COVID-19 - Facts and Information Only Topic

[sherpa]

On 5/2/2020 at 6:28 AM, sherpa said:

[Hap sez: I'm confused: has the printing company retooled to make masks, or is the NYPD having something printed on the mask? @sherpa, clarify?]

 

Gladly.

The company is Custom Ink.

They've designed three mask products in  response to this and their latest is quite good.

It's not simply printing a logo on them, it's the entire manufacturing procss.

[Edit: found an ad and link for Custom Ink mask products today
https://www.customink.com/products/categories/face-masks/205/styles?li_did=f23eee69-e81a-3bcd-99d4-4e56245aa3fc]

[Justin C]

@Hapless Bills Fan any thoughts on this? https://www.indiatvnews.com/science/covid-19-vaccine-in-1-month-csir-pins-hope-on-sepsivac-613529

Quote

 

India's top research and development organization, the Council of Scientific & Industrial Research (CSIR), which is currently testing a "repurposed" vaccine against Covid-19 in a Phase 2 trial, is hoping to seek approval from the drug controller for its wider use against the pandemic in as early as 30 days from now, the scientist who is coordinating the effort said on Saturday.

 

CSIR is currently testing Cadila Pharmaceuticals' "Sepsivac" against COVID-19.

This treatment was developed as a result of a partnership between CSIR and Cadila Pharmaceuticals many years ago. This immunotherapy treatment, which boosts "innate immunity", was initially approved by the Drug Controller General of India (DCGI) for gram negative sepsis which is a disease caused by bacteria.

But the scientists found that the pathological symptoms of this disease and Covid-19 were quite similar. And given the urgency of finding a solution to the rapidly rising Covid-19 cases across the world, the scientists thought of testing the treatment against the current pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus.

 

CSIR got the approval to test "Sepsivac" against Covid-19 in a Phase 2 clinical trial about 10 days ago. The trial is being conducted on 50 patients at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS), New Delhi, AIIMS Bhopal, and Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education & Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh.

 

"We expect the results from this Phase 2 trial within 30-45 days from now. And if the results are encouraging, we will seek approval from the drug controller because of emergency and keep on continuing the Phase 3 trial. That's how it happens," Ram Vishwakarma, Director, Integrative Medicine (Council of Scientific & Industrial Research), Jammu, told IANS.

Vishwakarma said that once it applies, the approval from the drug controller is expected to come fast as it is an emergency situation.

 

So if the Phase 2 trial shows that "Sepsivac" is effective against Covid-19, the world may have a vaccine against the disease as early as one month from now, at least for emergency use.

 

Meanwhile, Vishwakarma informed that CSIR has also got approval for conducting Phase 3 clinical trial of "Sepsivac" against Covid-19.

"The Phase 3 trials will be done on 1,100 people -- 600 will be those who have tested positive but non- symptomatic, and 500 will be those who are out of hospital," Vishwakarma said.

 

How does Sepsivac work?

It contains heat-killed mycobacterium w (Mw), an immunomodulator, which is a non-pathogenic mycobacterium.

 

"Normally when you develop a vaccine, you grow the organism and kill it. It is called heat killed. Here we heat killed the bacteria. It is a standard vaccine concept," Vishwakarma said, adding that the bacterium is produced by fermentation.

 

"The treatment we are testing against Covid-19 is designed to enhance innate immunity which is very critical. People who are weak in innate immunity will get the infection faster," he said.

 

Vishwakarma explained that it is a non-specific vaccine which could be used to both cure and protect people. He explained that there are generally three types of vaccines.

"There are therapeutic vaccines, where you give them as a drug for curing. There are prophylactic vaccines, which you give to people to protect them. And there are some which have both the properties, which are called immunomodulators.

 

"Sepsivac will be an immunomodulator, which will have protective effect and therapeutic effect both," he said.

 

Vishwakarma is hopeful that the Phase 2 clinical trials of the treatment will provide positive results. And because the drug is already in use for sepsis or septic shock treatment, "human safety is already assured," he said, adding that it will be applicable for all age groups.

"We are keeping our fingers crossed and hoping for the best," Vishwakarma said.

As developing a vaccine against a new disease takes time, researchers the world over are rushing to repurpose existing drugs, vaccines against the disease.

