1. Damasio, Antonio R. Descartes' Error: Emotion, Reason, and the Human Brain. New York: G.P. Putnam, 1994. Print.
2. Barr, Stephen M. Modern Physics and Ancient Faith. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2003.
3. Adler, Mortimer J. How to Think About God: A Guide for the 20th-Century Pagan. 1980. Print.
4. Fishler, Max. What the Great Philosophers Thought about God. Los Angeles, CA: University Book Publishers, 1958. Print.
5. Padgett, Alan G. God, Eternity and the Nature of Time, London: Macmillan, 1992. Print.
6. Wolterstorff, Nicholas. “God Everlasting” in Clifton Orlebeke and Lewis Smedes (editors), God and the Good: Essays in Honor of Henry Stob, Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, pp. 181–203. Print.
7. Davis, Stephen T. Logic and the Nature of God. London: Macmillan, 1983. Print.
8. DeWeese, Garrett J. God and the Nature of Time, Aldershot, Hants.: Ashgate, 2004. Print.
9. Bultmann, Rudolf. Primitive Christianity in its Contemporary Setting. Cleveland and New York: Meridian Books, 1965. Print.
10. Gilson, Etienne. The Christian Philosophy of St. Thomas Aquinas. New York : Random House, 1956. Print.
11. Bruce, F.F. New Testament History. London: Thomas Nelson, 1969. Print.
12. Chamberlain, William D. An Exegetical Grammar of the Greek New Testament. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1987. Print.
13. Tom Christenson. Questioning Assumptions: Rethinking the Philosophy of Religion. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2011. Print.
14. Bock, Darrell. Blasphemy and Exaltation in Judaism: The Charge against Jesus in Mark 14:53-65. Eugene, OR: Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2016. Print.
15. Carson. D. A. Exegetical Fallacies. Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996. Print.
16. Conzelmann, H. An Outline of the Theology of the New Testament. New York: Harper and Row, 1969. Print.17. Rogers, Rick. Theophilus of Antioch: The Life and Thought of a Second-Century Bishop. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2000. Print.
18. Quine, W.V.O. Elementary Logic. Cambridge, MA and London, UK. Harper and Row, 1980. Revised Edition. Print.
19. Bradshaw, Timothy. Trinity and Ontology: A Comparative Study of the Theologies of Karl Barth and Wolfhart Pannenberg. Edinburgh: Rutherford House, 1989. Print.
20. Flanagan, Owen. The Problem of the Soul: Two Visions of the Mind and How to Reconcile Them. New York: Basic Books/Perseus, 2002. Print.
21. Moule, C.F.D. The Origin of Christology. Cambridge University Press, 1977. Print.
22. Moltmann, J. The Trinity and the Kingdom. Fortress Press, 1993. Print.
23. Cullmann, Oscar. The Christology of the New Testament. Westminster John Knox Press, 1959. Print.
24. Cullmann, Oscar. Christ and Time: The Primitive Christian Conception of Time and History. SCM Press, 1962. Print.
25. Novatiani Romanae Urbis Presbyteri De Trinitate liber: Novatian’s Treatise on the Trinity, ed. William Yorke Fausset. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1909.
65 comments:
Does book 1 deal with these aspects?
https://hbr.org/resources/images/article_assets/2017/01/W170124_GOLEMAN_EMOTIONALINTELLIGENCE-1024x557.png
Duncan,
see https://fosterheologicalreflections.blogspot.com/2014/12/review-of-antonoio-damasios-descartes.html
Damasio is giving an alternative to Cartesian dualism.
I am not sure why anyone would imagine an "immaterial mind". A mind not of our material is another matter.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306987718313355
In "Meditations on First Philosophy," Rene Descartes famously argues that he is a non-material thinking thing which he defines as the mind or soul. Other thinkers like Socrates and Plato likewise argue that the soul is immaterial. Read George Berkeley: he thinks mind and the whole world are not material.
Doesn't Descartes argue that animals do not have souls? An artificial divide that has no basis in fact.
I can see where Berkley is coming from. The earliest written language was symbolic. Our concepts come from our experience. However, we have to work with what we have got. For me the knowledge of the gut brain changed everything. Also listen to those who have disabilities from birth and there inability to conceive certain concepts.
