For everyone's consideration, an open letter to the FDA...
https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_forms_u_0_d_e_1FAIpQLSdXaVo9BWAhMMej-5FKUL2sTB6jt3H2j90aagVXymWWS-2DluudzA_formResponse&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=AlYh0w3V9YWt4BJuRDaUaQu1-zS1FCFsrSUZOpAZ8g8&e=
On Sat, Sep 26, 2020, 6:34 PM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Jack, I’d like to offer a sincere “thank you” for your efforts and your
> serious engagement of these issues. Your detailed response includes several
> helpful pieces of information. Probably more than most people would be
> inclined to want to process – and cognitive dissonance certainly can be an
> inhibiting factor! But here’s my summary of your detailed commentary in
> terms of what I’d love to be able to do in contributing to the public
> dialogue. Feel free to critique and/or perhaps others might chime in to
> refine the messaging, but here’s my “top ten” list that we could & perhaps
> should emphasize:
>
>
>
> *Short-term, Immediate Messages *
>
>
>
> 1. Speak clearly and with clear evidence to the health practitioners and
> front-line workers, as well as to the general public to identify the
> high-risk groups (e.g., the elderly, morbidly obese, those with
> cardiovascular disease). Recognize that one of the reasons we often do
> *not* discuss the issues in these terms derives from the stigmatization
> of these populations and subsequent marginalization that can result. Thus
> the key lies in the framing or the “narrative”, which can be done in
> extremely creative and positive ways if one operates from a more
> enlightened ToK perspective, for example (hence another value of the
> current list-serv). I’ve done this quite often through the logic of
> “positive coaching,” which allows one to identify weaknesses in players’
> performances and help them improve by reframing the critique in ways that
> value the individual, earn trust, and then open up the lines of
> communication for constructive feedback, including “high-risk” behaviors.
>
>
>
> 2. We need to refine our risk models from case comparisons and controlled
> studies, much as we strive to do with other significant diseases.
>
>
>
> 3. Fund the research to conduct proper research in studying comorbidity!
> Do not either “downplay” or “exaggerate” claims, but be as specific as
> possible in providing the best info available on how complex systems – like
> the health and functioning of the human body – require detailed, nuanced
> assessments from those well-trained to conduct such research. And then do
> some genuinely kick-ass research (which we do not do *nearly* enough of
> in my field, sociology, but I digress)!
>
>
>
> 4. Do more of the actuarial science approach to documenting deaths more
> accurately and share the best odds data we can generate, once more linked
> to certain subgroups in the population or specific risk factors wherever
> possible.
>
>
>
> 5. Provide information in regard to coagulopathy, respiratory, and
> additional viral issues to help the medical profession and the public to
> understand some of the complexities involved. Use simple language, but do
> not over-simplify. We do this quite often with PSAs, which can be helpful
> too in generating public support for increased participation in new
> studies, etc. One area that we have followed up on extensively in Canada
> with various cancer treatments has been stem cell research and getting the
> public much more involved in donating platelets, plasma, etc.
>
>
>
> 6. Related to the previous point, work on building a community of
> committed citizens who want to “beat the disease” (ya know, embrace the
> “miracle on ice” mentality!). We know that “risk” will always be unevenly
> distributed, but we also know that it’s in everyone’s interests to figure
> out large-scale public solutions. Everyone has a stake; everyone’s affected
> to varying degrees. Good, successful teams develop both rhetoric and
> rituals aimed at developing solidarity and a shared sense of mission.
>
>
>
> 7. Where there have been notable successes, invest further in replication
> and critique with the aim of establishing the validity of treatments by
> understanding the mechanisms associated with certain outcomes (e.g.,
> autoimmune responses and Th1/Th2 balanced immune systems).
>
>
>
> *Broader, Long-Term Efforts *
>
>
>
> 8. The current world with diverse biothreats requires sustained attention
> from diverse experts spanning the spectrum of disciplines, who should be
> encouraged to work together to integrate knowledge bases, findings, and
> recommendations.
>
>
>
> 9. Corporate regulatory capture, whether in the government or in the
> private sphere, should be discouraged such that public monies (at the very
> least) should be as “apolitical” as possible and directed toward those
> experts, organizations, and institutions who have the best proposals, track
> records, and results with respect to scientific investigations and
> accomplishments. I’d emphasize the non-profit organizations and agencies,
> as well as universities. There should always be healthy debates, of course,
> as to the merits and quality of scientific work, but money obviously can be
> such a corrupting influence. (side note: we had a problem in Canada with
> drug agencies funding conferences and inviting the medical stakeholders to
> be wined and dined, but mitigated that conflict of interest to some degree
> such that, for example, those working on the front lines with cancer
> patients could not be funded to attend these affairs by the companies)
>
>
>
> 10. If we can accomplish #1 and #2, then a third leg would be to try to
> rebuild public confidence in the efforts of the scientific community, which
> can be done through a variety of mechanisms – but most notably through
> constructive engagement with our various educational systems, public
> education materials, and even inviting the media to be part of/more
> knowledgeable about scientific practices (among many possibilities).
>
>
>
> By the same token, I don’t want to gloss over or fail to mention one of
> your final observations:
>
> *I’d like to develop a prediction model: *
>
> *P(Death w/from COVID) = F(BMI, Smoking status, T-cell count, age)*
>
> *And formalize this with data from hospitals. I’m expert in prediction
> modeling optimization via machine learning from my days working w/NCI's
> EDRN. I'd be happy to do such a study. *
>
> And I’d be more than happy to help with such modeling and data analysis,
> since that’s my bailiwick as well – and people are always “talking” about
> interdisciplinary research teams, but not as often acting on those
> intentions!
>
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Professor
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
>
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of James Lyons-Weiler <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 26, 2020 5:29 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: UHC COVID 19 update
>
> Dear Joe,
> Thank you for your questions. The emotional reaction is expected, it's
> common w/cognitive dissonance. Plus, I'm a newcomer and
> people have published atrociously mostly incorrect things about me on the
> internet. I appreciate the opportunity to speak for myself in this
> community.
