Posts by Shane D.

Quote from teppo

Is this the first time a major company is admitting they are developing a LENR product?

https://www.miuraz.co.jp/news/newsrelease/2021/1132.php

Maybe Jed knows? Great news!, and thanks for posting. We needed a boost. Progress on the LENR front has been slow lately.

Curious about this from the press release:

"Quantum Hydrogen Energy is currently attracting attention globally, and large companies and investors

representing every industry are beginning full-scale participation in this field, as can be seen from the

entry of a major US IT company."

Miura is Japanese based and not an IT company, so I wonder who this US IT company is?

BTW: this should be copied to the RE: Media/News/Video Library-No discussions please Will give you the honors since you first reported.

Quote from Fm1

News 3 investigates tracked down the ivermectin policies at some of our local hospitals and urgent care centers

Like they "track down" criminals I suppose. They have a live report tomorrow. If I were a doctor in Norfolk prescribing IVM, I would go into hiding. There can not be any good come from an interview when the reporter starts off with "a drug widely used to treat worms in horses".

So Jason McNamee . Anything else on that front you are involved with now?

And welcome.

Quote from Wyttenbach

Look at the poor country of Uttar Pradesh. Since 3 months CoV-19 free

I love the real world, metadata observations. We keep bringing up UP in defense of IVM use, but there have been other examples. Saw this one today while catching up on the thread. Thanks FM:

Ivermectin for COVID-19 in Peru: 14-fold reduction in nationwide excess deaths, p<0.002 for effect by state, then 13-fold increase after ivermectin use restricted

Introduction. On May 8, 2020, Peru’s Ministry of Health approved ivermectin (IVM), a drug of Nobel Prize-honored distinction, for inpatient and outpatient…

osf.io

"Introduction. On May 8, 2020, Peru’s Ministry of Health approved ivermectin (IVM), a drug of Nobel Prize-honored distinction, for inpatient and outpatient treatment of COVID-19. As IVM treatments proceeded in that nation of 33 million residents, excess deaths decreased 14-fold over four months through December 1, 2020, consistent with clinical benefits of IVM for COVID-19 found in several RCTs. But after IVM use was sharply restricted under a new president, excess deaths then increased 13-fold."

This gem is one of the studies listed as "proof" of IVM's efficacy, but is buried under so many others.

Ruby and David's new interview with our own Alan Smith about he and Matt Tilley's LEC replication:

Post

RE: The Newsletter Posting Thread (please no comments).

New Interview with Alan Smith about his replication of the the LEC posted!


Today we are proud to share with the LENR community the latest installment of our "Meet the Experimenters / Cold Talks" series in which we get a hands-on and frontline replication update from our very own Alan Smith at his laboratory, who has teamed up with Matt Lilley to join the increasing number of researchers that has been able to independently verify the so called LEC effect (Lattice Energy Converter) being…

Curbina

Sep 26th 2021

Alan has a knack for explaining what is going on in simple layman terms. However, since I understand it better now after watching the video, I have more questions than before.

Good example starts at minute 23. Transcript: "To get anything for a long period, you would definitely need hydrogen, because iron is so readily oxidized. But that seems to be the only reason. It does improve the durability.of the experiment that is for sure. But it's not actually key, not required to run the experiment. Matt Tilley and I had it running in air."

Quote from Fm1

Egypt’s existing national COVID-19 protocol includes Hydroxychloroquine, Budesonide, and several other treatments depending on the stage of infection

Interesting to see Egypt is still using HCQ. They started using it way back in March 2020. Hmmm....

Dr. Fareed addresses Italian Senate at COVID summit

The following is Dr. Fareed's speech to the Italian Senate, Rome, and Italy at the International COVID Summit Monday, Sept. 13.

www.thedesertreview.com

Sept 13 testimony of a doctor on the US/Mexican border to the Italian Senate:

Distinguished Senators and Dear colleagues, friends, ladies and gentlemen, it’s a great honor for me to address you today.

My name is Dr. George Fareed. I practice medicine in a rural town called Brawley California that sits on the Mexican border.