 

 

On 5/3/2020 at 12:31 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I need to look into it, but it sounds a lot like the theory behind current clinical trials of already-approved BCG vaccine, which is currently in Phase 3 clinical trials in Australia and the Netherlands for use against covid-19

Bacillus Calmette–Guérin (BCG) vaccine is a live-bacteria vaccine given to protect against tuberculosis, using a weakened strain of Mycobacterium bovis (the cause of tuberculosis disease in Cattle).  It is still a routine infant immunization in a number of countries.  It was discontinued at various points in other countries.  It was never given routinely in the US because the risk of acquiring tuberculosis is considered less than the protection provided by the vaccine (which is variable - it's not a very effective vaccine) + the risks of the vaccine.

BCG vaccine has been shown to have a protective effect against sepsis and respiratory infections - essentially, to function as an immunomodulator.  There are some studies showing it has an interesting effect on the immune system - that it upregulates part of the immune system and makes it more effective.

 

Sepsivac seems to be a heat-killed vaccine from a different strain of Mycobacteria, and might work through a similar mechanism.

Edit: here's some stuff from the company that developed Sepsivac as a general treatment for sepsis:
https://www.cadilapharma.com/sepsivac-sepsis-saviour-cadila/
Indications are certain leprosy cases, Non-small cell lung cancer, and gram-negative sepsis.

BCG has become a fairly standard treatment for bladder cancer, so seeing a cancer indication for Sepsivac supports the idea it may work in a similar way.  It's not an anti-viral or a direct anti-cancer chemotherapy, it's an immunomodulator.

FWIW, I think it's a great approach to try (both BCG and this approach) because it's totally different than a strict preventive vaccine that works by trying to train the immune system to recognize and respond to SARS-CoV2.  Since we don't know yet what will work, it only makes sense to try a wide range of different approaches.

I don't think it would be given to the population at large; I think it would be targeted to people most at-risk, and also to covid-19 positive patients who fit a high-risk profile.

 

Edit: adding this in here - it's not about Sepsivac, but it's another piece that explains the potential immune-boosting effect of vaccines like BCG and possibly oral polio vaccine.  If Sepsivac works, it would likely be through a similar mechanism.

TL;DR your body has two immune responses, innate and adaptive.  Adaptive immune response is what develops after you contract and recover from a disease, or are vaccinated against a disease - your body learns to produce specific antibodies against that organism and churns them out quickly in response to a future exposure.

But it's long been observed that people vaccinated with some vaccines, like BCG, become less likely to die from other diseases.  The current evidence (and it's small) is that it has to do with priming your innate immune system to become more efficient and effective. 

 

Edited May 4, 2020 by Hapless Bills Fan
another reference about how this might work

[thebandit27]

Big win if the accuracy being reported is correct:

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/roche-coronavirus-antibody-test-wins-fda-approval-for-emergency-use-11588505019?fbclid=IwAR3uiUrBRwHGsean2eOhl-uu8qX_zGQO7GPrCSWl1VABEeLrFWiwA7w5jRo
 

3 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Eh, no test is ever as accurate "out in the wild" as it is during its laboratory validation tests.  But the Roche test is probably very good.  The Abbott test, which Washington State is using and which also has EUA, is said by the U of Washington lab medicine people to be "fantastic" (a word they use only when specificity  approaches 100% and sensitivity is great).

Other tests that have shown very high performance in independent tests include >99% specificity for an in-house Elisa developed at Icahn School of Medicine Mt Sinai and for assays from Wondfo and Sure Biotech.   Some of the publicized antibody tests being used to determine prevalence have been done with tests that did not fare so well in the independent assessment of specificity.

I'm not sure what test Mayo Clinic is using, but they're usually pretty good.  All the NYS "random testing" is being done with a Wadsworth Center (NYS DOH) developed test that uses a dried blood spot  - their description says "93-100% specificity".  I think they may have traded off a bit of specificity for ease of collection and processing.

 

 

[muppy]

I have a question for anyone who has information regarding this topic. Is it proven that folks whom have recovered from covid-19 have "immunity" from catching it again? I keep hearing the phrase "herd immunity". I wonder if that is a theory or has it been proven that the more people catch the virus the less dangerous the virus will be for themselves? For others they are not socially distant from?