>
> i've addressed your other questions to the best of my ability. I hope they
> clarify reality as my focused scientific attention has caused my brain to
> perceive:
>
> But perhaps you mean, as Senator Jensen discusses in his video, the
> centralization & authoritarianism from a political standpoint - and the
> manner in which knowledge has been controlled and disseminated?
>
>
>
> *No, I mean it’s strategically insane in a world of biothreats to have all
> of our public health response in one organization – geographically and
> paradigmically*
>
> If that's the case, then I think we would probably find a consensus on
> such a concern, whether that be in the context of the DHS regulating &
> censoring Dr. Jensen inappropriately, or whether that be the large-scale
> politicization of medical & public health knowledge from the president on
> down through the CDC, etc.
>
> *Yes, politicization, that’s unforgiveable recklessness. *
>
> *However, the greater concern is the corporate regulatory capture, which
> transcends politics and party, and has been endemic to the operations of
> HHS, including FDA and CDC, for decades.*
>
> *US Agencies have perverse incentives due to Bayh-Dohl; they are
> for-profit agencies that sometimes collude and sometimes compete w/the
> companies they are supposed to regulate.*
>
> *The arrangement is dysfunctional and, as we now see, dangerous.*
>
> Setting politics aside, it strikes me that perhaps the types of
> knowledge that would be helpful would be a combination of what I've
> suggested previously & some of what you're suggesting - and I'm wondering
> if you could do just that, at least for this list & in light of current
> knowledge?
>
> 1) What are the most significant risk factors associated w/ contracting
> COVID-19, both from the standpoint of individual health and susceptibility
> to certain pathogens, as well as from a broader determinants of health
> framework?
>
> *The groups at higher risk of dying with or from COVID are the elderly
> (also true in the general population from all causes), the morbidly obese
> (also true in the general population from all causes), those with
> cardiovascular disease (also true in the general population from call
> causes).*
>
> *What we do not yet know includes the true risk profile of these groups,
> per month, from comparisons of cases and controls, and among cases and
> other cases (the other respiratory viral infections I mentioned).*
>
> *The original treatments did not deal with coagulopathy; that’s now being
> dealt with. They also used ventilators on protocol settings – too much
> pressure for those w/damaged alveolar tissue. The virus infects all of the
> way to the periphery, unusual for respiratory viruses. Many protocols of
> outpatient care are being published.*
>
> 2) What can we reasonably, reliably, and accurately say about COVID-19 in
> terms of comorbidity?
>
> *Until the group comparisons I mentioned above are conducted, not much.
> I’m aghast that the public has not been updated. My medical associates
> tell me there are no special protocols in place any longer beyond those
> normal for flu. The public has no idea.*
>
> Or, to your latter point, what about the possibility of adjusting COVID-19
> estimates to talk about the presence of the virus or as "one of the
> contributing factdors" in deaths where that has been verified?
>
> *Yes. Baseline deaths per month in 2019 should be subtracted from per
> month deaths for all ages – year by year, as in actuarial science.
> Arm-waving numbers unanchored to any reference point is scary.*
>
> *For example, my analysis of data for men >70 (Finder’s insurance data)
> gives me an odds of death from any cause in 2019 within one year at 6.7%.
> That’s 0.55% death per month for each month, so it’s a tough comparison but
> that % should be subtracted at a minimum. *
>
> I certainly agree with Dr. Jensen that I would NOT want COVID-19 to be
> listed as the "cause of death" where that has NOT been verified, or where
> no testing has been done, or where it's just assumed to be there as per the
> case of NY that Jensen cited. But I'm also not comfortable either with
> people saying "It's a hoax & only a few thousand people have died from
> COVID-19, so it's really nothing."
>
> *Rest easy, I am also not comfortable with that assessment. But we do
> have to wonder how it compares to influenza – which I estimate (after
> removing pneumonia not due to influenza infection, RSV, SV and coronavirus
> deaths from 2014-2019) to be about 5,000 flu deaths per year. Not 60,000.
> Not 80,000. *
>
> *See *
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jameslyonsweiler.com_2020_09_11_censored-2Dis-2Dcdc-2Dborrowing-2Dpneumonia-2Ddeaths-2Dfrom-2Dflu-25E2-2580-258B-2Dfor-2Dfrom-2Dcovid-2D19_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=m340D81x5CuUP1g73_dgdztm4Yjg7QUCYu4nRdqHFtY&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jameslyonsweiler.com_2020_09_11_censored-2Dis-2Dcdc-2Dborrowing-2Dpneumonia-2Ddeaths-2Dfrom-2Dflu-25E2-2580-258B-2Dfor-2Dfrom-2Dcovid-2D19_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=sbON-WGd-Cq_Sn8wpTNrpm1O2sM_t8cw-m6J0BBImyc&s=cXVg-8512GDp3S_dBcdR8gseStAxI4YNfwETpKKoXDI&e=>
>
> *This is why counting “died with” vs. “died from” matters*
>
> Thus do we have the data to be able to state the prevalence of the
> disease, especially broken down by the testing results & risk factors?
>
> *No, because the tests are not reliable. See Dr. Sin Hang Lee’s study –
> mentioned here:*
>
> *https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.businesswire.com_news_home_20200717005397_en_CDC-2DCoronavirus-2DTest-2DKits-2DGenerate-2D30-2DFalse&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=n6T_ianLZ_tt2jcy_SdRzNVY25agVnzz5S5i49hLEpE&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.businesswire.com_news_home_20200717005397_en_CDC-2DCoronavirus-2DTest-2DKits-2DGenerate-2D30-2DFalse&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=sbON-WGd-Cq_Sn8wpTNrpm1O2sM_t8cw-m6J0BBImyc&s=d7_irCSIkRIiiCkbc_q90p5AaCW8V504-bbt3l7e7vM&e=>*
>
> *I interviewed him on #UnbreakingScience. We worked out that ¼ of the
> tests are wrong. I’ve written to FDA – they have never, not once, had CDC
> or any other test maker determine the specificity of the tests. It’s close
> to infuriating, actually.*
>
> And then can we adjust our discussion of mortality rates and qualify these
> in line with the evidence & comorbidity?