This small community became the epicenter of COVID 19 in California, and I, who continue to treat patients in both the outpatient and hospital setting, found myself in the “eye of the storm,” treating very sick and contagious patients----not a place I thought I would be at age 76.

However, my training in biochemistry and virology, along with my degree from Harvard Medical School, prepared me well for the battle ahead, a battle that I have been fighting now for the past 18 months.

I, along with my colleague Dr. Brian Tyson, are winning the battle against COVID-19 for one simple reason: we follow the science!

COVID-19 is a disease that can be easily treated in its early stage, but comes very difficult to treat as the disease progresses.

As scientists such as Drs. Didier Raoult, Vladimir Zelenko, and Peter McCullough have taught us, the first stage of COVID involves viral replication resulting in symptoms such as flu-like symptoms of cough, fever, malaise, headache, and perhaps loss of taste and smell---if a patient is left untreated, this may progress into “cytokine storm” where oxygen saturation drops, and then into the thromboembolic stage where blood clots occur that can be fatal.

I’ve treated patients in all three stages--- delaying treatment in an elderly or high-risk patient, those with co-morbidities such as asthma or diabetes, is nothing short of cruel as the disease predictably progresses—many then die. The standard “wait and see” approach to COVID-19 has been the greatest medical failure I have seen in my long career because deaths are preventable- but you must treat early!

NO ONE NEEDS TO DIE FROM COVID-19

Eighteen months ago, in March 2020, I, along with my colleague Dr. Brian Tyson, began treating COVID-19 patients early in the course of the disease with a combination of medications, initially primarily hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin or doxycylcine, and nutraceuticals including zinc, vitamin D and C.

As Dr. McCullough explains, medications such as hydroxychloroquine act as ionophores to allow zinc into the cell to interfere with viral replication.

As time progressed, so did our treatment, and we added drugs such as ivermectin, fluvoxamine, and monoclonal antibodies, as well as aspirin and budesonide (steroid) to treat the other aspects of the disease.

We became part of an international network of physicians, including groups such as the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons led by Dr. McCullough and leaders such as Dr. Jean-Pierre Kiekens from Covexit.com---all engaged in one singular goal- saving lives through early treatment.

I developed my own protocols which vary slightly from patient to patient- depending on their clinical situation.

So- what do our results look like?

We have now treated over 7,000 patients, and there has not been a single death in patients treated within the first 5 to 7 days of the onset of symptoms. NOT A SINGLE DEATH. This includes patients with multiple co-morbidities as well as patients in their 90s!

As a medical director at a nursing home, while other nursing homes in the area suffered major losses, we saw very few deaths from COVID in our residents because of early treatment.

To put this in perspective, our County has seen around 30,000 COVID cases and there has been 750 deaths. We have treated over 20% of the patients, and have seen just a few deaths, and NONE when we have treated early.

Moreover—we are called on a daily basis from patients all over the US who are desperately seeking early treatment, and we have helped hundreds-the letters we receive from thankful patients are incredibly gratifying.

What is the proof that our treatment is “scientific”? Our results have been duplicated all around the world, and there are now hundreds of peer reviewed publications on early treatment. I have been honored to be on a few of these publications, including on Dr. McCullough’s seminal paper on early treatment.

What is going on that COVID patients cannot get the treatment they need from their own physicians?

Perhaps the major reason is that our own health agencies such as the FDA and CDC have come out against these medications—even making false claims that they are dangerous.

First, we were told that HCQ was cardiotoxic based on sham study in the Lancet that was eventually retracted. Now we hear that Ivermectin is a “horse medication”—ignoring the fact that it is recommended by the CDC and WHO and millions of doses have been given to humans to treat parasitic infections - the propaganda against early treatment is then echoed in the media.

I and other doctors who treat COVID early have come under attack by our local health departments, hospitals, and even state licensing boards. With increasing frequency, my prescriptions are now being denied by pharmacies. Even as it becomes more evident that vaccines by themselves are not the answer, patients are finding it increasingly difficult to get treatment.