The reason one would say the mind is immaterial is because if the mind was material it would be the equivalent of our body, or some part of our body, such as our brain. If our mind = our brain then what was true about our brain would be true about our mind all of it and nothing more. And that is clearly not the case.
So for example if I can’t see red, my studying the brain of someone who can see read. Even if I know every single atom and subatomic particle in that brain and every connection and complexity, and I know everything there is to know about light and the physical laws governing matter (including the brain), I would still not experience the color red, this means that the experience of the color red cannot be reduced to the material functionings of the brain, even if it is completely dependent on the brain.
If you say it’s of another material or another kind of matter ... then I don’t know what you mean by matter, it’s just equivocation .
Btw, I haven’t read any of these books ... other than the Bultmann one, one day I’ll be maybe half as well read as you :P.
My Internet is limited right now, so I'll have to respond more fully at a later time. My understanding of Descartes is that he does say animals don't have souls, but Witnesses agree that neither humans nor animals have souls in the traditional sense of the term.
Duncan, it's a big jump from the earliest language was symbolic to everything is mental/abstract or not material. If everything is non-material, then why has science been so successful in terms of its technical output? Furthermore, I would ask Berkeley whether his theory adequately explains all language acquisition or language learning?
Thanks, Roman, but I always feel that other people have read lots more than I have. You know what I'd like to spend eternity doing :)
Yes, reading books.
I said that I can see where he is coming from, not that I agree with him.
How people interpret the term soul was not my point. The bible calls animals living souls.
IMO opinion science has not been very successful at all & quantity of output does not equate to success, but that's another discussion for another time.
I question many aspects of science & my biggest issue is those who claim to gene sequence. I am with Vandana Shiva on that one.
If one is colour blind, does he experience the colour red? He does see it. Neither I, or my wife are colour blind but we do not agree on certain shades of colour. Red is a taught concept to a sensory input & is a broad frequency range.
Funny you should mention the internet. My router died last night. I had a spare but it took me several hours to get everything working properly.
Duncan, my comments were more directed at Berkeley's theory than your remarks. I've met few people who were even tempted to side with Berkeley. But I find him to be an interesting fellow.
Yes, the bible calls animals "souls," but it doesn't say they have souls. Even the translation, soul, could be misleading.
I would like to discuss science when my Internet connection gets restored. The Internet, automobiles, biomed machines are what I mean by scientific success. Of course, I realize that science has produced numerous maledictions too. But it's hard to deny the genuine accomplishments of modern science. But I do not advocate scientism.
Mire later
https://ec.europa.eu/environment/integration/research/newsalert/pdf/109na4_en.pdf
I do not believe that anyone has completed a full energy audit of a nuclear power station. The cost in fossil fuels for mining the ore. Hundreds of thousands of people died in Russian gulags, mining ore without machines.
The concrete foundations of a modern station takes years to pour and thousands of lorry journeys to supply the raw materials.
"Up to 1,500 lorries a day are expected to head to and from the construction site if it goes ahead," - https://www.itv.com/news/anglia/2019-01-04/long-standing-critics-still-not-convinced-as-sizewell-c-nuclear-plant-reaches-third-consultation
My main point is that IMO more energy is spent on the vanture than is recovered over the lifetime.
Same goes for Bio fuels - which is now recognised.
My point it that most of the novel solutions are unnecessary and unproductive.
Look at the long term implications of CT scans exposing a person to 8 years of background radiation in just a few minuets. Look at the how many women do not actually die of breast cancer but instead die of lung cancer associated with repeated scans.
As for automobile "accidents", the numbers that die each year world wide - "Each year, 1.35 million people are killed on roadways around the world", as compared to COVID that now stands at seriously over estimated count of 844K deaths? Sounds like we should all be banned from driving?
https://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/22/health/22whoop.html - PCR testing at its best.
Far to few audits have been carried out against benefit/risk ratios of most technology.
I am not going to debate the medical industry - but you already know much of my opinion which is based on readily available data.
