The problem with meta-analysis like this is that it obfuscates the most important issue of treatment, which is timing.
#BMJResearch update: Corticosteroids probably reduce mortality and mechanical ventilation in patients with covid-19 compared with standard care, whereas azithromycin, hydroxychloroquine, interferon-beta, and tocilizumab may not reduce either https://t.co/oQ3lTWUqaz
— The BMJ (@bmj_latest) December 18, 2020
More from Robin Monotti
Italian researchers: vaccines will not work against SARSCoV2 because this virus does not only replicate in human cells like other viruses, this one replicates through bacteria too. This is the fundamental reason why antibiotics work & vaccines will not:
Here is the Italian-EU scientific study indicating SARSCoV2 replicates in bacteria, not only human cells, and that is why antibiotics work and these vaccines will not:
"The preliminary results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 replicates in bacterial
2 of the 4 authors of the study work at the European Commission. Another works at an Italian medical research facility called Craniomed: https://t.co/EETSM3nb3T
You can find all of CRANIOMED's Carlo Brogna's published scientific research articles here, take a look:
Here is the Italian-EU scientific study indicating SARSCoV2 replicates in bacteria, not only human cells, and that is why antibiotics work and these vaccines will not:
"The preliminary results suggest that SARS-CoV-2 replicates in bacterial
2 of the 4 authors of the study work at the European Commission. Another works at an Italian medical research facility called Craniomed: https://t.co/EETSM3nb3T
You can find all of CRANIOMED's Carlo Brogna's published scientific research articles here, take a look:
I’m not just a lockdown sceptic. I know lockdowns increase infections rather than decrease them because I read research first hand. I’m a citizen in a democracy who wants Government policy to be evidence-based, not epidemiological modelling based. Crazy, I know.
Lockdowns increase infections because they lower immunity & therefore increase the disease. After hospitals & care homes households account for the largest number of transmissions. Schools/universities act as a break in transmission of the disease. All evidence based.
Transmission does not mean infection. I can transmit SARSCoV2 but I can't transmit Covid19. Whether SARSCoV2 develops at all into mild or severe Covid19 depends entirely on the immune system of the recipient. Early treatment prevents severe Covid19, the right treatment cures it.
"Children act more as a brake on infection," said Prof. Reinhard Berner, the head of pediatric medicine at Dresden University Hospital and leader of the study. "Not every infection that reaches them is passed
Closing schools increases transmission of respiratory viral infection because children act as a break on the community transmission of the virus. We have known this since 1918:
https://t.co/TPRYQ1LAAJ
Lockdowns increase infections because they lower immunity & therefore increase the disease. After hospitals & care homes households account for the largest number of transmissions. Schools/universities act as a break in transmission of the disease. All evidence based.
Transmission does not mean infection. I can transmit SARSCoV2 but I can't transmit Covid19. Whether SARSCoV2 develops at all into mild or severe Covid19 depends entirely on the immune system of the recipient. Early treatment prevents severe Covid19, the right treatment cures it.
"Children act more as a brake on infection," said Prof. Reinhard Berner, the head of pediatric medicine at Dresden University Hospital and leader of the study. "Not every infection that reaches them is passed
Closing schools increases transmission of respiratory viral infection because children act as a break on the community transmission of the virus. We have known this since 1918:
https://t.co/TPRYQ1LAAJ
I have now re-examined this document:
It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"
"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."
"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"
"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."
On the 19th March 2020 the WHO released this guidance intended for healthcare workers (HCWs), healthcare managers and IPC teams at the facility level & at national and district/provincial level:https://t.co/C4aV2BnMPj pic.twitter.com/tCk1EyLskV
— Robin Monotti (@robinmonotti) December 21, 2020
It clearly does indicate both the risks of bacterial infection & to prescribe broad spectrum antibiotics as part of treatment:
"Collect blood cultures for bacteria that cause pneumonia and sepsis, ideally before antimicrobial therapy. DO NOT
delay antimicrobial therapy"
"6. Management of severe COVID-19: treatment of co-infections
Give empiric antimicrobials [broad spectrum antibiotics] to treat all likely pathogens causing SARI and sepsis as soon as possible, within 1 hour
of initial assessment for patients with sepsis."
"Empiric antibiotic treatment should be based on the clinical diagnosis (community-acquired
pneumonia, health care-associated pneumonia [if infection was acquired in health care setting] or sepsis), local epidemiology &
susceptibility data, and national treatment guidelines"
"When there is ongoing local circulation of seasonal influenza, empiric therapy with a neuraminidase inhibitor [anti-viral influenza drugs] should
be considered for the treatment for patients with influenza or at risk for severe disease."
More from Movie
You May Also Like
Recently, the @CNIL issued a decision regarding the GDPR compliance of an unknown French adtech company named "Vectaury". It may seem like small fry, but the decision has potential wide-ranging impacts for Google, the IAB framework, and today's adtech. It's thread time! 👇
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
It's all in French, but if you're up for it you can read:
• Their blog post (lacks the most interesting details): https://t.co/PHkDcOT1hy
• Their high-level legal decision: https://t.co/hwpiEvjodt
• The full notification: https://t.co/QQB7rfynha
I've read it so you needn't!
Vectaury was collecting geolocation data in order to create profiles (eg. people who often go to this or that type of shop) so as to power ad targeting. They operate through embedded SDKs and ad bidding, making them invisible to users.
The @CNIL notes that profiling based off of geolocation presents particular risks since it reveals people's movements and habits. As risky, the processing requires consent — this will be the heart of their assessment.
Interesting point: they justify the decision in part because of how many people COULD be targeted in this way (rather than how many have — though they note that too). Because it's on a phone, and many have phones, it is considered large-scale processing no matter what.
This is a pretty valiant attempt to defend the "Feminist Glaciology" article, which says conventional wisdom is wrong, and this is a solid piece of scholarship. I'll beg to differ, because I think Jeffery, here, is confusing scholarship with "saying things that seem right".
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?
Imagine for a moment the most obscurantist, jargon-filled, po-mo article the politically correct academy might produce. Pure SJW nonsense. Got it? Chances are you're imagining something like the infamous "Feminist Glaciology" article from a few years back.https://t.co/NRaWNREBvR pic.twitter.com/qtSFBYY80S
— Jeffrey Sachs (@JeffreyASachs) October 13, 2018
The article is, at heart, deeply weird, even essentialist. Here, for example, is the claim that proposing climate engineering is a "man" thing. Also a "man" thing: attempting to get distance from a topic, approaching it in a disinterested fashion.
Also a "man" thing—physical courage. (I guess, not quite: physical courage "co-constitutes" masculinist glaciology along with nationalism and colonialism.)
There's criticism of a New York Times article that talks about glaciology adventures, which makes a similar point.
At the heart of this chunk is the claim that glaciology excludes women because of a narrative of scientific objectivity and physical adventure. This is a strong claim! It's not enough to say, hey, sure, sounds good. Is it true?