 Aloha and welcome to Hawaii Together on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. I'm Kili Iakina, president of the Grass Root Institute and today is March 30, 2020. We're going through the coronavirus crisis right now across the world. And today I've got a guest who will allow us to understand this situation much better. Is the government doing too much? Is the government doing too little? What should the role of government be? We're going to discuss these issues and others today with Mary J. Ruert, who happens to be an eminent author as well as speaker today. She joins us from the state of Texas. Mary Ruert is a research scientist and ethicist and a libertarian author and activist. She received her BS in biochemistry in 1970 and her PhD in biophysics in 1974. And both of those are from Michigan State University. She subsequently joined the Department of Surgery at St. Louis University. Eventually she left her assistant professorship there to accept a position in the commercial world with Upjohn Company of Kalamazoo, Michigan in 1976. She became a research scientist there as a senior research scientist. Dr. Ruert was involved in developing new therapies for a variety of diseases, including liver cirrhosis and AIDS. Dr. Ruert eventually left Upjohn in 1995 to devote her time to consulting and writing. Her award-winning international bestselling book, Healing Our World, demonstrates how the ethical application of libertarian principles has historically created harmony and abundance. I'd like to welcome to our program today Dr. Mary J. Ruert. Mary, welcome to the program. Well, thank you. I'm glad to be here. Well, we're glad that you're joining us today and giving us some insights into a very hot issue right now. Would you just at the outset tell us what are we facing today and what we call the coronavirus crisis? I know there's a lot of misinformation out there and I know you've corrected much of that. How would you describe what we are going through as a country and as a globe today? Well, I wish I could be very, very specific, but there still are a lot of unknown. So take everything I'm going to say with a grain of salt. We are still in a place where, especially in the United States, where we don't have enough testing kits to really know what we're up against. But this virus is kind of an offshoot of the SARS virus, which we dealt with many years ago. It appears to be more deadly, especially for people who have respiratory issues. And that's because it tends to, for reasons we don't totally understand yet, it's more likely to cause pneumonia. And of course, that's very dangerous for people who have lung problems. And we have a lot of people today who do have lung problems. So that's where, I guess that's where most of the deaths are coming from. Here in the United States, we actually have more cases that have been confirmed than in any other country, including China. And I think I may have sent you a link to put up on your recording there to, you know, the people can go to in order to see exactly what the daily count is. The thing is in the U.S., we still have, most of the people who have contracted the disease are still trying to recover. Whereas in China, for example, most of the people have already recovered. If you do the math on that, the death rate there was about 4%, which is considerably higher than with the regular flu. But again, there's some uncertainty there because we don't know if everybody who died actually died from the virus and were tested for it. So again, there's some uncertainty in the numbers. And I just wanted to throw that out. And there's a lot going on. You know, the private sector has really geared up to do the FDA required studies on old drugs that might be useful and to develop new things like new vaccines. And for the most part, it's going to take a while because of the FDA regulations. The FDA has backed off on some of them, which, of course, is good for the timeline. But there's a lot going on that both the FDA and the CDC were involved in that has made the situation difficult to evaluate. And the biggest blunder probably was on the test kits. As you probably know. Let me pause right there for a moment before specifically going into the test kits, which I definitely want you to address. But overall, when you take a look at these government agencies that have been involved in the coronavirus response, the World Health Organization, the FDA, or the CDC, how do you assess their response so far? I know this is almost armchair quarterbacking. But what is your thought about that as you take a look at how they were responding? Well, the FDA and CDC certainly have really slowed things down, especially in regard to the test kits. But they've also not just slowed down the test kits that you might get in a hospital, but home testing as well. And the availability of test kits in the US has been hampered in a way it shouldn't have been hampered, because of course the Germans have plenty of test kits that they would love to sell us. And the FDA, I think it was in right around February 4th, early February, basically said that if a private company wanted to make a test kit, it was OK, but they had to base it on the CDC's test kit. Now, the problem with that is the CDC is not a commercial operation. So it couldn't make test kits very fast. It doesn't have an automated assay, which you really have to have if you are going to do significant numbers of assays. They sent out 90 test kits around February 6th to 7th. And then it was found that something was wrong with the reagent or the test itself, and they all had to be recalled. So in this country, we just didn't have test kits very early on, which created problems. Once the CDC test kit was found to be faulty, many companies geared up to get a test that they thought could get FDA approval. And they actually had a home test kit, which was very good, because if people are staying at home, that's the way to test them. Unfortunately, the FDA wasn't too excited about that, and they basically made the company's recall tests they had already sent out to people's homes. And they had to send letters telling the people that they would not be able to process their test kit, which of course, I'm sure a lot of people were very unhappy with that. So it was very disappointing. First, why