Looking hard at so much of the technology based on "science" indicate a serious befit deficit.
I'm certainly not claiming that science is perfect or that it doesn't have many failures, but it's relatively successful, which it probably should not be if Berkeley were correct.
Science learns by degrees and scientific knowledge grows incrementally. Yes, for every scientific blessing, there are many maledictions, it seems. Nevertheless, our current world is benefiting from many fruits of modern science.
Global communication and travel are two benefits of science: you can communicate with someone on the other side of the world and travel to another country in a relatively short period of time. What about literacy rates and the treatment of disease? How long do people now live versus life expectancy in the middle ages? What about the development of computers and telephones?
You can't seriously be comparing COVID death rates with automobile deaths, can you? COVID has killed that many people in less than eight months, and it has not stopped yet. Furthermore, look how many automobiles are on the road versus the number of deaths: 1. 4 billion cars approximately. Why don't we maybe learn to drive safer rather than ban driving. And no, I'm not minimizing the deaths of over one million people.
You also mentioned CT scans. What's the chance of someone dying from exposure to these scans? Try a 1 in 2000 chance. So the risk is low compared to the potential benefits.
In order for someone to die of COVID you have to be sure that the person actually had it.
Did you read the article on PCR testing. You can get a false positive from the common cold! (another corona virus)
How about comparing death rate globally against influenza. I can predict that at the end of this year that the data regarding influenza diagnosis will indicate a decrease (a transfer to COVID numbers). The first nurse under 35 in the US to die of COVID, in the end did not. It was a bacterial infection. Neither did the first baby announced.
As for COVID in nursing homes:- "The average age of nursing home patients when they are moved into these facilities is 83. The average length of time between when they enter and when they die is 13.7 months, and 53% die within 6 months of arrival."
How many people at that age die of some kind of repository infection? worth checking.
https://www.9news.com.au/national/royal-commission-australia-covid19-aged-care-death-rate-one-of-highest-in-world/d18e93c4-835f-4742-a4a6-44254c4d739c
"68 per cent of all COVID-19 deaths here are in aged care." - convenient?
Please also investigate co-morbidity. The court cases are starting to accumulate regarding inaccurate death certificates. Many people have also died because of COVID, not of it.
As for CT scan, it does not take too much digging - https://consumer.healthday.com/health-technology-information-18/cat-scan-news-88/study-downplays-risk-of-ct-scans-664231.html
But at the end of the day for every study there is a counter study.
https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1a8e/90312e744b2f0cf08a2a569aa44a27fa9ae9.pdf
All that the monastic data demonstrates is the evident disparity of supply. We have a similar evidence of short life spans through other periods when food was scarce. I do not see how you can attribute this to a lack of medicine.
Its down to a fair distribution of food and basic hygiene, or to put it another way - Torah.
https://www.iwm.org.uk/history/rationing-and-food-shortages-during-the-first-world-war
Note that by 1918 the world was set for some kind of pandemic. Apparently the influenza had been going around since 1916, but took hold of a weekend world population. How often have you heard that talked about?
https://www.cdc.gov/flu/pandemic-resources/1918-pandemic-h1n1.html
Strange - no mention of 1916 here or this:-
https://academic.oup.com/cid/article/49/9/1405/301441
I'm aware of false positives when it comes to COVID. One U.S. governor was diagnosed as positive, then negative within less than 24 hours, if memory serves me. He's one of many. But even if you adjust for some false positives, too many people have died from COVID.
BTW, were you talking about the nurse who died from a kidney infection?
I also know about comorbity: we've been dealing with COVID-19 in the States now for months: I've read too many documents about the viris to even count them, both from work, medical sources, and the organization. We also have the official numbers from Johns Hopkins University about who has died from COVID in the USA and worldwide: 183K in the USA.
When I said 1 in 2000 chance of getting sick/dying for CT scans, I was quoting a medical authority.
One cause of shorter lives in the past was disease and the treatment of disease: it's documented by those who study these matters.