>
> *“We” should not have to. “They” should be doing it correctly, that’s
> what “we” pay taxes for. But no, we cannot given the current state of
> data.*
>
> *We could all know if a study had been done on 1,000 cases and 1,000
> controls of people over 70 dying in hospitals all who had comorbid
> conditions, *
>
> *all test for all resp viruses, all tested w/their PCR products sequenced.*
>
> Finally, can we discuss as well the degree to which COVID-19 exacerbates -
> or does NOT exacerbate - certain pre-existing conditions and does/does not
> increase mortality risk?
>
> *One of my peer reviewed studies predicted the now confirmed autoimmune
> targeting of immune proteins by the COVID19 virus. So people may have
> serious problems if exposed to the viral proteins a second time after
> infection.*
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sciencedirect.com_science_article_pii_S2589909020300186&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=YeAVUlbATe_orDizNEoWj5tPln8l1gJ3VcZfVcuBsh4&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.sciencedirect.com_science_article_pii_S2589909020300186&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=sbON-WGd-Cq_Sn8wpTNrpm1O2sM_t8cw-m6J0BBImyc&s=0u7zCdfFOAYqpZkOw2Cz8O_sbvIzCfdzxs9cynxSLGI&e=>
>
> In short, I still have a lot of methodological/epistemological questions
> about COVID-19 - and the most credible scientific knowledge we can
> generate. That's my baseline. Yet even if we get there, as we learned from
> Hume, that will not tell us what we should "do" in response to cope w/ the
> virus.
>
> *Sweden is done. I think we should follow the example in Sweden and let
> the virus run its course, which it’s doing anyway. We should protect those
> at risk, and, frankly change our #1 public health agenda to making sure
> people have Th1/Th2 balanced immune systems. Those with Th2-skewed immunes
> systems do not do well with COVID19 recovery.*
>
> But finding more common ground in our knowledge of the numbers, and the
> causes and consequences/sequelae of COVID-19, would surely be a helpful
> starting place.
>
> *We have common ground in wanting the truth. I truly wish I could say that
> was possible. The 1K vs 1K study I mentioned above would help.*
>
> For example, I have a friend from high school who was in his late 50s,
> overweight, and ended up in hospital for over a month & on a ventilator for
> quite a period of time - but actually managed to recover from COVID-19. And
> that's the other part of medical research I've never fully understood,
> i.e., why we don't invest more time on figuring out why people survive
> life-threatening diseases as opposed to succumbing to the diseases (e.g.,
> why not study the 5% who survive a certain cancer rather than the 95% who
> succumb?). I would welcome your scientific assessment, or your summary of
> the broader sci community's efforts on the above questions.
>
> *I think I answered that above w/the Th2 skew. T-cell counts could be
> used as prognostic biomarkers. There are others. I’d like to develop a
> prediction model*
>
> *P(Death w/from COVID) = F(BMI, Smoking status, T-cell count, age)*
>
>
> *And formalize this with data from hospitals. I’m expert in prediction
> modeling optimization via machine learning from my days working w/NCI's
> EDRN. I'd be happy to do such a study. *
>
> *If your friend had access to Dr. Brownstein”s protocol perhaps he would
> have felt better in the median four to five days> That study is available
> here*
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com_clinical-2Dand-2Dtranslational-2Dresearch&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=egpjvOtx39qYi79rNrQu_NkzpgMUhim4eY0Pz4B8fqM&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com_clinical-2Dand-2Dtranslational-2Dresearch&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=sbON-WGd-Cq_Sn8wpTNrpm1O2sM_t8cw-m6J0BBImyc&s=3fOgt2Pp_egoaecTyn8gj5nrz2HJ00mfnXnEE1lqbBU&e=>
>
> *Even Fauci is now saying to up your VitD.*
>
> *Cheers,*
>
> Jack
>
> On Sat, Sep 26, 2020 at 3:32 PM Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dear Jack & colleagues:
>
> I'm intrigued by these issues, as I believe most people on this list might
> be, because of the scope of the pandemic & the social & economic
> consequences. Life has changed dramatically in 2020 as a result. And I've
> been trying to make sense out of your arguments & research, Jack, to assist
> with learning & understanding. With 11 points from the other day, there was
> so much packed in there and so much I did not know about, that I could only
> respond to a couple of items where I could bring a little bit of knowledge
> & perspective. But then I looked into the sequencing research you &
> colleagues have been doing, which is above my pay grade. I also have
> studied quite a bit of the research on co-morbidity, which I understand
> much better than the sequencing research. So, rather than bog everyone down
> with too much more of my inchoate ramblings, may I ask a favour on behalf
> of not just myself, but everyone interested in these matters on the list?
>
> In particular, you might appreciate that statements such as this "I'm
> tuned into a huge medical community not happy
> with the authoritarian centralization of public health in the US - and
> corporate capture of regulatory agencies" will tend to evoke a great many
> emotional responses that are not likely to help us approach the event
> horizon of truth. Especially since most of the rest of the world has
> centralized, universal health care systems that have worked quite well &
> yielded population results that are objectively better than the U.S. system
> (e.g., lower IMR, higher life expectancies, etc.). But perhaps you mean, as
> Senator Jensen discusses in his video, the centralization &
> authoritarianism from a political standpoint - and the manner in which
> knowledge has been controlled and disseminated? If that's the case, then I
> think we would probably find a consensus on such a concern, whether that be
> in the context of the DHS regulating & censoring Dr. Jensen
> inappropriately, or whether that be the large-scale politicization of
> medical & public health knowledge from the president on down through the
> CDC, etc. Setting politics aside, it strikes me that perhaps the types of
> knowledge that would be helpful would be a combination of what I've
> suggested previously & some of what you're suggesting - and I'm wondering
> if you could do just that, at least for this list & in light of current
> knowledge?
