Covid-19 News


    Quote from Dr Richard

    The WHO appear to be a corrupt beurcratic lost the plot organisation which pharma bribes them to do what they want. Rather like the EU which we left in Brexit to end such corruption. Trump should shoot them in the head, if he is the cowboy he is made out to be, take no notice of their rubbish paid by international pharmacy. I can see why Raoult is giving up in disgust, HCQ is just as effective as remdesivir. We had the same problem when we patented the use of nicotinamide and adenine for treating cholera. Shiells and Falk, 1989. Look it up in the Journal of physiology. Oh we can't make any money out of that , it's a third world problem,what is the point . Falsified evidence against it it just disgusts me.


    The problem is the corruption yes.


    It almost is unfortunate when the CDC tries to signal 0.1% IFR because it allows people to think "ooohps they made a booo booo." They did not make a booo booo folks.

    When non-experts like myself on an LENR forum were calling this for almost 2 months!


    The fight Trump is up against started for the world in 1947. The control system is powerful - reaching into physics, medicine, pharma, information (perhaps the biggest one)...

    If he does it, greatest President in US history. Most people cannot even understand what the heck this is all about...

    Quote from Navid

    It almost is unfortunate when the CDC tries to signal 0.1% IFR because it allows people to think "ooohps they made a booo booo." They did not make a booo booo folks.

    When non-experts like myself on an LENR forum were calling this for almost 2 months!


    (1) CDC is not signalling 0.1% IFR. Best figure I saw (not IFR, but you might see it as a signal) was 0.4%.


    (2) most non-experts on LENR forum read what a variety of eperts across the world find, and come up with IFR >> 0.1%. Though I agree exactly what it is depends on pop demographics and also is still rather uncertain.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    (1) CDC is not signalling 0.1% IFR. Best figure I saw (not IFR, but you might see it as a signal) was 0.4%.


    (2) most non-experts on LENR forum read what a variety of eperts across the world find, and come up with IFR >> 0.1%. Though I agree exactly what it is depends on pop demographics and also is still rather uncertain.


    Go do a population average on CDC data and yes, we do have 0.1%. Stanford said as much. A bad flu season is about 0.06%. People who take numbers like that and multiply by the population -- that is lame math we've seen on this board. Time to end the lame math. Not everyone just gets the flu in a given year.


    A Canadian paper let some infectious disease physicians publish their work - more education for those who continue to resist reality:

    https://nationalpost.com/opini…ft-the-covid-19-lockdowns

    Quote from Navid

    Go do a population average on CDC data and yes, we do have 0.1%. Stanford said as much. A bad flu season is about 0.06%. People who take numbers like that and multiply by the population -- that is lame math we've seen on this board. Time to end the lame math. Not everyone just gets the flu in a given year.


    A Canadian paper let some infectious disease physicians publish their work - more education for those who continue to resist reality:

    https://nationalpost.com/opini…ft-the-covid-19-lockdowns


    Navid - I am so sorry. I posted earlier detailing why you are very wrong about the CDC planning document. It was quite long. I think I never submitted it!


    OK - so your errors are as follows:


    (1) You say CDC take an average of stratified age-group figures. WRONG. The Scenario 5 figures would average to 0.66% were that true, they give 0.4% - there are quantisation errors but they cannot be that big. You accuse CDC of incompetence, I'd say not checking what they actually did, and assuming it is something (wrong) that the figure show it could not be, is wrong. See (2) below to see what CDC acttually did and why it is correct.


    (2) You say that correct average is a population-weighted average. WRONG. Look at the legend in the table. This is SCFR "Symptomatic case fatality ratio". That is not the same as IFR, and you need to weight the symptomatic cases by how many symptomatic cases in each stratified by age bin have occurred. Now, as we know, symptomatic cases are more likely for older bins, hence this explains why your population average is completely wrong. The CDC average is correct, it is a symptomatic case number weighted average


    (3) You assume that SCFR is the same as IFR. It is not. It is higher (by an assumed 35% under scenario 5 due to asymptomatic cases). It is lower, because shielding of those most likely to die can make the SCFR lower than the whole population mortality rate (IFR). But even if you define IFR as SCFR adjusted for asymptomatic cases you get 0.3% from these figures, not the 0.1% you expect.


