Forum Replies Created

Viewing 9 posts - 111 through 119 (of 119 total)
  • Author
    Posts
    • Tue, Jun 09, 2020 - 10:33pm

      #4
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder0

      Would someone get Daszak to go on the record

    Did Daszak’s EcoHealth Alliance participate, sponsor, cosponsor, finance, or in any other way participate in or contribute to the creation of COVID-19 in the Wuhan Virology Institute or in any other lab in China?  As EcoHealth was responsible for administration of a multimillion dollar US NIH/NIAID grant to conduct Gain of Function research on corona bat viruses or possibly pangolin viruses in Chinese laboratories in order to make them highly infectious or more infectious in humans, did his work include genetic engineering modifications made on Sars-CoV-2, Sads-CoV, or GD Pangolin CoV?  (Did EcoHealth Alliance conduct any Gain of Function research on H5N1?) If EcoHealth was not contracted to perform any of the aforementioned projects, then what was included in the specifications of the multimillion dollar contract?  What specific EcoHealth research in this contract was reviewed and approved by the appropriate monitoring board?

    Reading Daszak’s Guardian article, the only sentence that states it was not created in a lab is this:  “Our report firmly concludes that Covid-19 originated in bats, in a hotspot of viral evolution along the border of Yunnan province in China, Myanmar, Laos and Vietnam.”

    • Tue, Jun 09, 2020 - 04:29pm

      #4
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder2

      Lancet article coauthor separated from University of Utah

    “The University of Utah has “mutually agreed” to terminate the faculty appointment of Amit Patel, who was among the authors of two retracted papers on Covid-19 and who appears to have played a key role in involving a little-known company that has ignited a firestorm of controversy.

    “The terminated position was an unpaid adjunct appointment with the Department of Biomedical Engineering,” a university spokesperson told STAT. Patel had listed the affiliation on both papers, published in the Lancet and the New England Journal of Medicine. The spokesperson  declined to comment on whether the decision was related to the retractions.”

     

    From statnews by way of PubPeer comments section

     

    Researcher involved in retracted Lancet study has faculty appointment terminated, as details in scandal emerge

    • Mon, Jun 01, 2020 - 09:00am

      #4
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder2

      Open Letter to Authors signed by hundreds of doctors around the world

     

    https://pubpeer.com/publications/71DA593B9943638F1ADE6F80696914

     

     

    Open letter to MR Mehra, SS Desai, F Ruschitzka, and AN Patel, authors of “Hydroxychloroquine or chloroquine with or without a macrolide for treatment of COVID-19: a multinational registry analysis”. Lancet. 2020 May 22:S0140-6736(20)31180-6. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(20)31180-6. PMID: 32450107

    and to Richard Horton (editor of The Lancet).

    Concerns regarding the statistical analysis and data integrity

    The retrospective, observational study of 96,032 hospitalized COVID-19 patients from six continents reported substantially increased mortality (~30% excess deaths) and occurrence of cardiac arrhythmias associated with the use of the 4-aminoquinoline drugs hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine. These results have had a considerable impact on public health practice and research.

    The WHO has paused recruitment to the hydroxychloroquine arm in their SOLIDARITY trial. The UK regulatory body, MHRA, requested the temporary pausing of recruitment into all hydroxychloroquine trials in the UK (treatment and prevention), and France has changed its national recommendation for the use of hydroxychloroquine in COVID-19 treatment and also halted trials.

    The subsequent media headlines have caused considerable concern to participants and patients enrolled in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) seeking to characterize the potential benefits and risks of these drugs in the treatment and prevention of COVID-19 infections. There is uniform agreement that well conducted RCTs are needed to inform policies and practices.

    This impact has led many researchers around the world to scrutinize in detail the publication in question. This scrutiny has raised both methodological and data integrity concerns. The main concerns are listed as follows:

    1. There was inadequate adjustment for known and measured confounders (disease severity, temporal effects, site effects, dose used).
    2. The authors have not adhered to standard practices in the machine learning and statistics community. They have not released their code or data. There is no data/code sharing and availability statement in the paper. The Lancet was among the many signatories on the Wellcome statement on data sharing for COVID-19 studies.
    3. There was no ethics review.
    4. There was no mention of the countries or hospitals that contributed to the data source and no acknowledgments of their contributions. A request to the authors for information on the contributing centres was denied.
    5. Data from Australia are not compatible with government reports (too many cases for just five hospitals, more in-hospital deaths than had occurred in the entire country during the study period). Surgisphere (the data company) have since stated this was an error of classification of one hospital from Asia. This indicates the need for further error checking throughout the database.
    6. Data from Africa indicate that nearly 25% of all COVID-19 cases and 40% of all deaths in the continent occurred in Surgisphere-associated hospitals which had sophisticated electronic patient data recording, and patient monitoring able to detect and record “nonsustained [at least 6 secs] or sustained ventricular tachycardia or ventricular fibrillation”. Both the numbers of cases and deaths, and the details provided, seem unlikely.
    Unusually small reported variation in baseline variables, interventions and outcomes between continents (Table S3).
    7. Mean daily doses of hydroxychloroquine that are 100 mg higher than FDA recommendations, whereas 66% of the data are from North American hospitals.
    8. Implausible ratios of chloroquine to hydroxychloroquine use in some continents. For example, in Australia 49 received chloroquine and 50 received hydroxychloroquine. However, chloroquine is not readily available in Australia and administration requires authorization from the Therapeutic Goods Administration.
    9. The tight 95% confidence intervals reported for the hazard ratios appear inconsistent with the data. For instance, for the Australian data this would imply about double the numbers of recorded deaths as were reported in the paper.
    The patient data were obtained through electronic health records, supply chain databases, and financial records. The data are held by the US company Surgisphere. In response to a request for the data Professor Mehra replied: “Our data sharing agreements with the various governments, countries and hospitals do not allow us to share data unfortunately.”