WEBMD:
"Are There Any Risks? CT scans use X-rays, which produce ionizing radiation. Research shows that this kind of radiation may damage your DNA and lead to cancer. But the risk is still very small -- your chances of developing a fatal cancer because of a CT scan are about 1 in 2,000."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0531513101003363
For CT scans, the article you posted said:
"Schultz cautioned that the numbers about the possible effects of CT scan radiation are based on assumptions. He added that the study suggests, but doesn't prove, that CT scans save lives."
'I do agree with their premise and their general conclusion that the risk of not doing CTs is greater than doing them,' he said."
From cancer.gov:
"The radiation exposure from CT is higher than that from standard x-ray procedures, but the increase in cancer risk from one CT scan is still small. Not having the procedure can be much more risky than having it, especially if CT is being used to diagnose cancer or another serious condition in someone who has signs or symptoms of disease."
There are articles that do mention 1916 and the emergence of pneumonia/traces of the flu, but the flu reportedly from 1918-1919.
Life expectancy:
https://www.nature.com/scitable/content/life-expectancy-around-the-world-has-increased-19786/
https://ourworldindata.org/life-expectancy
My point, which you have not addressed is, how are they (including John Hopkins) confirming cause of death?
I know what has been supposedly developed at Oxford.
BTW, Corona virus and covid19 are not interchangeable terms but they appear to be used that way when researchers from Oxford are Interviewd.
When asked point blank about the tests they say that they do detect Corona virus, but throughout the rest of the interview that is not the term used.
I can get the real data in just how bad those tests are, it burried in there own papers.
The graphs you have linked bare more in common with fossil fuel usage and the ability to import/export foodstuffs than anything else. They also do not appear to show any troughs, which we know happened over the period.
Just posted regarding testing - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EUcjM-nm9bQ
If you really want me to, I caǹ provide links for how they determine Covid as the cause of death. The information is available from the CDC, and from WHO, among others. a
I'm also quite sure that Americans use Covid and coronavirus interchangeably.
"I'm also quite sure that Americans use Covid and corona-virus interchangeably." - they do in most countries but not technically. I am focusing on an expert researcher and the terminology he is using in a BBC news interview. The interviewer and resercher both changed term just for the one question out a 3 minute interview that COVID19 is consistently used. This is caused plausible deniability.
Is it a coincidence that youtube removed a video posted in 2013 regarding a novel corona virus outbreak in Scotland from that year. They removed the video sometime during March 2020 from - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgbo2jtb2vY
Note that Youtube have clearly changed their terms of service this year or its the slowest blockdown I have ever seen.
Does the CDC recommend the use of face masks for COVID19?
SEE:- https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/5/19-0994_article
Are masks selective, able to block one but not the other?!
All that is being promoted in the media is mechanistic data - computer simulations etc.
I trust real data, which if correct means that the majority of all populations have had significant exposure over the time period.
Now, if I was cynical I might think that something else was going on :)
Life expectancy over the last 200 years:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_expectancy#/media/File:Life_expectancy_by_world_region,_from_1770_to_2018.svg
It lags behind fossil fuel use by at least 50 years. Significant change does not occur until about 1900.
For what the CDC now says about masks, see https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/prevent-getting-sick/prevention.html#:~:text=Cover%20your%20mouth%20and%20nose,for%20a%20healthcare%20worker.
CDC does recommend wearing a mask.
Many official websites also use Covid or coronavirus as interchangeable terms. Both terms are used by researchers to signify the same thing.
I note that the WHO have made searching for there clinical mask usage chart impossible.
Incorrectly used masks are more dangerous than none. It demonstrated the correct procedure for use (not touching the outside of the mask when removing, etc.) and warned that they can breed complacency.
But at the end of the day, without reliable testing this is all moot.
I also take it that officially influenza is not a serious respiratory infection that is passed through water droplets ?!?! It no longer affects a billion people a year & kills many more than COVID?
I must say that I am not to interested in what these sites have to say when the errors are blatantly demonstrated on them.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30484-9/fulltext
See all the "evidence" here from seriously incomplete and non peer reviewed data.
I have to keep saying it until it sinks in - we do not have reliable testing. So again all of the above is a waste of time. If it picks up the common cold and other issues one cannot give a communicability rate.
