Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert gave an August 6 interview with East Texas Now that was so premeditated in what it said and what it didn't say that it exemplifies a GOP pandemic presentation template. Gohmert's entire spiel was quite precise and self-aware, strongly suggesting a presentation protocol and strategy agreed upon in advance by the culture that is the GOP.
What struck me is the degree to which Gohmert's ostensibly off the cuff interview adhered to a crystalline structure and purposeful prioritization of elements during all segments of the interview. Also striking was the obvious adherence to certain strategies regarding what to claim, how to limit actual specific details of those claims, and what information to quite obviously ignore during each step of the interview. In this sense, the interviewer was an active participant, tossing preordained questions Gohmert's way.
Doing forensic analyses of interviews and speeches is not a lot of fun and takes some time. After watching the complete interview, which was 20 minutes in length, I went back and broke down the interview into 20 and 30-second portions, analyzing each portion. Then I watched the complete interview once again. Breaking it down and watching it multiple times led to a more ominous interpretation of what had taken place than the first go-round perception of "Texas lawmaker winging it in a folksy way." The interview actually highlights the GOP strategy and excuses for its Covid-19 response. I'll tackle that in more depth in Part Two. For now, I'll discuss the mechanics of the interview itself. The interview was live, with Gohmert checking in from his home, where he was in quarantine after testing positive for Covid-19. Let's get to it.
When the East Texas Now host asked how he was doing, Gohmert replied "amazingly well," despite demonstrating a shaky, rasping voice that he found necessary to acknowledge on two occasions during the interview. After "amazingly well," he immediately continued with his answer at the 30-second mark, "I did get on the hydroxy very quickly with Z-Pak and zinc, Vitamin D3, and also a steroid nebulizer, a breathing machine."
Note the immediacy of the hydroxychloroquine mention, plus the sequence. "Hydroxy" is named first, followed by the Z-Pak and zinc. The steroid is listed last, after an "uh" and a pause, almost as an afterthought. Now consider if the sequence of items used in treatment had been listed in reverse order. What different conclusion might a listener reach regarding the importance of which items? I think it's worth noting that steroids (not inhaled steroids) have been found to have positive effects in Covid-19 treatments. This is not stated, however, by Gohmert. It would seem to be an obvious and reasonable thing to mention if one were seeking to provide all the facts.
Gohmert went on to report that he had been warned by the White House medical staff to not take commercial transportation, so he drove from D.C. to Tyler to quarantine.
As the interview continued, Gohmert's speech sounded more shallow, as if he could not muster up his usual volume of air. Later in the interview, when he became aware of this, he opined that it might be due to dryness caused by his nebulizer.
When asked about his symptoms at the three-minute mark, Gohmert responded, "There's been a lot of research on the HCQ." He then said that he found it interesting that there was so much pushback. Next, he said that he "was sent a story by a doctor friend" that countries using hydroxychloroquine, Z-Pak, and zinc "had 79% fewer fatalities."
After he tested positive at the White House, Gohmert said he was "met by a couple of incredible doctors." He says one was an epidemiologist, and they gave him "a lot of helpful information." Note first that he does not name the doctors. Keep in mind, also, that he does not say that any of the doctors recommended hydroxychloroquine. He immediately, however, implies that by saying, "Okay, people hate the HCQ because Trump recommends it, but you can't help but wonder if there's not an awful lot of money involved in the, uh, pushback against HCQ."
Some notes on Gohmert's comments thus far:
(1) The "had 79% fewer fatalities" goes unexplained. Does that mean overall in terms of raw numbers? Per capita? Per infection? What or who is the source of the "79% fewer fatalities" comment? Such a striking stat should certainly have source references attached, but it does not.
(2) No mention, zero, is made of double blind trials, the medical gold standard, that established that "HCQ" doesn't do any good. Not mentioning the most credible data is beyond disingenuous. Could Gohmert be unaware of the trial results? Fat chance, but we'll return to this later. I am reminded of the famous recent quote from Brazil's hydroxychloroquine backer, Jair Balsonaro, "We know there is no scientific evidence, but it has worked with me."
