I got a somewhat humorous two-page email on conflicting claims on Covid-19 a few weeks back. I could probably, off the top of my head, produce a 20 page article on conflicting claims.
Interesting take. Some I suspect is right, but I do not agree with the
take on the severity of Covid-19. Everyone seems to be able to interpret
the numbers in a way that buttresses their own biases.
So, this fellow Dr Vernon Coleman makes a case that a number of others have made with respect to “follow the money” issues. He asserts that institutional corruption, big pharmaceutical corporate influence, Bill Gates Machiavellianism, and other corrupt factors are at play here. I have sympathy with those views, but do not have access to all of the relevant information, since of course it is probably a conspiracy at some level. I do not know where the truth resides, I have only suspicions.
Having read opinions that diverge widely on just about any issue, I have lost faith in the ability of people, all people, myself included, to actually have a correct understanding of any moderately complex issue. Much recent work showing how science is failing us only makes things seem worse.
With Covid-19, I have seen more conflicting opinion than any person can make sense of. Of course, all claim that evidence, data and logic are on their side. Sometimes, opinions fall more or less along the right-left political divide, but on Op Ed News, a progressive site I have often read, some of the folks I previously thought had a good understanding of things have been coming out with views on Covid-19 that many associate with the right.
Some are more ready to see conspiracy than others, although for those tending towards seeing conspiracy, there is a lot of dispute about the nature and breadth of any conspiracy.
Since we still have to act, even with uncertain knowledge, I believe that risk management for Covid-19 suggests that:
- the disease must be treated seriously (the downside of such infection control measures may or may not be exaggerated)
- it is way worse than the flu both in its effects (not just death) and its infectivity
- social distancing is prudent to reduce viral load
- masks are useful, both for the wearer as source of infection and the wearer for protection from infection and they do not have to work 100%, or filter out virus-sized particles (the downside seems exaggerated IMHO). The main thing is to reduce viral load
- reduce viral load, and you are less likely to have a severe infection (a claim I read recently that one virion is enough to infect you makes little sense to me – we do have immune systems)
- various vitamins, minerals, and supplements give greater protection (D3, K2, B complete, Zinc, Selenium, C, NAC, Quercitin, Calcium, Magnesium, Postassium, fish oil, Omega-3, healthy fats)
- we can not always get what we need from food, for various reasons – organic may well be better in its nutritional profile, but maybe not always
- we do not get enough sunshine in a large number of cases so many are quite Vitamin D deficient
- stress reduction – keep the cortisol from damaging your body with sleep, exercise, meditation, good relationships, and other stress reducing measures
- adequate sleep helps increase immunity
- above all, you want to reduce your viral load – eliminating it would be nice, but the body, with a good immune system, can more often than not fight off smaller amounts of the virus
- we may never reach herd immunity, there are indications that immunity is short lived
- an effective vaccine may never be developed
- vaccines have a downside, and frequently injure a lot of people
There are risk factors: older, elevated blood pressure, obese, impaired sugar metabolism (pre-diabetes or full-blown), and probably other things. However, some studies have shown the low Vitamin D is a huge risk factor for severity of the disease. That is something that can be remedied easily.
Some of my thinking will eventually prove to be mistaken, but these are my working assumptions.
Denis Rancourt, a formerly tenured and now fired professor from University of Ottawa, has written a paper claiming that no research shows that masks work. I don’t think he is correct, and am aware of studies showing the opposite. Are they good studies? Maybe. However, Dr. Rancourt is not alone in his views. Russell Blaylock, retired U.S. neurosurgeon, is also saying similar things. Who is correct? I dunno. See my comments above on risk management.
With respect to HCQ fraud (talked about in the video above): thinking about what is happening and who is benefiting, I only have suspicions. I have noticed some patterns that make the best sense in “follow the money” terms. I don’t think I could do this one justice if trying to write about it.
Others researchers are finding smoke on the current pandemic response, and writing about the things that smell funny also, but without documents, leaked correspondence, or surreptitiously recorded video, we are left with speculation and circumstantial evidence. Even if we get the straight goods, it is not something likely to penetrate through to the masses, since the main stream media does a pretty good job of gate keeping.