People have such short memories - look at what was first claimed regarding H1N1 in 2009 and see where the figures have been "adjusted" to today.
If you think there is consensus on mask wearing you would be wrong:-
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(20)30484-9/fulltext
It is all about the science.
https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/types.html
Yes, they are using them interchangeably.
If you don't accept the testing, why even worry about it? I usually feel that each person must be responsible for making his/her own reasoned and informed decision. Where I work, we don't have a choice about masks: and they have provided instructions about the "right way" to put on and take off a mask.
One important feature of science is that it develops incrementally: hypotheses are refuted and new ones are advanced. Some hypotheses are supported by the evidence, but that's not the end of the story. Most of us know that science has its limitations. Yet it has produced many good things too.
I never said there's a consensus on mask wearing. In particular, I pointed to what the CDC now states about mask wearing. I also decide to wear a mask because I'm immunocompromised and my doctor said I really need to wear one. Not to mention that JWs emphasize the importance of wearing masks as well.
Notice what's observed about mask wearing here: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0163445320302358?casa_token=gidzTAGl1EMAAAAA:_WVyWUm6Sn5f7Mao3s-Br5d9rzksg7pyY6pI-_Mkf1yn3ZuY00Huuzv_-7QMExAfRI52__CgJw
My last link to the Lancet was in error. See https://www.rcreader.com/commentary/masks-dont-work-covid-a-review-of-science-relevant-to-covide-19-social-policy
All relevant information is cited. Also note what he has to say in conclusion.
The last link you posted does not work for me.
Fair enough. We know there's no consensus about mask wearing and plenty of other things to boot. However, numerous medical experts do recommend wearing masks, and we are not given a choice at my school. You either wear a mask or don't come to work. But we also have to clean our work areas, keep 6 feet apart from the students, and wash our hands often.
See the refutation of Rancourt here: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/logical-take/202007/yes-masks-work-debunking-the-pseudoscience
Rancourt ignores a ton of data to prop up his own biases.
More about mask wearing: https://med.stanford.edu/news/all-news/2020/06/stanford-scientists-contribute-to-who-mask-guidelines.html
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/the-simple-science-behind-why-masks-work
https://www.wsj.com/articles/face-masks-really-do-matter-the-scientific-evidence-is-growing-11595083298
http://pne.people.si.umich.edu/PDF/Haff%25202013%2520Technology%2520as%2520a%2520Geological%2520Phenomenon.pdf
Error message for the link: says it's not found.
I see the refutation uses the "surge" argument. Surges occur when more testing is done in a localised area. So much for that rebuttal.
There has been no discernible evidence on the minimum infectious viral load for COVID-19 pandemic, but many researchers speculate that a few hundreds of SARS-CoV-2 virus would be enough to cause the disease among susceptible hosts
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7293495/#!po=0.263158
Try - https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Technology-as-a-geological-phenomenon%3A-implications-Haff/5628991e6f91910d9329ac5ff2dbff6808424cbf
The face mask rebuttal is suspect, the first study quoted concludes - Face mask use in health care workers has not been demonstrated to provide benefit in terms of cold symptoms or getting colds. A larger study is needed to definitively establish noninferiority of no mask use.
So he is not wrong in this instance.
The second study regarding influenza was replaced by the one I had already posted from the cdc, with the Sam conclusions that mask do not work.
For the third:-
Interpretation: Although N95 respirators appeared to have a protective advantage over surgical masks in laboratory settings, our meta-analysis showed that there were insufficient data to determine definitively whether N95 respirators are superior to surgical masks in protecting health care workers against transmissible acute respiratory infections in clinical settings.
Certainly not an endorsement.
It's the one you posted that seems like an apeal to authority, not facts.
https://abcdust.net/how-large-is-a-corona-virus-virion-compared-to-the-mp10-2-5/
https://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/bioter/n95masks.html
Statement like "mask definitely work" without references do not help
https://mumbaimirror.indiatimes.com/coronavirus/news/dont-wear-n95-masks-with-valves-heres-why-the-government-says-so/articleshow/77082242.cms
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/04/commentary-masks-all-covid-19-not-based-sound-data
More actual science.
