Read on Twitter
I’m an immunologist working in the pharma industry doing my best to contribute to the development of new therapeutics for autoimmune disorders. I find myself with time on my hands, so let's try something hopefully positive...... some personal musings on #coronavirus and #COVID19
I’m certain that there are thousands of people like me, spinning their wheels about endless tsunami of bullsh*t coming from political commentators-turned-scientists who had until recently never heard of a PCR (let alone cycle thresholds), a TCR, dexamethasone etc...
Nonetheless, they have no objection plunging feet-first into a complex problem without their water wings, armed with confidence, huge platforms and large numbers of followers (who I have sympathy for… they’re surely concerned citizens trying to make sense of it all)
Shock-jocks talking immunology is painful. You have to ignore it and be thankful they aren’t in charge. Going after them is pointless: the Dunning-Kruger is too powerful.
Here for example: low numbers in summer = CoV pandemic over. Insulting scientists in the first paragraph.
Here for example: low numbers in summer = CoV pandemic over. Insulting scientists in the first paragraph.
But these aren’t the people I want to discuss. A video came to my attention after it was blocked by FB and Twitter. It was an interview by Dr. Michael Yeadon published on a site called “Unlocked”? I was curious. What did he say? How bad can it be? Why is this even necessary?
So, I watched the video....
I submit my opinions here in good faith. I don’t believe that Dr. Yeadon is in ANY WAY deliberately trying to mislead. This clip is sincere, in my opinion. But I want to explain my thoughts on WHY it’s been flagged.
I submit my opinions here in good faith. I don’t believe that Dr. Yeadon is in ANY WAY deliberately trying to mislead. This clip is sincere, in my opinion. But I want to explain my thoughts on WHY it’s been flagged.
Some real world consequences of misinformation:
a) People with symptoms may not get tested.
b) People with positive tests not isolating.
c) People encouraged to flout public health guidelines
d) Giving poor advice to the elderly
e) Perpetuating the lockdown we all hate
a) People with symptoms may not get tested.
b) People with positive tests not isolating.
c) People encouraged to flout public health guidelines
d) Giving poor advice to the elderly
e) Perpetuating the lockdown we all hate
Sometimes he’s bang on e.g. the threat of reinfection being minor, and immunity likely being long-lasting as demonstrated by papers studying SARS. Also he's right about T cells being ignored and how important they are in determining COVID severity.
It’s a 30 minute video, so in order to go through it in its entirety, it would be too long, so forgive me for skipping some parts but I will do my best to retain enough content that it won’t distort his points. I can always revisit.
We begin with 5% false positives. This is simply his opinion. He has no reason to say this, and offers no evidence. He paints a picture of tired, unprofessional & inexperienced staff swimming in a sea of contamination, which is fantasy. Ask @alanmcn1 how it works.
There are articles written by people like @GidMK and this week @MackayIM, outlining why this is just not correct. Experiments have controls, FPs are detected, and that is why the FP rate is somewhere below 0.1%. Nobody knows how *low* it really is. https://virologydownunder.com/the-false-positive-pcr-problem-is-not-a-problem/
Also, we can see fluctuations in positivity. Where I live in Switzerland, you can see how the frequency has ranged from 0.25% in the summer, to over 30% in October. Thanks @skepteis for the awesome website ( http://www.corona-data.ch )
SAMPLING: Where the sample is taken is irrelevant. The samples are taken to labs for RNA extraction etc. The idea that if you sample in a car park that the integrity of the results are in question is untrue. He implies the tests are run in car parks.
So to the RT-PCR itself. Let's dig in. He wants to throw shade on the gold standard technology for detecting infectious diseases and distinguishing between them.
It bugs me that the image isn't actually RNA. Looks more like caffeine.... but ok, on we go...
It bugs me that the image isn't actually RNA. Looks more like caffeine.... but ok, on we go...
Let’s explore the claim that you can detect virus months after infection. Data from multiple studies (references on request :-/ ) shows that detection in upper respiratory tract samples diminishes after 3 weeks in nasal and/or throat swabs i.e. the tests YOU do when you get one
A systematic review published this month shows the same. Test positivity can linger in sputum samples (lower respiratory tract), but this isn’t what is being tested. People aren’t routinely providing sputum samples. It's not a real-world problem. Figure 4C here.
Who is tested >1 month after symptom onset anyway? The vast majority of people are symptomatic when tested, or recently in contact with someone who tested positive. His proposed scenario is a miniscule number which won't influence the bigger picture at all.
On we go with "it's just the flu".... He ‘believes’, he says…. Well, the majority of data points to a clean 10-fold greater lethality of SARS-CoV-2. Even including highly biased studies, you get to an IFR of 0.68 for COVID-19. It’s not just the flu.
Here just a fraction of the data on the topic (on the right a widely shared and regularly updated chart from @zorinaq) . And as I mentioned, you need to include rather risky and potentially biased studies to get the IFR below 1.
It's not the flu. Don't be fooled.
It's not the flu. Don't be fooled.
He claims to be an experienced immunologist. I apologize for being abrupt: If you don’t accept that transmission of respiratory viruses is interrupted by keeping people physically apart, you cannot claim to understand this pandemic. The entire history of virology is against him.
A recent paper in Nat Comms is a glowing advert for how effective lockdowns are. The more experienced amongst you have probably also spotted that this also incinerates the false positive claim. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-19802-w
Finally, this paper made waves in the COVID community when T cells from unexposed individuals recognized peptides from SARS-CoV-2 in vitro. This was immediately over-interpreted as pre-existing immunity. The authors say that this would be ‘highly speculative’.
Here’s the critical point: whatever the true level of pre-existing immunity may be, it isn't enough to prevent spiraling deaths in short time spans in the elderly and otherwise compromised. England saw death-related z-scores of forty (FORTY!!!) in April.
I would also like to address his thoughts on the % of population that is susceptible based on serology studies, his criticisms of SAGE, false recording of COVID deaths.... but I have to move on. Let's see where this goes and if we get some discussion!
