Biology and Medicine

[Typhoon]

Science | How does SARS-CoV-2 cause COVID-19?

Covid-19-infection.jpg (673.59 KiB) Viewed 3627 times

[Typhoon]

Lancet | Clinical trials of disease stages in COVID 19: complicated and often misinterpreted

As of July 28, 2020, 1840 clinical trials were registered globally, with 1001 clinical trials recruiting patients for COVID-19 management.1
Despite this large number, only 30 trials have been published as peer-reviewed or preprint publications.2
Media reports and prepublications on medRxiv and bioRxiv represent the most frequent mechanism for data sharing, with wide public reach and usually with little detail. However, with inadequate details on the trials and only superficial scrutiny by the public and scientific decision makers, the consequences have had disastrous effects on other clinical trial funding, permissions, recruitment, and interpretation.

He [Mills, a co-author] traces the problem in part to the unprecedented way science is being communicated during the pandemic.

Instead of a sober exchange of peer-reviewed journal papers, research is often first published on “pre-print” websites or in news releases without review, then reported by journalists and spread through social media.

“Never before have we seen a medical scenario become such a public topic, where you have the president of the United States and the president of other countries weighing in on whether a drug works or not,” he noted. “And then you have the public weighing in on whether they agree with that individual, based on their own politics. This is unheard-of.”

[Doc]

Lancet | Clinical trials of disease stages in COVID 19: complicated and often misinterpreted

As of July 28, 2020, 1840 clinical trials were registered globally, with 1001 clinical trials recruiting patients for COVID-19 management.1
Despite this large number, only 30 trials have been published as peer-reviewed or preprint publications.2
Media reports and prepublications on medRxiv and bioRxiv represent the most frequent mechanism for data sharing, with wide public reach and usually with little detail. However, with inadequate details on the trials and only superficial scrutiny by the public and scientific decision makers, the consequences have had disastrous effects on other clinical trial funding, permissions, recruitment, and interpretation.

He [Mills, a co-author] traces the problem in part to the unprecedented way science is being communicated during the pandemic.

Instead of a sober exchange of peer-reviewed journal papers, research is often first published on “pre-print” websites or in news releases without review, then reported by journalists and spread through social media.

“Never before have we seen a medical scenario become such a public topic, where you have the president of the United States and the president of other countries weighing in on whether a drug works or not,” he noted. “And then you have the public weighing in on whether they agree with that individual, based on their own politics. This is unheard-of.”

Why should we believe "peer reviewed" studies.

John Campbell previously declared Hydroxycloroquine was useless based on "Peer reviewed" studies
2uzXHnUViro

Also I have seen climate science groups make declarations on COVID-19 cures. Seems like the biggest excuse to ignore what skeptics said was that it was not their field.

[Typhoon]

Lancet | Clinical trials of disease stages in COVID 19: complicated and often misinterpreted

As of July 28, 2020, 1840 clinical trials were registered globally, with 1001 clinical trials recruiting patients for COVID-19 management.1
Despite this large number, only 30 trials have been published as peer-reviewed or preprint publications.2
Media reports and prepublications on medRxiv and bioRxiv represent the most frequent mechanism for data sharing, with wide public reach and usually with little detail. However, with inadequate details on the trials and only superficial scrutiny by the public and scientific decision makers, the consequences have had disastrous effects on other clinical trial funding, permissions, recruitment, and interpretation.

He [Mills, a co-author] traces the problem in part to the unprecedented way science is being communicated during the pandemic.

Instead of a sober exchange of peer-reviewed journal papers, research is often first published on “pre-print” websites or in news releases without review, then reported by journalists and spread through social media.

“Never before have we seen a medical scenario become such a public topic, where you have the president of the United States and the president of other countries weighing in on whether a drug works or not,” he noted. “And then you have the public weighing in on whether they agree with that individual, based on their own politics. This is unheard-of.”

Why should we believe "peer reviewed" studies.

. . .

Define "believe".

Because peer-review is far better than no review.

Many people outside of science misunderstand the nature of peer-review typically believing that peer-reviewed means confirmed to be correct and/or independently verified. It does not. What it means it that several individuals who are presumably, 1/ independent of the author(s) and 2/ specialists in the field have read the paper and did not find fault(s) with it and have thus recommended it for publication. Often after several iterations of reviewer recommended revisions.

Like all systems, it can be abused. For example, if the authors and reviewers are not sufficiently independent and all belong to a clique engaging in group think. Climate science is a recent egregious example of such "pal review".

A highly imperfect system as is widely recognized. There have been ongoing debates on how to improve the process of peer-review since it was first introduced.