Thinking on - guidance regarding how they should be used and fitted means nothing when the vast majority have not been taught this and it is not what is happening in practice.
This supposed spike should already be with us across the board.
Duncan, two of the last links I posted were from scientists who work in the actual field under consideration: they're not fired physicists :)
The majority view is that masks do supply some protection from Covid. Even the article that you posted from MumbaiMirror shows that masks do have some efficacy. Did you actually read the entire article?
For example, "The newest warning may sound confusing but here's what it means. For those who use N95 masks with valves, the air they breathe out escapes through the valves and it could put those in their surroundings at risk if they have the virus. Wearing a mask without valves protects both the wearer and those around him/her. It is this usage of the mask (with valves) that the Director General of Health Services (DGHS) letter terms 'inappropriate use' of N-95 masks."
Here is an article from Oxford based on a recent study: https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2020-07-08-oxford-covid-19-study-face-masks-and-coverings-work-act-now#
Compare https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2020/07/28/do-face-masks-work-coronavirus-science/
Here's the Iowa study referenced above: https://europepmc.org/article/med/32543923
"reducing the spread of COVID-19 - for the wearer" read the wording carefully. The premise of mask wearing is to prevent the emission of virus from someone already infected from reaching others. That is precisely why N95 mask cannot work.
The WSJ journal article is d
Demonstrating precisely what I had referred to earlier regarding mechanistic data. Appeal to authority is not going to cut it here.
So the stop the spread of droplets - don't droplets evaporate & don't they evaporate after the escape the mask.
As for the viral load theory - "The minimum infectious dose of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes Covid-19, is unknown so far, but researchers suspect it is low. “The virus is spread through very, very casual interpersonal contact,” W. David Hardy, a professor of infectious disease at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, told STAT." Like all other covid - why would one suspect it to be any different?
Compare - https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/communicable-diseases/influenza/data-and-statistics/virology-of-human-influenza
Replication and infectivity.
Another recent article on the importance of wearing a mask, https://news.google.com/articles/CAIiEIcZhb0bDnjO2f6OEt3e7t0qGQgEKhAIACoHCAowvfmRCzCeoqcDMKWruwY?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen
I wasn't really pointing to WSJ itself as a scientific authority, but the article did contain some of the latest science and wasn't just arguing from authority. To vote recognized authorities is not the same as arguing from authority.
Not vote, but to quote recognized authorities . . .
"The final piece of experimental evidence showing that masks reduce viral dose comes from another hamster experiment. Hamsters were divided into an unmasked group and a masked group by placing surgical mask material over the pipes that brought air into the cages of the masked group. Hamsters infected with the coronavirus were placed in cages next to the masked and unmasked hamsters, and the air was pumped from the infected cages into the cages with uninfected hamsters." - When we all start wearing Hazmat suits with a pipe with cloth over the end this till actually be relevant :)
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/06/200624082657.htm
"letter-to-the-editor" is not a peer reviewed study. And what people "believe" in your article above is not data.
As for the cruise ship example - see https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6912e3.htm
Can you spot the missing data? The ages of the actual infected. Also, chronologically the dubious test methods we now have did not exist at this point in time.
So how many were actually positive and in what age ranges.
My mom went on cruise last year at age 81. This is normal for cruises.
Your article says "81% of the infected people remained asymptomatic."
Here is something else that is going on at the moment. People getting letter to request there attendance at testing centres who do not actually go are getting letters in the post to tell them that they tested positive. Impressive testing.
For Poultry workers, see-
https://www.uusc.org/sites/default/files/wages_and_working_conditions_in_arkansas_poultry_plants.pdf
Page 10 - age groupings.
Remember the elephant in the room:- https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-cases-in-england-arent-rising-heres-why/
In my closing remarks on this subject, I just want to say that I'm willing to entertain opposing points of view, but I'm not sure you accord your ideological opponents the same dignity.
I have posted peer-reviewed studies, and even the ones that are not peer-reviewed have statements from actual scientists working in the field. But that doesn't seem to matter.
For example, the link from Inverse has observations made by "an infectious disease doctor and a professor of medicine at the University of California, San Francisco."
