The assessment has "moderate confidence", something like a 3-out-of-4 guess.A bombshell just dropped on COVID origins.
Previously the American Intelligence Agencies had announced that COVID originated from a Wuhan lab leak. Here is Christopher Wray as the head of the FBI making that claim about four months ago: https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/28/politics/wray-fbi-covid-origins-lab-china/index.html
...and a published announcement from the Director of National Intelligence from around the same time also concluding that the source of the COVID outbreak was a leak from the lab in Wuhan: https://www.dni.gov/files/ODNI/docu...Summary-of-Assessment-on-COVID-19-Origins.pdf
The document you linked to disagrees with your statements.Most agencies also assess with low confidence that SARS-CoV-2 probably was not genetically engineered; however, two agencies believe there was not sufficient evidence to make an assessment either way.
Shellenberger, Taibbi, and Gutentag are not reliable reporters; they too often place agenda over data. They could be right here, but their story influences my opinion not at all.We now know what the American Intelligence Agencies based their conclusions on.
Laughable.When a source was asked how certain they were that these were the identities of the three WIV scientists who developed symptoms consistent with COVID-19 in the fall of 2019, we were told, “100%”
I guess we'll see.Next week, the Directorate of National Intelligence is expected to release previously classified material, which may include the names of the three WIV scientists who were the likely among the first to be sickened by SARS-CoV-2.
That’s true, but I posted it, and since I should be better than that, but was not, I’ll need to try harder.There were a few ugly stereotypes in Mike Smith's tweet that undercut his message.
As, no vaccinations at all? Which countries?many many countries are recommending against Covid vaccination for people under 50years of age.
Any thoughts on the Cleveland Clinic study showing the more Covid vaccine doses you have the more times you'll get Covid ?
![]()
Being "not up-to-date" on COVID-19 vaccination linked to lower risk of infection, study suggests
Researchers investigate whether not “up-to-date” individuals had a higher risk of COVID-19 than “up-to-date” individuals.www.news-medical.net
Not by job duties? There is no accounting for between the biller who sits in a building/floor where there are no patients and a nurse who has to put their hands on patients with covid? The nurse is much more likely to get the extra vaccination, and much more likely to get covid despite it. Perhaps it's on a preprint server because it can't be published without rectifying this flaw.Risk of COVID-19 by vaccination status was also compared using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression adjusting for propensity to get tested for COVID-19, age, sex, and phase of most recent prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.
The US had 4 % of the worlds population and sadly suffered 16 % of the worlds Covid fatalities.
All true.The CDC is a joke. Your health regulatory bodies and medical systems are completely captured by financial interests of drug companies. Nobody can possibly argue this. You’re one of only 3 countries that allow drug companies to advertise. The drug companies have the most horrific records of deceit and corrupt processes geared purely toward maximising profits.
American choices in diet are probably a larger factor. Where else in the world can you easily get a single item that has all your daily recommended calories in a restaurant?The more regulation and control and evolution of drug company control of your health system, the larger the proportion of Americans are chronically ill and condemned to a lifetime of multiple medications and poor health.
Pretty much every developed nation. McDonald's is worldwide, for example. We ate at a lot of great restaurants in England and Germany and France.American choices in diet are probably a larger factor. Where else in the world can you easily get a single item that has all your daily recommended calories in a restaurant?
When combined with population percentage differences, that's the essence of Simpson's paradox that I mentioned above.I manage people and have regular contact with a lot of people (as many as 300 in my facilities during 2020), so I got every shot I could, and I had COVID once. My wife doesn't work outside the home, but she also stayed up to date with me. She got COVID...exactly once. But several of our supervisors, with daily contact with groups of between 30-50 people, also stayed mostly up to date, but many of them came down with COVID several times. The more times you roll the dice...
Perhaps they didn't have access to those comorbidities. Perhaps the comorbidities brought the results under statistical significance (there's a lot of p-hacking out there).One big issue with studies like this is the fact that an unknown number of these people already had had covid in the past and hence had some level, of natural immunity. No way to control for that.
Did you read the study summary? The study groups were up-to-date and not up-to-date, no consideration of prior covid status was mentioned.That was the point of this study. They weren't controlling for it because it was the question they wanted answered. This study compared the immunity from natural immunity to the immunity derived from Pfizer. The conclusion was that natural immunity has a statistical edge over Pfizer-brand immunity.
I haven't seen the details, but it has the hallmarks of a study based on data from EHR with no participation by the people being studied.But they didn't know who had previously had it. That's the problem. Some could have been asymptomatic. Others just didn't know. It didn't say they did antibody tests on everyone to see if they had had it before. It's a rough study at best.
I read a bit more about it and they did get participants to provide some information but they fully acknowledged that they didn't know anything about their infection status beforehand. It's more of a meta-analysis of a readily available population they could easily keep tabs on. So even with that it was tainted.I haven't seen the details, but it has the hallmarks of a study based on data from EHR with no participation by the people being studied.