>
> 1) What are the most significant risk factors associated w/ contracting
> COVID-19, both from the standpoint of individual health and susceptibility
> to certain pathogens, as well as from a broader determinants of health
> framework?
>
> 2) What can we reasonably, reliably, and accurately say about COVID-19 in
> terms of comorbidity? Or, to your latter point, what about the possibility
> of adjusting COVID-19 estimates to talk about the presence of the virus or
> as "one of the contributing factdors" in deaths where that has been
> verified? I certainly agree with Dr. Jensen that I would NOT want COVID-19
> to be listed as the "cause of death" where that has NOT been verified, or
> where no testing has been done, or where it's just assumed to be there as
> per the case of NY that Jensen cited. But I'm also not comfortable either
> with people saying "It's a hoax & only a few thousand people have died from
> COVID-19, so it's really nothing." Thus do we have the data to be able to
> state the prevalence of the disease, especially broken down by the testing
> results & risk factors? And then can we adjust our discussion of mortality
> rates and qualify these in line with the evidence & comorbidity? Finally,
> can we discuss as well the degree to which COVID-19 exacerbates - or does
> NOT exacerbate - certain pre-existing conditions and does/does not increase
> mortality risk?
>
> In short, I still have a lot of methodological/epistemological questions
> about COVID-19 - and the most credible scientific knowledge we can
> generate. That's my baseline. Yet even if we get there, as we learned from
> Hume, that will not tell us what we should "do" in response to cope w/ the
> virus. But finding more common ground in our knowledge of the numbers, and
> the causes and consequences/sequelae of COVID-19, would surely be a helpful
> starting place. For example, I have a friend from high school who was in
> his late 50s, overweight, and ended up in hospital for over a month & on a
> ventilator for quite a period of time - but actually managed to recover
> from COVID-19. And that's the other part of medical research I've never
> fully understood, i.e., why we don't invest more time on figuring out why
> people survive life-threatening diseases as opposed to succumbing to the
> diseases (e.g., why not study the 5% who survive a certain cancer rather
> than the 95% who succumb?). I would welcome your scientific assessment, or
> your summary of the broader sci community's efforts on the above questions.
>
> Respectfully, -Joe
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
>
> Professor
>
> King’s University College at Western University
>
> 266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
>
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
>
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
>
> Email: [log in to unmask]
>
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of James Lyons-Weiler <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 26, 2020 2:26 PM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: UHC COVID 19 update
>
> Waldemar,
>
> Not to worry about my surname. Please call me Jack.
>
> Re: your question,
> (1) yes, that is accurate
> (2) no, it is not possible to determine the proportion of "deaths with"
> vs. "deaths from". Various
> reasons have been given for the decision to default on "died with",
> including "autopsies are dangerous".
>
> The solution to questions is Science. It befuddles me why the numbers are
> not adjusted using data from
> multiple studies in which "COVID19" cadavers are tested for respiratory
> viruses of ALL common types, Influenza,
> Respiratory Syncytial Virus, syncytial virus, and coronavirus.
>
> Also, consider Senator Dr. Scott Jensen who questioned COVID19 death rates
> in Minnesota -
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DKpGeRFK0tao&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=bVsQyBQh9SGD7ve4MzsLqRrtOWTXXkmvwb4IcniGrCg&e=
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DKpGeRFK0tao&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XQTjbMdRP7KRDEhuEdnEQ95qJmNTQA-9NrNOtx9HBts&s=E1ba9o6DrFMmLC9TqxiDIJl95nwcEelGK3Fe0eXho7A&e=>
>
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.youtube.com_watch-3Fv-3DKpGeRFK0tao&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XQTjbMdRP7KRDEhuEdnEQ95qJmNTQA-9NrNOtx9HBts&s=E1ba9o6DrFMmLC9TqxiDIJl95nwcEelGK3Fe0eXho7A&e=>
> He fought the medical board inquiry with facts and reality, and it was
> dropped in the face of the evidence.
>
> Here, a UPMC doctor updates on COVID19 lethality - some time ago now!
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__uk.news.yahoo.com_upmc-2Ddoctor-2Dquestions-2Dreported-2Dhigh-2D025518228.html&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=_j4_vGGnw5GpNi_87-QppxHVU7L0XdIYowEP-u_kMsk&e=
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__uk.news.yahoo.com_upmc-2Ddoctor-2Dquestions-2Dreported-2Dhigh-2D025518228.html&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=XQTjbMdRP7KRDEhuEdnEQ95qJmNTQA-9NrNOtx9HBts&s=NCkViJMEvzHtHP1Npo9GU2yzMf8qx5ACLK4B1ka3UOg&e=>
>
> When confronted with information that questions the official narrative, I
> try to seek independent confirmation
> from multiple independent sources. I'm tuned into a huge medical
> community not happy
> with the authoritarian centralization of public health in the US - and
> corporate capture of regulatory agencies.
>
> I turn skepticism into science on questions I can address. I was much
> more concerned about COVID19
> which was alleged to have a 13% death rate in people at risk... but those
> numbers were offered in a vacuum,
> not considering the risk of death of people in those groups w/out COVID19.
>
> I think a very good careful analysis could be done and given the baseline
> monthly death rate
> for these groups from 2019.
>
> I hope this helps,
>
> Jack
>
>
>
>
> - *Your manuscripts, etc, bring into focus important questions about
> the natural vs manufactured origins of nCoV-2.*
> - *Your perception is that covid-19 should not be considered the cause
> of the number of nCoV-2 related deaths. That is, that the vast majority of
> these deaths are not directly so relatable. *
> - *Rather, these deaths, and other morbidities are instead relatable
> to either the patients’ underlying disease/s, their particular genetics, or
> both.*
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 4:32 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Dr Lyons-Weller:
>
> Please excuse me, if you will, for having mis-spelled your surname in my
> previous message.
>
> And, thank you for your reply.
> It is helpful to me - to the extent of my knowledge of viral genomes.
>
> If you will, please allow me to iterate my understanding of your work.
>
>
> - Your manuscripts, etc, bring into focus important questions about
> the natural vs manufactured origins of nCoV-2.