Not quite exactly like an informal letter to the editor. The Inverse article also referenced experimental evidence about masks. It wasn't just an opinion piece or expressed beliefs.
Did you notice the disclaimer for your cebm.net article? It's not been peer-reviewed either :)
Let me just post some of the "data" that Monica Gandh is using"
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
" Our results indicate that surgical face masks could prevent transmission of human coronaviruses and influenza viruses from >>symptomatic<< individuals."
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/2768533
Now citation 4 of this study is:-
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-0843-2
"We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection."
The of her evidences was :-
http://ftp.iza.org/dp13319.pdf
Compare this with:-
https://ourworldindata.org/covid-exemplar-germany
"Germany did not prevent the COVID-19 outbreak, but the prevention protocols in place facilitated the country’s response to the outbreak. These protocols included >>early<< establishment of testing capacities, >>high levels of testing<< (in the European Union, Germany is a leader in tests per confirmed case), an effective containment strategy among older people (which may explain why Germany has a much lower case fatality rate than comparable countries), and efficient use of the country’s ample hospital capacity."
To reiterate :- "an effective containment strategy among older people (which may explain why Germany has a much lower case fatality rate than comparable countries)"
I could go on but demonstrating how an "expert" in infectious diseases is the worst person to trust in a situation like this as they are highly susceptible to confirmation bias.
Dr Greger literally wrote the book on this before is nutrition work and he is now suffering from the same bias. http://www.birdflubook.org/ - he is now rewriting it with all the suspect data. Of course his main bias will be animal agriculture as a root cause.
In her own words:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZVe3Gfm6xU
Listen for phases like "fauci says" regarding the supposed two types of infection.
Note reference to Wuhan and 1918 flue - both demonstrate very weakened immune system, one through aerosol pollution and the other through malnutrition an erroneous administration of a new drug.
As our discussions regarding diet - epidemiological study have to capture a wide range of data.
That informal letter is a correlation that has been posited by a number of researchers and requires further investigation.
https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/1320428/Coronavirus-news-lockdown-mistake-second-wave-Boris-Johnson
https://www.ft.com/content/3148de6c-3b33-42d3-8cf6-d0e4263cea82
Soren Riis Paludan, a viral infections expert from Aarhus University, said research had suggested that at Denmark’s current infection rate 100,000 people would have to wear face masks properly for a week to avoid one infection.
But coming back to our earlier point of discussion and your claim of the benefits of science. Looking at the long game is my approach and at the longer time scales and the accumulated effects that are evident later usually in then majority of cases prove that there was no sustainable or enhancing advancement.
For example, in energy conversion nothing has exceeded the efficiency of a water wheel over its life time. Waterwheel efficiency can be in excess of 80%, even 90% for the best designs. Look at all the scientific advances and still I know of nothing that beats if when auditing all the necessary inputs.
I just want to finish with a little background regarding the non peer reviewed piece I posted.
https://www.phc.ox.ac.uk/team/carl-heneghan
I think he is qualified to ask a question that IMO demands an answer.
https://www.newstatesman.com/2020/08/why-are-covid-19-hospitalisations-falling-despite-cases-rising
Carl Heneghan has the better answer.
Not what was said about Leicester having the highest test rate and compare with:-
https://www.leicestermercury.co.uk/news/leicester-news/no-coronavirus-related-deaths-reported-4421239
This was already the case before the testing spree and the subsequent second lock down.
https://www.jems.com/2020/08/31/cdc-report-underlying-conditions-94-percent-covid-19-deaths/#:~:text=According%20to%20a%20report%20from,States%20also%20had%20contributing%20conditions.
Influenza as a co-morbidity!
Ritter et al., in 1975, found that ‘the wearing of a surgical face mask had no effect upon the overall operating room environmental contamination.’
Ha’eri and Wiley, in 1980, applied human albumin microspheres to the interior of surgical masks in 20 operations. At the end of each operation, wound washings were examined under the microscope. ‘Particle contamination of the wound was demonstrated in all experiments.’