There's a jarring, tone deaf moment at the nine minute mark where Gohmert tries to explain how "the president is a really funny guy." Gohmert had been tested because he was scheduled to accompany President Trump on Air Force One to Texas. When his test came back positive, he was vetoed from the trip. So the president called Gohmert from Air Force One. Gohmert thanked the president because without the invitation and required test, he would not have known he was positive. Trump's "humorous" response was, "Oh, so you're saying that I saved your life," at which both Gohmert and the president shared a laugh. Given the lack of testing availability for many Americans the last six months, which may indeed have resulted in many deaths, the Trump comment seems an odd thing to put forth publicly as an example of the president being a "really funny man."
Trump then told Gohmert to follow Gohmert's doctor's orders, but Trump allegedly then said, "Mine recommended hydroxychloroquine."
Gohmert then addressed his drug of choice again, saying, "I can't help but think it must have an effect since there is so much data out there." Once again, Gohmert doesn't quote papers or studies or actual sources regarding the alleged data of which he speaks. The only doctor that Gohmert mentions by name other than the task force's Dr. Fauci is a Dr. Bartlett, who recommended the steroid nebulizer. Bartlett is not quoted by Gohmert as recommending hydroxychloroquine.
When asked about Dr. Fauci, Gohmert once again mentions the unnamed articles provided by a "doctor friend" discussing those "79% lower fatality rates" for countries using hydroxychloroquine. Gohmert then characterizes Fauci as a "zealot against a particular form of treatment. It's hard to deny at this point that it's done a lot of good."
Next, Gohmert mentions Rand Paul texting him and saying, "Congratulations. Now you're going to be immune." He then paraphrased Rand Paul, saying Paul declared the research made it "pretty clear" that people couldn't get Covid-19 a second time. Gohmert also mentions Herman Cain, and attributes his death, categorized as Covid-19, as due to his chemotherapy.
Finally, Gohmert spends time at the tail end of the interview downplaying the reported deaths from the virus, "I don't think we can rely very well on the numbers that we're getting." He mentions anecdotal talk and "stories constantly coming out" as indicators that deaths are exaggerated. He does not mention that demographers and epidemiologists will be able to determine after the fact how many people have died of Covid-19 by comparing death totals to averages of the previous years, which again is a basic, fundamental way of measuring pandemic effects that he chooses to ignore.
Summary of this Interview
The interview, in effect, was an advertisement for hydroxychloroquine. But that only scratches the surface, because such an interview carries within it implicit subtexts and dog whistles. Let's state the obvious first:
The only doctor actually named was the one who recommended the nebulizer for Gohmert. None of the doctors supposedly recommending hydroxychloroquine, if indeed any did, are named.
None of the studies or papers demonstrating hydroxychloroquine's alleged successes are named. The doctors in charge of those alleged studies are not named. Papers' authors are not named.
The double blind studies that demonstrated hydroxychloroquine's lack of effectiveness are ignored. They are not mentioned once. There is not even a reference to them being flawed or problematic. The reason for that non-confrontational approach is that the double blind studies are unimpeachable.
In 20 minutes, Gohmert manages to put forth multiple conspiracy theories without providing any evidence whatsoever. First, he advocates for hydroxychloroquine, knowing the FDA does not approve its use. He then frames Dr. Fauci as a "zealot" against the drug. And he insinuates multiple times in the interview that money must be at the root of the lack of hydroxychloroquine support. That's conspiracy number one. Second, he claims that one cannot trust the death numbers being reported, with the clear implication that they are exaggerated. In fact, according to a recent Yale study, the deaths are strikingly underreported. Gohmert, however, would have us believe that doctors and coroners must be conspiring to pad the Covid-19 tally. This is conspiracy number two. Third, he explicitly mentions that people refuse to accept hydroxychloroquine's positive treatment results because they "hate Trump." This is a third conspiracy.
The scientists, coroners, Democrats, front line doctors, and nurses are all conspiring. Presumably the rest of the world is also conspiring with them.
This Gohmert interview was very carefully structured. No attributions for the "data" supporting hydroxychloroquine. No doctors named who recommended hydroxychloroquine for Gohmert. No mention of the "Demon Doctor" who championed hydroxychloroquine a couple of weeks ago. No mention of double blind trials establishing hydroxychloroquine as having no real value. No mention of drugs that have some measured but modest effect, such as remdesivir, which is certainly quite curious.
Is Louie Gohmert, a former judge and attorney, really so ill trained in science that he simply doesn't understand the value of attribution? Is he prioritizing information incorrectly due to ignorance or naivete? Not likely.
His interview gives a clear picture of the GOP strategy in the days leading to the election. I'll examine it all in Part Two.
Bob Dietz
August 16, 2020