The alternatives are the highly-flawed publication by press-release and the flood of woo-woo one encounters on social media.

[Typhoon]

Science Mag | Why COVID-19 is more deadly in people with obesity — even if they're young

[Nonc Hilaire]

Science cannot make policy decisions. In fact, much of the Covid-19 ‘science’ had the effect of establishing a WHO and CDC led technocracy that trampled over sovereign governments.

We need science to inform decisions, but the decisions must be made by the public at large.

I would like to see an open source mind map where research and comments can be easily visualized.

[Doc]

Science cannot make policy decisions. In fact, much of the Covid-19 ‘science’ had the effect of establishing a WHO and CDC led technocracy that trampled over sovereign governments.

We need science to inform decisions, but the decisions must be made by the public at large.

I would like to see an open source mind map where research and comments can be easily visualized.

o61QxWjRgbg

integrity.jpg (64.45 KiB) Viewed 3525 times

[kmich]

The molecular virology of coronaviruses

In this article, we provide an overview of the coronavirus life cycle with an eye toward its notable molecular features and potential targets for therapeutic interventions. Much of the information presented is derived from studies of the betacoronaviruses MHV, SARS-CoV, and MERS-CoV, with a rapidly expanding number of reports on SARS-CoV-2. The first portion of the review focuses on the molecular basis of coronavirus entry and its replication cycle. We highlight several notable properties, such as the sophisticated viral gene expression and replication strategies that enable maintenance of a remarkably large, single-stranded, positive-sense (+) RNA genome and the extensive remodeling of cellular membranes to form specialized viral replication and assembly compartments. The second portion explores the mechanisms by which these viruses manipulate the host cell environment during infection including diverse alterations to host gene expression and immune response pathways.

[Typhoon]

Science cannot make policy decisions. In fact, much of the Covid-19 ‘science’ had the effect of establishing a WHO and CDC led technocracy that trampled over sovereign governments.

We need science to inform decisions, but the decisions must be made by the public at large.

I would like to see an open source mind map where research and comments can be easily visualized.

o61QxWjRgbg

"Peak Prosperity"?

If there is one thing that social media had demonstrated, it is that knowledge and expertise, real or imagined, is high non-transferable across fields of study.

[Typhoon]

Nature | The coronavirus is most deadly if you are older and male — new data reveal the risks

A slew of detailed studies has now quantified the increased risk the virus poses to older people, men, and other groups.

[Nonc Hilaire]

Science cannot make policy decisions. In fact, much of the Covid-19 ‘science’ had the effect of establishing a WHO and CDC led technocracy that trampled over sovereign governments.

We need science to inform decisions, but the decisions must be made by the public at large.

I would like to see an open source mind map where research and comments can be easily visualized.

o61QxWjRgbg

"Peak Prosperity"?

If there is one thing that social media had demonstrated, it is that knowledge and expertise, real or imagined, is high non-transferable across fields of study.

This is why we need celebrities and technocrats to eliminate any questioning of a total scientific consensus.

[Typhoon]

Science cannot make policy decisions. In fact, much of the Covid-19 ‘science’ had the effect of establishing a WHO and CDC led technocracy that trampled over sovereign governments.

We need science to inform decisions, but the decisions must be made by the public at large.

I would like to see an open source mind map where research and comments can be easily visualized.

o61QxWjRgbg

"Peak Prosperity"?

If there is one thing that social media had demonstrated, it is that knowledge and expertise, real or imagined, is high non-transferable across fields of study.

This is why we need celebrities and technocrats to eliminate any questioning of a total scientific consensus.

I include the "Because science" people who have replaced for themselves traditional authority figures with the opinions of vocal scientists, but who in reality know less than zero about science and its methods.

[Doc]

Science cannot make policy decisions. In fact, much of the Covid-19 ‘science’ had the effect of establishing a WHO and CDC led technocracy that trampled over sovereign governments.

We need science to inform decisions, but the decisions must be made by the public at large.

I would like to see an open source mind map where research and comments can be easily visualized.

o61QxWjRgbg

"Peak Prosperity"?

If there is one thing that social media had demonstrated, it is that knowledge and expertise, real or imagined, is high non-transferable across fields of study.

He is a trained medical doctor who has been proven right a lot of times on the virus.

[kmich]

Moving on...

Neurological consequences of COVID-19: what have we learned and where do we go from here?

[Doc]

Moving on...

Neurological consequences of COVID-19: what have we learned and where do we go from here?