Moreover, there is censorship…my own you-tube videos regarding early treatment have been taken down and labeled misinformation…in the US, we say it is like the book “1984” or McCarthyism.

Censorship is never good in a free society, but especially damaging in medicine where patients benefit when physicians exchanging ideas. Rather, we depend on a few “experts” who don’t even treat COVID patients.

The results, as we have seen, have been tragic!

CONCLUSION

When I began working in my rural community in 1990, I never dreamed that I would one day be speaking in the United States Senate and then in an international conference…but because I have seen first-hand how early treatment of COVID-19 saves lives, I feel an ethical and moral obligation to speak out and fight for not only my patients, but for the many around the world who continue to die unnecessarily.

This is a time that calls on the greatest of human attributes- courage. Everyone here must understand that we are in the greatest fight of our lives---when doctors are prevented from treating their patients with life-saving medicine, we know that something sinister is going on.

I thank you all for being here, and applaud your courage for standing up for your patients and the rest of humanity.

This came out the other day. Don't remember if it has been posted here already: https://www.thelancet.com/jour…twitter&utm_medium=social

I imagine these 16 scientists will be blacklisted by the Chinese, but at least they will be able to sleep well at night:

On July 5, 2021, a Correspondence was published in The Lancet called “Science, not speculation, is essential to determine how SARS-CoV-2 reached humans”.¹ The letter recapitulates the arguments of an earlier letter (published in February, 2020) by the same authors,² which claimed overwhelming support for the hypothesis that the novel coronavirus causing the COVID-19 pandemic originated in wildlife. The authors associated any alternative view with conspiracy theories by stating: “We stand together to strongly condemn conspiracy theories suggesting that COVID-19 does not have a natural origin”. The statement has imparted a silencing effect on the wider scientific debate, including among science journalists.³

The 2021 letter did not repeat the proposition that scientists open to alternative hypotheses were conspiracy theorists, but did state: “We believe the strongest clue from new, credible, and peer-reviewed evidence in the scientific literature is that the virus evolved in nature, while suggestions of a laboratory leak source of the pandemic remain without scientifically validated evidence that directly supports it in peer-reviewed scientific journals”. In fact, this argument could literally be reversed. As will be shown below, there is no direct support for the natural origin of SARS-CoV-2, and a laboratory-related accident is plausible.

There is so far no scientifically validated evidence that directly supports a natural origin. Among the references cited in the two letters by Calisher and colleagues,¹all but one simply show that SARS-CoV-2 is phylogenetically related to other betacoronaviruses. The fact that the causative agent of COVID-19 descends from a natural virus is widely accepted, but this does not explain how it came to infect humans. The question of the proximal origin of SARS-CoV-2—ie, the final virus and host before passage to humans—was expressly addressed in only one highly cited opinion piece, which supports the natural origin hypothesis,⁴ but suffers from a logical fallacy: it opposes two hypotheses—laboratory engineering versus zoonosis—wrongly implying that there are no other possible scenarios. The article then provides arguments against the laboratory engineering hypothesis, which are not conclusive for the following reasons. First, it assumes that the optimisation of the receptor binding domain for human ACE2 requires prior knowledge of the adaptive mutations, whereas selection in cell culture or animal models would lead to the same effect. Second, the absence of traces of reverse-engineering systems does not preclude genome editing, which is performed with so-called seamless techniques.⁶

Finally, the absence of a previously known backbone is not a proof, since researchers can work for several years on viruses before publishing their full genome (this was the case for RaTG13, the closest known virus, which was collected in 2013 and published in 2020).⁸

Based on these indirect and questionable arguments, the authors conclude in favour of a natural proximal origin. In the last part of the article, they briefly evoke selection during passage (ie, experiments aiming to test the capacity of a virus to infect cell cultures or model animals) and acknowledge the documented cases of laboratory escapes of SARS-CoV, but they dismiss this scenario, based on the argument that the strong similarity between receptor binding domains of SARS-CoV-2 and pangolins provides a more parsimonious explanation of the specific mutations. However, the pangolin hypothesis has since been abandoned, so the whole reasoning should be re-evaluated.