 

And secondly am I right to think that a vaccine is the best chance we have of really curtailing this type of pandemic from occurring again? I get a flu shot yearly so that the flu should I catch it be considerably less destructive but my understanding is I still am at risk of catching it. Conceivably would a covid-19 vaccine be the same in hoes of lessening symptoms vs not being transmitters of the virus to others, especially if you have had covid-19 previously and recovered?
 

4 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'll try to take this on.

1) No, it is not yet proven that folks recovered from covid-19 have immunity from catching it again.  But most scientist consider it probable, for several reasons:

    a) We know people develop adaptive immunity, also known as antibodies, in response to being ill with covid-19 then recovering.  Adaptive immunity is what keeps you from getting a disease for a second time, provided the disease agent doesn't mutate too fast.  What we don't know yet (because, new), is how long this immunity will last.  Sometimes adaptive immunity subsides after a short time - 6 months to several years.  Sometimes it's lifelong.

    b) There are two (I think) studies where non-human primates were exposed then re-exposed, or vaccinated then exposed to covid-19, and did not become ill while a control non-vaccinated group did, which is evidence that the adaptive immunity kept them from developing the disease [it's considered unethical to deliberately re-expose people].

    c) Adaptive immunity works best if the virus overall mutates slowly.  With influenza, the virus/organism mutates too quickly from year to year.   That's why there's a new flu vaccine every year, using the "best guess" as to which strains will circulate.   So far the mutation rates scientists are seeing with >4,400 genomes sequenced to date, are consistent with a SARS-CoV2 vaccine providing immunity for at least several years (but no promises, because new).  It could be longer, because it's possible that mutations that interfere with the site the vaccine will target, will interfere with its ability to infect people.  It could also be shorter.  We don't yet know.

Where I think WHO and similar health experts are going with cautions about "it's not yet proven" is in regard to some country's proposals to issue "health passports" or "certificates of immunity" to people test as having anti-covid antibodies.  They feel that's a Very Bad Idea because we don't yet know how accurate the tests are, and we dont yet know how long the antibodies will persist or even for sure that they're protective.  So it's a bad idea to restrict people's activity or permit exposure based on the test results.  Better to continue to take precautions until we know more.

[muppy]

Thank you HaplessBillsFan that was a great explanation. Would you mind explaining what herd immunity means? My guess it it means the more people that test as having the antibodies (have already recovered from covid-19) they are not potential infectors hence the herd of folks that could transmit the virus to others is reduced?  Is that close?

[Hapless Bills Fan]

20 hours ago, Margarita said:

Thank you HaplessBillsFan that was a great explanation. Would you mind explaining what herd immunity means? My guess it it means the more people that test as having the antibodies (have already recovered from covid-19) they are not potential infectors hence the herd of folks that could transmit the virus to others is reduced?  Is that close?

 

Sure, I'll give it a try.  Testing isn't necessary, but having antibodies (from having already recovered from covid-19, as you say) or being vaccinated is The Thing.  And yes, you're pretty close.

 

This Youtube Video has a try at explaining, using Gummi Bears to represent susceptible people who can be infected, infected people, and immune (or vaccinated) people.  The guy kinda talks too fast for my Southernized ears, but the visual may be helpful.

 

When you look at this graphic (from the OP in this thread) which shows how transmission chains are blocked by social distancing (people staying home or not traveling), basically similar principle: when enough people are immune, you get a similar effect of stopping the transmission chains because most of the people in contact with an infected person are immune.  Replace all the little squares with "IMMUNE!" and you got it.

 

How many people need to be immune?  It depends upon something called the "basic reproduction number" or R0 of a disease, meaning on average, how many people will an infected person infect?  Flu has an R0 of 1.3.   T

The current calculations for covid-19 is R0 between 2 and 3, which would require 50-60% of the population to be immune.

[muppy]

19 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

Sure, I'll give it a try.  Testing isn't necessary, but having antibodies (from having already recovered from covid-19, as you say) or being vaccinated is The Thing.  And yes, you're pretty close.

 

This Youtube Video has a try at explaining, using Gummi Bears to represent susceptible people who can be infected, infected people, and immune (or vaccinated) people.  The guy kinda talks too fast for my Southernized ears, but the visual may be helpful.

 

When you look at this graphic (from the OP in this thread) which shows how transmission chains are blocked by social distancing (people staying home or not traveling), basically similar principle: when enough people are immune, you get a similar effect of stopping the transmission chains because most of the people in contact with an infected person are immune.  Replace all the little squares with "IMMUNE!" and you got it.