> - Your perception is that covid-19 should not be considered the cause
> of the number of nCoV-2 related deaths. That is, that the vast majority of
> these deaths are not directly so relatable. Rather, these deaths, and
> other morbidities are instead relatable to either the patients’ underlying
> disease/s, their particular genetics, or both.
>
>
> Are these accurate statements?
>
> If so, how would you characterize the nature of the morbidities and
> mortalities which are appropriately and directly attributable to nCoV-2?
>
> I am curious because, irrespective of the genesis of nCoV-2 and covid-19,
> I perceive the disease as similar to but also uniquely different from other
> viral-caused morbidities and mortalities affecting mankind.
>
> May I also affirm that my original query was not a critique of your work -
> I am not qualified to do so.
> Rather, I am sincerely and deeply interested in the sufferings and
> morbidities affecting our species.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Waldemar
>
> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)*
>
> On Sep 25, 2020, at 12:46 PM, James Lyons-Weiler <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Dr. Schmidt,
> I indeed did address that critique, with science:
>
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jameslyonsweiler.com_2020_02_15_coronavirus-2Dorigins-2Danatomy-2Dof-2Da-2Dscientific-2Dinference_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=0wpmvgBukhVEOg2YaU3JjO-hPxSevSUoXyoKEmAn5Vk&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jameslyonsweiler.com_2020_02_15_coronavirus-2Dorigins-2Danatomy-2Dof-2Da-2Dscientific-2Dinference_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=S8Ep1eTjEKGpps2VIX12XOEgPzoAmkLLlJ1KU7Rd1ZU&s=-qGPwHrXsJCIL9sJw4x2aK_3cUMAZCNV_AlnT6ZygDI&e=>
>
> And see my full in-depth test of the hypothesis of lab origin here:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ipaknowledge.org_covid-2D19-2Dand-2Dsars-2Dcov-2D2-2Dresearch.php&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=J9-ZLgOFubGWe0LXzS8K90qbUgLMhJyB8oljvZSjaqA&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__ipaknowledge.org_covid-2D19-2Dand-2Dsars-2Dcov-2D2-2Dresearch.php&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=S8Ep1eTjEKGpps2VIX12XOEgPzoAmkLLlJ1KU7Rd1ZU&s=mCAvwZCas686pJLlQ4-NaOdDkQ_PO7M252a7tdWVEYo&e=>
>
> The critique woefully misrepresents my position and the history of the
> discourse in which my ideas
> were explored. In fact, I offered four hypotheses. To this day, we
> cannot rule out whether the virus
> was caught by lab worker.
>
> My study shows that the spike protein of the virus predates the outbreak
> by 15 years.
>
> For a short explanation, see
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jameslyonsweiler.com_2020_03_16_sars-2Dcov-2D2-2Dorigins-2Dipak-2Dresearch-2Dexonerates-2Ddr-2Dshi_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=UL9aTKCEDLr4B0bq_FmOhhKwe9CCYaC8lc1Id8HEwJ8&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__jameslyonsweiler.com_2020_03_16_sars-2Dcov-2D2-2Dorigins-2Dipak-2Dresearch-2Dexonerates-2Ddr-2Dshi_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=S8Ep1eTjEKGpps2VIX12XOEgPzoAmkLLlJ1KU7Rd1ZU&s=Ea5_Db6fGC-hf46Q7XqsBOICaX9xALJLLXH_qMvbdqo&e=>
>
>
> For the aged, as Dr. Brownstein has advised my elderly in-laws:
> Be up on your Vit D, Vit A, take care to have sufficient iodine, extra C,
> exercise, and ask those
> who may have been in contact with someone who is infected to not visit for
> a while. Avoid large gatherings.
>
> I would presume that these all will help reduce overall risk of mortality
> from any respiratory virus.
>
> Happy to chat w/you by phone if you have further questions - email me @
> [log in to unmask] if you care to.
>
> Respectfully back atcha,
>
> Jack
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 2:32 PM Waldemar Schmidt <[log in to unmask]>
> wrote:
>
> Perhaps Dr Lyons-Weller would respond to:
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pmc_articles_PMC7144200_&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=MZDB6vWn_qk33f-e_BRFhxDmt7GoTVxj4cwb1_eM2gw&e=
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov_pmc_articles_PMC7144200_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=LXRs4yqzzu7UNpsoi4dxktRCNm-Eg8YB58QSPK88ff8&s=9N4rqoeLCuVdoIeSsm7jNA121vNLktgKHlpac0QBlqM&e=>
>
>
> At the same time, would you clarify for those of us who are aged, the
> significance of the data you present?
>
> Respectfully,
>
> Waldemar
>
> *Waldemar A Schmidt, PhD, MD*
> (Perseveret et Percipiunt)
> 503.631.8044
>
> *Strive not to be a success, but rather to be of value. (A Einstein)*
>
> On Sep 25, 2020, at 10:46 AM, Joseph Michalski <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks. Gregg provided some info on COVID-19 shared through JMU, while
> James has offered a variety of different reasons to suggest that "the data
> are off by quite a bit." From what I can infer, James mainly seems to be
> arguing that there are medical dimensions that are certainly more nuanced
> and complicated, such that there may be reasons to consider the pandemic
> somewhat less serious and more manageable through various treatments and
> different approaches. That seems like a reasonable assertion, or at least
> one that can be debated credibly amongst those who have greater scientific
> expertise in those fields. Alas, I do not have adequate knowledge or
> expertise - and thus have to rely upon others & weigh their competing
> arguments & evidence. If we are quite honest, then many of us - myself
> included - will have to conclude that for the most part "I don't know."
> Here, I'm channeling Daniel Schmactenberger here with the statement "I
> don't know." Not because I don't care, but because I genuinely don't have
> the expertise and the science remains hotly contested in some realms.
