Guest post by Rud Istvan,
I have been following this closely for a number of previously explained reasons, while mostly self-isolating with my significant other in South Florida (groceries once a week0. This post updates global WUWT readers with new facts and maybe new ‘knowledge’, some for sure now as controversial as climate change stuff. Incorporates all past facts, plus some important stuff buried in previous comments to other’s related posts. There are a number of separate fact categories itemized below.
Post 1 explained my ‘qualifications’, explained virion shed via a lot of basic virology 101, and concluded a US pandemic was unlikely thanks to effective quarantine, unlike flu—WRONG.
Post 2 explained why #1 was wrong—conclusive proof of pre-symptomatic/asymptomatic ‘spreaders’, completely unlike SARS 2003 where there was NO asymptomatic spread and the peak virion shed was 4 days after symptoms appeared. Unlike SARS, there is no way for a CoViD-19 symptom (fever>100.4) test at borders to contain infection. Very Bad News.
Post 3 analyzed the two most hopeful therapeutics, including my Remdeisvir adenosine drug analog RNA nucleic alphabet ‘A’ brain cramp—each of those ‘alphabets’ is only 4 letters. RNA ACTU, DNA ACTG. Adenosine is “A” in both. Not the exactly 20 amino acids that build all proteins in all of life based on their four alphabet coding. Each RNA/DNA ‘ three letter word’ codes for a single ‘amino acid’ to build onto the eventual protein —the complexity comes with newly discovered non ‘coding’ DNA epigenetics (regulating gene expression frequency). See my illustrated musings on MesoAmerican dried beans over at Judith Curry’s Climate Etc some years ago if you want to ‘view’ the current roughly understood state of epigenetic ‘knowledge’.
Comments to other’s previous posts are also redeveloped here, using two continually revised related math models of fatalities, making them easier to find. The issues that new data shed insight on are: infectivity attack rate (seasonality?), asymptomatic infectives, mild/hospitalizations, S/C hospital ratio, number of C dying, and intervention efficacy. We deal with each changing factor in turn.
Attack rate
We previously derived a projected Korean viral attack rate (AR) of about 2.6% and a related projected case fatality rate (CFR) of about 2.0% with extreme contact tracing, massive testing, and a capable (un-overwhelmed) medical system. Now stable tested Korean attack rate is still 2.6%. and the resulting CFR is now 1.9%, and projecting forward will settle finally at ~1.7%. The final viral attack rate CFR in US is unknown, except that it must still be much worse than Korea now. Lets compare that to known common flu in US at about 0.1% CFR after variably effective seasonal vaccines. >10x Not Good.
This AR depends on R0. Which we do not know, because depends on how we societally ‘bend the curve’. Initial US valid estimates were 2.6-3.0. Very bad. Now, much less for sure but by how much we dunno because of ‘bend the curve’ measures that for sure temporarily also kill the economy.
But lets assemble and project some simple ‘math’ outcome models, previously derived only in comments. We know from their extensive Korea testing data (then about 39600k then to find about 9.6K then positives as of last weekend) that the Korean AR is about 2.6%. We also know now from Korea that the asymptomatic/total is about 20% AFTER 14 day positive test quarantine. Those are potential “Typhoid Mary’s”, which make the pandemic difficult to control absent an effective vaccine, still probably at least 18 months away. Two potential vaccines in US have now started initial human phase one trials.
And from NYC/NOLA last week we know that hospitalized ((serious~=oxygen/critical=~ICU and probably a ventilator) is about 0.12, while the hospitalized/critical ratio is about 0.3. The most recent figures this past Friday as opposed to last Friday, 0.14 and 0.26 — giving about the same end fatality result via more hospitalizations for supplemental oxygen but a bit less deaths in the ICU. And per a NOLA critical care pulmonologist, about 50% of ventilated ICU criticals eventually die. It was anecdotaly higher (~80%) in Wuhan. So the end fully diagnosed (by testing) US math plus Korean CFR will land somewhere between 1.7% and 1.9% based on current data.
That is real bad, as the US Surgeon General said earlier this week (4/5/20). Attack rate >2.6% * about 327.2 million legal US citizens (dunno illegals) * optimistic 1.7% CFR implies 145,000 deaths in next few months. The president is not exaggerating, as some conservative blogs have implied.