    I'd like you to address these in detail: I will respond in case you do not understand the above. I've condensed a previously longer post so I'm aware you may need more detail: apologise just i can't bear to type it all again!


    PS - accusing others of incompetence, lame math, etc means that your own competence and math needs to be impeccable. I'm sure it will be after you have looked again at the CDC work (and noted what SCFR means and why population average is not correct).

    Edinburgh study of out-going protection from a mask (none,surgical,n95/ffp1,2, home-made,shields...)

    They all cut down the forward flow, but many have significant side/up/down/behind leakage.

    Press release https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fvp…preview=Press+release.pdf
    Paper https://www.dropbox.com/sh/fvp…l=0&preview=Paper+V13.pdf

    They note that 2 meters (6 feet) may not be a safe distance, but decline to offer a different value.

    My short opinion : rely on your own mask for incoming protection within at least 6 feet.


    [ I thought I submitted this, but it's been sitting in my edit buffer. Sorry if its a duplicate ]

    Personal note : in my tiny county (Lake, CA : pop 64,000) we had a big influx of visitors over the memorial day weekend. Hardly any were wearing masks in my local grocery store.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    And the only people who do get the flu are those who are too stupid to get a vaccine.


    Perhaps your response was sarcastic?

    According to the CDC, which you believe to be a reliable source...


    "February 26, 2020 10:01 am Chris Crawford – According to a Feb. 21 CDC Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report,(www.cdc.gov) the current influenza vaccine has been 45% effective overall against 2019-2020 seasonal influenza A and B viruses.

    In this 2017 clinic photo, a health care professional bandages the injection site of a child who just received seasonal influenza vaccine.

    Specifically, the flu vaccine has been 50% effective against influenza B/Victoria viruses and 37% effective against influenza A(H1N1)pdm09."


    https://www.aafp.org/news/heal…20200226interimfluve.html


    The flu vaccine typically ranges from 37% to 50% effective.

    It appears that 50% of the "smart" people getting vaccinated ALSO get the flu!


    Now before you get on your high horse... I am NOT an anti-vaxer. I have had all my child hood shots and insured my children had them as well.


    I typically do not take the flu vaccine however. Not because I think it is "bad", just not worth the trouble at THIS time. I rarely get the flu, for whatever reason.


    4 years ago, my doctor said... "take the flu shot, we are giving them free this month". So I did. 10 days later I got the flu and rather badly. <X


    I do not blame the vaccine. It is only 50% effective, so I had a 50% chance of getting the flu. That does not make the vaccine bad. Also, there is no fact stating that I would not have gotten the flu if I had not gotten the vaccine. It simply was what it was.


    However, to state that "only people who do get the flu are those who are too stupid to get a vaccine" is, to put it in your often used wording....


    "pure bullshit!" :)


    (If an effective vaccine is developed for Covid19, I will certainly seriously consider it once the true data is out)

    I do not blame the vaccine. It is only 50% effective, so I had a 50% chance of getting the flu. That does not make the vaccine bad. Also, there is no fact stating that I would not have gotten the flu if I had not gotten the vaccine. It simply was what it was.


    Agreed, but I, certainly, would go for the 50% reduction in chance of getting Flu. I'm not yet old enough for it to be an issue, but expect reliably to be taking a Flu jab every year quite soon.

    Quote from Navid

    The risk / reward in terms of flu vaccine just isn't there. Sorry.


    There are no significant risks. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than hurt by a flu vaccine. The vaccine works well even when you get the flu. You end up with very mild case. So mild, I didn't even know I had it when they tested me.


    You are not sorry; you are ignorant. If you don't get a flu vaccine, and you get the flu, you'll be sorry! The only time I have been in the hospital was with the flu.


    The CDC summed the three numbers together to get 0.4%. Doesn't look correct to me.