is widespread testing and the availability of test kits so very, very important? And what's the problem we're facing? That's a very good question. That's a very good question. Well, of course, as you know, every year, people get the flu and some die of it, you know, if they're compromised or if they get pneumonia. Now, it would be very important to know, is this due to this new virus or is it due just to the regular flu? Because we can't really calculate what the percentage of deaths are if we don't have that number. And what's happening is people who are dying and yet haven't been tested are being the death certificate I'm showing coronavirus. So I don't know how they're gauging that, I guess they're guessing. And I guess they have to put down something. But that's what's causing a lot of the uncertainty. For example, here in the US, about 1 out of 4,300 people have been tested. In South Korea, it's 1 out of 17 people. So in South Korea, they have a pretty good idea of whether people are dying from the virus or just the ordinary flu or just because their lungs are so compromised, they finally give out or they have a different type of infection. So, you know, they have good numbers there. We do not. And I have talked to a lot of my friends who have experienced a very severe flu this winter. And one has to wonder if they actually had the coronavirus and maybe not the regular flu. Because there's increasing evidence. And again, I take it with a grain of salt. There's increasing evidence that it may be that the virus did not originate in China but originated here. And yeah, I think the next few weeks will probably get a better idea of whether that's actually true or not. You know, for the layperson out there just listening who doesn't have the technical background, take the issue you just raised as to where the origin of the coronavirus really is. How do you sift through conspiracy theory and actual fact at a time like this when there is so much that is being circulated on social media? Yes. Well, actually there is a way to do it. Or how can I say? There's a way to have a best guess, shall we say? So for example, a coronavirus just doesn't automatically appear where there's no similar viruses unless it's transplanted from somewhere normally. So if you look at the different variants of viruses in different countries, you can get a feel for whether that country was infected internally or externally. If that coronavirus is the only virus like it in that country, it probably was a transplant. If you have many variants of the virus, you know, and it's a SARS virus, so, you know, you can look at things that are similar. If you have many variants then you might suspect that the virus comes from a country with many variants. That would be the normal conclusion. Obviously it's not what we call proof, but, you know, there's some things we just can't be sure of. So, and there is, I did see some information out there by an epidemiologist that claimed he had looked at different countries and that the U.S. actually had the most variants. So if that data is correct and I don't know him so I can't vouch for him, but if that is correct then we would suspect it does come from the U.S. Now, the other part of the conspiracy part is that I have heard and I have a hard time believing this particular assertion that the CIA actually designed this virus in North Carolina and released it to somehow foil Trump's reelection. I have a hard time with that one. I don't have any evidence for it, but maybe somebody else does. So, you know, there are crazy rumors going around. This is a time definitely when we shouldn't put much stock into things for which we don't have evidence, which goes back to what you were saying earlier that we need an evidence base to know exactly what the condition of the spread of this pandemic happens to be. We're going to go to a break in a couple minutes, but just before we do that, I know you've done some deep philosophical thought on this. What should the role of government be at a time like this and what should it not be? Well, it certainly shouldn't interfere with the private sector creating treatments or test kits or things of that nature. And one of the good things that's happened is I think after this test kit, the Bollackle, the FDA has backed off on a number of things. For example, it used to really prohibit telemedicine to a great degree. Now that we're all at home, they're saying, yeah, yeah, that's okay, you know. Also, you know, doctors, for example, that in Texas can't prescribe in California unless they have a license. And another thing that's happened is doctors are being allowed to cross state lines in their practice. I think that's a very good thing. There's no reason why they shouldn't be able to do that. And hopefully some of these changes will stay in place. You know, people will find out, yes, less regulation actually works pretty good because it's so, I think most people don't realize how so deadly these regulations are. For example, in my book, Death by Regulation, I talk about how in the early 60s, it took about four years to go from the lab bench to the marketplace for a new drug. Today, it's 10 to 14 years. That's a big, big difference and there's no increase in safety. So all this delay in this extra time and money that's put into drug development and people die waiting for new drugs, all this is totally wasted. Well, it sounds as though there is a silver lining in all of this and that is the reduction of regulations that have been harmful. And perhaps after this episode is over, we will simply proceed without putting those regulations back in place. In the state of Hawaii, we have a critical doctor shortage and the fact that we can now practice telemedicine across state lines and practitioners can come here is something that meets a need that we had even before the coronavirus crisis. We're gonna come right back after this short break and I want you to stay around because Mary Ruert has a lot more to tell us. I'm Kili Akeena on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. Don't go away. We will be right back. Ladies and gentlemen, I'm the host of Finding Our Future here on Think Tech Hawaii. I'm here every other Tuesday from one to 1.30 p.m. Here on this show, I cover issues around sustainability, global issues