There is a second way to derive this death estimate without CFR. Asymptomatics 0.8. Hospitailzation of symptomatics 0.14 (this past Friday). Criticals of hospitalized 0.26 (this past Friday). Deaths among criticals 0.5 (could be higher). Then:
327000*0.026*0.8*0.14*0.26*0.5= 124 thousand deaths next few months.
Now overload the ICU (>0.26 spike), and/or increase the viral attack rate because US is NOT Korea with strict contact tracing and testing, and Dr. Fauci’s recent horrible projected worst case 240K deaths is plausible.
Viral Load
We know generally that infectivity depends on the viral load ingested. We do not know what that load is per unit time to symptoms.
When a person becomes originally infected, it could be from a single virion per day or from (say) a titer of 1000 per day. If the one virion infects a cell and eventually creates 10 viables (previous comment post RNA transcription error example) then it takes 1E3 replication times (whatever those are) to equal the other initial infection viral titer. Immune system has 1000x more time to respond to a minimal infection titer than to a high initial titer. That compounds if exposure happens equally each day, like in a hospital. Fully explains observational clinical asymptomatics, plus a mean incubation of 5.1 days and a 97.5% symptom display of 11.5 days.
If the initial viral load is E+3 in ‘one’ dose (an un-self-distanced cough), then in the same dimensionless time example the immune system has to respond in a E-3 time frame but cannot. Voila, fast symptomatic infection.
Seasonality
Dr. Fauci now says probably. I still say probably not, for reasons explained previously in guest posts and comments to others. Facts/logic before assumptions follow.
Fact: Common colds are still common in summer (albeit less common than in winter thanks to winter contact proximity); summer flu is almost non-existent.
Reason is simply explained by differential route of infection (See previous posts and comments, not worth explaining in detail yet again). In short, flu aerosols dry in dry winter indoor air, so remain circulating longer, so the main route of transmission is infected aspirate inhalation. In humid summers they remain wet, so heavy, so sink, so are not inhaled. Fu becomes winter seasonal. Colds are different, (including all three types: rhino, corona, adeno), because their main transmission route is contact (hands/face), so much less seasonal. Seasonal flu/cold data is incontrovertible.
Fauci thinks Wuhan virus may be seasonal– flu aerosol spread assumptions– based on ‘new’ science observations. I think not based on historic facts. An artificially high virus titer from his nebulizer experiment by NIH ALSO found a virus half life (not like nuclear, just remaining RNA independent of possible infectivity) of Wuhan (just remaining RNA found, not infective envelope found) of about 1.5 hours in air, 3.5 hours on cardboard, 5.5 hours on steel, and about 6.8 hours on plastic. Now, since the infective minimum viral titer is not yet known, this is all speculative. But strongly suggests low aerosol spread and much more close contact viral transmissivity, implying without much seasonality. Translation, social distancing and frequent hand washing works, DIY masks don’t.
And previous media reports on this same experiment of 3 days max viability on plastic did NOT cite the viral half life factors above bearing on minimum infectious titer, so overstate the unknown contact residual viral titer infection scare (heck, me too) (hand washing and face touching at 6 hours half life still says real important). All good for social distancing and frequent hand washing to ‘bend the curve’.
Second cited evidence, the WA massive spreader church choir event. Except, my late Dad was in a much smaller such church choir. They greeted each other weekly with hugs and handshakes. Aerosols not needed. Just usual church choir enthusiasm. Discounted ‘science’.
Basic observational Fauci seasonality
The common cold is caused by about ~100 naked rhinovirus serotypes (abut 75% of common colds), exactly four enveloped humanized coronaviruses (about 20%) and about 20 of about 60 enveloped DNA adenoviruses, of which about 20 (~5% infectivity because of immunity against DNA mutation) cause common cold symptoms. The other ~40 adeno serotypes are much worse (e.g. various forms of conjunctivitis).
There is no evidence that the common cold (4 coronas included) is seasonal. It is more common in winter simply because people are in more confined spaces so there is more contact transmission. Summer colds are common. Summer flu is rare.
So Dr. Fauci speculates a case based on flu analog aerosols, when his own epidemiological mask message says the opposite, as does the data on common cold coronas. He is publicizing a dubious message based mostly on tenuous non-observational science. We have seen that before in climate ‘science’.