    Given the enormous importance and influence of these results, we believe it is imperative that:

    The company Surgisphere provides details on data provenance. At the very minimum, this means sharing the aggregated patient data at the hospital level (for all covariates and outcomes)
    Independent validation of the analysis is performed by a group convened by the World Health Organization, or at least one other independent and respected institution. This would entail additional analyses (e.g. determining if there is a dose-effect) to assess the validity of the conclusions
    There is open access to all the data sharing agreements cited above to ensure that, in each jurisdiction, any mined data was legally and ethically collected and patient privacy aspects respected
    In the interests of transparency, we also ask The Lancet to make openly available the peer review comments that led to this manuscript being accepted for publication.

    This open letter is signed by clinicians, medical researchers, statisticians, and ethicists from across the world. The full list of signatories and affiliations can be found below.

    • Sun, May 31, 2020 - 04:46pm

      #298
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder0

      Interesting study

    Interesting study from 2003.  Would be nice to see a followup.

    • Sat, May 30, 2020 - 05:43pm

      #293
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder1

      NY Heters

    Pubpeer, what a great site.  The comments lead you to stat modeling and a slew of concerned technicians about what Surgisphere has done.  If this ever gets out it will it be at the scale of something like teapot dome?

    • Wed, May 27, 2020 - 03:17pm

      #259
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder1

      NPR Slanted?

    We get a lot of exposure to  NPR in our house with the same day’s program coming out of our YouTube/TV several times a day.  I can’t remember a single  topic that didn’t come from the Democrat viewpoint.

    Makes it hard to trust what they say.

     

    • Mon, May 25, 2020 - 03:27pm

      #2
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder3

      Logic chain for lab creation point of view

    Sellins article is presented in the wionews link:

    “There is conclusive scientific evidence, however, that COVID-19’s receptor binding domain within the spike protein is structurally closest to that of pangolins (scaly anteaters), not bats, and it was the result of a recombination, not convergent evolution.

    “Yet, pangolins have been ruled out as the intermediate host for COVID-19.

    “Even Dr Ralph Baric in a March 15, 2020 interview, beginning at the 27:40 time point, stated unequivocally, that pangolins were not the source of COVID-19:

    “Pangolins have over 3,000 nucleotide changes – no way they are the reservoir species [for COVID-19], absolutely no chance.”

    It is, therefore, logical to conclude that the recombinant event resulting in a pangolin receptor binding domain within a bat coronavirus backbone must have occurred in a laboratory, in a manner similar to the experiment conducted by Ralph Baric and Zheng-Li Shi in 2015.”

    Is this a round about way of stating:

    1.  COVID-19’s receptor binding domain is closest to the pangolin’s. (Pangolin would provide the most suitable backbone for COVID-19.)

    2. Daszac says Baric has demonstrated the ability to insert a GOF spike protein into a backbone.

    3. Baric’s statement that pangolins were in no way the (natural evolution) source of COVID-19

    4. Therefor, COVID-19 was a lab creation.

    ????  The article continues:

    “Furthermore, COVID-19’s S1/S2 furin polybasic cleavage site, a distinctive feature widely known for its ability to enhance pathogenicity and transmissibility in coronaviruses, does not appear in any of 45 bat, 5 human SARS, 2 civet, 1 pangolin and 1 racoon dog coronaviruses, that have S1/S2 junction structures otherwise identical or nearly identical to COVID-19.

    “There is no credible scientific evidence that the furin polybasic cleavage site evolved naturally, although the methods for artificially inserting such cleavage sites are well-established.”

    • Mon, May 25, 2020 - 10:14am

      #11
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder3

      Anti vaxxer conspiracy theories and Covid 19

    Thanks  for the information,  Sand Puppy.  I’m having a little trouble verifying the calc.s.  Are you using 350 in your calc.s instead of your 400?  Is that a more accurate estimate after all?  Also I keep coming up with 0.0003% rather than 0.00002% if I use the 400 figure.   Also is it possible that there were more damages to the population, damages for which claims were not made or claims denied?

    This is a chance for me to thank you for all the in depth research you bring to the subjects discussed here.  It adds a rich background and makes the whole effort here very much more worthwhile.

    • Fri, May 22, 2020 - 08:19am

      #225
      stevedaly

      stevedaly

      Status Silver Member (Offline)

      Joined: Apr 23 2020

      Posts: 227

      count placeholder2

      Hydroxychloroquine vs The Globalist Deep State

    As Dr. Martenson has explained, HCQ is acting as an antiviral.  Most effective when used with zinc in the first 7 days after exposure, killing or minimizing COVID-19 and allowing the immune system to do its job.  (The FDA has not authorized HCQ except for emergency use until the patient is in an emergency. What good is that?) Will the truth win out over time?  Will the value of the HCQ treatment win out over (and eventually swamp) all the negative Pravda-type stuff?  Will President Trump’s HCQ prophylaxis help bring out the truth?

Viewing 9 posts - 111 through 119 (of 119 total)