Although considerable evidence supports the natural origins of other outbreaks (eg, Nipah, MERS, and the 2002–04 SARS outbreak) direct evidence for a natural origin for SARS-CoV-2 is missing. After 19 months of investigations, the proximal progenitor of SARS-CoV-2 is still lacking. Neither the host pathway from bats to humans, nor the geographical route from Yunnan (where the viruses most closely related to SARS-CoV-2 have been sampled) to Wuhan (where the pandemic emerged) have been identified. More than 80 000 samples collected from Chinese wildlife sites and animal farms all proved negative.¹³

In addition, the international research community has no access to the sites, samples, or raw data. Although the Joint WHO-China Study concluded that the laboratory origin was “extremely unlikely”,¹³
WHO Director-General Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus declared that all hypotheses remained on the table including that of a laboratory leak.¹⁴

A research-related origin is plausible. Two questions need to be addressed: virus evolution and introduction into the human population. Since July, 2020, several peer-reviewed scientific papers have discussed the likelihood of a research-related origin of the virus. Some unusual features of the SARS-CoV-2 genome sequence suggest that they may have resulted from genetic engineering,an approach widely used in some virology labs.¹⁷

Alternatively, adaptation to humans might result from undirected laboratory selection during serial passage in cell cultures or laboratory animals, including humanised mice. Mice genetically modified to display the human receptor for entry of SARS-CoV-2 (ACE2) were used in research projects funded before the pandemic, to test the infectivity of different virus strains.²¹
Laboratory research also includes more targeted approaches such as gain-of-function experiments relying on chimeric viruses to test their potential to cross species barriers.

A research-related contamination could result from contact with a natural virus during field collection, transportation from the field to a laboratory, characterisation of bats and bat viruses in a laboratory, or from a non-natural virus modified in a laboratory. There are well-documented cases of pathogen escapes from laboratories. Field collection, field survey, and in-laboratory research on potential pandemic pathogens require high-safety protections and a strong and transparent safety culture. However, experiments on SARS-related coronaviruses are routinely performed at biosafety level 2^, which complies with the recommendations for viruses infecting non-human animals, but is inappropriate for experiments that might produce human-adapted viruses by effects of selection or oriented mutations.

Overwhelming evidence for either a zoonotic or research-related origin is lacking: the jury is still out. On the basis of the current scientific literature, complemented by our own analyses of coronavirus genomes and proteins, we hold that there is currently no compelling evidence to choose between a natural origin (ie, a virus that has evolved and been transmitted to humans solely via contact with wild or farmed animals) and a research-related origin (which might have occurred at sampling sites, during transportation or within the laboratory, and might have involved natural, selected, or engineered viruses).

An evidence-based, independent, and prejudice-free evaluation will require an international consultation of high-level experts with no conflicts of interest, from various disciplines and countries; the mandate will be to establish the different scenarios, and the associated hypotheses, and then to propose protocols, methods, and required data in order to elucidate the question of SARS-CoV-2's origin. Beyond this issue, it is important to continue debating about the risk–benefit balance of current practices of field and laboratory research, including gain-of-function experiments, as well as the human activities contributing to zoonotic events.

Scientific journals should open their columns to in-depth analyses of all hypotheses. As scientists, we need to evaluate all hypotheses on a rational basis, and to weigh their likelihood based on facts and evidence, devoid of speculation concerning possible political impacts. Contrary to the first letter published in The Lancet by Calisher and colleagues,²
we do not think that scientists should promote “unity” (“We support the call from the Director-General of WHO to promote scientific evidence and unity over misinformation and conjecture”). As shown above, research-related hypotheses are not misinformation and conjecture. More importantly, science embraces alternative hypotheses, contradictory arguments, verification, refutability, and controversy. Departing from this principle risks establishing dogmas, abandoning the essence of science, and, even worse, paving the way for conspiracy theories. Instead, the scientific community should bring this debate to a place where it belongs: the columns of scientific journals.

Quote from THHuxleynew

What has happened to this site that it uncritically publicises anti-science anti-vax propaganda from TrialSiteNews?

