Dear Joe,Thank you for your questions. The emotional reaction is expected, it's common w/cognitive dissonance. Plus, I'm a newcomer andpeople 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.
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://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20200717005397/en/CDC-Coronavirus-Test-Kits-Generate-30-False
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://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589909020300186
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://www.publichealthpolicyjournal.com/clinical-and-translational-research
Even Fauci is now saying to up your VitD.
Cheers,
Jack
############################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 happywith 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]
______________________
eiπ + 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". Variousreasons 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 frommultiple 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 -
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!
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 happywith 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 COVID19which 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 ratefor 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.
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:
And see my full in-depth test of the hypothesis of lab origin here:
The critique woefully misrepresents my position and the history of the discourse in which my ideaswere explored. In fact, I offered four hypotheses. To this day, we cannot rule out whether the viruswas 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
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 thosewho 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
Perhaps Dr Lyons-Weller would respond to:############################
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. MichalskiProfessorKing’s University College at Western University
266 Epworth Avenue, DL-201London, Ontario, Canada N6A 2M3Tel: (519) 433-3491Email: [log in to unmask]______________________
eiπ + 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 havein 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 testmakers 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 positivesin 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):(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
############################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>
--
---
james lyons-weiler, phdAuthor, CEO, President, ScientistEditor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the LawGuest Contributor, Children's Health Defense
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)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=1To 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
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
--
---
james lyons-weiler, phdAuthor, CEO, President, ScientistEditor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the LawGuest Contributor, Children's Health Defense
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)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
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
--
---
james lyons-weiler, phdAuthor, CEO, President, ScientistEditor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the LawGuest Contributor, Children's Health Defense
The Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)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
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
-----
james lyons-weiler, phdAuthor, CEO, President, ScientistEditor-in-Chief, Science, Public Health Policy, and the LawGuest Contributor, Children's Health DefenseThe Environmental and Genetic Causes of Autism (Skyhorse Publishing)Ebola: An Evolving Story (World Scientific, 2015)