This corona virus is unlikely to be seasonal, because its main route of transmission is not aspirate aerosols, just like other corona common colds.
Mask efficacy.
There is much present internet nonsense about face masks. Lets clarify. IF Wuhan coronavirus is spread by breath aerosols and therefore seasonal (defined as less than 5 micron droplets) (doubtful biologically, see above), then N95 will by definition intercept 95% (their definition is <=0.3 micron 95% stopped), and likely drop the viral load below infectivity. All else will not.
So IF Covid-19 is actually seasonal, then everything else except N95 masks is USELESS. So then why the new public home made cloth mask recommendations? Like climate change renewable deals, makes you feel good while being practically useless.
Now IF the route is cough sneeze, not aspirate aerosol, then nose/mouth coverings make sense—for the infected only. And the advice already is, if you have symptoms, stay home and self isolate. So either way the public face mask recommendations are mostly ‘feel good’ rather than effective
Interventional efficacy
There is much new data.
First is the viral attack rate. This number is not a constant. It depends on many other societal measures like contact tracing, testing, and social distancing: ‘bend the curve’ stuff. Korea is down to 2.6%. US must be worse despite current efforts.
The second and third factors are what happens to those identified as infected/hospitalized/criticals. There, we have real time updated data. To a first approximation last week based on NY and NOLA, we had the following: (.12*0.3*0.5)
This week we had on the same data basis 14% of cases would become serious/critical (s/c, serious defined as needing supplemental hospital oxygen, times 0.26 critical defined as ICU (ventilator)). Half of those in ICU die. Run the alternative last week /this week math math per 10000 infected, is 0.12*0.3*0.5 or 180 deaths per 10000 symptomatic. Or, 0.14*0.26*0.5 = 182 deaths per 1000. Close into the zone of Korea actuals noted above–Rough closure is a good enough approximation.
Therapeutics
On the HCQ/Z pac/Zinc ‘Trump cocktail,’ the Orthodox Jewish doctor’s successful NY treatment of his 699 patients has now explained his thinking and gives an alternative therapeutic pathway. X-pak antibiotic is only for opportunistic bacterial infections. His supplemental zinc enhances a possible secondary HCQ mechanism of action. I previously posted that the first was via the same liposomal enhanced pH mechanism as it’s use in RA, deforming the ACE2 receptor.
There may be a second. HCQ is a zinc ionophore—extra zinc into the intracellular metabolism inhibits RNA viral reproduction. Dunno for sure, but a cursory review of the medical literature says his idea is very plausible.
HCQ is also zinc ionophore for sure. Extra zinc transported into a cell’s interior is a known RNA Polymerase inhibitor (common colds). So, the azithromax antibiotic in the “Trump cocktail’ may be a secondary bacterial against Wuhan, and the doctor’s extra zinc loading is a primary agent. Maybe.
Now, why this is important is that there are two other known non prescription zinc ionophores, EGC in green tea extract, and the flavonoid quercetin in gingko biloba extract (both are in varying degrees in both, and in many other greens plus apples). Both are proven cellular zinc ionophores. So there may be OTC treatments cheaper than generic hydroxychloroquine for treating WuFlu.
Dunno. Do know green tea is good no matter what. Salud.
The cure found?
Ivermectin kills 99.8% of the virus load in 48 hours.
In Vitro.
First clinical tries with humans
Rud,
Do the knew IHME models consider COVID-19 to be seasonal, like the flu, or “all-seasons”?
https://covid19.healthdata.org/united-states-of-america
new, not knew. 😏
this segment of The Ingraham Angle needs to go VIRAL. Birx/Fauci get called out too.
19m29s to 25m27s : Laura re Italy’s COVID numbers being only 12% of the official total. then she speaks to Dr. Scott Jensen re CDC’s guidance on COVID deaths:
Youtube: Laura Ingraham 8 Apr 2020
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGlMHPWkL2k
more from Dr. Jensen:
9 Apr: Gateway Pundit: HUGE! MN Senator and Dr. Reveals HHS Document Coaching Him on How to Overcount COVID-19 Cases — WITH COPY OF DOCUMENT (VIDEO)
by Cristina Laila
Dr. Scott Jensen, a Minnesota physician and Republican state senator said he received a 7-page document coaching him to fill out death certificates with a COVID-19 diagnosis without a lab test to confirm the patient actually had the virus.