> What's salient here is the Daniel's argument from a recent podcast that:
>
> "I actually care so much that I’m not willing to have false confidence
> that biases me, because once I start to believe ‘I think I know’, now I
> just have confirmation bias where I look for things that confirm that and
> throw out the other things and surround myself with people that agree with
> me. And if I really care, that’s the worst thing I can do. I ruin my
> ability to be connected to reality at that point, instead just wanting to
> get confirmation of a particular type of social signal from a particular
> audience that will confirm that for me. And so I’d much rather be able to
> say ‘I really care and I really don’t know and that’s uncomfortable.”
>
> So, on the scientific matters that pertain to the behavior of pathogens,
> their mutation, and the human-immuno responses to such pathogens, I would
> certainly like clearer evidence & explanations for public consumption - but
> I do have to trust the scientists in these areas and their expertise since
> I do not have the same knowledge base obviously. It would certainly seem
> plausible based on the broader epidemiological & publish health frameworks
> - where I have much more knowledge - that we would expect highly variable
> risks across the population associated with: a) contracting COVID-19; and
> b) the more adverse effects. What would be most helpful, then, for public
> consumption would be a greater consensus on the importance of different
> risk factors in these regards. That still doesn't tell people how they
> "should" behave or what government policies "should" be, but it would
> certainly help place the discussion of firmer footing and more common
> ground. For example, if the elderly are at significantly greater risk, then
> one can debate the degree to which they should be more "quarantined" and
> "protected" - and what measures that might involve - as compared with, say,
> elementary school children. One then has to factor into the models what
> kinds of contact can occur and how that might be restricted. Speaking from
> a practical, policy standpoint, then that may lead to what has happened,
> for example, to my 91-year-old mother in her assisted-living facility in
> Virginia (I'm from the U.S. originally), where they've implemented strict
> rules for contact & visitation, etc. But that's a vastly different envt
> than your average Wal-Mart store. Our schools are open here in Canada, but
> there are some mixed results and some concerns (which I won't get into
> here) - and thus we are constantly updating our policies and responses. The
> generally accepted wisdom has been social distancing, masks for entering
> stores/fitness facilities/etc. (but not for outdoor meals at restaurants),
> and other simple measures that are widely accepted by the vast majority of
> the population - and more targeted testing, among other strategies. Then,
> when a nursing friend of ours contracted COVID-19 - along with her two
> 20-something daughters - they all quarantined & we delivered food & other
> essentials by dropping them off on the doorstep for a couple of weeks. They
> recovered without having to be hospitalized - again perhaps reflecting
> different "risks" and yet at the same time behaving in an obviously
> socially responsible way by not putting anyone else at risk.
>
> This leads me to a couple of James' latter points (#9 & #11), where I can
> offer some sociological insights, since that's my actual area of expertise
> (although I confess that I often don't feel like an expert there either,
> despite 35 years of training in that field, which is more of a mess than
> psychology, IMHO). RE: Sweden. Even there, the discussions are complicated
> & there's not yet really a consensus, even though there are clearly some
> positive results that are worth noting. So why not simply "emulate Sweden"?
> Because neither the U.S. nor Canada are anywhere close to Sweden in terms
> of the ecological environments and, more important, in terms of population
> diversity - and trust in government. Thus we have far more diverse
> populations with which to contend - meaning there will be different
> distributions of relative risk factors, as well as cultural diversity that
> involves different sequalae & behavioral responses, not to mention
> different risks of things like obesity, etc. Additionally, Swedes arguably
> have far more trust in their government & experts - based on public opinion
> polling and attitudinal research - than in Canada and definitely as
> compared w/ the U.S. In turn, that trust tends to be reciprocated and the
> Swedish govt does not have to be as heavy-handed w/ their enforcement,
> trusting the good will and intelligence of a better educated, more
> homogeneous, and more trusting population to "do the right thing." That's
> much harder to accomplish, especially in the U.S. where many of risk
> factors are exacerbated with huge discrepancies in education, wealth,
> languages/cultures, access to affordable healthcare, etc. The general point
> is that where you have less diversity & less extremes on a number of key
> measures, it's much easier to get people to go along w/ the program - and
> to look after each other in more meaningful ways.
>
> Finally, in regard to James' last point that "The politicization of
> COVID19 and early mistakes in policy (IMHO) have had immeasurable costs to
> society including deaths of despair," I would tend to agree. But then look
> at who has been mainly responsible - try to be as objective & apolitical in
> your assessment - and how the U.S. system lacked a meaningful, coordinated
> response - and you have to admit a highly dysfunctional system & far more
> that I could comment on than anyone would be willing to listen to from just
> another "outsider." But I can objectively compare policies and practices in
> Canada and the U.S. - and draw some reasonable conclusions. Yes, we wanted
> businesses to re-open here & have no interest in destroying the economy any
> more than anyone else would wish that for the U.S. or for other countries.
> But we responded differently. For example, we invested heavily in our EI
> supports (employment benefits) and extended these in far more generous
> ways, made sure no one fell through the cracks in terms of our collective
> responses to health, housing, and econ marginalization, and have invested
> further in mental health supports, as well as other preventive responses.
> And that includes in jurisdictions, like Ontario, headed by quite
> conservative political leadership. Have we handled things perfectly? Of
> course not. Yet our re-opening in phases strategu seems to be working
> reasonably well, the key behavioral changes like wearing masks in indoor
> spaces w/ the general public remain intact, and we are not pointing the
> fingers at one another or at our politicians or public health experts *for
> the most part *(but we certainly have our extremists here too, both on
> the left and on the right).
>
> In closing, I think it's still reasonable to argue that the pandemic
> remains a serious public health issue on a global scale - and much of the
> science remains to be decided. I'd rather trust the experts in immunology
> and people like James to work on these issues, and not rush to judgments or
> to vaccines. But I still have faith in the many scientists & experts to
> figure out the biomedical & immunological issues, if we can slow down and
> let them do their jobs - including the critical feedback and skepticism
> from the broader community that science requires. On the
> social/cultural/political side, however, I'd argue the issues are even
> *more* complex and the dynamics in the U.S. especially have created
> something of a "perfect storm". One doesn't have to be a Trump hater to
> recognize that he's probably not the person you'd want in charge during a
> pandemic. But, to be fair, I don't know that anyone could have led the U.S.