    Taking the SCFR as the upper bound on the IFR. Then weighted by population you get 0.1%. I don't see any argument against this approach if the SCFR is greater for old people so is the IFR but there are less older people.


    I could argue that in any one year 0.03% might be the actual population mortality rate because 100% of the population won't get sick in any one year. I am not even doing that. I am saying 0.1% is the worst case IFR from CDC numbers.


    If you like the CDC's math then you must explain what they did. I'm happy to be wrong. They spend more time on this than me, but so far their actions would warrant an investigation not more trust.

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    You accuse CDC of incompetence, I'd say not checking what they actually did, and assuming it is something (wrong) that the figure show it could not be, is wrong.


    This sort of professionally prepared document seldom has any obvious errors in it. Unless it is from the Georgia Department of Health.


    Seriously, when you think you have found an error that anyone would spot after a cursory examination, you are probably wrong. You are misreading the document. You may find bias or questionable assumptions, but not mistakes in methodology.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    There are no significant risks. You are more likely to be struck by lightning than hurt by a flu vaccine. The vaccine works well even when you get the flu. You end up with very mild case. So mild, I didn't even know I had it when they tested me.


    You are not sorry; you are ignorant. If you don't get a flu vaccine, and you get the flu, you'll be sorry! The only time I have been in the hospital was with the flu.


    You can lick some digoxin and state there are no immediate risks too. Every intervention has risks. You just aren''t totaling them, and in some cases even discussing the risks is not popular science.


    Our bodies are made to fight viruses. An obvious tell from our Polio discussion was that when hundreds of millions of people defecate in the open, a disease like Polio will spread out. But nobody on this thread even said "hey maybe building clean sewers is the answer". When OPV vaccines don't work and kids get Polio - guess what - you amp up the number of doses and thus the risk - why? Because they are many other viruses around. People in technology usually think linearly, and put down the complexity of the real world.


    When Semmelweis discovered what he discovered he didn't need to cry out - where's the vaccine all these kids are dying cause we don't have a vaccine!


    Sanitation, Health, these are the things that matter.


    If you take those $ in flu vaccines, and put that to other measures - it is very likely that many more people will be saved than a flu vaccine. Hint: Having a massive advocacy effort on Opiods would be a start!

    Quote from THHuxleynew

    I'm not yet old enough for it to be an issue, but expect reliably to be taking a Flu jab every year quite soon.


    Old enough?!? If you are over 6 months old, you should get one. Influenza is a miserable disease. As I said, the only time I was in a hospital was with the flu. For a week, followed by weeks at home recuperating in pain from pleurisy. People sometimes think they have the flu when it is only a bad cold. The flu is often much worse than that!

    Quote from Navid

    You can lick some digoxin and state there are no immediate risks too. Every intervention has risks.


    Yes. And you can measure the likelihood of these risks. You can estimate how likely it is that you will get on an airplane and it will crash. You can estimate how likely it is you will be struck by lightning. You can find out how risky an influenza vaccination is. You don't have to wonder about that. The numbers are available from the CDC and other authoritative sites. You can trust the CDC. If they were lying, doctors and agencies from other countries would point out these lies. Look it up, and you will see that the risks are negligible. Much lower than being hit by lightning.


    Here is something else that has risks. When you go on the internet and post unscientific lies and bullshit, you might persuade people not to get vaccinations and other essential steps to preserve health. You are spreading ill health and misery with these lies. You and the rest of the anti-vax idiots should stop doing that. You should be very thankful you live in an age when flu vaccines are available. They have saved millions of lives, and prevented billions of miserable illnesses.

    Quote from JedRothwell

    Yes. And you can measure the likelihood of these risks. You can estimate how likely it is that you will get on an airplane and it will crash. You can estimate how likely it is you will be struck by lightning. You can find out how risky an influenza vaccination is. You don't have to wonder about that. The numbers are available from the CDC and other authoritative sites. You can trust the CDC. If they were lying, doctors and agencies from other countries would point out these lies. Look it up, and you will see that the risks are negligible. Much lower than being hit by lightning.