 

How many people need to be immune?  It depends upon something called the "basic reproduction number" or R0 of a disease, meaning on average, how many people will an infected person infect?  Flu has an R0 of 1.3.   T

The current calculations for covid-19 is R0 between 2 and 3, which would require 50-60% of the population to be immune.

You’re the bomb hot diggety THANK YOU for  this! We all hope that threshold number be reached ASAP that’s for sure. Stay well and always great to read you

[Hapless Bills Fan]

This is a ***** idea that actually makes great sense, and Kudos to BioBot Analytics for doing 100s of analyses a week, pro bono

 

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2020-04-29/coronavirus-sewage-testing?fbclid=IwAR1DlfhRMagNSxrnf-h0VQtJSU7D5BW5J4iE_stLbu34g1hVBPgqZ_1jdiY

 

"Since this pilot study in Massachusetts, hundreds of wastewater treatment facilities across the country — including more than a dozen in California — have asked Biobot to analyze their sewage. The researchers, doing the weekly (sometimes biweekly) analysis pro bono, hope to work with as many as 10,000 facilities to create a more comprehensive picture of how the virus is spreading or “flattening” in different parts of the United States."

 

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

This is an example of an RNA vaccine candidate in rapid development

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/coronavirus-vaccine-us-trials-start-for-pfizer-biontech-mrna-2020-5

 

In contrast to some who haven't done it and have no idea what the logistics and the supply chain really look like, Pfizer does know what it takes - IF the vaccine works.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

French scientists retrospectively test samples from patients with pneumonias of unknown origin and find a positive from late December.

Patient in question had no travel history to China or known connection, indicating probable community spread.  Careful study, positive result confirmed different test.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0924857920301643?via%3Dihub#!

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Paper on a mutation in the Sars-CoV2 spike protein

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.29.069054v1

 

First some background: Sars-CoV2 (the virus that causes covid-19 disease) uses RNA as its genetic material instead of DNA (it's an RNA virus).  As such, it mutates about 2x a month, just because the RNA polymerase that copies the RNA genetic material tends to make mistakes.  So there are literally thousands of mutations at this point, known because something like 4,500 viral genomes have been sequenced and made publicly available. 

 

Most of them don't matter, but mutations in the spike protein that the virus uses to attach to and enter human cells may - in part, because those are the parts of the virus vaccines will target.  They're also the parts where a mutation might make the virus more efficient at infecting people, which would cause that mutation to spread.

 

This paper asserts that a mutation in the spike protein, known as D614G (substitutes the amino acid glycine for the amino acid aspartic acid at position 164 in the spike protein polypeptide), is more transmissible: "The mutation Spike D614G is of urgent concern; it began spreading in Europe in early February, and when introduced to new regions it rapidly becomes the dominant form."

 

It's possible.  I'm not entirely persuaded by their arguments, but since I'm not an epidemiologist or a virologist let's see what someone with more credentials has to say:

 

Bedford argues that D614G is predominant in European sequences of the virus because of a "founder effect" where it was present in the initial introduction.

Covid-19 in the US and Australia were seeded from both China and Europe and have a mixture of both strains.

 

The authors of the paper claim that the frequency of this mutation in sequenced viral genomes is increasing over time. 
Bedford can reproduce their work:

but he points out:

 

He agrees that the G variant seems to accompany a higher viral load (fewer cycles needed to detect virus by PCR) - they reproduced this finding as well.

 

Bedford agrees with the finding in the paper that this mutation shows NO EFFECT on clinical outcomes.  It has to do with how transmissible the virus is.

 

The LA Times has taken this paper and run with it in a kind of sensational way.  The key point is that there is no measurable effect on patient outcome.  The authors of the paper speculate that the change might mean people who developed immunity to the D614 strain could be re-infected by the G614 strain because the antibodies might not recognize it.

 

This is a hypothesis that is simple and straightforward to test experimentally: take antibodies from a patient infected with one strain, and see if they recognize the other strain (a cross-reactivity test) We normally raise a gamisch of antibodies (polyclonal antibodies) against an antigen, so chances are pretty good.    I would want to see the results before I stress about it.  Even when people get a flu vaccine that isn't a great match to this year's viruses, there is usually some degree of protection. 