While you disagree with the Pathologists theory for the increase he is seeing in cancers, you later on agree that he may very well be seeing such an increase:

Quote from THHuxleynew

Interestingly, it is likely there will be (in the UK at least) an increase in cancers presenting for treatment, with severity worse than typical. That is because a whole load of people have been avoiding hospitals and doctors for fear of getting COVID.

Sounds like an honest difference of opinion about causation between two experts IMO. I agree your theory sounds much more plausible than his. In fact, in the early days of the lockdowns, many doctors were warning the same thing; that patients were avoiding hospitals, and to expect an increase in cancers, heart attacks, etc as a result.

His theory that the vaccine is killing off the protective T-cells could have been influenced by his politics. In this pandemic, we have learned to "trust but verify"...everyone. No exceptions.

Quote from Fm1

MSN Showcases the Amazing Uttar Pradesh Turnaround—The Ivermectin-based Home Medicine Kits

Anyone have a link to this MSN article? Been looking, and all I see are negative stories.

Quote from Cydonia

Shane D.

You well know, good or bad, i already followed the Rossi's way.

However about this "suncell" way, i'm not really aware about a lot of things.

Only that silver liquid should be involved to produce shrinking hydrogen.

What else you know and to share ?

Thanks

Display More

Wish I could provide more insight, but BLP has been keeping things under a tight wrap (secret). The basics have not changed as far as I know; catalyst formation, H fuel converted to lower state Hydrino's, creating a plasma, heat capture. But the operational components, and plumbing to accomplish that are constantly evolving to make the Suncell commercially viable. It is hard to keep up with the limited info BLP releases.

We do have some people here though that are more up to date on the progress ( Navid for example). Maybe they will speak up. They can better explain the liquid metal electrodes you mention, and other systems used to accomplish the reactions..

Attempted imports of Ivermectin spike in recent months

The medication is largely used to worm farm animals, but it is falsely claimed to help treat Covid-19.

www.tvnz.co.nz

In the last nine months, the number of consignments containing the drug referred to New Zealand's medicine regulator totals 140.

In January there were just 4, but by last month there were 51.

Of the 140 consignments, only 19 were released. Two were referred to the Ministry for Primary Industries.

Medsafe said given Ivermectin is a prescription medicine, it can only be released on the authority of an authorised prescriber, which is usually a medical practioner.

"Medsafe is in discussions with Customs in relation to the increased volume of Ivermectin seen at the border," the regulatory body said when 1News asked if surveillance of the medicine was being ramped up at the border.

At the Covid-19 press conference on Wednesday afternoon, Director-General of Health Dr Ashley Bloomfied rubbished the drug.

"It's not a safe proven treatment," he said.

"What people can do if they want to be safe from Covid-19 is get vaccinated."

The news comes as health authorities call on people not to be sucked in by misinformation about the vaccine's safety.

"There have also been claims on social media that people’s natural immunity or Vitamin C are sufficient to fight Covid-19 so there’s no need to get tested or, indeed, get vaccinated. This is not the case," Bloomfield said.

In the past week, more than 5000 doctors signed a letter urging people to get vaccinated.

"Talk to your GP, talk to your nurse," Covid-19 Response Minister Chris Hipkins said on Wednesday.

"Everybody should have questions when it comes to these things, but don't be sucked in by misinformation."

It has left a lead researcher for a group monitoring Covid-19 misinformation to call the situation an "infodemic".

"There's too much information about the pandemic and it's too hard to tell the difference between what is good information and what is helpful information," Kate Hannah said.

"So it is about going back to those trusted voices, the people in your community who speak for you and with you."

Quote from JedRothwell

People think the VAERS database shows thousands of people killed by the vaccine in the U.S. when in fact no one has been killed by it

I am not so sure about that. Do you have a reference? My understanding is that VAERS underestimates deaths, and probably only represents the tip of the iceberg. How many die from the vaccines above those in the VAERS database, is what is in dispute. I certainly have not seen anyone claim as you do: "in fact no one has been killed by it (vaccine)"...but I could be wrong.