> effectively on this one, given the deeper social, cultural, political, and
> ecological problems currently facing the nation. I mean, it boggles the
> mind that you'd still not be able to get safe, clean water to the residents
> of Flint, Michigan. Compare that to our response to Walkerton here in
> Ontario some years ago. More specifically, if you're going to engage in a
> largescale econ shutdown, then you'd need to invest far more resources to
> deal w/ the fallout (such as mental health issues, suicidal ideation, etc.)
> rather than just let everyone cope of their own. Apart from the divisive
> rhetoric associated w/ an econ shutdown, the last thing you would want to
> do from a public health perspective would be to guarantee widespread
> unemployment and combine that with a lack of policies to ensure healthy
> access to basic resources, healthcare, and income security. Naturally, if
> you're not willing to provide these sorts of things for the economically
> at-risk, the small business owners, etc. - than you better NOT shut down
> the economy. You see the dilemma? Simply put, you need to have some
> degree of trust and "depoliticization" to coordinate integrated,
> constructive responses to public health crises, pandemics, and even natural
> disasters. That's a tall order when you have so much division, diversity
> and inequality in the U.S., as I can explain further based on my work and
> my field.
>
> Respectfully yours, -Joe
>
> Dr. Joseph H. Michalski
> Professor
> King’s University College at Western University
> 266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201
> London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3
> Tel: (519) 433-3491
> Email: [log in to unmask]
> ______________________
>
> *ei*π + 1 = 0
>
>
> ------------------------------
> *From:* tree of knowledge system discussion <
> [log in to unmask]> on behalf of James Lyons-Weiler <
> [log in to unmask]>
> *Sent:* Friday, September 25, 2020 11:47 AM
> *To:* [log in to unmask] <[log in to unmask]>
> *Subject:* Re: FW: UHC COVID 19 update
>
>
> Thanks, Gregg. I'm going to upload for you all 11 points on COVID that
> will certainly be food for thought.
>
> As far as I can tell, the data are off quite a bit. As we are, I believe,
> a collection of realists. I should point out that
>
> (1) CDC decided to count all who die with PCR positive COVID tests as
> "died from", failing to distinguish "died from" from "died with". They have
> in the past convolved "influenza" deaths with deaths from other
> respiratory viruses (RSV, SV and, ironically, coronavirus). Only about 9%
> of
> "flu deaths" from 2014-2019 were confirmed to involve influenza virus. Dr.
> Biix announced this in March.
> (2) FDA did not require empirical estimates of false positives in PCR
> tests for Emergency Use Authorization. Even more recently, they had all
> test
> makers characterizing sensitivity, but not specificity. I have written to
> FDA wondering why.
> (3) Independent studies are finding high false positive rates of PCR tests
> (e.g., Dr. Sin Hang Lee, Millford, CT).
> (4) Coupled (1) with the reality that the PCR tests have false positives
> in the field use, mass testing (screening) will find more false positives
> in raw numbers than true positives. This is true for cases and deaths.
> It's the reason we do not all get CT scans for cancer every year -
> too many infections due to biopsies of FPs. There is no rule (that exists
> or that is in use) telling us when, as pandemic progresses, it is ethical
> to switch from symptom-based testing to mass testing (I've worked that out
> mathematically and am trying to publish it).
> (5) The safety of COVID19 medical care has increased dramatically; high
> death rates due to the use of ventilators are being replaced with low
> pressure high 02 protocols.
> (6) Many deaths have involved a strange coagulopathy. This condition is
> very simple to prevent with proper medicine.
> (7) Only certain types of people (with pro-inflammatory, autoimmune-prone
> Th2 skewed immune systems) appear to be at risk. Some think this may be
> genetic (lack of a particular initial "innate" immunity (mediated by
> interleukin-1):
>
> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nih.gov_news-2Devents_news-2Dreleases_scientists-2Ddiscover-2Dgenetic-2Dimmunologic-2Dunderpinnings-2Dsome-2Dcases-2Dsevere-2Dcovid-2D19&d=DwIFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=f06q8cPuRZ9VA0fvt5yJpRFBxsupoh6LgWvplTXFrV8&s=DTP2Hw4dDnY8RsQeoxkf6Q48rFlljxVfQ6H9ql_lQ4A&e=
>
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.nih.gov_news-2Devents_news-2Dreleases_scientists-2Ddiscover-2Dgenetic-2Dimmunologic-2Dunderpinnings-2Dsome-2Dcases-2Dsevere-2Dcovid-2D19&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=vCxqv7KrcvNrv2RSxUNtwDOOAoIOSEteZy_ixuypMUs&s=rp42bcAc7ghxhiY3EZqDjJXHt9X3Sf3SFD6kThve7Ys&e=>
> (8) Combine (1) with (7) and the fact that in 2019 people >70 have the
> same probability of dying in one year as the Infection Case Fatality Rate
> in COVID19, a large portion of deaths were likely due to "COVID19
> exacerbating pre-existing conditions" (get and stay healthy, my friends!)
> (9) Sweden did not lock down, and their # new cases has been near zero;
> thus, the elderly etc are now protected in Sweden. While they have been
> criticized for higher number of deaths in the elderly, this was temporary
> because they appear to have achieved herd immunity; we have not; flattening
> the curve obviously extends the duration of the outbreak, and there are now
> many, many scholars, including MDs and public health scientists who say
> Sweden "got it right".
> (10) I am editor-in-chief of a journal "Science, Public Health Policy &
> the Law" and I suggest a read of the case series by Dr. Brownstein and
> team, which I have attached. Many studies are now showing *protective* value
> of Vitamin D (specifically D3). I think it helps us fold our proteins
> properly, reducing endoplasmic reticulum stress (1/3 of our proteins
> require help folding in the lumen of the ER, and environmental toxins
> impair that process are increasingly abundant).
> (11) The politicization of COVID19 and early mistakes in policy (IMHO)
> have had immeasurable costs to society including deaths of despair.
