https://youtu.be/ArThmKdE-ig
Category: Corona Virus
Remembering Galileo
Science is by definition open to debate. It seems unimaginable that in 2020 science is being infected (once again) by political tribalism. Such was the fate of Galileo Galilei who spent nearly a decade of his life under house arrest for his scientific theories.
Some medical professionals today are still being culture-cancelled for their divergent professional inquiries. A fair analysis of such a case is presented in the non-profit, editorially independent digital magazine UNDARK that explores the intersection of science and society. Please give it a good read here:
https://undark.org/2020/06/11/john-ioannidis-politicization/
“Locking ourselves in our beautiful mansions and continuing with our videoconferences practically does nothing for nursing homes and chronically badly prepared hospitals . . . It also kills the poor, the disadvantaged . . .” He [Professor John Ioannidis] has cautioned that protracted lockdown will cause starvation, violence, poverty, and deaths that could exceed the number of lives saved by avoiding Covid-19 infections.
He’s not alone in these concerns. The World Food Program estimates that 265 million people worldwide could face hunger and starvation due to lockdown-related disruptions in the food supply. Business writer Tom Keane suggests, based on a study linking death rates to unemployment, that pandemic-related job losses in the U.S. alone could translate to an extra 815,000 deaths over the next 10 to 17 years.
.
* REMINDER – The early low estimate of Covid deaths was discussed in an earlier interview by The Greek Reporter:
Greek Reporter: You had earlier extrapolated 10,000 total US deaths using the Diamond Princess cruise ship analysis, using the case fatality rate among those infected, which was .3% (mid-range guess), with 1% of the US population becoming infected. As we know now, the total amount of those dying with the disease was much higher but it was still not the astronomical, exponentially huge number that some had predicted. There had been only 68 American deaths by March 16, the day before your original article was published. The most pessimistic projection in March was 40 million deaths globally — the same as the 1918 flu. What do you really think it is now, bottom line?
Dr. Ioannidis: In the STAT article, I discussed two hypothetical extremes for illustrative purposes, one with just 10,000 deaths in the USA and another with 50 million deaths worldwide. I said that our data are so unreliable that the truth could be anywhere between these two amazingly different extremes. Based on what we know now, we seem to be closer to the optimistic end of the range. In terms of numbers of lives lost, so far the COVID-19 impact is about 1% of the 1918 influenza. In terms of quality-adjusted person-years lost, the impact of COVID-19 is about 0.1% of 1918 influenza, since the 1918 influenza killed mostly young healthy people (average age 28), while the average age of death with COVID-19 is 80 years, with several comorbidities.
Greek Reporter: We had been told that we needed to “flatten the curve” — and we did so in the US, did we not? No health system was completely overwhelmed, not even in NYC, where they did not completely run out of ventilators.
Dr. Ioannidis: The predictions of most mathematical models in terms of how many beds and how many ICU beds would be required were astronomically wrong. Indeed, the health system was not overrun in any location in the USA, although several hospitals were stressed. Conversely, the health care system was severely damaged in many places because of the measures taken.
What are the lockdown rules in place across Europe?
Read it here:
PCR TEST RELIABILITY?
The Infectious Myth podcast:
Only recently have I come upon articles (and the above podcast) questioning the reliability of the PCR tests that govern our global lockdown response. I am only scratching the surface. It is now the job of the reader to search more deeply and arrive at their own conclusions. If nothing else my research has convinced me how little we truly know about this virus.
PART A) Consider this article from the Bulgarian Pathology Association:
Though the whole world relies on RT-PCR to “diagnose” Sars-Cov-2 infection, the science is clear: they are not fit for purpose
[…]
Finally, the reasons and possible motives remain speculative, and many involved surely act in good faith; but the science is clear: The numbers generated by these RT-PCR tests do not in the least justify frightening people who have been tested “positive” and imposing lockdown measures that plunge countless people into poverty and despair or even drive them to suicide.