BUT - in theory, it could explain some of the results where people have tested negative, then tested positive a short time later - if, for example, they encountered a different strain against which they had enough immunity that they only developed mild symptoms, but not quite enough to knock it completely out.

 

Where this is potentially Very Bad News Indeed is with regard to potential monoclonal antibody therapeutics.  A monoclonal antibody means "one antibody molecule".  If it was designed to react to one strain, and doesn't react to the other, it would be useless.  But again, it's straightforward to test.

 

[SlimShady'sSpaceForce]

apologies if already posted

 

Covid burnout has had me ignoring this thread the past week.

 

Genomic Study Points to Natural Origin of COVID-19 .. https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2020/03/26/genomic-research-points-to-natural-origin-of-covid-19/  

 

 

No matter where you go online these days, there’s bound to be discussion of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Some folks are even making outrageous claims that the new coronavirus causing the pandemic was engineered in a lab and deliberately released to make people sick. A new study debunks such claims by providing scientific evidence that this novel coronavirus arose naturally.

 

The reassuring findings are the result of genomic analyses conducted by an international research team, partly supported by NIH. In their study in the journal Nature Medicine, Kristian Andersen, Scripps Research Institute, La Jolla, CA; Robert Garry, Tulane University School of Medicine, New Orleans; and their colleagues used sophisticated bioinformatic tools to compare publicly available genomic data from several coronaviruses, including the new one that causes COVID-19.

Edited May 6, 2020 by SlimShady'sSpaceForce

[Punching Bag]

Quote

Government to distribute free reusable masks to all citizens (with photo / video)

     The Innovation and Technology Bureau (ITB) announced today (May 5) that the Government will distribute free reusable CuMask+™ to all Hong Kong citizens.
      
     The CuMask+™ is developed by the Hong Kong Research Institute of Textiles and Apparel. It is a six-layer mask with special ergonomic features. Two of its layers contain copper which is capable of immobilising bacteria, common viruses and other harmful substances. The mask complies with the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) F2100 Level 1 Standard in terms of particle filtration efficiency (PFE), bacterial filtration efficiency (BFE), resistance to penetration by synthetic blood, flammability and pressure resistance, and is reusable for up to 60 washes.

 

That is HONG KONG government news release.

https://www.info.gov.hk/gia/general/202005/05/P2020050500692.htm

 

Info on CuMask+™ 

https://www.qmask.gov.hk/

[edit: WOW.  Good work Hong Kong!]

[Hapless Bills Fan]

 

Troubling new learning about covid-19: healthy-feeling or barely ill young patients showing up in hospital with serious strokes

https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2020/04/24/strokes-coronavirus-young-patients/

It isn’t just the number of patients that was unusual. The first wave of the pandemic has hit the elderly and those with heart disease, diabetes, obesity or other preexisting conditions disproportionately. The covid-19 patients treated for stroke at Mount Sinai were younger and mostly without risk factors.

On average, the covid-19 stroke patients were 15 years younger than stroke patients without the virus.

“These are people among the least likely statistically to have a stroke,” Mocco said.

(...)

In a letter to be published in the New England Journal of Medicine next week, the Mount Sinai team details five case studies of young patients who had strokes at home from March 23 to April 7. They make for difficult reading: The victims’ ages are 33, 37, 39, 44 and 49, and they were all home when they began to experience sudden symptoms, including slurred speech, confusion, drooping on one side of the face and a dead feeling in one arm.

One died, two are still hospitalized, one was released to rehabilitation, and one was released home to the care of his brother. Only one of the five, a 33-year-old woman, is able to speak.

Oxley, the interventional neurologist, said one striking aspect of the cases is how long many waited before seeking emergency care.

The 33-year-old woman was previously healthy but had a cough and headache for about a week. Over the course of 28 hours, she noticed her speech was slurred and that she was going numb and weak on her left side but, the researchers wrote, “delayed seeking emergency care due to fear of the covid-19 outbreak.” (she was already infected)

(...)

Oxley said the most important thing for people to understand is that large strokes are very treatable. Doctors are often able to reopen blocked blood vessels through techniques such as pulling out clots or inserting stents. But it has to be done quickly, ideally within six hours, but no longer than 24 hours: “The message we are trying to get out is if you have symptoms of stroke, you need to call the ambulance urgently. ”

PSA: to screen yourself or a loved one for stroke, Use the FAST test to check for the most common symptoms of a stroke in yourself or someone else.

