Yes, she did claim that, but I don't think evidence has been released either way so far.
The terminology is rather confusing. You may want to elaborate since you've pointed it out. I only just realized that I needed to look into it more because of what you mentioned.
In short, mumps and measles are viruses that replicate via RNA; we already have the MMR vaccine to handle it.
In contrast, an RNA vaccine is just a different style of vaccine. You give mRNA to the body, so that it can be the one to synthesize viral antigens and provoke the body's immune response. Basically, it is an extra step: "inject RNA -> have body manufacture antigens -> immune response" instead of "inject antigens -> immune response".
While it is true that no RNA vaccine is approved or known to work well, an RNA vaccine is not required to treat a virus that replicates via RNA.
What makes some types of RNA viruses hard to handle is that they mutate too quickly (HIV) or have too many variants (common cold, flu). If anything, that would be what could make a vaccine for this virus difficult to create.
If your goal is to get an appealing camera shot or backdrop to your narrative, staging it is the way to go.
I already thought a lot of the news was staged, so this does not shock me. Most people would be surprised, however, so having another proven example of staging is what's important here.
This Friday will be the start of Phase 2. There are 2 more phases left to go (image link).
Thanks for posting this. It confirms what we suspected; the disease has been out there for a very long time.
The French technique was to analyze samples previously collected from patients. It is reminiscent of how DNA evidence allowed us to solve a bunch of cold cases.
The same could be done here too. (I wonder if it has been tried?) It'd be interesting to see if this could explain the weird non-flu that people say they got around New Years.
I would say it's a feedback cycle. In response to everyone's attention spans falling, the headlines become more and more clickbait-y since clicks -> revenue. It's not any single person's fault that things have become this way, but I'd advocate for the headline containing [Opinion].
Remdesivir is a failed drug that just happens to slightly reduce the recovery time for this disease? What a happy coincidence! Let's use it everywhere at the taxpayer's expense!
There's enough money involved to be suspicious.
Remdesivir had failed to be effective in treating other diseases and was going to be a waste of investment. Then, it suddenly works for COVID-19?
Of course it could be effective, but there's plenty of reasons to have doubt.
Nobody should unilaterally accept a drug trial from the company who makes the drug as proof. Wasn't the media harping on HCQ, saying that they needed more than "ancedotal" evidence? Accepting Gilead's study on its own is like allowing the tobacco companies to fund studies saying that smoking isn't harmful or that vaping is equally bad.
EDIT: It is worth mentioning that Remdesivir is theoretically effective in the late stages of the disease. HCQ can't handle that, so if it does work, it'd be nice to actually have a better treatment for people on vents.
I don't understand how a suggestion to investigate injection of disinfectants turns into a recommendation that citizens self-inject with Lysol.
There are many kinds of disinfectants including UV, and there could be targeted ways to deploy them in the body. Only people conditioned to assume the worst could leap to such a stupid conclusion.
Yes, they are often rather prominently labeled, but it doesn't help when people only read the headline.
Rather than requiring the retraction to be just as prominent, how about banning the author from publishing anything else until the retraction has the same number of views as the original article? (This is a bit extreme, of course, but the main idea is to have real penalties.)
Good read. This article is very specific about what constitutes a lockdown.
The article argues that the following are not effective and constitute a lockdown:
- stay at home unless there's a reason to leave the house
- limit assembly to < 10 people
- forced closure of some businesses
The article accepts the following, since their efficacy is fairly obvious:
- quarantine post-travel
- no large (100+) gatherings
- face coverings
- restricted/closed borders
- closed schools
I would be hard-pressed to argue against those points too.
In comparison, #1, #2, and #3 are items that don't have sufficient evidence to back them. The article finds that the death rate trends are not significantly different for countries that chose to lockdown vs those that did not (though it admittedly does come up with its own modeling and analysis techniques).
"The 14-day quarantine of people entering or returning to Maine will continue through at least August."
This is an incredibly slow reopening. The "cure" is worse than the disease.
It'd be awesome, but cause and effect is being mixed up here. JT Wilde wrote the poem/song because of Flynn.