that matter for young people for future generations and other social justice issues. So please join us. It's live streamed on Think Tech Hawaii and also up later on YouTube. Welcome back to Hawaii together. I'm Kili Akeena, president of the Grassroot Institute and we're on the Think Tech Hawaii Broadcast Network. If you happen to be watching this program live today, you may very well be sheltering in place at home here in the state of Hawaii or across the country. We are trying to respond to the problem of the coronavirus now. And there are many responses that are being put forth by government. Mary J. Ruert has been evaluating this for quite a while. And one of her claims, or not claims, but one of her premises is that we've got to operate on good information. Unfortunately, there's a lot of bad information out there. I'm gonna go back to Mary now and ask her to tell us what are one or two pieces of misinformation that are circulating now and how can we respond to them? Mary? Well, probably the biggest concern I have is when our president talked about the anti-malarial drugs and said that they actually worked. Well, you know, we don't really know because the studies were so small and they weren't consistent. You know, we had a French study and a Chinese study. And in one case, there was no placebo. So, you know, you're kind of guessing. And the other study actually indicated that there might have been a small effect. But, you know, it was like five patients versus seven. It's a small number. You know, it's not what we call statistically significant. In other words, we can't be sure it's not just the chance distribution with such a small number. So, this is a problem. And what has happened because of all that is that people have been stopped piling this drug. And it's not a drug that's, it's not widely available in the US because we don't have a lot of malaria. But it's used for other things. For example, for lupus and other autoimmune diseases. So, there was a story about a 45-year-old lady who was using one of these drugs to control her lupus. And she got a letter from Kaiser Permanente saying, we're not going to fill your prescriptions anymore to this drug, you know. And thank you for your sacrifice. So, this woman is being put at risk because they're according the drug under the assumption that it's going to help patients that have the coronavirus and withholding it from someone that it's very critical for. So, this is the kind of bad things that happen when you have misinformation. So, this is the kind of thing we really have to be careful of. And, you know, there are many drugs in testing. I mean, there's so many, I probably can't even talk about all of them, such as drugs to prevent HIV, which presumably work against one virus. Maybe it'll work against another. Companies are testing their whole library of compounds against this virus to see if it works. And, you know, there's a lot of other things that are being done too. And other older drugs that may be helpful, but are they? We're not absolutely sure yet. So, you know, we're still at that stage where we have to be careful about assuming. Mary, there are different theories as to what the basic frame of reference should be in responding to the coronavirus crisis. The dominant one is that we need to isolate people and we need to stop the spread of the virus. But there also has been talked with the development of a herd immunity, letting the virus spread within the broader population so that much in the way we have done with chicken pox or measles as a people group, we develop an immunity. Now, these two approaches or these two perspectives could result in different responses. Can you address this to any extent? Well, you know, really, it's bottom line is everybody has to take responsibility for their own health. And everybody has to decide, based on their medical condition, is should they be going outside? Should they be staying at home? And I say this because it appears that different people are at risk. For example, if you have lung issues, you're at a very high risk. Because if you go into pneumonia, you may not be able to come out. Whereas a person who has adequate lungs or excellent lung function might not have to worry so much. People who have compromised immune systems need to be concerned. And one of the links I sent you before the show was about the nutritional things you can do to boost your immune system. We should all do that because it's very important to keep our immune systems up. And of course, there's no Bible on how to do that, but there are some things that you can do. Getting adequate amounts of vitamins, for example, and iodine sink, things like this. There's also some evidence that, and again, not certain evidence, but some evidence that ibuprofen might be something that you shouldn't be taking if you get the virus. Again, I'm pointing out that it's not proven yet, but there's some evidence to indicate that as well. So everybody's got to make that decision for themselves based on their own condition and what they think they can handle. Well, that's an important point you bring up, and it's not discussed very often in the public media. What should the role of individual liberty be in deciding how one responds to the coronavirus crisis? I know you have some thoughts on that. Yeah, well, ideally, you want, especially if you're not a scientist, you're not somebody in the medical field, and don't have a good understanding of these things, you're gonna want to talk with your healthcare practitioners, you know, your doctors, your PAs and things like that, and your nutritionists. You want to be sure that you are doing the best you can for yourself. And if you do that, you're less likely to get sick, even if you're exposed. And if you do get sick, you're more likely to recover. And again, this goes back to all the things that we've been dealing with for decades, not being a smoker because that compromises your lungs. You know, getting your aerobic exercise, so you keep your lungs in good shape so that they can process oxygen, you know, exercise, all the usual things. And of course, not being overweight because that gives you a tendency towards diabetes, heart disease. All these things are risk factors for this virus, and really probably most viruses. There is a shortage of medical