“Last Friday I received a 7-page document that told me if I had an 86-year-old patient that had pneumonia but was never tested for COVID-19 but some time after she came down with pneumonia we learned that she had been exposed to her son who had no symptoms but later on was identified with COVID-19, then it would be appropriate to diagnose on the death certificate COVID-19,” Dr. Scott Jensen said.
Dr. Jensen explained that this is not a normal procedure.
Dr.. Jensen said for example if the same patient had pneumonia during flu season and he didn’t have a test confirming the patient also had influenza, he would never diagnose the patient with influenza on the death certificate…
The document is here (LINK)…
As TGP reported over the weekend, the amount of Americans who are reported to have died from the Coronavirus is based on a CDC coding system that will “result in COVID-19 being the underlying cause more often than not.”
Dr. Birx confirmed this on Tuesday during a COVID-19 task force briefing…
Dr. Birx on Tuesday told a reporter during a Coronavirus task force briefing, “We’ve taken a very liberal approach to mortality.”…
https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2020/04/huge-mn-senator-dr-reveals-hhs-document-coaching-overcount-covid-19-cases-copy-document-video/
I find it difficult to go to 19m29s to 25m27s in your five minute video clip.
Rud Istvan, thank you for this essay.
I’m just an old fool, so bear with me, please.
US population is 330 million (round figure)
US life expectancy is 80 years (round figure)
So deaths per year should be 330 million / 80 = 4.1 million
So deaths per week should be 80,000
So deaths per day should be about 11,000
Now, coronavirus in one form or another has been around since Jesus was walking about in short pants.
It happens that this one SEEMS more deadly than previous ones but that may be because previous versions were not identified as something different to the common cold. My understanding is that the coronavirus test actually detects ALL flavours of coronavirus, not just COVID-19. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
If that is true, then lots of people diagnosed as COVID-19 positive, may just have the innocuous flavours, not COVID-19.
Put these two things together.
1) I suggest that if someone with access to the stats were to plot the daily death rate for Feb & March for the last ten years, he would find little difference in against this year’s figures (and what difference there is may be explained by weather). Any takers for that piece of work?
2) If loads of people are being mis-diagnosed of dying from COVID-19 it doesn’t really matter – from a public health standpoint – as long as the daily death rate is unaffected compared to the last decade. It matters a lot from a public-policy “stop the economy” point of view, though, if lots of people think the crisis is worse than it really is
Of you think people making tests for a new virus are stupid fools who know less than someone who knows nothing about what they do, you can assume you have it all figured out with a few minutes or hours of internet jackassery watching.necessary
I’m just an old fool, so bear with me, please.
Let’s try not to over-analyse this.
US population is 330 million (round figure)
US life expectancy is 80 years (round figure)
So deaths per year should be 330 million / 80 = 4.1 million
So deaths per week should be 80,000
So deaths per day should be about 11,000
Now, coronavirus in one form or another has been around since Jesus was walking about in short pants.
It happens that this one SEEMS more deadly than previous ones but that may be because previous versions were not identified as something different to the common cold. My understanding is that the coronavirus test actually detects ALL flavours of coronavirus, not just COVID-19. Can anyone confirm or deny that?
If that is true, then lots of people diagnosed as COVID-19 positive, may just have the innocuous flavours, not COVID-19.
Put these two things together.
1) I suggest that if someone with access to the stats were to plot the daily death rate for Feb & March for the last ten years, he would find little difference against this year’s figures (and what difference there is may be explained by weather). Any takers for that piece of work?
2) If loads of people are being mis-diagnosed as dying from COVID-19 it doesn’t really matter – from a public health standpoint – as long as the daily death rate is unaffected compared to the last decade. It matters a lot from a public-policy “stop the economy” point of view, though, if lots of people think the crisis is much worse than it really is.
No the test detects the specific strain. But there are serious concerns about its accuracy, both false positive and false negative. Some experts think the accuracy may be below 70%, which makes the track and trace claims pretty impossible, particularly with a large, asy.asymptomatic group you never test anyway.