Face: Smile and see if one side of the face droops.

Arms: Raise both arms. Does one arm drop down?

Speech: Say a short phrase and check for slurred or strange speech.

Time: If the answer to any of these is yes, call 911 right away and write down the time when symptoms started.

 

18 hours ago, CardinalScotts said:

these were previously healthy people?

 

Yes.  Previously healthy, no risk factors.

Edit: Adding some more links. NEJM letter now published and linked above.
One physician's personal experience:

https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86324?fbclid=IwAR2ne3hYbI8ho6I10p4j4KoyjWUoQzPCc1dgS4hgPERug5ZZkCCQQlx7cp8
Medpage today summary of several places:
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/86205

Northern Italy:

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2009166

 

 

 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

Plandemic and Judy Mikovits.  Gotta "bite the snake" here. 

 

This is the best (and carefully researched) deconstruction I've seen, by Vanderbilt-trained epidemiologist and pathologist Kat Montgomery.

**EDITED TO ADD: I wrote this post to help my friends sort through misinformation and did not expect it to go viral. Several commenters have asked me to cite sources, and I agree that this is important to do. I still have a day job, but I have edited to include primary sources for all points when possible.**SECOND EDIT: People seem to not understand that PubMed (ncbi) is the international database for cataloguing medical research studies and instead think it only contains government-funded information or research. This is not the case. It is basically the Google of peer-reviewed research studies.**

*The following statements represent my personal informed views and not those of any institution*

First, background: I’m a physician (specifically a board-certified pathologist, which includes microbiology and laboratory medicine) with a master’s degree in epidemiology.
 

In the last day or two, several friends have shared or posted about a video “documentary” called “Plandemic”. The film depicts now-discredited former researcher Judy Mikovits who shares a plausible-sounding narrative about the current pandemic. The problem here is that nearly all of her scientific statements are demonstrably false. If you have more to add to this list, or credible data to the contrary, please start a discussion. I suspect there are many more false claims in this video, but these are just the ones that stuck out to me as a physician with epidemiology training.
 

- She states “There is no vaccine for any RNA virus that works." Incorrect: Polio, hepatitis A, measles, to name a few. (Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4763971/)
- Her retracted paper was actually not about vaccines at all, even though she insinuates that it was. (Here is the article: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19815723)
- She states that Ebola could not infect humans until it was engineered to do so in her laboratory. This is false. (Here is an article describing an outbreak of Ebola in 1976, long before Dr. Mikovits was conducting research: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27357339)
- Likewise, many other zoonotic viruses have been shown to gain mutations that allow them to infect humans. This would not be some kind of new, crazy idea. We actually predicted it years ago: we just didn’t know exactly which virus or when it would occur. (Here is an article from 2015 discussing the likely emergence of future coronavirus pandemics: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687304/ )
- She states that the US was working with Wuhan to study coronaviruses years ago, like it’s a “gotcha” moment: yes, of course we were doing this – Wuhan is a coronavirus hotspot and it makes sense to study this family of viruses where it naturally occurs. (Same article as above: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4687304/ )
- She states that COPD lungs are identical to COVID-19 lungs. As a pathologist, this is ludicrous – any practicing physician would be able to tell COPD from COVID-19, both clinically and histologically. (One article discussing an overview of tools for diagnosing COVID19 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7144809/, one about CT specifically https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7191895/, and one about histology specifically https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7184436/ )
- The statement taken out of context from the CDC death certificate recommendation reads in full “In cases where a definitive diagnosis of COVID-19 cannot be made, but is suspected or likely (the circumstances are compelling within a reasonable degree of certainty), it is acceptable to report COVID-19 on a death certificate as “probable” or “presumed”. In these instances, certifiers should use their best judgment in determining if a COVID-19 diagnosis was likely. Testing for COVID-19 should be conducted whenever possible.”. My physician colleagues are not being pressured to put COVID-19 on death certificates when it should not be there. (Here is the actual document with instructions for
filling out death certificates from the CDC: https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf )
- The idea that physicians are incorrectly diagnosing COVID-19 due to financial incentive is also ridiculous. Medicare sometimes bundles payments for some conditions (i.e. if you have a heart attack, medicare may pay XX for your treatment) – it’s possible the hospital could get paid $13,000 for your COVID-19 admission, but do you know what that’s based on? The fact that the average cost of a hospital admission for a respiratory condition is $13,297. (I can’t post a scientific study here, since this isn’t a scientific fact, but this article describes the procedure in detail: https://www.usatoday.com/…/fact-check-medicare-…/3000638001/ )
- She states that hydroxychloroquine has been “extensively studied in this family of viruses” – in fact, it has not been studied well in coronaviruses. It HAS been studied in malaria, which is not a virus. (Here is the one study that was performed that people like to cite, and it is an in vitro study (not in humans), of SARS (not COVID-19), and chloroquine (not hydroxychloroquine): https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1232869/ ). And yes, it is considered an essential medicine for the treatment of malaria. Not for coronaviruses.
- Furthermore, the data on hydroxychloroquine are much weaker than they originally appeared: the small study that was highly publicized was not a randomized controlled trial, and the only patients who died were those who received hydroxychloroquine (and these were EXCLUDED FROM ANALYSIS!). This is terrible science. Even so, we want to investigate all possible treatments, so controlled trials are being conducted on hydroxychloroquine right now. (One study published on May 7 shows no benefit to using hydroxychloroquine https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32379955 )
- She insinuates that there is a hydroxychloroquine shortage as a result of reduced production. In fact, the shortage has resulted from an increase in demand: people who take this medication regularly are writing extended prescriptions and because physicians are using it for COVID19 patients because they have nothing else to try. (https://jamanetwork.com/c…/health-forum/fullarticle/2764607…).
- “All flu vaccines contain coronaviruses”. Nope, absolutely false. (In fact, it’s so false based on the way vaccines are made that there are no studies specifically stating this claim. It would be like trying to conduct a study to examine whether humans can live with zero oxygen. Nope, we can’t. No study needed.)
- The ideas that sheltering in place somehow harms your immune system or that you may reactivate a virus in yourself by wearing a mask have been thoroughly debunked in other posts and I won’t get into the details here. Both national societies of emergency medicine have condemned the statements of these doctors, one of whom is not board-certified. (Please refer to Dr. Kasten’s post and others about these)