>
> If you're into immunology, attached is a compressed file with some slides
> for a lecture I gave with .pdfs of publications relevant to most of the
> points of the talk.
>
> Cheers,
> JLW
>
> Immunology of COVID19.rar
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__drive.google.com_file_d_10lXizA7n6nuiyV-5FaB99KkNYiCcGgLNIh_view-3Fusp-3Ddrive-5Fweb&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=vCxqv7KrcvNrv2RSxUNtwDOOAoIOSEteZy_ixuypMUs&s=O0smwdV2Fdlhve0s1cfBFstDpqb9khTMjI9hrZXTSUc&e=>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 25, 2020 at 9:56 AM Henriques, Gregg - henriqgx <
> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> Hi Folks,
> I thought this was a useful summary of COVID that JMU University Health
> Center provided, so I am sharing it.
> G
> >>>
> *Global *cases now exceed 32 million. New global daily cases now average
> about 285,000. India continues to have the most new daily cases, averaging
> about 87,000.
> The US and Brazil continue in 2nd and 3rd place. Other South American
> countries (Argentina, Columbia) and some European countries are also seeing
> significant numbers. France and Spain are seeing a greater surge now than
> they did in the spring. On the positive side, *the death rate has been
> significantly lower in these countries*. The US 7-day moving average for
> test positivity rate has decreased to 4.9%, but daily testing still remains
> only around 800,000. Testing volume in the US continues to lag. However,
> these data reflect PCR testing. Antigen testing is becoming more available
> and being used more. States are just now adding these tests to their data.
> <Outlook-o04hdpqa.png><Outlook-tunqnyoi.png>
> *Nationally*, total cases have now exceeded 7 million and are currently
> reported at 7,139,553. New daily cases continue to hover around 40,000. The
> average daily death rate is around 800. This is significantly lower than in
> April. Texas, California, and Florida remain as the top 3 states for new
> cases.
> <Outlook-3oeb0tqv.png><Outlook-afhtij3h.png>
> *The Commonwealth* reports a total of 143,492 cases and 3,113 deaths. The
> testing % positivity is currently at 5.3% which is a significant downward
> trend over the past 2 weeks.
> <Outlook-lxlk1n5n.png>
> The Central Shenandoah Health District has also seen a significant decline
> in the 7-day moving average for test positivity, dropping from 18.3% on 9/6
> to 7.9%.
> <Outlook-nk0mz1ny.png>
>
> *Locality*
> *Current total cases*
> *New cases over the past 9 days*
> *Prior 5 day data on new cases*
> Harrisonburg
> 2564
> 518
> 233
> Rockingham County
> 1403
> 199
> 90
> Augusta County
> 472
> 38
> 28
> Staunton
> 250
> 31
> 30
> Waynesboro
> 257
> 9
> 14
> Shenandoah County
> 804
> 13
> 9
> Page County
> 389
> 13
> 10
> At JMU we are seeing fewer positive test and fewer people reporting a
> positive test performed elsewhere. However, we are also seeing fewer people
> get tested and therefore our 7-day average test positivity remains around
> 17%. All cases occurring in employees have been a result of either non-JMU
> related exposure or employee to employee (rather than student to employee)
> exposure. The reports are that face mask use in the academic settings has
> been very good. This significantly accounts for a lack of transmission
> between student and faculty.
> Vaccine development continues with new vaccines being developed and
> entering clinical trials. Two of the vaccines that are furthest along in
> development are m-RNA vaccines (Moderna and Pfizer). However, there is a
> very interesting and concerning logistic related to these vaccines-the cold
> chain storage required. These vaccines require storage at -94 degrees
> Fahrenheit (yes, minus 94). Transport would require storage in dry ice.
> These vaccines last 24 hours at refrigerated temperatures between 36.6-46.4
> Fahrenheit. In contrast, vaccines under development by Sanofi and Novavax
> are stable for months at typical refrigerated temperatures.
> Johnson & Johnson has a single dose vaccine entering phase 3 trials while
> Merck and Sanofi (both well-known and well-respected in vaccine
> development) have vaccines in development and entering clinical trials. An
> important factor is the corporate knowledge, infrastructure, and ability of
> these two companies to both vaccine development and large-scale production.
> They may be late in the game but they should not be counted out. This
> article
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.statnews.com_2020_09_24_here-2Dcome-2Dthe-2Dtortoises-2Din-2Dthe-2Drace-2Dfor-2Da-2Dcovid-2D19-2Dvaccine-2Dslow-2Dstarters-2Dcould-2Dstill-2Dwin-2Dout_&d=DwMFaQ&c=eLbWYnpnzycBCgmb7vCI4uqNEB9RSjOdn_5nBEmmeq0&r=HPo1IXYDhKClogP-UOpybo6Cfxxz-jIYBgjO2gOz4-A&m=vCxqv7KrcvNrv2RSxUNtwDOOAoIOSEteZy_ixuypMUs&s=-LgSClvKm4eb9XM_TzRo26jPfnNUT2LnjptOkglHrec&e=>
> covers some information about vaccines in trials and development.
> It seems very unlikely there will be a single winning vaccine-at least in
> the beginning. Time will tell which vaccine approach seems to work best
> with the optimal immune response and duration.
> As an aside, recently the head of the CDC (Robert Redfield) commented that
> mask wearing was likely to be more effective than any vaccine. “I might
> even go so far as to say that this face mask is more guaranteed to protect
> me against COVID than when I take a COVID vaccine,” Redfield said while
> testifying before the Senate Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human
> Services on expectations around the release of COVID-19 vaccines. He was
> not indicating that vaccine are not likely to be effective but instead on
> the value of masks as a preventative measure. He may also have been
> forecasting the need for mask use even when vaccines are available.
> Enjoy the beautiful weekend!
> Andy Guertler
> Andrew T. Guertler, MD
>
>
############################
To unsubscribe from the TOK-SOCIETY-L list:
write to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
or click the following link:
http://listserv.jmu.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=TOK-SOCIETY-L&A=1
|