Even THH has admitted the vaccine kills, although much less so for certain age groups than the virus. I agree with that.

Quote from JedRothwell

I read that. But I still don't see your point. Where is the problem? The hospitals and doctors are doing what they supposed to do. They are admitting patients who seem seriously ill.

You are making this too complicated. We anti-vaxxers, horse paste eaters, and conspiracy theorists are not trying to pull a fast one on you, so you don't have to fight this.

Here is what the Atlantic article, and the authors of one of the studies say is the point:

1.But the study also demonstrates that hospitalization rates for COVID, as cited by journalists and policy makers, can be misleading, if not considered carefully. Clearly many patients right now are seriously ill. We also know that overcrowding of hospitals by COVID patients with even mild illness can have negative implications for patients in need of other care. At the same time, this study suggests that COVID hospitalization tallies can’t be taken as a simple measure of the prevalence of severe or even moderate disease, because they might inflate the true numbers by a factor of two. “As we look to shift from cases to hospitalizations as a metric to drive policy and assess level of risk to a community or state or country,” Doron told me, referring to decisions about school closures, business restrictions, mask requirements, and so on, “we should refine the definition of hospitalization. Those patients who are there with rather than from COVID don’t belong in the metric.”

2.The addition of simple measures of disease severity to the case definition of a SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization is a straightforward and objective change that should improve the value of the metric for tracking SARS-CoV-2 disease burden.

Daily COVID deaths in Sweden hit zero

www.b92.net

Daily COVID deaths in Sweden hit zero

Riots due to COVID restrictions in France, lockdown in Australia, new records in the number of infected in Europe, and in Sweden, one number dropped to zero.

"Sweden was maligned in 2020 for foregoing a strict lockdown. The Guardian called its approach 'a catastrophe' in the making, while CBS News said Sweden had become 'an example of how not to handle COVID-19' ", fee.org portal reports.

Despite these criticisms, Sweden’s laissez-faire approach to the pandemic continues today. In contrast to its European neighbors, Sweden is welcoming tourists. Businesses and schools are open with almost no restrictions. And as far as masks are concerned, not only is there no mandate in place, Swedish health officials are not even recommending them.

What are the results of Sweden’s much-derided laissez-faire policy? Data show the 7-day rolling average for COVID deaths yesterday was zero. And it’s been at zero for about a week now.

So, it is concluded in the text of the fee.org portal, "even a year ago, it was clear the hyperbolic claims about “the Swedish catastrophe” were false; but a year later the evidence is overwhelming that Sweden got the pandemic mostly right".

"Sweden’s overall mortality rate in 2020 was lower than most of Europe and its economy suffered far less. Meanwhile, today

Sweden is freer and healthier than virtually any other country in Europe", Foundation for Economic Education, fee.org portal, concludes.

Ivermectin: Northern Ireland seizures of unproven horse drug used for Covid

More than 8,500 of the tablets have been seized coming into Northern Ireland since 2020.

www.bbc.com

Thousands of tablets of a horse deworming drug promoted as an alternative Covid-19 treatment despite being unproven have been seized coming into Northern Ireland.

Ivermectin is used for parasitic infections in animals and also has some application for humans in small doses.

Between July 2020 and September 2021, 8,600 tablets were seized by the Medicines Regulatory Group (MRG).

In the 12 months prior to that, no tablets were seized.

The MRG is part of the Department of Health, and is responsible for overseeing the production and supply of controlled drugs in Northern Ireland.

It works with police, Border Force, and customs officers to intercept unlicenced medicines at the UK's borders, being brought in through the postal system.

A spokesperson for the Department of Health said the tablets had originated mostly from south Asia, and said it was aware of a "general upsurge in public demand for Ivermectin as a Covid-19 treatment, particularly via the internet". "At present there are no Ivermectin products approved for use in the UK for the prophylaxis or treatment of Covid-19," the department said.

In Northern Ireland, it is a criminal offence to unlawfully import prescription medicines.