- Lastly, private companies removing false information from their platforms does not represent repression or promotion of propaganda. It’s helping to promote the spread of sound scientific information. If you think lies should be permitted to circulate freely alongside the truth with the intention of reaching people who won’t be able to tell the difference, you are part of the problem.

 

Me again:

Judy Mikovits is not "one of the most accomplished scientists of her generation" - not even close.  She had a paper on a virus causing chronic fatigue syndrome retracted by Science, and that is not done lightly - others failed to reproduce the results, and she herself was part of a study that contradicted it.  She's a known, longtime antivaxxer conspiracy theorist. Plandemic is misinformation, plain and simple. 

 

Please, please, please get your information elsewhere than Youtube.  Please consider that if someone has been dismissed by "mainstream" science, more than likely there is reason.  

Please consider that if someone makes false statement after statement that someone in the field can go through and readily disprove Zap Zap Zap Zap,  it is more than likely that their whole construction is a house of cards unsupported by fact.

Debate will be redirected -> PPP,  if you must model a tin-foil-hat, go there.

[BillsFan4]

 

 

Edited May 9, 2020 by BillsFan4

[BillsFan4]

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410

Observational Study of Hydroxychloroquine in Hospitalized Patients with Covid-19

 

Quote

We examined the association between hydroxychloroquine use and intubation or death at a large medical center in New York City.

Data were obtained regarding consecutive patients hospitalized with Covid-19, excluding those who were intubated, died, or discharged within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department (study baseline). The primary end point was a composite of intubation or death in a time-to-event analysis. We compared outcomes in patients who received hydroxychloroquine with those in patients who did not, using a multivariable Cox model with inverse probability weighting according to the propensity score.

 

Quote

Results:

Of 1446 consecutive patients, 70 patients were intubated, died, or discharged within 24 hours after presentation and were excluded from the analysis. Of the remaining 1376 patients, during a median follow-up of 22.5 days, 811 (58.9%) received hydroxychloroquine (600 mg twice on day 1, then 400 mg daily for a median of 5 days); 45.8% of the patients were treated within 24 hours after presentation to the emergency department, and 85.9% within 48 hours. Hydroxychloroquine-treated patients were more severely ill at baseline than those who did not receive hydroxychloroquine (median ratio of partial pressure of arterial oxygen to the fraction of inspired oxygen, 223 vs. 360). Overall, 346 patients (25.1%) had a primary end-point event (180 patients were intubated, of whom 66 subsequently died, and 166 died without intubation). In the main analysis, there was no significant association between hydroxychloroquine use and intubation or death (hazard ratio, 1.04, 95% confidence interval, 0.82 to 1.32). Results were similar in multiple sensitivity analyses.

