Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Canucks Community

Coronavirus outbreak


CBH1926

Recommended Posts

Bad news for hunters, I guess.....

 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/federal-lab-confirms-deer-to-human-covid-transmission-in-ontario-report/ar-AA1eL2x0?ocid=hpmsn&cvid=08123336b60a4bcbb2b93a392cb66a95&ei=51

 

 

Quote

 

“The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is aware of one person from Ontario who was infected in the fall of 2021 with a COVID-19 virus that is genetically similar to the virus found in the same region,” said the memo.

“After reviewing the available data, the National Microbiology Laboratory, Public Health Agency of Canada, has confirmed that the human case is most likely a rare example of deer-to-human transmission. There is no sign of additional human infections from the human case.”

Back on March 2, Dalhousie University said a research team “discovered what could be the first link between a case of COVID-19 in deer and humans,” but it was not peer reviewed.

The agency said wild white-tailed deer were known to be infected with COVID through a big-game registration station in southern Quebec.

Other cases were found in wild deer populations in British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and New Brunswick.

 

Luckily for those in Alberta and Saskatchewan, there was no mention of sheep in the report....B)

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

S. Tenpenny isn't a doctor.   One of many peddlers of misinformation and anti-vaxx rhetoric.   

 

https://deadstate.org/ohio-doctor-who-claimed-covid-vaccines-magnetize-people-gets-her-medical-license-taken-away/

Ohio doctor who claimed covid vaccines ‘magnetize’ people gets her medical license taken away

  • Like 1
  • Vintage 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, thedestroyerofworlds said:

S. Tenpenny isn't a doctor.   One of many peddlers of misinformation and anti-vaxx rhetoric.   

 

https://deadstate.org/ohio-doctor-who-claimed-covid-vaccines-magnetize-people-gets-her-medical-license-taken-away/

Ohio doctor who claimed covid vaccines ‘magnetize’ people gets her medical license taken away

This just goes to show that even highly educated people can get sucked into stupid conspiracy theories....

 

Still, this one is pretty egregious. You don't have to have a doctorate to realize that the idea of a vaccine "magnetizing" a person is ridiculous.

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Turns out the repeort that started the whole 'hydroxychloroquine' thing was- poorly done, along with hundreds  other research papers, done by the same group

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/french-research-centre-behind-controversial-covid-paper-found-to-have-used-questionable-ethics-processes/ar-AA1eXSQ7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=22476ba2c42c4922b316cd0875642151&ei=48

Amajor French research centre that produced one of the most widely cited and controversial research papers of the Covid-19 pandemic has been found by an international research team to have used questionable and concerning ethics approval processes across hundreds of studies.

The Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, or IHU, is a large clinical research centre in the south of France. It was founded by Prof Didier Raoult, who was also director of the centre until August 2022, when he stood down ahead of the release of findings from a government audit that found the institute conducted trials “likely to constitute offences or serious breaches of health or research regulations”.

Raoult was the corresponding author of an IHU-led study published in 2020 which claimed the drugs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin could in combination treat Covid-19 with “100% viral clearance”, leading to several countries adopting the treatment, and former US president Donald Trump promoting it.

The research was quickly identified as problematic, with the study design and interpretation of data criticised by experts, and the combination treatment also found to be associated with increased risk of heart damage.

More rigorous studies concluded the treatments in combination and alone were ineffective, with major international organisations including the World Health Organisation recommending against the treatments and warning of adverse effects.

Despite this, the drugs are still being prescribed to treat Covid-19 in low and middle-income countries, raising concerns about antimicrobial resistance given azithromycin is an antibiotic. Raoult stands by the study’s findings and hydroxychloroquine.

Given the widespread ramifications caused by one highly promoted study, Lonni Besançon, a postdoctoral research fellow at Monash University in Australia, co-led a review of 456 other studies led by the IHU and published in medical journals.

 
 

 

“Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different,” the review, published in the August edition of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review, found. “Thirty-nine did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings.”

Raoult’s name was on 415 of the 456 papers that were reviewed, and on 238 of the 248 studies with the same ethics approval number, Besançon told Guardian Australia. While reusing approvals is allowed in some circumstances, this is usually only the case if the research is related to the original approval, the review said.

However, Besançon and his team found ethics approvals were shared across a large variety of research. Some studies, for example, examined samples from stools, urine or organs; some studies were conducted in adults while others examined children, healthy volunteers or obese patients; and study populations even came from different countries.

The authors said medical journals should routinely require researchers to submit their ethics approvals before the work is reviewed and published.

Related: While life has largely returned to normal since the pandemic many relationships have not

“Although some publishers already require the upload of ethics approval, this practice is not widely adopted,” Besançon said.

“We therefore argue that it should be more widely and rigorously adopted. Ethical approval numbers should be provided as metadata so that post-hoc analysis can be carried out more systematically.”

Guardian Australia contacted Raoult and the IHU for comment but did not receive a response.

A co-author of the review, University of Western Sydney epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, said the IHU “produced by far the most cited and among the most viewed” paper in relation to the pandemic in its hydroxychloroquine study.

“It is genuinely one of the most influential papers of the pandemic and it resulted in a treatment across the world that is still being used, even though we know it does not work,” he said.

“I think it’s hard to overstate how potentially impactful it could be if this research, and other research conducted by the institution, was not conducted ethically.”

 

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Gurn said:

 

Turns out the repeort that started the whole 'hydroxychloroquine' thing was- poorly done, along with hundreds  other research papers, done by the same group

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/world/french-research-centre-behind-controversial-covid-paper-found-to-have-used-questionable-ethics-processes/ar-AA1eXSQ7?ocid=msedgntp&cvid=22476ba2c42c4922b316cd0875642151&ei=48

Amajor French research centre that produced one of the most widely cited and controversial research papers of the Covid-19 pandemic has been found by an international research team to have used questionable and concerning ethics approval processes across hundreds of studies.

The Institut Hospitalo-Universitaire Méditerranée Infection, or IHU, is a large clinical research centre in the south of France. It was founded by Prof Didier Raoult, who was also director of the centre until August 2022, when he stood down ahead of the release of findings from a government audit that found the institute conducted trials “likely to constitute offences or serious breaches of health or research regulations”.

Raoult was the corresponding author of an IHU-led study published in 2020 which claimed the drugs hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin could in combination treat Covid-19 with “100% viral clearance”, leading to several countries adopting the treatment, and former US president Donald Trump promoting it.

The research was quickly identified as problematic, with the study design and interpretation of data criticised by experts, and the combination treatment also found to be associated with increased risk of heart damage.

More rigorous studies concluded the treatments in combination and alone were ineffective, with major international organisations including the World Health Organisation recommending against the treatments and warning of adverse effects.

Despite this, the drugs are still being prescribed to treat Covid-19 in low and middle-income countries, raising concerns about antimicrobial resistance given azithromycin is an antibiotic. Raoult stands by the study’s findings and hydroxychloroquine.

Given the widespread ramifications caused by one highly promoted study, Lonni Besançon, a postdoctoral research fellow at Monash University in Australia, co-led a review of 456 other studies led by the IHU and published in medical journals.

 
 

 

“Among the studies investigated, 248 were conducted with the same ethics approval number, even though the subjects, samples, and countries of investigation were different,” the review, published in the August edition of the journal Research Integrity and Peer Review, found. “Thirty-nine did not even contain a reference to the ethics approval number while they present research on human beings.”

Raoult’s name was on 415 of the 456 papers that were reviewed, and on 238 of the 248 studies with the same ethics approval number, Besançon told Guardian Australia. While reusing approvals is allowed in some circumstances, this is usually only the case if the research is related to the original approval, the review said.

However, Besançon and his team found ethics approvals were shared across a large variety of research. Some studies, for example, examined samples from stools, urine or organs; some studies were conducted in adults while others examined children, healthy volunteers or obese patients; and study populations even came from different countries.

The authors said medical journals should routinely require researchers to submit their ethics approvals before the work is reviewed and published.

Related: While life has largely returned to normal since the pandemic many relationships have not

“Although some publishers already require the upload of ethics approval, this practice is not widely adopted,” Besançon said.

“We therefore argue that it should be more widely and rigorously adopted. Ethical approval numbers should be provided as metadata so that post-hoc analysis can be carried out more systematically.”

Guardian Australia contacted Raoult and the IHU for comment but did not receive a response.

A co-author of the review, University of Western Sydney epidemiologist Gideon Meyerowitz-Katz, said the IHU “produced by far the most cited and among the most viewed” paper in relation to the pandemic in its hydroxychloroquine study.

“It is genuinely one of the most influential papers of the pandemic and it resulted in a treatment across the world that is still being used, even though we know it does not work,” he said.

“I think it’s hard to overstate how potentially impactful it could be if this research, and other research conducted by the institution, was not conducted ethically.”

 

Saw this earlier in the week.I wonder how many Covid Conspiracy dolts felt vindicated by this guy.....<_<

 

Problem is, this won't change their opinions one iota....they'll just claim that "Big Government / Big Pharma" are "silencing" another truth teller.....:rolleyes:

  • Cheers 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The original article is in the British Journal of Sports Medicine (paywall).  

 

 

https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/998012

Athletes have no reason to be concerned by their COVID-19 vaccine this winter but timing matters

Amsterdam UMC’s sports cardiologists analysed studies from across the world and found no link between vaccination and sudden cardiac arrest in athletes

 

 

It is now almost a rule of thumb: As soon as an athlete falls to the ground with a sudden cardiac arrest, social media is awash with claims that COVID-19 vaccinations are to blame. This was the case with English footballer Charlie Wyke, cyclist Sonny Colbrelli and, most recently, with college basketballer, and son of LeBron, Bronny James. In the view of Harald Jorstad, Sports Cardiologist at Amsterdam UMC, there is no evidence to support these claims, but timing of the vaccination can be structured to not negatively influence performance. This article is, today, published in the British Journal of Sports Medicine.  

Jorstad, together with Joelle Daems, a PhD candidate in Sports Cardiology at Amsterdam UMC, analysed all of the existing literature on the topic and found no available evidence for an increase in sudden cardiac arrest or an increase in myocarditis in athletes after COVID-19 vaccination.  

"We analysed all of the studies we could find. Including one from Australia that included more than four million people. There researchers found that neither the rates of sudden cardiac arrest nor the rates of myocarditis as cause for cardiac arrest increased after vaccination. Myocarditis occurs most often in young people, especially in men." 

In rare cases, covid infection can cause myocarditis. And in even fewer cases, it can be a side effect of vaccination, and then the myocarditis is usually milder than after an infection. "Although athletes – due to their relatively young age – are at increased risk of developing myocarditis, we found no evidence in the studies that COVID-19 vaccination combined with intense exercise increased this risk even further,"' says Daems.  

While athletes might be hesitant to receive the COVID-19 vaccination due to performance considerations, this Amsterdam UMC article highlights that the vaccine is generally well tolerated. Most athletes only experience mild short term side effects. A study of 127 Olympic and Paralympic athletes demonstrated that only eight athletes were unable to train on the day of the vaccination, with seven of the eight resuming training the next day.  

Small Decrease in V02 Max 

“Surprisingly, we did however see a small decrease in VO2 Max in one study,” says Daems. A study from the Netherlands and Belgium demonstrated a small but statistically significant decrease in VO2 max seven days after vaccination. VO2 Max indicates how much oxygen an individual can consume during exercise and is typically seen as a measurement of endurance fitness.  

“The size of this decrease was very small, and it seems unlikely that this decrease has any clinical relevance. Moreover, this effect could well be temporary,” adds Daems  

"This, combined with the previous findings, shows us that athletes have no reason to be concerned. Although those athletes who are considering a vaccine this winter should probably do it outside of major competition periods,” concludes Jorstad.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

She chose death, rather than a vaccine;

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/woman-who-tried-to-take-covid-transplant-fight-to-supreme-court-dies/ar-AA1fMTxO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=af4b3e6e230e4810a50920199e41f27f&ei=52

"

An Alberta woman who tried to take her fight over COVID vaccine requirements for organ transplants all the way to the Supreme Court has died.

The former lawyer for Sheila Annette Lewis confirmed her death Friday.

"Ms. Lewis was a real true believer in fighting for personal rights and freedoms," said Allison Pejovic, who was in touch with her former client's son. 

Lewis was diagnosed with a terminal disease in 2018 and was told she would not survive unless she received an organ transplant.

She was placed on a transplant wait list in 2020, but was informed a year later she would need to get the COVID-19 vaccine first.

Lewis said taking the vaccine would offend her conscience and argued the requirement violated her Charter rights.

 
 

The case was dismissed by an Alberta court, which said the Charter has no application to clinical treatment decisions. The Supreme Court also turned down her application for a hearing. 

Pejovic remembered Lewis as someone with strong beliefs. 

"She was very strong and very principled," Pejovic said.

But Pejovic said away from the media glare, Lewis was more interested in other people than court battles.

"Whenever I would speak with her, even after our case was finished, she was always interested in what other people were doing. She had a very kind heart." 

There is a publication ban on the doctors' identities, the organ involved and the location of the transplant program.

  • There it is 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Gurn said:

She chose death, rather than a vaccine;

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/woman-who-tried-to-take-covid-transplant-fight-to-supreme-court-dies/ar-AA1fMTxO?ocid=msedgntp&pc=U531&cvid=af4b3e6e230e4810a50920199e41f27f&ei=52

"

An Alberta woman who tried to take her fight over COVID vaccine requirements for organ transplants all the way to the Supreme Court has died.

The former lawyer for Sheila Annette Lewis confirmed her death Friday.

"Ms. Lewis was a real true believer in fighting for personal rights and freedoms," said Allison Pejovic, who was in touch with her former client's son. 

Lewis was diagnosed with a terminal disease in 2018 and was told she would not survive unless she received an organ transplant.

She was placed on a transplant wait list in 2020, but was informed a year later she would need to get the COVID-19 vaccine first.

Lewis said taking the vaccine would offend her conscience and argued the requirement violated her Charter rights.

 
 

The case was dismissed by an Alberta court, which said the Charter has no application to clinical treatment decisions. The Supreme Court also turned down her application for a hearing. 

Pejovic remembered Lewis as someone with strong beliefs. 

"She was very strong and very principled," Pejovic said.

But Pejovic said away from the media glare, Lewis was more interested in other people than court battles.

"Whenever I would speak with her, even after our case was finished, she was always interested in what other people were doing. She had a very kind heart." 

There is a publication ban on the doctors' identities, the organ involved and the location of the transplant program.

As long as a person is an adult, it’s their choice to be a fool. But if they are a parent and trying to keep their children from proper medical care, then government must step in. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Alflives said:

As long as a person is an adult, it’s their choice to be a fool. But if they are a parent and trying to keep their children from proper medical care, then government must step in. 

This lady had beliefs- but one of them wasn't in math.

 

"Hey, you certainly will die without a transplant'

"But I might die if I'm vaccinated"

"No you won't, the odds are absolutely miniscule that you would even have a reaction bad enough to make you bed ridden for a couple of days"

 

"I'd rather die of organ failure, than run that tiny, tiny, risk that the vaccine will make me ill".

 

Ok lady, go ahead and die.

 

Bad math.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, Gurn said:

This lady had beliefs- but one of them wasn't in math.

 

"Hey, you certainly will die without a transplant'

"But I might die if I'm vaccinated"

"No you won't, the odds are absolutely miniscule that you would even have a reaction bad enough to make you bed ridden for a couple of days"

 

"I'd rather die of organ failure, than run that tiny, tiny, risk that the vaccine will make me ill".

 

Ok lady, go ahead and die.

 

Bad math.

Trumps base in a nutshell.  Unfortunately half of america is just as stoopid. 

  • Cheers 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/health/health-news/health-canada-approves-moderna-s-updated-covid-19-vaccine/ar-AA1gBY2L?rc=1&ocid=winp1taskbar&cvid=f28ef4e882ff410ff42e1e46df871449&ei=12

"

Health Canada has approved Moderna's updated COVID-19 vaccine for all Canadians who are six months of age and older.

The mRNA-based shot is monovalent, targeting the Omicron XBB.1.5 subvariant.

 

"It may be given to people who have been previously vaccinated or who have not been previously vaccinated," reads the Health Canada page on Moderna's vaccines.

Federal officials are providing a technical briefing on COVID-19 vaccines on Tuesday morning.

  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...