I will start with the references: 2 database queries, and 2 newspaper articles.
Definitely typical for an editorial in arguably the world’s top medical journal.
Regarding the arguments forwarded by the editors, we should first compare COVID rates of cherry-picked countries.
Should Canadians complain that their death rate is ~1000x that of Vietnam?
As Americans (I presume the editors of @NEJM are American), they should understand that—for better or worse, totalitarian approaches (like China’s) don’t work here.
And unlike New Zealand, we are not tiny, isolated islands.
First, was the early warning of SARSCoV2 ignored? As I recall, early travel bans were viewed as xenophobic.
Regarding testing, it should be justified *why* tests/infected person is a better metric (just cite). And was there really a lack of emphasis of developing capacity?
These arguments are either not understanding if American character (for better or worse) & it’s feeling towards “leadership”.
I would suggest no amount of “leadership” could herd us cats.
And regarding lifting of restrictions, how’s Europe doing?
Has the outstanding American expertise been uniform in their approach? I don’t think so.
Like all of us, we have muddled through as best we could, and tried to adjust when possible.
Have experts been ignored or denigrated? Maybe. Give some examples, because some deserved it!
For the Federal Government to run things, we needed to be assured they were right. In the setting of a novel threat, that’s poor risk management. We need experimentation to see what’s best—and some will not be great.
The key is to learn & adjust.
Regarding the CDC’s & FDA’s early testing failures, where does the blame lie? With the current administration? Or are they more institutional?
For the NIH, what does vaccine expertise mean for “government decision making”?
And if you have complaints, give some examples.
Are the editors claiming that COVID’s impact on minorities fed into this year’s protests?
And school closures—maybe ask @VPrasadMDMPH about that!
And last, while I can’t be precise, this editorial may have led to even more deaths than the Surgisphere paper.
Now, I don’t want to tell you know to vote for, but the current administration really sucks.
*WINK* *WINK*
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Okay. A kind soul had sent me screenshots of @EricTopol’s thread explaining his letter to Pfizer.
I have highlighted a few sections, which I will comment on.
For those not familiar with the abbreviations, “DSMB” stands for “Data Safety Monitoring Board”. There are a couple of statements that deserve comment.
I am definitely biased, but I trust the judgement of companies that have successfully developed vaccines over docs who by and large have little experience in drug or vaccine development.
I happen to know personally some of the signatories to the Pfizer letter. I respect their intelligence and honestly.
And I also know that they don’t understand what they signed, in that key underlying assumptions are at best questionable.
Okay, here is the letter. I have marked the key passages…
According to ET’s piece in Science, “diffuse inflammation of the heart… that can extend throughout the three layers of the human heart to the pericardium… is a typical finding at autopsy after SARS-CoV-2 infections.”
Can anyone verify this—through literature or experience?