And a “positive” result may have serious consequences for the patients as well, because then all non-viral factors are excluded from the diagnosis and the patients are treated with highly toxic drugs and invasive intubations. Especially for elderly people and patients with pre-existing conditions such a treatment can be fatal, as we have outlined in the article “Fatal Therapie.”
Without doubt eventual excess mortality rates are caused by the therapy and by the lockdown measures, while the “COVID-19” death statistics comprise also patients who died of a variety of diseases, redefined as COVID-19 only because of a “positive” test result whose value could not be more doubtful.
*********************
PART B) In contrast consider this Reuters’ fact check concerning the quote, “PCR tests cannot detect free infectious viruses at all”.
While claiming, “The quote undermining PCR tests is misattributed to [it’s inventor] Mullis and taken out of context”, the article’s author writes:
A spokesperson for Public Health England told Reuters why PCR tests are being used widely in England:
“Molecular diagnostic tests, such as real-time PCR, are the gold standard methods for identifying individuals with an active viral infection, such as SARS-CoV-2 (the cause of COVID-19 disease), in their respiratory tract. These tests are rapid and produce results in real-time.
“It is important to note that detecting viral material by PCR does not indicate that the virus is fully intact and infectious, i.e. able to cause infection in other people. The isolation of infectious virus from positive individuals requires virus culture methods. These methods can only be conducted in laboratories with specialist containment facilities and are time consuming and complex.”
https://www.google.com/amp/s/in.mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN24420X?espv=1
******************
I wish we could study further with the podcast host David Crowe. The INFECTIOUS MYTH podcast began covering coronavirus on March 3, 2020. On June 16 he spoke of his recent liver cancer diagnosis. On July 12, 2020 David Crowe died.
I thank him for his contribution to our knowledge and I wish him the best on his journey.
THE INFECTIOUS MYTH WEBPAGE:
What Exactly Are We Testing?
https://youtu.be/JL7Cx2ScAtM
Effectiveness of Cloth Masks for Protection Against Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2
Volume 26, Number 10—October 2020Online Report
More research on cloth masks is needed to inform their use as an alternative to surgical masks/respirators in the event of shortage or high-demand situations. To our knowledge, only 1 randomized controlled trial has been conducted to examine the efficacy of cloth masks in healthcare settings, and the results do not favor use of cloth masks.
More randomized controlled trials should be conducted in community settings to test the efficacy of cloth masks against respiratory infections.
[…]
During a pandemic, cloth masks may be the only option available; however, they should be used as a last resort when medical masks and respirators are not available. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, but some may choose to use them if there are no alternatives.
[…]
These transmission events appear uncommon and have typically involved the presence of an infectious person producing respiratory droplets for an extended time (>30 minutes to multiple hours) in an enclosed space. Enough virus was present in the space to cause infections in people who were more than 6 feet away or who passed through that space soon after the infectious person had left.
[…]
Conclusions
The filtration, effectiveness, fit, and performance of cloth masks are inferior to those of medical masks and respirators. Cloth mask use should not be mandated for healthcare workers, who should as a priority be provided proper respiratory protection. Cloth masks are a more suitable option for community use when medical masks are unavailable. Protection provided by cloth masks may be improved by selecting appropriate material, increasing the number of mask layers, and using those with a design that provides filtration and fit. Cloth masks should be washed daily and after high-exposure use by using soap and water or other appropriate methods.
Immunity to SARS & Covid-2
Published Oct 27, 2020
https://youtu.be/Trr8zRgig0c
MedCram Covid-19 Update
Convalescent plasma versus monoclonal antibodies for covid-19 treatments:
Scientific Petitions and Open Letters in the Covid-19 Era
John P.A. Ioannidis
October 2, 2020
Scientific truth should not be decided by the bulk of signatories, argues John Ioannidis
Petitions and open letters signed by large numbers of scientists are not new, but they have proliferated in the covid-19 era. [1,2] They have a clear role when it comes to questions of ethics, social problems, and injustices. With monumental consequences from both the pandemic and the response to the pandemic, debating ethical and social issues is the right of every citizen, including scientists. A collateral damage, however, is when these documents are aimed to prove or disprove scientific positions.
