Dear Jessica Hockett, thank you for your comments. I am not sure my old brain can follow all of them, however if you think we are trying to prove a theory or disprove a particular construct let me reassure you.
I have 3 certainties in life. First I am going to die. Second I will pay tax until that day. Third I do not understand the mechanics or if you like laws or if you like rules by which respiratory viruses maybe spread or maybe activate or maybe something else which is so obvious that I cannot see it. Do they infect, activate, both or neither? They are things so perhaps we carry them and spread them. A miasmatic cloud is possible as a third hypothesis. That one needs testing.
I am not ashamed to say that after 35 years of studying I do not know the answer. That is the message of the posts.
Last but not least may I ask you to respect the work of Peter Doshi, a friend, gentleman and scholar.
Good day. No, I don’t believe you’re trying to prove or disprove anything specific. Rather, I’m engaging with you on relevant questions, as someone who has spent the past five years studying flu surveillance and related topics in the context of COVID.
We agree that much remains unknown about respiratory illness, the agents associated with it, and even the mechanics of transmission (if transmission occurs). Unfortunately—and I think we’ll agree on this too—WHO and our respective governments have often pretended otherwise, using supposed certainties in 2020 to upend life as we knew it.
It’s possible that in 2011, WONDER wasn’t as accessible to the public or that people simply didn’t think to check mortality statistics there. There’s an irony in how WHO and government officials have leveraged technology to control messaging during modern "pandemic" events—while technology now allows us to challenge their narratives by accessing data ourselves. We don’t necessarily have to wait for an academic journal study.
Finally, to Jonathan Engler’s point elsewhere in the comments—and to my own in "Yes, the CDC Lies About Flu Deaths"—an "influenza death" is effectively a pneumonia or other fatal condition in someone with a PCR-positive flu test. In the U.S., at least, such deaths increased quite a bit from 2013 onward. So the question is why more P&I deaths were being "pinned" on influenza via testing.
Thanks for your ongoing efforts to dismantle this behemoth.
Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t your NNV of 71 derived from a test negative design using PCR positivity?
Problems with test negative designs abound, most notably that they assume no off-target effects which increase the chance of harm from a cause other than the specific one targeted.
And that’s before even considering the actual clinical relevance at all of the outcome of a PCR test…or even the direct role of the purported pathogen in illness.
ILI (influenza like illness) is often described as 'Flu' but can be caused by a wide range of respiratory viruses, one of which is Influenza A. 'FLU' vaccines are usually developed against this specific virus.
"However, despite their institutional popularity case-negative designs have limited public health significance because the design does not test field effectiveness (the ability to prevent 'Flu'), but, rather, laboratory efficacy of the vaccine (the capacity of the vaccine to generate a negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result)."
"Case-negative studies are an illustration of the narrow and retrospective focus on influenza viruses at the expense of overall ILI - the illness cluster of interest to patients and their clinicians."
"The underlying assumption that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of non-influenza is contradicted by a recent report from the follow-up of a trial by Cowling et al. In 115 participants, those who received trivalent influenza vaccines had higher risk of acute respiratory infection associated with confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.31–14.8) compared to placebo recipients."
"We await to see whether anyone has the interest or the courage to develop effective ways to control upper respiratory viral syndromes (ILI)"
...and at least one analysis of test-negative design studies (which are, as you say, problematic regardless) concluded that repeated flu vaccination is a bad thing. Many populations in the US are mandated to take the shot every year.
"Evidence suggests that repeated influenza vaccination may reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE). Using influenza vaccination program maturation (PM; number of years since program inception) as a proxy for population-level repeated vaccination, we assessed the impact on pooled adjusted end-season VE estimates from outpatient test-negative design studies." https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/3/ofab069/6129135?login=false
A wild speculation: according to Darwin, the forms of life are always the result of the interaction of two factors. Two factors must have a certain conceptual separation between them. But, the very idea of separation is space as such. Therefore they were right in the Middle Ages. The causes of influenza are astrological. (Provided you ignore the birth date.) :-)
1. I agree that ILI is aspecific but I’ll take it further: it should not be a classified, surveilled syndrome. You said it is a “syndrome that is present clinically,” as though it is an objective reality, versus a construct. Can you see a reason for collecting several unremarkable symptoms in a bucket and calling those something beyond the symptoms themselves and then tracking it? Why not say “Fever/Cough” (for example)?
3. This statement is interesting: “The most significant gap in our understanding of how vaccines affect the consequences of influenza persists.”
4. Re: “What is the threat of influenza, and what can we expect from the vaccines?” I submit we need to take a step back and say “What is influenza?”
5. I appreciate Dr. Doshi’s work, but the number of U.S. death records with an influenza code is readily available via CDC WONDER. I’ve made specific and important points related to that here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/yes-the-cdc-lies-about-flu-deaths We don't need a study to see the descriptive data from the federal database. :)
Dear Jessica Hockett, thank you for your comments. I am not sure my old brain can follow all of them, however if you think we are trying to prove a theory or disprove a particular construct let me reassure you.
I have 3 certainties in life. First I am going to die. Second I will pay tax until that day. Third I do not understand the mechanics or if you like laws or if you like rules by which respiratory viruses maybe spread or maybe activate or maybe something else which is so obvious that I cannot see it. Do they infect, activate, both or neither? They are things so perhaps we carry them and spread them. A miasmatic cloud is possible as a third hypothesis. That one needs testing.
I am not ashamed to say that after 35 years of studying I do not know the answer. That is the message of the posts.
Last but not least may I ask you to respect the work of Peter Doshi, a friend, gentleman and scholar.
We do not do personal attacks on TTE.
With best wishes,
Tom.
Good day. No, I don’t believe you’re trying to prove or disprove anything specific. Rather, I’m engaging with you on relevant questions, as someone who has spent the past five years studying flu surveillance and related topics in the context of COVID.
We agree that much remains unknown about respiratory illness, the agents associated with it, and even the mechanics of transmission (if transmission occurs). Unfortunately—and I think we’ll agree on this too—WHO and our respective governments have often pretended otherwise, using supposed certainties in 2020 to upend life as we knew it.
Regarding Dr. Doshi—I respect his work very much and have cited it multiple times. My previous comment (accompanied by a smiley face) wasn’t a critique of his work. https://open.substack.com/pub/trusttheevidence/p/clearing-the-air-around-influenza-b96?r=jjay2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=98164527 Even if it had been, it wouldn’t constitute a personal attack.
My implicit point was that the U.S. mortality database (CDC WONDER) is publicly accessible to everyone. The study you cited is from 2011, and as my graph shows, his figures align with those available in CDC WONDER. https://substack.com/profile/32813354-jessica-hockett/note/c-98235425?utm_source=notes-share-action&r=jjay2
It’s possible that in 2011, WONDER wasn’t as accessible to the public or that people simply didn’t think to check mortality statistics there. There’s an irony in how WHO and government officials have leveraged technology to control messaging during modern "pandemic" events—while technology now allows us to challenge their narratives by accessing data ourselves. We don’t necessarily have to wait for an academic journal study.
Finally, to Jonathan Engler’s point elsewhere in the comments—and to my own in "Yes, the CDC Lies About Flu Deaths"—an "influenza death" is effectively a pneumonia or other fatal condition in someone with a PCR-positive flu test. In the U.S., at least, such deaths increased quite a bit from 2013 onward. So the question is why more P&I deaths were being "pinned" on influenza via testing.
Thanks for your ongoing efforts to dismantle this behemoth.
Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t your NNV of 71 derived from a test negative design using PCR positivity?
Problems with test negative designs abound, most notably that they assume no off-target effects which increase the chance of harm from a cause other than the specific one targeted.
And that’s before even considering the actual clinical relevance at all of the outcome of a PCR test…or even the direct role of the purported pathogen in illness.
Yes. We devoted a long discussion to test negative designs in one of our stabilised reviews.
Thanks for pointing out.
Tom
I lifted much of this from Tom's Cochrane blog:
ILI (influenza like illness) is often described as 'Flu' but can be caused by a wide range of respiratory viruses, one of which is Influenza A. 'FLU' vaccines are usually developed against this specific virus.
"However, despite their institutional popularity case-negative designs have limited public health significance because the design does not test field effectiveness (the ability to prevent 'Flu'), but, rather, laboratory efficacy of the vaccine (the capacity of the vaccine to generate a negative polymerase chain reaction (PCR) result)."
"Case-negative studies are an illustration of the narrow and retrospective focus on influenza viruses at the expense of overall ILI - the illness cluster of interest to patients and their clinicians."
"The underlying assumption that influenza vaccination does not affect the risk of non-influenza is contradicted by a recent report from the follow-up of a trial by Cowling et al. In 115 participants, those who received trivalent influenza vaccines had higher risk of acute respiratory infection associated with confirmed non-influenza respiratory virus infection (RR, 4.40; 95% CI, 1.31–14.8) compared to placebo recipients."
"We await to see whether anyone has the interest or the courage to develop effective ways to control upper respiratory viral syndromes (ILI)"
https://community.cochrane.org/news/why-have-three-long-running-cochrane-reviews-influenza-vaccines-been-stabilised
The WHO ILI definition is "an acute respiratory infection with measured fever of ≥38 C° and cough; with onset within the last 10 days." https://www.who.int/teams/global-influenza-programme/surveillance-and-monitoring/case-definitions-for-ili-and-sari
...and at least one analysis of test-negative design studies (which are, as you say, problematic regardless) concluded that repeated flu vaccination is a bad thing. Many populations in the US are mandated to take the shot every year.
"Evidence suggests that repeated influenza vaccination may reduce vaccine effectiveness (VE). Using influenza vaccination program maturation (PM; number of years since program inception) as a proxy for population-level repeated vaccination, we assessed the impact on pooled adjusted end-season VE estimates from outpatient test-negative design studies." https://academic.oup.com/ofid/article/8/3/ofab069/6129135?login=false
A wild speculation: according to Darwin, the forms of life are always the result of the interaction of two factors. Two factors must have a certain conceptual separation between them. But, the very idea of separation is space as such. Therefore they were right in the Middle Ages. The causes of influenza are astrological. (Provided you ignore the birth date.) :-)
Good day. I appreciate these articles
1. I agree that ILI is aspecific but I’ll take it further: it should not be a classified, surveilled syndrome. You said it is a “syndrome that is present clinically,” as though it is an objective reality, versus a construct. Can you see a reason for collecting several unremarkable symptoms in a bucket and calling those something beyond the symptoms themselves and then tracking it? Why not say “Fever/Cough” (for example)?
2. Re: circulation - I commented your article related to this concept. My questions from the reply to Tom remain. https://open.substack.com/pub/trusttheevidence/p/understanding-the-circulation-of?r=jjay2&utm_campaign=comment-list-share-cta&utm_medium=web&comments=true&commentId=95911876 In the present article, you mentioned the WHO’s surveillance program of “circulating” influenza viruses. How do you understand that verb from a scientific standpoint? (I infer that Clare Craig, for example, believes viral agents “spread” or circulate in the air around us and in the atmosphere. Is that your belief as well?)
3. This statement is interesting: “The most significant gap in our understanding of how vaccines affect the consequences of influenza persists.”
4. Re: “What is the threat of influenza, and what can we expect from the vaccines?” I submit we need to take a step back and say “What is influenza?”
5. I appreciate Dr. Doshi’s work, but the number of U.S. death records with an influenza code is readily available via CDC WONDER. I’ve made specific and important points related to that here: https://www.woodhouse76.com/p/yes-the-cdc-lies-about-flu-deaths We don't need a study to see the descriptive data from the federal database. :)