    Here is something else that has risks. When you go on the internet and post unscientific lies and bullshit, you might persuade people not to get vaccinations and other essential steps to preserve health. You are spreading ill health and misery with these lies. You and the rest of the anti-vax idiots should stop doing that. You should be very thankful you live in an age when flu vaccines are available. They have saved millions of lives, and prevented billions of miserable illnesses.


    We don't need vaccine policemen. Millions of lives saved is a laugher - like to see that data.


    Most physicians haven't looked at the vaccine data because they are trained in a couple of lectures in medical school. They really take it on faith.


    There are no RCTs. Infrequent but serious immediate harms have to be taken to vaccine court. Long term harms are not ever traced to vaccines.


    The CDC has been taken to task by many agencies as being an arm of the Vaccine industry. Did you read those reports - what did you think about that?


    As for Covid - getting a flu vaccine will increase the odds of getting Corona-virus infection. See: Assessment of temporally-related acute respiratory illness following

    influenza vaccination by Rikin et al. They found a 4.8x in kids < 18.



    As for adults, Wolf 2020 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31607599/ shows roughly 30% increased risk for coronavirus.

    Quote: "Vaccine derived virus interference was significantly associated with coronavirus and human metapneumovirus;"


    Navid - you are accusing CDC of being incompetent and others of posting "lame" statistics.


    Please justify your comments here with precise numbers. I averaged the Scenario 5 numbers to get 0.67% (the numbers add to 2%, then divided by 3 we get 0.67%). No way is that an average as you say.


    Your population average is wrong because the number of cases in each age bin is NOT proportional to population in that bin. Obviously.


    If you do not examine your working here, carefully, and engage with this, you will be guilty in your posts here of the flaws you have ascribed to others. No?


    What you are saying is wrong. By a factor of 3 or more.


    A month ago CDC was using case fatality of 3% in their modeling.


    Looks lame to me.

    Quote from Navid

    Millions of lives saved is a laugher - like to see that data.


    You can see that data anywhere! In the U.S. alone, influenza kills 24,000 to 62,000 people per year, even though 41% of adults get a flu vaccine. If no vaccine were available, the numbers would be much higher -- as they were before the vaccine became available. There would be 10,000 to 30,000 more deaths per year in the U.S. along, and millions worldwide.


    If everyone got a vaccine, the number of deaths would be close to zero, thanks to herd immunity. The vaccine does not work as well as some others, because there are so many strains, but it doesn't have to work perfectly to stop the disease. It just has to work most of the time and the infection rate (R0) will fall below 1 person per patient.


    The number of infections ranges from 39 to 56 million. That's millions more than we would have if people had enough sense to get a vaccination.


    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/prevent/flushot.htm


    Quote from Navid

    Most physicians haven't looked at the vaccine data because they are trained in a couple of lectures in medical school. They really take it on faith.



    They don't need to look. Any doctor has seen serious influenza cases. Heck, I have seen two people die from it, one in her 30s. Doctors know damn well that vaccines work, and they are very safe. That's common knowledge. I don't know if doctors in general take things on faith, but I never do.


    You need to stop spreading dangerous, pernicious lies. This is not the place for them. If I were in charge here, I would insist you stop. I seldom advocate banning or censoring people. Saying idiotic things about cold fusion causes little harm, because so many people do it, and most readers here know that input power is not noise. Saying idiotic things about electric cars is fine. Welcome to the club! Lots of people have no idea what "Carnot efficiency" means. But, repeating dangerous lies about healthcare in the middle of a pandemic is different. If people do not get influenza vaccinations this year, the toll from both influenza and the coronavirus will be much higher, because the two may infect a patient at the same time. Both increase vulnerability. Getting both may be a death sentence for older people. Also because the doctors will have difficulty telling them apart. So, this year even more than usual, it is vitally important to get a vaccination.

Subscribe to our newsletter

It's sent once a month, you can unsubscribe at anytime!

View archive of previous newsletters

* indicates required

Your email address will be used to send you email newsletters only. See our Privacy Policy for more information.

Our Partners

Supporting researchers for over 20 years
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.