facilities, a shortage of hospitals that we're being told is part of the problem and our inability to respond as effectively as we need to. But isn't it the case that some of the shortage has been brought about by government policy, such as certificates of need in order to establish hospitals of work? Can you tell us a little bit about what a certificate of need is and how that may have played into creating the kind of shortages we have today? Right, well if you go into a state that has certificate of need or an area that has it, you have to basically go up against the hospitals that are already there and you have to tell them why your new hospital is necessary. And if the other hospitals don't agree with you, you're unlikely to be able to get a permit to build your hospital. And there's been studies done on the outcomes in hospitals in certificate of need states. And basically what happens is in those states, people are more likely to be released prematurely and have to come back because they relapse. So that's a pretty severe penalty to pay for certificate of need. And of course it makes perfect sense because if you have fewer hospitals, you're going to have to rush people out to make room for the newcomers. And this is especially true in a crisis like the one we're having. And equipment, same thing. You know the FDA had all these restrictions on ventilators. If you, for example, took a ventilator and now you were monitoring it via Bluetooth, you had to get approval for that again. So the FDA and wisely I think has released a lot of these restrictions on ventilators so that hospitals can modify the ventilator if they need to in these fairly minor ways or use things like CPAP machines if they need to to make up for maybe not having as many ventilators as they want. You know, we're still early in the United States here so I don't know if that's gonna be enough. We'll have to see. It's, we're still working without the test kits to a large extent. So we're not really absolutely certain where we are. Are there medications that show promise for providing relief from and even a cure for the COVID-19? Yes, in addition to the anti-malarial drugs that we've talked about in the HIV preventative drugs, there's some evidence that angiotensin inhibitors and blockers could be effective. Again, we're not sure. I, you know, I'm just kind of making sure that everyone understands that we're in the early stages here. There's also been some successful infusions of plasma from people who have recovered because presumably these people have antibodies to the virus and there have been some successes, anecdotal work, it hasn't been a full study. That's, that may be good. Stem cells have also been used. There's reports of some successful anecdotal studies with that. Also heat is effective, but it's gotta be a pretty high heat. It's, you know, our body temperatures in 98.6, the heat that's needed is about 133 degrees Fahrenheit. And one of the things that works in most respiratory infections is steam. And so, you know, that's very easy to do. You can boil some water and, you know, inhale the steam, especially like with eucalyptus oil or some other, a Vicks Vapo rub has eucalyptus in it. That's another way to go and possibly eliminate some of it. I personally have a essential oil mix called thieves that young living makes. And I use that on airplanes and things. It's supposedly the recipe that was used during bubonic plague times that the grave robbers put together so that they could rob graves without getting sick. And so it's got some antibacterial, possibly antiviral properties. It's got clothes in it and some other essential oil. So, you know, there's a lot of, a lot of herbal things that are supposed to work too. I can't say I've tried all of them. There is actually a theory that increasing your nitric oxide content in your blood would be helpful. And you can actually measure that pretty well with a saliva stick. And there are nutritional supplements out there that will increase that. So, there's a lot of different things that could be tried. Now, Mary, we've got a couple of minutes left. The time has gone by so quickly. What's a potential best practice? I know it's kind of early in the game, but looking across the world at responses by different governments, what is one or two best practices that you think we need to bring here to the United States? Well, basically, our medical system is over-regulated. And I say that having been involved in, at a number of levels, and because of that over-regulation, it's very, very hard to get something new out. It takes a lot of time, it takes a lot of money. And again, as I said earlier, most of this doesn't improve safety and really doesn't increase effectiveness that much. And at least in the evaluations I've done, the studies I've seen, it really is maybe 10% at most. And of course, we're at 800-fold increase in cost. And that's where the cost of pharmaceuticals really comes from. It comes from the cost of getting FDA approval. That's the driving force behind increasing drug prices. And most people aren't aware of it. Having been in the industry, I am. So, if people want to learn more about that, of course they can check out my book, Death by Regulation. Or if they'd like to learn more about how less government generally gives us better results, more prosperity, more peace, more abundance, they can check out my book, Healing Our World. There's actually the 1993 version of Healing Our World is actually in my free library at my website, ruart.com, R-U-W-A-R-T.com. So, and of course anyone can contact me through my website and I do respond to all my emails. So, if for some reason you don't hear from me, just try again. Great, well, Mary, thank you so much for being with us today. This was very informative and we certainly will be posting this presentation and so anyone can have access to it. My guest today is Mary J. Ruart, PhD and ethicist and research scientist with tremendous insights into what's taking place with the coronavirus, what governments should be doing, shouldn't be doing and ultimately how we can take responsibility for ourselves and come up with a solution. Thank you for being here today. I'm Kelea Akina, President of Grassroot Institute. We are on the Think Tech Hawaii broadcast network until next time, aloha.