Scary stuff

[kmich]

Frequent neurologic manifestations and encephalopathy‐associated morbidity in Covid‐19 patients

[Typhoon]

Science | Electric shocks to the tongue can quiet chronic ringing ears

A device using a paddle to deliver mild shocks to the tongue, alongside sound therapy, can reduce tinnitus for up to 1 year, researchers claim.

Tinnitus is a serious irritant for those afflicted, but I can't resist:

GjA92f_iCHQ

[Typhoon]

Science | Found: genes that sway the course of the coronavirus

It’s one of the pandemic’s puzzles: Most people infected by SARS-CoV-2 never feel sick, whereas others develop severe disease or even end up in an intensive care unit clinging to life. Age and preexisting conditions, such as obesity, account for much of the disparity. But geneticists have raced to see whether a person’s DNA also explains why some get hit hard by the coronavirus, and they have uncovered tantalizing leads.

Now, a U.K. group studying more than 2200 COVID-19 patients has pinned down common gene variants that are linked to the most severe cases of the disease, and that point to existing drugs that could be repurposed to help. “It’s really exciting. Each one provides a potential target” for treatment, says genetic epidemiologist Priya Duggal of Johns Hopkins University.

[Miss_Faucie_Fishtits]

A Disturbing Twinkie That Has, So Far, Defied Science

Last week, craving sweets, Colin Purrington remembered the Twinkies.

He'd purchased them back in 2012 for sentimental reasons when he heard that Hostess Brands was going bankrupt and Twinkies might disappear forever.

[Typhoon]

The Scientist | Decoy Cells Trick SARS-CoV-2, Reduce Cytokines In Vitro

Genetically engineered cells that overproduce ACE2, the receptor the novel coronavirus uses to enter cells, neutralize infection in vitro and mop up inflammatory cytokines in mice.

Caveats.

"In vitro" - in the Petri dish as opposed to "in vivo" - in a living whole animal.

In mice cells. As the saying goes, "If the goal was to cure cancer in mice, then we would have succeeded decades ago."

Rather ingenious nonetheless.

[Typhoon]

SARS-CoV-2 Uses a Second Receptor, Neuropilin-1, to Infect Human Cells

[kmich]

Herd Immunity and Implications for SARS-CoV-2 Control

[Doc]

Herd Immunity and Implications for SARS-CoV-2 Control

An awful lot of guesses in the article. How about wild speculation? As the human body adapts to the virus the virus adapts to human bodies? Meaning that the immunity response selects how the virus adapts. With a result of either less deadly strains of virus or more deadly strains that are more infectious.

[kmich]

Modeling COVID-19 scenarios for the United States

Abstract

We use COVID-19 case and mortality data from 1 February 2020 to 21 September 2020 and a deterministic SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infectious and recovered) compartmental framework to model possible trajectories of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions in the United States at the state level from 22 September 2020 through 28 February 2021. Using this SEIR model, and projections of critical driving covariates (pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates and mask use per capita), we assessed scenarios of social distancing mandates and levels of mask use. Projections of current non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies by state—with social distancing mandates reinstated when a threshold of 8 deaths per million population is exceeded (reference scenario)—suggest that, cumulatively, 511,373 (469,578–578,347) lives could be lost to COVID-19 across the United States by 28 February 2021. We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario.

[Doc]

Modeling COVID-19 scenarios for the United States

Abstract

We use COVID-19 case and mortality data from 1 February 2020 to 21 September 2020 and a deterministic SEIR (susceptible, exposed, infectious and recovered) compartmental framework to model possible trajectories of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infections and the effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions in the United States at the state level from 22 September 2020 through 28 February 2021. Using this SEIR model, and projections of critical driving covariates (pneumonia seasonality, mobility, testing rates and mask use per capita), we assessed scenarios of social distancing mandates and levels of mask use. Projections of current non-pharmaceutical intervention strategies by state—with social distancing mandates reinstated when a threshold of 8 deaths per million population is exceeded (reference scenario)—suggest that, cumulatively, 511,373 (469,578–578,347) lives could be lost to COVID-19 across the United States by 28 February 2021. We find that achieving universal mask use (95% mask use in public) could be sufficient to ameliorate the worst effects of epidemic resurgences in many states. Universal mask use could save an additional 129,574 (85,284–170,867) lives from September 22, 2020 through the end of February 2021, or an additional 95,814 (60,731–133,077) lives assuming a lesser adoption of mask wearing (85%), when compared to the reference scenario.

I read somewhere that 87% of people infected regularly wore masks. That no filter masks are capable preventing coronavirus from getting through.