Laslett and Sabin, in 1989, found that caps and masks were not necessary during cardiac catheterization. ‘No infections were found in any patient, regardless of whether a cap or mask was used,’ they wrote. Sjøl and Kelbaek came to the same conclusion in 2002.
In Tunevall’s 1991 study, a general surgical team wore no masks in half of their surgeries for two years. After 1,537 operations performed with masks, the wound infection rate was 4.7%, while after 1,551 operations performed without masks, the wound infection rate was only 3.5%.
A review by Skinner and Sutton in 2001 concluded that ‘The evidence for discontinuing the use of surgical face masks would appear to be stronger than the evidence available to support their continued use.’
Lahme et al., in 2001, wrote that ‘surgical face masks worn by patients during regional anaesthesia, did not reduce the concentration of airborne bacteria over the operation field in our study. Thus they are dispensable.’
Figueiredo et al., in 2001, reported that in five years of doing peritoneal dialysis without masks, rates of peritonitis in their unit were no different than rates in hospitals where masks were worn.
Bahli did a systematic literature review in 2009 and found that ‘no significant difference in the incidence of postoperative wound infection was observed between masks groups and groups operated with no masks.’
Surgeons at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden, recognizing the lack of evidence supporting the use of masks, ceased requiring them in 2010 for anesthesiologists and other non-scrubbed personnel in the operating room. ‘Our decision to no longer require routine surgical masks for personnel not scrubbed for surgery is a departure from common practice. But the evidence to support this practice does not exist,’ wrote Dr. Eva Sellden.
Webster et al., in 2010, reported on obstetric, gynecological, general, orthopaedic, breast and urological surgeries performed on 827 patients. All non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries, and none of the non-scrubbed staff wore masks in half the surgeries.
Lipp and Edwards reviewed the surgical literature in 2014 and found ‘no statistically significant difference in infection rates between the masked and unmasked group in any of the trials.’ Vincent and Edwards updated this review in 2016 and the conclusion was the same.
Carøe, in a 2014 review based on four studies and 6,006 patients, wrote that ‘none of the four studies found a difference in the number of post-operative infections whether you used a surgical mask or not.’
Salassa and Swiontkowski, in 2014, investigated the necessity of scrubs, masks and head coverings in the operating room and concluded that ‘there is no evidence that these measures reduce the prevalence of surgical site infection.’
Da Zhou et al., reviewing the literature in 2015, concluded that ‘there is a lack of substantial evidence to support claims that face masks protect either patient or surgeon from infectious contamination.
Duncan, I don't want to restart a discussion about masks, but I guess you know that Covid is still raging in the States and Donald Trump has the virus and so does his wife and a top aide.
The media I have seen says that they tested positive for covid. The correct application of the term "case" only applies if they presented symptoms prior to testing. Did they - have they?
News reports here say that the top side presented symptoms but says nothing about the president and his wife.
https://www.theguardian.com/business/live/2020/oct/02/global-markets-retreat-after-trump-tests-positive-for-covid-19-business-live
Seismos.
I don't want to argue about masks - that argument is past unless something of real significance counters the above list of studies, bearing in mind that these are in controlled clinical conditions, not out on the streets.
https://edition.cnn.com/videos/health/2020/10/02/sanjay-gupta-trump-positive-test-sot-vpx.cnn/video/playlists/coronavirus/
This kind of media reinforced the masking myth.
Note that President Trump announces through a tweet - we have experience of how he uses tweets. If he does not display significant symptoms and have the virus cultured correctly then he could well be one on the 50%+ false positives (based on current data) as just one possible explanation.
Note that when prime minister Johnson allegedly had "corona virus", he had been a long term smoker susceptible to all upper respiratory infections. He was in hospital in HDU but they never put him on a ventilator (fairly standard procedure at the time). It is revealed sometime later that ventilators were actually accelerating lung infections and killing people. I state no conclusion but the data is available to all who bother to look. there is a slogan promoted in the UK - we are all in this together.
Chris Martenson holds a PhD degree in pathology & it is worth looking at his estimation of the supposed spike in UK cases:-
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HSsTCjbNPF0&feature=youtu.be
This may also include implications applicable to the US.
Post a Comment