 

Quote

CONCLUSIONS

In this observational study involving patients with Covid-19 who had been admitted to the hospital, hydroxychloroquine administration was not associated with either a greatly lowered or an increased risk of the composite end point of intubation or death. Randomized, controlled trials of hydroxychloroquine in patients with Covid-19 are needed. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health.)

 

Quote

our findings do not support the use of hydroxychloroquine at present, outside randomized clinical trials testing its efficacy.

 

 

[Lurker]

Good blog post on how the virus is transmitted -- and how difficult it will be to open up certain businesses...

 

https://www.erinbromage.com/post/the-risks-know-them-avoid-them?fbclid=IwAR30mZZKdxD2GZRzPkGD6t38qxSpVTGRVdocCkIzIeXAV5rdVtKDBXxbRyc

 

Restaurants: Some really great shoe-leather epidemiology demonstrated clearly the effect of a single asymptomatic carrier in a restaurant environment (see below). The infected person (A1) sat at a table and had dinner with 9 friends. Dinner took about 1 to 1.5 hours. During this meal, the asymptomatic carrier released low-levels of virus into the air from their breathing. Airflow (from the restaurant's various airflow vents) was from right to left. Approximately 50% of the people at the infected person's table became sick over the next 7 days. 75% of the people on the adjacent downwind table became infected. And even 2 of the 7 people on the upwind table were infected (believed to happen by turbulent airflow). No one at tables E or F became infected, they were out of the main airflow from the air conditioner on the right to the exhaust fan on the left of the room. (Ref) 

 

1 minute ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

This exact figure was posted a few posts back, along with the link to the original article - not a blog post, the original study.

I'll put it up in here and delete the original, I do ask look over the thread a bit before posting.  Thanks.

On 5/3/2020 at 11:16 PM, Hapless Bills Fan said:

Make of this what you will.  Contact-tracing report from China.  Conclusion is that 3 families (B and C) ultimately became infected because airflow patterns from the air conditioning in a restaurant carried respiratory droplets from a pre-symptomatic index case (A1) patient.  Seating chart  below.
 

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article

[Hapless Bills Fan]

I think this is the first: 

FDA EUA for detection of a covid-19 protein in a nasopharangeal or nasal swab.  Looks like 15 minute test. 

 

https://ir.quidel.com/news/news-release-details/2020/Quidel-Receives-Emergency-Authorization-for-Rapid-Antigen-COVID-19-Diagnostic-Assay/default.aspx

 

It requires a special instrument to read, but many clinics and Drs offices use their machine for rapid flu, RSV, Strep, and Lyme testing.

 

Current diagnostic tests are all based on detecting the viral RNA.  A test like this is helpful (assuming sensitivity and accuracy are good) because it uses different reagents than the current RT-PCR tests.

 

If one such company has such a test on the market, hopefully more for different machines will soon follow.

[shoshin]

This is the Google/Verily Project Baseline Covid study. If you're symptom free and live near a testing site, you can get a free test. 

 

http://projectbaseline.com/study/covid-19

 

3 hours ago, Limeaid said:

Not really understand why they are looking for symptom free people to test.

 

Just now, Hapless Bills Fan said:

To be honest, I'm not sure I understand the motivation behind the whole project. 

 

On their website, they talk about screening and about "At the screening sites, qualified healthcare professionals from our partners can collect samples from those deemed high risk, with results returned back to the individual."

 

So it sounds as though they initially (at least) were trying to ramp up testing for individuals considered at "high risk" either because of their personal health or their job.  That makes sense - high-risk people or people in jobs that put them in contact with high risk people, should be able to be tested even if without symptoms to avoid asymptomatic transmission.

 

But then they say "We are already working with the government to identify new site locations and to develop site playbooks in order to expand these services to more members of the community in the coming weeks and months."

 

The motives and the security of the data collection are somewhat opaque to me, personally.  Welcome anyone who can explain.