P. Bartlett, graduate of the Texas Tech University Health Sciences Center School of Medicine in 1991 and General Practitioner working out of Odessa, Texas.3 He has announced a Covid-19 cure and associated protocol for effecting said cure. He co-authored a study which is to be officially published but has been made available for online viewing at the fourth reference cited below.4 The case study may also be downloaded in pdf at the fifth reference cited below.5
Bartlett describes the protocol as an easily deployable treatment using a common respiratory anti-inflammatory corticosteroid, Budesonide, via a nebulizer directly to the lungs at the FIRST signs of COVID-19 symptoms. He has indicated this is the same treatment as used by asthma suffers, and that the treatment differs from the CDC guidelines advising medical intervention only after COVID-19 progresses beyond initial stages.
Bartlett reports the treatment is an even better version of one being deployed in Taiwan, which, as of today (July 11, 2020) reports 438 recovered cases out of 451 total cases, with six current active cases and a total of seven deaths.6 And these are numbers for a country with a population of 23.57 million who can’t practice social distancing due to bumping into one another at 651 inhabitants per 3,280.83 square feet (kilometer).7
To see and hear Bartlett describing this treatment in detail watch the following video…
1 CORONAVIRUS: MODELING, POLITICS AND CURES
http://www.DLTolleson.com/commentary/coronavirusmodeling.php
MALARIA ANTIDOTE CURES CORONAVIRUS
https://www.facebook.com/dl.tolleson/posts/10156792319331373
CORONAVIRUS ANTIDOTE A PART OF 100% CURE RATE IN CLINICAL TRIAL
https://www.facebook.com/dl.tolleson/posts/10156788695826373
REPORTED CURES FOR CORONAVIRUS
https://www.facebook.com/dl.tolleson/posts/10156782787851373
CURING INFECTIONS DISEASES WITH VITAMIN C
(Including Coronavirus?)
https://www.facebook.com/dl.tolleson/posts/10156767916836373
2 DLTOLLESON.COM: COMPENDIUM
As of July 11, 2020 at least 18 Covid-related articles linked from my website
http://www. dltolleson.com/compendium.php
3 WEBMD.COM: DR. RICHARD P. BARTLETT, MD
4 DR. RICHARD BARTLETT SHARES COVID INFORMATION
https://americacanwetalk.org/dr-richard-bartlett-shares-covid-information/
5 IBID, 15 PAGE CASE STUDY REPORT IN PDF FORMAT
https://americacanwetalk.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/ColumnByDrBartlettReCOVID-5.pdf
6 WORLDOMETERS.INFO: TAIWAN
Citing to page archived on date of Introductory Commentary
https://web.archive.org/web/20200711100128/https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/taiwan/
7 DEMOGRAPHICS OF TAIWAN
I have converted the square kilometer to square footage