Scientists may take pride that their advocacy can save lives, mobilize resources for worthy enterprises, or teach leaders and fellow citizens. Petitions often convey a sense of urgency, conviction, and resolution. Different petitions may fervently support opposing positions: e.g. be in favour or against measures such as lockdowns or school closures/openings. They may press on issues of transmission (e.g. whether airborne, aerosol transmission is common) or risk (e.g. whether children are at risk). Sometimes, they acquire a component of personal attack, lambasting (or supporting) government officials for recommendations and actions. Various media and social media further reverberate these documents. Participation of the general public in these debates is welcome, but bounds of civility are sadly often crossed and many scientists, signatories or opponents, get unjustifiably smeared. However, most importantly, petitions cannot and should not be used as a means to prove that the positions of the signatories are scientifically correct. As it has been previously observed, this is a fallacy, an argumentum ad populum, implying that the larger the number of scientists who sign, the more valid their scientific positions are. [3,4] Vote counting is a faulty method of scientific inference. Science is replete of situations where vehement majorities have held wrong beliefs.
Signatory credentials carry little weight for further validating the veracity of petitioned materials. Invoking authority is yet another fallacy. Expert opinions are at the bottom of the evidence hierarchy. Angry, scared, opinionated experts have even less trustworthiness. Petitions over-confident of their alleged know-how can even be embarrassing, when the recruited experts actually do not even cover key dimensions of necessary expertise. E.g. microbiologists and infectious disease experts may not know enough about diseases of despair, economics, and social meltdown dynamics; and economists may lack knowledge about virology, immunology, or intensive care.
There are many other drawbacks in using petitions to prove scientific points. First, absolute knowledge that can be summarized with a few paragraphs or bullet points (an unavoidable feature of letter-writing) is almost non-existent across science. Good science is nuanced. Forced consensus or over-simplification are detrimental.
Second, signatories may not fully agree or may even partly disagree with what they co-sign. A previous survey examining the positions of signatories on a hot topic (denouncing “statistical significance”) showed that several of them had not read the petition, or read it after it was published; many of them held opposite views to several points made by the signed petition; and most had adopted research practices in their recent work that contradicted what they were espousing in the letter. [3]
Third, petitions create covert coercion, stifling academic freedom. When academic leaders encourage their faculty to sign, coercion exists, even if the language of the invitation is relaxed. Younger or more junior faculty members depend on their senior leaders for their academic prospects. Not signing a document espoused by their supervisor may be an embarrassment. Many may compromise to avoid appearing defiant.
Fourth, petitions create a false sense of certainty for a new pandemic where uncertainty may unavoidably exist on important questions. [5] This hinders scientific inquisitiveness. Many scientists may feel threatened by the mass mentality expressed by these letters and by the accompanying media and social media smearing and they may self-censor their high-risk or unpopular ideas. Challenging orthodoxy is never easy, but it becomes almost impossible when proponents of whatever orthodoxy speak out vehemently about how incontestable “their truth” is smearing their opponents.
Fifth, exaggerated certainty can backfire and damage science at large, if some vehemently held positions are refuted downstream by accumulating evidence. The anti-vaccine movement and climate emergency deniers are already drawing ammunition from the reversals of opinion and policy during the covid-19 pandemic. Clearly the strategy of deniers is inappropriate, since the knowledge we have about covid-19 and how to handle it is still evolving, while we have solid evidence about the efficacy and safety of MMR or the dangers of climate emergency. However, science deniers capitalize on the exaggerations that accompany covid-19-related statements.
Sixth, petition letters can easily fall prey to political ideology. In a polarized, charged environment, as is typical of the USA and many other countries around the world, petitions may often reflect the political preferences of the leaders who composed them. This becomes most obvious in attacks against government officials and task force figures. Brilliant scientists like Tony Fauci have been ferociously smeared and need bodyguards. [6] Even when letter writers have absolutely no intention of taking political sides, their petitions may be misused to promote political agendas. Mixing science with politics can become highly damaging.