The Department of Health said the MRG would continue to work with partner agencies to monitor illegal medicinal products coming into Northern Ireland.

It said it would also "shut down websites and social media pages making false claims about health products related to Covid-19".

The public is urged to report websites alleging to sell Covid-19 remedies to the MRG. A spokeswoman for the British Medical Association in Northern Ireland said it had not been alerted to the misuse of Ivermectin as an issue.

Responsibility for approval of prescription drugs in the UK comes from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA).

"A marketing authorisation for an Ivermectin-containing medicine would only be issued based on robust data to show a positive risk benefit for the quality, safety and efficacy of the product," the department said.

Quote from JedRothwell

The way to to determine this is with a test. The determination is only wrong with a false positive, or false negative. If the test works correctly you can be sure the patients is infected (or not).

Perhaps you are saying the children were initially admitted for COVID, but the doctors diagnosis and tests revealed that 45% of them were sick with something else. Is that it? If so, I don't see a problem. The medical system is working the way it should. If the children are seriously ill they must be admitted and observed for a day or two, whether they have COVID or something else. Doctors do not admit you to a hospital unless you are seriously ill. They send you home. That happened to me once, even though I was throwing up every hour or so. They did give me an IV for a few hours as an outpatient.

I have heard that, but there is no evidence it is true. On the contrary, Atlanta hospitals complain they are making less money with their wards crammed with COVID patients. They say elective surgery and serious illness such as cancer brings in more money. One reason is that most COVID patients are poor, and uninsured or covered by Medicare. Medicare does not pay much. Uninsured people are billed for tens of thousands of dollars, or a hundred thousand or more. The hospitals send collection agencies after them. The agencies take everything not nailed down -- your car and all your worldly goods. But you cannot squeeze blood from a turnip. Poor people in Atlanta can never pay $100,000 even in a lifetime.

Try reading this article: https://www.theatlantic.com/he…social&utm_campaign=share

It covers the issue better than I did.

Quote from JedRothwell

Maybe this should tell you these studies are flawed. Have you looked closely? It is easy to diagnose COVID with high assurance. Doctors can usually tell by looking, and of course they always administer tests. The false positive rates for hospital tests is low. Tests are administered several times to be sure there is no false positive or negative. They are repeated every day for patients diagnosed with the illness. It is extremely unlikely that all these doctors and test kit operators are wrong by 40% to 45%.

False positives for sick people are around 5% at most. Repeating the test greatly lowers this rate.

I do not think we are on the same page. The studies were not about false positives and test accuracy. They were to determine how many hospitalized COVID patients were actually there because of COVID, and not with. Big difference between the two. If we are including patients with COVID (but not sick from it), as it appears is happening, we are getting a very skewed picture of what we are dealing with...as the authors tell us.

This has been an ongoing problem since the first Alpha wave. One of the reasons is that hospitals are paid more for COVID patients, so there is an incentive to classify every patient that tests positive as a COVID patient. I am not sure that is still what is driving this though. If the reimbursement scheme has changed though, I have not heard about it.

In a way, I can see the rationale of charging more for a patient who tests positive...even if asymptomatic. Once diagnosed, that patient then needs extra care to keep them isolated, and that adds to the costs.

Two studies in the last few days: One shows 40-45% Pediatric (children) patients listed in the stats as "hospitalized with COVID", were not there because of COVID, but were asymptomatic, or mildly so. The other study shows ~50% of adults listed as hospitalized COVID patients, were there WITH COVID, not because of.

What does this tell us? Very obvious to me; it means that if those studies are representative of the entire US, the Delta variant surge here has been roughly half as bad as we believed. Brings up the question of...had we had better metrics as the authors of the one study puts it:

"Conclusions and Relevance: The proportion of hospitalizations that are due to severe COVID-19 has changed with vaccine availability, thus, increasing proportions of mild and asymptomatic cases are included in hospitalization reporting metrics. The addition of simple measures of disease severity to the case definition of a SARS-CoV-2 hospitalization is a straightforward and objective change that should improve the value of the metric for tracking SARS-CoV-2 disease burden."

would we have reacted differently?