Phoenix 44, thank you for clarifying that, sir.
wrong. tests have a sensitivity of 96%
at least at Stanford
https://youtu.be/Xm76adKULY4?t=2536
What a shame, they missed it by 1%
The CFR will be well below 1% and possibly below flu. Very few places are measuring anything other than a fraction of cases and people who die whilst infected. Thus the numbers are unusable. What we do know is that no country is seeing any excess deaths yet. In the UK total deaths for 2020 YTD are 3,000 below average, deaths in people under 65 are exactly average, respiratory deaths are below average – COVID deaths have pretty much replaced flu deaths in the respiratory numbers.
We are overwhelming our ICUs by putting very elderly, very ill people in them who have almost no chance of survival and who we wouldn’t normally treat in that way. Weekly UK deaths are still 1,000 or more below the worst March weeks in 2018 when we have no explination for why those weeks were bad.
COVID certainly kills a very small number of young, healthy people, but so does any number of infections each year. A large number of elderly, frail people will die eith it, but they die with an infection every year. We have taken extraordinary steps to stop a phantom.
For some viruses virtually the whole population is infected at a young age. Roseola is one where most people infected before the age of 3. Another is coronavirus NL63 where one study showed 75% of children ages 2.5 to 3.5 years old had NL63 antibodies. Possibly covid19 will eventually be the same where whole population gets infected early in life and re-exposed to virus multiple times later in life so people will generally have some type of immunity as they age. It could be the main problem with covid19 is because people have never been exposed earlier in life they have no immunity. If the older people dying from it now we’re instead exposed multiple times to it at a younger age they would have some immunity and be less likely to die. I bring up coronavirus NL63 because it is believed to come from bats and civets and it also uses ACE2 to enter the cell.
There is some good news out there: An Australian group has reported interesting results with Avermectin (a macrocyclic ionophore) having already shown activity against several alphaviruses. In vitro cell culture: 5000 fold reduction of viral RNA within 48 hours is mentioned (see https://doi.org/10.1016/j.antiviral.2020.104787 or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166354220302011).
The drug is already registered, cheap and available in large amounts in most countries.
about 82$au for a 2litre bottle at farmsupplies, sheep drench
must be IVOMEC not ivomax or dectamax.
dose is around 2.5ml for a 50kg animal ie follow the sheep /dog dose rates
the horse ones are a tad high
its got about 6mths protection and youll be worm free as a bonus;-)
been used for decades orally OR dermally for scabies in aboriginals so human doses are well known
usa can get a scabies pill form BY scriptonly at a rude 70 or so usd$ I read.
Check the concentration of the drug that was used in the cell cultures, vs the amount that will kill a person.
Lots and lots of things kill viruses in cell cultures.
Our body is nothing like a dish full of immortal cancer cells, or, as was used in this study, abnormal kidney cells from a green monkey that were genetically modified by using plasmids to add a gene.
But even if one assumes cells are cells are cells, getting a drug into a cell is way different than adding them to a dish.
This virus is not floating around in blood much, if at all.
It infects cells on the surface of the airways in a person.
Also to be considered is where a drug will concentrate after oral administration.
For the chloroquines, for example, although the target cells for the virus are airway epithelial cells, the drug becomes some 200 to 700 times more concentrated in the liver, kidney, spleen, and lungs than in blood plasma. The drugs also tends to accumulate in leukocytes.
The nerves and brain have about 10 to 30 times the amount in plasma.
But it is most highly concentrated in tissues of the eye, particularly the pigmented tissues of the eye, the iris and the choroid, also in the retina but less intensely. These explain many of the toxicity issues.
It is amazing how quickly people who know little of pharmacology or human physiology read a report of an in vitro effect and no matter how many times anyone explains it, they will not accept that this means very little regarding the possible efficacy when given to a sick human being.
And many of them are the same people who in other contexts are screaming at the top of their lungs about how dangerous the wrong kind of food is, or the tiny amount of preservative in a vaccine.
They are experts in ignoring details that conflict with what they want to believe, is how it seems to me.
Think of it…on the one hand are things with a long history of trials and study shown to be highly beneficial to most but very occasionally about one in a million people might have an adverse event.
In that case, the stuff might have saved hundreds of thousands of lives out of every million people, but it is rejected and vilified because of that one in a million allergic reaction or whatever.
But then there is an extremely cytotoxic chemical with a narrow therapeutic window that has been implicated in all sorts of harms, is known to be extremely dangerous for substantial subsets of people, and is so toxic a dose of about twice as much as prescribed for a treatment will be fatal.
But there are reports of some benefit to some people, although the people promoting it are shady and unprofessional, the results misstated to omit the people that died or got worse, and in fact the people who got it were not known to be ones that were in danger to begin with.
Suddenly concerns of toxicity are no where to be found, and these same people INSIST everyone in the world be given a bottle of the pills and they should take them even if they are not sick in the off chance they might become infected…even though NONE of the studies looked at such a usage!
But point out just the simple facts and a reminder to be cautious with drugs in sick people, and suddenly the people who actually know the difference between safe and dangerous, between proven and suspected, now suddenly the people who were ignored when they presented evidence that vaccines are mostly safe and mostly effective, are scorned for being concerned about safety and prove of effectiveness.
So…what is the common thread?
Ignoring evidence!
Deciding what is what, instead of learning what is what by using established methods to elucidate factual data in an objective fashion.
Thanks Rud,
I have put your post into a LibreOffice document, added Danish remarks in blue and sent it as PDF to many of my Danish friends.
Hope this is okay with you? You can check the commented document at:
https://owncloud.carl-fh.com/index.php/s/pADuo6ppLtdLyfW
In the ‘without CFR’ calculation shouldn’t the 0.8 be a 0.2?
I have a question.
It seems a safe assumption that the larger the dose the more likely to get sick, because a small dose may give the immune system time to fight it before the infection becomes too big.
Can we say that the bigger the dose, the worse the patient gets the disease?
We know that many only get a mild case. Is that because they got a small dose, or at least one factor?
What about the asymptomatic — did they get an even smaller dose?
Is there some level of dose where the immune system fights off the virus successfully and there is no sickness at all — and no virus shedding? If that is the case, then herd immunity might be possible with a lower level of deaths.
I reasonably suspect that it’s not just larger doses that would be problematic, but also the prevalence of greater ACE2 expression in the host respiratory system (lungs, sinuses, etc). Parallel (lots of available infection sites) is always faster than serial (waiting in line for your turn) when it comes to throughput (rate of infection). It’s been known since 2005 that SARS-1 infection was significantly greater in cells with elevated ACE2 expression.
Aah, OK…you are rating your own suspicion on this as “reasonable”.
So, have you ever met anyone who offered an opinion that very person considered unreasonable?
Does anyone ever think of any of their own ideas as unreasonable?
And should we assume that when you do not specifically say so, your ideas are unreasonable, since you will announce ahead of time when you have one which you do consider to be reasonable?
Just wondering.
It is amazing after all, is it not, for someone to think of their own “suspicions” as reasonable?
In fact you know nothing about virology that is not contain in soundbite sized internet speculations dressed up as science.
You could spend a few days or weeks reading about it as much as you comment here…you know, actual research or education involving textbooks and appraising yourself of the state of the science, what is known and what is only speculation, and when an idea is not even that.
But it is complicated.
One could spend a lifetime even reviewing what a multitude of people speculate about in a single year.
One thing such education does though…one learns that research papers are not facts, and opinions are not either.
Few things are as complex and opaque as the particulars of how a new virus does what it does.
You seem to be very threatened by the idea that increased ACE2 expression in cells increases their risk of coronavirus infection.
You seem to be very sure of something because you readed about it on the interwebs.
Another fine read on the subject, Rud, thanks. Re Zn in your greens, it is actually a good tool for hunting for metallic deposits using biogeochemical prospecting.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/227744855_Biogeochemical_Prospecting_of_Sulphide_Minerals_in_Winder_Valley_Balochistan_Pakistan
You sample leaves or twigs of certain species of natural shrubs and trees with taproots or other deep rooted structures crossing geological trends, ash the samples, and analyze for a suite of metals. Zn is one of the more easily taken up metals. You have to discount or reject anomalies of most metals in samples if they are high in Mn, though, as this metal is a ‘scavenger’ of other metals in soluble form. This can be seen in the phenomenon of manganese modules on the seafloor that attracted attention some decades ago as potential sources for a fair number of metals.
Rud, you have made no mention of ivomectin tests and previous use as anti viral medication.
Thanks for this article. Best yet in my opinion on this subject on WUWT. I don;t know if you are aware of or participating in the “COVID-19 Healthcare Coalition”, but if not we could benefit from adding another individual of your capabilities to that group.
Keep up the great work!
“Run the alternative last week /this week math math per 10000 infected, is 0.12*0.3*0.5 or 180 deaths per 10000 symptomatic. Or, 0.14*0.26*0.5 = 182 deaths per 1000.”
Am I being stupid, or is there a 0 wrong somewhere?
9 Apr: American Thinker: The CDC Confesses to Lying About COVID-19 Death Numbers
By Matthew Vadum
Let the investigations begin.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2020/04/the_cdc_confesses_to_lying_about_covid19_death_numbers.html
They are habitual liars. They got exposed for lying about swine flu, and then kept lying about it.
So wait…if COVID is not even as bad as flu…why are we willing to use a suite of toxic compounds to treat people, when with influenza, even the astonishingly small risk of a adverse event is reason enough to swear it is a conspiracy to poison us all?
You are really gonna have to explain all of these contradictions.
I’m not sure what’s more confusing: the things swirling around in your mind, or the way you express yourself.
Me too.
Or is it me neither?
So confusing…
Another rats in a lab experiment:-
60% of 223 infected but NO SYMPTOMS (well tested positive – maybe some will develop symptoms later?)
3% showed symptoms – and presumably <3% of those would die (so 0 or 1 given the small number involved)
https://www.startribune.com/most-people-on-antarctica-cruise-ship-have-the-coronavirus/569440442/
Something just doesn't stack up. Certainly if this is representative, it doesn't justify destroying the world economy. The recent H1N1 pandemic was vastly worse in 1st year deaths (not to say CV19 won't catch up – although it will have to go some), but the statistical infectious/death rates etc. of that H1N1 version are supposedly much less bad than CV19.
I’m not a doctor, but I’m pretty sure you are supposed to swab up the NOSE for the Chinese virus test.
This doctor said he has found low sats with low serum partial pressures (from thickened air sacs; ARDS) in his patients, which seems to contradict what some other doctors have found, i.e., low sats with high lung compliance (flexible air sacs that allow O2 diffusion and higher serum partial pressures).
Thanks, very educating.
Istvan, you can hypothesize all you want about the “possible” mechanisms, what “would,” “could,” or “might” be happening, but until the double blind randomized trial is conducted, you don’t even know if these drugs are effective.
Hi Rud. Thank you. Another very interesting missive. I like the lots of “dunno”. One specific analog comment:
“So IF Covid-19 is actually seasonal, then everything else except N95 masks is USELESS. So then why the new public home made cloth mask recommendations? Like climate change renewable deals, makes you feel good while being practically useless.
Now IF the route is cough sneeze, not aspirate aerosol, then nose/mouth coverings make sense—for the infected only. And the advice already is, if you have symptoms, stay home and self isolate. So either way the public face mask recommendations are mostly ‘feel good’ rather than effective”
As many have noted, the mask issue has a lot of moving parts. You highlight the obvious mechanical filtration efficacy (and or lack thereof). The other parts relate to habit changes…reminder to not touch face, reminder to keep distance, reminder to suppress and or monitor coughs and sneezes. In the world of us non linear humans I suspect these behavior changes may have value.
Again, thank you,
Ethan Brand
Question: Are the tests actually testing for an identified virus, a virus that’s been purified and visualised, that satifies Koch postulates?
Andrew Kaufman, M.D. says the answer is No. (38 min video presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr8Dy5mnYx8 )
He maintains the Chinese determined the disease as a viral induced pneumonia based on symptoms, and other criteria including body temperature rising, lymphocytes and white blood cells decreasing, new pulmonary infiltrates on chest radiography, and no obvious improvement upon 3 days of antibiotic treatment.
What did they do to prove a virus? They took bronchoalvelolar (lung) fluid samples from 7, only 7, out of the initial 200 patients showing symptoms, found and separated genetic material from the samples, sequenced the genetic material “rapidly developed a qualitative PCR detection” (diagnostic test) but did not purify the virus first.
He states that the Covid-19 RT-PCR test only tests for an RNA sequence, not the virus, there is no ‘Gold Standard’ Covid-19 has never been purified and visualised. Only visualised from one patient inside a human cell (exosome cell) the RT-PCR test has no gold standard. Thus accuracy of test unknown (estimated 80% false positive rate)
The pictures of Covid-19 widely displayed in media are pictures of Exosomes (normal cells part of the immune system). The physical characteristics of ‘covid-19’ match exactly with those of normal exosomes.
Dr. James Hildreth, M.D. President & Chief Executive Officer of Meharry Medical Collage, Former Professor at John Hopkins, prominent HIV researcher says: “The Virus is fully an exosome in every sense of the word”
Any help with my question would be appreciated, I’ve spent the last week deep diving into all sorts of research trying to understand this, I think exosomes seem to be on the cutting edge of medical research, besides being part of the immune system they can harbour some auto-immune/nervous system diseases (e.g. MND/ALS) so I wonder weather the Chinese simply got things wrong when they published the RNA sequence, or weather the conversation has just been ‘dumbed down’ for public consumptioon, weather anyone in the western world has actually checked, and weather the worlds scientists working on Covid-19 vaccines/tests have been wrong-footed at an early stage and may be trying to ‘cure’ the wrong thing. Thanks.
“Andrew Kaufman, M.D. says the answer is No. (38 min video presentation here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xr8Dy5mnYx8 )”
he is a shrink FFS
And has zero clue what he is talking about
‘He states that the Covid-19 RT-PCR test only tests for an RNA sequence, not the virus, there is no ‘Gold Standard’ Covid-19 has never been purified and visualised. Only visualised from one patient inside a human cell (exosome cell) the RT-PCR test has no gold standard. Thus accuracy of test unknown (estimated 80% false positive rate)”
Wrong.
With all due respect Sir, could you explain how he’s wrong please.
He is a former Medical Instructor of Hematology and Oncology at the Medical University of South Carolina, which indicates he does in fact have some clue what he’s talking about,
Dr. James Hildreth, M.D. President & Chief Executive Officer of Meharry Medical Collage, Former Professor at John Hopkins, prominent HIV researcher seems to agree with him.
Thanks.
“He states that the Covid-19 RT-PCR test only tests for an RNA sequence, not the virus”
that is literally all the virus IS. its RNA encapsulated by a lipid shell.
tests have a sensitivity of 96%
That’s the point, if the virus has not been purified, visualised, and Koch postulates fulfulled, how can they say it’s definately THE virus responsible for the symptoms and they’ve not sequenced a regular exosome? (which is little more than RNA encapsulated by a lipid shell)
I can find reference to the sequence being close to H1N1, SARS, and MERs, but it turns out they used the exact same methods to find those too, again failing to fulfil Koch postulates, not to mention the WHO scandal surrounding the swine flu debacle.
I can also find papers where they propose adjusting Kock postulates so they can use RT-PCR to idientify a novel virus, highlighting how this is not ideal, but the guy who won the Nobel Prize for inventing RT-PCR says it can not be used to isolate novel virus.
Is there a refernce for the 96% sensitivity that explains asymptomatic positive results? I read one of the problems with RT-PCR was to define a standard number of runs, if it’s too high all samples come back +ive, and there’s no defined standardised number of runs, so it seems a bit hit and miss, even if they did find the correct RNA sequence in the first place.
If the CFR is 1.7% (or over), what does that imply for total mortality stats?
I was shown a rather informative article, “COVID-19 Had Us All Fooled, But Now We Might Have Finally Found Its Secret” from Libertymavenstock. The article was published April 5th, and apparently posted on the 8th. Searching for it on Google results in an angry negative; the article is too complementary toward Mr Trump and less than complementary toward the MSM and their political friends.
I am in no position to judge this article, but I do think it should be put out there, across the world by you, for as much critical examination and comment as possible. It is quite interesting and explains COVID-19, its effects and its treatment in a way I have yet to see.
It is pure science by assertion.
No where is the source of these assertions given.
But someone that writes in this style can sound very persuasive, even if everything they say is malarkey.
The writer says that every medical professional on the planet has no idea what they are doing…but the write knows everything about this virus and this disease.