Seventh, many signatories may have conflicts of interest, but these are hardly ever disclosed in the petition format. Conversely, they would have had to disclose these conflicts, if they submitted their views to a scientific journal.
Dealing with the major threat of covid-19 requires the best science, and the best environment that fosters it: unperturbed academic freedom, without partisanship, with healthy skepticism rather than screams, and with full transparency about potential conflicts. Petitions are a superb advocacy tool. Both scientists and non-scientists may use them for ethical purposes, to advocate on what matters to them. However, petitions should not be masqueraded as weapons of scientific argumentation. Scientific truth is not an issue of zealotry and is not decided by the bulk of signatories.
John P.A. Ioannidis, professor, departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, and Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
Competing interests: I have no conflicts of interest and I have received no funding for my COVID-19 work. I have signed in the past open letters and petitions on ethical issues, but have declined to sign open letters and petitions that claim to settle scientific matters.
References:
- McCook A. Thousands boycott new Nature journal about machine learning. Retraction Watch. https://retractionwatch.com/2018/05/01/thousands-boycott-new-nature-journal-about-machine-learning/, last accessed September 15, 2020.
- Open letter in support of funder open publishing mandates. http://michaeleisen.org/petition/, last accessed September 15, 2020.
- Hardwicke TE, Ioannidis JPA. Petitions in scientific argumentation: Dissecting the request to retire statistical significance. Eur J Clin Invest. 2019 Oct;49(10):e13162. doi: 10.1111/eci.13162.
- Walton DN. Why is the ‘ad Populum’ a fallacy? Philos Rhetoric. 1980; 13: 264‐ 278.
- Ioannidis JPA. Coronavirus disease 2019: The harms of exaggerated information and non-evidence-based measures. Eur J Clin Invest. 2020 Apr;50(4):e13222. doi: 10.1111/eci.13222.
- Holpuch A. Fauci tells of death threats as Birx pinpoints fresh areas of Covid concern. The Guardian, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/aug/06/anthony-fauci-death-threats-coronavirus, last accessed September 15, 2020.
Remdesivir Gets FDA Approval, but WHO Says Drug Ineffective for COVID
OCTOBER 23, 2020
By
Jeremy Loffredo
On Oct. 15, WHO reported that remdesivir not only failed to produce any measurable benefit in terms of mortality reduction, but that it also didn’t reduce the need for ventilators, or the length of hospital stays.
[…]
“It is unclear if any conclusive findings can be drawn from the study results.”
[…]
U.S. taxpayers covered some of the research and development costs for Veklury, to the tune of $70.5 million.
[…]
Medicare does not reimburse directly for remdesivir, and one five-day treatment course costs more than $3,000 for U.S. patients with private insurance and more than $2,000 for government purchasers like the Department of Veterans Affairs.This high price stands in stark contrast to that of another antiviral, hydroxychloroquine, which costs 30 cents a pill. Hydroxychloroquine, FDA-approved since 1955, is far safer than most popular over-the-counter drugs like Tylenol and aspirin. Physicians can prescribe it for any off-label use and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention deems the drug safe for pregnant women, breastfeeding women, children, elderly patients, immunocompromised patients and healthy persons of all ages.
Since the beginning of the COVID pandemic, dozens of new studies have demonstrated the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine and its first cousin, chloroquine, against COVID. These studies occurred in China, France, Saudi Arabia, Italy, India, New York and Michigan. However, such proof of hydroxychloroquine’s benefit to patients with COVID has posed an existential threat to Gilead sales throughout the COVID outbreak.
Under federal law, new treatments do not qualify for emergency use authorization if an FDA-approved treatment exists for the same disease. If hydroxychloroquine had been shown to be effective in COVID patients, Gilead, along with other companies making therapeutics and vaccines for COVID, could not have been granted EUA [emergency use authorization]. The companies would have had to complete standard safety testing and await FDA approval — meaning less profits, longer runways to market, and an end to the lucrative COVID vaccine gold rush.
As Dr. James Todaro wrote in OmniJournal, “Perhaps no other company has more to gain in the immediate future from hydroxychloroquine’s failure than Gilead.”
Read more here: